The Sources and Norm of Black Theology The Function of the Sources and Norm Though I have alluded already to some of the factors which shape the perspective of black theology, it is necessary to say a word about what are often designated as the sources and the norm in systematic theology. Sources are the "formative factors" that de- \ termine the character of a given theology.' The norm is "the crite- rion to which the sources . . . must be subjected." That is, the sources are the relevant data for the theological task, whereas the norm determines how the data will be used. It is often the case that different theologies share the same sources, and it is the theological norm which elevates one particular source (or sources) to a pre- dominant role. Karl Barth and Paul Tillich provide useful examples. Both agree that the Bible and culture are important data for theology. But an examination of their work shows that culture plays a much larger role in Tillich's theology, whereas the Bible is crucial for Barth. For Barth scripture is the witness to the word of God and thus is indispensable to doing theology. Tillich, on the other hand, agrees that the Bible is important, but holds that the task of making the gospel relevant to the contemporary mind is equally important. If pressed, Barth (at least in his later years) would not deny that Tillich's concern for relevance is a legitimate concern; yet Barth is 21 22 The Sources and Norm of Black Theology skeptical about regarding culture as a point of departure for theol- ogy. God is still God and humankind is still humankind, even for the later Barth. That being the case, the only legitimate starting point of theology is the man Jesus who is the revelation of God. Whatever is said about culture must be said in the light of this prior perspective. But this style of theology worries Tillich. He wonders whether kerygmatic theologians like Barth are giving answers to questions that the modern world is not asking. Culture—that is, the situation of modern man-must be the point of relevant theology. For Tillich the danger of confusing the divine and the human, which is so important for Barth, is not nearly so important as the danger of giving answers that are irrelevant. In fact, divine-human identifica- tion is the risk of faith: The risk of faith is based on the fact that the unconditional element can become a matter of ultimate concern only if it appears in a concrete embodiment.³ It is the "concrete embodiment" of the infinite which must be taken seriously. Culture, then, is the medium through which the human person encounters the divine and thus makes a deci- sion. Barth and Tillich illustrate the role that sources and norm play in shaping the character of a theology. Though their sources are similar, they do not agree on the norm. It is clear in Tillich's writings that the apologetic situation is decisive in defining the norm of systematic theology, and he identifies the norm as "New Being in Jesus as the Christ," which is the only answer to human estrange- ment. Tillich appeals to the cultural situation regarding the norm, but Barth is kerygmatic in that he defines the man Jesus as wit- nessed to in the holy scriptures as the only norm for God-talk. It is clear, therefore, that the most important decisions in theol- ogy are made at this juncture. The sources and norm are presuppo-\ sitions that determine the questions that are to be asked, as well as the answers that are to be given. Believing that the biblical Christ is the sole criterion for theology, Barth not only asks questions about human nature that arise from a study of christology, but he also derives answers from the man Jesus. Tillich, on the other hand, The Sources and Norm of Black Theology 23 deals with questions that arise from the cultural situation of hu- mankind, and endeavors to shape his answers according to that situation. Both approaches are conditioned by their theological perspectives. Because a perspective refers to the whole of a person's being in the context of a community, the sources and norm of black theol- ogy must be consistent with the perspective of the black commu- nity. Inasmuch as white American theologians do not belong to the black community, they cannot relate the gospel to that community. Invariably, when white theology attempts to speak to blacks about Jesus Christ, the gospel is presented in the light of the social, political, and economic interests of the white majority. (One exam- ple of this is the interpretation of Christian love as nonviolence.) Black theologians must work to destroy the corruptive influence of white thought by building theology on sources and a norm that are appropriate to the black community. The Sources of Black Theology There are many factors which shape the perspective of black theology. Black consciousness is a relatively new phenomenon, and it is too early to identify all the sources participating in its creation. The black community as a self-determining people, proud of its blackness, has just begun, and we must wait before we can describe what its fullest manifestation will be. "We are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be. . ." (I John 3:2a). Even so, at this stage, a word must be said about the present manifestation. What are the sources in black theology? 1. Black Experience. There can be no black theology which does not take seriously the black experience a life of humiliation and suffering. This must be the point of departure of all God-talk which seeks to be black-talk. This means that black theology realizes that it is human beings who speak of God, and when those human beings are black, they speak of God only in the light of the black experience. It is not that black theology denies the impor- tance of God's revelation in Christ, but blacks want to know what Jesus Christ means when they are confronted with the brutality of white racism The black experience prevents us from turning the gospel into