Liberation Theology and Marxism - Essay Example

Liberation Theology and Marxism The fundamental principles of both Marxism and Christianity have withstood the onslaught of corruption and perversion by followers. In the case of Christianity, this strength in the face of the sweeping tide of historical change is especially impressive; millenia of attacks on the values and ethics from both opponents and supporters have failed to undermine the overriding positive aspects. On the other hand, Marxism has only had to survive over a little over a century, yet like Christianity has been voraciously attacked by non-believers while having its core structure undermined by the corruption of those leading in its name. Christianity is a faith-based system that centers itself on legitimacy through the firm belief in the supernatural, in which one is either rewarded or punished not in this life, but after death. By contrast, Marxism is an earthbound ideology, content to reward or punish those in the here and now based on their support of the ideals of fairness, equality and the distribution of wealth. Both Christianity and Marxism are fundamentally concerned with promoting the general welfare and improving the lives of the vast majority of the world's citizens, yet both have suffered as much damage to their credibility from followers as from opponents. The extreme and selfish proponents of these ideologies have severely undermined their cause through the organization of vast bureaucracies that leave precious little time for doing the real work of making lives easier. At the same time, both Christianity and Marxism have a long history of supressing dissident voices and violently repressing infidel movements. Marxist liberation theology as applied to Latin American countries that were systematically exploited first by and then for European, and later American, interests has long been viewed as an ideological threat to traditional Christian liberation theology. Christian liberation theology stems from the primary Jesus-based imperative for the followers of His way to eschew the pursuit of earthly goods and instead focus one's energies upon helping the poor and oppressed in the world. Of course, the idea behind this was to build the Church into an ever more powerful institution that the marginalised majority would look to the Church for protection on earth as well as a necessary pathway toward everlasting salvation. Since Christian liberation entailed not just applying to the needs of the oppressed, but also to inculcating an ideology that coerced followers to view the Church and its leaders as infallible, the only possible conclusion one can make is that is that while it is a contradiction to speak of a Christian Marxist, the contradiction lies in the fact that Marxism is much closer to Christ's original intentions for the human race than the religion that was founded in His name. Pope John Paul II directly addressed the issue of liberation theology during the course of his Papacy; not surprising considering that he had first-hand experience with the worst excesses of the perversion of Marxism as practiced under Soviet-dominated totalitarianism. Recognising that Christianity in its purest form had much in common with Marxism in its purest form, Pope John Paul II wisely avoided condemnation of Marxist liberation theology's desire to find a common ground between Christian charity and missionary work and Marxist economics designed to liberate the working classes. It was not the Marxist preoccupation with the incompatibility of capitalist economics and social welfare that John Paul found objectionable. Rather the Pope pointed to the limitations of Marxist liberation; the liberation was not of human suffering, nor the soul, but merely the liberation of one citizen from an undesirable economic circumstance. The question that Marxism doesn't answer, therefore, becomes what happens after the revolution How do the newly liberation people respond to the destruction of the class system. Even Pope John Paul II recognised that the end of Marxism was not entirely a panacea for the oppressed, afflicted and exploited. Capitalism obviously holds no greater promise of equality for all. The ethos of consumerist mentality that pervades capitalist thought presents just as great a challenge, if different ways, as the authoritarian regimes of the former Soviet bloc. Just as Marxism serves to reduce each human being to a cog in the greater spinning wheels of economic progress, so does capitalism result in a reduction of humanity. If everything can be bought and sold in a market economy and profit rises as the overriding presumption when regarding the worth of an effort, object or individual, then surely there is nothing particularly Christian about capitalism. Obviously, that doesn't necessitate that Marxism by definition must be Christian economic theory, but the duality that is engendered by the contemporary politics places these two diametrically opposed systems at opposite ends (De Oliveira Ribeiro, 1999, p. 304). Since most fundamentalist Christians insist on applying non-Christian demonisation to Marxism, the root of the conflict exists in locating which of the two systems is, if not substantially closer to the intentions of a Christ-centered religion, then which is farther from it. Using this definition, it becomes evident that capitalism should be considered the more dangerous avenue for those wishing to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. Alastair Kee recognizes the similarities between the goals and ideals of Christianity and Marxism and has voiced the controversial opinion that far from being the enemy of Marxism, Christianity should do more to embrace the finer aspects of that particular political and economic ideology. Kee makes the keen observation that liberation theology does not suffer from being too closely aligned with Marxist beliefs; far from it, liberation theology has suffered because the power structure inside the church has been too resistant in their willingness to view Marx's criticism of religion. The failure of liberation theology has been precisely because those church leaders have been unwilling to come to terms with the fact that "Religion has thus inverted reality and created an ideology which has been all-pervasive. And this is Marx's second, ontological, criticism of religion. It does not apply only to bad religion, but to religion as such" (Kee, 1990, p. 280). What is at stake in Christianity's failure to recognize reality as it pursues above all else its supernatural components is that an empty stomach paradoxically has no room for faith; it must be filled with food before it can consider higher ambitions. Perhaps this is also why capitalism failed in so many cases to convince those most desperately in need of liberation that theology was the answer. Liberation theology grew as a bona fide movement, and a counter the failures of the church hierarchy, in Latin America, where missionary priests established a movement based on ecumenical standards of Vatican II, a standard which sought to refashion the church into the more traditional role that scripture assigned to it; namely, that the church would be a servant of the underclass. The priests and bishops in place in Latin American found it difficult to reconcile the open violations of humanity that was pervasive throughout the region with the teachings of Christ and sought to introduce a new experience in the teaching of faith that recognized the contemporary ideological failures to address the injustices of the economic system that was responsible for such profound poverty. Always concerned with sin, these liberation theologians equated the inhumane conditions that were created by this system with Biblical sin and fashioned a bolder faith initiative intent on identifying and castigating the societal sins that consistently and constantly reproduced the inequities of modern life. The recognition of the evils of modern society and the identification of them as sin was a new element introduced to the missionary work; an element sorely missing in the traditional church, which had historically placed far more emphasis on orthodoxy and strict adherence to doctrine. Equally stressed in traditional Christianity was strict obedience to the authority of church's power hierarchy. Lost along the millenia of of church-building was applying the glorification of God's work into real action by glorifying God's children. Vatican II changed all that for the liberation theologians, allowing them to carve a path toward including the human element in glorification of God's work by recognizing that those who ascribed to other values and beliefs were still blessed and worthy of love. Because the overriding view of the world and the church at the issuance of Vatican II was also glorifying the development of underveloped countries through industrialization, the clergy embraced the same economic ideology of capitalism, believing it to be the best to extend economic freedom-and full stomachs-to all those under the yoke of extreme poverty. The failure at the heart of capitalism to address the needs that failed to be addressed under the thumb of the worst Soviet regimes did not escape the Pope's understanding and trepidation. Latin America has remained a stronghold for the Catholic Church against not only the onslaught of Marxist rule, but also particularities of 20th century secular humanism wishing to spread the word that God has died. As those Marxist governments collapsed under the weight of either grassroots democratic movements, or the US support of often even more authoritarian right-wing dictators, the Catholic Church has expressed concern over the future of their stronghold in the region. While the Church has greeted the introduction of democracy into these countries with the hope that systemic corruption and oligarchic government may be shattered as business-as-usual, the fear and suspicion is that the individual will suffer the brunt of the for-profit mindset of free enterprise (Currier, 1987). The global economy so widely held as progress has a consistently poor track record when it comes to ignoring the basic needs of the poorest while the idle rich continue to luxuriate in extravagance. With the media holding out the carrot that promises anyone living in such a system can rise to live in that luxury-indeed should desire more than anything else to lap at the well of luxury-the Church has very good reason to be concerned. The death of God rose not in conjunction with the spread of Marxism, but rather with the replacement of religious belief with consumer goods to allay fears and alleviate anxiety. This concern for the effects of unbridled free market economics into Latin America has been pointedly raised with the unanswered calls for debt relief. Despite the fact that most western politicians wear their Christianity like a badge of superiority, almost all countries have resisted engaging in true Christian charity by answering those calls for debt relief. Clearly, the overriding concern remains, as always, control through economic manipulation. Keeping the Latin American countries who have previously found much to admire about Marxist principles in line is far easier when their purse strings are controlled from the outside (Bedford, 1999, p. 996). Liberation is thereby provided not through religion, but through economics. Just as with Marxism. Of course, capitalism doesn't equate with Christianity, nor does Christian liberation theology necessarily indulge in capitalist ideology. And yet most Christian churches have followed a capitalist construct and bureaucratic organisation. Since the Christian churches have operated most powerfully in democratic countries that follow capitalist economic structures, it should come as little surprise that they have acted as mirrors to those systems. Unfortunately, those similarities also extend to the corruption and bloated ineffectiveness of most big businesses. The byword is assimilation, and the Church over the centuries and through the rise of the Industrial Revolution followed suit. Just as the Church had overlooked the suffering of the many during the Middle Ages and aligned itself with the wealthy potentates of power, so did the Church look to the wealthy landowners and captains of industry, protecting their own interests at the expense of the poor. Churches have long looked to wealthy patrons to keep their mission afloat and to an extent it is purely out of survival. Since a brick and mortar palace of worship is deemed an absolutely necessity for even the smallest of churches-in direct contradiction to the manner in which Jesus Christ spread the word-it obviously behooves church leaders to appeal to and appease those most capable of meeting economic needs. Despite the most heartfelt desires and convictions, every human is susceptible to greed and corruption. Capitalism as a means of economics betrays the highest ideals of even the most generous and charitable, giving them over to that greed and corruption. This is a perhaps necessary offshoot of the underlying capitalist tenet of sustainability; if an entity does continually reproduce and renews its resources it will suffer entropy and extinction. Christian churches have proven to be no more capable of staving off that wolf at the door than any other big business (Foroohar, 1989, p9. 24-28). Or Marxism, for that matter. Still, if Christian liberation theology and Marxist liberation theology both assume the same goal in avoiding the all-for-profit mindset that presents an unavoidable obstacle to empowering and improving the lives of the disenfranchised, why have they remained in contentious opposition to each other throughout their histories The answer can be discovered by returning to the Pope John Paul's assertion that even when Marxism is at its most successful it only liberates one from the obstacles to economic self-determination. Marxism is considered anathema to Christians because its founders and proponents have consistently denied the possibility of everlasting salvation. Frederick Engels engages in a comparison of the Christian and Marxist ideologies, focusing especially on the origins of both and how they align quite closely. Engels asserts that both Christianity and Socialism have their genesis in the hope of helping the oppressed to achieve equality in unfair political systems based on economic discrimination. Engels further posits that the both ideologies share a common goal for those who are oppressed; that through the new ideology the oppressed would not only find equality, but also salvation. Although fundamentalist Christians may be expected to stand firm in their resistance to even considering the idea that Marxism offers a type of salvation, the point Engels is making actually penetrates to the core of the similarities between Christianity and Socialism (Mehring, 1936, p. 53). That idea has been fundamental to all social movements throughout history. It is one thing to convince people to support an ideology that promises a better financial future. It is only with the promise of salvation, however, that people are usually convinced to change their entire way of life and belief system. The primary difference here is that the promise of salvation, though a large component of both Christianity and Marxism, differs wildly in the arena of execution. Christianity