The Goings on and Work of Sam Mahlstadt

As promised, today we take on the liberation theology. These types of theologies – that seek active social and economic liberation of the poor and the oppressed – have come under scrutiny by the likes of Glenn Beck, which started this whole thing. The scrutiny is with good reason, as liberation theology in particular, seeks to gain liberation through political action, including force if deemed necessary. Jesus also goes from the central focus of redemption in Scripture, to merely an example of one who focused on social justice in this theological belief system.

Any theology that uses political persuasion for any kind of footing seems overly dangerous to me, and doesn’t seem to follow in the lines of Jesus’ teachings. With the Marxist leanings of such theological interpretations, I can understand how right-wing talking heads would vehemently condemn any such praxis. I do, however, believe their concerns are more patriotic than spiritual, which is equally as dangerous in my opinion. It is that lack of spiritual concern that led me to write the response to Beck a while ago.

What makes a theology?

I believe all theology is grounded in a person or community’s understanding of 1. Scripture and 2. their culture. All attempts to understand the nature of God should be grounded and tested in and by the Scriptures. This makes sense for Christians who believe Scripture to be divinely inspired, and is rarely disputed in theological circles. A person’s understanding of their culture, however, is where many theological divergences occur.

Those who engage Scripture through the liberation theology understand their culture as a result of class struggle and oppression. Reading Scripture through this lens surely brings a heightened awareness to passages addressing caring for the poor, coming to the side of the oppressed and seeking justice for the forgotten. What it can’t do, however, is aid in developing a political strategy derived out of Biblical passages. Marxism is not the political counterpart to Christianity, because Christians pledge their allegiance to the cross and not to the flag.

Theology without praxis is no theology at all

Praxis (actually doing something about what you believe) is central to the liberation theology (and to Marxism, which excites social commentators such as Beck). From how I understand the liberation theology, praxis is the foremost important part of the hermeneutic. Second to praxis is the theology itself. The idea is that a theology that isn’t realized through action is no theology at all. This would be a familiar thought to those who have read the book of James.

Jesus said that when his followers acted on the behalf of the downtrodden, they were acting on his behalf. He also said that his followers would be recognized in their culture by their love for each other (not their theological stance). James said faith without works is dead. Bottom line: If you aren’t living it, you don’t believe it – not matter how often you say it. Herein lies the danger of knowing something by rote, but not allowing it to penetrate your heart, which Jesus was warning against over and over throughout his teachings.

So what’s a Christian to do?

While Jesus doesn’t lay out a clean theological stance for his followers to pick up and run with, there are specific instructions he gives in order to take up his name and his cause. When asked by a religious leader what is the most important commandment, Jesus responded:

‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

I think the most important thing to keep hold of when dealing with theological and pragmatic issues is that all of the Scriptures, church history and future hang on loving God and loving our neighbor. If this remains our focus, and Christ remains the source of our redemption, our theology will be the words we put on our actions as opposed to the crutch on which we lean in conversation.