Category Archives: liberation theology

Ernst Bloch-Atheism in Christianity

Peter Thompson left this comment today on an older post, and I think it deserves to be seen by all:

Dear All
one of the figures who has been largely forgotten or ignored in the whole debate about liberation theology is Ernst Bloch, who, as a Marxist, took as his starting point the attempt to define the message of exodus in the old and new testaments as a self-misunderstood rational for the uprising of the subaltern. Verso are just re-publishing this work in English translation and I think it could answer some of the debates going on on this (excellent) blog. He anticipates much of the stuff which Badiou, Zizek, Meillasoux etc. have argued and posits the possibility of transcendence without the transcendental. The book can be found at
or has an interesting and very good new introduction (hey, if I don’t say it no-one else will!)

I have heard about Bloch before but have yet to read him, but I’m glad Peter has brought this work (which was has written the introduction for) to light. As soon as it’s available for order I will definitely be checking this out. Of specific interest seems to be Bloch’s work on transcendence.  If anyone here is familiar with Bloch’s work I’d love to hear more…

Daniel Bell and (the failure of) forgiveness as resistance

Here is an excerpt from a much longer essay I completed this term entitled ‘Liberation Theology: Problems and Possibilities; Between Pragmatism and Metaphysics’. This section is a critical evaluation of Daneil Bell’s response to the liberation theology in his work ‘Liberation Theology After the End of History’ which was published in the radical orthodoxy book series.


2.2 Daniel Bell and forgiveness as resistance


Another voice emerging from within the radical orthodoxy movement in regards to liberation theology is Daniel Bell, who in his work Liberation Theology After the End of History[1] develops a full length critique of contemporary liberation theology in relation to the domination of western capitalism. Along with a critique, Bell identifies a potential future trajectory the liberationists could take to ‘save’ their movement; Bell identifies this as the ‘refusal to cease suffering’.

Among Bell’s major criticisms of liberation theology, and one very much in line with the previously mentioned critiques offered by Milbank, is that it lacks the ecclesiology[2] necessary to enact real liberation. Bell carries out this critique by drawing on both Deleuze and Foucault to show how the church has failed to provide ‘technologies of desire’ capable of forming individuals free from the ontological influence of capitalism. Bell identifies one of the major failures of the liberationists in their acceptance of the disciplines offered by capitalism.[3] For Bell, liberation theology has thus far failed to recognize that capitalism is more than just a political and economic system; it is in fact an inherently ontological system[4] that has shaped the way in which the modern individual perceives reality in itself. In a sense, Bell acknowledges the ‘victory’ of global capitalism, and hopes that the liberationist would realize this victory as well and move past any aspiration to resist or overthrow the systems in power.

Instead of any directly political opposition to capitalism, Bell instead argues that the church needs to oppose capitalism through the enacting of alternative technologies of desire for the purpose of enabling an alternative social, political, and economic formation.[5] In this way the church’s alternative technologies would teach individuals to ‘re-focus’ their desire, which has previously been formed through capitalism. Bell identifies confession, repentance, and penance as the key technologies of desire to be used by the church in opposition to the technologies of desire enacted by the capitalist order. These alternative technologies offered by the church are crucial for Bell because each involves the formation of forgiveness, which Bell notes is the “form of Christian resistance to capitalism”[6], as well as the condition of possibility for justice, which for Bell must always come after forgiveness.

These alternative technologies of desire enable the church to become what Bell refers to as the ‘crucified people’, which Bell locates among the base communities in Latin America.[7] These people are characterized by their ‘refusal to cease suffering’ and their radical and unconditional extending of forgiveness[8] towards any and all of their victimizers and oppressors. This model for the church is characterized by its use of forgiveness as a tool of resistance, which lies in opposition to the historical emphasis of the liberationists on justice, rather than forgiveness. Thus, the future of liberation theology envisioned by Bell is one in which the Church would not be militant in their opposition to the ruling economic, social, and political powers but would instead militantly forgive these powers for their continued oppression.

One of the glaring problems with Bell’s assessment, specifically in regards to capitalism, is his assumption that the church can somehow ‘escape’ capitalism and “succeed where very other social body has failed”.[9] Interestingly enough, Bell’s assessment sounds remarkably similar to the thesis put forward by philosopher Simon Critchley in his recent book Infinitely Demanding, where he argues that any new politics must exist at a distance from the state, and rather than attempting to abolish the state, this new politics must instead resist by bombarding the state with an infinite amount of impossible demands, not in order to do away with the state, but in order to ‘better’ it. In a review article of Critichley’s book, Slavoj Žižek asks, “[…] if the state is here to stay, if it is impossible to abolish it (or capitalism), why retreat from it? Why not act with(in) the state?”[10] Žižek goes on to give the example of individuals protesting against the US attack on Iraq that took place in 2003, and the way in which their ‘resistance’ did nothing but further encourage those in power. This passage is worth quoting at length:


“The protestors saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear that they don’t agree with the government’s policy on Iraq. Those in power calmly accepted it, even profited from it: not only did the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to attack Iraq; they also served to legitimize it. Thus George Bush’s reaction to mass demonstrations protesting his visit to London, in effect: ‘You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here – protesting against their government – will be possible also in Iraq!’”[11]


It is important to note the similarity between this act of political ‘resistance’ and the ‘refusal to cease suffering’ encouraged by Bell. What oppressive government wouldn’t want their poor and oppressed to ‘resist’ through forgiveness! How magnificent for the systems in power! They can continue to oppress the poor and marginalized of society, but rather than worry about potential uprisings, they can instead rely on the continued forgiveness of the people. Even better, these oppressive governments can instead ‘use’ their capitalist economic framework to develop new policies and programs that will encourage ‘development’ in the two-thirds world. In this way the ‘crucified people’ can continue to cease suffering, while the capitalist state can continue to increase its political and economic domination.

Before moving on it is necessary that we take heed of Ivan Petrella’s critique of Bell’s project, in which he emphasizes that:


“[…]the very notion of the refusal to cease suffering downplays the material plight of the Latin American (and world’s) poor. At stake is not just suffering or non-suffering but, as liberation theologians repeatedly stress, life and death. In this case, the refusal to cease suffering emerges as a death sentence. In life one may refuse to cease suffering, until death.” [12]


If liberation thought regards life as primary, then it is clear that Bell has little to offer the future of liberation theology.


[1] Daniel M. Bell, Jr., Liberation Theology After the End of History (London; Routledge, 2001)

[2] Ibid., p.3

[3] Ibid., p.8

[4] Ibid., p.9

[5] Ibid., p.72

[6] Ibid., p.186

[7] Ibid., pp.168-170

[8] Ibid., pp.192-193

[9] Ivan Petrella, The Future of Liberation Theology: An Argument and Manifesto (New York; Orbis Books, 2004), p.123

[10] Zizek, Slavoj. Resistance is Surrender, London Review of Books, 15 November 2007. Accessed:

[11] Ibid., p.5

[12] Petrella, The Future of Liberation Theology: An Argument and Manifesto, p.132, emphasis mine

Tagged , , ,

kierkegaard and politics

I am currently in the process of reading/writing for the purpose of preparing a paper I’m presenting at the Society for the Study of Theology annual meeting at the University of Durham next week. As the topic of the conference is ‘Theology and Politics’, I’m attempting to explore an alternative political subjectivity in the works of Kierkegaard. This is partly due to selfish reasons, as I want to figure out if it actually is possible to map out a non-deconstructive/postmodern political reading of Kierkegaard, as my projected PhD involves doing just that in relationship to contemporary french philosophy, and particularly in relation to the political ontology of Alain Badiou. Thus far the most exciting thing I’ve read is Kierkeggard’s Two Ages, which up until this point I had never read. I honestly think anyone reading Kierkegaard, and especially anyone looking for a solid political line to emerge in his thought, should read this book immediately. So far I have found that going back and reading Fear and Trembling, Practice in Christianity, and The Sickness Unto Death, with Two Ages in mind has really illuminated the political potential to be found within the work of Kierkegaard. I don’t have my notes with me at the moment, but I’ll try to post some of my favorite quotes from Two Ages in the near future. Along with this re-reading of political subjectivity in Kierkegaard, I am also going to (possibly) attempt to build a bridge between the political thought of Kierkegaard with recent Latin American Liberation Theology. Luckily, I stumbled across a passage in Mark Dooley’s The Politics of Exodus, in which he states that “..Kierkegaard’s God is the God of Liberation Theology…” (p. 19); this should help provide at least a smudge of credibility to making this claim. If anyone has any thoughts/advice/suggestions on re-thinking Kierkegaard’s political thought, please share.

Tagged , , ,