07/06: Mainline Blues, verse 5
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
For the previous verses, see this post and links.
Another root cause of Mainline decline: Liberation Theology separated from biblical teaching.
Liberation Theology, in a nutshell, is a way of looking at Christian doctrine that emphasizes God's "preferential option" for the poor. The Old Testament prophets over and over again proclaimed God's watchcare for the widow and orphan, and judged Israel's society on how well the weak got the justice they deserved. On the flip side, the wealthy frequently were castigated and were condemned as oppressors of the poor. See, for example, the prophet Amos. In the New Testament we find Jesus more often among the poor and outcast than among the rich; and he did say that the last shall be first, and that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. The Apostle Paul describes the early Christian church as made up of not many mighty. Liberation Theology emphasizes justice for the poor and weak of society, including the global society. We should not be content to wait for heaven when we die, we should work to make this world now look more like the kingdom.
And, since we tend to understand things, including Scripture, based on our background, Liberation Theology has emphasized the ways in which the rich (individuals and nations) distort the Bible message in order to remain comfortable. Indeed, Liberation Theology(s) teach that the poor and weak have better insight into God's teaching than do the rich.
So far, so good. However, . . . (more below)
Some have pushed Liberation Theology in some bad directions. For example, some have made the simple equation that rich and powerful equals evil and poor and weak equals righteous. Therefore the dominant society (whether of a nation, or considering global society) is evil and weak societies are righteous. Guess who is the richest, most powerful nation on earth? U.S. So in any conflict in which the United States is involved, we are evil and the weaker nation (say, Cuba) is righteous. Isn't simplistic thinking wonderful. Many folks have left mainline churches over just this political analysis from the pulpit or denominational headquarters.
Within a society, like ours, the dominant culture is evil (say, heterosexual) and the weaker minority is righteous (say, ACTUP). The church, then, is to work for the liberation of the weak (for example, same-sex marriage). Notice how the Left (secular or religious) has made saints out of those who have died from, or are suffering from, AIDS.
Another root cause of Mainline decline: Liberation Theology separated from biblical teaching.
Liberation Theology, in a nutshell, is a way of looking at Christian doctrine that emphasizes God's "preferential option" for the poor. The Old Testament prophets over and over again proclaimed God's watchcare for the widow and orphan, and judged Israel's society on how well the weak got the justice they deserved. On the flip side, the wealthy frequently were castigated and were condemned as oppressors of the poor. See, for example, the prophet Amos. In the New Testament we find Jesus more often among the poor and outcast than among the rich; and he did say that the last shall be first, and that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. The Apostle Paul describes the early Christian church as made up of not many mighty. Liberation Theology emphasizes justice for the poor and weak of society, including the global society. We should not be content to wait for heaven when we die, we should work to make this world now look more like the kingdom.
And, since we tend to understand things, including Scripture, based on our background, Liberation Theology has emphasized the ways in which the rich (individuals and nations) distort the Bible message in order to remain comfortable. Indeed, Liberation Theology(s) teach that the poor and weak have better insight into God's teaching than do the rich.
So far, so good. However, . . . (more below)
Some have pushed Liberation Theology in some bad directions. For example, some have made the simple equation that rich and powerful equals evil and poor and weak equals righteous. Therefore the dominant society (whether of a nation, or considering global society) is evil and weak societies are righteous. Guess who is the richest, most powerful nation on earth? U.S. So in any conflict in which the United States is involved, we are evil and the weaker nation (say, Cuba) is righteous. Isn't simplistic thinking wonderful. Many folks have left mainline churches over just this political analysis from the pulpit or denominational headquarters.
Within a society, like ours, the dominant culture is evil (say, heterosexual) and the weaker minority is righteous (say, ACTUP). The church, then, is to work for the liberation of the weak (for example, same-sex marriage). Notice how the Left (secular or religious) has made saints out of those who have died from, or are suffering from, AIDS.
martian mariner wrote:
I agree that Liberation theology doesn't pan out in reality, and over-simplifies some of Jesus' teachings, or rather, over-applies them. I don't quite see how that connects with the mainline decline, though. Did many mainline denominations embrace this theology? If so, it's pretty ironic that they were the largest and richest denominations at the time, and preached a theology that said that they themselves were the un-blessed.
But let's say that the two (extended liberation theology and mainline decline) are related. How did one lead to the other? Doctrinal deviation does not necessarily equal lower church attendance. Did the logical (relevant logic) extension of abolitionist views and liberation theology to include the protection of all minorities create a cultural backlash, leading to the increase in conservative evangelical denominations (and non-denominations)? Or was it that liberation theology really doesn't sit well in a rich nation where people like being rich, explaining the massive growth of conservative evangelical churchs in the 'burbs?
I think it would be easier to handle for the conservative evangelicals (aside: that's an unwieldy handle. From now on I'm saying con-eves.) to say that they're on the more righteous side and left the mainlines because the mainlines were wrong. I wonder what the reality is, though.
P.S. Did you guys know that you're cited as a source in a wikipedia article? That's pretty rare for the wiki gardeners to let a blog citation stay, and your inclusion is discussed on the page. Pretty cool, though. Unless one of you guys did it, and then, shame, shame.