Friday, March 02, 2007

Obama’s Marxist Liberation Theology Church

The best lie is a little pig that’s always hidden between several fluffy layers of truth and covered with a lot of lipstick and charisma.

This is a follow-up to yesterday’s article originally posted on Right Truth and here “What Obama’s Church Preaches”

Note: This article isn’t so much about religion as it is about the politics of political revolution as fomented in all Liberation Theology churches.

Read also the post by Church and State: Obama's Pastor Embarrasses Entire Congregation. Be sure to View the video where “Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Barak Obama's pastor, went on Hannity & Colmes last night to respond to claims that his church is a black separatist congregation.”

Obama’s pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, continued to evade Hannity while he hammered away asking again and agin if Hannity had ever read James H. Cone, one of the primary authors of Black Liberation Theology.

Oddly enough, I just happen to have several of Cone’s works on hand. Here’s just a little from Cone’s classic book A Black Theology of Liberation (Twentieth Anniversary Edition):

Emphasis added by me:

The definition of Jesus as black is crucial for christology if we truly believer in his continued presence today. Taking our clue from the historical Jesus who is pictured in the New Testament as the Oppressed One, what else, except blackness, could adequately tell us the meaning of his presence today? Any statement about Jesus today that fails to consider blackness as the decisive factor about his person is a denial of the New Testament message. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus reveal that he is the man for others, disclosing to them what is necessary for their liberation from oppression. If this is true, then Jesus Christ must be black so that blacks can know that their liberation is his liberation. . .

The black Christ is he who threatens the structure of evil as seen in white society, rebelling against it, thereby becoming the embodiment of what the black community knows that it must become. . .

To be a disciple of the black Christ is to become black with him. Looting, burning, or the destruction of white property are not primary concerns. Such matters can only be decided by the oppressed themselves who are seeking to develop their images of the black Christ. . .

Whites do not recognize what is happening, and they are thus unable to deal with it. For most whites in power, the black community is a nuisance –something to be considered only when the natives get restless. But what white America fails to realize is the explosive nature of the kingdom. Although its beginning is small, it will have far-reaching effects not only on the black community but on the white community as well. Now is the time to make decisions about loyalties, because soon it will be too late. Shall we or shall we not join the black revolutionary kingdom?

An excellent overview of the grave dangers of Liberation Theology was written in 1984 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI).

Here are some of the important points Ratzinger makes about Liberation Theology:

1. Liberation Theology has it center of power in Latin America and in African Theology, but is found in many Christian denominations throughout the Third World.

2. Liberation Theology is a new interpretation of Christian reality.

3. Liberation Theology is radically Marxist. “ . . .the world must be interpreted in terms of the class struggle and that the only choice is between capitalism and Marxism.”

4. Liberation Theology thrives on perpetuating class struggle. The only people of the Church are those who participate in class struggle.

5. Liberation Theology is a theology of bloody political revolution. All of Christian reality is reduced to politico-social liberation praxis (action).

6. Liberation Theology rejects traditional scriptural interpretations. “The experience of the "community" determines the understanding and the interpretation of Scripture. . . Ultimately, what is normative for interpretation is not historical research but the hermeneutic of history experienced in the community or the political group.”

7. Liberation Theology makes the Bible subject to a Marxist view of history. “The "historicality" of the Bible must justify its absolute dominance and thus legitimize the' transition to materialist-marxist philosophy, in which history has taken over the role of God. . . historical criticism has loosed Scripture from the traditional interpretation, which now appears to be unscientific.

8. Liberation Theology is a threat to the faith of the Christian Church.

Here Ratzinger analyzes some of the central concepts of Liberation Theology:
Faith: Jesus' experience of God is radically historical. "His faith is transformed into fidelity." Thus faith is fundamentally replaced by "fidelity to history". . .

Hope is interpreted as "confidence in the.future" and as working for the future and thus is subordinated once more to the history of class conflict. . .

Love consists in the "option for the poor"; i.e., it coincides with opting for the class struggle. . .

Kingdom of God: “ . .the Kingdom must not be understood in a spiritualist or universalist manner, not in the sense of an abstract eschatological eventuality. It must be understood in partisan terms and with a view to praxis. The meaning of the Kingdom can only be defined by reference to the praxis of Jesus, not theoretically: it means working at the historical reality that surrounds us in order to transform it into the Kingdom.”

