Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Gospel of the Penniless, Jobless, Marginalized and Despised
“The Cross and the Lynching Tree are separated by nearly two thousand years,” James Cone writes in his new book, “The Cross and the Lynching Tree.” “One is the universal symbol of the Christian faith; the other is the quintessential symbol of black oppression in America. Though both are symbols of death, one represents a message of hope and salvation, while the other signifies the negation of that message by white supremacy. Despite the obvious similarities between Jesus’ death on the cross and the death of thousands of black men and women strung up to die on a lamppost or tree, relatively few people, apart from the black poets, novelists, and other reality-seeing artists, have explored the symbolic connections. Yet, I believe this is the challenge we must face. What is at stake is the credibility and the promise of the Christian gospel and the hope that we may heal the wounds of racial violence that continue to divide our churches and our society.”
(Credit: Mr. Fish)
So begins James Cone, perhaps the most important contemporary theologian in America, who has spent a lifetime pointing out the hypocrisy and mendacity of the white church and white-dominated society while lifting up and exalting the voices of the oppressed. He writes out of his experience as an African-American growing up in segregated Arkansas and his close association with the Black Power movement. But what is more important is that he writes out of a deep religious conviction, one I share, that the true power of the Christian Gospel is its unambiguous call for liberation from forces of oppression and for a fierce and uncompromising condemnation of all who oppress.
Cone, who teaches at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, writes on behalf of all those whom the Salvadoran theologian and martyr Ignacio Ellacuría called “the crucified peoples of history.” He writes for the forgotten and abused, the marginalized and the despised. He writes for those who are penniless, jobless, landless and without political or social power. He writes for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and those who are transgender. He writes for undocumented farmworkers toiling in misery in the nation’s agricultural fields. He writes for Muslims who live under the terror of war and empire in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he writes for us. He understands that until white Americans can see the cross and the lynching tree together, “until we can identify Christ with a ‘recrucified’ black-body hanging from a lynching tree, there can be no genuine understanding of Christian identity in America, and no deliverance from the brutal legacy of slavery and white supremacy.”
“In the deepest sense, I’ve been writing this book all my life,” he said of “The Cross and the Lynching Tree” when we spoke recently. “I put my whole being into it. And did not hold anything back. I didn’t choose to write it. It chose me.”
“I started reading about lynching, and reading about the historical situation of the crosses in Rome in the time of Jesus, and then my question was how did African-Americans survive and resist the lynching terror. How did they do it?” [Nearly 5,000 African-American men, women and children were lynched in the United States between 1880 and 1940.] “To live every day under the terror of death. I grew up in Arkansas. I know something about that. I watched my mother and father deal with that. But the moment I read about it, historically, I had to ask how did they survive, how did they keep their sanity in the midst of that terror? And I discovered it was the cross. It was their faith in that cross, that if God was with Jesus, God must be with us, because we’re up on the cross too. And then the other question was, how could white Christians, who say they believe that Jesus died on the cross to save them, how could they then turn around and put blacks on crosses and crucify them just like the Romans crucified Jesus? That was an amazing paradox to me. Here African-Americans used faith to survive and resist, and fight, while whites used faith in order to terrorize black people. Two communities. Both Christian. Living in the same faith. Whites did lynchings on church grounds. How could they do it? That’s where [my] passion came from. That’s where the paradox came from. That’s where the wrestling came from.”
Cone’s chapter on Reinhold Niebuhr, the most important Christian social ethicist of the 20th century and a theologian whose work Cone teaches, exposes Niebuhr’s blindness to and tacit complicity in white oppression. Slavery, segregation and the terror of lynching have little or no place in the theological reflections of Niebuhr or any other white theologian. Niebuhr, as Cone points out, had little empathy for those subjugated by white colonialists. Niebuhr claimed that North America was a “virgin continent when the Anglo-Saxons came, with a few Indians in a primitive state of culture.” He saw America as being elected by God for the expansion of empire, and, as Cone points out, “he wrote about Arabs of Palestine and people of color in the Third World in a similar manner, offering moral justification for colonialism.”
Cone reprints a radio dialogue between Niebuhr and writer James Baldwin that took place after the September 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., that killed four girls. Niebuhr, who spoke in the language of moderation that infuriated figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Baldwin, was disarmed by Baldwin’s eloquence and fire.
Baldwin said:
The only people in this country at the moment who believe either in Christianity or in the country are the most despised minority in it. … It is ironical … the people who were slaves here, the most beaten and despised people here … should be at this moment … the only hope this country has. It doesn’t have any other. None of the descendants of Europe seem to be able to do, or have taken it on themselves to do, what Negros are now trying to do. And this is not a chauvinistic or racial outlook. It probably has something to do with the nature of life itself. It forces you, in any extremity, any extreme, to discover what you really live by, whereas most Americans have been for so long, so safe and so sleepy, that they don’t any longer have any real sense of what they live by. I think they really think it may be Coca-Cola.
