The Symbol Of Jesus In Black Liberation Theology

Black liberation theology is refers to a theological perspective which originated in some black churches in the United States and later in other parts of the world, which contextualizes Christianity in an attempt to help those of African descent overcome oppression. It especially focuses on the injustices committed against African Americans. The symbol of Jesus in black liberation theology is not symbolic of man but rather of oppressed groups of people. Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian reverend believed that in order to overcome oppression the black communities must endure redemptive suffering; to “turn the other cheek” Matthew 5:39. Malcolm X, a Muslim believed that the black community had suffered long enough. In a white dominated society, black has been defined as evil. Thus Christianity for Malcolm X is the white man's religion thus he believed that the black community should create their own religion in which they would be welcomed.

Though these men might seem like polar opposites when they were approaching the end of their lives, they seemed to move a little closer to each other though process.

Martin had become more like Malcolm and Malcolm had become more like Martin. James Cone being inspired by both thinkers, Martin King and Malcolm X explains that at the core of black liberation theology is an effort to make the gospel relevant to the life and struggles of American blacks, and to help black people to learn to love themselves. Cone suggests that black liberation theology is an attempt “to teach people how to be unapologetically black, and Christian at the same time.” This concept ties both Malcolm’s and King’s ideas on black oppression. Black liberation theology thus should use Jesus himself as a symbol standing for oppressive

suffering.
In his letter from a Birmingham jail Martin Luther King Junior, largely is concerned with the idea of justice. He posits that justice upholds the dignity of the human spirit, while injustice works against it. By discussing this concept in general, philosophical terms, he establishes criteria by which to ambiguously attack both segregation and silence in the face of it. In terms of this second attack, he ultimately suggests that the man who sees injustice and does nothing to stop it is acting unjustly as well. Martin King does not support the act of violence in order to fight violence. What was being done to the black community was unjust, so in Kings eyes why should we become what we are trying to fight. Though Christianity was being used to make the unjust, just King used Christianity in order to maintain a standard.
King preached of three kinds of love Eros, Philia, and Agape love. Eros love is romantic love, Philia is brotherly love, and Agape love is universal love for all. Agape love similar to how the Jesus symbol is normally taught is that Jesus has unconditional love for all. Though that may be true, liberation theologians suggest that the Jesus symbol should resemble the oppressed, because as Jesus was the black community was suffering through the evil of whiteness, as James Cone would suggest. Martin believed in integrationism of the black community into the white community and that largely has to do with Martins up brining in the south where most black communities are Christian. The black community goes through redemptive suffering so that they could be saved, as Jesus was saved and sent to heaven. This exact philosophy is what had Kings followers remain calm through the attacks. But again that exact philosophy is what suppressed the black community why apologize for being black?
For Malcolm “turning the other cheek” was not a way of fighting for black power. Instead of integrated the black community into the white community Malcolm wanted to be separate. It was only after Malcolm that the black community had moved from being Negroes to being black. Malcolm made being black something to be prideful of. Martin, was a political revolutionary and Malcolm, was a cultural revolutionary. Malcolm, although he was Muslim joined the movement in order to fight the power of whiteness. Malcolm did not think that peaceful protesting would make white superiority end. Malcolm thought that blacks were trapped in a nightmare because of the cruelties and them doing nothing about it. Christianity for Malcolm was the white mans religion because slaves in earlier years were given a religion to believe in and Christianity was it. So merely being Christian is a form of suppression because originally no African was Christian. Malcolm describing how the European settlers would convert nonwhite/ non-European groups around the world depicts how he felt about Christianity and why he didn’t really understand it growing up in a Christian family either. “First, always "religiously," he branded "heathen" and "pagan" labels upon ancient non-white cultures and civilizations. The stage thus set, he then turned upon his non- white victims his weapons of war.”
Malcolm X believed there was no need for redemptive suffering because the black community had suffered enough by oppression. Any more suffering would cause psychological abuse. There’s no reason for the suffering to suffer more in order to forgive the people causing the suffering. This philosophy is what caused Malcolm to believe that Martin King was not leading the movement correctly by preaching about peaceful protesting.
Cone who is a thinker of both Malcolm and Martin believes that Jesus should be portrayed as a symbol for the oppressed but he does not disagree with Cleages idea of also having him depicted as black. Neither Malcolm nor Martin were “wrong” in how h=they went about fighting for oppression. But cone tends to integrate both philosophies. By saying Black theology is a way of teaching the black community how to be unapologetically black and Christian at the same time. Unapologetically is Malcolm and Being Christian is Martin. Thus when cone speaks of a black Jesus after analyzing what the symbol can do it would be the only way in which the Black American Society remains Christian but is not oppressed by the Christianity. Jesus was part of the oppressed society in his time. Why would Jesus come to earth representing the oppressed society if not to show them that there will be salvation? If Jesus were to come to earth in modern times, he would be a black man because black men are the oppressed of society. Before a word is spoken people already have judged based on the color of that persons skin. Which is what King’s speech “I have a dream” begins with. Not being judged by the color of your skin but the content of your character. Cone suggests that the problem most whites have with Black Power stems from the white peoples inability to translate traditional theological language into the life situation of black people. Black Theology uses the only weapon the white society had in order to normalize the evils of whiteness, which is the bible. Using the bible as a metaphor is what is problematic to the white American society.
In conclusion though Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are not exactly Black Liberation Theologians they contribute to what became Black Theology through Cone and other thinkers. A black Jesus Christ is not as radical when you consider that geographically Jesus would not be white either. Jesus was born in Israel thus; he would be a tan color. Jesus being white is “inaccurate” as well so why not have a black Jesus metaphorically and literally so that the black community isn’t alienated with no true representation of themselves in the religion that they identify with. Though Malcolm and Martin had opposing views on how to fight for liberation together the two men created a political and social revolution, and is what formed a foundation for black liberation theology.