by Ron Rhodes
In 1985, a leader of
the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic church in Latin
America, Bishop Hoyos, denounced liberation theologians,
saying: "When I see a church with a machine gun, I cannot
see the crucified Christ in that church. We can never use
hate as a system of change. The core of being a church is
love."[1] Theological controversies are often confined to seminary classrooms or theological journals. But the controversy provoked by Latin American liberation theology has been public and it has been worldwide - involving the Vatican, orthodox and not-so-orthodox priests, lay people, sociologists, socialists, capitalists, economists, government leaders and their military, and much more. Liberation theology has certainly not been the passing fad some analysts thought it would be when it first emerged in the late 1960s. Strictly speaking, liberation theology should be understood as a family of theologies - including the Latin American, Black, and feminist varieties. All three respond to some form of oppression: Latin American liberation theologians say their poverty-stricken people have been oppressed and exploited by rich, capitalist nations. Black liberation theologians argue that their people have suffered oppression at the hands of racist whites. Feminist liberation theologians lay heavy emphasis upon the status and liberation of women in a male-dominated society. This article, the first of a three-part series on liberation theology, will focus on the Latin American variety - examining its historical roots, growth, doctrine, and present status in the world. Primary emphasis will be on how the movement has changed since its emergence in the late 1960s. In Parts Two and Three respectively, I will examine the Black and feminist varieties. With a few notable exceptions, Latin American liberation theology has been a movement identified with the Roman Catholic church. For this reason, I shall direct most of my attention to the views of Roman Catholic liberation theologians. First, however, we must become acquainted with the roots of this controversial theology.
Some of the
theological roots of Latin American liberation theology can
be traced directly to the writings of certain European
theologians. Three of the more notable of these are Jurgen
Moltmann, Johannes Baptist Metz, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Without going into detail, Moltmann has suggested that the
coming kingdom gives the church a society-transforming
vision of reality as opposed to a merely private vision of
personal salvation. Metz has emphasized that there is a
political dimension to faith, and that the church must be an
institution of social criticism. Bonhoeffer has issued a
call to redefine religion in a secular context. His theology
emphasizes human responsibility toward others, and stresses
the value of seeing the world with "the view from below" -
the perspective of the poor and oppressed. Though liberationists have borrowed from these theologians,
they nevertheless charge the European theologies with being
"theoretical abstractions, ideologically neutral, [and]
neglecting the miserable, unjust present for some
'Christianity of the future.'"[2] The theological
methodology developed by liberation theologians specifically
addresses these perceived deficiencies. Marxism has also
exerted a profound influence on liberation theologians. This
should not be taken to mean that they have espoused Marxism
as a holistic plan of political action, for they have not.
Their interest has been limited to using Marxist categories
for social analysis. According to Marx, man once existed in a simple, primitive
state. At that time, there was happiness and tranquility.
This primitive state of happiness was disrupted, however, by
the rise of economic classes where one class sought to
oppress and exploit another for its own economic advantage.
Marx believed all of man's problems are the direct result of
this class exploitation. He portrayed capitalism as the
chief culprit that gave rise to this undesirable state of
affairs. Marx was adamant that man can never be truly happy or free
in a capitalistic society. Man, he said, has become an
alienated being and does not feel "at home" in a
capitalistic environment. However, this alienation will not
last forever. Marx believed that history is inexorably
moving toward a climactic day when the oppressed workers of
the world, the proletariat, will rise up and overthrow their
capitalistic oppressors, the bourgeoisie. In the place of
the old bourgeois society with its classes and class
antagonisms, there will be a harmonious society in which
there is equity for all. Drawing from
European theologies and Marxism, Latin American theologians
developed their own theology by radically reinterpreting
Scripture with "a bias toward the poor." Let us now briefly
survey key aspects of the theology of liberation. Liberation theology begins with the premise that all
theology is biased - that is, particular theologies reflect
the economic and social classes of those who developed them.
