WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual
Library
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Friday, February 16, 2018

The Road Not Taken In Forming A Biblical Liberation Theology

The Social Gospel, Social Justice, and Liberation Theology has long been considered a nemesis for people who come from my theological background: the Reformed tradition. This is a point that has been made over and over again by Reformed theologians and Donny Friedrichsen (click here for a very brief bio) provides no exception to that rule. 

On the Reformation 21 website, Friedrichsen has written an article that continues in the Reformed Theological tradition of rejecting Liberation Theology for several reasons (click here for the article). Those reasons include Liberaation Theology's penchant for subjectivity over against the objective truth of God's Word and for physical and personal relief from human oppression as the definition of salvation over against being reconciled with God through faith in the redemptive work of Christ. And while Dispensationalists wrongly name Covenant Theology as 'Replacement Theology' because they see that theology replacing the role of Israel in the story of redemption with the Church, the Reformed rejection of Liberation Theology is out of fear that personal salvation from sin is being replaced by a salvation that physically delivers people from being oppressed and exploited by other people. And tragically speaking, that becomes the basis for the wholesale rejection of Liberation Theology by many a Christian from not only a Reformed tradition, but by other fellow religiously conservative Christian traditions.

Friedrichsen starts off by admitting his ignorance of what Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology say. So he lists the references he will use to study the subject. Those references include Introducing Liberation Theology by Clodovis Boff, A Black Theology of Liberation by James Cone, and Liberating Black Theology by Anthony Bradley. He also references A Theology Of Liberation By Gustovo Gutierrez. We should note that the first, second, and last books promote some kind of Liberation Theology while the third book takes an antagonistic position against Liberation Theology. 

Now while Friedrichsen acknowledges Liberation Theology concern for the poor and oppressed. in the end, he rejects the theology based on his own understanding of Reformed Theology. Though I cannot speak to whether he accurately represented what the references he used to explain  Liberation Theology, his critique of what he understood seemed very solid in terms of what the Scriptures teach.

So does that mean that I would fully recommend Friedrichsen's critique here? Not really. That is because his critique of Liberation Theology has too two problems. But those faults lie far more in what he doesn't say about Liberation Theology than in what he says. 


His first problem is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge how the deliverance that Liberation Theology attempts to bring to people is Biblical. Liberation Theology's problem rests not in the salvation it seeks to bring but in how it markets that salvation. By marketing that salvation as the salvation brought to us by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Liberation Theology has given an ultimatum to many a religiously conservative Christian. That ultimatum says that one must abandon the definition of salvation as being the forgiveness of sins because of the redemptive work of Christ in order to work for the real salvation that is brought by what Liberation Theology attempts to do. And such an ultimatum relegates the personal salvation that comes by having faith in Christ's redemptive work to that of being insignificant. That is unacceptable.

Friedrichsen also notes the view of anthropology taught by Liberation Theology. In the end, it leads to a victimology. And victimology, according to Anthony Bradley's work, leads to a separatism that leads to accepting the relative morality that is a part of tribalism. To be specific, that relative morality allows a group that has been victimized to accept the same faults from members of their own group that they would condemn if practice by members outside their group. We should note that in the last blogpost from the Comments That Conservatives Block From Their Blogs series, the criticism of victimology often comes from a lack of appreciation for the traumas induced by oppression and exploitation and suffered by its victims (click here and see the comment directed at Joseph Mussomeli's article for a further explanation). 


Fridrichsen also believes that the emphasis on the need for liberation from oppression leads to the idea that victims are not accountable for their own sins. And in the end, it leads to minimizing the crucifixion of Christ to being symbolic rather than being a physical and historical act of redemption. That too must be rejected.

But is there anything in what Liberation Theology preaches that is Biblical. Here, we should note that Liberation Theology is basically offering the same kind of physical deliverance message of salvation that was promised to and accomplished for the Jews in the Old Testament. The Jews were delivered from Pharaoh. The Jews were delivered from the homelessness that was part of their wandering through the wilderness. And once they took the land promised to Abraham, the Jews were protected from their neighbors until their sins became so great that God sent them into exile. But then they were delivered from that exile. So we could say that the kind of salvation offered by Liberation Theology is the same kind of salvation given to the Jews in the Old Testament.

But what we should note about the Old Testament is that it contains shadows of what was to come in Christ in the New Testament. Thus, the Bible relegates this physical salvation to a status that is less significant than the salvation that comes from one's personal redemption through Christ. And here, religiously conservative Christians have returned the Liberation Theology exclusive-or choice between salvation as deliverance from exploitation and physical oppression to adherents of Liberation Theology and, unfortunately, those whom proponents of Liberation Theology would have helped.

In essence, what Liberation Theology is offering is a secular, or societal, salvation. And if that is how Liberation Theology's salvation is marketed, then there should be no objection from those from the Reformed Tradition provided that those from that tradition understand and accept the concept of corporate sin--that is the sin committed by groups like societies and states against groups of people. There should be no objection because when marketing the salvation offered by Liberation Theology as a secular or societal salvation, there becomes no reason why such a salvation should replace the salvation that comes from the forgiveness of one's sins through faith in the redemptive work of Christ. For the secular or societal salvation promised by Liberation Theology is nothing more than promoting justice in the world--'social justice' for political conservatives. And such a promotion of Liberation Theology does contradict believing in Christ for the forgiveness of one's sins. In fact, it should become a necessary part of every Christian's sanctification.

The second problem with what Friedrichsen doesn't say about Liberation Theology is that its preaching against exploitation and oppression should be part of how we participate in the Great Commission. For if in preaching the need for faith in Christ, we also include the need to repent from sin, and if people are sinning by exploiting and/or oppressing others, then we should be preaching against the exploiting or oppressing others to those who are in the position to exploit or oppress others just as much as we would preach against committing adultery by those committing adultery. 


But it isn't just those who, because of their wealth and power, are in the position of exploiting and oppressing others who need to hear about the need for repentance; it is all who are a part of any society or state that exploits and/or oppresses others who also need to hear about the need to repent. For we can't hide from those sins that are committed by the groups we belong to simply because those sins are not individual sins. That is because Romans 12 commands us to be transformed rather than be conformed to the world. And denying those corporate sins we participate in simply because they are not individual sins is part of being conformed to the world. And refusing to step outside the box drawn by our societal and state affiliations to help the victims of our society and state does not show the love of neighbor that the Good Samaritan did in the Good Samaritan parable.

Again, Friedrichsen did a good job in saying what must be rejected in Liberation Theology. What he missed was listing what from Liberation Theology actually fits into our Christian orthodoxy.








No comments: