Liberation Theology and Christianity

Theological Comparing and Contrasting
1 Barth and Cone: Convergence and Divergence
According to James Cone, “Christian theology is a theology of liberation”[footnoteRef:2]—though the liberation that is referred to in this sense is not necessarily the liberation of the soul from sin but rather the liberation of the community from oppression, whether it be social, political or economical. In other words, Cone’s theology of liberation is rooted in a worldly sense of the Christian mission—a sense of social justice being delivered to the here and now. The oppressed are those who should be freed, and the Gospels are meant specifically for these people. This is the essence of theology for Cone. [2: James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2010), 1.]
For Karl Barth, theology is the science and doctrine of God and in Christian theology, the term “The-anthropology” is employed by Barth in order to convey an appropriate sense of the God-Man, as there is no “abstract doctrine of God…in the Christian realm, only…a doctrine of the commerce and communion between God and man.”[footnoteRef:3] From this perspective, Barth settles into his theological method, which is based on evangelical theology, with roots in the 16th century Reformation era as well as the ensuing philosophies of Enlightenment and Romantic era thinkers, like Hegel and Kant. Barth incorporates the notions of thesis, antithesis and synthesis into his theological method to arrive at the commerce and communion between God and man that makes up his central aspect of the Christian theology. In other words, it is no longer a science of God in the objective sense ala Thomism, but rather in an experiential sense that is ever evolving because the one experiencing it is also bringing new meaning to the text and participating in the synthesis. [3: Karl Barth, The Humanity of God (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1960), 11.]
Barth’s emphasis on Enlightenment and Romantic era philosophy converges with Cone’s method of liberation and black theology, in the sense that both focus on a re-interpretation of theology that is radically and fundamentally different from the 1500 years or so of theological continuity that was engendered from the Early Church period to the end of the Renaissance. For Cone, the Gospels are read not in the light of Christ’s sacrifice as redemption of man from sin but rather in the light of the suffering of blacks. He specifically states that “the task of black theology is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the light of oppressed blacks so they will see the gospel as inseparable from their humiliated condition, and as bestowing on them the necessary power to break the chains of oppression.”[footnoteRef:4] [4: Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, 5.]
Their point of convergence, however, is also their point of divergence for the two take their theologies in two very different directions from that point on. They both reject the established theological traditions of the Old World and develop new ones—but Barth takes his inward into the subjective experience and Cone takes his outward into the societal or communal experience. Cone focuses on the cultural pain and suffering of the oppressed class—the black race—and equates Christ’s message to the message of the abolitionists. Barth takes Christ’s message and intertwines it with the evolution of modern thought and the question of how modern man is to engage with the Word of God in a way that turns theology into a discourse: as Barth states, “Theology belongs to the wider realm of the Christian Church, ecumenical and universal, in space as well as in time. In the Church there exists a community of concern that may be endangered, but never cancelled out, by even the most serious difference in approach.”[footnoteRef:5] In other words, theology is not about differences but rather about sameness—the fact that we are all attempting to engage with God. And in this respect, the scientific and disciplined approach to God brought to mind by traditional concepts of theology is decimated and what is put in its place is a poetic, Romantically-inclined, modern approach. Inevitably, this leads Barth to adopt a perspective on Christ that is more humanistic, and in this sense there is a reconvergence with the theological method of Cone, as Cone too adopts a humanistic perspective of Christ. [5: Barth, The Humanity of God, 12. ]
The fundamental differences in their respective understandings of revelation, however, are that Barth does not wholly abandon the spiritual aspect of the redemptive work of Christ, though he does challenge the traditional interpretations of that work. Cone on the other hand views revelation wholly in the light of the oppression of people, likening blacks to the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians. Cone’s sense of God’s presence in the world is defined by his sense of oppression. Barth’s sense of God’s presence in the world is defined by his sense of the various differences among philosophers and theologians in the modern era, all of the seemingly cut adrift from the moorings of the Old World, struggling to make sense of a God and His communications to man and vice versa. Barth gets lost in the “spirituality” of the God-Man communication process while Cone is absorbed in the struggle for freedom, for liberation of the oppressed people and forgets that Christ’s focus was on liberation from sin not from a social class. Barth’s position in the theological method takes him into the realm of the subjective, and Cone’s takes him into the realm of the political, social and economic.
2 Barth and Tillich
Barth and Tillich both refer to scripture in their theologies, though their references are sparingly used in “The Humanity of God” and in Dynamics of Faith. Neither relies upon a strict Scriptural assessment in order to define their theologies. Barth’s theology is more personal and experiential; Tillich aims to support some of his arguments with scriptural references, such as when he states that the “knowledge of God is the knowledge God has of himself; and it is expressed by Paul when he says (1 Cor. 13) that he will know as he is known, namely, by God.”[footnoteRef:6] However, Tillich, like Barth, is interested in arriving at new definitions or new ways of describing old concepts—like faith, which Tillich describes and defines without ever referring to scripture at all. It is almost as though both theologians are approaching the concept of theology from outside the scope of religion and revelation. They are approaching it as though there were a need to understand with fresh eyes the concept of faith—yet faith without reference to revelation seems to be lacking in the essence of its importance and really its nature, for faith is dependent upon Christ, not the other way around. Tillich, however, simply defines faith “as an act of the human personality, as its centered and total act. An act of faith is an act of a finite being who is grasped by and turned to the infinite.”[footnoteRef:7] While this may explain the act of faith, it does not necessarily correspond to faith as it is presented in scripture. [6: Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (), 12.] [7: Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, 18.]
Barth likewise veers away from scripture in The Humanity of God and does not specifically discuss the Humanity of God in the Person of Jesus Christ from a Biblical perspective. Instead, the discussion is more theoretical, more philosophical, more visceral and experiential in nature. Barth does dive into some aspects of scripture; for instance, he mentions the God of Abraham and Isaac but he does not really examine the scriptural basis for God’s humanity. Rather he muses indefinitely on the nature of God’s divinity and humanity in a manner that is almost Nietzschean in its stream of thought consciousness.
Should scripture function more definitely in their writings? One would think that if theology is really going to be seriously discussed, the basis of Christian theology should bear some part in that discussion. Barth and Tillich appear, however, to be more interested in following their own train of thoughts wherever they might lead them. They draw upon their own interests, what the Reformers have said, how language itself can be used to convey ideas and emotions. They dwell in linguistic playgrounds in order to heighten their own sense of subjects that would be more aptly defined within the context of scripture. It is as though they were wanting to discuss Christian theology without actually having to reference the Chrisitan Bible or examine how the topics they discuss have been treated by the Evangelists or by the prophets.
For example, Barth offers up musing such as these, which do not seem to proceed from or proceed to anything substantial but rather float ethereally like some atmospheric cloud of hyperbole grounded in nothing sacred or revelatory: “In His life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit He would in truth be no lonesome, no egotistical God even without man, yes, even without the whole created universes. And He must more than ever be not for man; He could—one even thinks He must—rather be against him. But that is the mystery in which He meets us in the existence of Jesus Christ.”[footnoteRef:8] Why should Barth feel compelled to state that God must be against man? The question begs for clarification as to where Barth is coming from in his approach to a conception of God. God against man? Any understanding or simple reading of scripture would surely put that question to rest. God does not ever appear to be against man, save from the type of poetic perspective provided by Milton in Paradise Lost. God in the Old and New Testament is forever committed to man. From one covenant to the next, even when man’s offenses bring down punishment after punishment, God never can be said to be against man. Rather God is so much for man that He sends His own Son to die for man. This is one reason that Barth should ground his theological musings in scripture. [8: Barth, Humanity of God, 50.]
Tillich likewise could stand for the same. His theological musings are more like the philosophical musings of Descartes. There is not much sense that theology is really what is being discussed at all. Instead, Tillich discusses epistemology and other concepts—even doubt, for instance: “Genuine skeptical doubt does not use the form of an assertion. It is an attitude of actually rejecting any certainty. Therefore, it cannot be refuted logically. It does not transform its attitude into a proposition. Such an attitude necessarily leads either to despair or cynicism, or to both alternately.”[footnoteRef:9] And yet Tillich goes on to describe its function as initially liberating—in what sense? Were Tillich to tie these musings more definitely into the teachings of scripture, one might not feel so lost or perplexed as to how this related to theology. But Tillich, like Barth, is more interested in following his own train of thought willy-nilly. [9: Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, 22.]
3 Kelly Brown Douglas
If there are certain stories within the Bible that cannot be given authority, then perhaps it is the norm of faith that is incorrect in its approach to the Bible rather than the Bible that is incorrect in light of the new norm of faith. Douglas’ claim implies that the norm of black faith is correct in interpreting Go as freedom. But if this interpretation is not supported by the whole of revelation, it must be challenged in its conception. Explaining it to another student, minister or professor without framing it thus would be to share in the assumption that the norm is valid and would be to conflate explanation with validation or justification. Based upon a complete reading of Scripture, such a norm can neither be validated nor justified.
