Liberation Theology as a Doubie Polarity - Christian O. Uchegbue

8/13/2019 Liberation Theology as a Doubie Polarity - Christian O. Uchegbue

1/13

Liberation Theology as a Doubie Polarity

Christian O. Uchegbue

Abstract Liberation Theology - Marxist or Christian? This question which appear

as the caption of Emmette Weir's article in 1979 forms the main thrust andinspiration of this present paper. There has been a protracted and entrenchedage-long intellectual and ideological duel over the status of liberation theo logyAt the one end of the pole are those who regard it as an authentic Christiantheology and movem ent while at the other end of the pole are those w ho regardit as pure Marxism in the garb of Christian theo logy. In the light of this contest

this paper critically examines the position of liberation theology within thcontinuum of Marxism and Christianity in order to determine how authen ticallChristian or Marxist it is. Its argumerits lead to the conclusion that the twopositions are indisputable and irreconcilable, and they stand on their ownrespective rights. As such, liberation theology should be seen from these twoopposite perspectives.

A Introduction to Liberation Theology

There has been a lot of changes in the theological thinking of Christianscholars in the recent past. Some decades ago, the theological field was


2/13

Asia Journal of Theology

God. But in more recent times , the issue of liberation seems to have become

the dominant and the most popular household term in contemporary theologicaldiscussions.This is a recent trend in the Church, especiaiiy among the oppressednations, classes and races towards a felt theological imperative for com mitmentto the struggle for liberation.

The term 'liberation theology' m eans different things to different peop le.Theterm is most frequently associated with Latin America. In the minds of manyconservative theologians, it is identified with Marxism, violence and anti-establishment revolution. In a wider sense, however, 'liberation theology'hasbeen used to include the liberation movements in Asia and Southern Africa.Liberation theology rose to prominence in Latin America in the 1970s and itscommitment is to make theology relevant amidst poverty, suffering, oppressionand injustice. Its main them e is derived from the biblical notion of liberation w ithparticular reference to the exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt and itsbondage.

As a concep t, liberation theo logy simply refers to any theological enterpriseon behalf of and from the perspective of the poor, deprived, oppressed andmarginalized in society against all forms of structures - social, econom ic, politicalor ideological - which support and perpetuate their condition. This definition iscaptured in the statement of Gonzalez and Gonzalez that:

When we speak here of 'liberation theology,' we are referring to theologydone from the perspective of those who h ve been traditionally powerlessin society and voiceless in the Church.'

In a further explanation, Pauline Webb stresses that the concern of liberationtheology is with the obligation of the Christian to translate his com mitment toJesus Christ as Lord into specific social and political engagement for socialJustice. ^ That is why Gutierrez understands liberation theology to m ean

... a radical interpretation of the Christian revelation, one that does notaccept the traditional distinction between sacred and profane realism,b d d f hi i ^


3/13


B The Two Poles in Contest

Liberation theologians see liberation theology as an authentic Christiantheology and, in fact, as the only valid and authentic Christian theology. Assuch, they are even very suspicious of and they disparage the traditionaltheologies of the Church. What informs this stance is their insistence andemphasis on making theology more practical and relevant to the concreteexperiences of human existence than theo retical, or making it more contextua lthan conceptua l. Their eniphasis is on the transforming aspect of theology frommere idealism to realism and from m ere abstract principles to praxis or socialaction. Thus, contextualization and praxis form the hub of liberation theology,the pivot on which it revolves and the pillar upon which it stands. This em pha sis,forms their main controversy with and point of departure from conventional ortraditional theology.

In his attempt to contrast Latin American with Euro-American theologicalapproaches, Bonino, aptly reiterates the position of liberation theology. Accordingto him , the greatest and most significant difference in their approaches is that,on the one ha nd, western theologians, in their academ ic app roach, have beenprompted by philosophical questions which lead them to a universalization orgeneralization of truth. On the other hand, however, Latin American theologianshave been challenged by situations which prompt them to relativize truth inorder to clarify concrete conditions.^ He therefore concludes that a correcttheology cannot arise except out of and in relation to comm itment to specific orprecise actions and demands. ^

Gustavo Benavides also reiterates this theme of contextualization as theprimary task expected of any authentic theology to accomplish. He conceivesof Christian theo logy as not

An autonomous corpus of belief - the response to God's primordialman ifestation in history - [but contrarily a s] a reflection on the sys tem ofvalues that constitutes the core of a given culture, a system of valuesthat depends o n, and reinforces, the s tructure of a society in a dialecticalway. '


