Speaking Truth to Power: The Role of Liberation Theology in American Life

In the past few weeks, more than one commentator has opined that Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons about American foreign and domestic policy have no place in a space that is awarded not-for-profit status by the government. While this makes sense to many of us, it is important to examine the assumptions that come with such a belief.

Assumption #1: Churches’ missions, as not-for-profit organizations, must not be about social or political change, but rather only about worship and “service” to community.

As has been noted several times over the past few weeks, much social change has been rooted in organized religion. With respect to race relations, perhaps the most lucid reminder came from E.J. Dionne, who noted that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached what many considered (and consider) to be radical ideas from the pulpit. King was a revolutionary whose methods of force came through the power of nonviolence. That this was less threatening to progressive whites (particularly as compared to King’s contemporary, Malcolm X) is not incidental. King and Malcolm understood how their dynamic affected the potential for meaningful change, as well.

Pondering the purpose of organized religion is far beyond the scope of this space (and our expertise), but it is certainly too narrow of a construction to argue that worship be limited to giving thanks, asking forgiveness, and providing time and space for the study of scripture. What use is religion if it is not helpful to persons to make sense of their contemporary existence? Is not religion a guide by which the faithful are expected to live their lives? For the words of any holy book to make sense, they must be placed into both historical and contemporary context. Individuals can embark on such a process on their own, but traditionally, religious institutions have provided support and guidance.

Then what does it mean to take sacred texts and apply them to the real world? Commonalities in all religions (outside radical sects) include striving for peace, social justice, compassion, empathy and sympathy. For whom? It’s the province of historians to elucidate the plight of ancient peoples. The stories in holy texts are relevant only insofar as they apply to contemporary life. Contemporary life in America is characterized by widespread inequality of opportunity with respect to employment, housing, education and access to vital services such as healthcare.

Many houses of worship (of all types and colors) are involved in community activity that is designed to redress these inequalities. One way is to be reactive (host shelters, food banks, clothes drives, etc.; offer skills training; raise funds for charitable purposes). Another method is to try to alleviate suffering at its root, which is the etymological basis (Latin) of the word “radical.” In contemporary language, “radical” is synonymous with “extreme.” In some sense, it is admittedly out of the mainstream to actually work at the root or “cause” of a problem instead of merely treating symptoms to provide a (false) sense of security that something is being done. Liberation theology (within Christianity) refers to the belief that Jesus Christ’s life was and is about liberating those who are oppressed. It is not surprising that many white Americans are not familiar with such religious teachings because whites are not, as a group, oppressed (though white women are oppressed with respect to white men, LGBT folks with respect to heterosexuals, etc.). It is troubling, though, that such a sense of ethnocentrism exists even amidst such transcendental contemplation that relieving the suffering of others is not more central to “mainstream” (white) religion. As we suggested last week, this past weekend would have been a wonderful opportunity for Christians to consider Obama’s speech and reflect on what might be done in their pews and beyond to address racial inequality. We encourage anyone who heard relevant sermons this weekend to summarize in the comments section.

The arguments of whites who were or continue to be outraged by Dr. Wright’s comments assume that his words were somehow out of bounds in that setting. Who is to determine what is in bounds? Government? The framers insisted on a free and independent media because they understood that a media controlled by government could not be free to be critical. Similarly, religious groups that are held hostage by government’s continual threats of financial ruin are hardly free from excessive government entanglement that the First Amendment also prohibits.

[For an interesting, if brief, discussion of church’s not-for-profit status, see this piece on the IRS’s investigation of Obama’s speech before a United Church of Christ congregation in Hartford, CT last year. See also here. Also, interestingly, there has been a lively discussion at pregnancy.org]

Assumption #2: Persons are responsible for and assumed to be in agreement with ideas of their mentors.

