Black Theology and Black Power

by James H. Cone

Newly updated and expanded, this classic work is a product of the Civil Rights and Black Power movements in America during the 1960's. Black Theology & Black Power is James H. Cone's initial attempt to identify liberation as the heart of the Christian gospel, and blackness as the primary mode of God's presence. As he explains in an introduction written for this edition, "I wanted to speak on behalf of the voiceless black masses in the name of Jesus whose gospel I believed had been greatly distorted by the preaching and theology of white churches."

Genres: Theology, Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, Race, Social Justice, Christian

165 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1969

About the author

James Hal Cone was an advocate of Black liberation theology, a theology grounded in the experience of African Americans, and related to other Christian liberation theologies. In 1969, his book Black Theology and Black Power provided a new way to articulate the distinctiveness of theology in the black Church. James Cone’s work was influential and political from the time of his first publication, and remains so to this day. His work has been both utilized and critiqued inside and outside of the African American theological community.

Reviews

[Danny · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a powerful book to read. Reading this as a white male American, it was incredibly convicting. There were no punches held back, and the challenge, for me, was to accept them graciously. Doing saw allowed me to see and hear the pain behind them… but even more importantly, the love that is buried in them, as well.

The most striking aspect of the book is that a lot of the words and phrases are almost copy/paste of the messages of the black community and BLM, today, albeit a few word substitutions here and there. It goes to show that, for whatever progress America seems to believe it has made, the cries and the pleas have stayed the same. That, in itself, should be a wakeup call.

That makes the most unique aspect of this work the connection to Theology, and the challenges to White American Theology, specifically. It unearths the terrible roots and reveals its flaws in the sense that it has settled into an oppressive culture rather than lead by God’s grace and the Spirits leading. This would be the “make-it-or-break-it” concept for readers. Either you choose to believe this and let it rock your faith in a good way (there’s hope for a more loving Theology!) or it will be denied and the old guard closely defended (oppression reigning).

I’ll be blunt: Read this book if you find yourself to be somewhat mature and possibly open in even the slightest way to your ideas and way of life being wrong. Otherwise, continue to pray and seek the Lord and His love for all of His creation.

[Abby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Honestly the most important theology I’ve ever read. Cone’s Black Theology + Black Power has redeemed Christianity for me. I can’t express how important this work is.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

When conjuring up an image of God, most of us will default to a white-bearded Charlton Heston à la Creation of Adam. How, then, does a person of colour process the claim that he or she is made in the image of God? Add centuries of slavery and unrestrained racism to the mix, and it becomes obvious why there might be some problem with asking the black community to accept a white theology. A euro-centric gospel is a poorly-fitted garment which is ill-suited to the need.

I don't know how relevant the message of this particular work remains today. Cone's writing is very much a product of its time, and the intentionally provocative language which peppers the text reflects an age where the immediacy of such struggles required more forceful dialogue. As an historical study or an intellectual exercise, though, it's a rewarding insight into the mind of cultural conflict.

It also speaks to theology as a journey. In this regard, perhaps the best part of Cone's work is his 1989 introduction to the originial text. In addition to softening his stance in some regards, he also apologizes unreservedly for the sexist language he employed. The irony in oppressing women through language while railing against oppressors of any stripe isn't lost on him, and I have great admiration for Cone using it as an illustration of how theology is not--nor will it ever be--a static event.

[Charlotte Whitehead]

I was recommended this book by a Theology professor when I was in sixthform and it ended up being the basis of my History A-Level coursework on the civil rights movement, and inspired my personal statement so thank you James Cone!

I was shocked to find out that enslaved people were encouraged to be Christians, but that it was distorted to be a tool of the oppressor, by changes such as removing the Exodus chapter from Bibles given to slaves and focusing preaching on the promise of freedom in Heaven rather than in this life. Whilst distortion of Christianity may not be as obvious today, I definitely think that Christian faith and teachings are still being used to oppress, in the form of encouraging opposition to inclusion, initiatives against climate change and progressive political policies. Therefore Cone’s writing is still very relevant today.

I’ve really enjoyed linking theories in this book to concepts studied in my degree, I especially found similarities with the theory of theologian Maldonado-Torres who writes that religion is a tool of colonisation and therefore must be taken into account when seeking decolonisation. Whilst it is clear that religion can be used to defend suffering, on the flip side, it is impressive that the many black communities have a strong faith that seeks to build community and brings pride to black people as in a sense they have reclaimed Christian faith that uplifts all people.

I think anything can be used as a tool of oppression, but Cone highlights how religion is easy to manipulate for this, and i’ve no doubt he’ll pop up in many more of my essays.

[Jacob Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hot damn. Written decades ago but still extremely potent and relevant. I listened to the audiobook but I’m gonna have to buy this one as a reference cause I will be thinking about it for a long time. It made me think a lot about the ways I often don’t identify with the suffering and marginalized the way I should and try to think of “nice” ways out of social problems (to put it in amateur language). Like I said, gonna be thinking on it for a while.

[Pete · Rating 5 out of 5]

There will be a lot to unpack from this one!

[Cameron Quijada · Rating 2 out of 5]

dnf i really wanted to like this got about 70 percent thru and it should have been just up my wheelhouse but the interplay btwn theology and religious practice felt weak

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

James Cone was the most important north american theologian of the 20th century. On my 3rd read of this seminal work on black theology his challenge to the black church and to black christians is as relevant and urgent in 2024 as it was in 1969.

Internalizing the message James Cone delivers in this text is crucial for christians as it will lay the foundation for a faith that is diametrically opposed to capitalism and western hegemony. Institutions that christianity is intrinsically linked to here in the US that are exploiting and oppressing the majority of people that inhabit this planet. A must read yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

[Luke Hillier · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is Cone's first book, and it is striking to see how consistent he remained throughout his career –– unfortunately, in part because his message continued to need said. While I found God of the Oppressed to carry more theological complexity and The Cross and the Lynching Tree to engage more deeply with historical analysis, this has its own raw power that makes it such a commanding and demanding read. From the outset, Cone dismisses the white Christian preference for polite neutrality and instead owns his anger, which simmers throughout the pages here. He pulls no punches, and directs a fair amount of ire not only to the white liberal but also to what he understands to be an iteration of the Black church that has been co-opted and watered down from its initial revolutionary purposes. I especially appreciated his deft analysis of African American Christianity's inclinations towards eschatology. He leaves room for nuance in naming that this sometimes functions (akin to Moltmann's theology of hope) as a future promise that imbues one with present dignity and courage, and other times as a solely spiritualitized means of fatalism regarding this life where one feels there is no option but to look to the one yet to come for their rewards. The chapter on The Gospel of Jesus is especially excellent, in which Cone points to the messiah as the ultimate model of solidarity with the oppressed, which then informs his model for the 3 purposes of the church: service, preaching, and fellowship, all of which must center and enact God's message of liberation.

