Liberation Theology

I have gained a great distaste for Marxism the more closely I have examined it. And to think that there is some type of union between the faith I so cherish and Marx’s putrid philosophy is appalling and I can only view it as the work of Satan himself. Marxism is diametrically opposed to Christian orthodoxy; therefore, because liberation theology is foundationally Marxist, it rejects orthodoxy, though many may argue otherwise.

First of all, I argue that the Christian Scriptures cannot be reconciled with Marxist thought. It was Marx that said that “To have its sins forgiven mankind has only to declare them to be what they really are—it is a matter of confession, no more.” He clearly denies the need for the forgiveness of sin, thus denying any need for Christ. And it says in 1 John 5:11-12 that “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” Marx was not a life giving force, in fact, I would ask the same question and come to the same conclusion that John did: “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.”  (1 John 2:22) So, not only does Marx not have life, but he comes with an antichrist spirit. And Marx would not have proclaimed any feeling of warmth toward Christian belief, so this aren’t exactly ground breaking conclusion. Though, I believe there are some that have attempted to posthumously baptize him—something I am sure he would have protested in life.

Therefore, because Marx was rooted in a system of humanism directly opposed to Christ, it isn’t a huge surprise that his philosophy was also at odds with the Cross and with historical Judeo-Christian principles. When Marx calls for the abolition of private property, Richard Pipes makes the historical observation that “Ancient Israel is the first country where we possess firm evidence of private land ownership.” Clearly, God ordained private ownership, but he always spoke of giving of your abundance to the poor and that was something built into Jewish society. The amount of Scripture on giving to the poor is beyond the breadth of this paper.  Pipes goes one to observe the following: “Given human imperfection, property is moral is used wisely and employed for charitable purposes.” He echoes Augustine’s statement: “Is gold not good? Yes, it is good. But the evil use good gold for evil and the good use good gold for good.” The resonant theme is that money isn’t the problem, but rather the depravity of the heart.

Now, many cite the story of the rich, young ruler told in the Gospels as evidence that rebirth and redistribution are inextricably connected. But it is clear that Jesus saw his heart, and observed that his riches impeded his ability to follow Christ wholeheartedly (besides that, Jesus knew that Jerusalem was about to be destroyed by Titus in AD 70, and with it would go the Jewish ruling class and so he was going to lose his money anyway). Another example of Jesus’ desire to see rebirth primarily is in John 3 when he is speaking to Nicodemus. Jesus said nothing to him of personal wealth because he knew that far more important was where his heart lies (because there his treasure lies also). Marx imagines a happy world where the government would redistribute the wealth with impeccable wisdom. I believe that Jesus would see a massive problem with this idea and it comes back to the depravity of the heart. Pipes makes this succinct statement refuting the idea that Marxist redistribution of wealth is not biblical: “Jesus urged his followers to give up their own possessions, the socialists and communists want to give away the possessions of others.”

I see liberation theology as something of a paradox.  It is the attempt to fuse two different worldviews together—and to graft the Christian faith into the tree of Marxism is utterly futile. It’s akin to one trying to mate with another species. It’s a philosophical “chasing after the wind.” It would do some of these theologians well to study logic. They would run into a stubborn thing called the law of non-contradiction. It would save them a world of ideological hurt. They are attempting to reconcile Christian Scripture with Marx who said that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Thus, because they are essentially at odds, one must win out—and Marx’s canon of materialism is always the winner if the resulted view is liberation theology. Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) observes that the result is “a naive belief in science which accepts the human sciences as a new gospel without wanting to see their limitations and endemic problems.”

However, Ratzinger continues to say that “It must be borne in mind that no error could persist unless it contained a grain of truth. Indeed, an error is all the more dangerous, the greater that grain of truth is, for then the temptation it exerts is all the greater.” And the truth is that young evangelicals have been raised with an orthodox, privatized gospel that has left them longing for real community because they grew up with pastors that said that pornography is “an issue between you and God.” They are longing for what Jesus prophesied—to “be one as he and the Father one.” People are hungry for authenticity, but their churches (orthodox in theory alone) have hardly been authentic. It was John Wesley who said he wasn’t afraid of Methodist disappearing in Europe or America, but rather he was afraid that they would become a dead sect “and this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.” It’s no wonder that Christian orthodoxy void of the flame of the Spirit (which produces good works) has been termed as “spiritual masturbation,” enjoyable—sure—but in the end, quite fruitless. Ratzinger goes on to say that “the error concerned would not have been able to wrench that piece of the truth to its own use if that truth had been adequately lived and witnessed to in its proper place (in the faith of the Church).” And that is where Marx steps into the void and makes this statement: “Theory is only realized in a people so far as it fulfills the needs of the people.” And when the young idealists see that grain of truth lived genuinely by a few “ordinary radicals,” they’re willing to throw in their lot for a cause that sees orthodoxy as devoid of relevance.

