An Assessment of the Statement “Theologians must take sides” in Light of Liberation Theology

Discuss the meaning of this remark in light of Latin American liberation theology.

Liberation theology emerged in Latin America amid poverty and inequality (Stålsett 2013, 618). In the face of dire conditions, it emphasises responding to lived suffering rather than remaining abstract. Defined most simply, liberation theology is ‘the reflection and action that focuses on freeing humanity from oppression’ (Cooper 2015, 362). In terms of the remark ‘theologians must take sides,’ ‘taking sides’ implies siding with the oppressed and marginalised. Liberation theologians argue that refusing to take sides is itself a political and theological choice that preserves the status quo; they criticise traditional theologies that have been used to oppress others, and instead present Christianity as a force that should consequently free humanity (Ibid.).

Although the emphasis on praxis and solidarity with the poor is a significant corrective to detached theology and thus correctly challenges the myth of neutrality, liberation theology is, however, flawed when its political emphasis becomes overly dominant. In this essay, themes from liberation theology will be critically analysed to show how its theological framework may risk reducing Christianity primarily to social liberation.

Liberation theology is shaped by social context and finds its parallels in the social sciences (Stålsett 2013, 622). As it emphasises praxis, including reflection linked to action, and a model of contextualised theology that should transform unjust conditions (Cooper 2015, 362), liberation theology rejects detached academic theology. It emphasises the need for immediate action, presenting itself as ‘not a theological movement, but [a] theology in movement’ (Boff, cited by Cooper 2015, 362) concerning structural injustice. Neutrality is hence often presented as protecting existing power structures, and the ‘preferential option’ should instead be ‘for the poor’ (cited by Stålsett 2013, 617). Theology that claims neutrality, then, supports the status quo (Cooper 2015, 363).

Liberation theology argues that the Christian faith demands solidarity with the oppressed, not passive observation. This is evident in some Biblical narratives, including the Exodus, where God liberates the oppressed; in Jesus’ concern for the poor and marginalised (Lk 6:20-21 NIV); and in the fact that His Kingdom has social implications, when Jesus remarked that ‘the last will be first, and the first will be last’ (Mt 20:16, Mk 10:31, Lk 13:30). Actively taking the side of the poor is seen as an obligation that we ought to follow, knowing that we should ‘love our neighbour as ourselves’ (Lev 19:18), and that caring for the needy helps bring God’s Kingdom to the here and now.

It is true that liberation theology effectively exposes false neutrality. It is a call to action that challenges onlookers when they encounter the suffering of others, for otherwise one becomes a sharer in guilt (Stålsett 2013, 622). Encouraging action in the ‘here and now’ allows theology to engage with ethical responsibility and practicality, rather than mere theories on paper. According to Cooper (2015, 363), liberation theology focuses on the work actualising God’s ‘new heaven and new earth’ beyond a mere concept of a heavenly afterlife – one that seeks to embody God’s Kingdom within present social reality. One could draw parallels between actualising God’s Kingdom in the here and now and Jesus’ remark that the Kingdom is ‘in your midst’ (Lk 17:21), and that we could be partakers in the Kingdom. 

However, liberation theology falls short on political reductionism and its Marxist influence. Since much of liberation theology’s emphasis is on social justice and political action, always emphasising ‘taking sides’ would risk reducing Christianity to political liberation. As Cooper (2015, 365) notes, Catholic authorities began to denounce liberation theology in the 1980s because some strands adopted Marxist analysis, which the Vatican regarded as incompatible with Christianity due to its atheistic foundations. The Vatican argued that ‘atheism and the denial of the human person… are at the core of the Marxist theory’ (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith 1984, np). Since Christian salvation concerns more than social emancipation and also focuses on liberation from sin (Ibid.), Marxist influence may distort theological priorities by reducing salvation to political struggle. Nonetheless, despite these criticisms, liberation theology remains influential because it insists that theology has real social consequences, with social and religio-cultural realities closely interwoven (Parratt 2004, 13).

To conclude, liberation theology successfully interprets theology as inherently committed rather than neutral, with ‘taking sides’ involving siding with the poor against injustice. Although its political emphasis may occasionally be excessive, its challenge to passive theology remains compelling, in which the call to action demands sincere reflection on how believers should live out their faith and participate in God’s Kingdom by being the ‘light of the world’ (Mt 5:14-16).

Cooper, T., 2015. ‘Liberation Theology’, in M. Higton and J. Fodor (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Practice of Christian Theology, 1st edn, Routledge, pp. 362–378.

Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1984. Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation”. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html (Accessed: 14 May 2026).

Parratt, J., 2004. ‘Introduction’, in J. Parratt (ed.), An Introduction to Third World Theologies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–15.

Stålsett, S. J., 2013. ‘Liberation Theology’, in S. J. Kristiansen and S. Rise (eds.), Key Theological Thinkers: From Modern to Postmodern, Ashgate, Farnham, pp. 617–630.

The Holy Bible. New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.