theRubi-blog

Liberation Theology, Part One…

Aaron White asks why this doesn’t resonate with more Salvationists

I

have recently been thinking about and studying up on Liberation Theology, particularly as it has developed out of Latin America from the 1960’s until now. I know, I know, I’m such a party animal.

Many Christians are deeply suspicious of Liberation Theology, given its connections with Marxist and socialist thought. But even a cursory reading should be of great interest to Salvationists who are trying to piece together how the service and justice work they are drawn to might be understood in the light of theology. Whether you agree with the ultimate conclusions of Liberation Theology or not, this really is theology done “with its sleeves rolled up”. It theology derived from serious scholarship and spiritual engagement with Scripture, with prayer, and with the poor. I would hope that this approach would resonate with all thinking, practicing Salvationists the world over.

Liberation Theology sees its task more as a critical reflection on human history and as a transformational agent towards human liberation than merely as the attainment of wisdom and rational knowledge. If theology is not born out of the mission and in the community of the Church in the world, and if its fruit is not a greater compassion for the lost and effectiveness in promoting the evangel, then it can often descend to the level of intellectual gymnastics.

True theology, indeed true love, is embodied. In this understanding of theology it is not static but dynamic, as our understanding of the revelation of God in history continual grows and deepens. This does not require the notion that God Himself changes , nor does it minimise the importance of doctrine. Rather it says that theology cannot be developed in a vacuum. God did not reveal himself to humanity in a vacuum, but ultimately in the dust and the dirt and the blood of human existence. We can hold to certain truths about God and creation, but allow our understanding and application of those truths to flower as we participate more and more with the mission of God.

Salvation is primarily described in terms of “liberation” within this theology, and the understanding of this liberation goes much deeper than a crisis moment of changed belief, though it still affirms the reality and importance of such an experience.

Three levels of liberation are therefore dwelt upon, all of them necessary for the exercise of true human freedom:

  1. Social Liberation - This is liberation from social situations of oppression and marginalisation towards material and political equality, and is often understood as the liberation of whole people groups from structural inequalities;
  2. Personal / Psychological Liberation - This is liberation from personal enslavements towards inner freedom, the freedom of the mind or soul;
  3. Spiritual Liberation - This is the liberation of the spirit from sin towards friendship / communion with God and with other humans. This happens by grace through faith. Only this final stage of liberation actually gets to the true heart of injustice.

It strikes me that this three-fold formulation of salvation/liberation, helps flesh out the 10th Doctrine of The Salvation Army, which speaks of the sanctification of body, soul and spirit. I understand full well that there are differences between salvation and sanctification, but if we are aiming towards a theology of “full salvation” which includes the whole of the human person - then those three levels of liberation are essential to the conversation. Where we have ignored one of those three areas, we have not declared the fullness of God’s redemptive plan for creation nor have we helped people to gain God’s promised freedom from all that enslaves them.

So far I have simply begun to summarise some relevant aspects of Liberation Theology in order to see how they might make sense in a Salvation Army context. I hope to continue this as a series in which various theologies are explored which may help us embed our actions as Salvationists within a more reflective theological framework.

Writer: Aaron White and his wife Cherie, along with their four children and one not-long-for-this-world goldfish, live in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside and give leadership to 614 Vancouver, Canada. Aaron is interested in nearly everything, and knows next to nothing.

Related posts:

Tags: ,

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009 theRubi-Blog

29 Comments to Liberation Theology, Part One…

  1. I heartily agree! Whilst I think that Salvationists need to continually be developing our own theology, I have felt strongly for many years that Liberation Theology gives us an excellent starting point due to the resonances that you have named.

    I have no doubt that theology arises from particular, concrete contexts. In the early Salvation Army, our theology was done ‘on the fly’ in the midst of helping alcoholics, rescuing ‘fallen women’ and feeding the poor. Surely we can take much from another theological base that is rooted in struggle alongside the poor and the marginalised. It might not be perfect, but it seems to me to be far preferable than the ‘prosperity gospel’ that characterises some of the churches we seek to emulate.

    2. Jason Davies-Kildea on February 3rd, 2009

  2. I am interested in reading more of your thoughts as you explore the connections between Salvationism and Liberation Theology. Having given a lot of thought to the former and not much to the latter, I would find this exploration helpful.

