Liberation Theology

[HondurasKeiser]

Ken:

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.

Once again, we see anyone who opposed Marxism,
Communism, and socialism painted by Ken as evil people like the “antebellum south”.

It’s obvious what his rhetoric here is. If you oppose socialism, liberal theology, etc. you are a racist and a bad person. His schtick is tiresome. He makes comments like the above and then pretends that isn’t what he really means.

To this quote from Ken particularly. No, I think this is not true on its face. As Mark Noll points out in his interview that I linked to previously. The argument from pro-Slavery was not a metaphysical one (like I was attempting) rather it is was a consequence of an American hermeneutic that reigned throughout the entire country, North and South. That being an overly-literal, decontextualized reading of single passages of scripture: proof-texting. That's the place the Southerners were arguing from - that individual texts from the Bible endorsed slavery, Jesus said nothing about it and so any movement to abolish the institution must be grounded in something other than the Bible and is therefore 'unfaithful' to the scriptures. Southerners called Abolitionists infidels for that reason. Indeed, Noll points out that many Anti-slavery, Northern theologians employed the same hermeneutic and agreed with the Southerners about the biblical endorsement of slavery; which is why they couldn't bring themselves to move on over into out-and-out abolitionism. While others, like Garrison stated that: 'If the Bible is for slavery, then I want nothing to do with the Bible.'

[temporal1]

Page 1:

Does Liberation Theology cause communication problems between Christian believers?
Does the definition inadvertantly trip up well-meaning believers, causing them to conflate (secular government) with
“certain biblical motifs?” - (the preferred words being: God’s Truth.)

DEFINITION
The theology of liberation is a combination of Marxist philosophy with certain biblical motifs.
It argues that we should reconstruct the whole of Christian theology by seeing it through the “axis of the oppressor and the oppressed.” ..

Could Liberation Theology be at the root of so much unrest, even on this forum of members with so much in common?

Voddie Baucham doesn’t say much in the short OP video. He says enough to make me wonder.

i appreciate this discussion. i did not know.
To begin, i wondered if LT might be similar to The Prosperity Gospel? And other “theologies.”

People really like these various scriptural bunny trails. They can become catchy, then profitable when exploited.
Easy to be ensnared. So many ditches.

- - - - - - -

HK:
.. While others, like Garrison stated that: 'If the Bible is for slavery, then I want nothing to do with the Bible.'

well, i hope Garrison did not throw out his Bible, it includes many profound+rich words about servitude, and slavery.
the Bible would lose its rich flavor without. what would become of Jesus?

1 Cor 7:22

21Were you a slave when you were called?
Do not let it concern you—but if you can gain your freedom, take the opportunity.

22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman.
Conversely, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.…

It’s hard to choose one.

[Ken]

Setting aside all the esoteric theory, what the 19th century abolitionists were saying is that there is a Christian duty not just to care about the souls or spiritual lives of slaves, but also their material well being and freedom. They found within the Bible and Christianity a calling to engage in a political and ultimately a military fight against the sin of slavery. They knew that slavery was an enormously powerful and vested institution in America. The capital value of slaves in antebellum America exceeded the value of all the railroads, factories, and industry in the country. And southern plantation society was entirely structured around slavery. To be an abolitionist in that context was to essentially argue for a violent revolution.

Look at the lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic. It captures this sentiment well:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored
He have loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword

His truth is marching on
Glory, glory Hallelujah
Glory, glory Hallelujah
Glory, glory Hallelujah
His truth is marching on

I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps
I have read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps

[chorus]

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel
As ye deal with my condemners so with you my grace shall deal
Let the hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel
His truth is marching on

[chorus]

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat (Glory, glory Hallelujah)
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat (glory Hallelujah))
Oh, be swift, my soul to answer, oh, be jubilant, my feet

[chorus]

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea (glory, glory Hallelujah)
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me (glory, glory Hallelujah)
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free

[chorus]

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored
He have loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on

[chorus]

By contrast, opponents of abolition, both conservatives in the north and confederates in the South argued that it was theologically incorrect that Christianity is concerned with the physical well being or physical freedom of slaves. That instead the proper focus of Christianity should be on saving their souls through mission work and church. Or perhaps more subtly, they argued that it was perhaps the Christian duty of slave owners to treat their slaves well, but it wasn't the role of Christianity to engage in political opposition. Slave bibles were published towards this end with all emancipation-related material expunged such as the Exodus story. And southern churches engaged in kinds of evangelism among the slave population. Christian missionaries to southern plantations were common.