Overcoming Dualism “Here we must mention another basic idea of a particular post­conciliar theology which has led in this direction. People said that after the Council every dualism must be overcome: the dualism of body and soul, of natural and supernatural, of this world and the world beyond, of then and now. Once these supposed dualisms had been eliminated, it only remained to work for a kingdom to be realized in present history and in politico­economic reality. This meant, however, that one had ceased to work for the benefit of people in this present time and had begun to destroy the present in the interests of a supposed future: thus the real dualism had broken loose.”

Note: The above explanation of overcoming dualism certainly gives us some insight into the suicidal nature of leftist thought!

Death and Resurrection: “ . . . Man has taken over God's gesture — this manifests the whole transformation of the biblical message in an almost tragic way . . .”

Eucharist is interpreted as a celebration of liberation in the sense of politico-messianic hope and praxis.

The word redemption is largely replaced by liberation, which is seen, against the background of history and the class struggle, as a process of progressive liberation.

Action is truth “. . . The only true orthodoxy is therefore orthopraxy.”

Ratzinger’s Summary

In trying to arrive at an overall evaluation it must be said that, if one accepts the fundamental assumptions which underlie liberation theology, it cannot be denied that the whole edifice has an almost irresistible logic. By adopting the position of biblical criticism and of a hermeneutics that grows through experience, on the one hand, and of the marxist analysis of history, on the other, liberation theologians have succeeded in creating a total picture of the Christian reality, and this total view seems to respond fully both to the claims of science and to the moral challenges of our time, urging people to make Christianity an instrument of concrete world transformation; it seems to have united Christianity, in this way, with all the "progressive forces" of our era. One can understand, therefore, that this new interpretation of Christianity should have exercised an increasing fascination over theologians, priests and religious, particularly against the background of Third World problems. To say "no" to it must seem to them to be a flight from reality as well as a denial of reason and morality. On the other hand, if one considers how radical this reinterpretation of Christianity is, it is all the more pressing to find the right answer to the challenge which it presents. We shall only survive this crisis if we succeed in making the logic of faith visible in an equally compelling manner and in presenting it as a logic of reality, i.e., manifesting the concrete force of a better answer attested in lived experience. Since it is so, since thought and experience, interpretation and realization, are equally called for, it is a task for the whole Church. Theology alone is insufficient, Church authority alone is insufficient. Since the phenomenon of liberation theology indicates a lack of conversion in the Church, a lack of radical faith, only an increase in conversion and faith can arouse and elicit those theological insights and those decisions on the part of the shepherds which will give an answer to the magnitude of the question.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, A Blog For All, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog,, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Rightlinx, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Overtaken by Events, Dumb Ox Daily News, Blue Star Chronicles, The Virtuous Republic, Random Dreamer, Renaissance Blogger, Leaning Straight Up, and 123beta, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Permalink for this entry:

TrackbackURL for this entry:


  1. Liberation theology? No good can come from this. I thought racism was behind us here in the US, but churches and groups like this prove me wrong.

    Great follow up and welcome home.

  2. Debbie:
    As you and I have discovered, unfortunately, racism is quite alive. Yes it’s good to be back home and thank you so very much for cross-posting your fantastic articles on Faultline USA!!!

  3. I'm not familiar with liberation theology, but your article has inspired me to learn more about it.
    A few comments. First, I'm not convinced by Ratzinger's arguments. I would have to evaluate the scriptural and ideological arguments of liberation theologists myself to make any kind of conclusion.
    Second, I do not see, in the out-of-context quotes given, a racist theology. What I see is a traditional spiritual theology evolved by black christians, in which they identify with the oppression of the Children of Israel and Jesus' Good News.
    I find the references to Marxism interesting, if somewhat unconvincing. A good deal of ACTS is devoted to explaining the communal nature of Christian teachings, and those teachings aren't a call to class warfare.
    Perhaps opponents of the communal teachings in the Bible would like to equate them with Marxism, but that doesn't make them identical. If Liberation Theology is a liberation from reliance upon scriptural interpretation for matters that ARE explained better with science or an endorsement progressive ideas of social justice that are in keeping with the spirit of Christian teachings, then I would applaud such a Christian movement, since it seems to be a call to spirit without abandonment of reason, and a call to justice even if justice is at odds with orthodoxy.
    Hopefully, Liberation theology does NOT seek to identify all white people as being on the side of satan! Hopefully, the ideas I discuss above are the foundation for a wider spiritual movement, such as the one led by Dr. Martin Luther King. Dr king always preached a theology of love and mutual interest among the races, even while bearing witness to the evil of racism.
    Thank you for a thought-provoking article.

  4. Taraka:

    Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I think you should read more about Liberation Theology in its various aspects and evolutions throughout the world. There is no doubt, however, that Liberation Theology is strongly influenced by Marxist thought and a Marxist interpretation of history. The most negative aspect of Liberation Theology is that it thrives on perpetuating class struggle. Without class struggle (the poor vs. the rich etc.) there is no Liberation Theology at all. Please come back again and share more of your insights.

  5. but dont forget minorities are allowed to be racist right?..argg!!......thanks for the link and Happy Sunday!..:-)

  6. Can we agree that ACTS gives us a basis for Christian communal ideals? Can we take up those ideals without adopting the violent revolution prescribed by Marx? Can we speak the truth about the oppression of the poor by the rich, evident before our own eyes, and look to the Christian ideals of communal interest as it's answer?
    I'm familiar with both the doctrines of Marxism and Christian communal ideals given in scripture. There is nothing in the scriptures that suggests that rising up in arms against the rich will bring about a Christian society.
    Is a Christian Society one that places orthodoxy, material wealth and political power before the Christian ideals of communal living? My conclusion is: NO. Not according to the scriptures.
    The scriptures, though, give us a mechanism for reaching the ideal, and it isn't violent revolution.

    The mechanism is to LIVE according to the teachings of Jesus, which includes sharing our property communally, giving aid to the poor, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, healing the sick and doing EVERYTHING out of love. Love for God, love for others, love for your self.

    This doesn't describe the path set before us by the "high and mighty" self-proclaimed "rulers" of the world, with all of their pomp and finery. For them, all of these things, that are the duty of a Christian, are unnecessary costs that take from the store of things they deem to belong to them.

    Doing the work of Christ does not create wars and revolutions. It is the opposition to doing the work of Christ that inspires the rich to fight wars for "their things."

    Finally, as a Universalist, I want to say that the teachings of Christ are found outside of "Christianity," too.

    Before there existed a "muslim" religion, Mohammed called for unity among all those who are "muslim," and he could mean nothing else but the literal meaning of "muslim" which means "faithful to God."

    It means doing the same things that Christ taught human beings to do. And we can find the example in all of the religions in the world, because Christ spoke the truth. It is the "infidel" or the unfaithful one, that turns their back on these teachings for "things."

    Who are the unfaithful? Who is it that believes that you can do all the things unfaithful to God, and turn your back on Christ's teachings, if only you believe that one human sacrifice has paid the price for all selfishness, greed, war, violence and oppression?

    Do you live by Christ's teachings, or by the "grace" that you believe that you have while ignoring the truth?

    And this is of course true for all, Christian or not, who see the truth with their own eyes and yet mouth lies. It is not for me to judge the ones who are deceived, yet neither am I content to wait until the end of the world for them to be confronted with their error or wickedness.

    Jesus did not ignore evil. Nor did he raise armies to fight evil. He lived by the truth, and you can too. If that's "liberation theology" then I guess I believe in it.

  7. Barack Obama, along Oprah Winfrey and many other Chicacagoans, belongs to Trinity United Church of Chirst. The church follows black liberation theology. "Liberation theology is a school of theology that focuses on Jesus Christ as not only the Redeemer but also the Liberator of the Oppressed. It emphasizes the Christian mission to bring justice to the poor and oppressed, particularly through political activism."Wikipedia

    Why is there a need for a black liberation theology?
    One of the major focuses of liberation theology is, as mentioned above, to bring justice to the poor and oppressed. According to the Pastor Jeremiah Wright, "It [black liberation theology] originates in the days of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade." Throughout American history, African Americans have been the poor and oppressed, for the most part only due to their skin color. Thus, it is practical for blacks to unite together under a specific liberation theology that is relevant to their struggle.

    Kevin Considine, graduate student at Catholic Theological Union, comments on Obama's church for :
    "Recently the Illinois Democrat has been criticized for something that should be a positive: his church affiliation. No, not because he attends church. And not because he's being honest about rooting his politics in his faith.

    No, he's taking flak because his church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, has linked traditional Christian faith to black empowerment and combating "middle-classness." What this means is that the church's theology preaches a foundation of loving God and loving one's neighbor by attempting to apply these tenets to real life in the community. So, the church champions ideals such as the black family, racial justice and a materially humble lifestyle as ways to live out discipleship to Christ.

