A Critique of Liberation Theology

 Introduction 

            When thinking about theology, it is essential to ask questions. When evaluating individual theological positions and the positions of others, it is (or should be) imperative for the investigator to understand what is being taught entirely. The primary purpose for devout investigation is first to understand the individual's position as it relates to the Church and second, to understand the position as it pertains to an adequate understanding of God and his intentions. This discourse is no different in that, herein, the goal will be to ascertain both of the above statements as they correlate to liberation theology. The primary thesis of this writing will be to explicate liberation theology and evaluate it from an evangelical perspective. Obviously, there are presuppositions to both. Several factors will be used in understanding and evaluating liberation theology, and these will be the methodological standards used to provide guidance and objective measurement of the goal stated above.

            This discourse will be segmented into three primary areas. First, the explanation of the methodological standards. This section will lay out the general rules for the game and provide boundaries for understanding the perspective herein. Second, will be an explication of liberation theology and the method it uses to come to its conclusions. Found within this section will be a detailed explanation of how liberation theology reached its point of focus and understanding why it has chosen the focus it has. Lastly, there will be a detailed evaluation of liberation theology based on the methodological standards as governed by the evangelical position. By utilizing the standards of evangelical method, it is the hope of this writing to shine light on what is the most adequate approach to the study of theology, understand how liberation fits into that schema, and what (if any) can be gleaned as useful from liberation theological belief.

 

Explanation of Methodological Standards

            To begin any investigation, the starting point must be established prior to any departure. When looking at theology one must determine what information or sources will be allowed to have the stage (i.e., provide determining information that will inform final conclusions). First, John Wesley put forward the idea that there are four sources which influence theological method, this is called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.[1] The four components Wesley put forward are: Scripture, tradition, reason, and Christian experience. In this discourse, these four areas are what will determine how one comes to theological conclusions. Essentially, these are ingredients that will be used in differing quantities that will affect or change the final dessert. For example, if a person were to place heavy weight on Christian experience, they will very likely come to vastly different conclusions than one who places high value on tradition. This writing will attempt to establish a best ordering and a justification for it.[2]

            The next thing to be considered for evaluating a theological position is the Bebbington Quad (biblicism, conversionism, activism, and cruci-centrism).[3] Bebbington provides a way to characterize what is generally thought to be evangelical priorities. This is not a major function of evaluating liberation theology per se but it is used as means to determine how close liberation belief is to evangelicalism. The goal in this writing is to provide insight into liberation thought and if it is an acceptable means to reach specific conclusions, methodologically speaking. The Bebbington quad is one of those means by which we can reach a conclusion on the usefulness of this theological approach.

            Carl F.H. Henry provides basic instructions in the epistemological approach to religious claims and that will be a guiding principle within this discourse.[4] Henry states the epistemological axiom is revelational, "divine revelation is the source of all truth, the truth of Christianity included; reason is the instrument for recognizing it; Scripture is its verifying principle; logical consistency is a negative test for truth and coherence a subordinate test. The task of Christian theology is to exhibit the content of biblical revelation as an orderly whole."[5] The thrust of revelation as the epistemic axiom is important because humanity can only know things about God based on what he reveals to them. The basic assumption herein is that God has revealed information about himself in both general revelation (nature and reality) and special revelation (Scripture). Mankind can reason (no one would seem to argue against this point) which is how humanity recognizes this revealed information about God. What Henry provides is indispensable for understanding and justifying theological knowledge and will thus be a fundamental aspect of both explicating and evaluating theological systems (liberation in our case).

Explication of Liberation Theology

            Briefly, liberation theology is a school of thought that was put forward by Gustavo Gutierrez. Gutierrez is considered the father of liberation theology so he will be the primary source for both explaining and evaluating this school of thought. Two other forms of liberation theology will be evaluated by default due to the similar nature of their thought (black and feminist theology).[6]

Liberation thought was born out of a few different elements. There seemed to be a discrepancy between what the Church did and what they believed.[7] Theological reflection is important, but it must inform praxis as well as standard knowledge. Gutierrez makes a distinction between wisdom as knowledge and rational knowledge as it pertains to theology.[8] Essentially, wisdom is a growing in maturity and modeling the active love of Christ in the world; rational knowledge is that knowledge that informs the maturation of the believer and comes from multiple different sources.[9] At base, due to the developing world changing at a rapid rate, Gutierrez notes there is a disparity between different cultures. He notes that there are rich countries and poor countries. The conditions for the "majority" of humanity are bleak and "unacceptable" and often not a result of a failure on the part of the poor but rather due to power or some other conditions being "imposed upon them."[10]

            For Gutierrez, the social sciences should inform our theological thinking. The world is an interconnected system which consists of social, political, economic, and technological developments. These systems (of the modern era) are seen as requiring a substantial change of operation. The social sciences have noted that there is a connection between developing countries successes and countries that are not developing (i.e., Third World). Therefore, humankind must seek out a liberation from these oppressive systems. Gutierrez states, "a broad and deep aspiration for liberation inflames the history of humankind in our day, liberation from all that limits or keeps human beings from self-fulfillment, liberation from all impediments to the exercise of freedom."[11] There is at the heart a deep dominance which is propagated by those developed countries and the rich, that is an ever-present reality and stifles human liberty.[12] Liberation is an active process that must be held up in order to free all peoples from the oppressive grip of societal norms. Gutierrez provides a synopsis of his thought by saying, "this process indicates why the best philosophical tradition is not merely an armchair product; it is rather the reflective and thematic awareness of human experience of human relationships with nature and with other persons."[13]

            Cartesian and Hegelian thought possess a high value in Gutierrez's system. For him, objects (or reality) are to be conformed to the human mind and that our great goal is to be "recognized" by other human consciousness.[14] Marx is also an influential figure in the thought of liberation. Marx provided a new outlook that expanded previous generational views about reality, history, and the nature of things. For Gutierrez, Marx provides the ammunition required to defeat the inherent "exploitation" of the poor and has setup new "categories" for the "elaboration of a science of history."[15] As noted above, papal letters and dictations from the Church are of importance. The Church began to push the idea of fighting against injustices found in the world and these treatments of injustice found their initial but extensive treatment in Mater et Magistra and Gaudium et spes.[16] Making note of these sources is important in understanding the need for liberation from Gutierrez's perspective. Liberation is not just something that people can choose to get involved in but rather it is seen as a duty (as the sources indicate).

            What is the problem? This question is a central focus for liberationists. Theology is always seeking to find transcendent solutions to ordinary or practical problems and liberation is no different. The primary problem is an ever-present disproportionate allocation of riches between peoples. Society and human relationships are excruciatingly political. Gutierrez states that "human reason has become political reason" and that "everything has a political color."[17] Due to this specific coloring of reality and a growing awareness of this coloring by people, there is a consciousness that all people are to become "active subjects of history" and to "articulate (this) in the face of social injustice and of all repressive forces which stand in the way of its fulfillment."[18] Since the problem has been clearly established through the social sciences, human experience, and Scripture (i.e., sin) then there is a clear target for liberation theology to attack.[19]

            From a theological perspective, liberation looks to Christ as the premiere liberator of humanity. In a sense, this school of thought is or seeks to be Christocentric in its developments. "Liberation from sin is made possible through Christ: 'it is the same God who, in the fullness of time, sends his Son in the flesh so that he might come to liberate all persons from the slavery to which sin has subjected them: hunger, misery, oppression and ignorance—in a word, that injustice and hatred which have their origin in human selfishness.'"[20] It is this belief that Christ is the ultimate liberator which guides the theological reasoning process. Gutierrez talks about the focus of Jesus' ministry as the Kingdom of God. It is this Kingdom mentality that fuels the campaign for liberation. The Kingdom mentality "implies the building of a just society."[21] For the liberationist, the struggle against misery and injustice, which is participated in by every Christian (or should be), is the "first implementation of the Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus. In other words, today the gospel of Christ implies (and is incarnated in) multiple efforts to obtain justice."[22]

            The Scriptures are another force which provides insight into the mind and nature of God. Gutierrez states, "the God whom we know in the Bible is a liberating God, a God who destroys myths and alienations, a God who intervenes in history in order to break down the structures of injustice and who raises up prophets in order to point out the way of justice and mercy. He is the God who liberates slaves (Exodus), who causes empires to fall and raises up the oppressed."[23] It is within the context of oppressed peoples that the God of the Bible works and that the work of the gospel should be conducted. The focus is not on developing Christians per se but rather bringing about the completion of the liberating work of Christ here on earth.

            Since the Messiah (Christ) came to liberate from sin it is human duty to continue this work. Gutierrez suggests that creation and salvation are two sides of the same coin.[24] Salvation history did not start with the coming of Christ or the garden of Eden incident; rather salvation history started at the creation. This theme is carried throughout the New Testament (NT) and can be most prominently seen in the writings of John. John states that the Word was with God in the beginning and that all things were made through this Word, the Logos, Jesus Christ.[25] Due to Christ being active in the creation process it is also notable that Paul discusses the work of Christ in bringing about the "new" creation (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:15). It is because of this new creation in Christ that humanity is to seek out the possibility to instantiate this vision through all areas of human existence (i.e., political, social, economic, historical, etc.).

            Of course, this understanding of salvation (and creation) must be understood within the characteristics of what salvation means. For Gutierrez, salvation is composed of two defining characteristics, "it is the cure for sin in this life and this cure is in virtue of a salvation to be attained beyond this life."[26] If salvation is to be understood as a cure for sin in this life, then it entails action. Since sin is the cause of the oppressions of life then salvation should be brought about in these oppressive areas of life. This thinking works in conjunction with the life after. Salvation, although it includes the life after, is about instantiating the cure for sin in the world and doing so in an active fashion. Liberation theology is concerned with the Kingdom of God and bring it about because it is a moral obligation based on the creative and salvific work of Christ. Essentially, "it is a call to the Church to become involved in establishing the Kingdom of God right here, right now."[27]

            Due to the pervasive nature of the Kingdom of God thought in liberationist teaching it also follows that there are strong eschatological implications. However, according to Gutierrez, the study of the eschaton is not strictly limited to those last things. Based on extensive Old Testament (OT) exegesis, the prophets have "of the one hand, their orientation toward the future and, on the other, their concern with the present."[28] In the simplest terms, the eschaton, though it is the last things, is or can be affected by the present. There is a motivation in assisting Christ in his liberating work because it is this work that directly affects the life after. It is through the liberating work of Christ that brings about the new creation that can only be found in Christ for all peoples. Briefly, it is understood that creation and salvation are connected, and it is these two things that find their historical manifestation in the Exodus and its ultimate culmination through the work of the Church in the continuing liberating work of Christ for the purpose of affecting the eschaton.

            In conjunction with eschatological thought is salvation. Salvation is more than just gaining eternal life through submission and acceptance of Christ's sacrifice. The work of salvation is one that humanity is partakers. "The struggle for a just society is in its own right very much a part of salvation history."[29] For Gutierrez, since creation and redemption are closely connected, there needs to be some mediating factor between these two spheres; liberation, or better, political liberation.[30] In a sense, unjust political structures, at the very least, hinder human activity in the continued work of creation. Since humanity has a part in the salvific work of Christ then there is a strong motivation to act. In this acting, a person can say they have a direct correlated effort through Christ in affecting history. Salvation is a radical ideological thought among religious traditions. Due to the radical nature of God coming in the flesh it requires equally radical dealings with the unjust conditions humans have made for themselves. Liberation can be seen as the radical instantiation of the salvific work of Christ continued through the consorted efforts of humankind in overturning the unjust features of society. Liberation thinking is thinking that includes human action in bringing about the gospel with great effect on the societal condition. But what does this mean and is it a viable option for Christian belief and tradition? This will be explored in the critical analysis section.

