Dr. Anthony Bradley of the Acton Institute thinks so.
In an interview with World Magazine, he says,
Q: From what does black liberation theology have to be liberated? Black theology has to be liberated from itself. Its primary anthropological presupposition is that humans are victims of social oppression: That is the starting point of a person’s identity. I want to switch the conversation and say, “Slavery happened, injustice happened because the devil is real and the Fall is real, so you’ll always have injustice. But the core of a person’s identity is that of the Imago Dei, being made in God’s image.”
Bradley has also made a website for his new book, Liberating Black Theology.
I think Black theology has served to liberate biblical truth from Western, white cultural captivity. And I think it has also served to bring a renewed emphasis on the image of God in human beings, not a neglect of it.
I am not yet convinced that simply because Black theology is coached in the historical experience of African Americans, it is in need of some special liberation White/European theology is not also in need of. If Black theology is in need of liberation from itself, the same can be said of every other theological framework.
Admittedly, I have not read this book so I do not know what arguments the author is employing. However, on the face of it, the author’s thesis appears suspect to me.
I am with you T.C.
My initial reaction and still is, is to apply a hermeneutic of suspicion. I find it suspect that the author would say “injustice will always be with us” because it gives in to a particular approach to ethic, detrimental to the oppressed, especially if you take Jesus’s words out of context (he was quoting Deuteronomy which has a lot to say about justice).
Injustice will NOT always be with us …ever heard of the eschaton??? We are called to live now as a reflection of THAT reality …the reality that God will put everything to rights!!
I agree, and God will put everything right, not in the great by and by, but in the here and now.
looks interesting. i think a good book in this area is “africa and the bible” by edwin yamauchi. as a japanese-american from hawaii, he’s in a unique position to tackle the subject.
I have heard of it and it was recommended in my postcolonial interpretation course, but I never got around to read Africa and the Bible.
What would the conversation between Anthony Bradley and Hugh Page be like? The latter says “Every experience — actual, imagined, or hoped for — is a prism for interpretation, a canon for appropriation.” And Page says, lives, so much more.
Well said, Dr. Gayle.
Fellas, seriously, are you this quick to jump to conclusions?
T.C. Moore said, “Injustice will NOT always be with us …ever heard of the eschaton???”
Of course I have. Please don’t draw too many conclusions from a few sentences excerpted from an hour long interview.
Until the devil the finally dealt with in the eschaton injustice and sin will be a part of the human story until the second coming.
I have a robust theology of the devil and the demonic world and the Scriptures no where indicate that the devil is going to stop bringing evil to world until Jesus comes back.
The biggest enemy of black people is Satan (1 Peter 5:8, Rev. 12:9-10, I John 3:8, John 8:44).
–Anthony Bradley, author “Liberating Black Theology”
Thank you Dr. Bradley for responding.
I have not come to any conclusions for your texts. I was simply asking questions, which in academy, persons take liberty with this all the time.
I hold in tension, with all theological texts, a hermeneutic of suspicion and a hermeneutic of hope (both criticism and appropriation) regardless of who the author is.
–Rod
Just as pressing is the need for African Americans to be liberated from myopic, orthodox biblical interpretations. Bradley’s project does not liberate (either the discipline OR Black bodies), but places more chains on communities and scholars keen on actually making sense of the historical messiness involving being black and Christian (or white and Christian, for that matter).
Furthermore, to suggest a program of liberation for black theology from itself while conflating projects as wide ranging as Cone’s, West’s and Wright’s is to not give those authors/pastors the space their projects require. Black theology is not a monolith, though Bradley’s inscription of an evangelical read of the bible onto these projects tries to make such a monolith… placing chains on the project of black liberation, not liberating it.
Furthermore, the notion that the imago dei solves the anthropological dilemma (that incidentally is intimately related to the issue of redemptive suffering and theodicy) is utterly ridiculous and implies a misread of Cone’s and West’s projects altogether. In Cone’s case, humans are not ontologically sufferers…rather, in Christ, Christians become ontological fighters against suffering. One either fights against suffering, or suffers because they are not human because to be human means to fight against injustice in the same way Jesus’ life indicates. In West’s program, his humanist and Marxist influence necessarily paint a positive picture on humanity. Ostensibly, there is no problem with anthropology because the humanist influence implies that humans are god, or are at least god’s hands. West’s project is problematic for Bradley and his apparent lack of a historical-critical method, but not for the liberation to which Black theology or African Americans in general aspire.
Lastly, in light of Bradley’s conflation of various black theological programs, what does he make of African American humanist liberation theology like that of Anthony Pinn? Obviously, per his real project of making black theology neo-orthodox, he would have a problem with humanism. But the goal of black LIBERATION theology, with Cone, West, Cleage, Pinn, and many others is to LIBERATE black people, not to necessarily make black people better Christians. In so far as black theology has attended to this liberation is debatable, but making black theology “truly Christian”, to paraphrase one of Bradley’s endorsers, is to miss the point of black theology altogether. If Bradley thinks liberation comes through evangelical Christianity, then he should just say so, and create a black theology rooted solely in neo-orthodox Christianity. Cone’s early interest in Barth provides a road map, in fact. But don’t criticize the whole theological movement because of disagreements about liberation.
I do agree with Bradley in one instance, that the biggest enemy to black people is Satan. But in the sense that Satan=Devil=White Devil=Ontological Whiteness and White supremacy. But the devil is a liar, and one lie he has apparently told Bradley is that the bible alone can liberate black people. Black folk have a long history with that book, and the majority of that history has seen that book serve as oppressor, not liberator. And as I reflect on this fact, it appears Bradley’s project of deconstructing black liberation theology using the Bible is just the latest example of that oppression.
Amen!
Not all black theological projects are alike.
And should we forget womanists and there scholarship? As if the womanist thing just did not happen? Just discount their works? I think not!
Thank you CMD!
