sophiaserpentia | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

My last post brings me close to what is called in some circles "liberation theology." This is the idea that inequality, oppression, and exploitation are a large part of the suffering from which Jesus meant to liberate humankind.

Every indication that is coming out of "historical Jesus" research is that Jesus was a radical who challenged in the strongest way possible the political, economic, and religious status quo of his day. His concern was not necessarily that everyone should have equal wealth -- but the particularly parasitic forms of exploitation where the rich get exponentially more wealthy, while the poor are pushed into greater and greater desperation and marginality. The dilemma is compounded when the marginalized have no voice in the political scene.

digbydolben commented some time ago that a great struggle is shaping up between factions within Christianity, between the proponents of liberation theology, largely in the Catholic tradition, and the proponents of the largely Protestant view that Christianity is compatible with corporate capitalism. The more I examine this issue, the more I realize that he is right.

It falls to each person to decide whether or not any theological statement has ethical, economic, or political implications. But if they do not, then I assert that theology is the worst kind of useless and hollow distraction.

Most faithful people, however, are loathe to assert that their beliefs do not have immediate ethical implications. Beliefs, to have value, must reflect in the way one lives. But, if beliefs have ethical implications in individual lives, then they must have ethical implications on greater scales as well.

Corporate capitalism is heading on a course that will reverse the great strides that have been made in recent centuries towards democratization and enfranchisement for the poor. A corporation is not a democracy; and as corporations grow into powers that rival most nations, they bring a new and frightening form of aristocracy and imperialism. The poor have no voice in corporate decisions, and their elected leaders are more often in the pockets of the corporations.

Now, keep in mind that I am not a socialist. I still believe that capitalism is the best and most efficient economic system -- when there's a level playing field. But what we are seeing now is a new form of aristocracy that has learned how to consolidate its own wealth and power while insulating itself against accountability. Their efforts are effectively undermining the gains that have been made towards democracy.

The corporate culture naturally favors and promotes a brand of Christianity that does not challenge their authority, and which they can market as a commodity. This "safe," defanged kind of Christianity bears no resemblance to the social protest movement envisioned by Jesus.

Furthermore, I believe that there are demonstrative links between marketability and theological teaching.

Jesus told his disciples to wear but one coat and no sandals, to give up their worldly wealth for a heavenly store of treasure because it is very difficult for a rich man to get into heaven. But the corporate-friendly brand of Christianity downplays all this and sells books instead on how to "name it to claim it." This idea of material prosperity as evidence of blessing was something Christians were rebelling against.

Instead of the slow and unsteady progress of theosis, corporate-friendly Christianity favors an easier and more marketable version of "instant salvation," compatible with the American view that you can take a pill to make it all better.

crossposted to my journal and crossposted to

challenging_god

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thus we get "good Christians" like my mother. She is quite devout on her path. She is chaste, doesn't smoke, use foul lanugage, drink alcohol, go out dancing or visit any sinful places. She obeys her husband although he's an abusive ass, and she attends church regularly and tithes. She (and her husband) also own a new house, two new cars (traded out every year), believe God rewards those who work hard and therefore if they do well financially it is a sign of divine favor, and make fun of or condemn those who don't measure up to their standards. When walking around with me once my mother at my prodding gave change to a homeless man - flinging it at him so she would not risk touching the unwashed heathen.

The more I examine this, the more I believe that this kind of economic elitism is an inevitable result of spiritual elitism.

A lot of the language in the Bible suggests that wealth and prosperity is the outward evidence of the Lord's blessing. (If "the Lord" is the archontic ruler of this world, that might even make sense...) The prophets meant for people to be more circumspect and understand that the blessing of wealth comes not from hoarding it, but from the benefits that it enables one to sow within one's community.

Yeah, I don't really want to get into a mindset of "everyone who isn't dirt poor is greedy and going to hell." I have known people with money who were very generous with their money and feel God gave them money so they could help others and I think that's wonderful. But then there are people who have wealth and despise those who do not, which seems contrary to everything Jesus taught. And I don't think I can ever forget those nice Christian people who came down to harass me while working at my sinful profession while I was barely making ends meet for myself and my child and they were wearing tasteful real gold crucifixes and nice watches and clothes from the Gap.

You make me think on these things, you evil person you :P I have asked close friends before to lock me up and shoot me in the head if I ever again give into the self-abusive insanity of converting back to Fundamentalist Christianity. But this doesn't mean I think there was much wrong with what Jesus said. The other day it occurred to me that I believe in Jesus but not in the Bible or the church, and that this is not a contradiction.
I will never identify myself as a Christian to anyone, although it is obvious to me I take Jesus' words more seriously than most modern Christians. If I were to introduce myself to someone as a Christian when they were not, they would likely shrink away from me in disgust, feeling they would be unable to relax around me because I would point out to them in what manner they were sining, and if they were a self-identified Christian, they would probably feel the need to examine my behavior minutely and criticize me for any act which they felt was an infraction of their code. This is not far-fetched bigotry, this has been an experience so often repeated in my life it has become stale and worn. Non-Christians are right, IMO, to shrink from those who identify as Christian, because someone who proudly says "I am a Christian " in our society is likely to be intolerant of any faults they perceive other to have, preachy, self-righteous, etc.

