The Fruits of Black Liberation Theology

Speaking of prophets to follow, Jesus, in Matthew 7:20 said “By their fruits ye shall know them.” What are the fruits of black liberation theology and have those fruits enriched the lives of its adherents?
Throughout 2015 and into 2016 the fruits of black liberation theology ripened. Early in July of 2016 Philando Castile was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop in Falcon Heights, Minnesota. Philando had previously been pulled over and ticketed over fifty two times before but this time was different, this traffic stop resulted in the end of a young black man’s life.
By all accounts, Philando Castile was a model citizen; he had a steady job and was a blessing to his co-workers along with the children at a St. Paul magnet school where he worked, he had powerful and positive friendships and, except for his staggering number of traffic citations, he was a law abiding citizen. (Interestingly, over half of his tickets were for licensing and insurance related issues, factors that cannot be determined until after the driver is stopped.) By all accounts, if the Black Lives Matter movement wanted a representative victim of excessive force by police, Philando Castile was that man. The treatment of Diamond Reynolds, the woman who posted the video to Facebook immediately after the shooting and was then held by police overnight would only highlight the case for excessive force by the police.
The protests following his death were attended by thousands of black and white demonstrators. Members of the Minneapolis and St. Paul American Federation of Teachers willingly subjected themselves to arrest in a peaceful demonstration in support of Philando. There were violent protests on ninth and tenth of July resulting on over 100 arrests, but Minneapolis/St. Paul did not burn. Philando Castile did not fit the narrative of either black liberation theology or of its offspring: Black Lives Matter. Philando Castile was not attempting to take down the system; he was just trying to get ahead in spite of being a favorite target for traffic cops needing to fill their monthly quota. The protests subsided, Philando Castile was set aside.
A few weeks later and 350 miles away, Syville Smith found himself in a car pulled over by Milwaukee police. Unlike Philando Castile, Syville decided to run. When an officer chased him Syville made another stupid decision: he turned toward the officer while holding a loaded handgun. To no one’s surprise, the black officer perceived a threat and fired the fatal rounds that ended Syville Smith’s life. Police report Syville had a “lengthy arrest record,” but then so did Philando. The difference is that while Philando’s were all traffic related, Syville’s included (according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel shooting, robbery and witness intimidation. While Philando worked within the system, Syville was definitely on the outside looking in. A Baptist minister called for unity as he delivered the eulogy for Philando Castile. Jesse Jackson, an adherent to black liberation theology delivered the eulogy for Syville Smith. Rev. Jackson did not call for unity.
While Minneapolis simmered and then cooled, Milwaukee burned. Mourners heard a message of unity and coming together during Philando’s memorial. But black liberation theology demands revenge for any wrong committed against its followers. Taking the teachings of Dr. Cone at their word, “black liberation theology stems from the recognition of the revolutionary implications in its very name: a rejection of whiteness, an unwillingness to live under it, and an identification of whiteness with evil and blackness with good.” (Cone, p.9), it seems only reasonable that Syville Smith equated the police with whiteness and his actions with blackness.
Rev. Jesse Jackson delivered the eulogy for a common street thug because the actions of the thug furthered the revolutionary goals of black liberation theology. Philando Castile, by living within society, supporting himself and trying to make the lives of everyone he came into contact with a little better supported the white power elites and needed to be ignored.
When a black policeman shoots a black suspect it is a racist act because the black officer is acting within the norms of white society. Dr. Cone states “blacks are encouraged to revolt against the structures of white social and political power by affirming blackness … Blacks do what they do because and only because they can do no other, and black theology says simply that such action is in harmony with divine revelation. “ (Cone, p. 18)
What is never mentioned in the discussions of police/community relations is the role the message delivered from the pulpits has had on black congregations. For over forty years, for two generations, those pulpits espousing liberation theology have told the faithful that the police are there only to oppress them that whiteness is the enemy and the police are the enforcers of that enemy. To be black is to rebel against whiteness and thus to rebel against the police. Many members of various congregations have heard this message their entire life. How could such a message, repeated month after month, year after year for forty years from a growing number of pulpits fail to have a behavioral effect on its audience? Dr. Cone’s false gospel of defiance preached for two generations produced a generation with no respect for police or any form of outside authority and began to act out the message it was given.
As the lawlessness in our inner-cities increased, police departments looked for ways to curb the violence. One of the few effective methods of reducing major crimes has been the broken windows strategy, where minor infractions are aggressively prosecuted. Broken windows has been shown to reduce the incidence of major crimes. Broken windows is the practice behind Philando Castile amassing over 150 traffic citations and over $6000 in fines and court costs. It may have been an over-anxious officer who killed Philando Castile but it was Rev. Cone’s teachings that put the gun in his hand.
Divine revelation now calls for acts of vengeance against innocent cops only because they wear the uniform. Taking Dr. Cone’s words to their logical conclusion and you must admit the burning of businesses, overturning cars, setting homes on fire and attacking white reporters and motorists is all part of God’s plan. The new saints of black liberation theology are the petty criminals who make the inner-cities zones of terror and anarchy for millions of black residents. Hatred of whites is the seed that produced the tree of revolt and that revolt has produced a bumper crop in the past few years.
An atmosphere of anarchy, defiance and chaos allowed dishonesty to take hold. We are all familiar with the chant “hands up, don’t shoot” as it relates to the shooting of Michael Brown. Yet, the facts proved Michael Brown was shot while he was reaching into the patrol car and attempting to grab the officer’s pistol. But the liberation theologian does not seek the truth, he wants only the revolution. If a lie furthers the cause, then liars we must become. Liberation theologian’s refuse to allow the truth to get in the way of its anti-white narrative.
Over the past few years too many black men have been shot and killed by police officers. Some of them actively threatened police, some were so high that they probably did not realize the result of their actions, but almost all of them have one common factor: they did not comply with the orders of the police. (Philando Castile may be the only exception) Yet, according to Black Lives Matter, they were all innocent. That is every bit as preposterous as the counter claim that all the police were acting according to the strictest codes of professional conduct. I am personally inclined to give our police the benefit of the doubt, but will readily admit that the officers involved in the shootings of Philando Castile, Terence Crutcher in Tulsa and Walter Scott in North Charleston should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Will any prominent exponents of black liberation theology demand from the pulpits that their congregations no longer venerate Michael Brown, Freddy Gray and Alton Sterling?
To the liberation theologist, truth is hardly important. What is important is bringing down the system. “The system is based on whiteness, and what is necessary is a replacement of whiteness with blackness. God as creator means that oppressed humanity is free to revolutionize society, assured that acts of liberation are the work of God.” (Cone, p. 80) Dr. Cone’s new theology raises dishonesty to the rank of a virtue.
The fruit of intolerance took root and flowered in our college campuses with protests over such seemingly trivial matters as Halloween costumes (Yale), studying (Dartmouth) or poorly behaving pick-up truck passengers (Missouri).
At Yale an angry protester informed us “It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It’s about creating a home here! You are not doing that. You’re going against that!” when a resident master suggested students tolerate the costumes of other students and not accuse them of “cultural appropriation.” Using the standard the student demanded (it seems implausible that someone so immature could attend so rigorous a school as Yale, but that’s another issue) do we forgo taco Tuesday for more culturally appropriate food choices? Will only Japanese students be allowed to sing karaoke? Must each ethnic group be relegated to their own beer at Yale dorm parties? Can only Americans wear blue jeans, can only Italians eat pizza and must we give tofu back to the Chinese? Will we be forced to live in a word where only Satanists are allowed to eat devil’s food cake? Of course those are absurd examples, but no more so than protesting a Halloween costume. The protestor stayed at Yale, the resident master resigned amidst the protests. Intolerance 1, Reason, 0.
While Yale students were not allowed to wear anything so blatantly racist as a sarape and a poncho, at Dartmouth, white students are not allowed to study in the library: . Apparently Rev. Cone’s followers believe whites students studying in a university library was an intolerable exercise of white privilege. Black students, with the support of the local NAACP, confronted their studious peers with shouts, verbal abuse and physical violence when any white would not say “black lives matter.” That the protesters did not feel that white lives matter made no difference. Anyone not completely supportive of black liberation theology stands in opposition to the will of this theology’s conception of divinity and that person must be destroyed. Intolerance 2, Reason, 0.
Ivy League schools are hardly alone in their embrace of intolerance. At the University of Missouri an alleged swastika drawn with human feces paralyzed a major university for over a week. The fact that there was no evidence of the swastika’s existence other than a photo (which had been found on web postings over a year before the alleged offense) carried little weight with the protesters. Damn the facts, forget that the swastika is more an intimidation to Jews than blacks, the fact that someone thought this may have happened was enough to bring out the troops of intolerance and close the university. Later it was revealed that one of the leaders of the protest had a racial epitaph directed to him by the passengers of a pickup truck on a public road near the university. The student demanded the university protect him from being insulted from people driving on a public road who were in no way affiliated with the university and beyond its scope of authority.
The president of the University of Missouri acted to meet the protesters’ demands but not quickly or forcefully enough; Jonathan Butler, a grad student pursuing a Master’s degree in education staged a hunger strike to protest the unfair treatment he had endured during his eight years at the school. That was the action that triggered the school’s football team to join the protest. Unwilling to risk the loss of millions of dollars in football revenue, University president, Tim Wolfe stepped down. Intolerance now leads, 3-0.
Major universities are hardly alone in racially motivated intolerance. Try to invite Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas or Walter Williams to speak at any campus and then wait for the uproar. “They cannot be black and identified with the powers that be. To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores.” (Cone, p.20) When race is involved, critical thinking, once the hallmark of university life has been supplanted by a new group think. Our campuses, the university administrations and tenured professors are recruiting and training the next generation of brown shirts and our children are being fitted for size. Dissent is swiftly and effectively punished because “all white intellectual disputations about blacks and God is a religious lie.” (Cone, p. 76)
Once one has accustomed his palate for intolerance, he thirsts for the addictive water of vengeance. We saw that thirst for vengeance displayed when Micah Johnson shot and killed five police officers in Dallas. The police were protecting a Black Lives Matter protest which demanded retaliation for the killing of black men by police earlier that summer. Some of the peaceful protesters actually carried rifles and wore bullet proof vests. When Micah Johnson began shooting, it was the police officers under attack who protected the protesters trapped in the line of fire. As expected, Black Lives Matter denied inciting Micah Johnson’s actions. Look up YouTube videos of Black Lives Matter protests and listen to the chants before you exonerate the protesters.
But why should Black Lives Matter be held accountable for the unprovoked attacks on police that are occurring almost every week somewhere in this country? The prophet of black liberation theology, the spiritual leader of BLM, has stated clearly that God is accountable to him and has never stated that the oppressed are in any way responsible to follow the Laws of God. “We will not accept a God who is on everyone’s side. … according to black theology, it is blasphemy to say that God loves white oppressors unless that love is interpreted as God’s wrathful activity against them and everything that whiteness stands for in American society.” (Cone, p, 74) “Black theology will accept only a love of God which participates only in the destruction of the white oppressor.” (Cone, p. 76) And Black Lives Matter is quick to mete out God’s wrath.
Throughout the ages, western religions have been torn by two competing perspectives. On the one hand the prophets of the Old Testament along with the apostles of the New Testament have called humanity to become more like God, to strive for spiritual excellence; they have called men to hearken to the message of Jerusalem. Competing against the vision of Jerusalem is that given us by Athens, where gods strove to emulate men and human weaknesses were the envied by the divine. Simply because he does not call his god Zeus or Apollo does not rule out liberation theology’s Athenian desire to have a god who behaves like us.
“God has chosen to make the black condition God’s condition!” (Cone, p.13) “With the assurance that God is on our side…” (Cone, p.13) “black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community.” (Cone, p.28) ‘As the oppressed now recognize their situation in the light of God’s revelation, they know they should have killed the white oppressors instead of trying to ‘love’ them.” (Cone, p.54) Many more statements similar to those quotes could be given, but perhaps the best proof that black liberation theology is focused on the human and not the divine comes from Dr. Cone’s pen: “Black theology … views theology as a participation in passion in behalf of the oppressed. … Insistence on a passionate theology is a call for an anthropocentric point of departure in theology.” (Cone, p.19)
An anthropocentric theology is one that looks first through the eyes of men and then choses rules for the divine, in accordance with the Athenian model. Man not merely supplicates for God to act but demands God act. In black theology, or any other liberation theology, the roles of Creator and created are reversed: man is the master while the Creator is the servant. Is it any wonder that black liberation theology has turned our inner-cities into battle grounds for competing street gangs, why poverty is being passed down from mother to daughter and why the best avenue for personal economic advancement, education, is so utterly disdained by blacks enrolled in inner-city schools?
In stating his theory of a new Covenant, Dr. Cone clearly defines God’s duties but is unclear as to the duties of the elect. Since our prophet of liberation displays a clear preference for the Books of the Old Testament to those of the New, how does the flock fare when put under the light of Deuteronomy, chapter 28? In verses 8 to 14 the blessings of the faithful are stated, “ The LORD will send a blessing on your barns and on everything you put your hand to. The LORD your God will bless you in the land he is giving you.
“ The LORD will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the LORD your God and walk in obedience to him. Then all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they will fear you. The LORD will grant you abundant prosperity—in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your ground—in the land he swore to.
The LORD will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands. You will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. The LORD will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the LORD your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom. Do not turn aside from any of the commands I give you today, to the right or to the left, following other gods and serving them.”
Coupled with the promises of abundance for the obedient is the threat of scarcity for the rebellious in verses 58-63, “If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the LORD your God— the LORD will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. The LORD will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the LORD your God. Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.”

For over forty years, for two generations, the pulpits of far too many churches have been preaching the false gospel of liberation theology. During that time, the family structure of black communities has been destroyed, educational advances have been reversed, the only paths out of the ghettos have been limited to music, athletics and crime, and despair has replaced joy and hope. For over forty years, Dr. Cone has promised to cross the Jordan yet has driven his followers further into the desert of error and misbelief.


What is a commandment? According to Random House Webster’s College dictionary, a commandment is “a command or mandate.” A commandment is something you must do. Obedience is not optional. In Exodus, God gave to Moses Ten Commandments which laid the foundation of God’s Covenant with the Israelites. They would follow His Commandments and He would bless their affairs. But that was thousands of years ago, in a desert on the other side of the world. Liberation theologies do not heed ancient wisdom.
Christians for two millennia have held strongly to the belief that the Law of Moses is applicable today. In the Quran, Muhammad reiterates the Ten Commandments in Chapter 17, verses 22 to 36. So the Ten Commandments are not solely relevant to Christians and Jews. But how does Dr. Cone, our new prophet regard these Commandments? Does he consider they apply to his followers or can they be easily discarded as archaic relics just as he considers the words of, as Dr. Cone has described Him, the Jesus of the first century?
Jewish tradition separates the Ten Commandments into those which deal with mankind’s relationship with its Creator and those which regulate personal and social behavior. We will not look at the Ten Commandments from that perspective. We need only review the prophet’s attitude toward the First Commandment to deduce his regard for the remaining nine.
The First Commandment reads, “I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me.” This Commandment indicates God’s supremacy over mankind. He is our Lord, our Master, the One to Whom we owe allegiance and the One we are to obey. But black liberation theology states, “The purpose of God in black liberation theology is to illuminate the black condition so that blacks can see that their liberation is the manifestation of God’s activity.” (Cone, p.90) Does the servant assign a purpose to his master; does the created give direction to the Creator? In our normal day-to-day undertakings most Christians, Moslems and Jews would assume the answer to those questions is a resounding “No!” but in Black liberation theology, the answer is a n even louder “Yes!”
The false prophets of liberation theology can answer yes because they have succumbed to the lies of existentialism. Dr. Cone affirms this when he quotes Kierkegaard to make a case for this new theology.
“’An objective uncertainty held fast in the most passionate personal experience is the truth, the highest truth attainable for an Existing individual.’
“Relating this to black theology, we can say that the definition of truth for the black thinker arises from a passionate encounter with black reality. Though that truth may be described religiously as God, it is not the God of white religion but the God of black existence. There is no way to speak of this objectively; truth is not objective. It is subjective, a personal experience of the ultimate in the midst of degradation. Passion is the only appropriate response to this truth.” (Cone, pp. 20-21) Have you ever taken your pet to the vet? Any pet owner knows that a pet’s distrust of the veterinarian has more to do with the animal’s lack of understanding the role of the veterinarian. The vet is there to help the animal, not to cause him pain. Yet the animal existentially, passionately in some situations, perceives the vet as a source of pain, not an agent of health. The animal is wrong; it just does not possess the intelligence to understand its mistake. No matter the passion of the animal, its perception is incorrect.
Merely because an idea is passionately held, is subjectively believed by any person, does not make that thought correct. Branch Davidians, members of Heaven’s Gate, the Zealots of the first century and Jim Jones’ People’s Temple all passionately believed their flawed dogma just as the liberation theologians believes. Where are they now? Existentialism benefits neither man nor beast, yet Professor Cone has chosen existentialism as the foundation of black liberation theology.
The First Commandment is objective. There are no gray areas; God is God, the ultimate, perhaps the only truth. We are His creation, He is our Creator. We obey Him, not our “objective uncertainties.”
Existentialism is essentially the pseudo-intellectual adopting the emotional maturity of a toddler. If the toddler wants something, he must have it; if the existentialist feels it, it must be true. If the academic posits a theory, no matter the empirical evidence to the contrary, it must be correct based upon the passions of the theorist. The world, the universe and all truth is contained in the limited sphere of the self-absorbed individual. Personal passions and experience define truth only for the weak-minded. Think back in your own life. Did you have a teacher you passionately thought was cruel and abusive toward you and later realized that teacher brought out your best efforts? Was there a high school sweetheart you knew you could never live without, at least until your met that new kid transferred into your fifth period class? Personal experience and passion do not define truth. Hard evidence that cannot be refuted defines the truth. By using existentialism as the foundation for its theology, our prophet has built his house upon the sands.
The unstable foundation of any theology based upon an existentialist perspective is clearly exposed when the prophet speaks of God. “If creation ‘involves a bringing into existence something that did not exist before’ then to say god is creator means that my being finds its source in God. I am black because God is black! God as creator is the ground of my blackness (being), the point of reference for meaning and purpose in the universe.
“If God, not whiteness, is the ground of my being,, then God is the only source of reference regarding how I should behave in the world. … Rather it is incumbent upon me by the freedom granted by the creator to deny whiteness and affirm the blackness of God
“…The system is based on whiteness, and what is necessary is a replacement of whiteness with blackness. God as creator means that oppressed humanity is free to revolutionize society, assured the acts of liberation are the work of God.” (Cone, p.80)
The prophet asserts
• God is the Creator
• God created him and he is black, therefore, God is black
• Being created black instills an amorphous blackness into all blacks and this blackness is the measure of the prophet’s purpose and meaning
• God, not whiteness, must be obeyed. As such, whiteness is against the Will of God.
• Revolutionizing society is not only desirable, it is a command and all actions of the revolutionaries are sacred acts.
His first assertion of God as the Creator is accurate and agrees with the First Commandment. Problems arise once existentialism takes over. Yes, God created the prophet and Dr. Cone is black, but does that make God black? Did a white God make white people? What about the oppressed Hispanics and Amerindians? Now we’re up to four existentialist Gods. Do the children of mixed race parents have a separate deity from each of their parents or do they get their own idol to worship? Before this gets truly absurd, can we agree that God being black, white, red, yellow, orange or blue is not in accord with the First Commandment?
The errors further compound with the third assertion of the nature of blackness. Existentialism leads the prophet to assume that since he is black God is black and that the blackness of God means that God acts like the prophet does. Throughout history, God has sent His Messengers to give us the message that our Creator wants us to adopt the behavior of the Divine and cast aside our materialistic desires. God does not act as we do; He calls for us to act as He does. Today black liberation theology, like the other strains of liberation theology, wants, no demands, that God act like humans! In making this demand, liberation theology puts the oppressed as the directors of the acts of the Creator. Our prophet puts the theologian’s vain desires ahead of God’s Will.
Dr. Cone is correct in asserting we have no greater commitment than our duty toward to God, but is God against all things white? Did the same God Who created the oppressed blacks create their white oppressors, or were whites created by another deity or even a demon? If the same God created both blacks and whites why do whites contravene God’s Will by expressing their whiteness? Existentialist roots do not allow liberation theology to even ask those questions. Their child-like psyches are overwhelmed by the cognitive dissonance.  Even the most ardent liberation theologian cannot fathom multiple deities based upon race, class, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. Even those who fabricate their own laws for the Creator cannot overtly confess to a multiplicity of gods or the creation of evil white racists by Yakub and his demonic forces.
The fourth assertion that God, not whiteness, must be obeyed, allows wide latitude of action for the prophet’s flock. Dr. Cone writes, “To be human is to be in the image of God-that is, to be creative: revolting against everything that is opposed to humanity. Therefore, whatever we say about sin and the human inability to know God because of the fall, it must not in any way to diminish the human freedom to revolt against oppression. …
“It is the biblical concept of the image of God that makes black rebellion in America human. When black persons affirm their freedom in God, thy must say no to white racists. By saying no, they say yes to God and their blackness, affirming at the same time the inhumanity of the white neighbor who insists on playing God. Black theology emphasizes the right of blacks to be black and by so doing to participate in the image of God.
“The image of God refers to the way in which God intends human beings to live in the world.” (Cone, p. 99)
Transferring the wealth of white suburbanite to black inner-city youth by the sale of illegal drugs may not be condoned by Dr. Cone but it surely has not been condemned. Burning and looting neighborhood businesses, as long as the owners aren’t black, is just another expression of blackness to followers of black liberation theology. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. All these commandments are cast aside in the effort to reconstruct a new society, a supposedly black society. And what does this society look like? Detroit may be the best example of our prophet’s new Eden.
This new society seems to hold whites as a bit less than human. By equating whiteness with demonic behavior, by declaring the inhumanity of whites, our prophet subtly indicates whites are not loved by his God. “The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience or God is a God of racism.” (Cone, p. 67)
Not only does D. Cone claim that God does not love white people but again the prophet puts limits upon God: God must be identified with the oppressed and God is not allowed to show any concern or compassion toward whites. It is somewhat like an ant dictating to a farmer where to plant his crops, but theologians have rarely been reluctant to tie the hands of the Creator, so this may be expected. But why would the prophet limit God’s ability to love His Creation?
There are a number of possible answers to that question, among them are these two: 1) whites are not the creation of God and 2) God does not love white racists putting whites outside the purview of how the chosen should treat whites under the guidance of the Ten Commandments. The first point was examined as we discussed the links to the Nation of Islam and the story of Yakub. That leaves the possibility that since God does not love white people blacks can treat them as sub-humans. Although I could find no overt statement supporting that position in Dr. Cone’s works, the inference can be made quite readily reading just the passages quoted in this section. Throughout his book, Dr. Cone’s dismissiveness and contempt for whites who disagree with him is reminiscent of the ministers and theologians who called for separate but equal accommodations in the Jim Crow era. In both situations the true racist message was masked with subtle language, profound misinterpretation of Scripture and a specious claim that God is on the side of the speaker. Different eras, different speakers, but the same errant message is spewed from the liberation theologian’s pulpit. In the base tradition of so many charlatans before him, Dr. Cone claims to call his followers to follow God’s Will but instead demands God to follow Dr. Cone’s will. In so doing, the prophet has put his selfish desire as a false god before the One True God.
How else can the following passage be interpreted? “There is no revelation of God without a condition of oppression which develops into a situation of liberation. God comes to those who have been enslaved and abused and declares total identification with their situation, disclosing to them the rightness of their emancipation on their own terms. (emphasis added) …
“When we apply this view of God’s revelation to the existing situation of blacks in America, we immediately realize that the black revolution in America is the revelation of God. Revelation means black power- that is, the ‘complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means necessary.’ …
“God’s revelation has nothing to do with white suburban ministers admonishing their congregations to be nice to black persons.” (Cone, p. 48) To assert there is no revelation of God without a condition of oppression is a factual error. Noah’s society was oppressed not by tyrants but by sinfulness. Abraham was not oppressed when He received God’s revelation. Moses was not oppressed when God spoke to Him on Mount Horeb, but the Hebrews were. Israel was under Roman occupation at the time of Jesus but the Arabian Peninsula was not oppressed at when Muhammad revealed His revelation. From a historic perspective, God can reveal His message whether the society into which it is delivered is oppressed or free, as Dr. Cone would define oppression. History tells us God’s Hand is not tied, yet the prophet is intent upon shackling the Almighty.
God’s Message has always shown the path to true emancipation, but that emancipation follows the laws the Creator has directed man to obey, not the recipients of that emancipation claiming freedom on their own terms. God’s path to emancipation has always been along the path laid down by the Ten Commandments; we worship and revere God, while we respect our fellow man. Dr. Cone deviates from that path when he calls for his followers to claim their emancipation by whatever means necessary. Further, Dr. Cone limits the reach of the Almighty’s message by withholding that message from white suburban ministers and their ilk.
Unfortunately, Dr. Cone is not finished constricting God’s reach. He demands his followers to reject any directives he finds unsuitable, “Unless God’s revelation is related to black liberation, blacks must reject it.”(Cone, p. 88) Which verses of the Gospel does Dr. Cone demand his followers reject? Is turning the other cheek related to black liberation? What of the Old Testament punishment of stoning adulterers and homosexuals? Dr. Cone and his followers may not turn the other cheek to white racists or cops arresting black drug dealers but when black street gangs terrorize our inner cities and murder and intimidate the very people our fraudulent prophet ostensibly claims to represent, his cheek is turned and his eyes are closed. His white enemies are excoriated for not doing enough, not being sensitive enough, yet the miscreants in his flock can commit thousands of murders every year and he is silent. How strange, how very strange is this prophet’s message.
By claiming authority over God and flouting the First Commandment, the other nine will provide no limits to the prophet and his misguided flock. Righteous anger over oppression has become an all-consuming hatred of the oppressors. Black liberation theology has taken this hatred and fashioned its golden calf. Murder is tolerated so long as it advances blackness and retards whiteness. Lies are not only tolerated, they are embraced to discredit the “system.” The recent “hands up, don’t shoot” movement was based upon the lie that Michael Brown was surrendering in the street to the police when in reality; he was reaching into the patrol car for the officer’s weapon. Dr. Cone demands liberation by any means necessary casting aside all of God’s Commandments. If the liberation theology’s goal is to goad its followers toward anarchy, why should our prophet and his followers let the truth get in the way of a good protest?
Dr. Cone and his fellow liberation theologians have developed a dogma where man rules over God. The oppressed, the self-righteous victims of society, can do no wrong in their battle against the “system.” Laws of God or man do not apply to the victims but the slightest infraction committed by a perceived oppressor is amplified and broadcast. The mote in the eye of the racist becomes a tree while the tree in the eye of the prophet becomes an atom. He has created a society where his followers can do no wrong and his detractors can do no right. He has given his flock a fruit of self-importance, self-righteousness, hedonistic anarchy and cloaked it in the sacred vestments of the church. The current state of our inner-cities is the fruiting of the tree of black liberation theology. Like the fruit of the false prophets that have preceded him, Dr. Cone had produced a very foul fruit which is destroying the very flock it purports to feed.

