Liberation Theology Was Right

The Dangerous Memory

There's a tradition within Christianity that makes both conservatives and liberals uncomfortable. It reads the same scriptures and reaches radically different conclusions. It says that God has a preferential option for the poor, not as metaphor, not as spiritual poverty, but the actually poor, the actually hungry, the actually oppressed.

This tradition didn't emerge from seminaries playing theoretical games. It came from people watching their neighbors starve while churches blessed the powerful.

Liberation theology took the incarnation seriously. If God became human, became poor, died as a political prisoner, that changes everything. It means Christianity can't be reduced to personal piety or otherworldly hope. The material conditions of human life become spiritually significant. Poverty isn't just unfortunate. It's sin. Structural sin, embedded in systems rather than individual hearts.

Reading From Below

The key move is simple but radical: read scripture from the perspective of the marginalized rather than the powerful.

When you do this, the Bible looks different. The Exodus isn't a quaint origin story; it's slaves overthrowing an empire. The prophets aren't just foretelling the messiah; they're denouncing wealth concentration and exploitation. Jesus isn't just a spiritual teacher; he's executed by an occupying power for sedition.

Most theological education happens in institutions funded by wealth. The professors are comfortable. The students aspire to be comfortable. And so scripture gets filtered through comfortable assumptions. The dangerous parts get spiritualized away. "Blessed are the poor" becomes "blessed are the spiritually humble." The rich man and the eye of the needle becomes "well, it's really about attachment to wealth, not wealth itself."

Liberation theology refused this domestication. It insisted that the text means what it says. That when Jesus talks about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, he's not speaking in code. He's describing an actual program.

The Critique That Won't Die

Critics attacked liberation theology from every direction. Conservatives called it Marxism in religious clothing, a fair accusation in some cases, unfair in others. The theology developed in dialogue with social analysis, and Marx provided useful tools for understanding exploitation. But the tradition's roots go deeper than any nineteenth-century philosopher. You can trace this thinking back to the Hebrew prophets, the early church fathers, the peasant revolts of medieval Europe.

Meanwhile, liberals grew uncomfortable with the tradition's insistence on collective sin and structural change. The liberal temperament prefers individual improvement. Personal growth. Self-actualization. Liberation theology said that's not enough. You can't self-help your way out of systematic oppression. At some point, the structures themselves have to change.

And the institutional church, particularly but not exclusively Catholic, tried to suppress the movement. Silenced theologians. Appointed conservative bishops. Worked with governments to marginalize the troublemakers. When church officials collaborate with death squads, you know the message was hitting a nerve.

But the tradition refuses to die. Every generation rediscovers it. Every economic crisis brings new adherents. Because the core insight is undeniable: religion that ignores material suffering is hollow.

The Scandal of Particularity

There's something scandalous about claiming God takes sides. Doesn't God love everyone equally? Isn't the divine supposed to be impartial?

Liberation theologians point out that neutrality in an unjust situation means siding with the powerful. To say "I'm not political" in a system that grinds people into dust is itself a political statement, and not a neutral one. Silence is complicity. The church that blessed monarchs and conquistadors wasn't apolitical. It was very political indeed. Just in service of the wrong side.

The preferential option for the poor doesn't mean God loves the rich less. It means that authentic love requires attending first to those who suffer most. A parent rushing to help an injured child isn't neglecting the healthy siblings. They're responding to urgent need. Liberation theology argues that God, and therefore the church, should function similarly. When the wealthy and the destitute both make claims on attention, the destitute come first.

This is uncomfortable. It overturns the patronage model where wealthy donors get naming rights and special access. It says the voice of the poor person matters more than the voice of the major benefactor. Not exactly a fundraising strategy.

Praxis Over Theory

One of liberation theology's most important contributions is methodological. It insisted that theology should begin with action, not speculation.

Traditional theology often worked like philosophy: start with abstract principles, deduce conclusions, maybe apply them to real life if convenient. Liberation theology inverted this. Start with engagement, actually being present with the suffering, actually working for change. Then reflect theologically on that experience. Then act again, informed by the reflection.

This "see-judge-act" method (or in more technical terms, the hermeneutical circle) means theology stays grounded. You can't do liberation theology from an armchair. The academic theologian pontificating about poverty while earning six figures is missing something essential. The method demands skin in the game.

And this produces different knowledge. Serving meals at a shelter teaches you things about hunger that no study can. Accompanying refugees reveals truths about borders and belonging. The poor aren't just objects of theological reflection; they're subjects, with their own insights, their own readings of scripture, their own experiences of the divine.

Why It Matters Now

The conditions that gave birth to liberation theology haven't disappeared. They've metastasized.

Wealth concentration has reached levels not seen since the Gilded Age. Working people struggle with housing, healthcare, education, the basics. Meanwhile, the economy generates billionaires at unprecedented rates. The gap between rhetoric about opportunity and lived reality grows wider every year.

And where is religion in all this? Often, unfortunately, blessing the status quo. Prosperity gospel teaches that wealth is divine favor. Mainstream churches fret about declining attendance while the desperate go elsewhere. Religious institutions hold real estate portfolios and investment funds while homelessness spreads.

Liberation theology's challenge remains as sharp as ever. What kind of God would be pleased with this arrangement? What would faithfulness to the biblical tradition actually demand? Not charity (which maintains power dynamics) but solidarity. Not handouts but systemic change. Not "thoughts and prayers" but actual justice.

The Question Religion Can't Escape

Every religious tradition faces a choice. Side with power or side with the powerless. There's no neutral ground, however much institutions pretend otherwise.

The history of religion is largely a history of siding with power. Emperors get blessed. Conquest gets sanctified. The poor get told to wait for heaven. And yet, at the margins, the dangerous memory persists. People keep reading the texts and noticing what they actually say. Communities keep forming around radical commitments. Martyrs keep dying for refusing to worship the empire.

Liberation theology didn't invent this tension. It named it. It insisted that the tension be taken seriously rather than smoothed over with comfortable interpretations.

What Was Right

So what exactly was liberation theology right about?

That religion divorced from material concern is escapism. That the Bible contains a consistent thread of divine identification with the oppressed. That structures can be sinful, not just individuals. That neutrality is impossible. That theology should arise from engagement, not speculation. That the poor have privileged access to certain truths.

Not every liberation theologian got every question right. The tradition contains its share of bad predictions, strategic mistakes, and occasional naivety. That's true of every intellectual movement.

But the core insight endures. And until the conditions that generated it change, the tradition will keep finding new adherents. Every generation that faces immiseration alongside obscene wealth will rediscover this way of reading. Every community ground down by systems beyond their control will ask where God stands.

The answer, liberation theology insists, is clear. And uncomfortable. And demanding.

God stands with the poor. The question is whether we will.