Accordingly, the traditional theology predominant in North
America and Europe is said to "perpetuate the interests of
white, North American/European, capitalist males." This
theology allegedly "supports and legitimates a political and
economic system - democratic capitalism - which is
responsible for exploiting and impoverishing the Third
World."[3] Like Bonhoeffer, liberation theologians say theology must
start with a "view from below" - that is, with the
sufferings of the oppressed. Within this broad framework,
different liberation theologians have developed distinctive
methodologies for "doing" theology. Gustavo Gutierrez, author of A Theology of Liberation,
provides us with a representative methodology. Like other
liberationists, Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is
a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending
truths that remains static for all generations. Rather,
theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise
involving contemporary insights into knowledge, humanity,
and history. Gutierrez emphasizes that theology is not just to be
learned, it is to be done. In his thinking, "praxis" is the
starting point for theology. Praxis (from the Greek prasso:
"to work") involves revolutionary action on behalf of the
poor and oppressed - and out of this, theological
perceptions will continually emerge. The theologian must
therefore be immersed in the struggle for transforming
society and proclaim his message from that point. In the theological process, then, praxis must always be the
first stage; theology is the second stage. Theologians are
not to be mere theoreticians, but practitioners who
participate in the ongoing struggle to liberate the
oppressed. Sin. Using methodologies such as Gutierrez's,
liberationists interpret sin not primarily from an
individual, private perspective, but from a social and
economic perspective. Gutierrez explains that "sin is not
considered as an individual, private, or merely interior
reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the
absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among
men."[4] Liberationists view capitalist nations as sinful
specifically because they have oppressed and exploited
poorer nations. Capitalist nations have become prosperous,
they say, at the expense of impoverished nations. This is
often spoken of in terms of "dependency theory" - that is,
the development of rich countries depends on the
underdevelopment of poor countries. There is another side to sin in liberation theology. Those
who are oppressed can and do sin by acquiescing to their
bondage. To go along passively with oppression rather than
resisting and attempting to overthrow it - by violent means
if necessary - is sin.[5] The use of violence has been one of the most controversial
aspects of liberation theology. Such violence is not
considered sinful if it is used for resisting oppression.
Indeed, certain liberation theologians "will in some cases
regard a particular action (e.g., killing) as sin if it is
committed by an oppressor, but not if it is committed by the
oppressed in the struggle to remove inequities. The removal
of inequities is believed to result in the removal of the
occasion of sin [i.e., the oppressor] as well."[6] Salvation. Salvation is viewed not primarily in terms
of life after death for the individual, but in terms of
bringing about the kingdom of God: a new social order where
there will be equality for all. This is not to deny eternal
life per se, but it is to emphasize that the eternal and the
temporal "intersect" in liberation theology. "If, as the
traditional formulation has it, history and eternity are two
parallel (i.e., nonintersecting) realms, our goal within
history is to gain access to eternity."[7] But if history
and eternity intersect, "if salvation is moving into a new
order--then we must strive against everything which at
present denies that order."[8] God. Liberationists argue that the traditional
Christian doctrine of God manipulates the divine being such
that He appears to favor the capitalistic social structure.
They claim the orthodox view of God is rooted in the ancient
Greeks who saw God as a static being - distant and remote
from human history. This distorted view of a transcendent
deity has, they say, yielded a theology that understands God
as "out there," far removed from the affairs of humankind.
As a result, many Latin Americans have adopted a passive
stance in the face of their oppression and exploitation. Liberation theologians have thus tried to communicate to
their compatriots that God is not impassive. Rather, He is
dynamically involved in behalf of the poor and downtrodden.
And because God stands against oppression and exploitation,
those who follow Him must do likewise. Indeed, Gutierrez
says that "to know God is to do justice."[9] Jesus Christ. While liberation theologians do not
outright deny Christ's deity, there is no clear-cut,
unambiguous confession that Jesus is God. The significance
of Jesus Christ lies in His example of struggling for the
poor and the outcast. The Incarnation is reinterpreted to
represent God's total immersion into man's history of
conflict and oppression. By His words and actions, Jesus
showed us how to become true sons of God - that is, by
bringing in the kingdom of God through actively pursuing the
liberation of the oppressed. Most liberationists see Jesus' death on the cross as having
no vicarious value; rather, Jesus died because He upset the
religious/political situation of His time. Leonardo Boff
says Jesus' followers fabricated the idea that Jesus' death
had a transcendent, salvific significance: "The historically
true events are the crucifixion, the condemnation by Pilate,
and the inscription on the cross in three languages known by
the Jews. The rest of the events are theologized or are pure
theology developed in light of the resurrection and of the
reflection upon the Old Testament."[10] Jesus' death is
unique because "he historicizes in exemplary fashion the
suffering experienced by God in all the crosses of the
oppressed."[11] Liberationists acknowledge Jesus'
resurrection, but they are not clear on its significance. The Church. Liberation theology does not ask what the
church is, but rather what it means "to be the church in a
context of extreme poverty, social injustice and revolution.
