Search
Search results
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/beb/ec225f55-da68-424d-b371-6e9d7a048beb.jpg?m=1529787266)
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/a19/67cad57c-4ae8-4372-9511-0b2fd9167a19.jpg?m=1522325112)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 (2015) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
Thank God these movies are over
Another movie I got dragged to this year by my better half, I haven’t seen part one of this two part movie, but I could still tell it was a book that had been split into two parts. Uninteresting characters and performances and naff source material makes this one to miss.
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/c7e/694e65bf-1fae-46e5-8647-a233c6682c7e.jpg?m=1522356146)
Chris Hooker (419 KP) rated Island of the Unknowns in Books
Jan 12, 2018
My first response as I read [Island of the Unknowns] by [Benedict Carey] was "Oh God there is math in it!" Needless to say I overcame my phobia and pushed on to find out it was a great mystery book. Yes, it did have math but they were the clues and I think this book shows a fun and practical use for math.
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/aa6/ac300a91-756f-423d-8397-93abf9558aa6.jpg?m=1535755908)
Billie Wichkan (118 KP) rated Maid for the Rock Star (Romance Island Resort, #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2019
A very enjoyable read.
This book is definitely feisty and fun.
Another good strong woman character.
This is book 1 of a trilogy so the story is not completed. To know what happens to the relationship between the Rock God and the less than impressed Housekeeper you need to read book 2. It leaves you wanting more in a good way.
This book is definitely feisty and fun.
Another good strong woman character.
This is book 1 of a trilogy so the story is not completed. To know what happens to the relationship between the Rock God and the less than impressed Housekeeper you need to read book 2. It leaves you wanting more in a good way.
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/6b0/5e648eba-5fbc-482c-8a50-5aa4dc3966b0.jpg?m=1522327583)
Andy Seabrook (0 KP) rated The Lost Boys (1987) in Movies
Mar 9, 2018
Love this cult classic
Contains spoilers, click to show
I first watched this film when I was only 15 years old.i love it then and love it now. Badass biker vamps . Teenage problems etc. I think i acted like the frog bothers at that age!!Haha. The actors action everything rocks!!
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/3e2/6a339616-6746-4c4e-b139-ec4c4d8e03e2.jpg?m=1522355599)
Alicia S (193 KP) rated Thoughtful (Thoughtless, #1.5) in Books
Sep 28, 2018
Beautiful and heartbreaking.. God, I LOVE this series!! Enjoyed taking my time with this book, savoring every precious moment and thought in his head as well as revisiting this incredible story. Ive always loved Kiera, feeling so much like her, with her constant insecurities and nervousness. Reliving it all again thought Kellan's POV was heart wrenching... but I loved every moment ;-)
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/3e2/6a339616-6746-4c4e-b139-ec4c4d8e03e2.jpg?m=1522355599)
Alicia S (193 KP) rated Captive in the Dark (The Dark Duet, #1) in Books
Sep 28, 2018
My god did this book mess with my head!? I've apparently got a thing for dark, twisted, sick books and this one was right up there!? I struggled through every word, yet couldn't put it down!? Had to immediately jump into book #2 and I'm still shaking... If you're a lover of dark reads, be sure to check out this series!!
![Movies Are Prayers](/uploads/profile_image/546/ccbdf14a-965b-4649-8ce0-1551b43b7546.jpg?m=1522362126)
Movies Are Prayers
Book
How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings Movies are our way of telling God what we think about this...
Christianity film movie prayer
![James MacDonald – Walk in the Word Audio](/uploads/profile_image/5cd/758e7fc0-17f9-451d-b0a3-b16fb0c195cd.jpg?m=1522362367)
James MacDonald – Walk in the Word Audio
Podcast
Pastor James MacDonald preaches without apology straight from the pages of Scripture, provoking...
![Nehemia's Wall Podcast](/uploads/profile_image/716/edf72c21-0a2e-4c15-a54d-e6c017e48716.jpg?m=1522361927)
Nehemia's Wall Podcast
Podcast
Israeli Bible scholar Nehemia Gordon uncovers ancient Hebrew sources to empower people with...