Ibram X. Kendi is the author of a popular book titled How to Be an Antiracist in which he argues, among other things, that where Christianity calls sin "sin", it needs to be eliminated. It is odd, of course, because he attended Christian schools in Queens, his parents work as Methodist ministers, and he boldly proclaims that he is not opposed to Christianity. So what's up with that? Well, in a video of an event at a church in Manhattan, Kendi explains that the purpose of Christianity was not "savior theology," but "liberation theology." Jesus, he says, showed up as a revolutionary to liberate people from powers that oppress them. The Christianity of white supremacist evangelicals is "savior theology" where people are sinners and need to be saved from their sin. He rejects "savior theology." (And the crowd -- in the church on the video -- applauds.)
Kendi is not my point here. Nor is racism. Kendi is not alone in his belief that the primary reason Jesus showed up on this earth was to save the poor, the marginalized, and oppressed from their oppression. It is a popular view, in fact, among the liberal Christians and social justice warriors. To them, the Son of God took on human form, humbled Himself to be born of a woman, and ultimately to die on that cross not to save people from their sins, but to free the oppressed from their oppressors. (I may be too generous. I'm not sure how many believe that Jesus was the Son of God -- God the Son.) Given this premise, then, everything they hear coming from the lips of Christ in the Gospels appears to be heard through this filter. From this perspective, Jesus did not come to save all who believe (John 3:16); He came to save the oppressed. (The unoppressed don't need saving.) "Theology ceases to be a theology of the gospel," one author says, "when it fails to arise out of the community of the oppressed." (James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation) When Christ said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3), He actually meant "Blessed are the poor" (Luke 6:20). He specifically stated that God had sent Him to "proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed." (Luke 4:18), so that is the primary -- if not only -- gospel of Jesus. His mention of His mission to "seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10) doesn't refer to lost sinners; it refers to oppressed and marginalized people. Liberation theology reframes Christianity as a division between the oppressed and the oppressors and hears Christ in terms of freedom from oppression and not freedom from sin and wrath. (By the way, within liberation theology there are variations, including Latin American, black, and feminist versions.) (Note: Since Marxism, they say, presents the best analysis of the oppression/liberation conflict in terms of class struggle, liberation theology requires a commitment to Marxism.)
It's an interesting theology. It's interesting because it's a purely man-made version of what Christ is like. It disregards all that God has to say about Himself in terms of, say, wrath (Rom 1:18) or judgment (John 3:18; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:12), hell (Matt 7:21-23; Matt 10:28; Matt 25:46; etc.) and other things that are not in line with "liberation from oppression." It ignores the claim that Christ "is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10) and limits it to "the oppressed." Asked, "Who do you say I am?" (Luke 9:20), this theology rolls off into the importance of the created and, most urgently, the oppressed created. "Savior theology" aligns with these things (and more) and includes the need to care for the poor, marginalized, and oppressed, but "liberation theology" is based solely on "the oppressed" to serve to marginalize "the oppressors." "Savior theology" argues that God loves the world and the gospel isn't mere "better living" -- it's salvation for everyone from the just wrath of God. "Liberation theology" isn't much concerned about that god. It's certainly a social justice movement, but it's actual theology isn't of much value.
5 comments:
I would suggest that IF this notion of Jesus coming to save the materially poor and politically oppressed from only material poverty and political oppression then He failed miserably and He admitted that there would always be poor among us. Why would anyone seriously follow a "savior" who was so impotent that He couldn't or wouldn't eliminate material poverty and oppression in a very small part of the Middle East when He walked the earth/
What's interesting is that we agree that Christ helped the poor and downtrodden and we ought to also. Where we disagree is that Jesus believed this to be His only task -- in opposition to saving people from their sin. He SAID both; why not BELIEVE both? But you're absolutely right that He failed miserably if His job was to eliminate poverty and oppression.
Absolutely Jesus did teach and help the materially poor, and we should too. I think that we agree that we should focus on those who are Christians in poverty first, but not exclusively. As to political oppression, both Jesus and the early Church did literally nothing to fight against one of the most oppressive governmental systems in history. So, yeah, I think that He/they failed miserably on that.
Wow. Where have I heard this stuff before? I dunno. Maybe it'll come to me.
In the meantime,
"Where we disagree is that Jesus believed this to be His only task"
One could argue whether it was a task of His in the first place. Sure, we can say by teaching His disciples to care for the poor He was accomplishing or working toward accomplishing this task. But was the point to take care of the needy, or was it to teach His followers what a follower of His would do? That is, for whose sake was the teaching? The followers' or the poor and needy? The latter wins in a collateral way, while the follower wins by demonstrating his faith and devotion in Christ by his actions.
"Where have I heard this stuff before?"
In truth, Art, I hadn't. I've heard whispers, suggestions, notions. I'd heard (from the obvious sources) that our primary job was social justice kind of stuff. But I had never heard of this "liberation theology" before, stating it as Jesus's main (or, even, only) purpose before. I didn't get this from Dan. I don't know if he believes it or not.
Post a Comment