Culture and Marxism versus the Revelation of Jesus Christ

Michael Hill a reporter for the Baltimore Sun wrote an article on Barack Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.1. Wright is an African American who has been accused of racism by some since he evidently proclaims a gospel of Africentric Liberation Theology.

In that article Hill quotes Professor Dwight Hopkins of the University of Chicago. Hill states that the Professor is a member of Wright's church, Trinity United. Hill writes:

"Dwight Hopkins, a professor in the divinity school at the University of Chicago who is a member of Trinity United, was not surprised by Wright's comments about the Clinton administration on Sunday.

Bill Clinton, he said, may have been from the South and appointed blacks to his Cabinet and opened an office later in Harlem, 'but if you really look at the policies he backed, many were worse for blacks than those of the pre-civil rights days.'

Hopkins pointed to Clinton's welfare reform policies and the criticism of activist Randall Robinson of Clinton policies toward black Caribbean countries such as Haiti.

'That's what [Wright] was talking about,' Hopkins said."

When I read the article I recognized Hopkins' name from an article I posted here entitled: Presbyterians Dancing With Karl Marx! Part 2 . In that article I wrote of Hopkins and the paper he presented at the World Forum on Theology and Liberation which is connected to the World Social Forum.

I wrote:

"One paper totally redefines Christianity into political categories. Dwight N. Hopkins, Professor of Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School, writes about “Theologies in the USA.”

He names, what he sees as the most pervasive theology in the US, 'neo-conservative theology,” which purportedly understands God as “the open face of aggressive US empire.' (Italics the author) Next is 'liberal theology,' which according to Hopkins sees God as 'bourgeois rights.' (Italics author)

The final category is prophetic theology which the writer states sees God as 'Liberation toward the practice of freedom.' Clearly Hopkins’ ideology is not theology (the study of God) nor is it based on scripture but on Marxism."

Looking elsewhere, Hopkins has written an article, "Black Theology: The Notion of Culture Revisited," posted at The Religion and Culture Web Forum at the Martin Marty Center: Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion at the University of Chicago. And here, in what he writes, is that area I have written about earlier where a past fascist view of culture merges with Marxism and liberation theology.

Earlier in my second article on Presbyterians Dancing with Karl Marx (Part 2) I wrote:

"In the 1920’s the National Socialists, the Nazis, and the International Socialists, the Communists, fought in the streets of Berlin. Alike in some ways, both political groups considered their movements, movements of the people. Likewise they considered their movements to be in opposition to the exploiters, the monolithic outsiders, enemies of the people.

Yet, one group called for their ideology to be placed under the control of their national leaders. In the same vein they tied religion to blood and soil. The other group opted for international controls and insisted that religion was the opiate of the people.

Today, in the twenty-first century, within the new socialist movements swirling through many countries, one finds the ghosts of the last century. But they are no longer two different entities they have merged.

Politically the peasant movements are tying themselves to their own ethnic or national groups through such ideas as growing and using only foods that are natural to their regions, using local herbs as alternative medicine, re-awakening forgotten spiritual and cultural practices.

Rejecting such entities as the World Bank or NAFTA they have in some ways become nationalists or at least isolationist. Yet in other ways they are tied to an international body of peasant movements that all adhere to the same ideology of land re-distribution generally for collectives rather than individuals.

Within the various groups is a strong religious under-current that is frightening in its lack of grace. It is human centered not God centered. Because some of the socialism that is prevalent in South America was and still is birthed out of liberation theology that sees God as partial to the poor or to the people, religion is tied to a particular group. It has moved on from there.

Now the sacred or religion is tied to different ethnic groups, to the ethnicity of a people. Or in the case of indigenous peoples to both the people and the land. Through liberation theology, and the many fragmenting theologies of feminism, religion, a kind of pseudo-Christianity, is once again tied to blood. Through Indigenous people to soil and blood."

Hopkins in the "Black Theology" paper attempts to not only define culture but spirituality within a culture. In fact, going beyond that he uses culture to define spirituality. He writes that "Culture is where the sacred reveals itself," and because of that he seemingly implies that a person's identity and purpose is only known through the "human-created realm of culture."

In a statement that is a bit confusing and contradictory, Hopkins suggests that humanity cannot create the "divine realm," but "ultimate vision or divine spirit" enters humanity or is in humanity in order create the divine realm. Therefore he suggests that culture is sacred.

But Hopkins does make distinctions. There is something within culture which is against "divine spirit." He writes:

"However, through all of culture contains the sacred, the ultimate goal or vision (i.e., divine spirit) of what it means to be human in community is continuously challenged by evil or that which prevents individual full humanity in relation to healthy community. Culture is contested terrain between marks of life and death."

Hopkins goes on to state that whatever gives freedom to the individual and "the interests of those structurally occupying the bottom of community (i.e., in particular citizens dwelling in systemic poverty as well as working class people) is good culture because movement towards practicing freedom for the poor marks the revelation of God." (Bold Mine)

Revelation tied to culture has been elevated before, in the last century. That elevation brought ruin and suffering to a multitude of people. Against culture as revelation the Theological Declaration of Barmen was written. But now it is Marxism and culture and as the poet Yeats wrote, "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

The Church of Jesus Christ must care for the poor and oppressed. But standing with those peoples and groups who have elevated culture or anything else above the revelation of Jesus Christ is not only to court disaster but to deny the Lord.

And once again and over and over it must be repeated:

"Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and death.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God's revelation." The Theological Declaration of Barmen 8.11-8.12.


1.I was led to Hills article by another article "Covering Obama’s spiritual guide" by Mollie Ziegler at Get Religion. Org.