Basic HTML Version
This fact supposedly indicts Ameri–
cans as "oppressors." (What they
forget is that "resources" don't do
anyone any good until they are de–
veloped into usable wealth, and the
fact is that the U.S. and other West–
ern societies
produce
more wealth
than they consume, and share the
balance with poorer countries.)
So-ca lled liberati on theology
takes the idea from the Bible that
God loves the poor and oppressed
(which is true) and combines it with
the idea of Karl Marx that any time
a man sells his labor to another
there is "exploitation" (which is
fa lse).
Thus, according to this reasoning,
God hates oppressors- who turn
out, because liberation theologians
have bought wholesale th e eco–
nomic theories of Marx, to be any–
one who employs someone else.
Karl Ma rx taught that industrial so–
cieties a re divided into two classes,
the workers and the middle class
(though today, much to the con–
sternation of Ma rxists, many work–
ers have become middle-class). Thus
liberation theologians conclude that
because God and Christ
do
have
sorne kind words in the .Bible for thc
poor and sorne ha rsh words for
their oppressors, He must therefore
hate those- the middle and upper
classes- who have acquired wealth,
or capital, in this world.
lgnorlng the Kingdom of God
According to th e radica l Christian
view, God, because He is concerned
about needy people, has taken sides
in the "class struggle." Thus God is
supposed to condemn all accumu–
lation of property. He req uires that
those who have the means should
give up
al/
their possessions and be–
come poor. He even counsels vio–
lence in order to " liberate" the poor.
Many of these radical Christians
say God is the " Lord of history." He
is supposed to be "at work in history
cast ing down the rich and exalting
the poor." God is "not neutral in the
struggle for justice."
The above view is radical to be
sure- but it is definitely not Chris–
tian. In the first place, God is not
taking sides in man's affairs in the
way most people, including profes–
sing Christians, think. Satan- not
God- is the ruler of this world, this
24
age (11 Cor. 4:4). T he world to
come-the Kingdom of God-is
God's world. God's primary work
now is preparing the groundwork
for the restoration of the govern–
ment ofGod (Mark 1: 14- 15). (Write
for our free booklet
What Do You
Mean-The Kingdom ofGod?)
God is not working in history-as
radical Christians use the words-to
" liberate" the poor. Wha t they seem
to imply is that God is working
through the Communist party or
other radical groups. This is why the
Marxist groups in Rhodesia, for ex–
ample, are treated favorably. Such
groups a re seen as the voice of the
poor rising against th eir oppressors.
Along the same lines, radical theolo–
gian Robert McAfee Brown once
made the very revealing comment
that "confronted with a choice of
supporting the [Communist] Castro
regime in Cuba or the [non-Com–
munist] Pinochet regime in Chile,"
he would quickly choose Cuba be–
cause it is a country where " the
poor" have their "basic needs" met.
l t is, of course, true that if Commu–
nist regimes
say
they have any pur–
pose for thei r existence. it is to mee t
the basic needs of the poor, even if
human liberty must be crushed (as
it has in Cuba) in the process.
The Bi ble, however, gives a dif–
ferent picture.
The real salvation of the poor is
the Kingdom of God which Jesus
Christ will establish on earth at His
return. Christ warned that in this
"present evil world" (Gal. 1:4) the
"poor always ye have with you"
(John 12:8).
The Passion for Equallty
Th e reason why sorne religious
people actually want to use violence
to overthrow free-market economic
sys tems or, at the very least, cajole
governments to adopt soak-the-rich
policies is because of a zealous be–
lief in equality. No one, they be–
lieve , should have more than
anyone else: "No Christian should
prosper while others suffer."
The attitude is simi lar to the one
noted by Alexis de Tocqueville, a
famous French wri ter (1805-1859),
who said that sorne people would
rather be "equal in slavery than un–
equal in freedom." The scripture
which is used to bolster this belief is
11
Corinthians 8: 13- 15: "For 1 mean
not tha t other men be eased, and ye
burdcned : But by an equality, tha t
now at this time your abundance
may be a supply for their want, tha t
their abunda ncc also may be a sup–
ply for your want: that there may be
equality: As it is written, He that
had gath ered much had nothing
over; and he that had gathered little
had no lack."
But this scripture upholds eq ual–
ity only in the sense of God's equal
compassion for all human beings.
The context is the apostle Paul's ap–
peal for
famine relief
The equality
that is being spoken ofis an equality
in the basic necessities of life : Paul
is saying that he did not want any of
the mcmbers of the Church of God
at Jerusalem, for whom the famine
relief was intended, to starve. The
valuc here is compassion, not the
"equality of result" which so many
advocate today.
The truth is, God values equality
for its own sake far less than most
people realize. He places much
grea ter emph asis upon s pi ritual
maturity combined with responsible
concern for others. This is clearly
revealed in the parable of the ta l–
en ts (Matt. 25: 14-30). In th e
parable, Christ likens Himself to a
man who goes off to travel and first
entrusts his asscts to his servaots.
Sorne servants are given more re–
sponsibility, sorne less; each servant
is apportioned "according to his sev–
era! ability" (Ma tt. 25: 15). There is
no equa lity in how the assets a re
divided: It is according to "abili ty."
Afterwards, the man returns and de–
mands to know how each of the ser–
vants has done in managing what
was entrusted to him.
Again there is inequality. Two
servants have done well ; one has
done poorly. But instead of equal–
izing the shares, Christ gives the one
talent of the servant who did not
develop or increase his ta lent to thc
servant who increased his share the
most numerically- even though he
and the other faithful servant both
increased their shares the same pro–
portionally.
The lesson, of course, is that God
expects those with ability and talcnt
to diligently use what they have
been given.
While this parable primarily re-
The
PLAIN TRUTH December 1978