A Special Study of LIBERATION THEOLOGY

By George C. Stewart
 

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.

Influences

Liberation theology is neither totally new nor independent, as some would have the world believe. On the other hand neither can its origin be traced back to the first century. Those who espouse this “gospel” of liberation have been influenced from various modern sources.

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. And, so, “to a great extent, the liberation theologians represent the religious version of the largely socialist thinking that has dominated universities and seminaries in recent years in the industrialized world as well as in the Philippines.”[4]

The Roman Catholic Church has also contributed to this theology through Second Vatican Council. One Protestant observer at the Council says the council was influenced by “the new theological vision of the world.”[5] This new eschatology “is neither wholly ‘realized,’ as in much contemporary theological existentialism, nor ‘otherworldly,’ as traditional eschatology is nowadays generally said to have been.”[6] It fits very well into the mold required by liberation theology.

There are a number of modern theological variations that have affected liberation theologians. David Griffin, himself a Process theologian, believes that Whitehead’s Process philosophy supports and contributes to liberation theology.[7] However, a greater influence probably comes from two other contemporary theologies: Secular theology and the theology of Hope. As Harvie Conn says, the theoretical sources of libera­tion theology are mainly the European “political theology” and Moltmann’s “Theology of Hope.”[8] Lindbeck saw the Vatican II Council members being greatly influenced by the vision of modern theologians, including the Protestants Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jurgen Moltmann.[9] The liberation theologian/pastor Alvin C. Porteous often quotes Moltmann in support of liberation theology. This is not to say that liberation theology is just another name for Moltmann’s theology of Hope. The Latin American liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez says that “hope fulfills a nobilizing and liberating function in history,” yet he criticizes Moltmann for replacing a “Christianity of the Beyond” for a “Christianity of the Future” and neglecting the present.[10] It is obvious that the liberation theologians are more interested in the “now,” but they certainly associate with Moltmann’s Marxist thought and his view of the Exodus as a “religlo-political liberation” event. Nelson Chamberlain says, “The New Testament in the hands of Moltmann takes on the shape of a political book of revolution, and its heroes the forms of political activists who sow, by their doctrines, the seeds of a Marxist-Christian dialectic.”[11]

Liberation theology has also been influenced by the secular theologies of Harvey Cox, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and by the “God-is-Dead” movement. While liberation theology is not greatly dependent upon Bonhoeffer, he has probably had more influence than some recognize, especially through his Letters and Papers From Prison. Bonhoeffer’s concept of a “world come of age” has probably moved liberation theologians beyond what was intended by Bonhoeffer’s usage. James Woelfel says that Bonhoeffer “describes a ‘come-of-age’ world as a world in which the autonomy of man is being increasingly realized, a world having begun to achieve adulthood or maturity.”[12] Certainly Bonhoeffer did not emphasize liberation to the extreme of the more recent liberation theologians, for he maintained there is no Scriptural right for revolution.[13] Conn lists three areas where Bonhoeffer has influenced liberation theology: (1) Religion is redefined in relation to secular context, (2) the Church must side with the oppressed, and (3) a new interpretation of Christian freedom is necessary.[14]

History

The liberation movement is very broad in concept. It can include Latin America, Africa, Asia, the oppressed behind the Iron Curtain, American blacks, Native Americans, feminists and others. While all of these groups could claim some common ground, not all share equal concern for each other. For example, Latin American theologians would not be too sympathetic with the complaints of the American women liberationists. In fact, Latin America is the center of the stage for liberation theology and, therefore, must be treated accordingly.

