I’m in the process of coming up with a list of remixes that totally crushed the album version. I can think of a few off the top of my head, one of which will only be on the list because a good friend of mine believes it to be so, but Give The People by EPMD is number one on the list. The album version, which basically jacks the track of “Give The People What They Want” by the O’Jays, is alright…it’s serviceable, but nothin spectacular. Especially being on the album, Business As Usual. But the Erick and Parrish mix, which is the version you hear on the video? Vintage Erick Sermon. Which means you hear UFO by LSG. Way, way, in the cut, under it all is the guitar lick from AWB’s School Boy Crush. And this time, they only used the best part of “Give The People.” This is what a remix is supposed to do — even without doing anything to the lyrics.

Speaking of which, Parrish’s first verse here strikes me as being particularly appropriate now.

As airwaves collapse rap shows at a standstill
Some racial circuits the frequencies can’t handle
The funk tracks produced by me and the E-D
But it’s a fat jam, that will never win a grammy
Unless we sellout and kill the black movement dead
Which means swallow our pride and become flunkies instead
And stop the rap about freedom, thoughts of a black president
And rap about a black crack, the mayor in our residence
Give me a break brothers, it’s time to take a stand
And kill that no sir, yes sir, and thank you ma’am
Cuz the word ‘if’ is a luxury a black man can’t afford
That’s why poverty’s on the rise and we still ignored
And it’s a setback and yet the clock still ticks
And if we let it, rap would be run by politics
I read it somewhere that every man’s created equal
But not in this day and age, maybe in the sequel
Which means next time, so observe these rhymes
And take a stand and go for yours cause I’m going for mine
That’s why I

Liberation theology (LT) is prominent in the news this week due to unearthing of one of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. Being that LT has long been one of my intellectual interests, I’m a little more familiar with it than somebody who’s hearing about it and getting all hyped up about the inflammatory aspects of Rev’s remarks. So let me be clear about this: while I think LT is, at least in part, a misnomer, since the former is emphasized at the expense of the latter, I don’t think it’s appropriate to junk the whole car. There are some very useful elements. After all, LT arose because of an improper application of the scripture. In a way, it’s like the natural response to state-sponsored (for lack of a better term) opression theology. Well, I’ll say it’s the natural in-kind response without defecting to another religion altogether. (Hello, NOI.)

Liberation theology’s chief weakness lies in its greatest strength: its focus on the oppressed. Specifically, I think LT goes beyond addressing the needs of the poor and actually casts God in the image of the oppressed. Hence the emphasis on the ethnographic and sociocultural aspects of Jesus’ incarnation at the expense of his deity.

Now understand, I don’t think any part of Jesus’ physical manifestation was random. God’s plan was (is) far too exacting and detailed for it to be any other way. Nevertheless, I think it’s possible to read too much into it. That is, because of our postmodern sensibilities and our emphasis on the census-type social address marker elements of a person’s identity, we have a tendency to act like those descriptions are definitions. But they’re not. They may help to enhance a definition, but, and this is a sofa, relying on descriptors as definition effectively takes the person out of the equation. What you have in that case, in essence, is a composite that should do a, b, and c, based on the fact that he has traits, x, y, and z. So while I don’t think it’s outta line to note the significance of Jesus having been incarnated into a certain flesh within a certain community at a certain place in a certain time, I don’t think it’s right to take those address markers as definitive. Primarily because inasmuch as he occupied a particular space, he also transcends that, so to limit him to that space, or even to act as if the community of the oppressed is his primary locus of activity, is reductive to the point of absurdity. Jesus didn’t just come for the materially poor, he came for the poor in spirit. While his goal had practical, material applications, it was always spiritual. Always. To miss that is to miss the Gospel itself.

(And as a side note, I can never seem to escape people who seem to think that Revelation 1:14 is about Jesus’ physical description. I saw a t-shirt with a picture that could’ve been JJ’s painting from the Black Jesus episode of Good Times, talkin about it was the description from Revelation. But if that’s supposed to be the case, where is the flaming sword and the candlesticks? Why does nobody who quotes that scripture as a physical description EVER wanna talk about those verses? They all go together. But naw. Can’t do that. Reading is fundamental.)

Liberation theology is ripe for critique on many levels, but first and foremost as a legitimate theology. Any time you have to interpret God through your lens as a [insert your brand(s)], then your god is an idol. God is way too big to be defined by our “otherness.” God is also way too big to be defined by our sameness. The point is not to understand God through the perspective of our own experiences, it’s to understand our experiences through the lens of God’s word.