Lacking the integrity openly to disclaim Christian commitment, Liberation Theology is obliged to warp the Bible, disdain the Church, and fabricate a “theology” drawn from Marxist premises in order to keep its commitments to Marxism.
That will be obvious before we are through. Basing our study entirely on Gutierrez’ A Theology of Liberation, we will first show his reliance upon the five facets of Marxism listed above, and then show how the Bible is abused to baptize these Marxist tenets.
Gutierrez And Marxism
1. What position does LT (a la Gutierrez) take toward Marxism?
Let Gutierrez tell us: “contemporary theology does in fact find itself in direct and fruitful confrontation with Marxism, and it is to a large extent due to Marxism’s influence that theological thought, searching for its own sources, has begun to reflect on the meaning of the transformation of the world and the action of man in history” (p. 9). [Really, now, after nineteen centuries of Church history, after the Reformation, after the Papal Encyclicals beginning with Rerum novarum of 1890, after the House of Orange in the Low Countries, the Huguenots in France, Cromwell in England and the Puritans in America, are you saying that the Church was only just now begun to reflect on the “action of man in history”? Were the Church and her theology born yesterday, or were you?]
When you write that, “only socialism can enable Latin America to achieve true development” (p. 111), you want us to know that, “It would be a mistake to think that this point of view, which is concerned with human values, is the exclusive preserve of scholars of a Christian inspiration. Converging viewpoints are found in Marxist-inspired positions” (p. 25). [But friend, why should anyone who takes true theology seriously, even imagine that “this point of view”—that is, LT’s point of view—is in any remote sense “of a Christian inspiration”? It is all Marx’s!]
You say it yourself: “Pointing the way towards an era in history when man can live humanly, Marx created categories which allowed for the elaboration of a science of history” (p. 30). [And these become, for you, the categories within which “theological reflection” will function . Nothing “Christian” about them, is there? Has the Church ever taught class struggle, violent revolt, and man’s ability to make himself “new” through conquest of his own destiny? If so, then Marx was a Christian theologian!]
LT And Class Struggle
LT unequivocally opts for the class struggle, a concept foreign to the Bible: “The class struggle is a fact and neutrality in this question is not ‘possible’” (p. 275). [So you echo Marx· and Engels in saying!]
You hold that, “Only a class analysis will enable us to see what is really involved in the opposition between oppressed sterile” (p. 13). [This “Truth” which is also the “Way” seems to have been revealed through Marx.]
e) All this being so, “Theology as critical reflection on historical praxis is a liberating theology . . . . This is a theology which does not stop with reflecting on the world, but rather tries to be a part of the process through which the world is transformed” (p . 15). [In short, “liberation theology” sets about the baptism of a Marxist-oriented violent transformation of society; Marx without wishing it was the original “liberation theologian”!]
LT And The Church
Having walked in the light of Marxism thus far, LT has no hesitance about ordering the Church to take the Marxist path which LT sets before her:
“Participation in the process of liberation is an obligatory and privileged locus for Christian life and reflection” (p. 49). [LT or else!]
“In Latin America, the Church must place itself squarely within the process of revolution, amid the violence which is present in different ways” (p. 138). [Now that Marx has illumined the “way,” the Church “must” follow!]
And does LT mind, then, redefining the role of Church and Christianity to fit Marxist categories? Not at all! Gutierrez declares that, “rather than define the world in relation to the religious phenomenon, it would seem that religion should be redefined in relation to the profane” (p. 67). [Not the clearest of language, is it, but the import is unmistakable: Marxism will set the agenda for the Church.]
To make sure, Gutierrez adds: “there is now but a single vocation to salvation, beyond all distinctions, giving religious value in a completely new way to the action of man in history, Christian and non-Christian alike. The building of a just society has worth in terms of the Kingdom, or in more current phraseology, to participate in the process of liberation is already, in a certain sense, a salvific work” (p. 72). [Whatever you mean by “in a certain sense,” it appears that secular Marxists are , as it were, baptized through participation in violent revolution!]
This, not surprisingly, leads Gutierrez to add that this “presupposes an ‘uncentering’ of the Church, for the Church must cease considering itself as the exclusive place of salvation and orient itself towards a new and radical service of the people” (p. 256). [Who, then, wins? Marx or the Church? Not, you may be sure, the Church!]
The presiding “Pope” for the “uncentered” Church will be (in absentia) Karl I! His diocese at least the parish of South Mercuria.
How the Bible is warped to bless the pontificate of Pope Karl I will be the subject of a concluding article.
The foregoing has been developed from a lecture given aJ Mid-America Reformed Seminary in October 1983, and will later appear in expanded form in a publication by The Christian’s library Press.
Lester De Koster lives at Grand Rapids, Michigan.