The Motorcycle Diaries: The Ghost of El Che and Christian Theology Pt.2
October 25, 2004
Reno Lauro is a third year M.Div student, filmmaker and poet. He is currently applying to PhD programs in a hope to ponder the mysteries of Theology and the Imagination. He loves pomomusings. This is the second part in his review of the film, “The Motorcycle Diaries.”
——————————————————————————
The Motorcycle Diaries: The Ghost of El Che and Christian Theology Pt.2
The question raised in Pt. 1 of this article is simple: as followers of Jesus of Nazareth, what can a man like Ernesto Che Guevara teach us about our own faith and our own failure of faith. Let’s restate this with emphasis for Christian brothers and sisters who like to “politicize” scripture and theology with slogans and Orwellian newspeak: as followers of Jesus of Nazareth, what can a man like Ernesto Che Guevara teach us about our own faith and our own failure of faith.
Please allow me to digress.
It has been asked recently by a certain Christian brother, “Where is the cross?” This question emerges from concerns that our Christian identity (of salvation through the cross of Christ and in Christ) is being lost to “humanist/leftist politicos” and “Marxist-Hegelian philosophies”. On the surface this seems to be an insightful and sincere question - and it is rightly so the correct question to ask - however the false dichotomy presented between 1) a presently liberating Christ and 2) Christ our paschal lamb is a grotesque error that has cost the faith legitimacy in the modern and now this post-modern age.
At the heart of this scriptural and theological error is a lack of understanding in - the very Reformation doctrine (all irony intended for my Christian brother) - Participatio Christi - Participation in Christ. It is true that Paul and the Reformers use forensic language (legal/courtroom), to access the idea of Christ’s salvific work, however, it is the language of participation in Christ (in his death and resurrection) that they use to describe the way we are to live (Col 3.3, 1 Cor 1.30, et al; John Calvin Institutes Book 3 chp 11, Martin Luther sermons on Rom 6. 3-11 and on Col 3. 1-11). In other words, salvation is not a causal but an ontological change. Salvation is not an exchange of Christ death for our salvation but a change in my very being. We now participate in the life and righteousness of Christ!
This now truly begs the question; what does it mean for believers to participate in the cross and resurrection of Christ?
Enter, the very imperfect figure, Ernesto Che Guevara (anathema to some . . . ).
There is a moment in “The Motorcycle Diaries”, when Che and Granado are sitting among the silent sprites of Machu Picchu - ruins situated on top of the Andes Mts. like a New World Rivendell - that breaks my heart towards God. Granado tells Che that he is going to marry a native woman, have many children, and love the world into change. Che responds, “How can you have a revolution without guns?”
Ernesto, you have a revolution without guns by participating in the creative power and life of Jesus of Nazareth. God from God, light from light, true God from true God, who came to live a human life to show us how to live a life like the divine (a true human life).
Brothers and sisters, we have failed. Why? We have failed because we have forgotten what it is to live a life for others and it takes a Marxist revolutionary to remind us what that life looks like.
The cross of Christ and the resurrection are eschatological events; a new world ruptures forth shaking the very foundations of creation (Matt 27. 50 - 53). This world, as it stands, cannot be the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God requires a revolution and restructuring of the foundations of this world - a revolution of thinking and acting. Che knew this. Towards the end of the film the staff of the leper hospital throws Che a surprise birthday party. The director (Walter Salles Jr.) uses this moment to show the completion of Che’s revolution in thinking and acting. “We are one people of Latin America” he says (please excuse the gross paraphrasing) and “our divisions are man made, divisions intended to oppress”. Che then tells his friend Granado that it isn’t right that the lepers must watch the celebration from “the other side of the river”. In an act of total kenotic love - self emptying to live for others (Phil 2.1-11) - Che risks death to swim to the other side.
What can Ernesto Che Guevara teach us about our faith and our failures of faith? - A revolution of thinking and acting. Living for others, in solidarity with others, being crisis to idolatrous ideas and institutions . . . even if it means our own death.
Tags: guevara, motorcycle_diaries, Theology
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
October 25th, 2004 at 3:35 pm
>>>”Brothers and sisters, we have failed. Why? We have failed because we have forgotten what it is to live a life for others and it takes a Marxist revolutionary to remind us what that life looks like.”
Reno,
I understand this point, and to some extent even agree. Particularly the part of living life for others. Yes, Che’s fervour and selflessness was exemplary, and something that puts the vast majority of christians to shame. But Che’s revolution was a material one, whilst the Great Commission is a spiritual one. So I think we’re talking apples and oranges here.
Che (and most Libs) believe in a utopia on earth if only they had enough “guns.” True, Christ fed the poor and healed the sick, but only incidentally. Christ knew utopia wasn’t possible in a fallen world and that the poor would always be amongst us. His revolution therefore was a spiritual one. His concern was a different kind of hunger.
Che never sought to address man’s spiritual need for God or salvation, but focused instead on man’s belly, which can never sate hunger or change the world. It’s like trying to quench a forest fire by blowing on the smoke. Thus as christians, our role model isn’t Che and his goal to feed the hungry, but rather his selflessness. A christian does not spread the good news of bread and butter, but Good News of Living Waters, and they should have Che’s fervour about it. Sadly, we don’t.
“Loving the world into change” IS perhaps possible without guns, but it’s not the kind of change Che was looking for. That’s why I think Che’s allure may be attractive, but ultimately deceptive.
In addition to “where’s the cross”, how many people did indeed Che turn away from that cross by accepting his humanistic message? It’s not a statement, just a question.
October 25th, 2004 at 5:09 pm
David, your usage of a distinction between “spiritual” and “material” is a product of Greek philosophy (esp. Plato) that came to dominate Christian theology through the early hellenization of Christian thought. The distinction maintains a strong influence in contemporary pop christian discourse because of how conveniently it and related distinctions fit with consumeristic patterns of life. The result is a complete accomodation of Christianity with capitalistic forms of hedonism. The distinction between spirit and economics that you are promoting has nothing to do with Jesus or the Bible, and would have been inconceivable to the Jews and Hebrews who wrote the Bible. N.T. Wright is extremely important on these points, and I recommend Challenge of Jesus for starters and then his larger books for the details.
To claim that Jesus’ ministry to the poor and sick was “incidental” is a thoroughly Platonic and consumeristic reading of the New Testament.
Reno, thank you for your reviews. I look forward to seeing this movie. I am in wholehearted agreement with your closing sentence of this post, and yet it leaves me profoundly discouraged. These sorts of statements, “living for others,” are true enough, but the insertion of such nice-sounding sentiments into contemporary US discourse seems utterly ineffective. Consumerism and individualism are some of the most powerful forces in human history, and they shape us from birth to not live for others. I know this is asking more than you could provide in a movie review, but this raises the further questions for me: What sorts of ecclesial structures, economic structures, political structures, and cultural structures will allow Christians and others to hear and obey the injunction to “Live for others” in a culture of hedonistic consumption? I’m asking this rhetorically I suppose, since I know there are no easy answers to these questions. But if someone does have answers, I’d like to hear from you. But the thing about Marxism is, at least it provided analyses of economic, cultural, and religious conditions of inequalities, and any serious Christian statement of what it means to live for others will have to engage in such analytical work as well. So this is a request for more discussion, not a complaint against the wonderful discussion that Reno has already provided.
October 25th, 2004 at 5:58 pm
Steve,
obviously I don’t believe my read on Jesus is some “Platonic” or “capitalist consumer” product of this or that (though I suspect Che might agree with you).
But I’m not a seminarian, so I haven’t read the books and theologians you have. My faith is a somewhat more simple and childlike one. But perhaps you can meet me half way and make a case by citing Scripture? That I do know a little bit about. For instance, show me where it says that the Bread of God is not He which cometh down from heaven, but rather the bread handed out by marxists and humanists. You mention the term “consumerism” repeatedly in your post. Is that a biblical term? or are you perhaps yourself the product of a more worldly philosophy?
October 25th, 2004 at 6:18 pm
David, unfortunately the issue cannot be resolved simply by quoting verses, because at stake is the meanings of all the relevant terms: “spirit,” “heaven,” “salvation,” and most importantly, “kingdom of god.” Those terms have to be understood in the cultural context in which they were written (2nd temple Judaism). Only by understanding the possible manners in which those terms could possibly have been understood (manners which exclude all our favorite dualisms), can we understand what the verses are saying. Merely to quote bible verses without attention to cultural context allows us to fill those terms with meanings that are completely foreign to the texts. I value childlikeness and simplicity, which is one reason I think scripture is over-used and mis-used in contemporary xian practice. But if we are going to appeal to scripture, unfortunately there’s no substitute for understanding the cultural context that determines the meaning of biblical terms.
October 25th, 2004 at 6:50 pm
Steve,
You really think the Scriptures can be “overused”? I don’t. I think they are woefully underused, particularly in some seminaries. I don’t know anything about Princeton, so my comment isn’t directed at it.
And for some reason I don’t think the teachings of Christ have to go through the ivory tower in order to be properly understood by the flock. I seriously doubt that’s what Jesus intended when he suffered the children to Him, or when He said that wherever two or three believers met, there He would be too. I know that it might seem necessary for you as a candidate for academia to put the text through your worldly and philosophical ringer — how else could you stomach what Paul called “foolishness”? — but I think a simple discussion among believers should do the trick don’t you think?
Remember, the Church hasn’t had the benefit of “academia” or marxist-hegelian analyses of “structures” until very recently. However did it survive without you?
if you didn’t first filter it through your post-modern lenses where “consumerism” You say you value simple and childlike, but then go on to say why you dislike it– because it leads to “overuse” of Scripture.
October 25th, 2004 at 11:03 pm
I tried to sit this out ,but….
First a hearty exhortation to David. Keep going!
As for Aaron, the irony is wasted.#1 I am not what you would call a classic reformer at all. #2 The problem is not forensic vs ontological,it is what foundation are you building on,i.e.ends and means are useless unless you build on the rock. David is right ,how did the church survive without the post-modern version of the enlightenment?
Your scriptures cites are interesting,and your references to Calvin and Luther, while a good try,ignore the fact that both men believed either you are in or out,something a good pomo would never ascribe to. Calvin taught supralapsarian theology which has only been ridiculed on this blog. As for 1Cor 1:30 and Col 3:3, these are not metaphors. Jesus is quite literally my righteousness and justification,etc. We are dead and judged in the work of the Cross i.e. we were there in Him. 2Cor 5:16-21. Romans 5-6-7-8 teach plainly that we died and the law makes no requirement on a dead man. So Paul can say” “I no longer live but Christ in me” Matthew 5:17 says the Law is in force to this day and has to be kept,so according to what I have just cited,I am dead and Jesus is alive in me fulfilling the law for me, present active tense! The problem here is that in the post modern rush to be anti-modernist, you reject epistemology over ontology. In truth both go hand in hand. Romans 12:1-2. You also operate off of a faulty foundation.#1 The Bible is not metaphor,or fiction, or just stories.#2 There is no universal salvation,period. Jesus never taught it.
Steve said
“Merely to quote bible verses without attention to cultural context allows us to fill those terms with meanings that are completely foreign to the texts. I value childlikeness and simplicity, which is one reason I think scripture is over-used and mis-used in contemporary xian practice.”
This is exactly what post-modernism does. Well it doesn’t overuse scripture, as it hardly refers to it all. It does misuse the little that it cites though. The Scriptures,the Church i.e. the body, and Jesus Himself stand in the world but not of it. They stand outside of cultural reference as they come from a Kingdom not of this world. The Scripture is alive and speaking today to us outside of its historical framework or it is worthless. In other words,the spirit,heaven,salvation and the Kingdom of God mean now what they did then. We do not get to reconstruct their meaning to fit a post-modern cultural context. Contextualization is another element of a faulty foundation. I refuse to have to rely on everybody’s colorful but off-base opinions, as that is all we are left with in the great deconstruct. There is no longer Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free,because the Church is the one place where these things are irrelevant. Paul was all things to all men,meaning that he brought no culture with him as the Church is not a culture.So he fit in wherever he went. Enabling him to preach only Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
So how does this lead back to Che’? He may have loved his wife and his compatriots, and may have hugged the lepers, (according to Jesus Himself, anyone can do that. Matt 5:43-48.), but he was a murderer and a hater of other men.(Back to the issue of hypocrisy here.) Barring a genuine death-bed repentance, and based on the Scriptures,I have to believe that he probably did not inherit the Kingdom of God. (that should start some howling) Therefore Che’ has nothing to teach me, and most certainly is not a model for the Body of Christ. Even Granado is wrong. Apart from Christ we can do nothing. NO-THING! The trick is not in living for others ,but recognizing the fact that you are dead. Not I, but Christ. HE lives for others. We are incapable of it.
