What We Ain’t Doing

I’ve chewed on that meeting like I’ve never chewed on a church sermon or anything my entire life, she said. I just want to be in a nice neighborhood, and so do all these other people.

I came across an article in the NY Times today on gentrification and what Portland, Oregon is trying to do about it.

First, a moment of pride. I love Portland. In fact, it may be my favorite city in the United States. With 75,000 people showing up for Obama’s speech and now the talk on gentrification, this makes me proud of the city I went to undergrad in. However, the voices in the article speak to the truth, that so far, it seems like a lot of talk right now. There is a long way to go, which is just indicative of this whole country. I was happy for the initiative by the city (even though this should only be the beginning), but the article seemed rather run of the mill. Until I got to the end, which is where the quote above comes from.

Where is the church in this? We’ve just had Jeremiah Wright assassinated on television and the hope of this country is in the initiative in such things as Portland, Oregon?

I’ve chewed on that meeting like I’ve never chewed on a church sermon or anything my entire life, she said.

Perhaps, we ain’t addressing the real pressing questions — the questions that hit at our very existence in this country. I’m willing to assume that people don’t act like Christians most days of the week has something to do with the lack of questions hitting at our existence from the pulpit.

I do have to say that I am not a pastor in a pulpit. My family and job are not on the line from a congregation that may turn hostile in response to necessary questions. However, at least us lay people can bring up the questions ourselves and take off some of the pressure from the pastor. In the end, “we’ve gotta talk about it,” as James Cone often puts it. I suspect such an impact on this woman has to do with the fact that the American Christians, or at least the white ones, don’t talk about, much less talk to black churches, korean churches, etc.

This statement, “I’ve chewed on that meeting like I’ve never chewed on a church sermon or anything my entire life,” ought to haunt us.

Ordering Thought

Above, the reader will note a new tab: Theological Responses to the Wright Fiasco.

I decided to order the reflections on Liberation theology, Jeremiah Wright, James Cone, Barack Obama, and the media fiasco and to make a space for such a list. I expect such a tab to become somewhat important around November. I also have found some current readers show up at some of the less important posts, so in an effort to guide the reader towards the core, I have also emphasized certain posts on the list. Lastly, I suspect for now, the majority of people would not care for continuing posts, but I do plan on updating the list when need be in the future, say, around election time when all those negative adds slam Wright to slam Obama.

Wright, Cone, Dorrien and the New York Times

There was a decent summary piece on Black Liberation Theology in the New York Times yesterday. It attempts to locate Dr. Wright within the historical movement of Black Liberation Theology, and in order to do so, James Cone and Gary Dorrien, both professors at Union, are interviewed. Its worth a quick read and it is certainly better than much of what the media has put out so far.

Interestingly, the article covers two specific subjects that I want to make sure are addressed — one normally ignored, and the other, a focal point for controversy. The first is the acknowledgement of Catholic Liberation theology in the discussion of Black Liberation theology:

Even as Dr. Cone and others such as the Rev. William A. Jones at Bethany Baptist in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, crafted a theology of black liberation, Catholic theologians in Central and South America crafted their own liberation theology, arguing that God placed the impoverished peasants closest to his heart.

There is little evidence that one liberationist talked to another; rather, these were cornstalks rising in a fertile and revolutionary field. “These were remarkable similar arguments, that oppressed people have their own way of hearing the Gospel,” said Dr. Dorrien of the Union Theological Seminary.

On this note, I’ve got a copied picture of Dorothy Sölle, Jürgen Moltmann, Gustavo Guitérrez, James Cone, and Christopher Morse from years ago taken here at Union - Cone still had his fro and some were wearing plaid. And after seeing this picture last year, I asked Dorrien, since Guitérrez spent a year at Union in the early 70s (hence the picture), if there was much talk then between Guitérrez and Cone, and Dorrien said the same thing then as he was quoted in the article, “there seemed to have been little talk, if at all.” I suppose this shows how far Liberation theology has come today, where there seems to be a lot of conversation. However, I am also wary that the article does not spend enough time on the Marxist aside. It seems that still today Marxism is a loaded term and to have such a small mention might have been irresponsible.

The second issue addressed in the article are Wright’s comments concerning AIDS as understood by Cone:

Dr. Cone, the black liberation theology theorist, has known Mr. Wright for decades and says he much admires his provocations. But when Mr. Wright opined recently that the United States government may have used AIDS as a form of biological warfare against black people (Mr. Wright notes, correctly, that the United States has tried biological warfare on foreign nations), Dr. Cone winced.

“I don’t believe that,” Dr. Cone says. “But I will say that when blacks look at what government has done to black people, the eugenics and the syphilis, it’s easy to get angry.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it: I hope our government didn’t introduce AIDS, but its not like the United States has a track record that says the contrary. I don’t want to believe it happened, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore the other abuses that the United State pulled, which was so similar to the Nazi doctors in concentration camps. With all this in mind, no wonder liberation theology operates through a hermeneutic of suspicion.

Dr. Wright on Moyers

With this whole hoopla around Dr. Jeremiah Wright, perhaps the most frustrating part, besides the airing of an out-of-context, five-second clip over and over, was that virtually no one talked to Wright himself. Well, thats going to change tonight. I’d heard some rumors this past week, but now even CNN is reporting that Wright will be on Moyers tonight, so I figured I would mention it as well. Moyers, 9 PM on the east coast on PBS.

I’ll post links later when the interview is up on the Moyers website. In the mean time, for those who still feel they need a first time introduction to black liberation theology, or a re-fresher course, watch Cone interview on Bill Moyer’s Journal here.

Cone on NPR

Prof. James Cone gave an interview that was aired on NPR’s Fresh Air. You can listen to it online here (about 13 minutes). The podcast is available here. Dwight Hopkins is in a follow up interview here (about 28 minutes).

If one wants to see more of Cone, check out his interview on Bill Moyer’s Journal (about 40 minutes).

Now, perhaps a fair, popular discussion can happen, or is that asking too much?

Edit: Apparently Prof. Cone gave NPR an hour and a half interview. From that time, NPR aired 13 minutes. I guess everyone fails sometime? I just wish it wasn’t on this.

More Media and a Cone Interview to Come

It seems that people are still latching onto about Black Liberation theology. Although most seem to be Republicans now, churning up material in case Obama gets the Democratic ticket.

Politics aside, it still concerns me how much slander is involved when bringing up Black Liberation theology. See this if you feel you need yet another example. (I’m going to stop posting one-sided journalistic failures on this blog unless I’ll be examining it in the same post.)

However, I think some of you will be glad to know what was told to the Union community a few days back:

On Monday, March 31 at 3:00pm, WNYC–93.9 FM–will broadcast an extensive interview with Professor Cone on Black Liberation Theology.

It will be repeated on the AM station at 7:00pm the same day. The show originates with “Fresh Air” on WHYY-FM in Philadelphia, with Terry Gross, and will reach 500 NPR stations that day.

I have massive respect for NPR. I expect they won’t “let Cone off the hook” and will ask insightful questions, but I also expect a fair interview and one that lets Cone speak up on the radio for popular-ish consumption. I do not care where one falls on the spectrum of opinions about Cone, this I am quite sure, will be worth hearing.

Video h/t to I am a son of God.

Cone and Carter

As much as I appreciate J. Kameron Carter’s work already and look forward to his forth coming book, Race: A Theological Account, I worry that many people will simply pick up his book and begin to engage race from a contemporary starting point.

Carter is making a critique of Cone, but Carter is also indebted to Cone in a number of fundamental ways. Black theology would not exist today the way it is, if it were not for the space that Cone created (not to mention the entire tradition stretching back centuries even). I suggest that, and I myself will be doing this this summer to refresh and learn things I do not know, we must go back to reading W.E.B. DuBois and others that have carried the tradition forward. Carter, as far as I understand, is still very much in his tradition and we must seek it out. We must not be lazy. Honest theological discussion is hard work.

Also, in some respects, Carter is seeking a fulfillment to what Cone has been yelling about for years, mostly to deaf ears. Cone insists that race is a theological problem. Yet still theology by and large has avoided such a topic. Interestingly, Carter’s book, by virtue of its title alone, is addressing Cone’s direction at the same time it deconstructs and reconstructs. To understand Carter, we will need to understand Cone.

The Recent Posts on the Media Fiasco and Race and Theology

I figured it would be good for readers to be able to see all the posts I’ve done recently on this whole fiasco surrounding Wright and Obama. Heres the list so far in chronological order:

1. Obama, Race, and Theology: A theological analysis of Obama’s speech.

2. Cone on CNN?: A rumor that hasn’t seemed to have panned out unfortunately.

3. A Humble Suggestion: Suggesting a book along the title of Religion Still Matters for Cornel West.

4. Wright’s Sermon: A longer video of Dr. Wright’s sermon where he utters the infamous phrase “God damn America.”

5. Understanding Wright by Understanding Cone: Black Liberation Theology from Cone: A very short introduction to reading Cone.

6. Carter on Obama: Citing J. Kameron Carter’s response to Obama’s speech.

7. Cone Explained: How the Media, Politicos, and Others Like Them are Stupid as a Brick and Got it All Wrong: Explaining the significance of Tillichian symbolism in Cone’s work, how one should rightly understand what Cone does say, and a link to Carter’s critique.

Understanding Wright by Understanding Cone (2): Cone Explained — How the Media, Politicos, and Others Like Them are Stupid as a Brick and Got it All Wrong

Yes, dear readers, I’m still pissed over this media hyped bullshit surrounding Wright and Liberation theology. There really is no other word for it. Oh, and maybe “stupid as a brick” works also. The thing is, as much as Sean Hannity, the rest of Fox News and other conservatives are to blame, so are the other media outlets. There seems to be an entire breakdown in journalistic ethics, among other things. When a loud voice is lazy, no one can afford it.

