Contextualization of Theology

These are the transcriptions of a few of the lectures from the course taught by John A. Gration, Ph.D., at Wheaton Graduate School, 1991. Used by permission of Wheaton College.

Gration Chapter 4

Liberation Theology and Contextualization of the Gospel

Gration: We come now to the subject of liberation theology, a vast one indeed, one in which there is a continuously growing body of literature. In this course I can but hope to give you a broad overview of the subject and be sure that you get a good grasp of its essential elements as well as an evangelical response to it. I can think of no better way of doing this than to let you sit in on an excellent class session that we had on the subject with the Rev. Ray Hundley. He has not only studied the subject from an academic perspective, but has also lived with its realities while serving as a missionary under OMS International in Colombia, South America, since 1969. He served as the field director for the OMS work in Colombia and is an adjunct professor of hermeneutics in the Seminario Bblico de Colombia. He holds the B.A. degree from Asbury College, the M.Div. from Asbury Theological Seminary, and the M.Lit. from Cambridge University in England. His thesis at Cambridge treated the hermeneutics of Protestant liberation theologians. He is also the author of a book published by Zondervan entitled Radical Liberation Theology: An Evangelical Response. He has traveled and spoken extensively on liberation theology across Latin America and the United States. Im sure youll soon understand why I want him to share on this particular topic. Hundley: Im really at a loss to know how exactly to begin. It may be that 90 percent of you here this afternoon are experts on liberation theology, and everything I say, except for the last few minutes, will be boring. Some of you may know absolutely nothing about liberation theology, and if I start in the middle of it, youll be completely lost. So Im going to take a middleof-the-road approach. Im going to consider that you know something about it but not a great deal, and Im going to begin with an introduction to liberation theology that will deal with the historical development of the movement. Then I will go into more detail about content and then will end with an evangelical evaluation of liberation theology and some evangelical alternatives to it. I will try to include at the end a little discussion on what I think is the flip-side of liberation theology, which is the free market theology here in the United States, and my evaluation of that. Thats enough for a six-week course!and I will be giving what is basically a summary of a six-week course that I have given in Colombia for three years in Spanish. Ive also given it at Asbury Theological Seminary and Cambridge University. So Im going to be running through many things that could take a lot more time. There are ten very large events in the history of the church in Latin America that have to do with the development of liberation theology. Im going from 1455 to 1986, which might give you an idea that this is something of an overview. Were not going to get into a great deal of detail on these events. The first event, in 1455, is called Patronato. Patronato is the doctrine of the Vatican which gave to Portugal (1455) and later to Spain (1493) the right to both colonize and evangelize Latin America. What this meant basically is that when Christianity came to Latin America, with its Indian pagan religions in those days, the approach of the Spanish conquistadores was to come into the region, conquer the Indians, and at the same time evangelize them. Some of that evangelism was at the point of a sword, in the sense of, Youll be baptized or youll be killed, and the Indians in general were smart enough to be baptized. This made for a very superficial acceptance of the gospel, as you can imagine, with a great deal of fusion between the Roman Catholic faith and the Indian religions, and it has caused no end of problems in Latin America because of the superficial nature of Christianity in that continent.

41

42

Liberation Theology and Contextualization of the Gospel

revolution, which had not been thought of before in those terms. Because of that, in 1961 a small group was formed called ISAL. ISAL is the acronym for Iglesia y Sociedad en Amrica Latina, which means Church and Society in Latin America. ISAL was a group of Protestant Latin American theologians who banded together under the auspices of the World Council of Churches to consider the issue of whether or not it is possible to solve social problems in the light of Scripture. What does Scripture have to say about how to solve social problems? was their question. They met together for one week in 1961. At the end of the week they published a document which basically said that as far as they were concerned, the Scripture had no help, no guidance, and could not be used to guide the church in terms of how to solve the social problems of Latin America. They said that for four reasons. First, they said, the Bible is a prescientific book; therefore, it does not understand the dynamics of poverty and oppression, or exploitation. Second, they said, the Bible is a self-contradictory book. Its social principles cannot be used, because it contradicts itself too much. Third, they said, the Bible is more concerned with the hereafter than it is with the here-and-now, and so it does not speak directly to the issues of social change in Latin America or any other continent. And, finally, they adopted what is called in theological circles realized eschatology, the belief that Jesus thought he was going to come back within a year after his death and establish his kingdom, and for that reason never established any social principles, because they would be superfluous for just one year. Let me say here that I disagree wholeheartedly with all four of those points. I do not accept them; I do not believe they are true. I believe that the Bible is not a prescientific book; it is inspired by God, and I dont believe that God is prescientific. In fact, a hundred years from now, when scientists are giggling about what we believed in the 1980s, God will still be ahead of them. I believe that God does understand poverty, oppression, human interpersonal relationships, society. I believe he understands it better than Karl Marx or Max Weber. Second, I do not believe that the Bible is selfcontradictory. Ive been studying theology for seventeen years with men who did and still do, and Ive yet to see the issues or the cases in which some kind of contradiction of terms, or contradiction of principles, can be established that

It also had one terrible effect, and that is that from the very beginning, Christianity was identified as a militaristic, oppressive, colonizing faith. That has had serious repercussions in modernday Latin America. The second event was the independence movement, basically from 1813 to 1860. Simn Bolvar and other leaders of the independence movement waged war against the Spaniards and finally in 1860 won the independence of Latin America from Spain. During that time there was a great deal of controversy in the Roman Catholic Church as to how to respond to independence. In the beginning the pope declared that anyone who opposed Ferdinand, the king of Spain, would be excommunicated. As things progressed in the independence movement, the pope decided that that was a little too extreme, so he said that it would be all right for some to revolt against him. Later on, he went back and said that it was wrong to revolt in any case. Finally, when there was victory of the independence movement, the pope blessed the process. So Latin American liberationists have said that, obviously, the true church is the church of the revolution, or of the independence movement that supported Simn Bolvar, and the church that supported the status quo, the Spaniards, is the counter-revolutionary church that still exists today in Latin America. That shows, by the way, the importance of being careful not to identify the gospel of Jesus Christ with some particular political movement of the day. Im going to jump forward to 1959. The Cuban Revolution is probably the most significant event in modern Latin American history. It had serious repercussions all over Latin America. For one thing, many Latin Americans believed that the United States would never allow a marxist state to exist in Latin America, that the United States would crush any attempt to have that kind of political organization. They also believed that the Roman Catholic Church would not be able to coexist with a marxist state in Latin America. The Cuban revolution proved that both of those assumptions were wrong. The United States did not destroy the Cuban revolution, and the Roman Catholic Church did find a way to more-or-less peacefully coexist with the Cuban revolution. Those two facts opened the door in Latin America for some serious thinking of the possibility that Cuba might serve as a model for all of Latin America, and that it was possible, perhaps, in Latin America to see a continent-wide marxist

John A. Gration
cant be explained under ordinary interpretation of Scripture. I dont believe that the Bible is more concerned with the hereafter than the here-and-now. I asked my seminary students in Colombia to come up with all the passages in the New Testament that deal with social issues. They came up with 70 passages in the New Testament alone! Finally, I believe that realized eschatology is the product of a strange interpretation of Scripture that is very unnecessary, and I dont accept it. But they do, and because of that, they came to the conclusion that the only way to deal with social problems was to do away with the authority of Scripture and then begin without that. And so they did; in 1961 they came to that conclusion. They began meeting, discussing how to relate social problems to the Christian faith. As they did, they began to talk about two basic options: one was reform; the other, revolution. Some members of the group believed the only way to solve problems was to change the structures of society from within: better hospitals, better educational systems, better laws, more just distribution of wealth within society; not destroying the structure, but working within the structure of society. But another group in ISAL said, No, thats not the case. What we need is revolution! We need to destroy society as it is today and come up with something brand new based on a socialist ordering of society. They debated that from about 1962 to 1965. Finally, in 1965 the majority of ISAL came to the conclusion that revolution was the only answer. Going from that conclusion to Scripture, they found a great deal of evidence in the Scriptures to support what they were talking about, and they began to propagate liberation theology all over Latin America. At the same time (from 1962 to 1965), within the Roman Catholic Church Vatican II was meeting, and, as Im sure you know, that was a revolutionary turn-about in many areas of the Roman Catholic Church. Some things that came out of Vatican II had tremendous importance for Latin America, and one of those was the idea of the autonomy of the secular world: that the secular world has to solve its own problems in its own way and that the church can no longer dictate to the secular world how those problems are to be solved. That conclusion was taken in Latin America and used very strongly in a meeting that took place in 1968 in Medelln, Colombia, the city I live in, in a group called CELAM. CELAM is

43

the council of bishops of Latin America. When they met in Medelln in 1968, their desire was to apply some of the conclusions of Vatican II to the Latin American situation. A young priest named Gustavo Gutirrez who was present in that meeting began to propose a new way of looking at theology and a new way of looking at Christian faith. He called it the theology of liberation . I might add that a Protestant theologian named Rubem Alves four years before had already proposed liberation theology in writing and had written his doctoral dissertation on the subject, so Gustavo Gutirrez was not the first liberation theologian. Although this meeting in 1968 was not the first expression of liberation theology, it is the most important one. It marks the adoption of liberation theology by the majority of the bishops of the Latin American Roman Catholic Church. That, as you can imagine, caused a furor in the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America! Since that time there has been a great deal of discussion on this subject. I have a book in my library thats about three inches thick which contains just documents printed by bishops in the ten-year period following this decision, debating liberation theology. There have been meetings all over Latin America for and against liberation theology. This has produced a great deal of polarization in the Roman Catholic Church and has been quite an issue in Roman Catholicism in these last years. In 1972 there was an attempt to expand liberation theology in an ecumenical meeting. This meeting of more than 600 Christians from all over Latin America met in Santiago, Chile, and formed what came to be called Christians for Socialism. What they had actually done before they came to those meetings was to meet in each one of their countries and decide how to foster revolution and the establishment of a socialist society in each nation. As the country representatives came together in Santiago, they began a process of strategic planning, discussing how to do that on a continent-wide basis: how to form strategies to carry that out. I have with me a summary of the document that they published, which is called Christians for Socialism. It can be obtained in English. Id like to read to you a few comments that they made in that document, because I believe that this is one of the clearest expressions of radical liberation theology thats ever been made. I should mention, by the way, that there are many forms of liberation theology, some much more

