The Origins and Tenets of
Liberation Theology
Note: for additional information on Marxist terminology and ideas,
see links page.
Much like critical pedagogy, liberation theology
is best viewed as a set of theologies that are similar in approach, but
divergent in the varying types of oppression that are addressed.
Black liberation theology in the United States seeks the liberation of
African Americans, feminist liberation is sought in North Atlantic countries,
and Christian communities in Latin America seek liberation from economic
and political oppression. Although the language used and approaches
advocated vary between these theologies, the underlying message does not;
the church can no longer deny the responsibility to take active steps to
alleviate oppression. For the purposes of this study, the Latin American
variety will be the point of reference.
At the heart of the conflict underlying liberation
theology is the fact that, while the European church has its roots in European
history, the Latin American church has its roots in European history as
well. Enrique Dussel explains that,
"A Latin American theology can appear on the scene only
after we have tried to comprehend our day-to-day life in history.
This would include our economic, political, and cultural
life. It is from this that theology arises. Europeans have
always been formulating a European theology, a theology which takes everyday
life in Europe as a starting point. We Latin Americans have merely
aped that theology, alienating ourselves in the process (Dussel, 1976:
29)."
This is truly a point worth noting, in that European theology has always
had the opportunity to adapt dogma to suit European exigencies, while Latin
American and other theologies have had no such opportunity. Indeed,
it would be surprising if European theologians did in fact admit that their
doctrine was not suited to all situations that arise in other cultures.
History bears out the fact that the papacy has always believed the dogma
was suitable anywhere it took hold, despite the mixed record of their missionary
efforts across the globe. As many theologians of liberation have
addressed this issue, it serves well as a point of departure as well as
a vocal denial of modern doctrinal universality.
In this context, liberation theology emerged amid
the wake of the Vatican II council and the Medellin Conference, of 1962-1965
and 1968, respectively. Themes of international proletarianism, capital
imperialism, and solidarity with the poor emerged over the course of these
events, which were filtered through the hope of the Latin American church.
A 'preferential option for the poor' was a theme that not only came from
the Vatican, but it would become the basis for a new theology. Not
only did Medellin embrace Freire's methodology, but it,
"marked a radical departure from the rhetoric and strategy
of an institution which, for centuries, had justified the killing of native
peoples, provided a religious legitimation for an authoritarian, hierarchical
social system, and aligned itself with conservative power elites (Smith,
1991: 19)."
The first concrete theological work which encapsulated and synthesized
these ideas was Gustavo Gutierrez' A Theology of Liberation, which
was first published in 1971.
Gutierrez' work took the 'preferential option for
the poor' as a baseline starting point for a fresh biblical exegesis.
The first assumption he makes, however, is that all theology is unavoidably
biased according to temporal concerns. (Rhodes, 1991) These two assumptions
would later become the central issues of a Vatican attack on the tenets
of liberation theology. Rhodes elaborates on the focus of Gutierrez'
work:
"[he] rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection
of timeless and culture-transcending
truths that remains static for all generations. Rather, theology
is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise involving contemporary
insights into knowledge, humanity, and history. Gutierrez emphasizes
that theology is not just to be learned, it is to be done (Rhodes, 1991)."
Hence, praxis is to be the framework within which theology achieves meaning
in history. Gutierrez argues that praxis must precede and inform
theology for it to be liberating, with respect to matters both temporal
and spiritual. The official position of the church has always been
one of neutrality in temporal affairs, and activity on behalf of individuals
in search of spiritual salvation. In practice, however, the church
has a history of taking stands in political affairs (even if they are only
theoretical in nature), and in the case of Latin America the church quite
literally supports conservative elitism. It is this dichotomy between
official positions and practical realities that informs the theologies
of liberation and gives them strength. What good are official positions
and rhetoric if they do not in fact correspond to existential realities;
and how can they be taken seriously? Liberation theologians ask how
the church can claim to be the 'church of the poor', declare neutrality
in temporal socio-political affairs, and consistently side with elite interests
in Latin America? In addition, they inquire, what is the actual difference
between an unspoken (officially denied) but verifiable support for elite
groups, and an explicit political stand on behalf of oppressed people?
Among more obvious practical and moral differences, the latter is true
to itself while the former is internally inconsistent. In some ways,
then, liberation theology represents a search for a clear Catholic conscience
that can guide action without presenting priests and laymen with such blatant
contradictions. Gutierrez envisions a view which,
"allows for a study of the complex problems of counterviolence
without falling into the pitfalls of a double standard which assumes that
violence is acceptable when the oppressor uses it to maintain 'order' and
is bad when the oppressed invoke it to change this 'order.' Institutionalized
violence violates fundamental rights so patently that the Latin American
bishops warn that 'one should not abuse the patience of a people that for
years has borne a situation that would not be acceptable to any one with
any degree of awareness of human rights' (Gutierrez, 1971: 108 )."
What emerges is a concept which melds ideals of justice, theological reflection,
and theological praxis;
termed orthopraxis.
Implied in the preceding description is a combination
of sociological analysis and theological reflection. In liberation
theology it is explicit, effectively making no pretensions of social or
political neutrality. Throughout much of the history of liberation
theology, the primary categories of social analysis were borrowed from
Marxist class analysis. They do not support ideas inherent in Marxist
thought such as atheism, historical materialism, or economic determinism.
Liberation theologians admit no contradictions between this selective application
of Marxist terminology and the conclusions reached by Marx and his followers.
They are correct in pointing out that Marxist categories are the best suited
of any contemporary social theory to broadly approach issues of oppressive
situations. It is true that feminist, racial, and post-colonial thought
are producing some very workable angles to oppression analysis, but for
the most part their terminologies are narrowly circumscribed and inadequate
for approaching broader issues of oppression. Smith notes that,
"Perhaps Marxism's most important influence on liberation
theology is in the acceptance of the reality of class struggle. Critics
of liberation theology accuse it of inciting class struggle; liberation
theologists, however, claim that they are only recognizing and acknowledging
a class struggle that already exists and that must be overcome (Smith,
1991: 30)."
The intermixture of sociology and theology is necessary for liberation
theologians. In fact, they argue that only through an understanding
of history can theology be correctly applied; else it is formless, non-normative
in terms of historical reality, and emasculated at the point when it is
most needed.
Provided with the above mentioned context, it becomes
clear that liberation theology is both a normative, revolutionary theory
of social action, and an eschatology with an explicit acceptance of historical
realities. It seeks not only socio-political justice, but a reevaluation
of the Catholic doctrinal status quo. Moreover, its underlying principles
establish a theology which provides clergy and laymen the justification
to act in defiance to the oppression they have long denounced.
This site was created with Netscape Composer,
HotDog Pro, and CoffeeCup HTML
by Craig Pendleton
