hwt@bnr-fos.uucp (Henry Troup) (12/04/89)
In article <Nov.28.23.25.34.1989.24911@athos.rutgers.edu> smith_c@ncsatl.uucp writes: >...Father Ratzinger got "mugged" >by liberation theology, I think. At least, for me, the very idea combining >biblical and marxist themes to manufacture revolutionary class struggles in >pursuit of social justice turns my stomach. >...Social justice first then salvation. >Communism is inherently evil. ... I think that one must be a little careful here. To me, in such places as most of Latin America, the situation is this: There is a small wealthy class, who own 'the means of production' there is a very large poor class who are exploited Something very violent is likely to happen, given these circumstances. Liberation theology was an attempt to move the Church of Rome from its historical position (on the side of the rich landowning classes) to the 'right' side - the poor and dispossessed. I don't think that I need to quote reams of scripture to justify this end. What we have left is a discussion about the means to the end. To the extent that liberation theology embraced terrorism without any attempt to moderate the tactics of terrorists, it was probably wrong. But there is an accepted doctrine of 'just war' - all the major Christian churches have endorsed various wars, at various times. Abraham Maslow is famous for originating the concept of 'a hierarchy of needs'.\Essentially, until a lower need in the hierarchy is satisfied, no attention will be given any higher need. The hierarchy goes something like this: - air - water - food ... - self-actualization I, at least, view religion as coming somewhere in 'self-actualization'. When people are drowning, they have no time for worrying about food, and when people are exploited they have little time for religion. Therefore, social justice before salvation. Social justice may mean no more than the right to a living wage, and a union. I've tried to make two points - to encourage social justice is an obligation, and it is one that churches have been rather poor at. that churches have been poor 'right Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions ..utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bmerh490 or HWT@BNR.CA
crf%basil@princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (12/08/89)
In article <Nov.30.03.25.12.1989.19398@athos.rutgers.edu> ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) writes: > >... And you believe that liberation theology, which states that Christianity >is not just for the fortunate but for all, and is an appropriate vehicle >for social protest against injustice, is not valid? The people of We need to be very careful here: what exactly do you mean by Christianity? Look at what Jesus called the two greatest commandments: that we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength; and that we should love our neighbor as ourself. Now it's clear that anyone who doesn't practice justice among people is not following the second of these commands. This would include the Central American elite described above; I agree that even if these people call themselves Christians, it's dubious whether they really are. BUT it's not right then to say that the Communists are any better; though they seem to be obeying the second command, they are flagrantly ignoring the first. You see, there are two parts to being a Christian, summed up nicely in the commands above. One is that we should get our relationship with God straight, no longer living in rebellion against Him, but trusting in Him to change our sinful natures into new natures that are pleasing to Him. HAVING DONE THAT, the second part is to then let that new nature affect all our dealings with the people around us. Neither of these can stand without the other. Because we are fallen creatures, we can't do the second without the first; but if the second doesn't occur, we can be fairly sure that the first didn't happen either. (Compare Ephesians 2:8-9 with James 2:17.) Now, for what all this has to do with liberation theology. It is clear to me that liberation theology cannot be valid UNLESS it bends over backward to distinguish itself from all other 'revolutionary' philosophy, such as Marxism, by emphasizing the first great commandment as well as the second. The liberation theology which I have seen (which, I admit, isn't a whole lot) has failed to do this. - Charles Ferenbaugh [I got several comments making the same or related points. I have chosen this one as representative. By the way, it might be helpful to hear from someone who knows what liberation theology actually is. Comments have been made about Marxism, but I don't know how far liberation theology goes in that direction. Marxism as a way of looking at how power is distributed is one thing. Marxism-Leninism, i.e. Communism, is something else. --clh]
mls@cbnewsm.att.com (12/08/89)
Despite the reservations I expressed: > That is, the Vatican II statement leads quite easily to liberation theology, > as well as American and European "democratization" of the Church. I accede > to his caution about the concordance of the path within and that of unity, > and the warning not to arrogate to ourselves the judgment of history. But some of what I wrote could be construed as a plea that the Church act as a political agent. Even though I am sympathetic to liberation theology, that is *not* my intent. I do not want an established church, a church as politcal party or even a church as wheeler-dealer or power broker as in contemporary Poland. That is true whether the political agenda agrees with my own or not. The social and political implication I draw from communion/unity is a more complex sort of thing. It first of all *frees* individual Christians to act in the world, sustained by their participation in the Body of Christ, and thus not *bound* by any ideology. Possession by ideology is the most common modern form of demon possession, and Christ has power over these demons, too. But it is an abdication of the Church's responsibility to smile benignly at all comers to its services and allow itself to be used by secular "authority" (as it often has since Constantine) to "legitimate" injustice. The Church's role, from the beginning, has been the fostering of "widows and orphans" -- namely the socially dispossessed. This role, and the prophetic presence of the Church must take precedence over the "needs" of rulers. Jesus tells us: "If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny." -- Matt. 5:32-25 or "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church [assembly]; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as [an outsider]." -- Matt. 18:15-17 It is the place of the Church to "prod" the memories (notoriously short) of the comfortable, when their comfort is built on inequity and power and the oppression of those whom Jesus, like the prophets, especially attended to -- the "little ones" who seek justice at the city gates. Only in extremity does this mean an exclusion of the oppressor from the community of the people of God. For some, such as most of us comfortable Americans, the advice "sell all you have and give it to the poor" is about the *only* practical advice for extricating ourselves from webs of exploit- ation we did not ourselves weave, but which nonetheless our daily activity continues. *We* need some aid and comfort from the community if we are to be able to *give* justice, in God's name. So the Church has a critical role in ministering to oppressors as sinners, as well as to those sinned against and driven by despair to vengeful violence. Such violence is not likely in its turn to "establish justice, enusre the domestic tranquitily, etc." -- the result is (in the classic Greek term) _stasis_, a continual state of civil war. But the continual "absolution" of the oppressors by the Church is *guaranteed* to lead to hatred. I don't suggest that the Church should run guns or staff a revolution; I even agree with Ratzinger that this could mire us deeper in human alienation from God. But if the Church is not the advocate, in all forums, of the victims of injustice, it has failed in its sacramental duty, forgotten that it does indeed *represent* Christ in this world. -- Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must ...!cucard!dasys1!mls love the truth we know, and we must ...!att!sfbat!mls act according to the measure of our love. standard disclaimer -- Thomas Merton
cvw@alice.att.com (12/08/89)
If you want a recent assessment of liberation theology, you could look at an essay by Arthur F. McGovern, S.J., "Liberation theology adapts and endures," *Commonweal* 116(19), 587-590, November 3, 1989. But the thread of liberation theology came up in a discussion of when Joseph Ratzinger "turned" from being a "liberal" to being a "conservative," and it seems to me that attributing this "turning" to liberation theology says more about the person making the claim than about Cardinal Ratzinger. From what I have read of Ratzinger's theological work, it is clear that he is well acquainted with modern ideas (such as democracy, due process, and individualism), and he is not relentlessly negative in his treatment of them. But whatever his intellectual prowess may be, his identity as a Roman Catholic comes first, and he is obviously distressed when "liberals" try to read these modern ideas into the long record of official Roman Catholic teaching. That is, he is not opposed to reconciling the good in modern ideas with official R.C. teaching, but you should expect him to be might cautious about it! Chris Van Wyk
gerwitz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Gerwitz) (12/08/89)
In article <Dec.3.12.56.44.1989.23314@athos.rutgers.edu>, !hwt@bnr-fos.uucp (Henry Troup) writes: > > [other stuff deleted for brevity] > > I, at least, view religion as coming somewhere in 'self-actualization'. When > people are drowning, they have no time for worrying about food, and when > people are exploited they have little time for religion. Therefore, social > justice before salvation. > > Social justice may mean no more than the right to a living wage, and a union. > > I've tried to make two points - to encourage social justice is an obligation, > and it is one that churches have been rather poor at. > that churches have been poor I must take exception to Henry's statement about social justice before salvation. In my reading of the scriptures and experience, It is more important for people to have the gospel preached