Tuesday, August 01, 2006
ABOMINATION!
I saw this graphic on another blog by someone who identifies himself as a "confessing liberal Quaker."
The blogger in question was writing on Christian socialism, which for me is a contradiction in terms. Socialism after all involves using coercion to steal from one party and give that stolen property to another more "deserving" party. Of course the delineation between the deserving and undeserving is subject to the same capriciousness that affects all secular, human-focused institutions.
But let us consider this image that seems to compare Che Guevara to Christ.
Che Guevara ordered the execution of countless of his countrymen when he was in charge of La Cabaña prison in Havana. He imprisoned anyone he considered an "anti-revolutionary," and personally dispatched many of his political enemies with a bullet to the back of the head. He advocated nuclear war.
Consider this advice that Guevara wrote to Cuban soldiers fighting in Angola:
"Blind hate against the enemy creates a forceful impulse that cracks the boundaries of natural human limitations, transforming the soldier in an effective, selective and cold killing machine. A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary."
Contrast this will Jesus' instistence that that we love our enemies, and that his followers were seeking a Kingdom not of this world, and therefore would not fight in this one.
Exactly why any Quaker or other Christian would want to identify themsleves with this thug is beyond me. But it is interesting how many secular political activists will project their beliefs upon Jesus -- regardless of how misguided their beliefs may be. It is also interesting how members of hte "religious left" can look and feel exactly like members of the "secular left" as they drift away from the central doctrines of Christianity and the guidance of the Inward Teacher. But any comparison between Guevara and Christ does not warrant any further response, so I will fall silent.
More Reading:
http://seekingthelight.blogspot.com/
http://www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200501050715.asp
http://www.rejesus.co.uk/expressions/faces_jesus/gallery/che.html
http://www.cyberexorcism.com/2004/11/jesus-of-nazareth-vs-che-guevara.html
In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
Comments:
<< Home
Good post! I've seen similar types of images on t-shirts and bumper stickers. I don't think these folks have thought it out as well as you have. Besides, many probably don't know who Che Guevara was except that he was a cool-looking revolutionary. And that, I think, I what folks are trying to say by using images like this: "Jesus was revolutionary, Jesus is cool". Why do we have to equate Christ with things worldly (and un-Christlike)to make these points, though? Why do we want to make Jesus into a pop icon? Why not concentrate instead on Christ's message which is "cool and revolutionary" in its own right?
Zach --
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. And because it stimulates my spirit to discuss these matters, here is a brief response.
A family unit can be considered socialist in nature, and I think it is safe to say that those of us who oppose centrally-planned economies support this form of socialism.
You suggest that Che had good intentions, but let us remember with what the road to Hell is paved. Remember how the government -- at best a flawed and limited force -- is so accurately described in Isaiah Chapter 40.
Moreover, an undue concern with "economic inequality" is not only misguided, but certainly unChristian.
From a purely rational, secular standpoint, concentrated wealth and opportunity to profit is required to drive capital investment which is in turn required for employment for the poor. Central government control and corruption in emerging markets is more responsible for entrenched poverty than rising capitalism. For details I will defer to a professional economist -- The Quaker Economist -- http://www.quaker.org/tqe/.
From a spiritual standpoint a Quaker -- or one who would live in the light of Christ -- should seek to live in the Kingdom of Heaven rather than the temporal world. This eliminates all of the other "isms" you refer to. Each assumes at best that man is perfectible somehow without the intercession of the Lord. At worst they put emphasis on money, exploit economic differences between people and make the state a God unto itself, encouraging people to look to the politicians for their salvation when they should throw down a taproot to the deep well of the Spirit for their help. And that help is not likely to involve the redistribution of wealth as much as the infusion of hope!
To refer to first-century Christians as communists is to miss entirely their position. These Christians were not positing this as a workable economic system, and likely not sustainable on a small scale. They fully expected Jesus to return at any moment. Communal living of this nature is closer to the family unit cited at the top of this form than any organized economic system. To focus on the communal living is to MISS THE POINT that the Kingdom of God HAS COME AND IS COMING!
In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. And because it stimulates my spirit to discuss these matters, here is a brief response.
