224
THEOLOGICAL
TRENDS
Political and liberation theology, I LTHOUGH only a few years ago it would have seemed questionable
A at the least to discuss political and liberation theology side by side, today it would make no sense at all to do otherwise. Part of their respective maturation processes has been to learn from one another; to learn about their essentially similar intentions and the differences in their respective approaches to that c o m m o n purpose, namely, to demonstrate the closeness of the link between political action and christian life. In recent years, the theology of liberation has definitely been the betterknown phenomenon, no doubt as exaggerated media coverage about Marxism and the theology of revolution has found it more newsworthy. However, the term 'political theology' has much the longer pedigree. 'Liberation theology' as a term, if not as a reality, dates back only as far as the mid-sixties, and first became current with Gustavo Gutierrez's A theology of liberation. 1 'Political theology', on the other hand, is as old as the threefold stoic division of theology into natural, mythical and political. 2 To delineate the precise contemporary relationship between political and liberation theology is the first of our tasks in these pages. In 1977 and 1978 in the pages of The Way, Joseph Laishley wrote a three-part article on liberation theology. The present two-part article is not to be thought to duplicate or replace that valuable work, but to bring it up to date. Seven or eight years later, it is possible to see far more clearly the relationship of political and liberation theologies, and, of course, a lot has happened in these years to both theological schools. Here, then, we shall concentrate on the recent development of political theology, and the progress of liberation theology since 1978. Since much of the first part of the article will be devoted to distinguishing between the two, it is important at the outset to emphasize their basic affinity. Both are theologies of social involvement. Both consider that social and political concern must go beyond mere participation to a radical transformation of the process. Both believe that the gospel at its heart is a call to the transformation of the social order, and consequently both assert that the claim to faith, to love God or follow Jesus Christ, is an empty claim if it does not emanate from a people deeply committed to justice. T h e y are not merely varieties of moral or practical theology. however, and certainly not simply appeals for a social ethic. Although tmportaat to hotb~, etktcs i~ ~ubo~di~ated to a deeper se~-understanding in which they are new ways of conceiving the enterprise of theology or religious reflection. T h e primacy of praxis in both theologies, though