Michael Ellis Carter Jr. Cone’s intent is to identify BLT to be a different gospel than white theology. In modern language a white person can never understand because they live in a dispensation of freedom from sin so that is their message. Black theology has been given a different dispensation, with which comes the message of freedom from slavery and oppression and thus both groups interpret scripture from the point of view of their dispensation.
Cone sadly, I believe, comes to the conclusion that there can never be understanding between the groups because white theologians are not willing or capable of looking at scripture through that lens.
Cone is honest in admitting the Bible is not the only revelation of God to man which separates BLT AND white theology even further.
Quoting Cone, “God of the oppressed “, preface page xi:
“I still regard the Bible as an important source of my theological reflections, but not the starting point… The order is significant. I am black first—…this means that I read the Bible through the lens of a black tradition of struggle and not as the objective Word of God”
It is important to understand starting points in order for there to be profitable communication. I find myself too often agreeing with Cone that when it comes to black liberation theology and white biblical theology it sadly may not be possible.
My prayer is that somehow God will help us.
All for souls.