“If Niebuhr could ignore it, there must be something defective in that faith itself,” Cone said. “If it weren’t defective then they wouldn’t put black people on crosses. Niebuhr wouldn’t have been silent about it. I look around and see the same thing happening today in the prison industrial complex. You can lynch people by more than just hanging them on the tree. You can incarcerate them. How long will this terror last? I’m Christian. Suffering gives rise to faith. It helps you deal with it. But at the same time suffering contradicts the faith that it gave rise to. It is like Jacob wrestling with the angel. I can’t give up with the wrestling.”
Cone wrote his doctoral dissertation on the Swiss theologian Karl Barth. But Barth, he admits, never moved him deeply. Cone found his inspiration in the black church, along with writers such as Baldwin, Albert Camus and Richard Wright, as well as the great blues artists of his youth. These artists and writers, not the white theologians, he said, gave him “a sense of awe.” He saw that “for most blacks it was the blues and religion that offered the chief weapons of resistance.” It was religion and the blues that “offered sources of hope that there was more to life than what one encountered daily in the white man’s world.” In the words of great poets and writers, in the verses of the great blues singers and in the thunderous services of the black church, not in the words of white theologians, Cone discovered those who were able to confront the bleak circumstances of their lives and yet defy fate and suffering to make the most of what little life had offered them. He had through these connections found his own voice, one that was powerfully expressed in his first work, the 1969 manifesto “Black Theology & Black Power.” Cone understood that “when people do not want to be themselves, but somebody else, that is utter despair.” And he knew that his faith “was the one thing white people could not control or take away.”
He quotes the bluesman Robert Johnson:
I got to keep movinnnn’, I got to keep movinnnn’,
Blues fallin’ like hail
And the day keeps on worrin’ me,
There’s a hellhound on my trail.
“I wanted to go back to study literature and get a Ph.D. in that at the University of Chicago in the 1960s and do it with Nathan Scott [who was then teaching theology and literature at the University of Chicago],” he said. “But the freedom movement was too urgent. I said to myself, ‘You have a Ph.D., if you ain’t got nothing to say now you ain’t never going to have anything to say.’ I’ve never taught a course on Barth.”
“I like people who talk about the real, concrete world,” he said. “And unless I can feel it in my gut, in my being, I can’t say it. The poor help me to say it. The literary people help me to say it—Baldwin is my favorite. Martin King is the next. Malcolm is the third element of my trinity. The poets give me energy. Theologians talk about things removed, way out there. They talk to each other. They give each other degrees. The real world is not there. So that is why I turn to the poets. They talk to the people.”
“Being Christian is like being black,” Cone said. “It’s a paradox. You grow up. You wonder why they treat you like that. And yet at the same time my mother and daddy told me ‘don’t hate like they hate. If you do, you will self-destruct. Hate only kills the hater, not the hated.’ It was their faith that gave them the resources to transcend the brutality and see the real beauty. It’s a mystery. It’s a mystery how African-Americans, after two and half centuries of slavery, another century of lynching and Jim Crow segregation, still come out loving white people. Now, most white people don’t think I love them, but I do. They always feel strange when I say that. You see, the deeper the love, the more the passion, especially when the one you love hurt you. Your brothers and sisters, and yet they treat you like the enemy. The paradox is, is that in spite of all that, African-Americans are the only people who’ve never organized to take down this nation. We have fought. We have given our lives. No matter what they do to us we still come out whole. Still searching for meaning. I think the resources for that are in the culture and in the religion that is associated with that. That faith and that culture, it was the blues of the spiritual, that faith and that culture gives African-Americans a sense that they are not what white people say they are.”
Cone sees the cross as “a paradoxical religious symbol because it inverts the world’s value system with the news that hope comes by way of defeat, that suffering and death do not have the last word, that the last shall be first and the first last.” This idea, he points out, is absurd to the intellect, “yet profoundly real in the souls of black folk.” The crucified Christ, for those who are crucified themselves, manifests “God’s loving and liberating presence in the contradictions of black life—that transcendent presence in the lives of black Christians that empowered them to believe that ultimately, in God’s eschatological future, they would not be defeated by the ‘troubles of the world,’ no matter how great and painful their suffering.” Cone elucidates this paradox, what he calls “this absurd claim of faith,” by pointing out that to cling to this absurdity was possible only when one was shorn of power, when one was unable to be proud and mighty, when one understood that he was not called by God to rule over others. “The cross was God’s critique of power—white power—with powerless love, snatching victory out of defeat.”
