The crucifixion was a first-century lynching.

 

The cross can redeem the lynching tree, and thereby bestow upon lynched black bodies an eschatological meaning for their ultimate existence.

 

The cross can also redeem white lynchers, and their descendants, too, but not without profound cost, not without the revelation of the wrath and justice of God, which executes divine judgment, with the

demand for repentance and reparation

, as a presupposition of divine mercy and forgiveness. Most whites want mercy and forgiveness, but not justice and

reparations;

they want reconciliation without liberation, the resurrection without the cross. -

James Cone: The Cross and the Lynching Tree

Does anybody know Senator Obama's position on reparations by modern white people for the slavery of the 19th century? If not, is it not a fair question to ask a member of a black liberation church?

 

More Cone theology:

 

If Christians want to truly understand what the crucifixion is all about, they have to to see it though the black lynching experience.

 

When you see a lynched black man, that's who God is.

 

If white people want to become Christians, they must give up all power.

 

Scripture is only for the poor, weak, powerless and disadvantaged. If you do not fall into one of these categories, you cannot relate to Scripture.

 

The Bible is NOT the infallible, inerrant, word of God.

Words of Jeremiah Wright from his May 2006 newsletter:

 

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/racist-jeremiah-wright-on-white-supremacy

 

I would consider "some" of this to be a tad racist.

 

For those of you that don't read one of the other threads in which this is posted in, I disagree.

Now that Rev. Wright has reemphasized his support for James Hal Cone and now that Barack Obama has finally repudiated Wright for repeating his earlier racist and un-American comments as had been previously reported, does anybody still believe that Wright's comments have been reported "out of context?"

 

What surprises me is that some on here are still defending Rev. Wright while Obama is renouncing and trying to run from this as fast as he can????

More Cone theology:

 

If Christians want to truly understand what the crucifixion is all about, they have to to see it though the black lynching experience.

 

When you see a lynched black man, that's who God is.

 

If white people want to become Christians, they must give up all power.

 

Scripture is only for the poor, weak, powerless and disadvantaged. If you do not fall into one of these categories, you cannot relate to Scripture.

 

The Bible is NOT the infallible, inerrant, word of God.

 

 

 

Not everything you say is offensive in the above or "off the mark," IMHO.

 

The notion of experiencing crucifixion through lynching is not new nor unrelated. (the "have to" might be a bit contrived) What he is pointing to is the "injustice" of the crucifixion and until you have felt real life and death injustice it is hard to comprehend the depth of crucifixion.

The crucifixion was a first-century lynching.

 

The cross can redeem the lynching tree, and thereby bestow upon lynched black bodies an eschatological meaning for their ultimate existence.

 

The cross can also redeem white lynchers, and their descendants, too, but not without profound cost, not without the revelation of the wrath and justice of God, which executes divine judgment, with the

demand for repentance and reparation

, as a presupposition of divine mercy and forgiveness. Most whites want mercy and forgiveness, but not justice and

reparations;

they want reconciliation without liberation, the resurrection without the cross. -

James Cone: The Cross and the Lynching Tree

Does anybody know Senator Obama's position on reparations by modern white people for the slavery of the 19th century? If not, is it not a fair question to ask a member of a black liberation church?

 

 

 

While I disagree with the reparations part the rest of it is fairly profound I think and worth discussion. :thumb:

Now that Rev. Wright has reemphasized his support for James Hal Cone and now that Barack Obama has finally repudiated Wright for repeating his earlier racist and un-American comments as had been previously reported, does anybody still believe that Wright's comments have been reported "out of context?"

 

I can't wait for some of the responses. :lol:

Honestly, RTS, you are one of the posters who've indicated that this is a "no grey area" issue. Whether a minister preaching to a congregation, or a poster on a forum, what's the difference? Why should my bonehead remarks not weigh as much as his? I have no idea how many people may read what I write. So, I don't feel the audience is necessarily smaller.

 

They do in readers' assessment of you.