In the context of liberation theology the mission of the
church seems to be more important than its nature."[12] Gutierrez and other liberation theologians say the church's
mission is no longer one of a "quantitative" notion of
saving numbers of souls.[13] Rather, the church's mission
"is at all times to protest against injustice, to challenge
what is inhuman, to side with the poor and the
oppressed."[14] Related to the doctrine of the church has been the formation
and growth of "ecclesial base communities," since the 1970s.
These are "small, grassroots, lay groups of the poor or the
ordinary people, meeting to pray, conduct Bible studies, and
wrestle concretely with social and political obligations in
their settings."[15] These communities have been effective in showing workers and
peasants how to organize for their own social welfare.
Gutierrez says that "in most Latin American countries, the
church's base communities are the only form of social action
available to the poor."[16] Indeed, they have become "the
major vehicle for the spread of liberation themes beyond
academic circles. By 1980 there were as many as 100,000 base
communities meeting in Latin America."[17] Since the
emergence of liberation theology and its rapid growth via
ecclesial base communities, divisive rifts have taken place
between Vatican leadership and Roman Catholic theologians in
Latin America. Over the past few decades, however, the
Vatican has become progressively open to the concept of
liberation. For example, Vatican Council II - held in Rome from 1962 to
1965 - decried the wide disparity between the rich and poor
nations of the world. Church leaders therefore proclaimed a
"preferential option for the poor." Three years later, the
Medellin Conference of Latin American Bishops (1968)
denounced the extreme inequality among social classes as
well as the unjust use of power and exploitation.[18] Pope John Paul II has for years devoted himself to
establishing a balanced policy on political activism for
Roman Catholic clergy. He has staunchly advocated social
justice, but has also consistently warned the clergy about
becoming too involved in secular affairs and about the
dangers of Marxism. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the
Vatican's watchdog for doctrinal orthodoxy - issued two
important statements on liberation theology. The Instruction
on Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation" (1984)
warned that it is impossible to invoke Marxist principles
and terminology without ultimately embracing Marxist methods
and goals. Marxism should therefore be avoided altogether. Two years later (1986), the Instruction on Christian Freedom
and Liberation affirmed the legitimacy of the oppressed
taking action "through morally licit means, in order to
secure structures and institutions in which their rights
will be truly respected."[19] However, "while the church
seeks the political, social and economic liberation of the
downtrodden, its primary goal is the spiritual one of
liberation from evil."[20] The statement accepted armed
struggle "as a last resort to put an end to an obvious and
prolonged tyranny which is gravely damaging the common
good."[21] This relative openness of the Roman Catholic church was
largely responsible for liberation theology's rapid
expansion. As we shall see shortly, however, the church's
concerns over Marxism have proven justified in view of
recent world events. Vatican leadership has breathed a
collective sigh of relief that Marxist elements in
liberation theology now seem to be waning. SHIFTING SANDS:
1990 Since the emergence of liberation theology in the 1960s,
some aspects of the movement have remained constant. In his
recent book, Liberation Theology at the Crossroads (1990),
Paul E. Sigmund observes that liberation theology stills
sees the world as more characterized "by conflict than
compromise, inequality than equality, oppression rather than
liberation. It also still retains its belief in the special
religious character of the poor both as the object of God's
particular love and the source of religious insights."[22]
Despite these constants, however, liberation theology has
also seen significant changes in recent years. We begin with the observation that 1989 saw almost the whole
of Eastern Europe rise up in revolt against Marxist
ideology. The major reforms occurring in the Soviet Union
and East Bloc nations represent an admission that Marxism
has failed. Michael Novak, who holds the George Frederick Jewett Chair
at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.,
raised a penetrating question in view of recent European
events: "What will become of the liberation theologians of
Latin America and elsewhere who have so long praised the
ideals of Marxist-Leninism, but now must see how hollow they
are?"[23] Novak argues that a close reading of the Latin American
theologians suggests that they "have begun to worry that
they earlier invested too much credence in the social
science they picked up from the universities."[24] For this
reason, he says, "liberation theologians in the last few
years have become much less hopeful about social structures,
and increasingly concerned with issues of spirituality. They
seem to be turning less to politics, and more to faith."[25]
Sigmund agrees, noting that now "the greater emphasis [is]
on the spiritual sources and implications of the concept of
liberation."[26] (We shall address this "new spirituality"
shortly.) The shift in perspectives on socialism is one of the most
important developments in liberation theology. In the recent
writings of many liberation theologians, we find the
concession that "the once-favored approach of substituting
socialism for dependency or capitalism simply doesn't work,
as has been seen in Eastern Europe."[27] Without necessarily
deserting socialism, liberationists have shown an increasing
ambiguity about what socialism really means, as well as an
increasing tolerance of competing systems and an acceptance
of Western-style democracy as a legitimate weapon against
oppression.[28] Arthur F. McGovern, a Jesuit, comments that
"the new political context in many parts of Latin America
has led liberation theologians to talk about building a
'participatory democracy' from within civil society.