Odd Fruit

While liberation theologies do not embrace traditional values such as honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, chastity and temperance, their active renunciation of one traditional spiritual fruit has all but destroyed the prospects of progress for their followers. By eliminating any traces of personal responsibility and assigning all blame for the problems  victim encounters to oppression, these false prophets have stripped any sense of self-determination from their believers and kept them ever looking toward the past, unable to move confidently into the future.
When every negative outcome in a person’s life is the result oppression, a fatalistic hopelessness overcomes the individual and the desire to take positive steps to improve one’s life evaporates. Instead of seeking to better oneself through education or seeking a better job, those flocks who adhere to liberation theology wander in the desert of despair seeking help from the very entity they hold accountable for all their afflictions: the government.
In black liberation theology, this backward focused mindset has been particularly damaging. For the educational opportunities generations of the past fought and bled for, the current generations eschews while they label education and academic achievement “white.” By embracing an anti-educational bias, black liberation theology seems to teach that ignorance is part of blackness. Don’t try to sell that to the nations of Africa. Black African leaders, like those of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa do not embrace an illiterate and ignorant population. That continent is striving to bring world-class educational standards to their nations so an educated populace can lead their nations out of poverty. Yet in America, where education is freely provided the value of a sound education is casually dismissed. By not advocating strong educational standards, black liberation theology lays down the first step in the endless cycle of poverty its followers have embarked upon.
Charlatans prey upon the weak-minded; an ignorant flock is far easier to lead. The churches in our inner-cities have congregations with no desire to learn, no culture of reading, a lack of critical thought and no desire to question the corrupted message they receive each Sunday. These congregations are truly flocks of sheep with the Judas goat leading from the pulpit. Having abandoned self-sufficiency, the congregation has chosen to become wards of the state, expecting, hoping and demanding that the government will provide that which the individuals do not seem to care to provide for themselves.
Over fifty years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan accurately predicted the result of dependence upon governmental largesse,, yet he was excoriated by the black clergy. Viewed dispassionately, we can see that the trillions of dollars spent on welfare have not succeeded in raising the living standard of America’s black families. Quite the opposite: the economic gains made by black families in the 40’s, 50’s, and early 60’s have been stalled. We now have almost ¾ of black families headed by women living under the poverty line. With the trend of more single parent black families from decade to decade, how does this reliance upon the governmental assistance affect its recipients? Would it be good for us, as a society, to ask if this massive transfer of wealth has had a positive or negative effect upon the recipients? Has the boom in welfare programs since the 1960’s up to today alleviated, reduced or perpetuated poverty? A serious debate of the true effect of welfare in the perpetuation of poverty is subject to the censorship of the leaders of the oppressed.
Let’s look at a single statistic and analyze it. Fact: 33 percent of black children to live in poverty while only 13 percent of white children do. (All the figures for this analysis can be found at
Just looking at the bare statistics, it looks like, yes, race is a major factor in childhood poverty. But is race a contributing factor? Looking at the statistics on a deeper level, it turns out that with similar marital status for the mothers, the incidence of childhood poverty is nearly identical between blacks and whites. If children born to single white mothers experience poverty at a comparable rate to children born to single black mothers, could one assume that the marital of the mother may be equally, if not more, important than the race of the mother? If we wanted to stress individual responsibility we could say “yes” but if we seek to prove how blacks are continually oppressed by white society we can ignore the facts and label anyone who challenges the orthodoxy of liberation theology a racist, hopefully ending the conversation.
If our goal is to improve the plight of the mother and child don’t we owe it to them to tell the truth that Dr. Moynihan knew half a century ago? Shouldn’t we encourage our children, the girls especially, to refrain from premarital sex and not have children the parents cannot afford to raise? Shouldn’t we encourage our children to take education seriously, to apply themselves at school? The average new black mother has math and verbal skills in the bottom fifth percentile while the average new white mother is just about average. Would a better educated young black woman be less likely to engage in risky behavior? Would a pregnant woman unaccustomed to life on public assistance be less likely to accept that assistance and more likely to find a means to support herself and her child and escape the generational cycle of poverty?
These are questions we cannot ask for fear of being labeled racist yet they are the very questions we must ask if we expect large numbers of black single parent families to move toward self-sufficiency. Instead of self-sufficiency and self-reliance and the reverence toward God both those traits demand, a succeeding generations are now raising children who do not know their fathers, who do not see an adult going to work to provide for the family and who rely upon politicians and bureaucrats for their daily bread. Rather than denouncing the government’s usurpation of their pastoral duties, the churches have been all too eager to surrender their God-given duties to succor the poor in favor of larger budgets and better sound systems for the new choir. No longer providing emergency food relief and admonishment to look a little harder for a job, any job that will put food on the table, our churches now direct the poor and needy to the nearest welfare office and wash their hands of the downtrodden. At least, until there is a photo-op during the holidays or the need for a sermon on how the rich should give more to the poor. But never is heard the sermon calling for the poor to work their way out of poverty because once the poor are no longer the poor, once the oppressed are no longer oppressed, there is no need for the preachers of liberation theology.
For over half a century, our poor have entered into a voluntary servitude, trading votes for a meager, demeaning existence. Fathers have been ostracized and promiscuity has been rewarded as mothers gained benefits by having more children and less contact with those children’s fathers. A cycle of dependency has evolved where employment is not encouraged, lest the benefits be reduced, but welfare benefits are just enough to survive, not to thrive or advance. The poor are urged to just vote, vote for the candidate your pastor endorsed, vote for the candidate who promised to give you more benefits, vote for the politicians who feel your pain. And the congregation dutifully votes for the very policies that forge the chains of servitude.
No matter the election, no matter if the politicians the pastor endorsed wins or loses, the plight of the millions of inner-city blacks continues to deteriorate, day after day, year after year, generation after generation. The false gospel of black liberation theology and the false god of government have united to create its oddest fruit and perpetuate a new underclass of government wards. How strange, how very strange, those who do not forgive the sin of slavery have relegated generations to a new form of servitude.


Black liberation theology aggressively distorts the vision of its adherents. The world it presents is one that is literally black and white, good and evil. You are either an oppressor or a victim. There is no middle ground. Whites have been and always will be evil racists while blacks, Hispanics and American Indians are perpetually downtrodden. The black street gangs who terrorize black inner-city residents do so because the evil white racists give them no other path out of poverty. Wealth and social standing are the result of white privilege (for whites at least), not hard work and preparation. Black successes outside sports and entertainment are discounted as flukes and not role models for youth.
Normally, people would begin to see their error, eyes would open and hearts would soften. With black liberation theology, that cannot happen due to two powerful tools: faith and anger. Dr. Cone’s perversion Christ’s Gospels and the Old Testament are insidious because they are subtle. The truth of the sufferings of the Jews is emphasized yet the reason for that suffering is massaged to suit the secular purposes of the prophet’s political agenda. Christ’s passion is recounted; every lash of the whip, every cut of the thorns, yet Roman Imperialism is made to be the oppressor, not the blindness and self-centeredness of the Jewish theologians. Like any truly convincing lie, black liberation theology is attractively wrapped in a beautiful outer layer of truth. The beauty of the lie makes the deception far easier for the prophet to achieve.
Once the lie is accepted, the second step becomes easier: emotions are manipulated to keep the flock in check. The easiest emotion to arouse, the easiest one to sustain, the single emotion charlatans throughout human history have reliably used to mislead the masses is anger. Once the flock is angry, they will do anything for their shepherd. Unfortunately for his followers, this shepherd is guiding his flock over the cliff.
Have you ever said, have you ever heard anyone say, “Yes, I was angry, but I made the best decision of my life?” More likely, you have said, “I’m sorry, but I was so angry that …” or something to that affect. We don’t make good decisions when we are angry. As individuals we know that to be true but when we get into a group setting, we ignore our own good advice because we need to even the score, to attack whatever strawman is today’s villain, to reclaim that which is rightfully ours. And because we are angry, we cannot see that the resolution of our problems is more dependent upon our own actions than those of others. Anger blinds us to the obvious by closing our ears to non-conforming viewpoints and closing our minds to alternatives. Leaving no room for discussion or compromise, anger leaves only the desire to strike out and attack. Any target will suffice; the anger must be vented. Yet all too often, the unintended consequences of that rage make the situation far worse for the protesting community. The Watts neighborhood in Los Angeles and parts of Detroit still bear scars from the riots over 40 years ago, the same time the prophet’s message took shape.
How do we overcome the anger? For many, especially those who have so internalized the anger over a long time span, that anger may linger for a lifetime, but for everyone afflicted by anger, or any other disease of the soul, the best medicine is prayer. Only prayer can remove the misperception of God as the servant of the oppressed and replace with a profound awe at the nature of our Creator and Lord. The prayer needed is deep, reverent prayer where you truly attempt to communicate with God. Initially, the supplicant will pray in the context of his prophet’s teaching that “The sole purpose of God in black liberation theology is to illuminate the black condition so that blacks can see their liberation is the manifestation of God’s activity.” But as the petitioner moves his concept of his Creator from cosmic servant to the Almighty Creator Whom we are bidden to obey anger will be replaced by calm, rage will be melted by the Creator’s love and the soul will begin to heal. For some, this process may take days, for others years, but for any of the prophet’s flock it will not be easy.
How do your turn your back on the congregation that has nurtured you over the years? Do you stop singing in the choir, do you find a new Bible study, do you end contact with the church all together? These steps will be very difficult; the seeker will find himself labeled a “sellout”, an Uncle Tom, a traitor and worse. His whole support community will question his motives and actions. Challenging the establishment is never easy, especially when the establishment claims victim status and knows any question of the prophet’s authority can only lead to the exposure of the little man behind the curtain of lies.
For each individual there will be a different path, some more difficult than others but as the seeker progresses toward his Beloved, he will seek out others who also love that Beloved. His search may take him to another Christian congregation or his search may turn toward a faith founded in unity that teaches that we are all members of one race, the human race. Then anger will give way to its spiritual opposite: forgiveness.


How does a believer prove the truth of Jesus’ message to a non-believer? Are the miracles proof; is the resurrection conclusive proof to a twenty-first century sceptic? The sceptic would quickly counter with a question: if miracles and the resurrection are proof today, why did they fail to sway the masses of the Jews who witnessed those events two thousand years ago? For a sceptic, miracles are not proof.

When miracles fail, do the social teachings of Christ prove His Mission? Although His social teachings were revolutionary in a world dominated by Imperial Rome, today they are echoed by most contemporary humanist philosophers. And don’t forget that Jesus did not explicitly forbid slavery and His views on pre-marital sex and divorce won’t gain too many converts in today’s permissive society. Let’s not forget the prohibition of homosexuality. So the social teachings are not the revolutionary change they once were.

The aspect of Christ’s message that will gain the respect and then the allegiance of the sceptic is the transformation of the individual who has wholeheartedly accepted that message. To the sceptic, the best proof is the living proof of a believer. Character and action are heard more clearly than sermons and platitudes. Would a sceptic find the character and actions of black liberation theology attractive?

Reading Dr. Cone’s works gives me the distinct impression that he is angry, very angry. His followers are angry as you can determine watching the coverage of a Black Lives Matter rally. Once considered a deadly sin, anger has been transformed into a badge of honor among our prophet’s disciples and his most abundant fruit. But anger is easy to instill into weak minds. Charlatans from Iran’s ayatollah’s to ISIS’s caliph, to Al Qaeda to Hitler and to the crass politician running for dogcatcher can instill anger into the hearts of the weak minded. No self-respecting sceptic will be impressed by anger. Anger is a tool wielded by the wicked for their own interests, not to better mankind, and our sceptic knows that.

But isn’t the anger of the oppressed a legitimate anger? To an extent, yes, but, our sceptic asks, how far do you take that anger? Is it right to claim reparations for slavery from the ancestors of both abolitionists and the slave owners? The ostensible target is the government that sanctioned slavery but who pays the taxes that fund the government? Some of those taxes come from immigrants and their descendants who arrived after the Civil War; how are they responsible? And that does not account for the taxes taken from the descendants of those slaves. How does that make sense?

In Deuteronomy, chapter 2 verse 26, we read “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” So how, the sceptic asks, can reparations be demanded for sins removed by over five generations? Is this justice or is it anger disguised as fair-play?

In his rejection of all things white, Dr. Cone has nurtured an anti-intellectual, anti-academic attitude in black communities. Graduation rates may be increasing, but mastery of academic subjects among blacks is falling. Black students consistently rank at or near the bottom of standardized test scores. There are still claims that the test scores are culturally biased, but how are first generation Asian students able to surpass virtually every other grouping if the tests are biased toward white participants? Black students are harvesting the fruit of the anti-intellectual leanings of black liberation theology and it is a very bitter harvest.

Jesus, Moses, Buddha and the Founders of the world’s great religions brought disparate groups together, forged a community of diverse individuals, bonded rich and poor, young and old, slave and free. Yet in black liberation theology the oppressed will never be one with the oppressors, whites must be destroyed and blackness prevail. Other oppressed groups may be welcome in the new society black liberation theology is striving to bring forth, but there is no allowance made for the racist white oppressors. Black liberation theology creates a society one can never call inclusive and this exclusivity is one more reason for the sceptic to doubt its claim to speak for the Creator.

Our prophet has transformed another vice into a virtue: envy, masked as “white privilege,” has taken its place among the fruits served at the table of black liberation theology. White privilege is the new catch all for all the problems blacks suffer. Why don’t blacks get better grades in school? White privilege is the answer. Why do black families not earn as much as white families? It’s not because most black households are headed by a single woman, no it’s white privilege. When one out of three young black men is incarcerated for criminal activity, it is white privilege that allows white collar miscreants who have not broken any law to stay out of prison. Whites studying at the Dartmouth College library were verbally assailed by campus NAACP members for exercising their white privilege to study. It may seem obvious to suggest that the NAACP could suggest the protesters study more if they want better grades, but that suggestion does not fit into the template black liberation theology has created. In our prophet’s new religion; vice has replaced virtue.

Religion, throughout all of human history, has brought out the best of humanity. Civilizations were raised under the guidance of religion; educational institutions laid the foundations for great advances in knowledge and civilization. In our own country, the greatest hospitals, universities (including Dartmouth) and charities have strong roots in the religious heritage of their founders. To the individual, religion gives the capacity to love others, to overcome prejudices, to accept with open arms the stranger, to sacrifice individual desires for the common good and to eliminate generations old prejudices. No other source has the transformational power on the individual and society that religion possesses, both for good, or when misused by false prophets, for evil.

Religion moves the individual’s focus externally, bettering oneself for the betterment of all mankind. Yet, black liberation theology, and all of liberation theology, turns the individual inward, focusing on his victimization and how others are going to assist him. That inward focus moves the individual away from reliance upon the Creator and toward dependency upon governments and politicians. By turning inward and waiting for politicians to provide solution, the adherents of liberation theology forsake their own initiative and reliance upon God’s assistance. No longer is God the Provider. In liberation theology this role has been supplanted by government and politicians.

Politicians may affect a society for a decade, but leaders come and go, personalities supersede ideals and soon the call to a greater good becomes a call to greater power for the entrenched. This concept is clearly shown today in the workers’ and peasants’ republics. Leaders speak grand words guaranteed to mesmerize the masses while those masses yearn to live free lives away from the very leaders so loved by the proponents of liberation theologies. The fruits of good works are not nearly as important as the hollow promise of grand pronouncements of those who claim to speak for the oppressed. Yet these very oppressors, the Castro’s, the dictators of Central and South America, the repressive leaders of the Middle East and Asia are the world leaders liberation theology idealizes. No mention is made of the mass imprisonments and executions their idols have perpetrated, no as long as the oppressor speaks a good lie in his search for power, liberation theologians rush to defend him. Our prophet has joined with the other wolves as he preys upon his own flock.

The strangest fruit of black liberation theology may be blindness. This blindness comes from the perpetuation of the role of the victim, the constant need for blacks to attribute oppression and racism to any negative situation. When black gang members are arrested, it is the police who are excoriated as racists. When black students fail to achieve their potential it is the administrators who are at fault. When black families incomes lag behind it is racism that is to blame, not the lack of two parent families. Blaming others is easier than looking to oneself for solutions but leads only to a continuation of the very conditions one is attempting to overcome. Until each individual takes a good, hard look at the man in the mirror solutions will never develop. But to take that look, one needs to take off, if only for a moment, the blinders our prophet has fashioned. Once one does that, he will see what strange fruit his prophet has offered.

Society and Black Liberation Theology Part 3

Dr. Cone’s teachings have real, tangible effects in our daily lives. When the prophet calls for action and his followers act, the truth of the prophet’s message can then be clearly ascertained. So what is prophet’s conception of self-determination when he said; “We now believe that something can be done about this world, and we have resolved to die rather than deny the reality expressed in black self-determination.” (Cone, p. 149) Does black self-determination call for black entrepreneurs starting business, employing workers, building incomes and economic security for black families?

One would think that after over forty years of calling for self-determination black ownership of business would increase, yet while the total number of black owned businesses has increased, the percentages of blacks owning businesses lags well behind the rates for whites and even behind Hispanics. Both groups are among the oppressed our prophet claims to speak for, yet one has experienced greater success in climbing the economic ladder than the other. Why?

Part of the answer may lie in the types of businesses blacks own. According to a US Census Bureau report released July 13, 2010, the largest categories of black owned businesses were in healthcare and social services. For Hispanic owned businesses, the largest category was construction. The average income for the black businesses was $72,000 while that for the average Hispanic business was more than twice that, $150,000. Healthcare and social services rely upon government programs for a large portion of their income while construction allows for a much broader client base. Reliance upon governmental contracts and ignoring the private sector has not been lucrative for the black entrepreneurs.

Part of the reliance upon government by black owned businesses may be based in our history, both recent and from generations past: for far too long, a black Ph.D., no matter the school or his field of study, could not get a job in the white corporate world. Far too many of our country’s brightest scientists, mathematicians, linguists and others could only find employment from the local, state or federal government. At one time, the US Post Office had the greatest number of black Ph.D.’s on its payroll of any employer in the country. And those learned, industrious intellectuals worked as letter carriers, clerks, drivers and mail handlers. Seeds were sown linking black prosperity, or at least black entry into the middle class, to government.

The government that allowed for discrimination elsewhere in the economic sphere had, by positioning itself as the employer of last resort, become the de facto champion of the very people it was, by the laws it enacted, instrumental in oppressing for generations. How strange, how very, very strange.

When the restrictions of black employment gave way to affirmative action, the government that had such a powerful influence in the lack of opportunity magnified its commitment to the progress of blacks.
Yet, while affirmative action was being implemented by part of the government, other departments were destroying the black family as welfare programs expanded their reach and influence. Is this what Dr. Cone considers self-determination? Has governmental intervention into the economy and personal lives of blacks helped to advance the prosperity of blacks or has the government so mismanaged its programs that governmental interferences have caused additional poverty and oppression?

If true self-determination is the goal of Dr. Cone, then economic self-reliance, i.e. free market capitalism, is the only economic path available. In the free market, the individual relies upon himself, not on the government. Yet black liberation theology, like other liberation theologies, has a definite socialist –almost a Marxist- orientation. This seems odd because if you are calling for freedom and self-determination why are property rights not first and foremost among the rights you advocate? Prosperity begins when the individual has the options to allocate his property, his capital (cash) or his time (labor) to his best economic advantage. Although Dr. Cone’s call for socialism seems more of an anti-capitalist response, presumably because capitalism is a white theory, he ignores the fact that socialism is far more injurious to the downtrodden than capitalism ever will be. By providing the poor with just enough money to eke out a minimal existence, socialism keeps the poor in poverty for generations while the free market allows escape.