Evaluation of Liberation Based on Evangelical Intentions

            To begin a proper evaluation of liberationist methodology, there must be a return to the Wesleyan and Bebbington quads mentioned at the start of this paper. How does liberation rank the various sources for informing their theological thinking? Also, how do they fit into the scope of evangelical thought as a whole. These are some of the things that must be discussed prior to jumping headlong into the critical analysis.

            The Wesleyan Quad are those four sources that are believed to have certain value in theological thought. The view of this discourse is that a proper ranking of these four sources are as follows: Scripture, tradition/ reason (on par), and Christian experience. The primary reason for this ranking is that evangelical thought is both Christocentric and biblically focused. Information about Christ is only (or mostly) found in the Bible. A proper understanding of Scripture must be foundational because Christianity is a revelational religion.[31] If it is true that Henry is correct, and Christianity is revelational by nature then the Bible is primary in that it is the special revelation given by God and general revelation found in nature would be a subset of it. Tradition and reason are on par with each other because tradition provides an anchoring in the reasoning of the past. This is important to have this foundation because current thought is not done within a vacuum. The reasoning element assists in evaluating not only revelation but also the previous thinking of others found in tradition. Reason helps modern persons to find if the tradition is accurate or fallacious. Lastly, is Christian experience. Experience is important but it tends to be of personal importance. This is primarily due to the distinction between "knowing" Christianity to be true and "showing" Christianity to be true.[32] Believers can know that their faith is true, and this is/ can be based on their experience of the Holy Spirit. However, this does little for those who stand outside of individual personal experience. What is more, experiences can be various and differ greatly between cultures. The primary thing here is that our experiences do not contradict what has been revealed within general and special revelation (1 Cor. 14:33).[33]

            Based on an evaluation and understanding of liberation (Gutierrez specifically), it seems that he ranks these four sources as such: Experience/ tradition, reason, and Scripture. Experience and tradition tend to be at the forefront because Gutierrez is primarily concerned with how the poor “feel” about their predicament. Tradition (i.e., the Catholic Church) is referenced more than Scripture is referenced in marshalling a defense of the position. Even though Scripture is used in some portions of the text to provide some insight it is far from the primary source used to give a proper defense. Based on the understanding of Christian faith being a revelational religion it seems that Gutierrez has the priorities of foundations twisted and reversed so that conclusions can be justified in an opposite direction. By this, it means that because conclusions cannot be seamlessly made if Scripture is at the forefront of theological thought, then he must place something else at the head in order to reach the "proper" conclusions.[34]

            How does liberation theology fit in the Bebbington Quad (i.e., does it have the same focus as evangelicals)? Defining whether liberationist thought fits into the evangelical spectrum seems somewhat tedious. There are evangelical flavors to liberation thought so ironing out some of the finer details may be required in order to come to a solid conclusion. First, based on what Gutierrez says we could infer that he would hold to biblicism. Gutierrez does quote Scripture often but extends the text beyond what the context of passages indicates. For example, Gutierrez looks to the Exodus of Israel as a prescription for Christians of all eras. This does not seem to fit the whole narrative of Scripture in that God does not always free people from oppressive circumstances. Liberation thinking extends the conditions that captive Israel faced, to the poor and infers from it that the poor are or will be, by the obligatory actions of Christians (and God), set free or liberated. Not only does this foundation seem tenuous but it is also an assumption, it assumes that "God is interested in man as a whole" and that freedom in Christ implies "freedom in every segment of human existence."[35] This discourse would place a question mark next to biblicism when it comes to liberation theology.

            Cruci-centrism is a central feature of evangelical thought, so does liberation theology fit here? Gutierrez is careful to point out that salvation and the work of liberation starts with Christ and his sacrificial love. With that said, his thinking does seem to focus on Christ, and the poor is an outpouring of that love found in Christ. It seems safe to suggest that Gutierrez and liberation thought at a fundamental level starts with Christ (all things being equal). When it comes to conversionism it is hard to place liberation theology firmly here. The primary focus is not necessarily the conversion of individuals per se but rather the freeing or liberating of those who are oppressed. This does not necessitate that those doing this type of work are saved, nor does it imply that the poor must be saved since by the nature of their circumstances they are the "privileged" of God.[36] Again, there seems to be a question mark for this area. Lastly, activism fits right in with liberationist thought. This could very well be the foundation which emanated forth from the teaching. Christians are to be co-workers in the efforts to free the oppressed (poor) and it is in conjunction with Christ. Activism finds a home amongst those who teach liberation theology. Based on an adequate understanding of Bebbington's evangelical quad, liberation theology does not fit into the category of evangelical (as taught and thought by Gutierrez and followers).

            One of the most prominent features within liberation thinking is the idea of theology in action. There is this implied state or obligation for believers to be partakers in the act of doing good. Obviously, the good being spoken of in this case is quite specific, in that it primarily includes or is exclusive towards the poor. At face value there is nothing that is inherently wrong with this idea of helping the poor. It is apparent that Christ cared for the poor, broken, and hurting, on these points there is no contention. Paul talks about our minds and that we should be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12:2). If our minds guide our actions then it seems likely that if Paul is calling for our minds to be renewed that this also means there will be renewed actions. Throughout the NT (and the OT) there are calls for the people of God to stand apart from the typical selfish nature of surrounding cultures or to be more like Christ. Scripture tells us today that Christ lived a perfect life, that he loved, he cared for, helped, and a plethora of other verbs. If Christians are to be as much like Christ as possible then it does imply there should be activity. This is not to suggest that works are a fundamental part of attaining salvation but rather it is to highlight that there is an ongoing "renovation" that occurs in us by the work of the Spirit and by our continued choice to submit to his authority.[37]

            However, does this continued changing of the person imply a moral obligation to liberate the poor? It depends on what one means by liberate. If they mean that we must do everything in our power to free them from an oppressive government then this would be a difficult sell. If they mean that we should try, when we are able, to provide assistance of whatever kind then this seems more inline with Scripture. Jesus talked about helping the poor and being a good neighbor (Lk. 3:11; 4:18; 6:20-21; 14:13). However, His was a message of salvation and freedom from sin. Jesus was concerned with the eternal condition ultimately. The primary issue with liberationist thinking is that it places an ultimatum on the obligations of Christians and extends the Kingdom of God to include (front and center) the physical, societal, political, and economic conditions above the spiritual. To remain biblically centered, one must toe a very thin line between two extremes: physical existence and spiritual existence. Both are important but it would be an error to place one above the other in a strict sense. Jesus instructs his followers to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and Paul tells Christians to live quiet and peaceable lives (Mark 12:17; 1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Thess. 4:11). These instructions are a far cry from full blown political liberation. It is important to be mindful of our attitudes and the type of reflection we give. If the reflection appears to align more with how fallen humanity would think versus what Christ would think then there is a fundamental flaw in our thinking.

