“I still regard the bible as an important source for my theological reflections but not the starting point. The black experience and the bible together in dialectic tension serve as my point of departure today and yesterday. The order is significant. I am black first and everything else comes after that. This means I read the Bible through the lens of a black tradition of struggle and not as the objective word of God. The Bible, therefore is one witness to God’s presence in human affairs along with other important testimonies….

Black theology must realize that the white Jesus has no place in the black community and it is our task to destroy him….Black theology is concerned only with the tradition of Christianity that is usable in the black liberation struggle….For to long Christ has been pictured as a blue eyed honky. Black theologians are right; we need to de-honkyify him and thus make him relevant to the black condition.”

Stephen Mansfield’s new book “The Faith Of Barack Obama”

As quoted from James Cone’s Book — Black Theology & Black Power

Several important things here.

First, as to background, Mansfield includes the quote from Jame’s Cone in his book on “The Faith of Barack Obama” because Obama’s spiritual mentor and pastor for twenty years, Jeremiah Wright channeled James Cone and his work in his preaching and ministry. Cone was instrumental in the formation of Black Liberation Theology and Wright was instrumental in popularizing Cone’s work in the church he ministered. Obama thus, at the very minimum has been deeply influenced by Black Liberation Theology. This has crept through some of the things he and his wife have said in the election cycle. Indeed, if you read some of Barack Hussein and Michelle Obama’s recent quotes against this Black Liberation Theology backdrop it is downright scary.

Second, note that for “Theologian” James Cone experience is determinative of what the Bible teaches. This stands in opposition to the idea that the Scriptures should be determinative on how we interpret our experience. Cone has prioritized himself and his experience over against the testimony of God’s Word. This is called idolatry.

Third Cone’s literary methodology is clearly post-modern and so reflects the deconstructionist school of thought. For Cone there is no objective (authorial?) word in the text. For Cone all there is, is the Black reader giving meaning to the text by breathing life into the inert Scriptures. The subjective readers gives objective life to the text. As such, the idea that the Bible serves as one witness of God in the affairs of men is reduced to meaning that the Bible serves as one witness of God in the affairs of men so long as that witness is consistent with the tradition of black struggle.

Fourth, in the last paragraph from the Cone quote above it is clear that Christianity as a religion is subservient to what it means to be black. Further, Jesus is a wax nose that can be shaped to serve the ethnic agenda of any particular people group according to Cone. To make Jesus Black is to make him the figure that justifies whatever is considered black behavior.

Fifth, it is manifestly clear that Black liberation theology does not like white people. Indeed, the purpose of Black liberation theology is to prioritize all things black over any thing not black. This is one reason why I continue to believe that if Barack Huseein Obama is elected there will be pursuit of reparations. It is difficult to understand how a Black man coming from this tradition of thought (and Obama certainly does come from this tradition) can be seriously considered a “post-racial” candidate.

Sixth, notice how Cone posits an antithesis between white people and black people. The White (Honky) Jesus has no place in the Black community and indeed the White Jesus must be destroyed. Now, what do you suppose that the attitude of a Black man, who has imbibed this kind of thinking for twenty tears, is going to be towards white people who don’t agree with him?

Here is something I don’t understand.

John Edwards has an affair and everybody acts like it is something to be ashamed about?

Whence this leftover Christian conscience about sexuality?

Think about it. The ubiquity of affairs and adultery in our society is legendary. Bill Clinton had several. Bob Livingston who was set to become the Speaker of the House announced during the Clinton – Lewinsky affair that he would not seek to be Speaker of the House due to his own adulterous infidelities. Newt Gingrich had an affair while he was trying to pull down Clinton for his affair and for lying about his affair. Tom Delay was involved in an adulterous affair. John McCain cheated on his wife who stood by him while he was a POW in Hanoi. John Kennedy cheated on the beautiful Jacki and Martin Luther King cheated on Coretta Scott King. Franklin Roosevelt cheated on Eleanor (after looking at pictures of Eleanor one can only have sympathy for Franklin) Warren Harding cheated on Florence King Harding, and on and on it goes. Indeed, it would probably be easier to make a list of high profile politicians who haven’t been sexually immoral.

Indeed, so prevalent is the Washington Whorehouse attitude that in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment hearings House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said, “We need to stop destroying imperfect people at the altar of an unattainable morality.”

Clearly according to people in high places being faithful to ones spouse is a morality that is unattainable.

So if that is true, and it sure seems like it is for a great host of Americans, both in politics and not in politics, then what I want to know is why the Media believes it necessary to tells us when another high profile politician has fallen short of the unattainable morality?” To fall short of something that is by definition unattainable is hardly newsworthy.

It seems most Americans don’t see any problem in keeping time with somebody who isn’t their spouse, so why is it news when John Edwards is discovered tapping boots with a strange blond and why does anyone care?

Please allow me to answer my own question.

Somewhere in the American psyche there remains the Christian sense of right and wrong and even though many Americans cheat on their spouse they know it is wrong of them to do so and they know it is wrong when a high profile person does the same. On one level it doesn’t make any sense that adultery would disqualify anybody for anything given its prevalence, but on another level people desire their leaders to shape up to outwardly Christian norms… at least in obvious areas.

I figure though, with the passing of another generation, a high profile politician’s adultery will no longer be an item worthy of even the National Inquirer’s scrutiny. Sooner or later we are going to get consistent about this adultery thing. It would be nice if God would send Reformation so that we would be consistent by actually restraining our animal instincts and choosing to be loyal to our spouses.