sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-03-22 09:21 am
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-03-22 09:21 am
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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
challenging_god
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
no subject
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.
no subject
> 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.