It must be noted that I do not consider myself a Liberation Theologian as such. In my mind’s eye, I would count myself as a semi-Barthian dialectic, post-liberal narrative theologian with affinity for liberation. Most of that means that I haven’t given much thought to boiling my method down to a point. However, I do feel like Liberation (or Black Liberation) Theology has not been given a fair shake in recent media coverage. Therefore, I wanted to do a brief look into the heart of this theological method, focusing on James Cone and Jeremiah Wright as examples (however fair or unfair that is) in order to help myself and others get a fair look at it before we make judgements.
First, Jeremiah Wright. By far the most polarizing and controversial. By far, what most Americans know him for are his statements that were made public during Barack Obama’s presidential run. The most infamous statements were those in regards to September 11, saying “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” and “…not God Bless America. God damn America.” If one places patriotism and nationalism first in one’s life, these statements will seem horrific and blasphemous. Unless they don’t. Let me explain.
In the Old Testament, love of Israel was everything. To love your country was tantamount to love of God. However, what happened when Israel’s leaders began to do wrong by God and the people? We have to look no further than Wright’s namesake, the prophet Jeremiah. He spoke against his own country over and over again. In Jeremiah 14:11, we are told Jeremiah is forbidden from praying for good fortune for Israel (not God bless America?). And in Jer. 24:9, we are shown that Jeremiah uses a word that is translated “curse” or “damn” to describe his home country (God damn America?). What is it about America that makes her immune from the same kind of judgment that Israel received? Or what about Wright’s comments that 9-11 was America’s “chickens coming home to roost”? While there is some debate to be had there, it is not unheard of for Godly people to pronounce that destruction or foreign attack is related to a people’s own fault. What of Babylon and Assyria in the Old Testament? Were they not the direct result of a people rebelling against God? Are we going to say that the people in 9-11 were innocent, that they did nothing to deserve what they received? Naturally. And I think we are right to do so. However, are we willing to go as far to describe the millions of innocents that were destroyed by the Assyrians and Babylonians? Why is it alright for preachers to ascribe those tragedies to the injustice of Israel, but don’t say that America is at fault, or that we can possibly make ourselves less of a terrorist target by learning to be more just in the world?
This kind of hypocrisy is ridiculous. Wright, while inflammatory and consciously button-pushing, is simply standing in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets to describe a home country that is so corrupt that it cannot see beyond its own imperialism to see its faults. A person like Wright is a gigantic mirror that shows apathetic people what they don’t want to see about themselves.
And… it should also be said that just because someone stands in the prophetic tradition, it doesn’t mean that said person can’t be a jerk at the same time. He made some dumb comments along the way. But the worst ones weren’t dumb, they were just uncomfortable.
Where’s the rest? You know: Cone? Liberation Theology? Black Liberation Theology?
The rest is coming. My time is not my own sometimes, so I thought a little at a time would be better than a long wait. So stay tuned!
I didn’t think that there should have been anything terribly controversial about the assertion that “America’s chickens had come home to roost on 911.” I didn’t really think “God damn America” was called for although I can respect where Wright was coming from. America was sold on the idea that “the world changed on 911″ when that wasn’t what happened at all. It was simply that our ignorance of the world was exposed. I think America would have been better off if it had heeded Wright’s call for introspection rather than responding with righteous indignation to the wrong that had been done it.
I am in the same position. While I certainly can’t see myself saying the kind of things he said, I also don’t think he was saying anything that doesn’t have basis in prophetic dialogue.
I wonder how the old prophets felt when they proclaimed damnation against Israel and Judah, and all the other surrounding nations? I won’t doubt they would have been seen as 10x worst than Jeremiah Wright, who was tame in comparison to Jeremiah and Isaiah.
I completely agree. The Old Testament prophets were far more radical than any of our prophets today, and for what might be far less injustice all things considered.
Quick clarification request. Prophets today?
That is not me giving prophetic status to any person today. That is me saying that there are persons who are Christians that say prophetic things (words from God to us, literally or not) that we might need to hear.
Ahhh. Thanks.
“What of Babylon and Assyria in the Old Testament? Were they not the direct result of a people rebelling against God?”
Brilliant question. Although, i read it as, “WERE they not the direct result of people rebelling against God?” I’m sure you didn’t mean the question that way, but allow me to play Devil’s advocate for a moment. I’m sure everyone has heard of Pat Robertson. He’s pretty well known for making audacious and bombastic claims about the reasons for disasters. Even in the faces of the innocent dead. 9-11, the earthquake in Haiti, the coming of World War III, etc. were (or will be) all our fault. Not our fault, as in America’s fault, but more like humanity’s fault. Maybe I’m alone here, but even back in my days of belief, despite how “biblical” it was, when I heard some of the things he said and the causes he posited, I had to roll my eyes.