    Any further resources on Liberation Theology?

    3. Cory Harrison on February 3rd, 2009

  3. Why do you believe Salvationists aren’t budding Marxists? I get the sense from this site it’s more or less become a Communist front group; I’d expect much enthusiasm for a theology that urges a proletarian revolution in the name of Jesus.
    –Catherine W., proud American capitalist PIG!!!

    4. Catherine W. on February 3rd, 2009

  4. I’ve wondered about the connection here as well. I think that there are certainly some great ways Liberation Theology could enhance the Army’s theology, as well as the theology of evangelicalism itself. LT is basically a corrective, and as such we should learn from it.

    The danger of LT though is often noted: equating social salvation with spiritual salvation. I understand the connection of “full salvation,” which may better be described as holistic salvation, but LT does tend to replace one with the other instead of balancing social and spiritual. In any case, I’m all about hearing more, but adopting Liberation Theology as my own or having it taught as part of Army dogma makes me bristle.

    P.S. Enrique Nardoni has a good book on justice called Rise Up, O Judge. He’s a Liberation Theologian. Doesn’t have a high view of scripture, but his research into justice is worthy of a read through.

    David Witthoff

    5. David Witthof on February 3rd, 2009

  5. I do intend to do some more writings on here about LT. My desire is not to push for TSA to adopt Liberation Theology - I think we have to develop our own, and many LT theologians would advise us not to simply take their work and apply it across the board, given that it is coming out of some very specific contexts.

    But LT gives us a great model of having developed theology that takes scholarship, incarnation, struggle, Church and Scripture seriously. Like all things, it is a mixed bag as well, so there is no way all of us would agree on what all of it’s proponents are advocating - they don’t agree amongst themselves! But it could prove to be a very inspiring stream of thought, and could help balance out both prosperity teaching and hyper-spiritualism.

    Cory - Gutierrez’s work is seminal: “We Drink From Our Own Wells”, “A Theology of Liberation”, and “The Power of the Poor in History” are all very important. Boff is also a great resource.

    David - I think a high view of Scripture is absolutely vital, so long as it is a “thinking” high view of Scripture. There is a danger in replacing spiritual salvation with social, but there is also the danger of forgetting about social altogether. I think Gutierrez does a decent job of describing the levels of salvation, but of holding onto spiritual liberation as the ultimate answer to injustice and sin. Others may not have made such an emphasis.

    Catherine - I think by and large Salvationists are far from Marxists! This site may be something of an aberration, granted, but on the whole I would think TSA is pretty wedded to the tenets of capitalism. Which probably means we will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. :)

    Grace,

    Aaron

    6. aaron on February 3rd, 2009

  6. Actually Catherine - I believe that Christianity did start as a “proletarian revolution in the name of Jesus”, if the historical record is to be believed.

    As for theRubicon becoming a Communist front, hmmmm…I would counter that only insofar as both Salvationists and Communists (these days) seem to be sympathetic to lost causes :)

    Marxism has a lot of good ideas - if they had only left God in the mix (and more particularly the doctrine of original sin) and had been able to get over their naivity with regard to human motive and motivation (the doctrine of original sin, again) - they might’ve really been onto something enduring.

    The appeal of LT theology is likely because finally along comes a theology that permits one to pick up a gun and shoot one’s enemies - in the cause of Christ. Hold it - don’t proud American capitalists already hold to a similar theology?

    Love you Catherine - you keep us all on our toes.

    Geoff Ryan

    7. Geoff Ryan on February 3rd, 2009

  7. The issue of Liberation Theology and violence will definitely be something I take up in a future contribution here. Thanks for the primer Geoff.

    It is very funny really how many First World Christians have been absolutely repulsed by the notion of the poor using violence as sometimes advocated (or justified) by this theological stream, while saying nothing about First World Christians fighting in the name of ‘freedom’ or ‘democracy’.