Some of the most prominent liberation theologians are Hugo Assman, Gustavo Gutierrez, Juan Luis Segundo, Rubem Alves, Emilo Castro and Jose Miguez Bonino. The first three are Roman Catholics and the latter three are Protestants. Gustavo Gutierrez is considered by some to be the father of Latin American liberation theology.[15] He is a Jesuit priest. Conn marks the formal beginning of liberation thinking with the Peruvian Gutierrez and especially his 1971 book, A Theology of Liberation.[16] Alves is often called one of the first of the Protestant liberation theologians, but the Methodist scholar Jose Miguez Bonino is considered by many to be the dean of Latin American Protestant theologians.[17] He was at one time president of the World Council of Churches, which would help explain some of the actions of that group.

The growth of Latin American liberation theology can be identified by certain events and stages. Early developments can be traced to Bonhoeffer, Secular theology and the theology of Hope. 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.”[18] Vatican II saw some of the new theologies formulated into new ways of thinking and doing. Following this, the Medellin Conference of Latin American bishops in 1968 “gave concrete form and application to Vatican II.”[19] The period from 1968 to 1972 could be called the time of formulation of Latin American Liber­ation theology.[20]  Another conference was held in Santiago, Chile, in 1972 that went beyond Medellin and “signalized the increasing evaporation of ecclesiastical restrictions that were part of the pre-Vatican II con­text of Latin America.”[21] At the World Conference on Salvation Today held by the World Council of Churches in Bangkok in 1973, the liberation movement gained a new measure of respectability.[22] As the liberation theology infiltrated the Protestant churches of Latin America, through the World Council of Churches, it began to spread around the world.[23] Dialogue between Latin American Roman Catholics and Protestants and North American theologians resulted in the Detroit Conference in 1975.

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.”[24]

METHOD
 

Liberation theology is a broad concept. It can, or does, include American blacks, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, women, South Africans, Latin Americans, Irish, etc. The 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. There are more similarities between the Philippines and South America, yet there is a major difference in that the greater activity in the Philippines is by non-Philippinos.[25] And while the black American and Latin American may feel a kinship of bondage, they differ in their view of Marxism. Within the black community and Church, Marxism has found little support.[26]

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, it is not always easy to understand what is meant. But one thing is certain: he has in mind a revolution. Phillip Berryman says,

I discovered Christianity as a life centered totally on love of neighbor …. It was later that I understood that in Columbia you can’t bring about this love simply by beneficence. There was needed a whole change of political, economic, and social structures. These changes demanded a revolution. That love was intimately bound up with revol­ution.[27]

The liberation movement views all previous efforts as ineffective. They call for a change more radical than any theology of the past. Frederick Herzog says,

Liberal theology seemed to view the gospel as man’ s possibility in history. It often resulted in shallow activism and finally in cynicism. Neo-orthodoxy countered that the gospel reveals itself as man’s impossibility in history. In the U.S. its re­sult often was a strange neo-pietism with its attendant paralysis of action. Liberation theology labors ever the gospel as God’s possibility in history. By divine empowerment human beings are made whole in the transformation of inimical structures.[28]

The liberation advocate sees bondage and oppression in almost every aspect of man’s being and life situation. Some do recognize sin as the basic bondage—including pride and apathy. Beyond this are the fears of death, the law, oppressive ideologies and social structures, religion and even the “suburban captivity of the Churches.”[29] Alvin Porteous says this “suburban captive church” has

…allowed its message to be distorted by enslaving ideologies and a church which has allowed its mission to be co-opted to serve as a safety valve for an oppressive society. The Church’s captivity became even more pronounced in the seventies, as the backlash from the activism of the sixties resulted in a growing mood of resignation and extreme cultural accommodation.[30]

So religion, while being a possible solution to oppression, has in fact made enslavement more secure. According to the liberationists, indivi­dualism (or capitalism) is always a culprit. When you mix individualism and religion you have all the ingredients for oppression. Porteous claims that, “such religiously sanctioned individualism both reflects and reinforces the laissez-faire ideology so pervasive in American culture generally, an ideology which so readily becomes an instrument of oppres­sion against the poor and the weak.”[31] In the minds of some, oppression is so pervasive that none could be excluded. There are only two classes—the oppressors and the oppressed—and the oppressor is “as much in need of liberation as those who are oppressed.”[32]

