There has been much in the news about Black Liberation Theology due to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s self-promotion. You can read his transcript from the National Press Club and get a good idea of what he believes about Liberation Theology. You can read the transcript here. Or you can watch the entire video of the press conference and you will get to hear the audience participation as well as his emphasis upon certain words and subjects. part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6.
Just what is Liberation Theology? Watchman.org defines it as “A movement that attempts to unite theology with social and religious concerns about oppression. It finds expressions among blacks, feminists, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans, but it is most closely identified with the shift toward Marxism among Roman Catholic theologians and priests in Latin America. Most traditional doctrines of Christianity are de-emphasized or reinterpreted. Jesus and the Bible are defined and interpreted in light of a class struggle, with the gospel seen as a radical call to activism (or even revolution) promoting political and social answers usually in the form of classic Communism.”
The Moody Handbook of Theology [CBD or Amazon] is an excellent source for an overview of different theological positions and thoughts. Following is an excerpt from it describing Liberation Theology.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY
Liberation theology is a theological movement that has attempted to unite theology with the social/economic concerns of the poor and oppressed people, particularly in Central and South America. The movement, however, is even broader in scope, including blacks (which may be separately called “black theology” ), feminists (which may be separately called “feminist theology” ), and others.
There are four factors that have contributed to the rise of liberation theology. (1) The movement has borrowed from the philosophical theses of Immanuel Kant (who emphasized the priority of human reason apart from divine revelation), Georg W. F. Hegel (who saw the transformation of society through thesis-antithesis-synthesis), and particularly Karl Marx (through overcoming class distinctions and barriers). Although Roman Catholicism is strong in many of the Latin American countries, nonetheless the people have been severely oppressed, making them open to Marxist-socialist ideology.
(2) The movement has also been influenced by Jürgen Moltmann’s theology of hope, which advocates revolution as one means to achieve hope for the future. Moltmann has himself built his theological views on Karl Marx.
(3) The movement is principally Roman Catholic in Latin America. Following the Second Vatican Council, with its liberalizing trends and greater freedom afforded the people, many priests turned to liberation theology as the solution to Latin American problems.
(4) The movement has been principally Latin American because those people have been oppressed through wealthy landowners and dictators; the dichotomy between rich and poor has been enormous. Theologians relate the oppression of the people to the beginning days of the colonization of South America.
It should be noted that within the scope of liberation theology there are some that genuinely attempt to link Christian theology with a socialist, political endeavor; others, however, disavow Christian theology. For them it is entirely a political movement. In a brief summarization it is impossible to distinguish and discuss the various theologians and their viewpoints. The discussion must remain general. The reader is referred to additional sources for further research regarding specific theologians with their particular emphases.
….
DOCTRINAL AFFIRMATIONS OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY
Theology of James H. Cone. James H. Cone (b. 1938), professor of theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, is perhaps the leading exponent of black liberation theology. He has written A Black Theology of Liberation in which he identifies Christian theology with liberation theology, defining it as “a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ.”10 Cone identifies liberation with the gospel of Christ; the gospel is helping the oppressed. Biblically, Cone bases his theology of liberation on God’s deliverance of Israel from oppression and what He did within the community of the oppressed within Israel.11 Cone concludes, “The consistent theme in Israelite prophecy is Yahweh’s concern for the lack of social, economic, and political justice for those who are poor and unwanted in the society. Yahweh, according to Hebrew prophecy, will not tolerate injustice against the poor; through his activity the poor will be vindicated. Again, God reveals himself as the God of liberation for the oppressed.”12 According to Cone, Jesus did not come to bring spiritual liberation but to liberate the oppressed.13 The resurrection of Christ means “that all oppressed peoples become his people….The resurrection-event means that God’s liberating work is not only for the house of Israel but for all who are enslaved by principalities and powers….It is hope which focuses on the future in order to make men refuse to tolerate present inequities…to see also the contradiction of any earthly injustice.”14
….
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY
The evaluation of liberation theology is a general one; it is clear there are diverse voices in the movement, some further to the left, others that are more moderate. Conservative Christians have serious reservations about liberation theology for the following reasons.
(1) Liberation theologians give secondary meaning to the ordinary meaning of the Scriptures. James Cone, for example, suggests the resurrection of Christ means the liberation of all people, relating it to physical deliverance from oppression. The historic significance of the resurrection as release from sin is ignored (cf. 1 Cor. 15).
(2) The matter of man’s sinfulness, and his need of a spiritual Savior to atone for sin is ignored in liberation theology. Liberation from sin is ignored; liberation is normally seen as essentially political. In fact, liberation theologians view themselves as liberating their unjust oppressors from sin by overthrowing them. The greatest sin is not the violation of God’s standard but social injustice.
(3) Hope for liberation theologians is not based on the biblical concept of eternal life through Jesus Christ, but hope is related to Jürgen Moltmann’s view of realizing the future hope in the present through helping to shape the future (often through revolutionary means).
(4) For liberation theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez theology is not the objective revelation of God given in propositional truths (as it has been historically understood), but theology is in flux, changing, and related to the changing of society. It is a “Christian coating” of Marxist socialism.
(5) Liberation theology stands in violation of the injunction of Scripture concerning submission to government as outlined in Romans 13.
(6) The interpretive methodology of liberation might seriously be called into question, as in the case of Juan Luis Segundo who does not begin with an inductive study of the Scriptures (allowing them to speak for themselves), but allows his political ideology to interpret the Scriptures.
(7) It is a false assumption of liberation theology, as Peter Wagner points out, to suggest that people will respond more readily to the gospel if they enjoy a more affluent environment.28 Jose Porfirio Miranda relates Karl Marx to the apostle Paul, suggesting Marxist principles will lead people to love one another-all without the acknowledgment of sin and salvation through Christ.
In summation, liberation theology does not approach the concepts of God, Christ, man, sin, and salvation from an orthodox, biblical viewpoint, but reinterprets them in a political context.
8. For helpful summaries see D. D. Webster, “Liberation Theology” pp. 635-38; and V. Cruz, “Black Theology” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, pp. 158-61. Also see Harvie M Conn, “Theologies of Liberation: An Overview” and “Theologies of Liberation: Toward a Common View” in Tensions in Contemporary Theology, expanded edition, 1979, pp. 327-434.
9 9. Dean William Ferm, Contemporary American Theologies (New York: Seabury, 1981), p. 59.
10 10. James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1970), pp. 17-18.
11 11. Ibid., p. 18.
12 12. Ibid., p. 19.
13 13. Ibid., pp. 19-20.
14 14. Ibid., p. 21.
28 28. Peter Wagner, Latin American Theology, p. 29.
