Church/Seminaries & Exclusion of Minority: Why are Blacks/3rd World insights ignored?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Holy molly...

I have to admit, I didn't even come close to reading all of that.

That said, I go back and forth on this one.

I love Philip Jenkins, and have heard him speak three times (and got my copy of The Next Christendom signed). I also love the Oriental Orthodox tradition and its a dream of mine to go to Ethiopia and experience it firsthand. I also think we ought to be more aware of the degree to which early Christianity was formed in the seedbed of Egyptian, North African, and Syriac cultures, as Thomas Oden has been trying to make clear for a few years now.

That said, I get suspicious of distinctively Third World or developing world (or underdeveloped world) theologies for a number of reasons.

First, I worry about the Pentecostal, anti-intellectual trend prominent in the Global South. I'm all for experiential theology, but I'm much more sympathetic with attempts to acculturate and enculture within a wider historical memory.

Second, I'm just plain opposed to liberation theology, and there's no other way to put it. I think the anti-/counter-imperial trend in biblical scholarship is an important corrective to depoliticized readings of the Bible (Horsley, Wright, Elliott, Purdue, Portier-Young, etc.). But liberation theology uses a Marxist metanarrative to interpret the text, rather than the text's own imperial context; more to the point, theology is expressly "shaped" in order to meet the immediate needs to church communities.

That whole idea that theology needs to be shaped in order to meet the needs of communities extends beyond liberation theology and into a problem that extends beyond the Global South and into affluent American society. The reason it concerns me in a developing world context, however, is that there isn't the countervailing tradition of careful, sober, peer-reviewed scholarship to keep that mass, lay impulse in check.

Caveat at this point: Obviously, this isn't to say that there is no scholarly tradition in the Global South (that would be ridiculous), or that the myriad of rich cultures should have to accommodate themselves to western norms (equally ridiculous).

But lets take the liturgical-cultural question at this point. Obviously, one should never expect a Bantu tribesman to worship in the style of a seventeenth century Englishman (although equally one should also not expect that said Bantu tribesman could never understand traditional Anglican worship or appreciate its transcendent character). But I think that, largely because of the Pentecostal influence in the Global South as well as the history of indigenous prophet-messiahs of African Zionism, there's been a tendency to ignore Africa's indigenous liturgical heritage in favor of what is essentially American-style worship with African instruments. But shouldn't, say, the ancient liturgy of the Ethiopian church be more ready to inform the creation of a Bantu liturgy that is fully Bantu, yet fully married to the ancient heritage of the church, rather than creating de novo a "worship service" drawn primarily from the American evangelical heritage?

And here I come full circle, back to where I started: I absolutely love the phenomenon of Christianity in the Global South and am quite excited about where it is going. But I'm more excited about trends in biblical scholarship (counter-imperial readings) and early Christian history (that are no longer focused solely on the church fathers, but on women, the poor, and people outside the boundaries of the Roman and Byzantine empires), and I think those are important controls for the development of genuinely African and Asian Christianities. In fact, most of my criticisms and concerns surrounding the development of Global Southern Christianity is that they only look genuinely indigenous, but in fact owe more to Marxism and its nineteenth century German metanarrative (liberation theology) or a revival movement that began on Azusa Street in LA (Pentecostalism).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Holy molly...

I have to admit, I didn't even come close to reading all of that.
.

Never really expected you to

That said, I go back and forth on this one.

I love Philip Jenkins, and have heard him speak three times (and got my copy of The Next Christendom signed).

Jealous - as I need to get my own copy of the book since I read it from the library, even though I own several others of his works.

I also love the Oriental Orthodox tradition and its a dream of mine to go to Ethiopia and experience it firsthand.

Ditto

I also think we ought to be more aware of the degree to which early Christianity was formed in the seedbed of Egyptian, North African, and Syriac cultures, as Thomas Oden has been trying to make clear for a few years now.

Thomas Oden has been such a blessing within the Body of Christ for pointing out those issues.

And in regards African Christianity, I really enjoyed this series of lectures by Thomas Oden:

Libyan Christianity 1: A Libyan History Awaiting Discovery - Thomas C. Oden

It's a long series but once it gets underway it's really worth it. In regards African Christianity....on Libyan Christianity..I LOVED it . It was bananas. The other two parts of the series (as seen here and here /here ) are powerful. His book was truly one of the greatest reads I've ever come across.

​

As another reviewer said best, it is a blessing seeing the work of Oden in discussing the ways Africa shaped the faith of believers rather than going with the standard Western view that Africa came "late" on the scene and the true definition of Christianity was a Euro-centric one, often based in imperialism As one reviewer of his book said best:

While he’s no paleontologist or paleobotanist, he has been called a paleo-ologist of a different stripe: a paleo-theologist who’s an evangelical proponent of paleo-orthodoxy. The “guy” of whom I speak is Thomas C. Oden, the general editor of the magisterial Ancient Christian Commentary Series, the author of his magnum opus Classical Christianity (which I hope to get for Christmas), author of a book reminding the Church how Africa shaped the Christian mind, the ever-careful sleuth that brought us a recent book that sets out to recapture the African memory of Mark (of which I wrote a review), and now this ....

But first a question, one Oden asks you the reader to ask of yourself at the beginning of this book: Can I name one Christian teacher or biblical interpreter from Libya? (21)

If not, you’re in good company, even where Oden himself was only two decades ago, which launched him into his current work that’s sought to focus on early African Christianity. It is unfortunate that Christians in general, but especially Christian pastors and scholars, have neglected this important location.

.​

That said, I get suspicious of distinctively Third World or developing world (or underdeveloped world) theologies for a number of reasons.

First, I worry about the Pentecostal, anti-intellectual trend prominent in the Global South. I'm all for experiential theology, but I'm much more sympathetic with attempts to acculturate and enculture within a wider historical memory.

Not really seeing where Pentecostalism was in any way "anti-intellectual" - and growing up within the movement and seeing many scholars/teachers (from Sam Storms to Amos Young in his works to Jon Mark Ruthven, PhD to Dr. Michael Brown and so many others.....including the Methodist Church since much of its roots were with the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement as far back as John Wesley and has been a part of its spread). There is, as I've seen, an anti-intellectualism that is more so focused on mysticism when it comes to not believing one can adequately explain ALL aspects of the Mysterious Divine Godhead and that God does not always do things in formula.....and of course, in other places, I've seen others who didn't care for study and academic rigor. But that is not found in all places, of course and this has been present for some time.

Many of them have done what they did in regards to the wider memory of the Church - which, from what I've studied, was very much close (at specific times) to what one would see in Pentecostalism. For many, what often occurs is that dialogues begin on seeing the wider history of the Church...and understanding on the shapings of history. Spencer Estabrooks (MA, MDiv, is Director of St. Arseny Orthodox Christian Theological Institute) shared some very solid thoughts on the issue in A Continuing Pentecost: The Experience of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Christianity (With a View to Dialogue Between Orthodox Christians and Pentecostals).



For even within the history of the Church, the Fathers had authority over nature. The Fathers raised the dead. They cured the ill. They ascended into the Heavenly Realm and conversed with angels. They went to speak to those who spoke another tongue and found that, without having learned that tongue, they could preach to the people (and this evangelical gift, which allowed the Apostles to spread the message of Christianity, was present in the Early Church). St. Paul even warns those who have it not to cause confusion, but, in order to be consistent with the purpose of the gift—that of witnessing to the Faith—, to use the gift only if interpretation is available. On top of that, there's Miracles, holy relics, healings, missions, icons that stream holy and miraculous oil.

Pentecostals were descended from the Nazarenes who were descended from the Methodists who were encouraged by John Wesley to read the Eastern Church Fathers. As a result, to some extent charismatics partially reflected Orthodox views about the active work of the Holy Spirit. And this is something many keep in mind...

• Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Pentecostalism | Khanya

• Hesychasm and Pentecostalism | OrthoCuban

• Pentecost, Orthodox, and Pentecostals 2012 | OrthoCuban

• The Raven: A Greek Orthodox charismatic?

