Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: crf@ginger.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Liberation Theology (was Re: A Dialogue with Rome: part I) Message-ID: Date: 17 Dec 89 07:06:55 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Princeton University Lines: 38 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article dhosek@jarthur.claremont.edu (D.A. Hosek) writes: > >Liberation Theologists go to great pains to avoid emphasizing connections >with Marxism. Not because there is anything wrong with the fundamental >message of Marxism (which is neither revolution nor atheism, but rather >the elimination of class barriers and the ability for the workers to >control their own destiny), but because terms like "Communism" and "Marxism" >have rather emotional connotations to them for most Westerners... This paragraph brings up another point about Marxism that no one has explicitly mentioned; I can't tell from what you've written what your views on it would be, but I know that a lot of people are confused on it. When you talk about 'the ability for the workers to control their own destiny,' that's usually understood in the context where their overseers are abusing the workers for a profit. As long as that's all that's meant, I would agree that it's right to support the workers (as, I think, any Christian would). BUT, I've seen some people who take it a step further. They say something like, look at how the bad mean overseers abuse the workers; if they could only be gotten rid of, and the workers could run things themselves, then everything would be all right. This thought contains the germ of a very dangerous idea, the idea that the poor or oppressed are somehow not corrupt, just because the rich are. Clearly this goes against the Bible's teaching: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) Contrary to what some of the Marxists would say, it won't solve every problem to replace one group of sinful, powerful people (the rich) with another (the poor). It may be a necessary first step, but more steps must come afterward. As I said in a previous posting, I've read very little liberation theology myself (I'll try and find the book you mentioned). I would be interested to know whether liberation theologians bring up this point. Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh