This past week I attended a conference organized by the Ekklesia Project on the topic of race and racism in the Church. Before the conference I read James Cone’s 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation and after reading it I felt ashamed that it had taken me so long to read one of his books in its entirety. I’m currently devouring one of his later books, God of the Oppressed, and I am increasingly sure that Cone is one of the most important contemporary American theologians, hands down.
Of course, Cone has been associated with the controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright in recent months, and his Black Theology has been condemned by various pundits and bloggers. (Mostly white dudes, of course.) This is to be expected, if we take Jesus at his word: “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5: 11-12).
To get a taste of Cone himself, unfiltered by FOX News or Rush Limbaugh, check out the interview above. Also be sure to check out David Horstkoetter’s collection of posts on Obama/Wright/Cone. He suggests you check out Bill Moyers’ interview with Cone as well in which he elaborates on his recent work on the cross and the lynching tree.
Oh, this will be fun. I think you’re right Mike, Cone is extremely important, if not the most. And I’m glad you find the posts worthy of passing on.
David – God of Oppressed is blowing me away even more than A Black Theology of Liberation, both in terms of content and in terms of method. Of all the liberationists I have read, he has the most methodological clarity, I think. It would be good to “do what he is doing” in my own work on Appalachia. And not only is he an important model for theological method, the content of his theology will be important to engage in the context of a region that struggles with race/racialism/racism.
Did you take any courses with him at Union?
And yes, I’m looking forward to the responses. Let the good times roll.
Cone is an interesting and important figure. Looking into his work for another project, though, he seems to me to very problematic for several reasons….
Black Theology and Black Power is among the first arguments of institutional racism. He is pretty vicious – in my view – in his view of “white” American Christianity, and he wants an “authentic” Christianity of the poor and oppressed, essentially saying that white people are not qualified to speak of Christianity because their racial attitudes inherently disqualify them.
“Middle class white ideas” found in white seminaries are not to be trusted because a black consciousness must be built. I think this is a poison in the well of Christ’s universal message of love so as to pursue an abstract ideology of racial pride. I think it can also be used as a foundation to legitimize distrust, perhaps even hatred (Cone has used heated language, including “holocaust”).
It is always problematic when would-be leaders wish to politicize Christ, right or left. Cone shares similar critiques with 60s and 70s style Marxists, especially in My Soul Looks Back where he writes very favorably about the black church and socialism (an end to racism requires the destruction of capital-based economies).
One question for those sympathetic to liberation theology, black or otherwise: how far, and to what end? Might not the political constructs of earth be a distraction, too easy in its temptation to seek power and influence? Is not the personal quest for Full Communion with Christ, with the necessary help of many along the way, our true aim and reason for being?
Cone argues that liberation theology is a cure for the false Christianity of white folks and middle-class blacks who are angry with American society only because they want a larger piece of the capitalist system. He wants to build a completely new society – well, good luck. I hope it does not interfere with our universal command by God to the Greatest Commandment and the Golden Rule, but there is reason to suspect such an all-consuming project will.
Cone has admitted that his early work was harsh. Not sure if he uses the word “vicious.” Put yourself in his place, though. Would you be harsh?
…essentially saying that white people are not qualified to speak of Christianity because their racial attitudes inherently disqualify them.
No, he says white people who are racist are not really Christians. This seems obvious to me.
I think this is a poison in the well of Christ’s universal message of love so as to pursue an abstract ideology of racial pride.
Jesus’ “universal message of love” was directed to the poor and oppressed first. It is only universal because it is particular first. He does not pursue an “abstract ideology of racial pride.” His theology is particular and concrete. It is Western academic theology which has been mostly abstract, in his view. (A view that I tend to share.)
I think it can also be used as a foundation to legitimize distrust, perhaps even hatred…
I’m looking forward to the last chapter of God of the Oppressed which looks like it addresses this very question. Presumably you have read it?
Cone has used heated language, including “holocaust”.
So have “pro-life” activists, but something tells me you would have no problem with that. “Holocaust” seems to be a fitting word for what Cone is talking about in his work.
It is always problematic when would-be leaders wish to politicize Christ, right or left.
No, not always. It’s not a problem at all when theologians re-politicize Christ in a manner in keeping with the ways in which Jesus was indeed political. The political reading of Jesus that Cone presents is right on target, for example when he links the cross with the lynching of blacks in the south.
Looks Back where he writes very favorably about the black church and socialism….
What’s wrong with speaking favorably about the black church??? As for socialism, you do know that your Pope speaks favorably about socialism, don’t you?
how far, and to what end?
I can’t follow Cone everywhere. As a pacifist, I can’t agree with his “at all costs” language, for example.
Might not the political constructs of earth be a distraction, too easy in its temptation to seek power and influence?
When you’re being killed by political and economic powers, concern with those powers is not a “distraction.” Seeking power and influence is not what the liberation theologians are after.