• St. Symeon the New Theologian : Cup & Cross Ministries

• Gene Mills : The Baptism of Tears: The Two Baptisms of St. Symeon the New Theologian - Quodlibet Journal

• OCL Archives

• Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom - Steven Jack Land - Google Books

What I've also seen is that much of what is present within Pentecostalism globally is similar to Roots Theology - or those who are not always within the world of academia nor seeking to do things as they have always been done when it comes to reaching the unique needs of oppressed groups without access to many things.. Lively pentecostal worship In an Asian context fits the religious expectation of Asians, who see deities as immediately interacting with their worshippers. God is to interact with his worshippers, listening to their prayers, responding to their worship and providing for their needs, which is quite different from the version of Christianity Which western missionaries once propagated, except for Pentecostalism (more here, here and here)

Second, I'm just plain opposed to liberation theology, and there's no other way to put it. I think the anti-/counter-imperial trend in biblical scholarship is an important corrective to depoliticized readings of the Bible (Horsley, Wright, Elliott, Purdue, Portier-Young, etc.). But liberation theology uses a Marxist metanarrative to interpret the text, rather than the text's own imperial context; more to the point, theology is expressly "shaped" in order to meet the immediate needs to church communities.

Although I can understand where you're coming from, what I've seen consistently is that much of Liberation theology never began with a Marxist stance - in fact, many forms of Liberation Theology began with a Capitalist stance of advancement (which is essentially what much of Prosperity Theology in the U.S was about) and others simply come from the perspective of what the scriptures note when it comes to valuing the poor. The dynamic of assuming Marxism is often done in stereotype rather than addressing what each group is actually saying - and ultimately, there are aspects of the theological system that can land either on Capitalism's arguments or Marxism's arguments...or Socialism's arguments. At the end of the day, it comes down to whether or not God favors the Poor and values them coming out of poverty rather than letting others oppress them - and this is something many in the Early Church noted LONG before Marx came along.

I go back and forth on the issue as well.....

But I tend to check myself when realizing that all people have utilized an economic metanarrative when reading the text of scripture. It's one of the reasons so many are having issue with the current Pope in his understanding....​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That whole idea that theology needs to be shaped in order to meet the needs of communities extends beyond liberation theology and into a problem that extends beyond the Global South and into affluent American society. The reason it concerns me in a developing world context, however, is that there isn't the countervailing tradition of careful, sober, peer-reviewed scholarship to keep that mass, lay impulse in check.

I think one has to first examine what the whole of scripture says before claiming that theology is shaped according to the needs of communities - for this is something that Christ and the Early Church/Prophets spoke on when it came to the issue of theological forms of ministry varying based on the age and the time.

And sometimes, due to differences (As my friend noted best), it was deemed "bad theology."

Doing Bad Theology - YouTube​

Miracles didn't always happen in every age - as the time would've required focus on economic concerns (As with the Book of Amos) .....while at other times fire came from heaven as with the Prophets like Elijah - and other times, the dead were raised or God answered dreams. With the 3rd world, many often assume there's no careful or sober/peer-reviewed scholarship going on because others go past boundaries they are comfortable with - yet the reality of the matter is that the boundaries they placed up were ones others BEFORE them felt were past what others needed to be in check.

Something being different doesn't always mean that it needs to be placed in check...and sometimes, it is the reach of others trying to control it that can be what really needs to be checked.

this isn't to say that there is no scholarly tradition in the Global South (that would be ridiculous), or that the myriad of rich cultures should have to accommodate themselves to western norms (equally ridiculous).

More than understand and thanks for clarifying

Obviously, one should never expect a Bantu tribesman to worship in the style of a seventeenth century Englishman (although equally one should also not expect that said Bantu tribesman could never understand traditional Anglican worship or appreciate its transcendent character). But I think that, largely because of the Pentecostal influence in the Global South as well as the history of indigenous prophet-messiahs of African Zionism, there's been a tendency to ignore Africa's indigenous liturgical heritage in favor of what is essentially American-style worship with African instruments.

I think something that we have to be careful on - especially with liturgical heritage - is assuming that was the ONLY form of worship the Church knew of. Of course, Bantu can appreciate the Anglican or Oriental Orthodox liturgical heritage and how it transcends.

And yet for those having a PILGRIM lifestyle, it is equally transcendent when seeing others who don't have a sedentary lifestyle. The Mbuti Pygmies come to mind in contrast to the Bantu - although the Bantu have also been nomadic (due more so to being forced).

And with individual Bantu worshiping God on the run alongside others who are naturally nomadic, there are many ways that liturgy is not as possible as when being in a remote area....and yet worship in that form can be just as transcendent. People ended up making sanctuaries out of caves at one point as well as trees...and there were ways of making things like liturgy adapative to traveling lifestyles.

But with transformation of practice, I think we should consider the pilgrim aspect natural to many Indigenious people groups. Pilgrims used to live in Biblical times (aware of God's presence everywhere) and still do in other parts of the world. Berbers come to mind in their nomadic lifestyle and seeing what's really necessary...

And the travel aspect was respected seeing that the OT showed where David was used to make two different worship centers due to the aspect of pilgrim lifestyles

The patriarch model (the Pre-Mosaic model) must be kept in mind when it comes to what the Messiah took people back to - as they were models of community apart from the Temple Model and the Tabernacle model first given in the Mosaic Law (Exodus 25-36, Exodus 38 , Exodus 39, Exodus 40, Leviticus 8, Leviticus 17 , Numbers 1:52-54 /Numbers 1 , Numbers 3 , Numbers 4, Numbers 9 , Numbers 10 , Numbers 16:8-10 , Numbers 19:12-14 )...one where much travel was involved. Some are of the mindset that the synagouge concept (as it was not outlined within scripture as a command) was meant to be something that could evolve with the times (seen here/here/here )....and one that eventually did when Jewish believers were being kicked out of synagouges for their faith.....with them having to learn how to live mobile just as Christ did.

The early church seemed based more so on a Patriarchal model as well as a tabernacle model ....often accussed of not supporting Temple.
Jews in the Diaspora had to deal with many things in the absence of a Temple - and thus, with the coming of the Holy Spirit and the rise of the synagogue model, those believers ("forerunners of Pau" as they've been called) were able to be in position as priests of the Lord. In many respects, the believers of the NT era ended up having a patriarch model of ministry - a Bedouin model of travel and carrying God's presence with them which the Diaspora prepared them for - and the concept of transformation was behind why so many had severe issue with the believers in the NT. Many had the mindset of "No!!! God's throne/temple can ONLY be in Jerusalem" - The example of Stephen comes to mind, as he refuted the final charge, that he has spoken improperly against the Temple (Acts 6:13-14), by showing that it was the people, not God, who wanted a dwelling place or house more substantial than the Tent of Witness or "Tabernacle" originally authorized in the Torah ( Acts 7:43-45 ). The concept of the temple came into more view under the life of David---as seen in 2 Samuel 7:1-3 and 2 Samuel 7 ( 1 Chronicles 6:31-33/1 Chronicles 6, 1 Chronicles 22:4-6, 1 Chronicles 23:25-27 , and 1 Chronicles 24-26 )- --- when it came to his desire for a physical temple for God. The Lord conceded....and of course, the centralized location of Temple had its benefits---especially as it concerned management. There were many benefits to having a mobile place of God's dwelling..and its something that's often discussed for reference today when it comes to the concept of Simple/Organic and Missional Church....a church that's based on the concept that church is not a building as much as the people/God's prescence within us. The Lord would often go places/not preach at all because of what His Spirit BROUGHT in (i.e healings, miracles, deliverance, etc), some of it similar to a good old fashion Tent Revival when seeing how the Lord sometimes ended up doing deliverance ministry/laying hands on people for hours rather than preaching

Although he often preached in synagogues, it was never done to establish a case against preaching in other formats.. Jesus and the apostles frequently taught in synagogues (Matt. 4:23; Lk. 4:15; Luke 6:6; Luke 13:10, etc). However, Jesus did use synagogues to teach against Jewish traditions that were inaccurate and he spoke in synagouge on misconceptions about the Law. In one of the more notable of these passages the Jews became so angry over what Jesus taught in the Synagogue that they tried to kill Him (Luke 4:16-29). Luke 13:10-17 also records an occasion on which Jesus taught in a synagogue, but people were also upset with Him there. In fact, this passage shows that Jesus debated in the synagogue.

