Back to Gary's essays on gocek.org.

Bull O'Really interviews Liberationist Layperson

The interviewer and a guest discuss liberation theology.

© 2011, Gary Gocek, all rights reserved.

Bull O'Really:

Good evening, Mr. Layperson. Let's get right to the point. You say the mainline Christian church hierarchies, including the Roman Catholic Church are "oppressive", is that right?

Liberationist Layperson:

Well, it's not that simple.

BO:

Why won't you answer the question? Yes or no, is the Church oppressive?

LL:

Mr. O'Really, let me explain. Christianity began, of course, with Jesus in the first century. However, Christianity stayed underground for a few centuries until the emperor Constantine converted in 312 CE. This ended the persecution of Christians practically overnight. Christianity became the primary religion of Europe. As Europeans advanced intellectually, artistically, militaristically and in many other ways, the leaders of the Church in Rome also gained power and wealth.

BO:

But, there's nothing inherently wrong with power and wealth.

LL:

Of course, power and wealth can be used for good. Still, aside from the Old and New Testaments' warnings about the love of wealth, there are unfortunate examples of the Church's misuse of power, such as the Crusades of the 11th through 13th centuries and the subsequent mistreatment of Jews is Europe. But with respect to oppression, even that's not what I'm referring to.

BO:

Is this so-called oppression more recent than the Crusades?

LL:

Yes, a bit more recent. Consider that at about the time Columbus reached what would be called the New World, Martin Luther was railing against corruption within the Catholic Church. In a moment, I'll connect the Reformation and European imperialism, but let me talk first about colonization and the role of churches, especially the RC Church. I mean, let's be honest, colonization was not accomplished by peaceful and fair negotiations between the European powers and indigenous people; it was accomplished through military force. Not only did the churches not protest that violence, but church leadership was intertwined with government and military leadership. The church gave legitimacy to the political leaders, and the political leaders protected the church leaders. When the political leaders realized the wealth to be gained by plundering the resources and people of the New World, the church had a choice to be with the politicians or against them, and it was easy for the church to decide to stick with the politicians.

BO:

But what did the Church have to do with uneducated natives across the ocean?

LL:

Missionaries helped to educate them in a way that supported the political goals of the Europeans. I think it's not controversial to say that there are two sides to Christianity. There is the peace and justice side found in many of Jesus' lessons, and there is the salvation side. They're related, but they can be separated. It was not useful for conquering countries to teach colonial natives about peace and justice and sharing while raping the women and taking the resources, but it was useful to convince the natives that they needed to behave a certain way in order to achieve the salvation of their souls.

BO:

And what sort of behavior is that?

LL:

To be meek and obedient with respect to the powerful. Spiritually, God is the All Powerful, but the RC Church in particular made itself the mediator between God and the faithful, regardless of the fact that such a role for the Church is not biblically supported. The indigenous people were even more superstitious than the Europeans, so it was easy to teach them about resurrection and eternal life and angels and miracles.

BO:

You're saying that the people were taught to obey God as well as the church?

LL:

Exactly, and that was even true in Europe. That's a lot of what Martin Luther protested against. Church leaders, all the way to the Pope, devised their own criteria for the forgiveness of sin.

BO:

Such as indulgences, which could even be applied to dead relatives to shorten their time in Purgatory.

LL:

Right, but as much as money, the Church also wanted obedience. The indigenous people had Western European, 16th century Christianity forced upon them. After a few generations, it was all they knew, and of course the military powers kept up the pressure. The point is, religion was used to keep the indigenous people under control. So, with the weight of generations of practice and continued pressure from the religious and military powers, it took centuries for many colonies to realize that they were being mistreated and that religion was used to support the imperial powers. Also, while the Protestants are partly responsible for reform in the Roman Catholic Church, such as the end of indulgences, Protestants stopped short of decrying the mistreatment of colonial natives. In that sense, both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, as I said earlier, sided with the politicians.

BO:

But not all colonists were raped and enslaved.

LL:

North America and Australia are special cases. There, the indigenous people were killed or pushed aside, and then Western Europeans moved in and took over. Americans were essentially Europeans. That's not true for most of South America, Southeast Asia, and other areas. And that brings us to Liberation Theology, which was born in South America.

BO:

Explain that, please.

LL:

This gets back to the notion that there are two sides to Christianity. Liberationists claim, particularly since the 1950s in South America, that Jesus focused on peace and justice and the sharing of resources here on earth, and NOT on individual, eternal salvation after death.

BO:

But that's not God-worship, that's just bleeding heart, liberal Commie talk.

LL:

Oh, absolutely. Jesus was a radical socialist, and that's what the liberationists stress. It's ironic that today's American conservatives are often simultaneously associated with evangelical Christians and free market capitalism. Jesus was not a capitalist. The most philanthropic capitalists are happy to keep the biggest chunk for themselves, even in the face of continued suffering around them.

BO:

Sure, but even a dozen Bill Gateses can't solve all the problems of the world.

LL:

Technically, I agree. Even Jesus did not solve all the problems of the world, at least not while He was alive. The difference is that Jesus didn't stop trying, even when He knew it would get him arrested, tortured and executed.

BO:

OK, then, where is this Liberation Theology going if it can't solve the world's problems?

LL:

As sinners, here in human time and space, we can't solve all the problems. The best we can hope for is to continually make life on earth better and better. The problem with Western Christianity, according to liberationists, is that third world countries are marginalized by first world countries with the support of the church hierarchies. About a third of the world population is affluent, living on the most productive land. The other two thirds are relatively poor and are corralled into unproductive land. Think of recent droughts and wars that have pushed refugees across borders. They aren't free to find a good spot; they're forced into barely livable spots. Furthermore, a smaller percentage, maybe 15%, are truly, chronically hungry. It's one thing for an indigenous race to choose to live poorly, but it's another thing to be conquered by an invading force, force-fed a religion and then marginalized over centuries. That's where the oppression comes in - getting back to the very first question you asked me.