There is a consistent rebuke of abstract theology done by mostly white male theologians, although he does draw quite favorably from Tillich, Moltamann, and Barth at times. This in itself points to an implicit tension to the work that I think an overly sensitive reading is likely to miss. For example, at times Cone reads as a strict Black separatist ("At most, whites can only leave blacks alone") but then the final page of the book reveals that he does believe it's possible for white people to become Black in their spirit, and alternatively for Black people to be white. This is coupled with a sometimes frustrating lack of clarity as to what precisely he envisions Christ to be calling Christians to. He goes so far as to suggest that revolutionary violence may be a necessity, but we know from Cone's own biography that he never became an insurrectionist, suggesting he believed there were other avenues that are less explicitly stated. Lastly, the critique from womanists about his gendered language is incredibly notable here (I think just about every generic figure is referred to as "man"), and I really wish Cone was around now at the height of intersectional consideration to see how that may have influenced his writing. This critiques aside, this is a rousing, powerhouse book that sparks with an urgent shout that continues to echo for us today; certainly a great, concise starting point with Cone and worth reading for any Christian willing to take seriously what it is asking of them.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my second Cone book. It was his first book on Black Theology. I recognized that my 35-year old and younger self would have bristled a great deal more at this book than I did with the Cross and the Lynching Tree. I think there are a great number of continuities between the works: balancing Black power and Christ-centered non-violence approaches in the Black community; emphasizing proximity in location, thought, and practice to oppressed peoples as the central element of Christian theology; and the like. I think the Black power language would have bothered me a lot more many years ago than it does not, and I probably would have expressed familiar tropes that Cone often heard from white theologians and Christians.

Yet, Cone is right about the narrative of scripture and Jesus' ministry being to the oppressed, the poor, the marginalized. He is right that historically and presently white America has and continues to oppress Black people. He is right that white Christians and white theology has often been silent about such oppression, even giving spiritualized defenses that are antithetical to the Christian message of redemption applying to both this world and the next (union of heaven and earth, not an escape from earth). He is right to compare the moves made to moves made by white slavery holding Christians.

I might quibble with a turn of phrase here or there, but the substance of the message is powerful, provocative, and expresses the heart of Christian theology. I think I just have a much greater appreciation for "liberation theology" than I had several years ago.

One of the things I most appreciated about this edition of the book was Cone's critical evaluation of his gender biases, his reliance on neo-orthodoxy theological formulations, and his lack of attention to resources in the historical Black church in his preface.

[Stockten · Rating 5 out of 5]

"If the gospel is a gospel of liberation for the oppressed, then Jesus is where the oppressed are and continues his work of liberation there. Jesus is not safely confined to the first century."

It would be impossible to overstate the power and significance of Rev. Dr. James H. Cone's "Black Theology & Black Power." This indictment of the anti-Christness of the white church and the celebration of Black Power and Black theology is one of the most important, relevant, healing, inspiring works of theology for those living in the white supremacist American state. One of Rev. Dr. Cone's ideas I'll be chewing on for awhile is that Christianity "is not some religious act...but participation in the suffering of God in the life of the world." I'm so eager to learn from more of Rev. Dr. Cone's prophetic work!

[Jackson Ford · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a soft introduction to theology and race, but it is very readable. Cone is not gentle in this book, but he is rawly honest and acutely accurate. There is a reason why this man has potently impacted theology in the 20th Century. Cone, like Moltmann, aims to reorient the traditional passive christologies, sotierologies, and eschatologies. I couldn’t recommend this book, in it lies a transfiguration of blackness from the stigmatized aesthetic of dangerousness to dignified with the glory of Christ, righteous, and free.

[Alex Bean · Rating 5 out of 5]

A year after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Professor James Cone (30 years old at the time) puts pen to paper his thoughts, frustrations, and theology that even as I read it today could have certainly been written this year after George Floyd and Breonna Taylor’s deaths. Many many insights and truths written here, he definitely does not hold back his anger and frustration, but to the best of his young selfs ability presents an objective systematic theology worth looking into, whether you are black or white or any individual person for that matter. Highly recommend!

[LearningMum · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The problem of values is not that white people need to instill values in the ghetto; but white society itself needs values so that it will no longer need a ghetto.”
~ James H. Cone

[George Trudeau · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wouldn't recommend this book for discipleship but it is great for those interested in the field.

[Steve Irby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished "Black Theology and Black Power," by James H. Cone.

The title is an attention getter regardless of who you are. I have wanted to read Cone since having to write a paper on black theology via an interview with an African American pastor.

Cone begins by defining his terms in that black power is not the antithesis of Christianity or heretical to it but rather Christ's central message to the twentieth century America. I get the feeling here that Cone is speaking to how a lack of black power ends up being black subjugation to others which forms a hierarchy of one race over another which is antithetical to Christ's kingdom message and praxis. Until shown otherwise when Cone says "black power" I am going to see not power over others but power equal with others. His later use of Buber's "Thou" and "It" brings some clarity: black power insists that black people are more than an "It," they are also a "Thou"; it is somewhat helpful that I just read Buber. And just to keep our perspectives correct, I have never heard "white power" used in this way.

The church, to remain faithful to the Lord, must fight racism in all forms. I fully agree with Cone here. Kingdom people cant be a city on a hill with a wall around it, selectively peeking light to him and him and her who look like us.

Cone goes on to say that just as no one can blame a Jew for hating Germans, no one should blame a black person for hating a white. I think if he doesnt refine this concept more he is no better than the object of his hatred. We, regardless of color or nationality, are called by the same Lord to be a people who see your hatred and raise you love as expressed in the crucified Lord. This is by no means to suggest that any protest or resistance to opposing racism is wrong. The difference being that Jesus people do so in love.

I agree with much of Cone's message though not his method. In methodology he quotes Malcom X in his "by any means necessary;" Jesus has yet to come up.

He ends this chapter by seemingly backing off what has been my problem with appears to be his stance: hatred and violence, or the violence is implied. Cone questions if blacks are willing to die for the cause of liberation and if whites are willing to kill. He says history shows that the answer to both is yes. But he doesnt say or imply here that blacks should be violent. I will have to see where he lands further out.

The second chapter begins by stating that the task of theology is taking the unchanging gospel and articulating it for a modern context.

I'm going to take a stab at his stance: he begins describing the gospel for a black context by quoting Jesus when Jesus quotes Isiah "...came to set the captives free...." if this is where he gets his leverage for violence as has been implied I think it is misguided. While I agree with Cone that we are not here just for the luxury of dying to attain "heaven," I dont believe one can read all of Jesus' teachings and walk away with a militant mindset: I will be set free by any means necessary! His message to the Jews was not to put Caesars head on a pike...nor whiteys. So nonviolence; but even as such what does a nonviolent setting free of the captives look like? I hope Cone goes there. King did.

Also, Cone's use of "rebel" as a verb could be either violent or passive. I hope he adds some flesh to it to illuminate his line of thought because it being classified with boycotts, marches and picketing makes it seem nonviolent.

Cone goes on to say that it is theology and the Churches job to join God in fighting the Powers of evil: where men are shot, lynched and crammed into ghettos. I agree and may disagree with Cone here. The crux of the Powers and evil is Satan. Yes, work in history, and work cosmically. If spiritual battles are totally demythologized then we end up like that last, sad chapter in Theology of a Social Gospel where the eschaton is doubted. Leaning quite heavily on one over the other side--historically or cosmically--makes for a lopsided Christianity. Cone goes on to affirm that Satan is real and still to this day engaged in warfare against Christ. But right after this he says that there is no need to get bogged down with quaint personifications of Satan, then he goes on to speak about the Powers in a Winkian voice: racism is evil and in and of itself is a structure that oppresses people. Yes, but more.

He begins to deviate into an area I disagree with. He presupposes that all Christian's choose to have a voice politically, not just choose but must. I disagree for many reasons. That the Church has sold her obligation to help the poor to government via any number of programs is proof that something is wrong. That Cone doesnt notice this but constructs from it for assisting the poor where necessary is proof that the Church and theology is asleep (with the exception of the Anabaptists who opt out of Babylon's offers).

Cone now gets into rectifying black power and Christian love (AGAPE). While I acknowledge that his call for black power is not a "lift me up and over" others who are not black, but equality of all, I find some of his language he has thus far used for black power to be at odds with loving God and neighbor.

Cone's articulation of love of God and neighbor are as well stated as I have heard. Something is going to have to break between this well spoken theological view of love and black power.

I think Cone is getting to this crux when he asks what does it mean to love neighbor, especially the white one? He says that the black man confronts the white man as a Thou with no intention of being an It. So far I agree. In light of Buber's I-Thou/I-It I would translate this as respect all as spirit beings--a Thou--who are deeper than just a he or she--an It. The black man, says Cone, is to be prepared to represent being a new creature in Christ--all Thou, no It. He believes that not assuming an It role is the beginning of conflict. This is a generalization I wish he wouldnt make. Then he says the new (converted) black man refuses to speak in love without justice and power. And this, I believe, is where he deviates from the command of Christ. He is refusing to be the change he wants to see unless it is first shown to him. This is similar to Jesus' audience saying that unless the Roman soldier is treating them as a Thou they will only go one mile. I am not justifying the racist stance; I am saying that Jesus was revolutionary for just this reason: "treat me as an It and I will still show you love." This doesnt say one does this without speaking against being treated as an It; the true Thou makes a change in spite of justice and power regardless of race, nationality, etc. The rest stand with them and against It treatment.

His claim that violence may at times be the black mans only expression of love available. I totally disagree with this. His only ground to support this would to be to digress to the Old Testament. Jesus--the express image of God and the very radianceof His nature--has no example of this and many teachings against this statement. He goes on to state that whites would appeal to nonviolence but use violent systems. Oddly he reduces his example to other people rather than the perfect revelation of God. Why?--Jesus disagrees with him. From a sociological perspective his book makes sense; Jesus doesnt because His is a different way. He ends this section by saying that whites loved MLK because his was a nonviolent message which didnt threaten the power structures. I would say that any change to race relations such as MLK fought for is a threat to power structures; King was killed for it. Also, King's nonviolence worked and is still working.

"Racism is a complete denial of the Incarnation and thur Christianity. [...] To be racist is to fall outside the definition of the Church," p 73. Amen.

Cone spends some time going over the state of the black man in American churches historically. It is very saddening to see the quietism that was practiced, no, not quietism; but the flagrant racism spearheaded by the American churches. I am assuming he is historically correct here, but he says that segregation began in churches with bathrooms. That is long after baptism was allowed to the slave and that only in light that the slaveowners did not have to free his new "brother" in Christ. To add injury there were even books written by some then theologians supporting slavery. This had to be the beginning of kinism: the black man was a descendant of Cain and his color was a blight from God thus marking and subjugating him to the white. Right about now I believe we should look backwards so that we can more clearly see now when it comes to many newer forms of us vs. them.

In speaking about the black churches and their theology circa mid 1800s, I find it interesting that we find white missionaries teaching Platonic otherworldism: this world will be painful but just wait till we arrive in the other world. This was a method to attempt to make slaves accept their plight in life as "good children of God" so that they would receive their Heavenly reward. This is not to say that ours is only a Christianity that pertains to our now-lifetime, its greater than that with the promise of a renewed earth for eternity.

He seems to side with rioters and looters because in light of law which enslaved and murdered blacks what is rioting and looting. Here is my critical analysis: the aforementioned unjust laws were laws made by government. Rioting and looting are aimed against property. I agree with King's civil disobedience against governments but not against rioting and looting when an individual's property is damaged. This is equivocation in the discussion. Blame and disobey the government, dont destroy property. Destroying and stealing work against the whole of the mission. Sit ins located in a drugstore (a persons property) is trespassing. Sit in in the "halls of justice." We may disagree with the policies of a drugstore, but boycott it, dont trespass.

When speaking to the reformation of black theology his neo Orthodox, existentialist-Kirkegaardian bend shines through: The doctrine of God must be seen first through the eyes of the oppressed black man. I have a soft spot for existentialism because when we begin with any ideas we do so through our experiences and identity. Some may claim to begin with scripture, and I agree. But that is read through the lenses of our experiences. We hopefully will in time be more and more conformed to the image of Christ so that by the Spirit-in-residence we have our doctrine corrected where lacking.

