Liberation (and Liberal?) Theology Examined (Critically)
Dan Trabue (blogging here) and I had a discussion recently arguing a little about theological points. I’m going to return to some of those here, and hopefully both continue the discussion as well as draw some other into it.
Before I crack Mr Cone’s book, some quotes I found in the last few days:
It makes sense if you understand that Liberation Theology views history and social wrongs as the primary emphasis of Scripture. Liberation theology teaches that salvation history is the story of the oppressed vs. the oppressor. And God is on the side of the oppressed. Liberation theology teaches that capitalist countries such as the U.S. do what they do militarily to keep poor people poor, and the rich people rich.
This is, at the base, a theological error which may have actually technically be heresy (that is be rooted in incorrect ideas about God and Trinity). John Zizioulas (among others) in his writings has explained that in the first centuries of Christian development there was a struggle between three notions of Truth. Jewish thought held that truth was to be found in history (which sounds very similar to that cited above). Greek though viewed truth in a Platonic or more eternal sense. Christianity held that Jesus was truth, that truth was to be found in the incarnation (see John 1). In the fourth century the Cappadocians succeeded in synthesizing this in their ideas of hypostasis, trinity and so forth. This synthesis is central to Christian thought and doctrine, but is rejected in the first quoted section.A teaching from that patristic era (I think the source was John Chrysostom) that while the rich should aid the poor from their abundance, this is not a one way street. That is, while the rich should being charitable, aid the poor, the poor in turn, being charitable, should pray for and on behalf of the wealthy. And that does not mean that the poor should pray that the rich “come to their senses” and aid the poor, but that the poor should pray for the health, well being, and good things on behalf of the rich. Liberation theology teaches the opposite of that and because of that is very very wrong. Charity is a primary virtue of Christian life, and by denying charity from the poor to be given to the rich rejects that virtue to be held by the poor. All Christians are called to be charity not just “the oppressors.”
Furthermore the teaching that the US and other powers “do what they do to keep people poor and the rich rich”, is categorically false. Malthusian ideas that wealth and prosperity is a zero sum gain and that there is a fixed amount of “wealth” or resources to go around is old and more importantly wrong! It doesn’t even make anthropological sense. Henry Ford didn’t build cars and and industry to “keep the Black man down” and neither did Rockefeller, Carnegie or any 18th century capitalists, just as Bill Gates didn’t build Microsoft for that purpose. The number of people intentionally framing policy in a racial context is not as large as the racial theorists pretend, in fact it is much much smaller. The vast majority of the US and other powers consist of people getting up in the morning and working hard constructively to make and produce things for their family and clan. This production and constructive activity rarely if at all considers the “other” in a racial or ethnic context at all.
Worse is this from here:
If whiteness stands for all that is evil, blackness symbolizes all that is good. “Black theology,” says [black liberation theologian James] Cone, “refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Small wonder that some critics have condemned black liberation theology as “racist idolatry” and “Afro-Nazism.”
Before you can have a race war in America, you must first set forth an ideology that legitimizes race hatred and keeps that kind of hatred at a boiling point. The theology of Cone seems to be on this path, absolutizing “blackness,” which in turn gives the KKK, Aryans, and kindred spirits an excuse to absolutize “whiteness.”
The result? Two gods vying for supremacy, locked in mortal combat, with no possible resolution, even if by fire, as some groups seem to want.
What can be said positive about the quote from Mr Cone above. In a future post, I will develop further the notion that the ideas of Mr Cone that his theology can be viewed as similar to the prosperity Gospel but the gist of it is that if the Gospel means that God will help them “destroy their oppressors” then how different is that from the Gospel means “I will get rich” or that other earthly desires of mine be satisfied?
In the prior thread, I had suggested that the “resident alien” idea that Rowan Williams had proposed describing the early Christian church was the proper view of that a Christian should take in society and especially when confronted by oppressive situations. Mr Trabue responded that:
Considering one’s self a resident alien in a society with no rights or liberties – where one can’t vote to make changes – makes sense.
Considering one’s self a resident alien in a society where you are a minority voice – makes some sense, too.
Nonetheless, as resident aliens in a culture where we do have a voice and a vote, it also makes sense to work for positive change. And there’s certainly nothing unbiblical about doing so.
[…]
There certainly is not the first thing wrong biblically for voting one’s conscience in a democratic system where one has a voice and a vote, I’d hope that you’d agree. And, in fact, I’d find it shocking if a Christian said that, while they personally were OPPOSED to genocide (for instance), they wouldn’t want to push their personal religious beliefs off on their society when it engages in genocide.
There are three points to make in a response to this sentiment:
- There is, for a Christian living in a participatory democracy or republic, a tension between the notion of “in/not of”, a commitment to other things, and resident alien held against that of rendering unto Caesar. That there is some wide latitude of responses which all remain valid.
- At the same time, in Orthodox liturgy we profess just prior to participation in Eucharist that
I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood. Therefore, I pray to You, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And make me worthy without condemnation to partake of Your pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal. Amen.
Note the emphasized part. We are first and foremost to work on our sins not those of our neighbor but our self. God gave man free-will. It is not necessarily our place to deny our neighbor his free will in turn.
- Your genocide example is telling. Some view abortion as genocide, especially as it is so prevalent in the Black community. Is that a plea to bomb or damage/close abortion centers I wonder? Or work politically to make them illegal? Again in this sense, I get no impression from the first centuries of Roman/Christian conflict and history that abortion was fought in any way but by example or for that matter the outworking of Roman political engines, including genocidal acts.
Filed under: Christianity • Culture • Ethics & Morality • Mark O. • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
the poor should pray for the health, well being, and good things on behalf of the rich. Liberation theology teaches the opposite of that and because of that is very very wrong.
Thanks for looking into this more deeply.
As I have said, one of the problems I have with some LT folk that I have read is the tendency to demonize the Other in what they say/write.
Now, in practice, I have not seen this to be true. In practice, the LT folk in Nicaragua that I have met (for instance) embraced this rich gringo with open arms, opening up their homes and churches with the grandest of Christian love. In practice, the Black LTs I have read about work hand in hand, side by side white Brothers and Sisters in love.
So, if their rhetoric sometimes runs high (and I have not read enough to know if it always sounds shrill or if these are the rare exceptions that you’re excerpting), their practice, in my experience, is one of Christian love.
And let’s remember, sometimes the Bible sounds quite shrill (“Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?” “Woe to you who are rich!” “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you have…,” “it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven,” “God has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty,” “In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple,” “Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you,” “He that oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker,” etc, etc), so we can note that LTs are just putting to voice and print what they have seen in the Bible.
We are first and foremost to work on our sins not those of our neighbor but our self. God gave man free-will. It is not necessarily our place to deny our neighbor his free will in turn.
Here is some of what LT folk themselves say LT is:
1. It interprets Christian faith out of the suffering, struggle, and hope of the poor;
2. It critiques society and ideologies sustaining it, pretends not to lay down specific rules for how to struggle for justice, but stresses that a responsible commitment with class conflict is an expression of love for one’s neighbor. Through solidarity with the poor, theologians of liberation advocate the transcendence from class division to a new
type of society;
3. It critiques the activity of the Church from the angle of the poor.
The main theme, liberation, is considered at three levels of meaning which are interconnected.
At the social and political level liberation
is an expression of aspirations of the oppressed classes and peoples. This liberation emphasizes the conflict in the economical, social and political process between the oppressed and the oppressors.
At the human level the liberation is conceived as a historical process in which people develop consciously their own destiny through the social changes.
At the religious, salvific level the liberation means liberation from sin, the ultimate source of all deviation from fraternity, of all injustice and oppression. It brings man back into communion with God and fellow men, which is the radical, total liberation.
http://www.socinian.org/liberty.html
They also note, correctly, that “the Catholic Church was a major part of the machinery of conquest and colonization in Latin America.” And, when we consider that the church in North America was often on the “wrong side” when it came to slavery and race relations, we can begin to understand the desire to set this wrong history right. These historic realities are the bed from which LT springs and I find it completely understandable and healthy.
They didn’t, after all, reject the church, but rather sought to remind the Church what she SHOULD be about. Now, in what I’ve read, sometimes they carry the imagery and rhetoric too far. But not so far as to be heretical, any more than I would call the Catholic or evangelical churches heretical when they went/go too far in the other direction.
They may be WRONG at times, but that’s not the same as heretical and, at least in this case, the Bible leans more heavily in LT’s way than in the direction of those who supported Latin American oppression or black oppression/slavery.
Some quotes from Liberation Theologian Leonardo Boff from his book “Introducing Liberation Theology”:
Without a minimum of “suffering with” this suffering that affects the great majority of the human race, liberation theology can neither exist nor be understood.
[I wonder if this is why some folk are so outraged about LT – they have never actually suffered with the poor and so it is simply beyond their scope of reference? This was true in the case of Archbishop Oscar Romero who was part of the privileged crowd who was haughty towards the poor until he began to actually suffer with them… -DT]
We are on the side of the poor only when we
struggle alongside them against the poverty that has been unjustly created and forced on them. Service in solidarity with the oppressed also implies an act of love for the suffering
Christ…
[sort of echoing the repeated biblical calls, “I require mercy, not sacrifice,” and “what you have done unto the least of these, you have done unto me…” -DT]
“Aid” is help offered by individuals moved by the spectacle of widespread destitution. They form agencies and organize projects: the “Band-Aid”… approach to social ills.
But however perceptive they become and however well-intentioned—and successful—aid remains a strategy for helping the poor, but treating them as (collective) objects of charity, not as subjects of their own liberation. The poor are
seen simply as those who have nothing.
There is a failure to see that the poor are oppressed and made poor by others; and what they do possess—strength to resist, capacity to understand their rights, to organize themselves and transform a subhuman situation—tends to be left out of account.
Aid increases the dependence of the poor, tying them to help from others, to decisions made by others: again, not enabling them to become their own liberators.
[Now that last paragraph sounds just like something out of the conservative handbook on welfare, doesn’t it? While, that third paragraph is the one that I would suppose most rankles conservatives – especially economic conservatives.
“Why, why, we all KNOW that the only reason people are poor is due to personal failures – they need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps – just like we did in the US! There’s no boogeymen out there seeking to oppress the poor!! Marxist Poppycock!”
I can hear Limbaugh saying something along those lines. And I suspect this would be the largest hurdle between LT folk (and some of us who are not LT but LT-sympathetic) and those who get angry at LT. The notion that somehow our actions might be contributing to poverty in the world. Perhaps we’d do well to look at that angle some? -DT]
Dan,
When I first noted, on my blog, that Obama was implicated with B-LT I was informed by a liberal race/law blogger that I correspond with that LT (with sometimes Marxist leanings which I had been at noting) was very different than B-LT.
I’ve only read one book by Cone and I will suggest that the race/separation rhetoric is a constant thread throughout. Now if the people in practice are loving and charitable that is in spite of not because of B-LT ideas.
But, I wonder if the rich North American gringo is actually seen as the oppressor at all, … because “he” isn’t the one actually doing the oppressing.
What’s your point? That was 150 years ago (on the second). I’ve been trying to be careful to distinguish “wrong” from “heresy”, the latter being like Arianism or Docetism an error in doctrine surrounding God and Trinity.
On the aid point you made above, I really really really recommend you read Collier’s The Bottom Billion. You are right that aid is sometimes helpful. The problem is it that it is also sometimes harmful. Whether aid helps or hurts is situation dependent. The right and left are both wrong about how to help the economically disadvantaged. And there error lies in mistaken assumptions and a reliance on one size fits all responses.
Besides, I’ve never said here or elsewhere that poor are that way because of their personal failures (see the book noted above for “reasons” the poor are poor).
How do you count Mugabe in that objection I wonder? He is an oppressor but he is not “externalizable” in their society (not an outside force). I think by and large the oppressors nowadays in the third world don’t come from outside.
First. Limbaugh!? How did he become in your eyes a Christian spokesperson?! Second. As the the “actions might be contributing”? What are you talking about? I’m a industrial computer programmer living in rural/suburban America raising a family. I’m sorry, I’m not “contributing to oppression”, in fact I’d claim the reverse, I’m contributing to automation and mechanization, the trend starting with the industrial revolution which has given the modern world it’s basis in wealth to begin with.
I’ll have to say right up front that I’m not an economics-oriented sort of guy. I hear people describe laissez faire capitalism and they may as well be talking about magic, as far as I’m concerned.
So take this for what it’s worth. What does and doesn’t work, what is and isn’t good according to laissez faire capitalism advocates, I find questionable. It makes no sense to me.
I understand that we’re in a finite world. That makes sense. To talk about dividing resources as a part of a pie, makes sense to me. There is a limited amount of oil, of arable land, of water, so someone would have to make a better case to me than what I’ve read thus far to convince me that we have an endless pie from which to continually “create” wealth. At this point, I’m not buying it.
I’m not saying that you or I or anyone sets out to intentionally steal from or oppress the poor. What I think LT folk say and what makes sense to me is that we have a system wherein greater wealth in one place oftentimes (or maybe always) comes at the expense of less wealth in other places.
If we’re living on an island with enough resources, food and water for 100 people and 10 of those people use 80% of those resources, it makes sense to me that the rest of the 90% are going to be short. It won’t matter that the 10% didn’t intend to shortchange the others or that they got it “by hard work,” the fact is, there won’t be as much or maybe even enough to go around for the others.
If I may add something, not everything in an economy is a physical resource. If I know how to do something you don’t, I can hire myself out to you. I make money, you get something done for you. That’s the win-win in capitalism.
When an economy is free to trade, a service sector is often one of the largest wealth-creators.
Dan,
Rejecting Malthusian ideas of ecomics does not equal embracing Laissez fair capitalism. Essentially as Doug notes above, Malthus had this notion that wealth was related and limited by physical resources. But as Doug notes, services, improvements in manufacturing and agricultural processes make the process of wealth a thing not tied to resources. A prime example of that is the wealth generated by the entertainment industry.
Second, the reason I pointed you at the Bottom Billion is not because I tout a specific economic theory of how to fix the problem. Mr Collier is at the heart, a statistician who analyzes social and political trends concentrating on the third world. His book describes what works and what doesn’t, by looking at the statistical example of the third world countries over the last 100-200 years.
And specifically, your inclination to believe that
is not supported by actual facts.
