Liberation Theology as a Doubie Polarity

Christian O. Uchegbue*

Abstract
"Liberation Theology - Marxist or Christian?" This question which appears as the caption of Emmette Weir's article in 1979 forms the main thrust and inspiration of this present paper. There has been a protracted and entrenched age-long intellectual and ideological duel over the status of liberation theology. At the one end of the pole are those who regard it as an authentic Christian theology and movement while at the other end of the pole are those who regard it as pure Marxism in the garb of Christian theology. In the light of this contest, this paper critically examines the position of liberation theology within the continuum of Marxism and Christianity in order to determine how authentically Christian or Marxist it is. Its argumerits lead to the conclusion that the two positions are indisputable and irreconcilable, and they stand on their own respective rights. As such, liberation theology should be seen from these two opposite perspectives.

A. Introduction to Liberation Theology

There has been a lot of changes in the theological thinking of Christian scholars in the recent past. Some decades ago, the theological field was dominated by the talk about "secularity" and later by the noise of the "death of
Dr. Christian O. Uchegbue is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Reiigious Studies, University of Calabar, Nigeria.

14

Asia Journal of Theology God." But in more recent times, the issue of liberation seems to have become the dominant and the most popular household term in contemporary theological discussions.This is a recent trend in the Church, especiaiiy among the oppressed nations, classes and races towards a felt theological imperative for commitment to the struggle for liberation. The term 'liberation theology' means different things to different people.The term is most frequently associated with Latin America. In the minds of many conservative theologians, it is identified with Marxism, violence and antiestablishment revolution. In a wider sense, however, 'liberation theology'has been used to include the liberation movements in Asia and Southern Africa. Liberation theology rose to prominence in Latin America in the 1970s and its commitment is to make theology relevant amidst poverty, suffering, oppression and injustice. Its main theme is derived from the biblical notion of liberation with particular reference to the exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt and its bondage. As a concept, liberation theology simply refers to any theological enterprise on behalf of and from the perspective of the poor, deprived, oppressed and marginalized in society against all forms of structures - social, economic, political or ideological - which support and perpetuate their condition. This definition is captured in the statement of Gonzalez and Gonzalez that: When we speak here of 'liberation theology,' we are referring to theology done from the perspective of those who have been traditionally powerless in society and voiceless in the Church.' In a further explanation, Pauline Webb stresses that the concern of liberation theology is with the obligation of the Christian to "translate his commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord into specific social and political engagement for social Justice."^ That is why Gutierrez understands liberation theology to mean ... a radical interpretation of the Christian revelation, one that does not accept the traditional distinction between sacred and profane realism, between sacred and profane histories.^ In keeping with this understanding, Bonino speaks of liberation theology as , 4 a theology in the context of the struggle for liberation." 15

Asia Journal of Theology B. The Two Poles in Contest

Liberation theologians see liberation theology as an authentic Christian theology and, in fact, as the only valid and authentic Christian theology. As such, they are even very suspicious of and they disparage the traditional theologies of the Church. What informs this stance is their insistence and emphasis on making theology more practical and relevant to the concrete experiences of human existence than theoretical, or making it more contextual than conceptual. Their eniphasis is on the transforming aspect of theology from mere idealism to realism and from mere abstract principles to praxis or social action. Thus, contextualization and praxis form the hub of liberation theology, the pivot on which it revolves and the pillar upon which it stands. This emphasis, forms their main controversy with and point of departure from conventional or traditional theology. In his attempt to contrast Latin American with Euro-American theological approaches, Bonino, aptly reiterates the position of liberation theology. According to him, the greatest and most significant difference in their approaches is that, on the one hand, western theologians, in their academic approach, have been prompted by philosophical questions which lead them to a universalization or generalization of truth. On the other hand, however, Latin American theologians have been challenged by situations which prompt them to relativize truth in order to clarify concrete conditions.^ He therefore concludes that "a correct theology cannot arise except out of and in relation to commitment to specific or precise actions and demands."^ Gustavo Benavides also reiterates this theme of contextualization as the primary task expected of any authentic theology to accomplish. He conceives of Christian theology as not
An autonomous corpus of belief - the response to God's primordial manifestation in history - [but contrarily as] a reflection on the system of values that constitutes the core of a given culture, a system of values that depends on, and reinforces, the structure of a society in a dialectical way.'

In keeping with this thought, the most famous and outspoken Latin American liberation theologian, Gustavo Gutierrez, affirms that undertaking the task of situating or contextualizing the Christian faith in a concrete situation is what really makes theology meaningful.^ 16

Asia Journal of Theology As plausible and indubitable as the call to make theology relevant to the needs of the society may be, many scholars have been suspicious of the tendencies, methodology and implications of liberation theology. Some of them are even doubtful of the authenticity of identifying it with Christian theology. Earlier evaluations of liberation theology by Roman Catholic authorities were quite condemnatory and intolerant. Both Charles Ryan and Wikipedia refer to an official statement of the Vatican which condemned liberation theology as "a perversion of the Christian message of God entrusted to the Church."^ This statement accused the movement, among other faults, of denial of the human person, political amorality, self-redemption of man, Marxist tendencies and as founded on and inciting hate and violence. Wikipedia quotes Pope John Paul ll's speech at the January 1979 Puebla CELAM conference as saying that "...this conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the church's catechesis."'" Not even the counter documents from Rome later in 1986 has been able to erase these biases from many minds. Today, many scholars, both Christians and Marxists themselves see liberation theology as Marxist. Roger Vekemans, Edward R. Norman, and Alfonso Lopez Trujillo (whose contribution is not discussed here), seem to have been the three most outstandirig critics of liberation theology. As reflected in an article by the Costa Rican Ecumenical Council, Vekemans is cited as refering to what he describes as '1he brutal and unscrupulous assault known as liberation theology."'' He goes on to maintain that In so far as its view of Marxism is concerned, we can say that what is predominantly a dialogue with Marxism in Europe has become indiscriminate and often outright collaboration with it in Latin America.'^ The most explicit reference to liberation theology as Marxist comes from Norman. Weir quotes him in his Reith Lecture that: The content of the new theology does not come from received spiritual knowledge, but from the Marxist concept of praxis: of the involvement of the oppressed in the historical process of change.'^ This position is also aptly expressed and expatiated by Harry Antonides who maintains that: 17

Asia Journal of Theology Liberation theology is an attempt to merge Christianity with Marxism. This presents serious problems since Marxism is atheistic, proclaims the class struggles, and leads to disastrous consequences wherever its prescriptions are put into practice.'" Any worthwhile attempt at settling this entrenched dispute would call for a critical evaluation of liberation theology by examining some of its aspects to see the degree of their proximity to Christianity and Marxism, respectively.

C. Critical Evaluation of Liberation Theology

That liberation theology does make use of Marxism cannot be denied, but to judge it outrightly as totally and entirely Marxist requires a fair consideration of the totality of its inspirational roots and heritage as well as the epi-centre of its internal philosophical content and convictions. It may seem out of proportion to attempt to examine all the major aspects of liberation theology in a paper of this nature. We shall, therefore, limit the discussion to a consideration of just four important aspects of the phenomenon, namely, its ontological convictions, its historical origins, its methodological approach as well as its logical inclinations. 1. The Ontological Convictions of Liberation Theoiogy Our concern here focuses on the questions of beliefs about God and eschatological concepts in liberation theology. The question of theism and atheism is a dividing line between Christianity and Marxism. The term 'Marxism' and, in fact, Karl Marx's theory of religion, essentially suggests atheism just as the term "Christianity essentially suggests theism." In other words, there cannot be Marxism without atheism, otherwise it is no more Marxism, just as there cannot be Christianity without theism, otherwise it is no more Christianity. Where then does liberation theology fall within these two belief systems? From all indications, liberation theology is certainly not atheistic. It is indeed rather orthodox in its concept of God and in its attitude to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. It is more conservative than the more radical schools of thought in the West. Norman himself admits this when he asserts that. The biblical exegesis of the liberation theologians is in fact very conservative .... They have not proclaimed the 'death of God' or questioned the divinity of Christ, as western theologians have done in recent years.^ 18

Asia Journal of Theology While we must point out that there are among liberation theologians those who, like Camilo Torress, "postpone" reiigious activity for the liberation struggle,'^ it must also be maintained that liberation theology's literature reveals a strong religious foundation. Liberation theologians themselves point out that any revolutionary change that is without religion leads only to a new form of oppression. On the question of eschatology, while liberation theology shares the sociohistorical implications of eschatological belief with Marxism, it however, differs considerably from it in its eschatological concepts. Marxist naturalistic ontology posits an eschatology without theology - in which death brings human existence and hope to a final end and in which life and community are destined to disintegrate and end with history. Liberation theology, however, speaks of life after death and the coming of the Kingdom of God. From these two concepts, liberation theology is ontologically Christian rather than Marixst, and is even opposed to the latter. 2. The Historical Origin of Liberation Theology Any authentic historical study of the origin of liberation theology must go beyond the recent articulation, systematization and christening of the movement. This approach would reveal that Latin America, which is the cradle or birth place of liberation theology, has a very long history of protest by Christians both clergymen and laymen - who on the basis of their religious and scriptural convictions, acted to check oppression and to protect the interest of the weak. Long before Marx, they drew inspiration from the 'revolutionary' stance of Israel's prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus, for denouncing and protesting against injustice. Similarly, in South Africa where liberation theology has taken deep roots, we notice that the leaders of the separatist movements and those early missionaries like Father Huddleston, who stood against racial segregation in South Africa, probably knew nothing about or had no contact with Marxism. Although later generations might have had contact with and been challenged and rekindled by Marxism, we can conclude that liberation theology is, historically speaking, not Marxist, but prophetic. While Marxist analytical approach might be regarded as a contributive and enabling factor, the prophetic spirit of the Christian tradition is the inspirational and causative factor for its emergence. On this basis, Roger Charles succinctly declares that almost none of the socioeconomic demands made in the name of liberation theology is a new insight or

19

Asia Journal of Theology discovery that had eluded the Church in past history. According to him, they are ali demands that are compatible with the socio-economic traditions of the Church.'^ 3. The Methodological Approach of Liberation Theology The hermeneuticai perspective of liberation theoiogy, its preoccupation with praxis and the advocacy of violence in the process of social change reveal serious use and influence of Marxism. There is the actual use of Marxism in liberation theology's interpretation of scriptures and this has generated serious and inescapable criticisms. Norman, in his criticism enumerates the negative implications of using Marx's socio-political-economic analysis as the authentic hermeneuticai model, pointing out that "it defines the religious values of the Church in terms of prevailing realities of contemporary secular cultures."'^ By using such analysis, he argues, the Church loses originality and 'Ihe confidence to define the areas of public debate even on moral question, and simply follows the definitions made by others:"'^ In its preoccupation with socio-political and economic action or praxis, liberation theology seems to define the essence of Christianity in socio-political and economic rather than inward or spiritual terms. It seems more certain, on the contrary, that socio-political and economic action is a consequence rather than the preoccupation, a necessary rather than a sufficient element or essence, of Christian teaching and living. Following this line of thought, Norman, while acknowledging that biblical teaching has social consequences, cautions against the expression of those consequences in terms of social ideals derived from contemporary and secular political ideology which redefines the very essence of Christianity. He points out also that there is no distinctively Christian or biblical reasons for identifying Christianity with any political ideology - radical or conservative. It is on this ground that he sees liberation theology as resulting from the Marxian concept of praxis. However, the use of Marxism, as J.E. Weir explains, "is not a call to Christians to read Marx in the light of the Bible, but to read the Bible in the light of Marx."^' He clarifies himself by quoting Paul Ellingworth's remark: "I think that they use Marx to make Christians read the Bible more carefully."^^ In conclusion, therefore, one can assert that liberation theology's use of Marx's analysis does not suggest its identity in Marxism, but a methodological borrowing to emphasize "doing theology" rather than "reflecting on" or "thinking theology." Moreover, it should be acknowledged that most

20

Asia Journal of Theology liberation theologians maintain that the politicization of faith is out of their objective analysis. Most of them advocate a kind of system which is neither Capitalist nor Communist, which Marxists would not accept. The most serious methodological problem with liberation theology, however, is in advocating violence, which is undeniably Marxist and never Christian. Some liberation theologians have argued that since the existing systems use violence in their oppression and exploitation of the poor and powerless, then the use of violence can be used in certain circumstances as a last resort if official violence cannot be overcome by peaceful means. The popular Columbian Roman Catholic priest and radical liberation theologian, Camilo Torres, who left the priesthood to die as a guerilla fighter is a common example.^^ Socioethically speaking, violence defined in any way, is not akin to or compatible with the Christian faith.^^ Although the common reference to Jesus as a revolutionary can be accepted in the sense that He promulgated standards and values totally opposed to those conventionally accepted in the society, it must be maintained that Jesus was not a revolutionist, for while He criticized, condemned, resisted and rejected the unjust power structures of His day, he did not take up arms or join with the 'guerrilla group' of the Zealots. His caution to Peter at Gethsemane against the use of the sword (Matt. 26:51-52) is very illustrative of the fact that Jesus never supported violence. However, all liberation theologians cannot be grouped as advocates of violence. In Latin America, leading theologians of liberation, like Dom Helder Cmara, Gustavo Gutierrez, Jon Sobrino, Lun Segundo, and many others, are advocates of non-violence. Cmara, for example, rejects violence in its totality. Detesting complacency, he explicitly calls for "a reform in depth, a profound and rapid change ... a structural revolution."^" However, to clarify what this kind of reform or revolution involves, he writes: My personal vocation is that of a pilgrim of peace,... personally, I would prefer a thousand times to be killed than to kill... This personal position is based on the gospel... we Christians are on the side of non-violence, which is by no means a choice of weakness or passivity. Non-violence means believing more passionately in the force of truth, justice and love than in the force of wars, murder and hatred." In South Africa, the liberation struggle has always been non-violent and liberation theologians like Rev. Manas Buthelezi, Allan Boesak, Rev. Beyers

21

Asia Journal of Theology Naunde, Bishop Desmond Tutu and others are all advocates of non-violent modes of change. If liberation theology means adopting violent methods of change, then Norman's stigmatization of it as Marxist is valid and indisputable since violence is alien to Christian teaching. But if it is the form followed by Cmara and others, it would be difficult and misleading to judge it as Marxist. 4. The Logical Inclination of Liberation Theology It may be very difficult to deal with the logical procedures followed in all the issues raised by liberation theology. We here wish, therefore, to consider just one important and central issue - the question of God's preferential love for the poor. Gutierrez's argument in support of this predominant theme of liberation theology is our paradigm. This argument has been simplified and summarized by Benavides.^^ According to Gutierrez, God's preference for the poor is not due to the goodness of the poor, but rather, this preference is grounded simply in the poor's poverty. Free choice, which does not take into account 'Ihe moral and personal dispositions of the poor reveals the gratuitousness of God's love." He further states that:
A God who loves the poor because the poor deserve it, is a perfectly comprehensible God. However, to accept that God loves the poor simply because they are in a situation of oppression and exploitation, shocks us, and reveals to us the absolute gratuitousness of God's love, beyond any anthropomorphism."

This type of reasoning, despite its pragmatic appeal and admirableness, leads liberation theology - "a change - demanding ideology" - to "selfperpetuation," "ideological conservatism" and thus, to a self-defeating and selfdestroying logic. This is in the sense that it seeks a change of situation in which the poor who are despised and relegated to the background are eventually brought to prominence while the prominent rich are consequently despised and relegated to the background. Yet once this initial change has taken place, it does not foresee or make room for the continuity of this dialectical process to its logical conclusion whereby the rich, because of their eventual humiliation and disadvantage, later become the subjects and recipients of God's preferential love in utter gratuity. We can illustrate this observation from two angles. In the first place, as Gustavo Benavides has observed, that the argument can be reversed in favour 22

Asia Journal of Theology of the rich, reveals its emptiness. For example, a conservative theologian may argue "that God's absolute freedom allows him to gratuitously love the rich, not only without regard for the rich's goodness or evilness, but even because of the rich's evilness."^^ However, that God's love is absolutely gratuitous should not suggest His preferential, but His reconciliatory attitude towards both groups. Secondly, this argument, and the concept of divine preference of the poor itself, merely leads to changing the direction and form of oppression in which the oppressed today becomes the oppressor tomorrow while the oppressor today becomes the oppressed tomorrow. In this case, the liberator's mechanism becomes the oppressor's dynamism. In fact, liberation theology has almost always tilted towards this characteristically Marxist tendency and is therefore called to be more conciliatory than segregating. Apart from the possibility of a redirection of oppression which may eventually lead to a spiral of oppression and a perpetuation of oppression in the society, another implication of this logical perspective is that it adopts the principle of class struggle which is at the root of Marxism as an axiom. Gutierrez speaks of the class struggle as an inescapable fact in which remaining neutral is an impossibility.^^ The principle of class struggle which Gutierrez sanctions is quite alien to Christian teaching and betrays liberation theology as a Marxist ideology. As Antionides notes, the biblical call on Christians to love all people is in direct opposition to the Marxist concept of class conflict. The two can never be reconciled because while the one is clearly motivated by love, the other is prompted by hatred. Furthermore, he points out that Church unity cannot be reconciled with class struggle. He concludes on this note that
There is no biblical support for Gutierrez's assertions. The scriptures condemn injustice and oppression, but they do not divide mankind along economic lines. Rather than being based on scriptural teachings, the class struggle springs from a thoroughly atheistic ideology and is inspired by hatred and envy. Gutierrez is therefore forced to look to a source other than the Bible to support the concept of the class struggle. ... Marxism provides him with the necessary rationalization.^'

