A puzzle on 'Liberation Theology'

Yesterday when I went to Wesley Owens I discovered a called 'Liberation Thelogy; An Introductory Guide'' written by Robert McAfee Brown, which has aroused my interest as well as some of my puzzle in my heart. I bought it, I have finished reading it.

I first come across the term is by mistake. I confused the term 'Liberal Theology' with 'Liberation Theology'. It is only when I have a chance to converse with one of spiritual teacher in my life, that he clarify the two concept, and 'Liberation Theology' is identified with a form of christian social thought and political action for social justice of the poor and oppressed. It is prevalent in the Latin American and Catholic countries during the 70's and 80's

This year several incident happened in the world make me reflect on this issue again. The first is the death of the Pope John Paul II. While choosing his successor, it seems that the media has labelled the Cardinal into 2 group - conservative and liberal, where the liberal seems to identify with those who adopt the 'liberation theology' position. Only at this time did I realised during the era Pope Paul II, the Vatican did not gave support to the Liberation Theology, and the current Pope Benedit XVI or former Cardinal Ratzinger, was the one who systematically oppose and condemn the Liberation Theology through the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

Another incident that arouse my interest is the current event happens in HK. Bishop Zen in HK, whose word can influence many Catholics and Christians, was outspoken about the social issue in HK, especially on the issue of democracy. He encouraged people to march in Dec 4 to voice out their concern and advance the cause of democracy. It seems that his wording and his action has a shadow of the thought of 'liberation theology' . In the meantime, HK host the WTO meeting. The Korean farmer came to HK to march against WTO because of their plight, many christians pledge their support to them and fight against WTO. "Exploitation', 'Oppression', 'Poor', 'Tyranny' and 'Liberation' are the wording and argument they used. Again, I saw the shadow of 'Liberation Thelogy' thoughts behind these wording.

My puzzle is, why the christian theology drawn from the bible to ask christians to fight for the poor and to liberate the oppressed people will arouse so much controversial in the church as well as in the secular world, as well as to divide christian?

The essence of liberation theology, according to Gustavo Gutierrez (the founder), has following 3 dimensions;

1. To liberate from unjust social structure that destroy people
2. To liberate from the power of fate, and therefore involves the emancipation of the poor, the marginalised, the downtrodden and the oppressed from all “those things that limit their capacity to develop themselves freely and in dignity;
3. To liberate from personal sin and guilt, and a establishment of relationship with God and with other people.

The book I have read by Robert McAfee Brown use his personal experience and the political situtation of Nicaragua during the 80's to appeal for the cause of liberation theology. Commitment, Hope, God's presence and the preferential optional for the poor are the 4 recurring theme in order to understand those christians in the part of the church that was impacted by liberation theology. It's now the Kairos time - a time when things may hang in thew balance and what we do (& don't do) will have a far-reaching consequence - to call for response for christian commitment to social justice. In the end, he use the illustration of the 'Servants in Pharaoh's Court', to challenge those christians who are currently staying in the privileged position, to response to God's calling for social justice, like Moses, instead of becoming puppet of the tyranny or powerful group in this world.

He also distinguished the difference between the dominant theology and liberation theology.
1. The former is developed from the top - the position of the privileged, the affluent and the elite, while the later is developed from the belows - the position of oppressed, marginated and exploited;
2. The former is 'thought-oriented' while the later is 'action-oriented';
3. The former focuses attention on a 'religious' world that needs to be enforced, while the later focused on the political world that needs to be replaced.

Implicit in his argument is that the former is about 'idea', but the later is about 'people'. Whether this is true of not is questionable.

To my view whether I agree with 'Liberation Theology or not, I do think that one need to put in a right context. Christian should be zealous in social justice, yet if the zeal is misplaced it will lead to greater evil. An example to illustrate is the Korean farmer during the WTO protest. In short, I sympathesis their plight, yet I cannot agree with them in the first instance. I cannot agree that WTO is tyranny, as the policy free trade for the agricultural product is benefical to the 'third-world' farmer, though it is at the cost of Korea (rich country) farmer. Advancing the cause of Korean farmer under the banner of 'helping the poor' seems to create a greater injustice in this case.

I think why the Vatican banned the Liberation Theology is because of their closely association with the Marxist. Pope Paul II is a Polish, who nation has suffered under the Communist, and therefore it is understandable that he is against the Marxist thoughts as it will lead to class conflicts and polarised the society. For the Latin America priest, their concern is different. It is the totalitarian rulers supported by the western capitalistic country that oppress them. So their view on Marxist thoughts and communist should be different from those from the West. It seems their difference were not based on bible, but derive from different historical and cultural context.

Christians should fight for social justice, but the question will become, what is the optimal involvement with politics? and should it be their priority? In the end, it is the individual and corporate calling of God, and I don't think the others can judge using their own standard, as God alone is the only judge. What we can do is to test whether they are doing for God or doing for one own sake.

Yet it is all Christian responsibility to evangelise, to love, and to take care of the needy. So indeed we need to embrace some part of 'liberation theology' and to put it in right context in the world where we belong.