Liberation Theology: The Gospel and Solidarity With The Poor

The roots of Latin American liberation theology can be traced back to Bartolome de Las

Casas, a sixteenth-century Catholic priest who defended Native Americans against

Conquistadors. More recent foundation stones were paved by the theological works of

Juergen Moltmann and Johannes Metz; the social teachings of Second Vatican Council

and Medellin conference documents.1 However, liberation theology is said to have really

emerged from the grassroots ferment of small basic ecclesial communities (CEBs –

comunidades eclesiales de base) comprising the marginalized and oppressed who seek to

integrate their faith with daily sociopolitical realities.2

In this context, according to liberation theologians, poverty is a pervasive experience due

to unjust structures where the rich gets richer at the expense of majority. External

dominance imposed by European and North American economic powers and internal

oppression by ruling military regimes combined to produce “institutionalized violence”.

The solution proposed is often some form of socialism critical of liberal Western

concepts of “development”. Marxist social analysis of poverty in Latin America in terms

of alienation and exploitation has been adopted in an “uneasy alliance” with the Christian

faith while critically questioning its philosophical rejection of the Triune God.3

Although liberation theology is by no means monolithic, certain broad emphases are

discernible in how its practitioners understand the function of theological reflection. In

1
Stanley Grenz & Roger Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age,
(InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1992), page 211
2
Deane William Ferm, Third World Liberation Theologies: An Introductory Survey, (Orbis Books: New
York, 1987), page 11-12
3
Miguel Bonino, Chrisians and Marxists: The Mutual Challenge to Revolution, (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1976), page 116

1
contrast with abstract metaphysics that seem disconnected with ordinary life, liberal

theologians stressed that theology should proceed in dialectical relationship with the

common experience of oppression and poverty. The theologian is not a disinterested and

neutral observer. Rather his or her commitment to the poor against unjust structures

which dehumanize God’s children becomes the particular, concrete context for critical

reflection on praxis in light of God’s word. Committed action comes first, reflection

follows as a second step. An understanding of liberation theology cannot be acquired by

mere learning without actively taking the first step of embarking on its path.

In the words of Gustavo Gutierrez, the burning question in Latin America will not be how

to speak of God in a modern world come of age as in Europe, but rather how to proclaim

God as loving Father to ‘non-persons’ who regularly faced inhumane treatment in the

world.4 The vantage point of solidarity with the marginalized “little people” instead of a

detached academic setting is the criterion for biblical exegesis, theological thinking and

ecclesial life. For, as some liberation theologians argued, that is also the vantage point of

the crucified God who became poor for our sake.5 This new way of doing theology does

not stop at understanding the world but also tries to be part of the process of transforming

the world.6 Although one may say that this is true of all sound theology, liberation

theologians have probably provided a more explicitly socio-political hermeneutics of the

gospel.

4
The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology, edited by Christopher Rowland, (Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, 1999), page 3
5
Ibid., page 7
6
A Theology of Liberation, Gustavo Gutierrez, (Orbis Books: New York, 1988), page 12

2
Another key theme in liberation theology is God’s “preferential option for the poor”. It

does not mean that God is prejudiced or show automatic favoritism towards poor people.

Stanley Grenz offered this explanation, “Preference for the poor means that even though

God loves all people, he identifies with the poor, reveals himself to the poor and sides

with the poor in a special way. Above all, it means that in the class struggle God sides

with the poor against every oppressor who would exploit or dehumanize them”.7 The

church is also called to take sides with the poor in the ongoing and inevitable

establishment of a just society. Despite the Catholic leadership support for this

preferential option, its practical implications proved to be problematic. Would armed

overthrow of oppressive regime be acceptable as ‘just war’? What would it mean to live

in solidarity with the poor? A young idealistic friend once insisted to me that such

liberating praxis obliges every believer to give up any possession beyond bare necessities

such as food, clothing and shelter. Ironically, he did so through e-mails from his personal

computer – a private asset hardly required for his mere survival.

In any case, our understanding of the mission of the church undergoes significant

rethinking as “liberating praxis”. Transforming society to approximate the kingdom of

God within history, creating awareness on the causes of poverty (“conscientization”),

solidarity with the poor and exposing oppressive systems are all seen as “salvific work”.

