Without guiding moral principles centered upon objective truth, political and social interests invariably serve a social and individual thirst for power, resources, wealth, and survival. In a fallen and sinful world of decay, selfishness, violence, despair, and abuse, a utopian society, or even an approximation, will never be remotely possible.
Political Theology
Political theology is characterized by its orientation toward the future, a hope for shaping society, and the public impact of religion. It returned to attention during Vatican II and became of greater interest during European and American political movements during the 1960s. After World War II, there were two streams of prevailing interest toward the development of political theology. Namely, theology and philosophy to engage in biblical eschatology to include social and political criticism. Key individuals’ conversations and theological research to revive and develop political theology led to further interest and dialog between German and Marxist ideologues around utopian aspirations. There were specific and common approaches to theological interests concerning political theology. The focal areas were the cultural and social views of religion in society, criticisms of earlier 20th-century theologies, and the use of eschatology toward social and political life.
There were various observations about how the market economy up to and after World War II led to the privatization of religion. As a religion or selective faith became an object of consumption from the market, it resulted in a loss of substance concerning its society, culture, and institutions. There was a perception that Christianity was dismissed and held no relevance toward the highest goals of society. The prevailing view among Political theologians was that market forces led to secularization, which caused the privatization of religion. To thereby make room for the nonsense proclamation “God is dead,” Hegel, Feuerbach, and Nietzsche’s philosophical implications gained a footing that permitted conditions ripe for National Socialism, a World War, a Holocaust, and two nuclear weapon strikes. Not to mention a severe weakening of the Christian faith in Germany and Europe as it became secularized by a hollowed-out religion.
Johann Metz
As a student of Karl Rahner, Johann Metz (1928-2019) was a German Catholic priest and theologian. He was a professor of theology at Münster and a consultant to the synod of German dioceses. His contributions to Catholic theology largely centered upon criticisms of Christian Anthropomorphism and the secularization of society. His view was that the Christian perception of the world, with its emphasis on history and humanity, was a causal factor in the origin of modernity (Livingston, 278). The anthropocentric philosophy and theology of Aquinas and Rahner were inferred as contributing factors.
Metz believed that a political theology that focuses on the person as the subject could form a positive outlook and disposition toward secularization. To Metz, Christ as the center of a Christological understanding was better placed to society itself as it was necessary for secularization and religion of eschatological concern to coherently relate to one another. However, over time, Christianity would develop a favorable view of secularization that led to the privatization of faith, worship, and devotion of believers. Metz was displeased with the unintended outcome as he proposed the development of a political theology with the kind of foresight that might have afforded his views credibility.
Metz goes on to advocate political theology as fundamental theology. In answer to the Enlightenment, the Roman Catholic Church instituted a Fundamental theology as a body of disciplines as a philosophy of religion, apologetics, and prolegomena (critical analysis as a book introduction) to systematic theology. His specific conviction was to bring political theology into the domain of fundamental theology to effectively respond to the dire situation brought about by the European Enlightenment. Fundamental theology wasn’t an internal discipline to the Church. Still, it was to engage culture and society to give meaning to Christian beliefs and truth claims because of its historical and eschatological concerns.
A central focal point for Metz’s theology is suffering. He was critical of Rahner’s inattention toward a transcendental theology that led to conditions that gave way to the holocaust. Social engagement by the Church was insufficient to make relevant theological truths that could have affected the political discourse of National Socialism that gave a path of power to Nazi Germany. Attention to the historical developments of Society and the suffering of people could have better shaped Church theology as more inclusive to alleviate suffering in recent centuries (particularly the holocaust). To this end, Fundamental theology is the consideration and practice of Church existence to attend to the subject of man or people for worship and ministry together in an increasingly secular world.
Jürgen Moltmann
As described by Metz’s theology of the Cross, Jürgen Moltmann (1926- ) also holds to a theology of suffering, but more so concerning the trinity. He supposes that God, who suffered insofar as its trinitary relationship as One, has a social interpretation of that occurrence caused by Christ’s redemptive and atoning work at the crucifixion. Moltmann’s rationale is that there is solidarity from God with those who suffer; as He has suffered, He is present in the abandonment and desolation of humanity. As understood through the Trinity and instrument of the Cross, the suffering of God serves as a model for people to abide in shared suffering, and to a lesser extent, common burdens with society as a matter of a fundamentally theological endeavor.
