Black Theology & Black Power

< previous

navigation

feedback

next >

James H. Cone

Black Theology & Black Power

CONTENTS

Preface vii
Introduction I

I Ą Toward a Constructive Definition of Black Power 5
WHAT IS BLACK POWER ? 5
BLACK POWER AND EXISTENTIAL ABSURDITY 8
IS BLACK POWER A FORM OF BLACK RACISM? 12
WHY INTEGRATION IS NOT THE ANSWER 17
IS THERE AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO WHITE RACISM? 20
HOW DOES BLACK POWER RELATE TO WHITE GUILT? 23
BLACX POWER AND THE WHITE LIBERAL 26
BLACX POWER: HOPE OR DESPAIR? 28

II Ą The Gospel of Jesus, Black People, and Black Power 31
WHAT IS THE GOSPEL OF JESUS? 34
CHRIST, BLACK POWER, AND FREEDOM 38
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD AND BLACK POWER 43
CHRISTIAN LOVE AND BLACK POWER 47
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND BLACK POWER 53

III Ą The White Church and Black Power 62
WHAT IS THE CHURCH ? 63
THE WHITE CHURCH AND BLACK POWER 71
BLACK POWER AND AMERICAN THEOLOGY 82

IV Ą The Black Church and Black Power 91
THE BLACK CHURCH BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR 94
THE POST-CIVIL WAR BLACK CHURCH 103

V Ą Some Perspectives of Black Theology 116
ON BLACK SUFFERING 117
ON RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY 118
ON ESCHATOLOGY 121
ON THE CREATION OF NEW VALUES 127

VI Ą Revolution, Violence, and Reconciliation in Black Theology 135
REVOLUTION 136
VIOLENCE138
RECONCILIATION 143
Notes 153
Index 163

James H. Cone: Black Theology and Black Power

PREFACE

The appearance of this book is made possible by the assistance and encouragement of many people. Although I cannot mention all, I must express my gratitude to those persons who participated directly in the bringing of this work into existence. First of all, I wish to express mi gratitude to the faculty of Colgate Rochester Divinity School for the invitation to deliver these lectures as a Theological Fellow, and to the Faculty Development Committee of Adrian College for the summer grant which provided some financial assistance during my writing.
I want to thank my brother, the Reverend Cecil W. Cone I, for providing me office space in his church and for his critical reading of the manuscript. Dr. William Hordern, my former teacher, also took time away from his busy schedule as president of Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon, to read the manuscript and to encourage me to seek its publication. I must express my gratitude to Don Ernst, my colleague at Adrian College, who also read the manuscript and suggested many helpful stylistic changes.
I am particularly indebted to Dr. Lester Scherer, my friend and colleague in the Religion Department, who read the manuscript and rendered invaluable editorial assistance. He spent many hours away from his responsibilities reading and discussing the book with me as we worked for the publication deadline.
It would be difficult to express adequately my appreciation to Dr. C. Eric Lincoln of Union Theological Seminary. His friendship and professional encouragement have been invaluable to me. Also special thanks must be rendered to Dr. Lincoln for bringing my manuscript to the attention of The Seabury Press.
My wife deserves a special word of thanks for her understanding patience and for meeting the typing deadline for the final draft. She also provided an atmosphere for my writing by being both mother and father to our sons, Michael and Charles, during my extended periods of absence.
Although many persons assisted me in this work, I alone am responsible for the ideas which are set forth.

INTRODUCTION

”Black Power” is an emotionally charged term which can evoke either angry rejection or passionate acceptance. Some critics reject Black Power because to them it means blacks hating whites, while others describe it as the doctrine of Booker T. Washington in contemporary form. But the advocates of Black Power hail it as the only viable option for black people. For these persons Black Power means black people taking the dominant role in determining the black-white relationship in American society.
If, as I believe, Black Power is the most important development in American life in this century, there is a need to begin to analyze it from a theological perspective. In this work an effort is made to investigate the concept of Black Power, placing primary emphasis on its relationship to Christianity, the Church, and contemporary American theology.
I know that some religionists would consider Black Power as the work of the Antichrist. Others would suggest that such a concept should be tolerated as an expression of Christian love to the misguided black brother. It is my thesis, however, that Black Power, even in its most radical expression, is not the antithesis of Christianity, nor is it a heretical idea to be tolerated with painful forbearance. It is, rather, Christ's central message to twentieth-century America. And unless the empirical denominational church makes a determined effort to recapture the man Jesus through a total identification with the sudering poor as expressed in Black Power, that church will become exactly what Christ is not.
That most churches see an irreconcilable conflict between Christianity and Black Power is evidenced not only by the de facto segregated structure of their community, but by their typical response to riots: ”I deplore the violence but sympathize with the reasons for the violence.” Churchmen, laymen and ministers alike, apparently fail to recognize their contribution to the ghetto condition through permissive silence&emdash;except for a few resolutions which they usually pass once a year or immediately following a riot&emdash;and through their cotenancy of a dehumanizing social structure whose existence depends on the continued enslavement of black people. If the Church is to remain faithful to its Lord, it must make a decisive break with the structure of this society by launching a vehement attack on the evils of racism in all forms. It must become prophetic, demanding a radical change in the interlocking structures of this society.
This work, then, is written with a definite attitude, the attitude of an angry black man, disgusted with the oppression of black people in America and with the scholarly demand to be ”objective” about it. Too many people have died, and too many are on the edge of death. In fairness to my understanding of the truth, I cannot allow myself to engage in a dispassionate, noncommitted debate on the status of the black-white relations in America by assessing the pro and con of Black Power. The scholarly demand for this kind of ”objectivity” has come to mean being uninvolved or not taking sides. But as Kenneth B. Clark reminds us, when ”moral issues are at stake, noninvolvement and non-commitment and the exclusion of feeling are neither sophisticated nor objective, but naive and violative of the scientific spirit at its best. When human feelings are part of the evidence, they cannot be ignored. Where anger is the appropriate response, to exclude the recognition and acceptance of anger, and even to avoid the feeling itself as if it were an inevitable contamination, is to set boundaries upon truth itself. If a scholar who studied Nazi concentration camps did not feel revolted by the evidence no one would say he was unobjective but rather fear for his sanity and moral sensitivity. Feeling may twist judgment, but the lack of it may twist it even more.”
The prophets certainly spoke in anger, and there is some evidence that Jesus got angry. It may be that the importance of any study in the area of morality or religion is determined in part by the emotion expressed. It seems that one weakness of most theological works is their ”coolness” in the investigation of an idea. Is it not time for theologians to get upset?

To say that this book was written in anger and disgust (without denying ”a certain dark joy”) is to suggest that it is not written chiefly for black people. At least it is no handbook or collection of helpful hints on conducting a revolution. No one can advise another on when or how to die. This is a word to the oppressor, a word to Whitey, not in hope that he will listen (after King's death who can hope?) but in the expectation that my own existence will be clarified. If in this process of speaking for myself, I should happen to touch the souls of black brothers (including black men in white skins), so much the better. I believe that all aspiring black intellectuals share the task that LeRoi Jones has described for the black artist in America: ”To aid in the destruction of America as he knows it.”
His role is to report and reflect so precisely the nature of the society, that other men will be moved by the exactness of his rendering, and if they are black men, grow strong through this moving, having seen their own strength, and weakness, and if they are white men, tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil.
I am critical of white America, because this is my country; and what is mine must not be spared my emotional and intellectual scrutiny. Although my motive for writing was not&emdash;did not dare to be&emdash;dependent upon the response of white people, I do not rule out the possibility of creative changes, even in the lives of oppressors. It is illegitimate to sit in judgment on another man, deciding how he will or must respond. That is another form of oppression.

< previous	navigation	feedback	next >

James H. Cone Black Theology & Black Power
		CONTENTS Preface vii Introduction I I Ą Toward a Constructive Definition of Black Power 5 WHAT IS BLACK POWER ? 5 BLACK POWER AND EXISTENTIAL ABSURDITY 8 IS BLACK POWER A FORM OF BLACK RACISM? 12 WHY INTEGRATION IS NOT THE ANSWER 17 IS THERE AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO WHITE RACISM? 20 HOW DOES BLACK POWER RELATE TO WHITE GUILT? 23 BLACX POWER AND THE WHITE LIBERAL 26 BLACX POWER: HOPE OR DESPAIR? 28 II Ą The Gospel of Jesus, Black People, and Black Power 31 WHAT IS THE GOSPEL OF JESUS? 34 CHRIST, BLACK POWER, AND FREEDOM 38 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD AND BLACK POWER 43 CHRISTIAN LOVE AND BLACK POWER 47 THE HOLY SPIRIT AND BLACK POWER 53 III Ą The White Church and Black Power 62 WHAT IS THE CHURCH ? 63 THE WHITE CHURCH AND BLACK POWER 71 BLACK POWER AND AMERICAN THEOLOGY 82 IV Ą The Black Church and Black Power 91 THE BLACK CHURCH BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR 94 THE POST-CIVIL WAR BLACK CHURCH 103 V Ą Some Perspectives of Black Theology 116 ON BLACK SUFFERING 117 ON RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY 118 ON ESCHATOLOGY 121 ON THE CREATION OF NEW VALUES 127 VI Ą Revolution, Violence, and Reconciliation in Black Theology 135 REVOLUTION 136 VIOLENCE138 RECONCILIATION 143 Notes 153 Index 163
James H. Cone: Black Theology and Black Power PREFACE The appearance of this book is made possible by the assistance and encouragement of many people. Although I cannot mention all, I must express my gratitude to those persons who participated directly in the bringing of this work into existence. First of all, I wish to express mi gratitude to the faculty of Colgate Rochester Divinity School for the invitation to deliver these lectures as a Theological Fellow, and to the Faculty Development Committee of Adrian College for the summer grant which provided some financial assistance during my writing. I want to thank my brother, the Reverend Cecil W. Cone I, for providing me office space in his church and for his critical reading of the manuscript. Dr. William Hordern, my former teacher, also took time away from his busy schedule as president of Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon, to read the manuscript and to encourage me to seek its publication. I must express my gratitude to Don Ernst, my colleague at Adrian College, who also read the manuscript and suggested many helpful stylistic changes. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Lester Scherer, my friend and colleague in the Religion Department, who read the manuscript and rendered invaluable editorial assistance. He spent many hours away from his responsibilities reading and discussing the book with me as we worked for the publication deadline. It would be difficult to express adequately my appreciation to Dr. C. Eric Lincoln of Union Theological Seminary. His friendship and professional encouragement have been invaluable to me. Also special thanks must be rendered to Dr. Lincoln for bringing my manuscript to the attention of The Seabury Press. My wife deserves a special word of thanks for her understanding patience and for meeting the typing deadline for the final draft. She also provided an atmosphere for my writing by being both mother and father to our sons, Michael and Charles, during my extended periods of absence. Although many persons assisted me in this work, I alone am responsible for the ideas which are set forth. INTRODUCTION ”Black Power” is an emotionally charged term which can evoke either angry rejection or passionate acceptance. Some critics reject Black Power because to them it means blacks hating whites, while others describe it as the doctrine of Booker T. Washington in contemporary form. But the advocates of Black Power hail it as the only viable option for black people. For these persons Black Power means black people taking the dominant role in determining the black-white relationship in American society. If, as I believe, Black Power is the most important development in American life in this century, there is a need to begin to analyze it from a theological perspective. In this work an effort is made to investigate the concept of Black Power, placing primary emphasis on its relationship to Christianity, the Church, and contemporary American theology. I know that some religionists would consider Black Power as the work of the Antichrist. Others would suggest that such a concept should be tolerated as an expression of Christian love to the misguided black brother. It is my thesis, however, that Black Power, even in its most radical expression, is not the antithesis of Christianity, nor is it a heretical idea to be tolerated with painful forbearance. It is, rather, Christ's central message to twentieth-century America. And unless the empirical denominational church makes a determined effort to recapture the man Jesus through a total identification with the sudering poor as expressed in Black Power, that church will become exactly what Christ is not. That most churches see an irreconcilable conflict between Christianity and Black Power is evidenced not only by the de facto segregated structure of their community, but by their typical response to riots: ”I deplore the violence but sympathize with the reasons for the violence.” Churchmen, laymen and ministers alike, apparently fail to recognize their contribution to the ghetto condition through permissive silence&emdash;except for a few resolutions which they usually pass once a year or immediately following a riot&emdash;and through their cotenancy of a dehumanizing social structure whose existence depends on the continued enslavement of black people. If the Church is to remain faithful to its Lord, it must make a decisive break with the structure of this society by launching a vehement attack on the evils of racism in all forms. It must become prophetic, demanding a radical change in the interlocking structures of this society. This work, then, is written with a definite attitude, the attitude of an angry black man, disgusted with the oppression of black people in America and with the scholarly demand to be ”objective” about it. Too many people have died, and too many are on the edge of death. In fairness to my understanding of the truth, I cannot allow myself to engage in a dispassionate, noncommitted debate on the status of the black-white relations in America by assessing the pro and con of Black Power. The scholarly demand for this kind of ”objectivity” has come to mean being uninvolved or not taking sides. But as Kenneth B. Clark reminds us, when ”moral issues are at stake, noninvolvement and non-commitment and the exclusion of feeling are neither sophisticated nor objective, but naive and violative of the scientific spirit at its best. When human feelings are part of the evidence, they cannot be ignored. Where anger is the appropriate response, to exclude the recognition and acceptance of anger, and even to avoid the feeling itself as if it were an inevitable contamination, is to set boundaries upon truth itself. If a scholar who studied Nazi concentration camps did not feel revolted by the evidence no one would say he was unobjective but rather fear for his sanity and moral sensitivity. Feeling may twist judgment, but the lack of it may twist it even more.” The prophets certainly spoke in anger, and there is some evidence that Jesus got angry. It may be that the importance of any study in the area of morality or religion is determined in part by the emotion expressed. It seems that one weakness of most theological works is their ”coolness” in the investigation of an idea. Is it not time for theologians to get upset? To say that this book was written in anger and disgust (without denying ”a certain dark joy”) is to suggest that it is not written chiefly for black people. At least it is no handbook or collection of helpful hints on conducting a revolution. No one can advise another on when or how to die. This is a word to the oppressor, a word to Whitey, not in hope that he will listen (after King's death who can hope?) but in the expectation that my own existence will be clarified. If in this process of speaking for myself, I should happen to touch the souls of black brothers (including black men in white skins), so much the better. I believe that all aspiring black intellectuals share the task that LeRoi Jones has described for the black artist in America: ”To aid in the destruction of America as he knows it.” His role is to report and reflect so precisely the nature of the society, that other men will be moved by the exactness of his rendering, and if they are black men, grow strong through this moving, having seen their own strength, and weakness, and if they are white men, tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil. I am critical of white America, because this is my country; and what is mine must not be spared my emotional and intellectual scrutiny. Although my motive for writing was not&emdash;did not dare to be&emdash;dependent upon the response of white people, I do not rule out the possibility of creative changes, even in the lives of oppressors. It is illegitimate to sit in judgment on another man, deciding how he will or must respond. That is another form of oppression.