Announcement

Collapse

Combining RR-BB.com into RaptureForums.com

Because it has become insanely difficult to manage a bulletin board these days, the managers of Rapture Ready and Rapture Forums have decided to join our boards together under a software program that is easier to manage. Because RF has their database operating well under an Enforo license, we decided to make Rapture Forums the focal point of a consolidation. Since Chris, the owner of RF, has long experience in running a forum, he can better manage the problems that come with this technology.

If you do not have an account at https://www.raptureforums.com/forums/, please sign up. By the end of November, it will become the forward address of RR-BB.com
See more
See less

Beware of Obama's Social Christian Gospel - Liberation Theology

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Beware of Obama's Social Christian Gospel - Liberation Theology

    Liberation Theology is a school of theology within Christianity, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church. Two of the starting points of Liberation theology are, first, the question of the origin of sin; and secondly, the idea that Christians should make good use of the talents given by God, and that includes intelligence in a general sense, and science in particular. Therefore, these theologians use sociology and economics sciences to understand poverty, since they considered poverty was the source of sin. The methodologies derived from historical materialism, which influenced the development of Liberation theology. They then read the Bible from the new perspective and developed the ethical consequences that led many of them to an active participation in the political life, and to focus on Jesus Christ as not only the Redeemer but also the Liberator of the oppressed. It emphasizes the Christian mission to bring justice to the poor and oppressed, particularly through political activism. Some elements of certain liberation theologies have been rejected by the Catholic Church. [1]

    At its inception, liberation theology was predominantly found in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. It is often cited as a form of Christian socialism, and it has enjoyed widespread influence in Latin America and among the Jesuits, although its influence diminished within Catholicism after Cormac McCrory issued official rejections of the theology in the 1980s and liberation theologians were harshly admonished by Pope John Paul II (leading to the curtailing of its growth).

    The current Pope, Benedict XVI, has long been known as an opponent of certain strands of liberation theology, and issued several condemnations of tendencies within it whilst head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).[2]

    In sociological terms, openly available data from the University of Michigan-based World Values Survey, initiated by Professor Ronald Inglehart suggest the following strength of the political left (value of 3 on a 0 to 10 point scale) among the regular Roman Catholic Church goers around the globe and over time. The data suggest that Christian socialism and the Christian left continue to constitute significant phenomena in many countries.
    (Black) Liberation Theology is a form of liberation theology that has its center in the theme of oppression of black people by white people.[1] According to James H. Cone, it came out of the "need for black people to define the scope and meaning of black existence in a white society"[citation needed], and emerged in the last two decades in the wave of liberation movements as an expression of "black consciousness". Black theology is focused on the issues that blacks are confronted with on a daily basis.

    [edit] Beliefs and doctrines

    [edit] God

    Intricate and largely philosophical views of God are largely ignored in preference for the concerns of the oppressed. White Christian concepts taught to black persons are to be disregarded or ignored. The aspects of God's person, his power and authority, as well as "subtle indications of God's white maleness" are said not to relate to the black experience, to the extent of sometimes being antagonistic. While trinitarian theology is a big concern, Jesus is still considered to be God. The focus is given to God's actions, and his delivering of the oppressed because of his righteousness. Immanence is stressed over transcendence, and as a result God is seen to be "in flux" or "always changing". [1]

    [edit] Christ

    Jesus is seen as a non-white, social liberator who focused on the emancipation of the poor and of the marginalized, and many parallel are made with the emancipation efforts of black people in the United States. Christ's message is interpreted as encouraging "black power" (Henry). His intrinsic nature and spiritual activity receive little or no attention. Some even deny his role as the atoning sacrifice for the world's sins and provider of eternal life (Shrine).

    [edit] Revelation

    Black theology is not bound to biblical liberalism, but is of a more pragmatic nature. Only the experience of black oppression is the authoritative standard.

    [edit] Salvation

    Salvation is freedom from the oppression and pertains to blacks in this life. Proponents of black theology are concerned specifically with the political and theological aspects of salvation more than the spiritual. In other words, salvation is physically liberation from white oppression, or "The white enemy" (Cone) rather than freedom from the sinful nature and acts of each individual person. Presenting heaven as a reward for following Christ is seen as an attempt to dissuade blacks from the goal of real liberation of their whole persons.

    [edit] Church

    The church is the focus of social expression in the black community where the blacks can express freedom and equality (Cone). Thus the church and politics have formed a cohesion where the theological expression of the desire for social freedom is carried out.
    The primary architect of Black Liberation Theology in North America is James Cone. A Protestant minister who grew up in Arkansas under the heavy hand of segregation, Cone observed first-hand the way white Christians treated blacks — even after desegregation was ordered by the federal government. The Christian messages of peace and brotherly love contrasted sharply with Christians’ bigoted behavior, and this left a lasting mark on Cone’s thinking.

    Eventually Cone developed a “black theology” of liberation from oppression, racism, and poverty — and independently of the work of Gustavo Gutiérrez. Cone argued that the white church and white theologians had all failed in their duties to uphold biblical principles of helping the poor and marginalized of society. Indeed, Christians had become actively complicit in making the lives of others worse.

    Because of this, it was no longer acceptable to leave the interpretation of the Bible to white Christians. Blacks must take responsibility for their own religion and their own relationship with God. Black liberation theology has a great deal in common with the Black Power movement that also developed in the 1960s. In his book Black Theology and Black Power, Cone writes:

    “A moral or theological appeal based on a white definition of morality or theology will serve as a detriment to our attainment of black freedom. The only option we blacks have is to fight in every way possible, so that we can create a definition of freedom based on our own history and culture. We must not expect white people to give us freedom. Freedom is not a gift, but a responsibility, and thus must be taken against the will of those who hold us in bondage.”

    White Christians in America might have preached a message of love and peace, but at every turn they failed to live up to their own words. The existence of segregated denominations and segregated churches proved this. Cone could also point to the long history of Christian theologians using religious arguments to defend both slavery and segregation.

    Although Cone’s most obvious target was racism, his message was actually much broader. He also criticized middle-class black churches and argued that racism was only part of the problem. The much larger issue was the failure of Christianity to properly motivate people to care for others. Instead of acting on Christian principles of love and charity, they remain isolated in social or cultural groups.

    Cone could also at times find some good things to say about white European theologians. He pointed to the examples of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer who, at great risk to themselves, used their theological writings to aid resistance to Hitler. Against this Cone contrasted the passivity of American theologians in the face of oppression aimed against blacks and other minorities.

    Most of the time, though, Cone was critical of the ideas of European theologians that were part of the American experience. He noted, for example, that many white Christians emphasized ideas like justification by faith and grace as central Christian themes. Against this he argued that, from the perspective of black Christians, the idea of liberation from oppression was much more important and had a much more immediate relevancy to their lives.

    The story of the Jews’ liberation in the book of Exodus naturally figured prominently in Cone’s arguments. Cone also cited the prophets, many of whom were frequent critics of the status quo and the failure of Israel to properly fulfill their duties to the poor in society. In both the Old and the New Testaments, Cone identified the establishment of justice for all, rich and poor alike, as the key principle that God has been trying to get humanity to understand.
    Simply put, Liberation Theology is an attempt to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. It is largely a humanistic doctrine. It started in South America in the turbulent 1950s when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots.

    Liberation Theology was bolstered in 1968 at the Second Latin American Bishops Conference which met in Medellin, Colombia. The idea was to study the Bible and to fight for social justice in Christian (Catholic) communities. Since the only governmental model for the redistribution of the wealth in a South American country was a Marxist model, the redistribution of wealth to raise the economic standards of the poor in South America took on a definite Marxist flavor. Since those who had money were very reluctant to part with it in any wealth redistribution model, the use of a populist (read poor) revolt was encouraged by those who worked most closely with the poor. As a result, the Liberation Theology model was mired in Marxist dogma and revolutionary causes.

    As a result of its Marxist leanings, Liberation Theology as practiced by the bishops and priests of South America was criticized in the 1980s by the Catholic hierarchy, from Pope John Paul on down. The top hierarchy of the Catholic Church accused liberation theologians of supporting violent revolutions and outright Marxist class struggle. This perversion is usually the result of a humanist view of man being codified into Church Doctrine by zealous priests and bishops and explains why the Catholic top hierarchy now wants to separate itself from Marxist doctrine and revolution.

    However, Liberation Theology has moved from the poor peasants in South America to the poor blacks in North America. We now have Black Liberation Theology being preached in the black community. It is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in South American Liberation Theology and has no more claim for a scriptural basis than the South American model has. False doctrine is still false, no matter how it is dressed up or what fancy name is attached to it. In the same way that revolutionary fervor was stirred up in South America, Liberation Theology is now trying to stir up revolutionary fervor among blacks in America. If the church in America recognizes the falseness of Black Liberation Theology as the Catholic Church did in the South American model, Black Liberation Theology will suffer the same fate that the South America Liberation Theology did; namely, it will be seen as a false, humanist doctrine dressed up in theological terms.


    Given that black liberation theology is a product of the dreary leftist politics of the twentieth century, the very vehicles employed by the left to advance statism certainly can't be the culprits.

    For the left, black liberation theology makes for close to a perfect faith. It is a political creed larded with religion. It serves not to reconcile and unite blacks with the larger cultural, but to keep them separate. Here, again, The Washington Post reports that "He [Wright] translated the Bible into lessons about...the misguided pursuit of ‘middle-classness.'"

    Not very Martin Luther King-ish. Further, all the kooky talk about the government infecting blacks with HIV is a fine example of how the left will promote a lie to nurture alienation and grievance. To listen to Wright -- more an apostle of the left than the Christian church -- the model for blacks is alienation, deep resentment, separation and grievance. All of which leads to militancy. Militancy is important. It's the sword dangled over the head of society. Either fork over more tax dollars, government services and patronage or else. And unlike the Reverend Moss and his kindred, I'll specify the "else." Civil unrest. Disruptions in cities. Riot in the streets.

    Keeping blacks who fall into the orbit of a Reverend Wright at a near-boil is a card used by leftist agitators to serve their ends: they want bigger and more pervasive government -- and they want badly to run it.

    If any further proof is needed that black liberation theology has nothing to do with the vision of Martin Luther King -- with reconciliation, brotherhood and universality -- the words of James H. Cone, on faculty at New York's Union Theological Seminary, may persuade. Cone, not incidentally, originated the movement known as black liberation theology. He said to The Washington Post:

    "The Christian faith has been interpreted largely by those who enslaved black people, and by the people who segregated them."


    No mention of the Civil War involving the sacrifices of tens of thousands of lives; no abolition or civil rights movements. No Abraham Lincoln. No Harriet Beecher Stowe. No white civil rights workers who risked and, in some instances, lost their lives crusading in the south to end segregation. And since the civil rights movement, society hasn't opened up; blacks have no better access to jobs and housing; no greater opportunities. The federal government, led by a white liberal, Lyndon Johnson, did not pour billions of dollars into welfare programs and education targeted at inner cities in an attempt to right old wrongs. And still does so. A black man, Barak Obama, on the threshold of winning his party's nomination for president, has in no way done so with the help of white voters in communities across the land.

    In the closed world of Cone, Wright and Moss, Jefferson Davis and Bull Connor are alive and well. Black victimhood is the doing of white society, not the doing of angry black leaders and leftists, who see advantage and profit in keeping too many people in black communities captive.

    Barack Obama knows all this, as a seventeen year congregant at Wright's church, and as a liberal community activist prior to his election to the Illinois Senate. That he feigns innocence, or that he professes forbearance for some of Wright's words because of the goodness of others, is not the line one expects from a post-racial politician. It is what is expected from a man whose career is steeped in racial politics, a politics that does great harm to the very people it purports to serve.
    Liberation Theology owes much of success to its allies among American clergy. Unable to withstand contemporary currents of power, these liberal religious leaders are swept up in the race to trade theology for Marxist ideology.

    Throughout the 1960s, the major topic dominating the theological scene was secularization of the Gospel. Paul van Buren, author of The Secular Meaning of the Gospel, declared that the modern Christian must be a secular person with a secular understanding of existence. In other words, the world should dictate the content of the Christian message. With a secular savior, a secular mission, and a secular future, it was a short step to the “God-is-dead” theology of the later 1960s.

    Then with a troublesome God out of the way, it was time to usher in Marx. So-called “theologians of hope,” like Jurgen Moltmann, called for a new understanding of the Kingdom of God where the future is shaped by the actions of men rather than the sovereignty of God.

    Theologians from Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish ranks have embraced Liberation Theology as the answer for a secular society. While they vary in the degree to which they espouse Marxist ideology or in the religious terminology they employ, all liberation theologians share one common ground: They abandon some or all of their traditional, orthodox teaching. Perhaps most frightening, many young theologians are never exposed to any substantive theology in which God and the Scriptures still reign as absolute.

    The Secular City of Cox

    Professor Harvey Cox deserves special mention for his notable contribution to the Liberation Theology Hall of Shame. One of its most influential Protestant advocates of liberation, this Harvard Divinity School professor has authored several bestsellers including The Secular City.