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. Hans Kung, who is not totally sympathetic with the liberation philosophy, states, “All theological talk, all Christian programs, about a ‘new man,’ a ‘new creation,’ have no effect on society and in fact are often calculated only to perpetuate inhuman social conditions, as long as Christians today fail to struggle against unjust structures….”[33]

In fact the situation is so bad that we must “reread history in terms of the poor, the humiliated, and the rejected society.”[34] To reread history means to “remake history.”[35] 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.[36] 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 not always seen in the Latin American context. The women’s liberation movement has been limited primarily to the Unites States. The number of women disinterested in the cause further limits this wing of the movement. Mary Burke admits that the majority of women in the United States are satisfied with their role as homemakers and mothers. She sees these as a threat to the movement and feels that they must be recruited to help in “restructuring that will change the position of women in our society.”[37] Burke is not as interested in the political freedom for Latin America as the freedom of all women of the world. She contends that, “all women share in conditions of subjugation, dependency, and isolation.”[38] The feminist claims economic discrimination because many women have to work, because there are not adequate day care centers for their children, and because “advertising preys on many frustra­tions of women, telling them constantly that they must buy.”[39] The Latin American would have difficulty relating to that kind of “oppression.”

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.[40] Generally, Marxism has no appeal for the black liberationist because they believe it would make no difference in their situation. They see their enemy as the white man’s racism. Herbert Edwards writes,

The faith that bound together Protestant, Catholic, Jew, rich and poor, educated and illiterate, liberal and conservative, laissez-faire Capitalist and New Dealer, high churchmen and the low, pious and irreverent, Republican and Democrat, was white racism. Racism has been the only ecumenical faith that America has consistently subscribed to.[41]

Edwards says it may seem that Latin Americans, women and black have a common enemy in the whites, and are, therefore, “operating on the same theologico-liberation wavelength.”[42] He maintains, however, that this is not so because “women’s liberation theology and Latin American theology are presently both more acceptable to the enemy than is black theology.”[43] The black theologian is careful to warn Latin Americans about grouping all United States under the oppressors (including blacks), but sees no problem in doing the same by lumping all whites under the category of the “enemy.”

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—or, in other words, 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. An example of this is seen in a statement by Enrique Dussel. He says, “By the twentieth century, the world centers had become the U.S., Europe, Russia, Japan. The periphery is Latin America, the Arab world, black Africa, Southeast Asia, and China. Of all these peripheral worlds, only China has been liberated.”[44] How strange that he can think of China as being liberated.
 

For liberation theology, truth is relative and situational. The Bible has no special place except to be molded as a tool for praxis. They call this a “new way” of theologizing, where the theologian does not deal with abstract ideas but rather with concrete historical situations. One observer has noted, however, that in practice “the historical situation is forced into the straitjacket of a Marxist interpretation assumed to be an ideological construction based on a premise whose origin may be traced to Marx.”[45]
 

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. One liberation spokesman says,

First, the word of God is no longer a fixed absolute, an eternal proposition we receive before analyzing social conflicts and be­fore committing ourselves to the transformation of historical reality. God’s summons to us, God’s word today, grows from the collective process of historical awareness, analysis, and involve­ment, that is, from praxis. The Bible and the whole Christian tradition do not speak directly to us in our situation. But they remain as a basic reference about how God spoke in quite a differ­ent context, which must illuminate his speaking in our context.[46]

With this concept of truth, it is easy to see how reality can be twisted to fit the person’s need. Thus, the Latin American can spend half his income on vices, survey his misery, look at his rich neighbor to the north, and conclude that his neighbor must be stealing from him.[47] “Truth” then becomes his oppression and need for liberation.

