liberation theology and Marx Flashcards
(17 cards)
what is liberation theology
a theological movement that began in 1964 when young catholic theologians met in petropolis in brazil and pledged themselves to finding the truth of the christian message in the poverty of Latin America.
the group included 2 who became leading liberation theologians - jon sobrino and gustavo Gutierrez
Liberation theologians think that the teachings of Jesus included addressing poverty. They also think that Karl Marx’s economic analysis of society showed that addressing poverty requires addressing the structural causes of economic inequality. So, they conclude that Christians ought to address the structural causes of economic inequality.
liberation theology drew on the work of Paulo freire who in ‘pedagogy of the opressed 1970’ invented the term ‘conscientisation’ to describe the process by which a person becomes conscious of the power structures in society. he thought education should liberate people by raising their consciousness, teaching them how to read not only words but also the power structures in society.
orthopraxy vs orthodoxy
liberation theology argues that action should come first and then explanation. orthopraxy (right practice) should come before orthodoxy (right belief). liberation theology is therefore a theology of doing.
kingdom of god
concept of Kingdom of god is central to liberation theology. it is the world made anew, not somewhere to go after death. the coming of the kingdom of God is something that must be hoped for and worked for in this world -
‘the growth of the kingdom is a process which occurs historically in liberation, insofar as liberation means a greater fulfiment of man’ - gutierrez a theology of liberation 1973 p177
christians must destroy the roots of exploitaion by living a christian life and working for peace and justice in the hope of creating the kingdom of god on earth. in this way liberation theology offers hope to the poor that things may change for them.
gutierrez liberation ways
for him liberation happens in 2 distinct ways
first there must be social and economic liberation -poverty and oppression are caused by humans and can be remedied by them.
secondly people must be liberated from sin, reconciled with God and all of gods brothers and sisters in christ.
liberation theologians disagree about weather earthly liberation or spiritual liberation should come first.
Juan segundo argues that ‘Liberation is first and foremost liberation from the radical slavery of sin’ - theology and the church: a response to cardinal Ratzinger and a warning to the whole church’ 1985
however others like gutierrez seem to emphasise earthly liberation
liberation theology in the bible
exodus - liberation of the people of israel from oppression
‘let my people go, so that they may worship me’ 9:1
jesus’ denouncement of the wealthy - ‘it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom God’ - Matthew 19.24
treat those in need as if they were God
‘whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me’ matthew 25:40
the beatitudes
‘blessed are the poor in spirit , for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’ matthew 5:3
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor” - matthew
however
arguably this at most shows that Jesus thought rich people should give to charity, it doesn’t suggest he wanted to overturn or address the causes of economic oppression/inequality. Kloppenburg, a Catholic Brazilian bishop, makes this point. - He first argued that fusing theology and political action diminishes the spiritual message of Christianity. Liberation theology focuses on the injustice and sin in the structure of society, but Jesus spoke about the sin and forgiveness of individual people, he didn’t speak about society in general.
Jesus doesn’t seem to be saying that we should actively try to overthrow the unjust social structures that result from living for money. In fact, when questioned whether Jews should pay an unjust tax, Jesus said yes: ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesers’
Exodus story shows Kloppenberg is wrong: Exodus involved the liberation of Jews from the oppression of the Pharaoh and arguably shows that God is not only concerned about liberation at the individual level.
marx, alienation and exploitation
19th century German economic theorist and philospher who is best known for laying the foundations of socialism and communism. - most famous works are the ‘communist manifesto’ 1848 and ‘das kapital; 1867
In Marx’s Theory, alienation is a systematic result of capitalism where workers are separated from the product of their labour.
Workers do not own their labour or the products they make. The fruits of their labour belong to the capitalists, this causes a sense of estrangement and powerlessness.
Marx believed that workers are alienated from their humanity in a capitalist society because their work does not fulfil their human potential.
Exploitation in Marx’s theory is a fundamental component of capitalism. The capitalist makes a profit by selling the product made by the labour of others.
Marx states that workers are exploited because they are paid less than the value of their labour. this creates a class struggle. The workers, or proletariat, must sell their labour to the capitalists, or bourgeoisie, who own the means of production.
marxism and christianty
The influence of Marxism on Christianity is controversial because Marx was so against religion. This is a difficulty for liberation theology which is Christian yet influenced by an anti-religious theory.
Marx thought the natural progression of History was that the workers/peasants would one day rise up against their oppressors. However, religion stands in the way of this progress since it persuaded the peasants to accept their low place in society because of the lie that they would eventually go to heaven.
