black theology, James Cone

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.


8 thoughts on “More Media and a Cone Interview to Come

  1. David,

    I finally watched this video at 12:10a.m. EST. What a bunch of bullshit! This segment was definitely an instrument to prime Beck’s white conservative audience into more fear of blackness. I an saddened by Bradley’s representation black liberation theology and his collusion with Beck. It was purposefully heavily biased rhetoric.

  2. I don’t think of this a journalism anymore. Its pure enterainment and a warped activism focused on “awareness.” Hannity, O’Reilly, Gibson (who just got canceled), and others are pandering to audiences in their self appointed crusades. If there was a civil search for honesty, I’d think differently.

    There is so much damage in this dishonesty. Serious critique I’m fine with, but this? The camera shows that Bradley is basically going through the motions – he doesn’t even seem interested in the interview. You’re right, there really is no other word that describes this, its bullshit. If it wasn’t on the news, I’d have thought it was an ill informed, badly researched, undergrad paper written the night before. This will only get worse if Obama beats out Clinton, but even if he doesn’t, we still have to deal with this bullshit in the church.

  3. I read on Bradley’s blog that he did his doctoral dissertation on black liberation theology. I would think that we would give more of an informed critique. I guess I was setting myself up for disappointment.

  4. He teaches at Covenant, which I think explains some. Not that Covenant is a terrible place, but normally the kind of places with that doctrinal statement don’t take to kindly to liberation theology.

  5. Dave says:

    I saw Bradley speak at a conference a few months ago, and went away thinking highly of him. He didn’t speak of black liberation theology then, and this handling of the topic was pretty disappointing.

    He was a plenary speaker at the conference (it’s called Jubilee), and I also had the chance to see him in a breakout session on the intersection of faith and politics. He was more of the moderator of a panel discussion, and among the panel were Ron Sider, Jim Skillen, and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson. I went away from that most impressed with Sider, but I also had the feeling that the atmosphere was kind of against Gerson.

    Anyways, this came as a surprise for me because I thought Bradley did well in his plenary presentation. This was such obvious collusion and such a grand oversimplification of the issue that I as a pretty uninformed inquirer came away with nothing learned.

    I’m glad the Cone interview isn’t on the mainstream press, because they probably would have ruined it. Honestly, I find no difference between the ideological opposed mainstream outlets; each gives you shitty non-news that is designed to gain viewership and not much else.

  6. Thanks Jason.

    And Dave, you’re right, news is pretty crappy as is. I like to use the BBC but I find too often I am out of touch with some issues that go on here. All in all, between everyone using the same method to make money and call it news, we’re pretty much screwed. What can we really do? Form TBN or GodTube? *shudder* Thats even worse.

  7. Dave says:

    I guess some kind of positive response would be to let the news happen in community. I mean, is it really worth it to read/view something on CNN or FOX and then get worked up over it? The problem is that this is easier said than done. Most people get their news from mainstream outlets, which can be ok, depending on the person.

    But I can speak from experience and say that it’s awfully hard to talk about something like this “issue” over Jeremiah Wright who has only seen the clips on the news. It’s even harder for me, because as much as I might want to talk about interpreting him within a certain theological light, because I am not very well versed in any of this, I think I come off just sounding like a staunch Obama defender, which is only partly true.

    In any event, I also think blogs like this (and the commenters who participate) are a testament to positive news discussion. I don’t know that political theology is one of my main academic interests (I’m still kind of working that out), but I’ve greatly enjoyed the discussions here and have certainly gained a greater understanding of some ideas. Keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s