Socialism no longer remains an unqualified paradigm for
liberation aspirations."[29] Another significant development in liberation theology is
that its theologians are speaking much less of dependency
theory - the idea that the development of rich countries
depends on the underdevelopment of poor countries. To be
sure, liberation theologians are still predominantly
anticapitalist, but many have recognized that dependency
theory has rightfully been criticized for some of its
fundamental assertions. The fallacy of dependency theory has been demonstrated by
sociologist Peter Berger of Boston University. Berger has
pointed out that "the development experience of Japan and
the 'four little dragons' of East Asia - Taiwan, South
Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore - represent 'empirical
falsification' of the socioeconomic assumptions of
dependency theory and liberation theology." On the other
hand, Berger stressed, "there is simply no evidence of
successful development by socialist third world nations
anywhere or at anytime."[30] Moreover, the liberationist's solution to the dependency
problem - a socialist break with the capitalist world - has
looked less attractive to liberation theologians because
"the models of socialism either seemed to be bankrupt, or
were resorting to market incentives and private enterprise,
even inviting multinational investment."[31] Besides shifts in thinking on socialism and dependency
theory, many have had second thoughts about liberation
theology because of the bloodshed it has provoked. A Los
Angeles Times article focusing on liberation theology in El
Salvador notes that "the deaths of some of those who have
challenged the establishment have brought sober second
thoughts about both the basis and the practice of liberation
theology."[32] The article also observes that "such a
violent counterrevolution here and in other Latin American
nations - along with the failure of Eastern European Marxism
and the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua to bring social,
political and economic justice - have led to calls for a new
look at liberation theology."[33] Indeed, "some of the basic
analytical assumptions and practical applications of
liberation theology are being questioned, not just by the
conservative elements of the [Catholic] church but also by
some of those thinkers who first conceived the
philosophy."[34] Sigmund has observed that in view of the bloodshed
associated with the movement in recent years, liberation
theologians are no longer offering the easy justifications
of the necessity of "counterviolence" against the
"institutionalized violence" of the political
establishment.[35] He also notes that the most obvious
change in liberation theology "is from an infatuation with
socialist revolution to a recognition that the poor are not
going to be liberated by cataclysmic political
transformations, but by organizational and personal
activities in Base Communities."[36] We have already noted that liberation theologians are
focusing more on issues of spirituality. First and foremost,
this means that liberation theologians are deriving more of
their liberationist concepts from the Bible as opposed to
social theory. Early books by liberation theologians focused
primarily on social analysis and had very few biblical
references. Now the situation is practically reversed:
recent books by liberation theologians contain many biblical
references and very little social analysis. There is much
more "theology" in liberation theology these days. But their
methodological approach is still one of a preferential
treatment to the poor. Besides greater rootedness in the Bible, there also seems to
be more interest in spiritual disciplines - such as prayer,
devotions, exercising faith, and fellowshiping with other
believers. Much of this takes place at a grassroots level in
ecclesial base communities. Bible studies on "liberation
passages" (such as Mary's Magnificat, Luke 1:46-55) are
common. The goal is to discover how Scripture applies to
specific problems in the lives of the oppressed. We have noted that liberation theology is predominantly a
Roman Catholic movement. An important factor now impacting
the movement in Latin America is the explosion of
evangelical Protestantism there. "Latin America is no longer
the Roman Catholic monolith it once was. Since the late
1960s, the number of Protestants has surged from 15 million
to an estimated 40 million, about 10 percent of the
population of Latin America."[37] Brazilian bishop Monsignor
Boaventura Kloppenburg says that "Latin America is turning
Protestant even faster than Central Europe did in the
sixteenth century."[38] The overwhelming majority of these
Protestants are Pentecostal. As to why so many are presently turning to evangelicalism,
one analyst suggests that "there now is a widespread
recognition that liberation theology overlooked the
emotional, personal message most people seek from religion.
