What is Black Liberation Theology?

[anthony022071]

and Jesus is the central figure in all Liberation Theologies that I am aware of.

from post 34…

The point is that liberation theology in general has marxist tendencies,even if they are not plainly stated or obvious. Liberation theology tends to exalt ethnic communities,in the spirit of “We are the People of God”,above the authority of the Church. It is a theology which encourages a self-justifying attitude among communities and it is entirely focused upon fighting for social and economic change. As far as liberation theologians are concerned,fighting for social and economic justice is the essence of the gospel. They take certain passages from the Bible and papal documents,and documents from Vatican 2,and interpret them as invitations to social protest and activism,sometimes revolution. Liberation theology tells the people what they want to hear: “This is what you deserve. God wills that you take it for yourselves.” It is all about “the movement”,which has a life and a will of its own apart from the Church.

Cesar Chavez used to use images of Mary of Guadalupe as a rallying point for his migrant workers’ movement,as if the movement had Mary’s blessing.

 

[vern_humphrey]

from post 34…

The point is that liberation theology in general has marxist tendencies,even if they are not plainly stated or obvious. Liberation theology tends to exalt ethnic communities,in the spirit of “We are the People of God”,above the authority of the Church. It is a theology which encourages a self-justifying attitude among communities and it is entirely focused upon fighting for social and economic change. As far as liberation theologians are concerned,fighting for social and economic justice is the essence of the gospel. They take certain passages from the Bible and papal documents,and documents from Vatican 2,and interpret them as invitations to social protest and activism,sometimes revolution. Liberation theology tells the people what they want to hear: “This is what you deserve. God wills that you take it for yourselves.” It is all about “the movement”,which has a life and a will of its own apart from the Church.

Cesar Chavez used to use images of Mary of Guadalupe as a rallying point for his migrant workers’ movement,as if the movement had Mary’s blessing.

So, do you agree with this:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has defended himself against charges of anti-Americanism and racism by referring to his foundational philosophy, the “black liberation theology” of scholars such as James Cone, who regard Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people” who will only accept a god who assists their aim of destroying the “white enemy.”

“If God is not for us and against white people,” writes Cone, “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.”

Do you think Christ taught that we must “kill gods who do not belong to the black community?”

 

[Swan]

from post 34…

The point is that liberation theology in general has marxist tendencies,even if they are not plainly stated or obvious. Liberation theology tends to exalt ethnic communities,in the spirit of “We are the People of God”,above the authority of the Church. It is a theology which encourages a self-justifying attitude among communities and it is entirely focused upon fighting for social and economic change. As far as liberation theologians are concerned,fighting for social and economic justice is the essence of the gospel. They take certain passages from the Bible and papal documents,and documents from Vatican 2,and interpret them as invitations to social protest and activism,sometimes revolution. Liberation theology tells the people what they want to hear: “This is what you deserve. God wills that you take it for yourselves.” It is all about “the movement”,which has a life and a will of its own apart from the Church.

Cesar Chavez used to use images of Mary of Guadalupe as a rallying point for his migrant workers’ movement,as if the movement had Mary’s blessing.

Chavez used non-violent means to call attention to, and demand a change in, the indefensible way migrant farm workers were treated. He didn’t call of a revoluation. He simply educated people on the injustices that were rampant and asked how this could be tolerated in a so-called “Christian” society. All Christian relgions, as well as most non-Christian ones, include a demand to care for the poor and oppressed and to relieve suffering. The CC is big on this and the CCC holds many references to the rights of workers to stand up for themsevles in a non-violent manner. It also calls for us all to work to better the conditions of these people. Chavez was no Lenin. Indeed, I admire Chavez a great deal. The idea that the poor should refuse to stand up for themselves makes no sense - why is this not seen as self-defense?

As for the issue with blacks and other minorities who have been oppressed in this country, to condemn them for stating the historial truth of their oppression seems to suggest that God is an American or, at least, that God approves of what America does. I find this suggestion to be absurd. The US has done any number of terrible things. Yes, it’s still the best game going but it’s far from perfect. Indeed, one of the things that enables it to hold that top place is the fact that we eventually realize many of our errors and seek to correct them, not that we cling to our wrongs and defend them ad nauseum (though we do that in some circumstances). I am not endorsing Wright and I have problem with Malcome X because of his advocacy of violence and his divisive philosophy. I prefer the philosophy of Dr. King who once said that we must learn to live together as brothers or die together as fools. He was, I believe, quite correct.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As for the issue with blacks and other minorities who have been oppressed in this country, to condemn them for stating the historial truth of their oppression seems to suggest that God is an American or, at least, that God approves of what America does.