4/13

sia Journal of Theology

As plausible and indubitable as the call to make theology relevant to the

needs of the society may be, many scholars have been suspicious of thetendencies, methodology and implications of liberation theology . Som e of themare even doubtful of the authenticity of identifying it with Christian theology.Earlier evaluations of liberation theology by Roman Catholic authorities werequite condemnatory and intolerant. Both Charles Ryan and Wikipedia refer toan official statement of the Vatican which condemned liberation theology as aperversion of the Christian message of God entrusted to the Church. ^ Thisstatement accused the movement, among other faults, of denial of the humanperson , political amorality, self-redemp tion of man, Marxist tendencies and asfounded on and inciting hate and violence. Wikipedia quotes Pope John Paulll's speech at the January 1979 Puebla CELAM conference as saying that ...this conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversiveof Nazareth, does not tally with the church's catechesis. ' Not even the counterdocum ents from Rome later in 1986 has been able to erase these biases frommany minds. Today, many scholars, both C hristians and Marxists themselves

see liberation theology as Marxist.

Roger Vekem ans, Edward R. Norm an, and Alfonso Lopez Trujillo (whosecontribution is not discussed here), seem to have been the three mostoutstand irig critics of liberation theology . As reflected in an article by the CostaRican Ecumenical Council, Vekem ans is cited as refering to what he describesas '1he brutal and unscrupulous assault known as liberation theology. '' Hegoes on to maintain that

In so far as its view of Marxism is concerned, we can say that what ispredominantly a dialogue with Marxism in Europe has becomeindiscriminate and often outright collaboration with it in Latin America.'

The most explicit reference to liberation theology as Marxist comes fromNorman. Weir quotes him in his Reith Lecture tha t:

The content of the new theology does not come from received spiritualknowledge, but from the Marxist concept of praxis: of th involvement of


5/13


Liberation theology is an attempt to merge Christianity with Marxism.

This presents serious problems since Marxism is atheistic, proclaimsthe class struggles, and leads to disastrous consequences wherever itsprescriptions are put into practice.'

Any worthwhile attempt at settling this entrenched d ispute wou ld call for acritical evaluation of liberation theology by examining some of its aspects tosee the degree of their p roximity to Christianity and M arxism, respectively.

C Critical Evaluation of Liberation TheologyThat liberation theology does make use of Marxism cannot be denied, but

to judge it outrightly as totally and entirely Marxist requires a fair considerationof the totality of its inspirational roots and heritage as well as the epi-centre ofits internal philosophical content and convictions. It may seem out of proportionto attempt to examine all the m ajor aspects of liberation theology in a paper ofthis nature. We shall, therefore, limit the discussion to a consideration of

just four important aspects of the phenomenon, namely, its ontologicalconvictions, its historical origins, its methodo logical approach as well as itslogical inclinations.

1 The On tological Convictions of Liberation Theoiogy

Our concern here focuses on the questions of beliefs about God andeschatological concepts in liberation theology. The question of theism andatheism is a dividing line between Christianity nd Marxism. The term 'Marxism'

and, in fact, Karl Marx's theory of religion, essentially suggests atheism just asthe term Christianity essentially suggests theism . In other words, there cannotbe Marxism without atheism, otherwise it is no more Marxism, just as therecannot be Christianity without theism, otherwise it is no more Christianity. Wherethen does liberation theology fall within these two belief systems? From allindications, liberation theology is certainly not atheistic. It is indeed ratherorthodox in its concept of God and in its attitude to the basic doctrines of the

Christian faith. It is more conservative than the m ore radical schools of thoughtin the West. Norman himself admits this when he asserts that.


6/13


While we m ust point out that there are among liberation theo logians those

who, like Cam ilo Torress, postpone reiigious activity for th

liberation struggle,'^it must also be m aintained that liberation theology's literature reveals a strongreligious foundation. Liberation theologians themselves point out that anyrevolutionary change that is without religion leads only to a new form ofoppression.

On the question of eschatology, w hile liberation theo logy shares the socio-historical implications of eschatological belief with Marxism, it however, differs

considerably from it in its eschatological concepts. Marxist naturalistic ontologyposits an eschatology without theology - in which death b rings human existenceand hope to a final end and in which life and community are destined todisintegrate and end with history. Liberation theology, however, speaks of lifeafter death and the coming of the Kingdom of Go d. From these two concep ts,liberation theology is ontologically Christian rather than Marixst, and is evenopposed to the latter.

