Revisiting Obama’s Liberation Theology Church

Cross-posted from Faultline USA In March of 2007, I wrote an article expressing grave concerns about Obama’s Liberation Theology church and his controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Last year few Americans, other than Theologians or graduates from left-leaning seminaries such as Brite Divinity School, even knew about Liberation Theology. The following republished article exposed the truth about Jeremiah Wright’s church and quotes from the works of James H. Cone, one of the primary authors of Black Liberation Theology. Additionally provided are some important points about the grave dangers of Liberation Theology written in 1984 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). Following is the text from 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. Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

Digg It!

Jeremiah Wright Still Unashamedly Racist

Cross-posted from Faultline USA Contrary to media reports, Jeremiah Wright hasn’t been in self-imposed exile since Obama distanced himself from Wright’s anti-American and racist remarks. On the contrary, Wright has continued his whirlwind speaking tour across America. Friday he was interviewed by Bill Moyers of PBS, Sunday he delivered two sermons at Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, where he finally received a belated award from Brite Divinity School (see previous articles below), then he flew to Detroit to address the NAACP, and this morning his gave another self-gratification speech to the National Press Club. So what’s up with Wright? To summarize Juan Williams’s assessment on Fox TV following Wright’s speech this morning, Wright is saying “If you are attacking me, you are attacking the Black Church.” Yesterday, Wright said that he was being “crucified.” Today the Black Church is being crucified. Williams went on to observe that Wright never explained his inflammatory statements. “It was all about ego and self-gratification for Wright. . . Wright isn’t looking out for Obama. . .It’s all about Wright and Black Theology.” Williams said that Wright “Is playing racially divisive politics. You don’t hear that from the Black Pulpit. It’s not typical.” I watched the entire speech and the Q&A session following the speech. His speech lasted less than fifteen minutes but it was packed full of inflammatory quotes that should come back to haunt Wright as well as continue to plague Obama. Another 20-30 minutes were devoted to answering pre-screened questions. Here’s the gist of the speech: Wright said that he will be opening a two day symposium of Black Theologians, scholars, and social workers etc., and said that Obama has called for a dialog on the Black Church. He opened his speech by referring to the media’s playing of the “out of context” sound bites saying, “It’s not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the Black Church.” Then Wright went into a brief history of the Black Church in America and attempted to distinguish his “Prophetic Theology of the Black Church” from James Cones’ “Black Liberation Theology.” What are the differences? Basically none except that Wright’s theology goes beyond “white supremacy” to the prophets of the Old Testament. He hinges his theology on the 61st chapter of Isaiah and on Luke 4. According to Wright, his theology is a theology of liberation, transformation, and “ultimately, reconciliation.” Why did he insert the word “ultimately”? According to Wright, the white church in Europe and North America is a “theology of white supremacy.” Here’s a summary of Wright’s speech concerning what whites have to do in order to become reconciled to the Black church in America. God’s desire is for a radical change in a social order that has gone astray. God’s desire is for a radical transformation. This is the heart of Liberation Theology. What must we do in order to become reconciled? “Children of God repenting for past sins against one another.” Apparently, Wright thinks whites have a long, long way to go before they deserve to be reconciled to the Black Church. I wonder what kind of additional repentance Wright has in store for Whites? Hint, go listen to Obama’s new pastor’s sermons and, can you spell Reparations and residtribution??? With regard to the “white supremacy” church in America, Wright quoted Dr. William Augustus Jones to explain how one’s theology determines one’s sociology. Really? Can we get permission from Wright to apply that same standard to Obama??? I wonder if Wright considered that if that’s truly the case, then why shouldn’t all Americans have a right to ask Obama to explain his own theology in terms of comparison and contrast to Trinity United Church of Christ and Jeremiah Wright? The Q&A session offered some hard questions that Wright attempted to turn to his favor. When asked about the “chickens coming home to roost” post 9/11 sermon he responded: “Have you heard the whole sermon? (He waits for a response) Well that nullifies that question.” Then Wright went on to say that (1) “I was quoting the ambassador of Iraq,” (2) What Wright said “comes from the Bible”, and (3) “You cannot do terrorism against other people and not expect it to come back on you.” Asked if he was patriotic and loved Aemrica, Wright said: “I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic?” Then he waved a flimsy salute. Hummm. Looks like he doesn’t want to give a direct answer on that one. Wright was asked about his relationship with Louis Farrakhan, the acting head of the Nation of Islam. Wright implied that he had been hurt by his relationship with Farrakhan because Farrakhan has once called Zionism a “gutter religion.” But Wright went on to say, “Farrakhan and I don’t agree on everything. Farrakhan is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st centuries. I won’t put down Farrakhan any more than (Nelson) Mandela would put down Castro.” Asked about Sen. Obama’s disavowal of him, Wright reminded the audience that Obama had not disavowed him just “distanced himself from me because he is a politician.” Wright said that he was downstairs praying with Obama before Obama went upstairs to talk. What does this imply? When asked about his own motivation, Wright said, “If Obama had not said what he said he would never get elected.” Then Wright added, “I’m not running for office . . .(then with a kidding grin) I’m hoping to be V.P.” As a matter of fact, he said that again at the end of his speech. Interesting, and I bet he’s serious. Asked about what evil our government is capable of, he said, that based on the Tuskegee experiment, “I believe our government is capable of anything.” Asked if he likened Israeli policies to apartheid, he denied saying that and said that Israel has a right to exist but needs to sit down and work out a solution – reconciliation. Wright refused to comment about Bill Clinton and said that “I came to talk about the church not politics.” Funny, he could have fooled me. Wright was asked how the Black and White church could reconcile. He said that many have already “taken great steps to do so. To reconcile, whites must understand the injustice that was done.” He would start educating at the earliest levels by using “Infusion curriculum” – telling the true story. When asked if Islam is the way to salvation, Wright said, “Jesus said, ‘Other sheep have I not of this fold.’” So what’s Obama to do? Wright, like a dirty old piece of gum, is permanently stuck to Obama’s shoe. Obama can’t shake him. Granted, Obama hasn’t tried very hard to convince most voters that he’s all that upset with Wright, but why should he? If Obama were to come out even stronger against Wright or his own Black Liberation church, he’d lose the votes of his primary supporters on the left. Some speculating yesterday on the news had the Obama camp actually redirecting Wright in an attempt to rehabilitate his image. The idea is that if Obama can stop attacks on Wright, he can win the blue collar white votes he badly needs. The only way to do that is to turn this thing on his head. Apparently, the far left is taking the ball and running with it. Here’s the new spin. To question Wright or Obama is tantamount to white racism!

Digg it!!!

For more background on this continuing story read: (1)Brite Divinity School to Honor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, (2) Brite Divinity School Jeremiah Wright Update, (3) Brite, Jeremiah Wright, and the Out of Context Card, (4) The Brite-Jeremiah Wright Debate Continues, (5) Brite Divinity School Accused of Violating Its Own Covenant, and (6) Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 Sermon “In Context”, and (7) An Outraged Active Democrat Tells Brite Divinity School Off, (8) The Clever Rev. Jeremiah Wright Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA