Friday, October 25, 2024

Part I

---

Marxism Meets Theology: The Death of Liberation Theologian Gustavo Gutierrez Raises Big Theological Issues

We’re going to turn soon to questions, but first I want to turn to an obituary. For a very good reason, obituaries turn out sometimes to be absolutely explosive in terms of opportunity for reflection. You look at an obituary of someone, say, very famous around the world. You read the obituary and you all of a sudden reflect upon the meaning of that life. But I really enjoy finding obituaries of people who are not famous. But nonetheless, they do help me to understand some aspect of life. Well, somewhere between those two is the obituary I want to mention, and this has to do with the fact that a well-known prophet of the poor, he was known, a Roman Catholic priest by the name of Gustavo Gutierrez. In Peru, this man lived and died. He died just days ago at age 96.

Now, what makes the life and thought of Gustavo Gutierrez so important for us is that he was, in so many ways, one of the founding fathers of the movement that was known as Liberation Theology. Okay. In order to understand that we’ve got to go back at least to the 1960s. So, you go back to the 1960s and a lot of things are taking place. One thing, you had the rise of anti-colonialism around the world. You had the foment that came with the development of what was known as the Third World, the non-aligned world, and you had certain meetings that were taking place. One way to describe this, the historian Paul Johnson calls this the Suharto generation referring to the prime minister of Indonesia at the time, very much a leader of this non-aligned world, the Third World.

But you also had the basic conflict of economic and political systems between the west, both democratic and constitutional, and committed to a free market economy, which is at least a form of capitalism. And in so much of the East, and you’re talking about the Eastern Bloc, you’re talking about the Soviet Union, you’re talking about communist China, communist. By the time you get to the 1950s, you look at that and you recognize, “All right. You are going to be looking at a time of incredible revolution.” That’s why the ’60s are often referred to as the Decade of Revolution and the year 1968, as a crucial year in the entire history of the 20th century with student riots and rebellions, all kind of unrest on both sides of the Atlantic in both Europe and in North America.

But Gustavo Gutierrez is down there in Peru, and what he buys into is the idea that the classical Christian structure, the classic understanding of the Christian faith has missed the point. And that the point is actually the good news of the liberation of the poor. That’s the job of the church. Now, you can’t have this movement in theology without a larger movement in the society, and that movement really is Marxism. And so, you understand that the liberation theologians were taking Marxism, and I would have to admit to greater and lesser degree, but you can’t have liberation theology without Marxism. And in many cases, such as Gustavo Gutierrez, it’s a pretty classical Marxist paradigm. So, they’re taking Marxism in the political and economic sphere, and they’re translating that into a theological method. That theological method became known as liberation theology.

It became associated with concepts not only including Marxism, but also what was referred to as the preferential option for the poor. And so, the argument that was behind the preferential option for the poor is that God’s on the side of the poor and the oppressed. Well, okay, there is a lot of Scripture to say that’s so. And when it comes to God being on the side of the oppressed. Well, that’s pretty clear in the Old Testament. It’s also pretty clear in the New Testament. But it is not the gospel, and it’s not the oppressed who are God’s covenant people. It is the nation of Israel.

And so, we understand that God is deeply concerned with oppression in every form, and he will hold every oppressor to account. But when it comes to the Old Testament and the New Testament, neither one is a manifesto for communist revolution. It’s just not there. And frankly, Marxism is based upon explicitly atheistic foundations, and any theological appropriation of Marxism is going to be a predictable disaster. But that’s exactly what liberation theology was. And Gustavo Gutierrez was right at the center of this writing from Peru. He died, as I said, in recent days at age 96. The other big theological focus of the liberation theologians was away from say the preaching of the gospel and the teaching of Scripture towards what they defined as praxis, that’s P-R-A-X-I-S.

And that is a classical Marxist term for political action, for action. In other words, they said the Christian Church says a lot of the right things about the poor, but it doesn’t join the revolution. And this was a pretty much boldface call for the Christian Church to join in a Marxist revolutionary platform. So, predictably, this ran into conflict with Roman Catholic leadership, the magisterium of the church and the succession of popes, because this really does reach back all the way into the 1960s, and in particular with Gutierrez all the way back to the 1970s.

It was in 1971 that he published in Spanish, his book that became translated in the United States in 1973 as a Theology of Liberation. And so, you’re looking at decades of controversy. But here’s what’s interesting, even as you had during the pontificate of John Paul II, a crackdown of sorts on this kind of theological mischief, as the Pope saw it, he also assigned to a crucial officer in the Vatican, to commission a report conclusively dealing with liberation theology. And Gustavo Gutierrez, that person was Joseph, Cardinal Ratzinger who was head of the Vatican Doctrine office. And then when John Paul II died, Cardinal Ratzinger became the Pope and John Paul II’s successor. And under the pontificates of John Paul II, and of especially Pope Benedict XVI, as he became known, there was a suppression on liberation theology.

But then after Ratzinger leaves the papacy, he is followed by Pope Francis, famously an Argentinian who by the way had not supported in an activist way liberation theology, but certainly is far more open to it. And that was made very clear within the last decade with the Vatican, in essence, honoring Gustavo Gutierrez and saying that there was at least good in his theological system to be incorporated in official Catholic teaching. But I just want to point out that if you go back to the 1960s in the 1970s, there were some really aberrant theological trajectories that started to take root. And you know what? If you look at American theological education, certainly liberal institutions, they became all sold out to liberation theology, all sold out to praxis and a preferential option for the poor. Some of them also went wholesale into process theology and other basically very disastrous theological proposals.

But here’s the thing that I noted when I was a theology student back in the 1980s and actually beginning in the year 1980, here’s what I noted. The liberation theology that was preached by so many of these institutions wasn’t matched by the actions these institutions took. It’s one thing to say be a professor at Harvard and to be all in favor of liberation theology and the preferential option for the poor. But guess what? Harvard isn’t giving up its endowment. And so, liberation theology was very disclosive to me. What it disclosed to me is the hypocrisy of those who adopt some form of theological liberalism and then frankly don’t even have the courage of their convictions to live out the revolution they just declared to have joined.

So, let me put it this way, before we turn to questions. If you are a former liberal professor in a liberal theological institution, a liberal seminary or divinity school, and you were a proponent of liberation theology, and you’re right now living off of your 401(k) or your retirement plan, guess what? You’re not really a liberation theologian. You just said you were.

Part II

---

How Should Christians Think About an Obituary? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Okay. So, now, let’s turn to questions. And I’m going to start with a question about obituaries. How good is this? Had a kind listener write in about obituaries. And this listener from Massachusetts says, “My husband and I are longtime listeners of The Briefing.” And she goes on to say, “My question for you is about obituaries. You often will comment on the death of a public figure, famous or infamous, which I think can be helpful and informative. I’ve struggled with obituaries written for several members of my extended family.” While she goes on to talk about what most of us know in extended family. And that is you’ve got all kinds of things no one wants to put in an obituary. You’ve got a lot of things no one’s going to eulogize at a funeral, and particularly perhaps in a small church or a small community, basically everybody knows, but nobody’s saying it out loud.

Sometimes these stories can point to the power of grace. Sometimes, quite honestly, they don’t. And so, I just want to point out that the obituaries that I deal with on The Briefing are generally journalistic obituaries. And so, that does occasion a distinction. Journalistic obituaries are obituaries that are written journalistically. That is to say they at least intend to give both sides.
And so, I think it’s interesting that even in a paper like The New York Times or The Guardian in London, very liberal newspaper, and that was one of the obituaries of Gustavo Gutierrez that I cited. You look at those and you realize they are saying at least there were those who were critics, and there were those who were admirers of Gustavo Gutierrez. And here’s something of an evaluation of the impact of his life. And you can look at major obituaries that are journalistic, and at least in theory, they’re writing for history what was the meaning of this life?

So, okay, the second kind of obituary is the family or the community obituary. And that can be very, very different. So, I’ll admit, I read the obituaries in the local newspaper, sometimes find a surprise there. But you know what? You very seldom find criticism there. You very seldom find any real say analysis of the impact of a person’s life. Instead, it’s written, number one, as something of a death notice just to let people know. And secondly, it is something of an honorific. And so, I just want to join with this listener to The Briefing in saying, “You don’t take those obituaries at face value.” Even something in The New York Times, which is a journalistic obituary or The Wall Street Journal or for that matter, The Times of London, and I actually have books, books collected obituaries in The Times of London and The New York Times, and it’s a way of learning history, just reading those obituaries.

You should see the obituaries at the time on both sides of the Atlantic, say, after the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. They are astoundingly disclosive. But that’s not what I expect from what’s called an obituary or a statement of death found in a local newspaper or newsletter. It’s very different. And I just want to say and to this listener, you’re onto something and that is that death provides a moment of clarity, but only if we seize it, because death also means that that clarity can be forgotten very quickly. And so, that’s one of the reasons why. And here I’m going to leave the issue of a print obituary and just say in terms of family conversation and memory, there needs to be an honest Christian assessment on the part of Christian families about what this individual’s life meant.

And I do think that can be a very healthy process for a family. And it’s not necessarily something you do the week the individual has died, but it is something you need to do while the memories are still very fresh. I want to give one last note, and this listener raises this. One other reason that even printed obituaries are important is because in many ways they are the only accessible record that even those interested in genealogy can find. And so, sometimes even the rather imbalanced content found in those obituaries is essential to connecting the dots even when it comes not only to that individual, but others as well. But one final thought on this is that it is simply true, and this letter writer, this listener, helps to make this very clear. The way we remember is a matter of moral accountability and Christians understand this. We better understand this if no one else understands this. We are really morally accountable to remember things in moral terms and in spiritual terms, and not just let those issues disappear into a haze of memory.

Part III

---

How Should First Time Voters Approach the Upcoming Election? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Okay. I love another question, and this is coming from a couple, and they say that they have two children who will be first-time voters this year. How exciting is that. In one home, one family, two children, first-time voters, and these parents write, “As we are processing this upcoming presidential election, how would you advise first-time voters wanting to honor God and their civic duties to think about the upcoming presidential election?” There’s more to the question, but you pretty much figure out the question because this is life for us right now and for at least the next, oh, I don’t know, something like 10 days, that’s where we are. Okay. What are we going to do?

Well, my advice to first-time voters is the same as my advice to other voters, and that is older Christian voters. And that is we’ve got to take every election in the terms that’s handed to us. We have to understand that an election is a matter of stewardship. That if you don’t vote, you are just overvaluing all the other votes. So, even if you don’t vote in a system in which you have a vote, you are not morally neutral. There’s no moral neutrality. You may not even in a presidential election say, “I don’t think I can vote for either A or B. I can’t vote for R or D.”

Well, I understand that there will be some who in candor and honesty are going to reach that point. But you also have to acknowledge that not voting is, again, a way of overweighting even the other votes. You can’t escape some kind of responsibility. And I think when you take every election on its own terms, that means that as Christians, and I’ve been trying to talk about this for months on The Briefing, we have to get ourselves ready to know it is a contest of ideas, it is a battle of ideologies, and it is a conflict of worldviews. And we also understand that when you look at the two political parties in the United States, neither one of them is a Christian party. And I think there are some conservatives who are tempted to see the Republicans as the Christian party. And that’s not wrong in terms of where you’re going to find most Christians voting and identifying, but it’s clear that Christians are not in the driver’s seat of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party knows it has to have our votes, but it’s not putting us in the driver’s seat that’s been made abundantly clear. On the other hand, by taking the election in the terms it’s given to us, we have to understand that sometimes you vote to elect, and sometimes you vote to try to avoid someone being elected. You have votes positively for someone about whom you’re very excited. You also have votes against someone you see is particularly ominous.

And this is where I want to tell Christians and first-time voters, this is really important. Look at the actual policies and the positions and the people involved and just do an analysis based upon biblical conviction as to how you need to vote. I unapologetically point out that every voter has a certain set of priorities. And I don’t apologize for the issue of abortion and the protection of unborn life being at the very top of my priorities given the issues of the day. But that is always tied to other issues. And so, it happens that increasingly the vast majority of Americans already know whether they belong in R or D. And D is overwhelmingly more liberal, overwhelmingly, well, higher educated. They’ll tell you, overwhelmingly more secularized.

And when it comes to R, well, again, I think Christians can say you often take us for granted. On the other hand, we are looking at a very significant difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties. And when it comes to issues from abortion, you go down the list. And so, as we get to the election, it’s very clear that most voters are going to know what set of policies they want to put into place. But you still have the complex of the people. You still have the character issue, the personality issue. And honestly, I think that’s particularly excruciating in this election. So, welcome to your first-time election. You just got handed a really tough one. However, I do want to say that I don’t think the major media are contextualizing this honestly. I do not see a threat to democracy and a defender of democracy. I see when I speak of, by the way, democracy being our democratic constitutional system, I see two people who are each in his and her own way, enemies of that system or endangerments to that system. So, I’m not saying in any event that you can vote without risk. I don’t think it’s ever been true by the way, even in elections that felt a lot easier. I don’t think we can vote without risk.

And I often say to Christians, in terms of the Christian biblical and moral calculus, if you cannot take an option that is without risk, moral risk, you better take the option that brings the lower moral risk. Now, I’m going to have to come back to this at some point as we get even closer to the election. But at this point, well, that’s pretty much I think where we are. And that’s why you’re looking at probably only 1% to 3% of the population that actually vote in any honest sense, not already knowing exactly how that voter will vote.

And honestly, when it comes to that, say very small percentile, they’re the percentile who probably also aren’t exactly certain how or why they will vote as they will eventually vote. That’s one thing Christians better have right up front.

Part IV

---

Should Christians Vote? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

And along these lines, I appreciate a plea that it’s identified as an urgent plea coming in from an evangelical pastor saying, “If you look back to the last election and you understand that the difference in votes with something like just 7 million votes, they’re 40 million evangelical Christians. If those evangelical Christians don’t vote, then we can find ourselves facing a political reality that is exactly what we don’t want to see.”

And some people are just emotionally, maybe even intellectually depressed about the election, politically depressed. But the reality is your vote’s really going to matter. And I think this pastor is exactly right. I do not think that simply trying to resign from the question or shrugging our shoulders is an appropriate Christian response. And as this pastor rightly says, the math just underlines the fact that every missing vote is going to turn out to be an especially crucial vote.

Part V

---

What Are Christian Parents to Do If They Cannot Send Their Kids to Christian Schools? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

But next, I’m going to take a question from a listener, and let me just say I really appreciate listeners who send in questions, even when the questions have a certain edge to them, this one does. This is a direct response to the article that I published at World Opinions this week and also to what I presented on The Briefing this week concerning classical education and educational options and Christian responsibility and basically big concerns about the public schools. And so, I just want to read this part because it does have an edge to it. But I think it’s an honest edge. So, I appreciate the listener writing with candor. “What would you advise Christian families or parents to do who have no choice between the public school system? You and many others often speak of moving to alternative educational systems, but that often comes across as a lofty ideal that is completely out of touch with the reality faced by so many of us who cannot sit on our elevated perspectives and opine about which course of action to take.”

So, ouch, yeah, I feel the edge on that, and I can just tell you that the last thing I want to do is to sit on an elevated perspective and opine. I also hope I’m not out of touch with reality, kind of been there in my own way, and I’m in constant conversation and fellowship in church on this campus and elsewhere with Christian parents trying to struggle with the same questions. But I’m not dismissing the premise of the question here. So, if I were dismissing it, I wouldn’t read it and talk about it. I’m reading it and talking about it because I think this is a family that clearly is indicating that they don’t see an option right now. And so, I’m not going to argue about that. I do want to say I think it would be really healthy if in the context of your believing local church, you got some other parents together and said, “Okay. Let’s just try to figure this out. Let’s see what options we may have.”

