# Liberation Theology's emphasis on praxis



## Pergamum (Dec 30, 2007)

Okay, this is sure to turn into the old receptacle for live bait. 



Liberation Theology insists that theology must be done . And it is done by...well, doing. We DO theology. The emphasis is on praxis.

They are action-oriented. (of course most revolutionaries are)


Now, disregarding the Marxist stuff and focusing on this one point - here is my question:


Can a case be made that theology was made in the process of doing? 

Is the emphasis in the New Testament on action? Does theology then spring up in the process of issues that arise in the midst of action?

For instance, take Paul’s Corinthian letters. He wrote these letters in response to church problems. His aim wasn’t to write a systematic theology but to affect change, to fix a problem. 

Theologians are not mere theoreticians but practitioners. 


The book of Romans seems systemic, though. 

For the most part, however, the written canon we have was written in response to mission (i.e. action). They were written to spur the movement forward or to correct problems that arouse as the movement did move forward.

Although, one cannot have much of a movement if they lack a solid basis of beliefs....


Can we praise this one aspect of Liberation Theology, or acknowledge any truth in it..or must it all go?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2007)

Believe it or not, I am not opposed to praxis. I think much of modern conservative thought suffers for that reason. No, we shouldn't call it liberation theology. Most LTers are intricately tied to Marxism, which necessarily entails poverty and barricades. 

And it is true that much of theology is formed by way of application. No doubt about that. I do'nt know if we can make a blanket statement, though.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 30, 2007)

Yes, there's the rub...I want to find a blanket statement somewhere...


----------



## KMK (Dec 30, 2007)

Ps 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God..."

Is that a blanket statement?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> Okay, this is sure to turn into the old receptacle for live bait.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There can be absolutely no praise for this poisonous theology. Their interpretation of praxis is not the biblical praxis. By looking at their goal, one can easily see the 'praxis' used towards that goal is done for unbiblical reasons. Their hermeneutic of praxes is a foundation built on sand. It is purely a subjective world view. Each current socio situation determines the interpretation of a given scripture. Culture plays the biggest role in theology. Praxis becomes a 'doing' of whatever the reader determines what must be done in his own mind. Instead of finding God's revealed will as spoken in the writ, LT's rasie praxis over the Word. I detest this thought. This thought or praxis being interwoven into a plotical class struggle and 'doing' to make people equal is a terrible error. Look at what has ensued. Feminist theology. A black Jesus, a Woman god, a Christ not divine. the list goes on.


----------



## Archlute (Dec 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> Okay, this is sure to turn into the old receptacle for live bait.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is wrong, as well as being a tool by which they dodge orthodoxy.

Strictly speaking, theology is not about doing, but about knowing. The term itself speaks of the matter or knowledge of God, and is about intellectual and spiritual perception of this truth. Practice, of course, flows from this knowledge, but it is a separate issue as you cannot coherently fuse the two. 

A classic example of this is found in the epistle to the Ephesian church, where the second half of that letter regarding the practice of the Christian life is preceded by the first, which is the theological foundation for those latter chapters. An even more pronounced example is found in the epistle to the Hebrews, in which the first twelve chapters consist of "abstract" theological discussion, a discussion that only really gets to the admonition of practice in the final chapter! The apostle Paul makes a clear distinction between doctrine in life in 1 Timothy 4:16, although he does not deem one more or less important than the other.

Liberation theologians like to muddy the waters with this conflation, because it allows them to avoid the "abstract, useless, and/or personally offensive" issues such as the nature of the atonement, and other "trivial" matters. Read them sometime - Christian orthodoxy really gets them steamed! 

For what it's worth, the Roman Catholic church (in which most of their theologians reside) does not necessarily have a fond view of them.


----------



## crhoades (Dec 30, 2007)

For what it's worth,

The history of reformed/puritan theology never divorces orthodoxy with orthopraxy or the indicative and the imperative. We can distinguish but not separate. One can also say that one doesn't understand theology unless they live it out. Here are a couple of quotes for your perusal.

Martin Bucer:
_"_"True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

William Perkins:
Theology is “the science of living blessedly forever.”

William Ames:
Theology is the “doctrine of living to God.”

The Moral Theology of William Ames A look at the structure and thought behind William Ames


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2007)

crhoades said:


> For what it's worth,
> 
> The history of reformed/puritan theology never divorces orthodoxy with orthopraxy or the indicative and the imperative. We can distinguish but not separate. One can also say that one doesn't understand theology unless they live it out. Here are a couple of quotes for your perusal.
> 
> ...



That is what I was getting at. Indeed, it was said of Edwards, that his doctrine was application and his application doctrine. 

No, I am a sworn enemy of liberation theology, now and forever. But I am also a sworn enemy of "let's just sit in our tower and do nothing for the kingdom."


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 30, 2007)

crhoades said:


> For what it's worth,
> 
> The history of reformed/puritan theology never divorces orthodoxy with orthopraxy or the indicative and the imperative. We can distinguish but not separate. One can also say that one doesn't understand theology unless they live it out. Here are a couple of quotes for your perusal.
> 
> ...




Seeing that these men were champions of experiential theology, to a fault at times, I would caution you and others not to take this to the extreme ditch many have fallen into by overemphasizing 'doing' theology. Subjective Conversion, fruit inspecting, morbid introspection. A balance is needed and must be used at all times. I agree that we should put down our knife and fork and not be content in being fattened sheep, yet 'doing' without the right beliefs is more dangerous.


