James Cone’s significance in the history of twentieth-century theology is usually characterized according to his programmatic role in defining early black theology. Cone is associated with the “classical” moment in black theology’s dissident articulation which led to disciplinary recognition, and generated traditions of criticism and elaboration. This line of characterization that emphasizes Cone’s role in classical black theology is no doubt uniquely important in the history of modern theology, just as his work in black theology must be appreciated as marking a seminal interpretation of liberation theology in the United States context. What these points of emphasis can understate, however, is Cone’s significance in terms of his innovations
…show more content…
The comparisons with Jenson will be brief, but they are instructive not simply because of the compelling historical coincidences of these two thinkers in American theological history from the 1960s to the present, but because they represent two signal inheritors of the Protestant theology of crisis. Accordingly, Cone and Jenson will be compared in terms of how they relate eschatology to history. The argument is in short that Cone and Jenson both inherit a set of problematics concerning the relation between eschatology and history found in dialectical theology’s language of crisis, and develop their projects from this common point of departure. They differ in terms of how crisis is theologically interpreted: for Jenson, crisis must be overcome to account for God’s narrative identity. In Jenson’s hands, crisis describes the cross as a dramatic moment within the biblical narrative, revealing divine identity as trinity. For Cone, crisis theology is appropriated with less redactions than Jenson. Here, crisis describes both the very structure of the world and its antiblackness, as well as the result of God’s work in abolishing the old world. Cone, then, represents a more direct and faithful inheritance to this account of revelation because he maintains the basic dialectical structure that interprets eschatology as the crisis of …show more content…
Yet a difference from Jenson almost immediately emerges. While Jenson uses dialectical theology’s language of crisis to frame his constructive proposal in Systematic Theology, crisis must be overcome because of its abstract opposition between eschatology and history. Cone agrees with Jenson to the extent that an abstract dialectic is a problem, writing definitionally that “Black Theology rejects the tendency of some to interpret eschatology in such a way that a cleavage is made between our world and God’s.” Moreover, Cone continues, “Black Theology insists that genuine biblical faith relates eschatology to history, that is, to what God has done, is doing, and will do for his people”
The comparisons with Jenson will be brief, but they are instructive not simply because of the compelling historical coincidences of these two thinkers in American theological history from the 1960s to the present, but because they represent two signal inheritors of the Protestant theology of crisis. Accordingly, Cone and Jenson will be compared in terms of how they relate eschatology to history. The argument is in short that Cone and Jenson both inherit a set of problematics concerning the relation between eschatology and history found in dialectical theology’s language of crisis, and develop their projects from this common point of departure. They differ in terms of how crisis is theologically interpreted: for Jenson, crisis must be overcome to account for God’s narrative identity. In Jenson’s hands, crisis describes the cross as a dramatic moment within the biblical narrative, revealing divine identity as trinity. For Cone, crisis theology is appropriated with less redactions than Jenson. Here, crisis describes both the very structure of the world and its antiblackness, as well as the result of God’s work in abolishing the old world. Cone, then, represents a more direct and faithful inheritance to this account of revelation because he maintains the basic dialectical structure that interprets eschatology as the crisis of …show more content…
Yet a difference from Jenson almost immediately emerges. While Jenson uses dialectical theology’s language of crisis to frame his constructive proposal in Systematic Theology, crisis must be overcome because of its abstract opposition between eschatology and history. Cone agrees with Jenson to the extent that an abstract dialectic is a problem, writing definitionally that “Black Theology rejects the tendency of some to interpret eschatology in such a way that a cleavage is made between our world and God’s.” Moreover, Cone continues, “Black Theology insists that genuine biblical faith relates eschatology to history, that is, to what God has done, is doing, and will do for his people”