Marx called religion an ‘opiate’. An opiate does two things: dulls pain and also prevents action. Those are the two things Marx thought religion did to control people. Dulling the pain of their life with the promise of heaven - ‘religion is the opium of the people’.
Arguably liberation theology is actually a valid way for a Christian to respond to Marx’s critique of religion. If Christianity was reformed along liberation theology’s doctrines, it would no longer simply be a tool of capitalist exploitation. So, there is no problem with a Christian movement like liberation theology being influenced by Marx despite his anti-religious arguments since his anti-religious arguments do not apply to liberation theology.
However, liberation theology is controversial within Christianity and isn’t accepted by the catholic Church. Marx’s critique could therefore still be correct about Christianity for the most part.
Guitierrez & Boff on the influence of Marxism
Liberation theologians argue that there is no incoherence for Christians in being influenced by Marx.
one can accept Marx’s economic views without accepting his anti-religious views. Gutierrez only accepted Marx’s critique of capitalism, not Marx’s anti-religious views.
L. Boff also agreed with this stance, arguing that liberation theology can draw on Marx’s ‘methodological pointers’ to help understand ‘the role of the oppressed’.
foundation of Liberation theology is an attempt to faithfully follow Jesus’ teaching to help the poor and the influence of Marx is merely in detailing the method for efficiently achieving that goal.
marx is helping Christians be true to the teachings of Jesus.
however some people argue that christianty cannot use marxism
Cardinal Ratzinger - said it should be remembered that atheism and the denial of human rights and freedoms is at the core of Marxism. Marxism is intrinsically unchristian and so Christianity should not use it as a lens to view society.
The lessons we should learn from the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century are that they come to power by violent and revolutionary means “precisely in the name of the liberation of the people”. The result is that those who employ revolutionary politics “betray the poor they mean to help”. Ratzinger said the Catholic Church should help the poor, but in its own way, not in a Marxist way.
Dom Helder Camara, in reaction to the Catholic Church labelling liberation theologians as communists and Marxists:
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist”. Camara is arguing that liberation theology is not connected to the atheistic anti-religious core of Marxist theory.
the preferential option for the poor
this phrase was first used in 1968 by father Pedro Aorrive, superior general of the jesuits and was picked up by the catholic bishops of Latin America.
it refers to the trend in the bible that shows a preference for individuals who are on the margins of society and who are powerless. also draws on how jesus aligned himself more closely with the poor.
the preferential option for the poor became a central feature of liberaton theology and is encapsulated in the writing of the jesuit theologian juan segundo
he argues that whatever criticisms can be levelled at liberation theology for its use of marxist theories there is an authentic christian response in the preferential option for the poor. argued that the preferential option for the poor meant that Christians should not be neutral when it comes to injustice and its political causes. The church should fight for the rights of all people but especially the poor
biblical evidence against liberation theology
At his trial, Jesus claimed ‘My kingdom is not of this world’, which seems to suggest that the kingdom of God is unrelated to the politics of kingdoms in this world.
Pope John Paul II draws on this verse, arguing that overly focusing on earthly socio-economic progress is “anthropocentric”, meaning human-focused. This leads to secularization and a lack of genuine spirituality.
‘what counts are programs and struggles for a liberation which is socio-economic, political and even cultural, but within a horizon that is closed to the transcendent.’ - pope JP
However Reza Azlan argues that this quote is from the gospel of John written 90 years after Jesus’s death, after Christianity had divorced itself from Judaism and became a roman religion. The earlier Gospels present Jesus’s Kingdom as something he was bringing about on earth. Azlan is suggesting this verse was added to de-politicise Jesus so Christianity could better fit into Roman society.
However, Azlan’s conclusion fails. Even if we were to accept Azlan’s argument, there are still so many quotes from Jesus in the earlier written gospels that are just as suggestive of an apolitical attitude.
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. 23 For life is more than food”
“seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” - Luke 12:22-31 -
Jesus here seems to be against us caring about where someone gets their food, drink or clothes from - contradicts liberation theology
this arguably justifies Marx’s critique of religion as it shows how faith in God is used to distract people from their economic oppression.
Jesus here also seems to contradict Guitierrez’ view that liberation from economic injustice should precede spiritual injustice. Jesus is clear that before dealing with economic concerns you should ‘first’ seek the kingdom of God.
“give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is Gods’.
- seems Jesus saw a fundamental disconnect between religion and political concerns. Even in cases of economic injustice like this tax, Jesus seems to be saying it is not God’s concern. It’s hard to see how Jesus could be considered a political figure aimed at liberating people by changing society with this.
Defence of liberation theology & the liberator view of Jesus.-
yes He did exclusively focus on individuals and their choices. Yet, the outcome of individuals following his teachings is structural change. So, Jesus’ teachings should be seen as aiming at structural socio-economic change as if all rich people gave up their wealth, it would liberate the poor by destroying the structural causes of economic injustice and inequality.
the validity of marxism
Liberation theology claims that Marx’s analysis of capitalism is useful. Arguments against the validity or usefulness of Marx are therefore be arguments against liberation theology.
Capitalism in Jesus’ time was much more exploitative, in fact it wasn’t really capitalism but precapitalism. These days, for someone to get rich like Bill Gates, they have to create something that makes peoples lives better so they will pay for it. So because Bill Gates is rich, we all have computers. So perhaps Jesus’ criticism of rich people was meant to be valid only for his time.
Adam Smith was the philosopher most involved in the founding of capitalism. He regarded poverty as unacceptable and unnecessary. Smith’s claim was that human nature involves selfishness, so a capitalist system is the best way to harness that selfishness because to satisfy your selfishness in a capitalist system you have to provide others with products or services which they are willing to pay you for.
The Liberation Theologians arguably view the sins of selfishness and greed as part of a capitalist free market economy and therefore as something which can be overcome. However, capitalists would point out that it is in countries which have the freest markets that you find the freest communities where human rights are upheld and violated less.
In 1960, 70% of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 2012 it dropped to 17%. Capitalists would argue that this shows that capitalism is working after all and that Marxist analysis is based on faulty economics.
capitalists argue that it is capitalism which is the truly liberating approach. Although it’s not perfect, the desire for perfection is utopian and simply has not worked out well throughout history when you consider the historical consequences of Marxism.
However, income inequality has not improved, in fact it is getting worse, and there is evidence from sociology that economic inequality is destabilizing of society. Therefore, Jesus’ critique of wealth still applies to this day, and liberation theology is justified in drawing on it. Furthermore, new economic issues like globalisation have shown how capitalism actually leads to corporations ruling the world and manipulating the market for their own profits.
Catholic Church response to liberation theology
catholic church concerned with liberation theologys use of marxs theories
in the ‘instruction on certain aspects of the ‘theology of liberation’ cardinal ratzinger articultated the catholic churchs disquiet -
it is dangerous to take parts of marxists theories as they contain intolerant aspects inc the denial of the individual and the emphasis on class and communal action
There is a danger that violent revolution will take precedence over evangelism
christian liberation should be primarily understood as spiritual liberation from sin
Ultimately only God can remove the suffering human beings experience
ratzinger argued that the Catholic Church will continue to struggle for the poor but using its own means and in its own way. christian theology cannot adopt a marxist analysis without changing from a christian world view to Marx one because marxism is inherently unchristian.
‘thus no seperation of the parts of this epistemologically unique complex is possible. if one tries to take only one part, say, the analysis, one ends up having to accept the entire ideology’
‘the denial of the human person, his liberty and rights, are at the core of the marxist theory’
in ‘temptations for the theology of liberation 1974’ Bonaventura kloppenburg summarises the criticisms of liberation theology.
he argued it emphasises practical opposition to oppression above the message of gospel whereby it equates theology with political action and sidelining the spritual messages of christianty. emphasises structural sin over individual sin despite the fact Jesus was focused on individual.
kloppenburg asks if theology is linked to a political movement, what happens if that movement fails? has theology also failed?
this leads to the criticism that liberation theology is so concerned about action that it has not paid sufficent attention to christian theology - in starting from action it cannot determine which actions might be right and which might be wrong.
in an article written in 1984 richard mcbrian adds that liberation theology seems to focus almost exclusively on just some biblical themes (poverty, exodus and the kingdom of God) at the expense of others and it is much more interested in lukes gospel than johns gospel.
defines opression in economic terms ignoring other kinds like sexism and racism.
although liberation theology was formally viewed with suspicion by the Catholic Church, the election of the first latin american pope may indicate a change of heart. in 2015, pope francis asked gustavo Guitierrez to be a key speaker at the event at the vatican.
while pope francis is critical of Marx he has certainly criticised capitalism and named oscar Romero ,the salvadorian archbishop
who was assinated by right wing death squads in 1980, as a martyr.