A brief discussion of economic theory is needed for clarification. Under capitalism an individual is free to buy and sell his property to the highest bidder. If you wish to sell your labor to a business owner, you have the right to seek out offers from competitive firms and take the best offer. Their offers will be dependent upon your skills and the business owner’s need for those skills. Thus a skilled welder can offer his services to a construction company for a higher rate of pay than he would get from a bicycle repair shop.

When the welder has worked for a few years, honed his skills and built up his savings, he can go out on his own and hire other welders to do custom fabrications for his former employer, his former employer’s competitors and private individuals who need his type of work. Now, instead of making a wage, our welder is making a profit, a profit which he uses to hire other welders, buy equipment, pay rent and have money to set aside for his family.

In a socialist economy, the government decides where our welder works and his rate of pay. He can save money to start his own shop, but the same government that decided he should be a welder and not a carpenter or a pediatrician, can deny his request to open his own welding business. But the government is not done with our welder; taxes are due to pay for the monthly benefits of those who cannot work and those who choose an unearned stipend and over an earned wage.

Our current economy resembles neither the pure capitalist economy nor the pure socialist economy. With all the regulations on land use, the licensing requirements for one third of all job categories and the rules and restrictions on what businesses can and cannot do with their property, we have an economy where our welder can still own his business but the government tells him what he can and cannot do with that business; currently we label that “crony capitalism.” Under crony capitalism, those who have access to the government, no matter whether it is local, state or national, write the laws, control the bidding and get multi-million dollar contracts from the politicians. No matter if it is a defense contractor, a bridge builder or the politically-connected owner of a solar energy company, regulators and politicians of both parties are more than happy to help their cronies at the expense of the people. When their public service ends, the politicians and bureaucrats move into nice, well-paid positions for the same companies they once regulated. In the 1930’s this style of economy had a different name and quite a few adherents in Washington D.C.; it was called fascism. And that is what our economy is today.

Professor Cone eschews private control of the economy while he accepts governmental control, as long as his people are in the government. Are we to believe that the government that once oppressed blacks by forbidding black ownership of land or private property in the early years of our country, the government that redlined neighborhoods in the 1930’s, that enslaves inner-city blacks with public assistance in exchange for votes will somehow be changed to help the poor and oppressed? Then what new group will the government choose to oppress? But that is the solution of the socialists. You rely upon the government and the government takes care of you. Not as well as you may like but just enough so you don’t complain too loudly. Under liberation theology God is gone, replaced by the deity of the state.

Does self-determination mean the oppressed can vote to take the resources of the oppressors? That approach hasn’t worked well in Zimbabwe but perhaps Dr. Cone can get better results here. We might get a new government, a government free of the sins of the past, eager to commit the sins of the future.

Perhaps self-determination means the oppressed are allowed to establish their own police force, to serve as citizen enforcers of the law. That is what Rev. Bryant advocated in Baltimore and what three women implemented in Philadelphia on April 7, 2015.

Robert Barnes was a homeless man in Philadelphia. Like most of the homeless, Mr. Barnes had issues with substance abuse and his social skills were not the best. Yet, he was no menace to society and no threat to those around him. To make a few extra dollars Robert would pump gas for motorists at self-service gas stations.

On that April afternoon, Barnes was not alone seeking tips for pumping gas at a Sunoco station; a ten year old boy was competing for those same tips and apparently the gas station did not have enough customers for both Barnes and the boy. An argument ensued; Robert could be very argumentative when he was drinking. The distraught boy got on his bicycle and rode home while Barnes stayed at his station, pumping gas for cash.

When the boy arrived home his mother noticed he was injured. Blame was placed squarely upon the white homeless man, Robert Barnes. According to the boy, the two of them had an argument and Barnes had struck the black boy, chasing him away from the station. The boy’s mother along with two of her friends went to implement some street justice. No, the women did not call the police to arrest the over-privileged perpetrator of the assault on the boy, why would they trust the police anyway? Dr. Cone and Rev. Bryant preach the self-policing of neighborhoods. No, the women grabbed a hammer, a piece of a broken chair and a can of mace, got into the mother’s minivan, brought three more children, and went out to execute street justice. Robert Barnes was savagely beaten by three women, two boys and a girl. He spent over seven months in a coma before he died on November 25. Surveillance video showed both the boy leaving the Sunoco in good health (the boy lied, he fell off his bike on the way home) and the ferocity of the attack. The three children, murderers before they enter high school, pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated assault. As of this writing, the women are awaiting trial.

Did you read about this attack in your local newspaper? Perhaps you heard about it on the network news? Or was it on the radio you learned of this atrocity? Probably not. Three black women bringing three black children to a beat down doesn’t make waves outside Philadelphia. Ask yourself if this story had been about three white women and their children beating a homeless black man would it have been the topic of cable news for at least two or three days, would the President have commented on it and would the Justice Department be conducting a civil rights investigation? The only honest answer to those questions is a resounding, yes, yes and yes. But since it was the oppressed who arose and killed a privileged oppressor, even a wrongfully accused oppressor, you heard nothing. Black lives may matter, but for the adherents of black liberation theology, white lives can be extinguished at the whim of the oppressed. That is the self-determination of which our new prophet speaks.

Society under Black Liberation Theology Part 2

The dystopian society black liberation theology directs us toward; the same dysfunctional fruits all liberation theologies produce include not only revenge, confrontation and destruction. In his constant effort to destroy all traces of whiteness, Dr. Cone seemingly tolerates murder when done in the name of liberation. “As the oppressed now recognize their situation in the light of God’s revelation, they know that they should have killed their oppressors instead of trying to ‘love’ them.” (Cone, p. 54) The Jesus Who chastised Peter for defending Him with a sword is now putting assault rifles into the hands of the oppressed. Ask yourself if this seems logical.
Isaiah tells us “’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” (Isaiah, 55:8-9, NIV) But Isaiah lived thousands of years ago so perhaps Prof. Cone has first-hand knowledge that God has seen the light and come to endorse the vengeful ways of man.
The vengeful efforts of the black communities, especially in major urban areas which have been governed by the adherents of black liberation theology, are ostensibly directed to the evil racist white oppressors but more greatly affect the poor black residents of the gang infested neighborhoods. Baltimore’s travails have already been cited in past postings; Drs. Cone and Bryant have created an urban utopia in that city, a utopia for the gangs and drug dealers, at least. Not so nice if you want to raise a family or have your seven year old daughter safe from stray bullets while doing her homework.
Detroit, the home of Marcus Garvey, Elijah Muhammad and Albert Cleage gave us Coleman Young (endorsed by Mr. Cleage) in 1974. For the next twenty years Mayor Young promoted Black Nationalism and presided over the exodus of white residents and business owners. Forty years after his election, Detroit has too few police to respond to emergency calls, too little money to pay for the street lights and some of the most entrenched street gangs in the country. On the plus side, you can buy a single family home in Detroit for $20,000, but, white, brown, yellow or black, you probably don’t want to live there.
Whether it’s Newark, Philadelphia, Oakland, St. Louis or New Orleans, when the tenants of liberation theology guide a city the very oppressed that are to be helped are the ones bearing the brunt of the suffering!
Dr. Cone does call on his followers to ease the suffering of their neighbor, “Christians must fight against evil, for not to fight, not to do everything they can to ease their neighbor’s pain, is to deny the resurrection.” (Cone, p. 149) Does Dr. Cone call on his followers to throw away the drugs, to turn in the gang bangers terrorizing their neighborhoods, to promote educational excellence for their children, to not have children before marriage or to work their way out of poverty? Not really. The only evil Dr. Cone addresses in his works is the evil of white racism. But it is not white racism which keeps blacks behind whites economically; blacks are kept behind whites, to a large extent, by the rising incidence of children born out of wedlock, not becoming educated and not keeping families intact. These simple steps are black values in Africa, why cannot they be black values in America?
Increasingly, our cities, which once were segregated by law, are becoming separated by will. Whether this separation is that willful and conscious separation as advocated by Malcolm X or an economic result of white flight to the suburbs, our cities are no more integrated today than they were under Jim Crow. According to Dr. Cone: “Whites can leave the ghetto whenever they please, but blacks are confined against their will. Black suffering is not by choice but is a result of the evil of white racists, who believe that they have the first, last, and only work on how the world ought to be run.” (Cone, p. 109)
Even in 1970 when A Black Theology of Liberation was first published that statement was a bit melodramatic. Thanks to the federal fair housing laws, blacks who could afford to move out of the ghettos had the legal protections to get loans, to sign leases and to buy homes in once lily-white neighborhoods. In 2010, the year of the fortieth anniversary edition which I have been quoting throughout this series, the only impediment to moving out of the ghetto was income, not skin color. Yet, Dr. Cone’s tone has not changed to meet the new realities of forty years of racial progress. It is as though black liberation theology sees the United States in a perpetual reenactment of the post-reconstruction South. But since there is no need for the black theology of liberation if white racism is not herding blacks into ghettos just one step removed from the Holocaust’s gas chambers, white racism must be found whether it exists or not.
Rather than acknowledge the progress made during the past decades, black liberation theology sees the world in its stark shades of black and white. “We now believe that something can be done about this world, and we have resolved to die rather than deny the reality expressed in black self-determination.” (Cone, p. 149) Do blacks die when they move out of the Ghettos? Are white vigilantes waiting for their next victim coming into white neighborhoods? No and no, in fact, blacks are probably safer after having moved out of the inner-city (as are whites, Hispanics of Asians moving out of the same neighborhoods) and a black walking through a predominantly white neighborhood is much safer than a white walking through a black neighborhood. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2012-2013, Special Tabulation) So who is the oppressor and who is the victim?
Regardless of the truth, the victims must be black if black liberation theology is to remain viable; for there is no need for this theology if white racism and black victimhood diminish. Victimization has its own reward, the blessings of the new prophet: “Today the oppressed are the inhabitants of the black ghettos, Amerindian reservations, Hispanic Barrios and other places where whiteness has created misery. To participate in God’s salvation is to cooperate with the black Christ as he liberates his people from bondage. Salvation, then, primarily has to do with earthly reality and the injustice inflicted on those who are helpless and poor. To see the salvation of God is to see this people rise up against its oppressors, demanding that justice become a reality now, not tomorrow.” (Cone, pp. 135 – 136)
In John, 18:36, Jesus stated, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (KJV), but now our new prophet states the kingdom is upon us. Is this because Dr. Cone has coerced the Father and the Son to accede to his will? Or are theses the rantings of a cult leader who has perverted the teachings of the Gospels to his own ends? Black liberation theology has revealed another of its fruits, this time self-delusion.

Society under Black Liberation Theology Part 1

A society influenced by black liberation theology will be one of shifting absolutes, where all are deemed either black or white one day but on the next white is black and black is white. There are no gray areas; if you fail to enthusiastically endorse all the current goals of the black community you are an oppressor and need either re-education or eradication. Even God must toe the line according to Dr. Cone: “black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us, if God is not against white racists, then God is a murderer, and we had better kill God.” (Cone p. 28)


The above quote illustrates why I have contempt for very idea of “theology.” First, this version of theology demands, demands, that God follow its dictates! Who is any man to demand God provide even his next breath, let alone to become “identified totally” with his cause? My religion has a very simple hierarchy; God is the absolute Authority, period. We follow His dictates not He follows ours. We are the servants; He is the Lord of all. So to demand anything of God borders upon (although I am not sure which side of the border it’s on) blasphemy. I can ask God for His favors but I must be prepared to willingly, even enthusiastically, accept an answer of “no.” A flea more of a right to demand obedience from a theologian than a theologian does demanding anything of the Almighty.


But Dr. Cone is not finished, if the Creator of the Universe does not comply with the wishes of the black community, Dr. Cone is prepared to “kill God.” How does Dr. Cone presume to commit his atrocity? He doesn’t say much about those plans; apparently he hasn’t thought them through. After all, how can a puny human brain that cannot even count the number of stars in the heavens even begin to conceive to commit such a crime against the Creator of those stars? But since God surely has assented to Dr. Cone’s demands, at least the professor has not told us otherwise, our Creator can rest more easily knowing he is safe from the retribution of the black community.


Oddly, once he got past killing the Eternal, Dr. Cone states: “if they can be sure, beyond any doubt of their views of scripture, then they can be equally resolute in imposing their views on as a whole. With God on their side there is nothing that will be spared in the name of ‘the laws of God and men’” (Cone, p. 33). The above quote was not written to rally the faithful around the tenants of black liberation theology, although it flows nicely from earlier quote, no, this comment was made to describe whites using the scriptures to “kill blacks, Amerindians, or anybody else who questions their right to make decisions on how the world ought to be governed.” (Cone, p. 33)


The oppressed are allowed, even encouraged to place demands upon their Creator, but anyone who uses the Scriptures to justify actions not compliant with the goals of the black community only wants to “kill blacks, Amerindians, or anybody else who questions their right to make decisions on how the world ought to be governed.” A bit of a double standard, at least to those of us who are not Christian theologians, but why let logic get in the way when you want to reshape the world?


A world living under the teachings of black liberation theology will be very different from the one in which most of us live. “The appearance of Jesus as the black Christ also meant that the black revolution is God’s kingdom becoming a reality in America. According to the New Testament, the kingdom is a historical event.” (Cone, p. 131) When did Jesus appear? Historical events have specific times and dates, so there must be a record of the arrival. Did Professor Cone have a vision of Christ? Did Jesus bring new teachings? Did Professor Cone announce his vision to anyone? Did he tell his friends at the Nation of Islam? You would think this would be a great announcement to make to all the peoples of the world, not just to his acolytes, but Dr. Cone is a bit vague on the specifics. Nevertheless, Dr. Cone seems to have set himself up to be the next prophet.


“Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the ‘American Way.’” (Cone, p, 59) Dr. Cone surely “proclaims the end of the ‘American Way,’” but is he a true prophet? A large number of theologians have accepted Dr. Cone’s theories, so the that’s not a good sign, but what about the words of the first century Jesus Who proclaimed “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them,” (Matthew 7:20 KJV), Jesus set a standard to which all true prophets would be held. Let’s look at some of the fruits of our new black prophet.


First century Christians found solace in the Gospels while facing persecution in world at large. From a cursory examination, Dr. Cone seems to agree: “This involves suffering because liberation means a confrontation between evil and the will of the God who directs history.” (Cone, p. 107) On a closer inspection, is the suffering Dr. Cone speaks of caused by the oppressors or are the oppressed called to arise and to confront the evil white devils? In the next paragraph, “we cannot be for Jesus and for the societal humiliation of human beings. To be for him means being for the oppressed, as expressed in their self-determination. Jesus himself expresses this by limiting the kingdom of God to the poor and unwanted.” (Cone, p. 107)


Taken in context with previously cited passages that call for the destruction of “whiteness,” the statement that all human suffering has been caused by whites and the willingness to take a few “whiteys” with them if they need to die for the struggle, a strong case could be made that the suffering Dr. Cone envisions is the suffering of white oppressors and the end of the “American Way.” And since whites are not allowed into the Kingdom, what difference will it make anyway? Is that the fruit of the black prophet? Is the black prophet calling for death and destruction of all things white?


Old Testament Prophets warned of God’s punishment for failure to follow His Laws, and that punishment was the source of the people’s suffering. The new black prophet not only calls for but dictates the suffering of the oppressors and revels in its severity while ignoring the consequences directed toward the oppressed. To protest the death of Freddy Gray, blacks in Baltimore burned their own neighborhoods. In a move to remove the police presence from Baltimore’s black neighborhoods, Rev. Jamal Bryant called upon street gangs and the Fruit of Islam, the security detail of the Nation of Islam, to patrol the streets and keep the peace. What was the result of throwing off the oppressor’s yoke? Baltimore had its bloodiest summer in half a century. The self-appointed champions of the oppressed have become the instrument of oppression, all in the name of black liberation theology. But Drs. Cone and Bryant can rest assured that during 2015 the vast majority killers of the almost three hundred black homicide victims in Baltimore to date, as of December 7, have not been white cops but other Baltimore blacks. That is the society black liberation theology promises. The first fruits of our new black prophet, then, are destruction, confrontation and vengeance.


Our new prophet is contradicting earlier prophets, Deuteronomy 32:35 states: “To Me belongeth vengeance and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste,’” and Romans 12:19 tells us “Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.” But those statements were written well over three and two millennia ago, respectively, so they may not apply to today’s new prophet. When you have the power to demand obedience of your Creator, changing the rules is mere child’s play. And if God does not move fast enough to suit Dr. Cone, he takes that as a sign that the elect must do His work for Him.


Black neighborhoods may feature young black men killing other young black men, the constant threat of crime, children born to children, too few intact families (in the sense of the traditional African family) and those families threatened by drugs and gang violence, its youth the prey of street gangs, schools that are merely day care centers that have given up attempting to educate their students, a culture of anti-intellectualism and anti-social but at least the prophet knows whitey is getting his comeuppance. This is the beginning of the society black liberation promises us. These are the fruits of Dr. Cone’s efforts.





Black Liberation Theology and Race Relations Part 3

How do we resolve our differences? Our parents, our teachers and other authority figures encouraged us to talk out our differences, to discuss what we have in common and what separates us. No matter the differences, we were encouraged to see and respect the other person’s viewpoint. We rarely wind up agreeing but we do have an understanding and respect for each other. Religious leaders, for the most part, strongly advocate this strategy to resolve differences before they become conflicts.
If you understand that different people can have different perspectives and that disagreement does not signify malice, you can appreciate other viewpoints and may even learn from them. How, then, does black liberation theology suggest we resolve our differences? To get that answer, we should look at its perspective.
When Dr. Cone states “Only the oppressed know what is wrong, because they are both the victims of evil and the recipients of God’s liberating activity.” (Cone, p. 114) he seems to indicate that the tenants of black liberation theology are not open for discussion, at least not with whites. He continues, “But it never dawns on these do-gooders that what is wrong with America is not its failure to make the Constitution a reality for all, but rather its belief that persons can affirm whiteness and humanity at the same time. This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it had emerged from the white perspective. The Constitution is white, the Emancipation Proclamation is white, the government is white, business is white, (sic) the unions are white. What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” (Cone, p. 114)
Comfortable in its assertion that blacks are “the recipients of God’s liberation activity” and that God is on their side, black liberation theology does not tolerate discussion. You can see this influence in the black lives matter movement, a movement supported by many followers of Dr. Cone. When someone asks if all lives matter, they are immediately shouted down, labeled as racists and become targets for reprisal. Like any other cult following that believes it has the only true understanding of God’s Will, in black liberation theology the followers of the cult move from the believer to the enforcer of God’s Will. Now, on our campuses, in our major cities, for our presidential candidates, in our business suites and in our pulpits black lives matter activists stand ready to destroy any person or institution they deem unworthy as they promote blackness and destroy all vestiges of whiteness.
Since God’s elect, at least according to black liberation theology, are the only ones with a valid viewpoint, there is neither an inclination nor a need to discuss its teachings. Its teachings are what they demand of God and that is all that matters. Even like-minded white theologians are not tolerated, “The failure of white theology to speak to black liberation struggle only reveals once again the racist character of white thought.” (Cone, p. 31) These theologians aren’t even Christians, because according to Dr. Cone, “Christianity and whiteness are opposites.” (Cone, p. 43)
Why listen to your critics if they aren’t even Christians? How can any white person, the source of all human misery, know any truth that Dr. Cone would heed? How can anyone not involved with the struggles blacks face every day give advice to Dr. Cone? He has stated “we insist the truth is determined only by the oppressed community asserting its existence in an oppressive world.” (Cone p, 42), but is that not akin to a belief that only poor populations can help other poverty stricken communities rise out of poverty? Can one dying of thirst only accept water from another victim of dehydration? Would Dr. Cone forbid starving children to accept food from overweight donors? For the poor to ignore the advice of successful entrepreneurs, to eschew the pursuit of higher education and to develop strong families will only keep them poor. To insist the oppressed have a singular hold on the truth is utterly preposterous. Would Dr. Cone take a child with influenza to a physician suffering with influenza? Of course not! But that is the belief he has when it comes to healing the souls of his followers.
Dr. Cone does make exception when considering non-Christian viewpoints, when he states “Of course, this does not mean that theology should be able to prove that Christianity is superior to other worldviews. In this world of ours, with so many sharply divergent perspectives, it is not possible to know what constitutes proof of superiority.” (Cone, p. 42-43) So white theologians are racists who aren’t really Christian anyway, but he is willing to listen to non-Christian viewpoints? Somehow this belief seems to be a bit hypocritical, but let’s give Dr. Cone the benefit of the doubt.
I am no theologian. As stated earlier, I consider the very thought of theology as the greatest example of man’s arrogance and nothing short of an abomination. Nor am I a Christian. I am looking at the impact of black liberation theology in the continuing deterioration of life in our inner-cities and am firmly convinced that the greatest facilitator of the chaos in our cities are the pulpits where Dr. Cones teachings are expounded.
Black liberation theology has done more to close the gateways to a constructive dialogue between the races since the rise of the KKK. Let’s look at a few examples:
• The exclusionary nature of black liberation theology has kept our churches segregated
• Black liberation theology’s dependence upon white racism for its very existence has caused its adherents to find racism in more and more places where it has never existed. As a case in point, the word “thug” has become a racial pejorative, a word even our President used to describe the Baltimore riots
• In an effort to destroy whiteness
o black youth have eschewed education and academic achievement in an effort to not “act white”
o “According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences the black illegitimacy rate, in the era of rampant segregation in both the north and south, in the era of Jim Crow, when a black man would need to work twice as hard as a white man to earn half the pay, was just 11 percent. Today, after fifty years of welfare and government handouts, the illegitimacy rate is 72%. Yet the pulpits are mute
o The leading cause of death among young black men is not white police officers as our pastors tell us, the leading killer of young black men is other young black men. Just don’t try to have a rational conversation with an activist on this topic.
o Black/white household incomes gaps have widened since 1960. How much of that is due to the high rate of out of wedlock children and poor educational achievement? How many middle class paychecks has black liberation theology kept out of the community with its destructive teachings?
o Money does come into the community as affluent white suburbanites buy drugs sold by black inner city gangs. White families are destroyed by the effects of the drug trade but a very good argument could be the black neighborhoods and families have been damaged far more seriously by the gangs than any white suburb.
When two preachers use the same words in their sermons yet give very different messages, the prospects for communication are poor. When one hand is reached out in friendship and the other is pulled back due to distrust we have little hope for reconciliation. Our combined racial heritage is not something that engenders pride, but overcoming that heritage will take effort from all parties, not one party condemning the other. If we truly wish a joint solution, even if the solution is a complete separation of the races as Malcolm X advocated, we can only get there with an open and frank discussion. If black liberation theology is to be a part of that discussion, its followers will need to look into the mirror to ask what it has done that has caused the problem and what it can do to bring about a solution. It demands just that of whites, politicians, police and any authority figure, now it must demand the same of itself.

Black Liberation Theology and Race Relations Part 2

The churches look the same, the songs are mostly the same, they study the same scriptures and use the same words; so why is there such a wide chasm between the beliefs of our churches on the subject of race? The source of these differences lies in the pulpit and the influences the pastor in the pulpit accepts but the root of the difference lies in hundreds of years of Christian theology.
A few years ago I had a conversation with a protestant minister. She explained the sources for modern Christian teachings come from three sources, the Bible, traditions and current opinions. In Dr. Cone’s books you find the same reliance upon these three sources for his theology. Not being a Christian, I wondered what was black liberation theology’s actual dependence upon the Bible Vis a Vis the other two sources, and from reading Dr. Cone’s works, it seems the Bible is relied upon only when it can be used to buttress the conclusions derived from reliance upon tradition and social desires. Pastors in three churches can all use the same passage from the Gospel and give extremely divergent sermons. When Jesus told Peter” Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. “ (Matthew, 26:52) you could get a sermon advocating pacifism, you could have a sermon promoting adhering to government decrees or you could get a sermon from a liberation theologian who contends “We cannot use Jesus’ behavior in the first century as a literal guide for our actions in the twentieth century.” (Cone, p. 34)
Merely because white and black churches read from the same scriptures, have the same hierarchy and use the same terminology does not mean the words from the pulpits have the same meaning. Our racial and religious divide is being continuously widened by the dogmatic base of liberation theology, “The meaning of scripture is not to be found in the words of scripture as such but only in its power to point beyond itself to the reality of God’s revelation- and in America, that means black liberation.” (Cone, p. 34)
Two churches can have the same architect, be of the same denomination, use the same hymnals and preach on the same passage from Gospels, but if one of those pulpits holds an adherent of liberation theology while the other a more traditionally trained pastor, the messages will be remarkably different. When you remember “The sole purpose of God in black theology is to illuminate the lack condition” (Cone, p. 90) black liberation theology gives an orientation so profoundly different there can be little chance of reconciling the messages.
Where the traditional church strives for inclusion, the liberation church erects walls keeping the oppressors out. Dr. Cone asserts “Appeals to reason and religion do not change the balance of power, because both are used to defend the interests of the oppressors.” (Cone, p. 90) Black parishioners adopt an air of perpetual victimhood and antagonism toward their white co-religionists.
While traditional churches call for equality, Dr. Cone counters with his statement “No black person will ever be good enough in the eyes of whites to merit equality.” (Cone, p.90) Add suspicion to the victimization and antagonism and there is little wonder blacks and whites cannot communicate with each other.
When asked, many pastors will say the goal of their church is to spread the love of God throughout the world. Prof. Cone has a different goal in mind for black liberation theology: “If there is one brutal fact that centuries of white oppression have taught blacks it is that whites are incapable of making any valid judgement about human existence. The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods.” (Cone p. 65) Why bother talking to white people when you can dismiss them so easily.
Where traditional churches preach overcoming difficulties, black liberation theology perpetuates the victimhood of its followers, as traditional churches work to bring us together; black liberation theology reinforces an atmosphere of antagonism between the races. Traditional churches can celebrate the advances we have made toward racial unity while Dr. Cone and his adherents perpetuate a culture of black victimization that effectively stifles any individual initiative.
Clearly, traditional churches and liberation oriented churches do NOT believe in the same Christianity; the words of both may be the same, the scriptures may be the same, but the message is radically different. “The task of explicating the existence of Jesus Christ for blacks is not easy in a white society that uses Christianity as an instrument of oppression. White conservatives and liberals alike present images of a white Jesus that are completely alien to the liberation of the black community. Their Jesus is a mild, easy-going white American who can afford to mouth the luxuries of ‘love,’ ‘mercy,’ ‘long-suffering’ and other white irrelevancies, because he has a multibillion-dollar military force protecting him from the encroachments of the ghetto and the ‘communist conspiracy.’ But black existence is existence in a hostile world without the protection of the law. If Jesus Christ is to have any meaning for us, he must leave the security of the suburbs by joining blacks in their condition. What need do we have for a white Jesus when we are not white but black? If Jesus Christ is white and not black, he is an oppressor, and we must kill him. The appearance of black theology means the black community is ready to do something about the white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution.” (Cone, p. 117)
Most churches do not consider love, mercy and long-suffering as luxuries, rather, these are essential virtues to be adopted and shown to all peoples. Black liberation theology apparently differs. Would Dr. Cone tolerate the oppressed Jesus who asked His Father’s forgiveness for those who crucified Him? But that was the first century Jesus and Dr. Cone does not need to listen to Him.
Although Dr. Cone’s work was first published in 1970 and was framed in the crucible of Jim Crow segregation, the protests and advances of the 60’s and needs that perspective to be fully appreciated, in his fortieth anniversary edition, which is quoted here, no mention is made of the advances our society has made along racial lines. No mention is made of the election in 2008, two years before this edition was released, of America’s first black president, no mention made of increased educational opportunities available to Americans of all colors and no mention that more and that the police and civil servants in all of our cities are increasingly diverse.
While our society is advancing, black liberation theology pulls its adherents back into perpetual victimization and a learned helplessness that stifles the growth of the very community it claims to serve. Black liberation theology is using the words of Jesus to create a boiler ready to explode.

The Real Victims