What do you think?
Rate this book
My Soul Looks Back
Firmly rooted in the black church tradition, James H. Cone relates the formative features of his faith journey, from his childhood experience in Bearden, Arkansas, and his father's steadfast resistance to racism, through racial discrimination in graduate school, to his controversial articulation of a faith that seeks to break the shackles of racial oppression.
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
10 people are currently reading
176 people want to read
About the author
James H. Cone
42 books342 followersJames Hal Cone was an advocate of Black liberation theology, a theology grounded in the experience of African Americans, and related to other Christian liberation theologies. In 1969, his book Black Theology and Black Power provided a new way to articulate the distinctiveness of theology in the black Church. James Cone’s work was influential and political from the time of his first publication, and remains so to this day. His work has been both utilized and critiqued inside and outside of the African American theological community.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 30, 2017
Short review: I read a couple of Cone's books in seminary. I have been meaning to pick up the Cross and the Lynching Tree for years and haven't yet. I haven't in part because I have 'moved past' liberation theology. There are parts of it that I can't support theologically, but I think I have also dismissed other parts too easily because I have not properly understood it in context and because I have been blinded to parts of it because of my own racism.
This is not a new memoir. I would be interested to read a new memoir by Cone. He is now 81. He wrote this when he was 49 and very much mid-career. Only a few years older than I am now. It continues to be depressing to read questions that are still relevant. Like 'how can Christianity co-exist with racism and oppression?'
Cone was born in 1936. He did his graduate work in the late 50s to the mid 60s in the height of the Civil Rights era. He was teaching and doing his early writing and theological writing in the mid 60s and 70s when the Black Power movement was breaking off from the earlier non-violent emphasis of King and Thurman.
Part of what was interesting to me was the line that Cone walked between the Black Nationalist movements that rejected Christianity as a 'white man's religion' and the conservative Black church that was uncomfortable with the style and method of protest of the civil rights and later eras. Cone could not reject Christ and Christianity, but he also could not accept a Christianity that was complicit in dehumanizing people through racism and segregation.
His notes on how Black liberation theology has mostly rejected marxism as a theological tool of analysis was fascinating because that is precisely the point that many White theologians reject Black liberation theology.
I do wish at some point that every book I read didn't make me want to pick up an additional six. I can never get to all that I want to read.
I have about a 1000 words with some overlapping thoughts on my blog http://bookwi.se/my-soul-looks-back/
This is not a new memoir. I would be interested to read a new memoir by Cone. He is now 81. He wrote this when he was 49 and very much mid-career. Only a few years older than I am now. It continues to be depressing to read questions that are still relevant. Like 'how can Christianity co-exist with racism and oppression?'
Cone was born in 1936. He did his graduate work in the late 50s to the mid 60s in the height of the Civil Rights era. He was teaching and doing his early writing and theological writing in the mid 60s and 70s when the Black Power movement was breaking off from the earlier non-violent emphasis of King and Thurman.
Part of what was interesting to me was the line that Cone walked between the Black Nationalist movements that rejected Christianity as a 'white man's religion' and the conservative Black church that was uncomfortable with the style and method of protest of the civil rights and later eras. Cone could not reject Christ and Christianity, but he also could not accept a Christianity that was complicit in dehumanizing people through racism and segregation.
His notes on how Black liberation theology has mostly rejected marxism as a theological tool of analysis was fascinating because that is precisely the point that many White theologians reject Black liberation theology.
I do wish at some point that every book I read didn't make me want to pick up an additional six. I can never get to all that I want to read.
I have about a 1000 words with some overlapping thoughts on my blog http://bookwi.se/my-soul-looks-back/
November 29, 2018
Very helpful for understanding Cone's experience and theology. Given that I disagree with him on fundamental theological presuppositions, not so helpful as a theological reflection.
July 3, 2024
CONE’S “TESTIMONY” OF HIS STRUGGLES WITH THE BLACK CHURCH, ETC.
James Hal Cone (born 1938) is an American theologian who is Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, where he has taught since 1970. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 144-page paperback edition.]
