The insanity of "black liberation theology"

Rod,

You're doubtless going to get a slew of comments explaining why you're overreacting and need to put Wright's language in "context." But most of those same commenters also dismissed this story as some sort of conspiracy born of right wing desperation.

Today we see that Obama has been clobbered in the polls by the story in only 4 days, accelerating an overall downward trend in his numbers over the past month. And it has only just begun. A third of the public hasn't even picked up on this stuff yet, and when they do they'll almost certainly have the same overwhelmingly negative reaction that the rest of the public has had.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/people2/just_8_have_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright

This better be one heckuva speech by Obama, because as you say, he's trying to square a circle. Most likely these revelations have done serious, irreparable harm to his candidacy.

"Obama, who presented himself as a unifying figure, now seems rather the living embodiment of the clash."

I think Spengler is mistaken in posing these two concepts as opposites. If this past week proves anything, it's that there is still a clash of beliefs that hasn't been sufficiently aired. While it might not be Obama, I think any figure who is able to help bring about some semblence of unity on the black/white racial divide still with us will have to embody the clash.

Bless,
Doug

You are glossing over way too much, Jim. Cone's books were until recently on the TUCC website as recommended reading for the church (which still sells his material on its website). Jeremiah Wright is very close to Cone, and preaches his theology. You can call it guilt-by-association if you like, but for a candidate who is running so heavily on character and healing, it's absolutely jarring to read the kind of garbage embraced at that church.

I've talked to three (white) Obama supporters today who are both dismally depressed. They agree that this is a big political deal, and that Obama has a serious problem here.

Again, you can believe that this shouldn't be a problem, but it is. May not be with liberals, but it is with many independents and conservatives. In fact, according to the Rasmussen poll, 44 percent of Democrats say they're less likely to vote for Obama because of Wright.

When I saw the word "crackpottery" and the anonymous, shady Spengler, I thought "Finally, Rod has figured out that Spengler is a crackpot and he decided to resign as president of the Spengler fan club."

You can imagine my disappointment that you are taking Spengler seriously. Will your future intellectual credibility be harmed by your reliance on this whack-job? Let's hope you don't run for office.

So, what about the black Africans who sold other black Africans to the slave traders? Does God destroy them, too, or are they OK because they're black?

As far as Cone, he was required reading in one of my intro to theology courses at Princeton Seminary. So he's viewed as "mainstream," at least on some level.

Again, you can believe that this shouldn't be a problem, but it is. May not be with liberals, but it is with many independents and conservatives.

Exactly right, Rod.

The Netroots crowd has convinced themselves that most Americans think the way they do. But this is an issue that ordinary people find easy to understand. What politically active liberals don't realize is that despite a year of campaigning the public is only now formulating its first real impressions of Barack Obama. This issue is starting to define him -- negatively.

It better be a fantastic speech tomorrow, because Wright has become a big, big political liability. And despite what Daniel keeps telling us about conservative memes, Obama's people know he's in trouble.

Cone: "Being black in America has very little to do with skin color. To be black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are. … Being reconciled to God does not mean that one's skin is physically black. It essentially depends on the color of your heart, soul, and mind."

They say that three days after this became a conservative media meme. It means nothing in terms of how they will vote in November or even in the Pennyslvania primary. It's a poll without meaning with people reacting to story they barely understand.

Confess, Daniel: you're secretly working for the McCain campaign. That's the only explanation I can come up with to match your ostrich-like behavior.

Islam, Colourism and the Myth of Black African Slave Traders
"Historians did not often record or think of the ethnicity of these 'Africans' who sold their brothers and sisters into slavery. As part of our distorted historical legacy, we too in the Diaspora buy the idea that all Africans were uniform and 'brothers', but the true picture, especially at this time was not so. Centuries of contact with Europe, Asia, North Africa produced several colour / class gradients in the continent, divisions fostered by the foreigners. This may have been especially prominent in urban and economic centres. When we combine the converting, military force of Islam sweeping across western and eastern Africa placing a virtual economic stranglehold on villages and trading centers that were Kufir, with the intermixing of lighter-skinned Muslim traders from the North and East Africa creating an unprecedented population of mixed, lighter skinned Africans who began to form the elites of the trading classes we can see how a society begins to change."
http://www.rootswomen.com/ayanna/articles/10022004.html

"Black Liberation Theology" it seems to me is a symptom of a social pathology. It's kind of like the abused wife who gets a little education (or, more often, a lot), gets out of her marriage and embraces wacky radical man-hating feminism, making a religion of her hatred. Some women in that situation eventually move beyond their irrationality and hatred. When you are talking about an entire people coming out of poverty and oppression (or perhaps, on an individual basis, not), the process takes longer. When someone like Jeremiah Wright can make a living selling hate to large audiences, then that further prolongs the process.