“It’s like love,” he said. “It’s something you cannot articulate. It’s self-evident in its own living. And I’ve seen it among many black Christians who struggle, particularly in the civil rights movement. They know they’re going to die. They know they’re not going to win in the obvious way of winning. But they have to do what they gonna do because the reality that they encounter in that spiritual moment, that reality is more powerful than the opposition, than that which contradicts it. People respond to what empowers them inside. It makes them know they are somebody when the world treats them as nobody. When you can do that, when you can act out of that spirit, then you know there is a reality that is much bigger than you. And that’s, that’s what black religion bears witness to in all of its flaws. It bears witness to a reality that empowers people to do that which seems impossible. I grew up with that. I really don’t ever remember wishing I was white. I may have, but I really don’t remember. It’s because the reality of my own community was so strong, that that was more important than the material things I saw out there. Their [African-Americans’] music, their preaching, their loving, their dancing—everything was much more interesting.”
“How do a people know that they are not what the world says they are when they have so few social, economic and political reasons in order to claim that humanity?” he asked. “So few political resources. So few economic, educational resources to articulate the humanity. How do they still claim, and be able to see something more than what the world says about them? I think it’s in that culture and it’s in the faith that is inseparable from that culture. That’s why I call the blues secular spirituals. They are a kind of resource, a cultural and mysterious resource that enables a people to express their humanity even though they don’t have many resources intellectually and otherwise to express it. Baldwin only finished high school. Wright only the ninth grade. But he still had his say. And B.B. King never got out of grade school. And Louis Armstrong hardly went to school at all. Now, I said to myself, if Louis could blow a trumpet like that, forget it, I’m gonna write theology the way Louis Armstrong blows that trumpet. I want to reach down for those resources that enable people to express themselves when the world says that you have nothing to say.”
“People who resist create hope and love of humanity,” he said. “The civil rights was a mass movement, but a movement defined by love. You always have both sides. You have bad faith and good faith. I like to write about the good faith. I like to write about faith that resists. I like to write about faith that empowers. I like to write about faith that enables people to look another in the eye and tell ’em what you think. I remember growing up in Arkansas. There were a lot of masks. I wore a mask in Arkansas as a child, not in my own community but when I went down to the white people’s town. I knew what they could do to you. But I kept saying to myself ‘one of these days I’m gonna say what I think to white people and make up for lost time,’ and so the last 40-something years that’s what I been doing. I write to encourage African-Americans to have that inner resource in order to have your say and to say it as clearly, as forcefully, and as truthfully as you can. Not all would be able to do that ’cause white people have a lot of power.”
“Now white churches are empty Christ churches,” he said. “They ain’t the real thing. They just lovin’ each other. That’s all, that’s all that is: socializin’ with each other, that’s what they do most of the time. You seldom go to a church that has any diversity to it. Now how can that be Christian? God was in Christ reconciling the world unto God’s self. Well, it’s in white churches that God and Christ separated us from white people. That’s what they say. And I’m sayin’ as long as you are silent and say nothin’ about it, as Reinhold Niebuhr did, say nothin’, you are just as guilty as the one who hung him on the tree because you were silent just like Peter. Now if you are silent, you are guilty. If you are gonna worship somebody that was nailed to a tree, you must know that the life of a disciple of that person is not going to be easy. It will make you end up on that tree. And so in this sense, I just want to say that we have to take seriously the faith or else we will be the opposite of what it means.”
“My momma and daddy did not have my opportunity, so when I write and speak I try to write and speak for them,” he said. “They not here. They never had a chance to stand before white people and tell ’em what they think. I gotta do it somehow. I try to do that all over the world. I think of Lucy Cone and Charlie Cone, and of all the other Lucy Cones and Charlie Cones that’s out there who cannot speak. I think of them, I don’t think of myself, I think of them. It deepens my spirituality. It gives me something to hold on to, that I can feel and touch. It’s a very spiritual experience, because you are doin’ something for people you love who cannot and will never have a chance to speak in a context like this. So, why do I need to speak for myself? I need to speak for them. If you feel passion in my voice, you feel energy in this text, that’s because I was thinkin’ of Lucy and Charlie, my daddy, and my mama. And as long as I do that, I’ll stay on the right track.”


161 Comments so far
Show AllI have long struggled to understand why black Americans (African Americans?) so strongly adopted Christianity, the supposed religion of the their white oppressors. I wrote this in a novel I am currently writing, set in Mississippi in the 1960's:
Mr. Smalls answered, “Every step we take leads us to where we are. Some people say it’s fate or destiny, others say it’s choice. I’ve come to see it as the will of God.”
“I’m not surprised to hear you say that,” responded Mr. Mandel. “You are a devout man. Many of your people seem devout.”
“Devout!” Mrs. Smalls exclaimed. Mr. Smalls’ chuckle said I’ve heard this before. His wife continued, “You wouldn’t say that if you ever heard him at work in the parlor, fussing at God. ‘You just had to take him, didn’t you? Well, I suppose that’s your right, but what about his poor old wife? Who’s gonna look after her now?’ Or ‘Couldn’t you have waited till her babies were a little older?’ And with the young ones, he’s even worse. ‘You promised a life, then took it away so soon!’ You tell me, Mr. Mandel, is that how a devout man speaks to God?” She looked at her husband and smiled. “But then he does his work.”