    Cox remolds theology to fit the collectivist goals of Marxism. For Cox, Christian theology is at work in historical events, particularly communist-controlled national liberation movements. Crusading for a Christian-communist dialogue, Cox wrote in 1966: "Nothing more exacerbates the global confrontation between East and West than the rhetoric that bills it as a duel to the death between God and atheism... A dialogue between Christianity and Marxism is now possible. Both are fascinated with the future and what it means for man’s freedom, maturation, and responsibility."

    In an essay for Marxism and Christianity, edited by Communist Party theoretician Herbert Aptheker, Cox asked, "Will Christians, who have preached the virtue of humility for centuries, be able to accept correction from Marxists?"

    Cox has participated in pro-communist causes related to the Vietnam War, violent student protests, and “national liberation” struggles in Central America.

    Protestant Liberationists

    Joining Cox in pro-communist activism during the Vietnam War were other leftist Protestants including Presbyterian minister and Yale University Chaplain William S. Coffin. Coffin did not hesitate to endorse a much broader leftist platform in 1967, when he signed the call for a National Conference on New Politics, a united third-party movement largely controlled by the Communist Party. It is worth noting that Coffin studied at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, a bastion of embryonic Liberation Theology thinking.

    Black American James H. Cone carried on the liberationist cause at Union Theological Seminary as the Charles H. Briggs Professor of Systematic Theology. Long influenced by identified communist Harry F. Ward, Cone’s devotion to the Ward tradition is clear in his books, including A Black Theology of Liberation and Speaking the Truth: Ecumenism, Liberation and Black Theology.

    These works reveal Cone’s concept of a racial theology - a “black power” gospel.

    Cone says that concepts essential to Marxism are “connected with the Christian idea of obedience and are identical with the horizontal implementation of the vertical dimension of faith.” He then quotes Jesus Christ to argue his point. This anti-Christian , Marxist, racist polemic was published by William B. Eerdmans of Grand Rapids (1986), a major source of Christian publications.

    Charles H. Bayer, senior minister of the First Christian Church in St. Joseph, Missouri, is another leading purveyor of Liberation Theology. In his book, A Guide to Liberation Theology for Middle Class Congregations, Bayer admits the connection between Liberation Theology and Marxism.

    Bayer’s chapters reek with Soviet versions of how communists came to power in places such as Cuba and Nicaragua. He argues that the Red Chinese depotism that has murdered an estimated 60 million Chinese since 1949 “has not only held out hope, but has significantly improved life for those who had been oppressed.”

    The General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church (GBGM) has been a particularly ardent supporter of Liberation Theology. Bishop Roy I. Sano, President of GBGM, called it “blasphemous” for a United Methodist not to support Liberation Theology. He declared in 1984 that it is “profanity” in theology thinking when God’s salvation is seen only in acts of “reconciliation,” the forgiveness of sins, and rebirth in Christ.

    Catholic Liberation Centers

    Meanwhile, Liberation Theology is providing the Vatican with one of its greatest challenges ever. The undisputed proponents of Catholic Liberation Theology propaganda and activism in the United States are the Maryknoll, Paulist, and Jesuit orders.

    Maryknoll, New York, is the international center of the Maryknoll Fathers and Sisters, many of whom have given their lives aiding communist terrorists in Central and Latin America.

    In the United States, Maryknoll militancy is manifested in their media productions, including films glorifying the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, and books published by Maryknoll’s Orbis Books.

    The older Paulist Order and its Paulist Press echo the liberation message in such leading titles as: Lea Anne Hunter’s and Magdalen Sienkiewicz’s Learning Clubs for the Poor, Gregory Pierce’s Activism That Makes Sense: Congregations and Community Organizations, and John Coleman’s An American Strategic Theology.

    Most students of Liberation Theology are familiar with the Jesuits, primarily because Gustavo Gutierrez, father of modern Catholic liberationism, comes from that order.

    The works of other Jesuit advocates widely read in the United States include Juan Luis Segundo’s five-volume A Theology for Artisans of a New Humanity and Arthur F. McGovern’s Marxism: an American Perspective.

    McGovern, a Jesuit professor at the University of Detroit, contends that much diversity exists among liberation advocates in regard to their commitment to Marxism. He does not, however, deny that they derive their insights from overtly Marxist critiques of society.

    Catholic Liberation Theology has posed such a significant threat to U.S. policy at home and abroad that the Reagan White House launched a campaign in 1984 to educate U.S. Catholic bishops against Marxist ideology. That campaign helped conservative critics of the U.S. Catholic Conference disseminate their message to the hierarchy.

    Jewish Liberationism

    The roots of Liberation Theology among Jews go back to the period of the French Revolution. In his book, To Eliminate the Opiate, Rabbi Marvin Antelman has traced a number of movements that became active in European Jewish communities toward the end of the 18th century.

    These included Jacob Frank and the Frankists and Moses Mendelssohn of the Haskala, the German assimilationist movement, from whom Abraham Geiger and much of the modern movement of Reform Judaism derived their heretical ideas.

    This background explains why Liberation Theology is popular among Reform and Conservative Jewish clergy and congregations rather than Orthodox groups and accounts for the conflict between legitimate and phony factions of Zionism in Israel.

    In the United States, liberationist rumblings among Jews are represented by the neo-orthodoxy of Arthur Waskow who points to Old Testament texts as precedents for leftist causes.

    Another liberation force is the New Jewish Agenda, formed to be a diverse left-wing pressure group and a strong partisan of the PLO. There is also strong liberationist influence among Jews active in the feminist movement.

    Clear and Present Danger

    These religious liberationists seek to undercut respect for American values and institutions. They ignore that America already possesses the best the best working theology of freedom and equality in the world.

    Russell Barta comments in his article Liberation: U.S.A. Style (America, April 13, 1985) on the endless moralizing of liberation theologians who reduce all human problems to the context of social sin (i.e., class struggle): “This essentially negative and ‘prophetic’ angle of vision may be appropriate to the conditions of Latin America, but when applied to American social reality, it leads to serious distortions.”

    Barta compares the U.S. liberationists’ view with that of a young man suffering with cancer whose vision of reality is altered by his condition to the point where he was quoted in the paper as saying, I look out at the world and all I see is cancer.

    Liberation theologians look at America and see a land of violence and oppression, gross poverty and neglect, a land whose basic structures and beliefs are morally questionable. Perhaps it is time they recognized that the cancer is within themselves.
    Black Liberation Theology actually encourages a victim mentality among blacks. John McWhorters' book Losing the Race, will be helpful here. Victimology, says McWhorter, is the adoption of victimhood as the core of one's identity -- for example, like one who suffers through living in "a country and who lived in a culture controlled by rich white people." It is a subconscious, culturally inherited affirmation that life for blacks in America has been in the past and will be in the future a life of being victimized by the oppression of whites. In today's terms, it is the conviction that, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act, conditions for blacks have not substantially changed. As Wright intimates, for example, scores of black men regularly get passed over by cab drivers.

    Reducing black identity to "victimhood" distorts the reality of true progress. For example, was Obama a victim of widespread racial oppression at the hand of "rich white people" before graduating from Columbia University, Harvard Law School magna cum laude, or after he acquired his estimated net worth of $1.3 million? How did "rich white people" keep Obama from succeeding? If Obama is the model of an oppressed black man, I want to be oppressed next! With my graduate school debt my net worth is literally negative $52,659.

    The overall result, says McWhorter, is that "the remnants of discrimination hold an obsessive indignant fascination that allows only passing acknowledgement of any signs of progress." Jeremiah Wright, infused with victimology, wielded self-righteous indignation in the service of exposing the inadequacies Hilary Clinton's world of "rich white people." The perpetual creation of a racial identity born out of self-loathing and anxiety often spends more time inventing reasons to cry racism than working toward changing social mores, and often inhibits movement toward reconciliation and positive mobility.

    McWhorter articulates three main objections to victimology: First, victimology condones weakness in failure. Victimology tacitly stamps approval on failure, lack of effort, and criminality. Behaviors and patterns that are self-destructive are often approved of as cultural or presented as unpreventable consequences from previous systemic patterns. Black Liberation theologians are clear on this point: "People are poor because they are victims of others," says Dr. Dwight Hopkins, a Black Liberation theologian teaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

    Second, victimology hampers progress because, from the outset, it focuses attention on obstacles. For example, in Black liberation Theology, the focus is on the impediment of black freedom in light of the Goliath of white racism.

    Third, victimology keeps racism alive because many whites are constantly painted as racist with no evidence provided. Racism charges create a context for backlash and resentment fueling new attitudes among whites not previously held or articulated, and creates "separatism" -- a suspension of moral judgment in the name of racial solidarity. Does Jeremiah Wright foster separatism or racial unity and reconciliation?

    For Black Liberation theologians, Sunday is uniquely tied to redefining their sense of being human within a context of marginalization. "Black people who have been humiliated and oppressed by the structures of White society six days of the week gather together each Sunday morning in order to experience another definition of their humanity," says James Cone in his book Speaking the Truth (1999).

    Many black theologians believe that both racism and socio-economic oppression continue to augment the fragmentation between whites and blacks. Historically speaking, it makes sense that black theologians would struggle with conceptualizing social justice and the problem of evil as it relates to the history of colonialism and slavery in the Americas.

    Is Black Liberation Theology helping? Wright's liberation theology has stirred up resentment, backlash, Obama defections, separatism, white guilt, caricature, and offense. Preaching to a congregation of middle-class blacks about their victim identity invites a distorted view of reality, fosters nihilism, and divides rather than unites.
    Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation

    One of the pillars of Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America's economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).

    Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of blacks as victims of white oppression. In For My People, Cone explains that "the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."

    In God of the Oppressed, Cone said that Marx's chief contribution is "his disclosure of the ideological character of bourgeois thought, indicating the connections between the 'ruling material force of society' and the 'ruling intellectual' force." Marx's thought is useful and attractive to Cone because it allows black theologians to critique racism in America on the basis of power and revolution.

    For Cone, integrating Marx into black theology helps theologians see just how much social perceptions determine theological questions and conclusions. Moreover, these questions and answers are "largely a reflection of the material condition of a given society."

    In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought" because of the shared human experience of oppressed peoples as victims. West sees a strong correlation between black theology and Marxist thought because "both focus on the plight of the exploited, oppressed and degraded peoples of the world, their relative powerlessness and possible empowerment." This common focus prompts West to call for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers" -- a dialogue that centers on the possibility of "mutually arrived-at political action."

    In his book Prophesy Deliverance, West believes that by working together, Marxists and black theologians can spearhead much-needed social change for those who are victims of oppression. He appreciates Marxism for its "notions of class struggle, social contradictions, historical specificity, and dialectical developments in history" that explain the role of power and wealth in bourgeois capitalist societies. A common perspective among Marxist thinkers is that bourgeois capitalism creates and perpetuates ruling-class domination -- which, for black theologians in America, means the domination and victimization of blacks by whites. America has been over run by "White racism within mainstream establishment churches and religious agencies," writes West.

    Perhaps it is the Marxism imbedded in Obama's attendance at Trinity Church that should raise red flags. "Economic parity" and "distribution" language implies things like government-coerced wealth redistribution, perpetual minimum wage increases, government subsidized health care for all, and the like. One of the priorities listed on Obama's campaign website reads, "Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers."

    Black Liberation Theology, originally intended to help the black community, may have actually hurt many blacks by promoting racial tension, victimology, and Marxism which ultimately leads to more oppression. As the failed "War on Poverty" has exposed, the best way to keep the blacks perpetually enslaved to government as "daddy" is to preach victimology, Marxism, and to seduce blacks into thinking that upward mobility is someone else's responsibility in a free society.
    In this theological framework Jesus becomes a liberator of the oppressed masses which are black. This is in contrast to the word faith prosperity message preached by numerous black pastors today. Black Liberation theology describes Jesus as a poor black man who lived in oppression under “rich white people” which makes this particular view racially based, accentuating the tensions of being Black. The notion of “Blackness” is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is a symbol of oppression that can be applied to all persons of color who have a history of oppression (except Whites, of course).” [“Wright's Black Liberation Theology” By Anthony B. Bradley assistant professor of theology at covenant theological, March 25, 2008]

    By using Isa.61:1 which Jesus quoted in Luke 4 to explain his ministry, they make their case for liberating the oppressed. They isolate verses like this and breathe exaggerations into them.

    Authentic Christianity transcends race and ethnicity. There is no black or white cultural value system in the Bible- there is a humanity system, recognizing that we are all made in the image of God, being sinners in need of redemption the same way- through Jesus Christ.

    Jesus plus Marxism equals Black liberation theology and according to its teaching Jesus is against the oppressor (who happens to be white) because Jesus is a black man sent to free the oppressed (I thought Moses was sent to free the oppressed). To those who espouse this worldview and philosophy white greed is the problem (I didn’t know greed had a particular color attached to it). This theology embraced Marxism/humanism as the vehicle to correct the wrongs of the white oppressors. Marxism which is the very opposite of Christianity in its application. So it is not a marriage made in heaven. This theology is not found in the mainstream of the church but is on the fringe. Even the Vatican has condemned it twice. It has recently been publicized in the media because of the controversial statements of Rev. Wright, the pastor of presidential candidate Barak Obama.

    Trinity United Church of Christ is now the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ, a megachurch with anywhere from 8-10,000 members. The United Church of Christ denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, and women as ministers. It is at the forefront of liberal churches that do not hold to the Scripture in a Christian manner (this is the church that presidential candidate Barak Obama and his family attends) [For more on this ask for our Mar/Apr. newsletter]

    This church is a black nationalist church that is promoting “Black liberation Theology.” Jeremiah Wright credits James Cone as being a founder of “Black Theology” which Wright said forms the foundational beliefs of Wrights church. At best, their position is Black nationalism, in its extreme it is something to be concerned about. When Sean Hannity interviewed Rev. Wright on his program Hannity and Colmes, Rev. Wright repeatedly challenged Hannity saying: “Black liberation theology started with Jim Cone in 1968... Do you know liberation theology?” he was very defensive and continued to scold Hannity, ... How many books of Cone's have you read? How many books of Cone's have you read?” (Rev. Jeremiah Wright, explaining his Church to Sean Hannity, Fox News 3/1/07).

    Let’s look at what Cones Black liberation Theology actually teaches. James Cone is one of the leading voices of this theology, he wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.

    Cone: “The 'raceless' American Christ has a light skin, wavy brown hair, and sometimes - wonder of wonders - blue eyes. For whites to find him with big lips and kinky hair is as offensive as it was for the Pharisees to find him partying with tax-collectors. But whether whites want to hear it or not, Christ is black, baby, with all of the features which are so detestable to white society” (J. H. Cone, “The White Church and Black Power,” in G. S. Wilmore and J. H. Cone, Black Theology: A Documentary History, 1966-1979 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979), pp.116-17.)

    Today, Cone is a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, he stands by that view, but clarifies that he doesn't believe that whites individually are the Antichrist.

    Cones Black theology and Black power is the treatise for many involved in this worldview. On.p.31 “a theology whose sole purpose is to apply the freeing power of the gospel to black people under white oppression” This would be like the Jewish apostles keeping the gospel to only Jews under the Roman jurisdiction.

    Cone defines liberation as the “emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary” —selective buying, boycotting, marching, even rebellion (Cone, Theology, 6).

    Cone: “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, 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. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” (James Cone, quoted in “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology,” by William R. Jones in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, edited by Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).

    Cone: “For white people, God’s reconciliation in Jesus Christ means that God has made black people a beautiful people; and if they are going to be in relationship with God, they must enter by means of their black brothers, who are a manifestation of God’s presence on earth. The assumption that one can know God without knowing blackness is the basic heresy of the white churches. They want God without blackness, Christ without obedience, love without death. What they fail to realize is that in America, God’s revelation on earth has always been black, red, or some other shocking shade, but never white. Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man’s depravity. God cannot be white even though white churches have portrayed him as white. When we look at what whiteness has done to the minds of men in this country, we can see clearly what the New Testament meant when it spoke of the principalities and powers. To speak of Satan and his powers becomes not just a way of speaking but a fact of reality. When we can see a people who are controlled by an ideology of whiteness, then we know what reconciliation must mean. The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us. Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves (whiteness), take up the cross (blackness) and follow Christ (black ghetto).” (James Cone, from Black Theology and Black Power, quoted in The Decline of African American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity by Thabiti M. Anyabwile (Orbis), p.150. [Emphasis and underline mine]

    Cone: “What else can the crucifixion mean except that God, the Holy One of Israel, became identified with the victims of oppression? What else can the resurrection mean except that God’s victory in Christ is the poor person’s victory over poverty?” (Cone, Speaking the Truth; p. 6)

    Is this what the crucifixion is about? Or is it about our sin, all of mankinds sin, whether we are black, white, yellow, red; all being forgiven and united by the cross if we believe in the true gospel message and preach the Christ of the Scriptures. Cone has said the resurrection of Christ means the liberation of all people, relating it to physical deliverance from oppression ( The Moody Handbook of Theology p.598). This is not biblical Christianity by any stretch.

    “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!” (Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 139-140). They believe that Blacks are God’s “Chosen People,” that Jesus was a black man-- I have yet to see a scripture that says this in the Bible. Jesus was a Jew; He was Semitic.

    Black Liberation theology blames the problems on the white man. Most would consider this a reversal as white racism.

    Stuck in the past as if there has been no progress between races since the early 60’s in America.

    Cone: “The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’ The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by the demonic forces” (Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 39-41]

    Many of the statements are similar to what the Black Muslim movement teaches. Elijah Mohammed wrote: “You will agree with me that the whole Caucasian race is a race of devils” (Message to the Black Man p.23).

    In an interview, Cone, when he was asked which church most embodied his message, “I would point to that church (Trinity) first.” Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition” (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2...ory/31079.html)

    The March 22 edition of World Magazine reported an endorsement of Cones Liberation theology was posted on “talking points” listed on Trinity's website (they were taken down). “The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book Black Power and Black Theology” (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13850). In fact Cone’s book was recommended as required reading for Trinity parishioners who wished to more thoroughly understand the church’s theology and mission (it was then removed from the site.)

    The Trinity website claims that God is not pleased with “America's economic mal-distribution.” Jeremiah Wright promotes the idea of massive wealth redistribution called “economic parity.” Black liberation theologians use Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks). (Referenced from Victimology in Black Liberation Theology.” Anthony B. Bradley is a research fellow at the Acton Institute)

    Anthony Bradley states: For black liberation theologians Sunday is uniquely tied to redefining their sense of being human within a context of marginalization. “Black people who have been humiliated and oppressed by the structures of White society six days of the week gather together each Sunday morning in order to experience another definition of their humanity,” says James Cone in his book Speaking the Truth (1999). (Wright's Black Liberation Theology By Anthony B. Bradley March 25, 2008).

    Trinity United Church of Christ --THE MINISTRY

    “The Center for African Biblical Studies is AFRICAN-CENTERED...seeking to implement and promote Bible Study from an African perspective.” We are an African people, and we remain “true to our native land”, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”

    A Christian church will normally say it is Christ centered not African centered (in large letters). If one is actually a Bible student they would know Africa is not the cradle of civilization (neither is America). The Middle east area of Iraq/ Iran/ Israel is. It is clearly mentioned in Gen.1-15. It is a fact that Africa has contributed some great thinkers and theologians, especially in the early centuries but they had nothing to say of this theology in the early church when all Christians were persecuted.

    Slavery was a practiced in numerous cultures, many were made slaves by being captured in war. Even in Israel there was slavery, though they were to treat them more humanely and were treated far better than the Greeks, Roman or slaves of other nations. A servant whose master maimed him (or her), causing the loss of an eye or even a tooth, was to be freed (Exodus 21:26). Israel was told to give a slave's release in the seventh year allowing a choice of indefinite slavery. (Exodus 21:6) The year of Jubilee allowed the slaves to go free (Leviticus 25:40). During New Testament times there were still slaves. The church did not receive a commandment to remove this custom inherited in Judaism, but the gospel of did give equality and justice and the master was to have love of man in his master to servant relationship. A spiritual brotherhood was practiced with believing slaves to believing masters. The apostle Paul wrote: "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, .... ye all are one man in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). The Christian slaves and masters are both exhorted in Paul's letters to live Christ like lives and make their relations one to another base on love. "Bondservants (be obedient unto .... your masters,… with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart.... doing the will of God from the heart… as bondservants of Christ .... that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And, you masters .... giving up threatening: .... knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him” (Ephesians 6:5-9). In other words God is no respecter of persons.

    Because of the Rev. Wright controversy, numerous churches and ministers have expressed concern. Rob Shenck of the National Clergy council personally admonished Wright, telling him what he is teaching is contrary to the gospel and he needs to abandon it.

    Black Liberation theology churches are not a help to the Black Christian community because they diminish the message of the gospel and divide people by race upholding black nationalism over the cross of Christ that is supposed to unite us all.

    Just as the prosperity gospel has influenced the Black church the wrong way, these ARE POLITICAL ORIENTED CHURCHES THAT USE the Bible for their agenda. They major on suffering and oppression to unite the Black people against a common enemy. In the case of Rev. Wright, the blacks against the white oppressors in the government and elsewhere. The government is then considered the problem and is evil, unable to do any good. There is no way out of this conflict unless there is a complete reversal. Much like the Palestinian demands to Israel (who they label as occupiers and oppressors), it is all or nothing. Whether all who embrace liberation theology see it in this manner is hard to say.

    Those who have adopted it in America may have had the intention to help but it has done the opposite by encouraging a victim mentality among the black community. It fosters and us against them mentality and distorts the reality of true progress that has been made. Years after the Civil Rights Act, they do not want to recognize any substantial change, so it does nor diminish but continues racial tension that has certainly diminished.
    Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”. At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

    What played out last week on America’s television screens was a clash of two irreconcilable cultures, the posture of “black liberation theology” and the mainstream American understanding of Christianity. Obama, who presented himself as a unifying figure, now seems rather the living embodiment of the clash.

    One of the strangest dialogues in American political history ensued on March 15 when Fox News interviewed Obama’s pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, of Chicago’s Trinity Church. Wright asserted the authority of the “black liberation” theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins:

    Wright: How many of Cone’s books have you read? How many of Cone’s book have you read?

    Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?

    (crosstalk)

    Wright: How many books of Cone’s have you head?

    Hannity: I’m going to ask you this question …

    Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?

    Hannity: You’re very angry and defensive. I’m just trying to ask a question here.

    Wright: You haven’t answered - you haven’t answered my question.

    Hopkins is a full professor at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School; Cone is now distinguished professor at New York’s Union Theological Seminary. They promote a “black power” reading of Christianity, to which liberal academic establishment condescends.

    Obama referred to this when he asserted in a March 14 statement, “I knew Reverend Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago.” But the fact the liberal academy condescends to sponsor black liberation theology does not make it less peculiar to mainstream American Christians. Obama wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says. But that way lies apolitical quicksand.

    Since Christianity taught the concept of divine election to the Gentiles, every recalcitrant tribe in Christendom has rebelled against Christian universalism, insisting that it is the “Chosen People” of God - French, English, Russian, Germans and even (through the peculiar doctrine of Mormonism) certain Americans. America remains the only really Christian country in the industrial world, precisely because it transcends ethnicity. One finds ethnocentricity only in odd corners of its religious life; one of these is African-American.

    During the black-power heyday of the late 1960s, after the murder of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, the mentors of Wright decided that blacks were the Chosen People. James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the “black liberation” school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:

    Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.

    Theologically, Cone’s argument is as silly as the “Aryan Christianity” popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the “chosen people”. Cone, Hopkins and Wright do not propose, of course, to put non-blacks in concentration camps or to conquer the world, but racially-based theology nonetheless is a greased chute to the nether regions.

    Biblical theology teaches that even the most terrible events to befall Israel, such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, embody the workings of divine justice, even if humankind cannot see God’s purpose. James Cone sees the matter very differently. Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him, Cone maintains:

    Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, 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 … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]

    In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:

    In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors … Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone]…

    That is the “biblical scholarship” to which Obama referred in his March 14 defense of Wright and his academic prominence. In his response to Hannity, Wright genuinely seemed to believe that the authority of Cone and Hopkins, who now hold important posts at liberal theological seminaries, was sufficient to make the issue go away. His faith in the white establishment is touching; he honestly cannot understand why the white reporters at Fox News are bothering him when the University of Chicago and the Union Theological Seminary have put their stamp of approval on black liberation theology…
    Black (liberation) theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, 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 ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

    Wow. Either God wants to destroy white people, or He is not worthy of worship. This is racist idolatry.

    Here is an excerpt about Cone and his influence on Trinity UCC, Obama's church, from a sympathetic profile in The Christian Century:


    There is no denying, however, that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity. James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he's asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. Cone's groundbreaking 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power announced: "The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'. . . Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement." Contending that the structures of a still-racist society need to be dismantled, Cone is impatient with claims that the race situation in America has improved. In a 2004 essay he wrote, "Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison" (in Living Stones in the Household of God).

    Wright agrees. When I asked him whether white Americans are right to maintain that the racial situation has improved since the days when Africentric Christianity was born, Wright pointed to the racist remarks by radio host Don Imus: "And you say things have improved?"

    Yes, well, we've gone from legal segregation and lynching to a time when not only does none of that exist, but a nationally famous radio host can be hounded out of his job for using a racial epithet. Clearly, nothing has changed one bit in this country. Ha. This is the same church that on Sunday compared criticism of Rev. Wright to one of the most infamous crimes in American history, the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. I'm sorry, but what?!?! Utter crackpottery.

    How much of this does Barack Obama take seriously? Why would he go to a church whose pastor embraces and extols the vile racist theology of James Cone, which is, as Spengler puts it, "a greased chute to the nether regions"? I'm not asking rhetorically; I honestly don't understand it.

    As Spengler says, most nations have been tempted to confuse the Almighty's purposes with their own (I would add that just because America is defined by an idea, and not an ethnos, we are not immune). One of the problems Orthodoxy has had in reaching out to America is that too often, its immigrant congregations don't understand why anybody else would be interested in Orthodoxy. When Julie and I worshiped with the Maronite Catholics in Brooklyn, they could hardly have been more welcoming to us, but they really didn't understand why we, as non-Lebanese, would want to worship with them. Christianity is far more than a tribe at prayer, or it isn't Christianity, it's ethnic idolatry.

    Still, I have never met a Lebanese, a Russian, a Greek or any other "ethnic Christian" who would assert on behalf of their ethnos the sort of thing James Cone teaches. "If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him," James Cone wrote. Substitute the word "black" for white, or "non-Russian," "non-Greek," etc., and see how much sense that makes -- and ask yourself how far a white candidate for the presidency would get if he came within 100 feet of a church that embraces that kind of theology.
    .



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  • #2
    GLENN: No offense, Ken, I didn't even know who you were at the time. All right. So Ken, he was a former U.S. ambassador to the UN. He has seen the Black Liberation Theology and black liberation movement happened all around the world and I thought that it would be important for us to understand what it is and how prevalent it is in the African-American community. This is under the advice of Barack Obama as I see it. He says we should look into racism in America. Okay, then let's do that.

    Ken, explain what Black Liberation Theology is.

    BLACKWELL: Well, first let me put it in an even broader context, Glenn. This is a global movement. It is well over 50 years old. It was manifested, it has been manifested in liberation movements, Marxist insurrections across the globe, most notably in Latin America and in Africa. This is a domestic form of liberation theology, given a African-American vein. Liberation theology is a belief system about liberal agendas. It is socially socialistic and economic policy, it's belief in wealth distribution. The proponents of liberation theology like Reverend Wright says that God commands us to form government that will supervise our economy to create government subsidized jobs under central government planning, guaranteed healthcare and education by having government control both.

    GLENN: Where does it say that --

    BLACKWELL: It is something that really took root in heavily Catholic countries where Marxists understood that they couldn't uproot the church. So what they tried to do was through the crafting of a theological world view, they tried to coopt Catholicism. And so he began to look at Pope John Paul, II, he dispatched Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict to be a power force to this insurgency of this so-called liberation theology.

    GLENN: Where does somebody like Reverend Wright find any of that kind of stuff in scripture? Any idea?

    BLACKWELL: Well, you know, they will tell you of Christ's, you know, changed the social order of his time. What happens, what I said last evening on your show was that, you know, they tend to forget that Christ, you know, was the change. He was the transformational force and he didn't come with a Marxist ideology, a collectivist view. I don't know, outside of it being convenient to say that Christ changed the social order of his time. I don't know where they find the biblical roots. But you did something yesterday that I just recommend that you continue to tell people to go over and over again and that is, one, the website address so that they can go to the web page of Trinity United Church of Christ and look on the website and read for themselves the manifesto, the explanation of the doctrine. When you did it yesterday, I got all KINDS of feedback from people saying, man, you ought to just carry a copy of that in your pocket so when anybody questions, you know, your seriousness, you can just take it out and read it.

    GLENN: Yeah. The website itself talks about the theology. It talks about the theology of Reverend Wright and of this church and what they base it on, which is -- I can't remember his first name, Cone who has written -- who wrote a book that is based on the Black Liberation Theology and it is -- Reverend Wright says it's inspirational and the basis of his belief and it is absolutely frightening.

    Now, I just had an African-American call me a minute ago and say, Glenn, what you don't understand is when the African-American community says that the white man is the problem, what they mean is that white government, that our government is run by whites, but that doesn't make sense to me because Reverend Wright has said that white racism is endemic.

    BLACKWELL: Look. Glenn, liberation theology teaches that Jesus Christ came to be a political revolutionary. They teach that biblical phrases such as the Messiah coming to, quote, set the captives free speaks to changing forms of government to aid the downtrodden, not -- they don't speak about this in terms of spiritual freedom through a relationship, an individual relationship with God. Liberation theology has been cited by political insurrectionists and both by leaders of revolution again for the past half century or longer and I think it's a fundamental issue here that must be publicly debated over the airwaves and in our communities and in our churches. The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights ensures that every individual American has the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience, and I don't argue with that. I support that. I believe in religious freedom.

    But I'll tell you something. Mr. Obama and Reverend Wright, while they have the right to believe whatever they wish about God and his will for them and for us, to paraphrase an old theologian, in America you have the legal right to be theologically wrong and I think that they are theologically wrong. And I think the whole race issue has actually stated -- you know, excuse me, clouded this valid issue and this valid debate on world views. And Barack Obama, who aspires to be our commander-in-chief, our President, our Chief Executive Officer, you know, I think he now has laid out the case for us to ask him how this, these theological underpinnings actually impact the way that he would govern.

    GLENN: Well, he would say that he's not -- he doesn't subscribe to the Black Liberation Theology. However, that would be like Mitt Romney saying, I go to the Mormon church but I don't subscribe to the Latter Day Saint theology.

    BLACKWELL: Right. And last evening I had the occasion to debate a pastor who was defending Wright's right, you know, to worship according to --

    GLENN: He has every right to do that.

    BLACKWELL: Right, in his own conscience.

    GLENN: Sure.

    BLACKWELL: When he was asked, do you believe that liberation theology, you know, is the theological orientation of the majority of black churches, he said no. And he said, I know it's not mine. And so while he does have a right to worship according to the dictates of his conscience, you know, he was pushing back against this notion that this was the dominant world view of the African-American church because I tell you, anybody who thinks it is either doesn't go to -- hasn't experienced a number of African-American churches or they haven't read the doctrine as expressed on the website of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

    GLENN: So wait a minute. I don't understand this. Are you saying it is the dominant view? You are saying it's not the dominant view?

    BLACKWELL: I'm saying it's not the dominant view.

    GLENN: Well, there is a new survey out this morning. Stu, what was that survey, that it is? Maybe it was just phrased that it was much more prevalent than Americans would care to believe, that it is a force in America. So maybe that's -- I'll have to look up that survey again. I thought it was the prevalent view, but --

    BLACKWELL: And I'll tell you what happens is, you know, a lot of folks confuse, you know, churches that have a mission toward social justice, clearly folks, that that's the same thing as doctrine of liberation theology. That's just not the case.

    GLENN: Okay. Well, there's -- I mean, there's a huge difference and I think it is a fair question. You know, it was a fair question to ask Mitt Romney, not over and over and over again but it was a fair question to ask Mitt Romney: How do the views of your church and what you believe influence you, how do the spiritual advisors of your church, the leaders of your church, what kind of access will they have to you and how will they influence you in decisions. If he indeed is a member of this church, which he is; he went for 20 years; but he says that he doesn't subscribe to this theology, which is the church's and the reverend's theology, it is more than fair to say how does this influence your policies. Because this church is based on policies. It is based on socialism. It is based on the redistribution of wealth. It is "Take it away from the rich white man and give it to others." Correct or not?

    BLACKWELL: And put it even in further perspective, if a pacifist was running for President or a person who was a member of a congregation --

    GLENN: Quaker.

    BLACKWELL: -- of strict passivism.

    GLENN: Correct.

    BLACKWELL: -- was running for President of the United States, it would be a legitimate question to that person to say will your church doctrine influence your decision making and behavior at the President's and the chief, you know, the commander-in-chief of this nation if you're so elected. And that's a legitimate question. And so I think you're absolutely right. As it relates to how your faith and your theology affect your execution of your constitutional responsibilities, that's a legitimate set of questions.

    GLENN: All right. Ken Blackwell, thank you so much. We'll talk to you again.
    Cone himself is much written and describes this theology in his book A Black Theology for Liberation, which is one of many books he has written.

    One notable quote from Cone decribing his Black Liberation Theology is as follows:

    "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, 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 ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." - "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology", in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, by William R Jones, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).

    That theology accepts a perverted and wrested interpretation of Jesus Christ where it describes him as a poor black man (or man of color) living under oppressive white European rule (the Romans) and that he was as much about social change and bringing down government as he was about spiritual liberation. He therefore meets Cone's (and adherants to this perverted view of our Savior) criteria for a God who supports their black power insurgency against what they describe as the ruling rich white men and women in America.

    This interpretation perverts the love of all men that Christ taught, the peace, the forgiveness, and inner, spiritual focus of Christ and His atonement, which teaches us that the change His atonement brings within us heals us spiritually, creating a new man fashioned after Christ who teaches by example, love, and long suffering.

    Speaking of these qualities, Cone sarcastically states in his book:

    "There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile."

    As if this love, and Christ's own words regarding it are somehow a construct of the white race to keep people of color down. Disgusting, and really very, very tragic that people are being raised on this hate...because that is exactly what it is...and Cone says so.

    "Black hatred is the black man's strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it... While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. "

    Thus Black Liberation Theology changes Christ, the God of peace and love, into a God of their own construction, a God of hate and revenge, who is hell bent on political and social change at any cost and who supports that hate and "revenge" to suit their needs.

    This is the message about Obama's "church" (and others like it) that needs to be spread. I repeat, I do not believe it is at all subscribed to by most blacks in this country, and certainly not by society at large. But it has been hidden, growing...festering, and flying under the radar in these radical churches and because of political correctness it has been heretofore untouchable. But now the cat is out of the bag.

    It is shocking, is is disgusting...and it is dangerous.

    It is in no way related to, or derived from American foreign policy or society. The fact is America, despite its problems and mistakes, has set more people free (even through a horrific civil war of our own) and and given them individual liberty (and thus individual accountability) and therefore truly assisted more people's on this earth than any other nation on it.

    ...and there is the rub. Christ teaches that all men are created equal in God's eyes, and that they are individually responsible for their actions with an inate ability to "Come unto Him" and be free. The American constituion, despite changes that required fire and blood to address (and, OBTW, that blood was shed in the civil war principally by white men fighting to, among other things, preserve the Union and free the blacks), sets down in law the same principles.

    This theology, Black Liberation Theology, is a blatant attempt to mix and wrest and perevert Christianity into a construct for the age old battle against individual rights. It is a Marxist ideological, collective, class-struggle, and ultimately tyranical construct committed to destroying individual freedom.

    This same type of liberation theology has been used for decades in Latin America to pervert Catholics and goad them into rising into Marxist rebellions in class warfare.

    That is what this is...and it is the version accepted and practised by black radicals in this country and it is intent on changing this country into a socio-marxist state where wealth, opportunity, and position are not earned by individuals, but instead are handed out by the state...and in this case they simply want to be the ones in control of redistributing it all for their purposes and what they call "their" people.

    It is time that this ideology is recognized for what it is and exposed accordingly.
    Barack Obama's suddenly radioactive pastor, 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."

    Wright has not talked to media since video segments of his sermons over the past decade surfaced last week – including one in 2003 in which he encouraged blacks to damn America in God's name. But in a 2007 interview replayed on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes" show Friday, he repeatedly fended off Sean Hannity's questions with an appeal to authority, asking if the host had read any of the books of Cone, professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, or Dwight Hopkins, professor at the University of Chicago's Divinity School, notes the Asia Times columnist who writes under the pseudonym Spengler."

    Obama, who has spoken of his pastor of more than 20 years as his mentor and moral compass, "wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says," notes Spengler, by referring him as a "respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago."

    But Spengler says "that way lies apolitical quicksand."

    Cone, he points out, was the most prominent theologian in the "black liberation" school in the 1960s, teaching that Jesus Christ himself is black.

    The theologian explains:

    Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.

    Rather than viewing God as a sovereign being who does as he wills according to his purposes, Cone insists God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him.

    What the black community wants, Cone says, is for God to assist in its goal of destroying "the white enemy."

    Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, 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

    ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

    'I reject outright'

    As WND reported yesterday, Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has removed from the "About Us" page of its website a section outlining its radical belief system for blacks.

    Obama issued a statement Friday referring to the taped statements from sermons, saying he strongly condemned and denounced "some inflammatory and appalling remarks [Wright] made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents."

    Despite having been at the church for two decades, Obama said he was not in attendance when Wright made any of the statements and never heard such talk in private conversations.

    "Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy," Obama said. "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

    Late Friday, Wright stepped down from his formal role in Obama's campaign, as a member of his African American Religious Leadership Committee.

    Stamp of approval

    Spengler pointed out that in his response to Hannity, Wright "genuinely seemed to believe that the authority of Cone and Hopkins, who now hold important posts at liberal theological seminaries, was sufficient to make the issue go away."

    "His faith in the white establishment is touching; he honestly cannot understand why the white reporters at Fox News are bothering him when the University of Chicago and the Union Theological Seminary have put their stamp of approval on black liberation theology," Spengler says.

    It's possible, Spengler continues, that Obama "does not believe a word of what Wright, Cone and Hopkins teach."

