4 Comments »

1. Heresy? Heresy is, I think, a somewhat technical charge which is not just that one has an error in theology, but one relating defining the Trinity, e.g., the proto-typical heresy, Arianism which is an error concerning the divinity of Christ.

   I think there is a lot of error packed into Mr Cone’s books, but I failed to put my finger in heresy.

   Comment by Mark Olson — 5/8/2008 @ 8:34 am | Quote

2. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

   - Gal 1:8-9

   When you listen to what Dr. Cone says, you’ll hear several things.

   1. He denies the sufficiency/inspiration of Scripture as something believed by fundamentalists.

   2. He denies the Lordship of Christ, and the salvific work of His death as atonement for SIN. To Cone, it is “taking on the suffering of a victim”.

   Being Christian does not 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 as 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.

   3. He says that theology, to black people, must be based in their “black identity” - not in God’s revelation of Himself. See: Judaizers

   Black people can only speak of reconciliation when the black community is permitted to do it’s thing. The black community has experienced the crushing white thing, for too long. therefore black theology believes that in order for reconciliation to be meaningful and productive, black people must have room to do their thing. The black community itself must lay down the rules of the game. White oppressors are incompetent to dictate the terms of reconciliation, because they are enslaved by their own racism, and will inevitably seek to base the terms on their right to play God in human relationships. The history of slavery, and Jim Crow, and integration efforts renders white people virtually incapable of even knowing how to talk to black people as persons. It is this fact that nullifies the good intentions of concerned white religious people who insist that they are prepared to relate to black people as human beings

   They simply do not know how, as racism is inseparable from the history of america; and since practically ALL white people in America are taught from birth to treat blacks as things, black theology must counsel black people to be suspicious of all whites who want to be friends with black people. The real question is not whether black theology sees reconciliation as an end, but rather on whose terms we are to be reconciled.

   The apostle Paul says: “God was in Christ Jesus, reconciling the world to himself”, 2 Cor 5:19 Among other things, this means that the wall of hostility is broken down between blacks and whites, making color irrelevant to man’s essential nature. But, in a white racist society, Black Theology believes that the biblical doctrine of reconciliation can be made a reality only when white people are prepared to address black men as black men, and not as some greasepainted form of white humanity.

   When we analyze the black/white relationship, in the 20th century, in the light of God’s reconciling work of Jesus Christ, the message is clear: for black people it means that God has reconciled ourselves to an acceptance of our blackness. If the death and resurrection of Christ means anything, it means that the blackness of black people is a creation of God Himself. God came into the world in order that black people may not be ashamed of who they are. In Christ, we not only know who we are, but who God is - and this is the heart of the Biblical message.

   There’s more to it. Lots more. View this post here, and it’s accompanying videos, to see the scope of what we’re talking about.

   If this isn’t heresy, friend, I don’t know what is.

   Comment by RazorsKiss — 5/8/2008 @ 12:06 pm | Quote

3. Josh,
   I’m agreeing it contains grave theological errors. All I’m saying is that I think the term heresy refers to theological error relating to what constitutes and defines the Trinity. I’m not where that is implied in Cone’s theology.

   Comment by Mark Olson — 5/9/2008 @ 10:45 am | Quote

4. I don’t think I’ve ever seen “heresy” defined that way.

   Heresy:
   Theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church
   ~ Oxford English Dictionary

   Under your definition, antinomianism, the judaizers, pelagianism, and many other heresies would not qualify. Further, under the above definition I stated, orthodoxy would be limited to a trinitarian belief. Is that all orthodoxy believes? Even the Nicene Creed is more detailed than that - and it’s tiny. I don’t think that’s acceptable as a definition, nor is it nominative. That’s definitely not one I’d use. Is word-faith or prosperity gospel preaching simply “in error”? Do you have a reason you’re defining heresy so narrowly? Most cults do have trinitarian issues, this is true. Not all heresies had to do with trinitarian issues, however. Many have to do with preaching a different gospel. Which is why I quoted the verse above. Paul certainly doesn’t think they’re orthodox. He says they are accursed.

   Cone doesn’t fit orthodox christian belief. Thus, he is heretical. Heresy isn’t a word for the middle ages somewhere. It DOES have a precise meaning - and that meaning is not as narrow as you think it is. It applies to deviation from orthodox christian beliefs. Such a one is called a heretic.

   Comment by RazorsKiss — 5/9/2008 @ 12:14 pm | Quote

TrackBack URI

Add your comment