Christianity - force for liberation or for oppression?

The liberation granted by Christianity comes only from obeying the commandments. If, for example, theft in all it's forms could be eliminated, then we would be free to enjoy the things we have. But because theft occurs, we must sacrifice some of that enjoyment to protect what we have from theft.

I think I've brought this up elsewhere, but there are two parts of Christianity, the "Thou Shalts" and the "Thou Shalt Nots". When we abide by the Thou Shalts, we find that the poor and needy are given the help they need to live reasonable lives, without fear of starvation or exposure. When practicing humility, there is less contention because it is not about one person being better than another, but both as equals.

Where it is seen as oppressive is when it comes to the Thou Shalt Not side of the equation. Christianity teaches that society will be better if all abide the commandments, and that as wickedness increases, ultimately all of us pay for it. What is the real cost to society from sexual freedom? How many unwanted pregnancies are there, where the support of the mother and child comes at the cost to the state? And how much is lost to treat sexually transmitted diseases? How much confusion now exists from the changing definition of the family? The idea is that if we all could refrain from sexual relations outside of marriage, choose our spouse from only the opposite gender, and be willing to make all the necessary sacrifices to keep a marriage happy and healthy, then society as a whole would be better off.

Christianity teaches us that the things that are forbidden are forbidden because they are harmful to ourselves, those around us, and potentially society as a whole. The rules set down aren't done so by a spiteful jerk, but a loving God, who wants only that which is best for us. Genesis 1 establishes Him as chief engineer and designer, and thus most knowledgeable on the human condition.

 

Christianity, or any other religion, is a tool. It can be used for both liberation and opression, as history has shown. It depends, really, on who is wielding it. To state that "only good" or "only bad" comes out of religion would be highly disingenuous, but I think, on balance, that more bad than good has come out of most religions, and that the primary reason for this has much more to do with human corruption than it does with some theoretical fault with the concept of religion. Religion can be a good thing, but people have an irritating tendency to twist it to serve their own interests rather than the greater good.

I never saw religion fighting to end slavery. What I see when I look at the Civil war period of American history is that abolitionists used religion as a means to back up their assertions about the wrongness of slavery. Those in favour of the status quo, however, also used the edicts of religion to back up their claims of its rightness.

Throughout history I see repeated admonitions by religion to "accept your lot in life and bear your cross with dignity" as it is the will of God that you do so. A case in point is the fact that, even in the new testament, slaves are admonished to be obedient and do their work well, regardless of the treatment they are given. They, sadly, aren't encouraged to seek their own freedom. The much vaunted biblican missives against slavery are also sadly over-stated. The old testament stands mute on the wrongness of slavery. The new testament only admonishes against enslaving other Christians, a distinction the anti-abolitionists loved to bring to the forefront.

Religion also lies behind many of our wars. Sure you can argue that the crusades were really just a mad power grab by certain higher ups in the Church, and you'd probably be right, but this hardly mitigates the fact that it was religion that was used to justify the killing. I'd go on with more examples of wars that used religion as their justification but, frankly, I doubt I have to.

 

Christianity has never been a force of liberalism, although it has been a force of liberation. This distinction is important to keep. Christianity never leaves you with a, "do what you want, it's your right," entitlement.

In fact, there's no true liberty or freedom without the law. A person who is a slave to his vices is not free. Defeating the vices and honing virtue leads to being freer. There is no freedom in harming oneself, harming others or going against the natural order, which only leads to chaos, which brings oppression, not freedom.

However, revolution or a bloody coup is not the way to effect social changes to improve such an order which is not a good one. The best way is normally to work with what you have, from within the system, using good and lawful means. Radical changes not always lead to a stable new order. There's a reason why people's rights have been improving gradually - at the same time there was a radical message for those who were willing to follow it. For example, if you read the Epistles of St Paul, the owner of a fugitive slave was told not to liberate the slave, but to treat him like a brother. That was in fact, more of a requirement than just freeing him and calling it over - while not affecting the legal status. Similarly, while the man was affirmed as the head of the household, he was told to love the wife as much as Christ loved the Church (Epistle to the Ephesians), specifically up to the point of giving his life for her. Children were told to obey parents, but parents not to use their authority to make children miserable. There was a general commandment, "submit to one another".

That the message was not always followed in Christianity as it became more and massive, is one thing (find me a religion or ideology which the adherents obey completely and without fault), but Christianity has definitely become a force of change for the better. Not for the legal formalities or wishy-washy political talks, but for actual change in the way people treated each other. That is more important than how things look on the legal side, while often easier to achieve without violence. Had all people who believed treated slaves as brothers, slavery would have become obsolete. Had slavery been abolished overnight, would former masters have treated former slaves right or would the latter have been forced into many hours of work for meagre pay, resulting in worse conditions of life than they had had as slaves?

