LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Liberation Theology: Origins, Cause, and Fallacies

Submitted to Professor Jonathan Pruitt

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of

THEO 510-B01

Survey of Theology

by

Jose Gabriel Hernandez

 Contents

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1

Cruelty, the Momentum of Liberation.........................................................................................1

Post-Enlightenment Liberation Theology....................................................................................3

Relationship to Marxism...............................................................................................................3

Theological Constructs of Liberation Theology..........................................................................4

Strengths of Liberation Theology.................................................................................................5

............................................................................................................................................................

The Err of Liberation Theology...................................................................................................6

Revived Humanism ................................................................................................................................................ 6

The Misunderstanding of Social Sin ................................................................................................................ 7

Complications in Marxism .................................................................................................................................. 8

Utopia: The Promise of the Unattainable ...................................................................................................... 9

Lack of Redemptive Soteriology .................................................................................................................... 10

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................11
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................13

ii
 Introduction

Social justice advocacy has been a contemporary issue in the wake of recent events. An

influx of organizations are bringing awareness to issues such as human trafficking, creation care,

racial diversity and injustice, immigration, world hunger, fair trade laws, the advantages and

disadvantages of social media, global health, and education. Traditionally these issues have been

relegated to secular and liberal organization while the church has taken a secondary role in

humanitarian matters. In light of such weighty matters Christian congregations, schools, and

organizations have given serious concern and action towards the bettering of the human

condition in addition to evangelizing the gospel. But as the Qoheleth writes, “What has been is

what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the

sun.” (Eccl. 1:9) Peruvian Catholic theologian Gustavo Gutierrez coined the term “Theology of

Liberation” in 1971.1 The modern social justice movement must draw comparison and contrast to

Liberation Theology to capitalize on its strengths and avoid its weaknesses. The purpose of this

paper is to demonstrate the theological fallacies of liberation theology due to its lack of

prioritization to redemptive soteriology and its idolization of humanism and, until modifications

are implemented, it ought to be rejected.

Cruelty, the Momentum of Liberation

Liberation Theology is an emotionally laden topic that must be taken into consideration

for a proper understanding of the theology as a whole. Informally, Liberation Theology in the

Western hemisphere arose among the Spanish Christian conquistadores and their conquest of the

1
C. D. McConnell, “Gutierrez, Gustavo,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Ed. Walter A.
Elwell, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 686.
American Indians that began in January 13, 1493.2 Christians hunted the American Indians

subjecting them to atrocities. A chieftain by the name of Hatuey, along with the Taino Caribbean

Indians, resisted invading European colonizers through guerilla style warfare.3 His dialogue upon

his eventual capture and condemnation surmises the sentiment that would pave the way for

Liberation Theology amongst Catholicism. As he was about to be executed, a priest attempted to

convert him to Christianity. “The condemned warrior retorted that he did not want to go anyplace

where he would be forced to be with such cruel people as Christians.”4 American Indians were

dehumanized, and the questioned reality of their soul sufficed to justify the actions of

enslavement and genocide under the banner of Roman Catholicism.5 As Spanish imperialism

expanded, Spain’s political goals became synonymous with Christ’s mission. The Church

justified the crown’s actions, and the crown rewarded land in return. “Together, the cross and the

sword plundered and decimated the indigenous population.”6 Ecclesiastics such as Bartolomé de

Las Casas (1484–1566), Antonio Montesinos (1486–1540), Diego de Medellín (1496–1593),

Antonio de Valdivieso (d. 1549), and Juan del Valle (d. 1561) preached against the inhumanity

faced by the natives and are considered the forerunners to Liberation Theology, particularly

Latin American Liberation Theology.7

2
Miguel A. De La Torre, Liberation Theology for Armchair Theologians, First edition., Armchair
Theologians Series (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), 5.
3
Ibid., 6.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid., 7.
6
Ibid., 8.
7
Miguel A. De La Torre, Liberation Theology for Armchair Theologians, First edition., Armchair
Theologians Series (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), 9–10.
 Post-Enlightenment Liberation Theology

Gustavo Gutiérrez is credited for the systematic formulation after the enlightenment.

