Evil and suffering in Black Theology | That Religious Studies Website

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

Philosophy of Religion

Recently added to the site

Black theodicy: Evil and suffering in Black Theology

Information: This article looks at the matter of evil and suffering from the Black perspective, and especially how and why it raises questions as to whether God can be considered to be a white racist.

Introduction - What is Black Theology?

Until fairly recently it could be said that religious, theological, moral and even philosophical studies have been largely done by and for white academics living in Europe and North America. However, new perspectives are now being explored in the academic arena from other cultural, sociological and even gender points-of-view. As such, new perspectives on the nature of God and faith are emerging.

Something to think about: Should our way of understanding God be many and varied, or should there be (and is there) only one (true) way?

Black Theology considers matters of faith and practice from the Black perspective, and in particular from within a variety of modes of Black consciousness. Like other 'consciousness-raising' theologies, this is an attempt to give real meaning to ideas where this might have been lost, and also help people relate practically to God (and themselves).

There are many parallels between Feminist and Black Theology for example, particularly in terms of how God relates to an oppressed group and the need to re-understand the nature of God in light of this (E.g.Women and the Church).

One way Black Theology challenges us to reconsider our beliefs about God, is through the nature of the imagery we use. For instance, for many years in Christianity it was common to find pictures of Jesus depicted as a white man (and a quick search on the web for images of Christ will show you that it still is). In years gone by, white missionaries also took the message of Christianity to people whose skin-colour was different to theirs. Now although many people see nothing wrong with this (and many people still do not take issue with this), subconsciously 'non-whites' were being fed the notion that Jesus (and God) were 'white', and that the 'white-man's' religion was spiritually (and morally) better than their own.

However, the problem with this is that 'the white man' has often been an oppressor of non-whites, and no more so than during the slave trade. This then creates a spiritual dilemma for Blacks - If the 'white man' is an oppressor of Blacks, then surely this implies that the white man's God is equally so? Furthermore, if the white man's God is in control of all events in the world (i.e. God is sovereign), then this too suggests that God has allowed Blacks to be oppressed (and appears to have wanted this to happen). Looking at Black history from this perspective, we can quickly see how the Christian God (for instance), might be deemed to be a 'white racist' as far as Black people are concerned.

'Their god is an idol, a god who is historically on the side of the white settlers, who dispossess Black people of their land and who gives most of the land to "his chosen people"'. (The Kairos Document)

What is Black Theodicy?

In Christianity, a theodicy (from the Greek theos (god) and dikē (justice)), is an attempt to justify the presence of evil and suffering in the world with that of God being benevolent (all-good), Just etc.

Black Theodicy attempts to makes sense of Black suffering, and seek to explore what God's involvement (or non-involvement) is in this. Although in other types of theodicy suffering is typically understood in general terms (i.e. why humans suffer), in Black Theodicies the matter is specifically explored in relation to why the Black community has suffered over the years - and in particular the matter of why they have endured slavery and various forms of racism.

Typically there have been four ways to address the matter of suffering in the world, and each of these have been explored by members of the Black community in order to try and help believers make sense of the suffering that they or their ancestors have endured. These are:

To re-consider the nature and purpose of suffering (i.e. 'suffering' is something God wills as either a means for human betterment, or for political/spiritual liberation).
To re-consider the omnipotence of God (i.e. To suggest that God might not be able to do some things due to human freewill, and as such cannot be blamed for acts that lead to suffering especially when humans have chosen to do them).
To deny that God exists (atheism).
To deny that God is all good (or benevolent).

The most pressing concern for Black theologians, is the matter of whether the degree and manner in which Blacks have suffered over the years might lead them to conclude that God is a white racist:

There is, first, its maldistribution. It is suffering confined to a specific ethnic group; it is not spread, more or less impartially, upon mankind as a whole... There is second its enormity... [It] extends over long periods of history... [and as such] we contend that the peculiar nature of Black suffering raises the question of divine racism. (William Jones - A question for Black Theology: Is God a white racist [Brackets mine])

Many Black theologians believe the question of God's racism should be the central concern of any Black Theodicy, rather than the fact that the Black community has endured so much. For without this matter being addressed in any satisfactory way, there appears to be no reason why members of the Black community should worship and devote themselves to God, or even believe that such a God exists! It also raises the question as to whether God's so-called universal love and goodness for all humanity, is really universal and inclusive of the Black community.

