sophiaserpentia | (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

...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.