Transcript
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 1: -- Dr. James Cone is a result of a combined effort of a combined effort of four different groups, campus student groups -- the International Student Association, Ploughshares, The Forum for Politics and Ethics, and the Association of Black Students. I think this reflects a wide variety of students in Princeton Seminary, and it's good that we've had this united effort to have Dr. Cone here with us tonight. But I think that, also, many of us here who have either
taken TH01 or who have read some of his books or who know something of the power of his thought are here to hear him, even though we're not a member of one of those groups. And I noticed that there are people here from all angles, people here from different churches, different seminaries, I'm sure the university, also. And it's really a great pleasure to have Dr. James Cone with us here tonight.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 2: James H. Cone is Charles A. Briggs Professor of Systematic theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York. A lecturer on both the national and international scene, he is also contributing editor to Christianity in Crisis, Review of Religious Research, and The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Seminary -- Theological Center, rather, in Atlanta. Dr. Cone received his bachelor of divinity from Garrett
Theological Seminary, his PhD from Northwestern University, and has taught at Philander Smith College in Arkansas and Adrian College in Michigan. Books by Dr. Cone include Black Power and Black Theology, A Black Theology of Liberation, The Spirituals and the Blues, and probably his best-known, God of
the Oppressed. The focus of his lecture for this evening will be the origin and impact of black theology and other Third World liberation perspectives.
CONE: Thank you very much. I'm very pleased to be here, and deeply honored by your presence tonight. Tonight, the title of my lecture is "Black Theology: Its Origin, Method, and Relation to Third World Theologies." The concept, black theology, refers to a theological movement that emerged
among North American black people during the second half of the 1960s. During the early part of the 1970s, the North American idea of black theology began to make an impact in South Africa. In my lecture tonight, I will limit my analysis of the origin and meaning of North American black theology with special reference
to its methodology, as defined particularly by its dialogue with Third World theologies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We look first at the origin of black theology. The origin of black theology has three contexts. One, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and '60s, largely associated with Martin Luther King Jr. Secondly,
the publication of Joseph Washington's book on black religion in 1964. And thirdly, the rise of the Black Power movement strongly influenced by Malcolm X's philosophy of black nationalism. We look first at the Civil Rights Movement. All persons involved in black theology were also deeply involved in the
Civil Rights Movement, and they participated in the protest demonstration lead by Martin Luther King Jr. Unlike most contemporary theological movements in Europe and North America, it is important to note that black theology's origin did not take place in the seminary or the university. In fact, most of the early interpreters of black theology did not
hold advanced academic degrees. Black theology, therefore, came into being in the context of black people's struggle for racial justice, which was initiated in black churches, but chiefly identified with such protest organizations as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, SCLC; the National Conference of Black Churchmen, NCBC;
the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization, IFCO; and also many black caucuses in white churches. From the very beginning, black theology was understood by its creators as a Christian theological reflection upon the black struggle for justice and liberation, largely defined by the life and thought
of Martin Luther King Jr. When Martin King and other black church people began to relate the Christian gospel to the struggle for justice in American society, the great majority of white churches and their theologians denied that such a relationship existed. Conservative white Christians claimed that religion and politics did not mix
at that time. Liberal white Christians, with few exceptions during the 1950s and early '60s, remained silent on the theme, or they advocated a form of gradualism that denounced boycotts, sit-ins, and Freedom Rides. Contrary to popular opinion, Martin King was not well received by the white church establishment
initially when he [inaugurated?] the Civil Rights Movement with the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955. Because black people received no theological support from white churches and their theologians -- they were too busy, occupied with Barth, [Bootman?], and the death of God controversy. Because that was the case, black people themselves had to search deeply
into their own history in order to find a theological basis for their prior political commitment to set free the black poor. They found support in Richard Allen, the founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1816; Henry Highland Garnet, a nineteenth-century Presbyterian preacher, who urged slaves to resist
slavery; Nat Turner, a slave Baptist preacher who led an insurrection that killed nearly 60 whites; Henry McNeal Turner, an AME bishop who claimed in 1898 that God is a Negro; and many others. When blacks investigated their religious history, they were reminded that their struggles for political justice did
not begin in the 1950s and '60s, but actually had roots stretching back for many years. It was also encouraging to find out that black people's struggle for political justice in North America have always been located in their churches. Whether we speak of the independent Northern churches such as AME, AMEZ, Baptist, etc.,
or the so-called invisible institution among the slaves in the South, which actually merged with the independent churches after the Civil War. Or, whether we speak of blacks in white denominations, black Christians have always known that the God of Moses and of Jesus did not create them to be slaves or second-class citizens in North America. In order to
make a theological witness of this religious knowledge, black preachers and civil rights activists of the early 1960s began to develop a black theology that rejected racism and affirmed the black struggle for liberation as consistent with the gospel of Jesus. Now, [second?] context for the origin of black theory, Joseph Washington's book, Black Religion.
When black preachers and lay activist Christians began to search for the radical side of their black church history, they also began to ask about the distinctive religious and theological contributions of black people. It was generally assumed by most whites, and unfortunately by many blacks, as well, that black people's culture had no unique
contribution to make to Christianity in particular and to humanity generally. Indeed, white, liberal Christians understood integration to mean assimilation. And that meant blacks rejecting their cultural past by becoming like whites, adopting European cultural values. The assumption behind the white definition of integration was the belief
that African cultural values among North American blacks were completely destroyed during the time of slavery. Therefore, they claimed, if blacks were to develop a cultural knowledge of themselves, then they had to find it in their identification with white American values. Joseph Washington, a black scholar, wrote his book in the context of the dominance
of integration in black/white relations in America. Contrary to the dominant view, Washington contended that there was a unique black culture, a distinctive black religion that can be placed alongside of Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, and secularism. Black religion, he claimed, is not identical with white Protestantism or any expression
of Euro-American Christianity. Washington, however, was not pleased with the continued existence of black religion, and he placed the blame squarely upon white Christians. He contended that black religion exists only because black people have been excluded from the genuine Christianity of white churches. Because blacks were excluded
from the faith of white churches, black churches, he claimed, were not genuine Christian churches. And if there are no genuine Christian churches, there can be no Christian theology. Blacks, therefore, have only folk religion and folk theology. In Washington's own words, he expressed it like this. Quote, "Negro congregations are not churches, but religious
societies. Religion can choose to worship whatever gods are pleasing, but a church without a theology, the interpretation of the will of God for the faithful, is a contradiction of terms," unquote. Now, although Joe Washington's book, Black Religion, was well received, and with a great deal of enthusiasm in the white community -- yet, it was strongly denounced in the black church community.
