Riggin R Earl's Analysis

In Riggin R. Earl’s essay for the Cambridge Companion, he discusses the problematic combination of the biblical command of generic self-denial and Black Theology. In order to properly present his argument Earl begins his essay by giving his opinion on the lessons found within Black Theology, emphasizing the importance of Jesus and his message in this theology, and the challenges Black and African people face because of this message. He divides the essay into four main sections: Self-Denial and The Oppressed, Black American Slavery Christology and Generic Self-Denial, African Colonialism Christology and Generic Self-Denial, and finally Rethinking Human Purpose as Self-Denial and Liberation. He makes the distinction between the Black and African
The main points to take away from these sections are that the two groups face Jesus' demand for self-denial in two different and yet similar ways. Black American Slavery, Christology, and Generic Self-Denial arguably face a harder time with the message. The slaves that were brought to America received the message that they had no value to God and that they must obey so that “Jesus could whiten and eternally save blacks’ souls for heaven” (p. 129). To further drive his point home, Earl includes James Cone’s idea of the black messiah and Delores Williams’ view on christology. These points allow him to formulate his argument and make it stronger. African Colonialism, Christology, & Generic Self-Denial also face hardship with Jesus' message. However, Earl points out that due to colonialism, there was a sort of “mixing” with traditional African theology and the Christianity brought there (p. 134). Although there is no denying that colonialism is horrible, Earl presents a softer picture of what the message meant to African people. Like in the previous section, Earl brings different views to drive his point home. In this section he compares and contrasts Blacks’ mixed view of African traditions and the Whites’ single-minded view of traditional African culture. Making the distinction between the oppressed versus the oppressor helps his point of how challenging Jesus' message is to interpret from a different