Father James Martin on Liberation Theology

I've enjoyed his books and webcast, so I was interested to see what the Jesuit who is the priest of The Colbert Report had to say about a topic that Glenn Beck has induced so much agitation over:

Briefly put, liberation theology (there are many definitions, by the way) is a Gospel-based critique of the world through the eyes of the poor. Contrary to what Beck implies, the liberation theologian doesn’t see himself or herself as victim; rather proponents call us to see how the poor are marginalized by society, to work among them, to advocate on their behalf, and to help them advocate for themselves. It has nothing to do with seeing yourself as victim. It is, like all authentic Christian practices, “other-directed.”


It also sees the figure of Jesus Christ as the “liberator,” who frees people from bondage and slavery of all kinds. So, as he does in the Gospels, Christ not only frees people from sin and illness; Christ also desires to free our fellow human beings from the social structures that keep them impoverished. This is this kind of “liberation” that is held out. Liberation theologians meditate on Gospel stories that show Christ upending the social structures of the day, in order to bring more — uh oh — social justice into the world. Christians are also asked to make, as the saying goes, a “preferential option for the poor.”

What do you think the term "Christian" means?

I ran across a critique of an assessment of what prominent atheist author feels is important in being a genuine Christian.  The critique felt the assessment was inaccurate.  Here is the quote of the criteria used to determine whether one should be be counted as a Christian:


Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

I don't think it is the statement itself is inaccurate, but how such statements (and the creeds from which they derive) have been understood and used which is problematic.

For example, even the Roman Catholic Church calls the resurrection a mystery. If we take the narrowest possible meaning out of a particular historical-cultural context, then words like "resurrection" and "sin" become fixed in a particular frame, say, a Calvinist style model invoking human depravity and substitutionary atonement. "God" also becomes somewhat fixed as a Patriarchal King and Judge.

If we use that kind of thinking, then Hitchen's statement is indeed too limited. But does that mean we should totally abandon such statements and ignore the most ancient and universal of the creeds?