The copy of the book I have is the only one in the Los Angeles Public Library system and I was surprised to be able to get ahold of it so quickly. One might have thought that, after Jeremiah Wright's publicity tour last weekend people, would want to know more about Black Liberation Theology. But again I have overestimated human curiosity.
The book was originally published in 1969 but has a 1989 preface for that year's edition. In it, the author contends that the language used in the original version would be different than twenty years hence (and one assumes, an additional twenty years after that) to address contemporaneous problems faced by blacks--and to remedy perceived sexism of the author. One also assumes, however, that the basic ideas remain the same: that God is a partisan on the side of the "victims"--in this case, blacks--and that He will ensure that these victims have victory over the white oppressor.
We'll see.
One thing: a very interesting quote attributed to Cone and found on the web is said to appear in this book: "Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power, and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology." If it is in this book, the proper references, however, are improper--meaning they're wrong. Anyone have a page number?
Who's James Cone fella? Please explain in detail... :P
Posted by: doubleplusundead | May 07, 2008 at 10:59 AM
This is my church, New Hope Missionary Baptist Church. Are you comfortable with this statement listed there?
I have to say our church preaches the bible. Every year or other year, the pastor tries to take a group to the southern Mediterranean region, to expose members to biblical artifacts, and retrace the steps of Jesus and his disciples.
I'm personally not a true believer, more of an agnostic, but my wife is a true believer, and I followed her into the church. I appreciate the church and do my part to help it achieve its mission. And it is a wonderful membership, a wonderful paster and ministerial staff.
Our doors are always open for anyone, anytime.
Posted by: brotherbrown | May 07, 2008 at 07:49 PM
Seems okay, though it matters not what I think--neither you nor Mrs. Brown are running for president. I am ready to protest outside your church for looping What a Friend We Have in Jesus on its site, however. :-D
Preaching the Bible is what church pastors are for. It's also nice if they have a working knowledge of the original languages; not just relying on King James, et al.
Posted by: baldilocks | May 07, 2008 at 09:45 PM
So if I were running for president, New Hope would be fair game?
Im "About Us" it reads:
New Hope Missionary Baptist Church was organized in 1911 as the first predominantly Black or African American Baptist Church in San Bernardino. One of the leading supporters of the early civil rights movement, the church prides itself on its community activism. While continuing to retain it's traditional leadership role in the faith community. New Hope has been pastored by some of the most renowned clergy in the State and Nation, and currently has a variety of ministries including Youth, Children, Music, Health, Evangelism and a Prison Ministry.
The church has remained community based despite continued growth in physical size, and in membership. Currently there are three(3) services on Sunday, and the church is freeway accessible.
The historical image of New Hope as a church with a great preaching legacy is balanced by it's reputation as a teaching entity which has recently expanded to include marriage and couple counseling as a part of it's family ministry.
Images of Jesus and the Disciples are decidely African. Michealangelo had a different vision when he painted the Sistine Chapel. Is there a problem with this difference?
Posted by: brotherbrown | May 08, 2008 at 05:53 AM
'Yes' on the fair game, 'no' on the painting image because phenotypical depictions aren't the problem with BLT, your church or any other. BLT's theology is the problem, that is, what BLT claims about the spiritual nature of Jesus and His Purpose.
If, according to Cone's BLT, God is helping black people grind their white oppressors into the dust, then it seems to me that BLT claims that JC's purpose is different that that claimed by traditional Christians--to pay for everyone's sins.
If the oppressor accepts JC, repents and stops oppressing, what then? Will BLT's version of God still grind him to dust? This is the problem.
Posted by: baldilocks | May 08, 2008 at 08:33 AM
J,
You and Brother Brown's debate should be on your main page. Interesting stuff!
M
Posted by: IronMike | May 09, 2008 at 06:58 AM