("Why?" you might ask. Well, I do have a taste for radical theological ideas. I like to test limits. But the other reason is biographical. When you start spending more time with criminals and the homeless your theology starts to...um...how to say it?...radicalize.)
Anyway, the thing I want to share with you is the relationship between commitment and theological reflection in liberation theology.
Perhaps you've heard of what has been called "God's preferential option for the poor." The father of liberation theology, Gustavo Gutierrez (pictured here), was the first to use the preferential option for the poor as a working theological assumption.
The basic idea behind the preferential option for the poor is the observation that, within the biblical narrative, God sides with the poor against the rich. A couple of examples from the NT:
From the Magnificat / Mary's Song (Luke 1.51-53):Other examples abound, from the prophets to the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
[The Lord] has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
From the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6.20-21, 24-25):
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied...
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry..."
But this goes further. The point here isn't to be descriptive. That is to say, the preferential option for the poor isn't merely a biblical, exegetical or hermeneutical observation. The point isn't to say, "Hey, have you noticed how God is always siding with the poor?"
In liberation theology the preferential option for the poor is, rather, an issue of commitment, a commitment of being with and for the poor. This commitment is primary and precedes theological reflection. Theological reflection is secondary, following the commitment to stand with the poor.
This does connect back with the biblical observation that God stands with the poor. The notion here is that theology can't be done properly if it doesn't begin where God begins--with, among, and for the poor. In this the commitment to the poor is a regulating principle helping us sort good theology from bad theology, correct theology from incorrect theology, orthodoxy from heresy. Simplifying, if theology is on the side of the poor it is good, correct, and orthodox. If theology is on the side of the rich it is bad, incorrect, and heretical. The preferential option of the poor adjudicates between theologies.
The deep idea here is that there is no "view from nowhere" for theology. Though it often pretends to be, theology can't be objective and disinterested. Theology is a discourse of power. You are, after all, speaking for God. But more often than not the power that is being protecting isn't God's but vested interests, current power arrangements, and the status quo. The only way to dispel this illusion is to do theology from a very particular and disclosed location, from a publicly declared place of bias. This over against that. Like Jesus in the Sermon on the Plain: Blessed are the poor, woe to the rich.
In sum, liberation theology contends that if a location has to be picked, and it does, you have to pick the location of the poor. Theology starts there, with that bias. That bias is the only way to keep theology honest and located where God is located.
Very helpful post. I had trouble with this line, tho: " But more often than not the power that is being protecting isn't God's
put vested interests, current power arrangements, and the status quo" Is there a typo here or did I just miss something.
Thanks. I really appreciate your work.
Brad Brookins
Richard, this feels like one of your more important pieces to me, and I have to begin with an analogy to explain, and will sound disconnected- at first.
A golf swing is surprisingly, a hugely complex dynamic that is complicated by the shortness of time over which it happens. One of the ways to diagnose swing problems, is to hold the follow through pose at the end of hitting a ball: not because we're looking for something statuesque, but because that finish position is the sum of the dynamic events taking place before that final moment. Thus, to change an unbalanced finish for instance, one doesn't focus on the finish, but discerns where the source of the unbalance is beginning up stream.
What I'm getting from you in this piece, is that in the complex dynamic we call life making together (we call this complexity Democracy and Free Markets) "the poor" can be seen like a "finish" in a golf swing: Structural Poverty then, would be the final manifestation of dynamics taking place up stream.
This idea confronts Free Market Fundamentalism when it isolates poverty from the complex dynamic of human life making and try's to convince us that structural poverty is "natural" or "earned" or is the mere result of wealth "flowing properly/intelligently-- whether by divine right, typified by conservative christian thought, or free market physics typified by neo-conservative thought.
Question: "What's the difference between a democratic-free market society that fails to spread well-being through out itself, and Heaven where well being is profuse?
Answer: In Heaven we'll have more adult supervision. (And, Structural Poverty will be rightly diagnosed as resulting from up-stream dynamics.)
Yes, there was a typo, "put" should be "but." It's changed now. Thanks!
Thanks Mike. I think that's a wonderful and helpful analogy. One way I think we hide the effects--the follow through of capitalism--is moralizing the outcome. The notion that people are flushed out the bottom of the system because they are morally weak or depraved. Little attention is given to how moral weakness and depravity might make you very successful in the system.
To push the argument, soteriologically, take the title of a seminal text of liberation theology by Jon Sobrino (riffing on extra ecclesiam nulla salus): No Salvation outside the Poor (2007). And just to be clear about the term "poor", it is necessary, of course, that it specifies the materially poor, but it is not sufficient: i.e., the "poor" is a synedoche which includes all those who get (systemically) screwed by the minions of the "principalities and powers", viz., "the movers and shakers", "the great and the good". The paradigm text here is our Lord's Nazareth Manifesto (Luke 4:16ff.), which begins with the "poor" and then goes on to the "prisoners" (cf. Richard's "criminals"), the "blind" (the dis-abled) - and the "oppressed" (the downtrodden, marginalised. excluded, abused, etc.). Again, the list is not definitive. Thus the subsets of liberation theology: e.g., black, feminist, womanist, gay. Indeed, on the basis of the Nazareth Manifesto, one could, should say that all theology is liberation theology - at least all good theology.
BTW, I would suggest that the centre of gravity of this outstanding blog is liberation theology, psychologically as well as sociologically. A good example is the splendid series on William Stringfellow. If Stringfellow isn't a liberation thelogiba, ain't noblody a liberation theologian.
This analogy surfaced as I read your essay so I'm glad someone besides me found it illuminating-
Your note of moral weakness being an engine of "success" just created yet another connection with our mutual friend Ernest Becker! I had never equated his "causa sui" of culture or your "self-esteem project" as having roots in moral weakness; some kind of weakness to be sure, but a 'moral' one sheds some interesting light on Becker's thinking.....
Of course that should be "theologian" and "nobody" in my penultimate line - unless "thelogiba" and "noblody" constitute typing-in-tongues.
Great overview of the preferential option. Folks often invoke it, but rarely is it taken seriously.
I think of there being theological criticals, consequentials and incidentals. I believe engaging the poor with hospitality in our local communities is a critical part of getting/keeping the "right" criticals... Then there's the working out of consequentials which I see as more contextual-based and subject to selective perception by people who want to do the right thing.
dlw
Hi Dr. Beck. I'm curious about this line "In sum, liberation theology contends that if a location has to be picked, and it does, you have to pick the location of the poor." Did you ever say why a location must be picked? Is God not the Father of all, both rich and poor? And also, could it be that in biblical times there were no govts "of the people", so the only protection the poor had was appeals to mercy sanctioned by the Divine? Now we have the violence of the vote to enforce our will upon one another, rich and poor alike.
I guess my main concern is, if we pick a location (in this case with the poor), how do we avoid the tendency to tribalism, where the rich is now the dehumanized other? Is there not a way to represent a God who loves all? Who recognizes the poverty that afflicts rich and poor alike and reaches out to both equally? (And a Judge who judges both without partiality, without bias?) Is not the wisdom that comes from heaven impartial? (James 3:17). Do we not call on a Father who judge's each person's work impartially? (1 Peter 1:17)
Thanks for pointing out the centrality of the Nazareth Manifesto.
I'm coming to the opinion, and maybe everyone else is already there, but that Biblical theology is less about the optimal distribution of "money", but more about the idea that "money" is simply a different reality, that it doesn't exist, that it is futile. The Kingdom of God is here but we don't see it because we can't see through or beyond the mammon false, illusory reality. I know with myself that with the continuing financial crisis that money has been revealed to be just an agreement between people regarding the nature of reality. Obviously that reality is enforced with guns and violence which give us powerful reasons to give our assent to the illusion, but nevertheless it all can fall apart in the blink of an eye, in an hour, if people no longer believe or the violence can no longer enforce belief.
Those are great questions. I'm no theological expert, so take my attempts at answers with a grain of salt.
First, I do agree that there needs to be better theological work done with both capitalism and democracy. A lot of leftist theology casts capitalistic liberal democracies as "Empire." At that point they pull out the Constantinian guns and fire at America.
Now, much within this move is legitimate in my estimation. There are many, many parallels between Empire and America. Any yet, there are dislocations. The parallel isn't exact.
For example, democracy is (relatively speaking) open to input from the people, even the lower classes. More or less, the liberal wing of American politics is open to these voices, the working poor and the lower middle class. Thus, if these voices become politically empowered they can adjust the social contract in ways that might be more just and fair. One could argue that the recent election illustrated just this dynamic. (Though, of course, the system is little likely to change much. Thus the rush back to accusations of "Empire." Still, the system can change. We'll soon have universal health care. Elections do matter, if even a little.)
All that to say, I've not seen sustained theological engagements with these nuances and disjunctions and contrasts between Empire and America. Theologians tend to fall to one side or the other, either defending America as "God's Plan" for the world or castigating America as Empire. I wish there were more reflections in the middle of all this.
As to the "taking sides" issue the argument is this. There is no view from nowhere, no place of objectivity. Sure, one might claim objectivity, speaking of a God who impartially loves both rich and poor, but two problems emerge.
First, is this call to "objectivity" even biblical? Where is Jesus's woe to the rich? If that woe is missing the theology isn't biblical or Christ-centered.
Second, we need to look at the outcomes of the "objective" theology. Yes, God loves both the rich and the poor, but if the articulation of that theology allows the status quo to remain just as it is--if it provides rationalizations and comfort for nothing changing-- is then the "objective" theology is actually being quite biased. Such a theology is serving vested interests, letting the rich believe that current social and economic stratifications are divine, holy, righteous, and just.
As for the specter of dehumanizing the rich, it's a real and live temptation. But we might pause to ask, is Jesus dehumanizing the rich with his woe upon them? It's an interesting question. Regardless, that woe has to be coupled with enemy love to be fully Christian. The way of the cross, in both standing with the poor and in enemy love, is our only salvation.
Are you familiar with Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's work? Their Empire trilogy is very helpful at exploring the modern manifestations of "empire." A sort of post-colonial imperialism that is centered round global finance and corporations that utilize the legitimatized violence of States like the US to protect itself. Likewise, the book is post-marxist in its shifting beyond class as the only meaningful social hierarchy to dismantle.
To me, a sort of post-modern anti-imperialism needs to be theologically engaged and I think there are tools to do his. However, I think it is potentially a mis-step to try to do that work in some sort of "middle" between two sides of anti-Americanism vs. pro-Americanism. Rather, the whole spectrum needs to be reframed and then we should re-engage, rather than attempting to engage a non-existent middle.
I have not read them. Thanks! (I was hoping someone would point me to something I've missed.)
And I can see the weaknesses of the "middle" analogy.
Also, Cornel West's Democracy Matters reframes this spectrum by
noting a deep democratic ethos in America (drawing on Emerson and James
Baldwin) but also exposing the dark underbelly of American democracy (drawing
on Melville and Toni Morrison, as well as jazz and blues). As West reminds us, slavery and expulsion of indigenous people are historical preconditions to
American democracy, and in fact there “could be no such thing as an experiment
in American democracy without these racist and imperial foundations.”
I have seen you mention fellow blogger and theologian Tony Jones before...Here is his take http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2010/05/26/god-is-not-on-the-side-of-the-poor/
Thanks for the detailed reply Dr. Beck. I'll be honest that I'm new to engaging and seeking to understand liberal/leftist theology, you have been sort of my gateway into this space, and I have found much of what you have written compelling. I just read Luke 6 again to get a fresh feel for it, and the woes are still there. :)
But seriously it seems like there is an underlying assumption in what Jesus is saying that the current social system is corrupt. And so he is speaking of ultimate justice, how when the system comes to an end (the kingdom of God comes) those who have been oppressed will be lifted up and all those who have been the oppressors will be thrown down. It seems like the "woes for the rich" littered throughout the NT were arising out of this same culture where it was assumed that all the rich were oppressors. Now I'm not saying that with the advent of western democratic govts all oppression has ceased and the rich are no longer oppressors in any way, but I do think the forms of govt we have today are different, and therefore that complexity has to be brought to bear in our interpretation (and subsequent application) of what Jesus is saying here. If what Jesus is saying here truly applies to all rich people both past and future, would his woe therefore be equally applicable to Abraham, a very rich man in his own right? Or when the poor people become rich in the kingdom of God will the woes start applying to them and then the blessings will start applying to the former rich who are now poor and then the system will just keep reversing itself eternally?
