Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Liberation theology says that people have a right to justice NOW.

One question.  Was this the message of Jesus?  (Wanted to ask a relevant
question in this conference.  :-) :-) )

Collis

    Justice NOW?  No one can argue with that.

    The question becomes one of deciding what form of justice the people
    really want, what political ideology will best provide that instant
    justice, and what actions are reasonable in pursuit of implementing
    that ideology?  A corollary question is, how far should Christian
    churches go in pursuit of that ideology on behalf of the people who
    claim they are not receiving justice?
        
    Mike

Did Jesus demand justice for Himself and others?  Or did he say to turn
the other cheek?

Collis

    
    I hope that someone who really *understands* liberation theology will
    explain it.  I believe -- though I could be mistaken -- that you have
    presented it falsely in the basenote by limiting it to *either* "a
    socialist political movement" *or* "a subset of Christianity that has
    decided that socialism is the only true Christian way..."
    
    >In either case, how do people who espouse the Liberation theology set
    >of premises feel about the general failure of socialism in recent
    >years?
    
    It is my *strong guess* that this question requires a separate string
    and is not organically and inseparably linked to liberation theology.
    

    re: .4 (Smith)
    
    You are right.  It would be nice if someone who does have a complete
    understanding of liberation theology would enter some information in
    here.  While I don't have a complete understanding of the subject,
    though, I do find it curious that many LT types do seem to support the
    Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the FMLN in El Salvador, both decidedly
    socialist/marxist organizations.
    
    Mike

    I admit that I don't know much about Liberation Theology myself,
    although what I *have* heard I very much liked.
    
    I do believe that Jesus did demand justice for all people.  That was a
    significant part, if not the very core, of his message.  Luke cites
    Jesus as quoting the prophet Isaiah:

    	The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    	because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.
    	He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
    	and recovery of sight to the blind,
    	to let the oppressed go free,
    	to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.

    Turning the other cheek was an expression of Jesus's pacifism; but, as
    has been pointed out more than once, pacifism is anything but passive,
    and much of pacifism has been connected with the struggle for justice. 
    Martin Luther King and Gandhi were both pacifists who listened to
    Jesus's messages of peace and justice; both were pacifists who fought
    for justice.  King had to face opposition from his fellow black
    ministers in Birmingham:

        I stressed the need for a social gospel to supplement the gospel of
        individual salvation.  I suggested that only a "dry as dust"
        religion prompts a minister to extol the glories of heaven while
        ignoring the social conditions that cause men an earthly hell....I
        asked how the Negro would ever gain his freedom without the
        guidance, support, and inspiration of his spiritual leaders.

    I have a quote from the Synod of Rome, 1971:  "Justice is a
    constitutive element of the Gospel."  I perceive, perhaps incorrectly,
    Liberation Theology as the political expression of God's preferential
    option for the poor.  This is a message that is expressed throughout
    the Hebrew Bible, and is not just Jesus's message.  The book of Amos is
    a strong message of justice, as does Micah and Isaiah, and some of the
    Psalms.  Perhaps someone who, unlike me, really knows something about
    Liberation Theology can elaborate on or correct what I have already
    said. 

    -- Mike

Mike,

  You take Jesus' quote (turn the other cheek), equate it with pacifism,
and then say pacifism isn't passive and then what - people should respond
aggressively?

Should people turn the other cheek or not?

Collis

    Yes, Collis, people should turn the other cheek.  Now back to the
    subject at hand.
    
    -- Mike

You're turned your cheek quite nicely when you said that.  :-)

    Pacifism (root: Pax, Latin meaning peace) is neither limp nor
    aggressive.  It is a 3rd way.
    
    And now back to your regularly scheduled topic.
    
    Richard

    I recently read a book which purported to explain Liberation
    Theology, which it did.  However, I am at a loss to be able to
    explain Liberation Theology succinctly enough to do it justice
    here.
    
    Let me share this.  Liberation Theology is rooted in the Exodus
    experience; the oppressed being set free by their God.
    
    The connection to Marxist Socialism, at least in the opinion of the
    author, has been blown way out of proportion.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

I could certainly stand to learn more about Liberation Theology.  I have
never studied it, but have only heard discussions about it.  What I have
heard is enough for me to reject it as inappropriate, but who knows, maybe
there's more to this than meets the eye.  Anaway, a reference to the
book would be appreciated.

Collis

    Reply to .1
    
    
    <Liberation theology says that people have a right to justice NOW.>
    
    
    I shake in fear when someone says "justice now"  because if that is
    all God gave us we all would be facing the wages of sin.  But
    because God gave mercy many do not have to face that.

    Now that's a fascinating tale.

    Too bad the UPI reported didn't contact the Franciscan Order for their
    side of the story.

    By the way, Marxism and Communism have been tossed into the dustbin of
    history and Brazil has had a fully-functional multi-party democratic
    civilian government with a peaceful transition of power in 1985 and
    1990, but that doesn't fit the agenda, eh?

    Mr. Sweeney,
    
    	Are you saying that note .142 somehow represents a slur against
    the Roman Catholic Church or the Franciscan Order or both?
    
    The Peace of Jesus,
    Richard

    It's an offense to journalism, that much is obvious.
    
    Without a statment from the UPI presenting a statement from this
    priest's order to which he made a perpetual vow of poverty, chastity,
    and obedience, we will never know if his presentation is a self-serving
    slur, will we?
    
    Regarding the nature of Brazilian politics in the 1970's, do with that
    what you will.  I told you the facts have changed in 1985 and Brazil is
    a democracy.

    SDSVAX::SWEENEY,
    
    Democracy may promote freedom and liberation, but it is quite clear it 
    doesn't guarantee it.  The greatest challenge to actualizing the highest 
    ideals of democracy is found right in the heart of the system itself - 
    denial, not simply of injustices that exist, but those which in its
    political hubris it promotes.
      
    Karen

    Karen, Let's get an affirmative belief in here.  What alternative to
    democracy do you propose to promote "freedom and liberation"?
    
    I do not accept that democracy promotes conceited pride.  Democracy
    engenders the humility of reaching out to all the people for their vote
    and support.
    
    Patrick Sweeney

    The following notes are in response to the "Religion in the News" 
    article posted in 41.141.

    My favorite definition of "Liberation Theology" comes from Sen. Pete
    Dominici who responded to Miguel d'Escoto, a former Catholic priest was
    the Sandisita foreign minister:

    [d'Escoto described Nicaragua as a peace-loving democracy in 1983 to a
    Congressional committee]

    "You lying S.O.B.  When you came to see me in 1978 you were wearing
    your collar.  You said you were a persecuted priest.  I took you to
    meet my colleagues, and you swore to us that you and your buddies only
    wanted to get rid of Somoza.  We helped you and now look at what you've
    done.  Your arresting your opponents.  You're threatening your
    neighbors.  You're building up your army.  You're nothing but a damned
    hypocrite! You lied then and you're lying now."
    
    (from "Under Fire" Oliver North)

    I suppose whether or not one agrees with that "definition" of
    Liberation Theology probably correlates with one's opinion of Oliver
    North.
    
    -- Mike

>    I suppose whether or not one agrees with that "definition" of
>    Liberation Theology probably correlates with one's opinion of Oliver
>    North.

    So the conflicting reports and stories that the Senator complains
    of are not part of the correlation? It matters not that one man said
    one thing and did an other. It only matters that one likes or does
    not like the reporter? Sounds open minded to me. :-)
    
    			Alfred

    Gee, I didn't realize that accepting at face value the demagoguery 
    of politicians was an example of open mindedness.  :-)

    Alfred, pray tell, in addition to your other blacklists, do you also
    keep a secret blacklist of close-minded people?  Since we all know how
    you *never* cling to dogmas of your own, I am sure that you would be
    the excellent judge of who belongs on such a blacklist.

    -- Mike

    If you have evidence that the facts or reasoning cited by Sen. Pete
    Dominici are incorrect, then please let us know that they are.

>    Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the usual
>    Sandinista-bashing nonsense contained in Dominici's tirade were
>    true

    That sounds like hostility to me; either you refute Dominici or you
    don't. The judgment that it was "nonsense" is your unsupported opinion.

    You're arguing from a vacuum, if you want to define or advocate "base
    communities" or "preferential option for the poor", then go ahead. I
    deny their relevance.

    My concern is what the fruits of what Liberation Theology are in
    practice, and in principle, its affinity to Marxism and its enmity of
    salvation through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    
    "Expertise" isn't an issue here.  We're all free to express insights
    and opinions here on the Christian perspective even if we are not
    accredited Liberation Theologians. 

    The issue is not whether or not we are accredited Liberation
    Theologians; the issue is whether or not it makes sense to discuss
    something from a perspective of ignorance.  If you want to deny that
    the central concepts of liberation theology have any relevance to
    discussing liberation theology, you are welcome to do so, but that
    strikes me as making no sense whatsoever.
    
    -- Mike

    Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the usual
    Sandinista-bashing nonsense contained in Dominici's tirade were
    true--even if we deny that the Sandinistas established a
    multiparty democracy a year after that quote, or that the United States
    was financing a devastating terrorist war against the Nicaraguans--the
    far more important question is how his attack on this individual
    constitutes a "definition" of a particular theological position.  I
    don't see any reference in that quote to base communities, the
    preferential option for the poor, or anything else that is normally
    associated with this theology.  It would thus seem to fall a bit short
    as a "definition".  And if one is going to offer the Sandinista era as
    an example of Liberation Theology, as a "definition" it doesn't even
    address the more important aspects of Sandinista policies that directly
    related to the theology's doctrine of a preferential option for the
    poor, such as literacy or health campaigns. 

    Using Dominici to "define" Liberation Theology is like using Martin
    Luther to "define" Roman Catholicism--or, perhaps more to the point,
    using Oliver North, a born again Christian who supported terrorists, as
    an example of born again Christianity, and then "defining" born again
    Christianity in terms of kidnaping, rape, murder, and torture and
    then expressing this "definition" it by calling Oliver North an SOB.

    If you are an expert on Liberation Theology, and you would like to
    offer a "definition" of it, then what might be of more value would be
    to first describe it on its own terms.  Explain what a base community
    is, for example, or describe other concepts as defined by the
    liberation theologians themselves.  What would be some books by
    liberation theologians that we could turn to in order to better
    understand what they believe?  This would be of much more value to
    those of us who don't know much about it than to cite the rantings of a
    demagogue which contained no theological anaysis whatsoever.

    -- Mike

Note 734.96

>Liberation Theology, at its root, demands justice and equity for
>all people here on earth based on what Jesus has done for us.

I would like to know more about Liberation Theology.  What little I've
read bases the movement primarily on the Exodus experience, and says that
Liberation Theology doesn't call for justice for all people, but for
the oppressed.

Peace,
Richard