Racist or Worse?

By George C. Stewart

The racist and Anti-American comments by Jeremiah Wright, “Pastor” of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, received much publicity, condemnation and “explanation” following their public revelation in March of 2008. Since these remarks became well known during a presidential election year they will likely continue to receive a lot of coverage.

However, almost all of the media analysis of this situation only touches on the surface. Very few understand that Jeremiah Wright, the Trinity congregation and many in the black community are engaged in a very dangerous theology. This is why Barack Obama has so much difficulty explaining why he spent 17 years in the congregation and never complained. It is difficult not to believe that he agrees with the church’s teaching.

The teaching of Jeremiah Wright and many others is called Black Liberation Theology. While many may not have heard of “Liberation Theology,” it has had a significant influence on many in the Western world. It is another attempt to replace the “wisdom of God” with the “wisdom of man.” Hopefully, the following will be helpful in providing a better understanding of why this is a serious situation. I am not trying to address either the racial or political aspects of Jeremiah Wright’s teaching. However, one should ask if the American voters want a president who holds to such a radical position?

Development

The Theology of Liberation has been described by a process theologian as, “Any Christian theology that finds the essence of Christianity to center around the claim that the God revealed in the Biblical tradition in general, and in Jesus Christ in particular, wills the liberation of the oppressed and is active in the world towards that end.”[1] This study is an attempt to determine whether that is a valid biblical claim and if the liberation theologian is true to biblical revelation.

Before analyzing and critiquing this movement, one must have some understanding of its origin and history.

History

Liberation theology is not totally new, but its origin certainly cannot be traced to the first century.

This new way of “doing theology” is most popular in the Third World: Asia, Africa and Latin America. The economic and political conditions in Latin America make it a natural location for breeding a theology of liberation, but the advocates view their struggle as being worldwide. Under oppressive conditions, Latin America theologians have aligned themselves with Marxist doctrine and methods. “Lenin’s theory of imperialism is accepted lock, stock and barrel.”[2] Although the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America would represent the establishment and be considered suspect by Liberationists, almost all their theologians are Roman Catholic priests.[3] These theologians were trained in Europe and the United States.

The growth of Latin American liberation theology can be identified by certain events and stages. Liberation theology had its beginning shortly after the end of World War II. The period from 1962 to 1968 has been called “the time of preparation.”[4] The period from 1968 to 1972 could be called the time of formulation of Latin American Liber­ation theology.[5]  As the liberation theology infiltrated the Protestant churches of Latin America, through the World Council of Churches, it began to spread around the world.[6]

The development of liberation theology saw an increasing emphasis being put upon economic and political freedom. The theologians analyzed capitalism and socialism, rejected capitalism and any possible compromise, and accepted Marxism as the revolutionary method of liberation. “Particular stress was put on the task of unmasking ideological elements in present Christianity, e.g., the notion that class struggle is incompatible with Christian unity.”[7] Consequently, Liberation theology believes that the Church must side with the oppressed, and that a new interpretation of Christian freedom is necessary.

Method

Liberation theology is a broad concept whose circle can be widened to encompass any group that feels oppressed by economic status, race relations, sexual opportunity or political pressures. This common condition, however, does not mean that all of these groups have common goals and methods. For example, the differences between the Latin American and United States feminist liberation movements make any cooperation unlikely. And the Black Liberation Theology in American is concerned with past and perceived present oppression in our country.

Oppression and Liberation
 

Liberation theology has concluded that large numbers of the world’s population is living under oppression. Convinced that this is contrary to God’s will, they claim a biblical mandate to actively execute their libera­tion. How this liberation is achieved will vary between groups, but usually does not rule out violence.

When a liberationist speaks about liberation, one thing is certain: he has in mind a revolution. They call for a change more radical than any theology of the past. The liberation advocate sees bondage and oppression in almost every aspect of man’s being and life situation, although some do recognize sin as the basic bondage—including pride and apathy.

According to the liberationists, indivi­dualism (or capitalism) is always a culprit. When you mix individualism and religion you have all the ingredients for oppression. In the minds of some, oppression is so pervasive that none could be excluded. There are only two classes—the oppressors and the oppressed.

When one sees the world’s condition through the eyes of a liberationist, he is compelled to call for a drastic restructure of society. No longer is conversion to Christ sufficient—even if that conversion results in a new man and a committed disciple.

In fact the situation is so bad that we must “reread history in terms of the poor, the humiliated, and the rejected society.”[8] To reread history means to “remake history.”[9] The oppressive ideologies and social struc­tures control the bodies and minds of man to the extent that simply changing human hearts will not bring about liberation.[10] This is the very heart of the matter, regardless of whether we are talking about Latin American or North American liberation.

Oppression and liberation are also seen from a different perspective by blacks. For the black freedom has both a structural and attitudinal aspect—with emphasis on the latter. A black theologian speaks of tearing down barriers that restrict the freedom of being one’s self.