And I don't think trying to be objective means to merely accept the status quo. For example, if I was a judge and cases came before me, perhaps I would side 95% of the time with the poor, or 95% of the time with the rich, but it would be based on the unique merits of each individual case and not on some de facto bias towards or against either group. To me the negative influence of marxist thinking on all of this, is that it assumes there is no Judge. And when there is no Judge, there is only us against them. And so we must pick a team. But if there is a just Judge, and we are to represent Him, we may pick sides on individual cases based on the merit of that case (or larger social issue) but we would not join a team, if we are to remain on the side of love and justice for all.
Unfortunately the poor will likely not have the resources to be able to contribute to this discussion. Perhaps we'd gain some clarity by hearing from their perspective of how wonderful it is to be poor.
The preferential option has nothing to do with it being "wonderful" to be poor. Kinda missing the point.
My sarcasm in using the word "wonderful" detracted from my point. Sorry about that.
I reject the contention that my only choices are between a bias of the poor, and a bias of the rich. The location I pick is that of a bias of liberty. I reject the idea that govt. has any solutions to any theological problems, or that we should look to govt. to solve social issues. "render unto ceasar what is ceasar's so that he can take care of the poor and institute justice and equality throughout the land."???? "love thy neighbor as thy self, by paying taxes at the gun point."
If one rejects the Social Justice Gospel, and will not pay over their fair share for the poor, should we just hang them or bring back the guillotine. you cannot implement a liberation theology politic without the coersive threat of govt. violence.
"Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both which require authoritarians to use violence or the threat of violence, go unchallenged?" – Ron Paul
One can embrace liberation theology (or at least major aspects of it) without believing that the State should have coercive power. The problem with Ron Paul is that he isn't anarchist enough. :)
It would be helpful if liberation theology gave us room to draw helpful distinctions between and among objectives, means, and ends, rather than (as often happens in the public, media-mediated discourse) conflating the three as if they were one of a piece. Many of us who take the "preferential option" seriously and yet propose non-coercive (or at least less coercive) means of achieving the goals implicit in the "preferential option" are lampooned as non-serious, selfish, greedy, and so forth. And yet within the set of means that have been tried thus far in the history of the world, there is empirical evidence that allows us to rank them, roughly speaking, in terms of their ability to deliver on the objectives in a concrete way. The popular brand of liberation theology, then, may be foreclosing precisely those means that actually have the capability to move us toward the objectives that liberation theology sets forth.
Thanks for the post, Richard. No doubt you've highlighted something incredibly important about the discipline of theology as such, and it's something I've grown to really appreciate about liberation theology - it's emphasis on this key starting point. However, because I'm studying at Union (a birthplace and hotbed for liberation theologies), I'm realizing just how important it is to also define aims and ends (effectively making me more of a pragmatist than ever).
Liberation theology, in this sense, is indispensable because it graphically illustrates just how true it is that "the trail of the human serpent is thus over everything." This preferential option is, I think, not only warranted but incredibly important. But what's done with this, I'm realizing, is every bit as important as well. Who/what is being liberated, from who/what, and by what means is that liberation happening/being carried out? I read Wink's Powers trilogy before coming to Union, but now I realize just how important his statements were about some of the power-grab tendencies in liberation theologies. Without addressing these further questions, liberation theology, unfortunately, becomes another game of identity politics. The "theological" atmosphere gets heavy real quick when disparate individuals, all claiming to be oppressed in different ways, start talking about "liberation". Justice, it seems, without a normative reference to aims/ends, simply becomes self-interest (personal or group) projected socially. Furthermore, as someone trying to understand theology in light of a general theory of knowledge and truth (which, I don't think is possible without reference to a general theory of human persons), these various interest groups for theological reflection have interesting implications in this regard.