I find it a bit interesting that none of the usual crowd are commenting on this. Hard to defend the indefensible,eh?
October 25th, 2004 at 11:39 pm
David, I am happy to join in with you in a critique of academic intellectualism. My version of Christianity doesn’t place primary weight on believing the “right” doctrines or knowing a lot of bible verses. The essence of my version of Christianity consists in four practices:
1. The practice of prayer
2. The practice of friendship (community-building, truthful speech, kindness)
3. The practice of empowerment (justice/compassion/giving/serving)
4. The practice of discipling
Any child can do that, and an academic is at no advantage (perhaps he or she is at a severe disadvantage) in following those practices. Spiritual maturity to me consists in being skilled at those four practices, and as much as I love to throw quotes from large books, I don’t view that as spiritual maturity and I only value large books to the degree that they facilitate the communal practices above.
But I find two things: the way many Christians use and interpret the Bible actually detracts from those practices, and I find that orienting our lives around these practices is extremely difficult in a media-driven, consumer-oriented, hedonistic culture. I find the wealth of wisdom that is out there in libraries can be helpful, both in correcting misconceptions about scripture that have more to do with Greek philosophy than 2nd Temple Judaism, and social criticism about why our world works the way it does, and who benefits from that and who loses… And how we can try to help more to benefit. So anyone who seriously studies, whether in an academic context or not, I think should be a welcome partner in the life of any church community.
Chris P., you state, “In other words,the spirit,heaven,salvation and the Kingdom of God mean now what they did then.” The fact that you are writing those words in 21st c. american english shows clearly the problem with your claim. These words didn’t even exist in the 1st century, so they couldn’t possibly mean now what they meant then. They didn’t mean anything then!! Nothing could be more obvious.
October 26th, 2004 at 1:14 am
Your last sentence: “What can Ernesto Che Guevara teach us about our faith and our failures of faith? ‚Äì A revolution of thinking and acting. Living for others, in solidarity with others, being crisis to idolatrous ideas and institutions . . . even if it means our own death.”
I wonder why we need Ernesto Che Guevara to teach us any of the things you mention? Jesus taught us all these things himself, along with several of the apostles and countless men and women in throughout the history of the church. Che may be an example of all these things on some level, but he also brings a lot of shitty baggage with him, Marxist and otherwise. It seems that this baggage could end up doing more damage than good to the illustration of the kind of “ontological change” that you’re hoping to remind us of.
If the central question really is “what does it mean for believers to participate in the cross and resurrection of Christ?”, then looking outside our own tradition for an example like Che–especially given his baggage–doesn’t seem to be the wisest move. Why take the risk of distorting the message through an imperfect example? Wouldn’t it be better to look inside our own tradition and our own narrative first, if not exclusively? Especially when you’re dealing with something as central to the Christian faith as participating in the cross and resurrection?
Using Che just doesn’t make must sense, unless you’re wanting that extra baggage for some non-theological reason–like to make a statement of political solidarity with Che’s Marxism. If that’s your point, great. More power to you. Just don’t disguise political views as theology.
October 26th, 2004 at 1:55 am
First of all, Reno, I applaud you for your thoughtful post.
It amazes me how Chris, Dave, and Keith, who are so driven by ideology do not have enough intellectual chutzpah to respond accuately and to address the point that you are trying to make. Have you actually thought through your comments, or are your “theological members” so engorged with your own conservative ideology that you have missed the point? This leads me to my second point…
Adam, what are your thoughts on this? You have been silent in this discussion. Please indulge us.
Regards.
O.
October 26th, 2004 at 9:43 am
Orlando,
did you have a point to make other than that we’re thoughtless conservatives?
October 26th, 2004 at 10:22 am
“We have failed because we have forgotten what it is to live a life for others and it takes a Marxist revolutionary to remind us what that life looks like.”
I think David and Steve have come closest to mark on this one. It’s cool that christian brothers who seems so divergent can rally around something.
Chris P., Keith, Orlando, all I can say is wow.
It seems to me that this quote sums up what I’m trying to say in the article. No “political views” or “Hegelian-Marxist agenda’s disguised as theology” just a simple observation that all our talk is for not. The Church has failed to live for others friends.
Che Guevara (Anathema!!) lives a life for other’s in a more authentic way than any of us could ever dream or imagine. Abandon everything you know to live for people who suffer and make it your life’s mission to work in solidarity for their liberation. Not from your suburban homes but in the trenches with them and for them.
Che was murdered for challenging the machine, Jesus was killed for challenging the machine . . . you, are good taxpayers.
No Che doesn’t own a copy of Eugene Peterson’s “The Message”, care about “Supralapsarian” theological considerations, or death bed conversions. Thats why I say “what can a man like Ernesto Che Guevara teach us about our own faith and our own failure of faith.”
His life (despite his failures of imagination) looks alot more like Jesus than our lame attempts. What’s our excuse?
Go and do likewise.
October 26th, 2004 at 10:49 am
But doesn’t the cause that one is selfless about have any bearing on the measure of a man? Passion is like money; it can be good or bad, depending on how it’s applied.
I know I’m a thoughtless conservative and not very nuanced in my thinking, but I have no doubt in my mind that all the thoughtful Liberals would have a meltdown if we held up a selfless abortion clinic bomber as a christian role model. He’s selfless isn’t he? And passionate? and committed? AND he’s doing it for God?
When you’re prepared to hold up an abortion clinic bomber as a role model, then I’ll be ready for Che.
October 26th, 2004 at 12:25 pm
Reno says: “What’s our excuse?”
Our excuse is that contemporary ecclesial structures neither promote nor facilitate “life for others” and until they do, it is unrealistic to expect any more than a handful of Christian moral heroes to deviate from the prevailing norms of our MTV-saturated culture.
To make any progress on this issue at all, we’re going to have to be just Marxist enough to engage in critical analysis of ecclesial, social, economic, and cultural patterns of organization.
October 26th, 2004 at 2:30 pm
David,
the only problem with what you say is that I’m not citing Che’s method as a role model for Christian action and thus will not hold up the abortion bomber. THe kindom of God confronts the violence of humanity in a different way than the falleness of humanity does.
What I do hold up is Che’s willingness to live for other . . . completely and totally. Unlike the coward terrorist who bombs and hides behind their 1st world walmart fundamentalist existence Che gave “everything” up to, not just be, but “live” for the other. He would have been very comfortable as a doctor, and part time “radical”, but thats not what he did. He completely jumped ship.
The bomber is a coward because he “loves” the very paradigm of death that promotes what he hates! He is a contradiction and a fool! I think we can agree that there is a qualitative difference in these two pictures.
Once again, it is not Che’s methods but the “willingness” to give up everything and live for other that I hold up as most certainly Christ like. We don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water on this one.
Ultimately I agree with Steve when he says that “contemporary ecclesial structures neither promote nor facilitate “life for others” and until they do, it is unrealistic to expect any more than a handful of Christian moral heroes to deviate from the prevailing norms of our MTV-saturated culture.”
But, I don’t think that (And im sure he would agree with this) Marxist critique is the answer. While helpful, Marxism can prove to be just as much an idol as capitalism. The Kindom of God confronsts both Right and Left with a system of Total Otherness. The very foundations of human structure and thought must be dismanteled.
October 26th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
Of course you don’t believe in violent methods (I do, when it’s necessary), even when Che engages in it. Yet Che did engage in it, that’s inescapable, just as a clinic bomber does. Che also hid from the consequences of his violence, just as a clinic bomber does, that’s why he had to be hunted own in the jungle like a rat. Our bomber hides behind a Walmart jungle, but both he and Che were forced into hiding because of their methods.
So you reject violence. Fine. But you embrace Che’s selflessness; and his desire to feed the poor. You agree with his goals and motivation. They are admirable. That’s good. But do you believe that an abortion clinic bomber is less selfless?; and do you believe an abortion clinic bomber’s goal of fighting for the unborn is any less laudable?
Frankly I don’t see the difference, other than the baggage we bring to the argument in the first place.
October 26th, 2004 at 3:02 pm
David, I actually think you’ve got a very perceptive point on abortion. If people really believed that fully-fledged human souls inhabited single-cells at the moment of conception, and that a 40-million person holocaust was transpiring under our noses, then unless they were pacifists, which most Xians aren’t, violence would be the most rational course of action.
This indicates to me that the spectacle of abortion politics is more fueled by a desire to demonize “liberals” and “secularists” (providing the strongest possible moral condemnation: comparison to Hitler), than to any rational analysis of the nature of human life. I think both sides of the abortion debate, though, are riddled with irrationality, so I’m not taking sides. Well, I suppose we’re completely departing from the original point, but I appreciate the discussion.
October 26th, 2004 at 3:15 pm
Now I never said I was against violence.
What i did say was that the kingdom of God confronts violence differently than the fallen humanity. I don’t believe in running out of the room, or curling into a ball, when violence erupts. I do think that if Christians cannot distinguish the way we (as christians –not americans, neo-cons, communists, socialists, etc.) confront this world from the world then we lose our salt. But this is another thread that I won’t go any further on.
I don’t think you are slicing the pie with enough precision on this one. 1) I have already said that it is not Che’s violence that I see as admirable but the motivations that drove him.
No the abortion clinic bomber is a coward, plain and simple. If the abortion clinic bomber had any sense he would be killing doctors, nurses and young girls who got knocked up. The abortion bomber would be hitting MTV studios, Vogue magazine, and what ever else gives birth to a culture of death. Cowards and fools.
Che understood that it took a shaking of structural foundations to affect change for the other.
But your question is “Isn’t the abortion bomber for other?” No. Why? Because he is not willing to give up for the other. I would agree with Ayn Rand on this and say that the abortion bomber is inflicting violence out of misguided egoist intentions. To preserve the theology and ideology of self.
Hiding behind walmart is very different from hiding from the liminal edge of society.
But I digress. Che’s actions are not what are in question here. It is the desire and quest to live so selflessly for other that is. We can still learn something from his example . . . however flawed.
October 26th, 2004 at 3:32 pm
Steve,
I actually agree with you that if pro-Lifers took their ‘abortion is murder’ reasoning to it’s logical conclusion, they’d end up as clinic bombers themselves. Personally, I don’t consider the killing of another person to be murder in all cases (see self-defense, war, negligent manslaughter, etc.), so I don’t consider killing a foetus to be murder, and I don’t think any thoughtful pro-Lifer does either. The ‘murder’ tag is for effect, or to “demonize” as you say. If human souls do indeed inhabit those foetuses, which I believe is supported by the text, then killing them probably falls into the negligent homicide category rather than 1st degree murder.
Reno,
I’m still not seeing how an Che’s “desire” to live “selflessly” for “the other” is any less apparent in a clinic bomber. You say the bomber is unwilling to “give up for the other”, and is motivated by “ego.” Yet a clinic bomber gives up any semblance of a normal life when he is forced to go underground as a fugitive. He gives up plenty. And regarding ego, I personally think many (if not most) Leftists are motivated by ego as well (they seek love and approval). Where’s the difference?
October 26th, 2004 at 3:44 pm
Im sure it’s safe to say that “most leftists” and pop-communists are also driven by ego (selfish motivations) but thats why Im not talking about them.
The blog entry is about what we can learn about the christian life from Che Guevara.
I guess, since we don’t have much access into the motivational thoughts of these bombers the point is moot.
Let’s return to Che, the cross and “the other”.
October 26th, 2004 at 5:28 pm
Let’s get back to Che. Was he motivated by his love for humanity? or by hatred of capitalism. I don’t know squat about Che, so it’s just a question.
I do know that many Leftists and activist types aren’t motivated by a love of people; what drives them is anger at “the Man.” I know that even in the non-profit sector (where I used to work), “the cause” is what many of them care about; their hatred of Republicans (for instance) seemed a far stronger motivation than a genuine love for people.
What was Che’s motivation? Was his selflessness inspired by love? Just a question.
October 26th, 2004 at 5:34 pm
ps. regarding “the cause”, I witnessed how supposed humanitarians in the non-profit sector talked a good talk about “oppression”, and then walked out of their office and treated indigent clients or volunteers like dirt. I saw volunteers driven to tears by these humanitarian types, and clients treated like they just walked off the street (they had). And then after doing their damage they’d go back to their talk about “social justice” and “oppression.” That’s when I learned to distinguish between hate for “the Man” vs a true concern for people. What was Che like when he asked Kruschev to nuke the U.S.? a lover of mankind? or a hater of “the Man.”