It’s at least possible that the Israelites of old were also eye rollers. I mean, granted, they didn’t know what caused earthquakes, but we do. It’s the shifting of plate techtonics. Does God shift those plates? Who knows? How can you check? Who can you ask? Now, personally, I have nothing against Mr. Wright, because, I think the chickens did come home to roost. I just think they were different chickens.
America has, in the past, lived in a bubble of it’s own imperialism. Pearl Harbor was just as big a surprise as 9/11. But was God leading the Japanese to show us the error of our ways? And did we learn our lesson? Who’s to say? And who can say whoever does say is wrong?
All I can do is roll my eyes.
You raise a good point. But notice the move I did not make. I did not attribute these things to God. I attributed them to the rebellion of Israel. And I stand with you regarding people (including many comments made by Wright) that say that X disaster or crisis is God’ punishment. However, I am also quick to point out that Robertson, in his own way, is speaking like a prophet. Therefore I would gladly defend his right to speak like that, while vehemently decrying his conclusions. Hindsight will prove prophets true or false.
Haha. Voltaire! One of my favorites.
I agree with you here. And I see your point that the old exiles were because of Israel’s rebellion, and not necessarily God. But that’s still where we’re at with some of the other modern day (potential) prophets. Katrina was because of homosexuality. Haiti made a “deal with the devil.” 9/11 happened because our chickens came home to roost, figuratively. It’s still blaming the afflicted for things beyond they’re control. It’s like telling a rape victem that she had to be raped because she got drunk that night. The events COULD be related, but one most certainly does not cause the other.
On second reading, I realized that last part sounds harsh. I didn’t intend to offend. I was just making an analogy.
I didn’t take it as harsh towards me. Thanks though.
Chad, these are more great thoughts. I’ll have to think about them quite a bit. I do have a couple problems with Wright’s stuff, though.
First, he’s not a prophet in the OT sense of the term. He has no more access to revelation than any other believer. He acts so certain and sure about causes and effects, but in truth he doesn’t know that 9-11 is a punishment. He’s merely setting forth his guestimation as though it’s revelation. I don’t buy the hermeneutical move that says he’s in the tradition of OT prophets.
Second, politics sometimes makes for strange bedfellows. Wright should be preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, the one who game to lay down his life for the forgiveness of sins. I’ve only listened to about a dozen of his sermons, maybe less, and I’ve noticed he has little to say about Jesus. He definitely doesn’t share the gospel of Jesus Christ. He DOES call out politicians by name and often quite overtly says things that I take as attempts to create racial disharmony. The end game of the church is every tribe, nation, and tongue praising God in unity. He would do well to accept that. I can’t back any minister who is not of the gospel and could not be classified as a Jesus freak. Sorry.
Just some thoughts. He’s a cultural critic, and I think he has something to say. He is neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, and he could use a bit more Jesus in his messages.
Saying he IS in the OT tradition is different from saying he speaks LIKE them. I meant the latter. I also agree with you about his sermons. They lean much too political and not as much Jesus as I would do it. Nevertheless, I would again defend the potential for God to speak prophetically through him in this roll.
Here is just a simple man’s approach to all. My feelings are that due to the philosophies of todays political backers(actually hackers) it seems that everyone wants the United States to be the defenders of the world. Whether it be for oil or the fair treatment of women, Christians, non-christians, etc throughout the world. Most of this eminates from people here in the US but it also comes outside. Everytime there is a tragedy somewhere in the world, they call on the US to help them out. So sometimes, as Americans, we get ticked off when our country is derided. I am not saying they are wrong, all I am saying is as Jesus said, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” So I guess my question is, Do we as a country just sit back and protect ourselves and our lands, or try to solve the problems of the world?
I agree. The world has been as hypocritical as us in the way they interact with us. Nevertheless, to extend the analogy a bit, this was a similar situation to the one that the conquered nations found themselves in when conquered by Rome. They were forced to rely on the very people oppressing them.
I think it is wise for me to say at this moment that I don’t give approval to Wright’s comments. I don’t particularly support him in any of his roles. However, I still find it important to hear people according to how they intend themselves to be heard, not how the opposite side wants to use them. This is me giving Wright the best possible shake, the way I would appreciate someone giving me a good shake. It’s just good neighbor-ness.
I, for one, appreciate you giving the fair shake.
It was a blog entry by some Christian for Ron Paul that helped me see the truth behind Jeremiah’s sentiments regarding America’ war-addicted tendencies and the “dark side” of history (like our treatment of Native Americans.)
This is not to say I support Wright’s take on Christianity, but the particular clips paraded around the media in ’08 weren’t the best examples to use if one wanted to expose the “wrongness” of his ministry focus. Those comments actually had some merit.
Jennifer, your position on Wright is not popular, but I side with you on being able to see the “truth” in what he was saying instead of clasping our hands to our ears and crying, “blasphemy!”