I feel some what compelled to explain Cone, so that out of context quotes like such:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

are put back into their context. Remember everyone, nothing is intelligible without context. There must be a frame work to interpret through, literary or historical, otherwise these are meaningless symbols on the page.

The first thing that the media, and others on blogs who simply copy and paste from the pitiful Spengler article, do not seem to grasp the idea of understanding their subject. Ask a theologian who is aware of Cone on a competent level and immediately ontology and Tillichian symbolism will surface. By the way, Cone footnotes Tillich a lot in A Black Theology of Liberation. (You can read up on ‘ole grab-ass here if you need to.)

In A Black Theology of Liberation, Cone makes the claim that Jesus was black. However, this rightly understood means that Jesus is ontologically black today. See the quote below:

If Jesus is the Suffering Servant of God, he is an oppressed being who has taken on that very form of human existence that is responsible for human misery. What we need to ask is this: ‘What is the form of humanity that accounts for human suffering in our society? What is it, except blackness?’ If Christ is truly the Suffering Servant of God who takes upon himself the suffering of his people, thereby reestablishing the covenant of God, the he must be black.

…But some whites will ask, ‘Does black theology believe that Jesus was really black?’ It seems to me that the literal color of Jesu is irrelevant as are the different shades of blackness in America. Generally speaking, blacks are not oppressed on the basis of the depths of their blackness. ‘Light’ blacks are oppressed just as much as “dark” blacks. But as it happens, Jesus was not white in any sense of the word, literally or theologically. Therefore, Alber Cleage is not too far wrong when he describes Jesus as a black Jew; and he is certainly on solid theological grounds when he describes Christ as the Black Messiah.

James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, 20th Anniversary Edition, 122-123.

Here is where Tillich comes into play: “Jesus is black” is a symbol – a concrete reality that points or mediates something transcendent. Jesus was a Jew severely oppressed by the Romans. However, if Jesus were in 1970 USA when Cone wrote A Black Theology of Liberation, Cone is saying that Jesus would be black, not white. It was blacks who underwent (and arguably still do) the oppression, sexual humiliation and lynching that are all too similar to Roman occupation and crucifixion.

See? Not that hard. People quoting just need to care to read.

So the implications that follow from such a statement are, that the white church is not following Jesus and in fact, the white person needs to become ontologically black – not in skin per se, remember this is symbolism, but in action (praxis). I’ve heard Cone mention that Dietrich Bonhoeffer would fit the description of an ontologically black while a literal white man. Blackness is not relegated to skin pigmentation, its deeper than that (although those with dark pigmentation find they are oppressed because of their skin in America).

Now, one might say, this merely looks like moving one’s social location, and indeed it is that, but more. Cone has made the argument in class that liberation theology is not responding to the question of believer/unbeliever, but instead oppressed/oppressor. Therefore, the “white church” or “white god” takes on a whole new meaning. And quite honestly, it should. When the white authorities look the other way, or involved themselves, in lynching on Saturday and then on Sunday went to church all dressed up, one would think that would cause quite a stir – to be the oppressor and yet identify as if one is Jesus, the one who was oppressed? That is the wrong kind of scandalous. To such a life style that lives so blindly, liberation theology and the suffering of Jesus is rightly a scandal, a scandal as the cross should be. The status quo is the white god that kills to keep populations down. What kind of Christianity is that? Is that actually Christianity at all?

Now, as I’ve mentioned before, I’m a fan of J. Kameron Carter’s critique of Cone and I think the move that Carter makes puts out a more fruitful ecclesiology. He has a book coming out soon, but for any of you anxious to see some other work, check out Carter’s article “Christology, or Redeeming Whiteness: A Response to Jame’s Perkinson’s Appropriation of Black Theology”:

This brings us to an alternative scriptural interpretation of the meaning of baptism and, thus, an alternative for understanding Perkinson’s claim that the problem of racism “is as deep as the body one inhabits.” That alternative is this: Baptism is induction into a different mode of being in the world, one that surpasses the mode of being whose nodal points are the hegemonic and the counterhegemonic. Christ, under this alternative, does not symbolize the existential possibility of receiving the other into oneself so that one no longer lives hegemonically. He does not symbolize how whites can be “redeemed” by expanding their existential horizons so that “black pain and power [might be] at work” in them. For, in actuality, this is not immersion into the other at all. It is the other being subsumed into the constituting “I,” an “I” that has chosen, in an egalitarian gesture, to expand its borders from being a “mom and pop” store to being a shopping mall. Inhabiting or being received into Christ’s actual body in such a way that one lays no claim to naming oneself and, therefore, in which one holds nothing of oneself back in self-possession-this is what baptism represents in this second alternative. Baptism in this second alternative involves handing oneself over to God in Christ so as to receive oneself back as gift. This is the deeper meaning of Christ’s baptism, which cannot be severed from the event of the Cross.