“Pearlie, dear,” said Mr. Smalls, standing up, “would you fix us some ice water? I’ll be right back.” He returned with a quart jar about three quarters full of a clear liquid and an earthenware mug, its handle broken off long ago. He placed the items on the table, then spoke again.
“It’s not that black folks are more devout, it’s just that we know Jesus in a way white people can’t. After all, He was one of us. ‘Despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.’ Now, how about a little drink to settle our nerves? I’ve got some bonded liquor if you prefer.”
I am looking forward to reading Mr. Cone's book.
I enjoyed this excerpt from your book in progress and hope to read the whole thing someday soon. It sounds as though you and Cones share a similar understanding of something that has confounded and impressed me over the years.
Because church was a physical place outside of the control of the slave owners.
Slaves could go to church to meet, to learn to read and write, for social support and they could relate to the story of Moses leading the freed Isrealites out of Egypt.
The slaves were FORCED to attend Church, and their numerous native beliefs, myths, languages and traditions were stripped from them in an act of cultural genocide. They took what they were forced to submit to, and made into something that would allow them to remain spiritual and distinct from the society and civilization that turned them from people into property.
For decades it was a CRIME in the US to teach a black slave to read or write, for fear that it would lead to rebellion. It was later argued (successfully?) that allowing them to read the Bible would make them more complacent. And it worked. Sort of. Mostly.
By "That it made them "complacent ... mostly," do you mean because they did not engage in mass violent resistance? The point of the essay and Cones' book seems to be that despite overwhelming social, economic, legal and legislative means to suppress a people's spirit, their spirit rose, roared, and survived in a way the oppressors' did not.
I'm black so I can't be accused of being a racist in saying this (although I suspect someone will try):
I think the degree to which we don't and haven't revolted is pathetic and not something to be proud of, and that with rare exception (and those exceptions, of course, are nowhere near as storied as MLK), we still follow a religion that teaches us that it's more acceptable for us not to revolt, for us to be martyrs in a moral system that the people that beat it into us don't take seriously-and to the extent that they do, they actually become less, not more, capable of changing things for the better.
I might not be able to liberate myself from much else, but the least I can do is not follow this bullshit.
I think that, if I were black, I would have reached the same conclusions as you.
For the first hundred years or so of slavery this was true.
After the abolition of the Atlantic Slave Triangle in 1832 there was far less empahasis on stripping of native culture and languages. There was no need.
I am reminded of marx and the grave diggers analogy.
Cultural and religious imperialism empowers the oppressed to rise up. It takes a while but it always happens.
Hell, I've also long wondered why most white people bothered to continue embracing Christianity after the Romans left their territories. Most Western Christians' ancestors were similarly forced to embrace Christianity as a religion. What's interesting is to see how different cultures have interpreted the religion after it was forced on them....
I find it interesting the one of the most conservative Christian groups, the Mormons, now have a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, it appears that now in the U.S. no openly atheistic person could ever become president, but a member of that 200-year-old religion might make it. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the full name of the Mormon church) has grown rapidly, I think, because it provides an insular social club where people who are disaffected can always find themselves welcome--mainly if they are white or Hispanic. Blacks more and more are joining, however, but are leery because they were banned from the priesthood until 1977. The Mormons take care of one another. If they really believe that YOU believe, you will be taken care of. If not, you are slowly ostracized. In addition, if you are single, you are ostracized a bit. You can't admit you're gay and if you are hetero, but single, you will NOT become a leader of even the local churches, which are called bishops. To rise to the level of a local leader, or bishop, you must be married and have kids--the more the better. You also must be "self-sufficient" (read: doing well financially or affluent enough to support four or more kids). No one would become a bishop if he were jobless, single, or homeless. What is implicitly praised is wealth or affluence, child birth, marriage, and socializing and helping fellow members. Most "service projects" fall into the category of missionary work and helping each other move into new apartments. Romney has demonstrated "self-sufficiency" by being filthy rich. It doesn't matter how he got the wealth, which has been via highly questionable Bain group funds. Hispanics have joined the church in large numbers, even though many come from poor neighborhoods (the reason may be that Mormons believe that Jesus visited earth a second time in Central America, shortly after his appearance in the Middle East) Will they become bishops? Wait and see. Wait a long time. Let's see: rich, tall, good-looking, white, married, conservative Christian, kids, anti-gay, anti-poor people (being poor proves you're not self-sufficient), pro-babies. Yup, he's presidential timber.