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1982 book, “This book is written in the tradition of black testimony. It is not an autobiography. It is rather an account of the spiritual and intellectual development of my faith---from childhood … to the present. Because I am black, I am writing primarily to the black church community. It is my personal testimony of how I have struggled to keep and to live the faith of the black church. I hope that my story will help to strengthen the faith of black Christians and also encourage other blacks to share in it… Because I believe that the gospel is universal and thus intended for all, I have written my story in dialogue with people of other cultures and nations who also regard Jesus Christ as God’s definitive and final salvation for humankind… Also the white churches of Europe and America have presented an enormous theological challenge to my understanding of the gospel. Although I have been critical of them, the criticism was meant to be prophetic and not cynical. I firmly believe that the gospel is available to all---including white people. But the availability of the gospel is exclusively dependent upon a CONVERSION experience, wherein one makes an unqualified commitment to the struggle of the poor for freedom.”
He recalls, “I must admit that I often … thought that white people’s wrongdoings toward blacks were due to a lack of actual knowledge of what the Bible said and the absence of a black confrontation of them with the truth of the gospel. Once confronted with the gospel and the demands that it lays upon all Christians, then whites would cease their racism, I thought, because their Christian identity was more important to them than their humiliations of blacks…” (Pg. 26)
While in graduate school at Garrett-Northwestern, he wondered, “How was I going to relate systematic theology to black people’s fight for freedom in society? … Answering that question was not easy… the only professor in that area was the most blatant racist at Garrett… The only option, I felt, was to struggle with the discipline of systematic theology under the guidance of two people who, at least, were not racist in their personal dealings with me.” (Pg. 36)
He recounts, “theology seemed irrelevant to black life and suffering. So I quit reading it and devoted myself to reading secular writers, mainly blacks, who at least did not use religion to cover up human suffering. The apparent irrelevance of theology created a vocational crisis in me, and I did not know what to do about my future as a theologian. I began to develop an intense dislike for theology because it avoided the really hard problems of life with its talk about revelation, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit…. There was no time for me to return to graduate school. I had to say something now about God and black people’s struggle for freedom. But what could I say?” (Pg. 43)
He explains, “even more important were my personal encounters with racism in Bearden, Little Rock, Evanston, and Adrian… Never again would I expect white racists to do right in relation to the black community… The only option we blacks have is to fight in every way possible, so that we can begin to create a definition of freedom based on our own history and culture. We must not expect white people to give us freedom. Freedom… must be taken against the will of those who hold us in bondage.” (Pg. 47)
He says, “In addition to being therapeutic and liberating, the writing of ‘Black Theology & Black Power’ was also a conversion experience. It was like experiencing the death of white theology and being born again into the theology of the black experience… I now realized why it was so difficult for me to make the connection between the black experience and theology. As long as theology was exclusively defined by whites, the connection would never be made because of their racism.” (Pg. 48) But he also notes, “I wrote an M.A. thesis and a Ph.D. dissertation. But … I certainly would not regard them as important pieces of scholarly work. They were merely necessary chores in my preparation to write black theology.” (Pg. 51)
He points out, “Most disturbing to me were the constant insults that nationalists hurled against the black church… the problem with the nationalists’ criticisms was that they missed the mark because they did not know anything about black churches. Nationalists advanced the same criticisms of black churches found in the white media and in white colleges and universities… Unfortunately, black nationalists did not even know that they were giving a WHITE critique of the black churches, and they were too dogmatic to recognize it after being told.” (Pg. 55)
Of the critical responses of some black theologians to his first book, he writes, “The issue focuses on the question of whether I was really doing black theology or white theology that was merely painted black… I listened to this critique for nearly two years and concluded that they were partly correct, at least enough to make me think more deeply about the nature of black theology. I was embarrassed by this critique, because no one had been more critical of white theology than I. To find out from my black colleagues that I was still held captive by the same system that I was criticizing was a bitter pill to swallow… Since I was absolutely sure … about liberation being the central motif of the gospel… what I needed to do was to rethink the content and shape of black theology in the light.” (Pg. 59-61)
He laments, “My plans for returning to Arkansas as an AME pastor were changed during my last years on the bachelor of divinity degree when the AME bishop in Arkansas informed me that no churches were available and none were expected to come open in the near future. I was shocked and disappointed. However, I had been an AME preacher long enough to read between the lines. The issue involved … internal church politics designed to prevent the ‘Cone boys’ (as Cecil and I were called) from returning home.” (Pg. 64-65)
He acknowledges, “It is appropriate here to say a word about Union since my coming in 1969… Far more than I anticipated, Union has made a genuine effort to define theological education in such a manner that it explicitly includes persons who are concerned for the liberation of the poor. I would be the first to admit that Union has not gone as far in this direction as it should. But when Union is compared with other white seminaries like it, no school, to my knowledge, has ever come close to making the commitment that Union has. It is the only white seminary that I know of that seeks to include Third World people’s culture, history, and theology at the center of the educational process… The pluralistic nature of Union’s community is what makes it an exciting place in which to teach.” (Pg. 73-74)
He argues, “Black theology’s chief task is not to be an ACADEMIC discipline, as white theology has largely become. Black theology must become a CHURCH discipline, true to itself only when validated in the context of people struggling for the freedom of the oppressed. Its chief task is to help the church to be faithful to the task of preaching and living the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ in the world today.” (Pg. 77) Later, he notes, “The earliest reference to liberation as the center of the gospel and as a definition of Christian theology occurred among black and Latin American theologians and church people. It is important to note that black and Latin theologians began to use the term ‘liberation’ almost simultaneously but independently of each other.” (Pg. 103)
He states, “While white women forced me to consider the problem of sexism in a white context, black women forced me to face the reality of sexism in the black community. Many black women contended that their silence on sexism did not mean that it was absent in the black community, but only that they did not wish to divide black men and women in the struggle against racism… As I listened to black women articulate their pain, and as I observed the insensitive responses of black men, it became existentially clear to me that sexism was a black problem too.” (Pg; 117-118)
He suggests, “I think that blacks can overcome the problem of Marxism’s being white and racist the same way we overcome the problem of Christianity being white and racist. We can … reinterpret [Marxism] for our situation. We do not refuse to ride in cars or airplanes, nor do we reject any other useful instruments just because they were invented by whites. Why then should we reject Marxism if it proves to be of use in our struggle for freedom?” (Pg. 131-132)
While far from an “introduction” to Cone’s important work, this book will be “must reading” for all those who have enjoyed his earlier books and activities.
James Hal Cone (born 1938) is an American theologian who is Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, where he has taught since 1970. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 144-page paperback edition.]
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1982 book, “This book is written in the tradition of black testimony. It is not an autobiography. It is rather an account of the spiritual and intellectual development of my faith---from childhood … to the present. Because I am black, I am writing primarily to the black church community. It is my personal testimony of how I have struggled to keep and to live the faith of the black church. I hope that my story will help to strengthen the faith of black Christians and also encourage other blacks to share in it… Because I believe that the gospel is universal and thus intended for all, I have written my story in dialogue with people of other cultures and nations who also regard Jesus Christ as God’s definitive and final salvation for humankind… Also the white churches of Europe and America have presented an enormous theological challenge to my understanding of the gospel. Although I have been critical of them, the criticism was meant to be prophetic and not cynical. I firmly believe that the gospel is available to all---including white people. But the availability of the gospel is exclusively dependent upon a CONVERSION experience, wherein one makes an unqualified commitment to the struggle of the poor for freedom.”