Understanding Wright by Understanding Cone (1): Black Liberation Theology from Cone

For those of you who do not know much on Black Liberation Theology, heres a little post for you. If you want to see more on Cone’s thought, rather than just the book suggestions below, see this post.

I remember an interview of Dr. Wright a few years back where he cites James Cone and Dwight Hopkins as the church’s chief theological influences. Funny enough, Sean Hannity said he’d gone to seminary, which by any standard after seeing the interview, his seminary failed him (or he failed himself) because he displayed an appalling lack of understanding to say the least. (Edit: I’m told he went to a “minor seminary” which apparently means a Catholic high school. If this is true, he seems to think some theological training back in high school is good enough? Either way, minor seminary or graduate school, he is woefully out of his element.)

Now, for James Cone, where to start? He basically started, as an academic pursuit, Black Liberation Theology and has written numerous books. However, it might actually be best to start with Dwight Hopkins’ Introducing Black Theology of Liberation. An introductory text will always be helpful. I would also suggest giving the Cone interview on Bill Moyer’s Journal a watch. I find myself from time to time revisiting it. Its a terrific interview.

You want to go straight to the source and read Cone’s books? Well there is, to name a select few: A Black Theology of Liberation, Black Theology and Black Power, God of the Oppressed, Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare, Risks of Faith: The Emergence of a Black Theology of Liberation, 1968-1998.

Personally, I think Risks of Faith to be one of the most accessible books in the short list. It has been required in two different classes by two different professors here at Union and for good reason, it is actually a collection of articles spanning Cone’s career and makes a great little package. Martin and Malcom is essentially Cone’s theology in one book. Anyone reading Cone needs to go through God of the Oppressed – you just shouldn’t even try to get around it. A Black Theology of Liberation is the beginning construction of, you guessed it, Black Liberation Theology. Black Theology and Black Power again, this needs to be read if you’re reading Cone. This was his first book and it was from here that he launched towards the project of Black Liberation Theology.

I suppose if one were to read one book (which really shouldn’t be done, shame on you), I’d go with God of the Oppressed, however, in the specific case of the media latching on to specific sections of Cone’s work, read A Black Theology of Liberation. It is a seminal work, the beginning of his constructive work, etc. If one is going to read BTL, some concepts, theology, and theologians you need to understand or be aware of are: Paul Tillich and his idea of symbolism, Jürgen Moltmann and Hope Theology, Reinhold Niebuhr and his anthropology and conceptions of power, Karl Barth, W. E. B. DuBois, Rudolf Bultmann, Malcom X, and Martin Luther King Jr. to name a few.

Below is one of the foundational turns that Cone makes in BTL. Jesus was black.

If Jesus is the Suffering Servant of God, he is an oppressed being who has taken on that very form of human existence that is responsible for human misery. What we need to ask is this: ‘What is the form of humanity that accounts for human suffering in our society? What is it, except blackness?’ If Christ is truly the Suffering Servant of God who takes upon himself the suffering of his people, thereby reestablishing the covenant of God, the he must be black.

…But some whites will ask, ‘Does black theology believe that Jesus was really black?’ It seems to me that the literal color of Jesus is irrelevant as are the different shades of blackness in America. Generally speaking, blacks are not oppressed on the basis of the depths of their blackness. ‘Light’ blacks are oppressed just as much as “dark” blacks. But as it happens, Jesus was not white in any sense of the word, literally or theologically. Therefore, Alber Cleage is not too far wrong when he describes Jesus as a black Jew; and he is certainly on solid theological grounds when he describes Christ as the Black Messiah.

James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, 20th Anniversary Edition, 122-123.

Read more on what it means for Jesus to be black here.

Cone is also working on, soon to put it out, a book on lynching and, as indicated in the Moyer’s interview, drawing connections between lynchings of blacks and the crucifixion of Jesus. It should be an interesting work and very helpful. As far as I can see, it will not be so much a change in Cone’s work as it continues his project as he fleshes it out.

For all that Cone has done, he is not without his critics. Of the critics I have read, I think perhaps the most interesting is J. Kameron Carter of Duke’s Divinity School. He is putting out a book quite soon called Race: A Theological Account.

Cone on CNN?

Rumor has it that Prof. James Cone of Union Theological Seminary will be on CNN soon. Apparently he wasn’t on earlier because classes come first, or so fellow students say. I like him, even if I don’t like R. Niebuhr much.

The subsumed, or sometimes overt racist overtones (heres to looking at you Limbaugh – asinine is too charitable a word), coupled with the media’s profound ignorance of Black Liberation theology has put out some amazingly ill informed content to put it kindly. Pretty much a bunch of sound bites and the most superficial punditry nonsense. Journalism here sucks, especially when it comes to theology. This kind of reminds me of the whole William’s fiasco not too long ago.

So keep a look out on CNN by TV or internet, because Cone should be on soon and finally help bring some clarity to this whole fiasco.

