Why Liberty Needs Justice: A Response to the Tea Party-Occupy Film
Second, the Tea Party spokeswoman's assessment that America's Declaration of Independence was a call to protect oneself against government in general, which she implies will always be tyrannical, is misguided. The Declaration of Independence was written by founders of a government who fought real tyranny—taxation without representation, imperial rule without democracy, foreign rule without self-governance. And that self-governance was not about an individual's ability to self-govern. It was about the colonists' lack of liberty to legislate and regulate civic life apart from the crown. The Founders were not a band of individuals fighting the big bad monster called government. They formed a government to fight foreign rule. That was the context for their declaration.
Meanwhile, we see Hogeweide writing her Occupy Portland sign for the day: "Corporate Personhood = Corrupt Government." What fuels her engagement? Her desire to see revival.
"I've been one of those women," she says, "who has been like, 'Rain it down, God. Bring revival to America.' " Then she attended an Occupy march and scanned the crowd. It suddenly occurred to her: "What if this revival is not gonna happen inside the church?"
I understand what Hogeweide means. Through most of my teens and 20s, I sat in pews and prayed for revival. I prayed fervently that the Holy Spirit would break out across this land and transform lives and hearts and bring people back to Jesus. But my sense of what revival would look like was rooted in an individualistic, suburban, middle-class understanding of a faith that was, frankly, born in a communal, largely urban, politically and ethnically oppressed culture. My vision of revival was limited to individual holiness.
We Want Your Common-Good Stories: Introducing Our Second Essay Contest
Top Urbanists Agree: Casinos Ruin Cities
Here's to the Misfits
RSS
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
Comments
Displaying 1–5 of 40 comments
See all comments
A Hermit
R McKinney- you have still not answered whether the definitions of socialism are wrong. You have still not responded to current church teachings on the role of government. You both choose simply to discount or ignore whenever contradicts your beliefs, in the Bible and elsewhere. You choose to focus on what I have said out of context and continually restate points countered before. Whether you 'win' this exchange or not, God knows your hearts and what you truly value and where you devote your energies to; and from these posts it is clear that is private property, profit and free market capitalism. Which is sad, because you could be devoting your energies to the establishment of God's kingdom instead of a worldly economic system.
Roger McKinney
Catholicism's flirtation with Marx was short. Liberal Protestant denominations still promote Marxism. But free markets and private property have been the historical position of Christianity. Those who deny it are inventing new theology equivalent to any heresy.
Roger McKinney
God created private property so that mankind could flourish. All societies that have held property in common have endured massive starvation. China lost 30 million to starvation in the 1960's. The Torah confirms God's sanctification of private property and Jesus affirmed it when he endorsed the Torah. As Rick wrote, the NT Church held property in high esteem, along with charity because charity does not exist without property. The Catholic church endorsed free markets and private property until it absorbed Marxist teachings in the 19th century. There are many Catholics who are Marxists. Liberation theology is Marxist Catholicism. Today, many Catholics, such as those at the Acton Institute, see Catholic social teaching as free market and private property oriented based on declarations by the most recent Popes.
RICK DALBEY
The early church contributed voluntarily, and personally to the needs of homeless saints. It was not coercive, it was not dependent on an intstituitional re-distribution of wealth, taxing or tithing. Peter reaffirmed the rights of private property ownership to the early church “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?” The early church did not share its resources with all the poor of Jerusalem, only the believing poor in the church and only with strict standards. Single widows (not men) without family over 60 were given free food. As Paul says to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:16 “If a woman who is a believer has relatives who are widows, she must take care of them and not put the responsibility on the church. Then the church can care for the widows who are truly alone.” I don’t “love” private property or capital. Curiously I would rather have your property, free food, free housing and i would prefer not to work for it. But, as the Bible teaches, that is irresponsible sin.
A Hermit
@ R Dalbey: Your interpretation is your interpretation, biased on your belief in private property, profit, free markets and capitalism. In the Kingdom, there will be no economic systems, only people relating to one another in love through the Holy Spirit (as in the early Christian community recorded in Acts). Genesis 1, 15: "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to till it and to keep it." Notice what God did not say- "give him possession of it". All notions of ownership are human conventions, and human conventions alone.
Add your comment *