    8. aaron on February 3rd, 2009

  8. There’s no harm in studying LT. However I think most of these Theologies are based more on culture than Biblical truths. Americans Specifically don’t need LT. Our government leaves us alone. We can do whatever the crap we want. Some of us get prosperity Gospel to feel good about our riches (Yay Joel Olsteen, i don’t care if that’s how his name is spelled). sorry I’m sarcastic

    Aaron the three points you mentioned were great. I agree with them. However LT is a trend/culture led theology more than a Spirit led Theology. The picture of chesus (Che/jesus) is not accurate. I don’t who posted it but the two do not belong at the same level when it comes to revolutionary leaders. Jesus a revolution of Love led by the Creator of the Universe. Che a revolution of love led by bloodshed and execution.

    My point is there may be truth to LT, but we don’t need a New branch of Theology to gain these truths.

    I think it’s good to study, i don’t mean to be so harsh. But Theology Changes in culture and we need to be mindful of why that is. Ultimate truth is Universal.

    Dave

    9. David Oshay on February 4th, 2009

  9. Dave,

    What are ‘Biblical Truths?’ If it is the common assumption that the Bible is merely an expository of ‘biblical truths’ then this falls far short of the mark. I have said this before, but scripture is primarily a narrative, THE Story of THE Creator God redeeming his world. All (Christian) theologies are a limited attempt to study this true God, not one of them has been created in a vacuum, but very much embedded in ‘culture’. The writers of scripture were also conditioned by their ‘culture’, Jesus himself was a Jew (he wasn’t ‘accidently’ born as one either)!
    We must not try to get rid of culture, expecting that if we did we would be left with ‘pure’ bible truths. We would be left with… nothing. No chronological lists, no narratives, no proverbs, psalms, laws, prophecy, redemption, cross of resurrection. If that was the case, our faith is futile and you are still dead in your sins.

    Liberation Theology is not the theology that trumps all others, and is far from perfect, but there are some themes that are useful and that have changed the world for the better. It was a ‘liberation theology’ coming right out of the most important narrative in the Old Testament (The Exodus from Egypt) and ultimately the New Testament (the true, Exodus, God’s putting to rights of a cosmos in bondage to decay through the cross and resurrection of his Son), that fueled countless colonized, subjugated and brutally imprisoned people.

    How liberation is brought about is another matter. Violence and military arms, I believe, are not the way of Jesus. He demonstrated that throughout his life and death, and I believe this something that the Church needs to be praying and fasting about in order to truly embody the love of the Creator God.

    10. Craig Gaudion on February 5th, 2009

  10. Aaron, good ideas. I agree it is an ignored area, especially by protestants/evangelicals. LT has primarily developed in Roman Catholic poor countries, as you say, in South America.

    I remember reading a book called “THe Gospels through Third World Eyes” and it presents some of the gospel stories from the perspective of liberation theology. It is an exciting and interesting new way of looking at texts.

    On the one hand, I agree that the poor cannot simply be served by a church that is “in bed” so-to-speak with the power establishment. Especially when that power establishment keeps the poor down.

    On the other hand, if there was anything different about Jesus compared to all the other first century religious nuts/gurus/prophets of that time, it was that Jesus seemed to choose the way of non-violence. That is a challenge for those who would want to respond to the abuse of power by calling the poor to arms.

    Thanks for bringing this up. I look forward to reading more from you on this.

    11. John Norton on February 5th, 2009

  11. @ Craig and Dave Shay:

    I believe in what you are saying, Craig. To a point. Let me start that way.

    I believe there are three ideas that play into Theological praxis: Tradition (That is, the tradition of the Church, as well as the Truth found in Scripture), Personal Experience (not of the individual, but of the collective), and the Social Situation (that is, cultural information we gather from the world around us). All three of these play into our interpretation and practice of what Dave Shay means when he says, “Biblical Truth.”

    I would draw you a diagram, but this is an internet forum, not a classroom. So let me describe it for you: you have the three ideas set up in an upside down triangle, Tradition on the left, Culture on the right, and Experience on the the bottom. In order to find these “Biblical Truths” that we have been speaking of, we must start at the bottom of this triangle and work in a counter-clockwise circle. Let me explain.