    To be honest, I'm not sure how this is a problem. But the revelation that an African-American family is attending a vigorous and socially conscious black church is apparently a touchy subject. One could, ahem, speculate about the motives behind such touchiness. But let it suffice to say that Sen. Obama's church affiliation has raised some hackles.

    For example, Fox News pundit Sean Hannity has suggested that the church is divisive and borders on being a separatist cult. And MSNBC talking head Tucker Carlson has claimed that Obama's church proclaims a "racially exclusive theology" that seems to "contradict the basic tenets of Christianity." This is because, in Mr. Carlson's opinion, Christianity is explicitly "anti-racial."

    Right. As if Christianity is far off in another dimension and completely divorced from the messiness of everyday life. As if holiness and righteousness are possible without confronting the evils that exist in our midst.

    Exactly what tenets of Christianity can a church that describes itself as "unapologetically Christian" be contradicting? They seem to be doing just fine with Jesus' command to love the Lord your God and love your neighbor. And they seem to truly embrace the demand for social justice that has deep roots in Scripture. Their dedication to the gospel may be challenging to many of us, and that's a good thing, but it's disingenuous to call them divisive and separatist when they clearly focus on God as revealed through Jesus.

    And if by "anti-racial" Mr. Carlson means that there isn't a clearly mandated Christian response to racism because it isn't a current problem, then he's deluding himself. The problem persists, and thus racial reconciliation and justice are indeed Christian mandates. They go part and parcel with following Christ.

    Having said that, I think that the critiques of Trinity Church of Christ reveal more about us as a country than about Sen. Obama or his critics. It shows that there are some versions of Christianity that make us comfortable and some that don't.

    If a church's theology preaches Jesus through self-reliance, personal morality, building wealth and colorblindness, then we don't have much problem with it. But if a church's theology talks about community building, personal and social responsibility, the sin of materialism and black empowerment or racial reconciliation, then we become uncomfortable.

    This difference is similar to what theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer called the distinction between cheap grace and costly grace. Cheap grace is what makes us comfortable, because it doesn't ask much of us. Costly grace, however, challenges us to be Christ-like by sacrificing and taking up our cross. It asks us to risk our comfort and get our hands dirty in the real world. If there's any confusion between the two, it's safe to say that Jesus' call and gift is that of costly grace.

    This is the grace that Sen. Obama's church seems to proclaim. For they're not out there preaching the gospel of health and wealth. That is, they don't theologize that the God of Jesus Christ is some great ATM machine in the sky that will provide goods to consume. Instead, they're dedicated to loving God, serving others, nurturing the souls of its congregants and bridging the divide between the poor, middle and upper classes within their church community. In short, they're interested in authentic witness to the Gospel within a specific context.

    If this makes some uncomfortable, so be it. At least they're following Jesus in a way that aims for righteous transformation of the real world rather than a pie-in-the-sky kind of way.

    Now I'm not saying that Sen. Obama is a victim here. Nor am I trying to get votes for him, although I must admit that I've sent a few bucks to his campaign. And I'm not saying he's a saint, either. Heck, I don't even know the man.

    My point is simple. I'm sure there are many ways that the media can criticize Sen. Obama's candidacy. But his church is not a liability. And they should be ashamed for trying to make it seem like one. "

    David Brody, a Christain Broadcast News correspondent, visited Obama's church:

    "When I was out in Illinois covering Obama’s big presidential announcement in Springfield, our CBN crew went to Chicago and asked to shoot video inside the Church. A week before, I had put in multiple requests but I received no response. So on Sunday we walked into the Church and asked if we could film.After waiting about 15 minutes or so, they agreed and we started to videotape. After 20 minutes or so of videotaping, the Church said they meant still photography not video. There seemed to be a little miscommunication here. We immediately stopped filming. We ended up using still shots from the video that we had in our possession. I desperately tried to convince them to let us use the video but they said no.

    During my time inside their service, it seemed pretty normal to me. The worship was very charismatic, the music was up-tempo and the people seemed like they were really into it. I didn’t hear the preacher speak, so clearly that is extremely important. I can’t speak to that. But the people we dealt with were extremely nice. " Link

    From State Of The Qusan, referring to Hannity's coverage on FNC of Obama's church:
    "I don't know where they got this kneegro to go on TV and spew this BS but, being from Chicago, I've been to Trinity United Church of Christ. Many of my friends are members. Oprah Winfrey was once a member. It's a typical black church, albeit it has many affluent members, and I cannot believe that anyone would stoop this low. It's just disgusting!"

