“Liberation Theology,” What is it?

During the last twenty years an important phenomenon has overtaken the foreign mission work of the “mainline” denominations in the United States, particularly in their work in Latin America. This phenomenon is the rise of a “liberation theology” which has affected not only protestant missions and churches but has also divided Roman Catholics into two opposite camps.

Liberation theology grew up as a result of a sociological rather than a theological approach to missions. During the 1960s the missionary sending churches became less tied to the God-centered world-view of the Bible and accepted a liberal theology which emphasizes a far more man-centered or humanistic approach. Behind this, of course, lies the age-old depreciation of the Bible as God’s infallible written Word and the acceptance of the idea that our culture is so different from that of biblical times that the message of the Bible must be generalized into a message of love which unconditionally accepts all sinners as God’s children whether they believe in Him or not.

When all men are viewed in terms of their common humanity, rather than in terms of their covenant-keeping or covenant-breaking actions toward God, it is the human situation that becomes most important. This sociological approach to man by churches and missions during the last 20 years occurred at the same time that the Marxist nations of the world have been most active in seeking to impress their ideas ·upon the peoples and governments of the poorer nations. Marxism, of course, also approaches man from a humanistic point of view.

Both the Marxists and the liberal missionaries from their somewhat different, but nevertheless commonly humanistic, points of view have come to the same conclusions about man’s problems. Man’s two basic problems are seen by both of these groups as being lack of wealth and lack of freedom. Not surprisingly, they have also come to similar conclusions about how to solve man’s problems in the third world; 1) redistribute wealth, and 2) get rid of outside influences. If the problems are hunger and oppression, the answers are food and freedom.

The marriage of the liberal Christian desire to do something about the problems of hunger and oppression in Latin America with the Marxist ideals of redistribution and freedom have led to the development of “liberation theology.” Liberation theology is a way of reading the Bible and doing the work of the church which focuses on the problems of hunger and oppression. Jesus Christ is seen as focusing his ministry on the materially poor and liberating them from the oppression of their Jewish and Roman masters.

Established Christianity in Latin America is seen by liberation theologians as either supporting the oppressor in maintaining the present situation, or as helping with the revolution to feed the hungry and free the oppressed. The questions of personal sin and of where persons will spend eternity can, on this accounting, only be addressed after the primary problems of hunger and oppression have been solved. Actually, liberation theologians ignore the matter of personal sin and its consequences and locate sin in the “oppressive” structures and leaders of society. In typically Marxist fashion, these structures and leaders are looked upon as being by nature oppressive, simply because they do handle wealth and power.

Liberation theology has found fertile ground in the mainline protestant denominations in the United States because those denominations have long since adopted the man-centered theologies of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. The acceptance of liberation theology and the sending of missionaries who teach it has gone so far that some national churches in Latin America have been telling the Americans to keep their missionaries at home. This theology has also caused a deep rift in the Roman Catholic Church where a number of monastic orders have been given over to the teaching and practice of liberation theology.

On the other side of the ledger, those denominations which have emphasized the infallibility of Scripture and the importance of salvation from sin, have strongly rejected liberation theology as being foreign to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some “evangelicals” have indeed made greater or lesser accommodations to this new movement, but a line of distinction has grown up between traditional Christians of whatever denomination and those from the same denominations who follow the “theology of liberation.” This is so much the case that “liberation” Catholics and protestants find themselves working together in opposition to Catholics and protestants who hold views more traditional in their own communions.

Liberation Theology and the CRC

The issue of the reaction of the Christian Reformed Churches in North America to liberation theology is one that is real, but which has remained mostly out of sight until recently. Several of the missionaries of the CRC in Latin America have been working side by side with the followers of liberation theology and have expressed appreciation for its ideas during visits to the churches of the denomination. The Rev. Carl Bosma, who teaches theology students in Brazil, and Dr. Sidney Rooy, who teaches at an ecumenical protestant seminary in Buenes Aries, Argentina, have both expressed agreement with the assessments of the Latin American scene made by the liberation theologians. Some relationship to liberation theology is necessary to anyone seeking to do Christian work in Central and South America; these representatives of the CRC have given it a relation, one however that many in the church might wish to question.

During the past year, the issue of a relation of the CRC to liberation theology has come closer to home as Dr. Rooy has been on the Calvin College and Seminary campus as part of a team studying the question of social justice in Latin America. On April 9, 1987, Dr. Rooy addressed the Calvin Seminary student body on the subject, “The Crisis and Challenge of Central America for the Christian Church.” In this address , Dr. Rooy made very clear his appreciation for and dependence upon the liberation theologians for their analysis of the problems in Latin America. Indeed, in his speech, Dr. Rooy quoted extensively from liberation theologians to bolster many of his points, clearly accepting their positions as his own. In several hearings of the tape of his lecture, this writer has not been able to detect anything approaching a criticism of any of their ideas.

While the above may not demonstrate conclusively that Dr. Rooy himself accepts the whole of liberation theology, the implication, particularly for his audience of seminary students, is clear. The only acceptable basis on which to face the “crisis in Central America” is that of the analysis and conclusion of liberation theology. Furthermore, the introduction of Dr. Rooy as one whose experience in South America and whose personal acquaintance with liberation theologians make him an authority on the subject of his address would lead all but the most critical of students to think that liberation theology is just a part of standard Christian thinking and that its analyses are the most biblical and useful ones we might use in our approach to Latin America.

