Louis Farrakhan and Senator Obama

Parent Cafe
201

<p>I, too, am impressed with parent2noles for taking the time to research the issues with a more objective view. It also motivated me to do a little research on my own – and I found a very nice program on NPR exploring the issue:
[Religious</a> Scholars Discuss Liberation Theology : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88744273]Religious”>Religious Scholars Discuss Liberation Theology : NPR) – its worth listening to.</p>

<p>One point that is made in the NPR piece is that there is generally an arc that is followed with the prophetic sermon tradition – there is first a set of accusations and charges, but that is always followed by “a word of hope, a word that we can turn around, we can be redeemed, there is a way out.” So the religious scholars interviewed in the NPR piece agree that you can’t get the sense of the sermon by an excerpt taken from the middle if you don’t also hear the conclusion. </p>

<p>Knowing that allows me to see how the church - and Rev. Wright’s sermons – could have been a strong influence on Obama in a positive way. As an outsider who grow up in an island paradise and has an elite education, the message of anger and frustration wouldn’t resonate with him in a personal sense (though it may help him understand where others are coming from) – but the message of hope, redemption, a brighter future seems to be what is carried forward in his campaign speeches. </p>

<p>For anyone who is interested, if you search “Obama’s Pastor” on YouTube or go to the TRINITYCHGO page you can find videos of the rest of the stuff that goes on in that church.</p>

202

<p>“You are absolutely correct about Wright being a biblical scholar and his message being similar to that of the Catholic church…they both challenge us to understand what the social gospel is about…”</p>

<p>I just want to say that as a biblical scholar (Hebraic & Christian) who happens to be Catholic (while my biblical sources range widely, & considerably further than Catholicism, although including them), and as a student of what is called Systematic Theology in the Catholic Church:</p>

<p>Liberation Theology in general is not universally accepted even among liberal scholars in the Catholic Church. Personally, I find its ‘biblical’ argumentation highly flawed, as do many fellow scholars. It is by no means representative even of the “social justice” theology of the Catholic Church. That is, the moral argument which supports the liberation of oppressed peoples is different from the argument of liberation theologists I have read, who make all kinds of unsupportable claims about Jesus, what his “true” mission was, etc. – which is supposedly transparent in scripture. (Not.)</p>

203

<p>I would agree that it is not universally accepted in whole, but many elements of it are. And at least we can agree that it was basically founded by Roman Catholics, and the most widely known author to write about liberation theology is Guti</p>

204

<p>teri, I think you’re conflating 3 different things:
(1) whether liberation theology is popular (it is in some circles)
(2) whether it is a core teaching of Catholicism (it is not)
(3) whether it is ‘biblical’ in its origins (highly disputed)</p>

<p>The point I’m making is that as a theology, it claims to validate itself by reference to scripture in particular. Most respected exegetes don’t buy most of the premises upon which this ‘theology’ is based.</p>

205

<ol>
<li> yes, some</li>
<li> yes, but most people who have only heard about liberation theologies for the first time believe it originated as black liberation theology (I hear this all the time - I’m talking about lay people I come in contact with who ask me), as opposed to it having its roots in the Catholic tradition</li>
<li> again, the profs I had felt obligated to teach the key components of liberation theology, and this required exegesis. They didn’t require us to accept it, but to be aware of its foundations, strengths and weaknesses.</li>
</ol>

206

<p>Thanks for all the kind remarks. I’ll try and remember them the next time we disagree on something. Were we co-located we’d be in the pub by now. :)</p>

<p>Epiphany, remind me not to argue Scripture with you…a subject which generally is something I avoid on CC. Note that my comments were most superficial with regard to the Catholic Church.</p>

207

<p>Epiphany, I don’t think Obama’s church - the United Church of Christ - claims to be Catholic. Obviously different religious sects and denominations have different interpretations of scripture. The two individuals who were interviewed in the NPR piece I cited above had excellent academic credentials – they are professors associated with leading colleges. </p>