            This discourse is not fundamentally concerned with political agendas nor endorses a specific form of government as the quintessential form. However, it is clear from Gutierrez that political factors are highly important and that there are certain governmental forms which assist in creating the conditions ripe for oppression. "The capitalist system exhibits a number of elements which are antihuman…Socialism, although it does not deliver humanity from injustices caused by personal attitudes or from the ambiguity inherent in all systems, does offer a fundamental equality of opportunity."[38] Gutierrez is making a distinction between two categories of people (oppressed and oppressor). One fits into either of these two camps and thus causes a bifurcation of society (and God's people). Imagine that in one Church you have the oppressed/ poor (privileged) and oppressor/ rich (not privileged). This invariably creates an atmosphere of disunity and hate. Christians are called to unity and this basic thinking in liberation theology destroys the potential for this unity (apart from full obligation to the liberation of those who are oppressed). Now, if only these two categories exist then when one is freed from the camp of oppressed it implies they move to the oppressor camp. Does this not propagate a continuous cycle of this dichotomy?

            The creating of these categories finds its residence in the writing and thought of Karl Marx. "An oppressed class is the vital condition for every society founded on the antagonism of classes. The emancipation of the oppressed class thus implies necessarily the creation of a new society. For the oppressed class to be able to emancipate itself, it is necessary that the productive powers already acquired, and the existing social relations should no longer be capable of existing side by side."[39] Here, one can see that there is an inherent action that is required in Marx's thought. For Gutierrez, this is where he seems to get the idea that social and political action is a moral obligation for Christians. What is interesting is that Marx thinks that this line of thinking will not lead to a "new class domination" that will inherit political power.[40] However, anyone who has studied history with any depth realizes that this is plainly false. Is it safe to assume that if Christians partake in the liberation process, strictly to free the poor, that those changes will stick? The answer to this also seems false. Gutierrez has misplaced his faith in liberating action without the mitigating idea of sinful mankind. The act of liberating people is not inherently wrong because we know that Christ came to liberate mankind from sin. However, it does seem slightly naïve to think that human liberation will fix the broken systems of the world (assuming those systems are fundamentally flawed). Just like all theology tends to be a child of the time where it grew up, liberation is no different. Liberation theology, being influenced by Marxism, is a child of its time because during the rise of this theological school the influence of Marx is heavy in Latin America.[41]

            The influence of Marx cannot be understated. Gutierrez believes that the Church has been divided into two groups (following Marx): the Church of the poor and the Church of the ruling class. This creates at base a fundamental disunity which is contrary to Scripture. Liberationist thinking also fabricates a relationship between the economic and political and the gospel. The gospel is far less concerned with the temporal realities of humanity but is primarily focused on the spiritual condition of them and placing the right person on the throne of individual (and the collective Church) life. Along similar lines, "liberation from sin has been pushed aside, and the gospel has been turned into the proclamation of economic and political deliverance, which has led to the politicization of faith."[42] This realization that liberation, at its core, is politicizing the gospel should be concerning for Christians. It is not that the Church cannot take the gospel to people in a certain society or in a certain political situation. The problem arises when the gospel becomes just another political issue that needs to be discussed and policy created. This is a contextual issue that must be addressed. Just like the lives of the poor and the suffering. Christian charity must be the guiding principle and the spiritual growth of converted individuals must be the outpouring of action. The example of Christ is one of peace, love, and action not political revolution. Humanity must be careful in how it approaches Scripture and the person of Christ so as not to read what they humanly desire into his work.

            Connected to Marx (albeit indirectly) is the thought that the social sciences must influence theology. Gutierrez states that, "the social sciences are extremely important for theological reflection in Latin America."[43] The first question is obviously why (generally) and why specifically in Latin America? Firstly, it is easy to understand why there should be a dialogue between these two fields. Social science includes anthropology which is a section found within theology. If one can better understand humanity then it seems logical it would be much easier to understand potential solutions to problems. However, it seems to be the evangelical approach that the solution to human problems is a transcendent one (i.e., Christ). Ironically, the social sciences is not one of the four sources as a guiding principle for informing theological reflection. For Gutierrez (and followers), it appears they have five sources of information that influence theological reflection. As stated above, experience is king for liberation thought but the social sciences could be added next to experience. The social sciences look at human behavior and how society works, and this is of course fundamental to liberation theology. Without an understanding of the ills of society the liberationist will have difficulty selling their product. However, Christianity is a revelational religion in that it receives its knowledge about God and creation from God. Liberation theology subverts this revelational aspect of Christianity in the name of social reform as informed by the extremely important area of the social sciences. There is a mixing of ideas but for liberation thought it seems that it gives "epistemic primacy to some alternative premise."[44] This point is a poignant one, liberation thinking is found in the garb of Christian belief but replaces the fundamental reality that it is a revelational worldview with the social sciences taking the epistemic foundation. The problem is not in the use of the social sciences per se but rather the ranking of the knowledge that is gleaned from this field of study. Gutierrez places far too much stock in what the social sciences (a secular view of reality) has to say about the things of God and of the Church. The social sciences can be helpful in understanding the human structures of the world and how humanity interacts under these different regimes. However, this information should not replace or circumvent the realities of God. Scripture assists in this point because it provides insight into historic thinking. Scripture, in a sense, provides the modern man with a biblical social science. The Bible describes the condition of man, the ramifications on relationships, how economic structures have worked in the past, and yet has never bifurcated along class lines in a prescriptive way. Liberation thinking has moved beyond describing the issues with classes in society by prescribing certain moral actions required by believing individuals. Our moral obligations are now dictated by the epistemic foundation (social science) as opposed to the revelational foundation found in Christ through the revealing Creator God.