The catholic churches offical stance has not changed, but some in the media write of a thaw between the vatican and the latin american christian thought of the 1960s and 70s
should christian theology engage with athiest secular ideologies ?
the vaticans key concern about liberation theology is its adoption of a marxist account of human development. Marxism offers a comprehensive analysis of the world and says hows the workers can liberate themselves from oppression by developing a socialist society. This contradicts christianty. In christianty the anaylsis is spritual wheras in marxism the anaylsis is economic.
therefore adopting marxism would be abandoning the christian world view.
however, others argue that christian theology has a strong record of engaging with and adapting in reponse to new insights and will not be corrupted if it borrows marxist thinking. eg scientific developments have led to a re-evaluation of the creation story in genesis and new developments in psychology and medicine have helped shed light on some healing stories in the New Testament. God even gives human beings a duty to learn about and look after the world when he asks man to name the livestock, birds and wild animals.
however
Leonardo Boff argues that marxism can never be allowed to become a central principle of christianty. christians must he suggests be vigilant in their criticism of marxism and must reject marxisms closed, monolithic socialist system that denies God and the dignity of the human person. marxism as a system is against christianty.
Boff wrote ‘introducing liberation theology’ 1987
does christianty tackle social issues more effectively than marxism ?
marx claimed that, through revolution, many social problems would ultimately lead to a socialist, classless society. yet many today would argue that communism was unable to respond effectively to suffering and poverty in society. for example it was unable to hold back the tide of globalisation.
china and cuba, both communist, have begun to open their economies to capitalism in recent years.
in contrast, christanty with its emphasis on the spiritual and on the individual as part of a community may be of more practical help to people struggling with unhappiness and oppression.
suffering cannot be removed from life even in a classless society so people therefore need something to help them respond to this suffering.
marx does not provide any comfort for people suffering unlike christianty. christianty provides spritual strength.
Marx would suggest that religion helps to maintain the status quo and limit peoples desires for change - ‘religion is the opium of the people’ - ‘critique of hegels philosphy of right 1843’
however could be argued that helps people to live in the present not at future that might never happen.
has liberation theology enaged with marxism fully enough?
can be argued that liberation theology fails to fully appreicate the significance of marx fundamental belief in the need for revolution. of course some liberation theologians do eg cases of preists taking off their dog collars and taking up arms in south american struggles in the 1960s and 1970s. But many adopt just his anaylsis of society not the wider aspects of marxism.
leonardo boff - ‘liberation theology used marxism purely as an instrument. it does not venerate it as it venerates the gospel’ - introducing liberation theology 1987
therefore some argue for a deeper dialogue between marxism and christianty
Jose Miranda ‘real conversation is needed, not lukewarm concealment of changes which are made underhandedly’ - ‘marx and the bible: a critique of the philosphy of oppression 1974.
in ‘marxism, liberation theology and the way of negation’ Deny Turner argues that liberation theology should go further and embrace the apophatic way(via negativa) to more effectively enage with marx. Drawing on the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, Meister Eckhardt and John of the Cross, Turner shows how an apophatic theology need not affirm or deny the essence of God and if christian thought asserts that god does not exist, then marxism has no God to deny. Turner is not arguing that christian theology abandons belief in God, but rather that it abandons any attempt to try to describe God because only a theology based around god that is beyond lanaguage and experience can have any meaningful interaction with marxism.
is it right for christins to prioritse one group over another?
one of the controversial aspects of LT is the extent which it prioritises one group , the poor and oppressed, over other groups
a case can be made that christianty is and should be centrally focused on the poor. this begins with the biblical observations of the actions and teachings of Jesus. leonardo and Clodovis Boff in introducing liberation theology argue that God gets involved and takes sides with the poor.
LT suggests that God takes the side of the poor against the rich and actively works for the poor.
Gustavo Gutierrez in the power of the poor in history 1983 - ‘he is a God who takes sides with the poor and liberates them from slavery and oppression’
however
some liberation theologians have been criticised by the vatican for focusing on the poor in opposition to the wealthy.
writing about the works of Jon Sobrino, the vatican says he manifests a dangerous preoccupation with the poor - believes it is wrong to prioritise one group over another, for all are to be saved.
John Paul II argued that wealth does not shelter people from spiritual poverty, that rich people can be as profoundly unhappy as poor people and this spiritual poverty was as much of a concern as material poverty for the gospel writers.
more fundamentally the message of salvation from Jesus is a message to save all people not just the poor. emphasisng one group over another puts us in danger of forgetting the universal nature of salvation.
although it is difficult to make a case that the church should not be deeply concerned with the poor.
perhaps the solution might be to define ‘poverty’ widely to encompass spiritual and material poverty.