Thus, I've been struggling to understand the broader theological implications of particular groups clamoring for their own theological identity. Obviously their voice is not only important but needed for wholeness (even in a Jungian sense). This starting point of a "preferential option" seems correct both scripturally and intuitively, but this foundation alone doesn't seem to ensure the right trajectory. Have you read any liberation theologies that address aims and ends? Perhaps more specifically, I'm realizing that the Jesus of the Gospels didn't seem particularly invested in any real social liberation or revolution, and, furthermore, he did NOT liberate them in this way or any other way they would/could have imagined. (Side note - your book on the Slavery of Death has been most informative as I think about this eschaton. So thanks!) This issue has been most interesting to me as many of my classmates are so absorbed this semester in Cone's theology and readings in Feminist, Womanist, Mujerista, and Queer theologies. Any insights on the interplay of these things from what you've been reading?
The timing of this post couldn't have been much better for me, so thanks for the reflections!
The bias of "liberty", as libertarians define the word (usually in the sense of negative rather than positive liberty) is the bias of the rich.
The continual insistence that social democracy is equivalent to living under the threat of state violence makes you look ridiculous.
Ron Paul doesn't deal with coercive power in corporations and how that tends to necessitate coercive power in gov't (somehow immunized from being dominated by corporations).
This is a great discussion.
I haven't had much to say because being "poor" I much prefer to be not poor. Be that as it may, being not presently "rich" has been an object lesson by which I've re-examined my earlier political stance of Cactus Conservativism.
T
Gottschalk-babes, have you ever sat in on a parent-teacher conference in an average, inner-city, public elementary or middle school? From your propensity to distill complex problems (structural poverty) to a single institutional cause (free market fundamentalism), it would appear that you have not, or worse, that you are ignoring the evidence in plain sight. My wife, on the other hand, takes part in such meetings as a matter of course, and she would undoubtedly beg to differ with your bald assertion. Character matters, your naive liberal oversimplifications notwithstanding.
qb, I would note a couple of things.
First, "free market fundamentalism" is not an institution but a mindset of people who want the market place of human exchange to have the kind of reality we afford God's laws or Natural laws, and that human success is a mere matter of following these laws with the same ease we drive on the right side of the road.
Free market fundamentalists also hate whenever such a dogmatic belief is questioned: sane people recognize that the market place is not only a brilliant form of human exchange, it's also our creation and our means to make our livings with each other; this sanity creates a space to critique how our exchange is working and is always willing to try different adjustments. Free market fundamentalists rebuff this kind of sanity by sneeringly calling it "liberal" with the reflex of siamese fighting fish when they encounter their image in a mirror.
Second, I used the phrase "structural poverty" to differentiate it from poverty that is not structural but personal, whether that person is lazy, mentally ill, or a veteran suffering from ill-conceived wars.
Character is important. Cheney is quite wealthy-- he also lead America into a war born of his neo-con fantasy and in service of his own ego. I can't say that his wealth is born of some great character and remain sane.
(Btw,I use neo-con to differentiate this dogma based population from conservatives who I feel in partner with such as Arnie Carlson, Dave Durenburger, or David Brooks.)
As I read my comment in light of your criticism, it feels like you read it in the mindset of a "free market fundamentalist": how can you turn my "(And, Structural Poverty will be rightly diagnosed as resulting from up-stream dynamics.)" into a notion of "naive" "oversimplifications" when my notion points directly opposite from this?
For me, I prefer reality to dogma as a basis for living, whether such dogma is coined conservative or liberal.
The preferential option for the poor seems to me only one step misplaced. The preferential option can be for those who have suffered historic injustice. Most of these wind up being poor, so its easy to look at the symptom and miss the disease.
But God does not misdiagnose.
In economics and political economy it is common to look at the work of John Rawls as a sort of starting place for discussions about justice. Rawls does well. Nozik attempted a response, which I'm not terribly fond of, though I prefer his methodology. Buchanan and Tullock added (actually preceded...) some formality to the discussion, and Tullock contributes the idea of a transitional gains trap.
The world is bound up in its attempts to achieve justice by the fact that in order to bring justice to one group, and injustice almost invariably has to be impose on some other group.
