Friday, March 14, 2008
A Primer on Black Theology and Question for Senator Obama
I just got connected to the news nets today and Drudge and discovered that there is a big blowup about Jeremiah Wright, PhD the pastor of Barak Obama. I knew the Trinity United Church of Christ was an Afro-Centric church, focused on black theology. But I was very surprised to hear the actual comments of Dr. Wright on the Hugh Hewitt Show today (best show on radio ever).
Well, what do I think, especially as a theologian?
[Author’s Note: Throughout this I will be using Black when I talk about identity, as Black Theology does, and African American when speaking about the larger community of Americans of African descent]
First, let’s be clear about what Black Theology is and is not. First, Black Theology does not find its roots in slave Christianity of the pre-Civil War and post-Civil War era. The theology of those periods up to about the late 1950s was dominated by traditional revivalism (as was much of American religion outside of Northeast states). Yes, the primary religious image was that of Exodus (the story of God’s leading of Moses and the children of Israel out of Egypt and into the Promised Land). But the theology of most black churches in during this period was some variant of traditional Christian religion.
Beginning in the 1950s in Latin America, were poverty was deeply ingrained in the society and there was a clear separation between the wealthy (predominately land owners) and the masses, a form of theology that connected with a form of theology that had at one time made great sway throughout the West – the Social Gospel (America’s great proponent was Walter Rauschenbusch, whose book A Theology of the Social Gospel is actually relatively orthodox until he decides to discuss Christology – our understanding of Jesus – which removed from Jesus any divinity).
In Latin America though the Social Gospel became more aggressive (remember this is the period of time of people like Fidel Castro and the murder Che Guvera). It looked at the Kingdom of God coming to earth in the form of the poor rising to power and the powerful being subjugated. In the 1970s under the leadership of Bishop Gustavo Gutierrez (his book, A Theology of Liberation Theology) decided on what became known as the “preferential option for the poor.” Yes, this was an integration of Marxist thought and Christian images. Marxist thought is a bastard child of Christian doctrine, with the Kingdom brought totally to earth and with the power of God replaced by the power of the proletariat. From the 1950s to the mid 1980s Liberation Theology had a powerful run in Latin America, and is now making a comeback as Latin America is returning to Leftist/Marxist leadership [Note: as one Catholic missiologist I once heard said about this, “The Church decided on a preferential option for the poor and the poor decide they preferred Pentecostal Protestantism.”]
All of this is to set- up the founding of Black and Feminist Theology in the West, especially in America (which, lets be honest, in the West was the only country with both large minorities and high Church attendance). Black Theology took these same categories and in place of the poor was the Black individual. Because of the role of orthodox theology and practice within most Black churches, Black Theology kept the forms, piety, and in some cases, theology of traditional Christianity. But the underlying theology is that the Black Church is about the Black individual and community, and that, in its most extreme forms, God himself has a preferential option for the Black individual.
Which brings us back to the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Al Sharpton the other night made the point that Dr. Wright is one of the country’s leading theologians. This is not really accurate. It would be accurate to say he is one of Black Theology’s leading theologians, along with Dr. Albert Cone, Dr. Albert Raboteau (whose books I have found helpful in understanding African American religous movements) and Dr. Anthony Pinn. A great summary of this, come from Dr. Cone as quoted from the New Dictionary of Theology:
Black theology is ‘the religious counterpart of the more secular term Black Power … the religious explication of the need for black people to define the scope and meaning of black existence in a white racist society. While Black Power focuses on the political, social and economic condition of black people, Black Theology puts black identity in a theological context, showing that Black Power is not only consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but that it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.’
Perhaps you can see why, rooted in such a theological viewpoint, Dr. Wright can say that Jesus “was a black man killed by rich white folks.” Further, you can see how ever challenge that the Black community faces has clear theological foundations – it is a challenge to the coming of God’s kingdom.
Now Dr. Wright and his statements (more below) are troubling theologically as well as politically. First theologically. How does one who claims to follow Jesus Christ exalt any culture over another? As St. Paul says, “In Christ there is no Jew no Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” The Gospel does not make the oppressed the oppressor and vice-versa. It makes the oppressor and oppressed brothers and sisters. To use an old phrase from the Civil War, “Bottom Rail not on top, but side by side.”
As was the case with Latin American Liberation Theology, Black Theology has a strong exclusionary bent – you must be a member of the preferred group to be part of the community and to experience true salvation. Doubtless there are people who are not Black at Dr. Wright’s Church, but the expectation is that they have chosen to become Black.