At the simplest level, liberation theologians preached
salvation through social change - meaning, in effect,
socialism in one form or another. The evangelicals preach
individual salvation through individual change."[39] David Martin, author of Tongues of Fire: The Explosion of
Protestantism in Latin America (1990), suggests that
economic advancement is another underlying cause of the
Protestant explosion. He argues that "evangelical religion
and economic advancement often go together[they] support and
reinforce one another."[40] Carmen Galilea, a sociologist in
Santiago, said that the typical Pentecostal "is
well-regarded. He is responsible. He doesn't drink and is
better motivated and better paid. As a result, he rises
economically."[41] Pentecostal preaching "puts great
emphasis on the demand to develop yourself," thus
contributing to the economic rise.[42] In a recent article in Insight magazine, Daniel Wattenberg
suggests that another factor linking Pentecostalism and
upward mobility is "the mutual material support available
within the Pentecostal faith community (the churches provide
a network that often functions as a job or housing referral
agency)."[43] Moreover, volunteer work in the church
"utilizes peoples' talents and creates opportunities to
develop new skills that may give them a sense of usefulness
and fulfillment for the first time in their lives."[44] The
skills learned in a church context also give an edge to
church members in seeking work outside the church. Big changes are occurring in Latin America, and it remains
to be seen where it will all lead. The likelihood is that
(1) Marxism will continue to wane; (2) liberation
theologians will continue to focus more on issues of
spirituality; (3) the Protestant explosion will continue,
with an emphasis on personal transformation; and (4) all
this will probably have some positive effect on social and
economic conditions in the region. Critics of
liberation theology at times come across as though they are
detached and unsympathetic to Latin American poverty. No
doubt some of these critics actually do lack concern. Before
offering criticisms of this controversial theology,
therefore, it is important that we first affirm that there
is a strong scriptural basis for helping the poor. In the Old Testament, God gave the theocracy of Israel
specific guidelines for taking care of the poor. He
commanded that the corners of fields were not to be reaped
so that something would be left for the needy to eat (Lev.
19:9-10). God also promised a special blessing to all who gave to the
poor (Prov. 19:17), and judgment to those who oppressed the
poor (Ps. 140:12). Robbing and cheating the poor were
condemned (Hosea 12:7). Widows and orphans - who were
especially vulnerable to oppression - came under special
protection from the law (Exod. 22:22-23). God in the law also made provisions for poor sojourners who
were not a part of Israel's theocracy. Gleanings from the
harvest were to be left for them (Deut. 24:19-21), and they
were ranked in the same category as widows and orphans as
being defenseless (Ps. 94:6). Jesus is very clear about our responsibility to the poor and
oppressed. Christ's strong warning that eternal condemnation
awaits those who do not feed the hungry, clothe the naked,
and visit the prisoners (Matt. 25:31-46) shows that the
disadvantaged are not merely a peripheral concern of His. In
the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus taught that anybody
in need is our neighbor (Luke 10:29f.). The biblical view of the poor and oppressed is such that
God's people everywhere should be appalled at the poverty of
the people in Latin America. Liberation theologians and the
people of Latin America have a legitimate gripe. Indeed, how
can the church in Latin America not act to help relieve the
suffering of its people? Nevertheless, a legitimate and commendable concern for the
poor and oppressed must never be used to justify a
theological methodology that leads to a gross distortion of
Christianity - the only true means of liberation.
