Hatred and paranoia are not a Christian theology
Liberation theology is a fascinating animal. Essentially, its the emptying of the Christian gospel of all content, and the replacement of that content with Marxism. It functions more or less the way certain wasps who inhabit the Amazon jungle do: paralyzing its victim (Christianity) and injecting its own larvae into it. The larvae eat the vitals of the host, and then emerge full-grown, leaving the corpse behind just as soon as it's safe.
Or perhaps the aliens from Invasion of the Body Snatchers would be a better example. Liberation theology, after all, uses the appearance of its host as a disguise- as a method of self-legitimization. In the same way, the language and symbols of Christianity- redefined and given alien meanings often radically incompatible with the original meanings- are co-opted by this dishonest form of left wing extremism, and made to serve an agenda with which Christianity as such has nothing at all in common.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright- the hate-filled extremist who was once Barak Obama's pastor- says that his critics are attacking, not him, but "the black church." This is true only insofar as the black church- like Wright himself- has abandoned Christianity's substance, and is using its hollowed-out corpse for the purposes wolves are traditionally accused of using the clothing of sheep.
I think he vastly overestimates that degree.
Wright argues that "the Christianity of the slave is not the Christianity of the slaveholder." Perhaps not. But the problem is that what Wright represents is not, on any showing, Christianity at all. Racism is wrong; so is hate, slander and paranoia. There is no place in biblical Christianity for either, and Wright's message is just as alien to that of Jesus and Paul as that of the wretches past and present who attempt to use the Cross as something behind which to hide racial bigotry.
Which makes it all the odder that there are actually those- like Ruth Coniff of the left-wing magazine The Progressive- who attempt to defend not only Wright's understandable anger at the injustice of American society, but his paranoid ravings as not only understandable excesses, but as valid on their own terms.
And they are simply not. A man who accuses the American government of intentionally spreading AIDS among the peoples of Africa may be justifiably angry, but he's also nuts- and more than that, motivated by an especially vicious variety of hate. Rev. Wright, like Liberation Theology generally- or any ideology which seeks to masquerade as Christianity while advocating content utterly at odds with Jesus and Paul as to its substance-is a fake, a fraud, and a deceiver.
Jesus was in favor of social justice- at least in principle, although- the Left to the contrary- He did not offer an agenda for achieving it. I will not mention the turning of the other cheek; it's not only notoriously easy to advocate the turning of someone else's cheek, but it would be unseemly for me to blame the victim of injustice for not being a more willing victim.
But Jesus certainly did not sanction the bearing of outrageous false witness even by the victims of injustice. Nor would He tolerate it for a moment longer than He would tolerate the real injustice of which Rev. Wright has every right to complain.
It will not do to equate him with black Christianity. What he's selling has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity of any kind. It has everything do do with paranoia anger, and hate- none of which are values extolled in the Sermon on the Mount, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
But there is something else wrong with Ms. Coniff's article, other than its patent perversity. She actually accuses Rev. Wright's critics of being racist.
That's too significant a word to be rendered meaningless by its customary misuse by left wing extremists, no matter what their race. Rev. Wright may have mortally wounded Barak Obama's candidacy, and certainly destroyed his own public reputation with his overheated rhetoric. But how, in view of Ms. Coniff's absurd use of the "r" word here, are we supposed to take her seriously when she uses it appropriately?
HT: Real Clear Politics
Or perhaps the aliens from Invasion of the Body Snatchers would be a better example. Liberation theology, after all, uses the appearance of its host as a disguise- as a method of self-legitimization. In the same way, the language and symbols of Christianity- redefined and given alien meanings often radically incompatible with the original meanings- are co-opted by this dishonest form of left wing extremism, and made to serve an agenda with which Christianity as such has nothing at all in common.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright- the hate-filled extremist who was once Barak Obama's pastor- says that his critics are attacking, not him, but "the black church." This is true only insofar as the black church- like Wright himself- has abandoned Christianity's substance, and is using its hollowed-out corpse for the purposes wolves are traditionally accused of using the clothing of sheep.
I think he vastly overestimates that degree.
Wright argues that "the Christianity of the slave is not the Christianity of the slaveholder." Perhaps not. But the problem is that what Wright represents is not, on any showing, Christianity at all. Racism is wrong; so is hate, slander and paranoia. There is no place in biblical Christianity for either, and Wright's message is just as alien to that of Jesus and Paul as that of the wretches past and present who attempt to use the Cross as something behind which to hide racial bigotry.
Which makes it all the odder that there are actually those- like Ruth Coniff of the left-wing magazine The Progressive- who attempt to defend not only Wright's understandable anger at the injustice of American society, but his paranoid ravings as not only understandable excesses, but as valid on their own terms.
And they are simply not. A man who accuses the American government of intentionally spreading AIDS among the peoples of Africa may be justifiably angry, but he's also nuts- and more than that, motivated by an especially vicious variety of hate. Rev. Wright, like Liberation Theology generally- or any ideology which seeks to masquerade as Christianity while advocating content utterly at odds with Jesus and Paul as to its substance-is a fake, a fraud, and a deceiver.
Jesus was in favor of social justice- at least in principle, although- the Left to the contrary- He did not offer an agenda for achieving it. I will not mention the turning of the other cheek; it's not only notoriously easy to advocate the turning of someone else's cheek, but it would be unseemly for me to blame the victim of injustice for not being a more willing victim.
But Jesus certainly did not sanction the bearing of outrageous false witness even by the victims of injustice. Nor would He tolerate it for a moment longer than He would tolerate the real injustice of which Rev. Wright has every right to complain.
It will not do to equate him with black Christianity. What he's selling has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity of any kind. It has everything do do with paranoia anger, and hate- none of which are values extolled in the Sermon on the Mount, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
But there is something else wrong with Ms. Coniff's article, other than its patent perversity. She actually accuses Rev. Wright's critics of being racist.
That's too significant a word to be rendered meaningless by its customary misuse by left wing extremists, no matter what their race. Rev. Wright may have mortally wounded Barak Obama's candidacy, and certainly destroyed his own public reputation with his overheated rhetoric. But how, in view of Ms. Coniff's absurd use of the "r" word here, are we supposed to take her seriously when she uses it appropriately?
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments