Liberation Theology

[temporal1]

Right.

No, it's actually a theology that employs a Marxist analysis (read: presuppositions antithetical to the Gospel) to arrive at conclusions that put it firmly outside the way of Christ. As easy as it is to take a swipe at "The Right" - calling Liberation Theology for what it is and warning people off of it, is good and necessary, even when done by a group of people that hold political positions you don't care for.

Expound...what are the issues as you see them?

did you read his suggestion?

[HondurasKeiser]

Right.

No, it's actually a theology that employs a Marxist analysis (read: presuppositions antithetical to the Gospel) to arrive at conclusions that put it firmly outside the way of Christ. As easy as it is to take a swipe at "The Right" - calling Liberation Theology for what it is and warning people off of it, is good and necessary, even when done by a group of people that hold political positions you don't care for.

Expound...what are the issues as you see them?

The following is taken from a white paper written at Princeton in 1985, that is largely sympathetic to Liberation Theology:

"As articulated in English first in an article in the Jesuit journal Theological Studies ("Notes for a Theology of Liberation," vol. 31, .no. 2, June 1970) Gutierrez argued that for "poor countries, oppressed and dominated, the word, liberation, is appropriate: rather than development. Latin America will never get out of its plight except by a profound transformation, a social revolution that will radically change the conditions it lives in at present. Today a more or less Marxist inspiration prevails among those groups and individuals who are raising the banner of the continent's liberation. And for many in our continent, this liberation will have to pass, sooner or later, through paths of violence •••• "

In the book that followed the article, Gutierrez criticized the developmentalism that provides only palliatives that "in the long run actually consolidate an exploitative system." He attacked Christian Democracy for its "naive reformism" and described it as "only a justifying ideology ••• for the few to keep living off the poverty of the many." Referring to Marx's Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach ("Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is, to change it") Gutierrez defined liberation theology as "critical reflection on Christian praxis in the light of the Word." Theology needed "a scientific and structural knowledge of socio-economic mechanisms and historical dynamics," and this would come from a recognition of dependence, "the domination exercised by the great capitalist countries and especially, by the most powerful, the United States of America." That domination was a result of the "worldwide class struggle between the oppressed countries and dominant peoples." New solutions, "most frequently of socialist inspiration," were emerging involving a variety of different approaches, "a broad rich and intense revolutionary praxis" which sought a "qualitatively different society" and "the building of a new man." Among those approaches, Gutierrez cited one that was to be central to the future development of liberation theology--the literacy programs of the Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire (see his Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Herder and Herder, 1970) involving a process of concientiza~ao by which the
oppressed person becomes aware of his situation and is encouraged to find a language which makes him "less dependent and more free as he commits himself to the transformation and building up of society."

In a later section of the book which was to be quoted often by his opponents, Gutierrez called for the abolition of the private ownership of capital because it leads to "the exploitation of man by man" and insisted that "the class struggle is a fact and neutrality in this question is not possible." "To love one's enemies presupposes recognizing and accepting that one has
class enemies and that it is necessary to combat them •••• " (p. 276)

...the German theologian Juergen Moltmann's "Open Letter to a Liberation Theologian"
arguing that it was nothing more than "seminary Marxism".

Liberation Theologians run the gamut, even the above quoted Jurgen Moltmann is a kind of Liberation Theologian. I want to be careful though to say that I do not think Liberation Theology leads ipso facto to communism (though many of their theologians openly champion socialism). My concern and my point as I stated above is that the theology itself is shot through with Marxist presuppositions, what Gutierrez, the 'Father' of Liberation Theology calls a 'commitment to Marxist Analysis'. These presuppositions are themselves antithetical to a Christian understanding of mankind, sin, power, and the redemptive work of Christ that levels and unifies his followers in himself and his Kingdom. Employed at an analytical level to develop a discursive theology of liberation from oppression, these Marxist presuppositions lead its followers to praxis and social posture rather unlike Christ and rather more like the Zealots whose path he rejected. Thus, Gutierrez is quoted above stating that for oppression to be overthrown, eventually violent revolution will have to run its course.
Let me state 3 tools of Marxist Analysis that run through Liberation Theology that I believe are anti-Christ and a theological dead-end:
1. The class consciousness of oppressed peoples is a defining attribute of an individual. Marginalized peoples necessarily read the Gospels differently (if they're not, they're engaged in false consciousness) thus those in the oppressor class can never have meaningful communion, common understanding or true dialogue with those in the oppressed class. What's more, there is no space for political neutrality (or nuance) on any issue - one is either with the oppressed or is an oppressor. As Hugo Assmann, the Brazilian liberation theologian put it at a 1973 meeting in Geneva, 'there was no space for third positions: those who were not with the one and only socialist revolution were against it.'. Fundamentally, there is no room for one of the most winsome descriptions of the Kingdom "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." because we are all at root still imbued with our class identities.
2. The history of mankind is pushed forward by the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. Gutierrez assumes this is the main theme of the Bible going back to Egypt, that of oppression followed by liberation on the part of God. In the present-day, the Church is to play a part (though not always the primary role) in liberation. Assmann goes further and suggests that revolution is independent of and prior to any theological rationale so that the Church must take an uncritical stance towards all revolution irrespective of its means and ends because anything less is a naïve, reformist accommodation to the systems and structures of oppression (thus making you an ally and tool of the oppressors). Violence then against the enemy oppressor is necessary though one may need to find a way to love the enemy at the same time.
3. Truth is found in praxis not theory for the liberation theologians. Justice for instance is not a attribute of God that the Church ought to be contemplating, reflecting on and attuning their lives towards, rather its the act of oppressed peoples, recognizing their chains and using collective action (praxis) to liberate themselves. That is what true justice is. Paulo Freire a confrère of Assmann, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed says that praxis is a "reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed."

All 3 of these assumptions are Marxian analytical tools that the liberationists employ in order to tailor a theology that champions the oppressed. They themselves might not be Marxists in that they're not materialist, atheists bent on worldwide communism - but their assumptions are not of our Kingdom and thus they are led to advocate things firmly outside the Way of Christ. Perhaps, Barnhart, the right-wing Republicans of the 70's and 80's were imprecise in their language and continue to be up to the present. However, when confronted with this strange new theology, they never-the- less followed well the old adage: "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a Marxist...dressed like a duck."

[joshuabgood]

The class consciousness of oppressed peoples is a defining attribute of an individual.

If the word "a" means "the" then I agree with you. It is not "the" defining attribute. Though to me I think class/group/tribe is a part of our individual identity. Paul identified as a Jew as an example...and I don't know that I see that as anti-Christ.

The history of mankind is pushed forward by the oppressor/oppressed dialectic.

Yes. The heart of this I mostly disagree with as well. That is too simplistic a position as a "all or nothing" and I think Marx over-reaches here. Though depending how one defines "oppressed" I think it could fit into a Christian narrative. If oppressed includes things like sin, spiritual forces, human nature, etc.

Truth is found in praxis not theory for the liberation theologians.

This in many ways I agree with...though I do disagree with it in some ways also. And gets at the heart of my earlier discussion with Joey. Truth, as Jesus noted when he stated he was the truth, seems to go beyond merely a coherent frame of internally consistent metaphysical propositions that objectively cohere with reality in some way.

If it said Truth is not "just" a theory but also importantly includes praxis, then I don't think it is anti-Christ at all. And that is personally how I would advocate for it.

[Josh]

The class consciousness of oppressed peoples is a defining attribute of an individual.

If the word "a" means "the" then I agree with you. It is not "the" defining attribute. Though to me I think class/group/tribe is a part of our individual identity. Paul identified as a Jew as an example...and I don't know that I see that as anti-Christ.

The history of mankind is pushed forward by the oppressor/oppressed dialectic.

Yes. The heart of this I mostly disagree with as well. That is too simplistic a position as a "all or nothing" and I think Marx over-reaches here. Though depending how one defines "oppressed" I think it could fit into a Christian narrative. If oppressed includes things like sin, spiritual forces, human nature, etc.

Truth is found in praxis not theory for the liberation theologians.

This in many ways I agree with...though I do disagree with it in some ways also. And gets at the heart of my earlier discussion with Joey. Truth, as Jesus noted when he stated he was the truth, seems to go beyond merely a coherent frame of internally consistent metaphysical propositions that objectively cohere with reality in some way.

If it said Truth is not "just" a theory but also importantly includes praxis, then I don't think it is anti-Christ at all. And that is personally how I would advocate for it.

Josh, Marxism and communism tend to be anti-Christ prima facie and also in praxis.

Your lack of willingness to condemn communism after its attempts to exterminate Christianity multiple times is telling. It is analogous to the die-hard capitalist who thinks that it can be syncretised with Christianity.

[joshuabgood]

Your lack of willingness to condemn communism

I don't "condemn" ideas. I might disagree or agree...but committing an idea to hell seems absurd. Only people are condemned...and even there I don't see it in my place to condemn. I am content to leave that judgement with one much better prepared than I.

[Josh]

Your lack of willingness to condemn communism

I don't "condemn" ideas. I might disagree or agree...but committing an idea to hell seems absurd. Only people are condemned...and even there I don't see it in my place to condemn. I content to leave that with one much better prepared than I.

The idea that Christian religion and belief in God is bad is at the core of Marxism. This belief led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people.

So, yeah, Marxism does need to be committed to the evil one, from whence it came. You seem afraid to condemn things that are evil, Josh - unless it’s “racism”. That’s the only thing you seem willing to condemn.

[Ken]

No, it's actually a theology that employs a Marxist analysis (read: presuppositions antithetical to the Gospel) to arrive at conclusions that put it firmly outside the way of Christ. As easy as it is to take a swipe at "The Right" - calling Liberation Theology for what it is and warning people off of it, is good and necessary, even when done by a group of people that hold political positions you don't care for.

Expound...what are the issues as you see them?

The following is taken from a white paper written at Princeton in 1985, that is largely sympathetic to Liberation Theology:

"As articulated in English first in an article in the Jesuit journal Theological Studies ("Notes for a Theology of Liberation," vol. 31, .no. 2, June 1970) Gutierrez argued that for "poor countries, oppressed and dominated, the word, liberation, is appropriate: rather than development. Latin America will never get out of its plight except by a profound transformation, a social revolution that will radically change the conditions it lives in at present. Today a more or less Marxist inspiration prevails among those groups and individuals who are raising the banner of the continent's liberation. And for many in our continent, this liberation will have to pass, sooner or later, through paths of violence •••• "

In the book that followed the article, Gutierrez criticized the developmentalism that provides only palliatives that "in the long run actually consolidate an exploitative system." He attacked Christian Democracy for its "naive reformism" and described it as "only a justifying ideology ••• for the few to keep living off the poverty of the many." Referring to Marx's Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach ("Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is, to change it") Gutierrez defined liberation theology as "critical reflection on Christian praxis in the light of the Word." Theology needed "a scientific and structural knowledge of socio-economic mechanisms and historical dynamics," and this would come from a recognition of dependence, "the domination exercised by the great capitalist countries and especially, by the most powerful, the United States of America." That domination was a result of the "worldwide class struggle between the oppressed countries and dominant peoples." New solutions, "most frequently of socialist inspiration," were emerging involving a variety of different approaches, "a broad rich and intense revolutionary praxis" which sought a "qualitatively different society" and "the building of a new man." Among those approaches, Gutierrez cited one that was to be central to the future development of liberation theology--the literacy programs of the Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire (see his Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Herder and Herder, 1970) involving a process of concientiza~ao by which the
oppressed person becomes aware of his situation and is encouraged to find a language which makes him "less dependent and more free as he commits himself to the transformation and building up of society."

In a later section of the book which was to be quoted often by his opponents, Gutierrez called for the abolition of the private ownership of capital because it leads to "the exploitation of man by man" and insisted that "the class struggle is a fact and neutrality in this question is not possible." "To love one's enemies presupposes recognizing and accepting that one has
class enemies and that it is necessary to combat them •••• " (p. 276)

...the German theologian Juergen Moltmann's "Open Letter to a Liberation Theologian"
arguing that it was nothing more than "seminary Marxism".

