Theology in the Americas: Civil Religion vs. Liberation Theology

In this essay, I would like to address the issue of how Civil Religion and Liberation Theology are juxtaposed.  This essay will focus on an article written by John A. Coleman, who at the time of this writing, was a Jesuit priest teaching theology at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley, California.

Coleman defines civil religion as "the mystic chord of communal memory (always being summoned to reinterpretation in face of new historic tasks) which ties together both the nation's citizenry and the episodes of its history into a meaningful identity by using significant national beliefs, events, persons, places, or documents to serve as symbolic repositories of the special vocational significance of the nation-state in the light of a more ultimate  or transcendent bar of judgment, ethical ideals, humanity, world history, being, the universe of God (Coleman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 114)."  He summarizes this definition by saying that civil religion is "the religious dimension in the national political experience (Coleman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 115)."

Here Coleman alludes to how civil religion makes sacred the political and social mindset that seeks to give the impression that what is socially and politically is equivalent to what is in the mind of God.  In other words, this mindset indicates that God's rubber stamp and seal of approval are embedded in the present economic, political, and social institutions.

While as Coleman points out later on in his article, the U.S.A is not unique in having a civil religion, American civil religion is more pronounced in concepts such as "under God," and "for God and country."  The ideal of "Manifest Destiny" also comes into play here. The reader is advised and encouraged to examine these concepts more thoroughly for herself/himself.

Coleman goes on to compare American civil religion with Latin American Liberation Theology.  He says that in a paradoxical way, the best strands of America's civil religion is a liberation theology, and that Latin American Liberation Theology is an attempt to create a civil religion.   According to Coleman, both have in common their being political theologies, both stress the relevance of the historical experience of the community as the locus for critical religious reflection, both are future oriented, premised on a pervasive hope for a more just this-worldly future.

This writer (yours truly) believes that while there may be some similarities (superficial, albeit) between the two, that there are also fundamental differences.  On the one hand, American civil religion tends to give sacred meaning to the history and present socio-political status quo, while on the other hand, Latin American theology calls the status quo into question and considers it as a demonic and evil entity. American civil religion carries an interfaith mindset that reflects the religious diversity of the U.S.A.  Latin American theology emerges out of a rereading of the Christian traditions and restatement of the Gospel. American civil religion gives the impression that God and America are one and the same. Latin American theology, on the other hand emerges from the struggle of oppressed and suffering people to not only reform, but to transform the structures of society.

You, the reader, are invited to share you views on this. Tell us if you think that American civil religion is a liberation theology, and that Latin American theology is a civil religion. Your input is important and valuable.

Grace and peace,

Dr.  Juan A. Ayala-Carmona