And no one is doing that – just the opposite. We respect them as fully equal to ourselves.

On the other hand, there are those who look down on blacks and other minorities, who find excuses for people who do things that are indefensible because of “past oppression.” That’s truly patronizing and racist.

I prefer the philosophy of Dr. King who once said that we must learn to live together as brothers or die together as fools. He was, I believe, quite correct.

Dr. King was a great American. He did not espouse killing gods who do not belong to the black community.

 

[Contarini]

Which is trying to win the debate by changing terms

I made a very simple point about “give to God what is God’s.” Everything I am saying follows from that. I’m not trying to “change terms.” I’m saying that Jesus came to this world to plant the seed of the Kingdom. As Christians we are that seed. And God’s Kingdom embraces *all *of reality. This is not “trying to win the debate by changing terms.” It’s making a straightforward claim which you are trying to obscure by marking off this one aspect of reality and calling it “secular” and “political.” Yet you won’t define what you mean by this. Abortion, according to you, is not “political” because it’s a moral issue. So is every moral issue non-political by your definition?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I have read Cone, I too never heard of Wright until recently. I have no information that he is a leading speaker for LT. I would surely like some citation to that effect if someone is claiming he is. I have no information that Wright has even written anything on LT.

I don’t know if he’s written anything at all. He is certainly a proponent of LT, and I’ll grant that he’s obviously a fairly prominent pastor with a large church. But he’s deriving his ideas primarily from Cone and others.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

I made a very simple point about “give to God what is God’s.” Everything I am saying follows from that. I’m not trying to “change terms.” I’m saying that Jesus came to this world to plant the seed of the Kingdom.

Do you say that Kingdom is a secular, temporal kingdom?

As Christians we are that seed. And God’s Kingdom embraces *all *of reality. This is not “trying to win the debate by changing terms.” It’s making a straightforward claim which you are trying to obscure by marking off this one aspect of reality and calling it “secular” and “political.” Yet you won’t define what you mean by this. Abortion, according to you, is not “political” because it’s a moral issue. So is every moral issue non-political by your definition?

Edwin

The Church addresses moral issues. The Church does not put up candidates, contribute to political campaigns, introduce bills into Congress, or make national policy.

What’s so hard to understand about that?

 

[Contarini]

Do you say that Kingdom is a secular, temporal kingdom?

Not as I have defined it several times now, no. Its origins are not from this world and it will outlast this world. It also does not use the weapons of this world, particularly physical violence.

Why do you insist on repeating catchphrases and refuse to define them?

The Church addresses moral issues. The Church does not put up candidates, contribute to political campaigns, introduce bills into Congress, or make national policy.

What’s so hard to understand about that?

Nothing. And I agree with you that the Church should not directly do such things. But obviously if the Church says “you must only vote for a prolife candidate” and there is only one prolife candidate, then that is a political act. And there are lots of people in this country who think that the Church should not do any such thing. That’s why I’m trying to say that the separation between the “religious” and “political” is artificial. That doesn’t make it bad. It’s a good thing that we have institutional separation and that political candidates don’t have to get the approval of a council of religious leaders before they run for office (I understand that something like that is true in Iran, for instance). My point is that there are not two separate spheres of life called “religious” and “political.” If you think that abortion is murder, that’s a political opinion. They aren’t hermetically sealed.

I don’t know why you keep repeating this “temporal, secular” language. I don’t know who you think is maintaining that the Kingdom is a “temporal, secular” kingdom.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not as I have defined it several times now, no. Its origins are not from this world and it will outlast this world. It also does not use the weapons of this world, particularly physical violence.

Why do you insist on repeating catchphrases and refuse to define them?

The question is, why do you keep trying to redefine terms and use catch phrases?

Jesus did not bring a temporal kingdom, and did not intend to.

 

[Contarini]

The question is, why do you keep trying to redefine terms and use catch phrases?

Jesus did not bring a temporal kingdom, and did not intend to.

What catch phrases am I using?

How do you think you are disagreeing with me? In what sense do you think I maintain that Jesus brought a temporal kingdom? I keep telling you in what sense I *don’t *think this, and you refuse to tell me if this is what you mean by it or not. Since you keep throwing this phrase at me, you must think that I do maintain that Jesus brought a “temporal kingdom.” So define “temporal kingdom” for me.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

What catch phrases am I using?

How do you think you are disagreeing with me? In what sense do you think I maintain that Jesus brought a temporal kingdom? I keep telling you in what sense I *don’t *think this, and you refuse to tell me if this is what you mean by it or not. Since you keep throwing this phrase at me, you must think that I do maintain that Jesus brought a “temporal kingdom.” So define “temporal kingdom” for me.

Edwin

You’re a one-trick pony.

Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. Do you say different? On what grounds?

And back to the original thread: What is Black Liberation Theology?

Do you defend Black Liberation Theology? Do you agree with Cone when he says,

“If God is not for us and against white people,” writes Cone, “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.”

 

[Mea_Culpa]

You are misunderstanding I believe. It has nothing to do with groups having their own theologies. …

I know of no theology, LT or otherwise that tells anyone to hate any other group. That is not what is being addressed at all.

“If God is not for us and against white people,” writes Cone, “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.”

Are you sure it’s me who is misunderstanding? Sounds like maybe you’re trying to defend something that’s indefensible. Hate-mongering is hate-mongering, even if it’s called “theology.”

 

[anthony022071]

So, do you agree with this:

Do you think Christ taught that we must “kill gods who do not belong to the black community?”

No – my post was intended to show Spiritmeadow how wrong-headed liberation theology is.

 

[anthony022071]

Chavez used non-violent means to call attention to, and demand a change in, the indefensible way migrant farm workers were treated. He didn’t call of a revoluation. He simply educated people on the injustices that were rampant and asked how this could be tolerated in a so-called “Christian” society. All Christian relgions, as well as most non-Christian ones, include a demand to care for the poor and oppressed and to relieve suffering. The CC is big on this and the CCC holds many references to the rights of workers to stand up for themsevles in a non-violent manner. It also calls for us all to work to better the conditions of these people. Chavez was no Lenin. Indeed, I admire Chavez a great deal. The idea that the poor should refuse to stand up for themselves makes no sense - why is this not seen as self-defense?

 

[katgee]

YouTube has videos of the Catholic mission I worked in, Luabo, Mozambique. It has a brief shot of St. Francis of Assisi church, that had no glass on its windows. You pray in there, and the swallows would fly through the grills, they would soar and swoop through the church – always clean – like they were flying in prayer with you.

Scrolling down videos, I saw one of the children with toy cars, attaching long sticks to little wheels and pushing them along. Turns out it was American Mormon missionaries who are now there across the Zambezi River at Morromeo. I could not find any Catholic missions in that area.

Went back to do searches on modern day Mozambique. Finally, I came to a web page recommending people read ‘Killing Fields of Mozambique’. I received regular newsletters from my former Catholc pastor over the years but had a hard time reading the news in Portuguese. I understood one time he and other friars had a smooth landing by plane into a swamp, all walking out of the crash. But apparently, the crackdown on the Mozambican Catholics wiped out what once was a Catholic country. My pastor surprised me when he told me there were 42,000 Catholics, mainly Africans in his parish in Luabo. From what I was reading from this journal, all were gone. Slaughter continued up into the 1980’s. These current videos of 1997 showed so much destruction. The persecution of Christians was typical communist of what I had learned growing up.

There were priests very cozy with Frelimo. I had no idea of how evil Samora Machel really was, nor how extensive and brutal the anti-Christian campaign was. The African students we worked with did not know warfare. It was very sad seeing our school boys become affected by the rhetoric and start speaking of bloodshed.
I remember hearing the word ‘reactionistas’. Well, most of them were murdered as were many others. Many churches were destroyed across the entire country. What a blessing to know realize St. Francis in Luabo was not. The high school was still there but no student in. The population appeared sparse…

Liberation theology is not the true gospel. We cannot add or delete one word to the bible. We need to be better grounded in Christology and the nature and mission of the church.

 

[Poppa150]

Swan;3694754:

What I have a problem with is the use of the image of Mary as a banner or rallying point of a protest movement.

I disagree with his philosophy. His ideas were typical of the atheistic,socialistic and anti-clerical writers he was influenced by.

If Norman Cone and Rev Wright and Senator Obama are not socialists, then what are they?

 

[vern_humphrey]

YouTube has videos of the Catholic mission I worked in, Luabo, Mozambique. It has a brief shot of St. Francis of Assisi church, that had no glass on its windows. You pray in there, and the swallows would fly through the grills, they would soar and swoop through the church – always clean – like they were flying in prayer with you.

Scrolling down videos, I saw one of the children with toy cars, attaching long sticks to little wheels and pushing them along. Turns out it was American Mormon missionaries who are now there across the Zambezi River at Morromeo. I could not find any Catholic missions in that area.

