Movements within twentieth century theology have seen an increase in the influence of liberation theology throughout the world. This essay seeks to understand how ‘liberation Christology’ lines up against the more orthodox evangelical Christologies.
 

What is ‘Liberation Theology’?

Liberation theology can be seen as a “theological movement arising out of Latin America and other third world countries that takes as its point of reference the experience of the poor and their struggle for liberation”. It’s theology begins with the poor and recognises God’s presence in their struggle to throw off oppression. Liberation theology was described by a Latin American evangelical is an allegedly biblical and profoundly christological quest for genuine Christian orthopraxy (that is, orthodox way of life).

Some suggest that while coming out of third world countries, the movement probably has it’s theological roots in nineteenth century European theologians. They bring in an emphasis on human reason and the scientific method, while trying to unite theology and socio-political concerns. A high value is placed on ethical values. This can be seen in early liberation theologians, such as German Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889) who believed that religion should not be theoretical, but practical.
 

Who is the Christ of Liberation Theology?

There are many different ideas in liberation theology, and therefore, there is no one type of Liberation Christ.

As Liberation theology starts with the poor and oppressed, so does it’s christological view. Jesus is seen as the God of justice, born of poor stock. Keeping with the prophetic tradition, he attacks the alliance between religion and political life. He denounces the legal restrictions that oppress the common people. He was crucified in order to  free ordinary people from the chains of religious and political  domination. In his suffering, he shares the realities of suffering and oppression experienced by millions in the world today.  Jon Sobrino, a Jesuit from El Salvador, picks up this view and goes on to suggests that the giving Christological titles should not be the exclusive prerogative of one particular culture. Even with the  New Testament writers,  titles that are drawn from Jewish background, such as ‘messiah’ began to be supplemented by titles from the wider Hellenistic world. There is no reason for stopping this tradition. Jesus could be suitably caller the ‘Liberator’.

When the term ‘resurrection’ is used, it does not necessarily refer to a physical resurrection. The ‘resurrection’ represents God’s conquest of sin, the Law, and principalities and powers. As death has been conquered, the world’s system of death, that is, the social forces that oppress and withhold life from the majority, is now defeated. Jesus has entered into a new life so we may share in his victory. The redemption and salvation that flows from the death and resurrection are by faith, but faith is seen as ‘critical self-reflection and practising social justice’. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1763-1834) sees Christ as redeemer in the sense that “He was the ideal example and source of God-consciousness that overcomes sin. Believers can experience the same God-consciousness that Jesus experienced by participating in the corporate life of the church, rather than by merely believing in Christ’s death and resurrection in history”.

Liberation theologians often deny the deity of Jesus.  However, it probably depends on who you listen to.  Sobrino was once quoted as saying “No liberation theologian known to me has ever denied the divinity of Christ”. On top of this, his miracles are denied because they do not line up with human reason and the findings of modern science.

Jesus is seen as a good teacher and the ideal man. He was the model for others. There is a low emphasis on doctrinal statements as they do not help people in their moral conduct. This can be seen in how Christ’s death was not a propitiatory death, but a moral example of loyalty to his calling, which ought to inspire others to a similar life.
 

Is this Christ biblical?

What is a biblical Christ? The Christological issue is probably not over whether Liberation Christology is ‘biblical’ or not, but over the principle of theological method. The orthodox ‘Chalcedonian’ Christology  is a ‘Christology from above’, that is, that it starts with a concept of Jesus as a divine being, the second person of the trinity. The facts of Jesus’ earthly life must fit into this prior concept. This method can neglect the human Jesus. On the other hand, Liberation Christology is a ‘Christology from below. The starting point is with the facts of the historical Jesus.

The liberation theologian takes scripture seriously, but systematically reads into it a self-reflective system of personal mission and God’s desire to deliver humanity from everything that destroys and disfigures. This is commonly viewed as giving the bible a back seat in it’s revelation of God to us.  Macquarrie suggests that the Christology of liberation theology is, on the whole, quite orthodox and traditional. It is it’s implication on ethics and politics that is radical.

The problem is that there are so many different ideas that come under the banner of ‘Liberation Christology’. They range from a view that denies Christ divinity and all miracles, to a Neo-liberal view of Christ where Christ is seen as divine. However, this divinity is not necessarily in the full orthodox sense.

The ‘Orthodox’ biblical Christ is one who was immaculately conceived, performed miracles, was fully divine and fully human. He had a bodily resurrection. Salvation comes through faith. Milne sees the biblical Jesus as not being primarily concerned for body, but the soul and spiritual matters (i.e. Luke 12:4f). This emphasis is the one that the liberation theologians are trying to correct. However, being a primarily Marxist political movement, liberation theologians will continue to struggle to find a correct christological balance.
 

Conclusion.

I believe that the evangelical church can learn from the liberation viewpoint. It’s strong point is in its compassion for the poor, and its conviction that Christians should not be passive and indifferent to their plight. It is a plea for costly discipleship, and a reminder that following Jesus has deep social and political consequences.
 
  Return to religion page