Theology, as defined by Gutierrez, “is a dynamic, ongoing exercise involving contemporary

insights into knowledge, humankind, and history.”8 His book Teologica de la Liberacion

(Theology of Liberation) was published in 1971.9 According to this dogma, Theology was not to

be relegated to system of timeless truths, apologetic argumentation, or intellectual inquiry; praxis

means more than the theory, specifically, praxis in a sociopolitical context.10 To Gutierrez,

theological truth was formed through personal experience at the wake of Latin American’s class

struggle.11 In addition, Liberation Theology has also been greatly influenced by the writings of

Immanuel Kant, believing that revelation of God does not fully occur in the Holy Bible but

instead through revelation that comes from human interaction in history.12 Karl Marx also

influenced the development of Liberation Theology; although proponents would seek to remain

distinguished from Marxism, its influence is unmistakable. The resemblance is betrayed by the

emphasis on the achievement of human wholeness “through overcoming the alienating political

and economic structures of society.”13

Relationship to Marxism

Liberation theologians agree with Marx’s famous statement: ‘Hitherto philosophers have
8
D.D. Webster, “Liberation Theology,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Ed. Walter A.
Elwell, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 686.
9
F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 983.
10
D.D. Webster, “Liberation Theology,” 686.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Cross and Livingstone, “The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,” 983.
explained the world; our task is to change it.”14 It is an ambition to move on directly to practice

while minimizing theory for the purpose of social transformation. Their process employs a

Marxist style analysis on class. Both in their analysis and in their answers, liberation theologians

are deeply indebted to Marxism. Salvadoran theologian Emilio Nú-ez stated that no one could

deny the presence of Marxist principles in liberation theology, nor did liberation theologians

attempt to conceal it.15 Even today the need in Latin American provides a fertile setting for

Marxism. The rich are few in number but dominant, and the poor are prevalent yet shamefully

mistreated.16 Marxism aims to create a stark divide between the oppressor and the oppressed with

the purpose of identifying injustices and exploitation.17 However, Liberation Theologians seek

resolution from the Christian faith to bring about justice and Marxism is used in confinement to

create a worldview and infrastructure for economical solution.18

Theological Constructs of Liberation Theology

There are certain theological constructs of Liberation Theology, but due to the

contextualization of geographical location and situations, there is not a consensus system of

belief.19 However, there are commonalties. First, Liberation Theologians believe that scripture

demonstrates that God has a preferential treatment for the poor, thus it should be the primary

responsibility of the church to defend the marginalized.20 Second, “the gospel message of
14
D.D. Webster, “Liberation Theology,” 686.
15
J. Ronald Blue, “Major Flaws in Liberation Theology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147, no. 585 (1990): 93.
16
Ibid.
17
D.D. Webster, “Liberation Theology,” 686.
18
Ibid., 687.
19
De La Torre, Liberation Theology for Armchair Theologians, 43.
20
Cross and Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 983.
liberation that is found in Christ stresses liberation from all forms of human oppression, be they

social, economic, political, racial, sexual, environmental, or religious.”21 Liberation is salvation,

both are derived from the same Hebrew and Greek translation, both go beyond an abstract

concept to a state of being, and both terms are used interchangeably.22 Salvation is concerned

with the whole man and not just his spiritual needs, hence to focus on the abstract concept of

salvation is to deny the mandate of an abundant life promised by Christ in John 10:10. Fourth,

Christ’s message is a reflection of his attack on unjust social structure that is compared to

modern day social oppression.23 Fifth, the praxis is prioritized of theory. “The view that right

belief (orthodoxy) can issue only from right action (orthopraxis).” and sixth, “structures that

coerce are no less violent than the actual physical use of force.”24

Strengths of Liberation Theology

Before stating the weaknesses of Liberation Theology, it would be proper to begin by

stating its strengths. Liberation Theology causes “a demand for practical theology.”25 It demands

practicality beyond philosophical idealism challenging believers to see the relationship of the

Great Commission beyond the church and scripture. Systematic theology is not a matter of

thinking for its own sake, rather “it must be thinking for action in terms of knowing, obeying,

and honoring God by fulfilling His mandate to us…. It is related to what happens in church,

21
De La Torre, Liberation Theology for Armchair Theologians, 44.
22
Ibid., 45.
23
Cross and Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 983.
24
Ibid.
25
Larry D. Pettegrew, “Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings,” Bibliotheca Sacra
148, no. 591 (1991): 279.
state, school, family, the arts and sciences, the vocations, and all things else.”26 Liberation

Theology also serves as an example and awareness of preunderstandings and their effect on

biblical interpretation. Although presuppositions in themselves are not unbiblical, they should

not stand in the way when studying scripture isolated in our own attitudes. Preunderstandings do

not necessarily prevent a true interpretation of the text. Rather, as true comprehension increases,

it should lead the reader to shape his or her perspective to align with the text.27 Also, Liberation

Theology brings a certain biblical justification to interpret and apply scripture from one’s

cultural context. New Testament writers interpreted texts of the Old Testament within the

framework of their contemporary developments.28 This contextualization empowers Liberation

Theologians to know that works take a greater role than simply the byproduct of one’s faith and

that great theodicies (such as injustice, suffering, and evil) must be taken head-on, not with

theory but with action.29

The Err of Liberation Theology

Revived Humanism

Liberation Theology places humans at the center concluding that since man is the cause

of injustice, man must provide the solution. This revived humanism is advanced as the cure for

social injustice while disregarding the process of divine intervention in the curative process.30

This view stresses the divine image in all mankind. “God I found in our neighbor, and salvation

26
Ibid., 280.
27
Ibid., 282.
28
Ibid., 283.
29
Miroslav Volf, “Doing and Interpreting: An Examination of the Relationship between Theory and
Practice in Latin American Liberation Theology,” Themelios: Volume 8, No. 3, April 1983 (1983): 14.
30
Blue, “Major Flaws in Liberation Theology,” 95.
is identified with the history of man becoming. The history of salvation becomes the salvation of

history embracing the entire process of humanization.”31 Liberation Theologians claim that God

is in every man, thus it begins and ends with man. It has overlooked the intervention of God,

failing to recognize that humanistic efforts will fall short, for man needs a transformation, not a

reformation.32 Even in their confrontation with dogma, it is relegated as an aid to the human

experience helping humanity “find themselves” in an attempt that such realization will better aid

societal change.33 As J.L. Segundo asserted, God’s relation and communication with people is

useless unless it improves the “human situation.”34

The Misunderstanding of Social Sin

Sin is both personal and social; racism, nationalism, imperialism, ageism, and sexism are

contemporary forms of social sin.35 Liberation Theology redefines sin as social injustice,

exploitation, and oppression. “Just as sin is that which dehumanizes and oppresses people, so

salvation is that which humanizes them, that which liberates them for meaningful and creative

lives.”36 There is merit in understanding sin beyond individualism, but it would be incorrect to

overemphasize social sin. Ultimately it is through regeneration of the Spirit that sinners are set

free from the bondage of sin. Because individuals determine the orientation of society,

31
D.D. Webster, “Liberation Theology,” 687.
32
Blue, “Major Flaws in Liberation Theology,” 95.
33
Howard Summers, “Liberation Theology: Fossil or Force?,” Ashland Theological Journal Volume 27 27
(1995): 105.
34
Ibid.
35
D.G. Bloesch, “The Biblical Understanding of Sin,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Ed.
Walter A. Elwell, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 1104.
36
Ibid., 1105-6.
transforming the individuals is the only means to alter the society.37 Therefore, it is misguided

and naïve to not address the individual sin and recognize the reliance on God for regeneration.

Complications in Marxism

There is no injustice as atrocious and debilitating as poverty. The cause of poverty sets

the commitment to the theories and contextualization of theology to Marxism. Marxism will

blame poverty on the results of class, claiming that it is because of the rich that the rest are poor,

and in the context of Latin American Liberation Theology, Latin America is poor because the

United States is rich.38 “If the poor are poor because the rich are rich (the dependency theory),

and the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer (the gap theory), it is clear that

the poor are good and the rich are evil (the dualism theory).”39 This logic naturally leads to a

revolt against the rich to feed the poor, an over simplistic Robin Hood approach. It is too easy to

blame capitalism as the culprit for poverty. However, there is merit to exploitation that the

United States partook, and one could argue that it is currently partaking.40 Nevertheless, Marxist

theory meets its greatest limitation in placing ultimate blame on the system instead of individual

ethics.41 Marxist’s lack of an authoritative source (i.e. the Bible) impeded the development of

ethical standards to sustain the implementation of a system upon society.

As it has been previously accused with humanism, Liberation Theology interprets the Bible

through of the lenses of Marxism. “And all who believed were together and had all things in

37
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2013), 597.
38
Ibid., 97.
39
Ibid.
40
De La Torre, Liberation Theology for Armchair Theologians, 33-4.
41
Blue, “Major Flaws in Liberation Theology,” 97.
common.”42 Barriers were broken through the regeneration of hearts and the leading of the Spirit

and not through social revolution. This failure of adhering to Marxism above scripture has led to

the condoning of guerilla warfare against the upper class that has furthered the problem. As part

of the Marxist process, Liberationists supported guerrilla movements that unsettled Latin

American countries and weakened their economies.43 In contrast, the Bible exhorts both rich and

poor, providing the balance and transformation that Marxism cannot achieve.

Utopia: The Promise of the Unattainable

Liberation Theology seeks to realize that which can only be dreamt of, a utopia. Brazilian

Jesuit writer Joao Batista Libanio argues that utopia has a double meaning that could mean either

“no place” or “good place.”44 The ambiguity of use also reflects the dangers of utilizing a utopic

language when promising a certain quality of life for people under oppression, for in the lenses

of a “utopia” it implicitly criticizes what is but offers a glimpse of what could be. It causes an

eschatological tension between interpretations of scripture and ideology since Liberation

Theology sees that through the underestimating the possibility of change on earth is in itself a

lack of faith in the power of resurrection45; the call is believe, “for the kingdom of heaven is at

hand.” (Mat. 3:2) This appears to be an emotional corruption of the kingdom seeking to incite an

emotion to act for goal not clear in the rest of scripture. Defendants of this view seek to guardrail

such derailments differentiating utopia as to “what could be here and now while [eschatological]

42
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Acts 2:44.
43
Blue, “Major Flaws in Liberation Theology,” 99.
44
Tim Noble, The Poor in Liberation Theology: Pathway to God or Ideological Construct? Cross Cultural
Theologies (Sheffield: Equinox Pub., 2013), 53.
45
Ibid.
hope reminds us that even that is not everything.”46 However, this form of thinking can be

dangerously close to idolatry, since as previously stated with humanism, it raises humanity and

their present condition to an unbiblical level and that which is transcendent is limited to

materialism. Instead of liberating, it captivates people to an ideal that is always out of reach, yet

people idolize and trust its promise of transformation.47

The Lack of Redemptive Soteriology

Ultimately, every error of Liberation Theology points back to its lack of redemptive

soteriology in its goals of reforming a society. This theology is man-centered and dependent on

the response of unregenerate individuals for heart transformation in attempts to recalibrate a

fallen humanity. God and scripture are seen as a vehicle to attain reform but are not the ultimate

objective.48 Salvation is to break “sin” through Christ yet salvation is not achieved through Christ

but through becoming aware of structures of oppression that are barriers to living in Christ’s

life.49 This is an apparent deviation from orthodox Christianity, which stresses salvation in faith

alone through Christ alone that is not dependent on works. (Ephesians 2:8-9) The aim of

Liberation Theology is relegated not to convert the un-Christian but to convince humanity of the

value of humans due to their image bearing of God.50 Therefore, it is more adequately defined as

a cluster of religious thoughts that are the foundation for defending the socially, culturally, and

46
Ibid., 53.
47
Ibid., 55.
48
Pettegrew, “Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings,” 285.
49
De La Torre, Liberation Theology for Armchair Theologians, 44.
50
Ibid.
economically oppressed.51 In their attempts to bring the Kingdom of God to this earth they have

conformed Christianity to social contexts without transferring the authority of scripture with it,

as it appears the Bible is used for motivational purposes not redemptive purposes.52 Although

Gutierrez insists that the commitment to the outcast lies not on human will but on a theocentric

commitment,53 it is negated by the goal of Liberation Theology to reform not to convert.

Conclusion

Liberation Theology has admirable goals that the contemporary church needs to adapt.

The commitment of Liberationists to the betterment of mankind should be a vital action of every

Christian as believers seek to do “religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father [that

is]: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction.” (James 1:27) Liberation Theology has stood

defiling the prophecy of Karl Marx claiming that religion will be an opiate or narcotic “that

numbs the oppressed to the reality of their sufferings through promises of riches in some future

heaven after they die, or religion can raise consciousness.”54 To this end, every follower of Christ

must stand for the weak and the oppressed. However, there is a second part of James 1:27 to

which Liberation Theology must adhere to, “… keep oneself unstained from the world.”

Regardless of how noble a cause may seem, not all that is good comes from God and anything

that directly violates the basic tenants of Christianity must be rejected. The theological fallacies

of Liberation Theology are too numerous to allow it to integrate itself to Christianity

unchallenged.

51
Ibid.
52
Pettegrew, “Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings,” 285.
53
Samuel Escobar, “Beyond Liberation Theology: A Review Article,” Themelios: Volume 19, No. 3, May
1994 (1994): 16.
54
De La Torre, Liberation Theology for Armchair Theologians, 19.
 Bibliography

Bloesch, D.G. “The Biblical Understanding of Sin.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed.
Baker Reference Library. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
 Academic, 2001.

Blue, J. Ronald. “Major Flaws in Liberation Theology.” Bibliotheca Sacra 147, no. 585 (1990):
88-102.

Cross, F. L., and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

De La Torre, Miguel A. Liberation Theology for Armchair Theologians. First edition. Armchair
Theologians Series. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2013.

Escobar, Samuel. “Beyond Liberation Theology: A Review Article.” Themelios: Volume 19, No.
3, May 1994 (1994).

McConnell, C.D. “Gutierrez, Gustavo.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Baker
Reference Library. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic,
2001.

Noble, Tim. The Poor in Liberation Theology: Pathway to God or Ideological Construct? Cross
Cultural Theologies. Sheffield: Equinox Pub., 2013.

Pettegrew, Larry D. “Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings.” Bibliotheca

Sacra 148, no. 591 (1991): 274-87.

Summers, Howard. “Liberation Theology: Fossil or Force?” Ashland Theological Journal

Volume 27 (1995).

Webster, D.D. “Liberation Theology.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Baker
Reference Library. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic,
2001.

Volf, Miroslav. “Doing and Interpreting: An Examination of the Relationship between Theory
and Practice in Latin American Liberation Theology.” Themelios: Volume 8, No. 3, April
1983 (1983).