Is not the personal quest for Full Communion with Christ, with the necessary help of many along the way, our true aim and reason for being?
No. That’s gnosticism, not Christianity. Christianity is a historical and social religion.
He wants to build a completely new society – well, good luck.
Um, so does God.
I hope it does not interfere with our universal command by God to the Greatest Commandment and the Golden Rule, but there is reason to suspect such an all-consuming project will.
The commandments you speak of are some of the most basic inspirations of liberation theology.
We appear to disagree about Black Theology and Black Power, but you are certainly correct to recommend that people read it for themselves.
My opinion is that he advocates a racialist social revolution through state-organized collectivism as the most true expression of Christianity, and that this is antithetical to our duty to partake in the personhood of Christ, most especially through the raising of actions of politics and ideology under the guise of authentic religious experience, which lends itself far too much to the natural and always threatening boastfulness, status-seeking, and power-hungry state of human creation.
No. That’s gnosticism, not Christianity. Christianity is a historical and social religion.
Wrong. Christ calls us to Himself through the Sacraments. The final aim is heaven, Full Communion. This is not a call of abstract entities and the various means of human organization; it is one to all His broken children so that our fallen souls may be healed.
Um, so does God.
God wants to build a new society of government and systems? Really? I suppose you and Cone have a line for what this is to look like? Well, you both do, as do I: Matthew 7:12 “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
Is this not a simple direction to all people in their interactions with one another?
There is no collective sin and there is no collective redemption, aside from the Fall of which we are all victim and the Restoration of Christ of which we may all partake. In the times between, as we live our lives through the many decisions which may give glory or pain to God, we are all called by the same natural laws and the same rationality to exist according to God’s desire, most important through the Sacraments.
At the foundation of all social sin are the evils of moral decisions incorrectly decided.
I did take his Liberation theology class at Union. It was really good.
And Mike is right, Cone has somewhat tempered and retracted some statements. However, we ought not forget in which context his beginning work was written it — King had just been assassinated.
Also it should be noted that Liberation theology in general, and Cone in particular, uses Marxist thought as a way of critiquing the social order, however, not necessarily for all is it actually the solution. Even Father Tissa Balasuryia, silenced for The Eucharist and Human Liberation, found disagreement with the way socialism works to at least some degree and said himself that if capitalism were to come down and socialism were to replace it, the “enemy” then would be socialism. Cone over all seems less sympathetic with socialism that Balasurvia as he has now moved to Niebuhr over Barth, and seeks to some degree, liberation through the state.
Johnathanjones02, one not forget the experience of the Black church and the Black spirituals that came out of slavery and the subsequent years of “reconstruction.” It was religious experience that let slaves knew they were human and could fight to be recognized as human. Everything said by Cone is rooted in a very complex and long tradition. Also, Cone makes a specific and very important term — liberation theology is not necessarily about believer/nonbeliever, but between oppressed/oppressor. And in such a turn, no one is un-raced.
liberation theology is not necessarily about believer/nonbeliever, but between oppressed/oppressor. And in such a turn, no one is un-raced.
Yes, which is precisely my criticism: the view of radical transformation or social withdrawal is overly conducive to the temptations and successive troubles and distractions of earthly entaglements – regardless of the legitimacy of the structures being criticized – at the expense of following Christ’s simple yet radical command.
Whoops, sorry. Balasuriya wasn’t silenced for that book. He was later excommunicated and then brought back into the church for another book. But if I remember right, The Eucharist and Human Liberation still caused a stir.
liberation through the state
Has there ever been a more dangerous or foolish idea! The cult of state organized unity and liberation is fascism, a religion of the state assuming the organic unity of the body politic. It is totalitarian in that so much can come to be understood as political – and soon enough nearly any action by the state is justified so as to achieve the “common good.” This line of thought must be strongly resisted.
Earthly entaglements are not being able to get food or water to survive. I wouldn’t call hoping to not sell one’s body for food, something earthly, or one might come a bit too close to gnosticism.
And clearly you have a different understanding of what Christ commanded, but even in, say kingdom theology, there is a focus on God’s kingdom caring for people’s everyday needs.
The point is, this isn’t about critiquing for fun. This is for many survival as a human being. In fact, it would be wrong to call this social withdrawal because liberation engages the status quo. And as for radical transformation, if thats what it takes for the church to hold the light of the kingdom onto the world, then so be it. We’re supposed to do that anyways. Our bodies cannot be separated from our christianity, or then, what was the point of the cross.
I personally do not believe we have to give up believer/nonbeliever for the oppressed/nonoppressed. Rather, we should welcome both. Isn’t extreme unction a sacrament for the Catholics? And this is after the scholastics got ahold of theology. Even they seemed to think taking care of other people’s bodies is important.
