I was extremely disappointed with the sermon that I heard at Redeemer Presbyterian Church this past weekend. I had such strong disagreement to the sermon that I almost got up and left in the middle of service. It reeked of the influences of liberation theology, something that I strongly oppose. I might write more about this in length in a future post, but I don’t have the time right now. All I have to say is that I know I won’t be attending that church.
I will also write a future post about the theology that has formed from my thoughts and reflections on faith; something that I will call “creation theology” for now.
Comments 3
well… context is just as important as content in lib. theology. liberation theology originated in south america where village priests had a difficult teaching about the Gospel in a way that was accessible to the poor. helping villagers understand that Jesus was also impoverished and part of an oppressed group helped (still helps) the poor understand the life of jesus in a way that they can relate. in light of this context, a sermon given to upwardly mobile manhattanites does not exactly fit the liberation theology mold. besides, a sermon exhorting the rich to take compassion on the poor and give away more money does not exactly mean that it’s liberation theology, either. be careful about reading too much into a simplistic sermon that was not explicitly or implicitly radical. in the 1970s, the Vatican tried to “re-program” south american priests who taught in the liberation theology mold b/c they thought that economic re-distribution (i.e.socialism) was implicit in that theology. having endured the repression of the church by socialist dictators in europe, the Vatican bureaucrats were leary of anything that smelled of socialism. what they couldn’t see is that liberation theology helped people who could not understand the life of Jesus in a light that helped them see that he was no different from them.
Posted 04 Sep 2007 at 5:33 pm ¶I’d be interested in hearing on that.
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 9:02 am ¶I’m intrigued to know what the message was…
Posted 04 Dec 2007 at 12:27 pm ¶Post a Comment