liberation theology - 1

At the beginning of his work, "A Theology of Liberation," Father Gutierrez says a few things that stand out as worthy of dissection. I have arranged these things with my commentary in no particular order. Please forgive the rather conversational style of these remarks; I intend to work these questions into a more serious analysis later on down the line - I've just finished the introduction and the first chapter of the book, but I want to record some of my questions thus far.

First, he speaks of certain material conditions as being incompatible with faith in Jesus Christ:

“These considerations should not make us forget, however, that we are not dealing here solely with an intellectual pursuit. Behind liberation theology are Christian communities, religious groups, and peoples, who are becoming increasingly conscious that the oppression and neglect from which they suffer are incompatible with their faith in Jesus Christ (or, speaking more generally, with their religious faith). (pp. xix)

I have two questions:

1. What is the oppression and neglect these people suffer?
2. How is it incompatible with their faith in Jesus Christ?

He can't be using the word incompatible in any meaningful way, because this would imply that Christianity is only for people who have achieved a certain level of material well-being. The oppression and neglect he speaks of, is, in general (at least in the introduction) very poorly defined.

Second, he makes a few strange remarks about the nature of the poor.

“Our time bears the imprint of the new presence of those who in fact used to be “absent” from our society and from the Church. By “absent I mean: of little or no importance, and without the opportunity to give expression themselves to their sufferings, their comraderies, their plans, their hopes. “ (pp. xx)

Some more questions

1. Where did these poor come from and how are they “new”?
2. Why weren’t they able to express themselves and how do you know this?
3. Why is expression valuable or necessary?

The idea that the poor are a new arrival on the world scene is very strange to me, and seems to be based on some woefully ignorant assumptions about history. Father Gutierrez also seems fond of speaking of humanity as if it's divided into two different worlds. He frequently makes remarks like “The world of the poor is a universe in which the socio-economic aspect is basic but not all inclusive.” (pp. xxi). I don't understand what he's talking about unless he means to speak of the perspective of the poor. I don't think it helps to speak of the poor living in a different world, because, quite matter-of-factly, they don't.

Next up, perhaps the strangest remark in the entire introduction. I think without further qualification, this particular comment would make Christianity as a religion impossible. I have highlighted the part to which I am referring:

“In addition, the experience of these years has shown me that generous solidarity with the poor is not exempted from the temptation of imposing on them categories foreign to them and from the risk of dealing with them in an impersonal way. Sensitivity to these and other dangers is part o f a human and Christian praxis whose truly liberating effects extend to those who are trying to carry on such a praxis for the benefit of the poor and the exploited. If there is no friendship with them and no sharing of the life of the poor, then there is no authentic commitment to liberation, because love exists only among equals. Any talk of liberation necessarily refers to a comprehensive process, one that embraces everyone. This is an insight that has been repeated again and again since the beginnings of liberation theology and that in my own case has become much more firmly established and has acquired a much greater importance with the passing of years.” (pp. xxx, xxxi)

Love only exists among equals? What can he possibly mean by this?

The last thing I would like to mention from the introduction is his frequent disparaging of older works of theology as culturally insensitive and unconconcerned with how we are to live out our faith. This is a theme that pervades his whole work and is part of his chief criticism. Here is a good example:

“In liberation theology the way to rational talk of God is located within a broader and more challenging course of action: the following of Jesus. Talk of God supposes that we are living in depth our condition as disciples of him who said in so m any words that he is the Way (see John 14:6). This fact has led me to the position that in the final analysis the method for talking of God is supplied by our spirituality. In other words, the distinction of the two phases in theological work is not simply an academic question; it is, above all, a matter of lifestyle, a way of living the faith. Being part of the life of our people, sharing their sufferings and joys, their concerns and their struggles, as well as the faith and the hope that they live as a Christian community – all this is not a formality required if one is to do theology; it is a requirement for being a Christian. For that reason, it also feeds the very roots of a reflection that seeks to explain the God of life when death is all around.” (pp xxxii, xxxiii)

The first sentence seems to imply that in older theologies, rational talk about God was not about following Jesus. If he doesn't mean to imply that, than what exactly is he saying? If he does mean to say that, how can he say that? All "older theology" that I'm familiar with was principally concerned with following Jesus, because part of following Jesus is knowing Jesus. His general disdain for the work of older theologians is strange to me.