2 The Historical Origin of Liberation TheologyAny authentic historical study of the origin of liberation theology must go

beyond the recent articulation, systematization and christening of the movement.This approach would reveal that Latin America, which is the cradle or birthplace of liberation theology, has a very long history of protest by Christians -both clergymen and laymen - who on the basis of their religious and scripturalconvictions, acted to check oppression and to protect the interest of the weak.Long before Marx, they drew inspiration from the 'revolutionary' stance of Israel'sprophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus, for denouncing and protesting againstinjustice. Similarly, in South Africa where liberation theology has taken deeproots, we notice that the leaders of the separatist movements and those earlymissionaries like Father Huddleston, who stood against racial segregation inSouth Africa, probably knew nothing about or had no contact with Marxism.Although later generations might have had contact with and been challengedand rekindled by M arxism, we can conclude that liberation theology is, historically

speaking, not Marxist, but prophetic. While Marxist analytical approach mightbe regarded as a contributive and enabling factor, the prophetic spirit of the


7/13


discovery that had eluded the Church in past history. According to him, they

are ali demands that are compatible with the socio-economic traditions of theChurch.'^

3 The Methodo logical Approach of Liberation Theology

The hermeneuticai perspective of liberation theo iogy, its preoccupation withpraxis and the advocacy of violence in the process of social change revealserious use and influence of Marxism. There is the actual use of Marxism inliberation theology's interpretation of scriptures and this has gen erated serious

and inescapable criticisms. Norman, in his criticism enumerates the negativeimplications of using Marx's socio-political-econom ic analysis as the authentichermeneuticai m ode l, pointing out that it defines the religious values of theChurch in terms of prevailing realities of contemporary secular cultures. '^ Byusing such analysis, he argues, the Church loses originality and 'Ihe confidenceto define the areas of public debate even on m oral question, and simply followsthe definitions made by others: '^

In its preoccupation with socio-political and economic action or praxis,liberation theology seems to define the e ssence of Christianity in socio-politicaland economic rather than inward or spiritual terms . It seem s m ore certa in, onthe contrary, that socio-political and econom ic action is a consequence ratherthan the preoccupation, a necessary rather than a sufficient element or essence,of Christian teaching and living. Following this line of thought, Norman, whileacknowledging that biblical teaching has social consequences, cautions against

the expression of those consequences in terms of social ideals derived fromcontemporary and secular political ideology which redefines the very essenceof Christianity. He points out also that there is no distinctively Christian or biblicalreasons for identifying Christianity with any political ideology - radical orconservative. It is on this ground that he sees liberation theology as resultingfrom the Marxian concep t of praxis. However, the use of Marxism, as J.E. Weirexp lains, is not a call to Christians to read M arx in the light of the Bible, but toread the Bible in the light of Marx. ^' He clarifies himself by quoting Paul

Ellingworth's remark: I think that they use Marx to make C hristians read theBible more carefully. ^^ In con clusion, the refo re, one can assert that liberation


8/13


liberation theologians maintain that the politicization of faith is out of their

objective analysis. Most of them advocate a kind of system which is neitherCapitalist nor Communist, which Marxists would not accept.

The most serious methodological problem with liberation theology, however,is in advocating violence, which is undeniably Marxist and never Christian.Some liberation theologians have argued that since the existing systems useviolence in their oppression and exploitation of the poor and powerless, thenthe use of violence can be used in certain circumstances as a last resort if

official violence cannot be overcome by peaceful means. The popular ColumbianRoman Catholic priest and radical liberation theologian, Camilo Torres, wholeft the priesthood to die as a guerilla fighter is a common example.^^ Socio-ethically speaking, violence defined in any way, is not akin to or compatiblewith the Christian faith.^ Although the common reference to Jesus as arevolutionary can be accepted in the sense that He promulgated standards andvalues totally op posed to those conventionally accepted in the society, it mustbe maintained that Jesus was not a revolutionist, for while He criticized,

condemned, resisted and rejected the unjust power structures of His day, hedid not take up arms or join with the 'guerrilla grou p' of the Zealots. His cau tionto Peter at Gethsemane against the use of the sword (Matt. 26:51-52) is veryillustrative of the fact that Jesus never supported v iolence.

However, all liberation theologians cannot be grouped as advocates ofviolence. In Latin America, leading theologians of liberation, like Dom HelderCmara, Gustavo Gutierrez, Jon Sobrino, Lun Segundo, and many others,

are advocates of non-violence. Cmara, for example, rejects violence in itstotality. Detesting com placency, he explicitly calls for a reform in depth, aprofound and rapid change ... a structural revolution. ^ However, to clarifywhat this kind of reform or revolution involves, he writes:

My personal vocation is that of a pilgrim of peace,... personally, would- prefer a thousand times to be killed than to kill... This personal position

is based on the gospel... we Christians are on the side of non-violence,which is by no means a choice of weakness or passivity. Non-violencemeans believing more passionately in the force of truth, justice and lovethan in the force of wars murder and ha tred


9/13

Asi a Jo u r na l o f T heo l ogy

Naunde, Bishop Desmond Tutu and others are all advocates of non-violent

modes of change. If liberation theology means adopting violent methods ofchan ge, then Norm an's stigmatization of it as M arxist is valid and indisputablesince violence is alien to Christian teaching. But if it is the form followed byCm ara and others, it wou ld be difficult and m isleading to judge it as Marxist.

4 . The Log ical Incl inat ion of Liberat ion Th eolog y

It may be very difficult to d eal with the logical procedures followed in all theissues raised by liberation theology. We here w ish, there fore, to consider just

one important and central issue - the question of God 's preferential love for thepoor. Gutierrez's argument in support of this predominant theme of liberationtheology is our parad igm. This argument has been simplified and summarizedby Benavides.^^ According to Gutierrez, God's preference for the poor is notdue to the goodness of the poor, but rather, this preference is grounded simplyin the poor's poverty. Free choice, which does not take into account 'Ihe moraland personal dispositions of the poor reveals the gratuitousness of God'slove. He further states that:

A God who loves the poor because the poor deserve it, is a perfectlycomprehensible Go d. However, to accept that God loves the poor simplybecause they are in a situation of oppression and exploitation, shocksus , and reveals to us the absolute gratuitousness of God's love, beyondany a nthropomorphism.

This type of reasoning, despite its pragmatic appeal and admirableness,

leads liberation theolog y - a chan ge - de m an ding ideology - to self-perpetua tion, ideological conserva tism and thus, to a self-defeating and self-destroying logic. This is in the sense that it seeks a change of situation in wh ichthe poor who are despised and relegated to the background are eventuallybrought to prominence while the prominent rich are consequently despisedand relegated to the backg round . Yet once this initial change has taken place ,it does not foresee or make room for the continuity of this dialectical process toits logical conclusion whereby the rich, because of their eventual humiliationand disadvantage, later become the subjects and recipients of God 's preferentiall i tt g t it


10/13


of the rich, reveals its emptiness. For example, a conservative theologian may

argue that God 's absolute freedom allows him to gratuitously love the rich, notonly without regard for the rich's goodness or evilness, but even because of therich's evilness. ^^ However, that God's love is absolutely gratuitous should notsuggest His preferential, but His reconciliatory attitude towards both groups.Secondly, this argument, and the concept of divine preference of the poor itselfmerely leads to changing the direction and form of oppression in which theoppressed today becom es the oppressor tomorrow while the oppressor todaybecomes the oppressed tomorrow. In this case, the liberator's mechanism

becomes the oppressor's dynamism. In fact, liberation theology has almostalways tilted towards this characteristically Marxist tendency and is thereforecalled to be more conciliatory than segregating.

Apart rom the possibility of a redirection of oppression which may eventuallylead to a spiral of oppression and a perpetuation of oppression in the society,another implication of this logical perspective is that it adopts the principle ofclass struggle which is at the root of Marxism as an axiom. Gutierrez speaks ofthe class struggle as an inescapable fact in which remaining neutral is animpossibility. ^ The princ iple of class s truggle which Gutierrez sanctions is quitealien to Christian teaching and betrays liberation theology as a Marxist ideology.As Antionides notes , the biblical call on Christians to love all people is in directopposition to the Marxist concept of class conflict. The two can never bereconciled because while the one is clearly motivated by love, the other isprompted by hatred. Furthermore, he points out that Church unity cannot be

reconciled with class struggle. He concludes on this note that

There is no biblical support for Gutierrez's assertions. The scripturescondem n injustice and o ppression, but they do not divide m ankind alongeconomic lines. Rather than being based on scriptural teachings, theclass struggle springs from a thorough ly atheistic ideology and is inspiredby hatred and envy. Gutierrez is therefore forced to look to a sourceother than the Bible to support the concept of the class struggle. ...Marxism provides him with the necessary rationalization.^'

