Prompt: a free man in Digital art of a Cherry blossom landscape by Yoji shinkawa, by Makoto Shinkai, by Frank Frazetta
After completing two articles, From Development to Liberation and God's Preferential Option for the Poor, I am now shifting to the third topic under Mission as Liberation. This time our topic is about Fundamental Differences Between Liberal Theology and Liberation Theology.
Similarities
Many think that liberation theology is just a variant of classical liberal theology. Bosch argues that these two schools of thought share a few things in common. However, this should not lead us to think that basic differences do not exist.
Yes, examples of similarities between the two include an emphasis on social issues, dislike of otherworldly interpretation, disapprobation of "excessive individualism", the prospect of economic prosperity via modernization, humanistic focus, "evaporation of faith", and "immanentism" (p. 438).
Regarding aversion to "excessive individualism", if Bosch is accurate, though I cannot provide the connection for now, this confirms my suspicion that the kind of "classical liberal theology" in our text is different from classical liberalism in political economy as espoused by Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand for their kind of liberalism glories in individualism.
Other commonalities between the two schools mentioned above that need a brief explanation include the meaning of humanistic focus, evaporation of faith, and immanentism.
Humanistic focus is just the exact opposite of theocentric approach.
Evaporation of faith means that the two schools either tend to take faith for granted or simply ignore it.
Immanentism is the most challenging for diverse versions that exist and can be classified under this term. For our purpose, it is sufficient to say that immanentism is a kind of philosophy that finds the divine in creation. This kind of belief is hostile toward any idea of transcendence.
Basic Differences
The first major difference between the two is regarding their religious stance. Liberal theology is considered anti-religious whereas liberation theology is religious in its presupposition. Akin to this is the immanence-transcendence issue. The first is immanentistic while the latter upholds transcendence. Still, another related distinction is that the former exalts the secular while the latter cannot give up its idea of the sacred.
In liberal theology, mission has been replaced with "humanization". So far, we now encounter three concepts of mission in this study: development, liberation, and humanization. In fulfilling this kind of mission, socioeconomic and socio-political issues play significant roles that made religious talk obsolete. We are told that globalization made in the image of the West is inevitable and will make traditional religions no longer necessary.
For liberation theology, the existence of God is not an issue; it is given. The real question is to identify which side God is where according to Bosch is a postmodern question (p. 439).
Reading this section, I find one interesting label given to liberal theologians and that is "technological humanists" (p. 438).
The second basic difference in the mind of Bosch between the two schools is that liberal theology is primarily hegemonic whereas liberation theology is anti-hegemony. The first tends to support the status quo due to its evolutionary assumptions. Bosch describes their view of society as:
romantic, utopian, naive, and sentimental (p. 439).
He calls them "progressive", promoting the "language of the privileged", and describes their source of theology as "from above" (ibid.).
I understand the "theology from above" not as an affirmation of transcendence but as the perspective of the "winners" in history. In contrast, liberation theology is classified as "from below", that's it from the losers' point of view.
As already noted, liberation theologians have already given up the developmental model and their mission now is one of liberation understood in the revolutionary sense of the word. A break from the status quo is the goal.
Unlike the technological humanist who sees the problem of society as basically due to nature, the liberation theologians identify the problem as "structures of human power which exploits and destroys the powerless" (ibid.). I have no problem with this description. What worries me is the precise identification of these structures. Based on my reading so far, these structures refer to the capitalist social order where the West, the rich, and the whites are viewed as exploiters of the powerless.
Near the end of Bosch's exposition, I find an interesting and surprising paragraph where the author claims that liberation theology is not a product of liberal theology but "of the evangelical awakenings, of Reformed theology and the theological breakthrough associated with the name of Karl Barth (pp. 439 - 440).
Being a member of the Reformed community, I still have to find the literature that supports such a claim. I know that Bosch will not publish such a statement without a basis. With my years of reading the writings of classical Reformed theologians, I still haven't found so far such a connection that Bosch claims.
Grace and peace!
Source: Bosch, David J. 2000. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. New York: Orbis Books.