There is "black theology" for the same reason there is "black music" "soul food" and "jazz." Where would our nation be without the wonderful contribution from those who were able to rise above their state? We who have a long tradition of solemn liturgical worship should envy the full expression seen in their worship services, music, and community.

"Liberation theology" was born out of slavery: actual and de facto. The Exodus story held hope for them in a way that no free people can possibly understand. It has been the major theme of their music and worship for hundreds of years. They have a reason and hope for something better, when too many of their white brethren feel that they have already "arrived" and need nothing more.

You're exactly right, Alex.

I recall most vividly because I was in school at the time how hurt some white theologians who had been active in the civil rights movement felt when Cone's first book hit the streets. One of my white teachers wrote a whole book himself that tried to explain things!

It was difficult for some to hear from Cone that they, too, in their own more sophisticated and subtle ways, by trying to be "saviors, were also keeping black people down. Ouch!

I have sometimes felt the sin of defensiveness when listening to Cone. [Is he still alive?] But what about Cornel West? He's one of Bonnie Dwyer's favorites!

I go back to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral [surprised?]. One way or another all theologians attend to (1) Scripture, even if only to quarrel. But how they do so greatly depends upon their (2) traditions, (3) experiences and (4) forms of reasoning.

Some theologians notice only when other theologians do this. They are like those of us who believe that others have accents but we don't. It can be surprising to learn when we first travel that we have accents too!

Black theology wants to speak of God and humanity in its own accents. What's wrong with that?

By now Hannity, O'Reilly and Hitchens should have figured all this out. That they haven't tells us more about them than black theology. It's not flattering.

Good work!

Dave

The Black Value System had as no. 8-"Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.”

" Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:
Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”
So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.” If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons."

1. It is fascinating that this system perceives American society still through a captor/captive paradigm. Slavery is alive and perpetuated...here.(mindset)

2. It is good to keep boundaries down between those of your own race and yourself even as you differentiate to another economic/cultural strata. ("us" still, not "we" and "they") But if "us" remains oppositional against the larger group, is this less discrimnatory?

"On air and in print, they worry about Trinity's (United Church of Christ) "Afrocentric" commitments to the black community and black work ethic." The Black Value System was mentioned in articles against Obama and the Unity UCC, it is from the church's website.

As I understand them, the paragraphs provided by Arlyn do not summarize TUCC's beliefs and practices but those it explicitly rejects.

One of the websites has this comment about TUCC: "It's part of the UCC [United Church of Christ] which means that it is to the left of Stalin." This is silly.

Congregationalists have long been among the most successful entrepreneurs on earth. It has not always been easy for them to resist the temptation to make money by oppressing others. This is the reason for TUCC's warning.

Anyone who wonders about this can compare the names of the first missionaries to Hawaii and the names of the state's historically most prominent business people and land owners. Although now this may be changing, for generations they were the same families. Hawaii is not an isolated case.

This is how Trinity United Church of Christ (www.tucc.org) describes itself:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

Things could be a lot worse!

Dave

Yes Dave

But would they welcome you into their midst on a regular basis yet membership? Tom

Excellent question, Tom.

I wasn't absoluely sure of the answer until I read this statement by John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ denomination, at the UCC Web Site (www.ucc.org).

"Trinity UCC is rooted in and proud of its Afrocentric heritage. This is no different than the hundreds of UCC churches from the German Evangelical and Reformed stream that continue to own and celebrate their German heritage, insisting on annual sausage and sauerkraut dinners and singing 'Stille Nacht' on Christmas Eve. Recognizing and celebrating our distinctive racial-ethnic heritages, cultures, languages and customs are what make us unique as a united and uniting denomination."

While Trinity UCC is predominately African American, it does include and welcome non-Black members. The Rev. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, Illinois Conference Minister, who is white, has been a member of the congregation for years.

"Trinity is a destination church for many members of the UCC, a multi-racial, multi-cultural denomination that is largely Caucasian. When in Chicago, many UCC members flock to Trinity to share in and learn from its vibrant ministries, dynamic worship and justice-minded membership. Contrary to the claims made in these hateful emails, UCC members know Trinity to be one of the most welcoming, hospitable and generous congregations in our denomination."

Back to me, Dave, again. One of the things that most impresses me about TUCC is the number of different kinds of scholarships it gives each year to both young people and adults who are returning to school after doing other things for a while. SDA congregations could do this too!

Thank you, Tom. I hope yoou are enjoying a Splendid Sabbath!

Dave

I should have included this from TUCC's own mission statement:

"W.E.B. DuBois indicated that the problem in the 20th century was going to be the problem of the color line. He was absolutely correct. Our job as servants of God is to address that problem and eradicate it in the name of Him who came for the whole world by calling all men, women, boys and girls to Christ."

Thanks again!

It is strange to me that persons presenting themselves as candidates for the presidency need to demonstrate a charismatic universalism without substance. Those with experience in Administration at the federal level need not apply. Sen. Obama is above average in intelligence and convictions and below average in experience in dealing with Beltway maddness.

It seems when your smart enough you are too smart to run for the job. Take Colin Powell for example.

General Brush of the 40th Infantry Division was a man like Powell and General MacArthur hated his guts. Tom

Far be it from me to lie! or to pass on misinformation!

This is what I found on the Trinity UCC website. Dave, if they disavow this, will you quote their words and reference?

Here's mine:

"Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System, written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee, chaired by the late Vallmer Jordan in 1981."

Thanks, your friend.

And since I still haven't figured out how to link: here's the google spot that took me to the Black Value System on Trinity's UCC website where they both affirmed adoptation and spelled out the system in detail.

"Trinity United Church of Christ
THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM ... Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System, written by the Manford Byrd ... annual Black Value System – Educational Scholarship ...
www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html - 16k - Cached "

Hi Aryln!
We agree that TUCC has adopted the Black Value System written by Manford Byrd. I'm not sure what might be objectionable about them having done so, however. Am I missing something?
Dave

This is the response I just received from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago to my inquiry about its mission and message:

"Thank you for your interest in Trinity United Church of Christ and for your consideration of our member, Sen. Barack Obama, in the Democratic primary election.

Due to the high volume of emails and inquiries, we are unable to respond to each one personally. We were overwhelmed with “hits” after Senator Obama’s historic victory in the Iowa democratic caucus.

Barack Obama has been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ for nearly two decades. As a young community organizer, new to Chicago, Barack met with Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Trinity’s Senior Pastor, seeking advice. He received good counsel about the complexities of life in Chicago and the challenges faced by residents in poor communities like South Chicago’s Altgeld Gardens.

The United Church of Christ (http://www.ucc.org), Trinity’s denominational affiliation, is “a community of faith that seeks to respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in word and deed.” It was founded in 1957 through the union of several different Christian traditions.

Not only does Trinity not exclude anyone from membership or attendance based on race or ethnicity, but:

The majority of UCC members are white;

the conference minister of the Illinois Conference of the UCC (Rev. Jane Fisler Hoffman) and her husband (both white) are members of Trinity (You can watch a video of Rev. Hoffman speaking at Trinity about her positive experiences there.);

Trinity has been instrumental in working with and lending financial and staff support to the development of new UCC churches in Gary, IN (with the Indiana-Kentucky Conference of the UCC, Milwaukee, WI (with the Wisconsin Conference of the UCC), and Benton Harbor, MI (with the Michigan Conference of the UCC).

There is no anti-American sentiment in the theology or the practice of Trinity United Church of Christ.

To be sure, there is prophetic preaching against oppression, racism and other evils that would deny the American ideal.

Trinity is “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian.”

Trinity was founded in 1961 and had 87 families when Dr. Wright started his tenure in 1972. Currently, as Dr. Wright anticipates a 2008 retirement, there are more than 8,000 members, 70 ministries, and three Sunday worship services.

You and your family can watch these services online at 7:30am, 11:00am and 6:00pm CST."

I think people should for or against Senator Obama based on their assessments of his overall qualifications. It seems to me that his membership and particiption at TUCC is not a decisive varible either way.

Arlyn, I am curious what you find objectionable about African-American articulations of theology or values.

Here's Jane Fisler Hoffman, a member of TUCC, talking about the ethos of the church:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioaChVw_pUw

Alex:

There is something very sobering about this post and what I’m going to try and say. But I do believe, with this rhetoric and stance you take here, you in fact perpetuate and deepen the very problem you claim you seek to help solve. It seems so clear to me; I’ll try to explain…

I’m glad you highlighted the name of James Heil Cone. I first heard his name as I was reading Weavers book on the Non Violent Atonement. His perspective and contribution seems, well, literally indispensable. I realize that Cone’s contributions are certainly of far greater scope than I can address, but for me I “know” him in the context of the Atonement discussion. Cone stresses that reconciliation has an objective reality that is linked to “divine liberation.” Reconciliation with God happens “in history.” It is “not mystical communion with the divine” nor a “pietistic state of inwardness bestowed on the believer.” Thus “God’s reconciliation is a new relationship with PEOPLE (Cone’s emphasis) created by God’s concrete involvement in the political affairs of the world, taking sides with the weak and the helpless.” “...Liberation is what God does to effect reconciliation, and without the former the latter is impossible…. Reconciliation is that bestowal of freedom and life with God that takes place on the basis of God’s liberating deeds.” (All this of course heavily steeped in the story of the liberation of Israel from Egyptian slavery imagery and theology) (quotes are Cones from his “God of the oppressed” -- the rest is Weaver…)

So yes: it seem very evident to me that Cone (and other Black perspective theologians) have made incredibly important contributions to…. to what? Is what they have given us for themselves and those of their tribe ONLY? To build a monument to THEIR history and unique perspective? And to then camp there?? Or, is their perspective part of a larger theology which brings it’s own unique experience to the entire body -- for the edification of ALL? Just as feminist theologians have blessed and enriched the ENTIRE group who call themselves -- Christians?? If monuments are to be made, it seems clear to me, they should be made to GOD -- and His cause; not to the specific experience (tragic and courageous as it no doubt is) of a particular aggrieved group.

So yes: I think that open critique of Obama’s church, which helped catapult the rise of his star, is indeed legitimate. (That you fail to see the “politics as entertainment” aspect of shows like Hannity’s -- is too bad I guess…) If one needs a White oppressor to legitimate his very existence and meaning and dignity, can anyone doubt his investment in making SURE such an oppressor stays alive and well and full of vigor and venom??

But this badly misunderstands the very notion of “Christianity” doesn’t it?? For when one finally grasps the gift of Christ, he realizes he is a new creation! A new person, who lives in a new paradigm which understands the value and dignity of each person; NOT due to their history, (valid and horrid and tragic as it might be) but because of the FACT he is now a child of the very KING of the Universe! YES; his tragic history should -- must! -- inform current formulations of understanding what the Kingdom is about. But to insist on clinging to that history as if it remains his OWN is to deny the very notion of the “body” of Christ. What the Black perspective you champion does NOT comprehend -- but should -- is that they bring their history, tears and stripes and horror and ugliness all, and they bring it to the alter of the BODY. It does NOT remain as their personal alter and identity; it is what they bring to the group -- to ennoble IT and make Christ’s BODY more full and complete!

So, in a very real way, one has NO business entering/joining the BODY of Christ yet still clinging to his unique identity history and politics and sorrows. And OF COURSE this applies to me too; who enters the body as one who is white and, to the extent that my ancestors really were a part of the ruling oppressive class -- or that class in the Roman world where the “body” of Christ came to be equated with those in power, (frightening to think that most of the current dogma involving the Atonement really was articulated in a context of BEING in power; exactly where Christ did NOT live…) I to must give up my rights and perspectives and experience TO the body of Christ, for the benefit, and ennobling, of ALL.