The theological sources that shape Douglas’ norm of a God who is freedom could be: John 8:36—“So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed”—but this freedom does not refer to any social, political or economic freedom but rather to spiritual freedom from sin and the bondage of sin. Or it could be based on: Galatians 5:13—“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free.” But again, this is not a reference to social, political or economic freedom but rather to spiritual freedom from sin for the verse goes on: “But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve on another humbly in love.” In fact, the freedom that is described in Scripture is rooted in service. Servitude is freedom if done humbly and with love. In other words, love is freedom; charity is freedom; God is freedom if only one learns to give up one’s self, to do away with one’s egocentric view of life. Or there is Galatians 5:1—“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” But, still, again, the yoke of slavery is not literal but rather figurative and spiritual. The yoke of slavery is sin and Christ came to forgive sins and lead men on the way to God through prayer, penance and perseverance.
Douglas’ theological method is to ground her sense of Christ in race. Racial tensions have been felt in American society since its inception and Douglas casts her theology against this backdrop allowing it to inform her sense of theology rather than allowing Christian theology to inform her sense of race. Instead of seeing how Christ is above race, how Christian charity does not stop at race, she uses race to alter the teachings of Christ and Christianity into something else. It is a type of liberation theology that manifestly redirects the Word of God towards a social, political and economic situation that has more to do with a lack of charity in the world than it does with race.
Douglas correctly points out that “while Jefferson’s and Franklin’s beliefs that America was the New Israel and Americans the New Israelites reflected the religious narrative introduced by the Pilgrims and Puritans, they did so in a non-sectarian way. For Jefferson and Franklin, this religious narrative was not about Christianity. It was about the sacred nature of Anglo-Saxonism.”[footnoteRef:10] And she is 100% correct. The Founding Fathers were motivated by a sense of their sacred Anglo-Saxonism. However, their view was incorrect and incompatible with Christianity—as was the Puritan view: neither really or truly represented the message of Christ for neither truly embraced the two most simple doctrines put forward by Christ—love God and love your neighbor. [10: Kelly Brown Douglas, Stand Your Ground: Black Bodies and the Justice of God, 13.]
Where do blacks figure into this climate? Unfortunately they figure into it as the victims of a system of slavery propagated by these same Americans. Their suffering, however, could be linked to Christ’s suffering if offered up for a spiritual good. When the objective is transferred from the spiritual to the social, political, or economical, it ceases to have a connection to Christ, whose message was not rooted in any of these spheres. Douglas is correct in her sense of how the Protestants and Deists of early America “legitimated America’s Anglo-Saxon mission,” and promoted the concept of Manifest Destiny.[footnoteRef:11] This connection of the Anglo-Saxon mission to God or to Christ’s mission is inherently false, however; and that too is Douglas’s point. But to superimpose the black plight overtop of the Anglo-Saxon or Puritan plight is to make the same mistake. Rather, in order for black power to have a legitimate meaning within a Chrsitian theological sense, it must be rooted in the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, for these are the ways taught in scripture and by the Church. [11: Douglas, Stand Your Ground, 15.]
Douglas’ method of theology provides a good understanding of the American character and its religious preoccupations but it does not yield up substantial fruit in terms of applying a spiritual solution or approach to the issue of suffering or to the issue of oppression. Like the approach by Cone, it represents liberation theology as a solution in and of itself when instead it is merely a perpetuation of the same age-old problem—the same problem that the Jews suffered from when Christ was in their midst: they expected social, political and economic deliverance and Christ brought deliverance from sin. The Jews then set about delivering themselves from the oppression of Rome in 66 AD and 4 years later their temple was torn down by Titus and they themselves were sold into slavery. Deliverance from suffering was never Christ’s message: instead, embracing it and finding in it God’s will and God’s love was Christ’s message. That is the mark that Douglas’ theological method runs around in various ways, just as Cone runs around it in his development of black theology and liberation theology. The true power, however, that the Christian should seek based on Christian theology is in charity and that applies to every race in every place in every time, for it is universal. For this reason, Douglas’ theological method leaves something to be desired, though its approach to American politics and society is certainly on target.
Bibliography
Barth, Karl. The Humanity of God. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1960.
Cone, James. A Black Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2010.
Douglas, Kelly Brown. Stand Your Ground: Black Bodies and the Justice of God.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2015.