    Before we find the Truth, or answer, we must bring up a problem. Any problem. Whatever is on your mind, I suppose. Or whatever you’re writing your Exegesis on at the moment… Whatever. You take that problem and look first to the past: Experience. What has the world done in the past to cause this problem? What has it done to attempt to fix this problem. Etc. Then we look at Culture, the present- how is this problem affecting our lives now. What are we doing now to stop it? Etc. Then, and only then, after we have looked at the secular side of the problem, can we enter into Tradition- Scripture- and the future solution to the problem.

    Now, we have entered into Scripture and tradition to find this Biblical Truth, but only after taking with us everything around us- all of our “cultural baggage,” if you will. It is impossible to think that we can come into Scripture with no presuppositions or agendas… So we should admit that, yes, we have presuppositions, but we seek the Truth of the word- through the revelation of the Spirit- to help us find the answers to the following two questions in regards to the problem we presented at the beginning of our study:

    1. What do we do?
    2. What do we become?

    So, after all that, on to LT. I believe that LT is an example of taking the ideals of the model I just shared too far. It takes a similar path as other emerging movements in the Church where it focuses on one aspect of our God so much, that is the only aspect they know (i.e. Prosperity Gospel, which Shay mentioned earlier).

    LT does, given, have good points. Just as Marxism has good points. However, it should not, in my opinion, be in its own category as a separate theology, just as “Marxology” should not be accepted as a new form of theology. We have a firm Theology that has already been set down for us by the very one who created Theology! Why should we need to separate Theology into little theologies? To make it easier to understand? To make it more relevant to society? Perhaps we should not try and make the Bible fit into us- to fit into society. Maybe we need to make society- make ourselves- fit into the Bible.

    12. Dave Mantel on February 5th, 2009

  12. I’ve been following the conversation here and would like to make a couple of observations/clarifications.

    Firstly, I don’t think anyone is arguing that Liberation Theology is perfect, the only divinely ordained correct theology - only that it is a theological voice that holds significant potential resonance for The Salvation Army. Other theologies that arise from the experience of the poor, the view from the underside, may also have relevance to our movement in particular contexts. Liberation Theology owes much to the Political Theology of Moltmann and Metz, and is in turn an influence on Black Theology, Feminist Theologies and some strands of contemporary Asian Theology. All are worthy of consideration, though none claim to be ‘pure’ but intentional articulations coming out of concrete experiences of oppression and suffering.

    Secondly, though I don’t claim to be an expert, I’ve read Gutierrez, Sobrino, Boff and Segundo and I don’t remember any of them advocating violence. Resistance doesn’t always equal bloody revolution. To characterise Liberation Theology with violence is to tragically miss the point.

    13. Jason Davies-Kildea on February 6th, 2009

  13. David M,

    I understand what you are saying and resonate with most of it. I would add that I am by no means a relativist, as the post-modern world would have us be. As far as ‘truth’ is concerned, I am of a worldview that looks to the God who made himself known in Jesus as the ‘truth’. I can’t follow you totally with the idea of leaving scripture right to the very end of serious theological reflections. I don’t see why such a flat, systematic approach is inevitable, rather I would adopt the notion of a nuanced, dialogical, multi-layed relationship between scripture and all the other things that we need to take in to account. In otherwords I believe we are doing a mix of this all the time, and wherever it is in the process, our sheet anchor is that everything, including tradition and our culture comes under the authority of God which does in some strange way, mediate itself through Scripture.

    I don’t think we can use a blanket term for ‘theology’ either. There may be an overarching orthodox worldview for Christians, but there is always going to be diversity. Our ‘theology’ isn’t stagnant and flat, and if there is some truth in the idea that theology is ‘faith seeking understanding’, then the many branches of it will continue to flourish and grow, particularly as each new generation struggles with the questions of gods that have always swirled around. I daresay that in some areas it needs to! I’m happy for you to come back to me about that of course.

    Best wishes,
    Craig

    14. Craig Gaudion on February 6th, 2009

  14. Craig thanks for responding, what you wrote was very insightful

    I’m an intercultural studies major, my goal isn’t to unite the world under one heavenly culture. However there is ultimate truth. That ultimate truth may have come to us in a culture, but I still stick with what I said. Culture led ministry is bad. The word is very counter culture for many. And so was Christ, he was a Jew that was not respected by the Jewish leaders.
    Why is culture led ministry bad. Well in the case of Liberation it’s just as Geoff said, we get to pick up a gun and kill our leaders. That may not be in the theology of LT but those are the results, I don’t think that’s debatable. Many people take the word out of context to fit their own needs. But the word wasn’t written in a vacuum right? It has a specific cultural context, I understand.

    15. Dave on February 9th, 2009

  15. I think that to claim that the results of LT are the picking up of a gun and killing our leaders is a ridiculous stereotype, but then I suspect Geoff wrote the original suggestion of this with a heavy ironic overtone! The fact is that using our beliefs as an excuse to kill or hate is something that the majority of ‘theology’ has been put to over the years.

    The whole point of whilst specific instances of LT are culturally based, the truths that underpin it are not. Furthermore, it could be argued that the roots of LT are actually as counter-culture as the Bible. The prevailing culture in those places where it has gained strength tend to be of a unjust and certainly unchristian style. Therefore, much like the gospel that Jesus preached is counter-cultural. In fact LT has far more in common with Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 61 in Luke than much of what passes for Christianity in the Western world.

    Having said that, I do find it hard to agree with everything the likes of the Boff brothers, Dussel, and Gutierrez advocate, just as I struggle with some of the theology of Bell & McLaren and dare I say even to some extent that of Booth, Railton and Brengle.

    16. Graeme on February 10th, 2009

  16. Dave, I’m happy to ‘close’ our conversation on that point. You’ve definitely given me a lot of food for thought. Thanks for mapping your own location on the spectrum! I’m doing post-grad studies on biblical theology and mission, so we have a good mix going on between us! Thanks for the helpful dialogue.
    Best wishes

    17. Craig Gaudion on February 12th, 2009

  17. That we should have a preferential option for the poor is a key tenet of Christ’s gospel, and of Liberation theology. The latter I believe is based on the former. It is a good theology that needs to be explored more by the evangelical church.

    18. Rob Jeffery on February 19th, 2009

  18. Practicality of any theology is based upon two components. A sound theology can be embraced intellectually. Secondly, if a given theology is practical, then it succumbs to an effective implementation. I believe the Salvation Army has demonstrated the tenets of liberation theology as effective in the implementation of its social concern. The remaining task is to provide for an intellectual embrace of the LT components, while preserving the high view of scripture at the same time. Perhaps such is the task of a teacher/pastor in the days ahead…

    19. George S. Katchanov on February 23rd, 2009

  19. I will not make the obligatory sarcastic remark about the luxury of tssking America for being violent and warlike while relying on us for defense. Just so you’re aware, as you lobby your own (still elected?) government, you might want to — what’s the phrase? — grow up in light of the fact that America is not as rich as you think it is, our president is planning to cut defense dramatically, and lots of people here don’t want to run an empire (interesting reading: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/completely-useless also you can take the sage advice to google Ron Paul).

    I think it’s also a peculiar luxury to have a grand intellectual flirtation with Marxism — Chesus, indeed. Here’s how I read your three spiritual steps: 1) Proletariat revolution, 2) Brainwash yourself that you’ve done a great thing, 3) Feel good about it.

    I would agree that Marxism sounds great on paper. So, maybe you can lay out for me what — if anything — you believe has gone wrong with actual Marxist revolutions. And do you really believe God takes the communist side?

    20. Catherine W. on February 26th, 2009

  20. Why, do you think God would side with capitalism? I personally do not think God sides with any political system. In His indisputable sovereignty, He acts as a heavenly monarch, sometimes even as a despot. Christianity in the capitalist world has very much become a privatized, therapeutic belief system, where everything is centered on and evolves around an individual, and what he or she deems to be acceptable to believe and to hear about God in a church. If there is any value in marxism, it is that it equips people to live as a member of a community, recognizing that our actions/words impact others and we, therefore, bear responsibility for others in the communty of faith.

    Recognizing that our interpetation of faith is based on our life experiences, I would abstain from imposing political terminology on our expressions of faith. All they cause is division. But as an eastern european by origin, I firsthand witnessed the devastating impact of privatized faith being preached to the people who have previously been taught to live in a community. This goes to say that what works in the west, may not necessarily work in the east and vice versa. Contextualization of faith is important if we are to yield any long-term, positive results in promoting the agenda of the gospel.