Because my guess is you do have options you’re not seeing yet. And I’ve just seen, I mean, my wife and I, honestly, to be a part of that 20 something years ago when it came to our own children, we had to be a part with other parents that creating something. And I think that was a good experience. It was not an easy experience, but it was a good experience. And so, I won’t go into great detail here. I just want to encourage you. And by the way, thanks for the letter. Again, thanks for being honest. So, right now, what do you do? So, let me just say, I think you may even to figure out at some point with other Christians what options you do have before you.

But let me just step back and say nonetheless, you are a homeschooling couple. And what I mean by that is that God has made your home a school. And so, at the very least, here’s my direct encouragement. Be so engaged with your children in exactly what they’re learning and how they’re learning and exactly what they’re doing in such a way that you are shaping that in your home from a Christian biblical perspective. And you are just doing everything you can to cultivate the hearts of your children and to know exactly what’s being cultivated and planted in those hearts.

And you are actively and eagerly and consistently really being parents in this and leaning into it. And in that sense, your home is a homeschool. I’m not saying you put a shingle out front. I’m not saying you sign up for newsletter. I’m not saying you tell people you’re homeschooling. I’m simply saying that if you’re Christian parents, your home is a school. And I like the way the old reformers put it and the puritans that the home is the first civilization. It is the first court, it is the first hospital, it is the first church, and it is the first school. So, I don’t know. It was probably worth just our consideration of this question just to get to that sentence. Inescapably, the Christian home is a school. And I’m just going to say right now, I’m just praying the Lord will give this couple who wrote this question, this dad who wrote this question on behalf of the family, I pray the Lord will give you wisdom, and I’m thankful the Lord has given you these precious children, and I appreciate the fact you feel the stewardship of that.

Part VI

---

Can Satan Disguise Himself as Anything? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Okay. But the final question goes to an 18-year-old girl, 18-year-old young woman who writes in from Florida, and I really appreciate her listening and writing. Here’s what she says, “I love your show. My favorite part is that it is from a Christian worldview.” And then she says, “Can Satan disguise as anything? He disguised himself as a serpent to Adam and Eve. So, could Satan be disguised as fictional characters like Frankenstein or characters in The Lord of the Rings?”
Well, thank you for a great question. So, great, smart question. And I want to start by just looking at the exact way the question’s asked. Can Satan disguise as anything? Well, I think the Scripture is clear that evidently Satan can do many of those things. Whether he can do all those things, I don’t know. But I do know that he is very subtle and he’s very sinister and he is very clever.

But I like the way the question’s asked. He disguised himself as a serpent to Adam and Eve. So, could Satan be disguised as fictional characters like Frankenstein or characters in Lord of the Rings. There is so much there I’d love to jump into, and I’m doing a project right now on Tolkien and his influence on Christianity in the 20th century. But here’s a point I want to make. I think the best way I can answer is to say, I think Satan can be represented by any number of these characters. Because the characters aren’t real, I’m not going to ascribe the fact that Satan can become these characters. I’m simply going to say I think it is very possible for Satan to be represented by these characters. And I think the Tolkien in contrast to Bram Stoker actually did understand what he was attempting to represent. And I think Tolkien was seeking to do so faithfully. I think what you see in the 19th century in characters such as Dracula and then representations into the 20th and 21st centuries, what you see is a more secular mind trying to come to terms with the reality of evil.

Wow. So many issues raised in this letter. I really appreciate receiving it. And so, I’m just going to say I think that Satan can disguise himself as many things. I’m not going to give him credit for having the power to disguise as anything. And I’m going to say that he no doubt draws great pleasure from being represented or depicted in any way that is short of biblical truth.