Conclusion
Considering the ontological convictions and historical origins of Liberation theology, it can be regarded as an authentic Christian theoiogy. However, considering its methodological approach (especially its often advocacy of 23

Asia Journal of Theology violence as a legitimate means of structural transformation) and its logical inclination in favour of the oppressed and the class struggle, liberation theology can be regarded as authentically Marxist. The claims on both ends seem so indisputable and irreconcileable that the only escape route is to allow them to stand side by side on their own respective merits as the two indestructible sides of the same coin. Therefore, we can see liberation theology paradoxically as both authentically Christian and authentically Marxist. It is a double polarity, a movement or ideology with two irreconcileable yet indisputable sides. This conclusion is supported by the paradoxical response given by Kerry Franchuk to the question "is liberation theology Marxist?" His answer is "Yes" and "No." According to him, it is "Yes" in view of the many elements of Marxism incorporated in and shared in common with liberation theology. Nevertheless, it is "No" considering the fact that liberation theology is basically a theology and, as such, involves the use of the Bible and Catholicism in the formation of its framework for combating injustice.^^ He further explains that: "Early liberation theology was without a doubt heavily Marxist. Currently, however, Marxism is. merely an analytical tool..."^^

J.L. Gonzalez and C.G. Gonzalez, Liberation Preaching: Ttie Putpit and the Oppressed (Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), p. 12. Pauline Webb, "Salvation Today." The Expository Times. Vol. LXXXVI, No. 3 (December, 1974), p. 66. Gustavo Gutierrez, Theotogy of Liberation: History, Potitics and Salvation. (New York: Orbis Books, 1973), p. 189. J.M. Bonino, "Christian Faith and Social Justice." The Expository Times, Vol. LXXXVII, No. 5 (February, 1976), p. 131. J.M. Bonino, "Five Theses Towards an Understanding of the 'Theology of Liberation," The Expository 77mes, Vol. LXXXVII, No. 7 (April, 1976), pp. 196-198. tbid.. p. 196. Gustavo Benavides "The Discourse of Liberation Theology in Perspective" in M.D. Bryant et al. (eds). The Many Faces of Retigion and Society (New York: Paragon House Publishers, 1985), p. 123. Gustavo Gutierrez, p. 15. Charles P. Ryan. "A Liberation Theology for Nigeria" in S.A. Adewale (ed.), Christianity and Socio-Potiticat Order in Nigeria (Ibadan: The Nigerian Association for Christian Studies, 1987), p. 147. Also, "Liberation Theology." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberationtheologyon 10/1/2006, p. 2. Wikipedia, p. 2. Costa Rican Ecumenical Council, 'The Manipulation of CELAM" Cross Current, Vol. XXVIII, No. 1 (Spring, 1978), p. 62.

24

Asia Journal of Theology

Ibid., p. 62. Emmette J. Weir, "Liberation Theology - Marxist or Christian?" Ttie Expository Times, Vol. XC, No. 9 (June, 1979), p. 260. Harry Antonides, O'erafen Theology: A Secular Program for Revolutionaty Change {On^rio: Jesus to the Communist World, 1987), p. 29. Edward Norman, "Christianity and the World Order" The Expository Times, Vol. XC; No. 9 (June, 1979), p. 260. Ray Hundley, "The Dangers of Liberation Theology." Retrieved from http:// www.baptistpillar.com/bdO136.htm. on 10/3/2006, p. 1. Roger Charles, "Catholic Social Teaching as Liberation.' The Month, Vol. CCLXVI, No. 1398 (March, 1984), p. 87. Edward Norman, p. 258. Ibid., p. 258. Emmette J. Weir, p. 261. Ibid., p. 261 Ray Hundley, p. 1. See Christian O. Uchegbue, "The Ethics of Violence: A Christian Perspective" Sophia, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2000), pp. 62-65. Don Helder Cmara, "Violence - the Only Way"? in Alistair Kee (ed) A Reader in Political Theo/ogy (London: SCM Press, 1974), p. 142. /W,pp. 42-143. Gustavo Benavides, p. 126. Ibid., p. 128. Ibid., p. 128. Gustavo Gutierrez, pp. 274-275. Harry Antonides, p. 32. ibid, p. 32. Kerry Franchuk, "Marxism in Liberation Theology" Retrieved from http://www.magna.calfranchuk/liberation.html (December, 1990), p. 7. Ibid., p. 7.

25