    21. George S. Katchanov on February 26th, 2009

  21. I think that there a lot of good points brought up here about liberation theology, I have always had some concerns and was wondering if anyone has any perspective that I admittedly do not have. Firstly, I think that a majority of LT is spot on. However, the one thing that always strikes me is the conflation of terms in the theology. Liberation and redemption become exactly the same terms,especially in Gutierrez. The question that I feel I always have to pose to LT is that if the goals of liberation are any way acheived, what is the purpose of theology. Now we have to approach the question as Salvationists, who I beleive have a bit more optimism. If we honestly believe that any standards of liberation can be acheived Gutierrez may not like us seeing as the liberation is the ultimate content for any talk about God. Theology in that space, and admittedly Guiterrez will say (and did say last year at my school) that theology ceases. Lastly seeing sin as corporate and socai I think is good and true, but redemption in any LT context seems to not be as far reaching. The dealing of sin is between you, God, and the oppressors. Its hard to avoid a marxist eschaton in the whole scope of the thing. The whole head on pikes as salvation idea. LT is too narrow, if salvation is for the whole human being, Gutierrez seems to fly in the opposite. In a Theology of Liberation defines the human as dynamic and historical, by which he means contextual in the political situation. The conception of the human is only political in Gutierrez. I don’t see why the western Church in its theology always seems to want to be so specific, so limited. LT is true and it seems so much more vibrant as a part of the grand tradition of the historical faith. Why the necessity of pulling LT off and making it the totality of the content of theology?

    I’m kind of wary of Boff though, he is not really in good standing in the Church these days, which really is understandable given what he says. But that’s really a non-point.

    I LOVE AARON WHITE!!

    22. Ian Smith on February 26th, 2009

  22. So, you bemoan the privatization of faith but don’t believe God has anything to say about what system of government is best? Did He not warn his people, pre-Saul, about the dangers of taking on a King?

    I guess I don’t see capitalism as primarily a political system, but as an economic system which, like for instance the law of gravity, is not successfully abolished by human decree. It’s how people engage with the world: We’re rooted to the ground; we work best when we’re free to receive the reward from our effort. Nothing in that diminishes concern about the community — in fact, it’s more necessary for Christians in a country where people are expected to look out for themselves to pick up the pieces for those that fail.

    Why is slavery — not just abusive forms where someone is chained up or beaten but even the best-treated, most well-respected enslaved person — an affront to conscience? Is it not because it is an essential part of human dignity to own one’s own ability to work? And if it is an affront to conscience for someone to call a man a slave and say, “Work hard: In return, I’ll give you not what you are capable of earning but just what I think you need,” why is it any less offensive to our souls for someone to call a man brother or comrade and say, “You’ve worked hard: In return, I’ll let you keep not what you were capable of earning but just what I think you need.”

    But thank you all for the timely thoughts — since my president is a more-or-less former member of a liberation theology church, it’s great to learn more about the topic. And if there’s any good advice coming out of Eastern Europe on how to hunker down and get through what looks to be a good eight years at least of communitarian-minded domination, it would be much appreciated. Thoughts and prayers are always welcomed, too, here among the unapologetically selfish but (personally) redeemed in the good old USA.

    –Catherine W., on James Cone/Jeremiah Wright’s list of “rich, white PEOPLE!!!!”

    23. Catherine W. on February 27th, 2009

  23. Catherine,

    Thank you so much for sharing your insights on the above. I appreciate your thinking. I would not, however, have anything to offer with regards to tearing down the communitarian-minded domination of Eastern Europe. My proposition would be that ministers heading to that area should adapt to the so called “communitarian-minded” approach to living, not to dismantle it. This is what I implied with contextualization of the gospel. By dismantling the texture of the culture we arrive to we begin to repeat the mistakes of colonialism and Christian imperialism, both of which historically have turned out to be fatal for the overall image of faith and the church. Our way, or dare I say, the western way, is not the only way. This is the reality we need to come to grips with.

    This goes to say that a theology, shaped by a particular cultural context, is limited to what it can do. There is a genuine connection between theology and geography. And while we have all agreed that the LT has many useful components, it is unlikely that it will ever flourish in a capitalist system, simply because of its socialist and communist roots. But if it works to provide hope and sustenance in Latin America and other parts of the marginalized world, more power to it. This does not mean that we can not take out certain jewels of the LT and try them in our areas of ministry, once again, if it fits the context.

    Respect,
    George

    24. George S. Katchanov on February 27th, 2009

  24. Thanks for writing back, George.

    I have not been to Eastern Europe/Russia since 1988 and, obviously, a lot has changed since then. (Great trip. Tough to get a cab in Moscow, though — hope the concept of tips has caught on!) What works there in bringing people to Christ, I don’t know and it is not really my calling to find out.

    In America, I am 100% opposed to liberation theology, which became relevant during our last election. I don’t see Jeremiah Wright ranting “God d— America” and condeming “rich, white people” as being much different from a Ku Klux Klan church that demonizes blacks or Hitler demonizing “capitalist Jews.” Maybe it plays differently in Latin America.

    So, I think it’s an interesting discussion and will wait to hear if the Salvation Army decides to go down the LT path.

    And still no one wants to talk me into communism?!? Our stock market is crashing, foreclosed houses are being bought up by the Chinese and GM is on its knees! Now’s your chance — a teachable moment for Americans!

    Blessings,
    Catherine W.

    25. Catherine W. on February 28th, 2009

  25. I believe this to be a dangerous proposition. Why don’t we base our theology on the Word of God, Christ who came in the form of a man to walk this earth. He healed the sick, raised the dead, transformed lives, preached truth, died for our sins, and rose again. I believe we need to study the Bible, for the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible. We need to be an Army that prays more and thinks less. We need to ask God to change our hearts and renew our minds, not with this liberal theology mumbo jumbo. But with the power of the Holy Spirit! William Booth followed the Lord’s desire for a church to be waging war on sin and caring for the poor. Let’s get back to the basics of our Salvationism. Sometimes we over think these things.

    26. Peter Haslett on March 2nd, 2009

  26. It’s “Liberation Theology mumbo jumbo”, not “liberal theology mumbo jumbo.” There’s a difference. :)

    27. aaron on March 2nd, 2009

  27. I think more Salvationists need to read In Darkest England and a way out!

    And I quote:
    “There is nothing in my scheme which will bring it into collision either with Socialists of the State, or Socialists of the Municipality, with Individualists or Nationalists, or any of the various schools of thought in the great field of social economics - excepting only those anti-Christian economists who hold that it is an offence against the doctrine of the survival of the fittest to try and save the weakest from going to the wall, and who believe that when once a man is down the supreme duty of a self-regarding Society is to jump upon him. Such economists will be naturally disappointed with this book.”

    What was the Darkest England scheme if it was not an attempt at revolution? A revolution from Victorian colonialism to Salvationist colonialism. Perhaps we should be thankful that it didn’t succeed in full. :)

    If the history of revolutions has taught us anything it is that those in power are the ones who need to fear. Those in power are the ones who try and suppress revolutionary zeal. Why? Because if it succeeds their power will be gone, albeit to be replaced by a new power system. It is no wonder that Northern Americans don’t like Liberation Theology.

    28. Liam Bantock on March 2nd, 2009

  28. Funny thing… How America was started by revolutionaries… And yet, look where we are now. :-)

    Also, I liked the “liberal theology” remark. Even if it was simply a slip of the tongue. It made me giggle.

    29. Dave Mantel on March 3rd, 2009

  29. I think you’re right, that “Darkest” does come out of a socialist-utopianist moment in Army history and was a staunch refutation of Social Darwinism. But is the only choice Social Darwinism/Prosperity Gospel or Marxism? And am I afraid of Marxism? You bet! I think the world needs a second American revolution, not a communist one. So take whatever easy potshots you want at the United States, set up your I Hate America gospel, but why don’t you take a few seconds in the meantime to explain to me what is better about any communist system. I don’t see it yet. In fact, I would say a great reason to oppose communism is BECAUSE you care about the poor. (Gulag anyone?)

    –Catherine W.

    30. Catherine W. on March 4th, 2009

Leave a comment

Categories


Sound and Fury