Summary
The following review of Gustavo Gutiérrez’s book, A Theology of Liberation: Politics, History, and Salvation, provides a summary and an appraisal of the book’s content. The purpose of Gutiérrez’s book is to explicate a theology of liberation as a love letter from God’s word to radically transform the mindset of Christianity. Gutiérrez attempts to accomplish his goal by defining significant terms, identifying the problem, and providing a potpourri of potential solutions, which he admits are not conclusive.
A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation 50th Anniversary Edition with New Introduction by Michael E. Lee)
Three terms command attention from the start. First, Gutiérrez defines theology as “critical reflection on historical praxis.”[1] Theology is not primarily orthodoxy, but orthopraxy. Theology follows praxis by reflecting upon historical events, which leads to social and political engagement to liberate the oppressed. Second, the word development connotes the failed attempts to incrementally reform society (e.g. productivity enhancements), when revolution is required (e.g. social ownership). Finally, liberation means freedom from economic and political oppression, the creation of a new society, and the liberation from sin, which is the bedrock of oppression.
Once terms are defined, Gutiérrez suggests that the relationship between salvation and human liberation is the problem that needs solved. Gutiérrez eschews the dualism of the distinction of planes model, and instead, argues that a unity of the spiritual and the temporal exist in salvation. In short, participation in liberation activity is “a salvific work.”[2] Accordingly, an indigenous response is necessary to identify the proper methods to address the oppression that squelches salvation. Gutiérrez then highlights several contemporary responses, which include increased lay involvement, responses to the poor by Vatican II and the Medellín Conference, and revisions in local church polity denouncing injustice.
Gutiérrez expands salvation by asserting its unity with creation, and thus embraces universal salvation where the qualitative aspects of salvation take priority over the quantitative. The unity of salvation reveals itself in God’s creative acts such as the liberation of the Jews from Egypt. Importantly, God’s creative and redemptive acts continue to intervene within history to overthrow oppressors. Accordingly, Gutiérrez asserts that humanity must salvifically join in God’s activity: “To know God is to work for justice. There is no other path to reach God.”[3]
Gutiérrez contends that Christ is the liberator of sin. However, liberation theology asserts that sin is not primarily individualistic. Sin has a collective dimension that undermines loving humanity, especially the oppressed. For Gutiérrez, liberation from sin “implies a political liberation.” Accordingly, Christ’s work addresses all three levels of liberation: economic oppression, a new society, and sinful selfishness.
As God works through history, the eschatological consequence is a new society and the possibility of a new political theology. Although not considering Jesus a zealot, Gutiérrez suggests that Christ engaged in political activity by opposing oppressive forces, thus the “political is grafted into the eternal.”[4] Thus, the Roman Catholic Church must remove itself from aligning with oppressive regimes, and instead, it must oppose them, which opens the possibility of a type of utopian society provided by the work of humanity.
Ultimately, the Church must be a sacrament of salvation, but salvation should extend beyond the Church into a liberating force structured to support social revolution. A force that responds to injustice based on an indigenous theology consisting of both denunciation of dehumanization and annunciation of the Gospel, especially its social and political aspects. However, Gutiérrez does not champion any specific “ideology or specific political program,” and suggests that oftentimes the initiatives must advance by “trial and error.”[5]
Gutiérrez concludes with a biblical repudiation of poverty. Specifically, poverty contradicts the Mosaic religion, frustrates the creation mandate, and undermines humanity made in God’s image. Furthermore, beyond material and spiritual poverty, Gutiérrez suggests the deepest form of poverty places itself in solidarity with the poor. A solidarity embraced by liberation theology that utilizes high contextualization to reconceive Christianity to overcome oppression and exploitation.
Appraisal
As a native Peruvian, professor Gutiérrez’s heart breaks for the economically and politically oppressed Latin American people. The professor’s broad range of scholarship encompasses economics, politics, and theology, which provides a solid foundation for his thought-provoking considerations. The strengths of Gutiérrez’s work are numerous. First, a deep empathy for the poor is unmistakable. Without question, Scripture advocates for the poor, and Gutiérrez’s references to Matthew 25:31-46, alongside many other relevant passages, support his cause. Second, Gutiérrez courageously indicts the institutional church’s involvement as an accomplice to the dependency of the poor because the “majority of the Church…has sided with the dominant groups.”[6] Third, the renouncement of the distinction of planes model, which separates the spiritual from the temporal, highlights the importance of praxis in the life of followers of Christ: faith must lead to action to live (James 2:14-17). Fourth, during the final chapter, Gutiérrez lays the framework for a biblical theology of poverty, which explores the various forms of poverty, the principles repudiating poverty, and the responses of solidarity and protest against poverty. Although Gutiérrez’s work is almost a half-century old, the concern for the oppressed and exploited must continue to be taken seriously by all Christians.
The multitude of weaknesses in Gutiérrez’s work are conspicuous. Although praxis is critical, Gutiérrez goes too far by asserting that the definition of theology is critical reflection on historical praxis. For Gutiérrez, theology is not derived from biblical principles, but derived from activity, which, according to Timothy Erdel, results in a theology that “has no ultimate meaning of its own,” and thus has no way to determine which activity is correct because “there is nothing to give theology authority.”[7]
Next, Gutiérrez expands the concept of salvation beyond Christ alone. Gutiérrez’s anthropological emphasis salvifically combines God’s activity with man’s actions to overcome exploitation with the goal of creating a new humanity. Evangelical Christianity would bristle at the suggestion that humanity takes part in or adds to the salvific process through praxis. It is through the gift of Christ’s righteousness received by grace through faith that the entire salvific work culminates in a believer’s new creation status (Rom 5:15-17; 2 Cor 5:17).
Third, the method of liberation is misguided. For Gutiérrez, the method of liberation requires 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.”[8] Gutiérrez’s radical break appears to support the possibility of violence to further a socialistic agenda. Joseph O’Hare astutely recognizes that the gospel does not consecrate capitalism, but to assume that socialism will solve the problem of oppression is an oversimplification.[9]
Fourth, liberation theology takes contextualization too far. Communicating the message of the gospel with cultural sensitivity remains an integral part of missions and evangelism. However, Gutiérrez’s indigenous theology risks both syncretism and reductionism. Syncretism arises as Gutiérrez commingles the salvific work of Christ with human liberation activities. Reductionism occurs as Gutiérrez myopically focuses the breadth and depth of the gospel solely on the plight of the poor.
Several other concerns demand further analysis and critique such as universal salvation, the communal nature of sin, and politicizing Jesus’s behavior. However, Gutiérrez’s most glaring weakness may be his inconsistency and ambiguity regarding the answers to his profound questions. Gutiérrez contends that he does not promote an ideology, but clearly defends socialism; he claims to have no conclusive solutions, but suggests using violence to accomplish them, and he concludes by asserting that an authentic theology of liberation must somehow arise from the oppressed. In sum, Gutiérrez provides a relativistic theology that requires immediate action, but the reader is left wondering what steps to take next.
___________________________________
[1] Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, ed. and trans. Sister Caridad Inda, and John Eagleson, rev. ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1973), 12.
[2] Ibid., 46.
[3] Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation, 156.
[4] Ibid., 135.
[5] Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation, 155, 160.
[6] Ibid., 77.
[7] Timothy Paul Erdel, “A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation,” Trinity Journal 4 (Spring 1975): 105.
[8] Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, 17.
[9] J. A. O’Hare, “A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation,” Theological Studies 34, no. 3 (September 1973): 490–91.
Bibliography
- Erdel, Timothy Paul. “A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation.” Trinity Journal 4 (Spring 1975): 104–9.
- Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Edited and translated by Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson. Rev. ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1973.
- O’Hare, J. A. “A Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation.” Theological Studies 34, no. 3 (September 1973): 489–91.