BTW, I missed it earlier. How tightly woven with Socinian thought is LT? I was under the impression that Socinianism is a heresy, not just an error.
And I will continue to maintain that viewing the gospel though a social lens is and error error of the first rank. The very first thing Jesus spoke of when he began his ministry was “Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. (Matthew 4:17). It starts there and ends there, with repentance, i.e., specifically not “rich vs poor”.
(I’ll admit my insistence of repentance may be partially tinged with the fact I’m in the last week of Lent right now) 😉
I advocate viewing the Gospel through Jesus’ teachings – all of Jesus’ teachings. Yes, Jesus taught repentance. He also began his public ministry by saying, “I have come to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free…” (Luke 4)
Which is not to say that God hates the wealthy, for the same Good News that Jesus said he specifically came to preach to the poor CAN be Good News for the wealthy, as well. For their is freedom in releasing that oppressive wealth that can weigh one down.
I reckon we disagree. I think if you spiritualize the Word to the point where we DON’T view the gospel through the real world (“social lens,” as you called it), then we risk missing the point.
Dan,
First off he didn’t say what you think he said. He quoted scripture (which didn’t say “I”) and said that was fulfilled in their presence.
Second, He also didn’t say that the “oppressors” have to stop being who they are. He didn’t tell the Centurion, that in order to be healed (or saved) he had to quit being Roman and leave his post. He didn’t tell the tax collector Zachaeus that he had to stop being a tax collector (and tax collectors in that day were the primary day-to-day instrument of oppression).
I fear you socialize the Gospel and the Word to the point where you miss the message.
And I fear too often too many of us spiritualize the Gospel to the point where we miss the message.
It seems conservative religious folk are all for taking the Bible pretty literally until we reach Jesus’ actual teachings.
The Luke 4 passage reads:
Jesus was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”
Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him. He said to them, “Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.”
He read that passage and said it was true that very day with that very reading. Do you really think he was talking about some OTHER person besides himself? Who had God sent to bring the “acceptable year of the Lord,” and to bring “Good news to the poor” if Jesus wasn’t talking about himself?
You know how easy it is for folk who were brought up as Muslims in a Muslim culture to accept Islam? It’s what they know, what they’re familiar with, what their family and respected leaders teach, right? It’s hard to break away from that sort of indoctrination.
Same is true for whatever your upbringing was – Mormon, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. Right?
Could it just be possible that we were all raised Christians, but with a slightly Americanized flavor to it? That we’ve been taught so long that capitalism and the US Way are near-perfect ideals that we even see support for it in the Bible? Perhaps when that support just isn’t there?
When, in fact, there are so many verses warning of the dangers of materialism and money, condemning oppression and oppressive economic systems, out and out condemning the wealthy (“Woe to you who are wealthy!”) and speaking very specifically of support for the poor (“Blessed are the poor,”) that we have to look for ways to explain the direct meaning of these passages away so as not to undo our Americanized, capitalized version of Christianity?
Is that not possible and worthy of consideration?
As to your earlier “socinian” note, I had not noted where my source was from, I was just looking for some actual quotes about LT. I did not know anything about socinianism and had to look it up.
My point was not to endorse socinianism but to look for some actual quotes about what LT folk themselves say that LT is all about.
I could have quoted wikipedia but that would not have been an endorsement of wikipedia. It was just a resource.
Another question about an earlier comment. You quoted me:
What I think LT folk say and what makes sense to me is that we have a system wherein greater wealth in one place oftentimes (or maybe always) comes at the expense of less wealth in other places.
And then said:
And specifically, your inclination to believe that is not supported by actual facts.
But you didn’t support your position with any actual facts, either. So, I’m wondering, exactly how many third world countries HAVE been able to replicate the Western experience and lift themselves out of poverty? That is, how many times has our sort of capitalism worked for desperately poor nations?
What facts do you have that support the notion that capitalism HASN’T tended to unequally/unfairly redistribute wealth?
Dan,
On Luke 4, I think exegesis is worth the effort you put into it. At the very least, I’d want to understand the context of Isaiah which he quoted and how the 1st century listeners heard that, and tie it as well into the conclusion that immediately followed, i.e., three examples of prophets not aiding those in their place of origin. I’d also want to read prior art (thought) on that passage. What did the church Fathers say about it. I’m not saying you’re wrong in your interpretation, but I’m also not saying you’re right. I’m saying I haven’t studied it. If you want to just look only at surface meaning … aren’t you guilty of what you accuse the “conservatives” of as well (taking Scripture casually and literally just for your own purposes)?
However, when you write:
I think I’d have to hunt a while to find a less charitable thing said or heard. Can you tell me from what you know of me and my writing why that is applicable or worthy of mention? Or of anyone blogging at this site for that matter?