to them in their present condition, whether rich or poor. Trying to eleviate their condition first gives the impression of man's power to change things intsead of trusting in the power if God to deliver people. Jesus Great Command (Mt 28:19-20) was given to preach the gospel not to pull the poor from their poverty. Once people know Jesus and can live in the power of the Spirit, they can get on with their lives, despite their current condition. I sometimes wonder whether the Western Christian church's emphasis on social justice is more a way of getting people up to our standard of living or society because we are unwilling to say no to materialism, selfishness and humanism. Just think of where most of the historical thinking about social justice has come from (western academia and culture). Shouldn't we be basing social justice, (including our own cultural trends) on God's word ? Serving Christ right where I am.... +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Paul F Gerwitz WA2WPI | SMTP: gerwitz@kodak.com | | Eastman Kodak Co | UUCP: ..rutgers!rochester!kodak!eastman!gerwitz | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) (12/11/89)
Statememt:I fully agree that the Church should keep oput of politics. The first reason, is that laws are ment to prevent anarchy and protect people from each other, rather than themselves. The other reason is that churches are made of prople, who are inherentlly corrupt, and may support activaties or poilcies that go against those of Christ. Proof: First, Christ tells us to leave vengence up to him. This means (IMHO) That sins should not be banned by law, unless they hurt another person. If the government did outlaw sin, people would loose all faith in Christ because the churches have invaded their liberty as such. Aside, from this, people would sin less physically , but would also sin far more in their hearts. Morover, the motiaation for not sinning would be fear of man - not GOD. Also, churched have done things that Christ would never done. These things include blessing the weapons of war, attempted genocide (Inquisition), run wars for themselves (Crusades), and always stuck up for the upper classes (Always!!! [today too]) I am a Christian, (borne again, etc), but I am also a (political) liberal and think it is right to question the authority of any organisation of Humans. Thar was my 2 cents. Thank you for your time. Flames ,ets, welcome. Jochen Fritz "Noah"
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (12/11/89)
In article <Dec.3.12.56.44.1989.23314@athos.rutgers.edu>, !hwt@bnr-fos.uucp (Henry Troup) writes: > I, at least, view religion as coming somewhere in 'self-actualization'. When > people are drowning, they have no time for worrying about food, and when > people are exploited they have little time for religion. Therefore, social > justice before salvation. Given this is soc.religion.christian, I suppose it is alright to remind this poster that God promises the Christian that "Maslows lower level needs" will be met. The prerequisite of course, is that the person is a Christian (which Maslow was not, so I am sure Scriptural promises were meaningless to him). After all, God's promises are for His own. Therefore, salvation before social justice. Which is better? (1) Give a starving person a fish. (2) Introduce the person to a generous fisherman (and a good one at that too! :-) -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@BGSUOPIE University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
dhosek@jarthur.claremont.edu (D.A. Hosek) (12/15/89)
There are a couple of things that I might be able to contribute to this
discussion...
Regarding Marxism and liberation theology: yes, there are Marxist elements
in liberation theology, but only to the extent that there are also Marxist
elements in the New Testament. (give all you have to the poor &c.) That
the liberation theologists have to a certain extent allied themselves with
Marxist rebels is indisputable, but, one must remember that there is no one
else who is willing to listen (or DO).
Those doing Liberation Theology are preaching a primarily religious message
and, at least doctrinally, are preaching against violence. Yes, there still
is violence, but it's happening on both sides. It would be nice if change
could occur without violence, but I don't see any way that it could.
Liberation Theologists go to great pains to avoid emphasizing connections
with Marxism. Not because there is anything wrong with the fundamental
message of Marxism (which is neither revolution nor atheism, but rather
the elimination of class barriers and the ability for the workers to
control their own destiny), but because terms like "Communism" and "Marxism"
have rather emotional connotations to them for most Westerners (think
about it. If I were to say that I am a Communist, would you react negatively?
Even if you don't know what _I_ believe?). Think back to the whole L-word
thing in the 88 election and consider how much more emotional the impact
of words like Communism and Marxism is.
Finally, I would like to recommend a book on Liberation Theology which
rather frankly and clearly explains what Liberation Theology is concerned
with: _Liberation Theology_ by Phillip Berryman.