Fast forward 100+ years and you have basically the same dynamic happening in Latin America. You have Liberation Theologists arguing that Christianity is properly concerned not with just the spiritual wellbeing of the poor peasantry, but also their physical wellbeing and freedom from exploitative economic conditions as well. Some used Marxist theory to make the argument. But just as with abolition, it was primarily an argument about the role of Christianity in political movements. Chattel slavery no longer existed in Latin America, but there were (and are) economic and political systems that exploit and economically enslave peasants just as effectively as chattel slavery did in the 19th century. And you had conservatives on the opposite side (most notably the future pope Cardinal Ratzinger) who essentially argued that it was not the role of the church to engage in or take sides in political disputes and that the focus should be on the spiritual wellbeing rather than physical wellbeing of the peasantry.

When you boil it down to their essence, the arguments in favor of Christians engaging in political action in both the antebellum America and 20th century Latin America were essentially the same. Likewise the arguments in opposition.

[joey_the_ox]

And you had conservatives on the opposite side (most notably the future pope Cardinal Ratzinger) who essentially argued that it was not the role of the church to engage in or take sides in political disputes and that the focus should be on the spiritual wellbeing rather than physical wellbeing of the peasantry.

From a document signed by Cardinal Ratzinger (emphasis mine):

Liberation is first and foremost liberation from the radical slavery of sin. Its end and its goal is the freedom of the children of God, which is the gift of grace. As a logical consequence, it calls for freedom from many different kinds of slavery in the cultural, economic, social, and political spheres, all of which derive ultimately from sin, and so often prevent people from living in a manner befitting their dignity.

and

This warning should in no way be interpreted as a disavowal of all those who want to respond generously and with an authentic evangelical spirit to the "preferential option for the poor." It should not at all serve as an excuse for those who maintain the attitude of neutrality and indifference in the face of the tragic and pressing problems of human misery and injustice. It is, on the contrary, dictated by the certitude that the serious ideological deviations which it points out tends inevitably to betray the cause of the poor. More than ever, it is important that numerous Christians, whose faith is clear and who are committed to live the Christian life in its fullness, become involved in the struggle for justice, freedom, and human dignity because of their love for their disinherited, oppressed, and persecuted brothers and sisters. More than ever, the Church intends to condemn abuses, injustices, and attacks against freedom, wherever they occur and whoever commits them. She intends to struggle, by her own means, for the defense and advancement of the rights of mankind, especially of the poor.

Ken, I don't think you are correct to say that he intended the focus to be "on the spiritual wellbeing rather than physical wellbeing of the peasantry." These quotes make it clear that the physical wellbeing is not to be neglected. And speaking to the political concern he points out that the underlying Marxist principles of liberation theology actually work against a well-ordered polity:

...this misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the person leads to a total subordination of the person to the collectivity, and thus to the denial of the principles of a social and political life which is in keeping with human dignity.

What he argues against is the reduction of everything to politics, not the idea that the teachings of the Church can have political consequences.

[joey_the_ox]

To this quote from Ken particularly. No, I think this is not true on its face. As Mark Noll points out in his interview that I linked to previously. The argument from pro-Slavery was not a metaphysical one (like I was attempting) rather it is was a consequence of an American hermeneutic that reigned throughout the entire country, North and South. That being an overly-literal, decontextualized reading of single passages of scripture: proof-texting. That's the place the Southerners were arguing from - that individual texts from the Bible endorsed slavery, Jesus said nothing about it and so any movement to abolish the institution must be grounded in something other than the Bible and is therefore 'unfaithful' to the scriptures. Southerners called Abolitionists infidels for that reason. Indeed, Noll points out that many Anti-slavery, Northern theologians employed the same hermeneutic and agreed with the Southerners about the biblical endorsement of slavery; which is why they couldn't bring themselves to move on over into out-and-out abolitionism. While others, like Garrison stated that: 'If the Bible is for slavery, then I want nothing to do with the Bible.'

