“Christianity and Marxism can work together to tackle social issues”
Christian Liberation Theology began in the 1960s with two priests Jon Sobrino
and Gustavo Gutierrez who wanted to focus on the struggle of the poor and make
theology available to the masses. Gutierrez believed that liberation could happen
in two ways including social and economic liberation and liberation from sin,
both seemingly interdependent on one another. Liberation Theology has
similarities with the political philosophy of Karl Marx, Marxism.
My thesis is that Marxism and Christian Liberation Theology can work together
to an extent to tackle social issues as Liberation Theology could use Marxist
analysis of social sin and social situations to aid the Theology.
One support of my argument is that Marxism has a real focus on action and
liberating the poor as does Liberation Theology. Karl Marx believes that poverty
can be resolved through a spontaneous violent revolution of the proletariat in
order to bring down the bourgeoisie. Whereas Liberation Theology believes in a
bottom up approach and that social sin such as poverty can be resolved through
First act Praxis, which is to become genuinely committed to the poor.
Christianity emphasizes practical help for the working class through Liberation
theology, prioritizing orthopraxy over orthodoxy. This is effective as it provides
physical help to those who need it most, which in turn has a knock on effect on
society which minimizes social issues. However Marx’s theory that the
proletariat will rise up is unrealistic and rather violent, this is not compatible
with Christian belief. Futhurmore communism has never worked in practice
unlike the many Christian charities that follow liberation theology. Although they
cannot work simultaneously Liberation theology can still learn from Marxism as
it demonstrates the idea that social issues such as Poverty cannot be resolved
without serious action.
Another support to my argument is that both Marxism and Liberation Theology
believe that humans have the power to change the social and economic situation,
and in order to change the state of poverty, exploitation, alienation and general
injustice is to tackle the root cause, politics.
Gutierrez says that being a Christian requires a person to be political.To not get
involved in politics would be the same as helping to keep things the same. From
this standpoint, being Christian necessitates being political. He taught – “It is a
will to build a socialist society, more just, more free, and human, and not a
society of superficial and false reconciliation and equality.” It could be seen that
while Marxism provides more practical help in terms of accessibility for those
without a belief in the Divine, yet when both Marxism and Liberation Theology
work together they can tackle social issues with politics. Marxism provides its
explanation of how capitalism works to necessarily exploit workers and the
environment, provoking workers to rise up and replace capitalism with socialism
and eventually the state will wither under communism. Similarly, Jesus
challenges us to reject the worship of a divinized violence that feeds the “satanic
military industrial complex” and practice a non-violent form of resistance against
differentiating wealth. However a flaw to this argument is that Marx believes the
Christian Liberation Theology began in the 1960s with two priests Jon Sobrino
and Gustavo Gutierrez who wanted to focus on the struggle of the poor and make
theology available to the masses. Gutierrez believed that liberation could happen
in two ways including social and economic liberation and liberation from sin,
both seemingly interdependent on one another. Liberation Theology has
similarities with the political philosophy of Karl Marx, Marxism.
My thesis is that Marxism and Christian Liberation Theology can work together
to an extent to tackle social issues as Liberation Theology could use Marxist
analysis of social sin and social situations to aid the Theology.
One support of my argument is that Marxism has a real focus on action and
liberating the poor as does Liberation Theology. Karl Marx believes that poverty
can be resolved through a spontaneous violent revolution of the proletariat in
order to bring down the bourgeoisie. Whereas Liberation Theology believes in a
bottom up approach and that social sin such as poverty can be resolved through
First act Praxis, which is to become genuinely committed to the poor.
Christianity emphasizes practical help for the working class through Liberation
theology, prioritizing orthopraxy over orthodoxy. This is effective as it provides
physical help to those who need it most, which in turn has a knock on effect on
society which minimizes social issues. However Marx’s theory that the
proletariat will rise up is unrealistic and rather violent, this is not compatible
with Christian belief. Futhurmore communism has never worked in practice
unlike the many Christian charities that follow liberation theology. Although they
cannot work simultaneously Liberation theology can still learn from Marxism as
it demonstrates the idea that social issues such as Poverty cannot be resolved
without serious action.
Another support to my argument is that both Marxism and Liberation Theology
believe that humans have the power to change the social and economic situation,
and in order to change the state of poverty, exploitation, alienation and general
injustice is to tackle the root cause, politics.
Gutierrez says that being a Christian requires a person to be political.To not get
involved in politics would be the same as helping to keep things the same. From
this standpoint, being Christian necessitates being political. He taught – “It is a
will to build a socialist society, more just, more free, and human, and not a
society of superficial and false reconciliation and equality.” It could be seen that
while Marxism provides more practical help in terms of accessibility for those
without a belief in the Divine, yet when both Marxism and Liberation Theology
work together they can tackle social issues with politics. Marxism provides its
explanation of how capitalism works to necessarily exploit workers and the
environment, provoking workers to rise up and replace capitalism with socialism
and eventually the state will wither under communism. Similarly, Jesus
challenges us to reject the worship of a divinized violence that feeds the “satanic
military industrial complex” and practice a non-violent form of resistance against
differentiating wealth. However a flaw to this argument is that Marx believes the
