I am working my way through James Cone‘s God of the Oppressed. Come join me on my journey as I learn about Black Liberation Theology.
************
There are several pros and cons to Cone’s approach to interpreting Scripture. Indeed, many times, the positive aspects of Cone’s approach are at the same time negative aspects. Take, for example, one of the strongest aspects of Cone’s approach: the dialectic between Scripture and experience. Cone is correct that our cultural-socio-political environs affect how we read and interpret Scripture, and it is important for theologians to admit it, and also for students of theology to recognize it as they evaluate and interact with different theological positions. Unfortunately, in Cone’s work, this dialectic isn’t all that dialectical. While he says that Scripture is important (Cone, 29), experience takes priority. Experience influences his reading and presentation of Scripture, and there is little evidence of when or how Cone would allow Scripture to influence his experience. While it is true that Cone cites Scripture, he seems to pick and choose which passage of Scripture best fits to validate his theological model. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that the reason is because there is only so much space in a book of this type, but the tone of his writing suggests that he has a Marcionite approach to Scripture, ignoring or dismissing those passages, or even entire books, that don’t fit his theology.
This leads into the next strength and weakness of Cone’s approach, namely his emphasis on the Exodus event. It is true that the Exodus event was a transformative event for the people of Israel, an event that would lead to their formal covenant with Yahweh. Over and over, throughout the Old Testament, God reminds Israel that He was the God that brought them out of Egypt. This was a defining moment, one that Israel needed to look back on and remember in the annual Passover celebration. But by focussing so intently on the Exodus, Cone ignores other actions of God that are not based solely on liberation. For example, Cone starts his exploration of the Scriptures at the Exodus and ignores the book of Genesis. He ignores the promise to Abraham, and the possibility that God’s action of liberating Israel demonstrates that God is faithful, more so than it demonstrates that God is liberating. Cone suggests that Israel is God’s people “only because Yahweh has delivered them from the bondage of political slavery…” (Cone, 210). Exodus 2:23-25 suggests that Israel was already God’s people before he liberated them, that they were his people because of His promise to Abraham.
Indeed, even the Israelites, in recounting the history of their people and recounting the faithfulness of God, do not start with the Exodus. For example, in Nehemiah 9, after Israel has been released from exile in Babylon and have rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, they hear the Law read out to them, and they call out to God, repenting of their sins. In their prayer they start with the God who creates (Nehemiah 9:6), and the God who covenants with Abraham (9:7), before they describe how God brought them out of the land of Egypt. Also, Cone does not address the fact that the God who liberated Israel from Egypt is the same God who permanently exiled the Northern kingdom of Israel to Assyria, never to be heard from again, and exiled the Southern kingdom to Babylon, where they were left until they were ready to repent and return to the covenant with Yahweh. How does this impact Cone’s description of a liberating God? (Indeed, it would be interesting to see if there are any Liberation Theologians who deal with this, or whether it is by and large ignored.)
Another strength of Cone’s approach is his emphasis on Christ coming and dwelling and identifying with humanity in all its messiness. Cone sees the work and mission of Jesus as the epitome of liberation, but is it the only aspect of Jesus’ mission? By defining Jesus’ mission of liberation so narrowly, his definition of sin and even of the Gospel is also narrow. For Cone, sin becomes a political sin, one that is defined by injustice (Cone, 217). The Gospel, in Cone’s understanding, is only for the politically oppressed, and thus his theology demonstrates a rigid doctrine of election. In general, Cone seems to redefine key theological terms. For example, not only does he redefine sin in political terms, he also redefines sanctification as “the slaves acceptance of their new way of life” (Cone, 213).
So is there anything of value in Cone’s Liberation Theology for those who are not ‘oppressed?’ At times it would appear that Cone would say no. Even those ‘oppressors’ who wish to take the side of the oppressed are not fully welcomed as dialogue partners, but rather are to take their place as submissive observers. By so narrowly interpreting Scripture, and by extension what constitutes the Christian community, Cone has excluded all those who disagree with him from the ongoing theological conversation (including not only white but also black theologians). Through his ideological approach to theology, Cone has created an environment where any legitimate critiques of his work from white theologians means that he can dismiss their critiques as merely a product of their whiteness; that their critiques are indicative of just how much they are outside the community of the oppressed, the community that Jesus chooses to dwell within to the exclusion of all others.
Actually, I disagree. i think that Cone’s approach is quite dialectical, in the way of Paul Tillich’s theology. The problem is that that is the problem to the begin with. It needs to be DIALOGICAL (between two things that are open and relational), not dialectical, as if there is a need for opposition, dualism, and therefore making reconciliation/oneness impossible.
Also on this comment:
“Through his ideological approach to theology, Cone has created an environment where any legitimate critiques of his work from white theologians means that he can dismiss their critiques as merely a product of their whiteness; that their critiques are indicative of just how much they are outside the community of the oppressed, the community that Jesus chooses to dwell within to the exclusion of all others.”
I think that there is a sustained theological critique against Cone, starting with Womanist theology in the early 1980s, once Womanism dismantled Cone’s monopoly on Black theology, it freed up white liberalism to continue to prevail in academia.
Also, nothing inherently wrong with exclusion at such. It is just a matter of what kind of exclusion are we talking about. Its about discernment. Inclusion reeks of such elitism nowadays.
I think if I ever have the time (there is never enough time), I would like to read some Liberation Theology post-Cone to see where/how it has evolved, and how it has adapted to a 21st century culture.
In his A Black Liberation of theology (ABTL) 25th or so edition, there are reflections by different theologians in the back of the book, quite telling.