Now, while we certainly have no pers‘onal problem with Dr. Rooy (he sounds like an intelligent and friendly man), we must point out that the roots and fruits of liberation theology, even as he discussed them at Calvin Seminary, are. diametrically opposed to the historic Christian faith and to the teaching of the Bible. If a majority of the students at Calvin are accepting the ideas Dr. Rooy was expounding, the Christian Reformed Churches are in for a revolution which will Marxize their theology. Such a revolution will proceed not with gunsmoke and bombs, but will change the church very basically by exchanging its spiritual heritage for a materialistic world and life view. To help understand these implications it will be worthwhile to look critically at a few of the points Dr. Rooy made in his lecture.

Liberation Theology Applied

As he began his lecture to the Calvin Seminary students, Dr. Rooy explained that we must follow Dooyeweerd in rejecting the body-soul, nature-grace dualism which characterizes fundamentalism and the more scholastic Reformed position. While that sounds good at first, it becomes immediately apparent that this means for Dr. Rooy the acceptance of a unified (monistic) materialism as our world view. He tells us that we need to look at reality through the eyes of liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez who analyzes man’s relationships into three kinds, 1) Religious and Spiritual, 2) Psychological and Historical, and 3) Political and Social. Interestingly, even the “religious and spiritual” relationships of man are seen in this analysis as being man-centered and horizontal. The question here is not that of a person’s relationship to his Creator-God, but of his relationship locally and personally to the community as “God’s children.”

The fundamental identity made here between all men and “God’s children,” while ignoring what the Bible makes fundamental, namely, their relationship to God as covenant-keepers or covenant-breakers, leads to fundamentally antiChristian conclusions, as we have pointed out above. One of the conclusions Dr. Rooy teaches, this time referring to the another liberation theologian, Pablo Richards, is that we must choose between “being our brother’s keeper,” and “being saved out of the present misery for a future state.” Dr. Rooy concludes that the future state is to be ignored. Evidently for him, hunger is far worse than hell, and heaven can wait while oppression is solved. How, we would ask, is this different from Esau, who sold his part in the covenant of grace for a mess of pottage? A slave laborer in a Russian prison camp can hear, believe and be saved from hell by the gospel of Jesus Christ without adding one calorie to his daily food intake. This does not mean that we should ignore oppression, but it does say something about the nature and priority of the gospel.

Dr. Rooy goes to some length to assure his listeners that the great spiritual problem in Latin America is hunger. Ask the people themselves, he urges us, and they will tell you. The problem is not communism or war, but hunger. Again we must note that neither Jesus nor his disciples asked their hearers to put their finger on the problem; they told them the problem, and they always told them that the problem is sin . The biblical gospel is always a call for sinners to repent and trust in Christ; it promises God’s forgiveness to all who do repent and believe. The gospel does not put material welfare on a par with our relationship to God. Indeed, it does quite the opposite. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Did Jesus feed the five thousand? Of course he did. But he later found it necessary to rebuke some of them for follow ing him for the wrong reason, that is, in order to fill their stomachs (John 6:26–27). In fact, he tells them in the second of these two verses not to labor for the food that perishes, but for that which endures to eternal life. “The Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and joy and peace in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:6). This does not mean that helping the poor has nothing to do with Christianity. Not at all! But it does mean that Christianity cannot be defined as, or equated with.

Jesus did not demonstrate to the disciples of John the Baptist that he was the Christ by the fact that they could see the poor eating, but by the fact that “the poor have the gospel preached to them.” Furthermore, there is no indication in Scripture that Jesus or his disciples ever used the method of feeding the poor as a means of bringing the gospel to them. Healing the sick, yes, but feeding the poor, no.

The New Testament’s emphasis on helping the poor rests on two pillars; 1) that all Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ, and 2) that having received mercy from God, we ought to be merciful toward one another. Thus, it is not surprising that the New Testament emphasis is upon helping other Christians. Again, this does not mean that we ought not to be concerned about alleviating material needs in all of society, but we cannot say that this is the central requirement of the Bible.

Among Dr. Rooy’s more fundamental mistakes is that of agreeing with the liberation theologians that one of man’s basic problems is the lack of freedom. Therefore he claims that we should follow the “logic of the majority” as it is expounded by the liberation theologians rather than attempting to get Latin Americans to follow the principles that have been successful in the western world. He calls this latter method one of “imposing our religious and political ideas” on them. They need, he tells us, to be free to determine their own destiny. Without getting into the ramifications of Calvinism for anyone determining his own destiny, we need to see that man’s problems arise from sin, not from a lack of freedom.

We live in a world cursed by God because of our sins. Man is not an innocent victim who simply needs freedom to choose his own destiny. Man needs the radical, transforming power of the gospel and Spirit of Jesus Christ. Without that power in his life, he remains under the curse of God; rightfully so, and we should not be surprised if that curse causes him problems. It does for all men, in whatever situation they live materially. “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,” (Rom. 1:18). Our greatest danger as human beings, whether rich or poor, bond or free , is not nuclear annihilation or poisoning, not poverty and hunger, but that we will go to our graves with the wrath of God abiding on us.

This is not to ignore or to underestimate the material problems of our world, and particularly of Latin America. It is, it seems to this writer, only to put them into a biblical perspective. Marxism has a track record, not one that I would wish upon any individual or nation. May God spare us the “liberation” of liberation theology.

Robert Grossmann is a professor at Mid-America Reformed Seminary of Orange City, Iowa and a minister in the Reformed Church in the U.S.