-dh
--
"Odi et amo, quare id faciam, fortasse requiris?
nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior" -Catullus
D.A. Hosek. UUCP: uunet!jarthur!dhosek
Internet: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu
[I guess the term "Marxism" is getting as imprecise as the term
"Christian". But I would not say that giving all you have to the poor
is necessarily Marxist. Marx' name is associated with an approach to
analyzing societies, which emphasizes looking at economic structures
and motivation. It is also associated with a specific political
program that later was taken over by Communism. --clh]lynn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lynn Kline) (12/15/89)
>[I got several comments making the same or related points. I have >chosen this one as representative. By the way, it might be helpful to >hear from someone who knows what liberation theology actually is. > --clh] I am a student at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley and have studied, among other things, liberation theology. I also work with Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees. I'd like to mention what I know about the topic -- this is certainly not comprehensive, but it's what stays with me based on my studies and experience with the refugees. First of all, friends of mine have studies with Gustavo Gutierrez, who wrote "A Theology of Liberation," which is considered the foundational book on the topic. From what I understand, he shies away from emphasizing liberation theology to be anything but *theology*, just like everyone else is "doing theology." I hope to take some of the charge out of the discussion with this; people often freak at the term. The foundation of liberation theology is the "fundamental option for the poor." This means that we must make our decisions and life choices based on how it will affect those who have no voice, who are disempowered and disenfranchised. This is not easy. There are many, many of these people in our world and in our country. The 70,000 dead in El Salvador (that's 1/10 of the population of the country) are an example. When we make decisions about our elections, for example, we must ask ourselves how this will affect those who are suffering, rather than just how it will affect *us*. There are different degrees at which one can make this fundamental option: (1) being "por el pobre" -- for the poor, voicing one's views and making choices on behalf of the powerless; (2) "con el pobre" -- with the poor, having some sort of concrete insertion and relationships with the disenfranchised, perhaps through one's work; and (3) "como el pobre" -- like the poor, living in voluntary poverty. What, to me, is wonderful about this is that there is room for everyone. Selling all of one's belongings is *not* the only option. All the talk of Marxism, which people often jump on, is because liberation theology uses structural analysis, which is a tool of Marx's. Period. And using this tool, Gutierrez says that institutions must be at the service of the people, especially those who were born into poverty. When 15 families in El Salvador own 75% of the wealth of the country, and their position is fortified by the country's institutions, something is very wrong. How about the horrendous educations children are receiving in the public school systems in the low-income areas of the country? The real zinger is this. Our role, as people with power and wealth, is secondary, to put our power at the service of the poor, to "accompany" them in *their* very real struggle for basic human rights. The poor are not to be patronized, adopted, helped -- but *accompanied* in their struggle. They make the decisions. Liberation theology recognizes the suffering of people in the first world who are well off, but our role is to be in solidarity with the poor -- and in that way, we will also be "liberated." Sort of turns things on its head. Liberation theology also calls for praxis and *reflection* on scripture. What does scripture say to me, based on these very real experiences of what it is like to be poor? We must have a very real insertion with the poor in order to speak about them. Otherwise there is the danger of other-world theology. Gutierrez in no way downplays the transcendent; he just does not want to downplay the very real suffering that many people in this world are experiencing today. Hope this helps. Lynn
crf@ginger.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (12/17/89)
In article <Dec.15.01.49.24.1989.17516@athos.rutgers.edu> dhosek@jarthur.claremont.edu (D.A. Hosek) writes: > >Liberation Theologists go to great pains to avoid emphasizing connections >with Marxism. Not because there is anything wrong with the fundamental >message of Marxism (which is neither revolution nor atheism, but rather >the elimination of class barriers and the ability for the workers to >control their own destiny), but because terms like "Communism" and "Marxism" >have rather emotional connotations to them for most Westerners... This paragraph brings up another point about Marxism that no one has explicitly mentioned; I can't tell from what you've written what your views on it would be, but I know that a lot of people are confused on it. When you talk about 'the ability for the workers to control their own destiny,' that's usually understood in the context where their overseers are abusing the workers for a profit. As long as that's all that's meant, I would agree that it's right to support the workers (as, I think, any Christian would). BUT, I've seen some people who take it a step further. They say something like, look at how the bad mean overseers abuse the workers; if they could only be gotten rid of, and the workers could run things themselves, then everything would be all right. This thought contains the germ of a very dangerous idea, the idea that the poor or oppressed are somehow not corrupt, just because the rich are. Clearly this goes against the Bible's teaching: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) Contrary to what some of the Marxists would say, it won't solve every problem to replace one group of sinful, powerful people (the rich) with another (the poor). It may be a necessary first step, but more steps must come afterward. As I said in a previous posting, I've read very little liberation theology myself (I'll try and find the book you mentioned). I would be interested to know whether liberation theologians bring up this point. Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh