Is it right for Christians to prioritise one group over another? Flashcards
(17 cards)
Introduction
- Define focus
- Context
- Explain the challenge
- Present the tension
- Thesis
Define the focus: The ethical question of whether Christians should prioritise one group over another, often illustrated by liberation theology’s preferential option for the poor.
Context: Liberation theology arose in the 1950s–60s, especially in Latin America, claiming Jesus’ teachings demand addressing poverty not just charitably but structurally.
Explain the challenge: Liberation theology uses Marxist economic analysis to argue Christians should prioritise the poor due to systemic injustice.
Present the tension: This challenges traditional Christian approaches that focus on spiritual charity, and raises questions about prioritisation ethics.
• Thesis: This essay will explore the validity and implications of prioritising one group (the poor) through liberation theology and its critiques, weighing biblical, theological, and ethical arguments.
Paragraph 1
Main Body Paragraph 1: In Favor of Prioritising the Poor — Liberation Theology’s Case
Main Body Paragraph 1: In Favor of Prioritising the Poor — Liberation Theology’s Case
Ao1: Overview of liberation theology
• Emerged in 1950s-60s, especially in Brazil.
• Argues that Jesus’ teachings require addressing poverty systemically, not just through charity.
• Influenced by Marx’s economic analysis: poverty results from structural exploitation and alienation under capitalism (private ownership of means of production).
• Liberation theologians (Gutierrez, Boff) see orthopraxis (right action) first—justice demands addressing structural causes; orthodoxy (belief) follows.
• The Kingdom of God is about social justice here and now, not just afterlife.
Main Body Paragraph 1: In Favor of Prioritising the Poor — Liberation Theology’s Case
Ao1: Biblical basis
• Preferential option for the poor (Jesus’ Beatitudes, e.g., “Blessed are the poor”) implies prioritising the poor.
Jesus’ teachings (“it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle…” Matthew 19:24; “Sell your possessions…” Matthew 6:25-34) are interpreted as anti-wealth, advocating structural change.
Exodus story supports God’s concern for social liberation, not just individual salvation.
Main Body Paragraph 1: In Favor of Prioritising the Poor — Liberation Theology’s Case
Ao1: Marxist influence and Christian compatibility
• Marx’s critique of religion as the “opiate” controlling the poor is used to critique complacency in Christian charity.
• Liberation theologians accept Marx’s economic analysis, reject his atheism.
• Gutierrez and Boff argue Marx’s method can help Christians understand oppression without atheistic implications.
• A. F. McGovern: Liberation theology is not Marxist atheism since it focuses on God and human dignity, not class struggle as Marx did.
Main Body Paragraph 1: In Favor of Prioritising the Poor — Liberation Theology’s Case
Ao1: Moral and practical arguments
• Charity alone is insufficient; addressing root causes is necessary for true justice.
• Christians have a duty to fight exploitation and systemic injustice.
• Camara’s quote highlights the moral inconsistency of the Church condemning structural questions while praising charity.
Main Body Paragraph 1: In Favor of Prioritising the Poor — Liberation Theology’s Case
Strengths
• Liberation theology responds practically to the realities of poverty and oppression.
• It aligns with key biblical themes of justice, preferential option for the poor, and social liberation narratives like Exodus.
• Its separation of Marx’s economic critique from atheistic aspects shows theological flexibility and relevance.
• It revitalises Christian praxis, focusing faith on tangible social justice, thus avoiding complacency.
Main Body Paragraph 1: In Favor of Prioritising the Poor — Liberation Theology’s Case
Weaknesses
• Marxist influence remains controversial; critics argue any link with atheistic Marxism undermines Christian faith and authority.
• The movement’s focus on economic justice might overshadow spiritual salvation, causing “anthropocentrism” (Pope John Paul II).
• Liberation theology’s political activism risks alienating Christians who see faith as primarily spiritual, not political.
• The emphasis on structural change may neglect personal sin and moral responsibility, central to traditional Christianity.
Paragraph 2
Main Body Paragraph 2: Arguments Against Prioritising One Group — Traditional Christian Critiques
Main Body Paragraph 2: Arguments Against Prioritising One Group — Traditional Christian Critiques
A01: Orthodoxy-first approach:
• Traditional theology starts with orthodoxy (correct belief), then orthopraxis (correct practice).
• Charity is seen as fulfilling Jesus’ call; structural economic revolution is beyond the Church’s mandate.
Main Body Paragraph 2: Arguments Against Prioritising One Group — Traditional Christian Critiques
A01: Biblical and theological critiques
• Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), suggesting focus is spiritual, not political/social.
• “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…” indicates acceptance of political authority, separation of religion and politics.
• Jesus’ teachings often stress personal morality and salvation, not systemic economic revolution.
• Matthew 6:25-34 shows Jesus encouraging trust in God over material concerns, possibly discouraging political activism for material conditions.
• Kloppenburg: Jesus focused on individual sin and forgiveness, not structural societal change.
Main Body Paragraph 2: Arguments Against Prioritising One Group — Traditional Christian Critiques
A01: Pope John Paul II’s position
• Supports preferential option for the poor but stresses spiritual poverty and charity over political ideology.
• Warns against “anthropocentric” liberation that neglects transcendent spiritual salvation.
• Critiques Marxism as atheistic, totalitarian, and unchristian.
Main Body Paragraph 2: Arguments Against Prioritising One Group — Traditional Christian Critiques
A01: Risks of prioritisation
• Prioritising one group risks injustice to others, undermining universal Christian love.
• Political activism inspired by liberation theology can lead to violence and betrayal of the poor (per Cardinal Ratzinger).
• Focus on economic struggle may distract from eternal salvation and spiritual transformation.
Main Body Paragraph 2: Arguments Against Prioritising One Group — Traditional Christian Critiques
Strengths
• Emphasises core Christian doctrines about salvation, personal sin, and the spiritual Kingdom of God.
• Avoids conflating political ideology with faith, preserving religious purity and focus on eternal life.
• Recognises dangers of politicisation of faith and totalitarian outcomes of Marxist revolutions.
• Offers a holistic approach that values both spiritual and economic needs, not just material liberation.
Main Body Paragraph 2: Arguments Against Prioritising One Group — Traditional Christian Critiques
Weaknesses
• Charity without systemic change may perpetuate poverty and injustice.
• Focus on spiritual poverty risks ignoring urgent material suffering.
• Separation of faith and politics can lead to passivity in face of social injustice.
• The “kingdom not of this world” argument may overlook numerous biblical calls for justice and liberation in this life.
Conclusion
• Christians have a clear biblical and moral mandate to care for the poor, but how this is done remains debated.
• Liberation theology provides a compelling argument that prioritising the poor and addressing structural causes is a valid and necessary expression of Christian love and justice.
• However, traditional Christian critiques caution against reducing Christianity to political ideology, warning that spiritual salvation and universal love should not be compromised.
LOA
• Ultimately, it is right for Christians to prioritise one group, such as the poor, when that prioritisation reflects a deeper commitment to justice, love, and faithfulness to Jesus’ teachings—but this must be balanced with spiritual concerns and universal care.
• The ethical challenge lies in prioritising without exclusion or neglect, seeking holistic liberation that includes both material justice and spiritual salvation.
• Therefore, Christians can rightly prioritise the poor, but not to the detriment of others or the spiritual dimension of faith, supporting a nuanced, integrated approach.
