The speech itself is interesting, positive in tone, and theologically astute. At the beginning of the speech, Wright makes some introductory remarks about "liberation theology," figuring--correctly, I'm sure--that very few people at the National Press Club have any idea what it is.
Wright correctly captures the essense of "liberation theology," and why it's important. "Liberation theology" reads the text from the view of the marginalized, which is the proper way to interpret the Bible because it was written mostly by marginalized people in a condition of political oppression.
Their viewpoint was not from the top down or from a set of teachings which undergirded imperialism. Their viewpoints, rather, were from the bottom up, the thoughts and understandings of God, the faith, religion and the Bible from those whose lives were ground, under, mangled and destroyed by the ruling classes or the oppressors.
Liberation theology started in and started from a different place. It started from the vantage point of the oppressed.
"Liberation theology" is thoroughly Biblical. When Jesus used the phrase "the kingdom of God," he was basically talking about what we now call "liberation theology." In the reign of God, things are going to be different, Jesus said. "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first." Theologians calls this "The Great Reversal." The way things are is not the way things will always be.
"Liberation theology" is a phrase that came originally from Latin American theologians. In his speech to the National Press Club, Wright specifically refers to the North American theologian, James Cone, who wrote "liberation theology" out of the context and from the experience of black people in America.
Wright tweaks Cone. He chooses not to call his own view "black liberation theology." Instead, Wright uses the phrase "the prophetic tradition of the black church." The difference is that he sees Cone's project as focusing mainly and uniquely on the African experience in America. Wright wants to go back further, to the Hebrew prophets. "The prophet tradition of the black church" is, first of all, a "theology of liberation," Wright says. He cites Isaiah 61:
The spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me;
he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed,
to bind up the broken-hearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and release to the prisoners;
It is an appropriate citation, especially since Jesus self-consciously affirms it in Luke, chapter 4. The prophetic tradition is one of liberation. That's the positive--the "nice"--side of the prophets. If Wright was really interested in being inflammatory, he could have picked any number of condemnatory passages from the prophets, and Jesus also.
The "prophetic tradition of the black church," Wright says, is also a "theology of transformation."
God’s desire is for positive, meaningful and permanent change. God does not want one people seeing themselves as superior to other people. God does not want the powerless masses, the poor, the widows, the marginalized, and those underserved by the powerful few to stay locked into sick systems which treat some in the society as being more equal than others in that same society.
God’s desire is for positive change, transformation, real change, not cosmetic change, transformation, radical change or a change that makes a permanent difference, transformation. God’s desire is for transformation, changed lives, changed minds, changed laws, changed social orders, and changed hearts in a changed world.
This is well-expressed and non-controversial--nothing too radical there, in other words. The "prophetic tradition of the black church," in addition to being a "theology of liberation" and a "theology of transformation," is ultimately also a "theology of reconciliation."
The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God’s children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us.
Reconciliation does not mean that blacks become whites or whites become blacks and Hispanics become Asian or that Asians become Europeans.
Reconciliation means we embrace our individual rich histories, all of them. We retain who we are as persons of different cultures, while acknowledging that those of other cultures are not superior or inferior to us. They are just different from us.
We root out any teaching of superiority, inferiority, hatred, or prejudice.
And we recognize for the first time in modern history in the West that the other who stands before us with a different color of skin, a different texture of hair, different music, different preaching styles, and different dance moves, that other is one of God’s children just as we are, no better, no worse, prone to error and in need of forgiveness, just as we are.
Only then will liberation, transformation, and reconciliation become realities and cease being ever elusive ideals.
Comments