The purpose isn’t to valorize suffering (Livingston, 287), but to view it as a component of discipleship. To suffer others in solidarity is to bear their interests as an anthropocentric shift in attention. Moltmann writes further about eschatological conditions from a human perspective in contrast to the traditional end-of-time doctrine of Creation. He explicitly calls attention to the human condition where each individual is subject to death, the immortality of the soul, and resurrection to glory or condemnation. Moreover, Moltmann incrementally draws attention to civil societies and cultures that have issues such as religion, war, violence, etc.
While Moltmann attracts unconventional attention, he is subjected to criticisms about his soft views on modernity and the Enlightenment. Arne Rasmusson (protestant) argues that Moltmann’s political theology supports and propagates Enlightenment assertions among societies otherwise subject to outreach and recipients of the shift in theological approach. In the absence of biblical exegesis, others have criticized Moltmann’s theories about the state, being, or relationship of the Holy Trinity. Lastly, there are serious questions about Moltmann’s theodicy concerning the suffering of God.
Latin American Liberation Theology
Liberation theology in Latin America is distinct from the liberation theology of Europe. It doesn’t concern itself with the values of European liberation theology, which involves secularization and privatization of religion, but instead liberation from dependency and exploitation. Within the Western hemisphere, many among Latin American countries stood out as incredibly impoverished and helpless. There was a minority who were affluent as their assets accumulated as a result of foreign colonialism for natural resources. Still, the indigent of Mexico, Central America, and South America existed in a continuing state of abject and desperate poverty. The economy of the few did not support the populations in need, nor was that the desire of liberation theology proponents. They wanted economic freedom and participation when existing governments and industries structurally made it impossible for the neglected and exploited majorities to arise from imposed and unjust conditions.
In the 1960s, there were initiatives from hundreds of Bishops, priests, and experts who met in Latin America to produce guiding principles and courses of action to help Latin America transition from dependency to freedom as a matter of liberation. Not as a developmental effort to build upon existing resources but to complete restructure and originate a way forward for the people among Latin American nations.
Gustavo Gutiérrez
The pioneer of Latin American Liberation Theology is Gustavo Gutiérrez (1928- ). He is a Peruvian philosopher, Catholic theologian, and Dominican priest, and he is one of the founders of Latin American liberation theology. Gutiérrez studied in Lima and in Europe to earn his academic background. As a priest in Lima, he developed his pastoral capabilities as he wrote the highly influential A Theology of Liberation. It is the go-to reference text on the subject concerning Latin American liberation theology. Gutiérrez proposed a historical Jesus whose teachings, preaching, lifestyle, and eschatological message carry political implications. The role Gutiérrez saw of Jesus in Scripture was anthropocentric as he focused on the relationships between Jesus and those of His time in history. His view of Jesus was about the messiah’s historical, social upheaval as political activism.
Gutiérrez also adopted Rahner’s perspective about the Church. As the Church was reiterated in the divine plan of salvation in the Constitution of the Church of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium), it declares itself as the one true Church. Gutiérrez concurred that the Church was the “visible sacrament of saving unity” and the “universal sacrament of salvation.” The Church was a sacrament of God’s saving plan for the world, according to Gutiérrez (i.e., not explicitly Christ, but the Church). It would appear that Gutiérrez’s notion of salvation in this respect is different in the sense that it is of liberation theology and not salvific from God’s wrath against sin per se. To involve people in the cause of liberty (i.e., freedom from dependency and poverty) is a meaningful and necessary endeavor, but to mix that effort in the idea about what it is to be saved is to dilute the gospel of Christ. The gospel meaning and message stand on their own with a dedicated focus on what it takes to get people right before God through Christ. Otherwise, people will become confused or misled about becoming justified and set toward a biblical path of sanctification. The gospel is not an instrument to produce activists or change for liberation theology or political theology of any type. In Scripture, Christ did not live and die to rescue people from Roman oppression or dependency and poverty due to structural exploitation.
Juan Luis Segundo
Segundo (1925-1996) was a Jesuit priest and Uruguayan theologian who studied in Argentina and Europe, both philosophy and theological studies. The Livingston text doesn’t explicitly indicate that Segundo studied sociology, but he formed an Institute of Social and Theological Studies once he returned to Uruguay. He was as much of a sociologist as a theologian in the cause of Latin American liberation theology. Much of his work concentrated on ideology, evolution, and technology, which are of specific interest to individuals with a liberal worldview. Specifically, Segundo was interested in the relationship between faith and ideology compared to the typical approach of faith and reason concerning standard Catholic doctrines on Aquinas. Segundo goes to great lengths to converge evolutionary theories with culture and social attitudes of the West with religious faith to form new methods and traditions into ways of actionable thinking to support liberation theology unique to Latin America.
It was of high interest that Segundo was to liberate theology itself. With a backdrop of political ideology closely adjacent to socialist Marxism, Segundo’s theology was anthropocentric to society and not merely an individual per se. His Scriptural hermeneutic was one of suspicion as he believed readers of the biblical writers did not consider essential data. Segundo’s view that ideologies surrounding the poor and oppressed within Scripture weren’t a point relevant interest within society to influence interpretation and application. He advocates that readers of Scripture should read and interpret the Word of God from the perspective of the poor and oppressed, not from the intended meaning and perspective of biblical authors. It is necessary and important to read and understand the biblical authors in their cultural context. However, to read, interpret, and apply Scripture by what is read eisegetically into it doesn’t attend to the intent and purpose of its meaning. In fact, there is a high risk of contradiction to God’s Word. Segundo advocated a reader response hermeneutic of Scripture to advance the cause of Latin American liberation theology.
Leonardo Boff
To further reinforce the anthropocentrism of Latin American liberation theology, Leonardo Boff (1938- ) also became a prominent figure as a Brazilian theologian, philosopher, writer, and Catholic priest. He was a professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Rio de Janeiro State University. Boff, like Gutiérrez, accepts the view that the Church is a sacramental institution meant for the world. However, Boff extends the sacramental vision of the Church to have social and political implications. His view was that the Church symbolizes the love and peace between God and humanity to the extent that it makes tangible social and political institutions (Livingston, 299). To Boff, the purpose of the Church was for the world and not as the conventional theological as it is the body of Christ. Again, social anthropocentrism is the prevailing interest as compared to the claim of Christ’s Kingdom upon the Church. The Livingston text doesn’t indicate that Boff positions these functions and purpose as mutually exclusive, but at best, they’re interwoven where social interests make the Church into its image. That is, by its political and social implications to include traditions, doctrines, and aspirations.
Boff’s views are also unique as it concerns the inception of the historical Church. His view was that Christianity began post-resurrection, or at Pentecost, with the arrival and presence of the Holy Spirit upon the early Church. Compared to the conventional idea that the Church was formed and began the Christ and His work on Earth through prophetic fulfillment and by the apostolic witness. The Livingston text refers to Boff’s views as a “post-Easter situation,” which indicates an absence of the term and meaning of the resurrected Christ. The Livingston text’s subtle use of pagan holiday terminology diminishes its credibility on the subject matter and elsewhere as it selectively applies language to its own secular bias.
Conclusion
The views of political and liberation theologians, including the Livingston text, is that a Social Gospel is of no concern as liberal activism is a necessary life practice of a disciple of Christ. Meaning, to be an authentic disciple, one must be engaged in caring for the widow, the poor, and the oppressed. In their view, it is a political and religious matter to advocate for social justice concerns with as much weight as the biblical principles of justification and sanctification. To some within the liberation theology worldview, the Kingdom of God is just as much for society as it is for God and His interests. To others, it’s purely about what God and the Church can do for “me” (or us and society which is oppressed, marginalized, dependent, and exploited).
While care for the poor and neglected is of utmost urgent necessity, to reshape the gospel of the Kingdom to a Social gospel for socially favorable outcomes is a false gospel and entirely errant. The Kingdom of God is not a domain of societies within an unachievable utopian setting on Earth. To condition, the gospel, the Church, and the Kingdom toward social justice initiatives for political purposes toward worldly equity is an abomination.