44

Liberation Theology and Contextualization of the Gospel

the document. This is what they say: As Christians, we do not wish to offer a Christian political alternative to the present revolutionary movement, but rather we wish to unite with it. Christians can make a positive contribution to the revolution once the interaction between faith and revolutionary praxis has brought out previously unknown elements in Christianity. The second solution: Marxism. Chiefly through Marxist analysis, the masses are being awakened to the need to take power. There is a growing realization of the need for a strategic alliance between Christians and Marxists in order to carry out a common historical project of liberation. A third solution is socialism: It is necessary to transform in a radical way all the structures of society in order to create a socialist order in which there will be neither oppressors nor oppressed. Socialism can only be achieved through revolution. There is no third way between capitalism and socialism. The last paragraph of the document says this: The commitment of this encounter can best be summarized in the words of Che Guevara. When Christians dare to give an integral revolutionary testimony, the Latin American revolution will be invincible. That is probably one of the clearest statements of radical liberation theology ever written. I realize that it goes quite strongly against what is sometimes presented here in the United States as liberation theology. I know that the writings of Dom Hlder Cmara, for example, of Brazil, are sometimes presented as liberation theology, or the works of Orlando Costas, or Mortimer Arias, or others. In the sense in which these people are talking about liberation theology, those men are not liberation theologians. They use some of the vocabulary, they use some of the rhetoric, but liberation theology is much more radical than the kinds of things they are talking about. In 1979 a third CELAM meeting took place in Puebla, Mexico. John Paul II had been elected pope, and he came to those meetings with his own background of experience with Marxism in Poland. At that time the General Secretary of the CELAM, which consists of the bishops of Latin America, was Archbishop Alphonso Lpez Trujillo, of Colombia. Lpez Trujillo was an avowed enemy of liberation theology, and he talked a great deal with Pope John Paul II before the meetings. In those meetings the pope

moderate than what Im going to talk about today. Im talking about radical liberation theology, which is a school within that movement and which is the foundation for many other kinds of liberation theology, some of which are much more moderate in their approach. This is the opening paragraph of the document: We wish to identify ourselves clearly as Christians who, on the basis of the process of liberation in which our Latin American peoples live, and of our own practical and real commitment to the construction of a socialist society, think through our faith and revise our attitude of love for the oppressed. The rest of the document is divided into two sections. The first deals with the problems of Latin America: what causes the problems of Latin America? The second section: what is the solution? One problem is dependency and domination. They say: The continued wealth of the rich, exploitative countries of the North is directly dependent upon the continued poverty of the continent of Latin America. The nations of Latin America are maintained in dependent capitalism by rich and powerful national elites, who benefit economically from the unjust oppressive situation. Then they talk about capitalism as the basic problem of Latin America, and they say this: Because the nations of Latin America have adopted capitalism, their modes of production have produced an unjust, classist organization of society. Capitalism perpetuates its hold on Latin America through the national bourgeoisie, who are in alliance with the institutional church. The capitalists-imperialists seek to prevent the union of Christians and Marxists in order to paralyze the revolutionary process in Latin America. And finally, the third problem: class struggle: Class struggle is the foundation of all correct scientific analysis of society. Class struggle is caused by the private ownership of the means of production. Then the solution. First, revolution: The only solution to the problem of injustice, oppression, and domination is that the oppressed nations of Latin America unite to overthrow the power of imperialistic capitalism. Socialism cannot be brought about through appeals and denunciations. The exploiting classes must be overthrown. There is no neutral position in the face of revolution. Here is a statement that I believe is essential to

John A. Gration
denounced liberation theology very clearly, very strongly, and denounced the use of any ideology as a filter for expressing Christian faith. As a consequence, the bishops in that meeting also renounced liberation theology and backed off from many of the things they had said at Medelln, much to the chagrin of many liberation theologians. After that meeting, a whole cluster of books were written by liberationists saying that what basically had happened was that, although the pope is infallible in his decision-making process, in this case he was wrong! That may sound funny to you, until you realize that a number of Protestant theologians do the same thing with the Bible. In any case, the basic assumption is that the decision-making process of the pope is infallible, but if he is given wrong information at the beginning, then his conclusions will be wrong, although the process is perfect. The Vatican became very concerned about confusion over liberation theology and so commissioned the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which, by the way, is the same group that sponsored the Inquisition) to write a document on liberation theology. (The liberationists have not let that particular historical reality go undiscovered.) So in 1984 the Vatican published instructions concerning certain aspects of the theology of liberation. That document is one of the best analyses of liberation theology that has ever been written. It is extremely helpful. It is not very long, and its worthy of being read. Basically, it divides the Vaticans criticism into four parts. First, it says liberation theology needs to be criticized because in its radical form it accepts the most radical conclusions of biblical scholarship (which is true). Second, it says, liberation theology is worthy of criticism because it reduces Christianity to Marxism in many cases (which is also true). Third, liberation theology needs to be corrected because it talks about a recourse to violence to solve social problems, and that is unacceptable (which is also true). The fourth criticism is that liberation theology goes against the social teaching of the Roman Catholic Churchand thats true, but as Protestants, we might see that a bit differently than they do. The end of the document promised another document which would give a more positive approach, would teach about Christian liberty, and would announce what the Roman Catholic Church does believe about liberty and liberation. That document was published in 1986, Instruc-

45

tions on Liberty and Liberation. It basically gives an overview of the historical development of the idea of liberty in Catholic doctrine, and then at the end is a short paragraph entitled The Last Recourse. In that paragraph the traditional Roman Catholic doctrine is expressed, that in the event of a prolonged tyranny that endangers the common good of a nation, which is totally resistant to the changes of the electorate of the country, then the people in that country have a right to revolt. That paragraph has become famous. In fact, the day that document came out in Medelln, the Medelln newspaper read, Vaticano Justifica Revolucin, The Vatican Justifies Revolution. So that document has been read and reread, and I understand that the Vatican is considering writing another document explaining that part of the document. Of the writing of documents there is no end! That is, very quickly, what has been going on during the last few years in Latin America. Because of this, there is a great deal of opposition in Latin America, and polarization in both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. As you can well imagine, this has produced a great deal of tension. Some people are adamantly in favor of radical liberation theology; others oppose it very, very strongly. This has produced terrible problems throughout Latin America, to such an extent that many people believe that within the next ten years, if things continue as they are, there will be a major split in the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America. They believe that the traditional Roman Catholic Church will continue in its course against liberation theology, and a new church will develop out of the comunidades de base , the base community groups: a church of the people, a church of the poor. Leonardo Boff has spoken about this in some of his books. Thats why he was invited to the Vatican and was censored for some things he had said, because the Vatican is fearful that we could really see within the next few years a split in the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America that would only be comparable to the Reformation, the Protestant split. This is of great concern to them. Student comment: It seems to me that the real reason for the writing of the instructions concerning liberation theology by the Vatican, by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, was not so much because of liberation theologys content itself, but because Leonardo Boff and other liberation theologians were actually chal-

46

Liberation Theology and Contextualization of the Gospel

byterian, but resigned his credentials in the Presbyterian Church in protest against their theological conservatism. He is the founder and, I believe, the father of liberation theology. I believe he wrote the first work on the subject. Since that time, about 1974, he has completely repudiated liberation theology because he believes it is fascist, he told me. I asked Alves in Brazil, You were an evangelical at one time; then you left that and became a liberationist. Now you have repudiated that. What are you now? He said, Im a mystic. He spends a great deal of time writing poems about trees and other things in nature. That did not stop him, by the way; when I spoke with him in Brazil, he was leaving the country that afternoon for a ten-seminary speaking tour of the United States. Jos Mguez Bonino is a Methodist from Argentina. He is one of the past presidents of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. He is probably the most widely traveled liberation theologian, presenting liberation theology throughout Europe and the United States. A very strong advocate, very clear, very easily understood, he gives a good presentation of liberation theology. Hugo Assmann is a Roman Catholic from Brazil. He is extremely radical. I had to laugh a few weeks ago when I read an American theologians opinion that Assmann had made great steps because he was talking today about the need for democracy in Latin America. What the theologian doesnt realize is that Assmann is saying that what we need in Latin America today the most radical thing that could happen would be what he calls economic democracy, which means everyone would have the same. That is not exactly what the American theologian thought he was saying! Leonardo Boff, a Brazilian, comes from the Franciscan Order of the Roman Catholic Church. He is a very strong systematic theologian. Hes a Bultmannian; much of his study was done in Germany. He is probably the strongest antisupernaturalist in the liberationist camp. Juan Luis Segundo is a systematic theologian. Hes from Uruguay and is a Roman Catholic. Hes written quite a bit on liberation theology. He has a five-volume treatise on theology for laymen which is extremely interesting; it deals with subjects like creation, guilt, peace, grace from a liberationist perspective. Jos Porfirio Miranda is from Mexico. He also is a Roman Catholic. He is a specialist in economics and politics. He is the one who wrote

lenging the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church. Hundley: I think youre right. I think that has a lot to do with it. Obviously, the document itself does not deal so much with that issue as it deals with the other one, and it is difficult to guess the motivations behind peoples minds as to why they did what they did. I do believe that is a large part of it. I should add, though, that although ISAL has ceased to be an organization in itself, its publishing arm does still exist and is very active. The Christians for Socialism group died right after it started, but it has been carried on by Sergio Torres in a group called Third World Theologians. Sergio Torres, who now lives in New York, is one of the founders of that movement and still sponsors many consortiums and discussions all over the Third World, not just in Latin America, to help theologians see things in terms of liberation theological perspectives. Lets see very quickly some of the content of liberation theology. I have chosen to start with Gutirrez presentation, not because it is the only one, but because it is one of the clearest and one of the best. Gustavo Gutirrez is a Peruvian theologian who has written probably the classic work today on liberation theology. It might be interesting for you to see some of what he says about the content of this theology. First, let me say that there are many theologies of liberation. There is Black liberation theology, feminist, Black African, and Minjung, which is Korean liberation theology. There is moderate, radical, Latin American, Asian, British, American, and so on. There are many kinds of liberation theology in the world today, but the basic form of liberation theology from which the others come is radical Latin American liberation theology. Those Im talking about today are the main theologians who have written on radical Latin American liberation theology. They are the most prominent ones; they have written the most materials, and, at least in terms of my own personal study of liberation theology, these are the ones that I have studied. I started with a list of nineteen and was able to pare it down to six major ones and then some other minor ones. Gustavo Gutirrez is a Peruvian and a Roman Catholic. He works in a Catholic university in Peru and is very strong in the liberationist movement. His book has probably been translated into more languages than any other liberationist work, and is best known, I think. Rubem Alves is from Brazil. He was a Pres-

John A. Gration
a book called Marx and the Bible, which is an attempt to prove that in essence Christianity and Marxism are identical. He also wrote a book called The Christianity of Marx, in which he attempted to prove that Marx, when he wrote his theories, was in fact a Christian. Jos Severino Croatto, from Argentina, is a Roman Catholic teaching in a Methodist seminary. He is the hermeneutical expert of liberation theology and has written more in terms of how to interpret Scripture from a liberationist perspective than anyone else. One of his books, on the Exodus, has been translated into English. He has a new book called Biblical Hermeneutics, which may be translated this year, which is probably the most thoroughgoing hermeneutical essay on liberation theology that has ever been written. The content of liberation theology is built around three basic questions. The first is: What kind of theology do we need? Gutirrez answers this in the first part of his book, and he does it quite interestingly. He deals with, first, methodology. What should theology do? He says, Theology should be critical reflection on praxis. What is praxis? Praxis is a good German word that has to do with involvement, putting into practice. In liberation theology, praxis generally means involvement in the process of liberation. And what Gutirrez is saying here is probably the most revolutionary part of his theology. Hes saying that this is what liberationist perspective on hermeneutics should look like. There is a prior ideological commitment to revolution as the only option. Gutirrez believes that as you look at the history of Latin America, it is so obvious that the only answer is revolution that it really is not debatable. Reform has never worked. It can never work, for certain reasons. Because of that, we need to opt for revolution and then go to theology. What that means is that theology comes within that prior commitment to revolution, and sharpens it, improves it, betters it, but is not judged by it; the commitment is not judged by theology. That may seem like a minor issue, but in fact this idea turns all of theology upside down! Traditional theology believes that theology should study Scripture, come up with certain principles, and apply those to life. Liberation theology believes that you must start with a praxis commitment to revolution and then go to the Scriptures. That makes a great deal of difference in theology.

47

One of the things that has come from this is what Gutirrez and others call the privileged text. That means that the texts of Scripture that contribute to the process of revolution are privileged; they are to be used. Texts that do not make that contribution are ignored. By the way, they say that evangelicals use only five texts in the New Testament. I wont go through which ones those are, but they believe that we limit ourselves to certain texts because they achieve our purposes, and therefore they can do the same thing. There is also the idea of a privileged position: that the poor of this world are more able to interpret Scripture correctly because they see Scripture as it was originally intended. It was written for the poor, for their situation. Because of that, because they are involved in the process of revolution, the poor have a privileged position from which to understand the text of Scripture. This has caused great consternation in Europe when Gutirrez and others have gone there for debates on liberation theology, because basically the view expressed is, Of course you dont understand; youre not poor. Or, Youre not from Latin America. There is some truth to this. The fact of the matter is that very few theologians in the Western world understand the problems of Latin America and the problems of the poor and can really see the situations in Latin America through the eyes of those who live there. But it has also presented tremendous problems in that it makes this theology incapable of being criticized or even evaluated, seemingly, by anyone outside that context, which is always dangerous. So this particular principle has become very important in liberation theology and is the cornerstone of many of Gutirrez ideas. Because of that, Gutirrez believes that if that is what theology ought to bethat is, critical reflection on historical praxisthen in Latin America the only praxis that can really solve the problems is revolution. Theology, therefore, should be a reflection on that, and we should have a theology of liberation. This is a logical presentation. The second question is, How should the church relate to the world? Or better, How is the church relating to the world? Gutirrez talks about seven points: 1. We must discard the old models of how the church relates to the world. 2. We must accept the process of liberation that is taking place in Latin America today.

