Archive: Should United Methodists Embrace Liberation Theology?

By Riley B. Case

Consider. This past fall …

• The Roman Catholic Church’s doctrinal standards commission issued a 36-page paper on liberation theology. It warned that theologians who accept Marxist solutions are adopting positions incompatible with the Christian view of humanity.
• A leading Catholic advocate of liberation theology, Brazilian Leonardo Boff, was summoned by the Vatican to appear in Rome. Boff was asked to respond to charges that certain of his teachings are not consistent with Christian teaching.
• In an address to his denomination’s General Board of Global Ministries, United Methodist bishop Roy Sano asserted that the board should reject efforts to separate itself from liberation theology. Sano went on to argue that the Holy Spirit is at work in liberation movements, and therefore opposition to liberation efforts are acts of “blasphemy.”

At the core of liberation theology is the belief that God stands with the poor and oppressed of the world against societies and systems that hold them in bondage. The “poor” and “oppressed” might be peasants in South America who are oppressed by unbridled capitalism, or blacks in South Africa or America who suffer because of racism, or women who are in bondage to male-dominated structures in the world. According to liberation theology it is the mission of the Church to support those movements which struggle against such oppression.

The goal of liberation theology is not simply social reform or guaranteed human rights, but a total reworking of the structures of society. Present systems based on racism, capitalism, sexism, and militarism must fall, to be replaced by a new world order. This new order is what Jesus had in mind when he spoke of the kingdom of God.

The strongest interest in liberation theology is in Latin America, particularly among Roman Catholics, and especially among those involved in radical political—and oftentimes Marxist—movements. In North America liberation theology finds support among intellectuals and church bureaucrats. (Contrary to what its supporters often claim, liberation theology is not a movement from among the poor.) United Methodism is affected by liberation theology because it has influenced agencies like the General Board of Global Ministries and the World Council of Churches.

Much of the criticism directed toward liberation theology is aimed at its political, social, and economic stance. That stance is almost always identified either with Marxism or some form of socialism. It tends to link the sins of “racism,” “sexism,” “militarism,” “classism,” and “capitalism” with an anti-American or anti-Western bias. Opponents see this as very poor economics and very poor politics.

For evangelical Christians, however, there is a more important issue: Is liberation theology an adequate interpretation of God’s truth in matters of faith and practice? A number of observers, evangelical and otherwise, have serious reservations. Pope John Paul II, for example, while taking a strong stand on behalf of the poor and against injustice, has expressed concern about liberation theology as a form of Christian teaching. A number of evangelical scholars have labeled liberation theology quite simply as heresy.

“Heresy” is a strong word for United Methodists, who like to be known for their tolerant pluralism. But even within pluralism there are certain minimum standards for doctrinal truth. There is, according to the Book of Discipline, a core of faith that is “revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.” This standard has been known as the “Wesleyan quadrilateral”: Scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. When these tests are applied how does liberation theology measure up?

Scripture

The good in liberation theology has been in its calling the Church’s attention to those Biblical passages which speak of justice and God’s concern for the poor. Liberation theology has also rightly insisted that evil is not exclusively a matter of the heart, but also extends to political and economic systems.

Liberation theology is not content, however, simply to challenge the Church to take more seriously the cause of human rights and justice. Liberation theology has a whole new agenda for the Church—the  working for a new world order. And in this agenda a great part of the Bible is deemed irrelevant.

Liberation theology speaks about “usable” Biblical traditions, “usable” Biblical teachings, and even “usable” Biblical language (for example, “Lord” is not a usable term in referring to God because it suggests a male image). When only some Biblical passages or Biblical teachings are usable, it is plain that other passages or teachings are not usable; that is, they are seen as irrelevant because they do not fit into the liberation theology scheme of things.

Thus, the Bible’s teaching on heaven and hell is not relevant because it speaks of a world to come, and that distracts from facing the problems of this world. Or, another example: The Bible makes a distinction on the basis of faith between those “in Christ” and those outside of Christ. Liberation theology rejects that distinction in favor of a distinction between the “oppressed” (who may or may not be Christians) and the “oppressors” (who likewise may or may not be Christians).

The apostle Paul says the message of the Gospel of first importance is that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day” (I Corinthians 15:3). That understanding of gospel does not fit into the liberation scheme of things, which sees Christ’s death not as atonement but as an act of solidarity with the poor, and which has little need for a bodily resurrection.

Rosemary Ruether (advocate of liberation theology and a professor at United Methodists’ Garrett-Evangelical Seminary) teaches that there needs to be a “transformation of the semantic content of the religious symbols.” She means by this that Biblical concepts as they have been understood by scholars and by the Church down through the years must be changed and accommodated to a liberationist understanding of the world.

Thus, incarnation does not refer to God’s taking human flesh in Jesus Christ, but means “to be fully committed to the oppressed and to a political action which takes the anguish and hopes of the people seriously.” Revelation is not God’s self-disclosure of Himself and His truth to us, but is “conscientization,” that redeeming and liberating insight which makes people “aware of the social contradictions that define their lives, and thrusts them toward a process of liberation from dependency and oppression” (Liberation Theology, Paulist Press, by Rosemary Ruether, p. 183).

Thus, for many liberation theologians the Bible is usable only as it can be conformed to social and political ideology.

Add to this the fact that liberation theology really doesn’t speak much of the Bible, preferring instead to base theology on social and political analysis. In one midwestern seminary interested in liberation theology, the seminary bookstore has more shelf space devoted to Marxism (32 shelf feet) than to Biblical or historical theology. When the liberationists use the Bible it is not so much to stand under its authority as it is to seek its support of the liberationist agenda.

Even in this very brief and simple analysis it seems clear that liberation theology has a controversy with Scripture. A theology cannot legitimately be said to be Scriptural if it chooses to reject the large portion of Scripture while working with only selected passages. The choice is clear: either Scripture is taken seriously or liberation theology, but not both. If liberation theology is God’s truth for our time, then the appeal is to some authority other than Scripture.

Tradition

An appeal to tradition is an appeal to the way the Church has always understood the Bible and Christian teaching. Within United Methodism such an appeal is to the historic creeds, to the Reformers, to the foundation documents as found in the Discipline (the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith), and to the writings of Wesley. In the broader Christian tradition the appeal is to those teachings that Christians have held in common down through the years.

Not only does liberation theology make no appeal to tradition, at many points it opposes Christian tradition. In the social analysis of the liberationists, that tradition has often contributed to the very structures that are oppressive and need to be overthrown. In this analysis traditional Christian doctrines must be cast aside or reworked.

For example, Catholics and Protestants have traditionally disagreed about how a person is saved. Protestants have argued that salvation is by faith alone. Catholics have argued that faith includes works. But either way, both Catholics and Protestants have agreed that salvation means salvation from the effects of sin to life with God now and eternal life in the future. Christ died for persons and therefore salvation is personal, but it has social implications.

Liberation theology argues that the emphasis on the person has often been harmful because it blinds people to the effects of social sin. Furthermore, according to liberationists, how one is saved is irrelevant because to them salvation itself means something totally different from what the Church has always taught. Gustavo Guitierrez, in his book, A Theology Of Liberation, argues that salvation is not some “other-worldly” condition: it is the practical construction of social justice in the existing world. If salvation means what liberation theology says it means, then the Church’s teaching down through the years is wrong.

Another example is liberation theology’s concept of sin. Traditionally, Catholics and Protestants, and Christians of all eras, have seen sin as primarily a matter of the heart, that is, within the person. Liberation theology rejects this understanding for one which sees the focus of sin primarily in the structures of society. According to liberation theology the problem that faith should deal with is not personal sin, but social sin. Thus, tradition is cast aside so that liberation theology can recast the content of the faith to fit its own agenda.

Are United Methodists serious at all about lifting up tradition as a test for doctrine? If there is any integrity at all in the process, then liberation theology must be judged as failing to pass the test. One can side with liberation theology, but to do so is to cast aside the authority of tradition.

Experience

The quadrilateral’s appeal to experience asks whether Biblical truth is confirmed by the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. In the words of John, “what we have seen and heard we proclaim” (1 John 1:3). If we claim miracles, have we known miracles? If we claim forgiveness, have we known forgiveness? If the Bible teaches that faith is worked out in love, can we give evidence of that love?

It has always been true that the Gospel leads to liberation. Persons, when confronted by Christ, have believed their allegiance is to God first, and not to principalities and powers of this world. That has been the basis for many of the social reform movements growing out of faith. Christianity has been a major factor behind many of those movements.

But the power behind that liberating factor has always been a transcendent God whose judgment beyond this world gives freedom in this life, because oppression and even death are not the last word. As Luther expressed in his hymn: “The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still; His kingdom is forever.”

Liberation theology preaches not a transcendent God whose truth is forever and whose judgments will ultimately make all things right, but a God whose liberating power is understood in terms of this world. Furthermore, liberation theology maintains that it is by the changing of systems, rather than through personal regeneration, that the new world order will come.

Not only is this idea not supported by Scripture or tradition, it is also highly questionable whether it is supported by appeal to Christian experience. If God truly has anointed liberation theology and the liberation movements of today, where is the evidence? Where, upon the preaching of liberation theology, have the oppressed found their full humanity under God? Where has revival of faith broken out? Where are the new societies based on love and justice?

Some liberationists, when asked to point to a society which most clearly approximates God’s new order, have mentioned Cuba. How could anyone dare to lift up totalitarian Cuba as an example of what this new religious movement is all about? But if not Cuba, what?

If there is an argument from experience to give validity to liberation theology, we wait to hear it.

Reason

The task of reason is to inquire about the consistency and credibility of any theology which claims to be God’s truth. Reason may not be able to determine whether any ideology is true, but it can ask whether any ideology is consistent with what it claims to be.

In the name of integrity and credibility, it must be asked at what point we cease to use the label “Christian” in referring to opinions and positions which bear so little resemblance to what has always been referred to as Christian—in Scripture and in tradition. When liberation theology is so antagonistic to such a large portion of Scripture and tradition, does it not give up its claim to be a Christian theology?

From a United Methodist perspective, the integrity of the doctrinal statement is at stake. Either the Wesleyan quadrilateral (the working together of Scripture, tradition, experience, and reason) is a guideline to be taken seriously as a test for the adequacy of theological affirmations, or it is not. Either there are limits to how far afield we are allowed to go in the name of pluralism, or there are none. Liberation theology may be God’s truth for today, but if it is, United Methodism’s doctrinal standards and guidelines are irrelevant. And this needs to be stated, regardless of the bias of bishops, or seminary professors, or general boards, or councils of churches.

Recasting the Gospel

The Church has not always been what it has claimed to be. It can be faulted for its lack of concern in the midst of injustice and oppression. But the question should be asked, is this because the Church has misunderstood God’s message and is preaching a false gospel, or because the Church has not lived up to the message it already has. Do we change theology because we have not the truth, or do we repent because we have not acted on the truth already revealed to us?

Liberation theology would ask us to recast the Gospel, to reinterpret the message of the Church down through the years in order to make it consistent with the goals and aims of modern liberation movements. In its extreme form, liberation theology ought to be seen as another religion, in competition with historic Christianity.

Fortunately, the number of people committed to this extreme form of liberation theology is few. A large majority of those persons with an interest in liberation theology is either unaware of, or not convinced by, some of its more radical assumptions. These persons tend to be fairly traditional Christians who have a commitment to human rights and social justice. With these and others, conversations must continue about what it means to be a faithful Christian in the world today.

 

Riley B. Case is a graduate of Taylor University and Garren-Evangelical Seminary. He is a member of the North Indiana Conference and presently serves as district superintendent of the Marion District.