At best, Obama separates the appealing social programs of his church from a teaching he doesn't embrace--not entirely unlike the majority of Roman Catholics who reject many moral teachings of their church but nevertheless hang out there supporting its charitable activities or reinforcing their "Catholic" identity. At worst, his world-view is tainted by Wright's toxic notions, but I just don't see him as a clone of his pastor. If he were a clone, he'd sound a lot more like Al Sharpton or other similar characters. Still, that Obama would continue to associate himself with such a temple of race hate is the real head-scratcher of this election.

"and yet already it's caused significant movement away from Obama in the polls."

Actually, it hasn't. But why bother with specifics. People say they were less inclined--after a weekend media barrage--to say they would vote. Doesn't mean they won't. It helps to understand polling before you say "significant movement away."

He's giving a speech tomorrow. He's an electrifying speaker, the best in the campaign. He talks about race and faith better than any politician currently on the scene. Let's see what he has to say.

...unless you realize that it's not possible to make Obamatons understand why this matters...

Ah! "Obamaton". Victory at last! MY meme is catching on!

Be sure to credit me with this one, Danny boy.

Wow it only took four posts before someone posted about Nazis!

James Cone is actually not outside the mainstream of contemporary theology. He seems to be pretty standard reading in most graduate theology programs (I'm reading him right now, actually). While I think his theology is problematic in many places, I'm not sure he's as politically/socially dangerous as an outside observer might tend to think. A lot of liberation theology in general has a tendency (good or bad) to pick a side in a conflict and hyperbolize the conflict; so God favors the poor, favors women, favors blacks, against the rich, against men, and against whites, respectively. It's really important to keep in mind that the language, however inflammatory, is most often aimed at the mutual liberation of BOTH the oppressed AND the oppressor. It's usually not about destroying the enemy, and its not about that in the case of Cone, either.

I'm no disciple of Cone, but I'd never make a political case against someone just because they were influenced by someone who was influenced by someone like Cone. Heck, since my academic mentor was a student of Cone, I guess that would disqualify me from political office too, by the line of reasoning expressed in this blog.

I like ice cream, I bet Barack likes ice cream too....yum!

I've been away from media for a few days and see what was a little story early last week now has some fire. And maybe this next point has been discussed, but does this pastor's comments now perhaps shed a little more light on the sentiment of Michelle Obama that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country?

I know the explanation from the campaign was that she was referring to politics. But what if she completely buys into the Wright line of thinking and that was such an expression of some deep seated beliefs.

Obama might can distance himself from Wright. But surely he can't distance himself from his wife. Has he surrounded himself with more than a few people that hold Wright's point of view? Very, very interesting questions.

All the best,

Soop

I bet Rev. Wright's now-famous comments were considered "edgy" but otherwise perfectly acceptable by his congregants, including the Obamas. Church members probably didn't think or care how such rhetoric would sound to the outside world -- who, anyway, "wouldn't understand. It's a Black thing." Obama's complacency and indulgence about this sort of thing when not in "mixed company" is telling.
As a fatherless young mixed-race man trying to fit into the black community, he likely took his social cues from fellow churchgoers and chose to view Wright's racist statements as harmless venting, or perhaps as some misguided but benign attempt at "black empowerment." Nope, sorry. At the least, Obama's guilty of spinelessness and poor moral judgment, and he deserves to lose the nomination because of it. Didn't anyone ever give him the standard "peer pressure" lecture, the one involving lemmings and a cliff?

Spengler shrewdly observes:

"It is possible that because of the Wright affair Obama will suffer for what he pretended to be, rather than for what he really is."

Obama may not believe the objectionable aspects of the Wright/Cone views and may just have joined Trinity because it was the smart thing to do in order to advance politically in the south side of Chicago. But Obama now has a real dilemma. If he 'fesses up to the above, he's just another cynical and opportunistic politician; hope and change and the new politics will have a lot of mud splashed on them. But if he doesn't distance himself sufficiently, Wright (and Cone) will be a continuing weight on him going forward. He'll try to find a middle ground and talk his way out of it. But this probably won't work, because anything short of leaving that church will be insufficient politically. Oh, he may still be able to get the Democratic nomination, limping across the finish line a few delegates ahead of hard-charging Hillary (after losses to her in Pennsylvania and Michigan), but his church affiliation will be a huge problem for him in the general election.