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.[48]
 

Some involved with black theology in the United Stares do believe that personal salvation in Christ is primary and that the Second Coming of Christ is the ultimate liberation. However, the South African, Ananias Mpunzi, states that, “black theology has no room for the traditional Christian pessimistic view of man, the view that we are all by nature overwhelmingly and sinfully selfish.”[49] This latter view is consistent with the idea of man determining his own destiny.
 

The Latin American bishops who met in the Medellin Conference in 1968 concluded that, “Only when men are personally converted can there be structural change; yet this conversion can only exist within new structures.”[50] This seems to leave man in an impossible situation of not being able to have either one until you have the other. In more recent years liberation theologians have swung away from the need for personal conversion toward corporate conversion through economic and political structural changes. They do not deny the basic character of sin as individual rebellion against God, but both sin and salvation are seen as historical and social in nature. Berryman states that,

The key to understanding the relationship between economic-political liberation and liberation from sin is the second level, utopia. A utopian project is to be realized in history…. This utopian liberation is the object of the cultural revolution. As sin is a historic reality, liberation from sin is mediated through historic utopias.[51]

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.”[52] 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.”[53]
 

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.”[54]

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. Hans Kung says that, “this theology would seek to present a historical project of political, economic, cultural, sexual liberation, as a true sign and anticipation of the definitive eschatological project of complete freedom in the Kingdom of God.”[55] 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 God 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. David Griffin analyzes liberation theology’s efforts to satisfy the needs of man. He says,

My own understanding of the various liberation movements has been aided by distinguishing among three basic types of in­trinsic value. By “intrinsic value” I mean anything that is experienced as enjoyable and fulfilling. The three basic types of intrinsic value I call (1) receptive values, (2) achievement or self-actualizing values, and (3) contributory values.[56]

Consequently, if man can satisfy all these “intrinsic values,” 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.”[57] This also means that the “intrinsic values” proposed by Griffin could not be achieved by all. 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.”[58] Liberation theology is more of a mixture of the modern sciences of social analysis, sociology, politics, economics, and history than biblical theology.
 

Liberationists endorse the concept of secularization or desacralization. Distinctions between the sacred and the secular are removed. Christianity is not unique and the Kingdom of God is the world come of age and set free. Rubem Alves (A Theology of Hope) says, “When the death of God is proclaimed, obviously man is made free again for his world, for history, for creation…. Religion, therefore, is to be destroyed for the sake of the earth, for the sake of man’s freedom to criticize his world in order to transform it.”[59]
 

With the world “desacralized,” God plays only a small part, if any, in liberation. 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.”[60]
 

With God “dead,” and a secular society on our hands that is oppressing everyone through every means, man is left to fend for himself. The position of the Process theologian, David Griffin, is in harmony with a basic presupposition of liberation theology. He says, “The reason God does not prevent all the evil in the world is that God simply cannot, that is, God cannot do it unilaterally.”[61] Then what do we do? Well, we work to correct the evils. And when we do, we not only do it “for the sake of ourselves and our descendants, but also for the sake of God.”[62] Therefore Liberationists call for the rejection of the doctrine of the omnipotent providence of God.[63]
 

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. This process called praxis is at the heart of their theology. The end result is a political movement, regardless of where it lives or what it is called. While commitment to socialism was the outcome, and not the source, of the concern for the world’s oppressed, it still must be understood that liberation theologians rely on Marxism for social analysis. Using Marxism for social analysis, 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 in socialist and communists states and the failures of the Latin American peoples themselves. Camilo Torres (Cristiamismo y revolucion) rationalizes that “the church does not depend on the capitalist system and that Christianity has enough vigor to Christianize a socialist society.”[64] It may be true that the church does not depend on the capitalist system, but to say that Christianity can Christianize a socialist society ignores the situation in Russia, Cuba and other Communist countries. Of course,

Those committed to liberation theology usually deny that they are communist, but they urge the need to learn from the Marxists and to cooperate with them in attacking unjust structures. Vio­lence is not necessarily to be deplored, and above all else, the Christian should avoid trying to impose his judgment on the techniques employed to attain liberation.

