Steven,
Rusell's point wasn't vague. He felt Christians were about "being" rather than "doing", and his final sentence summarizes this belief by contending there exist no saints whose veneration was justified by acts of utility to others. Maybe that wasn't your point, but in my reading, it clearly is his.
On your point: had Mother Theresa adopted a platform which attempted to reform (as an outsider no less) a centuries old socio-economic-religious institution like the caste system, she would have found herself in a political miasma that ultimately diluted (or precluded) her fundamental mission:helping the poor. She was apolitical by choice because it was the most expedient way to realize her goal. I understand your point about addressing root causes (and agree this is a desirable goal), but what if such a fundamental revolution takes decades to be realized? Who serves the starving in the meantime?
Population control is an equally hot potato. Many agrarian cultures have large families in reaction to the realities of third world mortality rates. In those areas, not only does one need to have a large family to attend to the daily farming duties, but also as a hedge against the probable deaths of productive family members from accidents, disease, etc. This is only one dimension of the population control debate--a debate that can get very very complicated--even among people of like mind. In the meantime, when disaster and famine strike during these cultures' evolution out of Third World status, someone needs to be there to help them, and for centuries this function has often been served (though certainly not exclusively) by believers of all stripes.
I don't identify with any particular religion, but I cannot deny the utility of the charitable services they provide around the world.
Rick |