Went back to do searches on modern day Mozambique. Finally, I came to a web page recommending people read ‘Killing Fields of Mozambique’. I received regular newsletters from my former Catholc pastor over the years but had a hard time reading the news in Portuguese. I understood one time he and other friars had a smooth landing by plane into a swamp, all walking out of the crash. But apparently, the crackdown on the Mozambican Catholics wiped out what once was a Catholic country. My pastor surprised me when he told me there were 42,000 Catholics, mainly Africans in his parish in Luabo. From what I was reading from this journal, all were gone. Slaughter continued up into the 1980’s. These current videos of 1997 showed so much destruction. The persecution of Christians was typical communist of what I had learned growing up.

There were priests very cozy with Frelimo. I had no idea of how evil Samora Machel really was, nor how extensive and brutal the anti-Christian campaign was. The African students we worked with did not know warfare. It was very sad seeing our school boys become affected by the rhetoric and start speaking of bloodshed.
I remember hearing the word ‘reactionistas’. Well, most of them were murdered as were many others. Many churches were destroyed across the entire country. What a blessing to know realize St. Francis in Luabo was not. The high school was still there but no student in. The population appeared sparse…

Liberation theology is not the true gospel. We cannot add or delete one word to the bible. We need to be better grounded in Christology and the nature and mission of the church.

As I have said before on this thread, by its fruits, we know it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Are you sure it’s me who is misunderstanding? Sounds like maybe you’re trying to defend something that’s indefensible. Hate-mongering is hate-mongering, even if it’s called “theology.”

Your initial post suggested you knew little if anything about the subject. Grabbing a quote from another post and pasting it in does nothing to suggest that you have gained any further enlightenment on the subject. Cone like any theologian must be read in context. It is not necessary to agree with everything that any theologian utters in the second place. And of course the context of this statement is missing. If you can explain the general crux of Cone’s theology to me then I might conclude you had actually read him and knew of what you speak. As it stands, i think it’s more a case of simply finding a snippet here and there that you think you can use as argument. That is not the case,

Theology in general is but a branch of philosophy and most of it cannot be read by the average person without assistence. I have not found my own forays into theology to be very profitable at all for this reason. Most of what I know I got under the careful guidance of Catholic theologians at Catholic colleges. Sabrino is perhaps one of the easier ones to go it alone with. I would suggest his Chrisitianity at the Crossroads as a good beginner text.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

from post 34…

The point is that liberation theology in general has marxist tendencies,even if they are not plainly stated or obvious. Liberation theology tends to exalt ethnic communities,in the spirit of “We are the People of God”,above the authority of the Church. It is a theology which encourages a self-justifying attitude among communities and it is entirely focused upon fighting for social and economic change. As far as liberation theologians are concerned,fighting for social and economic justice is the essence of the gospel. They take certain passages from the Bible and papal documents,and documents from Vatican 2,and interpret them as invitations to social protest and activism,sometimes revolution. Liberation theology tells the people what they want to hear: “This is what you deserve. God wills that you take it for yourselves.” It is all about “the movement”,which has a life and a will of its own apart from the Church.

Cesar Chavez used to use images of Mary of Guadalupe as a rallying point for his migrant workers’ movement,as if the movement had Mary’s blessing.

All I can say again and again is that the Vatican and the magisterium do not ban LT, and Ratzinger has made it quite clear that only some forms of it are questionable in his opinion. So it’s perfectly fine for anyone to read it if they wish to. If you find it dangerous to your view of faith than by all means don’t read it.

 

[katgee]

Coming back to this topic having experienced it, but not having the educational background of others on this post, let it forewarn you.

I was in language school only a few months before arriving there and learning through immersion. Five months later, they were declared independent of colonial rule.

As was stated here in previous posts, I was hearing the same kind of rhetoric about rights, people were being labelled by appearances or appearances of language to say the least, and divisions came about among the Catholic missionaries themselves, Portuguese vs. other European Latin missionaries. Even the Catholic priests were upholding revolution.

It was very hard to deal with, being a young American at that time. I was not expecting to end up with Marxist leaning missionaries! Women religious perceived the priests as inciting the people. I eventually had to leave. The provencial told me I was not making it (I grew up in the inner city) because I was a capitalist with white skin, and he was, because he was brown (a southern Italian), and a communist Christian. He was removed from his position shortly after.

I remember all the talk by Frelimo of the rights of the people, and now I just found out today they were no different than other communist regimes with their anti-Christian progroms.

As far as South America and our borders go, the Mindzenty Report came out in 1995 saying the Marxists there were working on sending alot of gangs into our country to bring all sorts of crime and killing and that we would see the effects by 2005.

It is also very disturbing now to see Catholic Hispanic ministry leaders promote illegal immigration, not help these people assimilate and learn the native tongue like I had to overseas, and the total indifference the cost is to the common people. Secular atheism has turned our country into simple a large money making machine without any regard or respect to the people who have lived here. There is a deliberate plundering going on.