And there is an unrelenting barrage coming from the American Religious Left that is winning over the evangelical youth, who have not an ounce of biblical discernment. One of the things that is so dangerous, Ratzinger goes on to say is that “[liberation theology] affects theology in its basic constitution, not merely in aspects of its content,” Liberation theologians contend that “theology that is not ‘practical’.” And because theology isn’t essentially political it is considered to be idealism, “or else it is condemned as a vehicle for the oppressors’ maintenance of power.” Truly, it is here that liberation theologians step into dangerous territory. Because they see no need to retain orthodoxy, liberation theology strays into clear heresy.

Henri Nouwen, the beloved Catholic liberation theologian, spoke of the universality of God’s family. He said, “We are all brothers and sisters in the house of God—whatever our race, religion, or nationality.” And Shane Claiborne, the author of Irresistible Revolution (what I call Marxism packaged to suit evangelical youth) uses the same language when he quotes a boy saying, directly after September 11th, that the United States shouldn’t retaliate because “we are all one big family.” Now, no one is going to come out and say directly that they are Universalist (yet), but that is exactly what this theology does as it rejects the exclusivity of truth and accepts a pluralism of beliefs. Babylon is their favored terminology for the capitalist system, but I would say that it my might be better to apply the teachings of liberation theology to the great Whore because before all other characteristics that are applied to Babylon, spiritual harlotry is the first because she was whoring with other gods. Universalism would clearly be seen as spiritual harlotry in the days of Israel, and the Name of Yahweh remains Jealous.

There is also strong spirit of rebellion in the liberation theology movement. Claiborne speaks of his own words “reeking with privilege” and thus displays the idiocy of a rich, white, educated male (Southern, no less) who bites the hand that feeds him. And government is spoken of with such disdain—especially American government (forget Chavez and Ahmadinejad—the real problem was Bush, and now even Obama). Hillar speaks of how Pope Paul VI “rejected armed struggle for liberation” as though the Pope should have called for revolution! Paul has strong words for these revolutionaries in the oft quoted and much hated Romans 13. “Everyone,” Paul said, “Must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God…he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted.”

It is difficult for many to recognize liberation theology in the church, yes, and universally there is little discernment. Ratzinger speaks of how one “who is operating from a different background can gain the impression that everything is the same as before” because Christian terminology is retained. That’s why, once again, Mr. Claiborne can say: “All through the New Testament, we are told how rebirth and redistribution are bound up in one another.” I would respond by stating that I refuse to “substitute renewal for resurrection, existential alienation for sin, liberation for redemption, or moral influence for ransom.” I’m not willing to look at the Scriptures through the lens of man that said that “the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions.” And truly, the Scriptural foundation of liberation theology is a weak one, because supposedly though it is “based on the Bible…the Bible is not taken literally, but symbolically as a sign.” It looks like these theologians take Marx’s words more literally than the Scriptures, and Christianity gives Marxism a comfortable spiritual frame, with the overall dissipation of dialectical materialism, that it once lacked.

Somehow, within this frame of Christianity, the liberation theologists are enabled to speak with a dogmatic authority. Claiborne, called a prophet by some, seems to speak with a certain air of spiritual authority when he says that “poverty was created not by God but by you and me, because we have not learned to love our neighbors as ourselves.” But what’s wrong with that statement? Is that not the Gospel? Where is Claiborne’s authority? It seems that he, along with all other liberation theologians, has already undercut his dogmatism by denying Scripture as truly relevant text. I believe that it is men like Claiborne that Paul spoke of to Timothy when he said “the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” Claiborne can speak so beautifully of the kingdom of God, but I’m not sure that he will be comfortable with its arrival.

When the Holy Spirit fell on the disciples they preached the Gospel of the Kingdom with boldness declaring Christ as the only way and looking to the Messianic prophecies yet to be fulfilled concerning his universal and bodily reign from Jerusalem. The disciples spoke in new tongues, cast out demons, raised the dead, and got accused of terrorism (I am sure that this is a gospel that most evangelicals would be scared of too!). In the midst of this they did share what they owned, but it was a radically holier and scarier environment than Christian socialists attempting to live with intentionality (though I cannot disdain their sincerity).

The way that must be chosen is a difficult path, that is, the path of authentic orthodoxy. I won’t dismiss Divine revelation because it doesn’t fit in my cultural paradigm. The acceptance of pluralism and dismissal of orthodox belief by liberation theologists will only defame the name of the One that they claim to serve. Jack Cottrell said, “What is true determines what is right. Knowledge of the truth precedes right action; true doctrine precedes right doing; orthodoxy precedes orthopraxis; creed precedes deed.” Foundationally, theology must be orthodox for the true gospel of the Kingdom to move forward. But the reason that we have people crying out for more is because people are dissatisfied with mere orthodoxy. We were created for so much more than orthodoxy! We must move past the foundations of correct belief by loving God with everything (the first commandment), and from that love will spring correct action. We won’t have to substitute resurrection with renewal because people will be physically raised from the dead by the power of love as happened in the early Church.

~ by saltedwithfire on March 7, 2009.