Sentence structure question

Factual Questions
1

Om another discussion board I am having a go with concerning Black Liberation Theology. We are discussing this sentence from Con’s book

“The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism….”

My opponent is claiming that Cone is saying that any conception of God, as a god of all people’s must be rejected.

I’m claiming the qualifier, “which stifles black self-determination” disputes that interpretation.
I can give other quotes for context but based just on sentence structure what say you.

2

IANAEnglishteacher, but I agree with you. If your friend was right, ‘which stifles black self-determination’ would have been between commas.

3

The first sentence is ambiguous, because it’s not clear what “by picturing God as a God of all peoples” refers back to. Does it belong to “reject” or “stifles”? In other words, does the black theologian picture God as a God of all people, or does the conception – the conception which ought to be rejected – picture God as a God of all people? I think that logically it’s the forrner in each case, but the sentence structure suggests the latter. So I agree with you as to the better interpretation, but I understand why your opponent is confused.

4

I read the sentence 5 times, and I can’t figure out what the hell he is trying to say.

5

English would be a lot less confusing with nested parantheses instead of just commas. Just saying.

6

I wish I had more context.

I think it’s somewhat explained by this quote from Cone.

Cone: “To sing about freedom and to pray for its coming is not enough. Freedom must be actualized in history by oppressed peoples who accept the intellectual challenge to analyze the world for the purpose of changing it.”

but I’ll try to find more context.

My analysis from the other site

The black theologian {subject} must reject {verb} any conception of God {object} the object is qualified. by
which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples.
I see it as “only the picture of God as a god of all peoples and stifles black self determination must be rejected, rather than every picture of God as a God of all peoples. What exactly goes he mean? I think we get that from the context of the following sentence “Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…”
I believe he’s talking about the reoccurring theme from him and MLK. The Christian that doesn’t speak out against the injustice of racism is not worshiping the God of all peoples .

7

from Cones wikki page heres the longer quote

The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism… The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God’s own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering…Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity. (A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 63-64)

it seems clear he is not rejecting God as a god of all peoples but saying God must be identified first with the poor and oppressed.

8

I think by “which” he meant “that.”

{The black theologian} must reject {any conception of God which [=that] stifles black self-determination} {by picturing God as a God of all peoples}.

In other words, the way for the Black Theol. to reject other people’s stifling conceptions is by picturing God as a God of all peoples. In other other words, you’re right.

9

Thanks, That’s actually the way I originally saw it but now I have doubts.

It kinda looks like somehow, a certain of picturing God as a god of all peoples can stifle black self determination and should be rejected. Your version is certainly simpler.

10

Well, obviously it’s not ideal writing if it’s open to such opposed interpretations, but I have to say that in the context of the succeeding sentences I agree with cosmodan’s opponent in the debate. God is the “black” God of the oppressed, or, if “of all peoples” and not specifically the oppressed, thus the God of racism.

11

That’s how I read it, because otherwise the second sentence wouldn’t make any sense. He’s saying that

Changing ‘which’ to ‘that’ wouldn’t change the ambiguity of the first sentence at all. Adding commas around ‘which stifles black self-determination’ would lead to this:

“The black theologian must reject any conception of God, which stifles black self-determination, by picturing God as a God of all peoples.”

Would also be ambiguous; could look like the writer was saying that the black theologian should reject any conception of God, which would be an unusual pice of advice for a theologian.

Rephrase it both ways by moving just one clause:

Your interpretation:

“The black theologian must, by picturing God as a God of all peoples, reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism….”

Your friend’s:

“The black theologian must reject any conception of God which, by picturing God as a God of all peoples, stifles black self-determination. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism….”

Which tallies better with the second sentence? To me it seems clear that it’s your friend’s interpretation. Picturing God as a God of all peoples would not mean that ‘their [the oppressed’s] experience becomes God’s experience.’

Or at least, it kinda would, in the sense that God would have the oppressed’s experiences as well as everyone else’s, but it’d be meaningless; why bother saying that God’s experience is of the oppressed as well as the oppressors? I mean, that’s old hat - it’s not something worth writing down as a point of contention.

In your longer quote, the writer refers to God being black, to Jesus being The Oppressed One, Israelite slaves being the people of God. It definitely looks to me like he’s saying that God is for and from the oppressed only, not the oppressors too.

Maybe you could email the writer and ask? His wording really isn’t clear, and he might be interested in clarifying, you never know.

12

I see this as a possibility because of the reading I’ve been doing on Cone and black liberation theology.
For Cone “black” is both about African Americans and racism in the US and representative about oppression in general. To him and MLK as well, you cannot be truly Christian and worshiping God/Jesus if you practice or are silent about racism in America.
I don’t think he means literally “not the god of all peoples” but alludes to what Jesus said in the parable of the sheep and the goats in MAtt 25 when he tells those who worshiped him in word but not in deed.
Depart from me I never knew you.

By George,…I think I just got it.