The end result of this form of theology in both Latin America and in the U.S? Anger, hatred, and exclusion. Now, I am very sensitive to the situation of African Americans in the United States. There are too many cases today of blacks being pulled over by the police for “Driving While Being Black.” Black children are denied adequate schooling because of both tax issues and the unwillingness of teacher’s unions to allow children to pick any school, public or private, with their tax dollars. The Black family has been decimated since the Great Society began in the 1960s, with now 2 out of every 3 Black children in America being born out of wedlock. And of course there are more African American males in jail today than enrolled in colleges or universities. These are real challenges that are going to demand real solutions (hint: Barak’s solutions so given in this campaign is more of the Great Society which has failed utterly). So I understand why the message of Black Theology might be of interest to African Americans.
But Black Theology creates deep separation and deep distrust in the hearts of its followers. It harms the community be encouraging its followers to believe the worst about the other members of society. Are there still racists in America? You bet, but they are fewer and fewer thank God! But the proper response to racism is not, and yes, I am making this point clear, racist theology.
Politics and Theology
Now these theological issues (and I could go much deeper, but there are other issues to cover) are particularly sad because Barak Obama, who has credited his pastor Dr. Wright with much of the change in his life, is running ostensibly as a uniter, one who can move America past the politics of division. That message is in complete discontinuity with the message of Barak’s church and pastor. And why we do not chose our President based on their theology, it must be clear that Black Theology is political by its very nature. The fact that Senator Obama as said, “I don’t think my church is particularly controversial” raises questions about what Senator Obama thinks is controversial.
What does Barak think of such theology? Does he embrace it? I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt that his views on America and on the whites, Jews, and other groups that Black Theology see as tools of Satan. But if he does not embrace them, why has he chosen to stay in this church and to raise his children in this milieu?
Now, this is a political issue in part because America has a long history of calling people out of their local and closest churches when the Gospel is not being preached. During the First Great Awakening of the early and mid 18th century the Tennents (William Sr. the founder of the Log College that later became Princeton College and his sons) as well as Theodore Frelinghuysen made it clear that one was not obligated to attend the local body of believers (a relic of the parish system that continued to dominate the Roman Catholic Church in America until Vatican II). In fact, there was an obligation to turn one’s back on improper theology and teaching in hopes it would make the leadership and church return to the true Gospel. While the calling of God to remain in any church trumps all else, the calling of God is a prophetic role – to be an agent of truth in the midst of untruth.
If Senator Obama indeed at Trinity UCC for a prophetic role, I would love to hear from him how he has been a uniter for our country within that church. What has he said to overturn the anti-American, anti-White, anti-middle class rehetoric.
If Barak does he believe these same things (which is a theological choice, and we do not need to go after anyone strictly for their theology), what policy steps would he take to see the world move towards this vision? Did he believe that 9/11 was America’s fault and was punishment for racism? Is Dr. Wright’s message that the middle class lifestyle is a form of slavery Obama’s view as well? Would he work through policy to get rid of the middle class? Can he and Michelle Obama talk about the wonderful opportunities that America has provided to African Americans and immigrants of all colors, especially after the great evil of slavery was ended (again important note: hundreds of thousands of white Americans died to end slavery in the Civil War and thousands more worked to end slavery politically before that). Does Barak Obama believe that white Americans are part of the problem or part of the solution to America’s problems?
Why it is Hard to Ask these Questions
Hugh Hewitt is quite correct that it is very difficult to critique someone for their church or pastor. However, I think it is fair to say, if this situation were reversed and a white politician was attending a White Theology church, I would want to know the exact same questions as I stated above.
I do disagree with Hugh when he said this is not about theology but politics. Clearly here is a case of theology and politics merging. Theological critiques are improper in election discussions (see my own prior posts on my own shame for looking at Mitt Romney as a Mormon first and candidate second). But we do have the right to know whether the natural policy prescriptions coming out of theological positions will be part of the candidates platform. We do have the right to know whether the policy critiques of a given church of America are also the critiques of the candidate (i.e., it is proper to ask a Roman Catholic politician whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, since one would assume otherwise they are committed to overturning abortion-on-demand). So, it is fair to ask Barak since his church and pastor are vehemently anti-Israel, is that also his position. Where the church has taken positions on policy matters (which I believe is perfectly responsible and indeed appropriate for churches to do), if the candidate is a member in good standing, they should be clear on their agreement or disagreement. It is all about clarity.
To this point in the campaign Barak Obama has stayed as general and unsubstantial as possible. It has been a good strategy and has I believe served him well. But we deserve answers. Before I vote for someone I think I have the right to know whether he is pro or anti-Israel, whether he views the middle class as slaves, whether or not he sees America as receiving just punishment on 9.11 and many other issues that his sweeping and consistent praise of his pastor would lead me to believe he holds.
As a theologian I understand his church’s theology. Now I need to know what his political philosophy is and how it has been influenced by his church’s theology.
Comments? Questions? Contact me at