 

While I'll agree with this for the most part, I have to say this. Christianity is best when it is not a tool, not a method, but a relationship with God. Yes, there have been many that used others beliefs, the organization, and even the edicts of God to their own advantage, and to the harm of others, but this is not true Christianity. This is no more true Christianity than the Nazi 'science' trying to prove that blacks were inferior was real science, and very much in the same way. In both, the true form is to let the evidence (test results or the word of God) change you and your opinions, while the perversion is to let yourself and your opinions change the evidence (as you present it to others).

Christianity was called upon to defend both sides of the debate here in the US, but look at the process of ending it in Great Britain.

Actually, the New Testament does not forbid slaves from seeking freedom, but only from doing so illegally. In ancient Rome, few were slaves for life, most either sold themselves for a time, or were at least able to earn money to buy their freedom. The New Testament tells existing slaves to obey their masters and act honorably towards them, to show that they (the slaves) are good people due to Christ, but it also tells non slaves not to sell themselves into slavery. You are correct, however, that it talks of slavery largely as an accepted state of the world, not a vile evil.

All in all, Christianity, when truely followed, leads to the betterment of mankind, if not the absolute freedom. I think people all too often confuse these two issues. Mankind seems to inherrantly believe that we know what is best for us and can take care of ourselves, when history indicates far differently. Think of it like this, which child would you rather be, the 5-year-old whos mother doesn't let him play in the street or with daddy's guns, or the 5-year-old who's mother lets him do whatever he wants so long as he isn't bothering her. As you can see, the first leads to a healthy and probably happy child, while the second doesn't. Quite frequently, liberation only leads to pain, while servitude to the right things leads to prosperity.

 

However, revolution or a bloody coup is not the way to effect social changes to improve such an order which is not a good one.

The American Revolution proves otherwise, in the opinon of many.

Also, for many, Liberalism and Christianity may or may not be linked. It depnds upon which has greater value in one's scheme - Authority or the individual. This is probably the best definition of Liberalism that I've seen:

"A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."

This new software is....different....

 

A revolution is a good thing when the authority cannot be obeyed anymore because of its tyrannical and hurtful nature, and if the rebellion won't make matters worse. Sometimes such an armed resistance is necessary. I would like to point out that the American Revolution was much different from the French one.

Well, the consent of an individual to be ruled by the given ruler wasn't perhaps a central theme in mediaeval (an even later) theology, but protection from arbitrary authority, as well as the idea of monarchs being obliged, not only entitled, did exist back then. Card. Bellarmine is credited with fathering a lot of thoughts which later found fruition in the establishment of the American political system.

If you define liberalism as a belief in minimal government, based on a belief in natural goodness of humans, that would be quite Christian. In fact, subsidiariness of central state authority is one of the key concepts of Catholic social teaching. This promotes the rise of local communities on the plane of the society rather than the state, in fact, as citizens grouping up to improve their existence by cooperation.

However, a laissez-faire ideology is not quite a Christian concept in so far as it denies responsibility for actions harming others on the basis of some rules of engagement such as democracy or free market. Liberalism leading to extreme capitalism in which some people are exploited by some others is not in accordance with the Christian religion and neither is a moral liberalism which leads to condoning as rightful a wide range of immoral personal choices (which hurt the individual and the society).

Yeah, I got logged out in the middle of editing the last post.

 

Chev - Ah, yes. Agreed.

 

Point taken. I suspect that even the Old Testament acknowledged that possibility. It went so far as to command that we are not to take the name of God in vain. This does prohibit the use of God's name as an expletive, but also as a means to accomplish your own selfish ends. We are accountable for what we do in God's name, and when we take His name, we get his full attention. Anything that we do that is wrong (not a minor error in an ordinance, but a sin) is basically done right under his nose.

This also comes with the call to not only accept, but to make the best with what teh Lord has given you. Take the parable of the Talents. Three servants were brought before the master. One was given 5 talents (I believe a unit of currency), one given 2 talents, and the third given 1 talent. The first two were diligent and doubled their allotment, while the third was lazy and buried the talent so he could return it when the master asked. The first two were praised, the third condemned. The point is that while we must accept our lot, we must also seek to improve it...

As usual, Chev, you have stated the point better than I can.