Indeed, black theology, in part, was created in order to refute Washington's thesis. Black preachers wanted to correct two misconceptions that he had. One, that black religion is not Christian and thus has no Christian theology. And two, that the Christian gospel has nothing to do with the struggle for justice in society.
Now, the third context of black theology, the Black Power Movement. After the March on Washington in 1963, August of that year, the integration theme in the black community began to lose ground to the black nationalist philosophy of Malcolm X. The riots in the ghettos of the U.S. cities were shocking evidence that many blacks agreed
with Malcolm X's contention that America was not a dream but a nightmare. However, it was not until the summer of 1966, after Malcolm X's assassination, which occurred in February of '55 -- it was after -- during that summer of '66 that the term Black Power began to usurp the word integration among many civil rights activists. The occasion was the continuation
of the James Meredith March Against Fear in Mississippi by Martin Luther King Jr., Stokely Carmichael, and other civil rights activists. Stokely Carmichael seized this particular occasion to sound the Black Power slogan, and it was heard loud and clear throughout the U.S. The rise of Black Power had a profound effect upon
the rise of black theology. When Carmichael and other radical black activists separated themselves from Martin King's absolute commitment to nonviolence by proclaiming Black Power, white church people, especially their clergymen, called upon their black brothers and sisters in the gospel to denounce Black Power as unchristian. But to the surprise of white Christians, black
ministers refused to follow their advice, and instead wrote a Black Power statement that was published in the New York Times, July 31, 1966. The publication of this Black Power statement may be regarded as the beginning of the conscious development of a black theology in which black ministers consciously separated their understanding of the gospel
of Jesus, from white Christianity. And black ministers identified the gospel with the struggle of the black poor for justice. Radical black clergy created an ecumenical organization that they called the National Conference of Black Churchmen, NCBC, as well as -- to create, as well, many black caucuses in the National Council of Churches and in almost every
white denominational church. Black clergy denounced white racism as the antichrist, and were unrelenting in their attack upon the demonic presence of racism in white denominations. It was in this context that the phrase black theology began to emerge. These three contexts: the Civil Rights Movement, the Black Power Movement, and the publication of Joseph Washington's
book are the three contexts for the origin of black theology. We look briefly at black theology as liberation theology. Now, it's one thing to proclaim black theology, and it's quite another to give theological substance to it. Many white Christians and almost all white theologians dismissed black theology as nothing but rhetoric. Since white theologians controlled the seminaries and
the university departments of religion, they made many blacks feel that only Europeans and persons who think like them could actually define what theology is. Now, in order to challenge the white monopoly on the definition of theology, many young black scholars realized that they had to carry the fight to the seminaries and to the universities where theology was being taught and
written. The first book on black theology was written by me under the title Black Theology and Black Power in 1969. The central thesis of that book was its identification of the liberating elements in Black Power with the Christian gospel. One year later, I authored the second book, A Black Theology of Liberation, 1970, and made liberation the organizing
center of my theological perspective. At that time, I wrote, "Christian theology is a theology of liberation. It is a rational study of the being of God in the world, in the light of the [existential?] situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel who is Jesus Christ." Now, after my works appeared, other black theologians joined me,
supporting my theological project and also challenging what they regarded as my theological excesses. In his Liberation and Reconciliation: A Black Theology, published in 1971, J. Deotis Roberts, while supporting my emphasis on liberation, nonetheless claimed that I had overlooked reconciliation as central to the gospel and also central
in black/white relations. A similar position was advocated by Major Jones -- his book Black Awareness: A Theology of Hope, published during the same year in '71. Other black theologians claimed that I was too much dependent upon white theology, and thus was not sufficiently aware of the African origins of black religion. This position was taken by my brother Cecil
in his book, Identity Crisis in Black Theology, and it is also found in Gayraud Wilmore's book, Black Religion and Black Radicalism. While my perspective on black theology was challenged by other black scholars -- yet they supported by claim that liberation was the central core of the gospel, as found in the scriptures and the religious history of black Americans. For a
black theologian, the political meaning of liberation was best illustrated in the Exodus, and its eschatological meaning was found in the life, death, and the resurrection of Jesus. The Exodus was interpreted to be analogous to Nat Turner's slave insurrection, and also Harriet Tubman's liberation of an estimated 300 slaves to freedom. Slave
songs, often called the Negro spirituals, black sermons, and prayers expressed the futuristic character of liberation, as found in the resurrection of Jesus. Because many black male theologians were reluctant to take up the subject of sexism and others were openly hostile when black women raised the issue as a critical theological problem, a black
feminist theology began to emerge as an open challenge to the patriarchal nature of the current perspectives of black theology. Jacquelyn Grant and [Pauline Merly?] are prominent examples of this new emerging theology. While they accept the liberation theme of black theology -- yet black feminist theologians reject the narrow limitation of that
[theme?] to racism, as if sexism is not an important problem in the black community. Because of the urgency of the problem of sexism, black women have begun to insist on doing theology from out of their own experience. Black feminist theology is both a challenge to the sexist orientation of black theology as done by males and a deepening
of the entire black struggle against racism itself in the white community. We look now at black theology's method and its relation to other Third World theologies. During the beginning of the 1970s, black theologians of North America began to have some contact with other forms of liberation theology in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Black theology in
South Africa became a natural ally. Black and Latin theologies became core partners in their identification of the gospel with the liberation of the poor, although one emphasized racism and the other classicism. A similar partnership occurred with [black?], African, and Asian theologians regarding the importance of color in the definition -- of culture in the definition of
theology. In black theologian's dialogue with Third World theologians of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the striking difference between the theologies of the poor and the theologies of the rich became very clear to us. As long as our dialogue was confined to North American whites who oppress blacks and to Europeans theologians whom our oppressors
venerated, our understanding of the theological [ties?] was determined too much by our reactions to white racism in the United States. African, Asian, and Latin American theologians enlarged our vision by challenging us to do theology from a global perspective of oppression. Third World theologians urged us to analyze racism in
relation to international capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, world poverty, classism, and sexism. For the first time, black theologians began to seriously consider socialism as an alternative to capitalism. We began to see the connections between the black ghettos in the United States and poverty in Asia, Africa, and Latin America,
between the rising unemployment among blacks and other poor people in the U.S. and the exploitation of the labor of Third World peoples, and between the racist practices of white churches of North America and Europe and the activities of their missionaries in the Third World. These discoveries deeply affected our political and our theological vision, and we began to see clearly
that we could not do theology in isolation from our struggling brothers and sisters in the Third World. As oppressors band themselves together in order to keep the poor of the world in poverty, the world's poor must enter into political and theological solidarity if they expect to create a movement of liberation that is capable of breaking the chains of oppression.