HK, a good book on this by Noll (that I have on my shelf and have flipped through but not yet studied in detail) is America's God. It doesn't just deal with hermeneutics surrounding slavery but rather the entire American theological trajectory leading up to that point and some of the cultural and philosophical influences that went into the construction of American religion.

[HondurasKeiser]

Setting aside all the esoteric theory, what the 19th century abolitionists were saying is that there is a Christian duty not just to care about the souls or spiritual lives of slaves, but also their material well being and freedom. They found within the Bible and Christianity a calling to engage in a political and ultimately a military fight against the sin of slavery. They knew that slavery was an enormously powerful and vested institution in America. The capital value of slaves in antebellum America exceeded the value of all the railroads, factories, and industry in the country. And southern plantation society was entirely structured around slavery. To be an abolitionist in that context was to essentially argue for a violent revolution.

By contrast, opponents of abolition, both conservatives in the north and confederates in the South argued that it was theologically incorrect that Christianity is concerned with the physical well being or physical freedom of slaves. That instead the proper focus of Christianity should be on saving their souls through mission work and church. Or perhaps more subtly, they argued that it was perhaps the Christian duty of slave owners to treat their slaves well, but it wasn't the role of Christianity to engage in political opposition. Slave bibles were published towards this end with all emancipation-related material expunged such as the Exodus story. And southern churches engaged in kinds of evangelism among the slave population. Christian missionaries to southern plantations were common.

Fast forward 100+ years and you have basically the same dynamic happening in Latin America. You have Liberation Theologists arguing that Christianity is properly concerned not with just the spiritual wellbeing of the poor peasantry, but also their physical wellbeing and freedom from exploitative economic conditions as well. Some used Marxist theory to make the argument. But just as with abolition, it was primarily an argument about the role of Christianity in political movements. Chattel slavery no longer existed in Latin America, but there were (and are) economic and political systems that exploit and economically enslave peasants just as effectively as chattel slavery did in the 19th century. And you had conservatives on the opposite side (most notably the future pope Cardinal Ratzinger) who essentially argued that it was not the role of the church to engage in or take sides in political disputes and that the focus should be on the spiritual wellbeing rather than physical wellbeing of the peasantry.

When you boil it down to their essence, the arguments in favor of Christians engaging in political action in both the antebellum America and 20th century Latin America were essentially the same. Likewise the arguments in opposition.

I should be very clear Ken and perhaps I haven't been. I do not believe that Christianity has nothing to say about our material circumstances or even that Christianity doesn't have political implications. To the contrary! Simply, that the Liberation Theologians employed a Marxist analysis to get to their material concern for the poor (their preferential option as they called it), which leads inexorably away from the Way of Jesus.

[Ken]

I should be very clear Ken and perhaps I haven't been. I do not believe that Christianity has nothing to say about our material circumstances or even that Christianity doesn't have political implications. To the contrary! Simply, that the Liberation Theologians employed a Marxist analysis to get to their material concern for the poor (their preferential option as they called it), which leads inexorably away from the Way of Jesus.

Honestly I haven't taken a deep dive into Liberation Theology beyond being generally informed on the topic. But I think the academic aspects of it are kind of beside the point.

As you well know, anyone working in Latin America is going to come face to face with extremes of poverty and wealth and encounter myriad examples of exploitation, abuse, and all manner of social and economic ills. One doesn't need to read theory, Marxist or otherwise, to discover that there are profound inequities and profound oppression. Or as you put it "get to their material concern for the poor"

In terms of Christianity. And we are talking Christianity here because this was largely a Catholic movement, it is clear that Jesus spoke to both the material and spiritual. He fed the hungry (40 loaves and and fishes) and he healed the sick. These are both engagement in the material. There are hundreds of other examples from the parable of the Good Samaritan to examples like Luke 4:16 where Jesus quotes from Isaiah "He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free. Those are all material conditions.

So the question for any priest or minister or lay person working in Latin America is to what extent are you going to address the material versus the spiritual since Christianity is very clearly concerned with both. And when addressing the material do you then concern yourself with simply addressing the symptoms of poverty and repression, or do you start to think about the root causes? That is I expect where some Marxist analysis comes in. But even then one hardly needs any sort of sophisticated Marxist analysis to see and understand what is happening.

Having worked in Latin America myself and with close family ties to the region I think a lot of Marxist analysis gets things completely wrong. Especially with topics like land reform. Countries like Guatemala and Honduras are not poor because of inequities in the distribution of land. The United States has just as unequal land distribution if not more so. A very tiny fraction of one percent of the population owns most of the arable land in the US. But the US is an enormously wealthy country because it is a developed modern economy not a feudal society tied to the land. Countries like Korea which have escaped poverty and built modern prosperous societies have done so through modernizing their economies and developing knowledge-based industries, not through land redistribution. And Catholicism itself is as much to blame as anything else for the underdevelopment in Central America.

In any event, I tend to think Liberation Theology is something of a relic of the 1970s and 1980s and not particularly relevant today as the rise of evangelical Protestantism has brought whole new political and religious dynamics to the region. And people just don't look to village priests as community leaders anymore. And the political situation is vastly different today in much of Latin America compared to the 1970s. The few remaining military dictatorships are all leftist not right wing with Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. That is night-and-day different from the 1970s when right-wing military dictatorships and juntas were the norm and democracies were rare.

[temporal1]

“Liberation Theology: How Marxism Infiltrated the Catholic Church” / Julio Loredo de Izcue / 1 hour






TFP / The American Society for Defense of Tradition, Family, And Property
https://www.tfp.org/

https://www.tfp.org/the-counter-revolution/

TFP™
The Counter-Revolution

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property™ (TFP™) is an organization of lay Catholic Americans concerned about the moral crisis shaking the remnants of Christian civilization. Its earliest origins date back to January 1971, when the first TFP members started to group around the publication Crusade for a Christian Civilization. Today, with over 120,000 active members, volunteers and donors, the TFP is on the front lines of the Culture War, peacefully defending the values of tradition, family and private ownership.

Central to the TFP mission is the idea that the various crises threatening American society and the Church cannot be seen as separate and disjointed. Rather they originate from a single cause.

The TFP handbook Revolution and Counter-Revolution by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira masterfully traces the historical and philosophical roots of this single cause: a phenomenon called the Revolution.

The TFP was born from the idea of a Counter-Revolution, a reaction that would embrace every field of human activity, but especially art, ideas and culture. TFP books, publications and newspaper advertisements help bring these views to the public.
Moreover, the TFP is not afraid to take them to the streets with colorful sidewalk campaigns in major cities.

The first TFP was founded in Brazil in 1960 by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira.
The American TFP is one of many autonomous TFPs that now exist around the world dedicated to the same ideals and at the service of Christian Civilization (See Links). .. ..

For reference. ^^
i’ve seen “TFP” now+then, did not know anything about them.

[temporal1]

It may have avoided the Marxist tag altogether except for the cold war. You had to be either for God and the right or for communism.
I think there is a similar theology in the historic black church and they were/are called Marxist as well.

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.

i thought of this topic when viewing this today.

TY SMITH / “Breaking News! Joe Scarborough w/ Ibram X Kendi on How to make kids antiracist! WHAT?! My Take!” / 24min


Point / Counterpoint

[Heirbyadoption]

The Liberation Theologians employed a Marxist analysis to get to their material concern for the poor (their preferential option as they called it), which leads inexorably away from the Way of Jesus.

Honestly I haven't taken a deep dive into Liberation Theology beyond being generally informed on the topic. But I think the academic aspects of it are kind of beside the point.

Ken, do I understand you correctly as dismissing the bolded part of the comment above (bolding is mine) as simply the academic aspect?