<p>I think it is treading on various dangerous ground to start debating the validity of one interpretation over another. It’s not something that people can take a vote over or submit to some Supreme Court of religion. </p>

<p>I don’t think parent2noles meant to imply that liberation theology=Catholicism. I think P2N was just looking at the roots of some of the core beliefs.</p>

208

<p>P2N: I was NOT addressing you. I was responding to one specific post (199), which contained factual inaccuracies, not intepretation opinions.</p>

<p>Calmom,
No, of course Obama’s church is not Catholic. I don’t think you were at all reading my post in context (in sequence). And clearly p2n was not, assumed I was addressing her/him, then slammed me for supposedly making unkind remarks. I did not even read p2n’s post regarding this. I was merely replying to the very misleading paragraph #2 in post 199. There’s nothing kind or unkind about the need to separate fact (the existence of a teaching, and the location/origin of that teaching – whatever one’s opinion of it) from the opinion, popularity, personal acceptance of that teaching. I previously did it in a neutral way; now I’m just annoyed. </p>

<p>Post 199 linked the ‘liberation theology’ of Obama’s former church with that of a particular ‘theological’ movement in the Catholic Church, similarly called liberation theology. However, black liberation theology as a subset of that has some additional components & premises to it.</p>

<p>Post 199 was linking broadly, if loosely, several different things. It is not ‘treading on dangerous ground’ to separate some of these inappropriately linked concepts & opinions. I see that since yesterday, teri has clarified one of those distinctions in her point #2. As to point #3, one of my profs also ‘felt the need’ to expose us, but even the speculative liberation theology that is published & read in Catholic circles (seminaries & theology schools) is considered suspect in the context of hermeneutics.</p>

<p>Having been trained in both fields (systematics and exegesis), I do know what I’m talking about as to these categories, their level of acceptance (& rejection) by widely respected biblical scholars of many faiths, etc. Liberation theology rests on an undisciplined framework. One may like it, one may see personal or societal value in it, but its intellectual base remains questionable & controversial. It is NOT either the basis of Catholic ‘social justice’ teaching or the synonym for it. </p>

<p>It’s inappropriate to be offended by the correction of factual errors. I am not ‘correcting’ or disputing anyone’s personal preference or appreciation for such a loosely termed ‘theology,’ but I am compelled to point out just how loosely termed it is, & just what the misconceptions are.</p>

209

<p>Putting it differently, ‘liberation theology,’ like the term ‘environmentalism,’ is best described as a movement. Environmentalism is not, for example, a science, while having as its self-described basis for existence, some (many) commonly held scientific facts. Experts in the scientific field disagree both on the premises for some of the conclusions, and on the conclusions themselves. Personally, I’m a huge fan, though an imperfect (getting better all the time) follower. Environmentalism draws some of its strength from some very broad commonly held scientific principles, such as ecology in nature (of which humanity, as living creatures, is a part). However, systematically speaking, there is controversy surrounding the methodology. That is the parallel I am drawing to ‘liberation theology.’</p>

<p>Liberation theology draws its appeal & earns some respect inasmuch as it draws broadly from some biblical themes & commonly accepted essential premises. However, as with environmentalism (and depending on the environmentalist(s) in question), it remains controversial in its scholarship. There are weaknesses in the scholarship & in the intellectual cohesion/consistency on both the theology side and on the exegesis side. It is closer to a popular spiritual movement with some biblical themes than it is a disciplined theology. Neither the term ‘discipline’ nor the term ‘theology’ is meant to imply traditional or mainstream. It refers to cohesion, scholarship, consistency. And that’s why even very liberal theologians are not of one mind when it comes to embracing a term like ‘liberation theology.’</p>

210

<p>Epiphany, my apologies. My remark was unclear.

</p>

<p>I was merely trying to show respect for you. I was not attacking and was attempting to be amusing, actually. That’s hard to discern at times with text. :)</p>

211

<p>

</p>

<p>There are no weaknesses. It is just plain wrong, both exegetically and theologically.</p>