extends the promise of everlasting salvation in which the soul transmigrates to a different and unique sphere of existence. Marxism can only extend the promise of a better life for the rest of one's life here on earth. Even if one accepts Engels' contention that both Christianity and Marxism offer different kinds of salvation to their believers, a further obstacle shall always remain the path of those seeking to deny the possibility that one can be both a Marxist and a Christian. Christianity extends to its followers a salvation that occurs when one's life on earth has ended, whereas Marxism promises salvation from the inequities of life, but it is the denial of the very possibility of everlasting life that lies at the heart of Marxist belief that troubles so many Christians. This fundamental opposition between the two ideologies is the engine that drives the conflict between them. So vital is this conflicting difference of perspective that it overrides the abjectly un-Christian focus of capitalist economics that places profit ahead of welfare and equality. Why, since Marxist thought is centered on helping the poor and oppressed and the downtrodden and those who speak with little or no voice do Christians prefer capitalist governments to socialist governments The answer again comes back to Christianity's assimilation with the capitalist ethos and the infallibility of management. In the capitalist mode the owner is all-powerful and ruling classes are conditioned to looked to him as an infallible determining agent. This skewed perspective is so entrenched in the hierarchy of the Christian churches that it raises the question whether the church is mirroring capitalist ideology or whether capitalist ideology is mirroring the church. The Catholic Church is most obvious in the construction of that hierarchy and even has mandated the infallibility of its supreme leader, the Pope. But even Protestant churches have a capitalist bureaucratic mentality in which lesser positions are all answerable to the minister or pastor or reverend. Ultimately, regardless of which denomination or what size church all decisions of the greatest import will come from the head of the church. That is capitalist ideology in a nutshell; it is also Christian ideology. Infallibility is a cornerstone for Christianity and anyone who dares to call into question its major tenets will be viewed with suspicion regardless of what kind of acts they perform for the betterment of society. Karl Marx is public enemy number one-or perhaps number two, right behind Charles Darwin-for many Christians because despite his entreaties to improve the lots of life of the masses, he distinctly questions the centerpiece of Christian belief. Marx left no room for doubt that he believed quite strongly that Christianity and all other religions were created by the human race and then manipulated to oppress the disenfranchised by holding out a false promise of heavenly rewards in exchange for not upsetting the apple cart. Karl Marx crafted his ideas on the influence of religion from the philosophical theories of Ludwig Feuerbach. Feuerbach asserts that God is simply a symbol for our own psyche and Karl Marx extends Feuerbach's logic further by postulating that God is really no more than a projection of the very idea of the father (Janz, 1998, p. 8). Clearly this denigration of the spiritual existence of a supreme being is at odds with the entire reason for Christian belief. Belief in Jesus Christ as savior doesn't end with merely following such tenets as helping the poor and loving one's neighbor. Those are secular advances that, while crucial to being a true follower of His way, are nonetheless only a small factor in the larger plan. Without the existence of a supreme creator and heavenly salvation, Christianity asserts, all morality is just a human construct and there can be no such things as universal truths. The postmodern deconstruction of Christianity into a set of guidelines for doing good acts actually begins with the theories of Feuerbach and Marx. Karl Marx famous wrote that religion is an opiate designed to act as a narcotic that lulls the masses into acceptance of their worldly fates as they wait in vain hope for liberation from the evils of this world. Whether or not God really does exist is not necessarily at the heart of the issue that Marx is concerned with; rather it is the manipulation by the organised religions that is troubling. Obviously, this manipulation to appease the oppressed would not be an issue if the manipulating machinery was not thought to be an institution in league with the prevailing power structure (Mehring, 1936, p. 65). For most of history following the death of Jesus Christ, the most power institution in the western world was the Catholic Church itself. It is the church's history of corruption, greed and alliance with the oppressive political structures of the medieval period that no doubt led to Marx's critique. When Marx wrote that religion is a salve to make the unbearable conditions that most people have had to live under more bearable he was not only criticising the oppressive governments