Ah, but johathan, doesn’t a lot of American Christians vote? How about the flag? I’ve seen conversations on here before and I’d say there are plenty who would say what you say, but still bow to the civil religion of the state. We cannot double speak.
I for one am suspicious as far as liberation theology works within the state. However, this does not make liberation theology something to forget. In fact, I think it works without the state even better. Not using R. Niebuhr I think improves when we realize that the ecclelsia is supposed to be liberative. Case in point, Oscar Romero.
We appear to disagree about Black Theology and Black Power…
Well, I don’t know since I haven’t read that book. I am basing my understanding of Cone on the two books I mentioned above.
Wrong. Christ calls us to Himself through the Sacraments. The final aim is heaven, Full Communion.
You said above that the “true” goal of human life is a mere “personal quest.” This is simply 100% wrong. It is not a Catholic view of salvation. I’m not expressing a personal theological opinion here, but the teaching of the Church. A good articulation of this, off the top of my head, is de Lubac’s Catholicism.
God wants to build a new society of government and systems? Really?
No. But this is not what you said above. You only said “new society.” And yes, God does want to build a new society; indeed, God already has. It’s called the Church. And the Church is called to participate in the building of a new heaven and a new earth. Remember?
There is no collective sin and there is no collective redemption, aside from the Fall…. At the foundation of all social sin are the evils of moral decisions incorrectly decided.
So which is it? Is there social sin or not? The Church teaches that there is.
…the view of radical transformation or social withdrawal is overly conducive to the temptations and successive troubles and distractions of earthly entaglements…
And your
RepublicatholicismRepublicanism resists those “temptations and successive troubles and distractions of earthly entaglements (sic)” in what way exactly?But if I remember right, The Eucharist and Human Liberation still caused a stir.
And it’s a brilliant book!
but even in, say kingdom theology, there is a focus on God’s kingdom caring for people’s everyday needs
Yes, without question. But not through any particular ideology (take your pick) operating within state coercion. The call of Christ is radically humanist and much more local: love your Lord God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. This is not to say that government must not be influenced by Christian values and ethics, but that we must always be on guard against efforts to reconstruct the powerful, organic, simple, and beautiful Golden Rule on a mass, coercive scale. It aids the pride of humans, possess many unintended and unforeseeable consequences, and distracts us from those whom God has placed in our immediate life path.
I read the transcript of the Bill Moyers interview — he comes across as a lot less violent and angry as his 1960′s works. (I imagine a lot of theologians were spouting some stuff in the 1960′s they’d rather not identify with nowadays).
Consider Cone circa 1960′s:
“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”
[and]
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.
Now, the Cone of 2008 is much more refined — I can understand what he’s getting at in his Moyers interview as to a reconciliation between blacks and whites:
“It would mean that we would talk about the lynching tree. We would talk about slavery. We would talk about the good and the bad all mixed up there. We would begin to see ourselves as a family. Martin King called it the beloved community. That’s what he was struggling for.”
as well as in a recent address The Cross and the Lynching Tree:
It’s reminiscent of the way Hebrew Christians view, for instance, Christ’s suffering as implicit in the Holocaust. As I understand it, Cones’ takes what he perceives to be the defining experience of the black man in America — being lynched — and formulates this theology through that prism. (The Holocaust has similarly resulted in a number of Jewish theological perspectives as they reconcile God’s faithfulness with their experience).
So on that level I see where he’s coming from.
Based on what little I’ve read — and I freely admit I haven’t read his books — my concern about a theology which grounds itself in an identification of Christ with the black race is the danger of fueling reverse racism; likewise a theology which grounds itself in the identification of Christ with the poor is a failure to see Christ in those who are better off materially.
St. Paul said that “in Christ there is no Jew nor Gentile”; I’d like to think the same with respect to race — not to cast a blind eye to injustice, but — and this may sound naive — I’d hope that would be the goal of Cone as well as every Christian to judge his neighbor not according to race or class but as a brother/sister in Christ.
My other concern is that when one equates lynching first to the cross, and then asserts that “the lynching of black America is taking place in the criminal justice system” — personal accountability seems to get lost in the mix.
“One-half of the two million people in prisons are black. That is one million black people behind bars, more than in colleges.” Now, I’d agree that’s a terrible statistic, and there are certainly unjust circumstances that may have contributed to this, but it would be ludicrous to deem it necessarily an injustice or a lynching when a black is tried, convicted and incarcerated.
jonathan it seems as though you talk out both sides of your mouth when it comes to the state. Above you are suspicious of the state, and yet you are also adamantly opposed to any idea of “radical transformation,” including, I assume, the dismantling of the state. In other words, you distrust the state but seem to want to do anything to preserve the status quo.
You said above that the “true” goal of human life is a mere “personal quest.”
No I didn’t. I will try to avoid false characterization, seeking clarity as needed, and hope you are willing to do the same. Please reread.