Evangelicals maintain that this is precisely what Latin
American liberationists have done. Inasmuch as the
liberationist's views on God, Jesus Christ, the church, sin,
and salvation are an outgrowth of his or her theological
methodology, it follows that the starting point for a
critique of liberation theology would be its hermeneutic. We
shall therefore narrow our focus to this one issue. Method is everything when interpreting Scripture. With an
improper methodology, one is bound to distort the author's
intended meaning - the only true meaning (see 2 Pet. 3:16). The word method comes from the Greek methodos, which
literally means "a way or path of transit." Methodology in
Bible study is therefore concerned with the proper path to
be taken in order to arrive at scriptural truth. Latin
American theologians have chosen a "path" intended to
produce liberation. But have they distorted the author's
intended meaning in the process? Foundationally,
the liberation hermeneutic (which makes praxis the first
step, and theology the second) is completely without any
controlling exegetical criteria. Vernon C. Grounds is right
when he says that "there is no exegetical magic by which new
meanings can without limit be conjured out of the Bible
under the illuminating creativity of new situations."[45] In liberation theology, the basic authority in
interpretation ceases to be Scripture; it is rather the mind
of the interpreter as he "reads" the current historical
situation. It is one of the canons of literary (not just
scriptural) hermeneutics, however, that what a passage means
is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by
readers. "Meaning is determined by the author; it is
discovered by readers."[46] Only after the meaning has been discovered by the reader can
it be applied to the current situation. Certainly we all
agree that Christians must practice their faith in daily
life. But from a Scriptural perspective, the way a Christian
conducts his or her life is based on the objective,
propositional revelation found in Scripture. Christians must
know God's will as revealed in Scripture before they can act
on it. Without a preeminence of Scripture over praxis, the
Christian cannot know what to believe or what to do.
Evangelicals therefore reject any suggestion that "we must
do in order to know, and hope that orthodoxy will arise from
orthopraxis [right action]." An examination of Jesus' use of the Old Testament shows that
He interpreted it as objective, propositional revelation
(see Matt. 22:23-33). His hermeneutic knew nothing of making
praxis the first step for discovering theological truth. Evangelicals have
criticized the inability of liberation theology's
hermeneutic to develop a culture-transcending theology with
normative authority. Liberation theologians have shown
little or no recognition of the fact that there are
teachings and commands in Scripture that - owing to their
divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16) - transcend all cultural
barriers and are binding on all people everywhere. Key
teachings of Scripture - such as man's sin, his alienation
from God, his need for a personal Redeemer - speak
universally to the human condition and can never be bound to
particular cultures or situations.[47] Moreover, evangelicals criticize the liberationist idea that
theological truth is in a constant state of flux, changing
along with the temporal conditions of society. Nunez has
noted that "there are chapters of liberation theology that
cannot be written at the present time, because they have to
be the result of a given practice."[48] Applications of
Scripture can change as the temporal conditions of society
change - but the Scripture-author's intended meaning from
which those applications are drawn are fixed and cannot be
relativized. A
"preunderstanding" of a preferential option for the poor is
the very heart of liberation hermeneutics. Liberationists
argue that "the reader of the Bible must deliberately choose
his eyeglasses before he begins reading, and that the
'preferential option for the poor' means just that - a
deliberate bias or perspective. Without this, the true
meaning cannot be known. We must discard our North Atlantic
lenses, we are told, and put on Third World ones - we must
lay aside the eyeglasses of the rich to use those of the
poor."[49] Relevant to this issue is a small book published in 1983 by
the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Entitled
Explaining Hermeneutics, Article XIX declares: "We affirm
that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to
Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and
subject to correction by it. We deny that Scripture should
be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent
with itself."[50] The point of this article is to avoid
interpreting Scripture through an alien grid or filter
(liberationism, for example) which obscures or negates its
true message. This article acknowledges that "one's
preunderstanding will affect his understanding of a text.
Hence, to avoid misinterpreting Scripture one must be
careful to examine his own presuppositions in the light of
Scripture."[51] Now, we must frankly admit that all interpreters are
influenced to some degree by personal, theological,
ecclesiastical, and political prejudices. Evangelical
scholar Emilio Nunez has rightly conceded that none of us
approaches Scripture in a "chemically pure" state. This is
why Article XIX above is so important: preunderstandings
must be in harmony with Scripture and subject to correction
by it. Only those preunderstandings that are compatible with
Scripture are legitimate. Graham N. Stanton, Professor of New Testament Studies at the
University of London King's College, elaborates on the
corrective nature of Scripture: "The interpreter must allow
his own presuppositions and his own pre-understanding to be
modified or even completely reshaped by the text itself.