A family unit can be considered socialist in nature, and I think it is safe to say that those of us who oppose centrally-planned economies support this form of socialism.
You suggest that Che had good intentions, but let us remember with what the road to Hell is paved. Remember how the government -- at best a flawed and limited force -- is so accurately described in Isaiah Chapter 40.
Moreover, an undue concern with "economic inequality" is not only misguided, but certainly unChristian.
From a purely rational, secular standpoint, concentrated wealth and opportunity to profit is required to drive capital investment which is in turn required for employment for the poor. Central government control and corruption in emerging markets is more responsible for entrenched poverty than rising capitalism. For details I will defer to a professional economist -- The Quaker Economist -- http://www.quaker.org/tqe/.
From a spiritual standpoint a Quaker -- or one who would live in the light of Christ -- should seek to live in the Kingdom of Heaven rather than the temporal world. This eliminates all of the other "isms" you refer to. Each assumes at best that man is perfectible somehow without the intercession of the Lord. At worst they put emphasis on money, exploit economic differences between people and make the state a God unto itself, encouraging people to look to the politicians for their salvation when they should throw down a taproot to the deep well of the Spirit for their help. And that help is not likely to involve the redistribution of wealth as much as the infusion of hope!
To refer to first-century Christians as communists is to miss entirely their position. These Christians were not positing this as a workable economic system, and likely not sustainable on a small scale. They fully expected Jesus to return at any moment. Communal living of this nature is closer to the family unit cited at the top of this form than any organized economic system. To focus on the communal living is to MISS THE POINT that the Kingdom of God HAS COME AND IS COMING!
In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
Friend Charles,
Might I suggest that there is no political "ism" that will be our salvation either physically, emotionally or spiritually. We are members of the Kingdom of God and as such are a "called out people".
If we live by Matthew 5 and 6, we will not be in line with either of the 2 major parties in the US. That's most likely a good thing.
The problem I have with many (most?) Christians today is that they have aligned themselves with either the right or left. Both Republicans and Democrats use the Christian community to push an agenda that is far from what God requires of us as followers of the Lamb.
The best books I know on the subject, and I highly recommend them, is Christian Anarchy by Ellul and The Kingdom of God is Within You by Tolstoy.
God's peace my brother,
Craig
Greensboro, NC
Might I suggest that there is no political "ism" that will be our salvation either physically, emotionally or spiritually. We are members of the Kingdom of God and as such are a "called out people".
If we live by Matthew 5 and 6, we will not be in line with either of the 2 major parties in the US. That's most likely a good thing.
The problem I have with many (most?) Christians today is that they have aligned themselves with either the right or left. Both Republicans and Democrats use the Christian community to push an agenda that is far from what God requires of us as followers of the Lamb.
The best books I know on the subject, and I highly recommend them, is Christian Anarchy by Ellul and The Kingdom of God is Within You by Tolstoy.
God's peace my brother,
Craig
Greensboro, NC
Craig --
Thanks for the notes and the resources.
Where I differ from those who espouse Christian anarchy is that most Christian anarchism-related materials tend to position things like capitalism as part of a structure that anarchism would eliminate.
A more thorough look would likely reveal that unregulated, independent capitalism represents the best that anarchy has to offer. Under this system, it is not outside constraints but internal decisions that drive our relations with each other.
Correspondence from you and a few other folks caused me to delve into various resources including jesusradicals.org -- and
It seems to me like some people's idea of Christian Anarchy looks pretty much exactly like communism, and is based on the same flawed thinking . Communism, remember, as postulated LOOKED a lot like what Christian anarchists propose (the withering away of the state ...), but as folks found out, it was not based on economic reality. Christian anarchists demonize capitalism in the same way that communists do, positing that wealth is created by stealing from the poor -- while in fact wealth is created by assuming risk in the market. Wealth is CREATED rather than stolen. Wealth can be created by property holders by determining how property might be best used to generate income. Welath can be created by workers as they apply their abilities in the direction that will generate the highest return. Societies become wealthy not through war and dominance but by allowing free trade.
The challenge with a Christian anarchist/communist society is that the market no longer determines who gets paid what for their investments/labor. SOMEBODY -- perhaps a committee or something -- has to decide that. Some disinterested party would have to decide how capital resources like factories and land would be used to maximize their return. I would never feel wise enough to make these decisions for anyone but myself, but I get the feeling some people who feel fit for that job are posting comments on this blog ...
Once again, people are thinking more on who has and earns what and not living in the Kingdom of God ... repent -- repent ...
In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
Thanks for the notes and the resources.
Where I differ from those who espouse Christian anarchy is that most Christian anarchism-related materials tend to position things like capitalism as part of a structure that anarchism would eliminate.
A more thorough look would likely reveal that unregulated, independent capitalism represents the best that anarchy has to offer. Under this system, it is not outside constraints but internal decisions that drive our relations with each other.
Correspondence from you and a few other folks caused me to delve into various resources including jesusradicals.org -- and
It seems to me like some people's idea of Christian Anarchy looks pretty much exactly like communism, and is based on the same flawed thinking . Communism, remember, as postulated LOOKED a lot like what Christian anarchists propose (the withering away of the state ...), but as folks found out, it was not based on economic reality. Christian anarchists demonize capitalism in the same way that communists do, positing that wealth is created by stealing from the poor -- while in fact wealth is created by assuming risk in the market. Wealth is CREATED rather than stolen. Wealth can be created by property holders by determining how property might be best used to generate income. Welath can be created by workers as they apply their abilities in the direction that will generate the highest return. Societies become wealthy not through war and dominance but by allowing free trade.
The challenge with a Christian anarchist/communist society is that the market no longer determines who gets paid what for their investments/labor. SOMEBODY -- perhaps a committee or something -- has to decide that. Some disinterested party would have to decide how capital resources like factories and land would be used to maximize their return. I would never feel wise enough to make these decisions for anyone but myself, but I get the feeling some people who feel fit for that job are posting comments on this blog ...
Once again, people are thinking more on who has and earns what and not living in the Kingdom of God ... repent -- repent ...
In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
Charles, you seem to be unaware that you are contradicting yourself: in one paragraph (in your reply to me) you argue for capitalism from a "rational, secular standpoint," and in the very next paragraph say that the Christian imperative to live for the spiritual realm rather than the here and now "eliminates all the other isms" I referred to (anarchism, free socialism) and yet somehow it does not eliminate your pet "ism" (capitalism). You want to have it both ways, but if you really believed what you say about the Kingdom of Heaven, you wouldn't be such a zealous evangelist for the kingdom of capital.
You do make a few perceptive observations about the anarchist scene (Christian or otherwise). We generally do demonize "capitalism," often in a reflexive/unthinking way, and quite a few "anarchists" take this critique so far that think they can have their cake and eat it too – as if you could prevent people from buying and selling and producing as they wish in a stateless society.
But the confused ideas of particular anarchists aside, anarchism, even more (free) socialist versions of it, would certainly entail a lot of free and independent economic activity, and does not, as you suggest, advocate some kind of "committee" for directing the economy. That is authoritarian or state socialism, and anarchism is not the same things, as I said in the last comment.
So, you may ask, if the anarchist critique of capitalism is not about free vs. centrally-controlled markets, what is it about? I'm not an expert, so I don't claim to give any definitive answer, but I would say it focuses on other aspects of capitalism than the freeness of it; for example, the power differential between owner-managers and the workers who must sell them their labor. A real-world alternative to this is provided the co-op movement; I am applying to work at a co-op myself, where after a year I would have a vote on the board of directors like all the other workers.
I expect that in an anarchist society, people would be free to organize however they like, and many would choose to continue to be owner-managers and exploit the worker's dependence on the jobs provided by the resources they own to make a profit. People would be free to do that. But there would also be nonviolent pressure, as there already is in some quarters, towards more democratic and equitable economic arrangements (such as co-ops).
Does that make it all more clear? I'm not expecting you to become an anarchist, just to not equate anarchism with authoritarian socialism.
