Latin American Liberation Theology

Latin America was conquered and colonized with the help of the Catholic Monarchs to essentially "save the souls of the heathen natives, by sword if necessary" (Smith 11). It is unsurprising that such an aggressive attack on the native belief system would eventually lead to a liberation mentality and movement within these colonies. In his book, The Emergence of Liberation Theology, Christian Smith describes the history of liberation theology in Latin America and how the core beliefs and practices derived from that theology led to a movement for social change.

To properly understand liberation theology, it is important to appreciate the circumstances from which they came. Latin American liberation theology in the Church can be traced back to early acts of resistance to the oppression of colonial Christendom during the Spanish and Portuguese conquest. The conquest in Latin America resulted in the destruction of several civilizations inundated by military operations, subjection to slavery, a smallpox epidemic, and other dreadful diseases. This behavior was often sanctioned by the Church, but many bishops and priests protested the subjugation and extermination of the natives. They "took legal actions to defend the local peoples, promoted resistance to oppressive governmental policies, and absolved the sins of natives" (Smith 12).

From these open revolts, a "new Christendom" began to emerge which moved to establish Catholicism as a key institutional and cultural influence in Latin America's modernizing society. From that point, the Church experienced unrest as debates arose about the role of the clergy, Christian involvement in politics, the justification of violent revolution, and the Church's position in socioeconomic development. Eventually, the documents in Medellin were drawn in 1968, which provided "open approval of Catholics who were already working for progressive or radical social change" (Smith 19). These Medellin documents introduced ideas that the theology of liberation "cultivated, elaborated, and systematized." Additionally, the documents allowed for the severing of the bond between the Church (as an institution) and the state, as well as led to aspirations for the Church to become a "church of the poor." Therefore, the foundation for the definition of what Latin American liberation theology came to be was built from this new ambition of the Church and the ideas behind the Medellin documents.

In his book, Smith defines Latin American liberation theology by building on the ideas of liberation theologians and expanding on some concepts introduced in Marxism. According to Smith, liberation theology is fundamentally "an attempt to re-conceptualize the Christian faith from the perspective of the poor and oppressed" (Smith 27). It does not limit itself to personal or divine realms of life, but also connects with political, economic, and cultural matters. Smith goes on to imply that Marxism plays a role in defining liberation theology by lending its ideas within the acceptance of the reality of class struggle. Liberation theologians claim they are using Marxism as a tool to "recognize and acknowledge a class struggle that already exists and that must be overcome" (Smith 30). Now that Smith has better defined liberation theology, he goes on to focus on some of the more prominent themes existent within liberation theology to outline the beliefs and goals therein.

Smith explains that the idea that God aligns himself with the poor and oppressed, characterized as a "God of the Poor," is a major belief among liberation theologians. They believe that God's will is for human liberation and that he considers the rich blasphemers as they only speak of God in order to further oppress the poor. Therefore, God is partial to and loves the poor simply because they are deprived, hungry, and persecuted-not because they are better believers. Traditionally among Protestant religions, God is not seemingly partial to any set of believers classified by status or wealth, but rather by their beliefs and practices as a Christian.

Another major principle among liberation theologians focuses on suffering. They believe that sin is the cause of the "proliferation of poverty, domination, and oppression in the world" (Smith 34). Gustavo Gutierrez, a popular liberation theologian quoted several times by Smith, considers poverty "an expression of sin" and "the ultimate root of all injustice, all exploitation, and all dissidence among men." However, "Sin" among liberation theologians, is considered different than "sins" that come from freely made choices. Instead, sin is a breach in the friendship with God and the human community. In this light, liberation theologians' view of sin is generally traditional. However, they also add a suprapersonal nature to sin, insisting that sin is not individual or private, but regarded as a social and historical fact. Smith states that this understanding of sin enables liberation theologians to speak of "social sinfulness," "institutionalized violence," and "structural sin" (Smith 35). Ideas of "social sinfulness" and "structural sin" appear to be nonexistent in the views of traditional Catholics and Protestants, but remain interesting themes in liberation theology.

Orthopraxy is also a significant topic among liberation theologians. Smith explains that traditionally, theory shapes praxis. However, within liberation theology, "people work for liberation first, and then theology is formed as a reflection on that praxis." Afterward, the liberating praxis continues, reinforced and directed by the new theological reflection. Essentially, a circle is formed in which "liberating praxis constructs theology which, in turn, informs and strengthens liberating praxis" (Smith 28). Furthermore, liberation theology is viewed by Gutierrez as "a critical reflection on praxis in the light of the Word of God." Therefore, it is not inconceivable to conclude that, within liberation theology, orthodoxy is secondary to the more prominent orthopraxis. As a result of these beliefs among liberation theologians, many goals become apparent.

Primarily, liberation theologians in Latin America wish to present freedom from oppression as a topic of widespread religious significance. Smith explains that they employ a neo-Marxist, "dialectical" analysis that views poverty as "a collective and conflictive result of oppression which can only be overcome through the establishment of an alternative social system through social-structural transformation" (Smith 28). Therefore, Latin American liberation theologians desire a movement for social change that positively alters the economic, political, social and cultural structures. Furthermore, another strategic goal among liberation theologians has been "the [mobilization] of Latin American Christians to participate as Christians in popular campaigns, organizations, and movements toward the fundamental restructuring and transformation of their own societies and cultures in a way that facilitates human liberation" (Smith 53). While this goal for liberation seems promising for the oppressed, Smith contends that the future for liberation theology is uncertain.

Smith provides readers with a few possible scenarios for liberation theology; two offering up the opposite extremes of total growth and total demise. However, a third more probable scenario is considered that places liberation theology in a struggle for survival, "finding support and success in some areas and setbacks and frustrations in others" (Smith 233). Whatever may happen, it is unquestionable that liberation theology has overcome obstacles and provided a hope for the oppressed and poverty stricken society of Latin America.