Thanks for the thoughtful and articulate post, which I very much appreciatie. Be assured that there was no interest in heresy hunting as much as in clarifying terms for our readers here, also recognizing that prominent, militant factions of liberation theology remain.

That being said, the approach we have to the gospel at FIRE has been holistic from day one, and our missionaries around the world have often begun their work among the hurting and the poor. So, amen to your empahsis!

Liberation theology seems to have evolved from its once modern extreme roots, as you accurately call them, to something else regarding locally active fellowships at this time among the cultures mentioned. People groups in such cultures have become both weary of poverty and of militancy, where so. Note the parenthetical disclaimer of separation from militant political intentions given in citing this operating theology as present among many ecclesia groups in South American and Latin America. Note too my mention of what is called liberation theology being “active in fellowship,” in these venues. By definition fellowship must extend its inclusion to those addressed in the Sermon on the Plain and in other inclusive statements by Yeshua, our teacher.

In Paraguay for example, its beckoning winds for change based on what Yeshua called the weightier matters of the law played into the recent national elections because of the real human issues its scriptural basis raises with God’s people, and others, where so.

The Sermon on the Plain focuses on a different need than either faith’s fundamentals or any ill advised ends and means for human violence justifications (as past escribed to pre post modern liberation theology) regarding the basis of real fellowship offered to all souls in the Kingdom of God; these are basic dignity needs about which Jesus gave a similar posture and nonfundamental answers too to whether He was the One when John the Baptist’s disciples came to so inquire of Him while John was stuck in prison (and feeling not liberated indeed). These are the kind of nonfundamental religious issues which the Jerusalem council gave creedence too in not yoking the Gentiles with the ways of the traditions developed around the law of Moses.

It seems vital to your call for a holistic approach to being disciples of Yeshua to include both of these outlooks Yehusa developes on what constitutes action and fellowship in the liberating Kingdom which Yeshua ushered in. Even in the Tanackh God mentions over and over a heart toward e poor and needy, call it a preference if you will. Reading these passages of scripture from the mind of the Master the lens shifts to a larger picture of what constitutes the good news of the Messiah, as to its bases for inclusion, call for action, and outlook of a social as well as doctrinal responsibility of neighbor to neighbor. Who deserves such inclusion of equal regard and promise seems to be in the words spoken and the actions advocated in these passages by Yeshua. This seems too to represent a wind of the Spirit as to what constitutes post modern liberation theology, as is written of today even by Protestant American Missionaries to these cultures as a positive development.

In our quest for heresy hunting, and labeling of theological error may we not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Liberation theology often contains a serious mixture of truth with error, sometimes espousing violence against the government and sometimes denying fundamentals of the faith in an extreme liberalism.

So, we must recapture the holistic emphasis of the gospel without falling prey to the errors of extreme liberation theology.

But lets not forget the kids around the world, homeless orphans. I dont know about you, but as a parent that gives me the chills to think of my little boy as an orphan on the streets. You dont even have to go there, just find a reliable organization and make a pledge. We use Arms of Love, specifically the one in Nicaragua.