Liberation theology originated in Latin America towards the end of the 1960s, as a response to the massive poverty in Latin America. Latin America’s colonialist past and her neo-colonialist present meant that two thirds of all people living in Latin America were malnourished. In 1968, a conference of Latin American Bishops was held at Medellin, Colombia, in order to discuss the impact of the Vatican II on Latin America, and the papers agreed upon there became the ‘founding documents’ of liberation theology. Thus, in a context of massive poverty, Latin American liberation theology arose, not to make the poor rich, or the rich poor, but to "transform all humans into new ways of being human, ways not dependent upon structures of division" [Rebecca Chopp]. Liberation theology thus seeks to liberate the oppressed and oppressor together.

Two other factors contributed heavily to the rise of liberation theology, and it is these that, at least on a theoretical level, introduced the fears of Communism. The first was the rise of political theology in West Germany, which criticised Christianity’s ahistorical identity with the bourgeoisie. Indeed, this idea was seized upon by Gustavo Gutierrez in his critique of so-called ‘progressive theology’ (i.e. theology since the Enlightenment). Gutierrez maintained that, because the Enlightenment questioned whether one could retain religious beliefs whilst at the same time exercising one’s faculty of reason, the subject of ‘progressive theology’ became the bourgeois non-believer. However, as Gutierrez went on to explain, the problem to hand today is not the crisis of faith of the rich, but the plight of the poor, and thus liberation theology seeks to make the poor the subject of theology. As if the use of phrases such as "ahistorical identity", "bourgeois" and "poor" were not enough to worry the McCarthyists of the day, Marxist philosophy itself plays a massive role within liberation theology. Marx’s language, his analysis of the role of socio-economic factors within history and his interpretation of the oppression of the workers were all adopted into liberation theology. Thus it seems hardly surprising that liberation theology was criticised even from a theoretical level for its close association with Communism.

There are, however, far more concrete reasons for this accusation. The first was the role of Oscar Romero, Arch-Bishop of El Salvador, who was heavily involved in the politics of his country and appealed to the army to have a "mutiny of conscience". He was assassinated for his perceived ties with Communism – indeed, the Arena party, who may well have been responsible for this assassination, openly criticised him for being a mouthpiece to Communist ideology. Furthermore, during the 1970s and early 1980s, Russo-American relations were once again poor, and anything which mildly resembled Communism on America’s back door was bound to be criticised and condemned by America, and by association, large strafes of the First World. Finally, liberation theology has been criticised by Pope Paul II, largely for its quasi-Marxist ideology, and this is probably as a result of the his pre-papal life in Poland, where he was made quite certain of the evils of Communism, and the merits of ‘Solidarity’.

At this point, it is necessary to distinguish between Marxism and Communism, as the difference will prove critical to the essay as a whole. We shall understand by ‘Marxism’ the social, economic and historical interpretations of Karl Marx. By Communism, we shall understand Communism as manifested in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. The difference is critical – Communism claimed to be based on Marxism, but the two are by no means synonymous.

It is possible to see why the allegation made against liberation theology was that it was Communist. ‘Communism’ was a very loaded word at the time, and was used largely because the criticism was a scare-tactic – a claim by an America worried by a potential Communist presence to its south, as it had been during (and before – see the Bay of Pigs fiasco) the Cuban Missile Crisis. By maintaining that liberation theology was a Communism with God mixed in, America was able to maintain a stance against it. The fears probably were real – the language sounded revolutionary enough, and Gustavo Gutierrez’s earlier writings explain how modern history has created victims in the poor, but that this ‘historical praxis’ will be overturned by the poor, in a revolutionary manner – but by condemning liberation theology as Communist the American government was able to tie in a list of other accusations by association. America thus created an impression of liberation theology in the eyes of the First World that would have given the American government the public support necessary for any intervention in Latin America in order to put down revolutionary fermentation. Given liberation theology’s claim that the structure of society needed to change in order to found a society in which humans could find new ways of being human, this public support would probably be forthcoming – liberation theology was a theology which intimidated the First World bourgeoisie, as it threatened to change the system from which they were the beneficiaries. Thus the allegations of Communism gave the American government and the First World bourgeoisie the perfect get-out-clause to justify their opposition to liberation theology.

Liberation theology cannot be Communism though, for a variety of reasons. The first is that Communist Russia banned religious worship, and that Communism (although not Marxism) is opposed to the very idea of religion. The second is that there was little revolutionary sentiment, and the proletariat did not overthrow, or even attempt to overthrow, their bourgeois masters. Finally, Communism is a very centralised structure, with a powerful hierarchy through which instructions percolate; liberation theology, by contrast, is almost entirely decentralised, focussing instead on the role of the grass-roots ‘basic communities’. All these things indicate that liberation theology cannot have been Communism with a Christian face.

However, it would seem foolish to stop the analysis there. After all, liberation theology does include many references to Marxist ideas and Marxist theories – we would be wise to determine whether liberation theology is, in fact, Marxism with a Christian face. Straight away we must tone down the accusation as, short of Gustavo Gutierrez’s insinuations, there is no ‘call-to-arms’ in liberation theology as there is in Marx’s Communist Manifesto. So the Marxism referred to in the phrase "Marxism with a Christian face" will refer largely to Marx’s social, economic, political and historical interpretations, not to any revolutionary sentiments that he had or expressed.

In this context, the claim is much harder to refute but, it seems, does not need refuting, as it is not a condemnation of liberation theology for it to be associated with Marxism. Rather, any theology which attempts to deal with the plight of the poor is bound to make frequent reference to the works of Marx – they naturally provide a basis for understanding why the poor exist at all and what can be done to change the lot of the poor. It is difficult to make reference to liberation theology as a whole, given the fact that it is a very new theology, that there are a wide variety of issues with which it deals and that the wide variety of liberation theologians do not necessarily hold consensus on any but the most fundamental matters. As a result then, it would seem worthwhile to analyse those most fundamental matters, namely, praxis and liberation, and whether they are Marxist ideas or not.

Praxis is a Latin term, and is central to liberation theology as a whole. Rebecca Chopp, writing on the matter of what praxis is, identifies three separate understandings of ‘praxis’. The first is that humans are constituted through "political historical reality", which is to say that economic conditions, availability of power and location – i.e. social structure – shape human beings. The second is that human reality is a product of human relationships: hermits notwithstanding, it is undoubtedly true that people are shaped by their relationships with other people, and that groups of people are shaped by their relationships with other groups of people. The third is that "humans must and can intentionally create history." What does Marxism teach on the same topic? That history is a product of the reality of economic sub-currents and the relationships between the classes (corresponding largely to the first and second interpretations of praxis). He also believed, somewhat optimistically, that the workers could and would seize the reigns of power for themselves (corresponding largely to the thirds point). Thus it seems that there is significant overlap between liberation theology’s understanding of praxis and Marx’s teachings.

Liberation may immediately find voice within Marx. Marx saw the workers as oppressed and dehumanised by their masters, and claimed that they had "nothing to lose but their chains." Clearly then, Marx hoped for the liberation of the oppressed. And indeed, liberation theology has radical interpretations on traditional Christian doctrines, based on this notion of liberty, which are not out of keeping with Marxism. Gone is the idea that ‘sin’ is a corruption of man’s relationship with God; rather, sin is a corruption of man’s relationship with all of reality, the burden of which is carried by the poor. Similarly, the notion of ‘redemption’ is radically altered to include a massive element of liberation.

These central themes of liberation theology are thus correspondable to Marxist teachings, and it is undeniable that Marxism was an important factor when liberation theology was in its infancy. However, before confirming that liberation theology is Marxism with a Christian face, we must consider Marx’s claim that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Note that ‘opiate’ was not condemned then as it was now – it was merely a pleasurable ‘pain-killer’ (indeed, laudanum was often administered to children to help them sleep). Also, this criticism of religion is that it numbs the will of the workers by promising that "they’ll be pie in the sky when you die." [Joe Hill] In fact, liberation theologians would agree that any religion which does promise "pie in the sky" deserves to be criticised. Their assertion would be that, whilst traditional theology is open to this criticism, liberation theology is a response to it. This is why liberation theology does not focus on "the life everlasting", but on the here and now, on the present day, on the improvements that may be made for poor within this life. Thus liberation theology, far from attempting to numb the pain of reality with a pain-killer sets out to change that reality.

We must also query what room, if any, remains for God within liberation theology. After all, "Marxism with a Christian face" implies that liberation theology is merely Marxism with the phrase "and God loves us all" tagged on the end, which downgrades the role of God. Indeed, this has been one of the criticisms of liberation theology levelled by Western theologians – that liberation theology makes liberation into a messiah, and neglects the fact that God will be necessary even when liberation has been achieved. Whilst noting the possible problems liberation theology may entail, it is important to note that God still plays a role within it and that God will play a role even if liberation is achieved. God, critically, offers certain hope to the poor, as opposed to humans, who can offer only optimism. Thus the language of religion, which offers hope to all areas of our life, may valuably be applied to social and economic conditions, without devaluing God. God still has an immense role in liberation theology.

It is clear that liberation theology is not "Communism with a Christian face." There are to many inherent contradictions within such an accusation for it to be true, and it is clear that the accusation was made for a variety of reasons which were not dependent upon the actions and teachings of liberation theology, but of the social and historical context in which liberation theology arose. However, there is no doubting that liberation theology is a theology that draws heavily on Marxism. It seems to me though that to assert that it is "Marxism with a Christian face" is to falsely emphasise the Marxist element at the expense of the Christian one. For me, it seems that liberation theology is a combination, in roughly equal part, of a Marxist interpretation of Christianity and a Christian interpretation of Marx.