Liberation Theology

GRMA

Anyone interested in this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

I'm looking for a good book on this if anyone has a recomendation

GRMA

A friend piqued my interest after he described Jesus as "the biggest and greatest revolutionary of them all, more radical than Che or any of them"

Peregrinus

Well, you could start with the Gospel of Mark.

You probably should, in fact, since any other book you read on liberation theology is likely to refer extensively to it. It's quite short, but there's a lot in it.

homer911

I think the term is hijacked. The central message of the gospels is liberation from the wages of sin

philologos

homer911 wrote: »

I think the term is hijacked. The central message of the gospels is liberation from the wages of sin

Amen!

Not saying that social issues aren't worth pursuing but if man isn't set free from sin then it isn't acheiving Gospel aims.

Indeed one could say that as people are free from the slavery to sin to be a slave to righteousness that other things including social areas change.

However we are fallen, we can't fix this creation, only Jesus can when both we and the creation around us will be glorified in Christ.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

Amen!

Not saying that social issues aren't worth pursuing but if man isn't set free from sin then it isn't acheiving Gospel aims . . .

Ah, but does this approach risk making a [false] distinction between "sin" and "social issues"?

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, but does this approach risk making a [false] distinction between "sin" and "social issues"?

A lot of social issues arise out of sin. I agree. But there are two things to be considered 1) eternal needs, 2) temporal needs.

Temporal needs are important, and I think considering the temporal needs of others is an outflowing of the gospel. It is a consequence of the Gospel that we serve others around us.

However, if we focus on temporal needs to the exclusion that all need to believe and trust in Jesus and His death and resurrection on the cross in order to be saved on the last day that is problematic.

In terms of the New Testament mission of the church, I think it is more the second than the first, although the first can be the byproduct of the second or the outflowing of the Gospel.

Peregrinus

I agree, obviously, tha t the eternal and the temporal are not the same, but I think there’s a constant temptation to set up a false opposition between them, stemming I suspect from a false dualism. The well-known discourse in Mt 25 should be a counter to this.

When Jesus wished to call attention to himself and his teachings by signs, the signs were actual healings, and actual feedings - the relieving of temporal wants and the meeting of temporal needs. This is what the kingdom involves. I don’t think we should see such things as a sort of welcome side-effect of fidelity to the gospel and faith in Jesus. They are not a consequence of the gospel, but an intrinsic part of it.

If liberation theology, or some of its proponents, sometimes err in prioritising the social aspects of the gospel over the more individualistic ones, it seems to me that the converse error is also possible.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree, obviously, tha t the eternal and the temporal are not the same, but I think there’s a constant temptation to set up a false opposition between them, stemming I suspect from a false dualism. The well-known discourse in Mt 25 should be a counter to this.

When Jesus wished to call attention to himself and his teachings by signs, the signs were actual healings, and actual feedings - the relieving of temporal wants and the meeting of temporal needs. This is what the kingdom involves. I don’t think we should see such things as a sort of welcome side-effect of fidelity to the gospel and faith in Jesus. They are not a consequence of the gospel, but an intrinsic part of it.

If liberation theology, or some of its proponents, sometimes err in prioritising the social aspects of the gospel over the more individualistic ones, it seems to me that the converse error is also possible.

When I get a bit more time I'd be more than happy to walk through what I think about Matthew 25.

What I'm saying is this. The primary aim of Christian mission is to bring people to a saving knowledge of Jesus which in turn will lead to good works (see Ephesians 2, Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12). This is where I disagree.

By the by, I'd strongly agree to the idea that Jesus uses miracles to proclaim the Gospel. But it is important to note that Jesus' primary aim even then was to share the Gospel (Mark 1:38). If you look to Mark 8 and you see the two healings of blind men and then a section inbetween. Note the differences on the outside and see what they say about the inside. I was amazed when I realised this.

