Tag Archives: Tunisia

James on The Tory Preacher John MacArthur

(en) Libya Location (he) מיקום לוב

Image via Wikipedia

I mentioned earlier that a group of bloggers have pointed out John MacArthur’s stance against the Libyan, Egyptian, and Tunisian rebellions as sinful. But as I have argued on Brian’s post, I think placing one’s rules (subjective and quite suspicious interpretation of Romans 13, for example) over that of the sanctity of life is the very defition of legalism that Jesus protested in such gospel passages as Mark 7.

James Bradford Pate shared on facebook, and now I would like to share it too, his post from 2008 when MacArthur said that the Revolutionary War was a bad thing. See here: John MacArthur on Voting, American Revolution.

He is well within his right to interpret Scripture in such a way, and in American history class, we know that the majority of American colonists were against the Revolution. There were reverends who preached that the colonists should submit to Tory rule. So, again, no argument that the history is not there. But is it necessary to call revolution and voting a sin?  I question such definition of sinfulness. If participation in democratic republic is such a sin, then participating in that nation’s economy is sinful as well, and by that I mean, having even the coinage which that government provides, let alone joining in the consumption of goods by selling and marketing  a study bible name after yourself.  As many political theorists keep pointing out, neo-liberal economics and democracy/representative government go hand and hand. You cannot just accept one without embracing the other, and that is what we are seeing in the Middle East (of Europe and the West) right now. So before Tory preachers say they are sinless by avoiding partaking in this democracy, let them re-consider  by first glancing at their wallets.  😉

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Decade of Anger: Capitalism(s), Wisconsin, Egypt, and Beyond

Or Whose Afraid of the Big Bad Marxist ?

On December 31st, 2010, I was just shooting the breeze, and yet:







Soon to be Texas.

One could not have imagined that non-violent protest would take the world by storm, but it has, and I am truly hopeful.

Christian Salafia suggests that it is Governor Scott Walker‘s fault for Wisconsin’s economic “crisis.”  However, that is impossible. Governors cannot cut taxes on their own. They need help from legislatures. According to this document, the Wisconsin legislature took up a vote for the tax breaks, but it was anonymous since no roll call took place. Now, if it turns out that even one of the 14 “missing” Wisconsin Democratic Senators voted in favor of the tax cuts, I think it would be safe to say that they are the ones who are guilty for behaving irresponsibly.

Over the past few days I have been keeping up and re-tweeting (that is not an endorsement) a few posts I disagree with, and many I do agree, but one in particular from Craig Carter’s fatigue of theologians who criticize capitalism.

I do not expect every Christian theologian to agree, but at least in mainline and progressive seminaries and churches it seems to me at least that capitalism is somewhat of a whipping boy, through the use of generalities.  What is agreed upon in these circles, for my two cents, is that the economic inequality as well as the uneven power distribution is at the heart of America’s moral crisis. From all the critiques of capitalism I have read in theological texts, it is not the abstract “labor theory of value” that is put into question, but the concrete evidence and statistics that points towards economic inequality and in-opportunity.  What is questioned is the impact that policies have on human persons.

In the first place, there are many forms of capitalism, and so one must distinguish between pre- & post- industrial capitalist setting, and secondly, with the advent of  de jure human enslavement (14th-19th centuries), I can hardly call that capitalism. At best, it should be considered a capitalist-friendly brand of mercantilism  and at worst, the re-birth of feudalism.  So when liberation theologians talk about capitalism in the U.S., it is more appropriately called corporatism, for it is the heads of corporation (and not the stockholders) who wield a majority of the economic power.  This undue influence is a product of Keynesian economics, where the state and corporations cooperate with such projects such as corporate-sponsored public projects (charter schools, prisons). What Craig Carter seems to be defending is this corporatist economic system which he and others mistakenly refer to as capitalism. However, I think I side with Ayn Rand (on this issue) in that capitalism has really never been tried. Especially when one thinks about the histories of racial segregation and denials of opportunities for persons of color up until the 1950s.  That, my friends, we cannot call capitalism, for it was a feudalistic racial oligarchy that went unchallenged for decades.

My concern for human flourishing, with human (bodily) freedom as the norm in the political economy allows me to agree with the critical analysis of persons such as a “Marxist” and “Laconian” philosopher such as Slajov Zizek, who consistently takes aim at chrony capitalism, while allowing me to reject his suggestion of communism as a panacea for our political situation.

In a collection of essays, John Howard Yoder compares the modern Christian theologian’s use of Marxist analysis to the early Christians’ assumption of the various Platonisms available to them in their surrounding contexts. I believe this comparison is quite accurate, with a few qualifications. Yoder’s “Liberating Images of Christ” in The War of the Lamb: The Ethics of Nonviolence and Peacemaking suggests that the use of Christ as the norm in constructive theology relativizes all philosophies, so that no one philosophy is declared absolute; in Colossians 2:8 NRSV, the author advises believes to avoid having the Gospel captivated by any philosophy in our freedom to use human tradition to advance the Good News.

We have yet to see if capitalism works because it has never been tried, and what I see as problematic in the political economy is a government that intervenes in favor of companies that support politicians in power; Congress is not alone in this, for even this week, a federal judge is on trial in Louisiana for taking kick-backs for sending impoverished teenagers to a for-profit juvenile detention facility.

My inner-Minarchist says that this is exactly why only government should have the right to detain criminals in its capacity to protect citizenry.

I think with all of this in mind, the beginning of the Decade of Anger has convinced me that my interests for a potential PhD program may be the study of historical theology, with a minor concentration, possibly, in economics. Tentatively, I envision a theological economic project where the principle of non-violence is put at the forefront, similar to probably the free market pursuit of non-aggression, but with a concern for violence done to the victim, but definitely a call for the separation of corporation and state (thank you, Chad).

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Unexplored Space: Foreign Policy & Political Theology

Yesterday on Twitter between two of my fellow blogging friends as well as a couple of blogs, the question was asked. “Where are the theological voices to comment on the events in Egypt and Tunisia?”

First, to qualify my answer, I must say that we as theo-bloggers are limited in what we can say because the results of the aforementioned nation-states because much of our history texts do not deal with these “marginal” countries in the first place in the name of essentializing African nations as being in need of “Western help.” Secondly, what limits what biblio-bloggers in what we can and cannot say is that the revolts are in their nascent stages, and we do not want to judge too quickly; it’s about discernment, really, especially when we are receiving our information sometimes second and third hand.

So, to the question at hand, the problem is quite simply this: religious scholars, both in biblical studies and theological studies, while many claim to be doing “political theology” and “political hermeneutics,” their politics is really limited to domestic issues in the name of being relevant and prophetic.  I would say that by avoiding foreign policy, Political theologians fail to be prophetic, for the prophetic tradition of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, there are oracles to foreign nations, and not to Israel, Judah, the Hebrews or Samaria.

Thus, we should not be surprised when bloggers who do biblical and theological studies do not comment on foreign policy matters.

Enhanced by Zemanta