I would recommend getting the book and reading this whole passage in Malcom & Martin & America. It is important to know that in this specific section, Cone is analyzing the theology of Malcom X, which was a black muslim theology. So he’s not talking about Christian theology specifically.

It’s also important to understand that Cone uses the terms “black” and “white” to refer to moral perspectives rather then skin color. You can read more about that concept in Cone’s theology in this excerpt from Religious revolutionaries: the rebels who reshaped American religion by Robert Fuller.

Also, I’ve heard your complaint about Marxist analytical method before from other Anabaptist theologians, but I’ve never had it explained to me, so I don’t really understand it. Can you expound more on how Cone is forcing you to commit to a Marxist analytical framework and what that means? Also, I don’t know what “deconstructionist anxiety” means. Can you define that?

“In a society where blacks have been enslaved and segregated for nearly four centuries by whites because of their color and where evil has been portrayed as “black” and good as “white” in religious and cultural values, the idea that “God is black” is not only theologically defensible, but it is a necessary corrective against the powers of domination.”

In the context of the people of God during the time of Moses, would it have been appropriate to say “God is a Jew?”. Not at all - it would be correct to say that God has delivered the Jewish people and adopted them as his own. However, the preferencing of black over white is no better than the preferencing of white over black. It just flips the coin.

“Indeed, a case could be made that white people created a God of “cheap grace” (to use Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s well-known phrase) so that they would not be punished for the enormous crimes they have committed against the colored people of the world.”

I understand the mood of Cone’s point, but it reaks of deconstructionist anxiety about hidden agendas in theology. His concern about theology being used for oppression is valid - but that doesn’t argue against Euro-American theologies as such.

Cone misunderstands Bonhoeffer at this point - Bonhoeffer demonstrated how the Reformation tradition fought against cheap grace. Cone identifies “white theologies” with their sinful misunderstandings.

The main difficulty I have with theologians like Cone is that they almost force me to commit to a Marxist analytical method before I can even enter into the points they are trying to make. And as someone who - when an atheist - was steeped in Marxist and postmodern hermeneutics and eventually had to recognize how radically unbelieving such methods are, I find it troubling when my Christian friends are so quick to adopted these Marxist philosophies.

COuld I have an explanation of why the church selectively celebrates givernment ordained holidays like this to begin with? Looks much like lip-service to a vague, romantic and secular notion of identity-building. Heck, if we’re going to boycott Valentine’s Day (and we should! ;)), Columbus day et al. - why jump on the state’s bandwaggon to celebrate MLK day? Just a thought… or half of it. I cringed last Sunday, just as I cringed every year in an Evangelical church when the Puritans were commemorated around Thxgiving.