The Foundations of Liberation Theology

Liberation theology is a social movement that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s in Latin America, whereby Catholic Priests in poverty-stricken areas adopted elements of Marxism as a response to exploitation, inequality, oppression, and the lack of action taken by the establishment of the Church to remedy these issues. Liberation theology features both a religious and a political element – the religious element being the nature of God in scripture as a liberator, as well as the use of decentralised Christian communities to provide relief to the oppressed, and the political element being a subversion of the ordinary practice of the Catholic Church, denouncing inaction, rigid hierarchy and orthodoxy, and accepting a Marxist analysis of society and its ills. Although it is clear that in the modern epoch, it is the overt use of Marxism that differentiates liberation theology from the staunchly anti-Marxist authorities of the Catholic Church, there are a number of similarities between the two foundation elements, complicating the process of comparing the political and religious approaches of liberation theology. Overall, evidence of communist sentiment in Biblical texts and the nature of Jesus Christ as a social revolutionary lead to the conclusion that liberation theology is a movement of largely religious foundations, despite its obvious divergences from the Church and European theology.  

The political element of Liberation Theology, influenced significantly by Marx, is certainly drawn from the growing tide of resentment towards imperialism in Latin America in the 1960s. However, it is also underpinned by the understanding of scripture held by the liberation theologians. In fact, some supporters of Liberation Theology, as well as Christian communists such as Jose Porfirio Miranda, would suggest that the similarities between the political element (Marxism) and the theological element (scripture and the history of the Church) mean that the dichotomy between the two is somewhat unnecessary. Firstly, there is clear evidence that the writers of Biblical texts may have held a communist perspective. For example, Luke 1:52-53 states that “He has pulled down princes from their thrones and exalted the lowly. The hungry He has filled with good things, the rich sent empty away”. This is a clear suggestion that God is active in social revolutions and works for the liberation of the poor, as well as holding a contempt for greed. Furthermore, in Acts of the Apostles, Luke even coins a phrase that would eventually be adapted by Marx: “distribution was made unto every man according as he has need” (Acts 4:35), giving basis for the claim made by Christian communists such as Miranda, who have argued that the Bible (Acts of the Apostles in particular) depicts the establishment of a small communist society in the wake of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Given that the Bible could be considered to have defined and advocated for communism long before Marx was born, it may not be too far-fetched to suggest that the differences between the doctrines of Christianity and Marxism are not irreconcilable, and even that the political foundation for liberation theology was originally grounded in religious thought.  

Furthermore, it could certainly be considered that liberation theology has primarily religious foundations as it follows the nature of Jesus. The prioritisation of responding to human suffering that forms a key part of liberation theology is clearly present in Jesus’ teachings, and is shown in his miraculous acts of healing. In addition to this, the practical and human understanding of Jesus Christ as a liberator, whilst not diminishing any of his divine character, is similar to the view of scholars such as John Dominic Crossan, who understands Jesus as a social revolutionary who advocated an egalitarian ‘kingdom lifestyle’, bringing the kingdom of God to earth, forming a society without nations, states or antagonisms, where wealth is shared in common, in line with Jewish utopian prophecies from Jesus’ time. Crossan uses compelling evidence from apocryphal

Gospels as well as an understanding of cultural anthropology to reach these conclusions. It is clear that this understanding of Jesus not only reinforces the belief of the liberation theologians that the Church had strayed from Jesus’ progressive mission for social change, but that Christianity in its original form, and the mission of Jesus, is heavily reminiscent of communism, or as Miranda put it: Christianity is communism. This once again shows that not only is there significant evidence in both scripture and the history of the Church for the decentralised, progressive Christianity advocated by the liberation theologians, but that the dividing line between the religious and political elements of liberation theology is not clear. Jesus, the Apostles, and some Jewish writers all advocate for a stateless, classless society with peace and common wealth. It could be argued that when the liberation theologians adopted a Marxist analysis of society, they were not drastically changing Christianity or its doctrines, they were simply returning it to its original form. The use of Marxism may not have been merely an outlandish ideological shift by a small group of priests, but a convenient framework with which to move back towards the Church that existed at the time of Jesus and in the years following his death and resurrection, as a reaction against the dogma and Eurocentrism of the Church. This would suggest that the foundations of liberation theology are not distinct political or religious influences, but intertwining principles, finding the ample common ground between Christianity and communism, whilst being essentially rooted in the principles of the pre-Constantinian Church.

As much as there is a compelling case to be made that the adoption of progressive politics by the liberation theologians is the natural conclusion of two approaches that have much in common, it is also important to acknowledge the political upheaval of the era. The Cuban Revolution of 1959 launched a new wave of anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist sentiment across Latin America, which was reflected in other attempts at communist revolutions and national liberation movements. The influence of largely US-backed far-right military regimes created a similar sense of yearning for liberation, leading the clergy in the area to reflect on the role of the Church going forward, particularly in relation to the poor. This sentiment filtered into various conferences of Latin American Bishops and the Society of Jesuits, where the phrase “preferential option for the poor” (considering first the needs of the vulnerable) gained popularity. These political events had a significant effect on liberation theology, and it is obvious that the prevalence of Marxism in an oppressed area such as Latin America would have influenced those in the clergy who cared most deeply for the poor. However, it still could be argued that although political events played a part in the acceleration of the liberation theology movement, the influence of religious events was equally significant, namely Vatican II, which represented a modernisation of the Church to foster unity between Christians worldwide. The liberation theologians themselves believed that they were acting within the boundaries set by Vatican II.

There is a clear difference between liberation theology and the traditional theology adhered to by the Eurocentric Church, namely the conflict between orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Traditional, European theology places higher importance on orthodoxy, meaning that when faced with a problem, the Church should first consult scripture, before prescribing a course of action. Liberation theologians argue that this approach considers scripture and dogma to be supreme to a loving response to human suffering, making it not only inefficient but lacking in the love and humanity espoused by Jesus Christ. In liberation theology, it is orthopraxis that is followed; the idea that ‘right action’ as a response to suffering is equally as important as religious faith. In this aspect, the liberation theologians take clear influence from Marx, and this more active political theme within liberation theology is a significant point of difference with the large majority of the Church. However, this is once again an example of the influence of Marxism not adding something new and never-before-seen to the content of Christian teaching (although in now it would be considered fringe Christian teaching). It can simply be considered as the liberation theologians using Marxism to revert back towards a theology that more closely resembles the communistic nature of Jesus’ ministry and early following. Jesus was, of course, executed by Roman imperialists for his radical action, subversion of established social norms, and his love for the poor and the sinners.  

To conclude, it appears impossible to force a clear-cut contradiction between the political and religious elements of liberation theology, which acts in line with the nature of Jesus, and for which there is significant Biblical evidence. However, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the foundation of the movement is primarily a religious one. This is not due to the overpowering of the political element by the religious, but to the clear evidence that to the early Christians and authors of the Bible, communism would not be a new concept. Given the overwhelming communistic sentiment in Acts of the Apostles, the subversive and anti-colonial nature of Jesus’ ministry, and the view of God as a social liberator, we cannot consider the work of Marx a newer, political addition to Christianity. It is, in fact, more useful to view it as a means by which the liberation theologians could return the Church to its earlier sentiments, whilst taking influence from its practical application to the modern world, particularly in Latin America.