On May 2, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
> Which, on the face of it, seems reasonable. If you look more closely
> however, questions arise.
>
> Charles -- like many others -- assumes that Wright's challenge to, and
> unflinching description of white supremacy and imperial violence comes
> from little else than "anger". In fact, it's the core of a consistent
> and well reasoned *liberation theology* response to ongoing forms of
> oppression. Like Charles, many commentators are saying that Wright,
> as a follower of Christ, should stop mentioning American sins and,
> adhering to Sen. Obama's 'vision', focus on 'hope' and
> 'reconciliation'. (Ironically, many of these newborn theologians are
> otherwise unconcerned about the finer points of Christian thought).
I doubt that Charles would recommend this in any other other situation. Obama, though, gets a free pass.