            Secondly, it appears that the liberation experiential slip is showing. By stating that the social sciences are especially important in Latin America places high stock on the specific experience of this ethnic group of people at the expense of other ethnic experience. Sin is not a rich problem but is a human problem (Rom. 3:23). Liberation goes awry when it thinks that human experience is of the utmost and that classism should inform our theological thinking. Henry said it best, "Christianity draws its authority neither from man's inner psychological states nor from the philosophical reflection on human experience and the world but from divine disclosure."[45] The view is one of perspective and it is better to aim high than to settle for low fruit. This discourse is in no way suggesting that there are not classes or that society is structured perfectly. The point is that it would be faulty to assume that we should base our theological information on the faulty assumption that mankind is king or that the social sciences are king. There is but one king and his name is King Jesus.

            The evangelical view of Jesus as King is of great importance (as noted by Bebbington, crucicentrism). The centrality of Christ is not something that should be mitigated against but rather embraced fully. This is because Christ is the full revelation of God and that without Christ and his resurrection the Christian faith is futile (1 Cor. 15: 14-17). Gutierrez proclaims that Christ is King but is that in fact what he believes (or at the very least puts forward in his writing)? To understand liberation (Gutierrez) Christology, his conception of the relationship between creation and redemption must be investigated a little further (than was explained above). Creation and redemption are dynamic processes that take place and is ultimately the plan of God. Sin is seen as an "impediment" to this dynamic process.[46] History is the mediating or connecting factor between creation and redemption. In essence, history bears out the reality of creation and the redemption that coincides with it.[47] Human beings are active participants in this creation/ redemption relationship and this is why Gutierrez states that the poor need to liberate themselves.

            With this picture in mind, how does Christ and his sacrifice fit into this schema? Due to the affects of sin on the temporal plain, there had to be some way where the creation/ redemption relationship could continue on into the future as God had designed it. Christ came has the ultimate reset button. Jesus Christ is seen as God in the flesh (there is no contention on this point). However, Christ's death, burial, and resurrection were simply the way to help humanity regain control over the process of creation. Liberationist thinking on this point mirrors in certain respects a Christus Victor type of Christology (atonement) in that Christ came to take victory over the negative effects of sin on reality. But liberation theology makes a few adjustments to this historical view of Christology. Christ came to correct the negative impact of sin so that humanity could continue on its designed path. This is hardly an evangelical view of Christ's sacrifice, nor does it seem to have much impact on reality. If this view of Christ is correct it is hard to see any significant results from his work on the cross or at the very least it is taking a great deal time for the results to manifest.

            Since history is the mediating element between creation and redemption, Gutierrez seems to overly reduce God as "in history," and "has become history" in a way that has implications for the personhood of Christ.[48] Reno thinks that the manner Gutierrez tackles the Christological issues is one that does not consider the two natures of Christ equally. This is an observation that is astute. Due to the work of Christ and the mixture with Marxist ideology there is an absolutizing of Christ's inherent nature. Reno suggests based on how Gutierrez frames his Christology that it resembles Apollinarian thinking and that "history is the locus of the fusion of divine and human."[49] The issue is not necessarily the view of history but rather how that view is drawn out and the implications on the nature of Christ. In Gutierrez there are these dichotomous relationships between pairs of things (i.e., creation/ redemption) and history functions as the mediating factor between them. This position is understood but it is dubious to think the relationships as he sets out actually cohere with reality. The relationship as Gutierrez has constructed them seem to feed into his conclusion or stated differently, the relationship distinctions are made based on the conclusions. This backwards argumentation seems flawed especially when critical aspects of the nature of Christ appear to be compromised in the process.

            Historically, Gutierrez does attempt to establish a connection and justification for his political view of Christ and his work. For Gutierrez, the Zealots are the quintessential element that will justify his view of Christ. The Zealots were a religio-political movement during the time of Christ, and they actively fought against the Roman occupation.[50] Obviously, this connection with the Zealots will have a certain shift in the perspective on the work of Jesus and ultimately what his intentions were (i.e., God's ultimate salvific plan). One of the first issues in the historical connection with the Zealot movement is that it narrows the vision of Christ.[51] The Zealots were merely concerned with the nation of Israel and its freedom from governing powers. In a sense, Gutierrez's view has the same narrowing effect because he is strictly concerned with the poor.[52] This narrowing of salvific intent only hurts the mission the liberationist seeks to do, in that, if the "oppressor" is not fundamentally changed then liberation is futile because those in power will always be controlled by sin. Ironically, Gutierrez even states that the concern of the Church is not on those in positions of power but should only be on the poor.[53] This view is ironic because it seems to be truly liberated, it is not the social structures one should be attacking but rather those who are in charge of the social structures. If the people who are at the top can be transformed by the renewing of their minds in Christ then it follows a change would occur. Mullady puts it this way, "They found their roots in the lack of brotherhood concretized in the lack of freedom. This lack of brotherhood is sin, i.e., a disintegration of brotherhood and communion; by freeing us from sin, Jesus attacks the roots of an unjust order."[54]

            There tends to be a materialist mentality behind the liberationist. The effects of salvation must come to fruition in the physical realm. The scope of salvific history must be in physical history and must only include a particular group. Liberation causes yet another bifurcation (arbitrarily) between the two aspects of human beings: the soul and the body. Obviously, throughout Christendom, the view of mankind has been one of a composite nature. Humanity is made up of a body and a soul. This is not the issue. The issue is that liberationist thinking suggest that the only important aspect, the only part of mankind that needs to be saved is the physical body. "Any political theology of necessity limits the actions of God and the Church to the act of the soul as realize in the body as its form."[55] There is a limiting of the scope of the salvific work of God in Christ. Not only does this apparently limit the work of Christ but it also has implications on the eschaton (more on this later).