Yeah, I don't really want to get into a mindset of "everyone who isn't dirt poor is greedy and going to hell."

Oh, neither do I. Even Bill Gates and Ted Turner (darn it!) have done amazing things with their wealth; Gates is donating huge amounts for AIDS research and education, while Turner pledged a $1B donation (a third of his wealth) to the UN.

I have asked close friends before to lock me up and shoot me in the head if I ever again give into the self-abusive insanity of converting back to Fundamentalist Christianity.

How about we just lock you up and beat you? ;)

Seriously, I'm not trying to convert anyone to *any* type of Christianity. I just want to examine the ways in which its original message has been co-opted by the Empire.

But this doesn't mean I think there was much wrong with what Jesus said.

One of the things that makes me angry is the thought that Fundamentalist Christianity is trying to steal Jesus and turn him into something he never was.

The other day it occurred to me that I believe in Jesus but not in the Bible or the church, and that this is not a contradiction.

That is actually where I stand at this point. It isn't a contradiction, because the Bible was redacted, and because a worldly institution like a church must have to some extent at least an active tension with the radicalism of Jesus' message.

Actually I think the Catholic Church, now that it has less political prominence than it used to have, might be redeemed thereby. It is no longer at the heart of the Empire, which I think is a place where it never belonged.

"Actually I think the Catholic Church, now that it has less political prominence than it used to have, might be redeemed thereby. It is no longer at the heart of the Empire, which I think is a place where it never belonged."

Perhaps... but Pentacostalism has found its home here in America, now pretty much inarguably the new Rome in its imperialism, extending even unto the symbol of the Eagle as warbird. The Pope is replaced with Pat Robertson. And whereas Jesus (the man they claim to follow) hung out with the mass unwashed and cared for the sick and downtrodden, these folks preach about the evils of the government giving financial assistance to poor mothers because they are sinful and undeserving.

I am struggling as we speak with such issues that you mentioned. I am not a Christian, and I will never call myself one. Not only am I skeptical about the divine idol that Jesus was made into within the pages of the Bible, but the "C word" to me is an ugly word, and carries on its back the burden of archaic condemnation and modern material desires.

I really would love it if a new term came out that I could apply to myself. On the one hand, labels limit people. My beliefs are ever changing, warping and folding and growing like a living creature. They differ from day to day, and in fact, most days I couldn't tell you WHAT I believe.

On the other, it is tiresome explaining to everyone I meet what my beliefs are. It would be easier for me to say, "Ah, well, I am a Reform Pauless Jesusist" or something along those lines. At this point, I just say "I don't know" and leave the theological discussions for another day.

I don't understand it. I don't understand how so many people, millions perhaps, say they believe one thing when they in fact believe another. They say that they follow the selfless teachings of professor A, but in fact they follow their own desires for comfort and power. And they become angry at those who point this out.

Sometimes I really don't like being a homo sapien.

I just tell people I'm a Satanist, they get all bent out of shape and run away screaming, and then I don't have to eal with these icky discussions. :P

(Okay, not really)

lol.

Well, on occasion I tell them that I belong to the United Infantile Furries Union (UIFU for short), where we all wear diapers and bear suits for sexual release, and then they run away screaming.

But not really. :)

The other day it occurred to me that I believe in Jesus but not in the Bible or the church, and that this is not a contradiction.

I suspect I'll be chewing on that one for quite awhile. :)

Hope it tastes okay :))
I know a lot of people will disagree with me on that one.

Actually, I think you will find that there are a lot of people who feel the same way.

I'm just waiting for the hate mail I usually get when I eat sacred cows for lunch :))

The other day it occurred to me that I believe in Jesus but not in the Bible or the church, and that this is not a contradiction.

Keep waiting. No hate mail is coming from here.

Actually, I have been believing as you do for quite a while. I mean, I do not see Jesus as being part of The Divine, or at least no more so than everything else is, but rather as a great person and teacher who was very in touch and in harmony with that which is divinity.

I have a slightly different hit. I was very close to devote catholics during the Viet Nam war who were willing to put their asees, their jobs, and the money on the line repeatedly. I have nothing but respexct for those people. As individuals. But their religion is evil. Good things sometimes frow in poisoned soil. I loathe vicarious salvation. I loathe all the *structures* of religion because the *structures* become inherently classist & conservative as they gain in power & wealth. Jesus had some cool ideas, but I do not see him as any more of a God than anyone else. The bible is built upon slavery, murder, and torture. Their God is seen as a despotic ruler who really needs to be tossed. I have much respect for those who preach a path of getting rid of the parasites, the oppression, and the police states. But as soon as they start using religion as a *reason* for their good deeds, I get very very nervous. There have been an awful lot of people tortured, robbed from, and murdered in Christ's name. I don't want to see them liberated in Christ's name either. Just let holy books of the ancients rot in libraries while scholars get their jollies off on them. But I sure do not want these books to be considered "holy" or sacrosanct" in any stuggle I am a part of.

Actually I agree with a lot of what you've written here.

I think the problem with scripture is that it was written in a very different time and culture; for its time it was progressive in many ways. Our modern ideas of justice and equality have evolved and are (IMO) much more sophisticated and ethical.

The idea of vicarious salvation also grates on me a great deal. I think at the time the NT was written it was an afterthought, a religious legalism; it wasn't central to Christian doctrine until the 11th Century.

To my way of thinking, the main usefulness of the Bible at this point is showing how progressive and theological thought evolved in its time period. Which means, really, that it is only relevant in small ways to modern life.

The idea of defying fate may be one of the small ways in which it might be relevant today.

> The idea of defying fate may be one of the small ways
> in which it might be relevant today.

Yes! I'd much rather defy fate than deify it.

> I think the problem with scripture is that
> it was written in a very different time and culture;
> for its time it was progressive in many ways.

I fully agree. There was a time when it was considered progressive to torture a prisoner only once a day, instead of all day long. But we are evolving -- so what was once considered progressive is no longer acceptable to those of us who want far far more.

The problem with human religion is that it has a real tendency to ossify. The holy books are considered sacrsanct & unchanging. The commentaries pile up on one another & one becomes mired in thousands of years of mis-interpretation, tradition, and dogma. I have met Hindus who are just as hide-bound as Christians, just as narrow & dogmatic. So the problem is not Christianity, but the idea that "God" wrote the books & the religion is unchanging because of that.

At one point in time, many humans believed the earth was at the center of the universe, then when that myth was finally overthrown, it was replaced with the sun in an unchanging position. I think us humans are ready to perceive a universe in which the concept of deity is no longer fixed & unchanging. But we gotta shake loose from the churches which have an economic & power advantage from the myth of an unchanging God & religion. Power corrupts & the churches are powerful.

Buddhism/Hinduism are really good about this. They suggest, over and over, in a variety of ways, that the problem isn't being wealthy or poor but in conceiving of oneself as wealthy or poor.

I think the corresponding Western idea (to proclaim from the pulpit in my ass) is mangaminity.

A person who conceives of herself as wealthy can "afford" to be generous, altruistic. A person who conceives of herself as poor cannot. So the Dhammapada & other things comment that the worst thing to be is a wealthy person who does not enjoy their wealth. And the best thing to give up is greed, because it's the feeling of greed (the opposite of magaminity) that makes you poor.

Obvious, I know.

But I work in Hollywood, so for me, achieving a mindset where I don't think the answer is just to take a humvee with a rocket launcher into Beverly Hills is...important, and occupies a healthy slice in the pie chart of my time.

Ahem, magnaminity. Thank you.

...a great struggle is shaping up between factions within Christianity, between the proponents of liberation theology, largely in the Catholic tradition, and the proponents of the largely Protestant view that Christianity is compatible with corporate capitalism.

I think it's risky, as a rule, to make that sort of generalization; for example, there's the Sojourners Community (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.history) -- I may not agree with them theologically, but I think they're a clear and strong challenge to corporate Christianity, and they're strongly in the Protestant tradition.

Liberation theology has strong roots in South American Catholicism; but when it came to the States it found a home almost immediately in Protestantism -- particularly among people doing theology from the perspective of the poor, people of color, and women.

Conversely, Fast Food Christianity has its adherents across all denominational boundaries as well. Fast food religion as a whole is all too common; and nourishes about as well as fast food ever does.

Thus demonstrating the usefulness of words like "largely." ;)

Thank you for your clarifications, though. I agree that generalizations can be dangerous. They are, sometimes, a necessary evil. I did not mean to set Catholics vs. Protestants, but as it is now, that is largely where the front line lies.

Thus demonstrating the usefulness of words like "largely." ;)

True enough -- my bad : ) Thanks for not taking offense.

I think my Episcopalian-ness is finding the Catholic/Protestant dividing line a little over-rigid -- go fig. <g>

I am firmly convinced that True Believers and those who use Belief as Justification as well as those who mix the two extremes are and have always been dispersed amongst all religions. Now that I have covered my ass....

The Protestant Movement (aka the Reform) was a rebellion against the Catholic Church sanctioned Aristocracy (or specifically the doctines of political absolutism / The Divine Right of Kings) in that it sought to empower and justify an increase in the distribution of wealth to the common classes. Many of the early Protestants were "radical[s] who challenged in the strongest way possible the political, economic, and religious status quo" and in many ways allowed for "the great strides that have been made in recent centuries towards democratization and enfranchisement for the poor."

And now we have the new Princes, only now they have titles like CEO or Member of the Board of Trustees, who horde wealth and power at the expene of the common classes; and, of course, God is on their side. The exploiters and the predominate religion always come to share a common bed, regardless of what that religion is or what its original message was intended to be. The problem is human greed and selfishness.

Luckily a new religious movement always tends to rise to combat these excesses that the corrupted form of the currently predominate religion excuses.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only