October 26th, 2004 at 9:12 pm
Orlando ranted: “It amazes me how Chris, Dave, and Keith, who are so driven by ideology do not have enough intellectual chutzpah to respond accuately and to address the point that you are trying to make. Have you actually thought through your comments, or are your “theological members” so engorged with your own conservative ideology that you have missed the point? This leads me to my second point…”
I have no idea who Chris or Dave are, and I didn’t bother to read their comments, so I have no idea where they stand. But, when applied to me, these words are ridiculous. I advise you to take a few moments to read through my blog before you label me as both lacking in “intellectual chutzpah” and “engorged by conservative ideology”.
I asked a serious and substantive question about Reno’s post–one that I think DID address his core point. He says this sentence is key in his article: “We have failed because we have forgotten what it is to live a life for others and it takes a Marxist revolutionary to remind us what that life looks like.”
I totally agree with the first part of his sentence. The church has, by and large, failed to act as it should. My question concered the second part. I wanted to know why Che’s example–given all the shit that comes with that example–should be seen as an appropriate one for Christians when there are much better examples to be found within the Christian tradition itself. Why not just point to someone in our own history instead of someone on the outside of it?
No doubt Che had a lot of virtues to admire, especially in the way he confronted the powers of his time. But he also had a lot of faults that aren’t admirable. Because of these faults, my feeling is that we compromise too much if we take him as an example for faithful action.
Reno was essentially saying, “Want to see how to live as a Christian? Look at Che.” I’d say no. Why? Because looking at Che to see how we should live a Christian life can only lead to a distorted view of who we are to be, one that makes significant and important theological sacrifices. Does that mean that we can take nothing from Che’s example? No way–there is a lot in his life that can inspire us. But I wonder if Reno was taking too much of him–and thus leaving part of Jesus out.
October 26th, 2004 at 9:32 pm
I live in Nicaragua and in the midst of many of the kind of inequalities that Che fought against. I don’t know how Che applies to Christian theology but I did enjoy reading these 2 articles. In reading some of the comments that have been posted on “El Che” I want to point out that he is still held is very high regard in nearly all of Latin America. He is an example, a hero, an icon, and yes, unfortunately and ironically, a product. I think he lived a “Fight Club” kind of life - maybe he was the Latino Tyler Durden, who knows?
I have a picture on my blog I took recently of a mural in Nicaragua where with Che on it and children playing in front of it:
http://suppliants.blogs.com/photos/nica_pics/imagen_037.html
Che dedicated his life to helping the poor and downtrodden and yet he was a Marxist missionary who tried to export the revolution not just to Latin America but to Africa and elsewhere. These revolutions are complicated things when you see them from the inside out and I agree with those who have been saddened by Che’s use of violence to achieve his ends. Jesus said he preferred us “hot” or “cold”. I guess one’s politics will determine which temperature one thinks he was…but at least let us be as selfless and as dedicated to the cause of Christ as El Che was to his.
November 1st, 2004 at 12:10 pm
Sorry I am jumping on this conversation late, but as someone who has seen the movie and read the book I feel like I have few points that need to be addressed. First, in Reno’s original posting he asks what we can learn from Che. Due to the fact that he is reviewing a movie that deals with a certain stage of Che’s life, a clearer question would be what can we learn from Che at this particular point in his life. Violent means were not one of Che’s methods at this time (although the seed had been planted, it had not grown into actual violence) and therefore all issues of violence and the regretfully poor example of the abortion clinic bomber are irrelevant.
Secondly, asking what we can learn from Che is different from saying that Che is the role model for modern Christians, it is simply a question of what can we extrapolate from Che’s example and then apply to the Christian life. I am not going to swim across the Amazon to get to a leper colony (not for fear of death, but just because I don’t like to swim), but the willingness to go to people in need and to meet them where they are at is the lesson that Christians need to learn.
Yes, Che was addressing material needs of oppressed/ outcast people, which is exactly the starting point that Christians should use. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, physiological needs must be met before any other needs (such as spiritual needs) can be addressed. By giving people physical bread and water Christians enter into a relationship that can lead to the giving of spiritual bread and water. Che represents one aspect of the Christian life, not the entire package.
October 6th, 2005 at 3:32 am
Excellent review. I just watched The Motorcycle Diaries last night and I wondered about the same thing — what can Guevara, a person who rejected religion, teach Muslims today?