----------



## crhoades (Dec 30, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Seeing that these men were champions of experiential theology, to a fault at times, I would caution you and others not to take this to the extreme ditch many have fallen into by overemphasizing 'doing' theology. Subjective Conversion, fruit inspecting, morbid introspection. A balance is needed and must be used at all times.


 
I'm sure we both agree that balance and a heart and mind on fire toward God flowing through the hands would be ideal. But just to quibble for the sake of quibbling, I would love to see a revival of a more experiential theology in today's reformed world (and my own heart). If I spent even a fraction of time with introspection as I do in extrospection and abstraction, I would be a better Christian. 


> I agree that we should put down our knife and fork and not be content in being fattened sheep, yet 'doing' without the right beliefs is more dangerous.


But don't forget the counterbalance: faith without works is dead. Sounds pretty dangerous to me.


----------



## crhoades (Dec 30, 2007)

And for the record...liberation theology is abhorrent and nowhere in the same vincinity as classic reformed/puritan emphasis on praxeology/casuistry. Seeking justice in the civil sphere and charity in the other spheres, I believe, is a Christian's calling


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 30, 2007)

crhoades said:


> For what it's worth,
> 
> The history of reformed/puritan theology never divorces orthodoxy with orthopraxy or the indicative and the imperative. We can distinguish but not separate. One can also say that one doesn't understand theology unless they live it out. Here are a couple of quotes for your perusal.
> 
> ...





WOOHOOO, just what I was looking for. That EXPERIMENTAL RELIGION stuff!


----------



## MW (Dec 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> Can a case be made that theology was made in the process of doing?



Absolutely not. Theology seeks to know God as He has revealed Himself to be, not to construct theories which aim to service our needs as we perceive them. In the former we take our rightful place as servants of the Most High; in the latter God is custom made to suit oneself. It's not difficult to tell which is the biblical model.


----------



## crhoades (Dec 30, 2007)

Attached is 18 pages of notes from John Frame's class at RTS on Liberation Theology. For anyone interested, it is very helpful.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 30, 2007)

crhoades said:


> For what it's worth,
> 
> The history of reformed/puritan theology never divorces orthodoxy with orthopraxy or the indicative and the imperative. We can distinguish but not separate. One can also say that one doesn't understand theology unless they live it out. Here are a couple of quotes for your perusal.
> 
> ...



Don't forget Herman Witsius: “He alone is a true theologian who adds the practical to the theoretical part of religion.”


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 31, 2007)

crhoades said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing that these men were champions of experiential theology, to a fault at times, I would caution you and others not to take this to the extreme ditch many have fallen into by overemphasizing 'doing' theology. Subjective Conversion, fruit inspecting, morbid introspection. A balance is needed and must be used at all times.
> ...



Faith without works is not God given faith. THe LT's do not see this. They emphaisize this one verse in James 2 into a blanket statement about praxis, and view the scriptures through James 2. LT's could easily be any form of liberal tree hugging, seal saving, greenpeace hippies. Their socialist agenda is so anti Christ, that equating feeding the hungry as removing their sin leads many to believe they are God's children. Pergy, who is involved in this type of setting could see this first hand. I see this in a smaller scale in our soup kitchen. Yes, we feed their stomach's, but without feeding their soul, we lose the battle. It is a tough balance, one that I believe takes a special grace. TO know how to do both. They are not mutally exclusive9orthopraxy/orthodoxy), yet the foundation must be Christ, not the people. A love of Christ will ensue a plethora of praxis, biblical praxis. Not some Rodney King "Cant we all just get along" bologna.


----------



## crhoades (Dec 31, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Faith without works is not God given faith. THe LT's do not see this. They emphaisize this one verse in James 2 into a blanket statement about praxis, and view the scriptures through James 2. LT's could easily be any form of liberal tree hugging, seal saving, greenpeace hippies. Their socialist agenda is so anti Christ, that equating feeding the hungry as removing their sin leads many to believe they are God's children. Pergy, who is involved in this type of setting could see this first hand. I see this in a smaller scale in our soup kitchen. Yes, we feed their stomach's, but without feeding their soul, we lose the battle. It is a tough balance, one that I believe takes a special grace. TO know how to do both. They are not mutally exclusive9orthopraxy/orthodoxy), yet the foundation must be Christ, not the people. A love of Christ will ensue a plethora of praxis, biblical praxis. Not some Rodney King "Cant we all just get along" bologna.


 
Agree completely. When I quote James 2, I hope everyone interprets me in the reformed context. Check out the Frame outline...very good overview of everything you just said.


----------



## KMK (Dec 31, 2007)

crhoades said:


> Attached is 18 pages of notes from John Frame's class at RTS on Liberation Theology. For anyone interested, it is very helpful.



It is interesting how Liberation Theology is based on 'Universalism'. 

On pg 160, 3.b says "The liberationists, however, ignore this distinction, and therefore insist with Barth that all men are created and redeemed in Christ"

Was Barth a universalist?


----------



## crhoades (Dec 31, 2007)

KMK said:


> crhoades said:
> 
> 
> > Attached is 18 pages of notes from John Frame's class at RTS on Liberation Theology. For anyone interested, it is very helpful.
> ...


 
yes


----------