So which is it? Is there social sin or not? The Church teaches that there is.
Collective human sin aside from the Fall is not social sin. Of course there is social sin. These, again, are rooted in the sinful decisions sinful man makes far too frequently.
And your Republicatholicism Republicanism resists those “temptations and successive troubles and distractions of earthly entaglements (sic)” in what way exactly?
If you refrain from epithets and condensation, and make your question more specific, I will try my best to answer.
jonathan it seems as though you talk out both sides of your mouth when it comes to the state. Above you are suspicious of the state, and yet you are also adamantly opposed to any idea of “radical transformation,” including, I assume, the dismantling of the state. In other words, you distrust the state but seem to want to do anything to preserve the status quo.
You assume far too much. First, I am here expressing suspicions of state-organized unity so as to achieve a vision of collective redemption (this would certainly be a “radical transformation” that must be strongly opposed for reasons stated in my 1:45 and 1:56 comments). This implicates nothing of the existence of the state itself, although if you want my personal view of the state I am planning posts in August after summer school on exactly that question. As for wanting to “do anything to preserve the status quo” – the leap of supposed logic necessary to make this charge is present exactly where in my responses to this post?
At the risk of being one of the ones that perhaps will be labled as one of the
” men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you”
I think some of his stuff is troublesome. I do enjoy his analogy and think there is truth in Lynching and the Cross. That really touches me. However why do I get the feeling he now sort of has jumped over into a another sad history of the Cross. That is the individual guilt and collective guilt of a race for this new kind of Cross itself. That being how that was used against the Jews forever as to the old cross it appears we shall have individual and collective guilt over the new Cross.
As to his comments about the Justice system let me speak as a Former Prosecutor. The majority of the people I prosecuted were African American. People were getting lynched for sure. That were their victims . Victims that were 80 to 90 percent Black. Where does the Lynching tree fit into that
He says:
“The cross can also redeem white lynchers, and their descendants, too, but not without profound cost, not without the revelation of the wrath and justice of God, which executes divine judgment, with the demand for repentance and reparation, as a presupposition of divine mercy and forgiveness. Most whites want mercy and forgiveness, but not justice and reparations; they want reconciliation without liberation, the resurrection without the cross.”
I suppose I qualify in this group as being a “desecendant”. What sort of wrath, divine judgment, reparation and repentance is expected of me because of my “whiteness”?
Perhaps he has elaborated elsewhere.
Real quick JH, and to an extent Christopher, the lynching tree fits into the prisons in dealing with the ghettoization. When poor people are forced into small living spaces and restricted, people lash out to keep above the water. The forcing of people to live like that, or for white/economically “gifted” to flee to the suburbs, leaves the ghettos/inner cities with little recourse in many respects and functions as a way to economically suppress them — to lynch a community. (Which by the way, was what lynchings were, it was a way of keeping the “black in check” as a whole as well.) This doesn’t deny individual responsibility, however, if having to eat because getting and keeping a couple of jobs in order to live may be too much to handle, and to steal is part of the means to provide, well, then that trumps some rich, white man’s law who made the rules without talking to you about what you care about.
Is not the personal quest for Full Communion with Christ, with the necessary help of many along the way, our true aim and reason for being?
…and:
There is no collective sin and there is no collective redemption, aside from the Fall of which we are all victim and the Restoration of Christ of which we may all partake
…are excellent expressions of the Protestant flavour of American Catholicism. They are very good representations of the neo-Lutheran notion that one gets into “heaven” by believing, not by doing good works. It’s practically the same version of Christianity that goes to Latin America and tells the eviscerated poor down there to shut up, obey their exploitive employers and wait for “pie-in-the-sky-after-death”—to, in other words, forget entirely about the project of “building” here on earth the Kingdom” (which is, I agree, the “Church”—but the “Church” as a much more inclusive project than most of the Fundamentalist Catholics who write here would have it be).
This is, temperamentally and culturally, the exact opposite of traditional (and European) Catholicism, which affirms, along with the Orthodox Church, that Church’s saying, “One goes to perdition alone, but one goes to Heaven only in full communion with one’s brothers and sisters.”
No, he says white people who are racist are not really Christians. This seems obvious to me.
Interesting theory . . . if having sinful attitudes and thoughts makes someone not a Christian, then none of us are Christians. None. Including you.
No, not always. It’s not a problem at all when theologians re-politicize Christ in a manner in keeping with the ways in which Jesus was indeed political.
Jesus was not political, not at all. Show me the verse where he ever says anything about the Roman Empire other than urging radical submission to it (i.e., if a Roman soldier asks you to carry something one mile, carry it for two).
“Real quick JH, and to an extent Christopher, the lynching tree fits into the prisons in dealing with the ghettoization. When poor people are forced into small living spaces and restricted, people lash out to keep above the water. The forcing of people to live like that, or for white/economically “gifted” to flee to the suburbs, leaves the ghettos/inner cities with little recourse in many respects and functions as a way to economically suppress them — to lynch a community”
I read that part as to small spaces and ghettoizatio. The problem is the Ghetto” seems to have expanded at least in the negative ordinary sense of the term that peole have. I am not exactly sure what happen after the Civil Rights movement and their are various factors. BUt why did relative crime free and even lower middle and middle upper classs black neighborhoods go the dogs as to crime and economics
That part of this I realize is because the success of integration. That the black business and black middle class that was a product of depending often alon eon the black community . However I am not sure how thqat accounts for all the rising crime and economic duress over a period of time in areas that did not have it for
It was going OK until 6:55, when he lets loose with one of the stupidest things ever said: “There are nine Supreme Court Justices, all of them white as far as I’m concerned. One may look black, but he’s white.”
[JH] … That is the individual guilt and collective guilt of a race for this new kind of Cross itself. That being how that was used against the Jews forever as to the old cross it appears we shall have individual and collective guilt over the new Cross.
You nailed it, JH. No pun intended. Howbeit it seems for some the collective guilt we bear for being white can be expunged with cash (“reparations”).
[JH] The majority of the people I prosecuted were African American. People were getting lynched for sure. That were their victims . Victims that were 80 to 90 percent Black.
On that note, see: , by Heather MacDonald. City Journal
[d. w. horstkoetter] When poor people are forced into small living spaces and restricted, people lash out to keep above the water. The forcing of people to live like that, or for white/economically “gifted” to flee to the suburbs, leaves the ghettos/inner cities with little recourse in many respects and functions as a way to economically suppress them — to lynch a community. … This doesn’t deny individual responsibility, however, if having to eat because getting and keeping a couple of jobs in order to live may be too much to handle, and to steal is part of the means to provide, well, then that trumps some rich, white man’s law who made the rules without talking to you about what you care about.
I’m afraid “personal accountability before the law” gets lost in the forest of excuses here. Sorry, but “the white man made me do it” doesn’t fly, and “thou shalt not kill” hardly sounds like a “rich, white man’s law.” A life of crime, gang-banging and drug-dealing may be immediately lucrative, an easy way out compared to the disciplined life of school and working an honest job. Nobody forces you to choose the former or abandon the latter.
Correction: See: Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist?, by Heather MacDonald. City Journal. Spring 2008.
INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE
“THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION”
Nor can one localize evil principally or uniquely in bad social, political, or economic “structures” as though all other evils came from them so that the creation of the “new man” would depend on the establishment of different economic and socio- political structures. To be sure, there are structures which are evil and which cause evil and which we must have the courage to change. Structures, whether they are good or bad, are the result of man’s actions and so are consequences more than causes. The root of evil, then, lies in free and responsible persons who have to be converted by the grace of Jesus Christ in order to live and act as new creatures in the love of neighbor and in the effective search for justice, self-control, and the exercise of virtue. [13] To demand first of all a radical revolution in social relations and then to criticize the search for personal perfection is to set out on a road which leads to the denial of the meaning of the person and his transcendence, and to destroy ethics and its foundation which is the absolute character of the distinction between good and evil. Moreover, since charity is the principle of authentic perfection, that perfection cannot be conceived without an openness to others and a spirit of service.
You said above that the “true” goal of human life is a mere “personal quest.”
No I didn’t. I will try to avoid false characterization, seeking clarity as needed, and hope you are willing to do the same. Please reread.
If you refrain from epithets and condensation, and make your question more specific, I will try my best to answer.
Allow me to rephrase: You said that the goal of social transformation (and even social withdrawal) falls for the “temptations and successive troubles and distractions of earthly entaglements (sic).” (You may need to reword that, though, because I’m not sure you’re being very clear.) What I’m asking is in what way your own own approach to politics (Republicanism) resists those same “temptations and successive troubles and distractions of earthly entaglements (sic).”
…are excellent expressions of the Protestant flavour of American Catholicism.
Yes, indeed. It’s rampant around here, isn’t it?
Interesting theory . . . if having sinful attitudes and thoughts makes someone not a Christian, then none of us are Christians. None. Including you.
Racism is not a merely a sinful attitude or thought. It’s systemtic as well. And of course Cone would agree that all of us sin personally and can receive forgiveness. But this implies the recognition that the sin is actually a sin. When he says racist Christians are not Christians he is talking about those who do not recognize racism as a sin, or who continue to believe that they can be racist and Christian at the same time. Both are quite common among Christians. Individual Christians and the Church as a whole have justified racism. This is what he is attacking as being anti-Christian.
Jesus was not political, not at all.
You are blind then. Nothing I could point you to would convince you. The Gospel is for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. You seem to have neither.
It was going OK until 6:55, when he lets loose with one of the stupidest things ever said: “There are nine Supreme Court Justices, all of them white as far as I’m concerned. One may look black, but he’s white.”
Why’s that? He would also say it’s possible to look white (as a symbol of being an oppressor) and to not be white.
david (the one who quoted the CDF document), I encourage you to check out the later pro-liberation theology document “Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation” (March 22, 1986).
T. Shaw – Your racist comments are not going to be tolerated here. Another comment like your last one and you will be banned.
“…are excellent expressions of the Protestant flavour of American Catholicism. They are very good representations of the neo-Lutheran notion that one gets into “heaven” by believing,”
Digby jonathan’s words don’t say anything to that effect. You’re reading into what he said.
What I’m asking is in what way your own own approach to politics (Republicanism) resists those same “temptations and successive troubles and distractions of earthly entanglements
My own approach to politics is anti-utopia, anti-collectivist, anti-government organized unity, and anti-ideology. It is in favor of representatives arguing the various – and unavoidable, on account of human sin – problems of their portion of humanity with the Golden Rule in mind, and looking always to cross-generational wisdom. This is conservative in the vein of the man who founded conservatism, Edmund Burke. There can be no lost cause because there are no gained causes, and life is full of trade-offs.
Digby jonathan’s words don’t say anything to that effect. You’re reading into what he said.
Exactly correct, and far too often an occurrence.
Zach – The Protestantism in jonathan’s comments is his insistence that salvation is merely personal union with Christ: “Is not the personal quest for Full Communion with Christ, with the necessary help of many along the way, our true aim and reason for being?”
“Wrong. Christ calls us to Himself through the Sacraments. The final aim is heaven, Full Communion.”
This is indeed very Protestant. I’ve noted this before about Jonathan’s outlook. For me, de Lubac was eye-opening on the point of the social and communal nature of Christianity. Consider some quotes:
“the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, a supernatural unity, supposes a previous natural unity, the unity of the human race.”
“the same mysterious participation in God which causes the soul to exist effects at one and the same time the unity of spirits among themselves.”
“we ought not to speak on man in the plural any more than we speak of three Gods”
“all infidelity to the divine image that man bears in him, every breach with God, is at the same time a disruption of human unity. It cannot eliminate the natural unity of the human race– the image of God, tarnished though it may be, is indestructible– but it ruins that spiritual unity, which, according the the Creator’s plan, should be so much the closer in proportion as the supernatural union of man with God is the more completely affected.”
The Church fathers saw original sin as separation, sundering, “individualization”, and redemption is about “the recovery of lost unity– the recovery of supernatural unity of man with God, but equally of the unity of men among themselves.”
Michael – What are you talking about? He didn’t say salvation is merely personal union with Christ. Also, in the sense he is speaking, MERE personal Union with Christ is everything – it is the one thing that really and truly matters forever. This is not Protestantism, this is the whole point of Christianity – to get souls to heaven, where we share Christ’s life.
I think you are committing the Protestant error – inferring that personal Union with Christ, deep faith, is somehow exclusive of good works. Jonathan can speak for himself, but I’m sure he would affirm the necessity of faith and works, and that they are part of the same tree.
“I am increasingly sure that Cone is one of the most important contemporary American theologians.”
Is this some sort of joke?
MM and MI: your political views impact too much. The Catechism labels the Eucharist as the end of all the Sacraments, the Source and Summit of our existence, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church. The end goal of life is to love and be loved – love of Christ and love of our neighbor as ourself.
It is vulgar to politicize such a call in an abstraction of a personal view of government organized unity, especially to the point of insinuation about the religious life of another by comparison to yourself.
Zach – What I am talking about is the quote that I cited of his. Re-read it. Basically, you are defending him by saying he didn’t say “merely” but then you insist that had he said “merely” he would be correct. (!!)
Your charge that I am committing a Protestant error is unclear. Do you mean “implying” instead of “inferring”? And what do you mean that “faith… is somehow exclusive of good works”?
MM and MI: your political views impact too much.
If anything, it’s the other way around. My faith impacts everything, including politics. For you, politics is something separate from faith… except in cases where you want faith to inform politics. Your dualistic mindset prevents you from going all the way.
I agree with what you said about the Eucharist. But the Eucharist includes the social and the political.
Loving one’s neighbor does not need to be “politicized.” It is already political.
…in an abstraction of a personal view of government organized unity…
I have no idea what this phrase means.
…especially to the point of insinuation about the religious life of another by comparison to yourself.
I’m not comparing myself with anyone.
I think you are committing the Protestant error – inferring that personal Union with Christ, deep faith, is somehow exclusive of good works.
Yes.
Jonathan can speak for himself, but I’m sure he would affirm the necessity of faith and works, and that they are part of the same tree.
It should be unnecessary to do so. In the desire for Internet combat and the defense of overly personalized secular belief systems, small moments of charitable assumption tend to be lost, and we see foolishness such as name-calling and “questioning” the conversion of people you wouldn’t know from a stranger on the street (not here, but certainly in other threads).
No, LCB, you’re just out of the loop. Even by theologians who don’t like Cone, they recognize his significant contributions and find that they must engage him at some level.
For you, politics is something separate from faith… except in cases where you want faith to inform politics.
No, I just see no indication in Catholic teaching, or in the instructions of Christ to His Apostles, that we as Christians are required to do anything “political” other than follow the Golden Rule and participate in Christ, which is the Sacraments. THIS is what must inform all of our life, including the participation of human organization. If you wish to label these actions “political” then go ahead, but be careful of losing sight of the purpose of our existence, the love of Christ and the actual people He has placed in our path. Politics concerns earthly power. The radically humanist call of Christ stands above such status-seeking and asks that, in Christ, we all fulfill our potential to full communion.
No, I just see no indication in Catholic teaching, or in the instructions of Christ to His Apostles, that we as Christians are required to do anything “political” other than follow the Golden Rule and participate in Christ, which is the Sacraments.
Wow, how reductionistic can you get? The often parroted charge against liberationists is that they reduce Christianity to politics. You, on the other hand, want to reduce it to following the Golden Rule and reception of the sacraments. Verrrry American of you. That’s exactly the kind of Christianity the powers want you to have: the safe kind. “Be nice to people. Swallow your wafer.”
Somehow you must have overlooked the Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 25…. Just sit down and read the Gospels again.
How much disdain can you pack into one thread? Somehow you must have overlooked 1 Corinthians 13:13, Colossians 3:14 and 1 Timothy 1:5.
Michael I. I disagree with deleting T. Shaw’s comments. Sure, they were a bit one-sided,denying the obvious institutional racism, but there is an element of truth in what he was getting at. Don’t ya think? Personal responsibility is an issue, needs to be addressed in a stern tone. The murder rate, uncontrolled promiscuity anddrug use cannot be reduced to mere oppression.
Oh right, I forgot that Iafrate equivocates about the term “political,” such that “love thy neighbor” is political because it has something to do with our neighbors.
Let me put it this way: Neither Jesus nor the New Testament says a single word that indicates that the correct attitude for poor or oppressed people is to attack or criticize their oppressors.
To the contrary, the New Testament is very radical all the way around. To rich people, it says that you’re going to find it almost impossible to get to heaven, and that the love of money is the root of all evil. (If you find this reassuring in some sense, consider that if you have enough food, clean water, a sanitary place to poop, and you’re sitting comfortably at a computer reading these words, you’re richer than almost all humans who have ever lived.)
But to everyone else, the New Testament is equally unsettling and radical. There’s not one word in the New Testament that says, “Poor people of the world, cast off your chains, fight for your political rights, throw off the oppressors, demand political justice,” etc. Nothing could be more opposite to the New Testament, in fact. Instead, the New Testament offers commands like: pray for your enemies; love them that persecute you; obey the ruling (Roman) authorities, for they are ordained by God (for Michael’s sake, think of it this way: obey Bush and Cheney, for they are ordained by God); turn the other cheek; if the oppressor demands a coat, give him two; if the oppressor asks you to walk one mile, walk two. Even this: slaves, obey your masters.
All of that is shocking and truly radical. I don’t blame you at all if you’re one of the many people who just flat-out dislike and disregard the New Testament on points like this. I don’t like those teachings myself. At least I don’t pretend that the New Testament stands for the precise opposite message, however.
jonathan – Can you explain your choice of scripture passages?
david – If T. Shaw has something important to say, he is welcome to try again.
Yes Michael – salvation, being saved from sin and death, happens when we are ultimately and profoundly united with Christ – care to explain how everything I’ve ever been taught about Catholic Christianity is wrong?
(not to mention many stories in the Bible – Martha and Mary comes to mind)
This is very intertesting to me, thank you.
…care to explain how everything I’ve ever been taught about Catholic Christianity is wrong?
Frankly, it is obvious that I do not have the time for that.
SB – I think the word “political” is where we differ. Just because I insist on the political nature of the Gospel, of salvation, and of the Catholic faith does not mean that I advocate political revolution in the sense that you described in your last comment. I agree that the NT portrays a more subversive way of being political than marxist interpretations have generally presented. When it comes to liberation theology, I think it gets a lot of things right, and a few things wrong. But it depends on the theologian one is talking about; they do not all agree.
Does the NT call us to attack our oppressors? No. Just the opposite. Does it call us to criticize them? I would say yes. Despite the Romans 13 passages that everyone loves to cherry pick, the example of Jesus (as well as the majority of Paul’s writings) does not show “respect for the authorities.” Jesus had little respect for the religious authorities of the time, and he openly and fiercely denounces them. He mostly ignores the political authorities and goes about his ministry largely unconcerned with what they think of it. But obviously they had a problem with him or he would not have received a political death sentence. The few times we do see Jesus interacting with the political authorities (Pilate, for example), he is irreverent and deceptive.