The liberation theologians are intoxicated by the Marxian praxis and the hope of ultimate success and justice it promises.[65]

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, it seems they have departed from biblical Christianity.

Biblical Hermeneutics
 

The suspicion has already been raised that liberation theology is a political movement rather than a theology. It certainly is not biblical theology, although it claims to be based on the Bible. It denies any connection with tradition although it draws heavily from Secular theology, the theology of Hope and Existentialism. It contains many non-theological elements. One advocate claims “it is theological inasmuch as it seeks to give a theological reading of the signs of the times and to decipher the concrete content of God’s will for us.”[66] The latter part of this claim is certainly open to question.
 

Someone has said that Luke 4:18 is the John 3:16 of liberation theology.[67] This clearly illustrates the false hermeneutics of the movement. Precluding that God’s and man’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. Porteous maintains that the Bible was born amid people oppressed: Israel in the Old Testament and the Church in the New Testament. Therefore, our task is to disentangle “the message of the Gospel from these ideological accretions and distortions and allowing its latent dynamics for liberation to be released.”[68]
 

That’s like liberating the Bible so we can liberate man. The same author says there are two “events in Scripture through which God identifies himself definitely as the Liberator of oppressed humanity; the Exodus and the resurrection.”[69] 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.[70] But God’s theme of liberation is on a much higher level than that expected by liberationists. Harold Kuhn is correct in his critique of liberation theology’s understanding of biblical liberation. He says,

I have a different theological understanding of the Exodus motif. Israel became a chosen people not because they were oppressed in Egypt but because of the sovereign will of God, which was first revealed with the call of Abram…. Theologically, I find the statement that the Exodus was “God’s initial revelation of himself to Israel… in the context of deliverance from oppression …” unwarranted by either history or dogma.[71]

One basic question concerning liberation theology is whether it is legitimate to begin biblical interpretation from a contemporary historical setting. One liberation theologian, Juan Luis Segundo, says the key is the “hermeneutical circle.” This method demands a “continuous change in our interpretation of the Bible which is dictated by the continuing change in our present-day reality, both individual and societal.”[72] Consequently, to have a proper hermeneutic, there must be a commitment to the oppressed. This results in a hermeneutic of suspicion and hope. The hermeneutic of suspicion “seeks to uproot from our selective viewing of Scripture … those ideals that support the oppressive status quo and resist change.”[73] The hermeneutic of hope is to allow Scripture to rephrase our conception of reality, which results in “a bias toward the poor, the doing of justice, the battle against racism, etc.”[74] This seems very much like a hermeneutic of using the Bible simply as a tool to manipulate people to do what has already been decided is best to do. The goal is to build a different society, free and more human. This is a high and worthy goal, but Clark Pinnock warns that the Christian should “see certain dangers in a theology that starts from the sinful human situation rather than the Word of God. The potential for syncretism and adulteration is very real.”[75]
 

Paul Leggett and John Stain list three basic doctrines that are of special interest among Latin theologians of liberation: Incarnation, Nature of Man, and Justice and righteousness. Not only their choice of special interest doctrines, but also their conclusions about these doctrines, reveals their non-biblical methods of interpretation. Concerning the incarnation, Leggett and Stain say that, “these theologians simply call attention to the prominence in Christ’s ministry of relieving suffering, feeding the hungry, curing the sick.”[76] Concerning the nature of man, they say Christ links “personal salvation with one’s response to the social and economic realities of life.”[77] And, on justice and righteousness, these terms “deal as strongly with social morality as with individual ethical action.”[78]
 

The theological positions of the liberation theologians is easier understood when one understands where they are “coming from.” It is obvious that much of their current influence comes from the works of Karl Marx. 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 was also indebted to the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre. 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.[79]
 