Conclusion


11/13


violence as a legitimate means of structural transformation) and its logical

inclination in favour of the oppressed and the class struggle, liberation theo logycan be regarded as authentically Marxist. The claims on both ends seem soindisputable and irreconcileable that the only escape route is to allow them tostand side by side on their own respective merits as the two indestructiblesides of the sam e coin. Therefore, we can see liberation theology paradoxicallyas bo th authentically Christian and au thentically Marxist. It is a double polaritya movement or ideology with two irreconcileable yet indisputable sides. Thisconclusion is supported by the paradoxical response given by Kerry Franchukto the question is liberation theology Marxist? His answer is Yes and No.Ac cording to him , it is Yes in view of the many elemen ts of M arxismincorporated in and shared in common with liberation theology. Nevertheless,it is No considering the fact that liberation theology is basically a theologyand, as such, involves the use of the Bible and Ca tholicism in the formation ofits framework for combating injustice.^^ He further explains that: Early liberatiotheology was without a doubt heavily M arxist. Currently, however, Marxism i

merely an ana lytical tool... ^^

J.L. Gonzalez and C.G. Gonzalez, Liberation Preaching: Ttie Putpit and the Oppressed(Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), p. 12.

Pauline W ebb, Salvation Today. The Expository Times. Vol. LXXXVI, No. 3 (December1974), p. 66.

Gustavo Gutierrez, Theotogy of Liberation: History Potitics and Salvation. (New York: OrbisBooks, 1973), p. 189.

J.M. Bonino, Christian Faith and Social Justice. The Expo sitory Times Vol. LXXX VII, No. 5(February, 1976), p. 13 1.

J.M. Bonino, Five Theses Towa rds an Understanding of the 'The ology of Liberation, TheExpository 77mes, Vol. LXXXVII, No. 7 (A pril, 1976), pp. 196-198.

tbid.. p. 19 6.

Gustavo Benavides The Discourse of Liberation Theology in Perspective in M.D. Bryanet a l. (eds). The Many Faces of etigion and Society (New York: Paragon House Publishers,1985), p. 123.

Gustavo G utierrez, p. 15.

Charles P. Ryan . A Liberation Theology for Nigeria in S.A. Adew ale (ed.), Christianity andSocio-Potiticat O rder in Nigeria (Ibadan : The Nigerian Association for Christian Studies, 1987)p 147 Also Liberation Theo logy Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia Retrieved from http://


12/13


Ibid p. 62.

Emm ette J. We ir, Liberation Theology - Marxist or Christian?Ttie Expository TimesVol. XC, No. 9 (June, 1979), p. 260 .Harry Antonides, O'erafen Theology: A S ecular rogram for Revolutionaty Change {On^rio:Jesus to the Communist World, 1987), p. 29.Edward Norman, Christianity and the World OrderThe Expository Times Vol. XC; No. 9(June, 1979), p. 260.Ray Hun dley, The Dang ers of Liberation The ology. Re tr ieved from hwww .baptistpillar.com/bdO136.htm. on 10/3/2006, p. 1.Roger Charles, Catholic Social Teaching as Libera tion .' T he Month Vol. CCLXV I, No. 1398(March, 1984), p. 87.Edward Norman, p. 258. Ibid p. 258.Emmette J. Weir, p. 2 61 .Ibid p. 261Ray Hundley, p. 1.See Christian O. Uche gbue, The Ethics of Violence: A Christian PerspectiveSophiaVol. 2, No. 1 (2000), pp. 62-65.Don Helder Cm ara, Violence - the Only Way ? in Alistair Kee (ed) A Reader in PoliticalTheo/ogy (London: SCM Press, 1974), p. 142./W,pp. 42-143.Gustavo Benavides, p. 126.Ibid p. 128.Ibid p. 128.Gustavo Gutierrez, pp. 274-275.Harry Antonides, p. 32.ibid p 32

Kerry Franchuk, Marxism in Liberation Theology Retrieved from http://www .mafranchuk/liberation.html (December, 1990), p. 7.Ibid p 7


13/13

Documents

Liberation Theology as a Doubie Polarity - Christian O. Uchegbue