1776 & Liberation Theology

[MrJim]

I'm handicapped. I have children & my first instinct would be to protect them so that once things calmed down after he first impact there was still a Christian lineage to witness in the world. It is all very well to stand & die for our principles - but then what? Someone needs to be around when the invaders stop their pillaging & rampaging to point to a better way. A dead witnes can lo longer be Christ's hands & feet in this world.

The gates of hell will not prevail against the church---there will always be a witness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_Mirror

 

[Jehane]

Touche.

 

[ZiSunka]

Let's see if I have the characters right...

When the roman empire was being attacked Jerome panicked and said to Augustine about the crisis-oh the empire would fall and the church would suffer.

Augustine said something like, don't be ridiculous, we now have more people we can witness Christ to.

Foreign invaders? How can they be foreign to me--I don't consider myself a citizen of this world.

I will admit there is a part of me that would like the whole army of God thing-pick up weapons for God and defend the nation for God and deal with the porn shops and abortion places and such for God but it's not what Jesus called us to.

Foreign invaders??? Go into the hills and hide? Let them imprison or execute me & my family? I wouldn't know what I'd do until that time would come, except pray it would be honoring to God. Sure ain't gonna kill anyone over this house and the stuff in it.

Good answer! I can get so tired of the "I'd get my gun and kill anyone who tried to take away what is mine" answer.

 

[ZiSunka]

I'm handicapped. I have children & my first instinct would be to protect them so that once things calmed down after he first impact there was still a Christian lineage to witness in the world. It is all very well to stand & die for our principles - but then what? Someone needs to be around when the invaders stop their pillaging & rampaging to point to a better way. A dead witnes can lo longer be Christ's hands & feet in this world.

Actually, throughout history, the dead witnesses have proved to be the most effective.

 

[MrJim]

Actually, throughout history, the dead witnesses have proved to be the most effective.

Lots of Christian martyrs....they say 20th century has the most, bet the 21st will beat it.

www.persecution.com/

 

[ZiSunka]

I have read that more people have gotten saved by the witness of the various martyrs than from all the missionaries that ever lived.

 

[artrx]

Look at the civil rights movement as headed by MLK Jr. He advocated a peaceful, nonviolent revolution and had thousands of followers. Although he was shot, his family attacked, his people bombed and burned and lynched, he still would not advocate the use of violence. Powerful people within the government and within the news media joined his cause, not only because it was a just revolution, but because MLK exemplified peaceful change. Even when others around him were retalliating, MLK kept on with the peaceful demonstrations and the firm but peaceful messages of freedom. It even cost him his life. But the revolution happened anyway. Without MLK or any of his followers having to raise a rifle or plant a bomb.

Pacifism works, but passivity does not. The difference is that a pacifist is a peacemaker (the word pacifism comes from the latin for "peace" and "making") actively but nonviolently works for peace and justice, but a passivist just stands by and lets the world go to hell in a handbasket without ever raising their voice.

Most anabaptists I know are passivists, letting the world around them do whatever it wants without making any attempt to influence its direction. That is not what I think Christian peacemakers are supposed to be doing. It's counter-Christian. Jesus constantly stood among the crowds telling people about how the world is, AND how it is supposed to be (You have heard it said...But I tell you...). He didn't use violence to bring about his revolution, but he didn't just stand around saying "tsk, tsk, tsk, look how bad things are in the world today. Let's go find a remote place where we can live by our principles and leave these people to live in hell on earth."

I know that I do not take the typical historical stance for the "plain people," but the mennonite church has always been active in peacemaking and I hope that I could represent them as I am called to do so.

I would rep you if I could . (Ghandi is another great example)

"In essence, liberation theology explores the relationship between Christian, specifically Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty, and human rights." (From Wiki)

Although Liberation Theology has been used to support violent means of effecting needed change, Violence is by no means necessary to or even desired by all. The theology is much broader and is also used by peaceful groups as well, advocating non-violent resistance when necessary but working through every peaceful and legal means available for justice in all areas. Through it's voice many of those in the poorest pueblo jovenes were helped socially and economically in Peru. People organized in thier own communities and through thier faith to better themselves and the futures of thier children. There were and are catholic nuns and priests as well as other Christians who have given thier lives working for peace and justice in Latin America, many times under the umbrella of Liberation Theology. When you live in a country that is rampant with poverty, and political, social, cultural and economic abuse the realities make LT much more appealing , and common sense,than to those of us in wealthy nations. Catholics, Mennonites, Lutherans, and many other christians are working for similar goals in Latin America. Those we knew and worked with while we were there did.

