Issues of race are present in all aspects of life, including religion. James Cone’s The Social Context attempts to address shortcomings of “white theology” by presenting a different option, “black liberation theology”. The Social Context examines what Cone sees as, “white theology” and concludes by outlining and discussing the reasoning behind black theology. This comparison raises many important theological differences that must be recognized, however the manner in which Cone presents black liberation theology only furthers racial religious divides.
Black liberation theology provides a different perspective on the purpose of Christianity. As said by James Cone, “Black theology…is the story of black people’s struggle for liberation in an extreme situation of oppression” (54). Cone based black theology off the need for a different approach than that of white theologians. As most would agree, Cone finds that much of religious thought is based on the context it is developed under. This can certainly be seen on both a personal and global level. Individually, religion is tailored to meet specific needs and situations. Globally, different religions that fit the cultural needs of different regions are found. The ambiguity and personal approach of faith allow for faith to be interpreted in different manners. “White theologians, because of their identity with the dominant power structure, are largely boxed within their own cultural history” (Cone 47). Here Cone outlines what he believes to be the basis behind white theology. White theology has been based upon questioning divine existence and the power of belief. As Cone alludes to, this ability of white theologians to question faith stems from the cultural dominance of whites throughout history. Black’s, however, do not need their theology to verify the existence of faith or answer questions of power, but rather their faith serves to explain oppression and pain by promising liberation.
Cone’s theological ideology is specific to those who have faced oppression, specifically oppression from slavery. Through his development of black religious thought Cone calls theologians to recognize the “difference in social existence between Europeans and Africans” (Cone 53). While I agree such differences should be noted, validated, and respected, by continuing to focus on the differences of races racial divides will only continue to grow stronger. Cone, I am sure, did not intend to further racial divides. Understanding his theology was developed to address the “social limitation of white theology”, I still find that dwelling on past issues will only continue to further racial divides. I agree the limitation of white theology to publicly recognize oppression of individuals should be addressed, however, I also think that such limitations are already being addressed within the church. It should also be noted that racial oppression is not specific to race. Hispanics, Caucasian, African Americans, and other races alike are all subject to oppression.
Oppression comes in many forms, which are common to all humanity, and in today’s society issues of oppression are certainly being addressed within the church. The church looks to support and help those facing oppression through outreach programs and aid. By broadening the scope of black and white theology all individuals can work to solve issues of oppression. Rather than focusing on differences, I think a theology that exploits similarities would serve to dissolve racial divides creating a more united church. By combining the needs addressed in both white and black theology to create a theology that addresses oppression and questioning of faith would create more power among the Christian community. The ability to be a cohesive body is more powerful than any ideological school of thought can be individually. Despite Cones intention to strengthen the religious body, the narrow scope of oppression addressed in this theology, furthers racial divides. Many of the issues addressed should be recognized and further incorporated into mainstream theology to create a more cohesive church body.
Works Cited
Cone, James H. "The Social Context of Theology." God of the Oppressed. Seabury. 39-61.
I think the argument you are making in this text is legitimate, but I don't think you take James Cone's background into enough consideration. Much of James Cone's Black liberation theology is a product of the Black Power movement. In the Black Power movement it was thought important to draw the distinction between blacks and whites, and embrace these differences with pride after being ashamed for so long. This division was meant to strengthen the black community, but it wasn't meant to be an ending point. The Black community wasn't supposed to forever remain separate. This was just a means of bettering themselves. It might seem like I'm rambling, but I said all this to say, though James Cone seems to encourage division the purpose behind it is not to promote racial divides but to encourage the race so they can one day be able to interact with other races and discuss similar issues. Black Theology as a whole, in Cone's mind, hasn't reached the place of White Theology. Black Theology simply interprets Biblical text unquestioningly sent from God, while White Theology is exploring deeper questions of who is God, was Jesus divine, or just a holy man, is there actually a God? I think the separation Cone encourages is identical to the separation the Black Power movement,with the purpose of uplifting & bettering the black race in order to facilitate the integration into White Theology. One can not truly understand or appreciate the backgrounds of others until one has a sufficient understanding and appreciation of themselves.
ReplyDelete