Feeds:
Posts
Comments

ILT1: There Are Poor

Introduction here

Introducing Liberation Theology
Part One: There Are Poor

Theology always comes from a place. It is always affected by individual stories and histories that surround it and from which it is formed. It is inextricably linked with language, customs, philosophies, and all the other things that affect daily life. This is neither a good nor a bad thing. It is simply the way things are. We speak about God (theology literally means “God talk”) with the same language we use in everyday life. Therefore, our experience in the world affects our theology. If, in our daily lives, we exist in a quasi-gnostic society and use the language and customs of that society then it follows that our theology will become quasi-gnostic (see the epistle to the Colossians for an example). In the same way, if our daily lives are lived as an oppressed minority under foreign rule then our theology has to take account for that. For example, Jewish religion in the second temple period believed that the God of Israel was the only God and greater than all other powers. This belief was difficult to hold while they were under the rule of Rome who did not pay homage to the God of Israel. The only way this makes sense is to acknowledge that Israel is being punished by God but will later be vindicated.

Liberation Theology too comes from a specific place. It is theology spoken in the only language we have, the language that is colored by daily existence. Therefore, if we are going to understand what Liberation Theology is saying we have to understand the place from which it is being spoken.

The first step to understanding this place is acknowledging that it is an impoverished place. There are poor. Those of us in the rich West are liable to forget this. We, who do not experience or see poverty, often do not understand that our lived experience is not the same as the experience of the rest of the world. But we all believe that theology is not just for us, but it is for everyone. Therefore, if we believe that God is the God of everyone, then our theology has to take into account the experiences of everyone.

Liberation Theology is spoken in the language of an experience of poverty. We must see this poverty if Liberation Theology is to become intelligible to us.

A woman of forty, but who looked at old as seventy, went up to the priest after Mass and said sorrowfully: “Father, I went to communion without going to confession first.” “How come, my daughter?” asked the priest. “Father,” she replied, “I arrived rather late, after you had begun the offertory. For three days I have had only water and nothing to eat; I’m dying of hunger. When I saw you handing out the hosts, whose little pieces of white bread, I went to communion just out of hunger for that little bit of bread.”

One day, in the arid region of northeastern Brazil, one of the most famine-striken parts of the world, I (Clodovis) met a bishop going into his house; he was shaking. “Bishop, what’s the matter?” I asked. He replied that he had just seen a terrible sight: in front of the cathedral was a woman with three small children and a baby clinging to her neck. He saw that they were fainting from hunger. The baby seemed to be dead. He said: “Give the baby some milk, woman!” “I can’t, my lord,” she answered. The bishop went on insisting that she should and she that she could not. Finally, because of his insistence, she opened her blouse. Her breast was bleeding; the baby sucked violently at it. And sucked blood. The mother who had given it life was feeding it, like a pelican, with her own blood, her own life.1

Africa_poverty-383x480
We must hear these stories, see these faces, and feel their pain. We must look upon the face of the poor to understand that it is these faces that are crying out for justice and liberation. The question of whether Liberation Theology can faithfully be done in the first world or in the academy is not at stake here. The point is simply that Liberation Theology, like every theology, comes from a place. It is the reflection upon a lived experience. It will not due to only discuss Liberation Theology on the conceptional level. Because dying of starvation is not a concept. It is an experience.

1Both these stories come from the first chapter of Introducing Liberation Theology by Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff (trans. Paul Burns). Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.

ILT: Introduction

Now that school is in full swing, I have found a rhythm again. The good Lord willin’ and the creeks don’t rise, I’ll be blogging regularly. Especially now that I have a topic.

A friend has asked me my opinion on the often contentiousness topic of Liberation Theology. Since the late seventies, a good way to clear a room of theological (and political) conservatives is to mention that you are an adherent of the theology of liberation. This situation was intensified even more so as the result of the Jeremiah Wright controversy during the election last year. The rhetoric of this movement is often abrasive and challenging and therefore causes a great deal of distress to the more conservative among us.

A great deal of misinformation about Liberation Theology is tossed back and forth in political and theological discussions both on and off line. I venture to guess that many of my readers have partaken or witnessed these discussions.

Therefore, there is need for a basic, short introduction to this school of thought. This introduction will take the form of a series of (short) blog posts on the main ideas, figures, genres, and histories of Liberation Theology. I hope that this series can be of help, even if it is only to help us disagree more fruitfully.

One more note is necessary, it is no secret that I am very sympathetic with the concerns of Liberation Theology. But I will try to maintain a more “objective” tone and will (try) to refrain from polemics. Polemics most assuredly have their place, but this introduction is not that venue.

