A few days ago snollyg asked me to do some research and then to comment on Black Liberation Theology..the same was extended to the whole board in a post that I cannot bother to look up at this point, perhaps snolly will be good enough to link it.

This is the kind of activity that dignifies this place and places it above the average tongue and hormone Internet hangout....it is a place to learn and a place to share, this is perhaps the most noble of its attributes..but I digress.

It would seem that one cannot consider the roots of BLT without first discovering what Liberation Theology is in the first place. Unfortunately with the Internets viral referencing tendencies we are constantly thrown over to Wikipedia which may or may not be a reliable reference. In any case, after sampling and reading thought several references, short of actually purchasing a book on the matter. I have come down to a few prescient tenets that seem to define the idea behind liberation theology.

It seems to have its roots in the societies of the poor and underclass and is, for all intents and purposes an apologia for the God that takes care of the poor and under-classed as opposed to the other God that caters to the rich....both of these are supposed to be the same person but because there is so much disparity between the lives of the two groups human nature has devised a way to see this person as more than one person.

Tartuffe will no doubt faint with exasperation as I am not linking or referencing but then again I must steal moments to get these posts done, I have no idea what kind of free time he has...suffice it to say that referencing for this matter is readily available for anyone with a healthy click finger.

So to sum:

Liberation Theology is a philosophy of convenience. It allows the priest of minister to tailor make a religious pattern to the preferences of his/her congregation. It helps to answer questions like why we aren't also rich or why bad things happen to skin colors or religious sects. It shows us how the ones we hate or are jealous of or who choose to be our enemies are really God's enemies too and probably improves the interest ratios of those who would otherwise feel disconnected and screwed by life in General.

It makes a great vehicle for hate speech, but more than that it is a virtual financial steroid when it comes to fattening up the collection plate. It offers hope beyond the conventional for those who need it and a real purpose in the here and now, even if that purpose is hate.

Liberation theology is a rip-off in any form or flavor. It is not specifically a Christian teaching and would apparently water down the realities that Christ endeavored to teach such as spiritual treasure as opposed to material treasure. So without tag naming it as Black, Hispanic, or any other surname lets just keep it simple.

Liberation theology is no more than convenient Mythology tailor made to the needs of the audience.

...that you use this here 'noble enterprise' of a board to say so little. Clearly you despise religion and would see virtually ANY religious endeavor as a waste of time, which hardly qualifies you to speak on the matter in a reasonable or even moderately objective way. "It's a waste of time" isn't really much of an analysis, is it?

The Liberation Theology I remember was Catholic, and developed largely in Latin America in the '70s. It preached the traditional theme of coming to God through poverty and the meek inheriting the Earth, a powerful lesson to those in Latin countries who had little or nothing and were perennial outsiders in those highly stratified societies. But rather than merely preaching acceptance of one's status, Liberation Theology preached the 'sword' of Christ, i.e. the overturning of the social order in favor of a more pluralistic, even socialistic one where the have-nots became haves, and the haves were brought low.

The linkage of Catholicism with leftism, even in some cases Marxism upset the hierarchy as the Church became more conservative under JPII, and the Pope spoke out against Liberation Theology starting in '79. Ratzinger has also opposed it, and still does so as Pope. Its influence has waned a bit, but there's still a current movement that sees the failures of capitalism and continued oppression of the poor as valid reasons for preaching some form of Liberation Theology.

So while it's not a hard and fast doctrine, it is (or was) a very specific form of Christian teaching and not merely a "rip-off" or "tailor-made to the needs of the audience." For all your dismissal of Wikipedia, it's a good source for information on the subject, and I'd refer you and other posters to it.

<link>

I purposely avoided posting those particulars at Snollyg's request.

Actually to fill in what you left out LT is also an attempt to define evil as whatever it is we dislike about our existence.

You have it all backward Horus.

I love religion...what I dislike is the con job that modern religion sells to its adoring adherents.

I only took some from Wikipedia, and listed it as a source. You're free to post your own take on the matter, but as I pointed out, your post was sorely lacking in particular or any actual sources, as even you admitted.

I was just posting facts. Your opinion of religion or what constitutes "Liberation Theology" is your affair. Your claim that it's about "defining evil as whatever it is we dislike about our existence" is nonsense. Unless you'd care to support that claim?

FWIW

all the way back to crapshoot many, many moons ago.

Christ taught that true riches are spiritual not material.

Poor parishioners hate their poverty ergo they seek reasons as to why God allows some to be wealthy. It is very easy and emotionally palatable to create a scenario that makes the poor holy and the rich evil even though that is just hogwash. Christ did say that you cannot serve god and also serve riches...this passage is easily misinterpreted to mean that money equals divine disapproval and completely overlooks the very real possibility that a poor person can server riches also and sometimes perhaps more than the wealthy do.

...that Liberation Theology tries to take the spiritual values of Christianity and apply them to the actual, temporal world, rather than what the Church traditionally did, which was use them as a proferred ticket to Heaven, redeemable only after one's death at the end of a long life full of pain and suffering.

I know they say that suffering is 'good for you,' but oddly, they seemed to reserve it mostly for the peasants and lower classes. The Princes of the Church never quite seemed to believe in it themselves...or thought themselves above it.

I personally don't see poverty = holiness or riches = 'sin,' but I do think that using Jesus' teachings to keep the poor in their place is wrong, if not evil.

But then, I'm not and never have been Catholic. So whadda I know?

I will make no attempt to reply to what is so well expressed and probably says what I feel better than I can myself.

jo

If you want to see where Liberation Theology is actually becoming, and where it is headed I suggest you read these two articles by Phillip Jenkins.

<link>

<link>

The dialogue is moving beyon Chicago, beyond blacks in America and beyond the "First World" altogether.

The vast majority of Christians are part of what is referred to as "The Global South" -- where, interestingly, their current 21st century experience is far closer to the words written in the Bible than anything we experience here in the United States.

I'm not recommending this as any kind of treason against the US, but rather to say that there are millions and millions of people on the planet who live VASTLY different from anything we can understand. They are busy living their day-to-day lives and finding themselves "understood" by biblical writers who describe plagues, famines, tribal wars, destruction, desert living, sacrifice and redemption.

And my point is that Rev. Wright is just a non-issue, except in the minds of a very few people. The "theology" and politics on which Rev. Wright based his sermons has moved on.

The debate over 1970's "radical" thought is old, cold and irrelevant in the current global community.

JMHO.

if you remember, i asked you first to articulate (as fully and completely as you could) what black liberation theologians urge of their parishioners.

i suppose i had hoped you would uncover (for yourself) examples that demonstrated black liberation theology to acknowledge the resentment already present in its congregation; but instead of turning this resentment towards destruction, black liberation theology turns it to a springboard for positive community works. your post understates (actually, it completely omits) the community works (and the nature of the community works) that churches such as trinity engage in.

i don't want to presume, so i won't make the accusation outright. i will simply ask if this doesn't occur to you.

after all, the words BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY look an awful lot like the words BLACK LIBERATION which look an awful lot like the words BLACK POWER. if you look at the bombast, the ideologies themselves even look alike.

but if you look no further than the bombast, then you can only present a distortion. and isn't that what demagoguery really is?

i'll credit you wrt the suggestion of this church (and other churches) as a money-maker.

but, as you know (or maybe you don't), trinity church is largely comprised of affluent african americans even though its ministries serve the less affluent. (in other words, it's redistributive, sorta like robin hood.)

I have often thought that in this whole Wright kerfluffle that the biggest point being lost was the actual work being done by Trinity church. I like your Robin Hood analogy - it works on a lot of levels.

I'm clearly not an experienced "Fray" poster and feel a bit bludgeoned by my own attempts to join in the conversations here, but I do like the way you've stayed with the point on this. And I think you've brought up some good ideas that are worth musing over.

but i'll be honest, there's not a lot of worthwhile back-and-forth on the fray.

enjoy your stay. may it not last too long. after all, there's a whole world out there that doesn't consist of navel-gazing.

subject matter without first identifying the subject....somehow tag naming it either White, Spanish ( which may in fact be the original version ) or otherwise seemed almost racist.

i can understand that you take umbrage at the idea that someone somewhere thinks you're a racist. maybe they're right; maybe they're wrong. and maybe they are the racists.

but what does any of this have to do with whether you recognize and afford due respect to the facts?

Frankly there's no point to any taking of umbrage here and I wouldn't waste my time or effort to convince anyone of anything....learned that years ago..

I don't see how you can deal with this subject however without going to its ultimate roots or at least its ultimate modern roots.

Horus was quite correct in citing South American Latin Origins within the Catholic church that may be three or four hundred years old.

I think what I want to know now is how much the message may or may not have changed since then and how it gets applied to specific demographics...like middle class Black Revival centers for instance.

Now where should I look for the info that you are talking about because I have googled this subject rather extensively and so far I come up with histories and not specific doctrinal outlines.

I have no fear of reading or research....