This is a long diary. I forwarded pastordan's article on the decline of the Religious Right to my mother in the hopes of talking with her about the interstices of politics and religion. She forwarded it to my step-father, a Southern Baptist preacher. What follows is the whole text of our dialogue so far. Maybe you guys can give me ideas for future responses?
He said:
Liberation theology views the Bible through the lens of a certain presupposition: God’s sole purpose in the world is to set all people free from every political and social oppression.
I said:
Remember that Jesus’ only angry act was to drive from the temple the very cult that now festers in the heart of conservative America.
Full text below.
Here, in italics, was my stepdad's response to pastordan:
I can understand your confusion over this article. The author pretends to discuss religious issues. However, the appearance of religion is simply a veneer for a certain socially-oriented political agenda.
The source of the author’s politics is a philosophy of political-social activism that goes under the pseudo-religious name of Liberation theology. This philosophy carefully selects certain aspects of Old Testament prophetic utterances and Jesus’ sayings (more on this below) to create a religious foundation for a political movement.
First, it will help us to define terms.
A theology is a set of beliefs about God and how he interacts with his creation. Biblical theology takes its beliefs from what God says about himself in the Scripture.
Liberation theology views the Bible through the lens of a certain presupposition: God’s sole purpose in the world is to set all people free from every political and social oppression; it is a religious response to political and social problems.
To put this in terms you are most familiar with, this "theology" substitutes freedom from political and economic oppression for salvation from sin, and political/social activism for the good works of the normal Christian life.
Liberation theology has some historical roots, but the term "Liberation Theology" was coined in 1973 by Roman Catholic theologian Gustav Guitierrez. Liberation theology believes that we should understand who God is and how he works in the world through historical circumstances of oppression, poverty, and injustice.
Liberation theology believes the Gospel of Christ demands the Church concentrate its efforts on liberating the people of the world from the effects of sin, poverty and oppression, not from sin itself. It does in fact dismiss the idea of sin as a principle of evil innate to human nature, in favor of political and social action to forcefully overcome the oppression the rich and powerful toward the weak and poor. The religious focus of Liberation theology is how one may use the Bible to justify any political and social action, including violence, that can free oppressed peoples.
The role of Liberation theology is not to set men free from sin and bring them into a salvific relationship with God in Christ. Salvation is redefined as freedom from oppression. The role of Liberation theology is to change the world by working to eliminate oppression, war, poverty, inequality, and environmental destruction. The task of Liberation theology is to change the world by overcoming oppressive political and economic structures of society, a Marxist idea.
Liberation theology calls for a permanent cultural revolution, versus the biblical theology of spiritual regeneration through faith in the Savior. In socialist societies Liberation theology advocates violent political revolution to replace governments and redistribute wealth and political power. In democratic societies Liberation theology advocates election of government officials who will legislate social programs to redistribute wealth and political power.
All Liberation theology is a caricature of the biblical message found in the prophets and a Christian’s responsibility to the world. Where Christians have a voice to effect change in their society, they should use that voice. Where they have an opportunity to get involved in helping others, they should get involved.
The biblical message of the prophets does indeed demand social justice, and does inveigh against oppression of the poor by the rich. The prophet’s demand for social action is addressed to a people living under a covenant where God is king and his laws, the ones found in Exodus through Deuteronomy, are the law of the land. Social justice means that every member of society, from the poor to the rich, should live and act and interact with one another on the basis of God’s laws. The first and most important of these laws is a faith-based relationship with God. If the members of the society have worship and fellowship toward God, are obedient to him, and seek to serve him, within the context of his commandments (Exodus through Deuteronomy), then there will be equity and justice for all. Scripture never advocates the redistribution of political power. It calls on government to implement its ruling power according to God’s laws. Scripture never advocates the redistribution of wealth so none are rich and none are poor (a Liberation theology idea). The prophets called on the rich to do acts of kindness and compassion toward the poor. All these things were to take place in the context of faith toward Israel’s God. As Christians we cannot dismiss the super-natural aspects of our faith. One can act justly and can be kind and compassionate just because by faith the sinner’s sin nature is changed and by faith the believer is empowered to act and live according to God’s rules for living.
The message of Jesus follows after the prophets. But again, this is not a message to defeat the ills of the world in order to create a utopian society. That puts the cart before the horse. The gospel message is to tell people the good news that Jesus saves sinners from their sin, and then believers learn how to live out their new life in Christ in the world. This is how disciples are to make other disciples. A little historical perspective will help us to understand. There was slavery in Israel, practiced by Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Jesus never advocated the abolition of slavery. There was deep poverty; Jesus never advocated the redistribution of wealth to eliminate the poor. There was injustice–he himself suffered under that injustice but never advocated political revolution. What Jesus advocated was a revolution in each individual soul. One must be spiritually regenerated before one can act out God’s rules for living in his or her own life, and then practice those rules for living toward others. Christianity changes the world one saved soul at a time, and that is its gospel mission. Saved souls change the world around them by leading other sinners to Christ and making them brothers and sisters in faith. As people of faith, we do not treat others with oppression and injustice.
The gospel is not and was never intended to be an instrument for the worldly liberation of the politically and socially oppressed. The gospel is not a political message. The book of Philemon gives us the biblical perspective. There was slavery and poverty and injustice in the first century AD. In the New Testament book of Philemon we see Onesimus, who was the runaway slave of a Christian named Philemon. Onesimus ran away to Rome where he met the apostle Paul, and through Paul met Jesus by faith and was saved. Paul sent him back to his master Philemon, because it was right for Onesimus to return and face up to his responsibilities. Paul never instructs Philemon to free Onesimus. Rather, he instructs Philemon to treat Onesimus as his brother in Christ–he tells Philemon to do what is right. To "do right" did not mean to change the political and social institutions of the day. Onesimus remained a slave. But his soul was saved and he became a brother to fellow believers, which affected the way he was treated by his master. Ultimately the spiritual change the gospel effected in the people of the Greco-Roman world was one of the components that encouraged the abolition of slavery in the Greco-Roman world. Christianity is not a political message, but by changing one saved soul at a time it creates the climate for political and social change.
The message of Liberation theology turns men away from faith in Christ to faith in themselves. It preaches that every person is responsible to change the actions of his fellow man; that the power for change is innate to every person, and it is a sin not to use that power. In the biblical perspective change begins with a fundamental change in human nature, salvation by faith in Christ, not with outward political and social force. When God fixes a person’s sin problem, then that person can effect change in that part of the world belonging to him. He does this through repeating the message of salvation in Christ by faith through God’s grace, and by treating others in the same manner that God has treated him–with love, forgiveness, kindness, and equity.
To return to the article. The author’s message is that conservative religion (the "religious right") has failed because their only answer to Liberation theology is a true biblical theology. His belief is that Liberation theology must prevail because it will take action to change society, while biblical theology is only concerned with how individuals relate to God.
Liberation theology has extended its original goals to include many things the Bible definitely denies, such as same-gender marriage, abortion, and any cause de jure (immigration rights, for example). You were probably confused that the author joined together neoliberalism (the new liberalism) with religious conservatives in a diatribe against capitalism. Liberation theology sees capitalism as the source of economic inequality, and therefore it is bad. That is why it adopts and adapts a Marxist economic and political philosophy.
To sum up. You were confused because you have a biblical perspective of the Christian faith, but the author’s perspective is wholly political. He rightly views both Liberation theology and the Religious Right as opposing political forces in the world. That is the problem when well-meaning Christians take on the ills of the world through political action. They become more politically oriented than faith-based. They seek to change the ills of the world through political and social action: the liberals with one course; the conservatives through another. There are people of faith in both political groups. They believe in the power of man to eliminate the affects of sin in the world, and actively pursue that cause. They have forgotten that Christianity saves the world one redeemed soul at a time. I am not saying we shouldn’t become involved, merely that the biblical priority be observed. We can only imitate godly behavior through political, economic, and social changes. True godliness begins and ends with faith in Christ. All else is just politics, no matter what clothing, Liberation theology or Religious right, we use to disguise it.
And here is how I responded:
I can understand why you were confused by the article – your own brand of political veneer is so integrated into your belief system that you can’t understand why anyone would reach a different conclusion than you.
Condescension aside, you missed the point of the article because it was, in fact, about politics and how faith informs it, rather than about religion and how politics constrains it. The article asserted that the Religious Right – a political movement! – was running out of steam and, ironically, becoming less faith-based. The tired tropes peddled by the likes of Falwell and Robertson bear less and less resemblance to actual theology over time; rather than appealing to what is best in humanity, they appeal to what is worst. Fear, exclusion, hate, self-superiority and name-calling are the rules in that club.
The article made no condemnatory remarks about actual theology. It points out the rightly weakening influence of the hackneyed political cults rooted within conservative Christianity. The one identified is called out as the cult of Mammon.
There are three huge gaps in your description of so-called Liberation theology as different from orthodox theology. First, it creates a false disparity between faith and works. The only useful definition of "good work" has to be something along the lines of "actions taken which result in a positive change in the world." James 2:18 says " . . .show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works." The book of James makes it clear that works are the yardstick which measures the internal changes wrought by faith. Faith without works is dead. The Religious Right – a political movement, not a theological one! – has no works to show for its supposed faith. They have only invective to spew against their political opponents, and by this measure, it should be clear that their faith is dead and inert. If you would argue otherwise, please point out the good works of this political movement and explain by what metric those works are good.
So-called liberation theology, on the other hand, has a very clear idea of what constitutes a good work. Namely, it seeks all those things which the Bible suggest are the result of a faithful nation! It recognizes that the government is not God, and instead of fomenting revolution to make it so (something that the Religious Right does, and Jesus supposedly never did!), they look at what the government actually is. "By the people, for the people," reads the document which forms the laws of our land, which even Christians should adhere to, according to your line of argument. LT recognizes that the power for change rests in the hands of people. Their works change the government, and thus the government’s good works are their good works! Adherents of LT (for lack of a better, less pretentious sounding name), show their faith to be alive by the liveliness of their works, exactly as the Bible suggests they should.
The second gap is one of stewardship. Christians are called upon to be good stewards of what they find themselves in charge of. In a democracy, that includes the government! If the government causes or allows oppression, poverty, disease and war, then it isn’t the fault of some king or some priesthood. It is the immediate responsibility of every citizen who did not agitate for something better. To sit by and allow the political scene to rage unchecked is an ethical question covered by Jesus himself. Consider the parable of the talents. Is the servant who was given a single talent excused from being a poor steward simply because he has only a single talent? By no means! Neither are we, as individuals with a single vote, excused from being poor stewards of our democracy simply because we have only a single vote.
(This doesn’t even touch on the ridiculousness of private-sector answers to poverty. Poverty has been created by intentional public policies, and simply can’t be corrected by random private charity. It is an institutional problem and requires an institutional answer.)
The third gap is one of consistency, and this comes in several parts. You say that the Holy Spirit creates the climate for social and political change, but decry adherents of LT for pursuing social and political change, set yourself up as the arbiter of what change is appropriate, then accuse LT of telling people what is right for them to do. That’s a quite a rhetorical back flip, to put it mildly. Not to mention that the Religious Right tells people what is right for them to do all the time! (Via their attacks on homosexuals, the poor, feminists, brown people, etc.)
In fact, your rebuttal carries of more insidious form of thought-policing. You use the words liberal, socialist and Marxist as if they were bad words that should carry a force of argument on their own, and you offer no defense of capitalism at all (except possibly to say it is the status quo and thus should be left alone, but as above, that argument is thread-bare indeed). You imply that such people are bad because you say so and that capitalism is good because you say so without offering any good reasons for it. That is an almost textbook definition of political cultishness, which is what the original article was attacking.
That isn’t the worst gap of consistency, though. The worst offense is the unequal application of Biblical doctrine. It would be acceptable if the Religious Right (a specific political movement) simply thought that Christians shouldn’t get involved in politics. But, of course, they do get involved in politics. They get involved to make laws about who we can marry. They get involved to make laws about who deserves emergency health funds oversees. They get involved to make laws about what kind of scientific experimentation is allowable. They get involved to make laws that don’t let a grieving husband pull the plug on his vegetable of a wife.
In short, they get involved to make laws about the most socially divisive issues you can imagine. If they were simply neutral in regards to economics, then that would already be a heinous sin. We know what the Bible says about social justice; there’s no debate about it. So if a movement were to flex their political will to legislate against things they considered to be a sin, but they stayed silent on social justice issues the Bible is explicit about, they would already be guilty of picking and choosing which of the Bible is true and which false, which worthy of action and which not.
They don’t stay silent on economics, though. They get involved to make it easier for corporations to offer credit and harder for individuals to declare bankruptcy (oppressing the poor). They get involved again and again to lower taxes when the government is already spending into a deficit (poor stewardship). They get involved to loosen environmental regulations on corporations (poor stewardship).
Seriously, what’s going on here? Jesus’ apostles were mostly poor, and included fishermen and tax collectors. Yet the politics advocated by the Religious Right, aside from being both bad politics and immoral as described above, are tough on the poor, destructive of fish habitats and put tax collectors out of business. You think they’d have more respect for the friends Jesus picked for himself!
So, in closing, I urge you to take a second look at true theology and what it should prompt you to do. The Bible tells you that your faith will be known by your works – good or bad, live or dead. Remember that Jesus’ only angry act was to drive from the temple the very cult that now festers in the heart of conservative America.