Nonviolent resistance is the ideal course of action but some liberation theologians like

Bonino and Boff see armed struggle as a last resort or necessary evil. The concept of

salvation as “integral liberation” is interpreted not as otherworldly spiritual salvation, but

involving every aspect of human life with emphasis on the value of earthly existence.
7
Stanley Grenz & Roger Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age, page 218

3
According to Gutierrez, encounter with God is open to all (Christians and non Christians)

through one’s love of his or her neighbor (Matthew 25: 31- 45). He wrote of the

sacrament of our neighbor, “We find the Lord in our encounters with others, especially

the poor, marginated, and exploited ones. An act of love towards them is an act of love

towards God.”8 The establishment of an equitable society is included as part of salvation

history. We can see how such a reconstruction of Christian thought is consciously geared

to disarm Marx’s critique of religion as opium of the masses.

Without a doubt, liberation theology in Latin America has inspired their counterparts in

Asia and Africa to similarly oppose neo-colonialism, denounce injustice and alleviate the

suffering of the poor. It forcefully brought to the church’s attention issues of orthopraxy,

contextualization and social responsibility. Despite positive contributions, it has also

attracted much criticism from both conservative and liberal scholars. In 1984, a Vatican

document entitled “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation'

published by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has criticized aspects

of its accommodation to Marxist ideology and warned the Catholic faithful of its

perceived dangers. Those who sought to use Marxist tools of analysis on oppressive

structures were said to be uncritical of its totalizing materialism, atheism and “ideological

principles come prior to the study of social reality and are presupposed to it”.9

8
A Theology of Liberation, Gustavo Gutierrez, page 115
9
Introduction to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Instruction on Certain Aspects of the
'Theology of Liberation' (Vatican City, 1984), reprinted in A. T. Hcnnclly, Liberation Theology: A
Documentary History, (Orbis: Maryknoll, NY, 1990), pages 393 - 414

4
It may also be argued that their use of Marx is no different from the church fathers’ use of

pagan philosophers like Aristotle or Plato. However, if it is not possible to divorce the

social theory from its ideology, liberation theologians may unwittingly open the

ecclesiastical gates to a Trojan horse. Perhaps some of the Vatican officials’ concerns

were not unfounded in view of some priests like Camilo Torres who were actively

involved in the violent overthrow of ruling regimes. The human cost incurred at Gulag

Archipelago and the Cultural Revolution served as a grim reminder that revolutions do

not often bring about justice or peace. At the same time, it should not be an excuse to

neglect a prophetic voice against institutionalized violence perpetrated by oppressors.

Theologian John Macquarrie also found it problematic that Gutierrez tends to divide the

human race too neatly into oppressors and oppressed, and urge others to align themselves

to one party reminiscent of Marxist doctrine of the class struggle and the “innocence of

the proletariat”.10 In reality, the dividing line of good and evil cuts across every human

heart. We need to be reminded of the universality of sin and God’s gracious offer of

salvation for all. If there is a divine bias to a certain social class, would it not raise

problems to the church’s mission to the whole people of God? Catholic leaders such as

Cardinal Ratzinger were seriously concerned that importing Marxist class struggles may

polarize the church community along economic fault lines. The ministry of reconciliation

based on principles of grace, repentance, forgiveness and restitution seems to be a more

appropriate and biblical model for transcending these social barriers.

10
John Macquarrie, 20th Century Religious Thought, (SCM Press Limited: London, 1988), page 410

5
For critics, liberation theology has also been accused of making the situational context as

its starting point instead of emphasizing the gospel. Or at least, the gospel is reduced to

purely earthly terms without a proper balance on liberation from the slavery of personal

sin and reconciliation to a holy God through the cross of Christ. Could the temptation of

pragmatism cause liberation theology to use biblical texts to justify a prior ideological

commitment if there is no norm for evaluating one’s praxis? Critic W. Dayton Roberts

claimed that its heroes looked more like Judas Maccabaeus than Jesus of Nazareth.11

Instead of perpetuating a dichotomy of social liberation versus evangelism, Christian

mission is better served with a focus on the gospel itself and working out its full orbed

implications in all of life.

Even in its analysis of situational context, liberation theologians are often faulted for

offering simplistic diagnosis and proposals for complex economic issues such as poverty.

A sympathetic scholar described their view thus: “the Kingdom belongs to the poor

(Luke 6.20) and the rich as such have no part in it (Luke 6:24; Luke 16:19-31; Mark

10:23) because money is an idol which becomes an absolute value: we cannot serve God

and Mammon (Matt. 6.24) - private property is by definition exclusive.”12 Democratic

capitalism is understood to be founded on private accumulation of capital by individuals

and firms at the expense of massive environmental destruction and human suffering.

According to the dependency theory, the progress of rich countries in the “North” is

achieved on the back of exploited poor nations in the “South”. In the words of Gutierrez,

“the dynamic of the capitalist system leads to establishment of a center and a periphery,
11
Dayton Roberts, “Where Has Liberation Theology Gone Wrong?,” Christianity Today, October 19,
1979, page 28
12
Valpy Fitzgerald, “The Economics of Liberation Theology”, The Cambridge Companion to Liberation
Theology, edited by Christopher Rowland, page 219

6
simultaneously generating progress and riches for the few, and social disequilibrium,

political tensions and poverty for the majority”.13

Michael Novak, a Christian supporter of democratic capitalism, argued that at the

founding of America, both North and Latin America were once on equal footing as

dependent colonies of dominant powers like Spain, Portugal and Great Britain. But the

economic strength of the Spanish empire, along with its colonies, weakened when church

and state impugned the religious value of commerce and favored state monopolies over

private mercantilism. The control of capital resources at the hands of ruling elite, clergy

and military powers afforded little opportunity for enterprise for the masses. This is in

contrast with the Northern counterparts whose property and powers were more evenly

distributed. In response to Latin American Catholic bishops’ claims to be victims of

oppressive systems, Novak wrote, “They accept no responsibility for three centuries of

hostility to trade, commerce, and industry… After having opposed modern economics for

centuries, they claim to be aggrieved because others, once equally poor, have succeeded

as they have not.”14 Joseph Ramos, an economist for the UN International Labor

Organization, observed the same internal socio-political dynamics still exist in Latin

America as obstacles to its economic development: “the initial extreme concentration of

economic and political power (since Colonial times) in the hands of a few, and the

consequent limitation of opportunities.”15 Is it possible, or more fruitful in eradicating

13
A Theology of Liberation, Gustavo Gutierrez, page 51
14
Michael Novak, “A Theology of Development for Latin America”, Liberation Theology, edited by
Ronald Nash, (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984), page 26
15
Joseph Ramos, “Reflections on Gustavo Gutierrez’s Theology of Liberation”, Liberation North –
Liberation South, edited by Michael Novak, (American Enterprise Institute: Washington, 1981), page 56

7
mass poverty, to construct a liberation theology based on the best virtues of democratic

capitalism instead?

In conclusion, any notion of liberating praxis depends on some prior theory of what is

true and right. Andrew Kirk cautioned that “the task of modern theology should be a

consciously critical reflection on God’s Word in the light of a contemporary praxis of

liberation. If this is not the order of our methodology then the phrase (in Gutierrez’s

definition), “in the light of God’s word,” ultimately becomes emptied of content”.16 More

often than not, a costly commitment could only be made after careful reflection.

Recognizing the contextuality of all theology should not reduce us to crass relativism.

Otherwise, liberation theologians cannot legitimately judge the actions of others such as

those who live in capitalist countries. The need for a global theology today calls for not

only contextually relevant thinking but also gospel-centered integration that avoids the

pitfalls of tribal fragmentation. In a balanced evaluation, the late Carl Henry wrote, “We

must stand firmly for a championing of the gospel’s irreducible relevance for oppressed

multitudes, and in places of human exploitation and oppression we must actively identify

evangelical Christianity with the justice that God demands.”17

Bibliography

16
J. Andrew Kirk, Liberation Theology: An Evangelical View from the Third World, (John Knox: Atlanta,
1979), page 193
17
Carl Henry, “Liberation Theology and the Scriptures”, Liberation Theology, edited by Ronald Nash,
(Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984), page 202

8
1. 20th Century Religious Thought, John Macquarrie, SCM Press Limited: London, 1988

2. 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age, Stanley Grenz & Roger

Olson, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1992

3. A Theology of Liberation, Gustavo Gutierrez, Orbis Books: New York, 1988

4. An Asian Theology of Liberation, Aloysius Pieris, T & T Clark: Edinburgh, 1988

5. Liberation Theology, edited by Ronald Nash, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids,

Michigan, 1984

6. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, Edited by Alister E.

McGrath, Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, 1993

7. The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology, edited by Christopher

Rowland, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999

8. Third World Liberation Theologies: An Introductory Survey, Deane William Ferm, Orbis

Books: New York, 1987