Unless this is allowed to happen, the interpreter will be
unable to avoid projecting his own ideas on to the text.
Exegesis guided rigidly by pre-understanding will be able to
establish only what the interpreter already knows. There
must be a constant dialogue between the interpreter and the
text."[52] If this methodology is followed, "the text may
well shatter the interpreter's existing pre-understanding
and lead him to an unexpectedly new vantage point from which
he continues his scrutiny of the text."[53] Had liberation theologians followed this one procedure, the
theology of liberation would have turned out to be a horse
of a different color. Indeed, a theologian who approached
Scripture with a "preferential option for the poor" would
have found - upon submitting this preunderstanding to the
correction of Scripture - that his preunderstanding was
unbiblical. For, from a scriptural perspective, both the
poor and the rich, both the oppressed and oppressors, are
afflicted by sin and are in need of salvation. Romans 3:23
says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God." Our Lord preached the gospel of salvation to the poor
(Luke 7:22) but He preached the same message to the rich
(Luke 5:32; 10:1-10). God is "not wanting anyone to perish,
but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9). Now, evangelicals concede that God has a special concern for
the poor, and salvation is - by His own design - more
readily accepted by the less fortunate (Matt. 19:23).
Nevertheless, from Genesis to Revelation Scripture has a
clear "preferential option" for the fallen. By submitting his preunderstanding to Scripture, the
liberationist would have also discovered that the gap
between the rich and the poor is not the cause of man's
predicament; it is merely one symptom of it (see Jer.
5:26-29). It was not primarily the bourgeoisie that needed
to be overthrown; it was man's sin - his selfishness and
greed - that needed conquering (1 Pet. 2:24). It was not
fundamentally a political revolution that was needed, but a
revolution in the human heart - something found only in
Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), who came not to be a model
political revolutionary but to die on the cross for man's
sins as the Lamb of God (Matt. 26:26-28). We repeat, then, that if we are to understand the author's
intended meaning in Scripture (the only true meaning), it is
imperative that preunderstandings be in harmony with
Scripture and subject to correction by it. Only then will it
be possible to develop a truly biblical theology of
liberation - a theology that at once emphasizes the
fundamental need for liberation from sin, but at the same
time stresses the biblical injunction to reach out in
compassion to the poor. Are evangelicals
as concerned as they should be about the plight of the poor
and oppressed in our world? And if they are not, is this
because there is a defect in their theology that ignores the
biblical emphasis on caring for the poor and the needy? If
liberationists have approached Scripture with a
preunderstanding that "opts" for the poor, is it possible
that some evangelicals have unwittingly approached Scripture
with a preunderstanding that filters out sufficient concern
for the poor and oppressed? These are difficult questions, and it is incumbent upon
every Christian to examine his or her heart on this issue.
Certainly, evangelicals have little right to criticize the
theology of liberation if they are not prepared to criticize
possible deficiencies in their own theology in regard to
caring for the poor and oppressed of our world. Scripture is clear that we have a God-appointed
responsibility to take whatever steps we can to help the
poor. Yet, at the same time, we as evangelicals must insist
that ultimately the transformation of any society depends on
the prior transformation of the individuals that make up
that society. This is the Christian counterpart to
"dependency theory." The revolution so earnestly sought in
society will best be accomplished as greater numbers of
people in that society experience the revolution of new
birth and the ongoing renewal of life in Christ. NOTES 1"An Attack on
Liberation Theology," Orange County Register, 1 Dec. 1985,
A10. 2 Harvie M. Conn, "Liberation Theology," in New Dictionary
of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 388. 3 Dean C. Curry, A World Without Tyranny (Westchester, IL:
Crossway Books, 1990), 68. 4 Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 1971), 175. 5 Justo L. Gonzalez and Catherine G. Gonzalez, Liberation
Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), 23. 6 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1983), 592. 7 Ibid., 895. 8 Gonzalez and Gonzalez, 24. 9 Jason Berry, "El Salvador's Response to Liberation
Theology," The Washington Post, 4-10 Dec. 1989, 25. 10 Leonardo Boff, Jesucristo y la liberacion del hombre,
292; cited by Emilio Nunez, Liberation Theology (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1985), 232-33. 11 Douglas D. Webster, "Liberation Theology," in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1984), 637. 12 Emilio Nunez, "The Church in the Liberation Theology of
Gutierrez," in Biblical Interpretation and the Church, ed.