Early in our dialogue, black and Third World theologians realized the importance of building a common theological movement of liberation, although we experienced several differences with each other, especially with Latins during the early stages of our dialogue regarding the relation between race and class analysis. Yet, our mutual commitment
to do theology in solidarity with the poor held us together. We had too much in common to allow our differences to separate us. Furthermore, it became increasingly clear that our differences were largely due to a difference in context and to our mutual internalization of the lies that our oppressors
had told us about each other. After black and Third World theologians' nearly eight years of dialogue, under the auspices of the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians, including six major conferences, our differences have diminished considerably, and our similarities have increased to the extent that we
are now engaged in the exciting task of creating a Third World theology of liberation that we all can support. When the question is asked, how do we do theology, black and Third World theologians agree that theology is not the first act, but rather the second. Although our Latin brothers and sisters, with the use of Marxist class analysis,
were the first to explicate this methodological point -- yet it was already present and now reaffirmed in all of our theologies. The first act is both a religio-cultural affirmation and a political commitment to be -- commitment on behalf of the liberation of the poor and the voiceless people of our continent. Our cultural
identity and political commitment are worth more than a thousand textbooks of theology. That is why we do not talk about theology as the first order of business in our association. Rather, our first concern is with the quality of the commitments that each of us has made and will make for those about whom and with whom we claim
to do theology. We contend that we know what people believe by what they do and not by what they say in their creeds, conference statements, or theological textbooks.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 3: Amen.
CONE: Praxis, that is a reflective political action that includes cultural identity, praxis comes before theology in any formal sense. Therefore, the initial motivation that compels us to do theology is not our desire to [place?] books in university and seminary libraries
for professors and their graduate students. On the contrary, our reason for making theology arises out of our experience in the ghettos, the villages, and the churches of the poor in our countries. We do not believe that is it is necessary for our people to remain poor. Something must be done about the misery of our people. Doing and saying are therefore
bound together so that the meaning of what one says can only be validated by what one does. Theology for us, then, is critical reflection upon a prior religio-cultural affirmation and political commitment to be in solidarity with the victims on our continents. Because the starting point of black and Third World theologies is defined
by a prior cultural affirmation and political commitment to be in solidarity with the poor, because that's the starting point, our theologies bear the names that reflect our affirmations and our commitments. We call our theologies black, African, Hispanic-American, Asian, red, Latin-America (inaudible) black feminist and a host of other names that sound
strange to persons whose theological knowledge has been confined to European and North American theologians. The identities of our theologies are defined by the human and the divine dimensions of reality to which we are attempting to bear witness. We do not begin our theology with a reflection on divine revelation, as if the God of our
faith is separate from the suffering of our people. We do not believe that revelation is a deposit of fixed doctrines or an objective Word of God that is applied to the human situation. On the contrary, we contend that there is a no truth outside of or beyond the concrete events in which people are engaged as agents.
Truth is found, therefore, in the histories, the cultures, and in the religions of our peoples. Our focus on the social and the religio-cultural analysis separates our theological enterprise from the progressive and abstract theologies of Europe and North America. It also illuminates the reasons why orthopraxis in
contrast to orthodoxy has become, for many of us, a criterion of theology. Although black and Third World theologians have been accused of reducing theology to ideology by many European and North American critics -- yet, we contend that that criticism is misplaced, because it camouflages the human character of
all theologies, and particularly camouflages the ideological option that the rich -- for the rich that our critics have already made in their theology. Unlike our critics, we do not claim to be neutral in our theology, because the enormity of the suffering of our people demands that we choose for their liberation and against the structures
of oppression. We cannot let the people who support the structures of oppression define for us what theology is. On this point, black theologians identify with the way in which Malcolm X expressed it. And this is what he said, quote, "Don't let anybody who's oppressing us ever lay down the ground rules. Don't go by their game. Don't
play the game by their rules. Let them know that this is a new game, and we've got new rules," unquote. Now, the dominant theologians of Europe and North America want the same theological rules because they made those rules, and their rules will help them to keep the world as it is -- namely whites controlling blacks, men dominating women, and the rich nations keeping the poor nations
dependent. But what most European and North American whites find difficult to understand is that we are living in a new world situation, and this requires a new way of making and doing theology. Again, I like the way Malcolm X expressed it. Quote, "The time we are living in," he says, "and are facing now is not an era in which one who is oppressed is looking
toward the oppressor to give him some system or form of logic or reason. What is logical to the oppressor isn't logical to the oppressed. And what is reason to the oppressor isn't reason to the oppressed. The black people in this country are beginning to realize that what sounds reasonable to those who exploit us doesn't sound reasonable to us. There just
has to be a new system of reason and logic devised by us who are at the bottom if we want to get some results in this struggle that is called the Negro Revolution," unquote. In our association called The Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians, the black and Third World theologians have been attempting to develop, together, a
new way of doing theology, in contrast to the dominant theologies of Europe and North America that are largely defined by their responses to the European Enlightenment and the problem of the unbeliever that arose from it. In contrast, our theological enterprise focuses on Europe's and North America's invasions of the continents of Africa, Asia, and Latin
America, inaugurating the slave trade, colonization, and neo-colonialism. Our primary theological question, therefore, is not how can we believe in God in view of modern Western confidence and reason, science, and technology that seems to exclude the necessity for faith in God -- that's not our first question. Rather, our theological problem arises
from our encounter of God in the experience of the misery of the poor. How can we speak about Jesus's death on the cross without first speaking about the death of poor people? How can the poor of our country achieve worth as human beings in a world that has attempted to destroy our cultures and our religions?
The chief contradiction out of which our theologies achieve their distinctiveness is the problem of the poor person, the non-person. That is why our most important conversational partners are not philosophers of metaphysics and other socially disinterested intellectuals in the university. Rather, we are primarily interested in talking with social scientists
and political activists who are engaged in the liberation of the poor. Black and Third World theologians concerned about the oppressed person has forced us to establish links with the communities of the poor, and we experience in their ecclesial life something more than a routine gathering of like-minded people. In poor
people's worship life is revealed a knowledge of themselves that cannot be destroyed by the structures that oppress them. The liberating character of their spirituality can be seen in the way poor people's faith in God evolves out of their cultural and their political aspirations. It can be observed in the basic Christian communities
of Latin America, the black and Hispanic churches of North America, the indigenous churches and traditional religions of Africa, and in the religious life of Asia. In their worship, the God of grace and of judgment meets the poor and transforms their personhood from nobody to somebody and bestows upon them the power and the courage to struggle for justice.