that express no interest in liberating the citizens, but also the religious institution that willingly cooperated with those governments. Religion becomes an inoculation against the injustices of the world to those looking hopefully for a liberator from their misery, but at the same time religion is a primal component in protecting the complex system that allows far too many of the planet's population to face daily hardships ranging from poverty and hunger to ruthless suppression of free thought. Liberation theology has been the church's effort in attacking the traditional protection of the wealthy superstructure. Liberation theology stimulate the refashioning of the church's structural priorities through the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution. Vatican II announced and mandated that it would be the people of the church that receive the highest priority rather than the power structure. This presented a structural sea change as it moved the church forward to recognizing the validity of self-representation and economic mobility. Pope Paul in the Development of Peoples and again in The Eightieth Year Letter on the anniversary of Rerum Novarum called upon true believers to commence action on this altered construction that eradicated the unfairness of exploiting the citizens of third world. In addition, there was a concerted effort at desacralizing the patriarchal model established by capitalism that put all the power of making decisions for the majority in the hands of an oligarchic minority. Both science and religion acknowledged the sacredness of hierarchy and theocracy but today the quantity of exploitation by the elite in government and industry raises serious questions as to the validity of these affirmations. Human rights create equal opportunity available for all races. The more inferior groups realize and recognize the presuppositions of superiority through social conditioning then the more they can do to demand changes for their civil rights. The protection and promotion of the most basic of human rights in the areans of social, economic, and political matters are a primary component of the new order that has witnessed the rise of liberation theology. At the Second Vatican Council the church encouraged Catholics to work with members of other religions for common human goals and for the reunion of the various Christian churches. Although the Roman Catholic Church has never joined the World Council of Churches, it does maintain contact with it. In recognition of the genuine spiritual values in other religions, Catholic missionary practice since the council has been modified from proselytizing to a dialogue more respectful of those values. Christianity is all about salvation in the afterlife through the acceptance of Jesus Christ and resides fully upon the hope that true belief in Christ will result in the choice to live a life as close to Christ-like as is humanly possible. Therein lies the rub. The fact is that most people who believe wholeheartedly in the teachings of Jesus Christ rarely follow his example. Even the Catholic Church itself, founded by those who were at Christ's side, has indulged in hypocrisy, greed, and the corruption of every tenet of their own religion, sometimes on massive scales as with the Crusades or the Inquisition. Salvation in the afterlife is the cornerstone and the lapse of earthly deeds is too often overlooked. On the other hand, Marxism places salvation in the arena of the world. Liberation of the oppressed in the here and now is the overriding concern. While Marxist rejection of a supreme being or eternal salvation may rankle the devout, the fact remains that in its truest and purest form-untempered by human corruption-it is Marxism that aligns most closely with the teachings of Jesus and not capitalism. So, in that respect, it is not a contradiction in terms to be speak of a Christian Marxist. On the other hand, if being a Christian means only that you believe in salvation in the afterlife, then obviously it is a contradiction in terms. The contradiction cannot be adequately applied or rejection until the definition of what it means to be a Christian is explicitly explained. Can one be truly be a Christian if one puts profit ahead of helping the poor Can one truly be a Christian if one follows all of Christ's teachings but does not believe in His salvation Until that conundrum no longer allows for contradictions, it cannot be established whether it is a contradiction to be a Christian Marxist. References Bedford, N. E. (1999, October 20). Whatever Happened to Liberation Theology. The Christian Century, 116, 996. Currier, F. J. (1987, January). Liberation Theology and Marxist Economics. Monthly Review, 38, 24+. De Oliveira Ribeiro, C. (1999). Has Liberation Theology Died. The Ecumenical Review, 51(3), 304. Janz, D. R. (1998). World Christianity and Marxism. New York: Oxford University Press. Kee, A. (1990). Marx and the Failure of Liberation Theology, London: SCM Press, 1990. Mehring, F. (1962). Karl Marx The Story of His Life (Fitzgerald, E., Trans.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Read More