So yes; I DO bristle when I read the statement on Obama’s church’s website; their insistence on retaining their BLACK identity simply tells me they have little clue WHAT the body of Christ is all about. BRING your story and experience TO the body for the edification OF that body; but your NEW identity is as CHILD of the KING. STOP fixating on the sins of the oppressor whites; your true identity is NOT as “white oppressed victim” -- it is as child and friend of the Master. God Alex; how you could fall for this is beyond me. Are we going to live in the 60’s forever? Groundhog day style? Have we NO comprehension what Gal 3: 26-29 really means? We take our identities, as slaves, women, Greek, -- or, as white oppressor… -- and we GIVE them to God! And in exchange, God gives us a NEW name -- a new identity. An identity IN CHRIST!!

Oh my God Alex! for all your passion, and intelligence, and youth, and vigor, and love for Our Lord, you simply do not get this -- do you. The fact that you so vigorously defend those who come to the body, insisting on clinging to their history and status as victim, means you too do not understand. Oh my; God -- PLEASE -- bless you. You have so MUCH potential -- so much life ahead in which to serve Him (and I’ve no doubt you will) -- but heaven help me, you do not get this. For you, we remain in estranged groups, and divisions, and you are totally stuck (despite your protests) in the old divisions of liberal and conservative and now… the black oppressed.

Oh my God… This is a singularly transforming moment for me. This post has ended up NOT EVEN CLOSE to where I thought it was going. I suddenly know why I’m here; what God has called me to pray for… Alex, consider me your friend. Please. And please forgive If I’ve embarrassed you, or caused you discomfort. But YOU have just jumped to the top of my prayer list. Yes, I have one. Can we just be brothers in Christ for a few seconds and drop this partisanship? I WANT you to shine, and your site to prosper and reach. Please, will you reach to all??

Give me a week or so respite if you will… Alex; please consider me one of your most fervent supporters…. In full possession of my faculties, I will hit the “send” button. And sorry for having such poor control of my own “intensity” button. Love me, or hate me, as I am…

Blessings all…

Bob,
I think you have said many things well. We are all tempted to read the Bible through "our filter."

So there is the "filter" of liberation theology,gay theology,feminist theology,environmental eco-justice theology, capitalist theology , "democratic and republican" theology, etc.

Instead what are the barriers that need to be broken down and the "principles of scripture" to be kept that bring to maturity the body of Christ in Him to the glory of the Father.

Have a good respite...might "consider" one myself.

Hi Arlyn!

I think that you have uncovered a genuine and sometimes intense debate in the various liberation movements (feminist, black, asian, Hispanic, [Swedish?]), Christian and otherwise.

The question is whether in the short run the quest for greater justice for ALL, and this is definitely TUCC's stated mission, it is more honorable and effective for the aspiring group to emphasize its similarities with or differences from the larger community.

Women who are working for greater eventual justice for both women and men often debate whether now it is better for them to emphasize what they have in common with men or what makes them different. Sometimes these exchanges get very intense!

We frequently hear of the "melting pot" verses the "salad bowl" analogies, the first emphasizing similarities and the second differences. My own preference is for the "soup cup" alternative, a mixture of the two which melts the diverse foods quite considerably without wholly dissolving their individual differences.

Am I and the world better off because I neither study nor particularly treasure my Swedish and Irish backgounds, except when jesting? I honestly don't know.

I do know that whereever I go in the world I feel like an American and that others treat me as such. This happens to African, Asian and Hispanic Americans too, "identity politics" notwithstanding.

I think it is a great idea to pray for Alex! Please pray for me too! But perhaps you can keep in mind that you might be a "melt potter," Alex might be a "salad bowler" and I may be a "soup cupper."

Maybe God and the world need us all!

I think Cone soemtimes does over do it, both theologically and rhetorically. That's one reasons I miss MLK,jr.

Thanks!

Dave

Sorry Aryln and Bob!
Dave

"their insistence on retaining their BLACK identity simply tells me they have little clue WHAT the body of Christ is all about."

I've reserved comment on this thread because I kinda got a kick out of what seemed to be a bunch of white people discussing so-called 'black theology'. The comment above - by Bob - stirred me to action. Perhaps I should wait 24 hours before responding, because right now I don't know how to even express how offensive I find the idea that somehow my identity is exclusive of the family of God.

I will hope for misunderstanding, and assume that there was something I missed. That white is not the 'default' setting and that somehow joining the body of Christ does not negate what He, in fact, made me. I am unsure as to whether I want to even pursue discussion in this area, for I am fully aware of how many people simply will not even understand what I'm saying. Just let me say that I long for an Adventist community where I can truly feel free to be myself - that I thought I had found a place closer to that than any other - and that as time goes by, it seems to be revealing itself to be as whitewashed as any other.

I hope to not hurt anyone with my words, but instead, to spark a thought or two. If I have caused pain, I am sorry, please forgive me. Adieu.
jen*

jen/shygirl
YES! Maybe people like me should give up our European heritages and make African culture the default position for all of us. If the Body of Christ can be only one color, let's make it black!
Dave

Thanks Jen, I'm glad that you spoke up.

Thanks Bob, that's got to be one of the most interesting comments I've read in awhile, what with two OMGs, and the bump up the prayer list. I'll take it though.

But let me speak frankly, you do not understand the African-American experience and you misunderstand my intention. You might read more Barth or Schleiermacher before you discount human history as tied up in the experience of salvation. Or the Bible, which is God working within a very distinctive ethnicity for a very long time. Abraham was saved and he is tied to a people. The idea is called Heilsgeschichte or salvation history. God does not in fact save outside of history!

I'm tired and I have to teach a class tomorrow, so I cannot go into detail.

But let me express this key point: but if I am serious about loving Others than that first requires a change in me.

The New Creation is not in Others, but in how I see Others. It doesn't come from waiting for Others to get over their history, it comes with me getting over their history. Do you see that? That the new creation.

Followers of Christ don't put the onus on others, we let the Holy Spirit figure out how best to speak in each cultural context and through each human experience and we don't put our assumptions about what that looks like in the way. Why? Because of the beam in our eyes. Until I'm a perfect creature, without a history -- the music I like, the parents and grandparents I have, the religious tradition I'm in -- I cannot tell someone else that God can't speak through their salvation history even if that makes me bristle.

The New Creature means new eyes, not for them, but for me.

I'd like to add further comment.

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/28/author-and-former-clinton-bac...

I just read Toni Morrison's comments and what struck me is that they are pretty far away from the way that Bob frames the issue. Bob refers to the "black oppressed mentality" and this sense of victimization. You can see Jen's reaction to see how hurtful that is. The assumption behind it is that identity really does matter: his. But in fact, the more we bring everyone into the conversation the sooner we actually start to create New Creatures.

Reading Toni, I'm struck by the sort of presidential leader that she wants and her move beyond single identity, but Bob, I want you to really get this: you cannot "bristle" anyone anywhere.

Both Native American and African-Americans have been aggrieved to use a word at which you bristle. It is only in confronting that reality that we become New Creatures.

As a straight white male myself, I have found it transformative to listen outside myself and realize the hegemony that's given and the real power that lies in bringing Others into justice. At first glance you seem right, but look again, there's something New on the horizon and it starts with the "I" first.

What does it mean when sing "Just as I Am"? We cannot, nor should we attempt to eradicate our heritage: it is who we are.

As Alex wrote, God was FOR one people, as the writers believed who wrote about him, and God DID exclude all the others who were the enemies of "HIS PEOPLE."

However, none of us can change his spots: we are born into a family that may be from any of hundreds of ethnic groups and where does Jesus ever say that we must discard and eliminate our birthright? Just as I was born with blue eyes, it is part of who I am and I was NOT born Christian, Adventist, Jew or of one separate ethnicity, but many are in my ancestry and for that I am very proud. We should be proud of who we are, for we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and unique in God's eyes. In him there is neither Jew nor Greek....which says something about our acceptance, regardless.

I'm without my computer right now, so I didn't see this thread until now. I just wanted to say a hearty "amen" to this:

"The New Creation is not in Others, but in how I see Others. It doesn't come from waiting for Others to get over their history, it comes with me getting over their history. Do you see that? That the new creation."

Given that my “respite” (now interrupted) is a self inflicted (and selfish) indulgence -- a luxury I afford myself from time to time to counteract the utter wearisomeness of being so constantly misunderstood (or, alternatively, being so bad at communicating what I think I’m trying to say) -- I see that, once again I’ve related my concerns badly. And worse, given offense. Esp. to shygirl, and maybe Alex. So back at it and please accept my apologies you two, but try to see your offense may well be because of your misunderstanding. (And I am fully aware that you believe the misunderstandings are mine…) Fool that I am, I shall try yet again.

But it seems to me that insistence in retaining for oneself an identity rooted in a history of oppression denies, at an important level, that the problem is a human one -- one of sin, and departure from the ideals of the “reign” of God -- and is no more rooted in “whiteness” than being oppressed is rooted in “blackness.” In insisting on retaining for oneself the identity of “oppressed” it seems undeniable that one would naturally find it difficult to see his OWN potential to exchange roles with his oppressor. And thus miss the entire truth of God’s redemption FROM the condition of estrangement from HIM that leads humans to oppress. Many call that condition “sin.”

Victor Frankl talks about this horrific aspect of the human condition in his Man’s Search for Meaning. p112 (in my edition) he says: “Now, being free, they thought they could use their freedom licentiously and ruthlessly. The only thing that had changed for them was that they were now the oppressors instead of the oppressed. They became instigators, not objects of willful force and injustice. They justified their behavior by their own terrible experiences….”

This ties directly to Alex’s disparaging of the notion of “reverse racism.” That such a dynamic is both real, and blatantly enabled by complicit white liberals is frighteningly evidenced by the horror of the Duke Lacrosse rape case. A signal event in modern history of the state of race relations and who really deserves the “blame” for it’s perpetuation. Yet no mention of THIS grotesque distortion on this site. Forgotten, or ignored, as if it didn’t happen, it is a window into the horrific cost of denying that anyone is capable of very quickly becoming the oppressor. And with gratuitous sneering piety a’ la Al Sharpton. That he identifies himself as Christian, AND follower of MLK, should, I think, make any self respecting Christian liberal deeply sorrowful.

Weaver, on this aspect of formulating better theology… “… a viable theory should address people as sinners -- and THEN speak to the varying conditions in which they find themselves.” Proper theology of salvation “acknowledges the sin of ALL people from ALL stations of life. It envisions a salvation that speaks TO and FOR BOTH the oppressed, AND the oppressors...
...Recognizing our OWN complicity with these forces requires confession and repentance, and a change in sides, joining JESUS as part of the host of witnesses that make visible the reign of God.”

… feminist and womanist (the term for the black feminists unique perspective) writers/thinkers “have depicted how oppressed people can participate in their own oppression… It is a participation in oppression to allow the oppressive structures to define one’s reality.”

That Alex and shygirl see my words as minimizing or marginalizing the histories and experiences of oppressed peoples simply unmasks how badly they misunderstand me. Read that sentence again: “It is a participation in oppression to allow the oppressive structures to define one’s reality.” This is the point I have been trying to make. When we come to Christ, we give and share with each other our identities -- as oppressed or as oppressor -- realizing that, but for the grace of God, we are all equally capable of either role!

So, Weaver continues:
“At this level, former oppressed and former oppressors are now on the SAME side, together, identified with the reign of God. With each of them having undergone a transformation of life, together they confront the oppressive conditions that have enslaved them in different ways.” (caps, for emphasis mine.)