I pray this series will sustain in all of us a deeper obligation to the least among us.

Transition

Well, I got a new job. I now work as a projectionist at the Bonnie Kate Theatre in Elizabethton, TN.

Here is a picture I found. It is obviously a little dated, but you get the idea.

The Bonnie Kate Theatre

So, I’ve been working, cooking, and reading fiction. I hope to dig into some legit posting soon, but the sweet smell of Summer might continue to pull me away.

Check back for more later.

Here is a video that encapsulates Summer for me. HT: Nick

Once around the block

Since the semester has ended I have caught in the web of acedia. Other than reading a couple of books, I have spent most of my days watching seasons of the some of the best shows on tv. It’s a hard life.

Hopefully, I’ll dive into my reading list with more gusto in the days to come.

Here are a few things from around the blogosphere

A few good bloggers have been going on about Kerr, Yoder and the independence of Jesus.

If you fancy yourself a theologian, then you need to read fiction. Richard Bauckham agrees.
“You might say that if literature without theology is empty, theology without literature is blind.”

Josh thinks that N. T. Wright might help churches be less self-centered.

A real nice article by Bruggemann

Halden asks an important question about Evangelicals.

Colby puts out a call for stories.

NY Times article on Driscoll

Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.

Be sure to keep an eye on Englewood Review of Books. They always have great content, and this Summer they are doing some great book giveaways and interviews. But you need to follow them on Twitter.

Speaking of the Englewood Review of Books, I did a real short review for them recently on this book. You can read my review (more of an endorsement, really) here.

Are you a fan of Michael Pollan, but need help living out his food philsophy? Looks like this is the book for you. (ht: Chris)

This is brilliant.

Done and done

Victory has been achieved.

I have finally finished my paper on Appalachian soteriology.

You can see the outline here.

It can definitly be expanded into a thesis.

If anyone would like a copy email me at lawson.stephen(AT)gmail(DOT)com

Okay, so you talked to a conservative. Now you want to talk to a theological liberal without being uninvited to a cocktail party. Here are five tips to help you when you are talking to a liberal.

  1. Tillich is the man

    Seriously. What John Calvin is to conservatives, Paul Tillich is to liberals. Referring to Tillich in conversation gives you 3 liberal points.

  2. Love the poor. In fashion.

    If you are a liberal you have to talk about the poor. A lot. However, the best way to talk about the poor is in your doctoral robes or fancy vestments with a glass of port. You want to care about the poor. But not enough to do more than complain about the evils of Capitalism.
  3. Read a lot. But not the Bible.

    Okay. If you are a liberal you need to read a lot of theology. You need to drop, on average, 1.8 names per sentence. However, don’t mention canonical books. You can only refer to theologians who write about the Bible (Marcus Borg, J. D. Crossan, Bart Erhman). Remember, if you refer to the Bible in any context except worship, you risk being accused of being a conservative.

  4. It’s important to be informed of current events

    It doesn’t matter if you know the difference between Joab and Josiah, but if someone refers to the parliamentary election in Zambia and you don’t know about it, you might as well have slapped him in the face.

  5. Superiority is Supreme

    The best way to be a liberal is to degrade all other views as completely untenable and oppressive. This is best done with vast amounts of name dropping that will degrade all opponents into a pile of quivering fundamentalists (That is so Rahnerian you, If you would only read DiNoia and Heim your paradigm might be tenable. But as it is, you are clinging to an exclusionary interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.). Throwing Latin in always helps. Your opponents will have no recourse but “I believe in the Bible.” At that point, you have permission to scoff.

So, you want to talk to a theological conservative? Here are five ways to ensure that they don’t burn you at the stake.

  1. Apocalyptic victimization

    We all know that something is on the move to destroy our godly way of life. Those homosexuals want nothing more than to destroy families. We must stop them by any means necessary. Those socialists want to take our money and give it to lazy people. We will have nothing left. Churches will become dilapidated because we will no longer be able to afford the upkeep. Liberalism, socialism, the media, every force it targeted against us and our way of life. We must stop them. If you’re listening to this, you are the resistance.

  2. Believe the Bible

    The best way to make it known that your position is right is to shout memory verses louder than the other guy.  The meaning of the Bible is perfectly clear, some (liberals) just choose to ignore it. Your views are biblical. Theirs are not. The only theology you need is the Bible. If you would just read the Bible more, things will be all right. Also, don’t actually read the Bible in Church. That’s what the liberals do. Bible reading is for quiet time.

  3. Remember, Calvinism is a-okay

    Right. I know we said that we don’t need theology books. All we need is the Bible. But Calvinists have most things right. Even if we disagree on supralapsarianism, they are still pretty great. Reading Calvinists that you disagree with is much, much better than reading any liberal theology (i.e. “open theists,” Roman Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Greg Boyd, Rob Bell, Karl Barth, et al.). So theology discussions should be limited to Calvinism versus Arminianism. Any other theology discussion just ignores the Bible.

  4. Don’t mention the Spirit

    Okay, we know that the Bible talks a lot about the Spirit. But Spirit talk is dangerous. It leads to false teaching. If the Bible doesn’t say it, the Spirit didn’t say it to you. The only acceptable mention of the Spirit in worship is in the third verse of a song (the first two have to be addressed to God and to Jesus).

  5. God is tough

    Remember, God is a warrior. He longs to destroy the earth. That is why we worship him. We don’t want to be cast into the lake of fire. Loving peace makes you a sissy. Jesus has a bigger sword than you, he’s tattooed and he is going to kick some ass. Being a Christian means you’re in his army against the godless. Especially the liberals. See more here.

Well most everything I’ve written of any substance lately has been for the aforementioned paper.

Right now I am on page 26 and on the “Salvation as Liberation” section. And it’s due Monday.

Here is an updated and simplified outline.

I’ve been suspect of Craig Carter for awhile now. Especially since I heard him deliver a paper at the John Howard Yoder and the Stone-Campbell Churches conference. He argued then that since pacifism is pushing certain individuals (Denny Weaver and co.) to question certain traditional beliefs (penal substitutionary atonement), we should play it down. That’s right. Only certain people in the church are called to be pacifists. It is simply a vocation. So, for Carter, the “liberal” reading of Yoder is the reading which questions substitutionary atonement and the “conservative” reading is the one that leaves room for Christians to brandish a sword.

Now, Carter is so drunk on his hatred of progressive liberalism that he has no idea what Yoder, Williams, Wright, or Milbank are going on about. He will either co-opt their arguements to support his point, or he will denounce them as destroyers of the family. He is on a hunt for liberal progressives. His blood lust has clouded his ability to read Yoder or Jesus in any other way. I will no longer be wasting my time with Carter.

The last writing of Craig’s that I plan on reading, (from the Politics of the Cross, Resurrected):

What has happened to Craig Carter? It is really very simple. For the past 20 years I have described myself as left-wing on social issues and conservative in theology, although my pro-life and pro-marriage position has always made me uneasy in left-wing circles. But in the past few years, I have lost my faith in liberal progressivism altogether. I no longer would call myself left wing on any issue. I have come to realize that to claim to be a Christian who is neither left wing or right wing is one thing, but to think that one can embrace left liberalism and still remain untainted by modernity is just not logically possible. In fact, I think that most of the Yoder-loving, neo-Marxist quoting, pacifist/anarchist, postmodern philosopher-reading crowd are just upscale liberal progressivists at heart.They are not “fundamentalists with Ph.D.’s,” as the early Evangelicals were described, they are “community organizers with Ph.D.’s” – Jim Wallis dressed up in pastmodern jargon.

The great hero of this crowd is Mr. Bushy Eyebrows himself, Rowan Williams, also known as “the Great Undecided One” (the perfect foil to G. W. Bush, the self-proclaimed “Decider-in-Chief.”) R. Williams is a nice man and by all accounts an excellent professor who embodies the Peter Principle, which says that in any organization employees will be promoted to the level of their incompetence. As Archbishop, he has displayed a talent only for making the ecclesiastical train wreck that is the Anglican Communion happen in slow motion. But that is not what I want to point out about him here. Williams embodies a common type in modern theology. He embodies the intellectual who is characterized by fair-mindedness, wide scholarly acumen and a talent for self promotion that combines more than a dollop of commendable orthodoxy with a standard, left liberal ideology. This endears him to the “upper class with a social conscience” types who facilitate his social promotion and it compensates in their eyes for his orthodoxy. One of his articles of faith is the Trinity; another is socialism. Redistribution of income is the sine qua non of social justice. The problem with the Labour Pary is that it is too right-wing. (N. T. Wright is another one of this type.)

These comments originally appeared in an interview with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News.

Idolatry

Word Counts:

America (or our country/our nation) – 21
Bible – 16
Patriot – 5
Independence – 4
Constitution – 2
god – 2
God the Father – 0
Jesus Christ – 0
Holy Spirit – 0
Trinity – 0
Church – 0

h/t: Thom

Older Posts »