He recalls, “I must admit that I often … thought that white people’s wrongdoings toward blacks were due to a lack of actual knowledge of what the Bible said and the absence of a black confrontation of them with the truth of the gospel. Once confronted with the gospel and the demands that it lays upon all Christians, then whites would cease their racism, I thought, because their Christian identity was more important to them than their humiliations of blacks…” (Pg. 26)
While in graduate school at Garrett-Northwestern, he wondered, “How was I going to relate systematic theology to black people’s fight for freedom in society? … Answering that question was not easy… the only professor in that area was the most blatant racist at Garrett… The only option, I felt, was to struggle with the discipline of systematic theology under the guidance of two people who, at least, were not racist in their personal dealings with me.” (Pg. 36)
He recounts, “theology seemed irrelevant to black life and suffering. So I quit reading it and devoted myself to reading secular writers, mainly blacks, who at least did not use religion to cover up human suffering. The apparent irrelevance of theology created a vocational crisis in me, and I did not know what to do about my future as a theologian. I began to develop an intense dislike for theology because it avoided the really hard problems of life with its talk about revelation, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit…. There was no time for me to return to graduate school. I had to say something now about God and black people’s struggle for freedom. But what could I say?” (Pg. 43)
He explains, “even more important were my personal encounters with racism in Bearden, Little Rock, Evanston, and Adrian… Never again would I expect white racists to do right in relation to the black community… The only option we blacks have is to fight in every way possible, so that we can begin to create a definition of freedom based on our own history and culture. We must not expect white people to give us freedom. Freedom… must be taken against the will of those who hold us in bondage.” (Pg. 47)
He says, “In addition to being therapeutic and liberating, the writing of ‘Black Theology & Black Power’ was also a conversion experience. It was like experiencing the death of white theology and being born again into the theology of the black experience… I now realized why it was so difficult for me to make the connection between the black experience and theology. As long as theology was exclusively defined by whites, the connection would never be made because of their racism.” (Pg. 48) But he also notes, “I wrote an M.A. thesis and a Ph.D. dissertation. But … I certainly would not regard them as important pieces of scholarly work. They were merely necessary chores in my preparation to write black theology.” (Pg. 51)
He points out, “Most disturbing to me were the constant insults that nationalists hurled against the black church… the problem with the nationalists’ criticisms was that they missed the mark because they did not know anything about black churches. Nationalists advanced the same criticisms of black churches found in the white media and in white colleges and universities… Unfortunately, black nationalists did not even know that they were giving a WHITE critique of the black churches, and they were too dogmatic to recognize it after being told.” (Pg. 55)
Of the critical responses of some black theologians to his first book, he writes, “The issue focuses on the question of whether I was really doing black theology or white theology that was merely painted black… I listened to this critique for nearly two years and concluded that they were partly correct, at least enough to make me think more deeply about the nature of black theology. I was embarrassed by this critique, because no one had been more critical of white theology than I. To find out from my black colleagues that I was still held captive by the same system that I was criticizing was a bitter pill to swallow… Since I was absolutely sure … about liberation being the central motif of the gospel… what I needed to do was to rethink the content and shape of black theology in the light.” (Pg. 59-61)
He laments, “My plans for returning to Arkansas as an AME pastor were changed during my last years on the bachelor of divinity degree when the AME bishop in Arkansas informed me that no churches were available and none were expected to come open in the near future. I was shocked and disappointed. However, I had been an AME preacher long enough to read between the lines. The issue involved … internal church politics designed to prevent the ‘Cone boys’ (as Cecil and I were called) from returning home.” (Pg. 64-65)
He acknowledges, “It is appropriate here to say a word about Union since my coming in 1969… Far more than I anticipated, Union has made a genuine effort to define theological education in such a manner that it explicitly includes persons who are concerned for the liberation of the poor. I would be the first to admit that Union has not gone as far in this direction as it should. But when Union is compared with other white seminaries like it, no school, to my knowledge, has ever come close to making the commitment that Union has. It is the only white seminary that I know of that seeks to include Third World people’s culture, history, and theology at the center of the educational process… The pluralistic nature of Union’s community is what makes it an exciting place in which to teach.” (Pg. 73-74)
He argues, “Black theology’s chief task is not to be an ACADEMIC discipline, as white theology has largely become. Black theology must become a CHURCH discipline, true to itself only when validated in the context of people struggling for the freedom of the oppressed. Its chief task is to help the church to be faithful to the task of preaching and living the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ in the world today.” (Pg. 77) Later, he notes, “The earliest reference to liberation as the center of the gospel and as a definition of Christian theology occurred among black and Latin American theologians and church people. It is important to note that black and Latin theologians began to use the term ‘liberation’ almost simultaneously but independently of each other.” (Pg. 103)
He states, “While white women forced me to consider the problem of sexism in a white context, black women forced me to face the reality of sexism in the black community. Many black women contended that their silence on sexism did not mean that it was absent in the black community, but only that they did not wish to divide black men and women in the struggle against racism… As I listened to black women articulate their pain, and as I observed the insensitive responses of black men, it became existentially clear to me that sexism was a black problem too.” (Pg; 117-118)
He suggests, “I think that blacks can overcome the problem of Marxism’s being white and racist the same way we overcome the problem of Christianity being white and racist. We can … reinterpret [Marxism] for our situation. We do not refuse to ride in cars or airplanes, nor do we reject any other useful instruments just because they were invented by whites. Why then should we reject Marxism if it proves to be of use in our struggle for freedom?” (Pg. 131-132)
While far from an “introduction” to Cone’s important work, this book will be “must reading” for all those who have enjoyed his earlier books and activities.
