You should read it when you have time, Michele. The author does a good job of giving Wright’s words context, something that many “pundits” have chosen not to do. I know your schedule is hectic, but you owe it to yourself to take time to read it.

I will, I’m going to try to read it tonight at dinner but I didn’t want to wait to post it in case someone didn’t see it.

Actually, what really happened was that Wright read one of those weird, 19th century French novels and decided that he wanted to mold someone into becoming a candidate for President only to have him become unelectable because he attended a side-show masquerading as a church.

Cone proposed a reciprocal arrangement: just as the Black Power movement could find redemption in the Church, so the Church—dominated and distorted by generations of white men—could find redemption in the Black Power movement. He wrote that there was “a need for a theology whose sole purpose is to emancipate the gospel from its ‘whiteness’ so that blacks may be capable of making an honest self-affirmation through Jesus Christ.” And he argued that, since African-American suffering was such a powerful metaphor for the suffering of Christ, color-blind Christianity was a contradiction in terms. “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen,” he wrote. “God has chosen black people!”
Like many brash-sounding manifestos of the era, this one came with fine-print qualifications. Throughout the book, Cone was careful to explain that a black-centered Church need not be a black-separatist Church. And even the simplest phrases—“black people,” for instance—turned out to be slippery. It wasn’t about being “physically black,” he wrote. “To be black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are.” In his view, blackness was as radically inclusive as Christianity itself, and just as demanding.

I can find absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Italics closed too soon… second paragraph is also from the article.