001 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 1 of 8 | Next |
|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
V, ff A/ 1 Augsburg College, Minneapolis, Minnesota Vol.91, No. 9 Friday, Nov. 16, 1984 Marx and the Bible In search of alternatives Ghandi: Assassination hits home By BIRGIT OLSEN Staff Writer "If I die today, every drop of my blood will invigorate the nation."—Indira Gandhi. And so it has. Gandhi's shocking assassination set off a worldwide explosion of emotion. For the Hindus of India a sense of horrified outrage prevails. In the rest of the world there is a feeling of anger and disbelief. And for all there is that nagging question: Who will it be next? Satya Gupta, professor of economics from India, expressed his feelings about the affair. He stated: "1 was shocked, naturally; I hate violence. And I was hurt; she did not deserve to die that way." Gupta was also concerned about what will happen in India now. "Other powers could take advantage of the situation, espeeiallv with the lack of an actual leader," he continued. Rajiv Gandhi is only a temporary prime minister of India until the elections can be held. However, Gupta feels that Rajiv will probably be elected. "They will be nice; thev feel sorry for him." Gupta stated. But he may be able to use this sympathy to his own advantage, as Gupta pointed out." He may have more control; they may listen to him more," he added. Manjula Shyam, a political science professor who is also from India, experienced similar emotions. "I was quite shocked. Of course public leaders have become vulnerable, but I was still horrified," she said. Shyam held Gandhi in high esteem, describing the prime minister as "remarkable, resolute, determined, with a lot of charisma, a person who was not afraid of taking action, despite the consequences." Shyam feels that the violence between the Hindu and the Sikhs is mainly spontaneous outrage and will probably not reach the proportion of the violence that took place when Mahatma Gandhi was killed. Shyam stated that the one criticism she may have had with the prime minister would be that Gandhi had popular support but "she lacked the vision to translate the mandate into something." On the question of whether Gandhi had done the correct thing my moving into the temple and removing the Sikhs, both Shyam and Gupta responded in the affirmative. Shyam stated that the whole situation presented a "cruel Continued on page 7 By DAN ERICKSON Was Jesus a Communist? Latin American theologian Dr. Jose Porfirio Miranda offered an answer to this and other questions concerning the relationship between Christian and Marxist schools of thought in a two-day conference sponsored by the Center for Global Service and Education entitled "Marx and the Bible: Re-thinking the Bible Message." Miranda asserted that Jesus rejected a society with a stratified capitalistic structure, saying, "His disciples turned away from material wealth, sharing everything." Highlights from Miranda's lecture in Si Melby on Nov. 10 entitled "Communism in the Bible" are as follows: "The poor man is not described as especially virtuous in the Bible, just poor," Miranda explained. He illustrated with biblical passages where Jesus refused to accept the wealthy unwilling to relinquish their riches, and stated, "They have already received their recompense. Jesus filled the poor with good things and sent away the rich with nothing." Miranda qualified his statement: "According to these teachings one can conclude the rich should be punished. But it is differentiating wealth that is condemned, not wealth itself. "The only solution against differential wealth is a classless society. Only if a society has no rich or poor class can that society be condoned," he stated. Describing the disciples, he said, "There was no poor person among them. There was no differentiating wealth among them. The logical supposition is that differentiating wealth cannot be acquired legitimately," according to Miranda. The Bible distingush- ed three modes of profit: 1.) through commerce, 2.) through lending, 3.) through making a profit in production. The Bible, according to Miranda, condemns all three. "The Kingdom of God was a place where all injustice was to be abolished. This was the plan of Jesus. This was the first com munist plan on earth," remarked Dr. Miranda. Miranda's quote on the conference pamphlet reads: "Communism did not come from atheistic materialism. It came from the writers of the Old and New Testaments. But, the Biblical teachings about riches and poverty have been muted and modified by translater, exegetes, and the official church." Responding to Dr. Miranda's lecture, Dr. David Tiede, Professor of the New Testament at Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, remarked that a "rethinking of fundemental questions is important. Miranda's lecture has profound implications. It strikes at the quick of where we are." Tiede posed the problem like this: "How do you use scriptures written in a theocracy while we live in a pluracracy?" (In Christ's time, Jews were governed by Sadducess and Pharisees under the auspices of the Roman Government. They were priests ruling by divine sanction.) Tiede continued, "Jesus means freedom and forgiveness. But he also has a vision of human dignity," a quality usually absent in the life of the poor. "Mercy, forgiveness, grace, love—all are part of the gospel message." But Tiede remarked that it was "an escapist theology which supports the capitalists and avoids justice." He emphasized that "we must carefully tend the sources of our texts. The task of the Christian is to do justice for God." Dr. Janet Mathison of the St. Joseph Catholic Worker House, recently back from South America, where she was confronted with the consequences of poverty, stated: "Miranda encourages and challenges the people, especially the poor ... to attain strong belief that the gospel means what it says literally," in spite of the interpretation of intellectuals and academics, whose opinions have prevailed, she said. Mathison noted that "President Reagan said it was okay not to feel guilty (regarding the Administration's cut in social programs aimed to help the poor). The reason people are drawn to Reagan is that it's helping us not to feel guilty." According to Mathison, America interweaves materialism, idealism, and theology for the creation of convenient idols. "Where is the meaning of life?" she asked, and answered: "In the shopping centers and at football games—things we don't need to make sense of." In our consumer society Mathison insists that "the poor aren't the deserving poor," contrary to Reagan's statements that anyone who wants to work in this country can find a job. Mathison found Dr. Miranda's comments a welcome addition in the search for ideas showing "that there is another way." Dr. Miranda's most recent book, Communism and the Bible, was published in 1981. The Nov. 10 session, held in Si Melby Auditorium, was interrupted for coffee, which was followed by small group reflection and concluding remarks. The Nov. 9 session was entitled "Justice and Justification" followed by an afternoon session entitled "Is God on the Side of the Poor? How Western Interpretations Favor the Rich." NSIDE: page Can you write? 3 Editorials 4, 5 Muichinaker reviewed 6 Volleyball finishes season 7
Object Description
Issue/Title | Echo November 16, 1984 |
Creator/Author | Students of Augsburg College |
Subject |
Universities and colleges--Minnesota--Minneapolis--Newspapers. |
Volume | 091 |
Issue | 009 |
Date | 1984-11-16 |
Decade | 1980 |
Frequency | Published on Wednesdays or Fridays during the academic year. |
Coverage | The Echo has been published since 1898. |
Language | English |
Type | Scans of newspapers |
Identifier | RG 17.2.1984.11.16 |
Format | image/tif |
Collection | Echo |
Publisher | Augsburg College |
Source | Scans of individual and bound editions of the Echo. |
Rights | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/ |
Contributing Organization | Augsburg University |
Description
Issue/Title | 001 |
Frequency | Published on Wednesdays or Fridays during the academic year. |
Rights | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/ |
Cataloging Status | Transcript generated by machine. Metadata in progress. Recently scanned. |
Transcript | V, ff A/ 1 Augsburg College, Minneapolis, Minnesota Vol.91, No. 9 Friday, Nov. 16, 1984 Marx and the Bible In search of alternatives Ghandi: Assassination hits home By BIRGIT OLSEN Staff Writer "If I die today, every drop of my blood will invigorate the nation."—Indira Gandhi. And so it has. Gandhi's shocking assassination set off a worldwide explosion of emotion. For the Hindus of India a sense of horrified outrage prevails. In the rest of the world there is a feeling of anger and disbelief. And for all there is that nagging question: Who will it be next? Satya Gupta, professor of economics from India, expressed his feelings about the affair. He stated: "1 was shocked, naturally; I hate violence. And I was hurt; she did not deserve to die that way." Gupta was also concerned about what will happen in India now. "Other powers could take advantage of the situation, espeeiallv with the lack of an actual leader," he continued. Rajiv Gandhi is only a temporary prime minister of India until the elections can be held. However, Gupta feels that Rajiv will probably be elected. "They will be nice; thev feel sorry for him." Gupta stated. But he may be able to use this sympathy to his own advantage, as Gupta pointed out." He may have more control; they may listen to him more," he added. Manjula Shyam, a political science professor who is also from India, experienced similar emotions. "I was quite shocked. Of course public leaders have become vulnerable, but I was still horrified," she said. Shyam held Gandhi in high esteem, describing the prime minister as "remarkable, resolute, determined, with a lot of charisma, a person who was not afraid of taking action, despite the consequences." Shyam feels that the violence between the Hindu and the Sikhs is mainly spontaneous outrage and will probably not reach the proportion of the violence that took place when Mahatma Gandhi was killed. Shyam stated that the one criticism she may have had with the prime minister would be that Gandhi had popular support but "she lacked the vision to translate the mandate into something." On the question of whether