D. A. Carson (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984),
174. 13 Gutierrez, 150. 14 Monika Hellwig, "Liberation Theology: An Emerging
School," Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1977):141. 15 Conn, 389. 16 Kenneth L. Woodward, "A Church for the Poor," Newsweek,
26 Feb. 1979, 20. 17 B. T. Adeney, "Liberation Theology," in Dictionary of
Christianity in America, ed. Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1990), 649. 18 Harvie M. Conn, "Theologies of Liberation: An Overview,"
in Tensions in Contemporary Theology, ed. Stanley N. Gundry
and Alan F. Johnson (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), 344. 19 Paul E. Sigmund, Liberation Theology at the Crossroads
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 11. 20 Don A. Schanche, "Vatican Document Accepts Some
'Liberation Theology,'" Los Angeles Times, 6 April 1986, 5. 21 Richard N. Ostling, "A Lesson on Liberation," Time, 14
April 1986, 84. 22 Sigmund, 181-82. 23 Michael Novak, "The Revolution That Wasn't," Christianity
Today, 23 April 1990, 18. 24 Ibid., 20. 25 Ibid. 26 Sigmund, 181. 27 Kenneth Freed, "The Cross and the Gun," Los Angeles
Times, 9 Oct. 1990, H8. 28 Sigmund, 196. 29 Arthur F. McGovern, Liberation Theology and Its Critics
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989), 230. 30 Dean C. Curry, "Liberation Theology in 80s: Is There
Something New?" Eternity, November 1985, 13. 31 Sigmund, 179. 32 Freed, H8. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Sigmund, 177. 36 Ibid. 37 Daniel Wattenberg, "Protestants Create an Altered State,"
Insight, 16 July 1990, 9. 38 David Neff, "God's Latino Revolution," Christianity
Today, 14 May 1990, 15. 39 John Marcom Jr., "The Fire Down South," Forbes, 15 Oct.
1990, 66-67. 40 Daniel Wattenberg, "Gospel Message of Getting Ahead Inch
by Inch," Insight, 16 July 1990, 16. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Vernon C. Grounds, "Scripture in Liberation Theology," in
Challenges to Inerrancy, ed. Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce
Demarest (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 344. 46 Norman L. Geisler, Explaining Hermeneutics (Oakland, CA:
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983), 7. 47 Ibid. 48 Nunez, in Carson, 173. 49 W. Dayton Roberts, "Liberation Theologies," Christianity
Today, 17 May 1985, 15. 50 Ibid., 14-15. 51 Geisler, 15. 52 Graham N. Stanton, "Presuppositions in New Testament
Criticism," in New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. Howard
Marshall (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1977), 68. 53 Ibid. Glossary exegesis:
Derived from a Greek word meaning "to draw out." Refers to
the obtaining of a Scripture passage's meaning by drawing
the meaning out from the text rather than reading it into
the text (which is eisegesis). hermeneutics: Refers to the science of
interpretation. It is that branch of theology that
prescribes rules and guidelines by which the Bible should be
interpreted. normative authority: Authority that is binding upon
us in terms of what we are to believe and do. praxis: From the Greek prasso (meaning "to work"),
praxis involves revolutionary action on behalf of the poor
and oppressed - and out of this, theological perceptions
will (liberationists believe) continually emerge. In other
words, praxis refers to the discovery and formation of
theological "truth" out of a given historical situation
through personal participation in the struggle for the
liberation of the oppressed. propositional revelation: The view that God in the
Bible has communicated factual information (or propositions)
about Himself; the view that God's special revelation in
Scripture has been given in propositional statements. (An article from the Christian Research Journal,
Winter 1991, page 8)
The above article is
an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning
from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing
of other available resources: P.O. Box 80087 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 |