Arguments that Obama did not distance himself enough from Dr. Wright are off base. The real question is, Why should he have to? One reason is the ridiculous suggestion that a person be held responsible for everything espoused by someone whom he or she admires. It is a sign of a lack of understanding of intellectualism to subscribe to such a position. Should Aristotle be held responsible for the ideas of Plato (many of which he disagreed with)? Was George H.W. Bush held to the ideas of Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra anyone)? A church is a multi-faceted community that is, to borrow Obama’s phrase about America, bigger than the sum of its parts. A head pastor or priest or rabbi may very well be the public face of the institution, but to assume that all members agree in total with all that is said is asinine. Are we to have all Catholic parishioners register as sex offenders if their clergy were found guilty of molestation?

In short, anti-intellectuals such as Rush Limbaugh and his contemporaries take advantage of an opportunity to bash black folk while maintaining that it has nothing to do with race. It only “has nothing to do with race” if oppression has nothing to do with race. Granted, there are individuals who believe this. No matter how many statistics they see of disproportionate levels of incarceration, unemployment or underemployment, income and wealth or other forms of “success” between blacks and whites, there is no recognition that something besides individual choice is at work. Most, however, understand that there are barriers that are unique to persons of color, which means that oppression has quite a bit to do with race. Both Obama and Wright understand the black experience in a sophisticated way. That they express their ideas about rectifying it differently is beside the point. Obama and Wright have very similar views about race and American policy, even if they disagree on some specifics. Limbaugh and others may not be as interested in Obama distancing himself from the inflammatory rhetoric as they are with trying to get Obama on the record of opposing Wright’s broader ideas of the necessity for social change through examination of systems. Obama was unwilling to do that out of principle. If Ronald Reagan’s attitudes and policies that contributed to prolonged disadvantage of minority groups can be tolerated by virtue of sentiments such as “you always knew where he stood, even if you didn’t agree with him,” then even the “angry white guys” should give Obama the same courtesy.

Assumption #3: Being critical of government is “political,” but not speaking out against perceived injustice is not political.

In the 1960s, there was a slogan: If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. It is a pithy phrase that serves to both instigate change from passive progressives and point out the passive promulgation of reactionary ideas. This is markedly different than the “with us or against us” rhetoric preferred by many conservatives. In this case, noting the power differences between groups results in an understanding that not fighting to balance power is just as malicious as fighting hard to keep inequality in place. In fact, the silence is more dangerous because it is not easily identified as working to maintain the status quo. If all the burden rests on the shoulders of those without power, change is unlikely at worst and slow at best because of the unwillingness of those with access to power (“allies”) to help.

For houses of worship, then, refusing to acknowledge and address systemic barriers to participation in a democracy is tantamount to advocating to keep things unequal. How else can the large protestant “megachurches,” for instance, justify their members driving $70,000 vehicles that get 9 miles to the gallon while the planet is undergoing climate change and children are starving on the other side of town? How many would continue to attend if, week after week, they were reminded of their privilege and encouraged to sacrifice more for the betterment of others or society as a whole?

Preaching to a group of folks who have not been systemically disadvantaged presents a different context than that which Dr. Wright faced each Sunday. He led a group of people who understood the systemic contributions to racial inequality, so he was on firm footing to articulate “radical” concepts that seek to destabilize what they understand to be an unjust system. For Limbaugh, it is “patently obvious” that Dr. Wright “hates America,” so Obama should separate himself from such ideas. For the simplistic thinker, this is convenient. Any criticism of American systems or institutions is impermissible – certainly not from a man who leads a group of people (blacks) who are assumed to always be trying to get something that they do not deserve. For Limbaugh, Hannity and others, America is good, fair, and “right,” and any suggestion to the contrary is un-American. One might argue, however, that believing that America cannot do any better than it has by its minorities (racial and otherwise) is un-American.

[Oprah Winfrey’s bulletin boards were alive with discussion of black liberation theology this week.]

There are some who view organized religion as merely a method of mind control – a way to keep the masses subservient and placated by promises of a more blissful life after death. Others, however, see it as a way to make meaningful changes in the lives of communities on earth (perhaps as a prerequisite to earning a spot in the blissful afterlife). In either case, religion cannot be relegated to government-sanctioned expression, lest it be irrelevant beyond any argument whatsoever.