Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
If it was that simple we would be in agreement between the differences of Wright's personal views and Black theology.
About Wright's "personal views," here's the thing (and this is the basis for my entire argument), he tells his people from the pulpit that it's "in the bible." Where? This is what's in my bible, and I'm sure in Wright's bible in Romans 12:
Quote:
Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
And in Philippians 2:
Quote:
Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
The church has one universal basis - the bible - and in spite of varying interpretations in some areas the above principles are clear.
Quote:
And what racist theology would that be?.
What is the goal of a black theology of liberation? Is it a society in which blacks are given special treatment and rights? No. All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less.
That's not true, if it were that simple we would have no objection. Black theology is "reductionist," it reduces the gospel to one theme, liberation of the oppressed - and then takes it further in concluding this must be seen from the viewpoint of blacks. Wright's mentor, Cone, basically says whites as the oppressors must become "black." From an interview with William Hordern:
Quote:
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.
I'm sorry, but I don't need counsel "on how to be black."
Quote:
In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, "If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' (Psalm 10:14) to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper' (Psalm 72:12).
As if blacks are the only ones that are fatherless, needy and poor - and if they are they still find their hope through black theology? Again from the interview:
Quote:
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.
What the heck kind of theology says "but I hope they are not excluded from my interpretation of the gospel?" The very idea of "black theology" is exclusionary. Any objective person should take offense at a gospel based on black "authenticity." My bible says nothing of black "authenticity" as a requirement to be "liberated" by "the God the oppressed." Yes there is a need and obligation to literally liberate the oppressed, but this theology detracts from the gospel message of our need to be freed from the bondage of sin.
Quote:
Black liberation theologians do not intend to allow the church--whether it be white or black--to evade this responsibility. It "cannot say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy. Having come before God as nothing and being received by him into his Kingdom through grace, the Christian should know that he has been made righteous (justified) so that he (or she) can join God in the fight for justice. Therefore, whoever fights for the poor, fights for God; whoever risks his life for the helpless and unwanted, risks his life for God."
No? Why can the church not "say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy" if that's the truth? The scriptures warn specifically of what happens to the "slothful" or the "sluggard." Should we not also?
Quote:
Precisely what this entails is not always clear to whites. For them, loving one's neighbor "becomes emotional and sentimental. This sentimental, condescending love accounts for their desire to "help" by relieving the physical pains of the suffering blacks so they can satisfy their own religious piety and keep the poor powerless."
Talk about condescending BS, my concern and love for others is colorblind and if I catch myself doing anything for my "own religious piety" I quickly remind myself it's not about me. In the case of race relations it's more guilt than emotion and sentimentality, culturally, socially or self-imposed guilt off which black theology feeds. That is a barrier in race relations, a detriment to Christian theology and invariably defeats the purpose of "liberation" theology. There can be no liberation when one side is imposing guilt on the other.
Quote:
But advocates of a black theology of liberation will not allow whites to get off so easy. "Authentic love is not 'help,'" Cone writes, "not giving Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is the kind of power which enables blacks to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity."
No, releasing oneself from bitterness, hatred and extending forgiveness is the path to power and dignity. Walter Williams gets it:
I, Walter E. Williams, do declare full and general amnesty and pardon to all persons of European ancestry, for both their own grievances, and those of their forebears, against my people.
Therefore, from this day forward Americans of European ancestry can stand straight and proud knowing they are without guilt and thus obliged not to act like damn fools in their relationships with Americans of African ancestry.
Quote:
We (our nation as a whole) have made great strides, but why would respecting the hardships of African-Americans and understanding their plight as using their church as a haven to foster equality, not apply yesterday or today? I give them space to speak their peace or make their case and I'm not even a Christian.
Bobby, you keep acting as if I begrudge them a haven and understanding and besides the fact that I don't, it has nothing to do with my point on "black theology."
Quote:
But yet Wright's extreme views, which BTW often abandon Black theology, are not his assumptions? Huh? Hagee has Catholics and Jews on greased sleds aimed toward a fiery eternal furnace. And yet one goofball's assumption is justified over another's? I wouldn't encourage that to be used as a defense. :eek:
The assumptions I referred to are on the part of Hagee's critics, not Hagee himself. Those who call him anti-semitic are working on assumptions also. But if he deserves criticism then he deserves criticism, just base it on the facts.
Quote:
You got to be kidding me? McCain's a distortion to himself. Every time the Republicans actually let Bozo-McCain out to play they end having to do damage control and the Dems are not even focusing on him yet. :p
That's weak. A heck of a lot weaker than having to explain the "bitterness" of gun totin' religious fanatics, a 20 year relationship with a mentor the thinks the US invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks or hanging out with terrorists. The DNC commercial is blatantly dishonest and they know it.
