AnonymousDeleted UserDecember 2, 2020 at 9:28 pm
I stand in skepticism about Cone’s less than uplifting view of “white theologians” and simultaneously stand challenged by a new perspective. Cone says that, “The problem with white men, especially white theologians, is their tendency to speak as if they and they alone can set the rules for thinking about God.” This kind of black and white narrative is hard for me to agree with. Perhaps it is because I am brown and not black, but I see little connection between many modern white people’s theology and their whiteness. I do not see how their explanation of the good news changes when it comes from a stance of privilege or not, because I am surrounded by latinos who also do not stand in privilege and their explanation is the same. At the same time as I recognize all this, I am challenged by Cone’s perspective, coming so uniquely and so passionately from the traditions and history of black people in America. He sees the world through the eyes of an oppressed people, and I have to pay attention to how that changes his view of God and the gospel. My question so far is this; if the question of the oppressed in the land is at the core of the gospel, what does liberation of the oppressed mean? Or what does Cone mean by it?