Clark Pinnock lists four major concerns with the theology of liberation: (1) Their interpretation of Scripture is suspect of using Scripture to support positions outside its orbit, (2) The meaning of salvation is distorted, since some hold that all are now justified in Christ and will finally be saved, (3) The human race is now the people of God and all history is in the process of sanctification, and (4) The mission of the Church is solely for political liberation.[80]

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. Liberation theology’s commitment to the poor “does not focus on the poor as objects of the gospel’s concern. The poor become the subjects of the gospel, the artisans of a new humanity-shapers, not shaped.”[81] 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. No sense of wrongdoing is associated with the resultant violence. “The effect of this exclusive concentration on politics is to rule out all religion in the traditional sense.”[82] Social and political structures are analyzed from the Marxist viewpoint and Marxism becomes the tool for remaking society. Harvie Conn has an insightful comment on this aspect of liberation theology. He says,

Even recognizing the attempts of the liberation theologians to isolate an instrumental use, Marxism as a tool still builds on a metaphysical definition of man as bearing within himself the power to subject to himself the whole of reality and to bring it under his own humanizing regime. The rooting of praxis in economic or social struggle still has its deeper roots in the Renaissance view of man as one who regenerates himself by his own powers. This is a manifestation of man’s pretended auto­nomy in his own self-imposed world-vision. The sovereignty and majesty of a cosmic God are reduced in the hermeneutical circle to a “second stage.”[83]

This fixation on Marxism as the tool of liberation blinds its advocates to the reality in the world. They are literally “up in arms” about the injustice in Latin America, yet are mute concerning totalitarianism in the communist countries of Cuba and Eastern Europe. “Whatever the reason, the near silence of liberation theology regarding Eastern Europe reveals ethical astigmatism.”[84] The proponents of liberation theology attack the capitalist countries of Latin America as being repressive and then exalt Cuba as a model for liberation. Meade says “this terrible hypocrisy tells one a great deal about the moral standards presented by the new theology.”[85] Liberation theologians promise that socialism will usher in utopia, while the evidence is to the contrary. Communist countries still have housing problems, food shortages, industrial pollution, crime, and a high rate of suicide. Walter Benjamin has seen the “progress” of Eastern European countries and concludes that, “It is incredible that countries so rich in human and physical resources are perennially deficit in food. Yet few liberation theologians who are so enamored of Marxist theory admit to communism’s agrarian debacle in practice.”[86]
 

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). David Griffin suggests that the United States needs to con­tribute to “justice” by relinquishing its political control and use of the world’s resources. He admits, however, that even the poor within the United States boundaries would object because they want more of the “good life.”[87] 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.
 

The words of Frire (quoted from Pedagogy of the Oppressed) are very appropriate: “It is a rare peasant who, once promoted to overseer, does not become more of a tyrant toward his former comrades than the owner himself.”[88]

Possibly the major fallacy of the liberation methods is their advocacy of violence and revolution. A strategy of violence can never find support from the Scriptures. Romans 13 instructs us to obey the powers that be. To overthrow God-ordained government by force will only substitute one inequality for another—only make a change in rulers while the problems of oppression remain unchanged. “Anyone who takes violent measures is involved in the vicious circle between violence and counter-violence.”[89] Hans Kung points out how violence runs counter to the life and teaching of Jesus. He says,

First of all it must be repeated that Jesus, despite his fearless advocacy of a radical change, his criticism of the ruling classes and outstanding grievances, was not a politico-social revolutionary. His message of the Kingdom of God which was to change everything, liberating man from all evil and for all good, was not a program of politico-social action. If then we take him as the standard, we cannot even today turn the Christian message directly into a program of politico-social action.[90]

Walter Benjamin offers four suggestions for liberation theology: (1) Liberation theology should lose its Latin myopia, (2) it should critique all revolutions, (3) it should give up the penchant to believe the worst about the United States, and (4) it should beware of irrational guilt.[91]
 

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 the sin of 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; 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.”[92]