Scan barcode
A review by moreteamorecats
A Black Theology of Liberation (Anniversary) by James H. Cone
4.0
By spring of 1969, James Cone had two substantial works under his belt: a dissertation on [a:Karl Barth|23117|Karl Barth|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1225048594p2/23117.jpg], and the mad-as-hell instant classic [b:Black Theology and Black Power|211866|Black Theology and Black Power|James H. Cone|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1172738387s/211866.jpg|205078]. This book, written that summer, represents Cone's first attempt to combine both those threads of his training and interest. The result is a very distinct work from BTBP: Cone has lost none of his fire, but has organized its expression around reference to the state of the art in mid-twentieth-century European Protestant theology. Its straightforward march through the doctrines and ticking off of the big German names might be stereotypical if the stakes were any lower. As it stands, BToL has a logic all its own, standing as a true Barthian counterpart to the [a:Karl Rahner|47417|Karl Rahner|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1256501734p2/47417.jpg]-isms of [b:A Theology of Liberation|824501|A Theology of Liberation History, Politics and Salvation|Gustavo Gutiérrez|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1178716651s/824501.jpg|1293918].
Those theological points of reference, with a few exceptions, have gone out of fashion enough to leave this book feeling somewhat dated. If BTBP feels dated today, by contrast, it is because White America has succeeded in forgetting the Watts and Detroit and Newark riots, for which we should hardly be proud. Cone's liberal heritage is nevertheless inseparable from his considerable achievement here. Take his ontological account of symbolic or spiritual blackness. To define blackness by skin color, for Cone's purposes, is obviously impossible, given the long social history of plantation rape, intermarriage, and one-drop laws. The dichotomy between Black and White, in Cone, only weakly describes bodies: More strictly, it describes identification with and existential struggle alongside the oppressed, poor, and marginalized. The abstraction of bodies into ethical states is a classic liberal move, but here repurposed for radicals.
My slightly lower rating for this book than for BTBP reflects less on its objective merits (the two really form one thought) than on the earlier book's uniquely shattering impact. I know several people whose conversion was effected through BTBP; this one lacks that distinction. But if this book did change your life, please let me know. I'd love to hear those stories.
Those theological points of reference, with a few exceptions, have gone out of fashion enough to leave this book feeling somewhat dated. If BTBP feels dated today, by contrast, it is because White America has succeeded in forgetting the Watts and Detroit and Newark riots, for which we should hardly be proud. Cone's liberal heritage is nevertheless inseparable from his considerable achievement here. Take his ontological account of symbolic or spiritual blackness. To define blackness by skin color, for Cone's purposes, is obviously impossible, given the long social history of plantation rape, intermarriage, and one-drop laws. The dichotomy between Black and White, in Cone, only weakly describes bodies: More strictly, it describes identification with and existential struggle alongside the oppressed, poor, and marginalized. The abstraction of bodies into ethical states is a classic liberal move, but here repurposed for radicals.
My slightly lower rating for this book than for BTBP reflects less on its objective merits (the two really form one thought) than on the earlier book's uniquely shattering impact. I know several people whose conversion was effected through BTBP; this one lacks that distinction. But if this book did change your life, please let me know. I'd love to hear those stories.