On my upbringing … I don’t think you’ve been hearing what I’m saying. I haven’t been preaching for an Americanized version of Christianity. I’m a recent convert to Eastern Orthodoxy … I’m all about resourcement and a return to the first millennium of Christian life, thought, and living and not any Americanized New age or Marxist/social thought influenced version of the same.
Income inequality has always existed, it was not “created” by capitalism. If you want to argue that all prior income inequality was at the expense of others … then perhaps the “excess income” available in the wealth of the industrialized market is that larger wealth which does not arise as a direct consequence of being “at the expense” of others.
In Collier’s book, he notes that of the 6.5 billion humans on this planet, 1 billion are wealthy, 4 billion are rapidly getting wealthier, and 1 billion are stuck in poverty (and his book examines the traps and remedies for that bottom billion hence the name).
But the point is, that many if not most of those 4 billion are those for whom “our sort of capitalism” is working for the (now formerly) desperately poor.How about India, or the Ukraine as examples?
However, when you write:
“It seems conservative religious folk are all for taking the Bible pretty literally until we reach Jesus’ actual teachings.”
I think I’d have to hunt a while to find a less charitable thing said or heard.
‘Twasn’t intended to be uncharitable nor directed especially to you, Mark. I grew up as a conservative evangelical and still swim in those waters ocassionally. I’m well familiar with this reality from my own experience.
I have no idea if this phenomenon of interpreting much of the Bible literally with the exception of Jesus’ teachings is the predominant form of conservative evangelicism world wide or even in the US, but in the circles in which I have frequented and frequent now, it sure seems to be the norm.
I can only cite my experiences, I have no studies to support my experiences. But I DO have my experiences, and that’s something.
As to Luke 4 and “my interpretation,” I still wonder who you think Jesus might be talking about if not himself?
Income inequality has always existed, it was not “created” by capitalism.
Absolutely true. But in biblical examples, the inequality and economic oppression is nearly always linked to unjust systems. Unjust scales. High interest. Joining house to house, laying field to field. Failing to observe Jubilee and Sabbath laws. Failing to set aside help for the poor.
On and on the Bible offers examples of how God is looking out for the poor and has turned God’s face against wealthy oppressors, those who “sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals – They who trample the head of the poor into the dust of earth, and push the afflicted out of the way.”
It is quite common biblical language and I’m suggesting that most of those passages either get ignored or reinterpreted to mean something other than what their literal meaning suggests. And I’m suggesting we ought pay attention to these warnings and teachings instead of just writing them off.
Again, let’s pay attention to the Word of the Lord:
But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
~Luke 6:24
In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
~Luke 14:33
These are the men who eat up the property of widows,
while they say long prayers for appearance sake;
and they will receive the severest sentence.
~Luke 20:47
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you.
~James 5:1
When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth for thirst, I the Lord will hear them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them.
~Isaiah 41:17
[God]always keeps his promises;
God judges in favour of the oppressed
and gives food to the hungry
~Psalm 146:6,7
Happy are those concerned for the poor;
The Lord will help them when they are in trouble.
~Psalm 41:1
He that oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker.
~Proverbs 14:31
If you refuse to listen to the cry of the poor,
Your own cry will not be heard.
~Proverbs 21:13
Speak out for those who cannot speak
for the rights of all the destitute.
Defend the rights of the poor and needy.
~Proverbs 31:8, 9
Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
~Isaiah 58
Dan,
I’ll take up your suggestion to provide an exegesis of Luke 4, it may take me a little time but I’ll work on it.
I do have a question, do you regard St. John Chrysostom as in error when he suggests that charity works both ways, that the rich should aid the poor and the poor should pray for the rich (which is not meant that they should pray that the rich but that they should pray that the wealthy have their particular burdens and concerns and to pray to address those)? It seems to me that the LT (and specifically B-LT) ideas do reject this, which I regard as a mistake (that is both the prayer/charity and not attending to Chrysostom).
I’ve been a Christian as an adult for just about 4 years now, but as a child (in liberal Lutheran churches) I recall the teaching on wealth was that we are not to treat money and its trappings as an idol not that we are each necessarily called to give up all we own and follow a monastic life.
I’ll admit to lately considered doing that (setting all aside for something approaching a monastic existence) but my thought is that right now first and foremost I have to get my kids through school and raise them as best I can.
It seems to me that the LT (and specifically B-LT) ideas do reject this, which I regard as a mistake (that is both the prayer/charity and not attending to Chrysostom).
I think that we ought to pray for everyone – wealthy and poor alike. Friend and foe alike. Friends and strangers alike.
I’ve not seen anything in any writings about what LT is about that would suggest anything but that they think the same.
Ought we assume that those who think gay marriage is a sin treat the sinners hatefully? Or do you think, as I do, that it is entirely possible to hate the sin and love the sinner? I suspect you agree with me.
That some LT advocates preach hardily against what they consider to be the sins of materialism and over-consumption is not to say that they don’t pray for or that they even hate the sinners in question.