 

I would argue with this one, and I think any Christian must be very careful when looking at these things. The Bible never supports open rebellion against established authorities. Look at David and Saul. Saul was, by that time, a mad dictator, having already tried to kill David several times, but David refused to kill Saul, even when he had ample opportunity. It was not David's place to remove a leader God had put there, it was God's. Look again at the early Church in Rome. They were not called to lead a rebellion against Rome, to actively resist their own oppression, or even to defend themselve if caught. They were called to trust in God and meet secretly. Disobey authority when it contradicts God, but do not openly rebel.

 

On what in particular? We agree on a lot of things, it's the differences which are more readily visible.

David did take up arms against the king's army; he didn't attack the king himself. There was a visible scene in which he took the king's spear, leaving the ruler intact. That was to show he wouldn't raise his hand on God's annointed.

In Rome, chances of a successful rebellion would have been quite slim. In fact, more like nonexistent. That time needed martyrs. However, I wouldn't say an individual is obliged to comply with an unjust sentence of death, mutilation, imprisonment or similar, or to get starved to death paying exorbitant taxes. I wouldn't like to judge the American Revolution here, since it exceeds my competence by quite far, but I'll take the liberty to say that the French one was bad.

Theorising is difficult when you face a concrete situation. At some point the authority is so oppressive you have to defend yourself. I wouldn't think twice about getting rid of a mad baron exercising ius primae noctis, I wouldn't feel bad about staging a coup to remove a power monger or restore the power to a rightful claimant from a usurper. Sometimes the only way of defence is removing the assailant from the power he has over you.

 

I am against it.

Something always strikes me as odd when it comes to discussing the benefits and drawbacks of religion: how to resolve obvious discrepancies between claims and reality.

For instance, in an evaluation of communism and socialism the widely accepted position is that it has been tried once, and didn’t turn out too well, and we’d really better seen the last of it, thank you so very much. Never mind the theoretical foundation or how those who called themselves communists misunderstood or misused Marx’ ideas; real, practical socialism is deemed to be a disaster.

Fair enough.

Why, then, do I read “the message was not always followed”, “this is not true Christianity”, “Christianity, when truly followed” or even “Theorising is difficult when you face a concrete situation“ ever so often with regard to religion?

Either it works for real people in genuine, “concrete” situations – or it doesn’t. Maybe we should try harder, yes, but this would be true for communism as well, wouldn’t it.

Therefore, since I am a friend of consistency and equality my position concerning religion is “we’ve had our share, it didn’t turn out too well, we’d really better seen the last of it, thank you so very much!”

 

According to your logic, maths doesn't work because a five year old makes basic mistakes in counting to ten.

 

Is it me or this only shows attempts at justifying Christianity's shortcomings, or any religion's shortcomings for that matter.

Saying that society will be better if all followed X religion could only works if all sincerely believed in it. As modern societies began to be more and more multiethnic, I fail to see how can this theory be implanted in a realistic manner.

 

Ofelix, you could dismiss anything on the basis of the fact that some people mis-apply it. Any religion, any art, any science.

 

By no means. First of all, the content of mathematics is a set of tautological propositions without apparent function beyond itself. "Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." (Bertrand Russell)
"Working" or "malfunctioning" has no meaning with respect to mathematics.

Secondly, just because a five year old cannot count to ten doesn't mean automatically that anyone else is being able to do so.

Thirdly, my daughter Pauline is just nearing her third birthday - and she already is able to count to twelve (even to fifteen if skipping thirteen and fourteen is allowed )! Hooray for my genes then!

Finally, the whole crude analogy about five years old not counting properly could be applied to communism as well is all I'm saying. Which, in my opinion, makes it a very weak argument. Why, you could even apply this kind of thinking to Thomas Morus' Utopia without coming anywhere near demonstrating that his kind of ideal world could come into reality.

That's all.

 

Technically, by the standpoints of political philosophy, the United States has been demonstrating for over 200 years that indirect democracy doesn't accomplish it's ideological goals in a realistic setting.

Also the Great Depression demonstrated that Capitalism doesn't truly work, that a business can't regulate economic cycles.

 

How true. This might be the reason why capitalists say that, of course, capitalism is far from perfect, but hey, it's the least of all evils.

Is "Christianity is the lesser evil" a Christian position? That would be a nuance. All I'm hearing is that Christianity is suppossed to be the greater good.

 

I suppose we could call it a work in progress like just about any ideology on this planet.

We eventually always fall back to the pragmatics and use whatever works for the situation we're currently.

 

Great! In spite of the complete arbitrariness this ansatz leads to, I like the general idea. But how could this "work in progress" be aligned with the missionary zeal some people display? After all, advertising "work in progress" wouldn't convince me to jump on this particular train.

Still weak, I'm afraid.