Christianity - Social Justice

Mother Teresa certainly devoted her life to the poor of that Indian city, but she was not called to die at the hands of enemies as each of these others were. Stephen (answer 1) was the very first Christian martyr; the Copts (answer 2) were killed by 'ISIS' principally for having never renounced their Christian faith; Martin Luther King was gunned down, possibly in part on plain racist grounds, but probably because he had been actively advocating an end to officially-endorsed discrimination between people on grounds of their colour. This campaign was clearly consonant with the Christian message of equal acceptance of all.

The title stems from a seminal text in 1971 by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, 'A Theology of Liberation'. The appointment of an Argentinian Pope in 2013 ~ the first non-European since way back in the 8th century, more than half the Christian era ago ~ may well lead to this movement achieving more prominence and impact.

This movement certainly exists and does good work in our sad modern world, but Bishop Ximenes is a mere invention. Perhaps the name came to your author's mind since Ximenes was one of the chief members of the Spanish Inquisition (late 15th century), and the probity of the Catholic church on matters of abuse (and cover-ups) happens sadly to be a recurrent concern in the news these days.

Almost by definition, answers 1-3 come across as 'historical', but the point is that the people in question were making an active difference in their own day; and just so, are Christians called now to stand up against the perceived evils of ours (faceless, tax-bilking multinational corporations; the ongoing fractured-relational fallout from the help-yourself sexual free-for-all of the 1960s onwards; trafficking, oppression and sadly so many more). There will always be issues for believers to tackle, in this world!

The Act came in in 1965 (with subsequent revisions), partly spurred by the Bristol Bus Boycott of 1963 in which the non-caucasian cause was actively supported by church groups and leaders, among others. Britain generally has not too bad a longterm track-record on 'loving her neighbours' in respect of immigration and racism, though there have of course been a number of bad incidents; but enshrining tolerance and respect democratically into law was surely worth having done. The 1960s, roughly a generation after the Second World War, saw other forms of social liberation: censorship in the theatre was repealed, the practices of male homosexuality were decriminalised, and abortion became legal. The various vices of sexism, smoking and abuse were still rife and prevalent, but at least worthwhile progress was being made on some fronts.

All of these landmarks can be checked and explored online, but answer 4 was false in that the appointment was announced in 2014 and the consecration took place in January 2015. (The first in the British Isles as a whole was in the Church of Ireland in 2013.) There have meanwhile been female bishops before these in the United States.

As a matter of passing note, your author's second-cousin by marriage was among the Church of Scotland's very first cohort of women ministers at the tail end of the 1960s.

There are plenty of issues that the Bible does not directly address, such as moral matters specific to modern telecommunications or medical advances. The absence of anything from the Bible cannot necessarily, of itself, mean that the thing never happened or arose. We know Jesus ate, drank and slept, but we hear little about Him washing (except in ritual contexts), shopping nor relieving Himself. Clearly such things must have happened, but taste and context led to them never being mentioned. Come to that, there is only a single (textually dubious) reference to cats in the Bible, in the Apocryphal book of Baruch: where does that leave modern cat-owners?
But where there is some positive and relevant text to work from ~ even it is not decidedly topical nor explicitly clear ~ 'at least that is something'. The matter raised in answer 4 has certainly been a sincere cause of concern in sensitive quarters.

It is generally accepted that Christian belief in the dignity and potential of all people had been a major driver of thought towards the eventual UDHR.

Christians were certainly involved from the earliest days of Oxfam (originally the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, one of a chain of nationwide British committees during World War 2), along with university academics and various other 'movers and shakers': its first preliminary meeting took place in one of the tower rooms of the University Church. Many of its officials, workers and supporters are active Christians ~ indeed, it will often have been their faith which impels their involvement ~ but the organisation itself, as such, has no specific religious allegiance.

Answer 2 clearly needs no comment; answer 3 is the acronym for the Catholic (NB: not 'Christian', though plainly enough it is that too!) Fund for Overseas Development; answer 4 is a Christian foundation which works to better the life and prospects of Third World children, principally through organised individual sponsorships.

It might be felt that Christian aid organisations still carry a condescending whiff of cultural imperialism in a postcolonial age ('railways and religion', etc.) but, insofar as it were also appropriate to isolate their motives from the practical good they do, the world as a whole would be coping less well without them if they were not there and active.

The first three pairs were all fine; answer 4 was a similar-spirited, but non-genuine 'fake'. But the point here is that Jesus was impressing on His followers that 'the least of these things that you do for others, you do for me'.

Corporate Philanthropy (though usually no bad thing in itself) is not quite in the same league as these other three recently fashionable TLAs (Three-Letter Acronyms ~ oops: they're catching, in this world!). Some fine enterprises are modelled equitably from the start, such as the FairTrade food network; there is the implicit (and possibly justified) in-built implication that other previous models were less than fair. At any rate, they are surely to be welcomed, along with supermarkets (with their vast turnovers) relenting on selling less-than-perfect-looking produce ~ still eminently edible, and rather than turning back 'wonky veg' etc. and bankrupting their suppliers ~ and allowing other still-edible perishables to be usefully disposed-of by foodbanks and other relief agencies, rather than ploughing them into landfill since they can't be legally nor profitably sold.