Talking about Obama and His Church

I have to admit, I’m disappointed in Obama and the whole political process, but the latter doesn’t surprise me. Neither did Rush Limbaugh’s categorically false and woefully misinformed response: calling Mr. Wright “a race-baiter and a hatemonger.”

It is also safe to say that the media gets absolutely none of this as it did with the Williams row, or what the Pastor Wright really drives at. They should be ashamed of themselves – just as white as part of the church in America. Again, no surprise.

One aspect about theological study and discourse is that it is fundamentally dialogical. It is conversational, which is why I have no qualms about what I’ve done to follow in this post (other than that this may seem rather arrogant – Posting your own conversation? Well, I’m not going to post someone else’s am I?). I had a conversation with Chris Layton, a friend of mine, and it went something like this:

Me: None of this is good, as far as I can see right now. The first black president we might have and he’ll go with American innocence other than slavery? Publically, as far as I have seen, he hasn’t brought up slavery much, or the effects that still strongly linger today and doesn’t extend that critique beyond the “black experience” like most black liberation theology does. However, it was the potential to do so that was the most interesting things about Obama, him coming from a black liberation church and embodying the critique. I was quite excited to see it and how his presidency would turn out. I suspect it’d be rather Niebuhrian, but still, better than other stuff.

My “politics” or favorite candidate are quite different than Obama, I’m more of a Kucinich person if anything (but not really a Kucinich person either), but I figured some black liberation from the presidency would do this country a lot of good. Now I’m not sure it’ll actually be that; now he’s kind of like Clinton, Hillary that is, and what good is that?

Chris: I think that the nation-state is not the route by which justice will be enacted.

Me: I suppose there is an upside, there isn’t the bastardizing of Christian hope by making it American hope (although I do admit I haven’t read the book, but it still strikes me as Reagan-esque). As for justice enacted by the nation-state? Sure, it won’t fully, but if there can be some change in the state, peacefully, it’ll at least begin a discussion. Having a Christian in the presidency actually bringing up issues that the church needs to deal with, I could live with that. There are other aspects I object to, but at least he’d do things I don’t see Hillary or McCain doing, but now, in some respects, I’m not so sure.

Chris: I don’t know that someone who occupies that office can speak to the church about churchly affairs. Its a kind of idolatry.

Me: Oh no, I’m not saying he could speak to the church, however, if the society is talking about it, it makes it an easier issue to raise in the church.

Chris: I think it makes it harder. If society talks about it, it will be too easy to let society set the terms of the conversation. For us to talk about these things we have to be free to choose the vocabulary. We have a habit of letting the terms of a social debate be handed to us

Me: True, but we’re always free to choose the vocabulary, just sometimes we don’t.

Chris: I think the times we do are in fact really rare.

Me: That is our problem though, that is not a problem with the debate per se. We need to be that Christian body in the debate.

Chris: Its an endemic problem for us, though. I think wishing for the circumstances that perpetuate the problem is … not good.

Me: I’m wishing for the debate, otherwise some people won’t even talk about it no matter how much we say anything. Its our task to make our voice heard and how we understand such a debate to take place.

Chris: To have a Christian in the white house, no matter how much we hope for him/her, we invite the sorts of mistakes we have been making these past decades – mistaking America’s interests for Christ’s. I would rather a non-Christian in the white house, so we are not tempted to displace our political responsibilities onto the nation-state.

Me: Yes, this is true. I have the same criticism of Huckabee, as I would of Obama. I certainly object to a lot, but I think it would be helpful to have black liberation spoken from the presidency, insomuch that it would bring up a discussion about white America – instead we just assume whiteness isn’t racialized itself.

Chris: We need first to take up those responsibilities before we can “enter the debate” but its so much easier to say “that guy is a Christian and an American and the leader of the free world.” We need to be marginal before we can summon the energy to speak in a way that will reflect the values of the church. See – I am not completely ignorant of liberation theology!

Me: True, but I wasn’t originally talking about our responsibilities, I was talking about the opportunity of Obama could’ve brought, while at the same time living the downsides as well. I figured out of the three, Obama was the most interesting and helpful, but now he really is starting to sound like the other two.

Chris: That may be true, but I remain very doubtful of any move to place hopes in a person who is aiming at such a position.

Me: The other two seem to look like typical presidential contenders and will simply use Christian language to pull from a niche for votes. I wasn’t placing much hope, especially now. It wasn’t like I was gunning for him from the beginning, more than wanting to see a black president. I didn’t think even then, that would bring salvation or make the country un-racist. Its just that Obama would be the healthiest of the three and by that virtue alone, the most interesting. Perhaps he still is, although I don’t follow everything that closely, but when he severs ties with something I know a bit of, I’m seeing something that disappoints me.

Me: And then I think, we’re screwed no matter what, and really that’s the whole idea of the church. We can’t really control the machinations of the world – like violence brought upon ourselves – instead we react strongly as Jesus for the hurting as the church no matter the consequences. I think again, as I am often reminded, of Oscar Romero and martyrdom.

Chris: This is better, methinks, those last two, not being able to control the machinations of the world and so on. If we vote, it is as a subversive.

Me: Yeah, a lot of liberation theologians may only like part of that.

Chris: Well, I’m not much of a liberation theologian.

Me: Cone, as a Niebuhrian (or taking a lot from Niebuhr), is okay with seeking power. While Niebuhr’s conception of power is complex, it still is rooted in the idea of not letting the oppressor oppress. Of course I’m simplifying it, but that is the general gist. So he might half like what I said, but certainly not all of it, as I’m so critical of the “liberal” project of working in the state (ironically, a great deal of conservatives/evangelicals/fundamentalists buy into the “liberal” project, but deny its affects). While I think he would like the idea that the white church would have to give up its privilege to do what I described: to be with, rather than “speak for” the hurting (thats an incredibly incredibly important distinction). I’m not a fan of some ways we speak of in empowerment here at Union, but if we are empowering when we chose to live with and support the poor as they speak, then I’m all for that. None of this representation crap, that so many people advocate – it keeps people in the same position and does little to change the systemic problems.

And then we digress.

Cone on Moyers

Prof. James H. Cone is on Bill Moyers’ Journal tonight at nine. Woo hoo. From looking at the website, I expect it to be about the man, his work in Black theology, and not so surprisingly to those of us at Union, discussion on R. Niebuhr. Give it a watch on the screen or the net – its always interesting to see the person at work behind the theology.

Edit:
Here is the video of the Cone interview by Moyers. While it does touch some on Cone himself, Black theology, and R. Niebuhr, the interview is largely a platform for Black theology to have a voice, specifically on the subject of lynching and the cross. Give it a look.

Don’t Sleep on James Cone

This is a professor of mine here at Union. I’ve really only taken one class of his, I wish I could take more. Give it a watch, he only starts to warm up towards the end.

“Ya’ll don’t want none of this. Ya’ll ain’t ready for this. Don’t sleep on James Cone.”This theoblog is inherently a blog on political theology because the church – the body of Christ – is inherently political. I do not think we can rightly understand and critique the way we are right now, much less move to a greater future without the black voice and other “minority” voices. The church is not white, so our economy, our eucharist and our politics should not be white. So don’t sleep on James Cone.

Bonhoeffer and Moltmann

Note: I wrote this paper some months back for a Cone class on Liberation theology. It was part of my attempt to get credit for a study I really wanted to do – to find a Christology that answers questions from both my conservative undergrad and my current liberal gradschool. Here is my logic for why the Christological dialectic of Moltmann is so helpful to me.

Suffering, Hope, Blood, and Guts: The Suffering Christ of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Jürgen Moltmann in Conversation with Liberation Theology

Given that theology has shifted from a focus upon the believer/atheist dichotomy to the person/non-person, Professor Cone has made the point in recent classes that many theologies have lost their relevancy insomuch as they address an old question. However, there is a motif within European-born theology that was only hinted at in the readings for class that holds promise for continuous relevancy between old and new theology: the suffering Christ.1

Two strikingly similar theologians of recent importance – Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Jürgen Moltmann – center their theology upon a suffering Christ. This paper compares the two theologian’s contexts, views of Christ, and the influences a suffering Christ has on their ecclesiology to depict their pertinence to both the theology of old and the theology of today.

Suffering Christ
The theme of the suffering Christ is a rich vein within Christianity and is crucial for Christology, both in abstract and pragmatic thought. Importantly, a Christ who suffered can be both transcendent and immanent; within a strong trinitarianism a suffering Christ is socially rooted in transcendence, while at the same time entirely immanent and receptive to the pain inherent in the human world. It is this immanent Christ – whipped, bruised, and crucified – who extends understanding and hope – “justice, truth, humanity and freedom.”2

A suffering Christ is also important for shaping and informing other aspects of Christianity, beyond the human suffering within Christology. The church universal, an extension of Christ to the world, is shaped by an understanding of who Christ is. Thus, a suffering Christ shapes a church towards sensitivity to human suffering, therefore creating a space in which Christ tangibly exists and from which Christ can then reach the world and its distress.

Bonhoeffer’s Context
While Bonhoeffer lacks the cohesive direction of a grand systematic theology, his thought is still consistently characterized by a focus upon the centrality of Christ.3 In the late 1930s Bonhoeffer helped lead a seminary for the Confessing Church at Finkenwalde that was declared illegal by the Nazis. The school “followed the innovative format of engaging in theological education within the context of a close-knit community.”4 Beyond regular theological courses, “the participants in the school sought to learn to live the Christian life in genuine brotherhood and in total dedication to the Lord.”5 It was out of this marginal and oppressed experience that Bonhoeffer wrote Life Together and The Cost of Discipleship, both of which are works heavy with a focus on relational community born from a suffering Christ.

