gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (06/22/84)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion,net.books Subject: Re: "Witness in Nicaragua" - Christ, Marx, and *The Name of the Rose* References: <133@analog.UUCP> I was curious myself to see whether anyone would post a response to this article: First, I was pretty curious at the tie in with TNOTR (Since I think that the "theological" content of the novel is best considered as a de-academicized argument about semiotics and literature (or, in some cases, a bit of Euro-politics in disguise). Its not entirely clear *what* the poster of the original article was actually thinking of apart from some bit of "I read these at the same time and was impressed by them both. They're probably related (a bit of thinking that Eco himself would, no doubt, approve of)." I find the *Christian* response to the article (since I am one myself) a bit wanting, though. Evidently we're taking swipes at Marx the Godless atheist (more the "Marx reacts to Feuerbach" type, really), and running a bit low on trying to listen to the writer. I'll give the article a try myself, and hope that between the last posting amd me, there is some sketch of the variety of CHristian responses: Whoever wrote the original article has obviously never read Jacques Ellul, whose synthesis of Marxist analysis (note I said *analysis* and not *ism*) and his own faith and practice (as a French Christian apologist somewhat in the mold of Lewis-though more political) and the Christian faith goes pretty much unread in American Evangelical/Fundementalist circles.[Note: if any of you would like to check into his work, I would HIGHLY recommend "Perspectives on Our Age" published by Seabury Press. It is rather unusual for Ellul in that it begins with a bit of personal autobiography, and concludes with about the best summary of his thinking that I've ever encountered.It's also very brief,and very pithy.].As such, the writer finds himself in the position in which any "class analysis" MUST be seem as *absolutely* antithetical to the tenets of Christianity. He's not alone, I suspect. One thing about the response to the article that bothered me somewhat was the somewhat flippant way that his criticism of "Rich Christianity" was dismissed with a simple "Well, *some* people are guilty, but..." It's precisely because of that sort of response that our poor would-be Sandinista is so flabbergasted by the notion of "liberation theology."...the poor guy is actually seeing someone make a connection between belief and practice in a simple and direct way. Moreover, that "somple and direct" way is intimately connected with *his* life and *his* interests. He is, if you will, being "Evangelized"-not by tracts, not by techniques (the four political laws?), but by LIVING in the midst of people of faith. From the look of it, he likes what he sees (though his prose is a bit on the fluffy side, and you might not really be too crazy about his choice of vocabulary[this is a sort of instructive article in terms of seeing "Faithspeak" as done by someone outside of the Evangelical subculture, I think].). Maybe he will decide to act on what he sees. I'm not really that surprised that a good Marxist would be impressed by the political/economic/social implications of the teachings of Christ. Both groups really have quite a lot in common-largely in the way that they view themselves, and in their notion that there is a "world-view" embodied in their credo that guides their decisions. Looking at this, I think its quite possible that I'll draw a bit of flame for the political stance, so perhaps I should clarify somewhat: I have pretty mixed feelings about the Sandinista government: there are real live Christians in the government (though hard pressed of late due to the internal fighting) who aren't jailed or tortured, and who are free to do as they please. In terms of the welfare of the people, the current government is a model that the rest of Central America would do well to watch. Even as staid a Christian organization as Bread for the World gives them very hgih marks for really improving public health, literacy, and instituting the first *real* agricultural land reform the region has seen. I find their treatment of certain indiginous populations pretty poor. The Miskito Indians have suffered considerably at their hands, and are now a sort of political hockey puck in the area. Moreover, the Sandinistas are increasingly being pushed into a stance where they must act in a repressive manner. I don't agree in the slightest, but I can't help but wonder to what extent the Reagan administration's activity in the area is responsible for hieghtening that (keep in mind that the Nicaraguans have a long history of reason to be suspicious of the Yanqui). The real situation is quite complex....and by far the most interesting analysis of the situation that I've encountered has come from some elderly friends of mine who were Wycliffe Missionaries to the country and know it firsthand. Boy, is this long or what? I shall summarize and quit: There is some really interesting and worthwhile CHristian thought done in the region where Marxist analysis and the Christian faith meet-part of a larger body of Christian thinking about the relaitionship between belief and political life, of which E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" is another example. I don't think an ad hoc rejection is really necessary. The original writer is living in a difficult and dangerous situation in which he has seen something he has *enormous* respect for and wants to talk about it. His language is naive and clumsy. The people he is interested in claim to be Christians. It is a sort of Christianity the writer has never seen, and seems to conflict with his notions of Christianity and wealth that seem in part to be the basis of his rejection of the faith. He is reevaluating that view at present. Greg Taylor