Black liberation theology exists in reaction to the tradition of Western Christian theology. There are chapters in the Companion devoted to black theology in various nations including Brazil, Cuba, and Jamaica but, as far as I can tell, black theology neither draws from nor is in conversation with Orthodoxy (in any of its many varieties including the Mar Thoma in India), the Coptic Church, or the Ethiopian Church. This is not surprising given its late-twentieth century American origins and contemporary expressions primarily in America and in post-colonial areas of the world. This does, however, raise a question about whether white supremacy/black oppression is the unique and universal form of non-black theology.
More specifically, black liberation theology came into being in the late 1960s in reaction to and a certain measure of dialogue with three venerable phenomena: the integrationist theology of the traditional black church in America, liberal (Mainline) Protestant churches, and white Evangelicalism. Countering the traditional black church's focus on integration was black liberation theology's emphasis on black power/independence. Integration was not the immediate goal; instead the aim of the new black theology was liberation. Countering both Mainline Protestantism and Evangelicalism was a focus on the raw experience of oppression. Both the Mainline, captured, by a progressivism directed by centralized government (white) elites, and Evangelicals, captured by an individualism tethered to the market, failed to sense the oppressive reality that many blacks in America continued to suffer. In addition, by the 1950s, the Mainline and most northern Evangelicals were largely committed to proceduralism. Neither had a vision for substantive justice that transcended gradual tinkering with the status quo.
More recently, the long-standing centrality of white racist oppression as the locus of black liberation theology has gradually expanded to other aspects of the theological enterprise. Anti-racism alone is insufficient as a humane agenda. For example, hand-waving dismissal of "the reality of capitalist exploitation proved by the existence of multinational corporations" suggests inadequate attention to forms of production and exchange that are necessary for a flourishing life on any account.
Mirroring Evangelicalism
Like the infatuation of many white Evangelicals with the grid of worldview™ (rants here and here), black liberation theology can function as a grid that renders renders careful analysis unnecessary. Unlike much of what functions as worldview thinking, however, black theology brims with energy. (Go here to read my observations on the grid-energy dynamic). And it is that energy--perhaps a descendant of the Frenzy, as W.E.B. DuBois described it--that makes many whites (apart from Pentecostals) uncomfortable.
Like much of Evangelicalism, black liberation theology stands in an ambiguous relationship to the Church. Is the Church a "real" thing (an emergent if not transcendent entity)? Or is the church a temporary collection of like-minded (or like-oppressed) individuals, an affinity group? Garth Baker-Fletcher's chapter in the Companion effectively identifies this issue.
A certain pragmatism pervades both black liberation theology--at least as it's practiced in America--and Evangelicalism. I made that point with regard to black theology when commenting on Linda E. Thomas's chapter in the Companion. And I previously highlighted Evangelicalism's pragmatic bent here. Indeed, it may even be that both black theology and Evangelicals (and Americans generally) share a therapeutic focus. Of course, what counts as the "[feel] good" state of affairs differs substantially.
Finally, the common tendency toward worldview-ism as well as pragmatism meet in a use of history. For some proponents of black liberation theology and some Evangelicals, American history is an exercise in either demonology or hagiography.
__________________________________
I certainly don't know enough to evaluate the overall impact of black liberation theology. As observed in the opening of this post, however, the practices of black theology described in the Companion should be understood as reactive phenomena. Reactive, that is, to a Western and (in the first place) American reductionism. Western Christians, especially Protestants, can hardly be heard to complain about a movement spawned in reaction against something. Yet even the most "revolutionary" aspects of the Reformation were nonetheless in continuity with substantial portions of the small "c" catholic tradition. In my opinion, for what it's worth, to the extent that black theology can recognize its roots in the Western Christian tradition, and to the extent that it cultivates its growth in some or other historic Christian tradition--Western or Eastern--it should prove fruitful for all Christians.
Links to previous posts:
No comments:
Post a Comment