In part 1 of this journal we discussed the potential of Liberation Theology in encouraging actions implemented from the bottom up. The importance of this theology is that it looks at the world from the perspective of the poor. In part 2 we will look at the concept of getting God "off the hook". The background theology - the 'prophetic and purity projects' looked at in light of the Passion project - proves a useful basis for discussions about questions of belief and God's intentions (i.e. "what sort of a God would let bad things happen"?)
We discussed the pro's and con's of both the Prophetic Project (book of Exodus) and the Purity Project (Mosaic Law + 10 Commandments) and briefly analysed the inadequacies that surface when both projects are expressed in their extreme form. We basically decided that the Prophetic Project had the capacity to be too obtuse and the Purity Project too rigid.
Common sense would recommend that we find a middle ground (arguably this is what Jesus was attempting to do in the Prophetic Project) and given our individual capacity for free will this is entirely possible and does not rely on us unwaveringly following advice from Rome. In searching for this middle ground we come to realise that at times the Church leans too much towards the "Purity Project" getting caught up in rules and regulations. In the film Romero the Cardinal weighs up the concerns of the populace against the sanctions of the Church. This is a fitting example of the importance of good leadership - a grey area of social justice (which reiterates the importance of the debate in Part 1 of this journal about whether to view situations from the top down OR bottom up). Is it always feasible to take a bottom up perspective or do we need also to see from the top down?. One can't help but assume that the reason the Church, as an institution, has survived for so long is because of its political savvy. But the Church is not its own point. It is meant to serve those under it. The institution must survive for the sake of its people’s faith. This brings us back to the idea of solidarity and what the Church represents.
There was a fascinating program on SBS recently - you no doubt know of Richard Dawkins; 'infamous scientist and atheist who questions the existence of God, arguing that there is no scientific proof. He also half-heartedly takes on the battle of evolution versus creation theory - vehemently arguing that it is impossible to believe in both because, in his mind, science and religion are impervious to one another. My impression of Dawkins is that he was attacking all religions. He was defensive of his own position and because of this completely failed to see what the true nature and essence of religious belief was all about (or perhaps he didn't want to go down this route because science is unable to accurately account for intangible understandings such as religion). Sadly for him, he comes across as being just another fundamentalist - in this case a fundamentalist Atheist (atheism is a secular religion - according to Margaret Somerville of The Age)! At any rate, this notion of the Purity and Prophetic projects was highlighted for me in Dawkins' mini series.
Dawkins was focussing on fundamentalist concepts of religion or what we discussed in class; the Purity aspect of religion - the written words, facts and literal meanings. In class we focussed on the Christ Event and the Passion Project to help get God "off the hook" and in doing so saw how it is possible and necessary for everyone, not just those people who consider themselves religious, to read the signs of the time. I am talking here about relativism. It is arguably no longer appropriate to literally interpret the Bible (I doubt it was intended to be so interpreted in the first place) or any other religious writing. We must interpret within the CONTEXT of the present day.
When discussing the Christ Event and Atonement Theology - Adam and Eve and the birth of original sin, coupled with the Old Testament's 'language of sacrifice' - we can surely see how this version of a vengeful God to whom we owe a personal sacrifice might be a little 'old school' (a bit 'Paganish' even - offerings to appease the God(s) OR perhaps we have deliberately chosen to take things a bit easier in this century?!) Whatever the case, much of what we see of God in the Old Testament (specifically the concept of a vengeful God) is no longer in line with contemporary perceptions of God.
Fundamentalist (purity) misconceptions often fail to lend adequate weight in accounting for ideas such as those found in the Parable of the Prodigal Son; in which we see a forgiving, passionate and loving God. This is much more consistent with contemporary views about what God is like.
From our discussion of the Passion Project we see that God is not a puppeteer. It comes down to the concept of FREE WILL (getting God 'off the hook'). It is up to us - each individual - to choose what to do with the time given to us. It is important to note here that the 'old school' concept of the vengeful God in Atonement Theology fails to acknowledge moral agency. Because we are born 'owing God' there can be no real knowledge of free will for the individual.
The concept of free will is a vital ingredient in the Church reaching young people in today's society. Great emphasis is placed on the creation of the individual. This comes down to having the freedom of choice to create 'image'. We live in a capitalist society and Gen Y, in particular, want everything NOW. They are focused on the creation of image; the latest phone, music, mp3 player, cars, clothes, hair styles, bars, clubs, friends. Dawkins and humanists in general would argue that all humans have an innate ability to know what is right and wrong. We don't need a God or religion to spell it out for us. But what about this growing fascination with ourselves? What about the increasing capitalist values within the top 20% (some argue more like 10%) of the worlds population? These people who are most economically, politically and socially able to create equality for all people in the world are becoming increasingly more insular. The article The Alternative Community of Moses discusses some of the tasks the Church has to focus on in order to counteract aspects of capitalist society "The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us".
Understanding and acknowledging "signs of the time" was declared by Vatican II to be an essential connection between itself and the people. In the Passion Project we see how Jesus became a victim of his time. We see that he died because his version of life was different to what was surrounding him in Palestine at the time during which he lived. Jesus' faithfulness brought him into conflict with the Roman way of life and this happenstancely lead to his death. God did not plan Jesus' death. What would be the point of God creating the universe if he knows what’s going to happen?
Reading the signs of the time is relevant now but it is also relevant when we look back at history. Having a grasp of the dialogues that existed and what they discussed is vital if we are to learn from history. Perhaps the most obvious example of examining these dialogues would be the World Wars. The religious, political, economic, social and cultural observations that were being made at the time and that lead to the beginning of the War are to be analysed so that we know how to avoid such catastrophe today. Sources and Methods of Catholic Social Teaching attempts to simplify Catholic social teaching to extend thought while focusing on specific areas; be that the role of scripture, natural law, theological reflection or social analysis. Likewise, Nine Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching would also have us categorise the many aspects of social justice. In truth, reading the signs of the time involves ALL these issues and more. We have to want to make a difference for equality to happen. We have to make change a way of life if we are to incorporate all these issues. For me, dividing these issues for discussion might be necessary, but it is not a feasible way to change the social justice (or lack of it) in our world.
We discussed the pro's and con's of both the Prophetic Project (book of Exodus) and the Purity Project (Mosaic Law + 10 Commandments) and briefly analysed the inadequacies that surface when both projects are expressed in their extreme form. We basically decided that the Prophetic Project had the capacity to be too obtuse and the Purity Project too rigid.
Common sense would recommend that we find a middle ground (arguably this is what Jesus was attempting to do in the Prophetic Project) and given our individual capacity for free will this is entirely possible and does not rely on us unwaveringly following advice from Rome. In searching for this middle ground we come to realise that at times the Church leans too much towards the "Purity Project" getting caught up in rules and regulations. In the film Romero the Cardinal weighs up the concerns of the populace against the sanctions of the Church. This is a fitting example of the importance of good leadership - a grey area of social justice (which reiterates the importance of the debate in Part 1 of this journal about whether to view situations from the top down OR bottom up). Is it always feasible to take a bottom up perspective or do we need also to see from the top down?. One can't help but assume that the reason the Church, as an institution, has survived for so long is because of its political savvy. But the Church is not its own point. It is meant to serve those under it. The institution must survive for the sake of its people’s faith. This brings us back to the idea of solidarity and what the Church represents.
There was a fascinating program on SBS recently - you no doubt know of Richard Dawkins; 'infamous scientist and atheist who questions the existence of God, arguing that there is no scientific proof. He also half-heartedly takes on the battle of evolution versus creation theory - vehemently arguing that it is impossible to believe in both because, in his mind, science and religion are impervious to one another. My impression of Dawkins is that he was attacking all religions. He was defensive of his own position and because of this completely failed to see what the true nature and essence of religious belief was all about (or perhaps he didn't want to go down this route because science is unable to accurately account for intangible understandings such as religion). Sadly for him, he comes across as being just another fundamentalist - in this case a fundamentalist Atheist (atheism is a secular religion - according to Margaret Somerville of The Age)! At any rate, this notion of the Purity and Prophetic projects was highlighted for me in Dawkins' mini series.