To read Bonhoeffer outside of his context or as a systematic theology would be problematic at best, at worst it would do injustice to his writings. To view Bonhoeffer’s Christology of a suffering Christ is to view a suffering church and amazing grace, for Bonhoeffer inextricably ties together the identity of Christ and the church. Christology is ecclesiology; the two cannot be split or considered separately: Christology is inherently wound into the themes of “creation, community, and costly discipleship.”6

Bonhoeffer’s Christology
Bonhoeffer is perennially concerned with answering the question, “Who is Christ for today?”7 His answer is simply that God suffered for us.8 “If we speak of Jesus Christ as God…we must speak of his weakness, his manger, his cross. This man is no abstract God.”9 Thus the incarnate one is humiliated and exalted, and yet, in between lies the hope of the empty tomb.10 His flesh is like our flesh; however, Bonhoeffer does not leave much room to talk simply about Christ suffering, but leads into the suffering as relevant for humanity. “The Law of Christ is a law of forbearance. Forbearance means enduring and suffering.”11 Thus Christology, Christ’s nature and actions, ushering in the Kingdom of God, informs the church.12

Bonhoeffer has a specific idea of the make-up of the body of Christ. Importantly, “the Church is not a religious community of worshippers of Christ”; rather, the church is a space within a community of humanity where “Christ has really taken form.”13 However, the church’s hope or the appearance of Christ in church is not based on only a messiah or even a human messiah, but specifically a suffering messiah. “‘Christians stand by God in his hour of grieving’…thus creating Christ in us by participating in his suffering.”14 It is because Christ suffered that the church can visibly extend Christ and his hope and justice to the world because the church is Christ. It is here that Bonhoeffer’s answer for the question “Who is Christ for today” is found, not only for him over half a century ago, but still the answer is relevant for today. Christ, as his church, suffers for creation. Because of Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection, the church’s hope and call for justice never dies.

Moltmann’s Context
While Bonhoeffer was “probably the most influential German theologian of the generation immediately following Barth’s,” Moltmann is “probably the most influential German theologian active at present.”15 Moltmann is largely known for reviving eschatology from the trash bin of theology, as it were. It is slightly lesser known that he was also “one of the first theologians seriously to study Bonhoeffer’s work” – it is in fact this is one of the sources from which Moltmann inherited his focus upon incorporating both social ethics and the dialogue between the church and the world.16 As a prisoner of war (not unlike Bonhoeffer), Moltmann experienced both “God as the power of hope and of God’s presence in suffering,” two themes that made their way later into his works.17 Also like Bonhoeffer, Moltmann retains a theological core of themes and through the rest of his life’s work progressively addresses them to create a mature theology in contrast to Bonhoeffer’s inchoate theology.18

Moltmann has found a sophisticated, mature theological voice open to multiple influences, writing volumes, with at least nearly 20 works translated into English, and teaching scholars like Miroslav Volf. Nine major works comprise Moltmann’s theology: the first set, a trilogy, comprised of Theology of Hope, The Crucified God, and The Church in the Power of the Spirit; and the second set of six, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, God in Creation, The Way of Jesus Christ, The Spirit of Life, The Coming of God, and Experiences in Theology. The first set is described as “complementary perspectives on Christian theology”; however, he chooses to see the second set, though it is similar to a systemic theology, as “‘contributions’ to theological discussion.”19

The themes Moltmann addresses are numerous. Aside from eschatology and suffering (also related to theodicy), he produces a complete Trinitarian view of God, formulates “the relationship of God and the world as reciprocal and as internal to God’s own Trinitarian relationships”, and departs from “the modern paradigm of reality as human history and giving theological weight to the reciprocal relationship of humanity and the rest of Nature.”20 Despite the diversity of the themes, the controlling, meta-theme lays within the trilogy – the dialectic between Jesus’ suffering death of cross and the hope filled resurrection – only to be rooted within the thorough trinitarianism of his later work. In fact, Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson state, “Taking his cue from Bonhoeffer’s statement that ‘Only the suffering God can help,’ Moltmann opened up a veritable new chapter in theology, in which the suffering of God is almost a new orthodoxy.”

Moltmann’s Christology
As already stated, Moltmann views Christology dialectically, holding in tension the cross and resurrection – both the suffering and hope inherent to God in history. The cross represents the current condition of humanity of “subjection to sin, suffering and death,” while the resurrection is God’s promise and humanity’s hope of redemption or creation made anew.21 Thus Moltmann grasps the suffering Christ of Bonhoeffer, and builds upon it the dimension of a hopeful future.

