Posted on 03/17/2008 8:36:50 AM PDT by Ottofire
One of the strangest dialogues in American political history ensued on March 15 when Fox News interviewed Obama's pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, of Chicago's Trinity Church. Wright asserted the authority of the "black liberation" theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins:
Wright: How many of Cone's books have you read? How many of Cone's book have you read?
Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?
(crosstalk)
Wright: How many books of Cone's have you head?
Hannity: I'm going to ask you this question ...
Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?
Hannity: You're very angry and defensive. I'm just trying to ask a question here.
Wright: You haven't answered - you haven't answered my question.
hit the link for the complete article...
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
It's not nice to fool with Father of Natural Law.
... and putting “black” in front of it tends to bring the obvious results, I’d say.
FWIW, Finney’s dead fingers are deep in this abomination.
Add in equal parts racism and victimology and you have Rev. Wright's "Black Liberation Theology" which isn't a theology at all but a political manifesto.
Thats it Gamecock!
Blaspheming Finney?!? You better go to next weeks altar call!
Ahhh, the Altar Call.
The Evangelical version of penance.
Black Liberation Theology is just a poor rip-off of a more scholarly liberation theology that arose out of the Latin American Catholic Church. It started after Vatican II with the seminal work of Paul Gauthier’s “The Poor, Jesus and the Church” (1965) and then to a Brazilian theologian from Princeton, Rubem Alves, “Towards a Theology of Liberation” (1968)and then to Peruvian Catholic priest, Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, O.P., “A Theology of Liberation” (1972). These were inspired by Jurgen Moltmann’s “Theology of Hope” (1964). These are scholarly works unlike Cone’s “Black Theology and Black Power”.
Liberation theology uses a Marxist model to interpret Christian faith through the poor’s suffering, their struggle and hope, and it critiques the institutions of society and culture and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor. It emphasizes “praxis”, the “preferential option for the poor,” is as important as belief, if not more so and “orthopraxis” over “orthodoxy.”
Moltmann’s “Theology of Hope” is a very interesting study. Don’t write it off because of the extremes that came from it.
I have no doubt that it came from Latin America. But the pragmatism of Finney (the ends justifies the means) kicked the door open for the former to creep in...
And does he properly attribute what is of the Kingdom of Jesus and what is of the kingdoms of this world?
And does he properly attribute what is of the Kingdom of Jesus and what is of the kingdoms of this world?
ping to Spengler on Obama/Wright
“Moltmann sees the entire story of Israel as a unique historic pilgrimage as Israel is confronted by the God of promise. Israel’s entire identity is in light of the promises of God. In Jesus Christ the future kingdom is present, but as future kingdom. His resurrection is the firstfruits of the resurrection and can have meaning only within that universal horizon of meaning. Christian life and salvation are firstfruits, living in the promise of the future of God in Christ.”
BTW, I find an old alert, akin to seeing blinders put on, when someone would say that Israel's "entire" identity is in light of the promises of God as a prima facaie statement.
This would imply that God is not "living and active," engaged and critically interested in the past and the present causes and effects, not only "in light of" what is promised in the future. I sense a likely observer's self-contradiction, there. Seeing God in light of Hosea is not seeing God in light of only His promises. (Just ask any good husband.)
IOW, when one chooses to see something only "in light of" an aspect of God, he ceases to dwell in all of the light of God. When speaking of the ultimate, one can only speak of God, Himself.
(Baptist PK not intending to become a lawyer nor physician).
Hey, don’t knock this, I’m a Baptist PK who became one of them while being told in seminary that I didn’t have the personality or patience to be a Pastor.
The “Theology of Hope” is built around the concept of the coming Kingdom and the church is the vehicle. It is a theology of the gates of hell not prevailing against the church. Liberationists have taken that concept and applied it to the oppressed and using the church as the vehicle for liberation, have created the model of the church militant, revolutionary, freeing the oppressed using the Exodus as the example; more than an example, the design. The problem they have is reconciling the tyranny of the Sandanistas which the liberationists supported in Nicaragua during the revolution. Rather than liberation there was more enslavement.
Thanks.
I for one, don’t quite get “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it,” as referring to an assault upon Hell (which can refer to either God’s holding place now, or the eventual Lake of Fire — don’t see what is for us to do, there). I tend to think that the commonly used application of “gate” in the Bible here is the concept that demons come out of “gates” into this world (and perhaps back out of it). Haven’t studied it much, but I think that somewhere in prophesy, the Bible speaks of a gate in Babylon, for instance (Iraq, of course ;-) Kind of a negative counterpart to Jacob’s ladder.
I see the Bible speaking of preparing for Harvest. Moultmann seems an odd cousin of Rushdoony as well as some kind of uncle of the bad boy reds.
New to me too. Will read it later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.