Nasty predicament Romney is in. His religion sets him up as a potential saint, demands 10 percent of his annual income, demands that he also do work within the church, and save the world. So, he dumps on the jobless or poor when he could easily have helped them survive since fall 2008. That is the attitude of many of the elite: if you haven't found a job by now, you must be nasty, even non-righteous, even-criminal. This is how religion has twisted Americans, just as it twisted some Muslims into executing the 9/11 attack (a VERY small percentage).
So the billionaire elite, within their twisted thinking, believe they are being self-sufficient, righteous and Christ-like, while their antics literally kill millions in their own country. Millions they now believe, via RELIGION, are inferior to them and deserve to die. The elite come to believe they are more fit and adaptable, and that's why they should survive. But--wait a minute!!--isn't that evolution? Christians don't believe in evolution! And the Christian Fascist Right doesn't! That’s another riddle tearing at the glia of the elites' brains.
Well, you've made a pretty good case that Religion (rather, being wholly entangled in the precepts and rules of one) really is a mental illness.
Not that it matters much, but Mormons are not Christians....
I'd personally consider that a blurry issue (which ultimately, doesn't make that much of a difference because they partake of most of the generalized flaws of Christianity). The Family, in comparison, definitely isn't Christian in that they've directly inverted whatever message people might want to assign to Christ.
Unfortunately, trying to figure out who is and isn't a Christian really has little to do with keeping them from not having power over everyone else.
"This is how religion has twisted Americans, just as it twisted some Muslims into executing the 9/11 attack (a VERY small percentage)"
What evidence do you have for this, Garland? And how did said Muslims bring down Building 7?
For people who don't believe in hijacking, the 9/11 conspiracy nutballs sure manage to hijack every thread on the internet.
Read Manuel Garcia Jr's account of how WTC 7 fell on CounterPunch. Also, maybe take a community college class in physics or something.
Alexander Cockburn's Counter Punch? Is that the publication you want us to accept as the "end all".
Cockburn has been a front man for 'hit' pieces re: 9-11 forever. I read three articles by the authority (Garcia) you mentioned. His expertise is in the free flow of liquids and gases. In one article, he simply cited the NIST Report (which discredits itself and has been discredited by hundreds of scientists -- those not on the dole of the Elite) and then turns over the issue of controlled demolition to one Pierre Sprey who basically says that controlled demolition could not have happened because no self-respecting demolitions expert would have believed he could time the explosions to coincide with the plane crashes. The article does not state whether Sprey is a scientist or demolitions expert. He simply proposes this very unscientific circular reasoning as his "end all".
Garcia, by the way, spends more time explaining the "conspiracy meme" (as well as other memes). He quotes Jung (out of context by the way), waning of a mass hysteria. For a deeper look at the issue, I could recommend any number of books, including Jung's "The Undiscovered Self" or Griffin's "Cognitive Infiltration".
I did not take a physics course at a community college, though I graduated from an Ivy League school. My brother, however, who graduated from Clarkson and got his doctorate at Cornell, AND worked in the aerospace industry for 30 years (his area of expertise being structures and stress -- he designed tests which measured the weight and stress-bearing capabilities of vehicles that would be sent into space) has taken it upon himself to help me educate myself about 9-11.
Now "actual-dipshit", you might want to take a course in physics at your local community college, but I doubt that it would help you to understand that which you obviously have no interest in understanding. You could also read the 'white paper' my brother wrote on the subject. Be careful, though, you might become a 'nutball'.
At a minimum, any actual "leftist" would know better than to dismissively mislead another commenter. That doesn't seem very leftist.
I was raised as a catholic and attended their schools for 12-years. It was very apparent to me by the around the second grade that there exisited a huge gulf in their teachings and how they and most catholics I observed actually lived their lives. The hippocracy and inconsistencies I witnessed as a child were only the tip of the iceberg. As an adult it is quite obvious to me that the real purpose of religion is to control people, instill a "fear of god", to make money and to completely ignore the injustices and inequality that they actually foster in society. I am amazed that the catholic church has any following whatsoever considering how corrupt they are and have always been. If you want a relationship with god or a higher power then do that and stay away from organized religions period.
hiya john r... brings to mind... boy in church...
a young boy sits in a pew on sunday...
surrounded by words from the preacher...
quoting some lines in an old sacred book...
about a man who was life's greatest teacher!...
he perks up his ears when they happen to hear...
"pray not ye in churches and streets"...
while looking around he just can't help but see...
crowded aisles of floorboard and feet!...
"treasures of earth are worthless" he hears...
as the preacher continues to read...
leaving the child still puzzled about...
that new furniture the church says it needs!...
the savior spoke of "the narrow way...
and the few of those who find it"...
reminding the youngster of last sunday's sermon...
with a pledge for more members behind it!...
then voices join in as the choir begins...
"the church's one foundation"...
folks rise out loud and he's wondering how...
it creates all these congregations?...
the sermon hangs on climbing far off the course...
of those words that the preacher first read...
leaving awareness with no understanding...
in the mind of the little boy's head...
time finally arrives for the offering hymn...
where plates of collection and thanks...
lead the boy to question again...
if they'll fill bigger piggy banks?...
an hour of worship tones down its late bell...
while that lad dwindles towards the door...
hoping the preacher won't shake hands so hard...
like he did each week before!...
sallysense
Your comments are reminiscent of the lyrics of the classic 1969 jazz song by Les McCann and Eddie Harris called Compared to What:
Church and Sunday, sleep and nod,
Tryin' to duck the wrath of God.
Preachers filling us with fright,
They're all trying to teach us what they think is right.
They really go to be some kind of nut [I can't use it!]
Tryin' to make it real-compared to what?
The President he's got his war,
Folks don't know just what it's for.
Nobody gives us rhyme or reason,
Have a doubt, they call it treason.
I appreciate much of what Hedges relates about Cone's writings. I can't agree with the implication that the black church (generally) in the United States has escaped the corruptions and the co-optation and the prosperity gospel and fake scholarship that are so characteristic of white churches here. It may have been different in the 60's, must have been I suppose. But church in the US has become a business for the benefit of professionals, with many rhetorical smokescreens (other versions of which are used by secular non-profits) to keep the rank and file ponying up and filling seats and doing the labor for free. This is no different in most black churches, even small country churches. I am with Hedges in many ways: I am a believer in the Gospel who sees its corruption in the US (and elsewhere I imagine in ways I don't personally experience) as a tragedy and a wrong to correct. But I don't believe that there is any longer a distinctive claim of the "black church" to have avoided this problem. The preaching and the publishing tell the story, along with the modes of governance. A 'priesthood of all believers' is not in operation, nor is the focus on going down to the suffering. It's self-help, twelve-step, seek-the-favor-of-God-through-moral-purity "Gospel." Whether we're talking about Joel Osteen or T.D. Jakes, the message is fairly consistent. Even in smaller, ostensibly social-justice-oriented churches (obviously there are exceptions to everything), core Protestant understandings are undermined and mixed with prejudice and moralism and legalism and self-justification. There IS a future for the Gospel in the United States, but I don't believe it has much to do with churches as currently constituted. Peace all, and thanks to Hedges for the highly informative and relevant article.
Thank you for the more eloquent statement of the challenge to Cone & Hedges.
I hope there is no future for the Gospel in the United States. Those who first held out strongly for the =future of the Gospel= were Iberians in the Age of Vasco Da Gama. Next, after Christendom was fractured - they were the Protestant and Catholic missionary zealots, who have stalked humanity for 600 years - - with the major success of getting female H. sapiens to keep their breasts covered, a victory which has caused more trouble than it's worth.
They also caused the Vietnam Wars, but it will take history another 100 years to see that case.
Trylon
Holding a liberation theological perspective is not corrupted by corrupted churches. I don't belong to any church, but have used the lens of Liberation Theology to understand the way we are manipulated by political, social, organized religion, and educational systems that seek to maintain their oppressive attributes over us. Linking Jakes and Osteen surreptitiously to a Liberation perspective is non-sense, since neither man speaks from that perspective..
Thing is, LT is seeing things through a lens that a lot of non-religious people were already using. Plain ol' "theology" doesn't seem to have helped people as much as Mr. Marx.
I agree that there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But why add dirty bathwater to a clean baby?
Huh? Where did link Osteen or Jakes to Liberation theology? Nowhere. I was clearly saying that they are far removed from Liberation theology, and are among the most successful purveyors of prosperity gospel. There was nothing in the least "surreptitious" about anything in my post.
This article needs to be torn to shreds. The comment section of Common Dreams is not the venue for that.
The best venue for that is the United Church of Christ - whose executive leadership could be regard as dunces for providing an umbrella for black liberation THEOLOGY. I say that as a 1960s graduate of Elmhurst College - alma mater of the Niebuhr brothers - in whose campus chapel Rev. Martin Luther King Jr gave a warm speech / sermon to adoring white students. I can document the EC student reaction when Martin was assassinated. This reaction should be made known to the history of religion in America.
In passing: I once made a personal effort - in Saginaw Michigan - to deliver the relevant material on this to Michelle Obama. I suspect that some Secret Service agent tossed it into the trash five minutes later rather than give it to her. I would be glad to be wrong.
My short reaction is to say "go screw yourself" to Hedges and Cone, on behalf of Reinhold Niebuhr and his brother Richard. I will bemoan in advance the probability that Bill Moyers will get suckered into admiring this treacle - which IMO is simply more polite than the pulpit vitriol of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
A metaphor.
When Gore v. Bush reached the Supreme Court in 2000, smart people asked: "What if their legal positions were reversed?" The answer was clear.
IMO the same conundrum applies to a hypothetical situation in which it is necessary to create White Liberation Theology. Damn little virtue arises when antagonists change places. That includes racial, religious, and - obviously - political identities.
This piece is going to confuse the hell out of President Barack Obama, who publicly espoused admiration for Reinhold Niebuhr.
Trylon
Obama rejected the teachings of liberation when he threw Reverend Wright under the bus. Wright was right on most everything, including his stern denunciations of American Empire which is what landed him in trouble. His church was the most welcoming church in the nation, something the media completely ignored.
Niebuhr became an anti-communist crusader, just as much a guardian of American liberal/centrist values. His theology became the affirmatory dogma for American foreign policy since WWII.
Of course the comment section of Commondreams would not be a venue for tearing this piece apart, because other than the atheist skepticism about any redeeming value of the church, most commenters would agree with Hedges and Cone about the value of liberation theology as the only salvation of the church which has two millennia of corruption and sin to atone for.
Obama's search for a suitable church on the Chicago South Side was based in his political ambitions, not in any comprehension whatsoever of any theology. The UCC has some 5 or 6 churches in that part of Chicago which pretty much ignore Cone. But Barack's attendance at them to =worship= would not have won him a seat in the Illinois legislature. That old story has been forgotten, even by residents of Illinois. I'm still waiting for one example of a =community= Barack =organized= using his law degree from Harvard.
IMO, the Obama-Wright relationship reflected more the deep needs of Barack for a paternal figure. No Obama forebear we know of was enslaved to white masters. I can find no spot in his own published life history where he was treated badly based upon race. Calling the Trinity Church =the most welcoming in the nation= is hyperbole.
==most commenters would agree with Hedges and Cone about the value of liberation theology as the only salvation of the church which has two millennia of corruption and sin to atone for.==
I regard the platform from which to start the opus of Dr. Peter Berger- "The Sacred Canopy". From prehistory onward, person "A" has pointed at the sky to justify his or her right to power, stuff, and nookie from person "B" who, sadly, was weak and stupid enough to buy it. Divine right of kings. Cult leaders. Tent revivalists.
I want to see some Druids repent their ways.
Trylon
Rev Wright was, and still is, right.
Wait for the brain autopsy.
Trylon, I’ve enjoyed reading your point of view on this forum but Liberation Theology began as an alternative reading of white theology from marginal and oppressive social locations; and the Father of the movement is Gustavo Gutierrez and who has spent his career living in shanti towns in South America: he is Latino, not white. Later, Leonardo Boff and Professor Cone built on Liberation theological perspectives to express how it applies to all marginal groups without a voice.
The idea that new interpretations of the gospel can flow out of oppressive conditions is an evolving paradigm which applies to our own circumstances where corporations own the systems of power and can be used as a compelling new interpretive lens to unpack and understand the way we are being manipulated. It is highly contemporary to the angst you've just identified.
Moreover, there have been many marginal movements which have sprung up out of this alternative reading of white, Euro-centric theology. A couple of spin offs are Mujerista theology , and Feminist theology. These movements seek to challenge the hegemony of a white theological hermeneutic. I fail to see how they serve either the status quo or the current political system.
I remember this bumper sticker: NUKE A GAY WHALE FOR CHRIST.
I also remember the cartooistry of Walt Kelly in POGO during the 1960 elections. The Okefenokee Swamp ran an Egg for President because "it had time to learn". This candidate would say to raccoons, "We raccoons have to stick together" and in the next frame, "We alligators have to stick together." The amalgamation of the poor the needy and the destitute under the banner of black liberation theology is every bit as silly and pompous.
I first saw this quote some 50 years ago.
Kindness in words creates confidence.
Kindness in thought creates profoundness.
Kindness in giving creates love.
--Lao Tsu - 6th Century before Christ, who holds neither patent nor copyright upon empathy and sympathy and selfless sacrifice for the benefit of others. What Lao Tsu did not promise was that - if you were observably Good - you got to go to a Sky Place and never die.
Trylon
Chapter 30 of the Tao Te Ching tells us,
"Those who wish to use Tao to influence others
don't rely on the force of weapons or
military strategies.
Force rebounds.
Weapons turn on the wielders.
Battles are inevitably followed by famines.
Just do what needs to be done; and then stop.
Attain your purpose, but don't press
your advantage.
Be reolute but don't boast.
Succeed, but don't crow.
Accomplish, but don't overpower.
Overdoing things invites decay,
and this is against Tao.
Whatever is against Tao soon ceases to be."
translation by Brain Walker
peace out...
As a graduate of Union Theological Seminary where Professor Cone teaches, his courses were even more powerful than his books. Nicely stated Chris.
(should it seem like something’s missing as if no one is around...
or the counter’s unattended at a nearby lost and found...
don’t fret about time hiding souls or silencing their sound...
you’ll find them still within you on that common-bonded ground!)...
Chris Hedges mentioned this book in the 3 hour interview on CSPAN Book TV.
