I recently listened to a lecture by Professor Tyler Roberts, PhD (Harvard), professor of religious studies at Grinnell College. The lecture was on Liberation Theology (AKA Theologies of Liberation) and was recorded in 2009 (so there may be more recent scholarship on the topic), and it made me think about Liberation Theology through a new lens – What is the purpose of Liberation Theology? With that new lens comes the question – In light of its controversial nature, is Liberation Theology redeemable?
For those not familiar with Liberation Theology, it is a development of the 1960s that focused attention on what were deemed the social evils found in the world. Although Liberation Theology was beginning to appear in German, American (especially among black theologians), and Latin American contexts – It was the Latin American Gustavo Gutierrez who has been most often hailed as its originator and advocate.
For most living in developed countries, Gutierrez represented the infiltration of Marxism into Christianity. Gutierrez denied being a Marxist but utilized Marxist language and structured significant portions of his writings congruent with Marxist structures. In the heat of Cold War fears, Christianity that looked like, talked like, acted like Marxism was polarizing and it has remained polarizing. Because it was polarizing and therefore stiff-arm rejected by many, the study of Liberation Theology remained a small field without constructive interaction with the larger body of systematic and dogmatic theology. The outcomes have been mixed, at best.
Over the years since its inception, Liberation Theology has taken on multiple forms. It has been further developed in the context of the black experience in America with a distinct “Black Theology,” among women as “Feminist Theology,” and other specialized applications addressing the lived experiences of those population which have experienced one form of discrimination/suppression/etc or another. Unfortunately, in many (some will argue most or even all) cases the “theology” part is rather thin and the promotion of protest, resistance, and calls for the deconstruction of many current structures in society and within the Church itself seems to be what is primarily on display. With an absent strong theological framework, the outcomes are frequently growingly unpalatable to what might be termed mainstream theologians and the average Christian in the pew.
It seems, however, that there is the potential for a redemption of what so many have written off. Using Roberts’ term of contextual theology is a good starting point. Rather than seeing Liberation Theology as competitor to Systematic or Dogmatic Theology, and their focus on discussing the large topics of mankind’s salvation, the existence of evil, ecclesiology, and so on, the contextual focus of Liberation Theology focuses on this individual man or woman’s salvation (and in that means both soul and body), the specific sources of evil that impoverish and/or endanger a distinct population, what is the ecclesiastical structure doing to assist those in need within their own community, and so on. Those are points that individual congregations address in their community regularly, with contextual theology there also comes the concern of why the person is impoverished and how that larger system can be fixed.
Within my own context, I work with military veterans and most frequently the consequences of PTSD and Moral Injury. Within that context the concerns to be addressed are personal quality of life, impact on family systems, mental health, the increased likelihood of suicide and other forms of self-harm, and wounds to the soul that often defy description with words. At the direct level caring for those concerns are through direct pastoral care and appropriate referrals to mental health professionals and other agencies equipped to meet specific needs. Within the contextual theology framework of Liberation Theology, the focus expands to addressing the system that creates the PTSD and Moral Injury.
Do I have an answer to the problem of the Military Industrial Complex and the conflict of interest that exists with government officials who vote on military spending also owning stocks in companies that make the weapons of war? No, I do not. The conflict of interest and ethical concerns are obvious. Simultaneously, it appears that few, if any, care. But, in the words of Roberts, Liberation Theology “elucidates and gives voice to specific forms of suffering.” If nothing else – I can shine the light on the darkness of the problem.
What problem exists in your context? Will you shine the light on it?
Jesus is the “light shines [that] in the darkness, and the darkness [will] not overcome it” (John 1:5 adapted). Shine the light!
Buen Camino,
Fr Steve
Steven G Rindahl, DMin STM