Worship, therefore, is not primarily an expression of the individual's private relationship with God. Rather, it is a community happening, an eschatological invasion of God into the gathered community of the victims, empowering them with the divine spirit from on high to keep on keeping on, even though the odds
might be against them. In the collective presence of the poor at worship, God recreates them as a liberated community who must bring freedom to the oppressed of the land. Black and Third World theologies are being created out of poor people's ecclesial and religious life, and they seek to interpret the God encountered
in their religio-cultural and political struggles to overcome Euro-American domination. It has been within the context of the churches and the religions of the poor that black and Third World theologies have begun to reread the Bible. In this rereading, many of us have begun to speak of the hermeneutical privilege of the poor, and of God's
bias toward the poor. Although Latin theologians have been more exegetical work to demonstrate the Biblical option for the poor than others -- yet, a similar concern is shared by most Third World theologians. For example, [Sun Am Down?], an interpreter of Minjung theology of South Korea may be quoted as an instance. Quote, "Theological
activities," he says, "do not end with the exposition of Biblical text on salvation or liberation or of people by God. In the Bible, the Exodus, the activities of the prophets, and [the -- even of?] the cross offer new insight. But these texts," he says, "ought to be rediscovered and reinterpreted in the context of the human struggle
for historical and political liberation today," unquote. Now, while acknowledging the distinctiveness of black and Third World theologies, of distinctiveness -- that is, primarily defined by their own particular context -- yet, their method of doing theology may be summarized with the following emphasis. One, black and Third World theologians do
theology in complex religio-cultural context, and with the political commitment to liberate poor people from oppression. Theology, then, is reflection upon the meaning of God in solidarity with poor people who are struggling to overcome cultural and political domination. The acid test of any theological truth is found
in whether it aids the victim in their struggle to overcome their victimization. There are no abstract objective truths that are applicable to all times and all situations. Truth is concrete, and it is inseparable from the oppressed who are struggling for freedom. The second point, because the liberation of our people is the central
motivation for us to engage in the theological enterprise, the second element of our method is social analysis. Social analysis is bringing to light that which is hidden. It is unmasking untruth so that truth can be seen in a clear light. Black and Third World theologians do not believe that that work of theology can be done unless truth is known about the systems of
domination. Racism, sexism, colonialism, capitalism, and militarism must be comprehensively analyzed so that these demons can be destroyed. We agree with Karl Marx's 11 theses on Feuerbach. The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. In our use of the critical tools of the social sciences, as well as religio-cultural
analyses, black and Third World theologians have been attempting to make theologies of liberation rather than theologies of domestication. Third point. Through a political commitment that is informed by social and cultural analysis, a new hermeneutical situation is created. The Bible is no longer a mere ancient document whose meaning can only be
uncovered by the historical criticisms of Biblical experts. Political commitment informed by social analysis provides an angle of vision that enables us to reinterpret the scripture, and thus bring to light that message [which?] European and North American Biblical exegesis have often covered up. When the Bible is read in the community of the poor,
it is not understood by them as a deposit of doctrine or of revealed truths about God. Rather, the Bible becomes a living book that tells the story of God's dealing with God's people. Its importance as a source for creating theology cannot be overstated for black and Third World theologians. Even feminists and South African
theologians who question the authority of the Bible largely because of its sexist and racist [misuse?] yet do not ignore it. They wrestle with it, refusing to allow its -- [allow?] an abstract Biblical authority, written by men and interpreted by whites to negate the authority of their own experience. God, they insist, cannot be
less than the human experience of liberation from oppression. We must not allow an abstract Word of God to usurp God's Word as spirit, who empowers people to be who they are, fully human, in such of the highest beauty, love, and enjoy. Fourth [and last?], the meaning of the gospel that is derived from our
rereading of the Bible cannot be communicated with old European and North American theological concepts. The truth derived from our people's struggle must be communicated through the histories and the cultures of our peoples. Truth is embedded in the stories, the songs, the dances, the sermons, the paintings, and the sayings of our people. Since many of us have learned how to do theology
in European and North American universities and seminaries, we've had to be converted to a radically new way of doing theology. How do we make theology using the history and the culture of our people? What method is appropriate for these sources? The answer to this question is not clear to many of us, and that is why several of the members of our
association will spend the next few years working on this methodological problem. Because black and Third World theologians have been doing theology only for a short time, and doing it together for even less, we do not have a fully developed method of making theology. These points that I have emphasized tonight represent my attempt to listen to what
we have been saying to each other in our search to build a Third World theology that is derived from the religio-cultural and political struggles of our people to overcome European and American domination. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 4: I don't know if that was a lecture or a sermon, but it sounded real good. Dr. Cone will now entertain some questions from the audience.
M3: Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 5: What is it [about the God?] (inaudible)
CONE: (inaudible) said that in 1898, the importance of --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 5: (inaudible)
CONE: Yeah, maybe I'd better get back here, then. Bishop -- he asked me the question, what is the meaning of God is a Negro. I think that's the point he had. And that was a -- that's a quotation from Bishop Henry McNeal Turner, a bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. And he wrote that in The Christian -- in The AME Review, which -- he was one of the editors. And he wrote it in 1898.
Now, the importance of that in my lecture tonight is to indicate that, you know, I'm not the first one to see the importance of -- to see color as an important theological affirmation in my people's history in my church. Most people think I created this emphasis. I just want to tell them that a bishop in the church is -- also said something like that. I mean, I haven't quite said it that strongly, I don't think. Maybe I have. But
that's the first thing. But the other thing is, you have to understand what was going on in 1898 in the black community. That was a time people were writing books like Negro is a Beast. That was a time -- of which most black people were being lynched. That was a time in which political disenfranchisement of blacks took place throughout the whole South. The most extreme
form of oppression that black people ever experienced in this country, I think, even more than slavery was the during the latter part of the nineteenth century, because as a slave, you at least were worth something as -- to be sold. But when you, you know, when you are not anybody's piece of property and you have no laws that protect you at all -- and which people are free to lynch you at will -- and nearly 5,000 black
people were lynched during the latter part and the early part of the twentieth century, which has been documented. That's not to count all of the people who were not found and etc. So, it was said during the time in which social, you know, Darwinism, social Darwinism was at its peak. America seeing itself -- the white race, the Aryan race as the dominant race, and Darwin's scientific theory being an indication of that, etc. So, Turner was
responding to that, and his statement was, you know, white people have -- you know, white people -- his comment was to assure you that God was not white, and that as -- if whites identify God as being white, black people have as much right to identify God as being black, and that there's nothing more shocking about that than it is when -- white people doing the same thing. That was his point. And I say that now, you know,
people -- you could apply that to most of the theologies being written in white seminaries today. They don't have to call it white, but you know it's white because it's dealing with them and nobody else. So, that's what the meaning of that -- but, now, in my theology, when I say God is black, what I mean is is that God is identified with the victim. I don't think that you can have the Christian God who's identified with the oppressor.
And one way -- you have to be concrete, you know, when you do it. You realize that theology is something that's done often. You had to do it every morning you get up, and it changes, you know? Because the world changes. And you can't fix it the same way -- exactly the -- all the time, because, you know, Barth was right. You have the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in the other one. You might be a fairly decent theologian if you have the right newspaper in your hand.
That's the point. Not The New York Times. That won't help you too much. But the main point that I want to make is precisely that. The risk of what it means to identify God with the victim. And, you know, with this Holy Week coming up, we should know something about what it means to be a victim. You know, we should -- we -- you know, all you have to do is ask where would Jesus
be today? I mean, that is not an irrelevant question, I don't think. And it's hard for me to see that Jesus would be in most of the churches I know about, and be identified with most of the things people do around this time, because Jesus was found among the victims. The poor, the weak. And that's what I would -- that's the main emphasis. Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 6: [Is methodological?] (inaudible) doing theology, you completely -- it appears to me that you are not taken with the concept of sin (inaudible) have you come up with any other [concept that?] --
CONE: Well, yeah, I think with the -- one -- that's one thing we're fairly big on, is sin, because -- he asked me whether we were taking the concept of sin seriously. I think our theology comes into being largely because of the sin in the world. I'm reading a lot of Martin King now because I'm writing something about him. During the near end of his life, the last two years or so, he just kept saying, "Something
something is wrong with this nation, deeply wrong, and I am not going to shut up about it." And he just kept saying something is wrong. Well, what Third World theologians are saying is something is wrong with the way in which European and North American and Christian churches talk about God. And we think it covers up the sin in the world. See, sin, it has to do with
injustice. I mean, it's just not only in your heart. What's in your heart comes out on other folk if you got the power to do it. So, sin is in the structures of injustice. And we don't deny, you know, the other forms of personal sin, of course. But we just want to make sure -- theology's always a matter of emphasis. You just [might have to?] make sure you're making the right emphasis at the right time. And that's
why you can't do (inaudible) sometimes it's very important to emphasize a certain dimension, because it's being overlooked. And I think at this time -- I don't think theology suffers from being identified with the poor too much. I don't think that's a danger. Not in Princeton, I don't think it's too much. But it is a danger being identified with the rich.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 6: But have you -- find any other theological answer -- I mean (inaudible)
CONE: Well, we read the Bible a lot, and -- no, you know, we are trying to explicate -- see, one thing about theology, the way we do it, is not so much a new content as it is new method, new way of doing it. We read the same thing and we talk about the same things. Just talk about them from a different angle of vision. And talk about them by being involved. We don't like theology
done simply by reading books. I mean, it's important to read books, because I read them. I make my students read them. But it's also important to link that -- you know, to see yourself as preparing yourself for engagement. And you've got to decide who you're going to use your knowledge for. I mean, you know, you can learn a lot about the Bible, lot about history, lot about a lot of things. Now, who you going to use it for? Who is going to
be the people you're going to be most trying to speak for? Well, now, I think most churches and most theologians today in Europe and North America tend to speak for the interests of the advantaged people. I mean, you can just read the books. They're written at a level where it's mainly for advantaged people. It's topics they choose for discussion. The issues, the questions they ask. You know, any time you write anything, you are
generally speaking -- trying to answer something. Something's not right, and you're trying to explain it, and it's a -- and so, whose problems it is that you want to explain -- going to tell you something about what kind of theology you're going to have? Who you talk to -- you know, your conversational partner -- going to tell you a lot about what kind of theology you make and [why?] -- how you see what the gospel is, etc., etc. So, the only point I want to make -- emphasize is that we don't go through a -- we don't make up a lot of new
things. We do it a different way. And as a process of doing a different way, it comes out different, and we are still struggling with that. We don't claim to be that revolutionary in terms of new concepts. Yes, back over here in the corner?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 7: My question is (inaudible)
CONE: I can't hear.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 7: [How about dealing?] (inaudible) I believe (inaudible) [the diction we use?] also expresses the crisis of issues (inaudible) [do not?] know how you are dealing with this question on the Third World, First World, Second World -- I thought that by now, it should also be handling the [issue that?] -- the people who are oppressed [should not?]
-- [necessarily the oppressed?] group (inaudible) [works in the mind of the crisis?] (inaudible) very psychological (inaudible) black theologians should begin to address (inaudible)
CONE: Yeah, I think that's a good point. That's a good point. And it's been greatly discussed in The Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians, that issue you've just raised. And we [toured?] around -- this association began in Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, in 1976. We've held meetings in Ghana, in Sri Lanka, in Brazil, in New Delhi, and most recently in Geneva and more coming up in August in Hong Kong. We've debated
this issue. The only thing I can say is -- is that if you want to know where it's been discussed and why we chose that, etc., despite its limitations -- one of the thing -- about language is its imperfection to describe what you want to describe. And when you are a victim, it's even more impossible. And so, I -- you know, I don't -- I -- the only thing I can say is that the largest number of persons in that -- in the association
are not black, but mainly Asians, Africans, and Latin American -- there are -- some discussion as to whether blacks should be in it, or whether Hispanic-Americans should be in it. It's when the question of Third World was coming up. And what we -- and whether that term was appropriate. The only thing I can say is is that I probably couldn't answer your concern. But I could -- the only thing I can say is -- is not something we've overlooked, and it's something we've -- it's somewhat like the term black.
Lot of black people don't like to be called that. They'd rather be called African, others want to be called colored, more -- others Negro. I don't know why that one, but they do. So, it's -- any time oppressed people are placed in a situation -- it is a problem of definition. Problem of defining yourself, and I -- you know, the only thing I can do is agree with what you said and acknowledge the imperfections of that term and -- but sometimes, you know -- it's like Christians, you know? When they were called Christians,
they didn't choose that themselves, you know? Somebody else chose that and -- but they took it on over and turned it into something else. You know, OK, that's what you're going to call us? Oh, fine, then. And they made a new meaning out of that word. And so, in some sense, that was the same kind of rationale behind the use of Third World, and also behind -- I know behind the use of black in my own community. It's because it was so negative, we took it over and made it beautiful.
So that's why we said black is beautiful and etc. Used to be, when I was growing up, we didn't want nobody to call us that. You know, call us anything. Don't call me black, now. That would be fighting -- so -- but in the '60s -- I mean, we changed that over. So, something like that was a part of the discussion in Third World. That's the only explanation I can give you. It doesn't answer your concern. Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 8: I'd like to share a concern. I see an analogy between what's happening here tonight and what is always happening in the white community. It happened in the March on Washington -- it's like the old race relation Sundays we used to have in white churches. We invite an intellectual to come here and to tell the truth. And that's going to be our token deal with our own problem here. And our own problem here is that we're not going to
do any praxis. And I've only been here a year, but I'm really disturbed that we are doing nothing about our problem. And when the March on Washington was over -- and I was on the organizing committee -- everybody was on a high trip. And that was all there was to it, a high trip. And that's what's going on here. And I'd like to know
why this seminary, which has an endowment of $150 million, cannot bring a black theologian to this campus to speak to us more than one night a year.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 4: I think [Stole?] has brought up a good question and one that we need to consider in dialogue. I think it would be helpful, though, for the best use of Dr. Cone's time right now tonight if we would address questions that deal specifically with his lecture. I do, however, feel that those who are interested, who would like to meet with me later on this week to talk about the kinds of things that Stole was talking about -- be happy
to do that.
CONE: Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 8: Excuse me for --
CONE: Yes, right. Yes, go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 9: Yeah, when [grabbing?] the hermeneutical [privilege?] (inaudible) OK, I'd like to know, in your opinion, what is it that sympathetic white theologians can do, OK?
CONE: Yeah, I would say one thing they can do is to enter into dialogue with what Third World theologians are doing. That is to say, what does it mean to really make theology universal, you know, [as a search?] in that direction? I [claim?] that the most un-universal theology are Europeans and North
American whites, generally speaking. There are some exceptions. Because they only talk to themselves. They don't talk to people in Africa. They're not talking to people in Latin America. They've begun to enter a little bit with Latin American theology, but almost none with Africa, almost none with Asia, and very little with black and feminist theologies in this country. So, I would say one thing is to enter into dialogue. You know, I'm always
coming to places like Princeton to enter into dialogue, which means I'm trying to universalize theology, although I think y'all do it wrong sometimes. Most of the time. But I am in dialogue. What I'd like to see is white theologians go down in Harlem and enter in dialogue. I mean, me coming here is like you going to Harlem, you see? Now, I'd like to see --
I'd like to see what would happen to your theology in a serious -- what kind of moves you'd have to make. I don't mean physically, I just mean -- and -- but it does -- who you talk to changes your theology, because that's why mine's changed. I mean, I wrote Black Theology and Black Power in 1968. Actually came out in '69. But it's not the -- I've -- you know, I still stand by hard core of what I was trying to say there. But it's -- I can't do it as though
black folk are the only oppressed now. I got to enter into dialogue, I got to broaden the scope, and I got to struggle with that -- that to me is the exciting task of doing theology, because it changes you. You can't talk to people and engage in -- with -- then you might find out what needs to be done. But it makes people feel uncomfortable, because you don't control the definition of things. You have to give a little when you're in dialogue. And you
have to say now what is this person talking about? How come I can't hear that? How come I can't feel that? How come I can't see that? That's one thing, and I -- you know, I take conversations seriously, both in print and also orally. But most will talk to you orally sometime, privately. But seldom will they do it in print. And they'll say -- I've even had people say, "Well, I can't talk about black -- I'm not black." Well, they're not Scandinavian,
[but?] they talk about it, though. No, they do, [and?] they talk -- European theologians talk about everything in Europe. There are Germans talk about the non-German -- well, Germans don't talk about too many people but Germans. But I'll say the British going to talk to the Germans and the North -- you follow what I mean? They keep [their little thing a little thing?] -- little secret, but it's going on [there?]. So, first thing is dialogue, because [that?] at least --
you see, if you're teaching, what books you use tells you a lot about what's priority for you. I mean, it ain't no accident what books get chosen for a class, now. That's power, and it's no accident what courses get taught and who's the subject of them. Now, I heard somebody telling me -- and we have it at Union, too. We have a -- you know, course on
the theology of Paul Tillich. We had one at Union, too. Had one on Barth, theology of Barth. Well, you know, I teach one on Martin King and Malcolm X, you see? And that's [a little?] -- anybody does that here? All right, I guess not. But you follow what I -- but I bet you every seminary almost in this country would have something on Tillich or Barth or [someone?] like that. That tells you how important
they are to those people. Now, I went all the way through seminary, six years. You know, six years at Garrett and Northwestern. Never was there a book by a black person in any class I took. So, that says you can't think. And then people want to know why I'm mad. Do you follow what I mean? So, it -- part of it is
related to that. So, entering a dialogue is one thing, and then you can just kind of decide what -- how far you can go from there. That's not [risky?]. You know, I could say, you know, go join a certain movement. I won't suggest that, but you might be lead to do that. But I think what happens is -- and when you make a step like that, then you find out where you're prepared to go, what links you're prepared to make, and that depends upon the nature of your conversion. And I wouldn't want to, you know, say that, but I do -- I can say all theologians --
you know, if -- they can enter into that kind of dialogue that I was talking about. Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 10: Just to correct the record, there are courses [where they read?] Malcolm X, [so?] --
CONE: Oh, that's good. That's good, I'm glad about that. No, I mean -- no, no, what -- OK.
M9: [Even other?] --
Let -- now, I want to correct you. What I mean is a course labeled Malcolm X.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 10: [Oh, yeah?].
CONE: [Now?], I don't mean just use Malcolm X -- book. I mean, label Malcolm X -- like, it's labeled Tillich, you know? I mean, in the course description -- I mean, in the name -- you teach one with the name Malcolm X, I would be interested in that. You're going to do that?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 10: (inaudible).
CONE: OK. Let me know, I would like to take that one myself. OK, go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 11: (inaudible) [lot of fun, and?] I hope you [want us to dance through?] Bed-Stuy as well as Harlem.
CONE: Yes, yes, yes. That's all right.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 11: You'll accept Bed-Stuy?
CONE: Oh, yes, sure. I accept anything.
M10: Thank you very much.
Is that all you wanted to say?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 11: [That's?] (inaudible)
CONE: Oh, OK. Yes?
M10: All that I wanted to say would take a long time (inaudible)
OK, all right, OK. Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 12: Could you address the issue of the conflict between those who advocate violence and those who advocate resist-- nonviolence and -- those who advocate non-violent resistance and those who advocate violence? And the -- between those advocating (inaudible)
CONE: Oh, wait a minute, [yeah, no?], I was with you, and you kind of lost me. Go back to that again.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 12: You were discussing in your lecture the unity between the various theologians in different countries. There seems to be some conflict, though, between those who advocate a non-violent overthrow and those who advocate a more violent overthrow. Could you address that problem?
CONE: You see, I don't think -- the theologians with whom I have association don't talk about it like that. That's the way whites want to talk about it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 12: [Well, I'm white?].
CONE: And -- yeah. That is, the people who -- you know, it's not to deny that there's violence there and etc. What most people tend -- they only think of violence in terms of what poor people are doing. See, for example, we call what we're doing in (inaudible)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 12: All right.
CONE: -- covert action, you know? Now, they -- the Nicaraguan, you know, other folk (inaudible) and -- but look who's got most of the guns. You follow? And this is especially true within the context of the black movement during the '60s (inaudible) the only thing I want to say is that is not a way in which the question gets phrased now. I think the way in which it gets phrased is who's -- who -- see, when you make your commitment of whose side you're going to be on, then you can debate that. And it is debated, that it -- but it's not debated in terms of violence/nonviolence.
It's debated -- what's the best way to accomplish what we say we are going to accomplish here. That's what it is. Now, are you going to use those means to get to there? Now, how -- now, wait a minute, now. How are -- that going to get us there? You follow what I mean? It's really like that, rather than, you know,
theoretical discussion about the relationship -- [and?] violence and non-violent -- and even in Martin King, it was less that theoretical discussion and much more practical discussion. And King, in his writings and his speeches, he just said it was not practical. Course, he was ideologically committed to nonviolence. That is, he could not kill anybody and etc. But I would say there are some persons in our group -- but I would say most of them are at that other level of -- level of [this kind of?] -- what is the best way to accomplish what goals we said we wanted to accomplish. And I think putting it the other way really, really is
-- really distorts the issue. Distorts it. And it gets you bogged down -- you know, it's easy for us to sit here and talk about violence and nonviolence. And our mothers and fathers are not being killed. They are not starving. I mean, we got nice rooms and
books and food to eat, and so we can say now I wonder is it best to do this or that? Nice full stomach. Don't have to worry where the next meal is coming from, you follow? Now, it's -- that's the kind of -- and when you're put in that situation, then you're (inaudible) by it in a different sort of way, and some questions you don't ask.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 12: I see, but to have a theology based on Biblical -- you called the gospel the existential encounter with oppressed people. Now, it seems that in -- and that the gospel is focusing on liberation, OK? It seems like the method of liberation for Jesus seemed to be non-violent. How do you bring out of that an interpretation that other means --
CONE: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 12: -- of -- that was my question.
CONE: Well, you see, I think with Jesus -- you see, I don't think Jesus -- you know, I mean, maybe some of the [ethicists?] around here will help me out here. But -- or correct me. But, you see, what I would claim -- Jesus doesn't give us no ethical blueprint on what to act -- what to do. Jesus never had to face Ronald Reagan. He didn't. He never had to face, you know, a nuclear holocaust. I mean,
there are so many problems we have that Jesus never had to face.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 12: Are you sure about that, though, [really?]?
CONE: Oh, yeah, yeah, I -- there wasn't no nuclear war back then. [No, no, that didn't?] -- no, no, no. He was all powerful and everything they say, but He didn't make no nuclear bomb back then in Palestine. I mean, he didn't have the kind of complex urban situation in which we have -- and world situation in which we live in. And therefore, Jesus does not give us an ethical blueprint which we -- all we have to do is reach back, what did Jesus do? No, no, no, and if that's what they're teaching you, you go back and read it a little bit more critically than that. I see my friend [Gibson Wittels?] sitting over there. Gib, talk to him a
little bit. [What you been doing out?] -- no, no, what I want to -- I won't implicate him in what I'm doing. No, but what I want to emphasize, in all seriousness, is that what is very important -- that [image?] -- you cannot use the Bible to take out the risk from doing
in the ethical [act?]. The risk is always -- the risk of being wrong. There is no blueprint that's going to be safe for you. It is always with risk. There is no blueprint you can turn to [and you can say?] OK, I got it, because this is -- no, no. There is always the risk, there is always the doubt. And there is -- the only thing -- and the -- what Jesus does is Jesus sets that [pointer?], and where the commitment
is with the human person, human liberation. That's what it -- how to work that. You're going to have to study a lot of disciplines that, more than just the Bible. If you're all just studying the Bible, you're going to be a little inadequate there. You need to -- need other books to read other than that, because the Bible is not a blueprint that's going to tell you what to do in every ethical situation. That’s my point, therefore
I -- you can't look at Jesus and get your answer. What you can get from Jesus is a certain pointer, direction in which you have to go, a certain commitment, certain solidarity you have to make, and that is to the neighbor. But, inherent in love of the neighbor is not all of the scientific analysis [that needed?] -- in order to meet the basic needs of the neighbor. So, you got to study
more than just the Bible and know more than just love thy neighbor in order to, you know, live up to that commandment. And so, what I want to emphasize is not to remove the authority of Jesus in an ethical action for the Christian. Of course that's first. But it's not a blueprint that takes out risk out of your action. That's the problem with most, you know, most Christians. They feel -- they're so sure. You can't be that sure. You've got to keep always self-critical. And so, that would be the -- you know, the emphasis.
So, you can't look at Jesus and just get absolute on anything. That's what I would want to say. Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 13: [What of the?] main black movement (inaudible) black Civil Rights Movement in the '50s, '60s (inaudible) you mentioned [affinity?] (inaudible) [fact is that the?] movement and -- [what does that now mean?]?
CONE: What was the main movement?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 13: [What is now?] -- or what are the main (inaudible) [movement within?] (inaudible)
CONE: Well, I think the main one right now is Jesse Jackson. And a very good one. Very positive one, very visible one. So, I would say Jesse Jackson probably right now is the Civil Rights Movement. He has done more to make that a part of the consciousness of people in this -- in, you know, in this country and in the world,
whether or -- know, it sustains itself and, you know, works itself out in such a way that it, you know, achieves what it says is another question. But as -- in terms of when you ask what is the chief movement now, that would be what I would point to, but I wouldn't say that black people could just -- going to get freedom simply through electing Jesse Jackson. I wouldn't say that, but I would say in his person and in what he is doing right now -- is the best embodiment of
of the continuation of that movement in 1960s. And that's just -- that's not dependent upon Jesse Jackson's motives or what have you, although I think they're all right. They're about as good as anybody else's out there.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 4: [Right?].
CONE: And I think they're much better, because there's a moral element in that, which is a continuation of the tradition that was inaugurated -- that was so clearly present in Martin Luther King Jr. And the -- and so, I would identify there -- but there are a lot of smaller ones, you know, that relate to that and that analyze and critique that. But that's the big one, I would say. Yes, here and then here.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 14: I heard you say a lot tonight about the Holy Spirit and the spirit. And [as premise of?] this question, I find that a lot of people, upon first reading any theology of liberation, mistake it for an equation of a social program with the gospel. [And you kept?]
saying religio-social, religio-cultureal. Would you say something about how you reflect on liberation theology and (inaudible) churches (inaudible)
CONE: Yeah. I would say -- I'm not sure what you want me to say in relation to that. You know, any church movement has its negatives and positives, and there's a lot of negatives and there's a lot of positive -- and -- in the [holiness?] movement, and in any church movement. But its positive dimension is its capacity to -- is probably --
is its capacity to make solidarity and links and connections with the poor and be of the poor in ways that other movements and denominations are not. Also, the centrality of the Holy Spirit's presence in the community -- certainly dominant in the community out of which I come, although it was not holiness but it was strongly influenced by that tradition
[of?] -- most black churches were, [they?] -- that are in this country, were influenced by it. So, my -- so, I would just want to say that the one advantage of the dominant presence of the Holy -- centrality of the Holy Spirit is that it is non-conceptual. Therefore, poor people can embrace it. It can be [empowering, you?] --
for people who don't have certain linguistic and theological categories in which to express and to analyze the meaning of their faith. What we find, what I certainly find, is that Holy Spirit is particularly central among most poor people, because they refer to that reality, which is every present with them, which
empowers them to survive, even when they cannot liberate themselves from it. And that's a very crucial matter. And that is a part of the holiness -- Pentecostal tradition, and it's also part of the tradition of slave religion, which also is related to that. So, that would be -- and it's become very important, particularly for me, because I
want to try to be as faithful to the religion and the gospel that was given to me through my parents and grandparents and my people. And the spirit, the centrality of the spirit as empowering, as enabling you to keep on keeping on, even though the odds are against you -- if you were to read Martin King's unpublished
sermons -- in Atlanta, I've just finished reading about 75 of his speeches, sermons, that are unpublished. And all of them end on an emphasis upon hope, the -- and the presence of God. He keeps saying, "I cannot lose hope because of the ever-present power of one who is greater than us all."
And he pokes fun at the death of God theologians during that time. He said, "They say God is dead -- some people are saying that. But they never told me where the funeral was, and I'm still looking for the gravesite." I mean, that's Martin King. He was kind of doing it tongue in cheek, but what Martin King was contrasting that -- was with his own [felt?] power, and it -- and the spirit and hope is linked
together. And it's out of that tradition, out of which my own perspective emerges and why it's so strong, particularly in my way of seeing the religions of the poor and the churches of the poor. One last question. Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 15: I would like to hear you, Dr. Cone, comment on two things. A, [Harvey Cox?] (inaudible) religion (inaudible) speaks of the black experience. He has two or three or four references in that book about that. What do you see would be the coming together of [any?] -- or how experience -- Afro-American experiences speak to his experience in the writing of it and the rise of fundamentalism. And then
the second part is how concerned [are black?] theologians -- or theologians in this country to be concerned about such folks as Thomas Sowell and others who are really -- in his latest book -- of really looking again at the black experience and the Civil Rights Movement and all in putting the monkey upon our back, so to speak, of looking again at that
and --
CONE: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 15: -- I'd just -- be interested how you feel about those two points?
CONE: OK. The first -- on the first point, I cannot comment, because although I've seen a reference to Harvey Cox -- new book, and have it, I have not read it yet. So, I would not want to comment on his references to that, because it wouldn't be informed. Now, let me say -- comment about the second question. Tom Sowell, of course, I know. I've read him and heard him. I just think what that -- what he means and what other
people like him mean for us is that we're going to have to do more in terms of defining the meaning of our experience. People who write, they have a lot of power, 'cause you define things. It's kind of permanent. You can give a lecture (inaudible) but the point is after people leave, they might forget what you said. But
if they can go back and read it and think about it over and over again, a certain kind of cement sets in, and people kind of believe what they see in print. It's true. Now, one of the problems, which black church and black people have made is that we are people of oral tradition, you know? We say that. But, you know, this just -- we're going to have to be a people of the -- of writing, too. If we don't, we won't control
our history, and we won't control it in the way in which we want it. And conservative blacks like Tom Sowell will become authorities on the black experience and thereby, you know, usurp, you know, the vast amount of stuff we've already done. Now, one of the differences between Martin King and any other civil rights leader is that Martin King wrote a lot. He interpreted every move he got ready to make, whether it was in Selma --
he would write several [articles on the?] -- you know, on the Pettus -- on that -- [when he's on that?] second march on the Pettus Bridge, you know, when he turned back, and he had to ask -- you know, and people say he ran coward, you know, and tricked them. And he wrote to explain behind the [Selma?] march to explain what was going on. And every move -- whether the sit-ins, the Freedom Rides or what have you, or integration or his nonviolence or whatever, he put it in print, and he has a lot of it in print.
And as a result of that, Martin King could control the meaning of the Civil Rights Movement as it was related to him. You can't control the meaning if you don't put it out there for people to see it. So, what that means is is that somebody else needs to write a book to correct old Sowell. And several books -- and etc. And one of the reasons why, you know, people want -- you know, black people can learn from other oppressed people. And one
person -- you know, one group in this country that we know of, we can learn from, are Jews. They do write, and they control the meaning of their community. Ain't nobody else going to define what no Jew is now. They are going to do that. They're going to define the Jewish tradition, they're going to define how you relate to it. You may write about it, but you ain't going to control the primary thing about it. So, that's what we have to do. Any people that allow another people to come in and tell them what the meaning [of their?] -- people are -- and Sowell is in that Hoover Institute, talking to them conservatives
like Reagan and all the rest of them, you know, that [he?] (inaudible) I mean, and that's how you get off -- they (inaudible) intellectuals like that. And so, what we have to do is to begin to sit down and put it on the paper. And that's why -- and I especially say that to blacks who are in graduate school, because that's why you're here. Put it on the paper. Write it. Write it out and keep writing it out. And do it the best you can, because it's not only what you say, it's how well you say it, so that
person, when they pick it up, they won't want to put it down. They say, "I don't agree with this, but -- [and it?] sounds good," you know? And they go on, you know? And pretty soon, it starts sticking, you know? I mean, that's why -- and that's one reason why I will always -- nobody will ever keep me from writing unless I lose my mind, because I think, while it's important to give a lecture and let people see you, etc., that is not nearly as important as the
print, because you can reach far more people through publication than you can orally speaking to them. Besides, they forget and didn't hear it clearly and misinterpret it. But when you got it on the paper, you [just?] -- no, go back and see page 45. That -- I didn't say that. I said this, you follow what I mean? And that's the way you do it. So, I would encourage those of you who are struggling with the poor, start interpreting the meaning of that struggle so that people who come after us
will have something in which to build upon, and not be dependent upon our enemies to tell us -- tell them what we did during this time. Thank you very much.