 

[MrJim]

I would rep you if I could . (Ghandi is another great example)


Although Liberation Theology has been used to support violent means of effecting needed change, Violence is by no means necessary to or even desired by all. The theology is much broader and is also used by peaceful groups as well, advocating non-violent resistance when necessary but working through every peaceful and legal means available for justice in all areas. Through it's voice many of those in the poorest pueblo jovenes were helped socially and economically in Peru. People organized in thier own communities and through thier faith to better themselves and the futures of thier children. There were and are catholic nuns and priests as well as other Christians who have given thier lives working for peace and justice in Latin America, many times under the umbrella of Liberation Theology. When you live in a country that is rampant with poverty, and political, social, cultural and economic abuse the realities make LT much more appealing , and common sense,than to those of us in wealthy nations. Catholics, Mennonites, Lutherans, and many other christians are working for similar goals in Latin America. Those we knew and worked with while we were there did.

The church is always to be involved in the relief efforts and in helping build families and supporting communities. Is it to be involved in nation building?

This is the plan of Dominion Theology--that Christians are to have control of the gov'ts, "christianize" the world, and then Christ will come.

This is the path one tends to fall into when wanting to use force (violent or not). Ghandi used force. It was nonviolent but still he used force to forward his agenda. Nonviolent resistance is still resistance--and the anabaptist is to be non-resistant, not pacifist. This is not the path of the historical anabaptists. Neither is it passivism. There is a third way that does not mean to use force as a weapon of change, but simply the preaching of the Kingdom of God and doing as Christ has commanded us to do--then the Holy Spirit does the work.

It is considered that this is "not enough". But if it wasn't Christ would have given us a mandate to force His will onto the Kingdom of Man. There is a certain romance to being a Crusader...a Knight of God in battle against the evil heathen. But then, our enemies are not flesh and blood and our weapons are not guns and swords and we don't trust in chariots and tanks. The imagery is war, but even a nonviolent resistance is a war. This is where the nonresistant position parts with the MLK & Ghandi pacifist positions.

 

[ZiSunka]

This is the plan of Dominion Theology--that Christians are to have control of the gov'ts, "christianize" the world, and then Christ will come.

My, you're quick to put labels on everthing. Sometimes I worry that you are so eager to label things that you don't fully read or digest the post first.

Things that are labelled get put on a shelf, meaning, once someone labels someone else's ideas, they don't really deal with them, they just set them aside and ignore what was said.

Please don't let that happen!

 

[MrJim]

My, you're quick to put labels on everthing. Sometimes I worry that you are so eager to label things that you don't fully read or digest the post first.

Things that are labelled get put on a shelf, meaning, once someone labels someone else's ideas, they don't really deal with them, they just set them aside and ignore what was said.

Please don't let that happen!

Don't be so quick to label me as a labeller

Dominion Theology is a handy reference, that's all

 

[artrx]

The church is always to be involved in the relief efforts and in helping build families and supporting communities.

Is it to be involved in nation building?

This is the plan of Dominion Theology--that Christians are to have control of the gov'ts, "christianize" the world, and then Christ will come.

I don't know anything about Dominion Theology and sure wouldn't want to leave Christianity in the gov't's hands:o.

This is the path one tends to fall into when wanting to use force (violent or not). Ghandi used force. It was nonviolent but still he used force to forward his agenda. Nonviolent resistance is still resistance--and the anabaptist is to be non-resistant, not pacifist. This is not the path of the historical anabaptists. Neither is it passivism. There is a third way that does not mean to use force as a weapon of change, but simply the preaching of the Kingdom of God and doing as Christ has commanded us to do--then the Holy Spirit does the work.

It is considered that this is "not enough". But if it wasn't Christ would have given us a mandate to force His will onto the Kingdom of Man. There is a certain romance to being a Crusader...a Knight of God in battle against the evil heathen. But then, our enemies are not flesh and blood and our weapons are not guns and swords and we don't trust in chariots and tanks. The imagery is war, but even a nonviolent resistance is a war. This is where the nonresistant position parts with the MLK & Ghandi pacifist positions.

I don't know enough about the anabaptist way. I only know the thoughts of the Mennonites we worked with. In this area as in so many others there seems to be differing perspectives on how one acts out or interprets God's commands. I like to hear more on the differences of passifism and non-resistance. What happens when following the commands of God directly clashes with the human powers that be?

 

[MrJim]

I like to hear more on the differences of passifism and non-resistance. What happens when following the commands of God directly clashes with the human powers that be?

Pacifism seeks to force its agenda via nonviolent means
Non-resistance does not seek to force its agenda-that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

When the commands of God clashes with human powers we of course follow God's way. The best example is the military draft (though the principle is further reaching). If drafted the nonresistant christian reports to the gov't and simply says "I cannot do what you order me to do but here I am." It is a submission to the gov't without obeying. Many will say that you have to obey the gov't regardless-this is not the case.

Now contrast this with the draft-dodger that runs away and hides--maybe for political or moral reasons, but still doesn't submit to the gov't.

Submission & Obedience--they are not the same thing.

 

[ZiSunka]

Pacifism seeks to force its agenda via nonviolent means
Non-resistance does not seek to force its agenda-that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

That's not really true or fair.

Just because you don't like pacifism doesn't mean you should denigrate it. It is the way a lot of mennonites see the call to peace, and it never forces anything on anyone.