BO:

OK, but again, what good is Liberation Theology? In fact, the Marxists of 20th century South America became violent. Did they use Jesus to justify violence?

LL:

Well, yeah, kind of, they did, and that was a problem. In general, that situation is improving, although power corrupts even those who initially were just trying to free themselves from some other oppression. But yes, it's true that some South American and Asian leaders fought off oppressive Western oppression with violence of their own. That violence is sometimes defended by suggesting that the Western powers caused more pain and suffering over the centuries than the Marxists, but your point is well taken that two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, liberationists sometimes act as if the sins of those who oppress them are worse than their own sins. Most Christian theologians would agree that all are sinners, equally.

BO:

Right, compared to the infinite glory of God, we're all sinners, but again...

LL:

Right, right, how do liberationists intend to solve the world's problems? Modern liberationists have slowed the Marxist pace. Marxism doesn't really work at the large-scale level. The Soviet Union proved that. Smaller groups can, however, provide services at a local level, and we see that especially in South America where the concept of base communities has caught on. There are thousands of these tiny groups. Liberationists have to allow a certain amount of capitalism, or at least some form of good business sense, to have any hope that the abundant riches of the earth can be used to provide for the masses of poor and hungry people. Ideally, everyone would be allowed to live anywhere, but that's not about to happen, so liberationists can promote a better redistribution of wealth to help the poor. Liberationists must especially hammer at the church hierarchies to get the churches to promote better redistribution, as Jesus taught. There is enough to go around.

BO:

Do all churches agree with this focus on peace and justice?

LL:

No, not really. The primary objection is that such a focus is not biblically sound, and that liberationists are applying a cultural bias to the unchanging Word of God.

BO:

Sounds like a problem for liberationists.

LL:

The obvious counter argument is that today's Western Christianity is also a culturally biased interpretation that does not stretch all the way back to Jesus. At best it stretches back to the Reformation, but most denominations define "traditional" as that which was practiced since the 19th century. Even the churches that claim apostolic succession can't claim that they worship as did first century Christians. The pope in Rome can't claim to have the same cultural bias as Palestinian gentiles. All interpretations of the Bible are culturally biased, according to the liberationists. The only response to that, which I have heard from Western Christianity, is, "I know you are, but what am I?" In other words, Western Christians use their oppressive power, gained over the centuries, to belittle or silence their critics.

BO:

Well, liberationists take the view that Western theologians have been wrong for hundreds of years about the Bible's view of God, and there are theologically sound arguments on both sides, and you and I won't resolve that today. So, let's talk more about oppression. You seem to have a pretty loose definition.

LL:

Sure, everyone is oppressed and everyone is an oppressor, at different times. We oppress our children, for their own safety. A man can be oppressed by police for wearing his hair too long, and then go home to abuse his wife. I'm just saying that one person can be oppressed and an oppressor. In America, possibly the most abusive form of legal oppression is workplace oppression. CEOs reap the benefits of friendly legislators who lower taxes, smaller workforces and fewer worker benefits. The owner class pockets the profits.

BO:

You don't like Horatio Alger, I'll bet.

LL:

I agree that hard work can result in success, but capitalism favors the rich and powerful, and poverty can be a vicious cycle, where one can't get the education or make the connections one needs to succeed. Jesus worked hard, but from a business perspective, He never made anything of that carpentry apprenticeship and died poor.

BO:

And you don't like American founding ideals, either.

LL:

Pure capitalism would be fine, if that's what we had. But when you throw in sexism and racism and corruption, they skew the results and some people suffer. Pure capitalism suggests that I should kill my business rivals, or at least burn down their factories. The fact that I don't is related to morals and laws, not to my business needs. Business owners will commit immoral acts if they can get away with them. Slavery is an example, and while outright slavery has ended, we still see the effects of racism.

BO:

So then, you support more regulation of businesses, more class-based quotas such as Affirmative Action and more social services. Wouldn't it be better to stop oppressing businesses and allow them to get to the task of creating jobs, like Republicans want to do?

LL:

I see American politics in 2011 being about the protection of the elites, either through total control or total abandonment of the masses. Liberal Democrats want to control the masses through social programs, and conservative Republicans want to abandon the masses by pretending that unregulated profits actually trickle down. Either way, huge sums of money are funneled around and politicians spend most of their time maintaining the political system itself and the military. The suggestion that government oppresses business is ludicrous, no matter which party rules. American politicians and business leaders work quite well together. No matter what happens on Wall Street, top level executives and politicians continue to make more and more money. You mentioned Horatio Alger, and it's correct to say that American workers need to work hard together to succeed, because businesses on their own will work to reduce benefits and workforces.

BO:

So it's not really liberation theology, it's just liberation philosophy or economics.

LL:

It can be both. The liberationist Christian can work with non-Christians, as long as the goal is an invitation to all to a state of peace and justice. The liberationists' main goal is not to get to Heaven after death, and that's really scary for church and government hierarchies. Churches can promise eternal salvation in Heaven to those who remain faithful to some interpretation of the Bible that happens to support certain political goals, but if laypeople realize that they can invite each other to a state of peace and justice now, here on Earth, that puts a lot more pressure on the hierarchies. That type of pressure in the first century got Jesus killed.

BO:

Well, I still think you're a bleeding heart, liberal Commie, but thanks for speaking with me.

LL:

Thanks for having me.