(no subject)
Mar. 22nd, 2004 09:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaMy 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
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-22 08:49 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-22 09:04 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-22 09:07 am (UTC)(Okay, not really)
no subject
Date: 2004-03-22 09:41 am (UTC)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. :)