Liberation Theology and Its View of Political Violence

principles are difficult to apply in concrete detail. Their supposed precision often becomes murky when practical deci sions are required. However, this is not a special fault of Jesus' utterances but is a fact of moral life, that is, that no principle applies easily and universally without requiring difficult deci sions. This does not render general rules and principles useless, 1. Matt. 22:21 (King James Version). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.255 on Mon, 01 Aug 2016 05:58:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 272 JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE but it does mean that the enunciation of general principles is only the beginning of the human decision process. In this case in particular, how does Jesus' neat division of the alfairs of Caesar and the affairs of God help with the question of whether there can be a legitimate Christian resort to violence to achieve change or whether it is ruled out? Quite often this say ing of Jesus is appealed to in order to argue for a rigid separa tion, which makes Christianity purely a thing of the spirit, to be conducted in isolation from the mundane matters which Chris tians are sometimes advised to avoid. Religion becomes an inte rior, spiritual matter, leaving the affairs of state overtly unaffected. In contrast, this writer argues the reverse, that in fact this important saying can be interpreted otherwise and leaves Christians free in the practical world. This can be done with one crucial provision: Christians cannot appeal to Jesus or to religious principles to justify their political/public activity. Each person must accept responsibility and justify his or her ac tions on his or her own. Although to say this may seem to compartmentalize religion, if seen in another way it actually authorizes any activity the in dividual may wish to undertake. It is just that he or she must take the responsibility for what is done. Nor does it claim that religion, particularly Christianity, is purely an internal, spiritual affair with no external applications. It simply affirms that if you feel compassion for those who are poor or suffering, this princi ple requires action on your part; you must undertake what you deem necessary without putting responsibility off on other's shoulders, particularly on Jesus's. Jesus clearly did not use vio lence and seems to have preached against its use. If you think that violence is now needed to release human beings from their suffering bonds, fine, but the means you adopt are your choice and the consequences are on your shoulders. Of course, most liberation theologians want to analyze Christian texts and tradi tions so that they justify their actions, even violence. Instead, God places all justification on our shoulders. Any argument that seems to imply that all Christians must or should support some one program of action cannot be justified in the long run. No argument within Christianity has received or can receive unanimous approval as expressing what all Chris tians must believe or do. This does not mean that all arguments claiming Christian support are equally valid, but it does mean that it is dangerous to try to fix one "Christian position" as bind ing on all. Intra-Christian differences have not ceased to exist This content downloaded from 157.55.39.255 on Mon, 01 Aug 2016 05:58:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE 273 and the only sense in which agreement might be attained would be if Christians ceased attempting to force some single form or program. Diversity may be Christianity's essence. If this could be accepted as fact, it might deter destructive arguments that make Christians appear headed toward unity but in fact pro mote division. One can live in South Africa and claim justification for one's racial views, although never without dispute, since on this thesis neither God nor Jesus enjoins any one program. However, the stress on love and the love of enemies is so central that one does need to reconcile any particular outlook with that theme of Christianity. The medieval who asserted the divine right of kings is as much at fault as the revolutionary who argues that Jesus offers liberation in a way that authorizes violence, if its use proves necessary to break "the ties that bind" persons in debilitating life styles. Surely Jesus not only did not resort to violence himself but in fact seems to have opposed it. Yet even that fact does not prevent the dedicated Christian from arguing for the necessity of violence as a means, if he or she is convinced that it is the only way to relax oppressive structure. One central problem with this interpretation will be spotted quickly both by dedicated revolutionaries and Christians who want liberation theology to result in social change. That is, ef fective liberation and revolutionary movements need unified support. To have the effectiveness needed dedication is re quired; they cannot simply sink into an "each do as one pleases" attitude. Effective revolutionary action is of necessity intolerant where any opposition to the new program is concerned. The classical liberal tolerance for diversity in viewpoints is not a vir tue that breeds success for revolutionary or liberation move ments. Such actions have not only often been intolerant of opposing views but have in fact come out of the viewpoint that the destruction of the opposition is a prime requirement for