Because of who Christ was and what He represented, he was often kicked out of synagogues...and the same went for his followers, as synagogue members were excommunicated for believing that Jesus was the Messiah (Jn. 9:22; John 12:42; John 16:2).

It is because of those factors that Christ often went to the mountains or the fields and preached in the places that could be accessible for all....in the same way that many churches do so today. His preaching in synagouge was indeed beautiful - as well as ministry in the Temple - but it was not His focus when it came to preaching wherever he could to bring people to Him For more info on the issue, one can go online and consider investigating the following:

• " Church and Culture: The Church as a Third Place"

• "Toward a Missional Spirituality. - Missional Spirituality -short" ( )

• "Darrell Guder: Image of Temple vs Tabernacle :Missional Church Network" ( )

In regards to Acts 7, Stephen seems to make the case that the Temple (as the Jews knew of it) was inferior to the Tabernacle..as seen in the case in Acts 7. And others in the Missional Camp have noted how the Temple didn't have as much significance in the NT church with Jewish believers as it did with those in mainline Judaism. For we read that they met in homes, sure, but they also had a “third” place they seemed to frequent on a daily basis – the temple courts (Acts 2:46). While they may have been there to engage in actual temple worship on a daily basis ( Acts 3:1), it is more likely they turned the temple courtyard into the equivalent of a first-century "Starbucks" in order to gather as a community (e.g., Acts 5:12)...in honor of what God did in making them His new temple.

For the many who live in the outdoors, living in a very earthy manner that would make them feel highly uncomfortable in a remote setting...and for them, they'd probably prefer the nomadic/travelling lifestyle that the Patriarchs and ancient Israel had when living outside in tents (Genesis 25 ,Genesis 13:4-6 , Numbers 1:51-53 )/farming and raising herds.


Even those outside of Israel - as it concerns altars made - were accepted in their worship of the Lord - noted with Naaman the Syrian. Even others revered in Judaic culture such as Naaman the Syrian had similar experiences:

II Kings 5:1-22
15 Then Naaman and all his attendants went back to the man of God. He stood before him and said, “Now I know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel. So please accept a gift from your servant.”

16 The prophet answered, “As surely as the Lord lives, whom I serve, I will not accept a thing.” And even though Naaman urged him, he refused.

17 “If you will not,” said Naaman, “please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord. 18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”
19 “Go in peace,” Elisha said.
​

Naaman - under the impression that Israel's God can only be worshipped in the land of Israel/sacred territory - asked for dirt since it was necessary to create a "miniature Israel" in Syria - and of course, the question of how God could be worshiped in a foreign land became a serious one for Israel during the exile (Psalm 137:4)....but the reality of the matter is that actions were done symbolically because of what they symbolized. Two mules' burden of earth— Dirt with which to make an altar (Ex 20:24) Someone could have easily claimed Naaman wanted to worship dirt - but that was not his intention.

Moreover, when he bowed, he knew the intent behind what he was doing - even though others around him had differing views. There was simply a view of sacredness not being limited by location. And For those Jewish communities in existence today that are adapted to a nomadic lifestyle, to hear of synagouge being mandatory for true fellowship/sharing of the scriptures is foreign to them. They are in the same camp as other Jewish groups (As well as the patriarchs) who traveled extensively and lived off the land..

And in multiple respects, they are closer to the spirit of the Patriarchs ( Be it Noah in Genesis 8:20 OR Job especially since he lived in the land to the East ) - which Christ understood/reflected - when it came to making worship mobile with altars/honoring him.

Job 1
Job’s Character and Wealth

5 When the days of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would send and consecrate them,rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually.




​

 

[Thekla]

You can both correct me, as it's been decades since I've read on Liberation Theology -
but I had the impression that these theologians used Marx's economic analysis of Capitalism (and in fact not a few viable non-Marxist economists think Marx's analysis is valid), but stopped there.

I do recall in the 80s not a few Mennonites being labelled "Marxists" and "Communists" for just helping the poor in Central America

 

[Gxg (G²)]

But shouldn't, say, the ancient liturgy of the Ethiopian church be more ready to inform the creation of a Bantu liturgy that is fully Bantu, yet fully married to the ancient heritage of the church, rather than creating de novo a "worship service" drawn primarily from the American evangelical heritage?

When it comes to Indigenious forms of worship, not all who were Bantu ever based what they did solely on what American Evangelicals were concerned for. This has a double-effect, of course, as American Evangelicals are concerned when the Bantu (as an example) don't care to repeat what they do with Western styles of worship and instead stay true to what they grew up with - and those in liturgical circles assume the Bantu are simply like Evangelicals since their mindset is that anything not liturgically based is not in support of what the Apostles or the Church were for - when many Bantu are in the same camp as the Samaritan woman or other Gentiles who differed from Israel in their worship styles.

Of course, there can be appreciation and awareness of the ancient heritage of the Church - but as it concerns creation, to do so is not always a negative in light of how there was already precedent set for that within the Body of believers ....things today differing DRASTICALLY in many ways from how they were always done. "Otis Moss III did an excellent presentation on the matter - although it was from the perspective of the digital age.

God, Google and iPods: Digital Faith and Analog Religion​

As he noted best, "Just because there are airplanes doesn't mean you remove highways - and likewise, there's no need for the thought that just because new technologies/modes of communication occur doesn't mean that you dismiss older ways of doing so or feel threatened by the new as if it cannot work together."

Very amazing how he connected Biblical concepts with practical realities - and he also shared the same issue as it concerns music - in light of the ways that music is gathered from differing cultures and enjoyed...even though people often choose to say they don't want to learn anything from the cultures/religions that the music comes from - engaging in pluralistic dialogue and at the same time not realizing it when they demonize those differing from them...as seen in "Otis Moss III: Understanding Faith through Jazz - YouTube" ( )

And within scripture, we do see many instances of where even Christ left others alone to do ministry in unique ways at times while he worked with other groups - and yet that was a part of his plan to later connect groups together while also making room for more advancement (more shared here and As another noted best on the situation of Luke 9:49-51 ).

As said elsewhere, it'd be interesting to see how many apostles may've been present that we do not know about - almost as if they're "unsung heros" like soldiers in battle you never hear of due to the missions they were given (many covert and special operations) and often living lives no one knew of because they were in the background....yet the ones who were seen get all the credit for making the mission successful.

There are times other leaders have too much image/prestige to do certain things in other venues...and thus, it's beneficial to have other leaders who are less public" than others

As mentioned earlier, the man in Luke 9 (who was casting out demons in the name of Christ) comes immediately to mind For we have no idea of the fullness of what Christ did with others OUTSIDE of the 12 - and we shouldn't be surprised that He did things. For some who he utilized as missionaries of His Gospel, they were not allowed to be seen publically with the apostles wherever he went. In example, with the Demoniac he healed - as Jesus sent him away with purpose. ...for as the text says, “ As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him.19 Jesus did not let him, but said, Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” (Mark 5:19 / Mark 5:1 /Mark 5:20 ). The next time Jesus came to the region, there were some 4,000 others waiting to hear from Him (Mark 7:31/Mark 8.1). ..and the man, as a Gentile, did what he did in reaching OTHER Gentiles where they were at/telling them of Jesus in a way Gentiles could understand. Surely this man played a key role in creating this second scene by his faithful witness. And yet you have to wonder - was there any follow up with the man and the Lord? Surely there had to have been some sort of encouragement for him in his work if he struggled - and as the Lord is able to communicate with others beyond speaking one on one/in person, I'd not be surprised if Christ had dialouges with him via the Holy Spirit or messengers while the other apostles were busy doing other things.

There was the reality that the Lord works with others in differing ways - regardless of where they are at....and scripture doesn't have to always record all the details.

And yet within that comes the reality of how we're all still meant to have community as a Body of Christ (I Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, etc.).

Many Indigineous communities glorify the Lord outside of a liturgical focus - and it works well for the communities they live in.

Revelation 12:11
They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.
Revelation 12:10-12
​

[/quote]
[/INDENT]Testimony is something that makes a world of difference when believers gather - and not just those from times past (as in the case of the Early Church) but in times dealing with the present/Today.

