liberation theology - 2

Father Schall seems to have penned a column especially for me. And for that, I thank him. The column is wittily titled "Liberating Theology from Politics," and directly addresses an issue I am trying to uncover with respect to modernity, Christianity and politics.

Some modern Christians, when talking of politics, incorrectly define the hierarchy of mankind's priorities in this world. This is usually done in an attempt to justify political projects in the name of Christianity. The inversion of priorities is this: first, we need to work to eliminate oppressive socio-economic strucutres. Second, we need to work for peace or interior freedom. Third, we need to work to be be good persons, persons who try not to sin. In this inversion, priority is given not to personal, self-reform and repentance, but to the restructuring of society.

A prime example of this inversion of Christian priorities can be found in "A Theology of Liberation" by Fr. Gutierrez. Working off of Marxist assumptions about class struggle and the nature of oppression, Gutierrez writes,

“For that reason I distinguished three levels or dimensions of liberation in Christ, and Puebla made the distinction its own (nos. 321-329). First, there is liberation from social conditions of oppression and marginalization that force many (and indeed all in one or another way) to live in conditions contrary to God’s will for their life. But it is not enough that we be liberated from oppressive socio-economic structures; also needed is a personal transformation by which we live with profound inner freedom in the face of every kind of servitude, and this is the second dimension or level of liberation. Finally, there is liberation from sin, which attacks the deepest root of all servitude; for sin is the breaking of friendship with God and with other human beings, and therefore cannot be eradicated except by the unmerited redemptive love of the Lord whom receive by faith and in communion with one another.” (pp. xxxviii)

The most obvious reason this is delusional is that we will never be able to eliminate unjust structures from society. All human societies are imperfectly just; it is naive to think we could ever eliminate unjust social structures. But there are other, deeper reasons this is a problematic idea.

Father Schall discusses a few of them in his column (maybe a bit indirectly). He is addressing the modern age, theology and politics:

...The modern age has done everything in its power to tell us that we will all be better people -- but only if we just redo the work of creation, or overcome the Fall, or reform our political structures, families, property, classes, or our political parties. We will, no doubt, be called "individualists" if we think that the task of saving our souls is rather what we should be about.

The implication of most modern ideology is that we can do nothing for ourselves until these magic reforms first take place. For many, this proposition comes as a relief as it dispenses us from doing much until things outside of us are better. These reforms, however, always end up with much blood on their hands, because they forget what passes through the human heart. The system, we say, was responsible, not the individual.

Along with Plato and Aristotle, the classical Christian view suspected rather that social reforms would be consequent on the inner reform of our souls. The problem that Christians had with the classical understanding of virtue was not that it was unknown. Rather, the question was: Why was it so difficult to practice this known virtue? This latter difficulty could, in the Christian view, only be confronted with some understanding of the Fall and grace.

We have developed a system in which such ideas as virtue and grace are never so much as whispered among us. No guarantee, moreover, can be given that, if we choose to live a good life and persist in this life until our death, we will be praised by the world. Just the opposite is implied. We are warned that, like Christ Himself, we will be both misunderstood and persecuted, not only if we are bad (which we too often are) but if we are good. If I cannot strive to be virtuous until the public order is reformed according to some philosophically designed formality or other, there seems not much sense in trying. The Christian view of man rejects the premises on which this latter view is built, a view that pretty well dominates our modern culture.

The Book of Ecclesiastes tells us: "Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." It seems that liberation theologians tell us that we will not be able to keep God's commandments until we reform society. The response to this critique is likely that the two tasks are not mutually exclusive, and we should and need to work for both at the same time - both reform ourselves and our societies. But because we are finite creatures, this is often a difficult if not impossible task. We are limited in both time and choices and it may be the case that we can't be both a person of great prayer and a political revolutionary. So which ought to come first? Well, if we follow the Gospels, I think we have to say prayer comes first. In the Martha and Mary story, Jesus taught us there was only one thing necessary.

"Martha, Martha," The Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:38-42 NIV)"