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.
EUROPEAN
ROOTS
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.
MARXIST
INFLUENCES
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.
THE THEOLOGY
OF LIBERATION
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]
ROMAN
CATHOLIC OPENNESS
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 fellowshipping 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.
THE BIBLE
AND POVERTY
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.
A FAULTY
FOUNDATION
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?
The Problem
With Praxis
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.
Truth that
Transcends Culture and Time
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.
Alien
Preunderstandings
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.
A CHALLENGE
TO EVANGELICALS
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 eisogesis).
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.