So Alex, as I have envisioned your stance, it seems to me you have set these dynamics in tension -- instead of in resolution IN CHRIST. I’m fairly certain this is not your intent, (giving you the benefit of the doubt; something even a conservative is capable of by the way) hence my bewilderment that you somehow see me denying the value and relevance of EACH persons history. I’m saying that when we find our home in Christ, we get a NEW history -- and at some level I think I hear you saying the same thing right?

And shygirl, (again, apologies) that you find it incongruous that “white people are discussing black theology” surely means, to me, that you must not endorse the changes that happen when one claims Christianity. How on earth could you suggest that the “default” setting is White? When one claims Christ, his “default” -- if one is to use such a word -- is “child of God.” Only that. Will you -- can you? -- share with me your heritage as oppressed, and simultaneously take my heritage as white oppressor? That’s what being IN the body requires -- as I understand it.

Some years ago I read a book called “The Known World” -- won a pulitzer -- by Edwards P Jones; a black author who puzzled at the notion of how a black man, and former slave themselves, could, when his circumstances changed, turn and own slaves himself. His research indicated such a thing was not uncommon in early America. So he wrote this novel. Fascinating read... Further, recall that the early settlers came to America to escape religious persecution themselves. Surely they too had histories of being oppressed. And yet, their descendants, with unchanged hearts, themselves joined the ranks of oppressor. I have Asian, and African friends who insist “our” versions of “racism” pale in comparison to rampant racism/tribalism -- and accompanying violence -- in so many parts of the world.

So Alex, I am calling you, not to deny your history and experience, but to come join the human race as fallen sinner; not as black or white or oppressed or oppressor, but as child of the Father -- created IN His image. Isn’t that the inclusive message of the bible? Histories of all involved not-wth-standing? That you would read my words as denying that this is a personal choice, and that all I’m doing is insisting on the change happening is the Other, is most disconnected from my true place. That you imagine me “discounting history” speaks volumes about your false perceptions of me. So, when you say
“The New Creation is not in Others, but in how I see Others. It doesn't come from waiting for Others to get over their history, it comes with me getting over their history. Do you see that?”
not only do I see it, but it is incorporated into what I think I’m trying to say! (but it is puzzling for me to hear this from YOU -- who has such difficulty getting “over” the history of we conservatives and those of us on the “Christian Right.”) Alex: can you puzzle with me at the ease with which shygirl (you too Alex) assumes to me the role of racist white oppressor trying to deny the history that is hers? Partly because, no doubt our language use is different. Conservatives and liberals even talk differently don’t they. Sigh…

Lastly, and along these same lines, I am doubly discouraged that you frame this subject in terms of Hannity’s Fox TV show; for, as I’m sure you are aware, it has for many many months been widely thought -- especially by various liberal papers -- that these attacks on Obama originated from the camps of his DEMOCRATIC rivals; Edwards, and especially Clinton! That you so easily take the low road on this -- the path of least resistance for yourself -- and lay these sins at the feet of conservatives, all the while ignoring your own liberal parties active participation in the politics of race and race-baiting, well, makes me sad I guess. Blatant pandering to your base -- as a political operative might put it.

Please; TELL me you are in some kind of humble mourning that the Democrats have been unmasked as doing the very same things that for so many years liberals have insisted were the methods of conservatives. (for we conservatives, we’ve known what we’re seeing now is a human condition; apart from party or race…) Here we had a man of race and color who really was running a campaign that MLK was talking about; where the color of skin DID not matter but rather the content of character was at issue. And Mr Bill, with his Missus, quickly sees to it that race IS the issue. TELL me you’re tearing your hair out in embarrassment? And please tell me you won’t fall for Bills inevitable crocodile tears asking for all to be “forgiven” if Hill wins the nomination? Tell me you’ve looked in to his liberal soul and it terrifies you?

And Dave, thanks for the letter from the TUCC; certainly more fair to let them speak for themselves than to try and speak for them. For me, I think it’s quite possible to read them as embracing the very things I’m trying to point out above. As for your response to shygirl, isn’t it rather patronizing of you to offer up your Christ to be the color of her choice? Good heavens; you actually imagine I worship a WHITE Christ?? Who’s not being colorblind here?? Am shaking my head at the sanctimoniousness of you liberals here…

As I told Alex, an educational experience for me. But the fact you all would take the time to so educate me, must mean at some level you care about me -- right? Which is exactly what we are supposed to be doing in the body of Christ. So, thanks for that…

Blessings

(sorry for being so verbose)

Hi Bob
How about giving us a brief outline of your Christian political and economic philosophy? We're getting it bit by bit; however, it would be helpful, I think, if you spelled out your most basic premises and principles with emphasis upon how they relate to Scripture. This doesn't have to be any longer than some of your recent posts and it would help us to understand you.
Dave

Ok. The term Black does NOT equal oppressed. No one said that. Black Americans have a history of being slaves – the relics of the history affect their lives today. Saying that it doesn’t, doesn’t make it so. And this can’t possibly be a discussion about how black people can oppress people as well, can it? When did that come to the table? Yes, any human can oppress another, but what does that have to do with the request to deny one’s identity [as long as it is an identity tied inextricably to monolithic stereotypes due to a history of marginalization and a prevailing attitude that the group remains less than the dominant counterparts]?

I fail to see how bringing up the fact that black people sin too has any bearing on your statement about “retaining black identity” being incongruous with belonging to the body of Christ. There is no question that all have sinned – only why some would need to relinquish their identity, and others may remain.

I’m unclear as to who [or whether] you’re quoting here:”… feminist and womanist (the term for the black feminists unique perspective) writers/thinkers “have depicted how oppressed people can participate in their own oppression… It is a participation in oppression to allow the oppressive structures to define one’s reality.”

Had I the ability to read the context, perhaps I could get a better understanding of what is meant. Is it just the suggestion that striving for better is not to be relinquished simply because of the obstacles in one’s way? If so, I’ll agree wholeheartedly. Though again, I don’t see the bearing on identity in the body of Christ.