Each of the groups under the wing of liberation theology seems to have a “more oppressed than thou” attitude toward the world and each other.

Truth
 

By now one can see that with liberation theology, truth may be relative—at best. For the liberation theologian truth is the involvement of man as a liberating agent in historical events—what they call “praxis.” There is no truth outside or beyond this. There is little or no concern about the abstract. Foundational and absolute truths are of no consequence. “Truth” is the oppression of the poor and the involvement of man to liberate himself. Even reality may be distorted for the benefit of maintaining praxis. For liberation theology, truth is relative and situational. The Bible has no special place except to be molded as a tool for praxis.
 

Liberation theologians especially like a few selected passages from the Bible, such as James 5:1-5, the Exodus, Luke 1:52 and Luke 4:18-19. Any statement or event that might be used to support revolution against the oppressors is of particular importance. Correct exegesis is not necessary.

Sin and Salvation
 

If liberation theology is truly a theology, it must speak to issues other than oppression and liberation. It must, at least, speak to matters of sin and personal salvation. However, for the most part, in liberation theology the Gospel is not a message about saving individuals out of the world, but rather a message of saving the world. Gutierrez speaks of “the process of constructing a new society and a new man, and believes man can assume the responsibility for determining his own destiny.[11]

So, what is salvation? It is liberation. Liberation from what? From every form of oppression and injustice. Is sin real? Yes, but only because of social and political structures. These structures not only produce sin but also perpetuate it. Is there such a thing as guilt for sin? Yes, but only in a social sense. Is there salvation from sin? Yes, but only through the overthrow of the oppressive structures that make sin inevitable. Is Christ involved in this process of salvation? Yes, as He works (somehow) in the world for liberation, and also by being our example as a “permanent principle of revolution.”[12] How does this take place? Well, “God him/herself through Christ assumes and participates with us in the historical process of humanization and liberation, for this is the plan of God for humankind.”[13]

The poor are God’s chosen people. Those who are the poorest are the most qualified to receive God’s saving word. They are the ones who have the greatest right to the Gospel. They are the ones Christ would seek first. “Therefore, if a rich man is to be helpful in the liberation process, he must become poor and identify himself with the oppressed so that he becomes one of them.”[14]

A Critique
 

Because of the growth and future potential influence of liber­ation theology, it must be analyzed in the light of Scripture and shown to be a dangerous deviation from truth.

Basic Presuppositions
 

Liberation theology is existential in the sense that it is preoccupied with the nature and quality of man’s present existence rather than his essence and relationship to God. While God is, and man should be, interested in the quality of man’s earthly existence, liberation theology has lost the proper balance. They view man’s greatest need as liberation from economic and political restrictions—a position not born out by Scripture or experience. The theology of liberation emphasizes liberty as the central theme of the Christian faith, as an end in itself, and as true evidence of God’s Kingdom. But this is not the message of the Gospel. The message of the Bible is God’s offer to man of genuine freedom in Christ which allows him to serve and glorify God, even in the midst of economic and political oppression.
 

Another false presupposition of liberation theology is its obvious view that man’s purpose for existence is to make himself com­fortable. Consequently, if man can satisfy all his wants he is free—free indeed. The fallacy with this thinking is it overlooks the basic nature of man, which is sinful. To have all of these “intrinsic values” satisfied in all men (or even a few) would require a sinless environment, a heaven on earth. In man’s present state, some are going to lose these values by the very fact that others achieve them.
 

Liberation theology also has a warped view of the equality of man. Williamson points out that “if men are absolutely free, inequality must result because the ablest… will come out on top.”[15] God did not endow all men equally and has never said inequality is wrong or sinful. The parable of the talents demonstrates that God creates inequality. And certainly the word of God never judges anyone based on his or her social or political status. “There will never be complete equality on this earth and perhaps not in heaven either.”[16] Liberation theology is more of a mixture of the modern sciences of social analysis, sociology, politics, economics, and history than biblical theology.
 

Consequently, the addition of “theology” to “liberation” creates a complete oxymoron. Williamson is right on target with this critique: “As for the liberationist’s espousal of secularization, it is enough to say that no doctrine that reads God out of life can rightfully be called Christian. It cannot even be called religious! The task of the Christian is to sanctify the secular, not secularize the sacred.”[17]

Liberation Theology’s basic presuppositions concerning man’s nature and existence, God’s nature, and the relationship between the two leads them to a primary concern of social analysis and action. The end result is a political movement, regardless of where it lives or what it is called. The liberationists always conclude that capitalism is the enemy of the people and the cause of poverty and oppression. This is especially true in Latin America, where the United States is blamed for all suffering and oppression.
 

There is no question that liberation theology is a political movement that has used the name Christian and adopted the methods of socialism to accom­plish what they consider just and liberating ends. But, in doing so, they have departed from biblical Christianity.

Biblical Hermeneutics

Liberation theology is certainly not biblical theology, although it claims to be based on the Bible. Someone has said that Luke 4:18 is the John 3:16 of liberation theology.[18] This clearly illustrates the false hermeneutics of the movement. Precluding that God’s and men’s sole purposes are to achieve man’s earthly comforts, any text is used as a pretext to achieve those ends. It is clear to the objective reader that Luke 4:18 is in reference to man’s salvation from the fact and consequences of sin through Christ. Liberation theologians frequently quote not only Luke 4:18-19, but also Luke 6:20, 24 to support the claim that Jesus took the side of the poor and oppressed. But, again, if Luke 6:20, 24 is considered in its context, and in light of Matthew 5:3, it is seen to refer to man’s attitude and not his physical condition.
 

Liberationists “liberate” the Bible so they can liberate man. Porteous says there are two “events in Scripture through which God identifies himself definitely as the Liberator of oppressed humanity; the Exodus and the resurrection.”[19] But, this is true only when liberation is correctly understood in Biblical terms, not in liberation theological terms. Again Porteous says that many are learning that the hermeneutical key which unlocks the world of the Bible is the theme of liberation.[20] But God’s theme of liberation is on a much higher level than that expected by liberationists.
 

Profirio Miranda, an ex-Jesuit, studied Marx and came to the conclusion that the essential meaning of the Bible’s message is the revelation that God fights against the oppressors on behalf of the oppressed. Miranda came to the conclusion that the God revealed in the Bible is a God interested only in justice between people. He says that both the Christian faith and Marxism aim ultimately at achieving real justice in the world, and are therefore similar.[21]

Methods
 

In addition to erroneous presuppositions and biblical hermeneutics, liberation theology must be questioned on the basis of its methods of achieving its ends. Liberation theology has the goal of justification of man in a world of injustice. Rather than seeking to bring honor to God through man’s life and obedience, it centers all efforts upon man and improving his “condition.” As a result man is exalted and God is left on the sidelines. Liberation is the theme and man’s methods become the way. When salvation or redemption is spoken of, it is always in terms of liberation, and liberation is a matter of confrontation and conflict. It is a focus upon a kingdom of God brought about through human effort. Inward liberation must be preceded by outward liberation. This basic doctrine of liberation theology is the reverse of the biblical order. Since outward liberation is the first and foremost aim of liberation theology, then political action and revolution become the primary methods.
 

Another “blind-spot” in the thinking of liberation theologians is their uncritical acceptance of the theory that “dividing the spoils” will make all equal and loving partners in a utopian society. This overlooks the natural inequality of man (due to birth) and the selfishness of man (due to sin). Man is always going to view poverty, injustice and oppression as a relative matter, relative to his own situation. Because of the sinfulness of man, there is also the problem of the former oppressed becoming the new oppressor.
 

It seems that liberation theology is motivated to “level” all things, leaving no distinctions between sex, economic conditions, power, or life functions. This looks like one of the sins of the church at Corinth (See First Corinthians 12); a refusal to accept the gifts God has given us and work within the frame­work of His body for His glory. This motivation also looks much like the sin of the Garden of Eden; seeking to be what God did not create us to be.
 

God has never promised us freedom from adversity. In fact He has promised, “All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). Man, as a sinner, actually needs some adversity in order to humbly seek God. So the Bible does not instruct us on how to achieve economic and political freedom but teaches us how to live under any circumstance. “Man has to realize that he is not God and must learn to put up with some poverty, injustice, and oppression. Improve on these evil conditions, he may; remove them, he may not.”[22]

Liberation Theology and American Politics of 2008
 

While much of the media focuses on the racist and anti-American remarks of Jeremiah Wright, the issue is far more serious. Jeremiah Wright and his congregation preach and practice Black Liberation Theology. Many say that Obama should not be judged by what his preacher says. But it is very difficult to believe that Barack Obama could be a part of the Trinity United Church of Christ for 17 years—during which time he says he attended regularly—without believing the same things. If one reads carefully Obama’s speech of March 18, 2008, they will see that he harbors resentment against the white population of America. And his wife’s comment about only now being proud of this country fits into the same mold. Many believe the issue of Jeremiah Wright is “merely a distraction,” and we should look at Obama’s record and move on to the “important” issues of the economy and the Iraq war. However, if Barack Obama becomes president of the United States, he will not bring everyone together, as he claims he will in his speeches. Instead, he will promote a socialist society that will shrink previous efforts into insignificance. Barack’s social agenda is very, very socialist-leaning. Just listen to his repeated mantras (change and hope) and see the subtle connections with Liberation Theology.
 

For anyone interested in further study of the Black Liberation Theology, they can refer to many responsible web sites, as well as two publications more recent than those quoted in this paper: 1] Introducing Black Theology: Three Crucial Questions for the Evangelical Church, by Bruce L. Fields, 2001, and 2] Heart and Head—Past, Present, and Future, by Dwight N. Hopkins, 1999.