The Christian tradition does not grant prophetic status to people in the present day (Heb 1.1-3). So your label of hypocrisy is far from correct and criticism against Wright, who claims to represent the Christian tradition, is justified. This post advocates thought no different than Pat Robertson and the charismatic movement who think they have special insight to declare why the events of today happen.
Oh Rob, it sounds like you are not a continuationist, no?
I don’t buy cessationism and its interpretation of scripture, and nor do I believe that Wright is a true prophet. Yes, one can be prophetic nowadays, but, the problem is discerning whether or not a prophet is true or false. But I think these dilettantes make it easy for us; Christians are just desperate to hear God’s voice that they will listen to anyone; sorta like this scene in The American President–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKTqS4bXugg&feature=related
I’m only asking because I’ve not had a chance to fully inform myself on the subject…
But what is the continuationist take on more modern writings possibly being inspired as well? If prophecy is just as likely today, and if TRUE prophecy is just as likely today, is the writing down of said prophecies the same as writing divinely inspired scripture?
It could be that the two are wholly unrelated. Like I said, I haven’t had a chance to educate myself in this area yet. Some insight would be appreciated.
Well, Tusk M,
This is a really complex subject. There is one camp of Christians, lets take, the Pat Robertson’s of the world, who interpret scripture in a manner that says that it refers to future events, particularly about the USA. It is futuristic (and nationalist) in orientation, generally speaking. Like, in the last book of the Bible, Revelation, which is about the “end of the world” for example, in the 1980s, people believed it referred to the Soviet Union since the Soviets were the USA’s enemy; today, it is fashionable in those circles to say it is now radical Islam instead. God is continuing (continuationist) to reveal what the Bible means through prophets (like Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye).
There is another camp of Christians who say that Christians do not have access to understanding future or contemporary events like the prophets did in the Old Testament (things like knowing what the messiah will go through). These gifts have ceased (cessationist) according to an interpretation of 1st Corinthians, a letter written by Paul.
Chad is an example of NEITHER of these trains of thought, nor am I. There is another brand of continuationism that says that God uses people to speak to current events and history using biblical language and stories. Prophecy is not predicting the future; it is about speaking for God concerning the ways of God. Can persons speak for God? I think in a limited way yes, but that does not make anyone less prone to error or sin. Prophets change the moral conscience of a nation (as they did in the Old Testament–i do not like use the “Old” terminology); take Martin Luther King Jr. for instance. I believe that while he was not perfect (prophets are not perfect or worthy of worship in Scripture), his ministry changed the USA’s unChristian views of race. That is a concrete example I can give.
Rod I believe answered this as I would have. Prophets are a broad category and nothing except bad scholarship would allow us to find a place in scripture that tells us God stopped speaking prophetically through people in the first century. It was only after 3 centuries that the apostles were confirmed to be prophetic (that is a loaded statement, I know), so it might do us all well to take a long view of “prophetic” comments today instead of reactionary remarks caused by hurt feelings or defensive protection of the things we value (like our national pride and patriotism).
Hebrews 1 is definately not a proof text (as you are using it) for prophetic words not being spoken today. In the context of Hebrews itself, there was revelation being accepted as prophetic after Jesus (Paul, the disciples, James, etc…)
I also do not believe that Wright claims to represent the Christian tradition, only that he is a Christian, and I support his right to stand in the tradition of the prophets and speak truth to power.
And as for being the same as Pat Robertson, sure. But the scripture sounds an awful lot like that much of the time, and instead of attacking, what is called for is taking such claims seriously until proven not true. Pat Robertson has lost all credibility because he has been so wrong so much.
I embrace critical scholarship, Rods.
Sorry, but your friend Chad is off his rocker or just uses really bad analogies and really bad logic.
He just did not expand on what he meant by prophetic.
I hope I don’t come across as rude, but I generally support the thesis that reinforcing one’s arguments will generally lead to better communication than mudslinging. I also would point out that speaking the truth is not enough for the Christian. Speaking the truth in love is part of our call. I appreciate your loving way of telling me I am off my rocker, but what would really speak my love language is if you deal with the arguments themselves rather than being reactionary, using your embedded theology as a knife.
If you look above, you will see a comment i made that says that I don’t particularly support Wright, but we should be willing to give people a chance to be heard in the best possible light, as we ourselves would.
So in your opinion, man has the right and insight to judge the events today as the judgment of God? What is your criterion to determine whether or not he is correct? What about those that said the earthquake in Haiti happened on account of a deal they made with the devil back in its inception?
And just to be clear, there is no distinction between the prophetic status of the Old Testament, e.g. that of Isaiah, Jeremiah, et al, and the modern day? Further, what ecclesiastical model supports your view of the continued use of “prophecy.” And when you say “poor scholarship,” I want to be clear, are you saying critical scholarship is poor scholarship? Because they all are against your assessment.
OH, SNAP!