G
Ephesians 5:18-20
18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 3:16
Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

These verses have always fascinated me. In my understanding, the “Word of Christ” probably refers to the teaching about Christ as well as the words of Christ himself, which were apart of the oral traditions passed on to believers in the early years after Christ ascended to Heaven, before the Gospels had been written. Although the early Christians had access to the OT/Torah and freely used it, they did not yet have the New Testament or any other Christian books to study. Their stories and teachings about Christ were memorized and passed on from person to person. Sometimes the teachings were set to music and so music became an important part of Christian worship and education. Nonetheless, there was still a dynamic involved where the “hymns/psalms” were considered to be just what they were even when there WAS no music.

It’d be like someone speaking spoken word/poetry—essentially using their words that they have—to encourage me…and never realizing that it was a form of WORSHIP to God. For they through their words “infected” me with something I needed to hear. The issue of “being filled with the Spirit” seems significant from what I can understand since being filled with the spirit should result in joyful praise through singing and making melody. From what I've been able to understand thus far, this may refer to differing kinds of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. Found in the OT Psalter...although it could also be that Paul is referring both to the canonical psalms and to comtemporary compositions of praise.

Corporate wosrship has a teaching function through the lyrics of its songs..and this was paticurlary important in the oral culture of Paul’s day....and yet there was the reality that many times it was not “corporate” in the sense that everyone was looking to one person doing all of the work….especially in times when that was not available.

The apostles could not always be there to teach the people---and as said before, many times they'd teach the members of a church and then leave elsewhere to another church that'd take months to get to. There was not NKJV Bible they could refer to, let alone many of the epistles combined that we have available today. Thus, essentially, there really wasn’t a concept of “well, lets look for the worship leader!!!" when someone was discouraged and you wanted to encourage them. You were the Worship leader. You were the sermon. And you spread what you knew. Seeing that worship is also a matter of how you live your life before others in view of God(Romans 12)—as everything we do is to be done unto the Glory of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 10:30-32 / Colossians 3:16-18 ) , that’s pretty heavy in my view. The way that information was spread was not merely through reading alone.....and in many ways, its symbolic of how we're to be when it comes to the Gospels of Christ and His message.

A quote that comes to mind is by Seth Godwin, who is a marketing guru and who coined the phrase “ideaviruses” to try and articulate hyberbolic growth in relation to marketing and ideas in general. In his conception, “an ideavirus is a big idea that runs amok across the target audience.” It’s a fashionable idea that captures the thinking and imagination of a section of the population, teaching and influencing and changing everyone it touches. As Godwin said best, “Have you ever heard of Hotmail? Ever used it? If so, its not because Hotmail ran a lot of TV Ads (they didn’t). It’s because the manifesto of free email got to you. It turned into an ideavirus. Someone you know and trust probably infected you with it.” Just like a computer virus can spread through the Internet and jam the world’s computers in one we, so an idea virus is contagious..in precisely the same way that a virus does. The Gospel, which we all claim to believe, travels like a virus…..being “sneezed” and then passed on through further sneezing from one person to the other. All that’s needed is the right conditions and the appropriate relationships onto which we can “sneeze”.


The example of Paul and Silas come to mind in Acts 16:24-26 /Acts 16 when they were in prision and they began to sing hymns/psalms. They didn't have a "Bible" with them (though the Word was certainly in their hearts)---and in light of their lack, they decided to begin singing. Admid their suffering Paul and Silas were miraculously freed from their confinement.. and God did an amazing work that led to others being saved.

G
Acts 16:16-34
Paul and Silas in Prison




After they had been severely flogged, they were thrown into prison, and the jailer was commanded to guard them carefully. 24 When he received these orders, he put them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks.

25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everyone’s chains came loose.

These are things which orally-based cultures - from Indigenious groups in the 3rd world to what occurred with the Black Church with Negro Spirituals - all understand and have utilized to their success. Whereas people in the West or outside of those cultures think the people are somehow backward or not intelligent for not always placing things in a SYSTEMATIC form of theology, they are HIGHLY intelligent and able to connect with others because they know the language of their own people.

And here I come full circle, back to where I started: I absolutely love the phenomenon of Christianity in the Global South and am quite excited about where it is going. But I'm more excited about trends in biblical scholarship (counter-imperial readings) and early Christian history (that are no longer focused solely on the church fathers, but on women, the poor, and people outside the boundaries of the Roman and Byzantine empires), and I think those are important controls for the development of genuinely African and Asian Christianities.

Can more than understand and thanks for noting it. I look forward to much of the same..

In fact, most of my criticisms and concerns surrounding the development of Global Southern Christianity is that they only look genuinely indigenous, but in fact owe more to Marxism and its nineteenth century German metanarrative (liberation theology) or a revival movement that began on Azusa Street in LA (Pentecostalism

The reality of Global Southern Christianity, of course, goes back far beyond Azusa Street or Marxism - and many things prior to both echoed the same. Thus, I have to process on the issue...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You can both correct me, as it's been decades since I've read on Liberation Theology - but I had the impression that these theologians used Marx's economic analysis of Capitalism (and in fact not a few viable non-Marxist economists think Marx's analysis is valid), but stopped there.

That's indeed what many within Liberation Theology do when it comes to the dynamic of analysis.

And of course, with Marx, it's interesting to consider that many do not consider something said if it was associated with Marx - even though not all things Marx noted were opposed to scripture (just as not all things noted in the colonial or imperial/capitalistic model were wrong when seeing what scripture said on the Kingdom of God or Christus Victor view and other things).

I do recall in the 80s not a few Mennonites being labelled "Marxists" and "Communists" for just helping the poor in Central America

Wow..

Any specific examples that come to mind as in the names of the groups?

 

[Thekla]

That's indeed what many within Liberation Theology do when it comes to the dynamic of analysis.

And of course, with Marx, it's interesting to consider that many do not consider something said if it was associated with Marx - even though not all things Marx noted were opposed to scripture (just as not all things noted in the colonial or imperial/capitalistic model were wrong when seeing what scripture said on the Kingdom of God or Christus Victor view and other things).

I think it was Yannaras who called (as in systems, not analysis) Capitalism a secular distortion of Calvinism, and Marxism a secular distortion of Eastern Christianity.

Wow..

Any specific examples that come to mind as in the names of the groups?

The Mennonite Groups do you mean ?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Wow, thank you so much for such learned and informative responses.

The fact is, everything I posted is really just "first impressions" in the grand scheme of things. I definitely need to do more reading, and your posts are a great place to start (absolutely going to listen to that lecture series by Thomas Oden!). I recently ordered off Amazon a copy of Samuel Hugh Moffett's two-volume History of Christianity in Asia, and I really want to read Justo Gonzalez's Christianity in Latin America (which is currently in my Amazon shopping cart but it could be awhile). If you have any comparable suggestions for African Christianity I'd love to hear it- I'm aware of Isichei and Hastings, but another more would be appreciated.

Without responding to everything you have written (which I'd really like to when I have the time), I will say that the one thing I'll stand by is my reading of Liberation Theology as using Marx's historical metanarrative. That's not to say liberation theologians necessarily advocate Marxism as a solution to global and existential problems, but that they, as Thekla said, employ Marx's understanding of capitalism and his material dialectic of history to understanding the social issues facing the Global South. And she also mentioned, not only political Marxists/communists agree with Marx's understanding of history; Francis Fukuyama, the neoliberal political writer, has a very similar "Hegelian" understanding of dialectical materialism. And in any case, for liberation theologians, the solution isn't proletarian seizure of the means of production, but the consistent and systematic application Christian social teaching (both biblical and Catholic) throughout economic and social systems.

My problem with this is that 1. Marx's understanding of capitalism and the material dialectic is just plain wrong and has been shown to be wrong since the revolution succeeded in Russia instead of Germany (even non-communist Marxist historians will admit this much, e.g., Fukuyama, who sees liberal democratic capitalism as the final stage in the dialectic), 2. the Scriptures and the Christian theological tradition presents not only a distinctively Christian/biblical solution to social/historical/personal problems but also have their own interpretation of the problems to be addressed, and 3. the attempt to pair up Marx's analysis of the problems with the global economy with a genuinely biblical solution necessarily colors one's reading of the biblical solution, and in my mind colors it to the point of distortion.

That's why I noted that I do think there is a genuinely counter-/anti-imperial strand in New Testament thought, because I think before we address problems in the world today, we need to understand not only the biblical answers to problems, but the biblical and social problems they actually faced. I don't think liberation theologians have done that with any satisfaction. They were good theologians in the sense that they wanted to address current problems with biblical solutions, but they were bad biblical scholars because they wanted to do so without understanding the ancient problems the biblical texts addressed (and, I would add, they were terrible economists and their analysis of the problems- genuine problems- were fundamentally flawed). Now that that scholarship is being done, I think we're in a much better position to actually read biblical texts on social justice and through that reading apply them to current situations; at the same time, Christians are still divided by different "readings" of the current situations facing people both in the developed, developing, and underdeveloped world. The biblical imperative to care for the poor, marginalized, and oppressed doesn't actually help us understand the reasons why people in the contemporary world are poor, marginalized, and oppressed, and in that sense provides us with no concrete solutions. The solutions that worked to address the problems of ancient suzerain-vasslage systems of patronage, absentee landownership, and international taxation simply will not work to effect social justice in today's Global South. And thus, just as for understanding ancient problems and biblical solutions we need good history and good biblical scholarship, addressing today's problems will require developing solutions through good history and good economics.

OK, so perhaps all of that was a minor point. But it's one that, as a political science major in undergrad and a student of early Christianity and Judaism is near and dear to my heart.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think it was Yannaras who called (as in systems, not analysis) Capitalism a secular distortion of Calvinism, and Marxism a secular distortion of Eastern Christianity.

Interesting.

What were the specific reasons as to why Yannaras called Capitalism what he did and Marxism what he did as well?

The Mennonite Groups do you mean ?

Yep

 

[Thekla]

Interesting.

What were the specific reasons as to why Yannaras called Capitalism what he did and Marxism what he did as well?

Iirc -the focus on the individual in salvation, and the particular means of identifying God's favor in Calvinism, and the focus on salvation being of the body of Christ (not the individual) and thus contribution measured by effect on community in the east.

Yep

Most of the programs I was aware of were run through the Mennonite Central Committee; the function where I first heard this charge mentioned was attended by Mennonites from several local Churches as well as other Christians who (per my observation) were largely affiliated with supporting Pat Robertson's run for president. (The event was known as the "Ollie North Slide Show"; we were invited by a Mennonite friend.)

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Iirc -the focus on the individual in salvation, and the particular means of identifying God's favor in Calvinism, and the focus on salvation being of the body of Christ (not the individual) and thus contribution measured by effect on community in the east.

Collectivism, in a sense?

Most of the programs I was aware of were run through the Mennonite Central Committee; the function where I first heard this charge mentioned was attended by Mennonites from several local Churches as well as other Christians who (per my observation) were largely affiliated with supporting Pat Robertson's run for president. (The event was known as the "Ollie North Slide Show"; we were invited by a Mennonite friend.)

Interesting. Pat Robertson is a trip, by the way....

 

[xTx]

To whom it may concern,

I pray what I've said makes sense - for it is something I've had to wonder on for a long time....and if anyone (paticularly those who themselves are minorities ) has either felt similarly or had the same thoughts, I'd love to hear.

Do you feel perspectives of those who are either Black - be it with Protestants or Catholics - have been ignored? And how to go about addressing the issue?

Shalom

Hi Gxg,

I actually never really thought about this topic before. Yes, I am a minority.

But, where I am from my race forms the majority.

A priest explained why there are churches for different races of Catholics.

During the British days, before independence, the Cathedrals are for the caucasian and eurasian Catholics only. If you are coloured, you are not welcome.

By the time, I came into the world, I was brought up without racist ideology.

However, I have noticed, even people who do not think they are racist are racist.

They then to stereotype people with their racist prejudice perspective.

Back to the priest explanation - the reason why there are churches for different race of Catholics other than racism is language.

Not everybody is fluent in English, therefore, today, the only reason for race based Catholic churches is the language barrier.

However, churches with the capabilities try their best to accommodate the various races. A church can have masses in many languages and you just select which Mass you wish to attend.

I tried attending a mass that was not in English, I gave up.

However, I have attended Mass in Thailand before, it was beautiful. The priest had translated his homily and all the readings into English. I emailed him informing him of the date I will be attending Mass at his little Thai Catholic church

And, in my country, the Church admin. is very open to all the different races who practise Catholicism.

At least, here, gone are the days of racism in the church. Probably it could be because all our priests are from the major minority races

Yup, I am proud to say, Catholicism in my country is so established, we do not need to import priests. We have our own.

Yes, we do have a growing Black Catholic community, they like all of us, are heard by our Catholic church. Nobody is left out because of race.

Our Catholic church even flies priests from Africa to say Mass for us.

I have a hard time understanding what they say because they speak English with an African accent. What I understand is that in Africa, Christianity is really happening.

God bless.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Wow, thank you so much for such learned and informative responses.

Glad to know it was a blessing to and for you...

The fact is, everything I posted is really just "first impressions" in the grand scheme of things. I definitely need to do more reading, and your posts are a great place to start (absolutely going to listen to that lecture series by Thomas Oden!).

Thinking the lecture series by Thomas Oden would really bless you a lot - as well as a couple of his other works..

I recently ordered off Amazon a copy of Samuel Hugh Moffett's two-volume History of Christianity in Asia, and I really want to read Justo Gonzalez's Christianity in Latin America (which is currently in my Amazon shopping cart but it could be awhile). If you have any comparable suggestions for African Christianity I'd love to hear it- I'm aware of Isichei and Hastings, but another more would be appreciated.

I LOVE the work of Justo Gonzalez and the ways he is able to break down so many things pertaining to Church history. I actually have his completed series on Church history (entitled The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Present Day )

As it concerns excellent reads on African Christianity, I'd suggest going here for more review. one excellent work I'm going through is entitled Africa and the Bible by Edwin M. Yamauchi and Kenneth Kitchen which was given to me by another student of Early Judaism/Hebraic history....fascinating read on the ways that Africa was highly prominent within the culture of the Hebrews, with more than 80 photos, maps, and charts included in this insightful exploration of the African presence in Scripture.

​

Outside of that, Philip Jenkins did an excellent study on African Christianity in The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died ...and the works of Oden are amongst the best. I especially enjoyed How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind: Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity from 2007.

Outside of that (as it concerns the impact of African Christianity globally), I'd also recommend Dread Jesus by William Spencer (of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary)...

There's also the excellent work known as "Unbroken Circle" (mentioned earlier)

Without responding to everything you have written (which I'd really like to when I have the time), I will say that the one thing I'll stand by is my reading of Liberation Theology as using Marx's historical metanarrative. That's not to say liberation theologians necessarily advocate Marxism as a solution to global and existential problems, but that they, as Thekla said, employ Marx's understanding of capitalism and his material dialectic of history to understanding the social issues facing the Global South. And she also mentioned, not only political Marxists/communists agree with Marx's understanding of history; Francis Fukuyama, the neoliberal political writer, has a very similar "Hegelian" understanding of dialectical materialism. And in any case, for liberation theologians, the solution isn't proletarian seizure of the means of production, but the consistent and systematic application Christian social teaching (both biblical and Catholic) throughout economic and social systems.

Although I can understand your stance, likewise, I'd still have to stand very much by mine. Within Liberation Theology, there are many variations....always have been....and although they do believe in changing society with Christian social teaching on all levels as have many groups since the dawn of the Early Church, many simply do not hold a view according to Marx when it comes to their understanding of how to liberate the poor - even though other liberation theologians have such mindsets.

One coming immediately to mind is Jung Mo Sung. He teaches at both a Methodist and a Catholic university in Sao Paulo and although he writes in Portugese, some of his books are now being translated into English. One I am wishing to investigate (based on good reviews) is Desire, Market and Religion in the Reclaiming Liberation Theology series published by SCM Press (2007). Sung is said to be associated intellectually with the DEI school of social analysis centered in Costa Rica.

