Critique of A Theology of Liberation: Gutierrez Terrifies Me

I’m always in a rush. That’s why I am discontent with theoreticisms and usually too quick to jump to action, often prematurely. I am impatient for change and when I work in a structure that is slow to it, it grinds against my personality. At times I am faced with a monolithic blockage – society – unbending, systemically intertwined in so many ways creating a web of oppressive circumstances – my desire for reform is often met with a stoic silence. Which is why I like Gutierrez and Liberation Theology. It says “change or die trying”.

But something terrifies me about Gutierrez’ Theology of Liberation…

And it can be found in statements like this:

“Only a radical break from the status quo, that is, a profound transformation of the private property system, access to power of the exploited class, and a social revolution that would break this dependence would allow for the change to a new society, a socialist society – or at least allow that such a society might be possible”

Which I feel like is so true, but then I realize, “wait, this is Marxist socialism”… what’s funny is this quote could’ve been passed off as another neat Shane Claiborne quote yet it’s totally different coming from a totally different source. OK. Aside from the Marxism, there are other deeper things that raise yellowish-red flags…

• Can we give credence to the claim that “pure orthodoxy” is still culturally-tainted power expressions?
• Does genuine orthodoxy “alienate” the poorer classes calling out not only for truth but also for felt needs?
• Are there any live options combining (correct) Augustinian orthodoxy with the “hermeneutic of suspicion” presented by L.T.?
• Are the two even compatible?

_________________________________________________

For posterity’s sake I’m documenting a comment I wrote on another blog (just in case they think it’s stupid and delete it) if anything for my sake alone…

howdy, I’m currently writing a paper on Liberation Theo / Radical Orthodoxy – hope u don’t mind if I bounce some ideas off of u, if you’ve got a min or two?

I’m @ a bit of a crossroads stuck between the two theologies.

Gutierrez’ vision of systemic depravity is something I wholeheartedly resonate with (as a minority familiar with the ethnic experience) yet his conclusions terrify me. When it comes to systemic (social) evils – <i>sin</i> G and other L.T.’s really hit the mark I think. But their outworkings are unorthodox and I see “yellow markings” all over the place, and the occasional red flag.

Contrary R.O. presents everything I love about orthodox theol. It is Augustinian, and precludes any outside a priori such as sociology – championing the idea that theology can stand on it’s own, thank you. I love this. But it’s the praxis that I’m concerned about. If I may say so respectfully, I found some of the thoughts in the second to last paragraph a bit weak:

“Thus, part of what it means to be political and to take political action, is to be the church, to begin to live out in the present, as the church, what God intends human beings to be. The preaching of the gospel and the celebration of the sacraments are, seen in this light, political actions. This does not give us a blueprint for transforming society or give us a set of concrete historical steps to take in that process of transformation.”

This concerns me about R.O. because in some ways it seems an impotent answer to the ills around us; it would seem to prove that correct thinking – orthodoxy – actually, does <i>not</i> birth praxis – and for largely systemic social reasons. We may believe correctly but it will not move to praxis if our confines prevent us, which seems to be what L.T. argues.

In some ways the origins of R.O. reflect this systemization – wikipedia asserts that R.O. is “a predominantly Anglo-Catholic sensibility” and it would seem already starts from a place of privilege, security, comfort. Whereas the theological formulations of Liberation Theologians start from places of poverty and oppression.

Does that necessarily legitimate their theology? not so, but it does show that people will think differently from different contexts..

In the end I am open to any thoughts, corrections to misunderstanding, ideas as I am still forming my thesis…

I wish there were a middle ground, combining the Augustinian orthodoxy of R.O. with the insightful eye for depravity of L.T.. perhaps such a thing is impossible – or perhaps that is exactly what R.O attempts to achieve?