Woke Theology vs. Black Liberation Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
What is the difference between the two? In what ways have distinctions been advocated?

I’m hoping to receive responses by those empathetic to the intent of woke theologians, not just skeptics. I believe there is a line that must be drawn, or maybe there really isn’t one.


*Personal note:
I don’t believe there is a distinction. I believe radicals are using ‘woke’ as a cover to push political theories. There are much better ways to address these issues in the church without trying to develop a theological system with its own lingo that borrows from radical cultural transformationists and agnostic fundamentalists
 
I think the church should definitely address any blind spots. If there is systematic racism in the church, separate form regional culture, let’s target and identify it specifically and accurately. If there is systematic racism in society, that’s a whole different matter. I think reparations are an insulting political ploy. (How is a single payment going to cover the sins of former generations?) The best antidote for the wronged is justice and forgiveness. There is a Savior who bears it all.

Also, is the church going to concern itself with potential racism in Hollywood? Just one crazy example. I think a majority culture is always the best served - that’s just life in a sinful world. Christians are on the outs. Will the black Christian identity himself as a repressed minority or a repressed Christian? I’d rather be vilified by my faith over anything else. And hopefully ALL Christians have each other’s back. Christians need to stay on message and if somebody needs discipline, he or she should be disciplined. If it’s a whole church that is doing the discriminating from the pastor on down, it’s a denominational matter. Specifics are always good but subtle infractions should also be considered in a historical context as well. But these are all individual discipline issues, unless proven otherwise (as part of a larger epidemic) in the present or even recent past. Nobody is beyond critical review. If individual churches discriminated in the recent past, and maintain a similar posture in the present, they have major work to do in these areas.
But they should be their own condemnation before God and man. I don’t know what the answers are but I don’t see how Liberation Theology, or anything resembling it, is even worth consideration. For Machen, it was always theology first. That should always be the starting point, not a cultural standard because even if they are on the right moral side, the first question should be, how is God glorified? That is the bottom line answer from a truly reformed perspective.
 
Last edited:
The original liberation theologians advocated what they called "the preferential option for the poor." They argued that God specifically favored poor people in history, full stop.

Wokism is a bit more complex. It sees all structures of difference (any distinction) as inherently violent and controlled by the pale face.
 
The original liberation theologians advocated what they called "the preferential option for the poor." They argued that God specifically favored poor people in history, full stop.

Wokism is a bit more complex. It sees all structures of difference (any distinction) as inherently violent and controlled by the pale face.
They are ultimately trying to use Christianity against itself. It shouldn’t work against the biblically literate.
 
They are ultimately trying to use Christianity against itself. It shouldn’t work against the biblically literate.

True. I would say they are two different things, though. Old school Marxists weren't always own the same page concerning abortion, sexuality, etc. And in Latin America they cared more for revolution against the bourgeoisie than overthrowing heteronormative power structures.
 
True. I would say they are two different things, though. Old school Marxists weren't always own the same page concerning abortion, sexuality, etc. And in Latin America they cared more for revolution against the bourgeoisie than overthrowing heteronormative power structures.
I may not follow you completely but I think in the recent past there is a comprehensive, coordinated effort... I think the agendas pushed in today’s churches are not by accident and Trump is being used as an excuse to really push hard. I think they’ve had some of their greatest successes with the church, which is sad...

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power--Political, Monetary, Intellectual, and Ecclesiastical."--U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater from his 1964 book "No Apologies"
 
I may not follow you completely but I think in the recent past there is a comprehensive, coordinated effort... I think the agendas pushed in today’s churches are not by accident and Trump is being used as an excuse to really push hard. I think they’ve had some of their greatest successes with the church, which is sad...

All of that is true, but the spearhead of liberation theology was in Latin America and they wouldn't have cared too much about Starbucks liberals.

Correct. Goldwater was most likely talking about the World (National) Council of Churches.
 
What strikes me is that the Soviets made a directly secular appeal to African nations back in the day, and used an end run in South America by appealing through Liberation Theology to the largely RC populations. It seems Muslims are rushing to fill this secular void.
 
What strikes me is that the Soviets made a directly secular appeal to African nations back in the day, and used an end run in South America by appealing through Liberation Theology to the largely RC populations. It seems Muslims are rushing to fill this secular void.

Yep. The Jesuits in Latin America were basically Communists.
 
Yep. The Jesuits in Latin America were basically Communists.
I'm not sure what to make of this. Some of the Jesuits who worked quite selflessly among the poor in South America were castigated in the 1970s for refusing to mix Marxism into a kind of uber-gospel.
 
I'm not sure what to make of this. Some of the Jesuits who worked quite selflessly among the poor in South America were castigated in the 1970s for refusing to mix Marxism into a kind of uber-gospel.

Many individual Jesuits are fine people. The system, though, used Marxism to destablize fascists (basically me, you, etc). It was so bad that Pope John Paul II was booed off the tarmac when he arrived in some Latin America country because he wasn't sufficiently Marxist.
 
I think it's hard to pin the current "social justice theology" strictly to a single school of thought (though there are some lines of thought). It is interesting, for instance, that Bernie Sanders made his political power on pitting the rich against the poor. That's how the old socialists used to argue. It wasn't about race but social class. Now, in less than four years, both he and the former VP have to fight against the "handicap" of being "old white men".

I don't know if you could explain the rapidity of this rise without social media. It's allowed some really strange and divisive ideas to go to seed and grow much faster than any other stage in human culture would have allowed it. It's less about caring for people and more about some people grabbing power and influence by becoming part of an oppressed class that others now need to let lead. The culture has raised a generation of men who make declarative statements but inflect them in such a way that it sounds like their asking a question. The result is a lack of confidence in basic theology, combined with an a-historical claim that Christian theology is "white" and you have a recipe for ministers who lack the self-confidence to know what the faith is that has been once for all delivered to the saints and the only way they'll "discover" theology is a "dialog" with the culture and with others unlike them who can give them gnostic insight based on their intersectional experience of the dominant culture.
 
That rise in inflection at the end of a sentence is pure Valley Girl. It’s called uptalk or up speak and it is usually accompanied by vocal fry. It drove me crazy when I lived in California but only girls talked that way. Through media it’s become very widespread and even men are talking that way now. Is it a stretch to say that it’s related to the relativism of truth and now everything is questionable?
 
Old School Liberation theology simply sought use Marxist economics (and Marxist weapon shipments) to fight capitalism. They didn't try to nuance the thing.

Wokism sees it in more of a Gramsci/Adorno/Horkheimer mode of positing oppressive structures within structures. For example, what a godly society and Platonic metaphysics sees in distinctions and hierarchy (cf 5th Commandment), Wokism sees each distinction as an oppressive power structure.
 
Is it a stretch to say that it’s related to the relativism of truth and now everything is questionable?

They say that but they mean something else. They say that all truth is already situated in a structure and social imaginary. That means there is white man's truth and black man's truth. It isn't a full relativism like you would find in a freshman philosophy class.
 
For example, what a godly society and Platonic metaphysics sees in distinctions and hierarchy (cf 5th Commandment), Wokism sees each distinction as an oppressive power structure.
I have never thought of it in that way... that makes their thought process so much clearer, and in fact, ungodlier.
 
They say that but they mean something else. They say that all truth is already situated in a structure and social imaginary. That means there is white man's truth and black man's truth. It isn't a full relativism like you would find in a freshman philosophy class.
You mean that for them, truth is relative to one’s intersectional locus?(it’s so much fun to talk in newspeak) if competing truths are simply a matter of who holds the most power then it’s all about who can garner the most power and prevail over others. Sort of devolves to Might Makes Right? Why do they even try to talk in terms of moral arguments like fairness and justice?
 
You mean that for them, truth is relative to one’s intersectional locus?(it’s so much fun to talk in newspeak) if competing truths are simply a matter of who holds the most power then it’s all about who can garner the most power and prevail over others. Sort of devolves to Might Makes Right? Why do they even try to talk in terms of moral arguments like fairness and justice?

Mostly yes. They aren't as simple as "That's just your opinion, man!" It does devolve into might makes right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top