As for Cone being part of the theological mainstream, that may well be true in the majority of American seminaries, but any form of liberation theology is not mainstream with your average American voter. That stuff goes over with the electorate mightily poorly.

What a bunch of ignorance you are spewing. I've read scads of books on theology from John Calvin to James Cone. I've read both the Communist Manifesto as well as Smith's Wealth of Nations. I've read both the Holy Bible and The Satanic Verses. Does that mean I agree with everything in them? Of course not! It means I am educated the things I remark about and make judgements about and don't spout off in areas I am not educated. That's unlike the likes of Hannity, which was Wright's point. It's clearly unlikely the likes of youirself, as well.

I challenge both Sean Hannity and yourself to do the same experiment that John Howard Griffen did, as told about in Black Like Me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

He's giving a speech tomorrow. He's an electrifying speaker, the best in the campaign. He talks about race and faith better than any politician currently on the scene. Let's see what he has to say.

Electrifying rhetoric will only rally the Obamatons around him. The cloud over his candidacy won't go away until he credibly distances himself from Wright. And as Rod notes, that's squaring the circle.

They must be doing cartwheels at Clinton headquarters this week.

Rebeccat: Rod, why do you keep asking questions you don't want to know the answers to? There have been explanations given - and ignored.
How sincere can you be in your quest for understanding when you keep ignoring answers to the questions you keep asking?

Rebecca, I haven't ignored the answers you and others have given. I just don't find them persuasive.

"There are some folks in Jena who might take issue with that..."

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/09/jena.html

Yep, nothing bad being said at TUCC which is why they are busy changing their website.

Sorry, I don't buy Cone's explanation of what he means by Black. Being reconciled to God does not mean that one's skin is physically black. It essentially depends on the color of your heart, soul, and mind." Really, does this sound like a reasonable explanation? It has all of hallmarks of someone getting caught saying something outrageous and then trying to rationalize it. Any normal person is going to take his use of the term Black to mean black people, not a state of one's relationship to God.

Also, studying a theological viewpoint in college does not mean the theology is mainstream in this country or is considered acceptable.

Steve, are you saying that it is OK to be a hate-filled, racist, bigot if you suffered in the past? Because that is what it looks like you are saying.

Anti- Nope. More along the lines of "But for the grace of God there go I". If I had spent the first 24 years of my life being told what I could and couldnt do based on the color of my skin I am not sure how long it would take me to forgive. Most people on this board seem to imply that they would forgive and forget instantly. I am either an exceptionally poor Christian (possible) or people arent really thinking about this. People on this board are still angry about 9/11 and that was over 6 years ago.

Wright may or may not be a bigot and racist. I will not judge a man based on a few video clips. This is politics though and snap judgments and guilt by association are the norm. I suspect Obama is toast unless his speech tomorrow is his best yet.

Steve

Nope. More along the lines of "But for the grace of God there go I".

Ok, I understand what you mean. Personally I suspect that Barack Hussein Obama chose Wright's church because of its location and size, but that is just my own opinion. I do not agree that he is toast, though, because there are plenty of people in the Democratic party who agree with Wright. Just look at the support for 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example, on the left.

More broadly, I wonder how many black people agree with Wright, and what the breakdown by age is?

Jim, there may well be all sorts of things in the past that fuel Wright's hatred and bigotry. I once knew a person who had suffered horribly in an attack by some black men, for example, and while I could understand her hatred of black men that did not change the fact that she was a bigot, a racist and that she hated a group of people because of the color of their skin, rather than the content of character (or absence in her case). And the sad fact of her history did not, to me, justify her hatred, bigotry and racism.

The same logic applies to Wright. I can understand why he may be the racist, hate filled bigot that he is. But I do not find it acceptable. I am fully capable of both seeing a suffering human being, and accurately observing a racist, hate filled bigot. I call this "being a grown up". You can call it whatever you like.

Jim:
Do you find it unacceptable?

Please don't fall into that line of thinking. TUCC represents a small segment of "the black church," occupied by the far left. There are far more black churches with MUCH more traditional theology.

I'd venture to say that Wright's theology is actually quite mainstream and could be heard in a lot of Black churches every Sunday in America. After people pay attention to his whole work and not Fox News soundbites, what Wright preaches--and he is an extraordinary preacher--is actually fairly typical of what you'd hear in a lot of Black churches.

And I think that's why people are so alarmed by this. The fact that people were saying "Amen" to Wright's most inflammatory comments forces us to realize that there is still significant anger and pain around the issue of race and that the anger is real.

At it's core, that's what liberation theology is about. Oppressed people are forced to turn-the-other cheek, act subservient, face discrimination and bear the brunt of power every day. It is at church--or Mass in Latin America--where they hear God speaking to their anger and pain at being oppressed and giving them permission to be angry and try to change things. It is the only opportunity where God acknowledges the injustices and says it is wrong and immoral. Imagine how transforming it is to hear Jesus died so that you could be freed from your anger and oppression and the God recognizes those injustices.

I think it is unacceptable when any person in a position of authority - poltical, business, and most of all spiritual - perpetuates rhetoric that is divisive and bigoted.

And Anti Dhimmi, I am really sorry that I gave you that sarcastic jab earlier; I liked Steve's post and read into your reply to him more than I probably ought to have. Obviously you were sincerely interested and not being dismissive, but I didn't get that. The dangers of e-communication, but no excuse.

Dialogue on Black Theology

An Interview with James Cone

By William Hordern

Hordern : From the point of view of the Christian church, one of the most significant things to come out of the racial situation is black theology. When that is mentioned, of course, we think of you, Jim. You have moved us, angered us, and illuminated us. However, many readers have problems with your work. They feel that, because they were born with skin of the wrong color, you have excluded them from dialogue. There seems to be some vagueness on your use of the terms “white” and “black.” On the one hand, in A Black Theology of Liberation, page 12, you say that blackness symbolizes the oppressors and enslavement. In that use a person with white skin may in fact be “black,” while a person with black skin may be “white.” This definition of terms is a healthy change from the usual symbolic meanings of white and black.

But do you always follow this definition? For example, you say on page 22 “unfortunately, American white theology has not been involved in the struggle for black liberation.” If you are following your first definition, this statement is true by definition because any theology which had been involved in the struggle for liberation would be “black.” Why then do you say “unfortunately”/ It would appear that you are using “white theology” here to describe theology as written by men whose skins are white. But, if that is so, is the statement universally correct?

Cone: The vagueness of the terms “black” and “white” is intentional and I think necessary. While I do not minimize the need for logical consistency, there are times when rationalistic logic breaks down. This is especially true when one is dealing with concrete historical experiences that are not universal. There is the situation of the oppressed as they reflect theologically upon the significance of their oppression and liberation. Because oppressors are the persons who devise the language tools for communication, their canons of logic do not include a form of the oppressed. “meaningful discourse” is always language which does not threaten the powers that be.

If the oppressed are to attain their freedom, they must begin to create a new style of communication which is consistent with their struggle for liberation. In part they must deny the accepted canons of logic, allowing the liberation struggle alone to be the logical test for meaningful discourse. Logical consistency, as defined by the oppressors, is irrelevant.

Hordern: What I hear you saying is that in A Black Theology of Liberation and in your earlier Black Theology and Black Power you found that, to be faithful to the black experience and to Christ’s gospel, you had to be both literal and symbolic in your use of “black” and “white.”

Cone: That is correct. I do not apologize for the apparently vague use of the terms. Rather I insist that the ambiguity is indispensable. In this regard, I contend that theological language must be paradoxical because of the necessity of affirming two dimensions of reality which appear to be contradictory. For example, my experience of being black-skinned means that I cannot de-emphasize the literal significance of blackness. My people were enslaved, lynched, and ghettoized in the name of God and country because of their color. No amount of theologizing can remove the reality of that experience from my consciousness. And because blacks were dehumanized by white-skinned people who created a cultural style based on black oppression, the literal importance of whiteness has historical referents.

But that is only one aspect of my experience. When I begin to investigate the particular experience of blackness and whiteness in America, I begin to see beyond it. Through my particular experience of blackness, I encounter the symbolic significance of black existence and how that existence is related to god’s revelation in Jesus Christ.

In the divine-human encounter, the particular experience of oppression and liberation, as disclosed in black-skinned people, is affirmed as God’s own experience; and through that divine affirmation, I encounter the universal meaning of oppression and liberation that is not limited by skin color. The same is true for the literal and symbolic meaning of whiteness, which has the opposite meaning of blackness.

Hordern: In other words, you believe that your critics want to move too quickly from the particular to the universal. Once you have redefined the symbolic meaning of white and black, the white-skinned critic immediately wants to be called black.

Cone: That is correct. The universal has no meaning independent of the particular. When people move too rapidly to the universal, they minimize the every experience which defines the universal. Blackness then must, without qualification, refer to black-skinned people who bear the scars of oppression; and whiteness must refer to the people responsible for that oppression. That is an must remain the starting point for all talk about God and man in a society where color is the defining point of humiliation. When this reality of the gospel and historical experience is taken with utmost seriousness, then it is possible to visualize the symbolic significance of blackness and whiteness – but not before. To guars against the easy, symbolic identification of white-skinned people with black-skinned people, it is necessary to stress that there can be no universal understanding of blackness without the particular experience of blackness.

Hordern: To paraphrase a question put to Jesus, who then can become black?

Cone: I contend that if a white-skinned person is authentically black, then there is no need to assure him of his authenticity. For to be black is to know the ambiguity of the black experience, and this is true for one who is literally black. The certainty of a person’s affirmation of blackness is bound up with the struggle for liberation, and that experience has its own ambiguities. I find that the white-skinned person is worried too much about his own “salvation,” rather than about the liberation of the black community. I see no reason why I should spend time giving him personal counsel on how to be black.

Hordern: In using the term “black” to describe all oppressed people, do you really speak to the need of oppressed people whose skins are of other colors? For example, in North America today the Indian people are taking pride in their history and are speaking of “Red Power.” Is a black theology a help or a hindrance to communicating with such people?

Cone: Whether black theology is a help or hindrance to other persons of color who are not black will have to be decided by the victims who are red, brown, or whatever color. I cannot answer that, but I hope they are not excluded from my interpretation of the gospel. In my experience with persons of color who are not Afro-American, they have not raised difficulties with my choice of blackness.

I chose blackness because of my experience and what that means in white America. I do not contend that blackness is the appropriate term for all historical situations of oppression and liberation. I only contend that theology must be particular and thus indigenous with the oppressed community so that universal affirmations about liberation are relevant to the historical experiences of the wretched of the land. “Red Power,” “Brown Power” and the like do not conflict with “Black Power.” They enhance the authenticity of black self-determination and affirm that the black struggle for freedom is not an isolated, discontinuous activity of God. That is why I said in A Black Theology of Liberation: “The focus on blackness does not mean that only blacks suffer as victims in a racist society, but that blackness is an ontological symbol and a visible reality which best describes what oppression means in America” (p. 27). Therefore, I do not insist that the concreteness of oppression is always and everywhere black; but I do think that it is a distortion of historical reality if one speaks of oppression in America that ignores black people.

Hordern: In recent years wide publicity has been given to an article titled “The Student as Nigger.” This year a French Canadian wrote a book in which he describes his people as “white niggers.” When such groups, feeling oppressed, take the term “nigger” to describe their oppression, do you feel that this is a verification of your thesis that blackness is the ontological symbol that best describes oppression in America? Or do you feel there is something hypocritical about such groups’ referring to themselves as “niggers”?

Cone: Authentic identification with the oppressed involves more than adopting the symbols of oppression. It means adopting their historical experience, realizing that we cannot be unless oppression ceases to be.

My difficulty with white students is that they appropriate black symbols without encountering the concrete experiences which gave rise to them. They have not “paid the dues” which entitle them to use our symbols. This is not to deny that white students are oppressed. But they have not been enslaved legally and neither have they undergone that peculiar experience that is called blackness. How then can they say that they are “niggers” when that word has definite historical referents about which they nothing? If white students are to be “niggers,” the meaning of that term must be conferred upon them by the black community. And I do not think that we blacks are ready to do that.

Hordern: Your theology has made a vital contribution by forcing us to recognize that theology cannot be Christian unless it is identified with the liberation of the oppressed. Hopefully, never again will Christians be able to do theology without remembering that Jesus himself put the release of captives high on the list of his goals. But, in making this point, are you not in danger of compressing the whole gospel into this one theme? On page 23 of A Black Theology of Liberation you say, “There can be no theology of the Gospel that does not arise from an oppressed community.” And on page 91 you affirm that without a condition of oppression there is no revelation and you conclude: “His revelation is only for the paradoxical conclusion that it is a good thing to have oppression because without it there would be no revelation?

Cone: I am aware of the problem of reductionism, the danger of compressing the gospel into one theme. But that is the danger that must be risked if I am to remain faithful to my understanding of the Bible and the struggle of the oppressed for liberation. Indeed, other theologies have taken similar risks. It could be said that martin Luther compressed the gospel into the them of “justification by faith because of grace,” and that in our time Karl Barth reduced theology to Christology. Every theology must take what he believes to be the central theme of the biblical message and relate that theme to his historical situation.

This does not mean that the gospel changes every time a few theological emphasis appears. It only means that Christian theology cannot be written once and for all. There will always be the necessity to interpret the meaning of the gospel in the light of changing situations with new themes and emphases.

When a new theme appears it does not mean that the old emphases are discarded, but that the new datum enhances their significance. Black liberation is the new datum. Theology must now ask, What is the essence of the gospel in view of the oppressed of the land? What is good news for the oppressed and humiliated, the weak and the downtrodden? I contend that it is the good news of liberation.

The assertion that “the gospel is liberation” is not an arbitrary statement. It is an assertion of faith based on God’s revelation in history as made known in the Exodus and the appearance of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is a distortion of the gospel and heretical if it is said that Christians should place liberation high on the list of goals. The concept of liberation is not one among many themes in the biblical tradition; it is rather the essence of God’s revelation in history, and other emphases should be interpreted in light of liberation.

But you asked, Does not the statement “His revelation is only for the oppressed of the land” lead to the paradoxical conclusion that it is a good thing to have oppression? I deny that conclusion. For this is like saying that it is a good thing that Judas betrayed Jesus, since the latter’s death was the only means of our redemption; Judas therefore should be a saint.

To draw that conclusion is equivalent to reducing divine revelation to logical abstractions, which may be interesting to debate in a seminar on philosophical logic but has nothing to do with human oppression and liberation. God does not will that people should be oppressed, and that was why he came in Jesus and why he is present as Holy Spirit today. God’s stand against oppression is his affirmation that all men have a common humanity in freedom.

This means that I cannot be free until all men are free. And if in some distant future I am no longer oppressed because of blackness, then I must take upon myself whatever form of human oppression exists in the society, affirming my identity with the victims. The identity must be made with the victims not because of sympathy, but because my own humanity is involved in my brother’s degradation.

Source: The Christian Century (15 September 1971)

You are very selectively quoting James Cone. In a moment of research on google, I found an interview from 1971 where he describes his use of the terms white and black as symbolic as well as literal.

This is Beliefnet?

Cone is talking about understanding Christ from the position of a people formerly enslaved. How do you love your slavemaster? This is the Black dilemma.

You would do well to attempt some compassion. Now.

I forget, is Daniel gay?

Are you looking for a date, Max?

I'm still asking for the context of those quotes of Wright that people find offensive. (And I'm asking why somehow Huckabee's actual sermons were off-limits.)

And, incidentally, bringing Cone into this is insane. Obama has nothing to do with Cone, for all we know Wright doesn't agree with Cone either, he just thinks you should read him.

Nate W,

I'm a theologically conservative Christian who's also a political conservative, and I was extremely happy to vote for McCain and against Huckabee. I, for one, was quite afraid of the white charlatan, too.

"I'm still asking for the context of those quotes of Wright that people find offensive. (And I'm asking why somehow Huckabee's actual sermons were off-limits.)"

The context? A sermon on the Gospels.

Huckabee? Anyone claiming his sermons were off-limits are themselves off their rockers. (Were/are they not available? The should be.)

Huckabee's quote: "Interestingly enough, if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued aginst the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, 'This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency.' "

More on it at this link: http:// www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/11/joking_about_jesus.aspx

In today's world,we are supposed to condemn any perceived racist acts/comments alegedly committed by white people. At the same time we should not bring any attention to the perceived racist acts/comments made by black people.Why? I've heard it said that a black man cannot be a racist. If I hate you because you are a different race than I, does that not make me a racist?!?

As a young white Christian male, I was appalled by my perception of black theology. I was extremely turned off by my perceived understandings of Jeremiah Wright and my presupposed ideas of black liberation theology. So I decided I should find out why and if my perceptions, as a young theologian, were justified. I set forth on a comprehensive study of black theology and liberation theology. What I’ve come to find is that it completely adheres to the Jesus of the scriptures, the Jesus who dwells among the least of these, the Jesus who became poor to bring good news to the poor, the Jesus who came from Nazareth the bad side of town, the Jesus who proclaimed woe to the rich, the Jesus who innocently suffered and died at the hands of an oppressive empire on a cross just as the innocent burnt black bodies of a lynching tree. I also agree with the well known theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his philosophy that it is the responsibility of all Christians to find the Christ of their day, within their society…and as Jesus clearly stated in Matthew that he resides with the least of these; those in states of hunger and thirst, poverty and need, those lacking healthcare and those in prison…any moderate researcher would find overwhelming statistics that the black community has been and continues to be the most oppressed considering all socioeconomic and racial distinctions in American society. Now, I believe that Jesus loves the world…but he scripturally dwells in and amid the least of society. Mr Dreher, I humbly ask you to read or re-read the works of Dr. James Cone who is the Charles A. Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary. Who attended Shorter College (1954-56) and holds a B.A. degree from Philander Smith College (1958). Who in 1961, he received a Master of Divinity degree from Garrett Theological Seminary and who later earned an M.A. (1963) and Ph.D. (1965) from Northwestern University. This is the same Dr. Cone who has been conferred eight (8) honorary degrees, including a Doctor of Divinity from Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary (2000). Not to say that degrees and titles have any moral consequence but only to recognize that Dr. Cone’s sentiments are theological in nature and not completely emotional. Try to re-read “Black Theology Black Power” this time keeping in mind the cultural and historical context of the state of racism in the late 60’s and the evolved seditious existence of racism in the present age.

Abdul-halim, having invested some effort (I've spent the bulk of my adult life in majority-black neighborhoods) in understanding the rhetorical style you describe, I submit that while "racist" is not appropriate, "bigot" might be.

I have a personal comparison point. I vividly recall the family gathering (we often had long discussions/arguments about a variety of topics) where my mother stated, and I quote, "there's something rotten at the core of German culture." I and my siblings immediately jumped on that, and accused her of bigotry. Her reply, paraphrased: I accept that label; it doesn't change that I believe it to be accurate.

Rod, What is the your source for the first paragraph you say Jame Cone wrote. I'd like to read it for myself to be sure you are accurate

This is fairly disingenuous. I recommend, before one critiques, that serious theological study should be done on subjects like this. This is after all, theology, which is incredibly complex - not to mention the social circumstances in which theology is grounded in (past and present). Otherwise you come off incredibly ignorant, just like Sean Hannity.

To think Hannity went to seminary and was never exposed to any Liberation theology is almost unthinkable, merely on the basis of other discussions elsewhere in the theological world, despite what his seminary thought was orthodox. Either he didn't pay attention or his seminary failed to educate him on important, current discussion.

As for Spengler, he (or she) thoroughly misrepresents Black Liberation theology. Such an article submitted to a journal, or merely for a grade in a class, would be quickly rejected or receive a failing grade.

All four of my grandparents immigrated to the South sie of chicago from Sweden and built beautiful houses and lives there but our family and other Chicago Swedes (Chicago was "Sweden's second city" then) were forced out by violent criminal gangs who did not believe in integrating with those who lived there, but believed in taking over area for only themselves. when I drove past the houses my parents were raised in they are disrespected. My grandparents and other "pure breed Nordics" were persuded to immigrate to the US when it freed itself of slavery (Nordics have been anti-slavery much longer than Anglos or others) and that being Nordic was accepted as a good thing in the US. Now if a person happens to be "ultra white" he or she is targeted as the embodiment of all things evil.
I wrote that true history of the neighborhhood of Trinity United Church of Christ because EVEN NORDICS CAN SEE THEIR GENETIC HISTORY AS HAVING BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY.

you guys are too smart for me, you sure know how to polish a turd,

Dear Rod,
I'm troubled by the comments about Cone, and let me explain why. I'm a fairly conservative Catholic from a small town in Wyoming, and I've kept up with your work in the NR (just as I did with former NR man Garry Wills -- your discussion over Pope Benedict was fine web-viewing, in my opinion), enough to know and appreciate your positions. A few years ago I ended up, with a few other fairly conservative students, as a seminarian at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Union had a liberal reputation, but that seemingly had to do with their somewhat shocking policy of tolerance towards all variations on the Christian faith. My fellow conservatives (the Methodist from Texas, the Pentecostal from rural Georgia) engaged in some of the liveliest, most emotional debates of our lives with the other students there. We were all, to a man, students as well of James Cone. I encourage you, if you have even the slightest bit of time and inclination, to seek out and read the whole of the man's work within context. His personal story is courageous, his insights troubling, and his rhetoric in the neighborhood of dangerous. But we are all better Americans for debating him. It fills me with a pain I can't even describe to hear someone of your writing ability retreat into the appositive "insanity" when speaking of black liberation theology. I ask this as an admirer. I

