The struggles that have occurred in Latin America go back as far as the 16th century during the “age of exploration.” The colonization that took place created economic, social, political, and cultural structures that citizens of these countries have been trapped in ever since. What was born in the centuries to follow was an ever increasing oppression of the poor and dramatic distinction between them and the “elite.”
Although formal liberation theology did not emerge until the 1960’s, its roots are said to date back to the Spaniards conquest of the new land, specifically the Dominican activism which called people to treat the Indians as humans instead of as barbaric slaves.
Spain’s first policy toward the Indians, called encomienda, granted the Spanish colonists a number of Indians, who were supposed to toil in the mines and on the plantations of their captors. For their trouble the Indians received protection and instruction in the ‘holy faith.’ Since the Indians were guilty of gross crimes such as human sacrifice and idolatry, the Spanish felt duty-bound to stop these barbarities (Shelly, 284).
Bartholomew de Las Casas, originally one of the conquistadores, had a spiritual experience after reading a passage in Sirach when he was in his mid-thirties that led him to believe that he and the other conquistadores were wrong in their actions. He began to petition the king of Spain for action to be taken against the mistreatment of the Indians. “Thanks in part to his appeals, Charles V, in 1542, issued a series of new laws, The Laws of the Indies, which softened the severity of the encomienda system and established the principle that Indians had human rights too” (Shelly, 285). However, even with the decree issued by Charles, the mistreatment and exploitation continued.
Latin America eventually “broke away from Spain and Portugal. The independence movement was largely the work of the local elites, who were motivated not only by nationalism but by a desire to be free to trade directly with the new center of world power, Great Britain” (Berryman, 11). Though the poor fought in the war for independence, they were not to benefit from its outcome. This struggle had huge ramifications for the Catholic Church which saw a mass departure of clergy from countries within Latin America which led to the dependence from outside resources to try and fill the void.
“The church came to be a bastion of support for the European populations which held and still hold the land and economic power. In some countries two per cent of the people own ninety per cent of the land. The question of social justice was muffled by the cultural captivity of the hierarchy” (Mursell, 324). Between 1900 and 1950, Catholic Action movements supported awareness of the unfair social structure and in 1955 the first plenary meeting of CELAM (Latin American Bishops Conference) bishops from all over Latin America came together to discuss concerns within the institution in addition to recognizing the growing social problems within the country. Some of these bishops along with the local priests and sisters began to work with peasants, some even went as far as practicing solidarity by moving into the rural areas and living their life with the poor. The continual class struggle along with the implications of Vatican II spawned the second council of CELAM in which Gustavo Gutierrez first used the term “theology of liberation” as set forth in the Medellin Document of Peace.
Liberationists practice theology by starting at the view point of the poor. To a liberationist, an aspect of God’s reconciliation of the world through Christ was the liberation of the oppressed. Luke 4:18-19 records the reading of a passage in Isaiah from Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth near the beginning of his ministry. It says: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Where many theologians will interpret this passage to mean spiritual oppression, blindness, and captivity, liberation theologians interpret it to also include physical oppression, blindness, and captivity.
Liberationists believe that God favors the poor and so we ought to have preferential treatment towards them as well. Within the Catholic church in Latin America, there began a grass roots movement for opting for the poor. This simply means that the clergy and sisters “have made an option to go to the poor and engage them in a reinterpretation of their own religious tradition in a way that is more biblically based and gives them a transformative rather than a fatalistic stance toward the world” (Berryman, 42). The reason this was so radical was that up to this point the church had tended to tailor their services toward the “elite” and inadvertently (or advertently) supported the very system that oppressed the poor.
In liberation theology, “rather than assume a predetermined history…theologians believe that humans abide by free will and are responsible to work with God to create a just and equitable world” (Stenberg). In this light, instead of working towards the kingdom of heaven as though it were only a place to be found in the new or recreated world, they see it as working towards a kingdom that has, at least partially, come; “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” In other words, liberation is not only meant as a reward in heaven, but as a possibility here on earth.
One of the primary tasks of liberation theologians is the evangelization of their nation. For many of the clergy this process of evangelism might mean more of a re-evangelization. This task of evangelism is the means of which to not only seek and save the lost but to bring good news and hope to the Christians. “The good news is that God hears the cry of the poor and is with them in their suffering and struggle” (Berryman, 41).
While the term “preferential option for the poor” and the reasoning that God favors the poor make it seem as though he disfavors the rich, we must understand the biblical principles that allow them to make this claim. In Matthew 25, a parable is found in which Christ speaks of the final judgment where he will sift the sheep from the goats. To those he calls righteous he gives the reason that they had fed him when he was hungry, clothed him when he was naked, gave him drink when he was thirsty, cared for him when he was sick, and visited him while he was imprisoned (vv 37-39). When he was asked when they had done all of these things, Christ responded “Whatever you have done for the least of these, you have done for me” (v 40). It is in this light that they say that God has preference for the poor, meaning that he has called us to care for the “least of these.” In Old Testament passages, God speaks through the prophets of the judgment on those who act unjustly towards others. In Micah, we are told that God requires us “…to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (6:8).
“Liberation theology calls Christians from all social classes to enact the vision of the gospels in order to end oppressive class struggles” (Stenberg). What we must understand about the context of liberation theology that few Westerners understand is the seriousness in which the injustices are inflicted. As theologians rose up in Latin America, they began to ask questions from a Latin American perspective as opposed to a European vantage point. Westerners struggled to defend the relevancy of theology and the credibility of Christianity in light of the Enlightenment, the age of progress, and the age of self and the questions each of these raised. “While Latin Americans can understand such questions, their basic concerns are different. Their question is not so much whether one can believe what Christianity affirms, but rather what relevance Christianity has in the struggle for a more just world. Gutierrez defines theology as ‘critical reflection on praxis in the light of the word of God’” (Berryman, 26).
While there is considerable attention drawn to the freeing of the oppressed, it is important to note that the “liberation” they speak of is two fold. The liberating process is not one of the reversal of roles where the oppressed then become the oppressors (e.g. what happened as a result of the French Revolution). The end goal of liberation theology is to do all that one can to create a just and equitable world; this would be freeing the oppressed from the oppressors and the liberation of the oppressors from their dominating actions thus bringing the whole of the community into closer relations with God and with others.
One of the criticisms likely to be heard from Westerners is that Christ never intended to free the physically oppressed. Much in the gospels denotes instructions on how to persevere in the face of persecution not how to become liberated from oppression. While the claim that Jesus never sought to free the Jews from the oppression of Romans is correct, it is not wrong to speak of God calling men and women in history to stand up against oppression. Examples are found throughout history: slavery, the holocaust, racial prejudice, women’s liberation, etc.
Latino theologians are quick to point out that these structures of injustice are structural or situational sins. Many Westerners, as a result of the philosophical and cultural developments in the last 500 years, have slowly pushed the concept of community out in the margins so that now their faith is a matter a personal choice and does not necessarily affect anyone else. We see this carry over into things such as sin; sin is a transgression of the law that breaks communion between me and God. Though my sin might have been against someone else, the primary offense is to God.
Liberation theologians, though they do not deny the personal element of sin, understand that sin is present in man-made structures and systems. The bishops who met in Pueblo in 1979 said: “‘We see the growing gap between rich and poor as a scandal and contradiction to Christian existence. The luxury of a few becomes an insult to the wretched poverty of the vast masses…’ They spoke of this as a ‘situation of social sinfulness’ and as a ‘grave structural conflict’” (Berryman, 43). To look at sin as only affecting my personal relationship with God is to deny the relational element of sin.
Richard M. Gula, in an essay entitled Understanding Sin Today states:
We all know that we violate the ecological balance of nature when we put toxins into our air and water or throw hamburger foil wrappers out the car window. We violate our moral ecology when we create discord, dissension, fear, mistrust and alienation in the web of life’s relationships…Social sin describes the human-made structures when they offend human dignity by causing people to suffer oppression, exploitation or marginalization. These include educational systems, housing policies, health-care systems, employment policies, and market economy.