I'm almost amused at how common it is to respect the Jews for their promise to 'never forget', and yet tell black people they need to 'let that whole slavery thing go'. The fact that any people have been oppressed does not negate their own ability to oppress others - tis true. In some cases, it might even be more common. But I certainly won't believe that it was anyone's intention to get into a competition about who's been more wronged/done more wrongs.

This is not about who is oppressed more/when. It's about coming to the family of Christ and being ourselves - being a family. We're all related - we all go back to Noah. But since then, well, groups have formed - cultures have grown - identities have been shaped. I'm of the opinion that the world can be richer because of that. I think it speaks to the wonderfulness of God that we can have all these differences, and the same God. The differences allow us more perspectives on the things we don't fully understand. And they give us a better footing to witness to the world.

Now I'd like to address my comment about the 'default' and Bob's comment about being colorblind. The default setting in our American culture - is white. This is actually the case. When someone says - oh, I met this new guy down the street - unless told otherwise, the majority of those in our culture [black/white/Asian/etc] will assume he's white. That's just part of what I mean by default. Default includes the fact that when talking about groups of men, or women, or children, or Adventists, or anyone - normally the members of the group will be white. White is normal, average, standard. White needs no other descriptors. Other traits a white person has can be attributed to their individuality - because the complexity of the human is fully realized in the definition of white people. Members of other groups have personality traits links with their cultures or ethnicities and are more often treated as monolithic representations. This is what I mean by default. It is part of the fabric of our society.

The initial comment that I referenced stated:
"[T]heir insistence on retaining their BLACK identity simply tells me they have little clue WHAT the body of Christ is all about." (Bob)
To me, this comment infers that there is no place for people who identify as black in the body of Christ. There being no likewise *necessary* definition of white - other than 'normal' - the 'giving up' of one's identity cannot surely be seen as equal. [In fact, it would seem a challenge to see what had been given up] Further, while I agree that coming to Christ means becoming a new creature - I don't agree that it means that all the history, the personality, the culture should disappear. It certainly doesn't seem that the disciples or apostles had this impression, either. They used their identities to help them relate to others - and yet they remained part of the same family.

As for the term colorblind - well, it's no longer the warm, fuzzy term that it was in the 80s. Colorblindness has actually led to a different kind of racism - one in which people try to pretend that differences don't exist - or that they don't see them. But when you don't see that I'm different, do you really even see me? Or should I just try to blend in with everyone else and bury the things that make me unique? Neither choice is very appealing, and certainly doesn't seem like what Jesus would want for us as a family. Our differences should make us stronger as a body - the body.

If then, the denial of history is NOT what is being required, what is the cause for such a belabored response? What is the reason for suggesting that people don't understand what it means to belong to the body of Christ? If we both say we're children of God - which we both are - are we no longer black and white? Bob, the 'ease' with which I identified your comment as negating the value [or even the existence - according to you] of difference in the family of God is irrelevant. I'm not on the warpath, I just want to point out that language DOES matter.

When we go back and forth with who is misunderstanding whom, we just get into a contest about who's the victim. There's not point in that. Checking our language has the benefit of helping us actually *minimize* misunderstanding - through shared definitions and insight. It was humorous to me to observe white people discussing "black theology", simply because it necessarily precludes you from the experience that this so-called theology is borne out of. I'm not into the concept myself, and I know that this one church does not [in any way] speak for Black America [as if any ONE church could], so I'm not sure why it's raised so many hackles, unless people are still buying into the fallacy that black people do not share the human complexity of whites, and the corresponding diversity in thought.

This statement is another to give me pause: 'When we come to Christ, we give and share with each other our identities -- as oppressed or as oppressor -- realizing that, but for the grace of God, we are all equally capable of either role!' Wow. So, when we come to Christ, oppressors can learn that they could've been oppressed, and the oppressed can learn that they could've been oppressors? I don't think that's what you wanted to say. If you follow that thought out a little ways...stating it in those terms seems to continue the hierarchy into the body of Christ. [Yeah, I could've been oppressed, but thank God it was _you_ who got the short straw!]

I guess my point is that the imagery of sharing identities and history seems positive. But how does it actually get done? Round and round, however you say it, the inequality remains. And we all know it's there. Does it hurt so bad when it's illuminated? It shouldn't. Illuminating inequality is not the same as pointing the finger of guilt. And even so, if we see inequality and do nothing/support the privileged at the expense of the Other or worse - attack the Other for the illumination - where is the family? the body?

[Wow, Bob, you got me writing almost as much as you! I'm going back to short comments after this. :)]
jen*

Very well said, Shygirl! What is it about us humans that we want everyone to conform to the same image, while God loves and creates such great diversity.

Going back to the sub-topic about homosexuals, I want to say here that I think the world would be a much poorer, less vibrant place without our gay and lesbian friends. Did God create them that way? Well, He certainly didn't prevent it.

Since you speak for your race, Shygirl, what is your feeling about a comparison of the African-American struggle for racial rights and equality and the struggle for homosexual rights and equality?

We have Korean churches, Japanese churches, Romania Churchs, Hispanic Churches, Thai churches and on and on and we accept them all as members of the body of Christ. So why

Dave,
you wrote "As I understand them, the paragraphs provided by Arlyn do not summarize TUCC's beliefs and practices but those it explicitly rejects." and the only post I wrote prior to that which had major paragraphs was the black value system, specifically no. 8.

So I concluded, (wrongly?) that you believed the TUCC "explicity rejects" "the paragraphs provided by Arlyn."

Deep thinkers are you all, and I've learned a lot just reading your contributions, thank you very much for this discussion. Somebody who is an oriental- please add some perspectives about overcoming inequality- because, frankly, in some areas of society- orientals are no longer needing preferential policies. Why? (They are still a minority and clearly different - perhaps there's a solution in there somewhere.)