With homosexuality as a sin AND with materialism as sin, there is always the chance that the rhetoric will be too strong or come out sounding as if you hate the sinner, but very rarely have I met Christians who actually hate gays (although they may speak hatefully about them somewhat unintentionally). Similarly, I have heard some LT believers who come across hatefully, but in practice, that is rarely the reality.
In my experience.
Dan,
You aren’t agreeing with or addressing) what Chrysostom said yet. If I read him right, he is saying that the poor should specifically pray for the rich as rich as part of their charitable acts, in the same way as the rich should aid the poor.
Yes we should all pray for everyone, but the question being posed, is whether the poor should as a charitable act pray for the rich/powerful qua rich/powerful.
What I’ve read of B-LT denies that. Can you cite anything from what you’ve seen of LT that says that’s a mistaken impression?
You aren’t agreeing with or addressing) what Chrysostom said yet. If I read him right, he is saying that the poor should specifically pray for the rich as rich as part of their charitable acts, in the same way as the rich should aid the poor.
I said that we ought to pray for everyone. For the pimps AS people in need of prayer. For the thieves AS people in need of prayer. For the rich as people in the need of prayer. For the poor as people in need of prayer.
Do I think that we ought to pray for people in bad situations to remain and glory in those bad situations? No.
Now, I’m not saying that every wealthy person is evil or in a bad situation. I’m wealthy, after all, by world standards. I’m saying that the Bible repeatedly repeatedly over and over warns of the trappings of wealth and materialism and we ought to heed those warnings and pray for ourselves and others appropriately.
So, if LT advocates think that we ought not pray for people IN THEIR SIN (as in, “isn’t God great to have you in this sinful situation,”) then I agree with them. If St John is suggesting that we ought to pray for people in their sin, then I would disagree with them.
Now, neither LT folk (I believe) nor I think that “Wealth” is a clear cut line. Certainly by world standards, you, I and Jeremiah Wright are all the Wealthy. I’m just (and I suspect LT folk, too) cautious when it comes to “celebrating” wealth as a God-given Good. Again, look to the many warnings of the Bible and I think you can begin to understand our reticence.
Is there any topic in the Bible that receives more warnings than “Wealth”? I think perhaps worshiping false gods might be the only category to compare it to in terms of sheer volume. Those warnings are not there for nothing.
re: Praying for the rich and powerful…
Moses prayed for Pharoah, too. But his prayer was, “Open pharoah’s eyes that he might let my people go…”
Dan,
Do you actually believe this?:
or is it just a point you are making in argument. Because I think it is factually (and textually) just plain wrong. Holiness, purity, and personal behavior and attitude make up far more of Torah, history, prophet, wisdom, the gospels and epistles than social justice I think.
… I’m noting the word “trappings”. I think that’s important. We’re not talking about “trappings” and treating love of money as sinful. We’re talking about actually having money, status, or to be honest, power and influence. That is not sinful in and of itself.
Look, you admit that you posses ignorance regarding economic matters. For the sake of argument, consider that the majority of the wealth which exists and can be created which is not built on oppression or “at the expense of others”. For this is actually the case for much, if not most, or the present world’s wealth. Then, re-examine for a moment what you’ve been writing about LT. It doesn’t parse. any more.
Look, you admit that you posses ignorance regarding economic matters.
To be clear, I have had college courses in economics. I’ve read books, including conservative books about economics. I confess ignorance about how the supply side capitalists THINK their version of economics works. None of it makes sense to me. What I actually said, though, was “I’ll have to say right up front that I’m not an economics-oriented sort of guy.”
It’s not that I’m unlearned in capitalistic economics – I’ve read a WHOLE lot more about capitalism than I have marxism, for instance – it’s that, based on what I’ve heard them say thus far, I’m not buying what they’re selling.
Now, it is possible, of course, that I’m too stupid to learn what they’ve tried to teach me. But could it not also be that what they’re selling ain’t worth the paper it was printed upon?
Is it not possible that we’ve been indoctrinated so thoroughly to believe that capitalism is a moral good that we tend to believe it even though it is not logical nor Christian?
Because I think it is factually (and textually) just plain wrong. Holiness, purity, and personal behavior and attitude make up far more of Torah, history, prophet, wisdom, the gospels and epistles than social justice I think…
I’d have to see some stats to back up that claim. I have not counted, but I suspect that, other than warnings against worshiping false gods (and materialism would also fall in that category, if you ask me), I believe that warnings against wealth and materialism are probably the second-most area of warnings found in the Bible.
Now, that’s just off the top of my head based upon 40 years of reading the Bible, so I could well be wrong. But I don’t recall that many warnings about failing to be holy, for instance. (I can’t think of any warnings against not being holy – I can think of places it’s stated that we ought to be holy, but my specific point was about biblical warnings).
What were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for, for instance?
“And look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy. Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence; then, as you have seen, I removed them.”
~Ezekiel 16
I suppose oppression might be another contender for one of the top places of topics that received biblical warnings. After all, why was the world destroyed in the time of Noah?
“And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”
~Genesis 6
That would be my guess as to the top three categories: worshiping other gods, oppression/violence and economic injustice, but as I said, that’s just a guess.
Dan,
On economics, well, it may very well be you’ve read more than I, for all your earlier demurral. However, looking at the world, the free markets have created an astounding amount of prosperity for, well 5 1/2 billions of those of us on the planet compared to anything coming before. Look at how the free markets once unleashed have done in the last 150 years regarding creation of wealth compared to the prior 4000 years. On the other hand, socialism and its twin Marxism has not, by comparison, done so well regarding income disparity, wealth, and in doing so has caused the torture death of some 100 millions, see for example The Black Book of Communism.
On Sodom/Gomorrah, the text your quote doesn’t support your thesis. You claim it’s about wealth and social injustice, but the text you quote says
So, their crimes were (to categorize), Pride (“they were proud”), gluttony (“sated with food”), sloth (“complacent in prosperity”), lack of charity/greed (“and gave no help to the needy”) … which resulted in prideful demeanor (“haughty”) and sexual sins/depravity (“abominable crimes”). Uhm, I’m missing the social angle on that.
On the other hand, socialism and its twin Marxism has not, by comparison, done so well regarding income disparity, wealth, and in doing so has caused the torture death of some 100 millions, see for example The Black Book of Communism.
While not being an adherent of Marxism, I will point out that those millions were not killed by communist economic systems but rather by the fascist, totalitarian gov’ts. Socialistic gov’ts need not be by default fascist or totalitarian. They could be Democratic or a Republic. The killings lie with the gov’t, not the economic system.
On the note about Sodom, first, “abominable crimes” does not = sexual sins/depravity. That would be an example of our contemporary teachings influencing what we read. You read “abominable crimes” and deduced from nowhere that I can perceive “sexual sins.”
Secondly, the way I read it, the sins of pride, gluttony, being “complacent in prosperity” (which I don’t think means sloth) and giving no help to the needy ARE exactly what I consider sins related to the trappings of wealth.
Because they had all they needed and more, they could devote themselves to overeating, to not caring about others, to pride and whatever “abominable crimes” they might have taken part in (attempted gang rape, for instance, as we see in Lot’s story).
If one is in solidarity with the poor, then one doesn’t overeat, one DOES care about what happens to your poor brethren, one is generally too busy to have time for abominable crimes.
Seems to me.
Dan,
I’ll grant that the word “abominable” as translated from the Hebrew might not have sexual connotations … but I think your contention that Pride, sloth, greed all have their origins in wealth are not supported by Christian thought through the ages, nor Scripture.
If “complacent in prosperity” doesn’t mean sloth … what do you think sloth is?
It is not “money that is the root of all evil”, but that love of money is … of evil. You even admit this when you keep noting the “trappings” of wealth … which I think refers to the love of the things wealth can buy … not the wealth itself.
This is a logical fallacy. Having “solidarity with the poor” is one of very many ways in which one might avoid sins of pride, sloth, avarice/greed and so on. Depending on solidarity with the poor is, I think, not necessarily the best defense against the seven (eight?) “deadly sins.”
On the political front, I’ll agree that socialism is not directly implicated in the death (yet) of millions. It is however directly implicated, I think, as one of the root causes for example of the poor economic growth since WWII of France for example as compared to the US.
But, if by this
you have this fantasy notion that Marxism can exist without “fascist totalitarian governments” (your terms), I reject that vehemently. Implementation of Marxism in practice requires Leninist/Stalinist techniques and consequences (that is the death of many). Slavoj Zizek writes that acceptance of Marx but rejecting Lenin is akin to acceptance of the teaching of Jesus but rejecting Paul. I think he’s right on that score, even if I disagree with him on much else.
Nicaragua in the 1980s was a socialist democracy. Norway and Sweden are socialist-ish democracies. In the real world, there are examples of commie democracies. No fantasies, there.
Now, I’m not claiming that these are perfect gov’ts. They, like the US, suffer from the human condition of imperfection. Nor do I even think they offer a preferred model. But they exist in the real world, or have.
This is a logical fallacy. Having “solidarity with the poor” is one of very many ways in which one might avoid sins of pride, sloth, avarice/greed and so on.
Really? How so? In my case, I have chosen to live with, identify with, work with the poor. It has helped me to be more humble, less greedy. Oftentimes, folks lives have been changed by this step. Gandhi, Romero, most of my church friends.
I guess you’re taking exception to the blanket nature of my statement. Fair enough, OFTENTIMES – and in my experience, nearly everytime – living in solidarity with the poor helps avoid these greater sins. Does that address your concern?
If “complacent in prosperity” doesn’t mean sloth … what do you think sloth is?