I don't denigrate your positions, I respect them. I wish you would respect the mennonite position on peacemaking, too.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Now contrast this with the draft-dodger that runs away and hides--maybe for political or moral reasons, but still doesn't submit to the gov't.

A draft-dodger is not a peacemaker, and therefore not a pacifist.

Plus, this doesn't suit your statement that pacfists try to force their agenda on people. Draft-dodgers run away, they don't try to influence anyone by any means.

 

[MrJim]

That's not really true or fair.

Just because you don't like pacifism doesn't mean you should denigrate it. It is the way a lot of mennonites see the call to peace, and it never forces anything on anyone.

I don't denigrate your positions, I respect them. I wish you would respect the mennonite position on peacemaking, too.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."



A draft-dodger is not a peacemaker, and therefore not a pacifist.

Plus, this doesn't suit your statement that pacfists try to force their agenda on people. Draft-dodgers run away, they don't try to influence anyone by any means.

Pacifists certainly do force their agenda. This is done by whatever means-such as marches and strikes and pestering-to-harassment of gov't authorities. I am not denigrating-just saying that this is their way. They are not the only methods, but the ones that get the most attention and the ones that are opposite to non-resistant teaching and the ones that often end in violence (that is, the non-violent resisters getting busted up).

Pacifism by its nature will be somewhat anti-authoritarian. They are saying "We don't like it this way--we want it to that way" and go about getting it there. Now, if the methods follow what I and others believe to be a biblical model that's cool, but when it decides to take on the gov't to make the change then we have a problem.

I think it is a valid point in working to improve the conditions of others and it can be done without the disruption that leads to violent confrontations. It could be viewed as the two different approaches to the abortion clinic protests. There are the noisy protesters and then there are the peaceful ones that seek to minister more than make noise and let everyone know what they think. Who is really doing the most good.

The draft dodger example was for the purpose of demonstrating submission in regards to the "the commands of God directly clashes with the human powers that be?" statement.

Stay with me on this LL, let me know if I get too negative--that's what little sisters are for. Sometimes I don't communicate things as clearly and they come out sorta jarhead-ish

 

[Danfrey]

A non-resistant jarhead. Wow, and I thought I was wierd.

 

[MrJim]

A non-resistant jarhead. Wow, and I thought I was wierd.

yeah, well, you still are

be nice or I'll drop off a 6 month-old colicky baby at your doorstep.

 

[Jehane]

I can get you one of those if you need one.

 

[ACADEMIC]

Okay, let us pick apart something in this passage:

1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment.

Let's say that I am a very powerful person with a large army at my disposal.

Let us also say that I up and decide that I want to go overthrow the government of, say, Elbonia.

So my men rush in, murder 300 people, we overthrow the government, and I set myself and my favored ones into positions of power.

Does this now make me the authority ordained of God in Elbonia? Do we now come along and quote Romans 13: 1-2 and say, "Well, 'those who exist are ordained by God,' so ACADEMIC and his men are ordained of God now."

Wow! I guess God works through violence and murder to set up authorites!

Now let us say the next week some revolutionaries from the Elbonian jungle rush the Elbonian Palace and overthrows my government, killing 300 more people. Their leader, Chu Gumara , then sets himself up as President and appoints his favored ones into government positions.

Does this now make Chu Gumara the authority ordained of God in Elbonia? Do we now come along and quote Romans 13:1-2 and say, "Well, 'those who exist are ordained by God,' and Chu and all his men are the one that now exist."

Are you serious??? And will God please make up His mind!!!

And there are many other examples that I could give, for different contexts.

The lead poster, and most Christians, fail to differentiate between legitimate authority and illegitimate authority.

Jer 5:30 "An appalling and horrible thing
Has happened in the land:
Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely,
And the priests rule on their own authority;
And My people love it so!
But what will you do at the end of it?

But there is a MUCH more sane way to view Romans 13. I have already given all the clues. We have to think, though, and not just mindlessly throw around "proof texts" and think we are done with the matter.

 

[Jehane]

Of course there is legitimate & illegitimate authority but God is a God of order & doesn't want the whole kaboodle denigrating into chaos. To try & right one wrong with another wrong helps nobody - but it does create more disorder & chaos & I don't think that's either sensible, from a purely practical viewpoint, or Godly.

 

[ACADEMIC]

Of course there is legitimate & illegitimate authority but God is a God of order & doesn't want the whole kaboodle denigrating into chaos. To try & right one wrong with another wrong helps nobody - but it does create more disorder & chaos & I don't think that's either sensible, from a purely practical viewpoint, or Godly.

Applied to the concerns of the lead poster, the question is more concerning whether England in 1776 had become an illegitimate authority; and also whether the "authorites" in areas of concern to liberation theologians are "illegitimate."

IF they are illlegitimate, and if we can establish critera for determining that (and we can, from Scripture), THEN the Christian duty spoken of in Romans 13:1-2 becomes non-binding and other Biblical principles trump it. In such cases, it is nothing about wrongs making rights but rights righting wrongs.