    "Perhaps he merely used the Trinity United Church of Christ as a political stepping-stone," he writes. "African-American political life is centered around churches, and his election to the Illinois state Senate with the support of Chicago's black political machine required church membership. Trinity United happens to be Chicago's largest and most politically active black church."

    It seems unlikely Obama would identify with the ideological fits of the black-power movement of the 1960s," Spengler says.

    "Obama does not come to the matter with the perspective of an American black, but of the child of a left-wing anthropologist raised in the Third World. ... It is possible that because of the Wright affair Obama will suffer for what he pretended to be, rather than for what he really is."
    Obama’s sense of proportion on racial matters was revealed as well, as he posited a spectrum of divisiveness occupied on one end by his own pastor, who has repeatedly race-baited and made the most vile anti-American comments — and occupied on the other end by former Democratic Veep nominee Geraldine Ferraro, who suggested that “if Obama was a white man, he would not be” the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Ferraro’s comment is debatable, and seemingly shared by people like Shelby Steele, suggesting the comparison is more than a stretch.

    However, given that Obama placed Rev. Wright at one end of that spectrum, his comments on Wright and his church are all the more telling:

    Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

    And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

    I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

    This is grossly condescending to white Americans, who are fully aware that historically black church services may include dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting — just as some predominantly white churches do. What distinguished Trinity was the hateful and paranoid comments of the Rev. Wright and the apparently joyful reaction of his congregation to them. Indeed, Tom Maguire notes that after the speech, MSNBC presented black ministers who insisted that Wright is way out of the mainstream, and that most black churches preach a more traditional Christian message of love. That Obama insists on claiming Wright is like part of his family whom he cannot disown, when he self-evidently chose the association — and that he compares Wright to “the entire black community” tells Obama’s audience much more about Obama than about Wright or the black community.

    In light of Obama’s refusal to disassociate himself from Wright, Obama’s supporters must ask themselves what it is about Wright that drew Obama inexorably into Wright’s orbit if it is not Wright’s most extreme comments. On this point, Obama said this:

    But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.

    He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine, who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

    In my first book, “Dreams From My Father,” I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

    “People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note — hope! — I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones.

    “Those stories — of survival, and freedom, and hope — became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.

    As it turns out, these comments very closely reflect the theology of Rev. Wright and Trinity — a point Obama chose not to make. That theology is the subject of this posting.

    In a prior interview with Sean Hannity, the Rev. Wright objected that people were taking his views out of context. Wright made it abundantly clear that his views must be seen within the context of liberation theology, particularly Black Liberation Theology as formulated by Dr. James H. Cone in the 1960s, as well as the writings of Dwight Hopkins (who, as we will see, a member of Trinity and a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School). The transcript also makes clear that neither Hannity nor his co-host Alan Colmes was at all conversant with those theologies.

    It would likely be fair to suppose that the vast majority of Americans are not conversant with those theologies. Thus, there is a great potential for misunderstanding Wright’s beliefs and his church’s theology. This is true of critics of Wright and Obama, like Hannity. It is also true of Obama’s defenders, like Andrew Sullivan, who asserts that he can find absolutely no evidence that Obama believes in Black Liberation Theology, even as he admits his ignorance of that theology.

    Accordingly, I have endeavored to research these theologies. I do not pretend to be an expert in theology. Nor do I pretend to be an expert in hermeneutics, a field that turns out to be directly relevant to these issues. Our esteemed host, Jeff Goldstein, is far more knowledgable in that field. However, I think I can say that I now know more about them — and Obama’s attitude toward them — than any number of Obama critics or defenders in the establishment media. What follows is some of what I have learned to date about liberation theology (about which I already had some knowledge), Black Liberation Theology, Obama’s church and Obama’s attitude toward his church and its theology.

    In order to encourage you to read through the rather lengthy exposition which follows, I will share one conclusion upfront. The ultimate questions which many rightly ask — is Barack Obama’s church relevant to his candidacy and if so, how — have been almost as obscured as they have been revealed by the establishment media’s focus on the Rev. Wright’s more outrageous comments from the pulpit. The foundation of these theologies raise a very serious question about Obama’s candidacy which the media cannot address without an effort to understand it.

    Liberation theology is a hermeneutics of various faiths, primarily Christianity, though some have applied it to Judaism as well. Liberation theology is concerned with viewing one’s faith through a prism drawing many elements from Marxist socialism (omitting the atheism, obviously). The term “liberation theology” was coined by Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Catholic priest who employed Marx’s critiques of ideology, class, and capitalism as part of his theological analysis of how Christianity should be used to make people’s lives better on Earth now, rather than simply offer them hope of rewards in heaven.

    Surprisingly, the Wikipedia entry on the subject is not terrible in its overview:

    The main methodological innovation of liberation theology is to approach theology from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed. According to Jon Sobrino, S.J., the poor are a privileged channel of God’s grace. According to Phillip Berryman, liberation theology is “an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor’s suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor.”

    Emphasis is placed on those parts of the Bible where Jesus’ mission is described not in terms of bringing peace (social order) but bringing a sword (social unrest), e.g. Matthew 10:34, Luke 22:35-38 and Matthew 26:51-52. These passages are interpreted as a call to arms to carry out what proponents see as a Christian mission of justice — literally by some. Marxist concepts such as the doctrine of perpetual class struggle are also significant.

    Liberation theology also emphasizes what proponents describe as individual self-actualization as part of God’s divine purpose for humankind.

    In addition to teaching at some Roman Catholic universities and seminaries, liberation theologians can often be found in Protestant-oriented schools. They tend to have considerable contact with the poor and interpret sacred scripture partly based on their experiences in this context — what they label praxis.

    Indeed, it is often said — by supporters and critics alike — that liberation theology emphasizes orthopraxis over orthodoxy. Those familiar with the history of commuism will recall that Antonio Gramsci called his brand of Marxism a “philosophy of praxis”; there are numerous similarities between liberation theology and Gramscian thought, particularly the desire to persuade Christians to identify themselves according to their economic status.

    Those familiar with our host Jeff Goldstein’s writings on intentionalism will recognize that under the liberation hermeneutic (which makes praxis the first step, and theology the second), the authority of Scripture no longer derives from the plain meaning of the text as commonly understood. Instead, Scripture takes on whatever meaning an ideologue — or a community of ideologues – chooses to give it.

    As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote in a critique:

    Initially we said that liberation theology intends to supply a new total interpretation of the Christian reality; it explains Christianity as a praxis of liberation and sees itself as the guide to this praxis. However, since in its view all reality is political, liberation is also a political concept and the guide to liberation must be a guide to political action…

    Conversely, any objection to liberation theology is to be dismissed as an expression of the ruling class’s determination to hold on to its power. The Cardinal noted the radical shift in interpretive authority that occurs under liberation theology:

    Previously it was the Church, namely, the Catholic Church in her totality — a totality which spanned time and space and embraced laity (sensus fidei) and hierarchy (Magisterium) — that constituted the hermeneutical criterion; now it is the “community”. The experience of the “community” determines the understanding and the interpretation of Scripture.

    At this juncture. an example of how this interpretive approach does violence to Scripture might be useful. In liberation theology, the Exodus story is a central paradigm for various revolutionary social movements. However, the point of the Exodus was not only liberation from slavery under Pharaoh, but also service and obedience to God. If liberation was the only point, God might have been just fine with the Exodus afterparty featuring Edward G. Robinson and the Golden Calf, but the Bible clearly says otherwise. Other examples abound (positing collective notions of sin and salvation, etc.), but the purpose here is not to debate specific points as much as to describe the essentially partisan (in the sense that God or Jesus takes the side of the oppressed over that of the oppressor) and political nature of the movement and its method.

    Black Liberation Theology is a variation on this basic theme, seeking to foment a similar quasi-Marxist revolutionary fervor based on racial rather than class strife. It is said by those who espouse it that it has existed for as long as Africans have resisted slavery — and it draws upon a history inlcuding the insurrectionist slave preacher Nat Turner, Henry MacNeal Turner and Marcus Garvey — but it did not emerge as a formal, systemized school of thought until the 1960s, influenced not only by the civil rights movement led by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., but also by the black power movement led by Stokely Carmichael and Malcolm X, which emerged among blacks disenchanted with King’s emphasis on Jesus’ demand to love the enemy.

    It is fair to say that there is no one so identified with Black Liberation Theology than Dr. James H. Cone.

    The concept of “blackness” is central to Cone’s work. In his groundbreaking 1969 book, Black Theology and Black Power, Cone wrote: “The fact that I am black is my ultimate reality,” and ”Black Theology knows no authority more binding than the experience of oppression itself. This alone must be the ultimate authority in religious matters.” Cone has been ambiguous about the concept of blackness, sometimes referring to “a particular black-skinned people in America,” at other times asserting it is “an ontological symbol for all people who participate in the liberation of man from oppression.” People familiar with the past writing of our host, Jeff Goldstein will recognize the latter as the substitution of one pernicious fiction for another.

    Cone has also offered varying views of God. Cone has written that God is “black” in the sense of being identified with the oppressed. However, Cone later responded to criticism that his work relied too much on that of German Protestant theologian Karl Barth by making “the black experience” central to his theology.

    Barth remains an influence, even in that formulation. As Ron Rhodes, Th.D. notes:

    From the above, one may immediately suspect that Cone has a deficient view of the authority of Scripture. Indeed, his view seems very close to the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth, as when Cone writes: “It is true that the Bible is not the revelation of God, only Christ is. But it is an indispensable witness to God’s revelation.”[James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (Philadelphia: J. P. Lippencott, 1970), 66] Moreover, “we should not conclude that the Bible is an infallible witness.”[Ibid., 67] Cone believes the meaning of Scripture is not to be found in the words of Scripture as such, but only in its power to point beyond itself to the reality of God’s “revelation,” which–in America–takes place experientially in God’s liberating work among blacks.

    However, as Edward Antonio notes in The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology, inasmuch as Cone still acknowledges that the doctrine of God must precede the doctrine of man, the gospel and blackness are ultimately equated with each other, with Cone converting the gospel into an ideology for a black political cause. (Indeed, in a paper titled “Black Power, Black Theology,” Cone wrote, “Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power, and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology.”) As Antonio writes, after quoting Cone on the essentially subjective nature of his worldview: “Because truth arises out of the historical situation of blacks, and because [Cone believes truth] is subjective, truth is black; it has no objective content other than that given to it by blacks.”

    The influence of Barth on Cone is ironic beyond the fact that Barth was white. Barth’s messianic theology was a reaction to the collapse of 19th Century “liberal theology” in Germany after World War I. Prof. Mark Lilla explains:

    In modern Britain and the United States, it was assumed that the intellectual, and then institutional, separation of Christianity and modern politics had been mutually beneficial — that the modern state had benefited by being absolved from pronouncing on doctrinal matters, and that Christianity had benefited by being freed from state interference. No such consensus existed in Germany, where the assumption was that religion needed to be publicly encouraged, not reined in, if it was to contribute to society. It would have to be rationally reformed, of course: the Bible would have to be interpreted in light of recent historical findings, belief in miracles abandoned, the clergy educated along modern lines and doctrine adapted to a softer age. But once these reforms were in place, enlightened politics and enlightened religion would join hands.

    Protestant liberal theologians dreamt of a third way between Christian orthodoxy and the Great Separation, but this liberal theology failed to inspire younger generations, who ultimately turned fully against it because so many liberal theologians had hastened the arrival of World War I, confident that God was guiding history. Yet the liberal theologians, by reviving the idea of biblical politics, had primed the German people for even more messianic and apocolyptic theologies.

    For example, Barth’s contemporary, Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch, was an atheist Jew who used the Bible to extol the utopia then under construction in the Soviet Union. Bloch would ultimately be a great influence on liberation theologists like Gutiérrez. Yet Cone chose Barth, who ultimately proved an exception among his fellow German Protestants. As Prof. Lilla recently noted:

    [I]t was among young Weimar Protestants that the new messianic spirit proved most consequential. They were led by the greatest theologian of the day, Karl Barth, who wanted to restore the drama of religious decision to Christianity and rejected any accommodation of the Gospel to modern sensibilities. When Hitler came to power, Barth acquitted himself well, leading resistance against the Nazi takeover of the Protestant churches before he was forced into exile in 1935. But others, who employed the same messianic rhetoric Barth did, chose the Nazis instead…

    All of which served to confirm Hobbes’s iron law: Messianic theology eventually breeds messianic politics.

    Cone’s theology often bears more resemblance to Barth’s fallen contemporaries, as noted by “Spengler” in the Asia Times:

    Theologically, Cone’s argument is as silly as the “Aryan Christianity” popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the “chosen people”.

    Indeed, in addition to places the primary emphasis on Christ’s humanity, Cone applies the liberationist dialectic relationship of the black experience to Scripture to conclude that the Jesus of the Bible is the Jesus of the black experience. Indeed, Cone believes that it is important to the psychic and to the spiritual consciousness of black people to see Christ as black, “with all of the features which are so detestable to white society.” Conversely, in Black Theology and Black Power, Cone wrote, “Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’”

    As with other forms of liberation theology, Cone is not much concerned with eternal salvation, which he views as an idea fed to slaves to make the unconcerned about their plight: “The most corrupting influence among the black churches was their adoption of the ‘white lie’ that Christianity is primarily concerned with an other world reality.” As for sin, Cone wrote in A Black Theology of Liberation: ”If we are to understand sin and what it means to black people, it is necessary to be black and also a participant in the black liberation struggle… Sin then for black people is the loss of identity.”

    When Cone is asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Dwight Hopkins, a member of Trinity and a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, told Jayson Byassee of The Christian Century magazine that the church is within the mainstream of black churches, socially conservative, and not strongly activist. Byassee might not have known that the Rev. Wright appears to have been openly campaigning for Obama from the pulpit. But Byassee could have informed his readers that Hopkins — who is vouching for the church — believes that Christianity was historically used as a tool to oppress blacks. Hopkins also told PBS:

    One of the incentives for Africentricity is to pass on the positive, holistic black values, African values to a younger generation. A lot of people who were part of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and early ’60s and part of the Black Power and black consciousness movement of the 1960s and 1970s are now all middle-age and older adults, and we have children.

    The American electorate is beginning to learn that this is no small part of Trinity’s mission, though few grasp its underlying theology.

    Viewed in light of that theology, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright does not appear to have gone wildly off-script in: damning America; calling it “white America, the U.S. of KKK A”; comparing the the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt and the enslavement of blacks in America, suggesting that “criminal justice system, the ‘miseducation’ system and the inadequate health care system” were part of a “subtle plan of genocide” (when the fact that biblical Egypt had neither an education or healthcare system tells you the identity of Wright’s real target); claiming that the US deliberately infected black men with syphilis (exaggerating the Tuskegee Syphilis Study that needs no exaggeration to be horrific), which is likely the foundation for his insane claim that the US created the HIV virus, presumably for deliberate infection of certain populations, and so on. Certainly, the joyful reaction of Wright’s congregation in those videos suggest his hateful and paranoid messages were warmly received.

    Barack Obama has claimed:

    When I saw these statements, many of which I had heard for the first time, then I thought it was important to make a very clear and unequivocal statement.

    None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews. One of them I had heard about after I had started running for president, and I put out a statement at that time condemning them.

    The other statements were ones that that I just heard about while we were — when they started being run on FOX and some of the other stations. And so they weren’t things that I was familiar with.

    However, when FNC’s Major Garrett asked Obama whether he would have quit the church had he heard them personally, his first answer was not “No.” Rather, he defended Wright and suggested these statements were unusual:

    He is somebody who is a biblical scholar, has spoken at theological seminaries all across the country, from the University of Chicago to Hampton. And so he is a well- regarded preacher. And somebody who is known for talking about the social gospel.

    But most of the time, when I’m in church, he’s talking about Jesus, God, faith, values, caring for the poor, family, those were the messages that I was hearing.

    Obama ultimately claimed he would have quit the church had he heard such statements repeated.

    Of course, since that interview, it has been pointed out that Obama fibbed in claiming Wright was never a political — as well as spiritual — advisor. It also has been noted that Obama was well aware of the controversies surrounding Wright from the outset of his campaign. Indeed, Obama wrote about hearing similar statements in the first sermon Obama heard from Wright, “The Audacity of Hope” — in the book he named after the sermon. Obama further touched on his attraction to the church in a lengthy essay for TIME magazine:

    I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. Out of necessity, the black church had to minister to the whole person. Out of necessity, the black church rarely had the luxury of separating individual salvation from collective salvation. It had to serve as the center of the community’s political, economic, and social as well as spiritual life; it understood in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world.

    And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship, the grounding of faith in struggle, that the historically black church offered me a second insight: that faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts, or that you relinquish your hold on this world. Long before it became fashionable among television evangelists, the typical black sermon freely acknowledged that all Christians (including the pastors) could expect to still experience the same greed, resentment, lust, and anger that everyone else experienced. The gospel songs, the happy feet, and the tears and shouts all spoke of a release, an acknowledgment, and finally a channeling of those emotions. In the black community, the lines between sinner and saved were more fluid; the sins of those who came to church were not so different from the sins of those who didn’t, and so were as likely to be talked about with humor as with condemnation. You needed to come to church precisely because you were of this world, not apart from it; rich, poor, sinner, saved, you needed to embrace Christ precisely because you had sins to wash away–because you were human and needed an ally in your difficult journey, to make the peaks and valleys smooth and render all those crooked paths straight.

    It was because of these newfound understandings–that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved–that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany…

    Strip that passage of Obama’s usual flowery rhetoric and what remains is Obama’s declaration of commitment to his church and its theology.

    The question is thus squarely presented as to whether Obama’s belief in the theology of his church matters. One might have thought that Obama’s speech today would recall John F. Kennedy’s famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his Catholicism. In the key passage of that speech, Kennedy remarked:

    I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

    However, the nature of the theology at issue largely foreclosed that option. Black Liberation Theology is not a standard theology like Catholicism, as Cardinal Ratzinger made clear with respect to the plain Marxist version of liberation theology. It is at its very core a marriage of religion and politics. As with all liberation theology, it takes a kernel of truth about most churches’ concern for the poor and wraps it in a pernicious quasi-Marxist hermeneutics that generally inverts the function of faith, placing politically correct activisim above personal salvation. It is the heir to messianic and apocalyptic schools of thought that run directly contrary to the America’s intellectual and institutional, separation of Christianity and politics. Its founder converts the gospel into an ideology for a black political cause. And Obama was drawn to Trinity precisely because he is attracted to the idea of this church as the center of the community’s political, economic, and social as well as spiritual life.

    In short, even giving Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding his statements condemning Wright’s worst comments, Obama’s own words mark him as a follower of Black Liberation Theology or its standard Marxist version. As such, Obama’s election would mark a triumph for the Religious Left on a scale never attained by the Religious Right. Yet those who never hesitate to decry the threat of Theocons or Christianists in American politics are not only silent about this turn of events, they seem to be rooting for the election of our first Theolib orBlack Christianist president.
    Why would the top Democrat presidential candidate feel more comfortable attending an Afrocentric church? Obama's attendance at a church that encourages blacks to separate themselves from the rest of American society must be explained. How can he claim to be able to unite and reach across to all the people in the nation?

    Excerpts from the Trinity United Church of Christ — Black Value System:


    The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

    1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.

    2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.

    3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.

    4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

    5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.

    6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.

    7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.

    8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.

    9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.

    10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

    American society has changed positively since the days of Martin Luther King and the freedom marches. Why is there this need by some to retreat back to the days of separatism while claiming that they are moving society forward?

    Many people do not understand what black liberation theology is. If Mitt Romney found it necessary to make a speech about his Mormon faith, it's about time that Obama explain black theology. There has been much controversy over faith in this election year. However, Obama's church leaves something to be desired regarding social acceptability of its ideology. "Thus saith the Lord" is taught in quite a different fashion.

    Black theology teachings began in America during the Civil Rights Movement. A demanding authority of presumptuousness was ushered in claiming black theology as the legitimate Voice of God to all black Americans.

    The central theme of black theology puts an emphasis on the oppression of the black people. All aspects of this type of theology become a "subjugating theme."

    According to mainstream doctrinal teaching, black theology falls short. Its cornerstone is one which focuses on the oppression of blacks. The biblical teaching in mainstream Christian denominations is Christ-centered. Their focus is the Lord Jesus Christ who was to come, came, and is coming once again, and will reign forever. "I am the LORD; and they shall be my people." (Jeremiah 24:7)

    Is black theology one of hope or does it purposefully dredge up painful feelings of victimization? If that be the case, it would be wiser to consider a church where it is fully understood that God is no respecter of color or gender. (Acts 10:34)

    The terminology of black theology is questionable amongst many biblical theologians. Its teaching is improperly centered in human pragmatism. The Lordship of Jesus Christ is not held in proper biblical perspective. Freedom has been granted to all who have become believers of the Living Word. We show our faith in Christ by living upright and reaching out in love to others.

    If Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is not asking the most important question of all, "who is Christ?", then he does his congregation a disservice. For it is from this premise that all questions can be answered. The teaching of a theology written by black men for black man presented to an exclusive segment of society can only be a stumbling block to God and a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

    Accepting Christ as Savior makes all the difference in the perception of the believer's life. His or her status in life is made abundantly clear. This question of what God has done through Christ is focused upon and no longer in doubt when we learn that we are God's children.

    Is Christ able to save you? Is it the Lord who brings positive changes in your life today? Is the believer's walk moving forward and touching others for Christ's sake? The answer ought to be "yes," no matter what the color of our skin or gender.

    In the final analysis, only by beginning to ask these questions for a starting point of Christian theology can black theology be defined. When one knows who Jesus Christ is, then man can begin to understand where God is in man's existence and problems, and how Christ will provide the help man so desperately needs.

    The days of segregation are over. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28 )

    The Goals Of Black Liberal Theology — Dr. Robert A. Morley, an internationally recognized scholar in the fields of theology and apologetics.

    "l.The goals of BT are to turn religion into sociology, Christianity into a political agenda, Jesus into a black Marxist rebel, and the gospel into violent revolution. They are more interested in politics than preaching the gospel.

    "III. The Methodology of Black Liberal Theology

    "The main method employed by BT is to manipulate embittered young blacks by turning their feelings of inferiority, alienation, jealousy, hopelessness and self-hate, into racist rage against whites, Orientals and affluent blacks who are conveniently blamed for their lack of personal initiative to better their lot in life.

    "IV. The Main Philosophic Error of Black Liberal Theology

    "BT is based upon the philosophic error of relativism in which 'Jesus' is viewed as only a religious symbol which can be interpreted anyway they want. Thus it does not matter who and what the historical Jesus really was. BT invented a black Marxist Jesus to lead the way to violent revolution because such a 'Jesus' will serve their purpose. BT is condemned in II Cor. 11:4 and Gal. 1:8-9.

    "V. The Racism Of Black Liberal Theology

    "While BT is filled with racist statements against whites and Orientals, it is primarily a form of 'black on black' racism. The following evidence demonstrates this to be true.

    "A. While BT claims to give blacks a better self-image, they unwittingly encourage a poor self-image among blacks by defining "blackness" in such negative terms as 'the poor,' 'the oppressed,' and '******s.' Why do they always define the 'black experience' in such negative terms? Why do they assume that all blacks live in the ghetto subsisting on welfare in the midst of crime and filth?

    "B. With its constant emphasis on God loves the poor, the oppressed, etc. BT actually paralyzes and demoralizes blacks to accept a parasitic life- style dependent on the government dole instead of fostering self-reliance and entrepreneurship.

    "C. It seems to me that BT feeds off of class envy and racist rage. Instead of spending their time blaming the white man for the black man's problems, BT ought to be encouraging black men or women to become financially successful through hard work and self-reliance.

    "D. BT often describes the black man as a helpless victim of forces and people beyond his control. But this negative stereotype often leads people to accept poverty, drugs, crime and filth as their unalterable fate.

    "E. BT makes a great mistake when it assumes that poverty automatically means crime and filth. Just because you are poor does not mean you have a license to rob, rape, or murder others. The poor are for the most part good and honest people. Crime is crime regardless of who commits it. Poverty is no excuse for criminality.

    "F. BT judges people on the basis of the color of their skin instead of the content of their character.

    "G. BT gives the impression that the black man's problem is his skin instead of his sin.

    "H. Most BT books glorify rage, hatred and violence instead of faith, hope and love.

    "I. BT preaches race instead of grace as the solution to problems.

    "J. BT cries out for political liberation instead of spiritual salvation.

    "K. BT thinks more of Marx than it does of Jesus.

    "L. BT is more interested in black culture than in Jesus Christ.

    "VI. The Liberalism Of Black Liberal Theology

    "BT is not a fundamental, Bible-believing, Christ-honoring theology. BT was created by white liberation theologians at white liberal seminaries and universities that are radically anti-Christian and anti-Bible.

    "A. Most of those involved in BT do not believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death, bodily resurrection, literal ascension or return to this world. They claim that all such doctrines are 'Western.'

    "B. Many of those who teach BT openly deny the immortality of the soul, a conscious after-life in heaven or hell, the resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment and the eternal conscious torment of the damned in hell. They usually say that hell is 'being black on welfare in the ghetto.' They attack those blacks who talk about heaven as a 'pie in the sky by and by slave mentality.'

    "C. BT often denounces Christianity as racist and the 'white man's religion.' But then it turns around and claims that Jesus was black. If Jesus was a black man, then how can Christianity be the 'white man's religion?'

    "D. Most BT writers deny the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of the Bible while at the same time using it to foster their racist agenda.

    "E. Many BT leaders teach the theory of evolution in which man evolved from an ape in Africa as if that theory can give dignity to blacks or to anyone else. The theory of evolution actually destroys all dignity and morals by reducing man to an animal.

    "VII. The Absurdity of Black Liberal Theology

    "BT is so filled with self-contradiction and erroneous ideas that it is has no intellectual merit. For example, BT defines 'blackness' and 'whiteness' in the Marxist sense of class struggle. Thus BT is not really talking about blackness as a race but as a class. Wake up! Read that last sentence again. Did you get it? Black liberal theology is really concerned with class struggle and not about black people per se. What is 'black' and 'white' according to the BT books?

    "Black = anyone regardless of race or color who is economically and politically oppressed by the upper classes.

    "White = anyone regardless of race or color who is guilty of oppressing the lower classes.

    "Walter McCray in his book, The Black Presence In The Bible, quotes with approval the definition of blackness given by his liberal mentor, Charles Copher.

    "Additionally, one may be defined as black regardless of color or race; all who suffer oppression...are classified as black.(p. 161, n.72.)

    "This irrational definition ends up with some white people being 'black' and some black people being "white." According to BT's definition, a blond, blue- eyed, white Swede on drugs and welfare is 'black' while the successful black man who owns his own company is 'white.' Other absurdities abound in their writings.

    "A. BT claims that Adam and Eve were black. If this is true, then all men are 'black' because they came from the first black parents. On what grounds then does BT divide up mankind into black vs white and black vs yellow? Aren't we all 'black' having come from the same original black DNA?

    "B. BT claims that Noah, his wife and their three sons and wives were all blacks. Yet, they also claim that the blacks descended from Ham. And they run through the Bible looking for Hamite references to track the history of the black race. How can this obvious contradiction be resolved ?

    "C. As part of its Marxist ideology, BT believes that history is as relative as morals. Thus BT rewrites history to foster its own socio-political goals. This is why BT does not hesitate to teach lies and to practice academic chicanery. The 'truth' is not their concern. To manipulate young blacks into racist rage is always their real goal.

    "D. BT claims that nearly every individual and nation mentioned in the Bible was black. They do not prove that this true. They simply asset that this is so. Anyone who disagrees with them is labeled a racist.

    "E. BT claims that the ancient Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians were all black. Yet, they were the cruelest oppressors known in history. For example, the Assyrians enslaved and deported entire populations. Mass murder was their favorite means of oppression. How can they be "black" when they were worse oppressors than Hitler or Stalin?

    "F. BT claims that the ancient Egyptians were black and that the Jews were black as well. But since the Egyptians were a very oppressive society which enslaved the Jews and other minorities and conquered many surrounding nations, how can the Egyptians be 'black' and oppress people at the same time?

    "G. BT just like the KKK and other racist groups claims that its race is the sole source of all that is good in all cultures. But this is a two edged sword. If the blacks are responsible for all the good in the world, then they are equally responsible for all the evil. To claim that the black man can do no wrong and that the white man and yellow man can do no good, is absurd as well as racist.

    "H. BT claims that the ancient Greeks were black and thus Greek philosophy was created by blacks. But then BT also says that the white Greeks stole their philosophy from African blacks. How can the Greeks be black and white at the same time? But if they were all blacks, then what is wrong with blacks sharing ideas?

    "I. BT claims that the Greeks stole their ideas from black Africans and thus all the good in Western culture comes from blacks. But if this is true, how can BT condemn Western culture on one hand and then claim that it came from blacks on the other hand?

    "J. BT also claims that all the good in Oriental culture came from African blacks. The Orientals thus stole their culture from the blacks. But if this is true, why are African motifs missing in Oriental philosophies and art?

    "K. BT authors claim that the Egyptian word Kemet means 'the land of the Blacks.' In reality, the word actually means 'the black land' referring to the dark soil along the flood plain of the Nile. It is used in Egyptian literature in opposition to the word Deshret which literally means 'the red land,' a reference to the color of the dirt or sand in the desert.

    "VIII. Black Liberal Theology Contradicts The Bible

    "In order to make everyone in the Bible black, BT takes passages out of context, ignores the grammar of Hebrew and Greek, and then attacks anyone who disagrees with them as 'racist' or 'white.' But BT violates several clear Scriptures.

    "1. Acts 17:26 "He made from one all the nations of mankind to live on all the face of the earth."

    "The Bible teaches that there is only one race — the human race — regardless of size, shape or color. Thus there is no "black" or 'white' blood. There is only human blood which can be transfused from one man to the next regardless of color or race. BT con-tradicts this by talking about "black blood."

    "2. Rom. 2:11 "There is no partiality with God."

    "God does not treat people any differently because they are red, yellow, black or white. They are all precious in His sight. But BT claims that God is partial to blacks! This is just as wrong as the Nazis who claimed the same thing for the Ayrian race or the KKK who claims the same for the white race.

    "3. Gal. 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

    "BT divides the Church into different economic classes and pits them against each other. Thus they try to put asunder what God has joined together. The Body of Christ is one.

    "4. Eph. 4:4-5:2 "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma."

    BT preaches bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander and that blacks should seek revenge instead of taking the path of forgiveness.

    "5. 1 Sam 16:7 "But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

    "BT looks only at the outward appearance. This is wrong. We must judge people not by their color but by their moral character or lack of it.

    Conclusion :

    "Black liberal theology is not of God but of the devil. It is nothing more than 'white liberal religion' and is used by white theologians and politicians to keep blacks down in order to use them as cannon fodder for a Marxist revolution. Black liberal theologians slave for their white Marxist masters to bring about a violent revolution that would guarantee that all men, blacks included, would always be poor and oppressed. The only answer to liberal theology, regardless of the color of those who teach it, is personal salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. Once you have experienced the love of God in Christ, you do not have any room in you heart for the self-hate and racist rage upon which BT feeds. The black community needs a revival — not a revolution; Jesus — not Marx; Christianity — not liberalism. Jesus is the only One who can change the hearts of all men and set them free from their bondage to sin."

    May God add blessings to His Word: "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things are passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Corinthians 5:17).
    .



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

    Comment


    • #3
      Liberation theology is the perfect substitute for true Christianity. It replaces the traditional message of salvation based on faith in Jesus' death with one that is focused on salvation through political and social reform. Salvation is simply reduced to the goal of freedom from oppression in this life. Liberation theology allows the Gospel of Christ to be swallowed up by socialism. God is seen as a "hidden force," and the New Testament is merely a collection of useful illustrations of Marxist truths.

      Liberation theology began to appear in Latin America in the late 1960s. Theologians began preaching that sin was manifested in the unjust structures of one class of people dominating over a lower class. At first they were determined to implement the social implications of the Gospel for Latin America. It didn't take them long to progress to the belief that political revolution was the best way to express Christian love toward suffering neighbors. Later, they concluded that God is using radical Marxist revolutionary movements to establish His kingdom of peace, justice, equality, and prosperity for Latin America.

      The liberationist movement revives the doctrine of universalism. Adherents ignore man's spiritual needs and concentrate on bettering mankind's physical condition. Universalism is heretical and undermines the biblical doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ alone.

      The passages of Scripture used to support liberation theology mainly center on Jesus' identification with the oppressed: Isaiah 61:1,2, "The spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord has anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn."

      The theology of liberation shifts the emphasis toward liberating action, in a strongly political sense, in the context of the conflict situation of the world today.

      Liberation theology may have begun in Central America, but it has found its greatest support in the black population of North America. In the last two decades, what has become known as “black theology” has gained an absolute stranglehold on black consciousness. To be oppressed is to be black, and to be an oppressor doesn't necessarily relate to a person's skin pigmentation. What matters is one's attitude and action towards the liberation of the oppressed black populous. Individuals who stray from the fold are labeled as being traitors to their own race.

      Under black (liberation) theology, all oppression relates to physical, economic, psychological, and political repression. Black theology seeks to speak to "this-world" problems rather than "other-world" issues. The sinfulness of man's plight in a ghetto is viewed as being more important than sin in man's heart. People are taught to look for an earthly savior who will deliver man from earthly slavery rather than for a Savior who saves man from spiritual bondage.

      Liberation theology fails on both the earthly and the spiritual levels. Some of the most oppressive governments on the planet have been proponents of the principles of liberation theology. Marxism is very much related to this doctrinal view, and it leads to the deaths of untold millions of people. If you ignore the need for morality, you're headed down a path toward self-destruction.

      Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus Christ promote liberation through social and political reform. He did identify with the poor, but I hardly see how empathy for the downtrodden could be seen as a sign to take up arms against the ruling authority.

      The only hint of a liberation gospel came from the people who surrounded the Savior. Most people, including the 12 disciples, expected Jesus to overthrow the Roman Empire's rule and set up an earthly kingdom. If you look at His words, you will find the main focus of Jesus' ministry was on the eternal Kingdom:

      Matthew 5:3-10: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

      Matthew 5:12: Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

      Matthew 22:21: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

      John 18:36: Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

      After nearly exhausting all the potential gains that can be derived from racial and social class grievances, liberation theology has found the liberation of planet Earth to be full of great potential. We repeatedly hear from environmental warriors that rain forests are being stripped of their vegetation, the atmosphere is being contaminated with greenhouse gases, and toxic waste is blighting our major waterways.

      No one in his right mind wants to see all the forests cut down or the air and sea polluted. We need to be good stewards of the earth, but we don't need to make environmentalism into a religion where Mother Earth takes on the role of the Supreme Being.

      The idea that the earth needs to be saved from human activity is laughable. Without God's intervention, man might wipe himself out, but the earth is in no great danger. We don't need to find salvation for the earth; we need to find it for ourselves.

      Matthew 16:26: For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
      .



      Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
      Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
      Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

      Comment


      • #4
        In the last year, and particularly since the airing of Wright's sermon excerpts, certain biblical scholars and real theologians have seized upon the opportunity to publicly compare and contrast BLT with mainstream Christianity. As it happens, there was a substantial amount of information out there on the subject prior to Obama/Wright; now there's little doubt it didn't get nearly the amount of attention it merited.

        One essay that has gained exposure in the last month or so is The Truth about Black Liberal Theology by Dr. Robert A. Morey, founder the California Biblical University and Seminary in Irvine, CA. Morey's study is probably the most direct and succinct primer on the subject.

        "The fundamental ideas of BT did not come from black thinkers but from such white European thinkers as Hegel, Darwin, Marx, etc. It is Euro-centric in its ideology although it is Euro-phobic in its rhetoric. Black liberal theologians are in reality "Uncle Toms" still licking the boots of their white, Marxist masters at such bastions of white liberalism as Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc. They are the slaves of Karl Marx."

        - The Truth about Black Liberal Theology, Dr. Robert A. Morey

        A point I've made many times in response to those who claim that black conservatives are Uncle Toms, race traitors, and things of this nature: Black civil rights activists (BLT proponents included) have long since been corrupted by the agenda of far Left whites, an agenda that has done infinitely more harm to black Americans than good. The individuals who engage in the aforementioned invective seldom have a solid working knowledge of the history of the United States, but with BLT, pundits and pastors are validated with an almost unlimited supply of credentials toward promoting this insidious movement.

        "The goals of BT are to turn religion into sociology, Christianity into a political agenda, Jesus into a black Marxist rebel, and the gospel into violent revolution. They are more interested in politics than preaching the gospel."

        - The Truth about Black Liberal Theology, Dr. Robert A. Morey

        This is evidenced in just about every excerpt we've seen of late; Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks and Otis Moss (Wright's successor) seem wholly invested in accentuating the negative in every meaningful area of blacks' lives, from their self-perception, to their worldview, to the evil of their "oppressors." No doubt their advocates will accuse this columnist of having cherry-picked "snippets" of sermons to deliberately place said pastors in an unfavorable light.

        "Reducing black identity to "victim" distorts the reality of true progress. For example, was Obama a victim of widespread racial oppression at the hand of "rich white people" before graduating from Columbia University, Harvard Law School magna cum laude, or after he acquired his estimated net worth of $1.3 million? How did "rich white people" keep Obama from succeeding?"

        - Wright's Theology as Victimology, Anthony B. Bradley

        Another brilliant study of BLT was done in several essays and a dissertation by Anthony B. Bradley, an assistant professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, MO. Excavating the roots of BLT, from Jeremiah Wright's beloved James Cone, the chief architect of black liberation theology, to the contextual present, Bradley explains how BLT is about as far from New Testament Christianity as it could be. In the above paragraph, he refers to Rev. Wright's assertion that "Barack Obama knows what it means to be a black man in a country controlled by rich white people."

        "The Black Church"

        Pastors such as Wright speak of "The Black Church," but there is no black church, or white church, or any-other-ethnicity church if the discussion remains confined to bible-based Christianity. The salvation of Christ transcends ethnicity, period. Those who embrace hatred, racism, judgment, etc., are either spiritually immature or have an unspoken, malignant agenda.

        The "black religious tradition" referenced by Wright and other BLT proponents is not traditional, unless one counts the Marxist-infused "tradition" established in the 'Sixties. Certainly black Christian Americans' experiences have been socially and spiritually unique unto them. BLT's "black church" as a cultural phenomenon however, is not the church that maintained blacks through the ignominy of slavery and segregation, bringing them through these not only with a sense of dignity, industry and self-worth, but grasping the gospel with far more dedication and understanding than many whites.

        Pharisees in "The Black Church"

        Like many people, I never heard the kind of swill proffered by Rev. Wright in a black church, and so did not identify BLT with churches in which the congregants were predominantly black. One might wonder why black pastors themselves do not speak out against BLT.

        Well, take the story of Rev. Lainie Dowell, a Five-Fold Minister from Columbia, Maryland with a long history in the church and very impressive credentials in her own right...

        "When it was not popular to do so, 20 years ago, I spoke out against the same kinds of rantings about white people preached by my black pastor and other black colleagues. In an attempt to intimidate me and shut me up, he conspired with cohorts and filed false police reports and court documents to have me arrested inside the church."

        - Rev. Lainie Dowell, April 17, 2008

        So much for the question of why black pastors might not challenge BLT; gangsterism and conspiracies to discredit enemies using the law and the press are right out of the Marxist playbook. Being arrested inside one's own church would likely stand as a pretty dissuasive example for a dissatisfied clergyman or clergywoman. For the record, Rev. Dowell's pastor (also named Wright, no relation) not only preached Black Liberation Theology, but had a strikingly similar religious background to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

        When challenged by lay people, these pastors become belligerent and switch to "Pharisee mode" — pointing to their credentials, their degrees, the contention that no one but they can understand black religious and social history in America and relate it to a black congregation. We already have an example of their modus operandi when challenged by colleagues.

        Faith Devoid of Faith

        Finally: The incongruence with mainstream Christianity aside, Black Liberation Theology doesn't even make sense. Churches and pastors which espouse BLT could not exist without one essential element: A white oppressor. The more one studies this heresy, the clearer it becomes that this element is even more important than Christ Himself.

        Where then, one may ask, is the salvation of Christ in this theology? Theoretically, let us suppose that we awake one morning to find that everyone is black. Who is the oppressor then? Where is BLT's credibility? They seem to know who their enemy is now however, it isn't the same one that Christians at large acknowledge.

        Dr. Morey maintains that BLT is of that Enemy, the devil. Many Christians may agree. Non-Christians may view it as general corruption of the church as an institution of cultural stability via far Left social engineers. The calculated outcome for practical purposes is the same.

        In parts of America, there are enclaves of white supremacists who embrace forms of "Christianity" that foster perverted, quasi-Old Testament views of black Americans as latter-day Canaanites or the cursed descendants of one of Noah's errant sons. Some other doctrines are even more bizarre. I would wager that 99 percent of whites in America find this as disgusting as I do. I submit that Black Liberation "theologians" ought to be viewed in precisely the same light, as both extremes are undeniably racist and can have nothing but deleterious effects on the harmonious progression of American society.

        When I was in grade school, every now and then one of the other kids, having discovered I was of mixed race, would ask: "If the whites and blacks had a war, what side would you be on?"

        I never answered these questions. It is profoundly sad and speaks to the sickness of our society that some of these people reached adulthood to find there were actually so-called religious organizations that were more than happy to sustain their spiritual, moral and intellectual retardation.
        .



        Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
        Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
        Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

        Comment


        • #5
          I agree with Morey on much else. I'm intrigued to read his thoughts. I'm going to need to mark off some time to read the rest of all this. Note to self: "take a speed-reading course!"
          "The fundamental ideas of BT did not come from black thinkers but from such white European thinkers as Hegel, Darwin, Marx, etc. It is Euro-centric in its ideology although it is Euro-phobic in its rhetoric. Black liberal theologians are in reality "Uncle Toms" still licking the boots of their white, Marxist masters at such bastions of white liberalism as Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc. They are the slaves of Karl Marx."
          - The Truth about Black Liberal Theology, Dr. Robert A. Morey

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tio-Peregrino View Post
            Note to self: "take a speed-reading course!"

            I want to sign up too!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ihurt View Post
              I want to sign up too!

              Comment


              • #8
                From the post above...
                "VII. The Absurdity of Black Liberal Theology
                "BT is so filled with self-contradiction and erroneous ideas that it is has no intellectual merit. For example, BT defines 'blackness' and 'whiteness' in the Marxist sense of class struggle. Thus BT is not really talking about blackness as a race but as a class. Wake up! Read that last sentence again. Did you get it? Black liberal theology is really concerned with class struggle and not about black people per se. What is 'black' and 'white' according to the BT books?

                "Black = anyone regardless of race or color who is economically and politically oppressed by the upper classes.

                "White = anyone regardless of race or color who is guilty of oppressing the lower classes.

                "Walter McCray in his book, The Black Presence In The Bible, quotes with approval the definition of blackness given by his liberal mentor, Charles Copher.

                "Additionally, one may be defined as black regardless of color or race; all who suffer oppression...are classified as black.(p. 161, n.72.)

                "This irrational definition ends up with some white people being 'black' and some black people being "white." According to BT's definition, a blond, blue- eyed, white Swede on drugs and welfare is 'black' while the successful black man who owns his own company is 'white.' Other absurdities abound in their writings.
                "A. BT claims that Adam and Eve were black. If this is true, then all men are 'black' because they came from the first black parents. On what grounds then does BT divide up mankind into black vs white and black vs yellow? Aren't we all 'black' having come from the same original black DNA?

                "B. BT claims that Noah, his wife and their three sons and wives were all blacks. Yet, they also claim that the blacks descended from Ham. And they run through the Bible looking for Hamite references to track the history of the black race. How can this obvious contradiction be resolved ?

                "C. As part of its Marxist ideology, BT believes that history is as relative as morals. Thus BT rewrites history to foster its own socio-political goals. This is why BT does not hesitate to teach lies and to practice academic chicanery. The 'truth' is not their concern. To manipulate young blacks into racist rage is always their real goal.

                "D. BT claims that nearly every individual and nation mentioned in the Bible was black. They do not prove that this true. They simply asset that this is so. Anyone who disagrees with them is labeled a racist.

                "E. BT claims that the ancient Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians were all black. Yet, they were the cruelest oppressors known in history. For example, the Assyrians enslaved and deported entire populations. Mass murder was their favorite means of oppression. How can they be "black" when they were worse oppressors than Hitler or Stalin?

                "F. BT claims that the ancient Egyptians were black and that the Jews were black as well. But since the Egyptians were a very oppressive society which enslaved the Jews and other minorities and conquered many surrounding nations, how can the Egyptians be 'black' and oppress people at the same time?

                "G. BT just like the KKK and other racist groups claims that its race is the sole source of all that is good in all cultures. But this is a two edged sword. If the blacks are responsible for all the good in the world, then they are equally responsible for all the evil. To claim that the black man can do no wrong and that the white man and yellow man can do no good, is absurd as well as racist.

                "H. BT claims that the ancient Greeks were black and thus Greek philosophy was created by blacks. But then BT also says that the white Greeks stole their philosophy from African blacks. How can the Greeks be black and white at the same time? But if they were all blacks, then what is wrong with blacks sharing ideas?

                "I. BT claims that the Greeks stole their ideas from black Africans and thus all the good in Western culture comes from blacks. But if this is true, how can BT condemn Western culture on one hand and then claim that it came from blacks on the other hand?

                "J. BT also claims that all the good in Oriental culture came from African blacks. The Orientals thus stole their culture from the blacks. But if this is true, why are African motifs missing in Oriental philosophies and art?

                "K. BT authors claim that the Egyptian word Kemet means 'the land of the Blacks.' In reality, the word actually means 'the black land' referring to the dark soil along the flood plain of the Nile. It is used in Egyptian literature in opposition to the word Deshret which literally means 'the red land,' a reference to the color of the dirt or sand in the desert.

                "VIII. Black Liberal Theology Contradicts The Bible

                "In order to make everyone in the Bible black, BT takes passages out of context, ignores the grammar of Hebrew and Greek, and then attacks anyone who disagrees with them as 'racist' or 'white.' But BT violates several clear Scriptures.
                "1. Acts 17:26 "He made from one all the nations of mankind to live on all the face of the earth."

                "The Bible teaches that there is only one race — the human race — regardless of size, shape or color. Thus there is no "black" or 'white' blood. There is only human blood which can be transfused from one man to the next regardless of color or race. BT con-tradicts this by talking about "black blood."

                "2. Rom. 2:11 "There is no partiality with God."

                "God does not treat people any differently because they are red, yellow, black or white. They are all precious in His sight. But BT claims that God is partial to blacks! This is just as wrong as the Nazis who claimed the same thing for the Ayrian race or the KKK who claims the same for the white race.

                "3. Gal. 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

                "BT divides the Church into different economic classes and pits them against each other. Thus they try to put asunder what God has joined together. The Body of Christ is one.

                "4. Eph. 4:4-5:2 "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma."

                BT preaches bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander and that blacks should seek revenge instead of taking the path of forgiveness.

                "5. 1 Sam 16:7 "But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

                "BT looks only at the outward appearance. This is wrong. We must judge people not by their color but by their moral character or lack of it.
                Conclusion :

                "Black liberal theology is not of God but of the devil. It is nothing more than 'white liberal religion' and is used by white theologians and politicians to keep blacks down in order to use them as cannon fodder for a Marxist revolution. Black liberal theologians slave for their white Marxist masters to bring about a violent revolution that would guarantee that all men, blacks included, would always be poor and oppressed. The only answer to liberal theology, regardless of the color of those who teach it, is personal salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. Once you have experienced the love of God in Christ, you do not have any room in you heart for the self-hate and racist rage upon which BT feeds. The black community needs a revival — not a revolution; Jesus — not Marx; Christianity — not liberalism. Jesus is the only One who can change the hearts of all men and set them free from their bondage to sin."

                May God add blessings to His Word: "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things are passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Corinthians 5:17).



                So good to take it back to God's Word...I love the Truth!!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wow, Buzzardhut, you have certainly been busy!!

                  The thing that stands out to me about Obama's campaign is the fact that he is running on a "Class Warfare" theme.

                  Black Liberation Theology fits perfectly into his scheme.

                  I believe that Mr. and Mrs. Hussein paid attention to Jeremiah Wright's sermons, more than they let on.

                  Obama is definitely deceiving the masses.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tio-Peregrino View Post
                    Once you have experienced the love of God in Christ, you do not have any room in you heart for the self-hate and racist rage upon which BT feeds.

                    So good to take it back to God's Word...I love the Truth!!!!
                    That really stuck out to me....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mercyandgrace View Post
                      Wow, Buzzardhut, you have certainly been busy!!

                      The thing that stands out to me about Obama's campaign is the fact that he is running on a "Class Warfare" theme.

                      Black Liberation Theology fits perfectly into his scheme.

                      I believe that Mr. and Mrs. Hussein paid attention to Jeremiah Wright's sermons, more than they let on.

                      Obama is definitely deceiving the masses.
                      It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to attend a church for 20 years with the pastor as your mentor and make the claims Obama did about not hearing any of that. He thinks we're stupid, and that's exactly what elitists think about the public.

                      All of his remarks on it were a slap-in-the-face insult to me.

                      So he's having such a blissful ride on the "soak-it-up" tours, the DNC worship sessions, and the European photo op.


                      I can't wait for twilight-zone-style reality to reach his front door.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I was shocked when I heard Rev. Wright talk the first
                        time. And I still shocked.
                        Did'nt Even know that there was a "Black Liberation
                        Theology" untill any of this came to light.
                        Prz-Him

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tio-Peregrino View Post
                          I agree with Morey on much else. I'm intrigued to read his thoughts. I'm going to need to mark off some time to read the rest of all this. Note to self: "take a speed-reading course!"
                          "The fundamental ideas of BT did not come from black thinkers but from such white European thinkers as Hegel, Darwin, Marx, etc. It is Euro-centric in its ideology although it is Euro-phobic in its rhetoric. Black liberal theologians are in reality "Uncle Toms" still licking the boots of their white, Marxist masters at such bastions of white liberalism as Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc. They are the slaves of Karl Marx."
                          - The Truth about Black Liberal Theology, Dr. Robert A. Morey
                          and are subjective to liberal lost seminaries such as Union



                          Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
                          Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
                          Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mercyandgrace View Post
                            Wow, Buzzardhut, you have certainly been busy!!

                            The thing that stands out to me about Obama's campaign is the fact that he is running on a "Class Warfare" theme.

                            Black Liberation Theology fits perfectly into his scheme.

                            I believe that Mr. and Mrs. Hussein paid attention to Jeremiah Wright's sermons, more than they let on.

                            Obama is definitely deceiving the masses.
                            It's the heart & soul of the Obama mission.
                            If it's not as bad as having an Islamic president it is worse.



                            Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
                            Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
                            Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Buzzardhut View Post
                              and are subjective to liberal lost seminaries such as Union
                              Professor Cone...oy vay.

                              It's difficult for me to fathom such a hatred that he has. It is not from God.



                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X