48

Liberation Theology and Contextualization of the Gospel

church, keep their people down and dont allow them to change society. 4. We need to encourage revolutionary commitment among the laity and the clergy. 5. We need to adopt socialism as the goal of the church. 6. We need to prophetically denounce structural sin. 7. Finally, we need to become the church of the poor. Then Gutirrez asks the last question: What theological tasks await us in the light of the above? What does the church need to deal with? Here are the subjects that Gustavo Gutirrez introduces at this point. I think theyre very interesting. Salvation. He says we need to declare the unity of creation and salvation through liberation. God is not concerned, Rubem Alves says, agreeing with Gutirrez, with saving a few individuals from society. He is concerned with saving his creation totallyall of it. Therefore, there is a unity of creation and salvation. There is only one history. In Protestant terms, this is called universalism. In Roman Catholic terms it really has to do a great deal with the fact that baptismal regeneration and the massive baptism in Latin American countries lead to the conclusion that everyone in the country is Christian. So there is no need for evangelism. Eschatology. We need to see the realization of eschatological promises. We bring the Kingdom through the struggle for a just society. This is very interesting to me, especially in the face of some theological movements here in the United States that also believe they will bring the Kingdom of God to earth by certain actions. This is also present in liberation theology. Love. Love for neighbor is love for God. We find God only in our encounter with men. The neighbor must be redefined in class-struggle terms as the proletariat. This is from Miranda. Miranda believes that you cannot come to God directly. The only way you can come to God is through your neighbor, through loving your neighbor, which, in an exploitative, oppressive situation, means changing the oppressive social structures of society. Hope. We must work for the future project of the new man with confidence and hope, knowing that Christ will carry all history to its final completion. Gutirrez believes that we can contribute this to the Marxist revolution. They have no reason to have hope that they will finally be victorious, but we do, as Christians.

We must reject developmentalism, the idea that societies need to become more and more developed in their economic structures. We need to accept the theory of dependence, which basically says that the United States and other Western countries maintain their wealth by exploiting the Third World, and therefore they will never allow the Third World to break out of that pattern unless they are forced to do it by revolution. This theory of dependence is very important in liberation theology. It is probably the most repeated part of the basis of this theology. It teaches that the United States, for example, is an economic vampire, living off the blood of the Third World. I want to say two things about this before we go on. There is some truth to this. There is some truth to the idea that many multinational companies get their wealth at the expense of the suffering of the Third World. And that needs to be stopped! It is being stopped in many countries in Latin America today where the countries have even nationalized those industries or refused to allow them to take profits out of the country. This is an excellent solution, I think. On the other hand, to say that the United States wealth is based on that activity is a bit naive economically. Less than 7% of the gross national product of the United States is involved in international commerce, and most of that is petroleum products. So to say that the wealth of the United States is based on this exploitation of the Third World is somewhat ridiculous. If the United States were to stop all trade with the Third World and all the rest of the world tomorrow, 93% of our gross national product would still be intact. This makes it all the worse, I believe, that multinational companies see the need to do this kind of thing. It is totally unnecessary, and it needs to be stopped from our side as well as from their side. Then, Gutirrez says that we need to accept liberation through violence. He argues that violence for liberation, for revolution, is not violence; it is counter-violence. The first violence is repression and injustice, and in result there comes counter-violence, which is justified, liberating violence. We also need concientization, which is awareness building: to allow people to understand what is happening to them, so that they can change their situation. 3. Gutirrez believes that we need to abandon the alliance with the repressive status quo, the situation of the Roman Catholic Church, in which the rich of the country, in union with the

John A. Gration
Universal salvation. This has changed the mission of the church, from getting people to heaven, to the service of humanity. Gutirrez talks about the difference between a qualitative and a quantitative view of salvation. I believe that this one questiona qualitative versus a quantitative view of salvationis going to be one of the crucial questions in the next twenty years in missions. Do you believe that salvation basically is bringing people into relationship with Christ and the church, quantitatively? Or do you believe that salvation is qualitative? That is, wherever a certain lifestyle is evidenced, there is salvation. I believe this is the kind of thinking that prompted the World Council of Churches staff to publish an article a few years ago saying that China is the most Christian nation in the world today, in spite of the fact that they deny all religion. Why? Because in China good things are happening for the quality of life of people; therefore, Jesus Christ is present in that struggle, and the nation is Christian! Poverty and the church. These two last issues come together. There has to be a denial of poverty, an attack against it, and at the same time the church must become the church of the poor. It must divest itself of its luxuries and its wealth and become committed to the poor of the nations. Thats a summary of Gustavo Gutirrez book, A Theology of Liberation. Id like to turn now to an evangelical evaluation of liberation theology. I believe that liberation theology has pointed out some errors in evangelical theology that we need to be aware of. Its always helpful to be criticized, though not always pleasant. As evangelicals we need to consider that we have not arrived, that our view of Scripture is not perfect, that our interpretation of the Bible is not the best in the world, and that we have a long way to go in many areas of our lives. We need to be corrected. One of the areas in which they have corrected us, I believe, is Hellenization. They believe that some of our theology is more Greek than it is biblical, and in some cases they are right. Sometimes evangelical theology comes out saying something like, The Christian life is the struggle of the soul to free itself from the prison of the body. That is beautiful Greek philosophy, but it is not biblical theology. Exaggerated individualism. The church in Colombia has a chorus that says, Im going to heaven, and if you dont go, whats that to me? Thats a rather exaggerated form of individual-

49

ism; nevertheless, its very strong. Im going to heaven, and the world is going you-know-where, and I dont care! No social ministry. Theyve criticized us for not having any social ministry in the evangelical church, and this is very true. One of the problems in Latin America is that the church there, by and large, has been started by North Americans, missionaries. American missionaries especially of the conservative-evangelical positionare not known particularly for their concern for social ministry in the church. That has gone over into the church in Latin America and needs to be corrected. Orthodoxy without orthopraxis. Liberation theologians believe that sometimes in evangelical circles the tendency is to have orthodoxyright beliefwithout orthopraxisright action. I think theyre right. Its all too easy for us to say, I believe this, this, this, and this; therefore Im an evangelical. Its fine to say you believe that; what do you do about it? I know a lot of people who will fight from dawn to dusk over the authority of Scripture, and yet they dont spend a half hour a day studying the Scripture. I know a lot of people who proclaim all day long the priority of evangelism, but they never evangelize. So there is some truth to the criticism. Its easy to be orthodox and not have orthopraxis. What are we doing ? Now, I think they have praxis without orthodoxy, but be that as it may, their criticism is helpful. Hermeneutical naivet. They say that some of us believe that we go to the Scriptures with an empty head; that when we look at Scripture, we dont wear any ideological blinders, because were evangelicals and believe in the authority of Scripture. We do; but were also human beings. When we go to Scripture, we go to it as Americans, or whatever our nationality happens to be, and we see certain things in the Scriptures in the light of our own human experience. We need to be aware of this and guard against it. They also say that we have too much defense of capitalism, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. You know, it was a great shock in my own personal life the day I realized that I could give all kinds of evaluations of Marxism as to why it was evil, but I didnt know anything bad about capitalism. Many things about capitalism are bad. I read a book just a few weeks ago which tried to give the argument that capitalism is the most moral system on the face of the earth. The reason why it is moral, it said, is that capitalism offers a nonviolent channel for human greed!

4 10

Liberation Theology and Contextualization of the Gospel

grab things out of the Old Testament and plug them into the Christian faith automatically. That cannot be done, theologically. Until we begin to understand the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, our theology will always have these kinds of problems. Thats true whether it is liberation theology, or prosperity theology, for that matter. Its the same basic problem. The priority of praxis over revelation. Liberation theologians believe that revelation is given in modern history through modern historical movements of praxis: active involvement in liberation. That is not true. Revelation is given in Scripture. There is a unique apostolic, prophetic revelation that cannot be repeated by anyone at any time. If we dont believe that, we have absolutely nothing as an objective basis for the Christian faith. They destroy the normativity of Scripture. The Bible becomes a list of helpful suggestions and illustrations. It is not seen as the norm for Christian thought and activity. Ive already talked about universalismthe belief that everyone will be saved in the end, regardless of what they do about Jesus Christ. This is the reason why much of radical liberation theology can give so much attention to social help, social change: evangelism is a waste of time and is unnecessary. Another criticism is overconfidence in Marxism. Liberation theologians think that Marxism is a lot nicer than it is. They tend to believe that Marxists are more angelic than they are and that man is not as evil as he really is. Finally, they over-contextualize. They almost make it necessary to write a new theology for every city, every situation. True, the application of Christian theology is different for every culture, but that doesnt mean that we have to write a brand new Christian theology for every culture. There are truths in Scripture that are truths across the board, internationally. There are many applications of that truth. When theologians over-contextualize, they give the impression that the gospel itself changes from culture to cultureand it doesnt. Having said all that, much too quickly, let me end with this: I believe that we need, as evangelical Christians, to come up with a theology which is an alternative to liberation theology. These are its characteristics: It is an integral, wholistic theology. It does not define Christianity as spiritual scalp-hunting, and at the same time does not reduce the gospel to the social gospel. E. Stanley Jones once said, very wisely, that evangelism without compassion and social

I find that ludicrous. Sometimes its easy to see the splinter in the liberationists eye and hard to see the beam in our own. Capitalism is not Christianity! Someone asked me the other dayin a conference, Didnt Jesus teach capitalism? No, he didnt! He said some things that apply to some of the good aspects of capitalism, and there are many, but he also said some things that are very critical of capitalism. Let me just back up and say, very honestly, I find more fault with Marxism than I do with capitalism. Nevertheless, as Christians we need to make sure we do not identify the gospel of Jesus Christ with any -ism, because its greater than that; its bigger than that; its more powerful than that. It judges all of the -isms of our world; it cannot be swallowed up by any of them. Although I do believe, personally, that democratic capitalism has proved to be the most useful economic process in the modern world, I do not believe for a second that that is the kingdom of God or that the Christian faith can be reduced to economic capitalism. A final criticism is lack of contextualization. Liberation theologians say that evangelicals often come into a culture and kind of let the gospel fly from the blimp, full of all kinds of Americanisms, all kinds of cultural trappings and baggage, which is very true. Just go to any evangelical church in Medelln, Colombia, on a Sunday morning, and you will see that they start Sunday school at 9:30, they have church at 11:00, they have evening service at 7:00, and they have Wednesday night prayer meeting at 7:30. They dont all, thankfully; but many of them do, and they do because they believe that is the gospel. So there are some things to be looked at. On the other hand, there are some errors in liberation theology. I dont want to let anybody off, so I can get everybody mad at me at the same time! Ideologization is a charge against liberation theology. In this theology the gospel is swallowed up by ideology. Marxism becomes the filter through which the biblical evidence is passed. When that kind of thing happens, whether the filter is Marxism or capitalism, what comes out on the other side is a distortion of the Christian faith. Confusion in terms of the Old and New Testaments. I could apply this to many theologies today, but liberation theology has a major problem at this point. The theologians do not see any difference between the Old and New Testamentsand there is a difference. They have a tendency to

