Works of James Cone

There are those on the political right that make rational, consistent arguments; Glenn Beck is not one of them. If there is anything consistent about him, it is that he consistently preys on the worst fears of humanity – a consistency that certainly cannot be applauded.

This last week he took aim at Union’s own James Cone and the tradition of Liberation Theology. It was a surreal moment for those of us that saw it and are close to Dr. Cone. I respect and admire the influence of Liberation Theology, but most of us that study Liberation Theology recognize that it is not as prominent as it once was. It’s emphasis was destabilized by neo-liberal and post-modern theological critiques. Liberation theology was born out of the liberal school, pointing up the importance of experience and particularity as sources of spirituality that remain relevant to Christianity. After that, particularity continued on and on ’til metaphysical normativity became a passe thought of the Western world. All was finally contextual (as it always was), and universal truths had to be written in the ink of their historical, cultural and personal particularity. Most of us understand that Christianity and any religious expression comes into contact with historical contexts. Glenn Beck doesn’t.

I won’t spend this time arguing with his simplified, antiquated form of Christianity he learned from the Acton Institue and its Anthony Bradly. What I will say, as I have before to Mr. Beck, is THANK YOU. Thank you for introducing Dr. James Cone to his widest audience ever. Dr. Cone is an amazing theologian, and there is a sadness that he had to be introduced to such a wide audience by the likes of Glenn Beck in such a crude fashion; but what’s done is done. We can’t go back or shove the misguided, vitriolic words back in Beck’s mouth.

We can only hope and pray that Beck lives [some of] the words he spoke. Chrisitanity is about a change of heart, he said. “Works are a demonstration of our faith…” Then he stopped, realizing what he was saying, his polemic falling to pieces around him. You could see the wheels turning. “Does that mean I should change my heart about poverty, immigration or health care? Should I work toward the well-being of all God’s creatures rather than simply my vested interests?…” Time stood still for a moment. His heart beat grew faster, but not larger. That was only reserved for the Grinch’s redemption. Unfortunately, Beck’s remained ice cold and two sizes too small.

“We want to concentrate on Liberation Theology…” he started over, regaining his composure. I don’t know what I was expecting, maybe God’s grace and intervention. God was probably too busy weeping, though – as many of us were. Not for Beck’s sewage. I don’t know about you, but I’ve grown accustomed to it popping up in news feeds here and there. What we cried for was for the number of people that listen to his opinions for direction. His words are fingers pointing toward dead-ends, which only lead to anger and more polemic. Those that know the heart of the Gospel, like James Cone, know about compassion and grace. May Beck also have that conversion.

Although I am a Christian theologian, I contend that a just social order must be accountable to not one but many religious communities. If we are going to create a society that is responsive to the humanity of all, then we must not view one religious faith as absolute. Ultimate reality, to which all things are subject, is too mysterious to be exclusively limited to one people’s view of God. Any creation of a just social order must take into account that God has been known and experienced in many different ways. Because we have an imperfect grasp of divine reality, we must not regard our limited vision as absolute. Solidarity among all human communities is  antithetical to religious exclusivism. God’s truth comes in many colors and is revealed in many cultures, histories, and unexpected places. — (James H. Cone, “Black Theology and Solidarity” in Lorine M. Getz and Ruy O. Costa, eds. Struggles for Solidarity: Liberation Theologies in Tension, Minneapolis, M.N.: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 47.)

What a ringing endorsement of the need for inter-religious dialogue and for a more “pluralist” Christian theology of religions!  And it’s coming not from a scholar of comparative religions or from a John-Hick-type philosopher of religion — but from the father of Black Liberation Theology. His words are powerful and challenging for any Christian theology: there can be “no just social order” unless many religions are contributing to it…Ultimate Reality is too big for any one religion… liberating solidarity is “antithetical to religious exclusivism” …  the Christian vision, like all religious visions, is “limited” and cannot regard itself as “absolute.”

Well, if James Cone has served up this endorsement of a more pluralistic theology and dialogue of religions, I would say that the ball is now in the court of us so-called theologians of religions and inter-religious dialoguers.   Cone is basically saying that there cannot be any effective liberation without interreligious dialogue.  I believe that those of us given to the dialogue of religions must respond with the admission that there can be no authentic dialogue without liberation.   If a truly world-wide struggle for liberation calls for the dialogue of many religious communities, then the dialogue of religions must respond by making sure that when religions get together to talk, they don’t just talk about religion.  They have to also talk about the realities of human and environmental suffering due to injustice.

When religious people come together to “dialogue,” the topics must be not only “ultimate reality,” “life after death,” “prayer and meditation;’  the dialogical agenda must also include human rights, poverty, housing, economic disparity, political policies.  And as Jim Cone told me in one of our first conversations after I came to join the faculty here at Union Theological Seminary,  inter-religious dialogue here in the United States must also talk about White Supremacy.

And of course, when religious people come together to talk about liberation and overcoming injustice, they can’t just talk.  They will also have to act — to walk the talk together.   James Cone, occupied all his life with the reality of racial and economic injustice, recognizes that he also has to engage in inter-religious dialogue.   Christian theologians of religions (also called “comparative theologians”), occupied with the need for dialogue, must recognize that they have to engage in efforts toward liberation.

“Liberation and dialogue” — the two have to go together.  James Cone realized that back in the early 90s.   I hope that more and more people — theologians or whoever — can share that realization.

A study published in September by Public Religion Research has revealed some thought-provoking statistics on this question. The survey queried both conservative and liberal activists who identify as religiously faithful. In the conservative camp, 99% identified as some variety of Christian. The liberals reported 71% of their numbers as Christian. While the data could be interpreted as the liberal activists being a more inclusive community, it also points to the notion that perhaps equating “Christian” and “conservative” may not be that inaccurate after all.

Resources:
Public Religion Research
Daniel Schultz at Religion Dispatches on this report