What makes social sin so difficult to recognize is the fact that it exists in social and political systems that we assume work together for the good of the community. In light of the abolitionist movements of the United States, (e.g. slavery, racial discrimination, women’s rights, etc) most of us would say that there are “evil” social structures that need to be done away with. Liberation theologians are simply applying this same mentality to the current situation found in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, but approaching the methodology in a way that is relevant to their situation.
Another major criticisms raised against liberation theology is its use of socialism as a solution to the persisting problem of class struggle. However, the understanding that most theologians hold in respect to the use of socialism and Marxist analysis do not necessarily make them socialists or Marxists. Juan Luis Segundo, in an essay written in 1974 states: “By ‘socialism’ I do not mean a complete, long-term social project-hence one that is endowed with a particular ideology or philosophy. I simply mean a political regime in which the ownership of the means of production is taken away from individuals and handed over to higher institutions whose main concern is the common good” (Berryman, 91). Most liberation theologians are not looking at socialism as a permanent means to an end. Instead they are looking at it as a means to liberation from the national dependency on outside capital so that they can redevelop themselves autonomously.
Another criticism heard is that liberation theology is not really theology at all but a set of Christian ethics due to the emphasis placed on praxis. However, there are many protestant and Catholic theologians who are do not necessarily practice liberation theology but will affirm it is theology in that it is a systematic approach to understanding God, creation, Jesus, sin, etc. Where liberation theology differs from others is that it does not necessarily begin with the intellect but with experience. This is different from the more modern understanding of experience theology in that it moves in a circular patter from experience to theology and back to experience. It is “faith seeking understanding” in the cultural experience that persons in the third world find themselves in.
Overall, the aim of liberation theology is placed on looking at the bible, God, and the world through the eyes of the poor. It is a call to people to practice solidarity with the poor and struggle along side them in an attempt to better the situation that they are in. Though some of the proponents of liberation theology have gone to the extreme of taking up arms, most practitioners follow what is called “relentless persistence”, a nonviolent activism in hopes of stopping the oppressive cycles.
What we, as fellow Christians and Westerners, need to see in liberation theology is the praxis of living in solidarity with the poor and the oppressed. Our responsibility as brothers and sisters is to carry each others burdens, to care for those less fortunate, to seek justice for all. Our individualized ideal of Christianity prevents us from seeing the injustices that surround us in our neighboring countries. I believe without a doubt that those who are our geographical neighbors (meaning literally next door and in our communities) should be served as well, but when we speak of the poor we must understand that typically, the poorest of our poor are wealthier than the richest of most of the peasantry found in third world countries and nations like Latin America. Our materialism has blinded us to the need of others and restricted us in our response to their situations. So often today we consider it all good and well to just throw our dollars towards the mission offering once a month and call it good. We need to recapture the understanding of living frugally so that we can give…not only with our money but with our time and our life. We must return to the understanding of what it means to live in solidarity with the poor, to work along side them, and to share our lives with them.
When we become aware of structural evils, we should not be paralyzed by the guilt of self-condemnation, but moved to conversion. Conversion from social sin involves, at one level, changing our own lifestyle in ways that will help reform society…At another level, conversion from social sin involves examining existing regulations and practices, reforming those that offend human dignity (Gula).
Works Cited:
Berryman, Phillip. Liberation Theology: The Essential Facts About the Revolutionary Movement in Latin America and Beyond. (New York: Pantheon Books; 1987)
Shelly, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language, Updated 2nd Edition. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson; 1995)
Gula, Richard M. “Understanding Sin Today”. Catholic Update (2004). August 25, 2006
Mursell, Gordon gen. ed. The Story of Christian Spirituality. (Minneapolis: First Fortress Press; 2001)
Stenberg, Sheri. “Liberation Theology and Liberatory Pedagogies: Renewing the Dialog” College English; Jan 2006; 68, 3; Wilson Education Abstracts. ProQuest. August 30, 2006
Other Works Consulted:
Ferm, Dean William. Third World Liberation Theologies. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books; 1986)
McManus, Phillip and Gerald Schlabach. Relentless Persistence: Nonviolent Action in Latin America. (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers; 1991)