John A. Gration
ministry is like a soul without a body; and social ministry without evangelism is like a body without a soul. The one is a corpse, and the other is a ghost. We dont want either one! I think he is right. We need to stress the biblical teaching on the burning issues of our day: poverty, wealth, violence, injustice, oppression, exploitation. We need to see what the Scripture teachesand it teaches a great deal on these subjects. Look at any Protestant concordance thats thematic, and see if you can find those themes. Its interesting. They are not present, because they have not been issues before. That doesnt mean that theyre not in the Scriptures; it means that we werent asking the questions before. We need to ask them now. We need to use liberation as a category for biblical theology. Its a beautiful category. There is a lot of teaching on liberation in the Old and New Testaments. The Exodus event is a liberation event. It is freedom from slavery, and it is interpreted in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. It is a central figure of biblical theology. If we use it we will find that biblical liberation is much more integral and much more profound than the kind of liberation that is being talked about in socioeconomic terms in liberation theology. We need to define the relationship between faith, politics, ideologies, and social change, and search for some new models. These realities politics, faith, ideologies, social changewhat is the relationship between these things for us as Christians today? How does my faith inform me about ideologies? What is the relationship between my faith and rapid social change, or is there no relationship? We need to search for some models in church history that can help us to wed our priority on evangelism with compassionate social ministry. I should make a little confession here, that I am a Wesleyan, perhaps because of this issue. The Wesleyan revival in England is one model in church history in which for a period of time there was a wedding of fervent evangelism and radical commitment to social change and social ministry. Models like that one and others in church history need to be researched. We need to think about themnot to copy them, but at least to see if there is any way that kind of model can serve us as an example for the future. Finally, ministerially we as evangelicals need to put a priority on the social ministry of the church. I believe the only way to stop the excesses

4 11

of liberation theology is to teach in a positive, active, praxiological way the social ministry of the church. Liberation theology came into existence in part because the church was not doing what the church ought to be doing. I believe the day that we begin to take seriously the teaching of the New Testament on the social ministry of the church, the need for liberation theology will disappear. I want to close by saying this: I believe that liberation theology has done us a great service. Im not in favor of it; Im opposed to it, because its roots are not good. But it has served us well in that it has reminded us that the gospel is bigger than we thought it was. It has reminded us that we are not perfect as evangelicals and need to look at ourselves and see what we need to be doing. The popularity of this movement has proven to us, I hope forever, that the world today is looking for a Christian faith that speaks to the issues of our day, of our time. Not to the issues of a hundred years ago, but to the issues of people today who are dying and suffering because of the social structures in which they live, and who want to hear some word of hope and of change from the Christian church. Gration: There is very little that I want to add to this very comprehensive lecture, but rather let me underline one or two things. Im sure it is clear to you that in reality there is no such thing as liberation theology in the strict sense of the term. It just isnt that monolithic type of a movement. Rather, it is far more pluralistic. So as you heard Ray Hundley speak of liberation theology, you need to make a mental note that we can better and more accurately speak of liberation theologies, plural, or of liberation theologians, for they exist on a rather broad spectrum or continuum. For example, we can locate them in terms of their view of Scripture or their view of and use of Marxism. In fact, many liberation theologians dont refer to Marxism but seek to ground their approach in another ideology. Some who do accept the marxist analysis of society seek to separate it from a metaphysical and spiritual aspect of Marxism. Then, liberation theologians differ in their use of the term revolution and the meaning they attach to that term. While that term is often used with reference to advocating a violent revolution, such is not always the case. Im sure you picked up that Ray clearly recognizes the plural aspect of liberation theology. In our discussion after his lecture, it was pointed out that in many of his references, he

4 12

Liberation Theology and Contextualization of the Gospel

liberation theologians in English and Spanish, with the latter writings being far more radical. It seems as if they write for their particular audiences, a fact that only adds to the complexity of the whole subject. In concluding, let me emphasize that liberation theology is far from just a Latin American phenomenon. The underlying theme surfaces in liberation theologies in many parts of the world, such as Korea and South Africa, and in the segment of the Black, or Afro-American, community here in the United States. It is an ideology that is widespread and will not soon go away, for it grows out of harsh realities faced by millions. The evangelical church must not shrink from grappling earnestly and biblically with the issues it raises. Hopefully this lecture will assist you in your part of this on-going task.

used the term liberation theology to refer to radical liberation theology, a liberation theology that affirms that liberation will only ultimately come through a violent overthrow of the system. For such liberation theologians we need to realize that programs of economic development designed to improve the lot of the people are ultimately considered anathema, since they are seen as fostering an on-going dependency and are merely a palliative that tends to postpone the ultimate solution that, in their perspective, can only be effected by a violent revolution. This advocacy of violent revolution is, in Rays opinion, what separates radical liberation theology from its other forms. By the way, he made the interesting observation after his lecture that there is often a great difference between the writings of the same