A Liberation from Illusion

Awesome post over at the de-scribe.

I've been struggling over the idea of the preferential option for the poor. I neither want to reject which I believe is unbiblical, nor accept it uncritically. I've been trying to articulate in my own mind for quite some time the relationship between justice and spirituality in a non-oppositional way. I think this begins to to do so.

One of the reasons I named this blog consumer liberation theology is out of the realization that yes hate poverty and systemic
injustice but do we really want to raise people to be consumers (in the case of economic liberation theology) or the various power issues white men have (in regards to other liberation theologies of gender,race and colonialism).

Positive Ecology?

One of my core intellectual projects is a to encounter modernity theologically. Specifically in a Christian theology, grounded radically in the resurrection of Jesus and his proclamation of the reign of God, for the practice of the Church.

This big project idea has led me to explore many things: theodicy, transcendance, technology, consumerism, justice, liberation and technology. I now turn to ecology, which I have yet to really think about. What I want to discuss now is positive versus negative approaches to the environment.

By negative approach I mean one that's creed is "we must not destroy the environment". This approach is reflects the ideologies of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. Just as the individual has rights and must respect the rights of others, so the environment has rights that must be respected. Yet these rights are in the negative, there is no positive relationship to the environment just as there is no positive relationship with society.

By positive I mean an account that, just as communtarian accounts describes society, describes the relationship in terms of commitment and responsibility rather than rights.

When it comes to the bible, was is a good reading to determine between the two?

A facebook response

The following was a response on facebook to suggest that the theology beyond creating a department of peace in Canada was actually idolatry. The response made me quite angry, and here was my first response. I say first, because likely there will be more.

Idolatrous notions? You mean believing that trying to do good and find peace is somehow idolatrous?

And in the apocalyptic literature God is warrior, or more specifically victor. He is a victor through his dead on the cross, and Chirstians are called to likewise surrender and to trust God who raises the dead, as he did Christ.

The true Idolatry is making the prince of peace into a God of war. We worship the God revealed in the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth, not the Empire building Ceaser.

As for there is no peace for the wicked, I would like to briefly quote Romans "While we were still sinners; Christ died for the ungodly". Now if you say this verse refers Christians and that other enemies should not have peace that I am reminded off the response of the Older Son in the parable of the prodigal son who chastises his father for his grace towards the other rebellious son who became the enemy. Saying there is no peace for the wicked might have some biblical background but quite clearly Jesus commands us to Love Our Enemies, and if we love those who love us we are no better than pagans.

But besides the theological notions the department of peace seems to me to be moving in the right direction. I am not sure whether or not it will pass, but for any body of people, any organization, especially the organization of nation-state with it's resources, is willing to put the resources into finding alternatives for war and in peace-building.

Saying that war and conflict is grounded in human nature is both true and a cop out. Let me explain. You can not avoid the responsibility one has by wiping one's hands and saying "It was just nature". Yes creating this conflict is part of human nature but it is not an excuse, it does not make us innocent, if we cause it.

Most conflict in the world today stems from human nature to be sure, but in not so clear ways. It seems to happen mainly out of injustices and divisions that are deeply rooted in history. Sin does not just appear, it does not happen in a vacuum.

For instance the genocide in Rwanda has a history in the colonialism of the Belgians (who, as I may point out, were considered 'Christians') who through their legal structures perpetuated the differences between Hutu and Tutsi.

To pick on the Belgians a lit bit more, look at the Congo. In the last two decades many people have died from a civil war in that country, second only in history to the second world war. Terrible! Yet you look at the Countries history with the terrible attrocities the tyrant Leopold II of Belgium enacted on that country in search of personal wealth, killing according to the New York Times millions (although it might have been sensationalistic, less than that number likely died but still A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE MURDERED), following after the 1960s by a dictator established by US government for their interests (whether they were good or bad is up to debate, nevertheless a dictator was established), which further destablized the nation. Then the real conflict began as the conflict in Rwanda spilled it's borders.

These are only two examples, not to mention the countless examples of the International Monetary Fund, in their apparent rationalist wisdom, charging unpayable Usury (which the Bible and Christianity in general has serious doubts about, including denouncing as absolutely unethical) to many of the former European colonies, trapping them in cycles of abject poverty as their governments have no money to invest or build the country. The poverty leads to starvation, which leads to desperation which helps create the scenario for violent conflict and war.

It is the root causes, these injustices and others like them, that such a department of peace would address. I see that as a good thing, and do not comprehend whatsoever how this desire is arrogant or overly ambitious. Surely it will not solve all problems, or even a majority of them, but if it can stop some it is far better that not.

The Event, Badiou and Yoder - or Jesus for or against revolution ?

I remember reading about Alain Badiou's 'ontology of the event' where he grounds the discovery of such ontology in the unique event of the resurrection of Christ. Badiou, who is not a Christian, recognizes somethings radically new in this story, a new ontology. An ontology of 'the event', something unprecedented in history. He theorizes that it is only with this ontology of the event, grounded in it's own unique and bizarre way to the Christian story, that a real revolution can happen.

Today I was reading from "Christian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution" where Yoder after a brief historical analysis. He narrates the events of history, events as diverse as the Boer War, the French revolution, the decolonization of Latin America, as mainly originating out of aristocracies on the revolutionary side who were able to use the revolutions to set up Apartheid, make way for Napolean and exploit the poor respectively.

I thought it was interesting to compare the two; both trying to do scholarly work but one in support of what might be called the Modern Revolutionary Tradition and the other Christianity (or 'the resurrection tradition' to put it tongue-and-cheek). Both use history and scholarship to support their views, but are both coming from specific traditions.

I wish to throw a bit of Gadamer in here as well: can there be a fusion of horizons here?

Moltmann quotation.

"We however need another theology of liberation for people incapable of living - for melancholic and apathetic and in this sense godforsaken people in the First World" - Jurgen Moltmann

That sums up what I've been trying to say, to write, to express.

Personal Emerging Politics

I will spare the story but in the past two years I have become increasingly political. Four real reasons: international injustice (do you know how many children die each day from preventable causes??), peak oil (people are way to ignorant of this), unsustainable corporations (co-operatives are so much better) and the quenching of community through consumerism (this hurts). All these reasons come down to a desire to see good and be part of good in the world.

I realize that some of these are already implemented, some of them are idealistic and likely will not happen and others maybe slightly incoherent.

So here are a list of political positions that are developing but not quite there:
- credit unions should be established and should charge non-profit interest (against Usury)
- > including national credit unions
- worker's co-operatives should be everywhere
- > along with this one of the priorities of government spending should be setting these up
- non-profit social insurance co-ops are needed urgently (Canada is facing a major crisis in a few years with it's spending)
- > along with worker's co-operatives should be funded by the governments but this is higher priority at the moment
- solar and wind energy driven economies
- > we can not survive on oil - the technology exists to go solar/wind
- > to do this a system of carbon taxes, renewable tax credits and laws for certain key sectors that must go renewable
- the IMF needs to change
- > be managed by a board of more equitable representation globally
- > SAPS need to have reasonable interest rates
- > SAPS should encourage the above mentioned government projects and not the selling off of major public works
- > heavily indebted countries need to be forgiven their debts immediately
- the nation-state model needs to be replaced with a continental union model,
- > the African union, the Central American union and the South American union are essential to get off the ground now
- expropriate the patents and rights to their GMOs from Monsanto
- make it illegal to buy non-fair trade purchases (just as Asbestos was made illegal)
- truth-and-reconciliation commissions should be set-up
- > between former colonial powers and colonies
- > between ethnic conflicts the world over
- > in the Great Lakes region of Africa
- > between North and South American post-colonial states and their indigenous peoples
- > between the United States and the various countries it lead coups in during the Cold War
- high-speed trains
- > several long projects within the new continental unions and across borders to create a new internationalism

Things I think about but have reached no solid ideas about:
- the environment - there is danger but what happens when we switch our energy sources?
- education - Illich showed me the disturbing reality of schooling which added to my own suspicion of the institution - where do we go from here?

MY DEEPEST CONCERN:

Community and consumerism - the point isn't to arbitrarily create wealth, although I believe my suggestions will create wealth in the long run. I worry that wealth might lead to excess consumerism and more breakdown of community - more isolated individuals living somewhat meaningless lives moving from place to place with no real friendships, enduring connections or hope for an intentional life.

It will be hell - the damned fires of satiation and excess, greed and loneliness.

That's why I started this blog. It is not that I have confidence in the good human soul but I believe with the technologies that exists a better political order can be founded. This is not some idealism, I believe there is the agency to do so. But hidden within that agency is a dark spirit that will rage a deep spiritual violence on people who live in political peace and economic prosperity but who are not living 'the good life' nor being form into the 'Imago Christi' having forgotten the Imago Dei.

One life many stories

One New Years Donald Miller blogged about living a good story as an alternative to New Years Resolutions. I thought the idea was interesting and renewed thoughts in me concerning narrative theology. So I picked up a book of mine, Why Narrative?, and began to read.

What caught my attention was an essay on narrative and ethical theory. The gist of the paper was the importance of narrative as a category in ethics. The more I thought about this the more I wanted to engage with the reality of multiple narratives and the ethical self.

Although this surely is a postmodernist influence on me, that is thinking about the fragmented self, I believe it is important issue, especially for ethics. Personally my story is one that is both as a Christian,as a Canadian, as a member of my family, as a second generation-Canadian who is in Canada because of the actions of Communist Yugoslavia in the 1940s, as a reader of theologies, as a member of an intentional community... all this is me.

Now the question I want to explore is this: what does this mean, because of the many narratives which make up my life, in regard to my discussion on textual community?
I think a textual community needs to be aware of the other narratives that the community members hold to. I think the different ways of interpreting the sacred scripture needed to be informed by these others narrative. On top of that I believe interpretations can be then more intentional seeking to understand, critique and synthesize these other stories.

This is certainly not an end to these thoughts: what do you think?

A Theology of Liberation

This is in response to what Jeremiah posted below. The question I seek to pose is how does God liberate?

I intentionally leave the question open ended. I think foundational to any Christian god-talk is acknowledging that God does liberate but how does relate to our own experiences, authorities, hopes, behaviours and general way of living in the world as individuals, communities, the church and larger political societies? I think it does but I think we really need to examine this.

Jacques Ellul writes about these issues in The Ethics of Freedom, a brilliant book that I encourage everyone to read. In it he examines alienation and shows how alienation pervades all aspects of the human experience. Christ came to end alienation and only in Christ is alienation is ending. At the time I read it I found the book interesting because I felt it successfully contextualized the gospel in the terms of contemporary socialist and academic discourse while remaining true to what I consider the quintessential Christian message "Jesus saves".

Looking back on it I feel Ellul and I differ in one main area: Technological determinism. Although I find his analysis on "the technological society" in his book fascinating, insightful and useful. What I feel is though he is correct about the dangers and workings of a technological society I feel that the Christian faith can still flourish, if the technology is used right. I differ from Ellul primarily because of Michel de Certeau's "The practice of everyday life". His argument concerning the role of the user as being distinct and not determined by the producer has influenced the way I understand technology contra Ellul. Again I feel Ellul's insights are penetrating and important but incomplete.

Thus I see the danger not in technology but it's use: thus a Consumerist Liberation Theology.

But before I can even muse on such a topic I really have to ask: how does God liberate? I believe that he does. I see this in physical healings, in conversions, in the breaking of addictions, in the stories of the scripture and even Creation itself. I believe further this liberation comes especially through the person of Jesus of Nazareth who is both God-with-us and resurrected.

The problem with some liberation theologies as I see it is their engagement with the Exodus narrative as a paradigm of liberation. Although I agree it can be I see a lack of canonical thinking when Christ has nothing to say about the situation and the church is eroded into an arbitrary institution which by sheer luck bares the message of God in the scriptures. Thus I criticize the past liberation theologies for what seems to be inadequate christological and ecclesiological thinking (I criticize here the more colloqial and non-academic liberation theologies not the kind of Boff and Guietterez) despite what can often be good praxis.

Most evangelicals seem to criticize Liberation theologies reliance on the social situation to help interpret scripture. I think this an unfair accusation. I believe that it is very important to read scripture mindful of social situation. I think a lot of the major issues the Church is dealing with today is doing this kind of reading inadequately: from the GOP-Evangelical synthesis in the United States to the odd prosperity gospel churches of some regions in Africa. I will try to expand this thought in a future blog post.

Then the reason I propose such a Theology of consumer liberation is because I believe it is absolutely essential to the orthodoxy,orthopraxy and orthopathy of the church. That is to say that our gospel is the full gospel, our discipleship is authentic and that we have the ability to hope for God's coming reign and mourn the powers of darkness still at work in the world.