Take a simple example. The US started subsidizing corn farming some time ago which has hurt Mexican corn farmers. US taxpayer money goes to US farmers to grow corn. This reduces the market price of corn, but reduces the cost of production to US farmers even further, earning them profits far above actual costs, what economists call rents. Mexican farmers can compete. Their costs have not been reduced, yet they face lower prices for their output. They are priced out of the market.
What should be done? We could end the subsidies, and all would be well with the world.
But what happens when one of the farmers sells his farm? How much will he charge for it? He will require that the buyer pay an amount equal to what the farmer expected to earn from all future crops, with discounting for time. But that amount now includes the value of the subsidies. The buying farmer has paid in full for the value of subsidies into the future. If we were to take away the subsidies we would be robbing him. The new farmer has fully capitalized the value of the farm.
We are trapped. We cannot take away the privilege, and so we cannot help the Mexican farmers, the oppressed.
Tullock's transitional gains trap amounted more or less to saying we are stuck with the status quo in regards to historic injustice. Rawls didn't do any better. The best economics does is to identify ways when an injustice can be corrected while also compensating the losers, or fully capitalized US farmers. This is hard to do though.
Liberation theology recognizes fully the injustice, and tries to describe a way of dealing with historic injustices. But I'm not certain that it also finds a way to redeem the oppressor.
God knows that we have all been the oppressor in one way or another in our lives. He also grieves for, or has a preference for those who have been oppressed.
But Jesus showed us how it can be possible to both rescue the oppressed and redeem the oppressor. His approach is what I call Sacrificial Altruism. He personally took the place of the oppressed to free them, and then redeemed the oppressors as well.
We can do the same.
We can say, when we see an injustice happening, "I will take the brunt of that, and forgive the oppressor."
Take an extreme example: a slave owner is fully capitalized into the value of the slave. The person who kidnapped the slave initially has gotten off scott free just like the farmer who bought the farm before subsidies were attached to it and them sold it. Both enjoy pure profits. But the slave owner has paid for the slave, and would be ruined if emancipation were immediate.
How to free the slave and yet make the slave owner whole? Buy the slave from him.
That is, morality must come at a visible cost to the one who has the morality.
Or, if there is going to be good done in the world, I must do it.
This is truly brilliant. Thank you. "In sum, liberation theology contends that if a location has to be picked, and it does, you have to pick the location of the poor. Theology starts there, with that bias. That bias is the only way to keep theology honest and located where God is located."
It should be noted that there was not one "liberation theology" but different experiences of doing theology "desde abajo" - that is "from below". This comes with a recognition that theology has not been "neutral" or balanced - but certainly since the Constantinian appropriation of Christianity as the religion of the empire theology has been at the service of the dominant powers. This was not in the interest of Order and Fairness but in guaranteeing privilege, power and wealth to the dominant classes at the expense of the 99%. The different theologies of liberation - throughout the Americas, the black theology of Cone, the Asian theology of theologians such as Balasuriya, come from an option to leave the place of dominance with the security and privileges that go with being a prophet or priest of the Empire, and to go and stand with the oppressed - those marginated majorities. When the gospel is "re-read" from that location it sends out a very different message. The rich are not forgotten but invited - "go sell what you have and then come follow me". This new theology came with a price - a new martyrology with names being added regularly even today. This includes the eco'saints - who have brought a new consciousness to understanding our relationship to all of creation. Gustavo would remind us that the preferential option for the poor is not based on or dependent upon the poor being good. It is only because the poor are poor. It is in the writings of Paulo Freire that we perhaps begin to understand the inner workings of the "poor" and how they have incarnated the powerful and rich to accept their lowly condition and not to rebel. For Catholic religious persons there was the invitation by Cussianovich to reinterpret their vows "from the perspective of the poor", which for him became easier when he was booted out of his Salesian community and the priesthood. Many others were isolated or just killed. Perhaps it comes when one chooses to speak for one - such as those condemned to death by states. However, once the option is made it is impossible not to embrace the cause of all those whose daily bread is injustice and misery. The option is not a guarantee of purity or righteousness - think of Romero, or Bonhoeffer and so many others who joined the "exodus" away from the theology of dominance, smug infallibility, and oppression. These will always have the false prophets who grovel to attend Presidential prayer banquets and offer Te Deum´s for the dictators.