His criteria of judging the veracity of God, man, Christ and scripture is in the black demand for freedom now. If a doctrine enhances the drive for black freedom then it is the gospel of Jesus Christ. I think this is misguided because it would easily allow the use of violence to overthrow oppressors to be quickly baptized.

He has absolutely no revelant eschatology. In fact it is worse that "A Theology of the Social Gospel."

"The Christian can not waste time contemplating the next world (if there is a next)," p 125.

His model of God is weak if his God can not save now and later.

His last chapter is on the use of violence. He basically says this is a different time than Jesus' and if pushed, should use violence against oppression.

Random closing thoughts:
I agree with much of what Cone says but his questioning the eschaton places him in a different camp, one which I have seen some liberation theologians fall into, where they are so historically focused that they give up on cosmic realities. This causes theirs to be a baptized sociology.

[Jack Markman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A seminal book in liberation theology for a reason. Cone's righteous rage is a force to behold.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE ORIGINAL FOUNDING BOOK OF BLACK THEOLOGY

James Hal Cone (born 1938) is an American theologian who is Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, where he has taught since 1970. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the original 1969 165-page paperback edition.]

He wrote in the Introduction of this 1969 book, “‘Black Power’ is an emotionally charged term… But the advocates of Black Power hail it as the only viable option for black people. For these persons Black Power means black people taking the dominant role in determining the black-white relationship in American society. If, as I believe, Black Power is the most important development in American life in this century, there is a need to begin to analyze it from a theological perspective. In this work an effort is made to investigate the concept of Black Power, placing primary emphasis on its relationship to Christianity, the Church, and contemporary American theology… It is my thesis … that Black Power … is not the antithesis of Christianity, nor is it a heretical idea to be tolerated with painful forbearance. It is, rather, Christ’s message to twentieth-century America.” (Pg. 1)

He adds, “To say that this book was written anger and disgust … is to suggest that it is not written chiefly for black people… This is a word to the oppressor, a word to Whitey, not in hope that he will listen (after King’s death who can hope?) but in the expectation that my own existence will be clarified. If in this process of speaking for myself, I should happen to touch the souls of black brothers (including black men in white skins), so much the better.” (Pg. 3)

He defines Black Power as ‘complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary.” (Pg. 6) Later, he adds, “Black Power then is not black racism or black hatred. Simply stated, Black Power is an affirmation of the humanity of blacks in spite of white racism. It says that only blacks really know the extent of white oppression, and thus only blacks are prepared to risk all to be free. Therefore, Black Power seeks not understanding but conflict; addresses blacks and not whites; seeks to develop black support, but not white good will. Black Power believes in the utter determination of blacks to be free and not in the good intentions of white society. It says: If blacks are liberated, it will be blacks themselves who will do the liberating, not whites.” (Pg. 16-17)

He suggests, “What is needed… is not ‘integration’ but a sense of worth in being black, and only black people can teach that. Black consciousness is the key to the black man’s emancipation from his distorted self-image.” (Pg. 19)

He asserts, “it should be said that racism is so embedded in the heart of American society that few, if any, whites can free themselves from it. So it is time for whites to recognize that fact for what it is and proceed from there… all white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, ‘Racism is not my fault,’ or ‘I am not responsible for the country’s inhumanity to the black man.’ The American white man has always had an easy conscience. But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic, and social structures… they are directly responsible for racism… If whites are honest in their analysis of the moral state of this society, they know that all are responsible. Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty.” (Pg. 23-24)

He acknowledges, “This work further seeks to be revolutionary in that ‘The fact that I am Black is my ultimate reality.’ My identity with ‘blackness,’ and what it means for millions living in a white world, controls the investigation. It is impossible for me to surrender this basic reality for a ‘higher, more universal’ reality. Therefore, if a higher, Ultimate Reality is to have meaning, it must relate to the very essence of blackness.” (Pg. 32-33)

He states, “Christianity is not alien to Black Power; it is Black Power.” (Pg. 38) He continues, “freedom stands at the center of the black man’s yearning in America… What is this freedom for which blacks have marched, picketed, and rebelled in order to achieve? Simply stated, freedom is not doing what I will but becoming what I should… Is this not why God became man in Jesus Christ so that man might become what he is?... Black Power means black people carrying out their own destiny. It would seem that Black Power and Christianity have this in common: the liberation of man!” (Pg. 38-39) Later, he adds, “if Christ is present among the oppressed, as he promised, he must be working through the activity of Black Power.” (Pg. 48)

He argues, “The violence in the cities, which appears to contradict Christian love, is nothing but the black man’s attempt to say Yes to his being as defined by God in a world that would make his being into nonbeing. If the riots are the black man’s courage to say Yes to himself as a creature of God, and if in affirming self he affirms yes to the neighbor, then violence may be the black man’s expression, sometimes the only possible expression, of Christian love to the white oppressor.” (Pg. 55)

He says, “The ‘raceless’ American Christ has a light skin, wavy brown hair, and sometimes---wonder of wonders---blue eyes. For whites to find him with big lips and kinky hair is as offensive as it was for the Pharisees to find him partying with tax-collectors. But whether whites want to hear it or not, ‘Christ is black, baby,’ with all of the features which are so detestable to white society.” (Pg. 68)

He asserts. “If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist (or ‘the principalities and powers’), the white church seems to be a manifestation of it. It is the enemy of Christ. It was the white ‘Christian’ church which took the lead in establishing slavery as an institution and segregation as a pattern in society by sanctioning all-white congregations.” (Pg. 73) He goes on, “the answer is the same for the white church as it was to [the Philippian jailers]: REPENT, and believe on the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! … It must own that it has been and is a racist institution whose primary purpose is the perpetuation of white supremacy.” (Pg. 81)

But he also states, “We may conclude that except in rare instances, the black churches in the post-Civil War period have been no more Christian than their white counterparts. The rare instances refer chiefly to the recent work of a few black ministers in the non-violent movement, with the late Martin Luther King Jr., as their leader… If the black church organizations want to remain faithful to the New Testament gospel … they must relinquish their stake in the status quo and the values in white society by identifying exclusively with Black Power. Black Power is the only hope of the black church in America.” (Pg. 108-109)

He summarizes, “The existence of THE Church is grounded exclusively in Christ. And in twentieth-century America, Christ means Black Power!” (Pg. 112) Later, he says, “The task of Black Theology, then, is to analyze the black man’s condition in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ with the purpose of creating a new understanding of black dignity among black people, and providing the necessary soul in that people, to destroy white racism. Black Theology is primarily a theology OF and FOR black people who share the common belief that racism will be destroyed only when black people decide to say in word and deed to the white racist: ‘We ain’t gonna stand any more of this.’ The purpose of Black Theology is to analyze the nature of the Christian faith in such a way that black people can say Yet to blackness and No to whiteness and mean it.” (Pg. 117)

He concludes, “Black Theology seeks to make black religion a religion of Black Power. It does not attempt to destroy Christianity but endeavors to point to its blackness. The task of Black Theology is to make Christianity REALLY Christian by moving black people with a spirit of black dignity and self-determination so they can become what the Creator intended.” (Pg. 130)

He predicts, “we can be certain that black patience has run out, and unless white America responds positively to the theory and activity of Black Power, then a bloody, protracted civil war is inevitable… The decision lies with white America and not least with white Americans who speak the name of Christ.” (Pg. 143) He adds, “Black Theology must counsel black people to be suspicious of all whites who want to be ‘friends’ of black people. Therefore, the real question is not whether Black Theology sees reconciliation as an end but, rather, on whose terms we are to be reconciled.” (Pg. 145) Finally, “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!” (Pg. 151)

Though nearly fifty years old, this book has lost little of its vitality; it is “must reading” for anyone seriously studying contemporary theology, Black Studies, or the Black Church.

[JC · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this over Lent this year and it was rad. Loved it. Even with all its blindspots, which Cone confesses to in his introduction to this 50th anniversary edition, it is such a relevant text for Christian faith communities today. The intro by Cornel West was lovely, and I loved Cone’s little exercise in self-criticism in the anniversary edition introduction:

“Hopefully, the re-issuing of Black Theology and Black Power will contribute to the development of creative self-criticism in both black and white churches. An example of the weakness of the 1960s black freedom movement, as defined by Black Theology and Black Power, was its complete blindness to the problem of sexism, especially in the black church community. When I read my book today, I am embarrassed by its sexist language and patriarchal perspective. There is not even one reference to a woman in the whole book! With black women playing such a dominant role in the African-American liberation struggle, past and present, how could I have been so blind?”

It’s a big blindspot, but even still, this was a fantastic book. Cone made some fantastic engagements with a range of important modern theologians in the 20th century, but I was very fascinated by his critiques of death-of-god theology, which I flirted with for a bit many years ago, but found sort of abstract and unsatisfying. Cone’s enaagement is fascinating:

“Some present-day theologians, like Hamilton and Altizer, taking their cue from Nietzsche and the present irrelevancy of the Church to modern man, have announced the death of God. It seems, however, that their chief mistake lies in their apparent identification of God's reality with the signed-up Christians. If we were to identify the work of God with the white church, then, like Altizer, we must “will the death of God with a passion of faith.” Or as Camus would say, “If God did exist, we should have to abolish him.””

There are also these fiery little sections that have a wonderful homiletic tone:

“But the Church knows that what is shame to the world is holiness to God. Black is holy, that is, it is a symbol of God's presence in history on behalf of the oppressed man. Where there is black, there is oppression; but blacks can be assured that where there is blackness, there is Christ who has taken on blackness so that what is evil in men's eyes might become good. Therefore Christ is black because he is oppressed, and oppressed because he is black. And if the Church is to join Christ by following his opening, it too must go where suffering is and become black also.

This is what the New Testament means by the service of reconciliation. It is not smoothing things over by ignoring the deep-seated racism in white society. It is freeing the racist of racism by making him confront blacks as men. Reconciliation has nothing to do with the “let's talk about it” attitude, or “it takes time” attitude. It merely says, “Look man, the revolution is on. Whose side are you on?””

I think Cone’s engagement with the issue of violence is one of the best I’ve encountered. He spends his whole final chapter dealing with the issue of revolution and violence, and it was well articulated. Just some excerpts on violence and insurrection to close:

“Speaking a true language of black liberation, the black church must teach that, in a white world bent on dehumanizing black people, Christian love means giving no ground to the enemy, but relentlessly insisting on one's dignity as a person. Love is not passive, but active. It is revolutionary in that it seeks to meet the needs of the neighbor amid crumbling structures of society. It is revolutionary because love may mean joining a violent rebellion.

The black church must ask about its function amid the rebellion of black people in America. Where does it stand? If it is to be relevant, it must no longer admonish its people to be “nice” to white society. It cannot condemn the rioters. It must make an unqualified identification with the “looters” and “rioters,” recognizing that this stance leads to condemnation by the state as law-breakers. There is no place for “nice Negroes” who are so distorted by white values that they regard laws as more sacred than human life. There is no place for those who deplore black violence and overlook the daily violence of whites. There is no place for blacks who want to be “safe,” for Christ did not promise security but suffering.

The pre–Civil War black ministers had no trouble breaking the law when they saw human life at stake. It was beside the question whether slavery was lawful. The question was, Is it consistent with the gospel? If not, they must fight it until death. It was this realization that inspired Martin Luther King to engage in his program of civil disobedience.”

“The religious ideas of the oppressor are detrimental to the black people's drive for freedom. They tend to make black people nonviolent and accept only the prescribed patterns of protest defined by the oppressor himself. It is the oppressor who attempts to tell black people what is and is not Christian—though he is the least qualified to make such a judgment.”

“It is interesting that so many advocates of nonviolence as the only possible Christian response of black people to white domination are also the most ardent defenders of the right of the police to put down black rebellion through violence. Another interesting corollary is their defense of America's right to defend violently the government of South Vietnam against the North. Somehow, I am unable to follow the reasoning.”

“Our chief difficulty with Black Theology and violence, however, arises from the New Testament itself. The New Testament picture of Jesus seems to suggest that he was against violence as a proper redress. He certainly never resorted to violence. In fact, he seemed to have avoided the term “Messiah” as a personal designation because of its political (violent) implications… Is it not true that the power of love as expressed in the life and death of Jesus eschews the use of violence and emphasizes the inward power of the Christian man to accept everything the enemy dishes out?
…These questions are not easy to answer. The real danger of these questions is the implied literalism in them. Like the fundamentalist who stressed the verbal inspiration of Scripture, this view suggests that ethical questions dealing with violence can be solved by asking: “What would Jesus do?” We cannot solve ethical questions of the twentieth century by looking at what Jesus did in the first.”

An excerpt from the Argentine liberation theologian Jose Miguez Bonino included in Cone’s monograph:

“Violence is a cost that must be estimated and pondered in relation to a particular revolutionary situation. It is “relative” because in most revolutionary situations...violence is already a fact constitutive of the situation: injustice, slave labor, hunger and exploitation are forms of violence which must be weighed against the cost of revolutionary violence.”

Cone’s conclusion that follows his citation of Bonino:

“The Christian does not decide between violence and nonviolence, evil and good. He decides between the less and the greater evil. He must ponder whether revolutionary violence is less or more deplorable than the violence perpetuated by the system. There are no absolute rules that can decide the answer with certainty. But he must make a choice. If he decides to take the “nonviolent” way, then he is saying that revolutionary violence is more detrimental to man in the long run than systemic violence. But if the system is evil, then revolutionary violence is both justified and necessary.”

[Chris Theule · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sometimes you read a book and it reorients how you have been thinking...

"God's word of reconciliation means that we can only be justified by becoming black. Reconciliation makes us all black."

[Angélique (Angel) · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was one of the most spiritually invigorating and and mentally stimulating books I have read to date. By combining abstract theological and philosophical principles with practical considerations of justice and the experience of oppression, Cone created a theological charge for real justice that I found extremely compelling and relevant. His blunt yet thoughtful approach lifted some of the misplaced guilt I have felt about my own conclusions about white Christianity and racism and deepened my sense of a Christian calling to active anti-racism as well as other forms of justice work. I also greatly appreciated his willingness to acknowledge in the 1989 edition preface that he had received some deserved criticism after the initial publication in 1969 (from womanist scholars, for example) and had been striving to avoid the same pitfalls in his later works. I am looking forward to reading more of his writing in the near future.

[Freddie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm on the last chapter, but so far the book is solid in its justification for a black theology that is totally dependent on the ideas and experiences of black people. It rallies around the concept of self-determination-the very essence of Black Power. He speaks plainly on the failures of white American Christianity to reconcile the humanity of black people and the failures of the black church to take seriously its self-sacrificial role in the lives of black people. [The black church being eschatologically preoccupied is a failure in faith, not a strength. Maybe that's an overstatement, but that's what I got. ;) ]

This book is for every black person who is sick to death of the black church in its current state. It is also for other cultures, economic classes, and variously oppressed groups that desire there be teeth in the message of Jesus.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was assigned reading for Chaplain-professor Dennis Haas' Christian Scriptures class at Grinnell College. Cone, we were informed, was teaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York. His presence and the fact that the much-respected Haas had gone there himself contributed to my decision to attend a conference there and then to apply for admission as a psychology major in their M.Div program. Although I never took one of his courses, theology not being my major, I did hear him lecture in one of Walter Wink's bible classes and speak at various symposia. UTS had under 400 students, so one got to know all the faculty, Cone being distinguished in any gathering by his enormous afro.

[Jack McGraw · Rating 3 out of 5]

BOOK Review
Black Theology and Black Power by James Cone. New York: The Seabury Press, 1969.
Reviewed by Jack McGraw
Black Theology and Black Power by James Cone critiques the lack of Christian action the American Church has carried out in response to racism. Cone emphatically expresses that the issue of race in America is a white problem (22), Black Power is a complex means for a black person to affirm their human dignity, and the Church has twisted their faith to justify the slavery and general oppression of black people. Cone has offered the following two contributions to Black liberation theology: The Church must change from their ways of preserving a white America to finally fulfill their responsibilities of doing the work of Christ by condemning racism, and mainstream theology needs to recognize that Christ is always fighting for the oppressed, so the Church can truly join Christ in this battle.
Cone begins this work by describing experiences black people endured while being inferior to white people. He states, “’Better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees’” (Cone 7). This implies that submitting to “…’the humiliating orders of the master’…’ is worse than dying (Cone 6-7). Black Power entails “…complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary” (Cone 6). Thus, Black Power is a radical weapon, nonviolent or violent, that confronts white supremacy head-on.
In Chapter 2, Cone addresses the issue of contemporary theology avoiding anything about “…the enslaved condition of black people” (31). He implies these contemporary theologians are blind to the many connections between the Gospel of Jesus and the modern oppression of black Americans (Cone 32). Cone notes that God sides with the poor and oppressed, while He is against the rich and powerful (45). This is evident in Jesus’ horrific oppression. Thus, Cone claims Christ gives black people the power to say no to white power (40). In saying this, he is answering: “Is it possible to strip the gospel as it has been interpreted of its ‘whiteness,’ so that its real message will become a life option for radical advocates of black consciousness?” (Cone 33).
Chapters 3 and 4 critique the Church, white and black, for not condemning racism. Cone notes three primary duties of the Church: Preaching, works and fellowship rooted in the New Testament (66). The white Church has failed these responsibilities since white churchmen adapt their preaching to demote any freedom for black people, and they are the racist perpetrators who oppress black people stripping every ounce of their dignity (Cone 66). However, the pre-Civil War black Church preached freedom and equality in the name of Christ, and they sang spiritual hymns like “Go Down Moses!” (Cone 93). The black Church, after the Civil War, was submissive to white power (Cone 108). Some exceptions were Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rev. Highland Garnet. Rev. Garnet said, “The spirit of Liberty is a gift from God” (Cone 96). Cone includes an address from Rev. Garnet to slaves, saying, “Brethren, the time has come when you must act for yourselves” (96).
Cone has many strong aspects of this book. He refers to a multitude of outside sources, particularly in theology and philosophy. German American theologian and philosopher, Paul Tillich, and his “…analysis of ‘the courage to be’ which is ‘the ethical act in which man affirms his being in spite of those elements of his existence which conflict with his essential self-affirmation’” (Cone 7). Cone uses Tillich’s work to explain that an ethical responsibility of the black person is to develop the courage to uphold their own dignity against white supremacy.
Also, Cone draws from the actions of other black theologians like Dr. King, stating that Dr. King’s nonviolent protesting was very rare (108). Dr. King applied “…the meaning of the gospel with its social implications and sought to instill its true spirit in the hearts and minds of black and white in this land” (Cone 108). This is effective because most of society is familiar with Dr. King, so Cone used Dr. King to advance the argument that Christian theology must recognize the undeniable connections between the Gospel and black oppression. It can serve to urge contemporary theologians to connect the Gospel to black oppression.
However, a weakness of Cone’s writing is its gender exclusivity. Whenever he was talking about people, Cone addressed them as men and never women. Black and womanist theologian, Delores S. Williams, is critical of this because black women are already the oppressed of the oppressed. Women should be mentioned in this book since they have the same amount of dignity as men. The gender exclusivity can offend women who read it.
Overall, this book implies that Black liberation theologians must encourage the Church to dismantle white supremacy in the name of Jesus and contemporary theologians to recognize the connections between the Gospel and black oppression. Black Power is the black person’s affirmation of their dignity against white power. The Church must confront racism by truly spreading God’s justice. Students interested in Black theology should read this book because Cone offers a powerful perspective about how to use the Gospel to fight racism.

[Eddie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love that Cone's writing is painfully clear. It is so rare to read theologians that are precise, articulate, and to the point. This book, although written at another time, is still helpful and telling for our time today.

[Beverlee · Rating 4 out of 5]

One trait I believe that makes a book great is the writer’s ability to challenge a reader’s established beliefs. Black Theology & Black Power is that book for me. I grew up Baptist in the South and like many others a huge part of life revolves around church attendance and the church family. On the surface, there’s nothing wrong with a group of believers gathering to worship. It makes sense to ask what do they believe and this is one of the ideas that Cone tries to make crystal clear in this text.
To be clear, theology is defined as the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially the study of God and God’s relation to the world. Black Power’s meaning is “the complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary (selective buying, boycotting, marching, rebellion when needed). Black Power means black freedom, black self-determination, wherein black people no longer view themselves as without human dignity but as men, human beings with the ability to carve out their own destiny” (6). This sounds very much like living a life rooted in love and self respect, traits that are emphasized in Christianity. Nowhere is it expressed that any group of people should be hated or treated as inferior. As for rebellion, Cone explains it as an affirmation of humanity, a declaration of being in a society that insists you don’t matter.
There are so many topics that are discussed in a relatively short book. Published originally in 1969, it reads very much like this era (marked by frustration). What I believe to be the heart of this book is the definition of what the Church is compared to what it should be. Cone speaks of the segregation of black & white churches and the message and the beliefs. Is it one & the same or completely different? According to Cone, the Church (the following quote is from the chapter on the White Church & Black Power) sets the tone for how society treats Black people by its silence on issues that affect us “like other segments of this society, the Church emphasizes obedience to the law of the land without asking whether the law is racist in character or without even questioning the everyday deadly violence which laws and law enforcers inflict on blacks in the ghetto. It was the Church which placed God’s approval on slavery and today places his blessings on the racist structure of American society” (75). As for the Black Church, Cone begins by acknowledging its birth in slavery and its role as a point of origin for revolution (formation of the AME Church, role in Underground Railroad, hidden & not so hidden messages in spirituals). Post Civil War is a turning point from the Church being a voice for freedom to “perversions of the gospel of Christ and places for accommodating the oppressed plight of black people” (106). In other words, the Church operated by not challenging the status quo (racism). It’s Cone’s opinion that the rise of MLK specifically signaled a return of the Church to being a place of liberation.
How does reconciliation fit into this? Cone doesn’t equate dark skin with being black, rather it “depends on the color of your heart, soul, and mind” (151). In closing Cone asks the reader if they identify with oppressed blacks or white oppressors. “Let us hope that there are enough to answer this question correctly so that America will not be compelled to acknowledge a common humanity only by seeing that blood is always one color” (152).
My thoughts- I wrote earlier that this book challenged my thinking, mainly in that what’s taught in church is usually word for word from the Bible. That in itself isn’t bad or wrong. What I need to learn more about is why...specifically how scriptures can be used to justify slavery and yet people still believe unquestionably in God. This book is one that was difficult to read at some points because theology is not an area I’m familiar with and the many references to European theologians lost me at some points. But it’s a worthwhile read, one that will hopefully lead to greater understanding of this world and the space I occupy.

[Simon Robinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

i came by this work through Nadya Tolokonnikova's 'Read and Riot'. i was impressed by this courageous and deeply intelligent, well-read revolutionary. I wanted to know WHY certain Christian theologians had inspired her so, and HOW they'd fueled her zeal. In short, it's a theological and political hand-grenade. It reads like a sucession of firebrand proclamation. Earthy, contemporary, erudite and loquacious, Cone is an exception scholar of both white european theologians, his own peers, popular culture and the zeitgeist. He adeptly grabs hold of Luther, Bonhoeffer, Moltmann, and Malcom X to make his point. While taking the best from the white euro and american crowd, he nonetheless takes them to task, along with the much-venerated Billy Graham [just, wow. Cone is the gun!] He also strips away the lie that Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, by using direct quotes that historians have white-washed from popular parlance! At a time when whites were dismissing african-americans as second rate human beings, what we have here is an exceptional theological and political tract that is as releveant today both in the US and here in our Aussie context. He also presents an insightful and withering critique of church and culture. For this white bloke, it unvelieved a deeper understanding of the black power movement worldwide; why riots and protests erupt nationwide, worldwide, over local race-based violence; and Black Lives Matter. I thought i'd put my red-neck past behind me years ago, but this work unveiled a deeper level of collusion with entrenched white power and privelege that needs to go. I am also firmly convicted of the witness of Jesus to nonviolence as the only way forward for humanity. Cone has thrown down a challenge for me, from the point of view of the slave, the oppressed, the captive. Overall, Cone's prophetic proclamation drives us to action. here are a couple of quotes [In the preface to this edition, he acknowleges and apologises for his misogynist language]:

'Occasionally, a church body passes a harmless resolution. Imagine, men dying of hunger, children maimed by rat bites, women dying of despair - and the Church passes a resolution. Perhaps it is impossible to prevent riots, but one can fight against the conditions that cause them.'

'But the Church has shown many times that it loves life and is not prepared to die for others. It has not really gone where the action is with a willingness to die for the neighbor, but has remained aloof from the sufferings of men. it is a chaplaincy of sick middle-class egos. It stands (or sits) condemned by its very whiteness.'

'Like the fundamentalists who stressed the verbal inspiration of the Scripture, this view suggests that ethical questions dealing with violence can be solved by asking, 'What would Jesus do?' We canot solve the ethical questions of the twentieth century by looking at what Jesus did in the first. Our choices are not the same as his. Being Christian does not simply mean following 'in his steps'...His steps are not ours; and thus we are placed in an existential situation in which we are forced to decide without knowing what Jesus would do. The Christian does not ask what Jesus would do, asi if Jesus were confined to the first century. He asks: "What is he doing? Where is he at work?" And even though these are the right questions, they cannot be answered once and for all. Each situation has its own problematice circumstances that force the believer to think through each act of obedience without an absolute ethical guide from Jesus. To look for such a guide is to deny the freedom of the Christain man. His ony point of reference is the freedom granted in Christ to be all for the neighbor.'