    Mission Statement of Church:
    Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of "who we are" and "whose we are," call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!

    We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economicallydisadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable.
    The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution! 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."Link

    Pastor Jeremiah Wright:
    "Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.

    "We were always seen as objects. When we started defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like “others” defining themselves."

    "African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.

    "There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience. It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks. "

    Barack Obama:
    "If I say to anybody in Iowa -- white, black, Hispanic or Asian -- that my church believes in the African-American community strengthening families or adhering to the black work ethic or being committed to self-discipline and self-respect and not forgetting where you came from, I don't think that's something anybody would object to. ... I think I'd get a few amens."

    As for the claim the church is more loyal to Africa than America, "while the Trinity website contains a "10-point Vision" that calls for its congregation to make "a non-negotiable commitment to Africa," there is no statement on the website that such a commitment supersedes a parishioner's commitment to the United States. Moreover, a fact sheet on the White House website is titled "The U.S. Commitment To Africa's Growth And Prosperity," and the Bush White House has reaffirmed its "commitment to Africa" as recently as 2005." (Media Matters)

  8. Black Theology or African-centered? Call it what you will. Wrap it up in fluffy, long-winded, and misleading euphemisms. You summed it up precisely when you wrote: "African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.”

    Anti-p.c. translation: “Black people, unlike white people, don’t assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.”

    Sounds pretty racist to me!

    P.S. Has anyone else noticed how the rude lefty commentators like to use up so much free conservative comment space to blather on endlessly when all they have to do is point readers to a link???

  9. I'll make this brief so as not to irritate my host.

    Many thanks to Anonymous for the many, sourced, comments clarifying liberation theology from an African American perspective.

    It's not racism to recognize the assumption of racial superiority in the Eurocentric view. It's well documented. Until the 1960s, it wasn't an assumption that was widely and popularly challenged.

    Some people feel offended at being characterized according to the Eurocentric view just because they are Caucasian. It's understandable. We now have a lot of African Americans who take it for granted that the Eurocentric view is held by anyone who is Caucasian! It's the same kind of unexamined prejudice that we had with the Eurocentric superiority view. And that's what I think Faultline is talking about.

    However, I think that this issue is best raised with a genuine demonstration of love. Make an attempt to show ONE person who holds that prejudice, that there's at least ONE person who is an exception to what they believe is the rule.

    We could write to the pastor of Obama's church, and ask him to preach a sermon about it. Nicely. In a spirit of Love.

  10. First of all painting Jesus as anything but who He is, fully human and fully God and REAL, is really sad. Obviously he was a regular Jew as far as His humanity, but the Bible also states that in God there is no Jew or Gentile--race is not a factor in how God sees us.

    But I would like to point out that calling any religion Marxist is sorta silly. Marx is the one who said religion is the "opiate of the people." He wanted it completely eliminated, whether it tried to follow communism or not. He wanted it gone completely.

  11. Yes I agree that it would seem silly to call any religion Marxist if and only if the Marxists had not themselves chosen to call their form of Christianity take over "Marxist Christianity". Additionally, many liberal Christian seminaries actually teach that Marx was a theologian do to the fact that he wrote about religion as an "opiate of the people."

  12. I love this blog.

    Keep it up.

    'nough said.



  13. I think sincerely that everyone has different views on issues. The pastor here in question speaks of his own accord.

    For instance, if you are not in support of the war in Iraq (which is a major controversy in America and the world today), you being a part of America do not simply mean you support the war in Iraq. For sure, you are being tied to the policy that supports the war by those affected by the war. They just say 'AMERICA' (that includes you) bombed our homes, etc. Your personal disapproval of this war is not considered by these victims.

    That's what Obama is being accused of, racism, by someone else who shares different views with him on this issue.

  14. I think sincerely that everyone has different views on issues. The pastor here in question speaks of his own accord.

    For instance, if you are not in support of the war in Iraq (which is a major controversy in America and the world today), you being a part of America do not simply mean you support the war in Iraq. For sure, you are being tied to the policy that supports the war by those affected by the war. They just say 'AMERICA' (that includes you) bombed our homes, etc. Your personal disapproval of this war is not considered by these victims.

    That's what Obama is being accused of, racism; he is being attached to someone else who shares different views with him on this issue.

