|
Toward an
Interim Assessment
of Black Theology
By William R. Jones
As a teacher of black theology, I am often asked,
"What is black theology?" I have found that this
question, most often, is not a request for a definition, nor is
it usually a call for the statement of the raison d'etre
that is demanded of every new discipline. Rather, the questioner
is generally asking: "Is black theology theology?"
And the latter question, i suggest, is a disguised way of
asking, "Is black theology good theology?? It would appear
that though we speak of American, of German theology -- and to
be factual we ought to speak of white
theology -- the term "black theology" is still for
many a theological and semantic monstrosity, akin to speaking
about a married bachelor. Its this yet another instance where
the quality is suspect because it is black or is its novelty at
issue?
But it would be self-defeating for a black theologian, at
this juncture, to discuss the quality of black theology, without
first raising the prior question: What are the appropriate
criteria for appraising black theology? We cannot emphasize too
strongly that to raise this question is not to request
special and privileged criteria for black theology because it
is black. No, it is only to assist on the commonly warranted
principle that the criteria for assessment must be appropriate
and relevant to the nature of the object being investigated.
Many, however, have already pronounced judgment on black
theology without honoring this principle, without giving
sufficient attention to the proper assessment criteria and, even
more questionable, without making explicit the evaluative canons
which are inevitably presupposed in their criticism. though an
assessment involves some preliminary conclusion about the nature
of the object being evaluated -- here, the essential character
of black theology -- it is our view that the initial critics
have not made the necessary, and perhaps wearisome, effort to
uncover its essence prior to a critical investigation. As a
consequence, black theology has been found wanting. Thus, to
avoid the excessive theological posturing and stereotyping
characteristic of the initial evaluation, there is a clear need
to formulate a tentative set of interpretive principles to
serve as guidelines for a second, an interim, assessment. It is
to this need that our attention here is addressed.
We would argue that any appraisal of black theology, today,
must be controlled by the following principles. To identify them
is to indicate where we feel other assessments have floundered.
(1) Crucial attention must be given to black theology as
"engaged" 1 theology. (2) Note must be
taken of its concern to validate itself as in the mainstream of
the biblical and Christian tradition. (3) Its neoteric character
must also be underscored. (4) This requires that one correlate
the development of black theology with the evolutionary stages
of a neoteric discipline. (5) A rigorous and painstaking descriptive
analysis -- i.e., the identification of what the author actually
says or means -- must precede any critical estimate. (6) A
critical assessment at this time, must proceed by way of internal
criticism.
I
An accurate account of black theology requires that we
identify two fundamental purposes which control the entire
theological enterprise. it must first be understood that each
black theology presents itself, implicitly or explicitly, as a
specific strategy for black liberation. from this perspective,
it must be regarded as "engaged" or committed
theology, for it makes a prior commitment to an ultimate goal;
i.e., transforming the black condition from oppression to
authentic humanity. The theological task is undertaken to
accomplish the latter.
This task has collapsed into a particular form of spiritual
enlightenment -- I prefer the term gnosiological conversion --
insofar as it seeks to free the black mind from those beliefs
and attitudes which frustrate the impulse and movement toward
liberation. James Cone's statement is representative of this
approach: "The task of black theology . . . is to analyze
the black man's condition in the light of God's revelation in
Jesus Christ with the purpose of creating a new understanding of
black dignity among black people, and providing the necessary
soul in that people, to destroy white racism." 2
Thus the program of black theology must be interpreted as a
self-conscious crusade to eliminate white racism, particularly
in its ecclesiological and theological manifestations.
accordingly, traditional theological concepts are appropriated
or replaced by more novel categories -- e.g., the black messiah
-- by virtue of whether they advance the cause of black
liberation. If this point is kept in mind, many dubious features
of black theology must be regarded as pragmatically, and to that
degree, theologically necessary.
The second purpose which controls the black theologian's task
is the demonstration of the Christian and biblical character of
his position. it is necessary, however, to relate this purpose
to the foregoing. The black theologian seeks to legitimate his
specific liberation strategy as a, but more often, the
Christian way.
Cone, again, exemplifies this procedure. the initial chapter
of his first work, "Towards a Constructive definition of
Black power," presents black power as the only means for
black liberation. The next chapter, "The Gospel of Jesus,
Black People, and Black Power," purports to establish an
equation between black power and the gospel. "Black
theology must say: 'If the doctrine is compatible with or
enhances the drive for black freedom, then it is the gospel of
Jesus Christ. if the doctrine is against or indifferent to the
essence of blackness as expressed in Black Power, then it is the
work of the Anti-Christ.' It is as simple as that."3
Two pints should be made regarding the validation of black
theology as Christian theology. First, the available
black theologies seek to establish that their respective
positions are identical to or in essential continuity with the
gospel. However, others, now on the drawing board, will utilize
non-Christian models -- e.g., indigenous African themes,
humanistic existentialism, etc. Second, from his perspective, is
demonstrating at the same time the antichristian -- i.e., racist
-- quality of the established theologies.
II
Crucial weight must also be assigned to the neoteric
character of black theology. It is a new and fledgling
discipline. Obviously where one marks its beginning determines
its theological age, but here a knotty problem arises. To
identify its founder -- should it be Marcus Garvey, Joseph
Washington, James cone, Albert Cleage, etc.? -- commits one to a
particular definition of black theology. we are presupposing the
view that black theology involves a self-conscious effort to
define one's position in determined opposition to its
complement, an alleged white
theology . That is to say, the precondition for undertaking
a black theology is the prior conclusion that an unacknowledged
white theology exists. We would suggest that the clearest
indicator of this self-conclusion factor is the presence of the
adjective "black" in the title or subtitle. If this
principle is accepted the birth of black theology must be placed
within the past decade. For teaching purposes, I have adopted
1964, the publication date of Black Religion,4 as an
expedient starting point.
It must be emphasized in this connection that the available
black theologies represent only a narrow spectrum of theological
options, for each represents a variety of Western-biblical
theism. No black theologian in America has turned for his
theological materials to the gods our ancestors knew prior to
the arrival of the missionaries. None has yet responded to the
emergent secularism from the black perspective. This observation
is made not with a critical intent in mind but only to indicate
that the full spectrum of theological positions has not yet
emerged. Thus to make a critical assessment now or even to
define black theology's essence would be comparable to assessing
and defining New Testament theology on the basis of only the
earliest letters of Paul.
The neoteric character entails the following principle: the
phases of the evolutionary development of black theology must be
identified and each work situated within that development. (It
is also possible to consider these phases as specific tasks or
purposes to be executed.) The consequence of this principle is
obvious. The assessment must be consistent with the criteria
appropriate for that particular phase or purpose. We would
isolate three phases (1) legitimization, (2) critical-expansion
and (3) systematic construction.
The first order of business for neoteric discipline is to
legitimate its existence. The necessity, importance and value of
its entering the field as a competitor must be established.
crucial to this validation is the demonstration that it is a
discrete and separate entity which is not reducible to any of
the current entries. in terms of our topic, a case must be made
for the necessity of "Theological Discourse in Black."5
The task of legitimization, for the black theologian, has
collapsed into two interrelated endeavors. on the one hand, the
necessity of black theology is established by showing that
Christianity is, in fact, "whitianity" and that the
established theologies are actually unacknowledged white
theologies. As such they are defective and must be replaced
or supplemented.
To accomplish this demonstration the black theologian points,
for instance, to: the perpetuation of a blond, blue-eyed and
nonrevolutionary picture of Jesus; the absence of the black
experience in the theological arena; the failure to afford it
coequal theological authority and significance; the
preoccuptation of white scholars, American and European, with
issues other than racism and oppression; the adoption of ethical
and theological perspectives which sanctify the status quo and
thus militate against the impulse for radical reformation; the
actual history of the white churches' response to black
demands for the recognition of their full humanity; the
contradiction between advocacy nonviolence when blacks are
involved but not whites; etc.
The net effect of this demonstration is to confirm that the
class of authentic Christian theologies is without members. Thus
the need to fill the gap, and black theology quickly offers
itself as the best candidate for the slot.
On the other hand, the black theologian has sought to
legitimate the importance and irreducibility of his task by
cornering a specific and restricted theological turf for
himself. He has argued that he is investigating heretofore
unexamined and neglected materials; namely, the black
experience. one also finds the attempt to corroborate the black
experience as theologically unique. As the special incarnation
and custodian of this theological treasure, he has the superior
perspective from which to execute his craft.
Consider, for instance, the claim of Geddes Hanson that the
oppressed condition of blacks most closely approximates the
condition of the Israelites and Jesus himself. Accordingly, the
black interpretation must be given special merit and importance.6
or consider Cone's attempt to establish a biblical history of
salvation to the effect that God is on the side of and active in
behalf of the oppressed. Thus, as the primary locus of God's
presence, activity, and revelation, the perspective of the
oppressed -- i.e, black -- must functions as the theological
singular.7
It is appropriate to regard this type of theology as a
pioneer theology since it seeks to clear a space for itself in
the theological wilderness.
III
Beyond the legitimization phase lies a critical-expansive
stage. int he first phase the established -- i.e., white
-- theologies are the primary object against which the pioneer
works define themselves. But in the second, the pioneer -- i.e.,
black - theologies become an essential object against which
other black writers now define and legitimate their respective
positions. the concern shifts from authenticating black theology
in the midst of the white wilderness to the validation of a
specific variety of black theology. the net effect is thus to
enlarge the theological options beyond those represented by the
pioneer works. this phase is also marked by increased attention
to the issues of method, appropriate models, frameworks,
sources, etc.
J. Deotis Roberts is a
helpful illustration of this phase. he stakes out a theological
position in determined opposition to Cone and Albert Cleage.8
This emphasis is manifest in the very title,
Liberation and Reconciliation: A Black Theology. His purpose is to show
that Cone's position, as evidenced by the title
A Black
Theology of Liberation , is not black theology, for to
be theology it must affirm both liberation and reconciliation.
Roberts also insists that one must distinguish between two
mutually exclusive positions in black religion: Afro-American
Christianity and the religion of black power. the former is
authentic Christianity and theology, the latter is neither.
consequently, the effort of Cleage and Cone to christianize
black power is doomed to failure.9 Thus, Roberts
intends his work to be the expression of a black theology that
is authentically Christian.
The third and, for our purposes, terminal stage should be
designated as systematic construction. here we have in mind two
types of theological construction with the first presupposing
the second. There is the projection of programmatic strategies
of black liberation in the light of the theological tradition
resulting from phases one and two. but this account presupposes
a rationale and justification which points to a more fundamental
theological formulation: the explicit description and
systematization of the ontological, anthropological, and ethical
categories which are either presupposed in the programmatic
strategy or which the latter requires as its necessary
support.
Here the intuitive and personal insights which were the
source for the earlier phases are given a more structured and
demonstrative, rather than confessional, as aspect. this, in
short, is the stage of ontological description and validation in
conscious dialogue with the expanded spectrum of positions in
black theology.
What conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing analysis?
(1) We would argue that the current black theologies must be
assigned to either phase one or two and the latter must be
designated as their growing edge. the theological construction
characteristic of phase three is yet to come. (2) Accordingly,
criteria relevant to phase three cannot legitimately be utilized
for the analysis of the extant black theologies. The comment has
been made, for instance, that much of black theology is not
ontological or theological analysis and corroboration but simply
black history. This charge, however, appears to invoke phase
three criteria. the value and necessity of the historical
material are evident once one relates it to the specific
purposes and concerns of the other phases.
IV
We would advance another interpretative principle: an interim
assessment must first be a descriptive analysis and only then
can it move to a critical appraisal. or the latter must proceed
with the view in mind of brining to light what the writer
actually says or intends. No doubt this is to state the obvious,
but it seems that this principle has been honored most often
through its abrogation. But our main reason for endorsing
it becomes clear only after consideration of the final
interpretive rule: any critical assessment must proceed by way
of internal criticism, tracing and reducing any alleged faults
to the very principles the author himself has established as
normative.
This follows, we feel, from the neoteric character of black
theology. If the critics does not take the route of internal
criticism, he is guilty of begging the question. We must not
forget that the purpose, if not the actual effect, of a neoteric
discipline is to call into question the ultimacy of the norms of
the established schools. Consequently, the latter norms cannot
be enlisted as the critical apparatus for evaluating the new
discipline until they have been revalidated in the face of the
criticisms that arise from the mere existence and nature of this
"enfant terrible."
To put the issue in another way: it appears to many black
theologians that any external criticism now is simply a cover
form of racism whereby the critic comes to his evaluation with a
prior conclusion of the inherent superiority of the truth or
ultimacy of the established -- i.e., nonblack -- theologies. But
the authenticity and ultimacy of the latter, in light of the
claims of black theology, must be regarded, at least
tentatively, as problematical and therefore not yet available
for critical duty. I would contend as well that black
theologians engaged in phase two analysis should also adopt the
route of internal criticism lest they be convicted of
theological Uncle Tomism.
V
It is desirable to conclude our discussion by pointing to
some of the values I see in black theology for the larger
theological community. In this way I hope to identify certain
positive features which ought to be included in any interim
assessment.
Perhaps black theology black theology's most immediate value
is in the momentous issues it pushes to the center of the
theological discussion. for instance, Albert Cleage's theme of
the black messiah forces the issue of Jesus' actual pigmentation
and its significance for salvation. Cleage's presupposition that
my salvation in some way hinges upon the identity of my skin
color and that of the savior, God and Jesus, pinpoints the issue
of the particularity of God's saving work. Though we regard
Cleage's answer to thee question deficient,10 he has
called attention to an unavoidable issue. Because it is
unavoidable, given white theologians'
own conclusions, it is interesting to speculate why they have
accorded it only peripheral importance -- if that. is it not the
case that if one affirms the full and concrete humanity of Jesus
Christ, it must be admitted that he had a particular color, just
as he had a particular sex? If, moreover, one emphasizes, like
Buchner H. Payne, that color is the decisive soteriological
factor,11 then it becomes imperative for blacks to know Jesus'
hue. One should not conclude that the assertion of a black
messiah is a defining feature of black theology; not only is it
central for Cleage alone, bit all of his fellow theologians have
opposed his specific interpretation. Nor should one concluded
that the term or issue was first introduced by Cleage. The black
poet Countee Cullen, in his books The Black Christ and Color,
discusses as early as 1929 the same issue of Jesus' color
relative to his saving role for blacks. Moreover, does not
raising the issue of a black messiah or God force the white
Christian to ponder whether his own picture of God and Jesus is
a tribalized projection of his Westernized self-image? And if
the assertion of a black christ accomplishes nothing more than
exposing this unacknowledged idolatry, its value for white
self-understanding cannot be underestimated. The black
theologians' specific selection of theological concepts and
motifs raises fundamental questions about the nature of the
Christian and biblical faith and forces a reconsideration, if
not redefinition, of every major theological category. The issue
as to whether the biblical and Christian traditions provide
sufficient resources for the transformationist model that an
oppressed people requires for its liberation, surfaces here.
Advocates of the religion of black power, for instance, appear
to replace the Christian ontology of love with an ontology of
powerism. In this connection, it is noteworthy that Joseph
Washington, who makes the biblical model normative for black
theology, concludes that Marx's concept of power is a necessary
supplement to the biblical ontology.12 from my own
position I would argue that white Christians and theologians
have not yet considered and assimilated the factor of ethnic
suffering into their concepts of God. the black experience,
marked as it is by a suffering which is not counterbalanced by
white suffering, appears to stand in stark contradiction to the
claim of God's love and justice for all mankind. Faced with this
fact of the disproportionate black suffering black suffering,
ought not the white theologian raise the question: Is God a
white racist? Perhaps the title of a
favorite album, "The Gospel According to Don Shirley,"
describes the basic motivation and value of black theology. This
black pianist's gospel runs the gamut from "Drown in My Own
Tears" through "Climb the Highest Mountain" to
"I've Been 'Buked." Black theology, likewise, is a
demand to define the gospel from its own perspective, leaving
the verdict of its theological quality and correctness in the
hands of coming generations. But until that verdict is
announced, this new entry in the theological arena should not be
bypassed because of its alleged disvalue. It speaks for a people
too long voiceless, to long powerless to preach the good news as
it sees it. To this end the church universal should give its
thanks and support. Notes 1The
adjective is borrowed from Jean-Paul Sartre's concept of
"engaged literature." 2Black
Theology & Black Power (Seabury, 1969, p. 117). 3Cone,
p. 121. 4Jospeh Washington,
Black Religion (Beacon, 1964). 5J.
Deotis Roberts,
Liberation and Reconciliation: A Black Theology
(Westminister, 1971). 6"Black
Theology and Protestant Thought," Social Progress: A
Journal of Church and Society, September--October, 1969 7A
Black Theology of Liberation (Lippincott, 1970). 8Albert
Cleage,
The Black Messiah (Sheed & Ward, 1969). 9"Cleage
intends to present a Christian position but what he actually
presents is . . . 'the religion of black power'" (p. 55).
"James Cone is on the fence between the Christian faith and
the religion of Black Power. It will be necessary for Cone to
decide where he will take his firm stand . . . [for] a Christian
theologian is not an interpreter of the religion of Black Power
(p. 21). It would be helpful for Roberts to make explicit the
hidden definition of "Christian" and
"theology" which would exclude the religion of Black
Power. 10Some of our criticisms are set
forth in "Theodicy and , Methodology: A Critique of
Washington, Cone, and Cleage," Harvard Theological
Review, Summer 1971. 11"Now
as Adam was white . . . and our Savior white, did he enter
heaven when he arose . . . as a white man or as a negro. If as
white man then the negro is left out; if as a negro, then the
white man is left out." The Negro: What Is His
Ethnological Status? (Cincinnati, 1872, pp. 87-88). 12The
Politics of God: The Future of the Black Churches (Beacon,
1967, pp. 138-45). * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * updated 8 October 2007 |