Bob, I like throwing facts out there and watching the fray and listening to you make my points so much more eloquently than I ever could.

Jen,
You wrote "I guess my point is that the imagery of sharing identities and history seems positive. But how does it actually get done? Round and round, however you say it, the inequality remains. And we all know it's there. Does it hurt so bad when it's illuminated?" is very insightful.

I won't deny that inquality exists, nobody dies. I guess I was worried that when a church adopts a black value system that portrays their relationship to their surrounding society as "captor/captive"... well, I don't know if they are just illuminating, perhaps they are also - perpetuating? Read No. 8 of the Black Value system again. Do most blacks really feel there is a conspiracy from their "captor-like" white neighbors/society to systematically weed out the most promising and baptize them into a "white-washing" mentality to identify with their "captors" against their own kind? Does a conspiracy theory exist in today's black mindset? Illuminate me.

Why are we surprised? This is the mentality that we breed in our churches every Sabbath when we teach the false theology that has divided the human race into two parts, one of which will go to heaven and the other of which will go to hell. Scientists have realized that species are individuals and the Bible has always taught that the human race is a single body or individual. No one gets upset when I refer to my heart muscle because they don't interpret this as a slam against my leg muscles. As long as the church teaches divisive theology we have no hope.

Just as an SDA presidential candidate needs to be interrogated THOROUGHLY about his/hers and their church's apocalyptic vision and the role that America is perceived to play in it- to discern how this paradigm may affect his future presidential decisions-

Obama should be asked SPECIFICALLY how no. 8 of the black value system is understood by himself and his church, and how it will affect the economic (black "middleclassness" and the entrapment it may bring) and political(on fixing the "economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons", or fixing the "social system that encourages them to kill off one another.") decisions he may make as president.

Arlyn

I have not yet decided who I will vote for so this post is not partisan. But yes, of course. asking Obama himself or his office is very good idea. Go for it!

Meanwhile I do not worry about TUCC's warning its obviously successful members against being the top 10 percent who in the past have often been co-opted by those who want to oppress more vulnerable members of their own group.

We recall that the nurse who probably did more than anyone else on the ground to implement the infamous Tuskegee Syphillus Study was Black. She was among the top 10 percent of the African Americans in her time and place and she chose to lead out in a very serious crime against her own people.

DON'T BE LIKE HER! This is what I understanding TUCC to be saying.

I don't think racism is dead in this country or anywhere else. We've made progres, but we still have a way to go.

I'm glad they're saying it.

Thank you!

Dave

We have no religious test for the Presidency. Only when the world of faith is divorced from its mythology or mysticism would such questioning make sense.

Whoa! Arlyn, and everyone else, please don't misunderstand me. I do not 'speak for the race'. In fact, that was part of my point - just because I am a mixed girl, doesn't mean I can speak for all mixed people or black people, or females or any other group. Implying that such a thing could be done reduces the group in question to a monolithic entity without the ability to have individual opinions/thoughts.

After reading the points of the 'Black Value System', the only one I take issue with is the one about "pledging allegiance" to leaders who espouse the system. And my only qualm with that one is pledging actual allegiance to a person. My alliances with good people don't quite equate with allegiance. And perhaps, Arlyn, you've misunderstood the point of your favorite ethic: Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness". To boil this one down - I get that it's just saying that successful blacks should remember where they came from. Simple as that.

Explaining racial differences, ideals, similarities, etc. can get really exhausting, so I think I'll be leaving the fray. Catch you on another thread.

jen*

As I take some time to digest Bob's post, I just want to offer a friendly word to Arlyn. The term "Oriental" should be used to refer to rugs or food, but not people.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C006/055.html

Bob/Arlyn
Jen is checking out. Sticking around here would be "exhausting." She keeps on having to explain racial differences and similarities. I hope you two feel really good about yourselves! I don't. Now, pleeeeeeze don't start feeling sorry for yourselves. You'll survive.

shygirl

(PS -- I start with a ps since I wrote this before I saw your plan to “leave the fray”. So, clearly then, you and I share the exhausting experience of trying to explain why we think the ways we do. I’ll send it anyway in case you get a burst of energy or in case someone is curious if I had a response)

That we humans are different -- oh so very different -- seems almost like a cliche; so abundant is the evidence. For me one of the most distinct differences is not so much black or white or male/female, but is actually liberal/conservative. So, I find myself realizing that, just like people from Ethiopia might be talking Amheric to each other, so too liberals have their own unique way of talking to each other. Thus, when Dave said to you what he did, it made so little sense that is sounded like a strange condescending patronization of you. (I mean, to even SAY what he did means to accept the very assumption that he seems to claim to reject; that is, the superiority of his station -- as if he really COULD somehow “make” the color of Christ Black!) You obviously didn’t see it that way, so clearly we talk a different lingo. That’s all. So I’m glad you stuck with it; because that seems to reflect the “family” aspect of the body much much better than do mere words. (that’s a compliment)

When you said:
“Ok. The term Black does NOT equal oppressed. No one said that.”
I get puzzled because the TUCC site in question DOES insist on captive/captor categories as descriptors with the obvious connection to BLACK people/history. I hope you can see a bit of a problem with that form of insistence because if insisting what YOU are (well maybe not you, but the Black churches insistence) ie captive/black that necessitates placement of categories on ME ie white/captor which seem equally capable of offending (or simply be untrue) it would seem. If YOUR identity is such that it requires defining ME as oppressor, yes, that’s a problem. I think we are both well aware of the stereotypes; liberal who sees racism where it isn’t, and conservatives who don’t see it where it is. Heaven help ALL of us as we form impressions of truth.

Now on reading your reply, it seems very clear to me that, if you mean what you say, and apply those very things to each and every people and culture and tribe that you apply to yourself, that you would have little problem if I told you I belonged to a church whose mission statement included this:
“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White...Our roots in the White religious experience are deep, lasting and permanent.   We are a European people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization...We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.”