September 16, 2017
I think this book is great in that it grants access into the driving forces behind Cone's development as a theologian, while giving you a decent look into his theology that is both accessible and readable. One is given a fairly intimate look into one of the most important theologians of the last century. A careful read of this book shows a man who is dedicated to being a prophetic voice, but a man who is humble and willing to listen to critiques of him and expand and adjust his theology in genuine honest ways.
My one concern with this book is his inconsistent treatment of various topics. One chapter he can be strongly denouncing particular viewpoints, while in the next he considerably softens his critique. But maybe it is better to only speak in strong terms rather than lean too far one way while attempting to present a nuanced take.
My one concern with this book is his inconsistent treatment of various topics. One chapter he can be strongly denouncing particular viewpoints, while in the next he considerably softens his critique. But maybe it is better to only speak in strong terms rather than lean too far one way while attempting to present a nuanced take.
May 20, 2022
I found this book to be very thoughtful and fascinating. The last chapter was my favorite and made some excellent points, but there were places throughout the book that made me want to clap. It is very short, but still packs in a lot of good information. I have been thinking a lot about what I have read and what this book will mean for me going forward, so in that sense it was a success. If I could change anything, I think it would be to bring God into the dialogue more often. Though theology and the church is frequently mentioned, I wasn’t sure this book constituted the testimony of God’s work that it promised to be. Besides this criticism, I was mostly satisfied with the book and the direction it took.
March 1, 2024
"If I cannot make sense out of my past, then I will not be able to find my bearings in the present for the shaping of my future."
Nice and short autobiography of Rev. Dr. James H. Cone's life and journey into Black theology. One of my favorite things about this book was how many resources Rev. Dr. Cone mentioned that I am looking forward to engaging with. I love Gustavo Gutierrez's reminder that, "We cannot speak of the death of Jesus until we speak of the real death of people." Excited to read more of Cone's work after learning more about his personal history.
Nice and short autobiography of Rev. Dr. James H. Cone's life and journey into Black theology. One of my favorite things about this book was how many resources Rev. Dr. Cone mentioned that I am looking forward to engaging with. I love Gustavo Gutierrez's reminder that, "We cannot speak of the death of Jesus until we speak of the real death of people." Excited to read more of Cone's work after learning more about his personal history.
April 19, 2019
2.5 stars. Important figure to read and his critiques of certain groups resonate with me, however, I have my own criticisms or questions of his own approach to theology. I had already planned to read BP & BT, but this one was assigned for class (which I’m glad about), so I read this one first.
July 11, 2020
James Cone provides a vivid, honest reflection of his life in academia and the church. As much as I enjoyed his reflections, I think I would prefer even more his writing on black theology. What an insightful and humble man, always seeking to see and learn more. I hope to cultivate such a sense of openness and responsibility in my own life. An inspiring read from a man who changed the face of theology forever.
Updated July 2020 - Upon a second read I enjoyed this even more. I see that Cone is really trying to pique the reader's interest to learn more about Black theology, to read more and dig deeper. The way he reveals the racism within academia was also more notable to me this time around.
Updated July 2020 - Upon a second read I enjoyed this even more. I see that Cone is really trying to pique the reader's interest to learn more about Black theology, to read more and dig deeper. The way he reveals the racism within academia was also more notable to me this time around.
November 18, 2020
This short book is an intellectual autobiography of Jim Cone, a founder of black liberation theology and one of 'my' professors at Union Theological Seminary. It's a quick read, a positive introduction to liberation theology in general and an heartening testimony to the capacity of some persons to actually grow and become wise through study, travel and fellowship.
It is to the credit of Dennis Haas, Grinnell College chaplain and professor of religion, that he had us read Cone's first book, 'Black Theology and Black Power', in his introductory bible course sequence, back when the book was still hot from the presses.
It is to the credit of Dennis Haas, Grinnell College chaplain and professor of religion, that he had us read Cone's first book, 'Black Theology and Black Power', in his introductory bible course sequence, back when the book was still hot from the presses.
May 28, 2016
The best of Cone so far. Not an "autobiography," but his testimony. I was most intrigued by the moments when he shared his political manifest and less intrigued by the recounting of life events. Although, they, perhaps, are linked.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews