Lewis and Tolkien thought that the pagan myths were types of the archetypal true Christian myth. Lewis may be signalling this in his Narnia books. Or he may have just thought that the Greek myths were good imaginative material for presenting Christian theology in a creative new way. But the OT does say that God is a lion (Jer 25: 38; Hos 11: 10).
Yes, we know. But we're talking about people for whom rational and critical thinking aren't particularly strong suits.
Considering how Lewis and Tolkien were products of the first and second world wars, it is not surprising how they used those experiences to talk about Spiritual Warfare.
Then the critics might as well challenge the Chronicles of Narnia for promoting an interest in warfare. They are both outstanding imaginative stories with a strong Christian ethos. I will always remember on the day of a new Harry Potter release seeing a small boy sit down on the pavement to read a book the size of a brick. J K Rowling inspired a generation of children to become avid readers.
Then the critics might as well challenge the Chronicles of Narnia for promoting an interest in warfare. They are both outstanding imaginative stories with a strong Christian ethos. I will always remember on the day of a new Harry Potter release seeing a small boy sit down on the pavement to read a book the size of a brick. J K Rowling inspired a generation of children to become avid readers.
As Brian Jacques inspired their older siblings.
Much as I enjoyed Brian Jacques at the time, even by 11 or 12 I could see the repetitive nature of his plots and world building that makes Lewis seem coherent. Jacques isn't in the same league as Rowling, for all the flaws in the HP books. I would suggest Pratchett probably has had more influence on young readers than Jacques. Possibly Colin Dann and Jill Murphy too.
Then the critics might as well challenge the Chronicles of Narnia for promoting an interest in warfare. They are both outstanding imaginative stories with a strong Christian ethos. I will always remember on the day of a new Harry Potter release seeing a small boy sit down on the pavement to read a book the size of a brick. J K Rowling inspired a generation of children to become avid readers.
As Brian Jacques inspired their older siblings.
Much as I enjoyed Brian Jacques at the time, even by 11 or 12 I could see the repetitive nature of his plots and world building that makes Lewis seem coherent. Jacques isn't in the same league as Rowling, for all the flaws in the HP books. I would suggest Pratchett probably has had more influence on young readers than Jacques. Possibly Colin Dann and Jill Murphy too.
If you read what I wrote and what preceded it, it was about inspiring children to read, not about how good his stuff was. Kids were buying hardcover editions of his books, and could hardly wait for the next one. That was my point. What league he was in is wholly completely and totally irrelevant.
Then the critics might as well challenge the Chronicles of Narnia for promoting an interest in warfare. They are both outstanding imaginative stories with a strong Christian ethos. I will always remember on the day of a new Harry Potter release seeing a small boy sit down on the pavement to read a book the size of a brick. J K Rowling inspired a generation of children to become avid readers.
As Brian Jacques inspired their older siblings.
Much as I enjoyed Brian Jacques at the time, even by 11 or 12 I could see the repetitive nature of his plots and world building that makes Lewis seem coherent. Jacques isn't in the same league as Rowling, for all the flaws in the HP books. I would suggest Pratchett probably has had more influence on young readers than Jacques. Possibly Colin Dann and Jill Murphy too.
If you read what I wrote and what preceded it, it was about inspiring children to read, not about how good his stuff was. Kids were buying hardcover editions of his books, and could hardly wait for the next one. That was my point. What league he was in is wholly completely and totally irrelevant.
No, not completely irrelevant at all. I was pointing out that Jacques' weaknesses mean he's not as big a draw as Rowling. I have hardbacks of every HP book, even the ones which came out before I picked up the series. I have a few Brian Jacques hardbacks (Outcast of Redwall and Pearls of Lutra if you're curious) but I also have a Farthing Wood hardback. Jacques is one of the pack, not in the same league as Rowling, and part of that is down to quality.
Then the critics might as well challenge the Chronicles of Narnia for promoting an interest in warfare. They are both outstanding imaginative stories with a strong Christian ethos. I will always remember on the day of a new Harry Potter release seeing a small boy sit down on the pavement to read a book the size of a brick. J K Rowling inspired a generation of children to become avid readers.
As Brian Jacques inspired their older siblings.
Much as I enjoyed Brian Jacques at the time, even by 11 or 12 I could see the repetitive nature of his plots and world building that makes Lewis seem coherent. Jacques isn't in the same league as Rowling, for all the flaws in the HP books. I would suggest Pratchett probably has had more influence on young readers than Jacques. Possibly Colin Dann and Jill Murphy too.
I read the first five Redwall books around the same age and would agree as to the repetitiveness. To which I would add that Jacques has, IMO, a very dangerous system of classifying morality according to species.
It's not about dogma. It's about power. I wouldn't flatter evangelicalism by treating it like a consistent doctrine or principled position.
I wouldn't insult people who understand right and wrong by saying that evangelicals suffer from a surplus of "Right vs Wrong" thinking.
They do seem to have a strong sense of black and white but are uncomfortable with gray areas.
I think that its the point - it is very binary. Very simplistic. It is not "right and wrong" as others might understand it - it is that lack of any gray areas, any acceptance that questions - most, and the most important - have far more complex answers.
I see a problem: there is a danger of downplaying the danger of charismatic evangelicalism.
As hard as I've tried to be fair, I really don't see the same kinds of damage being caused by any other movement within Christianity. I don't think I'm naive. I accept there are parts of the religion I know little about.
And of course there are places where terrible abuse has been uncovered. I'm not diminishing that for a second.
Yet.. there is something different about charismatic evangelicalism.
If one gets annoyed and quits the Quakers, it might be because of a specific person, the way things work (or don't work), lack of support, bullying or whatever. It is quite hard to imagine leaving the Quakers due to a catastrophic loss of faith.
Charismatic Evangelicalism has various different types and yet it is almost always both an all-encompassing lifestyle and a very fragile glass-like structure.
It seems to me that it is that duality which is rare. Projecting as the answer-to-all-questions whilst in reality having a particularly weak philosophical and theological foundation.
It's not just another lifestyle choice. It's not just another valid manifestation of Christianity. Not just good religious people getting on with their thing.
It takes no prisoners and leaves many victims splatted on the pavement.
American-style evangelicalism has had a big role to play in various right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. Guatemala’s Rios Montt for instance was converted by a California evangelical group. Bolsonaro has huge support from evangelicals. In its willingness to support the nastiest people to counter leftism and liberation theology, I think it’s fair to refer to evangelicalism as “death squad theology.”
I see a problem: there is a danger of downplaying the danger of charismatic evangelicalism.
As hard as I've tried to be fair, I really don't see the same kinds of damage being caused by any other movement within Christianity. I don't think I'm naive. I accept there are parts of the religion I know little about.
And of course there are places where terrible abuse has been uncovered. I'm not diminishing that for a second.
Yet.. there is something different about charismatic evangelicalism.
If one gets annoyed and quits the Quakers, it might be because of a specific person, the way things work (or don't work), lack of support, bullying or whatever. It is quite hard to imagine leaving the Quakers due to a catastrophic loss of faith.
Charismatic Evangelicalism has various different types and yet it is almost always both an all-encompassing lifestyle and a very fragile glass-like structure.
It seems to me that it is that duality which is rare. Projecting as the answer-to-all-questions whilst in reality having a particularly weak philosophical and theological foundation.
It's not just another lifestyle choice. It's not just another valid manifestation of Christianity. Not just good religious people getting on with their thing.
It takes no prisoners and leaves many victims splatted on the pavement.
You can´t leave a church due to loss of faith when the church itself teaches no faith at all - just virtue signalling platitudes. That´s the case with modern quakerism, and most mainline "isms". Not believing in the basic tenets of the faith is not compelling enough for someone to leave a church, when its most proeminent leaders don´t believe them either, and the reason you joined was probably not belief, to start with.
Most likely, people leave these groups not because they have a strong reason to do so... but because they don´t have any strong reason to stay. And not because they lost faith... but maybe they found faith, in something else (either atheism or a conservative version of christianity).
And leaving a liberal church groups doesn´t represent a big crisis in life, it usually happens in a gradual way. Because that faith doesn´t really demand anything from its members.
American-style evangelicalism has had a big role to play in various right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. Guatemala’s Rios Montt for instance was converted by a California evangelical group. Bolsonaro has huge support from evangelicals. In its willingness to support the nastiest people to counter leftism and liberation theology, I think it’s fair to refer to evangelicalism as “death squad theology.”
And liberation theology, which is basically how you call liberal theology in the southern hemisphere, had a big role in supporting left-wing dictatorships and bad governments. I think it´s fair to say they´ve cause at least as much deaths. I think it´s quite fair to say you understand bollocks of what you´re sayng, you just want an excuse for bashing a group that you hate.
American-style evangelicalism has had a big role to play in various right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. Guatemala’s Rios Montt for instance was converted by a California evangelical group. Bolsonaro has huge support from evangelicals. In its willingness to support the nastiest people to counter leftism and liberation theology, I think it’s fair to refer to evangelicalism as “death squad theology.”
And liberation theology, which is basically how you call liberal theology in the southern hemisphere, had a big role in supporting left-wing dictatorships and bad governments. I think it´s fair to say they´ve cause at least as much deaths. I think it´s quite fair to say you understand bollocks of what you´re sayng, you just want an excuse for bashing a group that you hate.
You don't actually have a clue what Liberation Theology is, do you? You think Dom Helder Camara was some sort of Sea of Faith Spongite?!
I have no time for the we're-atheists-but-like-our-stipends sort of "liberals" exemplified by Spong, but it insults the memory of Camara and Romero and their brother priests who proclaimed the Gospel faithfully in the face of oppression, "exalting the humble and meek" in Christ's name to group them with him.
Exactly. Liberation theology has very little to do with liberal theology. This is about the same level of understanding of people who labeled Obama a communist.
I see a problem: there is a danger of downplaying the danger of charismatic evangelicalism.
As hard as I've tried to be fair, I really don't see the same kinds of damage being caused by any other movement within Christianity. I don't think I'm naive. I accept there are parts of the religion I know little about.
And of course there are places where terrible abuse has been uncovered. I'm not diminishing that for a second.
Yet.. there is something different about charismatic evangelicalism.
If one gets annoyed and quits the Quakers, it might be because of a specific person, the way things work (or don't work), lack of support, bullying or whatever. It is quite hard to imagine leaving the Quakers due to a catastrophic loss of faith.
Charismatic Evangelicalism has various different types and yet it is almost always both an all-encompassing lifestyle and a very fragile glass-like structure.
It seems to me that it is that duality which is rare. Projecting as the answer-to-all-questions whilst in reality having a particularly weak philosophical and theological foundation.
It's not just another lifestyle choice. It's not just another valid manifestation of Christianity. Not just good religious people getting on with their thing.
It takes no prisoners and leaves many victims splatted on the pavement.
You can´t leave a church due to loss of faith when the church itself teaches no faith at all - just virtue signalling platitudes. That´s the case with modern quakerism, and most mainline "isms". Not believing in the basic tenets of the faith is not compelling enough for someone to leave a church, when its most proeminent leaders don´t believe them either, and the reason you joined was probably not belief, to start with.
Most likely, people leave these groups not because they have a strong reason to do so... but because they don´t have any strong reason to stay. And not because they lost faith... but maybe they found faith, in something else (either atheism or a conservative version of christianity).
And leaving a liberal church groups doesn´t represent a big crisis in life, it usually happens in a gradual way. Because that faith doesn´t really demand anything from its members.
I'm very much looking forward to joining a thriving liberal church round the new corner. I could barely stand the char evo Anglican church I still volunteer with, which is how I met my wife, but she couldn't at all any more.
American-style evangelicalism has had a big role to play in various right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. Guatemala’s Rios Montt for instance was converted by a California evangelical group. Bolsonaro has huge support from evangelicals. In its willingness to support the nastiest people to counter leftism and liberation theology, I think it’s fair to refer to evangelicalism as “death squad theology.”
And liberation theology, which is basically how you call liberal theology in the southern hemisphere, had a big role in supporting left-wing dictatorships and bad governments. I think it´s fair to say they´ve cause at least as much deaths. I think it´s quite fair to say you understand bollocks of what you´re sayng, you just want an excuse for bashing a group that you hate.
American-style evangelicalism has had a big role to play in various right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. Guatemala’s Rios Montt for instance was converted by a California evangelical group. Bolsonaro has huge support from evangelicals. In its willingness to support the nastiest people to counter leftism and liberation theology, I think it’s fair to refer to evangelicalism as “death squad theology.”
And liberation theology, which is basically how you call liberal theology in the southern hemisphere, had a big role in supporting left-wing dictatorships and bad governments. I think it´s fair to say they´ve cause at least as much deaths. I think it´s quite fair to say you understand bollocks of what you´re sayng, you just want an excuse for bashing a group that you hate.
You don't actually have a clue what Liberation Theology is, do you? You think Dom Helder Camara was some sort of Sea of Faith Spongite?!
I have no time for the we're-atheists-but-like-our-stipends sort of "liberals" exemplified by Spong, but it insults the memory of Camara and Romero and their brother priests who proclaimed the Gospel faithfully in the face of oppression, "exalting the humble and meek" in Christ's name to group them with him.
I spent years reading books from brazilian theologians, including liberation theology.
You seem to think it´s just standard orthodox christianity standing with the poor and opressed as it should. They surely want to picture themselves as being persecuted by the church for standing with the poor. They simply omit that their theology is heretic, not for standing with the poor, but because it denies traditional dogmas of their respective churches.
Liberation theologians deny every single aspect of christianity. Most of them don´t even believe in a personal God.
It is exactly the same thing as liberal christianity from the northern hemisphere. Because IT IS northern hemisphere´s christianity dressed in latin clothes. Nothing it has ever developed is new, except it was adapted to latin circumstances.
You don´t find liberation theology among the poor communities in Latin America. You find it in the upper hierarchies of denominations that have links with Europe.
Right let me introduce you to an America Reformed Theologian H Richard Niebuhr . His seminal book on the relationship titled Christ and Culture deals with the relationship between broader context and the Gospel. He gives three positions which he calls "Christ Against Culture" (Conservative), "Christ of Culture" (Liberal) and "Christ Above Culture" (paradoxical). Although the mappings are not precise.
The book deals with the dissonance between faith and culture. You would note he has three positions, not two. The "Christ against Culture" position almost prides itself about the dissonance between those of the faith and those outside but they get around it by rejecting the outside culture. This is also the stance of the sociological sect. Those who struggle most when dissonance occurs are actually "Christ of Culture" where the expectation is that gospel will sit neatly within contemporary culture and the belief that human culture can become Christendom. This view will quite often fit with those in the sociological church. Within the Reformed tradition, the paradoxical tend to be centrists. The commitment to keeping both views of Christ relationship to culture in tension means that they do not get sucked into either of the drives that suck individuals to either a Liberal or Conservative extreme. Anyone who can list Barth, Troeltsch and Kirkegaard as influences, as Richard Niebuhr is, hardly belongs to a single camp. However, from my personal experience, it is always tempting to solve them by taking one option or the other rather than to actively seek to hold the two in tension.
While this is from a Reformed perspective I suspect it has applicability outside the tradition.
Exactly. Liberation theology has very little to do with liberal theology. This is about the same level of understanding of people who labeled Obama a communist.
It took me a while to understand the differences, but I did. There is a lot in Liberation Theology that I would embrace - not by any means all of it though.
( @1986_overstaged - I had a slightly different immediate feeling when you wrote "Brazillian Theologians")
I don't understand why we are now talking about liberal theology or liberation theology.
Is anyone seriously trying to argue that these forms of belief cause as much damage as charismatic evangelicalism?
I'm sure they have faults, but I'm doubting many found themselves contemplating doing something terrible to themselves because they stopped believing that God is on the Side of the Poor.
American-style evangelicalism has had a big role to play in various right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. Guatemala’s Rios Montt for instance was converted by a California evangelical group. Bolsonaro has huge support from evangelicals. In its willingness to support the nastiest people to counter leftism and liberation theology, I think it’s fair to refer to evangelicalism as “death squad theology.”
And liberation theology, which is basically how you call liberal theology in the southern hemisphere, had a big role in supporting left-wing dictatorships and bad governments. I think it´s fair to say they´ve cause at least as much deaths. I think it´s quite fair to say you understand bollocks of what you´re sayng, you just want an excuse for bashing a group that you hate.
You don't actually have a clue what Liberation Theology is, do you? You think Dom Helder Camara was some sort of Sea of Faith Spongite?!
I have no time for the we're-atheists-but-like-our-stipends sort of "liberals" exemplified by Spong, but it insults the memory of Camara and Romero and their brother priests who proclaimed the Gospel faithfully in the face of oppression, "exalting the humble and meek" in Christ's name to group them with him.
I spent years reading books from brazilian theologians, including liberation theology.
You seem to think it´s just standard orthodox christianity standing with the poor and opressed as it should. They surely want to picture themselves as being persecuted by the church for standing with the poor. They simply omit that their theology is heretic, not for standing with the poor, but because it denies traditional dogmas of their respective churches.
Liberation theologians deny every single aspect of christianity. Most of them don´t even believe in a personal God.
It is exactly the same thing as liberal christianity from the northern hemisphere. Because IT IS northern hemisphere´s christianity dressed in latin clothes. Nothing it has ever developed is new, except it was adapted to latin circumstances.
You don´t find liberation theology among the poor communities in Latin America. You find it in the upper hierarchies of denominations that have links with Europe.
This is absurd. These theologians get imprimaturs. Sure, some don’t, but that’s true for many Roman Catholic theologians. I’ve read a lot of liberation theology, so unless you can cite sources to prove your point, I’m calling bull.
Furthermore, cite your sources again for liberal christianity in the north. Landing blows on straw men doesn’t prove you’re adept at arguing.
If you claim you´ve read liberation theologians and they´re orthodox, then: 1) you didn´t really read it; 2) your standards of orthodoxy are very loose, as to include theologians who deny the incarnation or the physical resurrection; 3) you´ve read books that seem orthodox because they don´t deal with any subject that´s specifically christian.
Of course, you can get dozens of books from liberal/liberation theologians that don´t contradict any tenet of the faith. But that´s mostly because that´s not the subject of the book. They write a lot about ecology, feminism, racism, etc. You don´t need to adress christology or soteriology in a direct manner to deal with these subjects. But ask any liberal/liberation theology what they think was acomplished by Christ on the cross? If there is a personal God apart independent from human beings and our feelings? If Jesus actually resurrected from the dead bodily? The virgin birth? Old school liberation theology was nothing but marxism dressed in a christian language (hence the reason why you fail to see the connection between liberation and liberal theology, since most liberal theologians are not really marxists). But in later years, it has morphed into inoffensive social progressiveness dressed in christian language. It has become identical to northern hemisphere liberal christianity.
Specially after left-wing governments in latin america, strongly supported by liberation theologians, have either stolen what they could from the tax payer (Brazil) or became murderous (Nicaragua, Venezuela). The focus of liberation theologians have shifted from politics to things like "using a neutral or feminine language for God"; "honoring the Mother Earth"; "fighting toxic masculinity"; "gender-neutral bathrooms for trans people" and other northern hemisphere liberal bullshit. Of course they will insist that their theology is completely different from northen hemisphere´s theology. Because if they admit the truth, it would undermined their whole narrative of anti-colonialism and of liberation theology being a grassroots movement among poor people. But here is the truth: "liberation theology" is nothing but a trendy name given to liberal ministers in poor countries, that are funded with money from rich churches from Europe and North America. Every single denomination and seminar that teaches liberation theology receives funding from partner churches in rich countries. And there´s nothing substantially original or different about it.
But charismatic Evangelicals (and in fact many different Evangelicals of all kinds) fund their flavour of churches in South America, Asia and Africa. What do you think you are proving when you suggest certain movements receive money from overseas?
This is an absurd conversation; first we talk about Charismatics and then you start talking about something else altogether.
What you wrote doesn't even make sense. First you say liberation thelogians are Marxists. Then you say liberal theologians aren't. But then go on to say they are all the same anyway.
Anecdotally, I've seen individual charismatic churches throw lots of money at their "pet" overseas church. Are you sure that the monies sent to support "liberal churches" or "liberation theologians" is anything like at the same level?
FWIW - I don't think it is actually "charismatic" churches as such. It is cundamentalist. Or Conservative Evangelical.
The fact that many of them are also charismatic, doesn't mean it is fair to blam all charismatic churches. The charismatic aspect is a style or form of worship (that I think is actually very much my style).
FWIW - I don't think it is actually "charismatic" churches as such. It is cundamentalist. Or Conservative Evangelical.
The fact that many of them are also charismatic, doesn't mean it is fair to blam all charismatic churches. The charismatic aspect is a style or form of worship (that I think is actually very much my style).
There is a spectrum from good-but-bullshit to bad-and-destructive I tend to think these days about religion.
I definitely believe all Charismatics evangelical churches cluster at one end of that spectrum. Some better than others, but that's not saying much.
Specially after left-wing governments in latin america, strongly supported by liberation theologians, have either stolen what they could from the tax payer (Brazil)
What specific actions of the Brazilian government are you referring to here?
Then the critics might as well challenge the Chronicles of Narnia for promoting an interest in warfare. They are both outstanding imaginative stories with a strong Christian ethos. I will always remember on the day of a new Harry Potter release seeing a small boy sit down on the pavement to read a book the size of a brick. J K Rowling inspired a generation of children to become avid readers.
As Brian Jacques inspired their older siblings.
Much as I enjoyed Brian Jacques at the time, even by 11 or 12 I could see the repetitive nature of his plots and world building that makes Lewis seem coherent. Jacques isn't in the same league as Rowling, for all the flaws in the HP books. I would suggest Pratchett probably has had more influence on young readers than Jacques. Possibly Colin Dann and Jill Murphy too.
If you read what I wrote and what preceded it, it was about inspiring children to read, not about how good his stuff was. Kids were buying hardcover editions of his books, and could hardly wait for the next one. That was my point. What league he was in is wholly completely and totally irrelevant.
No, not completely irrelevant at all. I was pointing out that Jacques' weaknesses mean he's not as big a draw as Rowling. I have hardbacks of every HP book, even the ones which came out before I picked up the series. I have a few Brian Jacques hardbacks (Outcast of Redwall and Pearls of Lutra if you're curious) but I also have a Farthing Wood hardback. Jacques is one of the pack, not in the same league as Rowling, and part of that is down to quality.
When Reinhold Nieghur wrote his book there was the thought that the 20th Century would be the Christian Century. A magazine was even given that name. However, we know it did not happen. Moreover, Evangelical Christiandom morphed into the Christ of Culture because it started to claim Christ has blessed our culture. We became the shining light on the hill (to use Reagan's illustration). Evangelical Christians supported people like Reagan, Bush, and Trump because they all promised to return America to the good old ways. Trump, for instance, won the pro-life vote because he promised to pack the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade (the decision that legalized choice). Yet Trump himself admits to paying for abortions for his girlfriends. Likewise, with Reagan. Reagan promised to restrict abortions in spite of the fact that he signed the first state bill legalizing abortions.
Evangelicals have become so one issue in the United States, they are willing to overlook the clay feet of their political leaders to get to their ultimate goal.
And liberation theology, which is basically how you call liberal theology in the southern hemisphere, had a big role in supporting left-wing dictatorships and bad governments. I think it´s fair to say they´ve cause at least as much deaths.
You don´t find liberation theology among the poor communities in Latin America. You find it in the upper hierarchies of denominations that have links with Europe.
Then the critics might as well challenge the Chronicles of Narnia for promoting an interest in warfare. They are both outstanding imaginative stories with a strong Christian ethos. I will always remember on the day of a new Harry Potter release seeing a small boy sit down on the pavement to read a book the size of a brick. J K Rowling inspired a generation of children to become avid readers.
As Brian Jacques inspired their older siblings.
Much as I enjoyed Brian Jacques at the time, even by 11 or 12 I could see the repetitive nature of his plots and world building that makes Lewis seem coherent. Jacques isn't in the same league as Rowling, for all the flaws in the HP books. I would suggest Pratchett probably has had more influence on young readers than Jacques. Possibly Colin Dann and Jill Murphy too.
If you read what I wrote and what preceded it, it was about inspiring children to read, not about how good his stuff was. Kids were buying hardcover editions of his books, and could hardly wait for the next one. That was my point. What league he was in is wholly completely and totally irrelevant.
No, not completely irrelevant at all. I was pointing out that Jacques' weaknesses mean he's not as big a draw as Rowling. I have hardbacks of every HP book, even the ones which came out before I picked up the series. I have a few Brian Jacques hardbacks (Outcast of Redwall and Pearls of Lutra if you're curious) but I also have a Farthing Wood hardback. Jacques is one of the pack, not in the same league as Rowling, and part of that is down to quality.
Who was a bigger draw was not in play.
Eh? We were talking about getting kids reading. At least I thought we were. What were you talking about?
I have never quite been able to dismiss two impressions that I have about that 'liberation theology.' Firstly, that LT is a somewhat protean label (a bit like Evangelicalism, really,) and covers an immense range of theological and not-so-theological thought. Secondly, that most variations of it involve co-opting signs and symbols from Catholic theology in order to spread Marxist/Leftist ideas about society. I was introduced to Liberation Theology at college, but did not pursue it because on some level it came across to me as being more-or-less bollocks in the theological and social context I was working in. It did make a change from the sort of dried up first-world liberal academic theology that was hip at the time. If that sort of liberal theology was all that was on offer I would have signed up for Germanic neo-paganism years ago.
I find the Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr interesting not so much for what they say, but where they came from, the relatively small (German) Evangelical Synod of North America - which was the U.S. expression of the Old Prussian Union type of Protestantism. That said, the idea of Christ above Culture is one that has always appealed to me, but it is not one that one finds often on the American Protestantism which tends to fall prey to either fundagelicalism's basic conviction that the culture is against them, or to a 1950s "Americanism" that effectively believes American Middle Class culture (sic) is Christian Culture.
But I do admit, having read and digested something ExclamationMark said above that I am operating from a particular point of experience and privilege. Which means that the faults of Charismatic Evangelicalism are particularly bold and clear whereas the more distant faults of Roman Catholicism seem smaller.
But I'm sure it would look different if I had experienced being trans in the Catholic church. I apologise for minimising this and not appreciating the obvious reality.
I’ve never understood Christian distaste for Marxism or Marxist thought. Marxism is one of the most sophisticated and systematic accounts of life under capitalism, and capitalism is quite abhorrent to all Christian ethics. Christians, as a whole, are quite dismissive of Marx. When you get into conservative Christians they just willfully misunderstand and distort his thinking, as far as I’m concerned. It’s quite strange.
I agree that Marx provides a valuable analysis of capitalism, which Christians should engage with seriously. He recognized more than anyone before him what set capitalism apart from previous societies and what made it tick. Of course Marxism is more than an analysis of capitalism, though- it is a philosophy addressing, at least implicitly, all facets of life with an underlying materialist conception of nature, history, and life in general.
Materialism does, to be fair, do a good job of explaining many phenomena that happen in a society driven by greed, but for many things it only gives part of the picture. The materialism and economic determinism of Marxism forces consistent Marxists to explain a lot of things- especially complex human activities like religion and art- in a highly reductionist way.
When the early Marxists presented their ideology as "scientific" socialism, as opposed to the idealist or utopian socialism of other schools, it probably sounded very impressive to 19th century audiences but today it just looks like branding for what is really just another school of romanticism- with the combination of genuine insights and wishful thinking that entails.
Likewise Marx's prediction that communism was not only an inevitable culmination of humanity's long, tortuous road, but an imminent one as well, seemed very probably to many people in his time. Many later events seemed to support that too- but at this point it is hard to see how someone could seriously think that communism is the inevitable future of mankind, or that it is even the only way that the contradictions of capitalism can resolve (without wiping civilization out).
So in short I'd say Marx is at his best when he's looking at what's in front of him- the burgeoning capitalist mode of production and the peculiar principles that continue to shape the world today. And his Hegelian inheritance enabled him to analyze these in a particularly dynamic way. When he's explaining the past, though, or predicting the future, his German philosophy puts him on shakier ground.
This doesn't really explain Christianity has so often been inimical to Marxism or leftism generally. Oftentimes of course reactionary Christians will cite Marxism's godlessness and materialism but reactionary Christianity is itself a bulwark of the sons of Mammon. While it mouths pious slogans it is a fundamentally atheistic ideology because no one who believes there is a God judging the sons of men would support the likes of Franco, Pinochet, Trump, or Bolsonaro.
Likewise Marx's prediction that communism was not only an inevitable culmination of humanity's long, tortuous road, but an imminent one as well, seemed very probably to many people in his time.
Oftentimes of course reactionary Christians will cite Marxism's godlessness and materialism but reactionary Christianity is itself a bulwark of the sons of Mammon. While it mouths pious slogans it is a fundamentally atheistic ideology because no one who believes there is a God judging the sons of men would support the likes of Franco, Pinochet, Trump, or Bolsonaro.
This reverses modern thinking on atheism, but was much more common in the past. Various court records for people convicted of atheism, back when atheism was punished as a crime, includes descriptions of theft, fornication, bestiality, and other forms of wickedness. What doesn't appear is a charge that the accused had an affirmative philosophical belief in God's non-existence. The reasoning was much as @SirPalomides describes:
The fear of God's judgment prevents men from committing wickedness
This man is very wicked
Therefore this man does not fear God's judgment
So he must be an atheist
Kind of a reverse True Scotsman. Any wicked person must therefore be an atheist.
I admit that there is plenty of No True Scotsman there. I share with the ancient fathers a fondness for cheap shots in a good cause.
I offer as precedent St Theophanes the Confessor's fair and balanced assessment of Emperor Constantine V:
...he was a totally destructive bloodsucking wild beast who used his power tyrannically and illegally. First, he sided against our God and Savior Jesus Christ, His altogether immaculate Mother, and all the saints. He was deceived by wizardry, licentiousness, blood sacrifices of horses, dung, and urine. Effeminacy and summoning demons pleased him, and ever since he was a boy he had partaken of absolutely every sort of soul-destroying practice. What can I say? When, with his wickedness, the altogether abominable one took over his father’s rule, from the beginning he craved such evil, and openly threw his flame into the air.
Comments
I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam I Am.
Neil Gaiman's The Problem of Susan is one of the most disturbing things I've ever read, and I'm not going to link to that.
Funny you should mention the books which have been banned. This next week will be the American Banned Books Week.
I wouldn't insult people who understand right and wrong by saying that evangelicals suffer from a surplus of "Right vs Wrong" thinking.
They do seem to have a strong sense of black and white but are uncomfortable with gray areas.
As Brian Jacques inspired their older siblings.
Much as I enjoyed Brian Jacques at the time, even by 11 or 12 I could see the repetitive nature of his plots and world building that makes Lewis seem coherent. Jacques isn't in the same league as Rowling, for all the flaws in the HP books. I would suggest Pratchett probably has had more influence on young readers than Jacques. Possibly Colin Dann and Jill Murphy too.
If you read what I wrote and what preceded it, it was about inspiring children to read, not about how good his stuff was. Kids were buying hardcover editions of his books, and could hardly wait for the next one. That was my point. What league he was in is wholly completely and totally irrelevant.
No, not completely irrelevant at all. I was pointing out that Jacques' weaknesses mean he's not as big a draw as Rowling. I have hardbacks of every HP book, even the ones which came out before I picked up the series. I have a few Brian Jacques hardbacks (Outcast of Redwall and Pearls of Lutra if you're curious) but I also have a Farthing Wood hardback. Jacques is one of the pack, not in the same league as Rowling, and part of that is down to quality.
I read the first five Redwall books around the same age and would agree as to the repetitiveness. To which I would add that Jacques has, IMO, a very dangerous system of classifying morality according to species.
I think that its the point - it is very binary. Very simplistic. It is not "right and wrong" as others might understand it - it is that lack of any gray areas, any acceptance that questions - most, and the most important - have far more complex answers.
As hard as I've tried to be fair, I really don't see the same kinds of damage being caused by any other movement within Christianity. I don't think I'm naive. I accept there are parts of the religion I know little about.
And of course there are places where terrible abuse has been uncovered. I'm not diminishing that for a second.
Yet.. there is something different about charismatic evangelicalism.
If one gets annoyed and quits the Quakers, it might be because of a specific person, the way things work (or don't work), lack of support, bullying or whatever. It is quite hard to imagine leaving the Quakers due to a catastrophic loss of faith.
Charismatic Evangelicalism has various different types and yet it is almost always both an all-encompassing lifestyle and a very fragile glass-like structure.
It seems to me that it is that duality which is rare. Projecting as the answer-to-all-questions whilst in reality having a particularly weak philosophical and theological foundation.
It's not just another lifestyle choice. It's not just another valid manifestation of Christianity. Not just good religious people getting on with their thing.
It takes no prisoners and leaves many victims splatted on the pavement.
You can´t leave a church due to loss of faith when the church itself teaches no faith at all - just virtue signalling platitudes. That´s the case with modern quakerism, and most mainline "isms". Not believing in the basic tenets of the faith is not compelling enough for someone to leave a church, when its most proeminent leaders don´t believe them either, and the reason you joined was probably not belief, to start with.
Most likely, people leave these groups not because they have a strong reason to do so... but because they don´t have any strong reason to stay. And not because they lost faith... but maybe they found faith, in something else (either atheism or a conservative version of christianity).
And leaving a liberal church groups doesn´t represent a big crisis in life, it usually happens in a gradual way. Because that faith doesn´t really demand anything from its members.
And liberation theology, which is basically how you call liberal theology in the southern hemisphere, had a big role in supporting left-wing dictatorships and bad governments. I think it´s fair to say they´ve cause at least as much deaths. I think it´s quite fair to say you understand bollocks of what you´re sayng, you just want an excuse for bashing a group that you hate.
You don't actually have a clue what Liberation Theology is, do you? You think Dom Helder Camara was some sort of Sea of Faith Spongite?!
I have no time for the we're-atheists-but-like-our-stipends sort of "liberals" exemplified by Spong, but it insults the memory of Camara and Romero and their brother priests who proclaimed the Gospel faithfully in the face of oppression, "exalting the humble and meek" in Christ's name to group them with him.
I'm very much looking forward to joining a thriving liberal church round the new corner. I could barely stand the char evo Anglican church I still volunteer with, which is how I met my wife, but she couldn't at all any more.
Hack their taught faith. I'd rather be Muslim.
Blow Torch Bob's people?
I spent years reading books from brazilian theologians, including liberation theology.
You seem to think it´s just standard orthodox christianity standing with the poor and opressed as it should. They surely want to picture themselves as being persecuted by the church for standing with the poor. They simply omit that their theology is heretic, not for standing with the poor, but because it denies traditional dogmas of their respective churches.
Liberation theologians deny every single aspect of christianity. Most of them don´t even believe in a personal God.
It is exactly the same thing as liberal christianity from the northern hemisphere. Because IT IS northern hemisphere´s christianity dressed in latin clothes. Nothing it has ever developed is new, except it was adapted to latin circumstances.
You don´t find liberation theology among the poor communities in Latin America. You find it in the upper hierarchies of denominations that have links with Europe.
The book deals with the dissonance between faith and culture. You would note he has three positions, not two. The "Christ against Culture" position almost prides itself about the dissonance between those of the faith and those outside but they get around it by rejecting the outside culture. This is also the stance of the sociological sect. Those who struggle most when dissonance occurs are actually "Christ of Culture" where the expectation is that gospel will sit neatly within contemporary culture and the belief that human culture can become Christendom. This view will quite often fit with those in the sociological church. Within the Reformed tradition, the paradoxical tend to be centrists. The commitment to keeping both views of Christ relationship to culture in tension means that they do not get sucked into either of the drives that suck individuals to either a Liberal or Conservative extreme. Anyone who can list Barth, Troeltsch and Kirkegaard as influences, as Richard Niebuhr is, hardly belongs to a single camp. However, from my personal experience, it is always tempting to solve them by taking one option or the other rather than to actively seek to hold the two in tension.
While this is from a Reformed perspective I suspect it has applicability outside the tradition.
It took me a while to understand the differences, but I did. There is a lot in Liberation Theology that I would embrace - not by any means all of it though.
( @1986_overstaged - I had a slightly different immediate feeling when you wrote "Brazillian Theologians")
The thinking is extremely convoluted. But still very defined, very black and white.
"This is right for me, but wrong for you. That is because I am more chosen by God than you are."
Is anyone seriously trying to argue that these forms of belief cause as much damage as charismatic evangelicalism?
I'm sure they have faults, but I'm doubting many found themselves contemplating doing something terrible to themselves because they stopped believing that God is on the Side of the Poor.
If you claim you´ve read liberation theologians and they´re orthodox, then: 1) you didn´t really read it; 2) your standards of orthodoxy are very loose, as to include theologians who deny the incarnation or the physical resurrection; 3) you´ve read books that seem orthodox because they don´t deal with any subject that´s specifically christian.
Of course, you can get dozens of books from liberal/liberation theologians that don´t contradict any tenet of the faith. But that´s mostly because that´s not the subject of the book. They write a lot about ecology, feminism, racism, etc. You don´t need to adress christology or soteriology in a direct manner to deal with these subjects. But ask any liberal/liberation theology what they think was acomplished by Christ on the cross? If there is a personal God apart independent from human beings and our feelings? If Jesus actually resurrected from the dead bodily? The virgin birth? Old school liberation theology was nothing but marxism dressed in a christian language (hence the reason why you fail to see the connection between liberation and liberal theology, since most liberal theologians are not really marxists). But in later years, it has morphed into inoffensive social progressiveness dressed in christian language. It has become identical to northern hemisphere liberal christianity.
Specially after left-wing governments in latin america, strongly supported by liberation theologians, have either stolen what they could from the tax payer (Brazil) or became murderous (Nicaragua, Venezuela). The focus of liberation theologians have shifted from politics to things like "using a neutral or feminine language for God"; "honoring the Mother Earth"; "fighting toxic masculinity"; "gender-neutral bathrooms for trans people" and other northern hemisphere liberal bullshit. Of course they will insist that their theology is completely different from northen hemisphere´s theology. Because if they admit the truth, it would undermined their whole narrative of anti-colonialism and of liberation theology being a grassroots movement among poor people. But here is the truth: "liberation theology" is nothing but a trendy name given to liberal ministers in poor countries, that are funded with money from rich churches from Europe and North America. Every single denomination and seminar that teaches liberation theology receives funding from partner churches in rich countries. And there´s nothing substantially original or different about it.
This is an absurd conversation; first we talk about Charismatics and then you start talking about something else altogether.
What you wrote doesn't even make sense. First you say liberation thelogians are Marxists. Then you say liberal theologians aren't. But then go on to say they are all the same anyway.
I have no idea, but I highly doubt it.
The fact that many of them are also charismatic, doesn't mean it is fair to blam all charismatic churches. The charismatic aspect is a style or form of worship (that I think is actually very much my style).
There is a spectrum from good-but-bullshit to bad-and-destructive I tend to think these days about religion.
I definitely believe all Charismatics evangelical churches cluster at one end of that spectrum. Some better than others, but that's not saying much.
Ultimately I don't see a lot of difference between them if one scratches beneath the label.
What specific actions of the Brazilian government are you referring to here?
Evangelicals have become so one issue in the United States, they are willing to overlook the clay feet of their political leaders to get to their ultimate goal.
The Sandinistas want a word.
Eh? We were talking about getting kids reading. At least I thought we were. What were you talking about?
Probably just cause for me not to, then. He's hardly the most discerning of people as exemplified by his stance on LGBT+
Riiiight. Give the guy a break. He's Catholic.
I find the Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr interesting not so much for what they say, but where they came from, the relatively small (German) Evangelical Synod of North America - which was the U.S. expression of the Old Prussian Union type of Protestantism. That said, the idea of Christ above Culture is one that has always appealed to me, but it is not one that one finds often on the American Protestantism which tends to fall prey to either fundagelicalism's basic conviction that the culture is against them, or to a 1950s "Americanism" that effectively believes American Middle Class culture (sic) is Christian Culture.
But I do admit, having read and digested something ExclamationMark said above that I am operating from a particular point of experience and privilege. Which means that the faults of Charismatic Evangelicalism are particularly bold and clear whereas the more distant faults of Roman Catholicism seem smaller.
But I'm sure it would look different if I had experienced being trans in the Catholic church. I apologise for minimising this and not appreciating the obvious reality.
I agree that Marx provides a valuable analysis of capitalism, which Christians should engage with seriously. He recognized more than anyone before him what set capitalism apart from previous societies and what made it tick. Of course Marxism is more than an analysis of capitalism, though- it is a philosophy addressing, at least implicitly, all facets of life with an underlying materialist conception of nature, history, and life in general.
Materialism does, to be fair, do a good job of explaining many phenomena that happen in a society driven by greed, but for many things it only gives part of the picture. The materialism and economic determinism of Marxism forces consistent Marxists to explain a lot of things- especially complex human activities like religion and art- in a highly reductionist way.
When the early Marxists presented their ideology as "scientific" socialism, as opposed to the idealist or utopian socialism of other schools, it probably sounded very impressive to 19th century audiences but today it just looks like branding for what is really just another school of romanticism- with the combination of genuine insights and wishful thinking that entails.
Likewise Marx's prediction that communism was not only an inevitable culmination of humanity's long, tortuous road, but an imminent one as well, seemed very probably to many people in his time. Many later events seemed to support that too- but at this point it is hard to see how someone could seriously think that communism is the inevitable future of mankind, or that it is even the only way that the contradictions of capitalism can resolve (without wiping civilization out).
So in short I'd say Marx is at his best when he's looking at what's in front of him- the burgeoning capitalist mode of production and the peculiar principles that continue to shape the world today. And his Hegelian inheritance enabled him to analyze these in a particularly dynamic way. When he's explaining the past, though, or predicting the future, his German philosophy puts him on shakier ground.
This doesn't really explain Christianity has so often been inimical to Marxism or leftism generally. Oftentimes of course reactionary Christians will cite Marxism's godlessness and materialism but reactionary Christianity is itself a bulwark of the sons of Mammon. While it mouths pious slogans it is a fundamentally atheistic ideology because no one who believes there is a God judging the sons of men would support the likes of Franco, Pinochet, Trump, or Bolsonaro.
Karl Marx: Hostage Negotiator. Trust me, it's (sort of) relevant.
This reverses modern thinking on atheism, but was much more common in the past. Various court records for people convicted of atheism, back when atheism was punished as a crime, includes descriptions of theft, fornication, bestiality, and other forms of wickedness. What doesn't appear is a charge that the accused had an affirmative philosophical belief in God's non-existence. The reasoning was much as @SirPalomides describes:
Kind of a reverse True Scotsman. Any wicked person must therefore be an atheist.
I offer as precedent St Theophanes the Confessor's fair and balanced assessment of Emperor Constantine V:
...he was a totally destructive bloodsucking wild beast who used his power tyrannically and illegally. First, he sided against our God and Savior Jesus Christ, His altogether immaculate Mother, and all the saints. He was deceived by wizardry, licentiousness, blood sacrifices of horses, dung, and urine. Effeminacy and summoning demons pleased him, and ever since he was a boy he had partaken of absolutely every sort of soul-destroying practice. What can I say? When, with his wickedness, the altogether abominable one took over his father’s rule, from the beginning he craved such evil, and openly threw his flame into the air.