Dawkins was focussing on fundamentalist concepts of religion or what we discussed in class; the Purity aspect of religion - the written words, facts and literal meanings. In class we focussed on the Christ Event and the Passion Project to help get God "off the hook" and in doing so saw how it is possible and necessary for everyone, not just those people who consider themselves religious, to read the signs of the time. I am talking here about relativism. It is arguably no longer appropriate to literally interpret the Bible (I doubt it was intended to be so interpreted in the first place) or any other religious writing. We must interpret within the CONTEXT of the present day.
When discussing the Christ Event and Atonement Theology - Adam and Eve and the birth of original sin, coupled with the Old Testament's 'language of sacrifice' - we can surely see how this version of a vengeful God to whom we owe a personal sacrifice might be a little 'old school' (a bit 'Paganish' even - offerings to appease the God(s) OR perhaps we have deliberately chosen to take things a bit easier in this century?!) Whatever the case, much of what we see of God in the Old Testament (specifically the concept of a vengeful God) is no longer in line with contemporary perceptions of God.
Fundamentalist (purity) misconceptions often fail to lend adequate weight in accounting for ideas such as those found in the Parable of the Prodigal Son; in which we see a forgiving, passionate and loving God. This is much more consistent with contemporary views about what God is like.
From our discussion of the Passion Project we see that God is not a puppeteer. It comes down to the concept of FREE WILL (getting God 'off the hook'). It is up to us - each individual - to choose what to do with the time given to us. It is important to note here that the 'old school' concept of the vengeful God in Atonement Theology fails to acknowledge moral agency. Because we are born 'owing God' there can be no real knowledge of free will for the individual.
The concept of free will is a vital ingredient in the Church reaching young people in today's society. Great emphasis is placed on the creation of the individual. This comes down to having the freedom of choice to create 'image'. We live in a capitalist society and Gen Y, in particular, want everything NOW. They are focused on the creation of image; the latest phone, music, mp3 player, cars, clothes, hair styles, bars, clubs, friends. Dawkins and humanists in general would argue that all humans have an innate ability to know what is right and wrong. We don't need a God or religion to spell it out for us. But what about this growing fascination with ourselves? What about the increasing capitalist values within the top 20% (some argue more like 10%) of the worlds population? These people who are most economically, politically and socially able to create equality for all people in the world are becoming increasingly more insular. The article The Alternative Community of Moses discusses some of the tasks the Church has to focus on in order to counteract aspects of capitalist society "The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us".
Understanding and acknowledging "signs of the time" was declared by Vatican II to be an essential connection between itself and the people. In the Passion Project we see how Jesus became a victim of his time. We see that he died because his version of life was different to what was surrounding him in Palestine at the time during which he lived. Jesus' faithfulness brought him into conflict with the Roman way of life and this happenstancely lead to his death. God did not plan Jesus' death. What would be the point of God creating the universe if he knows what’s going to happen?
Reading the signs of the time is relevant now but it is also relevant when we look back at history. Having a grasp of the dialogues that existed and what they discussed is vital if we are to learn from history. Perhaps the most obvious example of examining these dialogues would be the World Wars. The religious, political, economic, social and cultural observations that were being made at the time and that lead to the beginning of the War are to be analysed so that we know how to avoid such catastrophe today. Sources and Methods of Catholic Social Teaching attempts to simplify Catholic social teaching to extend thought while focusing on specific areas; be that the role of scripture, natural law, theological reflection or social analysis. Likewise, Nine Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching would also have us categorise the many aspects of social justice. In truth, reading the signs of the time involves ALL these issues and more. We have to want to make a difference for equality to happen. We have to make change a way of life if we are to incorporate all these issues. For me, dividing these issues for discussion might be necessary, but it is not a feasible way to change the social justice (or lack of it) in our world.