Liberation Theologians run the gamut, even the above quoted Jurgen Moltmann is a kind of Liberation Theologian. I want to be careful though to say that I do not think Liberation Theology leads ipso facto to communism (though many of their theologians openly champion socialism). My concern and my point as I stated above is that the theology itself is shot through with Marxist presuppositions, what Gutierrez, the 'Father' of Liberation Theology calls a 'commitment to Marxist Analysis'. These presuppositions are themselves antithetical to a Christian understanding of mankind, sin, power, and the redemptive work of Christ that levels and unifies his followers in himself and his Kingdom. Employed at an analytical level to develop a discursive theology of liberation from oppression, these Marxist presuppositions lead its followers to praxis and social posture rather unlike Christ and rather more like the Zealots whose path he rejected. Thus, Gutierrez is quoted above stating that for oppression to be overthrown, eventually violent revolution will have to run its course.
Let me state 3 tools of Marxist Analysis that run through Liberation Theology that I believe are anti-Christ and a theological dead-end:
1. The class consciousness of oppressed peoples is a defining attribute of an individual. Marginalized peoples necessarily read the Gospels differently (if they're not, they're engaged in false consciousness) thus those in the oppressor class can never have meaningful communion, common understanding or true dialogue with those in the oppressed class. What's more, there is no space for political neutrality (or nuance) on any issue - one is either with the oppressed or is an oppressor. As Hugo Assmann, the Brazilian liberation theologian put it at a 1973 meeting in Geneva, 'there was no space for third positions: those who were not with the one and only socialist revolution were against it.'. Fundamentally, there is no room for one of the most winsome descriptions of the Kingdom "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." because we are all at root still imbued with our class identities.
2. The history of mankind is pushed forward by the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. Gutierrez assumes this is the main theme of the Bible going back to Egypt, that of oppression followed by liberation on the part of God. In the present-day, the Church is to play a part (though not always the primary role) in liberation. Assmann goes further and suggests that revolution is independent of and prior to any theological rationale so that the Church must take an uncritical stance towards all revolution irrespective of its means and ends because anything less is a naïve, reformist accommodation to the systems and structures of oppression (thus making you an ally and tool of the oppressors). Violence then against the enemy oppressor is necessary though one may need to find a way to love the enemy at the same time.
3. Truth is found in praxis not theory for the liberation theologians. Justice for instance is not a attribute of God that the Church ought to be contemplating, reflecting on and attuning their lives towards, rather its the act of oppressed peoples, recognizing their chains and using collective action (praxis) to liberate themselves. That is what true justice is. Paulo Freire a confrère of Assmann, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed says that praxis is a "reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed."

All 3 of these assumptions are Marxian analytical tools that the liberationists employ in order to tailor a theology that champions the oppressed. They themselves might not be Marxists in that they're not materialist, atheists bent on worldwide communism - but their assumptions are not of our Kingdom and thus they are led to advocate things firmly outside the Way of Christ. Perhaps, Barnhart, the right-wing Republicans of the 70's and 80's were imprecise in their language and continue to be up to the present. However, when confronted with this strange new theology, they never-the- less followed well the old adage: "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a Marxist...dressed like a duck."

In the antebellum south, Southern Baptist and other southern theologians made much the same arguments against abolition and argued that northern churches who advocated for abolition were theologically in error for essentially the same reasons that you cite above. And that was before Marxism.

One could argue that the Mennonites and Quakers who signed the now famous 1688 Germantown petition against slavery were the original Liberation Theologists. And were equally controversial in their day for essentially the same reasons.

[joshuabgood]

Your lack of willingness to condemn communism

I don't "condemn" ideas. I might disagree or agree...but committing an idea to hell seems absurd. Only people are condemned...and even there I don't see it in my place to condemn. I content to leave that with one much better prepared than I.

The idea that Christian religion and belief in God is bad is at the core of Marxism. This belief led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people.

So, yeah, Marxism does need to be committed to the evil one, from whence it came. You seem afraid to condemn things that are evil, Josh - unless it’s “racism”. That’s the only thing you seem willing to condemn.

I don't "condemn" racism or racists either. Racism is a natural part of the human condition. That is a form of human partiality. It isn't any different than lust or greed. I do confront it in the name of Jesus. Also anyone/ideology that advocates for abusing or persecuting people I also confront.

[Josh]

The antebellum south, Marxism was not a concern, Ken. The North was not a Communist Marxist revolution either.

Marxism calls for the abolition of Christian religion. You seem to be upset that people like myself reject that.

[Josh]

I don't "condemn" ideas. I might disagree or agree...but committing an idea to hell seems absurd. Only people are condemned...and even there I don't see it in my place to condemn. I content to leave that with one much better prepared than I.

The idea that Christian religion and belief in God is bad is at the core of Marxism. This belief led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people.

So, yeah, Marxism does need to be committed to the evil one, from whence it came. You seem afraid to condemn things that are evil, Josh - unless it’s “racism”. That’s the only thing you seem willing to condemn.

I don't "condemn" racism or racists either. Racism is a natural part of the human condition. That is a form of human partiality. It isn't any different than lust or greed. I do confront it in the name of Jesus. Also anyone/ideology that advocates for abusing or persecuting people I also confront.

Is it? Elsewhere you have cited authors who claim that only white people can be racist; that racism didn’t exist before America did; that racism was “invented” in 1609; that racism didn’t exist in places that were pre-contact with Europeans.

So do you want to walk all that back or not?