Speaking now as a Friend, I find your comment that "some people who feel fit for that job [of planning an economy] are posting comments on this blog" to be a barely-veiled jab at me, as though simply advocating any form of socialism means that I have an inflated opinion of myself and see myself fit to direct a large economy, when I never said anything like that. That kind of snarkiness is more fit for a secular political argue-blog than "a forum for Christian Quakers and Quakers in search of the One." Evangelist, repent thyself.
You do make a few perceptive observations about the anarchist scene (Christian or otherwise). We generally do demonize "capitalism," often in a reflexive/unthinking way, and quite a few "anarchists" take this critique so far that think they can have their cake and eat it too – as if you could prevent people from buying and selling and producing as they wish in a stateless society.
But the confused ideas of particular anarchists aside, anarchism, even more (free) socialist versions of it, would certainly entail a lot of free and independent economic activity, and does not, as you suggest, advocate some kind of "committee" for directing the economy. That is authoritarian or state socialism, and anarchism is not the same things, as I said in the last comment.
So, you may ask, if the anarchist critique of capitalism is not about free vs. centrally-controlled markets, what is it about? I'm not an expert, so I don't claim to give any definitive answer, but I would say it focuses on other aspects of capitalism than the freeness of it; for example, the power differential between owner-managers and the workers who must sell them their labor. A real-world alternative to this is provided the co-op movement; I am applying to work at a co-op myself, where after a year I would have a vote on the board of directors like all the other workers.
I expect that in an anarchist society, people would be free to organize however they like, and many would choose to continue to be owner-managers and exploit the worker's dependence on the jobs provided by the resources they own to make a profit. People would be free to do that. But there would also be nonviolent pressure, as there already is in some quarters, towards more democratic and equitable economic arrangements (such as co-ops).
Does that make it all more clear? I'm not expecting you to become an anarchist, just to not equate anarchism with authoritarian socialism.
Speaking now as a Friend, I find your comment that "some people who feel fit for that job [of planning an economy] are posting comments on this blog" to be a barely-veiled jab at me, as though simply advocating any form of socialism means that I have an inflated opinion of myself and see myself fit to direct a large economy, when I never said anything like that. That kind of snarkiness is more fit for a secular political argue-blog than "a forum for Christian Quakers and Quakers in search of the One." Evangelist, repent thyself.
Zach --
Having dug through a bunch of the anarchist stuff, I have seen mostly the same flawed economic theory relied upon by Marxists. If working at a co-op makes you feel less of a tool of some grand capitalist machine, more power to you.
But I have BEEN an owner manager of a company, and I think the imbalance of power between employees and their employers is a largely imagined concept (after all does the employee risk losing substantial investments or risk taking a loss?). But this "worker as victim" dynamic is used very well to influence people in secular political matters.
Christ Jesus was not concerned with changing or influencing governmental systems or eliminating economic disparities. He came to reconcile people with God, not to bring about the revolution the Zealots would have had.
Yes -- we are to help the poor and visit those in prison, and love our neighbor, but these edicts do not have to do with becoming as attached to the matters of this world as one must be in order to advocate rebelling against the natural order of society.
The meek shall inherit the earth and the last shall be firt -- in the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who try to bring these conditions about on the physical earth are missing the point.
In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
Post a Comment
Having dug through a bunch of the anarchist stuff, I have seen mostly the same flawed economic theory relied upon by Marxists. If working at a co-op makes you feel less of a tool of some grand capitalist machine, more power to you.
But I have BEEN an owner manager of a company, and I think the imbalance of power between employees and their employers is a largely imagined concept (after all does the employee risk losing substantial investments or risk taking a loss?). But this "worker as victim" dynamic is used very well to influence people in secular political matters.
Christ Jesus was not concerned with changing or influencing governmental systems or eliminating economic disparities. He came to reconcile people with God, not to bring about the revolution the Zealots would have had.
Yes -- we are to help the poor and visit those in prison, and love our neighbor, but these edicts do not have to do with becoming as attached to the matters of this world as one must be in order to advocate rebelling against the natural order of society.
The meek shall inherit the earth and the last shall be firt -- in the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who try to bring these conditions about on the physical earth are missing the point.
In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
<< Home