            In conjunction with this materialist type of salvation is the focus of Christ and God for the intentions of humanity. For liberation, the focus of God is the happiness of man. This happiness (for liberation) is the freeing of mankind from the bonds of the oppressor. However, it does not seem freedom in the liberationist sense is what mankind was made for nor will it bring about actual happiness. Humanity was made for a purpose and man's happiness seems dependent on "the harmonious integrity of the original state which depended entirely on the submission of man's will to God."[56] Aquinas thinks that mankind will find its essential happiness (for lack of a better term) in the unity of man's will to God's will. The purpose of man is to do the will of God and we will find ultimate meaning in this unity. But liberation thinking goes in the opposite direction by suggesting that man will be happy (fulfilled, complete) when man's will is realized in the freedom from oppression. It comes down to an anthropocentric view of happiness and salvation. "To reduce the happiness of man to some created thing is to deny happiness to man."[57] Along a similar line is the thinking of justice as the root work of humanity in the world. Justice is obviously a function of government but is it a function of the Church. In one sense, it is a function of the Church as mediated by the work of the Holy Spirit through Christ. However, liberation tends to think that this justice must be of a social nature and thus thrusts upon the Church and believers’ new moral imperatives. This highlights the physical nature where a liberation Christology will take the Church. For Gutierrez (and others), perfect happiness will be found in justice as worked out in the real, physical world. However, "perfect happiness cannot be found in justice nor can perfect peace. This is because justice can only regulate exterior acts, not the interior union with which they are done."[58] The physicalist nature of justice as viewed by liberationist thinkers fails to consider the conversion of all mankind. If true conversion through Christ takes place then it is this internal state that will bring about what the true purpose of creation is. The redemption of mankind and the changing of their inner being is the purpose of Christ and to overly reduce the work of Christ to a materialist bringing about of justice in the physical world is to miss the point.

            Another aspect of Jesus that is sacrificed at the alter of liberation is the scope of his salvific work. Christ is the head of the Church (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18). But the question is, who is part of the Church? Also, did Christ only save those who are part of the Church. This discourse does not have the space to delve into all the points related to this objection but it does appear that liberationist thought reflects a type of pseudo-Calvinism. Christ seems to have only died for the redemption of those who are included in the Church (i.e., limited atonement). However, Scripture indicates that Christ's sacrifice was for all of mankind. The interesting thing here is not that Christ only died for the Church, but it is who makes up the Church. "Ultimately, whoever takes part in the class struggle is part of the 'people’s church.’”[59] Gutierrez confirms this claim as mentioned above. This implies that even if there is a devout Christian who is living completely disconnected from the situation of the oppressed then they are held culpable for not taking part in the liberative actions. This belief projects a moral imperative on persons who do not seem to be in a position to be held culpable. For example, if Jeff’s brother Mike lived in a completely different State and Mike robbed a store then Jeff is held accountable alongside his brother for his actions. It seems like a stretch to hold someone morally accountable for a situation they did not know about nor took part in nor was in a position to actually stop. Is it really the task of the Church (i.e., people like Jeff) to take part in revolutions lest they be accountable before God? This is highly dubious. “The only way to spread the Kingdom of God is for the sinner to renounce his sins and self-righteousness and bend their knee before Jesus the King.”[60] This harkens back to the previous point of the real change must be found in the person through the work of the Holy Spirit and of Christ. Each person must be changed and it is the Churches task to bring about this spiritual revolution through the great commission.

            The eschaton is another aspect that is skewed in liberation thought. It was seen that the figure of Christ has been manipulated into something akin to old heresies but what about the last things? The eschaton is something of an essential doctrine but can be of multiple forms and remain within orthodox belief. Briefly, orthodox Christian belief holds that there will be a final state of being where Christ reigns. However, for Gutierrez this is not the case. Eschatology is something that is brought about by the actions of humanity in the liberation of all the oppressed people. Essentially, a liberation eschaton is a utopian state where all persons are free from the bonds of oppression. Ironically, Marx believed in a similar state.[61]    This belief cuts right to the heart or concern for liberation thinking, it is not the reign of Christ that is central but the reign of man. Anthropocentrism rules the eschaton because it is the culmination of man’s work in the creation/ redemption distinction.

            One could make the argument that the liberation view of the eschaton is logically consistent but only in the sense that it coheres with the manipulation of other doctrines that influence it. However, based on the orthodox Christian understanding of Christology and of Eschatology, there is an apparent deviation from what the Church would consider empirically adequate (i.e., based on Scripture). The last things are not a coherent set of beliefs between liberation and orthodoxy. At base, Christian doctrine is flipped on its head all in the name of a classless society, political revolution, and the comprehensive rule of mankind in physical reality. Gutierrez is playing fast and loose with his understanding of Christ, man, and the eschaton. The emotional appeal is a point that is understood because this fundamentally comes down to a question of pain and suffering. Where the atheist would argue the state of oppression proves that God does not exist, Gutierrez argues that God does exist but wants man to rule and live in an eternal state of utopian persuasion. This is hardly the view the Church has held from the beginning nor is it something that could be lumped into the evangelical fold. In the case of last things, the rule of man is not something that Christ taught nor is it something the Church believed/ believes. The eschaton is ultimately about Christ ruling over the creation he made and all people living in the pervasive joy and peace that this rule will bring.

Conclusion

            The goal in this discourse was to provide an explanation and evaluation of liberation theology as presented through the work of Gutierrez. The evaluation was based on an evangelical method of theological inquiry. The guiding principles were: the Bebbington Quad, the Wesleyan Quad, and Henry’s religious evaluation methods. These methods provided a starting point for understanding Scripture and the Christian worldview. It was stated at the beginning that each school of thought has its own presuppositions but it is the justification for these presuppositions that is important. The presuppositions of this discourse have been discovered throughout and justifications provided in most cases.