I would like to know how, and where, Mr. Tiller came up with his info that the quote from Cone is a hoax, a fabrication, and a lie. So, where did you find this Mr. Tiller?
I have spent the better part of an evening/night running down 'black liberation', black power, etc. etc., and there is much convincing evidence that he not only said these things, but things are much worse than I perceived. I had no idea, yeah, I'm naive, that all Christians did not necessarily believe in faith, hope, love, and getting along with other humans, be they black, white, purple or green. Some of these so called Christians would scare me, if I were given to fear. I realize not everyone that says they are a Christian truly is one. Show me the fruit, kindness, gentleness, meekness, humility, etc.!

Here's a Syllogism for you.

Major Premise - Wright is "a typical" Black person dressed in Liberation Theology.

Minor Premise - Obama is "a typical" Politician dressed in Rhetoric.

Conclusion - Obama is "a typical" Wright dressed in Political Clothing.

As usual the racial divide is fully evident by the opinions displayed. It's not that "blacks need someone to blame ...", but that America is to blame and refuse to acknowledge it. Furthermore, America continues to set policies that keep black people struggling for a fair hand at life. Being a black man in a world dominated by the policies and rules set up by a racist whites society, I see exactly what these people are speaking of. No, I do not agree with everything they state nor attend their church, but it is a fact that America has put a great amount of effort in keeping the black man down. From the point of view of many black still stuck in poverty, America is not interested in true equality, freedom, and justice. The fact that whites dispel slavery as the major cause of the plight of the black man in this country and place the blame wholly on the black community further shows that this systems is not concerned with the advancement of the black community as a whole. So just as churches were used to organize underground movement to free slaves, march on Washington, and educate the under unprivileged, it still serves the peoples needs in ways the country itself do not see fit to. Also, the reason we have more than one religion and numerous denominations within each is because at some point a subset of the people felt ostracized by the rest and set out to do their own thing. In conclusion, its a black thing and you wouldn't understand. Whites, as a whole, have never had to suffer oppression under another race and enforced by the law and policies of the land in modern history so how could they.

Black Liberation Theology is really little more than a racist Marxist excuse to commit violence against white people. To really get an quick idea of what Black Liberation Theology is, read quotes from its founder's book at http://obamatheology.blogspot.com.

Its great to see misinterpretations on all sides...From christ words,to Wrights words,Cones words so on an so forth...all of you make me laugh,the lack of cultural understanding is enormous in America.
Fear Fear whites scared of black and Blacks scared of whites and for what...?

The only liberation theology I can find in the Bible is"saved by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ". Seems to me that the liberation theology movement today is making the same mistake
that the Jews made in the time of Christ. They were expecting a Messiah to liberate them from the political control of the Roman Empire, not One who would liberate them from the penalty of sin.

Why are you still lying? The truth is in your bible. God said the truth will come out of the lie. First the lie, Jesus is not white, all of the writers in the bible were black. This info we ( black people ) have found in your lie to christans for your ideas of this book. Only to see you are liers in all that you speak on. Your forefathers have lied to you too. He said you all were of God, an the closes thing to him, only to find out that you are not. So in closing who cares what you white people think, you have got us the blacks in america to deal with, so go come up with some more lies, because we do not see any truth in you, or your people.

The gospel was given to the jew first and then to the gentile. Gentiles are All of us who are not jews. Jews were and are the chosen people of God, and no people group has ever suffered more oppression and discrimination and mass murder than they have. They have been enslaved, inprisoned and slaughtered for thousands of years. Greg articulated this perfectly. Christ came to liberate the world from sin. When asked what is the greatest of all of the commandments Christ said, "love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul and strength, and second lover others as your self." It is quite clear who understands the gospel of Jesus Christ, those who have been set free love God and Love others. Not sentimental love, but those who put the needs of other before their own. On this point Rev. Wright may be correct but for the wrong reason, God may damn America and Rev. Wright as well, but only for the rejection of the grace and freedom offered in Christ Jesus alone.