I recommend the time to watch this interview.
http://www.booktv.org/Program/13110/In+Depth+Chris+Hedges.aspx
I also recommend watching the 3 hour interview.
And for good luck a 1 hour speech at Occupy Princeton
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/_20111219/
Thanks, Don, for sharing this link. I watched it today and it was nothing short of a history lesson and call to action, spoken with clarity and courage.
Yes, thnk you Don for this excellent link.
I remember when sermons were for Sundays and Hedges used to write his own stuff.
So what's the point here? Black Jesus is better than White Jesus? How about No Jesus. Maybe we should talk more about No Jesus because all this other Jesus...Black Jesus…White Jesus…Rainbow Jesus…has got us absolutely freakin' NOWHERE. The more we talk about Jesus the more divided we become. Let's leave Whatever Color Jesus in the Whatever Color Churches, get up off our knees and hit the streets to fight…together... for the change we all know we need.
We don't need no Jesus. We don't need no preachers. We need hearts and minds and hands willing to fight to change the system that keeps us on our knees praying to Jesus.
You never know…Jesus might just enjoy all his people standing up and looking him in the eye for a change.
Apparently sermons are for this site... it had been a couple of weeks since a preacher wrote about OWS. It's almost comforting, like the sun coming up in the morning, for CD to conflate religion and morality.
For me, the two most influential journalists today are Chris Hedges and Glenn Greenwald.
Hedges comes from a religious point of view which often gives his writing a moral character.
His article calling the Christian Church to support OWS is important. If that were to pass, OWS would lead a real change in our One Party oligarchy.
Actually, I am surprised at the measured response to this article by Chris Hedges. Often people here are really down on religion.
Knowing the courage that Hedges has shown in his career as a war correspondent and fighting for justice, often with his fists, along with his fine writing, is important for out country which is out of touch.
Ditto
Remember Flannery O'Connor's WISE BLOOD?
Damn good and compelling article wth great passion, tragedy, courage, compassion, and life of transformation and reform!
Sure do. That's one that sticks i the craw. What a wonderful writer Flannery O'Connor was. It was shameful, though, that when James Baldwin wrote her, hoping for a conversation, she turned him down. Nice white ladies don't talk to negroes, after all.
'Jesus' was a myth, his divinity voted on by men.
Everybody is a myth. Every word is a metaphor. Every molecule part of the dance of stardust. What is a person, the body, the spirit. What is knowledge? You claim to know whether or not there was a Jewish man who disturbed the authorities of his day and was crucified for it as thousands of others were?I have spent years studyng this question. The best anyone can honestly say is that the documentary evidence is inconclusive. The assertion of his divinity was as you say, a political act. But the finding of strength, wisdom and comfort in an I-Thou relation with the divine is a world-wide cross-cultural reality.
The gospels, stripped of theology, show a man who was kind of a mystic communitarian pacifist who taught that neither priests nor armies could own and control people who care for each other and share food and love instead of fighting for status within the hierarchies of religion wealth and power.. What he said about God was pray in private and think of God as a merciful friend who wants justice; he taught that the essence of all law is treat each other how you want to be treated. He said these ideas would form the basis of a sustainable society.
People who made this into a religion of winners and losers and an adjunct to military imperialism are just plain sick in the head, power hungry liars, and the gullible who are taken in and enslaved.
The ideas can be seen as a mythos or a practical approach to sane life. Kurt Vonnegut was an avowed atheist to the end, but he often said that the 2 greatest pieces of evidence for the existence of God were music and the the Sermon on the Mount.
Nicely stated, but I dont agree that Jesus was a pacifist at all. Quite the contrary, he was a wisdom teacher of a subversive wisdom seeking to overturn the oppression of a brokered world -- not at all unlike the one we find ourselves in. This is simply what most churches don't teach much less endorse. and precisely why they are criminally culpable for the brokered system. They all have blood on their hands by playing nicely in the system like your friend McKibben. The justice piece is right on the money in my view, but outside of that, I don't think we have much in common.
Thank you for that.
"Quite the contrary, he was a wisdom teacher of a subversive wisdom seeking to overturn the oppression of a brokered world -- not at all unlike the one we find ourselves in."
My understanding is very similar, and I was trying to show an outline of what can best be ascertained of that teaching and example. It looks to me that both the teaching and example was non-violent and reliant on the appeal of persuasion, sharing, and non-compliance with false clams of authority. I personally am not an absolutist. There are times when extreme action is best. I have complete sympathy with those who defend themselves and their nations, tribes, rights etc. with any means in accord with their conscience. To me the question is practical. It looks like the means determine much of the result. The French and American revolutions quickly turned into violent aggressive empires doing everything they claimed to despise. No easy answers here. I appreciate your writing whether you agree with me on any given topic or not, and always find your posts respectful and intelligently reasoned.