Boff Bros.

I read a bit more of "Introducing Liberation Theology" today. I'm unsure what to think so far. I think I could have three possible stances:

1) Liberation theology is not really Christian. Though some liberation theologists may be doing the right thing, most of them are using Christianity as an excuse to incite people to political action.

2) Liberation theology is basically Christian, meaning I should support it as another part of the body of the church, even if I am not to get involved in it much further than that, having another function to perform to which I've been called.

3) Liberation theology is the only/the best application of Christianity relevant to our age, or at least better than the one I have now. I should "convert" and get involved much more with it.

In a parallel thread, another vein of Christian teaching, which in recent memory has struck me as truth actually a bit more than the Christian Base Communities in Mexico did (although the language barrier and setting may have been important factors), tends to dismiss liberation theology as in Stance #1.

I myself would default to Stance #2.

As I read the Boffs' work, though, I mainly get the impression of Stance #2, but occasional statements and passages urge me to Stance #3, while other points seem to counter that, leading me to take Stance #1.

Aside from all of this, an argument could probably be made for taking Stance #2 even if Stance #1 is closer to the truth. In the spirit of tolerance and reasonability, this would be taking something fairly decent in the absence of something perfect. Of course, if Stance #3 is the most truthful, then that last statement is pretty insulting, and anybody could rightfully dismiss me as an armchair philosopher. Forgive me while I explore. In the meanwhile, I'm learning to live well with the few people I live closely with.

More soon, hopefully; otherwise, these books will be overdue before I get through them even once.