Gandhi had done the correct thing my moving into the temple and removing the Sikhs, both Shyam and Gupta responded in the affirmative. Shyam stated that the whole situation presented a "cruel Continued on page 7 By DAN ERICKSON Was Jesus a Communist? Latin American theologian Dr. Jose Porfirio Miranda offered an answer to this and other questions concerning the relationship between Christian and Marxist schools of thought in a two-day conference sponsored by the Center for Global Service and Education entitled "Marx and the Bible: Re-thinking the Bible Message." Miranda asserted that Jesus rejected a society with a stratified capitalistic structure, saying, "His disciples turned away from material wealth, sharing everything." Highlights from Miranda's lecture in Si Melby on Nov. 10 entitled "Communism in the Bible" are as follows: "The poor man is not described as especially virtuous in the Bible, just poor," Miranda explained. He illustrated with biblical passages where Jesus refused to accept the wealthy unwilling to relinquish their riches, and stated, "They have already received their recompense. Jesus filled the poor with good things and sent away the rich with nothing." Miranda qualified his statement: "According to these teachings one can conclude the rich should be punished. But it is differentiating wealth that is condemned, not wealth itself. "The only solution against differential wealth is a classless society. Only if a society has no rich or poor class can that society be condoned," he stated. Describing the disciples, he said, "There was no poor person among them. There was no differentiating wealth among them. The logical supposition is that differentiating wealth cannot be acquired legitimately," according to Miranda. The Bible distingush- ed three modes of profit: 1.) through commerce, 2.) through lending, 3.) through making a profit in production. The Bible, according to Miranda, condemns all three. "The Kingdom of God was a place where all injustice was to be abolished. This was the plan of Jesus. This was the first com munist plan on earth," remarked Dr. Miranda. Miranda's quote on the conference pamphlet reads: "Communism did not come from atheistic materialism. It came from the writers of the Old and New Testaments. But, the Biblical teachings about riches and poverty have been muted and modified by translater, exegetes, and the official church." Responding to Dr. Miranda's lecture, Dr. David Tiede, Professor of the New Testament at Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, remarked that a "rethinking of fundemental questions is important. Miranda's lecture has profound implications. It strikes at the quick of where we are." Tiede posed the problem like this: "How do you use scriptures written in a theocracy while we live in a pluracracy?" (In Christ's time, Jews were governed by Sadducess and Pharisees under the auspices of the Roman Government. They were priests ruling by divine sanction.) Tiede continued, "Jesus means freedom and forgiveness. But he also has a vision of human dignity," a quality usually absent in the life of the poor. "Mercy, forgiveness, grace, love—all are part of the gospel message." But Tiede remarked that it was "an escapist theology which supports the capitalists and avoids justice." He emphasized that "we must carefully tend the sources of our texts. The task of the Christian is to do justice for God." Dr. Janet Mathison of the St. Joseph Catholic Worker House, recently back from South America, where she was confronted with the consequences of poverty, stated: "Miranda encourages and challenges the people, especially the poor ... to attain strong belief that the gospel means what it says literally," in spite of the interpretation of intellectuals and academics, whose opinions have prevailed, she said. Mathison noted that "President Reagan said it was okay not to feel guilty (regarding the Administration's cut in social programs aimed to help the poor). The reason people are drawn to Reagan is that it's helping us not to feel guilty." According to Mathison, America interweaves materialism, idealism, and theology for the creation of convenient idols. "Where is the meaning of life?" she asked, and answered: "In the shopping centers and at football games—things we don't need to make sense of." In our consumer society Mathison insists that "the poor aren't the deserving poor," contrary to Reagan's statements that anyone who wants to work in this country can find a job. Mathison found Dr. Miranda's comments a welcome addition in the search for ideas showing "that there is another way." Dr. Miranda's most recent book, Communism and the Bible, was published in 1981. The Nov. 10 session, held in Si Melby Auditorium, was interrupted for coffee, which was followed by small group reflection and concluding remarks. The Nov. 9 session was entitled "Justice and Justification" followed by an afternoon session entitled "Is God on the Side of the Poor? How Western Interpretations Favor the Rich." NSIDE: page Can you write? 3 Editorials 4, 5 Muichinaker reviewed 6 Volleyball finishes season 7 |
Contributing Organization | Augsburg University |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for 001