For a quote from Desire, Market and Religion - indicating the difference from traditional liberation theology which should be obvious (to those familiar with it):

To affirm the existence of the excluded, the fundamental dignity of them all, and to hear their clamour and to witness—with the visible presence of the Church in the midst of the poor in concrete struggles on their behalf—that God is among them, is the best way of denying the absolutizing of the market, of unveiling concretely and practically its limits. However, to deny the idolatry of the market and to show its limits is not to deny the market in an absolute way—that would be reverse idolatry. What we need is an adjustment of the market in line with the objective of a dignified and enjoyable life for all human beings. And, for that, the option for the poor, with all that it means, continues to be a privileged way for Church and Christians in their mission of witnessing their faith in the God who wishes “that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10.10)​

It is more than clear that Sung pulls no punches in his critique of the neoliberal ideology that is driven by Social Darwinism and results in “necessary sacrifices”—the subhuman existences of many for the sakes of the affluence of some. And yet the form of liberation theology he advocates is VASTLY different from others who advocated things on the basis of what Marx pointed out. There was another work similar to it that Roger Olson did an excellent review of called The Economy of Desire (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/godless-capitalism/ ) by Lutheran theologian Daniel M. Bell, Jr....where Bell discussed how contemporary world capitalism (not to be confused with private property and entrepreneurship in general) idolizes the free market and demonizes government interference (e.g., regulation via anti-monopoly laws and redistribution of wealth via taxes on profit, income and inheritance, etc.) - a capitalism which might better be called “corporatism” since it governmentalizes the free market by making governments its servants.

But with Sung, he and certain other new generation liberation theologians do not demonize capitalism or advocate for socialism as being the solution since they suggest mixed economies, ad hoc economies, not driven by ideology but by concern for the common good including the marginalized and excluded. According to Sung, he feels that “Our spirituality must not only unmask the neoliberal ideology that cements the prevailing excluding system, but also must contribute to the formulation of new guidelines for the creation of new institutions and techniques.” (p. 98) - something he also expands on by forbidding any idolizing of “human and historical possibilities”—including ones developed by liberationists.

Another one to read outside of Sung would beJoao Chaves in Evangelicals and Liberation Revisited .

And for historical focus, there's also Marcus Garvey, who was considered the the paramount Liberation theologian ahead of his time for his advocacy for helping blacks in their economic struggles - even though his focus was based on addressing things from a Capitalistic perspective and helping blacks develop property while also advocating seperatism so that the poor in black communities could actually be helped rather than doing things on the terms of oppressors (more shared here and here )

As said before, one has to deal with the fact that Prosperity Theologies and Liberation Theologies are interconnected (with emphasis on differing lens) - some who are against Marx being exactly for Liberation theology when it comes to advocating for the oppressed and seeking to liberate them into prosperous ways of lives....and while some advocate that from a Marx's critique of capitalism, others do so from other ends - and others advocate based on what they see in the scriptures when it comes to communities that were financially generous, stable and interconnected with one another.

There was actually another discussion elsewhere that addressed the issue on what modern-day groups are currently doing when it comes to their support of liberation theology and yet being economically stable - as they emulate what was found in Acts 2 and have seen many radical results when trying to honor what the OT noted on the poor/impoverished...as seen in the thread entitled Byzantine Bills/Gift Economy: What Religious Empire had the Best Economic System? (more here, here).

Thus, one must be careful when making claims of what Liberation theologians advocate since it's often like asking what the shape of an ocean wave looks like - they are not all the same and one must make a case by case basis. Ultimately, where many are today is a pragmatic liberation theology willing to accept the reality of market-driven economics while being unwilling to accept is the reality of poverty excused by neoliberals as “necessary sacrifice.” And thus, people who criticize and attack liberation theology as “communistic,” “Marxist,” or other terms are ones I do think need to take more time to examine exactly what people say BEFORE giving labels on them.

 

[Thekla]

Collectivism, in a sense?

Perhaps. But certainly the living sense of the two greatest commandments.
(And, at least as I knew it in family, the idea that the success of the individual was "measured" in their contribution to the community per the measure of their particular ability.)

Interesting. Pat Robertson is a trip, by the way....

The whole event was a bit of a trip for me

The Mennonites were attending as a "silent opposition" (polite, but not clapping etc.). Most were as if not more conservatively dressed as those who attended out of agreement or enthusiasm, and also mostly of the same age group - 40s on. It was hard to "pick them out" from the others, except for watching reactions, the lack of affirmation, the questions after the presentation, and not signing the "Run, Pat, Run" petition. It was instructive to hear them called Communists

 

[Gxg (G²)]

My problem with this is that 1. Marx's understanding of capitalism and the material dialectic is just plain wrong and has been shown to be wrong since the revolution succeeded in Russia instead of Germany (even non-communist Marxist historians will admit this much, e.g., Fukuyama, who sees liberal democratic capitalism as the final stage in the dialectic), .

On the first point (concerning Marx's stance), I do think that there's a lot lacking when saying that all things Marx noted in his analysis were wrong....and being on both sides of the fence, I don't say that lightly.

There has never truly been a "Free Market" since it takes limitations on things to keep things from getting out of control - and depending on protection others get, you can often have it where others are sabotaged and only those with the connections can advance. And get as much as possible while taking from others..

Essentially, what you end up with is Vulture Capitalism ( #2/#116 /#110 / #161 #168 ) where you build your wealth by raping other places/taking what you wish (Mafia Style) and working with it to build something else - and the other form of Capitalism that does damage is Corporate Capitalism (or Crony Capitalism). Ultimately, it is indeed a matter of Neo-Feudalism - as Sister Thekla and I discussed elsewhere( #396 ,#398 , #406 ) ...and thus, the U.S is just as bad as anything it demonizes in Communism. The Drug Trade is but one example of the glories of Capitalism...



There were always others who saw the USSR mirroring the U.SA in the fact that both had differing ideologies (one for capitalism predominately and the other for capitalism ) and yet both of them did much of the same thing - with good and bad occurring in both areas and each having periods where the way they developed in one area was truly beneficial but later became extremely corrupted in time...and all of that due to how men are falliable and can corrupt any idea/system.

And I've been intrigued seeing the ways that there are differing levels of Communsit thought (just as it is with Capitalist thought) and seen other Orthodox note where they supported things like anarcho-communism and even felt that the Byzantine Empire itself was Communist on multiple levels ( #29 #57, #66 , #68 #78, #82 , #86 , #89, #17 / and #16 ) - and historically, with many in the African American community, they were hard workers/patriots and yet they either worked with Communist organizations aiding the community when others didn't (as Martin Luther King did, #51 )...or they themselves were COmmunists (more shared here in #46 , . The communist label often seems to generate a lot of controversy where they may be none due to the image that others have when thinking on the U.S.S.R and Stalin - even though that wasn't the representation for all forms of it just like the crazy (as seen in #64 )/greedy folks who got insanely rich and ruthless with the poor during the Industrial Revolution aren't what others define as all capitalist.

For Orthodox Church memebers in Cuba who support their government/politics (if part of the revolutionary spirit that was a part of their history), they are pretty interesting to study.

Most people are already fearful of socialism in any/all forms because they think of the U.S.S.R and assume that communism began with socialism. But that's not necessary, IMHO, when considering the many variation of socialism just as there are variations of capitalism One form of socialism that's often not discussed is the Bottoms-Up kind where people take action themselves, from the bottom up instead of being directed by small elites, top down. It can be seen as a forn of communalism.....and technically, as much as many capitalists say socialists want the government to have more control, it's always interesting how much the government is used to look out for/enforce the interests of the big buisnesses---especially when certain people in government will favor (via lobbying) some buisnesses more so than others and effectively have a socialism for the rich. ..and a capitalism for the poor where resources are taken and people are still told to compete with each other/do their best.

And as it concerns the dynamic of revolutions succeeding, for many countries that were communists, it was never the case that it was ever 100% communist - as the economics allowed them to keep communist ideology while also having markets to a limited degree. In example, China has long been an economic giant - even in times where it has not sought to play by the rules - and has advanced in a myriad of ways since Deng Xiaoping brought China into limited capitalist-socialist hybrid territory while retaining their Communist Ethos ( #68 ) - State Capitalism - and it has allowed them to reach the point where they are really the ones who are calling A LOT of the shots in the Economic world...including our own debt/tabs. They are already tied to the history of the U.S in its economic success due to how China even extended its reach in the U.S to help build much of what made U.S expansion possibly in the first place....as seen in the ways that China supplied many of its people to the U.S for construction projects and the Chinese Americans were abused during the government building of the railroad systems throughout the history of the U.S...and still have many of their rights consistently ignored by the government...despite how hard they work and seek to make buisnesses/adapt to many of the struggles coming their way.

