Abstract
In this response essay, the author argues that Perkinson's appropriation of black liberation theology as a means of articulating what white redemption in the interests of a more whole and just society in the third millennium would entail, in fact, falters because his vision assumes the strengths, but more devastatingly, the limitations of the form of black liberation theology he appropriates, limitations that come to infect Perkinson's vision, rendering it incoherent. The response essay's second task is to clarify Black Theology's proper theological breakthrough and to resituate and, thus, salvage Perkinson's vision within it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.