Black Liberation Churches?

[AKA2D '91]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

Whether the preaching style is fiery and confrontational or professorial and analytical, if you’re about yours (II Tim 2:15), then the preaching style is just a matter of what you like. I’m the grandson of a Baptist preacher/Pastor and have seen many styles. The key is not the delivery, but the message. And how that message, properly interpreted, delivered, and received in the pews, inspires people to live, and work, after the benediction.

Amen!

[The Cushite]

I agree that the characterizations are very rigid, and I never meant that your church had to fit the discription to a "T". Just a general assessment would do.

I also agree that the message is prime. What I am asking about is the content of the message. Some preachers can preach a message in such away and support that message through dynamic ministry, and the message and ministry still renders the church as an entertainment type or accomodationalist type of church. Prime example is the ministry of T.D. Jakes. Now, I ain't against his ministry, I thank God for it. He has touched thousands, maybe millions with his message of economic empowerment through investing and "pop-psychology" or positive thinking. What makes his message accomodating as opposed to liberating is that he rarely questions powers that be. He hardly ever poses critical questions about criminal justice, economic disparity (other than his message of individual accumulation as opposed to economic justice), public educational quality, etc. This has real implications in the black community.

Now, this aspect of ministry is what seperates accomodationalist churches from liberation churches, like the qualitative difference between the Potters' House and Trinity UCC. So, I think that a distinction must be made, and not just rest on arguments about what people get from the message, but what message is being preached.

Blackwatch!!!!!!

[PerroLoco]

Originally Posted by The Cushite

I agree that the characterizations are very rigid, and I never meant that your church had to fit the discription to a "T". Just a general assessment would do.

I also agree that the message is prime. What I am asking about is the content of the message. Some preachers can preach a message in such away and support that message through dynamic ministry, and the message and ministry still renders the church as an entertainment type or accomodationalist type of church. Prime example is the ministry of T.D. Jakes. Now, I ain't against his ministry, I thank God for it. He has touched thousands, maybe millions with his message of economic empowerment through investing and "pop-psychology" or positive thinking. What makes his message accomodating as opposed to liberating is that he rarely questions powers that be. He hardly ever poses critical questions about criminal justice, economic disparity (other than his message of individual accumulation as opposed to economic justice), public educational quality, etc. This has real implications in the black community.

Now, this aspect of ministry is what seperates accomodationalist churches from liberation churches, like the qualitative difference between the Potters' House and Trinity UCC. So, I think that a distinction must be made, and not just rest on arguments about what people get from the message, but what message is being preached.

Blackwatch!!!!!!

I think the problem in the approach that Dr.Kwanzaa takes is that his categories are limited and the very titles of 2 of them already prejudices one against them because they pre-suppose a certain amount of negativity. "Entertainment" connotes a certain vacuousness or emptiness. Where a church may just have a great speaker as a Pastor and an awesome choir. Every Pastor is not called on or is qualified to be a Politician, an Activist, or Christ Himself. THE CHurch first and foremost is teach the word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes, it is to speak Truth to Power but that Truth IS JESUS and His Saving Grace, not to take sides in political disputes.

Secondly, the title Accomadationalist is a negative in that the Church is passive, co-opted to the status quo, as if that Church is wrong for singing "Amazing Grace", rather than "Fight the Power".

Having said all of that, I do favor Churches that practice Liberation Theology. There is tremendous strength and activism in the Gospels and while I don't mind entertainment on Sunday morning, I need a 24/7, 365 GOSPEL preached and acted act everday. I find entertainment empty and accomodation weak.

I am not the biggest fan of T.D. Jakes, but it is no denying that he has done what Jesus asks of his ministers.