[Natalie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book to be extremely meaningful and helpful in understanding the black/white race dynamic in America and how theology factors into the experience of living in the United States as a black person. This book is certainly still relevant, especially in relation to the Black Lives Matter movement, and I think it has a lot of powerful things to say. The message of the book requires a lot of the reader as it should. Cone uses white and black to discuss a lot of difficult realities and concepts.

At the most fundamental level, white is white supremacy, which exists systematically regardless of whether I, as a white person, am nice to blacks because I still have the advantage of being white in a system that grants privilege to whites. And black is black suffering, which exists regardless of how many white relationships they've fostered because blacks still live with the disadvantage of being black in a system that stigmatizes blackness.

Theologically though, Cone uses the white/black dynamic to encapsulate a larger picture that goes beyond you and me and white or black individuals. Blacks become the people of God as the oppressed and the dispossessed who have taken up the cross, and Whites become the anti-Christ as the oppressors who dominate and subject God's children for their own gain (Native Americans, Blacks, other minorities, and all colonized groups which have been colonized for economic gain).

While this does not mean that I, as one white female am the anti-Christ, it does mean that I need to be reconciled to those who suffer instead of simply existing, however nicely, in a system built on oppressing certain groups of people. It means that I can't be Christian and simultaneously espouse the ideology of supremacy and oppression and even complacency that has plagued White people, who are unaware of their privilege but are still terrified of losing it. It means that I can't expect black people to be more or act more "white" so that I am more comfortable, no, I have to let black people be black and love the beauty of their blackness.

With this rough sketch of white and black dynamics in this book, know that when sitting down to read this book, you will have to check your pride, holier-than-thou, blameless attitudes and assumptions at the door and realize that this is about so much more than you. Don't get offended, be sympathetic. Don't get complacent, be spurred on to change. Don't feel attacked, feel admiration for the frank honesty that Cone is bringing to the table. Don't take the "higher ground" whatever you think that is, be real and imagine yourself in the place of a black individual--you'll find that you have no room to advise, criticize, or require anything of any black person who has systematically suffered under white oppression, regardless of whether you yourself have "done anything wrong" because many of us have done nothing to make it right. Don't mumble about letting bygones be bygones, especially since the suffering still continues and racism is not dead. And don't absolve yourself and avoid these difficult conversations for any reason.

At the end of the day, "we all know that a racist structure will reject and threaten a black man in white skin as quickly as a black man in black skin. It accepts and rewards whites in black skins nearly as well as whites in white skins. Therefore, being reconciled to God does not mean that one's skin is physically black. It essentially depends on the color of your heart, soul, and mind. . . . The real questions are: Where is your identity? Where is your being? Does it lie with the oppressed blacks or with the white oppressors? Let us hope that there are enough to answer this question correctly so that America will not be compelled to acknowledge a common humanity only be seeing that blood is always one color." (151-152).

[William Weld-Wallis · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recently dusted off my old and beat up copy of this book to reread it. I think I read this in the mid to late 70's and can only imagine how my young progressive but confused evangelical brain processed much of what Cone says in this book. It was written shortly after the assassination of MLK, and published in 1969. It is an in-your-face, radical, and angry book. I wish someone would write a bio of James Cone so I can see how his thinking and theology changed between this book, and, for instance, onen of his classic books "The Cross and the Lynching Tree," written in 2013 (which I just loved). This book is wonderful and challenging in so many ways. To Cone, God is Black, Jesus is Black, because God is a God of oppressed people. From those enslaved in Egypt to Black Americans experiencing their own enslavement in the Americas, and their post-Civil War enslavement of a different kind, God is the God of the oppressed. He is more interested in H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael than MLK, though he does appreciate MLK as well. His critique of the white church is damning, and his critique of much of the then-modern Black church is not much more favorable, though his appreciation for the Black church in freedom struggles from slavery to modern times is always evident. He understands and sympathizes with violence and is short of patience for those who critique Black violence while sitting within positions of what we now call white privilege. Questions of religious authority (scripture, reason, etc,) become moot as he says that "Black theology knows no authority more binding than the experience of oppression itself. This alone must be the ultimate authority in religious matters." His work is incredibly challenging, and quite compelling. One footnote: I read the original version of the book. I understand he put out a revised version some years later that attempted to get away from the intense partiarchy and sexism exhibited in this book, again written in 1969.

[Allen Abbott · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75

Basically, I have conflicting feelings about Black Theology and Black Power.

I agree with Cone’s diagnosis of systemic anti-black racism and even his revolutionary plan of action (including *limited* strategic violence). Still, I doubt that the violent movement for which he advocates would receive Jesus’s support. As far as I can see, Jesus never condoned violence for the advancement of God’s Kingdom (a critique that Cone, admittedly, responds to, albeit unsatisfactorily), and there’s no reason to think that he would have made an exception for the 20th-century Black Power movement. That being said, regardless of Jesus’s teachings on the matter, I happen to believe that violent resistance is sometimes necessary for the preservation and empowerment of marginalized communities—but I think it’s important that Jesus’s teachings regarding nonviolence be maintained in their original integrity, not erased to validate our modern projects. We must have the courage to respectfully disagree with Jesus, or, in defiance, take up arms to fight.

On a related note, I have one more criticism of Black Theology and Black Power. Unfortunately, Cone nowhere explicitly defines the borders that define proper or legitimate revolutionary activities—and, in this way, sets up the stage for unnecessary suffering. This has been seen in other movements. In the anti-apartheid struggle of South Africa, for example, inflammatory anti-white narratives incited random acts of violence against otherwise innocent white people—in part, this was due to the failure of some revolutionary leaders to define “constructive violence” rather than absurd or purely destructive violence. Revolutionary leaders have a responsibility to clearly distinguish between the two, lest they undermine the moral high ground on which they stand.

Anyway, I liked the book overall—and agree with the vast majority of it, even if a few criticisms can be made. I would recommend it to anyone interested in either the historical encounter between the Black Power Movement and American Christianity or the theological possibilities of Black Power.