<< I think our differnce might lie in the fact that I'm seeing the church as
a world in and of itself, so these struggles, related as they are to core
clurch ideologies, are have "world-emancipatory" potential.
>>
I think part of the problem here is trying to see "church" as a single definable entity. "Church" in South America where missionaries have played both destructive and progressive roles can be defined as "left" if "left" is assumed to be progressives contesting the system, given a specific context, or as conservative as when the church's main role was to impose European culture on the local populace. The same is true in the United States. The church in black communites has played a strong organizing and leadership role in fighting the power of the state to win some rights for black individuals and communities. In one context, this would be considered progressive or "left" and yet there are other "lefties" who would say these movements were not progressive because they did not have as their ultimate aim the destruction of capitalism. Another example, in South Africa the Episcopalian church eventually provided strong leadership within the anti-apartheid movement, but the Episcopalian church in England (where episcopalianism originated after Henry killed one to many wives) was a tool of imperialism for a couple of centuries.
So, to summarize, I don't think any of these terms, "left", "church", or "progressive" have any meaning whatsoever out of context.
maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com