If I am incorrect, and it actually WOULD offend you, I’d kinda need to know why.

But to confirm your point that we can’t place folks into monolithic groups, let me tell you a little about me -- and why I am so bewildered that white is seen as some kind of default. I have spent more time in Africa than just about every “African American” I know. I grew up in Ethiopia as a missionary doctors kid. (and today, some are even offended to be thought of as “needing” missionaries.) My mother was born in South Africa -- and often told us about apartheid system which she saw first hand. When we came back to the States, my little sister wondered if her grandparents were black or white; and it didn’t seem an odd thing for a child to wonder in our context. My very first teacher when we got to Boston was a marvelous “Negro” woman; to whom I instantly and easily took a great liking. My mom wondered if maybe the reason I felt so comfortable with her is because she WAS black. You can’t KNOW how out of place I felt among so many WHITE kids. In church growing up, practically the whole congregation was black -- except for the few white missionary families. So it took me a long long time to begin to grasp (and maybe I still don’t -- after listening to you and Alex and Dave -- why American Blacks felt so enmeshed in identifying with the sufferings of their forefathers. And to be quite blunt, I’ve known lots of Blacks, (who didn’t ever consider themselves African anything…) and Africans living in the US, who absolutely didn’t “get” it either. So at least SOME consideration has to be given to the fact that since the majority IS white, there WOULD be some “whiteness” in the culture right??

Anyway, you made lots of statements in your reply to the effect that it seemed I was seeking to deny and eradicate identities of Blacks. Relinquish, deny, “let go” and so on. And that there is “no place” for those who identify as black in the church. But if that’s really what I meant shygirl, why on earth would I bother to cite positively quotes from Cone which explicitly tied his understanding of important aspects of Christianity TO the oppression of his people? And then I called His contribution invaluable? Why would I want to deny something that I also saw as invaluable? Why would I want the “culture to disappear” if I saw Christian expressions deepened and widened by that culture?

So, when you say:
“This is not about who is oppressed more/when. It's about coming to the family of Christ and being ourselves - being a family. We're all related - we all go back to Noah. But since then, well, groups have formed - cultures have grown - identities have been shaped. I'm of the opinion that the world can be richer because of that. I think it speaks to the wonderfulness of God that we can have all these differences, and the same God. The differences allow us more perspectives on the things we don't fully understand. And they give us a better footing to witness to the world.”
And further on said:
“They used their identities to help them relate to others - and yet they remained part of the same family.”
I hope you can see that this is very MUCH what I’ve been trying to say. That in some way, membership in FAMILY of God takes precedence over everything else. That need not mean there IS nothing else at all. That you didn’t hear that in my words does not mean either of us are bad people, but it does mean we speak different languages as it were. Like when I didn’t understand Dave’s comment to you.

To close, I had no idea the notion of “colorblind” had fallen in to such disrepute. It seems the very essence of MLK’s “I have a dream” speech. … not the color of their skin, but the content of their CHARACTER. Sounds colorblind.

What worries me is that if one subset of human beings clings so insistently to their history that it hinders full participation in the human FAMILY (and yes, some of the language of the TUCC site raises this fear in me) which is, ultimately harmful to the whole family. Identities and histories yes; but for the purpose of ennobling and helping and saving all. And maybe TUCC is really doing this in real life on the ground ways.

You clearly WANT to be seen and known and understood for who YOU are. And I want to be understood too. So we talk and be vulnerable and risk hurt in so doing. So you honor not just yourself by sharing so honestly, you honor me and us here too… I have real admiration for your willingness to risk here shygirl. And I hope you can believe I wouldn’t be so stupid as to run my mouth like I do unless I too was willing to hear and learn and risk. Most people stop long before we have. If no one’s willing to talk, that’s really bad for a Church family I think.

So thank you shygirl. You are a blessing.
(Hope that’s not too “belabored”)

Theology is the study of God. Religion is the study of the behavior of man. It seems this thread is much more about black religion that seeing God through Black eyes. Hannity was just being Hannity--His mouth is a mile wide and his brain is an inch deep. He cuts every thing to fit the Fox template or throws it out. Tom

Rank racists frequently refuse to face the continuing SOCIETAL consequences of centuries of INSTITUTIONALIZED slavery and generations more of INSTITITIONALIZED discrimination with long, emotional, self-congratulatory and irrelevant recitals of how "nice" they are to the black they happen to know.

I am not implying that anyone who has posted on this thead is a rank racist. I am explicitly asserting that some of us have allowed ourselves to sound that way. This might not be for the best.

Thank you!

Dave

I just wanted to share that I told my New Testament class (specifically on Paul's letters) about how Bob and others on this list had started using Galatians 3:28 (e.g. when Bob wrote, "So, in a very real way, one has NO business entering/joining the BODY of Christ yet still clinging to his unique identity history and politics and sorrows."). They got quite a kick out of how Bob seemed to be using the passage in the very opposite of the INCLUSIVE way they all thought it was to be used.

So, thanks to the Spectrum blog for drawing out such unintuitive, unpredictable theologies that may be latent within our congregations! Who knew 'We are all one in Christ Jesus' could mean, 'Everyone must become enlightened like me before getting to call yourself Christian'?

Wow Anonymous:

I hope you also shared with your class how capable YOU are of entirely misreading what I said!!

Why not give some evidence that you actually comprehended what I really said??

Hey -- how about this: why don't YOU do us the honor of telling us how YOU see this issue. You sound so very wise. Do share with us -- will you??

A careful reader (which you are clearly not) could see that what I said actually IS inclusive. Guess you missed that dude. or dudette...

Why don't you do your class a favor?? Teach them to read more carefully than you do??

(I rather think I would have enjoyed your class though: tension brings growth it seems... Glad I was able to enable your class to deepen it's own high minded piety and sanctimoniousness...)

By the way ... just HOW many "anonymous" people are we entertaining here now anyway??