Peregrinus

Surely the point of the Great Commandment is that we can’t separate love of God and love of neighbour, and that attempts to do so are misconceived? Even when the young man demands a single “greatest commandment”, Jesus responds with the dual answer. To say less than that would be incomplete; it’s impossible to talk about love of God without also talking about love of neighbour, and vice versa.

Sure, it may well be that “a saving knowledge of Jesus will in turn lead to good works”, but can it not work just as well the other way around, i.e. that habits of love lay the ground for the growth of faith? Is that any less pleasing to God?

The Gospel calls for both love of God and love of neighbour, and the kingdom requires both; we can’t downgrade one for the sake of the other without distorting the gospel and betraying the kingdom. And I think we expose ourselves to that risk if we start by seeing them has somehow opposed to one another, or in tension with one another.

philologos

How can we love others? - because God has loved us first. How can we forgive others? - God shows us what it is like to forgive. In and of ourselves we're unable to keep God's standards (Mstthew 15 and Mark 7). Indeed it is only by being transformed entirely, being born again from above that we can even begin to get right with God. And how was that acheived? Jesus died for you and for me and rose again from the grave.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

How can we love others? - because God has loved us first. How can we forgive others? - God shows us what it is like to forgive. In and of ourselves we're unable to keep God's standards (Mstthew 15 and Mark 7). Indeed it is only by being transformed entirely, being born again from above that we can even begin to get right with God. And how was that acheived? Jesus died for you and for me and rose again from the grave.

Sure. I wouldn't disagree with any of that. But the corollary is that someone who does love others does so through the transforming grace of God, made possible through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this is true even if, on an intellectual level, they are partly or even completely unaware of that grace.

The point about social evils, I suggest, is that they are the outcome of our fallen nature, and therefore the completion of redemption must involve (among other things) the eradication of social evils. We can't see this as in some way secondary to other priorities because, if we do, we are only embracing the redemption worked by Jesus selectively.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. I wouldn't disagree with any of that. But the corollary is that someone who does love others does so through the transforming grace of God, made possible through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this is true even if, on an intellectual level, they are partly or even completely unaware of that grace.

The point about social evils, I suggest, is that they are the outcome of our fallen nature, and therefore the completion of redemption must involve (among other things) the eradication of social evils. We can't see this as in some way secondary to other priorities because, if we do, we are only embracing the redemption worked by Jesus selectively.

I half agree.

Although practical help and assistance are enormously helpful to others. What is significant is that no matter what we do Jesus is the only one who can truly fix it. Namely bring in the new creation.

Yes serve others practically but if they don't know Christ then there is still the issue of salvation. I think it would be wrong of me not to put emphasis on that in all that I do even in serving practically.

SoulandForm

Peregrinus wrote: »

If liberation theology, or some of its proponents, sometimes err in prioritising the social aspects of the gospel over the more individualistic ones, it seems to me that the converse error is also possible.

I read awhile back the actual criticisms that the last Pope made of Liberation Theology and to my surprise they were spot on. The problem with Liberation Theology is that it goes way beyond Christian Socialism no mind a concern for Social Justice to the point where it becomes incompatible with Christianity for instance by seeing sin as something social and conceiving the coming of the Kingdom purely in worldly terms. That said a concern for Social Justice is very much present in both Testaments and the attempt to turn Christianity into an individualistic religion of individual salvation and so fit into capitalism is probably just as much a distortion of the Gospel. I think people like John Millibank- probably the greatest living theologian- have got the balance right.

SoulandForm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point about social evils, I suggest, is that they are the outcome of our fallen nature, and therefore the completion of redemption must involve (among other things) the eradication of social evils. We can't see this as in some way secondary to other priorities because, if we do, we are only embracing the redemption worked by Jesus selectively.

People dont exist in isolation- a sick society will produce spiritually sick people. The two of course go together. Bishop Andrew of Ufa pointed out brilliantly how Russian society became spiritually weakened and increasingly wretched with the social injustices brought in by Peter the Great.

SoulandForm

http://web.archive.org/web/20060205183542/http://anglocatholicsocialism.org/acindex.html