Jonthan– what?? I am making a theological point, quoting de Lubac, who in turn reflects the teaching of the Church fathers when it comes to uniuty and the social nature of Christ’s redemption. What in God’s name does this have to do with government? You look at everything through a very narrow lens.
“A life of crime, gang-banging and drug-dealing may be immediately lucrative, an easy way out compared to the disciplined life of school and working an honest job. Nobody forces you to choose the former or abandon the latter.”
This is a ridiculous, ignorant statement. No urban youth turns to crime, gang-banging, or drug-dealing as an “easy way out.” If you would know what it’s like to grow up in a world in which very few options for success are presented before you, you’d acquire a hopeless outlook on life that would make it that much easier to turn to one of these options. I spent a summer on the west-side Chicago in one of the city’s worst neighborhoods, and it was heartbreaking how many youth there were who thought they’d be dead or in jail by 18. And no, they weren’t happy about it.
Plato: “Opinion is not truth.”
Me: “Metaphor is not truth.”
Ban me!
M I: “The truth is racist.”
T. Shaw, what’s the deal? Make a decision about how you want to behave here.
Nick, don’t bother telling most of the people here about the poor folk on Chicago’s west side: they have absolutely no heart to hear about them; they think “Christianity” is going to Church, taking the wafer in their mouths and “obeying Bush and Cheney,” as stated above. If that’s their idea of “Catholicism,” (and I’m pretty sure they’re the majority in America), I KNOW I want no part of “Catholicism.”
yeah, i just stumbled across this site recently and was excited; i even bookmarked it. but reading some of these posts and comments has made me lose my stomach. disappointing.
i’m glad to know catholics who are capable of thinking otherwise.
Nick – Take heart. Many of VN contributors “think otherwise.” Don’t let the quality of the comments fool you. :)
Michael –
“Frankly, it is obvious that I do not have the time for that.”
Real classy
Why’s that, you ask? Because Cone was talking about Clarence Thomas, and no one who has the slightest familiarity with Thomas’s opinions would seriously say that Thomas has a “white” viewpoint. If anything, Thomas has a black nationalist view (not surprising considering that he once supported the Black Panthers). See Mark Tushnet’s essay, “Clarence Thomas’s Black Nationalism” (available online) (note: don’t even bother trying to come up with an ad hominem; Tushnet is a law prof at Harvard, and a committed leftist/socialist).
SB: You’re right about that point, I think. To be quite honest, and perhaps it just shows my own preference/bias, much of Cone’s rhetoric seems to better put by Cornel West’s vision of prophetic hope. I fear that the “theological” interpretation that this attempts runs into some trouble that a philosophical one doesn’t. I still think, though, that the general message is poignant and needs to be pondered more, not less.
How could the golden rule not be political?
Is supporting a political regime that kills your neighbors not a violation of the golden rule?
Doesn’t it violate the golden rule to support a regime that encourages the “well off” to feel good about themselves by making sure there are poor and suffering around, so the “well off” can always be reminded, by contrast of their own success?
In any case, the claim that Christianity reduces to reception of the sacraments and following the golden rule is a pretty big howler.
Christ’s teaching is a systematic attack on the idea that following the golden rule is enough.
“Love thy neighbor as thyself” is infinitely different from “do unto others as you would have them to unto you”
What about “love thy enemies”? What about the teaching — of that nutcase, Christ — that it does one no credit to give to others in expectation of a return?
It would be wrong to reduce Christianity to reception of the Sacraments, but I don’t think Jonathan is trying to imply that the Gospel does not have political implications. Obviously it does, the way any belief system does if it is lived and believed authentically. The problem comes when Christianity is wedded to an ideology. It is as obnoxious when the Christian Right does it as when the Professor Cone does it, but they are both in dangerous territory.
The Golden Rule DOES have political implications but I would argue that it is not itself a political statement. The Sermon on the Mount was manifestly not intended as a constitution or a “bill of rights.” Jesus does not seem to have had any intention of founding a new state or a new political system, in fact some of His contemporaries were annoyed that he was not a political Messiah, a Messiah of revolution who would lead Israel out from the Roman yoke. What we can take away politically from the Sermon on the Mount is that to reform the state we need to reform ourselves, and then help other people to reform – as individuals, because that is the only way that change occurs, soul by soul. We don’t need revolution, we need evangelization.
aww! i cant believe i got here 64 comments late!
why do so many christians surrender SO MUCH to the powers that be?
my parents are evangelicals who believe that there will someday be a murderous, all-controlling government that enslaves human-kind and denies the power of the gospel….
…and of course they have no problems with american government over the last couple hundred years: genocide, broken treaties, slavery, whatever.
(and thank christ for james cone.)