I think sloth is laziness.
That passage in various translations:
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. NIV
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. NASB
Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, overabundance of food, prosperous ease, and idleness were hers and her daughters’; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. Amplified Bible
Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. NKJV
An “abundance of idleness,” “prosperous ease and idleness,” “careless ease…” these passages all seem to be suggesting something besides mere laziness. At least to me. It seems to be stating a laziness and lack of concern that comes oftentimes with great wealth.
You are free to take it otherwise, that is what makes sense to me in context of the passage and the whole of the Bible.
Dan,
Socialist != communist. I said there were socialist countries. There are no non-autocratic Marxist states. Marxism by definition requires the elimination of “class”, which requires violence. All socialism requires is very heavy taxation, which admittedly can be far kinder to implement.
This is a common thread I see everywhere.
Philosophers, often, note that philosophy is the highest calling. Theologians the same. Medical people as well. Scientists see their particular field as the “best”, be they Mathematician, Physicist, Chemist, Biologist, and so on. You, as a philanthropist, find philanthropy the best calling for men to follow.
In my humble opinion, all of these notions are wrong. There is no “best calling” uniquely suited for all men. The Christian call, I think, does not necessarily or universally imply philanthropy as one’s primary life’s work it is not a priori better, even in God’s eyes, than being doctor, scientist, priest, monk, or theologian.
On your exegesis, I think that is what is known as confirmation bias. You take as a presupposition that “it’s all about wealth”, and golly by interpreting everything in that light, … you’re right! I think confirmation bias is to be avoided where necessary, not embraced as a methodology.
BTW, I started looking into Luke 4. St. Cyril of Alexandria interpreted “the poor” in that verse to mean … Israel as a whole as opposed to the poor of Israel … but that’s just a start … so don’t take it as my exegetical analysis.
A couple of clarifications.
You wrote:
You, as a philanthropist, find philanthropy the best calling for men to follow.
Philanthropy is defined:
The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.
I am not that kind of philanthropist. I’m not talking about handouts and aid, I’m talking about solidarity and community. And while I DO think that this is the model provided us by the Bible, I don’t think I’m suggesting it is the only possible way to live as a Christian. Just a good biblical way.
You also noted:
I think that is what is known as confirmation bias. You take as a presupposition that “it’s all about wealth”, and golly by interpreting everything in that light, … you’re right!
Which might make some sense in some cases. But remember, I started out as a Young Republican, conservative evanelical with a hostility towards communism and an embrace of supply side capitalism. I was a Reagan Boy!
I only pulled away from those positions by studying the Bible and trying to take its teachings seriously. Which, eventually, led me AWAY from my biases, sometimes against my will, even!
Which makes me raise the question yet again: Is it not possible that you might have a confirmation bias? That you are finding support for capitalism where there is none and failing to find economic issues prevalent in the Bible when they are there?
Dan,
Aha!
Exactly! That has absolutely nothing at all to do with government. Indeed socialism and government “aid” reduces not enhances individual impulses to charity (under the “the government is taking care of it” category). So if you want the people to be charitable and form community and boinds then you can’t expect that making it “big brother’s job” (somebody else problems which some tax $$ is going to fix for me) is going to help one bit.
That’s mindful of the recent quote by our Sec. of State Ms Rice, “I joined the GOP because they valued me for who I was not ‘what’ I was.”
And I’m not finding “support” for “capitalism” (free market != system of government btw) in the Bible. And I don’t find economic issues prevalent in the Bible … because they aren’t and I’m not a Marxist to read everything through the lens of economy.
Exactly! That has absolutely nothing at all to do with government.
? okay. I don’t think I said it had anything to do with gov’t. What are you getting at? You suggested I was a philanthropist, I clarified that, if you were talking about the dictionary meaning of the word, that isn’t what I am. I’m a person who believes in the ideals of living as the Early Church lived: communally, in solidarity with the poor and oppressed.
I don’t think I’m saying what you’re thinking I’m saying.
Dan,
I cry foul!
This is a post about B-LT and LT theology and how its teachings political and social implications are paramount. You’ve been arguing about capitalism vs socialism. We’ve discussed Marxism. These are large-scale political structures, oppressor vs oppressed (Roman vs Israel, Spain vs colony and so on).
I’ve been arguing that the Gospel (and Biblical teachings) ethical teachings (for the most part) are personal. Christ is tell us how individually how to act toward others, not laying out guidelines for how to structure society. His Kingdom is “not of this world”.
Now, however you backtrack and decide to instruct that it isn’t about large social structures (contrary to what you’ve been talking about all along) and that it is about small structures, i.e., self, family, and small parish fellowship … that is it’s personal. That’s the argument I’ve been making.
How might a small parish fellowship, say in American suburbia, achieve “solidarity with the poor and oppressed”? What in the world does that have at all to do with Capitalism and Free Market vs Socialism and (worse) Marxism?