  15. Obama is a Marxist pure and simple. As a life long Dem, I will not vote for Obama. With him at the top of the ticket, I will not vote for any Dem. He scares the hell out of me

  16. I like to refer to Liberation Theology as the Theology of Judas, not Jesus. Its goal is to build a political kingdom. This is what Obama refered to when in his Address in N.C. he asked for everyone to help him build a Kingdom. As close as Judas was to Christ his ultimate goal was not Christs mission, it was his own. Liberation Theology exists in this very same vain. It is so close to Authentic Catholic and Christian Doctrine many cannot seem to see the difference. All worldly progrress must take place in Christ if it is to be real., Liberation Theology does not build a kingdom in Christ but uses Him as a puppet to mascarade as authentic theology. This is exactly how the Devil will come into the world. Liberation Theology will take over the world and it will be the decisive tool by which the Chruch will be broght to its knees and many will suffer untold death and persecution. As much as one likes to quote scripture lets not forget the most important..beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing, and many will come in my name. The end times are foretold, they are dark. Mind all to head the warning, the AntiChrist may or maynot be a person as much as an idea. Liberation Theology has all the characteristics of the Devil.

  17. Anonymous. When you wrote, "Liberation Theology does not build a kingdom in Christ but uses Him as a puppet to mascarade as authentic theology",you hit the nail right on the head!!!

  18. Excellent discussion here. I have been extremely troubled by the Libertion Theology connection for Barack Obama. Adding to my concern is his strong connections with the Saul Alinsky inspired Gamaliel Foundation which trains community organizers using "agitation" and confrontation as its praxis.

    I gather from his writings and public statements that Barack Obama is an astute man who has been searching for a grounding for his life and an outlet for his uncanny ability to influence others. The concern I have is that his "steeping" in Black Liberation Theology and Alinsky style organizing (both enlivened by the hope of social change and undergirded by the Marxist class struggle paradigm) has left him with such a compelling inner compass that he has not developed the deep wisdom to lead a country as diversely-energized as the United States.

    His astuteness has brought him to a place of power and the question for me is what underlying convictions and character will inform his use of such power.

  19. While I've been an Obama fan for some time, I've never been familiar with this idea of Liberation Theology. Thanks for this thoughtful analysis! And while Obama may have attended this church for 20 years, lets not mistake that people's views do change over time and that perspectives within ANY church vary in the severity on almost every issue - be it evolution, gay marriage, abortion etc. etc.

    Just because he attends Jeremiah Wright's church does NOT mean he also holds the most extreme point of views.

    Case in point - I've gone to my church in Akron, Ohio all my life yet I may never share the same views of homosexuality or temperance (regarding alcohol).

    To assume that he holds the same view as his pastor err's on the side of an ill concieved judgement, even though I can still see why it may raise some eye brows.

  20. This is a great site. Thank you for your information. I THANK YOU I SALUTE YOU IT,S A AMZING SITE.

  21. The teachings of Obama's church is based on Black Liberatin Theology, a rabid racist idea that began with James Cone's book of that title. To really get a quick review of the ugly ideas in that book, see

  22. Thanks for the link Robert. You have an excellent blog and I can see that you've put a lot of work into covering the many aspects of Black Liberation Theology. Why not enable comments?

  23. Good thing Obama is running for PRESIDENT and not POPE.

    I mean, in that case whatever he believed in religiously would have at least some sort of bearing, am I right?

  24. As a theologian I would just point out as a mitigating factor that Cone's primary concern is not with the insistence that the historical Jesus is black as a matter of fact. His insistence, like that of the Latin American or Asian Theologians is that the conception of a Jesus who shares the racial origins of an oppressed group can lead to a closer relation to that figure. If one group conceives of a black jesus, another a hispanic and a third a white, it does not mean they are, of necessity, arguing about the race of the historical figure, it simply means that they are able to relate their ministry or teaching more closely to those they preach to through an interpretation of Jesus as suffering the same prejudices they encountered. To that extent I would deem the comment no more contentious that stating that Jesus was a non-semite, granted he was Jewish but if it helps those hearing a message to relate to it more closely, what is the harm in that portrayal.

    Otherwise a fairly balanced article thank you

  25. To B. Edwards: If you think the Black Liberation Theology is just about having a Christ that people can relate to, you have not read Cone's book.

    Cone's book is about how white people cannot have souls.


Follow faultlineusa on Twitter