            Liberation thinking has been shown to have some aspects that are important to highlight and that Gutierrez attempts to adhere to certain Christian principles. Scripture is an aspect of liberation thinking that reflects importance in word. However, when it comes to justifying certain principles Gutierrez falls short in adequately utilizing Scripture for the defense of his position. For Gutierrez, tradition takes a more prominent role in his theology. However, the king presupposition for liberationist thought is that of experience. Experience is the mediating factor between the four main sources of theological evidence. Basing theological thinking on experience as the primary sources has been shown to be faulty and lead to deviations in other core doctrines.

            The Christology of liberation is one example of a deviation that affects the core of liberation theology. The person of Christ, though a central figure, has been skewed to such a degree that he does not appear to be sat on the throne any longer. In one sense, the liberationist has stripped Christ of his human nature (Apollinarianism) but his divine is effete without human action (i.e., human beings taking part). At base, it is the work of mankind in conjunction with the work of Christ that ultimately brings about the effectual nature of salvation. The plan of salvation is one that is ineffectual without the work of mankind but is somehow wrapped up in the necessary work of Christ as well. Salvation has also been politicized, in that salvation functions only in the realm of political and social action. It has projected moral imperatives onto Christians of a political nature which are not found in traditional Christian teaching. The Christian is bogged down by trying to figure out if they are part of the Church or not based on the types and kinds of political social actions they take. The scope of the salvific work of Christ (and man?) is also limited. It is not the oppressor that Christ came to save but only the poor and oppressed. This sets up another sort of classism but instead of being an effect of fallen nature it is a fundamental one found in divine design.

            Liberation thought is one that is emotionally convincing but lacks backbone when taken in conjunction with all of Scripture. Scripture must be the guiding principle when developing theology proper. This is based on Christianity as a revelatory religion in that God reveals himself and his intentions to man. The medium through which this revelation takes place is through general (nature) and special (Scripture) revelation.[62] Liberation does not seem to consider fully this revelatory nature of Christianity and injects man at the center. These issues touched on in this discourse are only some of the issues liberation has in its thinking. The goal is not to undermine the mission of liberation thinking because the poor and broken are a focus of God and the Church. However, the emotional nature is one that must be mitigated against so that good theology can be developed. The goal is ultimately to be faithful to the God who created all and descended to save humanity. Faithfulness to Christ should be at the forefront and any theological school that undermines the supremacy of Christ should be carefully evaluated because it is God who we have to thank for our existence not man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. Compendium Theologiae. Translated by Cyril Vollert, S.J. St. Louis & London: B. Herder Book Co., 1947.

 

Bebbington, David W. The Evangelical Quadrilateral: Characterizing the British Gospel Movement. Baylor University Press: Waco, 2021.

 

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

 

DeYoung, Kevin and Greg Gilbert. What is the Mission of the Church: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

 

Fesko, J.V. The Lectio Continua: Expository Commentary on the New Testament, Galatians. Powder Springs: Tollelege Press, 2012.

 

Gaudium et spes. Pop Paul VI. 1965.

 

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

 

Henry, Carl F.H. God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol. 1. Wheaton: Crossway, 1976.

 

Mater et Magistra. Translated by George J. M. McKenzie. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1964.

 

Marx, Karl. Poverty of Philosophy. Paris: Progress Publishers, 1847.

 

Mullady, Brian. “An Analysis of Christology in Liberation Theology.” Angelicum 58, no. 4 (1981): 438-459.

 

Outler, Albert C. “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral in Wesley.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 7-18.

 

Reno, R. R. “Christology in Political and Liberation Theology.” The Thomist 56, no. 2 (1992): 291-322.

 

Vegel, Zoltan. “Liberation Theology: A Critical Analysis.” Kairos: Evangelical Journal of Theology 12, no. 1 (2018): 81-91.

 

 

---

[1] Albert C. Outler, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral in Wesley,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 7-9. Wesley does not label it as a quadrilateral but the “Model Deed.” It is the four things he believes should influence Christian teaching.

[2] Note: The ranking of these four areas will be provided in the evaluation section. This is done on purpose to not skew the readers thinking on liberation theology as the paper progresses.

[3] David W. Bebbington, The Evangelical Quadrilateral: Characterizing the British Gospel Movement, (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2021). The Bebbington quad is used as a general measure of evangelical thought or characterization. The quad is being mentioned up front to keep the evangelical perspective in mind but is not a major part of my evaluation.

[4] Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 1, (Wheaton: Crossway, 1976), Ch. 13-14. Henry provides the groundwork for determining the rationality of religious knowledge. There is an epistemic element that must be seen within a tradition for it to be considered as reliable knowledge. This information will primarily be in the background but is stated up front, so the reader understands the basic justification for the analysis.

[5] Ibid, 215.

[6] It must be noted, these schools of thought are not specifically quoted or mentioned. The evaluation is based on the ability to substitute descriptive words (as noted throughout).

[7] Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, (New York: Orbis Books, 1988), 6-7. Gutierrez does not specifically mention this point here (he stated it elsewhere) but the main thrust is that he is saying theology is not just a statement of beliefs but a call to action or praxis.

[8] Ibid, 4.

[9] In Gutierrez’s case, rational knowledge can be informed by Scripture and/ or church decrees such as papal letters.

[10] Gutierrez, Liberation, 13. This sets the scene for understanding why Gutierrez approaches theology in the way that he does.

[11] Ibid, 17-18. This strikes at the heart of liberation theology. The concern is for all peoples, in all conditions, of all stripes to have equal access to self-fulfillment.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid, 18.

[14] Ibid, 18-19. This provides insight into the subjective nature that is important to Gutierrez. All people conform reality to their personal view and that being recognized individually is of utmost importance.

