In the UK, October is Black History Month, and to mark this I’d like to shine light onto the foundational work of James Cone, Delores Williams, and Katie G. Cannon.
James Cone sought to bring together theology, politics, and the Black Arts Movement to create a Black theology that could be used universally by Black churches across America. At a time when the Civil Rights Movement was at the forefront of Black social and political thought, Cone’s radical theological approach provided a basis for Churches and communities to build their political campaigns around. Through bringing together Blackness, love, and liberation, it seems Cone has made an inclusive, radical theology, and the impact of this is undeniable. Yet, Delores Williams and Katie G. Cannon, two Womanist theologians, disagree. Their Womanist critiques of Cone’s Black theology reveal how there is a gender imbalance within Cone’s thought, with Williams and Cannon describing it as a lack of consideration for the experiences of Black women. With the majority of those sat in the pews being women, the role of Womanist theology in critiquing Cone is vital to create a truly inclusive and intersectional approach to Black theology.
Bringing theology and the fight for justice together was vital for Cone during the Civil Rights Movement, and he sought to combine religion and politics in a new and creative way. Through creating a new theology, based in the principles of Black Power and liberation, Cone formalised Black theology; giving Black churches unity in their shared commitment to justice. Cone also aligned Black theology with existing Liberation theologies, which demonstrates how revolutionary Cone’s theology was for the Black church, allowing a theological basis to underpin the church’s role in the Civil Rights Movement. A focus on liberation provided the Black church with a holistic focus within its theology, but also within the lives of Black people. A holistic focus allows space for a spiritual enrichment through the Church, allowing for an enrichment of faith within people’s lives.
‘Love’s meaning is not found in sermons or theological textbooks but rather in the creation of social structures that are not dehumanising or oppressive’ (Cone, 1977, p. 149).
At the core of Cone’s theology is the concept of love, and how there are many expressions of this. One of the main expressions Cone explores is how love can be found through creating social structures that do not oppress or dehumanise, which was a key aim of the Civil Rights Movement. Cone also describes how God’s love is shown through the struggle for liberation, but describes the call to service to reach liberation as an expression of divine love. It is the love inspired works, which are done in an effort to advance the Civil Rights Movement, that Cone would describe as acts of social salvation, seeking to liberate Black people from social evils. For Cone’s Black theology, it is the pursuit of liberation through the works of love which allows justice to become present.
A community-oriented, experienced-based, theological approach to liberation and justice appears to be the perfect combination to create Black theology with. With connections to existing liberation theologies, Cone’s Black theology appears to be a unifying force within the Black church. However, Womanist theologians disagreed. Katie G. Cannon and Delores Williams, amongst other Womanist theologians, critiqued Cone’s Black theology as lacking in consideration for the experiences of Black women, instead centring the Black male experience as the normative one. They raise this concern and highlight how the emotional labour of Black women for their communities is an expectation of them and how this labour remains unnoticed. Cannon and Williams highlight this through a variety of critiques which draw on Biblical scholarship and an intersectional approach to race, gender, and theology.
'The cumulative effect of Womanist scholarship is that it moves us towards a fundamental reconceptualisation of all ethics with the experience of Black women at centre stage' (Cannon, 1995, p. 128).
Williams’ critique focuses heavily on Cone’s concept of love, and she draws on Exodus to do this. One aspect of her critique draws comparison between the experiences of Black women and the Canaanites, as the plight of the Canaanites is ignored. I find Williams’ critique of Cone drawing on Biblical scripture to be one which is fairly under explored in more recent Womanist theology, but this critique is the most unique and complex one. Williams goes on to critique Cone further, stating that he fails to explore theology beyond gender divisions, but instead he upholds them in his theology. She also argues that Cone reinforces the idea of emotional labour being women’s work, but a Womanist theological approach wants to dismantle the gendered divisions within Black theology.
Cannon’s critique of Cone’s theology follows a similar line to Williams. Cannon explains how the experiences of Black women cannot be forced to fit within the confines of Cone’s Black theology. Instead, the agency of Black women must be understood as its own entity, and on the terms of Black women. Cannon highlights how a grassroots approach to Womanist theology allows this to happen. By focusing on the experiences of Black women, and centring their wisdom, Cannon explores how this can bring new knowledge to the Church, and create a new space for Black women to explore their faith. Cannon also writes about the importance of Black women preachers in churches, yet how they feel pressure to prove they are just as important as the Black male preachers in the Church. Black women preachers are also under pressure to prove they are capable leaders for their communities. Cannon notes how these pressures saw Black women preachers play into traditional masculinity just to claim and hold power in the Church. By taking the Black, male experience as the norm, Church spaces lack the wisdom and experiences of Black women, creating a gender imbalance at the core of its theology. Cannon’s critique of Cone highlights how women have become the emotional labourers, who lack agency in such a male dominated and centric environment.
Both Williams and Cannon heavily critique Cone’s Black theology for being so focused on taking the experiences of Black men as the universal experiences of all Black people. It reveals that Cone’s approach, though hugely influential, does not fully encompass the experiences of Black women within its theology. Instead, the work of Williams and Cannon creates, and ensures a strong theological basis for Black women to access their faith through, and for future Womanist theologians to form their lens within.
For further reading, please click here for our blog on ‘Recommended Reads’ for Black History Month.
References.
Cannon, K. G. (1995). ‘Katie’s Canon. Womanism and the Soul of the Black Community’. Continuum; New York, New York.
Cone, J. (1977). ‘Black Theology and the Black Church: Where Do We Go From Here?’ from CrossCurrents. Volume 27, Issue 2, p. 147-158.
Cone, J. (1985). ‘Black Theology in American Religion’ from Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Volume 53, Issue 4, p. 755-771.
Wickware Jr., M. (2021). ‘The Labour of Black Love: James Cone, Womanism, and the Future of Black Men’s Theologies’ from Black Theology; An International Journal. Volume 19, Issue 1, p. 3-17.