Top 10 Myths...Ritter litter...Liberation Theology...
Category: Kitchen Sink...
Posted Thursday, March 27, 2003 at 04:25 PM [GMT-6]

We went live with the new Buffalo Trail Council (Boy Scouts) website yesterday and I'm waiting on other clients for content, so I've had some breathing room to check out a few things that I wouldn't normally get around to.

• I've seen a lot of links to this article, but I think it's worth a link here, as well. Letterman popularized the "Top 10" list format, and it's put to good use here in describing myths about the war with Iraq.
  
  
• Rachel Lucas takes former weapons inspector Scott Ritter to task for some comments he made about the US chances of victory in Iraq (slim-to-none, in his opinion). While Rachel continues to astonish and amaze her readers with her seemingly endless permutations of adjectives and nouns which incorporate the syllable "ass," I can see a little more room for debate regarding Ritter's remarks. IF (and it's a big "if") Ritter was alluding to the difficulty of declaring victory in a war where the defeated regime will never, ever attend a formal ceremony of surrender (state funerals don't count), then he could be right. If he's talking about a victory declaration that comes only after we verify a free and open democratic election of new Iraqi governmental leaders, answerable to the people of Iraq, I wouldn't argue that it's highly likely.
  
  But, if he really believe that the coalition forces will not achieve a clear military victory — and that the people of Iraq will not be the better for it — then I would have to cast my lot with Ms. Lucas.
  
  
• Jeff Jarvis over at BuzzMachine blogged this morning about "Liberation Theology." I've heard the term before, and knew that it had been generally applied in the past to movements in Latin America, but I didn't really know much else about it. So I googled a few sites in an attempt to get a quick education.
  
  Here's the link to which Jeff referred. In this article, the writer states:

While liberation theology does not encourage violence, it acknowledges the right of people to defend themselves against murderous repression. Uprisings by Kurds and Shi'ites in 1987-89 and in 1991 were put down in large-scale massacres, sometimes with chemical weapons. If they were to rise again, they would have the world's sympathy. Liberation theology would say that the Lord, who breaks the rod of the oppressor, was with them.

Then I found this statement, from the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center (this organization is apparently working to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine; its mission statment says, in part: "Sabeel strives to develop a spirituality based on justice, peace, nonviolence, liberation and reconciliation for the different national and faith communities."):

When President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, who claim to be Christians, appear frequently on TV and talk about going to war, they represent the primitive warrior god of certain parts of the Bible whom we totally reject and find offensive. We believe they are acting contrary to the spirit and message of the Bible. They are not being peacemakers but “warmakers” and this makes many of us Christians ashamed. We want to make it clear that we cannot follow the God of George Bush and Tony Blair. We follow the God of peace who wills peace and who makes us God’s children by virtue of loving, seeking, and pursuing peace.

So, the first two links I visited presented opposing views on what "Liberation Theology" permits (or assumes). On the one hand, war (or, at least, violent uprising) is justified by the proper end; on the other, that war is never justified.

Well, like anything related to theology, the answers are as varied as the answerers, and the issue is not to be dealt with in a few minutes of light webscanning. If you really want to dig into Liberation Theology online, you might start with this article about the philosophy as it relates to Latin America, then move to this one regarding Black Theology, and end up with this one about Feminist Theology.

Those articles take on the subject from more of a cultural/sociological perspective. If you care to see more of a Bible-based perspective on the issue, take a look here. In my humble and ill-informed opinion, this strikes closer at the heart of the matter:

So we see Christianity struggling forwards towards its roots.

It is doing so in accordance with the Cause-and-effect Relationship of the Pentateuch. This clearly states that inhumanity, suffering and oppression will increase until people return and follow the laws of the Pentateuch. These laws include its laws of behaviour and its social laws and its social system and these provide fairness and equality, independence and freedom, for all.

It is only when people struggle for a better life, struggle for these laws to be applied and followed, that a better quality of life can be achieved on this planet for all human beings, instead of just for a few at the expense of extreme poverty for the rest.

In other words, spin it as you will, the emphasis on "Liberation Theology" must ultimately land on "Theology" — what does God want from His creation? Peace will come only from peaceful individuals; governments and institutions cannot make it so.

Jesus Christ said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." We're pretty good at the first part...not so good at the second. And we should be extremely leery about doing anything in God's Name until we're sure that He would approve. And, by the way, it will behoove us to remember that the God of the Old Testament is also the God of the New Testament; He hasn't changed one bit.

So, how does this all fit into the context of the war with Iraq (or vice versa)? Beats me. All I know is that some evil cannot be wished away, or talked away, or ignored away. And if you tell me that we should let God deal with the evildoers in His own way and time, my response is probably going to be something like this: "that seems to be what He's doing right now." Praise the Lord and pass the ammo.

Permalink