[15] Ibid, 19. This provides a foundational look at the sources Gutierrez finds important. It is important to note what aspects of the mentioned individuals thought he is taking.

[16] Mater et Magistra and Gaudium et spes are not directly quoted here but have portions dedicated to speaking to the injustices found in the world and the task of the church to directly be involved in fighting against these systems.

[17] Gutierrez, Liberation, 30. Gutierrez points out that part of the problem is the “politicization” of the world, and this process is growing and complex.

[18] Ibid.

[19] It should be noted at this point that this has just set out the general thinking, sources, and enemy to attack. This all goes towards “how” the theology is developed and will be explicated moving forward.

[20] Gutierrez, Liberation, 65. This is a double quote. The first portion is Gutierrez setting up the framing for a quote that he provides from Medellin, “Justice” no. 3. Medellin was a conference in Latin American Liberation theology (Second Episcopal Conference of Latin America, 1968). This conference of leaders put out several writings on the idea of liberation thought, to include: “Message of the People of Latin America,” Pastoral concern for the Elites,” Populorum progressio and Latin American Realities,” to name a few.

[21] Ibid, 66.

[22] Ibid. Here is a focal point for liberation theology. It is not that Jesus brings about justice but provides the proclamation which all believers are to follow to bring about liberation and justice.

[23] Ibid, 69. Central thinking for the liberation ideal.

[24] Ibid, 86-88.

[25] Gutierrez, Liberation, Ch. 9. Gutierrez expounds at great length about the connection between creation and salvation. This is foundational in his thought, and he concretely connects this to the Exodus event. The Exodus is the historical catalyst which brings together creation and salvation into a coherent and actual manifestation.

[26] Ibid, 84.

[27] Zoltan Vegel, “Liberation Theology: A Critical Analysis,” Kairos: Evangelical Journal of Theology 12, no. 1 (2018): 82.

[28] Gutierrez, Liberation, 93. Gutierrez takes his cues on the exegesis of the OT from Von Rad and his work Old Testament Theology.

[29] Ibid, 97. Since Christ is the bringer of salvation and the liberator of people, Gutierrez connects these two things to argue for working out a just society is an effect of the above causes.

 [30] Ibid, 101.

[31] Henry, Authority, vol. 1. This thinking is throughout Henry’s writing, so this is not from one specific location.

[32] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 43, 51. Craig provides lengthy explications on both knowing and showing. The reference is to the beginnings of each of these sections since there is not direct quotations listed.

[33] Scripture reference here is to solidify the point that God is orderly and will not reveal information that would be confusing, chaotic, or contradictory.

[34] What is meant here is that Gutierrez either would disagree with the evaluation that Christianity is a revelational religion or that he would simply state that general revelation (which would include our experience) would be primary and special revelation would be the subset.

[35] Vegel, “Liberation,” 83. This notion also extends to both Black theology and Feminist theology in that they simply replace “poor” with either “black” or “female.”

[36] Gutierrez, Liberation, xxvii. In the updated version (1989) the word privileged is used. However, in the 1988 edition the word predilection is used. Both words indicate a strong feeling towards this particular class of people. But the newer word indicates more than the previous one.

[37] J.V. Fesko, The Lectio Continua: Expository Commentary on the New Testament, Galatians, (Powder Springs: Tollelege Press, 2012), 42.

[38] Gutierrez, Liberation, 66.

[39] Karl Marx, Poverty of Philosophy, (Paris: Progress Publishers, 1847), 80.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Vegel, “Liberation,” 85. The author points out that liberation thinking grew up in the Latin American environment where the thought of Marx was heavily used due to the circumstances of the poor. It was the poor who saw the need to redistribute resources because of the abused of the rich.

[42] Vegel, “Liberation,” 86. The quote is from Ema Vesely but the primary text was only written in her native tongue.

[43] Gutierrez, Liberation, 5. Italics added.

[44] Henry, Authority, 217. Henry is pointing out the differences between various claims of revelational religions/ philosophies. The point is the same for liberation thought because it is philosophical idea. Liberation thought is a philosophy informed by various sources in the clothes of Christian conviction. However, it has made the mistake of being Christian which is a revelational religion but then changing its axiomatic epistemological foundation. 

[45] Henry, Authority, 218.

[46] R. R. Reno, “Christology in Political and Liberation Theology,” The Thomist 56, no. 2 (1992): 306.

[47] Ibid. The basic thrust here is that creation was designed in such a way that it was moving consistently towards a full redemption (as I understand it). Sin entered the picture and interrupted this moving towards full redemption and that is why Christ came, to right the ship.

[48] Reno, “Christology,” 317-318.

[49] Ibid, 318. As opposed to the typical nous and sarx distinction, Gutierrez seems to lack any type of distinction in Christ. It is history that brings together the divine and human elements. Functionally, Christ was only divine and he broke through human history to connect humanity to the divine.

[50] Brian Mullady, “An Analysis of Christology in Liberation Theology,” Angelicum 58, no. 4 (1981): 442-443.

[51] Ibid, 443.

[52] The same connection can be made to both Black theology and Feminist theology. The word “poor” simply must be substituted with either “black” or “woman,” as noted several times above.

[53] Gutierrez, Liberation, 70. Plainly states the focus should be on the poor and not the powerful/ rich. The implication in this case seems to be the salvific purpose of God goes beyond the rich and does not include them in the plans of God.

[54] Mullady, “Christology,” 444. Author is pointing out the connection between the Zealots and Jesus is thin because the scope of their vision was quite different. The Zealots were concerned with a small group whereas Jesus was concerned with humanity as a whole.

[55] Mullady, “Christology,” 448.

[56] Thomas Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae, 192, 194.

[57] Mullady, “Christology,” 449.

[58] Mullady, “Christology,” 455.

[59] Vegel, “Liberation,” 88.

[60] Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 121.

[61] Marx, Poverty, throughout. Karl Marx makes reference to a utopian state throughout his text. My point is not drawn from a specific point but rather the accumulation of his thought in general.

[62] Henry, Authority, vol. 1.