For Moltmann, Jesus is the Christ of both God and the human race. “The Christ of God represents God himself in a still unredeemed world.”22 And speaking in Trinitarian terms, “the Son of God represents the Father in a godless and forsaken world.”23 It is only through the resurrection that Jesus could be “the Christ of God.”24 Thus the suffering and death of Jesus is the “suffering and death of the Christ of God.”25 Simply put, the identity of Jesus as Christ is only fulfilled in hope; a suffering Jesus without the resurrection would not have embodied the fullness of God. Nevertheless, the resurrection does not wrap the cross in glory; instead, the cross is always the point where God suffered, filled “with eschatology and saving significance.”26

In Christ’s resurrection preceding the resurrection of all humanity, the Christ of God becomes Christ for humanity.27 “Thus the cross of Christ modifies the resurrection of Christ under the conditions of the suffering of the world so that it changes from being a purely future event to being an event of liberating love” – Christ anticipates the future bodily resurrection and so ushers in the kingdom of God.28

The relevance of Moltmann is just as clear as Bonhoeffer, if not more so. Moltmann frankly declares that the Crucified God is for all people: the divine is “stateless and classless” – “He is the god of the poor, the oppressed and the humiliated.”29 This is a God who is clearly accessible to the non-person, and yet at the same time transcendent; He/She is located in a lofty position operating in the suffering world through the body of Christ (the church) as part of the basileia.30

Answering the Needs of Liberation Theologies
It may appear on first glance, that the Christ of Bonhoeffer and Moltmann do not meet the needs of black, feminist, and womanist liberation theologies. Not only do they not address the particular needs of liberation theologies, but as is typical of older theology, Bonhoeffer and Moltmann in their silence do not even mention the possibility of an either black or female Christ. Presumably, this Christology remains white and inaccessible to liberative modes of Christian thinking; however, little could be farther from the truth.

It is exactly the suffering nature of Bonhoeffer and Moltmann’s Christology that makes it relevant to these newer particularized communities. Indeed, when Cone formulates a Christology around a black Christ, he does not require a physically black Jesus; rather, Cone is describing a suffering Christ contextually in light of current oppression.31 In fact, Cone explicitly asserts that it is the suffering nature of Christ that enables him to be a “black Christ.” In A Black Theology of Liberation he states, “The Jesus of history is… the Christ of today as interpreted by the theological significance of the death-resurrection event.” When he declares “Black theology certainly agrees with this emphasis on the cross and resurrection,” Cone is confirming the consonance between Moltmann’s Christological focus and the needs of liberation theologies.32

Theology of Hope
Insomuch as they are theologians of hope, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Jürgen offer a focus as desperately needed in Nazi Germany and its aftermath as in our contemporary culture of cynicism and oppression. Bonhoeffer first sketched out a theology of God’s suffering which was able to speak to the suffering of many particular situations, but which lacked a necessary second dimension – future. Moltmann completed this view of the cross by raising the hope of the resurrection to equal prominence in this suffering Christology. The suffering Christ – and subsequently the church, when it focuses upon this Christ – is able to engage, share, and heal the pain of even the most oppressed, both with an existential understanding and a tangible eschatological hope for the future.

_______
1.Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, translated by R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), xi.

2.Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, translated by Neville Horton Smith (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), 61.

3.Stanley Grenz and Robert Olson, 20th-Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age, 149. Wayne Whitson Floyd, The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology since 1918, edited by David F. Ford and Rachel Muers (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 56.

4.20th-Century Theology, 148.5.Ibid., 148.6.Wayne Whitson Floyd, The Modern Theologians, 55.

7.20th-Century Theology, 149. John W. De Gruchy, “Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1906-45),” The Dictionary of Historical Theology, edited by Trevor A. Hart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 81.

8.Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together; Prayer Book, edited by Geffrey B. Kelly, translated by Daniel W. Bloesch and James H. Burtness (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 100. Also see footnote 14: “The sufferings of God in Jesus Christ and Jesus’ sufferings in and for God’s people are major themes in Bonhoeffer’s theology.”

9.Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center, translated by Edwin H. Robertson (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 104.

10.Ibid., 112.

11.Life Together,100.

12.Christ the Center, 111.

13.Ethics, 84 and 85.

14.Letters and Papers from Prison, 361.

15.Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century, vol. 3, revised ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987), 447 and 452.

16.Richard Bauckham, “Jürgen Moltmann,” The Modern Theologians, edited by David F. Ford and Rachel Muers, ed. 3 (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 147.

17.Ibid., 147.

18.The Dictionary of Modern Historical Theology, 376.

19.Richard Bauckham, The Modern Theologians, 148.

20.The Dictionary of Historical Theology, 376.

21.The Dictionary of Historical Theology, 377.

22.The Crucified God, 179.

23.Ibid., 179.

24.Ibid., 182.

25.Ibid., 182.

26.Ibid., 182.

27.Ibid., 184.

28.Ibid., 185.

29.Ibid., 329. Also see the quote a few lines below, “Christians will seek to anticipate the future of Christ according to the measure of the possibilities available to them, by breaking down lordship and building up the political liveliness of each individual.”

30.In using the Greek word for the “kingdom of God” (basileia), I hope to avoid master/slave presumptions that feminists have pointed out are connoted by the phrase, while still retaining the sense of transcendence that the alternate “kindom” seems to lack. All previous uses in the text of the term “kingdom” have been part of the process of quoting and in the spirit of retaining the author’s language.

31.James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (New York: Orbis, 2006), 119-120.

32.Cone, 118.

33.The Crucified God, xi.