Something to think about: Do you think the idea that God might be against one social/cultural group, should only concern members of the Black community?

Some responses to Black suffering

The following is a summary of (and some responses to), various theodicies proposed by Black theologians:

Joseph R. Washington

Joseph Washington believed that understanding the nature and causes of Black suffering, begins by associating the Black community with that of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 ('He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.' (v.5)). In other words, God's plan for humanity is fulfilled through Black suffering! However, what exactly is this 'plan'? Well, according to Washington God's plan is for humanity to be set free from racism. This means as those who suffer, the Black community has a mission - to free (liberate) non-Blacks from their sin (i.e. racism). This also means that as a result of their divine calling (mission), Blacks are suffering (and have suffered) for the sake others, just as Isaiah's 'suffering servant' did.

A concern with Washington's theodicy is that the only evidence Black's have of their divine calling, is that they are suffering. Yet surely in order to know they are appointed to this 'mission', they need some additional evidence that in the end their mission will be successful (making their suffering worth it)? Otherwise, how do they know they are not simply suffering for some other reason (E.g. They are being punished)? Now one might say that evidence for liberation will come 'at the end of time', but this gives no guarantee that Blacks are not suffering now because God is against them (i.e. racist). Furthermore, if Black suffering is for the 'salvation' of non-Blacks (esp. whites), this seems to rather one-sided for there appears to be no corresponding suffering for those who have committed the sin of racism against Blacks, only the privilege of freedom bought through Black blood, lost lives and untold misery.

James Cone

James Cone believed that God was fundamentally interested in liberation (freedom), and that in support of this there are numerous examples of God liberating people in the Bible (E.g. God bringing the Israelites out of Egypt - the Exodus). Therefore, if God is fundamentally interested in liberation this means Blacks are God's chosen people (as they are the one's most in need of being liberated ('set free') in the world). Also, the fact that God has freed people in the past is good enough reason for the Black community to trust that God will do the same for them in the future. All this means that Black suffering is due to non-Black oppression, not due to the will of God, and as such God cannot be accused of being against them (i.e. racist).

'God is presently participating in the Black struggle for freedom' (James Cone)

A problem with Cone's theodicy is that his assurance that God will liberate Blacks in the future, is grounded in examples of non-Black liberation (E.g. The Exodus was for Jews, not Blacks!). Also, the only reason Cone believes Blacks are set apart as being 'chosen', is because they are suffering. If Blacks were to fight for their liberation, and in the process lose their life, they have no assurance (based on the evidence so far), that they will be successful. They also do not have any assurance that were God to call them to do this, that this were not the means which God sought to achieve Black genocide. Therefore, on the basis of Cone's theodicy we have no assurances that God is not against the Black community, and therefore not a racist!

Albert Cleage

Albert Cleage begins his theodicy with the idea that God is literally Black! His argument for this is grounded in the Biblical notion of God creating humanity in God's image (Genesis 1:26f). This means that if all humanity is created in God's image, then as there are more non-whites than whites in the world that God must be more Black than white. This also means that as a 'soul brother', Cleage cannot being to entertain the idea that God is causing Blacks to suffer.

'One drop of Black blood makes one Black.' (Albert Cleage)

However, if we are to think of God in this way, why is the Black community suffering? Cleage's answer to this is simple - it is because Blacks have have not stood up to their white oppressors. In other words, Blacks are reaping the consequences of being too passive! If Blacks want suffering to end, they must stand up to non-Blacks. This means that for Cleage, God is not responsible for suffering occurring or even ending. It is Blacks who must take the blame and initiative for both! All God does is provide strength for the 'fight' ahead.

Cleage's notion that God is Black because most people in the world are non-white, can be extended to include all manner of humans characteristics and traits. In fact, why not simply say that God is completely human, or even that there is one god for Blacks, one for whites etc. (polytheism). Also, although Cleage claims God is not responsible for Black suffering, the fact that they are suffering for not being more pro-active in addressing racism means they are essentially being punished. Therefore, their suffering is deserved (and God-given)! Yet if this is the case, we are left addressing an earlier concern - this being if Blacks are being punished for failing to address racism, what punishment is being demanded from non-Blacks for being racist towards them?

'Cleage must explain how it is that Blacks are God's chosen people in light of the fact that whites were allowed to get on top and stay there.' (William Jones)