When it comes to Marx - as well as Lenin, who I can sympathize with on some level ( #64 ) - there are many aspects of history which get directly left out. Historically, Karl Marx promoted Marxist-Leninist socialism (communism from a Western perspective), not "democratic socialism" - which might account for the difference between North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal, Cuba, and the People's Republic of China as compared to Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands (which have similarities with communist governments)

The Communist Revolution did involve others fighting against tyranny in one form of government - and yet later, they found themselves doing a lot of the same things that may've been done to them.....and even Lenin was betrayed when many started to see how the talk of "equality" was used to hide the fact that others were deemed more "equal" than others - and later, it was taken over/became nothing more than another form of oppressive monarchy that spoke as if it was against a monarch concept.

The book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell is truly one of the best critiques/satires on the issue. The revolt of the animals against Farmer Jones is Orwell's analogy with the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, and Jones's attempt to regain control, with the aid of neighbouring farmers, parallels the Western powers' efforts in 1918-21 to crush the Bolsheviks. The pigs' rise to pre-eminence mirrors the rise of a Stalinist bureaucracy in the USSR, just as Napoleon's emergence as the farm's sole leader reflects Stalin's emergence..and the pigs' appropriation of milk and apples for their own use, "the turning point of the story" as Orwell termed it in a letter to Dwight Macdonald, stands as an analogy for the crushing of the left-wing 1921 Kronstadt revolt against the Bolsheviks, and the difficult efforts of the animals to build the windmill suggest the various Five Year Plans...while the pigs' treatment of the other animals on the farm recalls the internal terror faced by the populace in the 1930s. Orwell had deep conviction that the Bolshevik revolution had been corrupted and the Soviet system become dark - as Orwell supported the goals of the socialists and yet condemned what it was turned into with the Soviets/U.S.S.R and Orwell himself wrote in 1946, "Of course I intended it primarily as a satire on the Russian revolution..[and] that kind of revolution (violent conspiratorial revolution, led by unconsciously power hungry people) can only lead to a change of masters [-] revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses are alert.." What happened is that the Trotskyists sought to fight one form of corruption but opened the door for others to use the movement that was started to address an issue...and in the process, hijack a movement for their own ends in the name of good - and the same occurred with many fighting for Capitalism/Democracy.

2. the Scriptures and the Christian theological tradition presents not only a distinctively Christian/biblical solution to social/historical/personal problems but also have their own interpretation of the problems to be addressed,

Indeed. Of course, to be honest, the same thing is exactly what MANY liberationists say alongside many others who are non-Liberation theologians when it comes to seeking to examine what the scriptures note on solutions for their time when it came to economic issues .....and seeing how they interpreted them.

The example of Philemon and how Paul addressed that with slavery in a very subversive manner comes immediately to mind - it being very relevant to others today when it comes to slavery being combatted - even though others vary on interpretation.

There is a high degree of subjectivty when saying certain groups don't understand how the Bible itself has a culture it developed in and solutions to its own problems - as that's a universal battle.

and 3. the attempt to pair up Marx's analysis of the problems with the global economy with a genuinely biblical solution necessarily colors one's reading of the biblical solution, and in my mind colors it to the point of distortion.

Although I do think there were many issues problematic with Marx's analysis, there's the aspect that no one can escape when it comes to forgetting that all people have an economic lens they tend to view scripture in BEFORE they read the text....that lens being acknowledged at times when it comes to seeing how systems can help to contexualize scripture into modern terms while others say they have no lens whatsoever.

I do think there is a genuinely counter-/anti-imperial strand in New Testament thought, because I think before we address problems in the world today, we need to understand not only the biblical answers to problems, but the biblical and social problems they actually faced.

I agree...

I don't think liberation theologians have done that with any satisfaction. They were good theologians in the sense that they wanted to address current problems with biblical solutions, but they were bad biblical scholars because they wanted to do so without understanding the ancient problems the biblical texts addressed (and, I would add, they were terrible economists and their analysis of the problems- genuine problems- were fundamentally flawed).

Would sharply disagree in light of numerous historical references to what liberation theologians did in the practical realm when it came to combatting slavery, establishing homes for others to live and seeking to prophetically address institutions.

There were plenty who did bad jobs, of course - but then again, there were also bad ones in Capitalistic systems and other systems outside of a Liberation perspective. I'd never wish to do a guilt-by-association ideology with any group or one that fails to acknowledge good that people have done...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Now that that scholarship is being done, I think we're in a much better position to actually read biblical texts on social justice and through that reading apply them to current situations; at the same time, Christians are still divided by different "readings" of the current situations facing people both in the developed, developing, and underdeveloped world.

I think it'd be an overstatement to say scholarship is NOW being done - seeing that it was already being done before and often ignored due to stereotypes or lack of awareness...

The biblical imperative to care for the poor, marginalized, and oppressed doesn't actually help us understand the reasons why people in the contemporary world are poor, marginalized, and oppressed, and in that sense provides us with no concrete solutions.

There really is a dynamic of knowing that understanding imperatives isn't the same as understanding how to address issues - and yet there's also the reality that understanding imperatives doesn't always include a way on HOW to go about it for ALL generations....and thus, there's room for innovation.

Sometimes, things discovered in the OT match up with modern solutions when understanding why people in the OT did as they did - especially in regards to the types of economies they had.

The solutions that worked to address the problems of ancient suzerain-vasslage systems of patronage, absentee landownership, and international taxation simply will not work to effect social justice in today's Global South.

Many have actually noted otherwise for some time and had plenty of basis for doing so when it comes to living in the GLOBAL South.

And thus, just as for understanding ancient problems and biblical solutions we need good history and good biblical scholarship, addressing today's problems will require developing solutions through good history and good economics.

I agree....

OK, so perhaps all of that was a minor point. But it's one that, as a political science major in undergrad and a student of early Christianity and Judaism is near and dear to my heart

It wasn't a minor point at all - but that's not a problem. And as one who was a Human Services major and studying for History Master PhD - as well as working with Messianic Jews passionate for understanding Early Judaism/Christianity in one of the fellowships I attend - the issue is also one I don't take lightly ....and that is very dear to my heart.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

just as for understanding ancient problems and biblical solutions we need good history and good biblical scholarship, addressing today's problems will require developing solutions through good history and good economics.

Letting you know that some of the things you brought up in critique, I've have also noted elsewhere - as seen here:

James Cone would be another influential leader in the movement---as he contexualized it within the framework of something known as Black Liberation Theology. For his specific emphasis on "Black Liberation Theology" was centered on the fact that blacks in the Civil Rights time/afterward needed to know that the Lord indeed desired for them to be treated fairly as well.....

And this is something many Catholics for Liberation Theology have often voiced support of...especially those who grew up African-American in Catholic Schools.... a

Blacks in the Catholic Church have solidarity with other Black Christians in the Protestnat world when it comes to common struggles impacting people of color (or engaging the impact of Colonialism, Eurocentric viewpoints that neglect/mininize black perspectives, etc.) - so to advocate divorce between groups is very difficult.

Of course, people often think that all those advocating "Black Liberation Theology" are "racist"---but it depends on the variation one comes in contact with. For many, what's preached was born in an attempt to make Christianity relevant to the black urban youths who strike fear in the hearts of so many suburban whites – When King tried to calm those engaged in urban violence in Watts in 1965, he was booed. Those youths did not see any gains from the civil rights movement and were more attracted to the rhetoric and programs of Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam. James Cone, Vincent Harding and other black Christian activists who admired both King and Malcolm sought to develop a theology that would bring young blacks back to the Christian church. They argued that God was on the side of the oppressed and that Jesus was a militant willing to rock the boat. Their work inspired a whole new generation of black church activists and activists of all ethnicities who have made it their Christian duty to shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, cloth the naked and protect the weak.

A large part of the message has to do with family values and responsibility that should be encouraged by conservatives. But they also preach King's message of opposition to war and materialism – a message often lost in the annual focus on King's "dream" of a colorblind society. Since the first slaves arrived in America, blacks and whites have preached different versions of the Bible. For blacks, the most popular text was Exodus, and slaves strongly identified with Moses and the "Hebrew children." For whites connected to slavery, the most popular text came from the disciple Paul, who urged the slaves to be kind to their masters and obey their masters. The former is a theology of liberation; the latter is a theology of oppression. No one did more to unite these wildly differing views of Christianity than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. King was able to preach a religion that incorporated the militancy of the Old Testament with the "love your neighbor as yourself" message of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. Moreover, King integrated our secular political philosophy of liberty and equality with his religious message. King wanted to move toward a colorblind society but realized we weren't there yet. Toward the end of his life, he recognized that America would need a true revolution in values to get there. More than a dream, he called for an end to militarism, poverty and racism. As a Liberation Theologian - and one who noted thankfulness to the Catholic Church for his learning of Liberation Theology - King's goal was to see justice given practically to people of all classes/ethnic backgrounds. And Liberation Theology is the driving theme behind many for Black Liberation Theologians.

Others coming to mind who've defended it are Catholics such as Father Michael Pfleger (who reeived his B.A. in Theology from Loyola University, his Master of Divinity from the University of St. Mary of the Lake, and an honorary Doctor of Divinty from North Park Theological Seminary) of the St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in Chicago (one of Chicago's most troubled neighborhoods in regards to crime and poverty ) - one who works extensively within the Black Community and has noted the ways that Liberation Theology was highly necessary to transform many neglected communities - with it tying together Christian communities, regardless of whether they are Catholic or Protestant...Radical and what we're in need of today.

Rev. Dr. Michael Pfleger: What does it mean to be a voice of conscience​

Radical Disciple: The Story of Father Pfleger

The Dangerous Church - YouTube​

There are many things within forms of Black Liberation theology that're off and I'm glad others have noted that--but some things are worth considering

Our faith as believers was always meant to be one where we were very much concerned with being of earthly good to others who are within our ability to impact for Him since the Lord did the same for us. Tabitha certainly had that mindset in Acts 9:35-37 when she was always aiding the poor---and so did other apostles. Only in our times does it seem that being earthly good/working for the good of all men (even unbelievers, if it means working with them) is considered to be a problem somehow...but it wasn't always so, at least in the U.S. It seems that the concept centuries ago in the U.S was to be "earthly good" since there were many things off in the U.S that needed to be reformed in the 18th/19th centuries (i.e. child sweat shops/labor, slavery, prison reform, etc)---with physical action always being seen as a reflection of what spiritual reality one holds to and whether or not they're really "spiritually good/minded at all." John Wesley and William Wilberforce amongst others were key leaders in taking charge of things. Sadly, in later times, people felt that focusing too much on the physical led to people missing the spiritual transformation of their souls---and so there was a strong Evangelical Revival that spread on preaching on the Kingdom of God...with much preaching on conversion being the focus......and in the process, all that matter was the intellectual side of things and talking of Christ rather than living it out/

For others may disagree...but I often saw Liberation theologians often deal with groups where there's physical struggle going on and the needs of the poor are ignored counter to what the Good Samaritan did (Luke 10:25-33). There are many excellent ministries that have done an excellent job (IMHO) addressing the issue of Liberation Theology and what it means for others in certain social contexts. For more, one can go online/investigate under the following titles:[/LEFT]

• "UrbanSermons.org | Liberation Theology" ( )

• "Tikkun Magazine: A European Revival of Liberation Theology" ( )

• "CCDA 2009: Soong-Chan Rah Sermon: Subversion--Pursuing New Approaches to Activism" ()

• "Luis Carlo: Understanding Liberation Theology: UYWI 2008: Free Christian MPC Podcast " ( )

• "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THEORY AND PRACTICE: BRIDGING THE DIVIDE BETWEEN ‘MICRO’ AND ‘MACRO’ LEVELS OF SOCIAL WORK .By Allison Tan" ( )

With Liberation Theology, much of it arose in response to what happened often throughout church history....as it concerns Ascetism and focusing seldom to none on the physical and believing one becomes more spiritual as they have less. It was highly influential in the Catholic Church for a good bit...and in many other churches since who say God's not concerned for things such as healing of the body (as Jesus did often) or having goods....condeming others who dare to believe in praying for the sick to get healed/believing Gods heart is for wholeness and that its not wrong to live comfortably. Its what often kept those who were poor in their states, as their condition was "spiritualized" and made to look bad if one tried to rise up from that....as the prevailing view was that God "ordained" each of us to remain in the state of life that we were born into---and so if you were born poor, you were not to fight against it.​

As Martin Luther King said best, , “A minister cannot preach the glories of heaven while ignoring social conditions in his own community that cause [people] an earthly hell.”-He said this in regards to other colored preachers of his day who'd talk about God and yet not do anything on physical conditions others dealt with. Some of its similar to others who have a "pie in the sky" mindset, as opposed to others who are of the mindset that heaven is to be brought to Earth​

When I read the Word, I see a great emphasis of social justice as always being paramount because one cannot claim to love the Lord while ignoring the physical needs of others (Luke 10:25-39, James 1:26-27 ,etc ). The prophets connected their nation’s injustice and neglect of the poor with the destruction of Israel, often using vitriolic language. The prophet Amos once described the wealthy women of Samaria as “fat cows."---and Isaiah referred to once faithful Israel as a prostitute. All because they failed to do what was noted in the Biblical text of scripture when it came to what the Lord holds central:

1 John 3:17
If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?
1 John 3:16-18
​

....

The book of Amos is rather blunt on that issue, if seeing how much the Lord spoke through that prophet to declare how he was tired of buisness as usual/making a mockery of the religion he instituted:

Amos 5:21
“I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. 22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
24 But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!
Amos 5:20-22

Amos 8:10
Hear this, you who trample the needy
and do away with the poor of the land,

5 saying,
“When will the New Moon be over
that we may sell grain,
and the Sabbath be ended
that we may market wheat?”—
skimping on the measure,
boosting the price
and cheating with dishonest scales,
6 buying the poor with silver
and the needy for a pair of sandals,
selling even the sweepings with the wheat.
Amos 8:9-11
​

Thank you for the realness in what you said...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Perhaps. But certainly the living sense of the two greatest commandments.
(And, at least as I knew it in family, the idea that the success of the individual was "measured" in their contribution to the community per the measure of their particular ability.)

In Collectivist societies, it is natural from what I've seen to have success measured by your ability to add - just like in an ant colony. You're seen as being a part of a legacy -which can be both good bad.

The whole event was a bit of a trip for me

Can more than understand

The Mennonites were attending as a "silent opposition" (polite, but not clapping etc.). Most were as if not more conservatively dressed as those who attended out of agreement or enthusiasm, and also mostly of the same age group - 40s on. It was hard to "pick them out" from the others, except for watching reactions, the lack of affirmation, the questions after the presentation, and not signing the "Run, Pat, Run" petition. It was instructive to hear them called Communists

Did they assume that it was good for them to be called Communists?

 

[Thekla]

In Collectivist societies, it is natural from what I've seen to have success measured by your ability to add - just like in an ant colony. You're seen as being a part of a legacy -which can be both good bad.

In my immediate family from this background (culturally), one was not complemented for meeting the measure of what one could do, but for exceeding it. Made for some curious moments among the cousins, as our capacities were often different ...

Can more than understand

Did they assume that it was good for them to be called Communists?

Actually, I don't recall any response from them at all.

As I was with them (and wasn't clapping), I was also called a "Communist" by the gentleman standing in front of me. Given the company, it wasn't maybe such a bad thing

 

[Gxg (G²)]

In my immediate family from this background (culturally), one was not complemented for meeting the measure of what one could do, but for exceeding it. Made for some curious moments among the cousins, as our capacities were often different ...

What things did they say? It sounds like an intriguing experience...

Actually, I don't recall any response from them at all.

As I was with them (and wasn't clapping), I was also called a "Communist" by the gentleman standing in front of me. Given the company, it wasn't maybe such a bad thing

Like taking a perjorative and making it into a badge of honor....