## Liberating Eschatology

Christ and the Holy Spirit, both in the early Church and throughout the historical development of Christianity, have served to bridge the mysterious divide which exists between God and humanity. In the earliest congregations, and throughout the consequent theological developments of the Church through history, the God-world relationship has taken on a variety of conceptual forms. These are premised and discussed with regard to the meaning and significance of divinity of Jesus, his Messianic function in the world, and the indwelling of humans through the very presence of God in the Holy Spirit. And yet, despite these most basic premises of a Christian worldview which attempt to identify some link between God and the world, there remains an inscrutable legacy of binary and dualistic appraisals of ontology as it concerns the natural and the supernatural, the physical and spiritual, spirit and matter, and so on.

Marx's critique of ideology and his reframing of consciousness on material grounds, identifies a weakness in contemporary expressions of religion and ideology. A more unified vision of the relationship between God and man, or likewise, the participation of man in the divine life of God, plays a foundational role in recasting a Christian response to Marx's ontological critique of religion. Specifically, a reconsideration of the theology of the early Church, offers grounds for a non-dual, ontological understanding of the transcendent (i.e. spirit and matter).[^1] Following this, we uncover in the early church a strong witness to the immediate material import predicated by the immanent nature of the kingdom of God. By a reconsideration of the ontological unity in the relationship between God and man, the notion of eschatology, as it may be traditionally conceived within a dualistic framework, takes on a shape consonant with Marxist conceptions of existence as individual in society and world.

This analysis will begin by exploring how early Liberation theology, specifically Gustavo Gutierrez, appropriated Marxist thought in his reconsideration of eschatology and the church's function in the world. Gutierrez recasts traditional theological categories of salvation and the eschaton using immanent, material interpretations of the scriptural message; he writes, in the opening chapters of his *A Theology of Liberation*, "the rediscovery of the *eschatological* dimension in theology has also led us to consider the central role of historical praxis." Thusly, he orients social, economic and political liberation directly within the function of the church in the world. In so doing, a theology of liberation concretizes the salvific work of Christ as occurring in and through the church. For Gutierrez then, the church becomes the vehicle for the eschatological manifestation of Christ and God in the world.

However, despite, these responses to Marx in reshaping theology to account for the historic material circumstances of people in the world, liberation theologies lack a properly developed response to Marx's critique of religion: the ontological aspects, ideological implications and the mediating connections between them.[^2] In his criticism in *The German Ideology* specifically, Marx underscores the basic function of "idealism" as inverting reality by placing man as a subject to what is in essence a predicate of his own experience.[^3] This, likewise, buttresses ideological subject-formation which fails to account for the reality that ideology itself is developed out of the life-process and material circumstances of an individual. In turn, religion leads both to alienation of man from himself, and the exploitative misuse of dominant ideologies by ruling classes to reconcile people to evil in the world.[^4] Marx develops this critique likewise in the introduction to *Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's* Philosophy of Right, as well as his response to Bruno Bauer, *On the Jewish Question*. Theologies of liberation, like that of Gutierrez, are pointed and effective in the way they reconcile the alienating and oppressive tendencies of ideology. What is underdeveloped is the way in which theology can accommodate for Marx's ontological critique of religion. In failing to provide a ontological basis for religion that embraces the historical and materialist orientation of Marxist critique, it is arguable, however, that the ideological improvements are divorced of their efficacy.[^5] Gutierrez, and others like José Miguez Bonino, do point toward the theological bases for ontologically reconciling Christianity with Marxist critique by asserting more unified grounds of existence between God and the world. However, they fail to develop a framework that sufficiently addresses the conceptual necessity of a reworked ontology of humankind.[^6]

In the final section of this analysis, we will exegete some excerpts from the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans using the lens of Marx's critique of religion. A close reading, in its historic context, can respond to Marx's critique and show, in fact, how his own criticism of religion and ideology are actually preceded by Paul's theology. First, the analysis will show how Paul can be read as a partner in the battle against ideology as a vehicle of alienation. And additionally, it will point to Paul's emphasis on the Spirit as a more precise ontological basis for religion and therefore the foundation for a legitimate appropriation of Marxist critique within Christian theology that is not subject to epistemological or ideological formulations.

It should be emphasized—it is not merely that Christian theology must reshape its identity to make accommodations for Marxist criticism. Nor that theology must "compromise" in an attempt to remain relevant. If either of these are the starting point, then one risks simply proceeding with what is both bad Marxism, and bad Christian theology. Rather, the heuristic for this analysis, simply stated, is that Marx's critique of religion, and vision for a future society were already present in the early church. And it is in this spirit, following an exposition of Paul in concert with Marx's critique of religion, that we will conclude by recapitulating the basic ontological premise of a theology of liberation which reenvisions the immanent nature the eschaton, and the kingdom of God. This non-dual understanding of the transcendence of God stands in consonance with the Messianic role of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the God-world relationship. By amending this insufficiently developed ontology in early Liberation theologies, and building on it with a reinterpretation of Paul's epistles, we find ourselves in a place where theology can adequately dialogue with the Marxist perspective on history.

The goal of this analysis will be to identify a path forward for Christian theology in appropriating Marxist historical materialism: that is, the unified ontological grounds of existence in the divine life of God through the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit. While we intend to identify this ontological basis, what is done here must be followed by more thorough pneumatological development, (e.g. what is the role of the Holy Spirit in history?) that shows how this approach can contribute to *both* Christian and Marxist thought. In conclusion, we will preface further development, by reframing one particular realm of thought that can be more deeply considered in response to our proposed ontological framework—eschatology. Ultimately, through Gutierrez, Marx and Paul, we discover that the power of the Holy Spirit, in freeing us from the domination of ideology, also liberates us from the alienating power of eschatology itself.

## Eschatology in Gustavo Gutierrez's A Theology of Liberation

First, we return to Gutierrez's opening sentiments as quoted in the introduction, as it is worth representing in full to outline the basis stakes of his theology: [...] [T]he rediscovery of the *eschatological dimension* in theology has also led us to consider the central role of historical praxis. Indeed, if human history is above all else an opening to the future, then it is a task, a political occupation, through which man orients and opens himself to the give which gives history its transcendent meaning: the full and definitive encounter with the Lord and with other men. "To do the truth," as the Gospel says, thus acquires a precise and concrete meaning in terms of the importance of action in Christian life. Faith in a God who loves us and calls us to the gift of full communion with him and brotherhood among men not only is not foreign to the transformation of the world; it leads necessarily to the building up of that brotherhood and communion in history.[^7] This quote aids us in identifying the premises which form the bases for liberation theology's appropriation of Marx and its relationship to eschatology. It is worth, first, acknowledging that the Gospel message is seen as the assurance of a world defined by "full communion with [God] and brotherhood among men."[^8] Here, however, we must being by exploring the basic methodology of Gutierrez's eschatology. The main assertions, as we see them in this quote are twofold: first, that this "encounter with the Lord" rather than being "transcendent" is to be located within history; and second that the Church has a responsibility to pursue this "transformation of the world" in and through history. We will further explicate these essential premises with an exegesis of Gutierrez theology. The first premise, is essentially a theological interpretation of the eschatological work of Christ in the world. Nevertheless, it lays the important groundwork for Gutierrez to appropriate Marxist critique vis-à-vis the ethical implicative that the Church is responsible for participating in the salvific work of Christ. The second premise is where we will discover the role of "sin" and the Holy Spirit. Here, we will explore how Gutierrez does not develop a sufficient unideological framework for the Church to coherently embrace a Marxist mode of historical materialism, and the consequent power to critique, without falling into contradiction. However, it will also be where we uncover the Holy Spirit as a jumping off point from which we can develop an ontological formulation on which Christian theology can account for Marx's ontological critique of religion.

One of the motivations for Gutierrez's relocating of Christological salvation *within* history is to overcome the unfruitful dualisms intrinsic to overly spiritualized interpretations of salvation.[^9] That is, for Gutierrez, individual salvation (as well as the eschaton), cannot be relegated as a mere escape unto a supernatural, ahistorical or "transcendent" realm of being (i.e. individually or societally): [T]here are not two histories, one profane and one sacred, "juxtaposed" or "closely linked." Rather there is only one human destiny, irreversibly assumed by Christ, the Lord of history. His redemptive work embraces all the dimensions of existence and brings them to their fullness. *The history of salvation is the very heart of human history*.[^10] The implications of this standpoint undergird his non-dualistic view of eschatology, that is, whatever salvation future may exist, it comes to be only in and through history. "It is not sufficient," he writes, "to acknowledge that eschatology is valid in the future as well as in the present." Because eschatology must be linked intrinsically to history, (he calls it an "intrahistorical reality"[^11] ) the modern idea that eschatology can be both future and present leads inevitably to an alienating interpretation of the present state and supports a dualistic matter-spirit solution. Because of the close scriptural links between creation (specifically, in the material sense of the word and doctrine) and salvation, any interpretation that reifies a dualistic bifurcation of material versus spiritual salvation is not faithful to the Biblical narrative.[^12]

Despite the fact that Gutierrez takes many lengths to overcome the dualism which has been reified through traditional motifs of eschatological thought (overcoming the tension between the present and the future) he still accounts for an essential discontinuity by developing how "liberating historical events" aid in the growth of the Kingdom, but ultimately the Kingdom must arrive as a gift: [...] [W]e can say that the historical, political liberating even *is* the growth of the Kingdom and *is* a salvific event; but it is not *the* coming of the Kingdom, not *all* of salvation. [...] It is a distinction made from a dynamic viewpoint, which has nothing to do with the one which holds for the existent of two juxtaposed "orders," closely connected or convergent, but deep down different from each other.[^13] Ultimately, as much as Gutierrez emphasizes the role of the Church in the coming of the Kingdom, and as the mediator of the salvific work of Christ in the material realm, there remains a necessary acknowledgement that the Kingdom (in its totality) will come as part of a gift which still appears future and inaccessible to humankind in the present.[^14]

One underlying question which vivifies a dualistic matter-spirit interpretation of the eschatological unfolding of Christ's work in the world is *the role of sin.* For example, if the Christian is in fact "saved," and indwelled with God via the Holy Spirit, what role does can the "sinful state of being" play in the individual? What about in the fallen, material world? It would seem, sometimes, that the Christian is saved in the immaterial, ideological realm to act properly, but not in the realm of history as the promised, perfect material world has yet to arrived. A dualistic interpretation lends itself to bifurcating the realms of spirit and matter (as Gutierrez has previously alluded too) in an attempt to rectify this issue. It is, therefore, not a surprise that he continues to attempt to develop a harmartiology which can be assimilated into his historical and material interpretation of the salvific work of Christ. Gutierrez notes the tendency of historical interpretations of salvation—"theologies enthusiastic about human progress"—to imply a "naive optimism" and deny the role of sin.[^15] Instead, he recasts sin as a fundamental lack in individuals tied to and also preventing the historic unfolding of the social-eschatological dimension: [...] [I]n the liberation approach sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality—asserted just enough to necessitate a "spiritual" redemption which does not challenge the order in which we live. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men, the breach of friendship with God and with other men, and, therefore, an interior, personal fracture. [...] Sin is evident in oppressive structures, in the exploitation of man by man, in the domination and slavery of peoples, races and social classes. Sin appears, therefore, as the fundamental alienation, the root of a situation of injustice and exploitation.[^16] In other words sin does not transcend history. It can be tied specifically to a fundamental lack in humanity to fulfill the central purpose of overcoming alienation and achieving a communion among humankind. This communion is rooted in the very communion of the Triune God, and sin can be defined as anything that rejects the fullness of this participation in the life of God.[^17] Our participation in the life of God *is* the fundamental nature of God's being as communion—humankind as such can only achieve this liberated reality in communion with God, and communion with God can only be achieved through this liberation among men. Gutierrez unpacks this theme through the theological themes of justice, charity and love: "When justice does not exist, God is not known; he is absent;"[^18] "Charity, the love of God for men, is found incarnated in human love [...] and leads to its fullness;"[^19] "To love one's brother, to love all men, is a necessary and indispensable mediation of the love of God; it *is* to love God."[^20] All of these things, Gutierrez emphasizes are, and can only be, expressed essentially through "concrete action."[^21] This concrete action which fulfills the liberating work of salvation is set in opposition to sin.

How, then, can the imperative for "concrete action" be premised in a way that is unideological? Gutierrez implicates the role of the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit in this humanistic and material orientation of the actions of the individual: [...] Paul tells us: "It is in Christ that the complete being of the Godhead dwells embodied" (Col. 2:9; cf. Eph. 2:20-22; 1 Pet. 2:4-8). God manifests himself visibly in the humanity of Christ, the God-Man, irreversibly committed to human history.

Christ is the temple of God. This explains Paul's insistence that the Christian community is a temple of living stones, and that each Christian, a member of this community, is a *temple of the Holy Spirit* [...][^22] Here, we see already, (and to which we will return) that God's presence in humankind vis-à-vis the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit serves as a guiding *grundaxiom* in Paul's theology, and furthermore, his anthropology and its ethical implications. In the ecclesiological frame of thought concerning Pentecost, the immanence of God (through the Holy Spirit) in humankind accounts for the proper consideration of other Christians. It is likely with this in mind that Gutierrez ensures that the process of the indwelling of God in man through the incarnation and the Holy Spirit is of universal application and not merely to the Church; "Since God has become man, humanity, every man, history, is the living temple of God. The 'pro-fane,' that which is locate outside the temple, no longer exists."[^23] This notion of utter dignity of all humankind as sacred therefore forms the bases for an ontological implicative which upends the traditional notion of religion as being based on a fundamentally alienating ideology. Gutierrez, here, identifies—scripturally, and as it is evident through the witness of the early church and faithful to the pneumatological development throughout the centuries—the basis for a reframing of Christian theology that is grounded in a humanistic and historical materialist ontology. This, then is the ontological, framework can effectively respond to (and dialogue with) Marx's critique of religion.

That is, the Gospel can be recast as the message that humankind, is in fact *participating in the divine being of God,* rather than ascending or progressing *unto the divine being of God*: in this way, we are confronted with both the dignity of all humankind and the immanence of God in the present; *rather than*, being both alienated from our essence as human by imperative ascent to God, and alienated by the notion of a future divine state which is inaccessible in the present.[^24] In other words, humanity and world are no longer profane, but sacred and *divine*.[^25] It is unclear whether or not Gutierrez considers the ontological premises expressed in this way as necessary to his theology. As we have shown, Gutierrez does seem to lean on the first premise (i.e. the dignity of all men) without explicitly asserting that humankind participates in the being of God.[^26] It is, however, implied by the idea that Christ has given the dignity of God to humankind, and the Holy Spirit has taken up its presence in church, people, and the creation.[^27] It should be apparent, as the perennial conflict in theology would attest, that this does not square with traditional consideration of "sin." This conflict still remains in Gutierrez theology itself: the world cannot be "free universally from its profanity," and still be subject to the traditional ontological category of a "fallen state." In this way, Gutierrez also reifies a traditionally religious category of alienation. Notably, sin must then be further developed, beyond this analysis, but in light of the ontological premises here as they appear as the fundamental testimony of early Church and Gospel message. Doing it in the other direction—from sin to ontology—lead's ultimately back to the dualistic alienating categories of religion, and subjects Christian theology ultimately to Marx's critique of religion.

This second premise we have explored in Gutierrez soteriology/eschatology, (i.e. the immanence of God in the present), however, is a further way we see Gutierrez utilize an eschatological framework which fights back against the fecundity of the ontological premises suggested here. First, we will account (to conclude this section) for how Gutierrez obfuscates the significance of the immanence of God in his development of the future orientation of the individual. Then, in the following sections, we will return to the ontological premises expressed above, developing them through Paul's letter to the Romans, and in dialogue with Marx's critique of religion. In this way we can offer some conclusions about the implications of these ontological premises for both Marxist critique and Christian eschatology

Gutierrez interfaces specifically with Ernst Bloch and Jürgen Moltmann to flesh out the principle of "hope" and its relationship to eschatology. Both Bloch and Moltmann, themselves are concerned with similar problems addressed here in this analysis. That is, how does one interpret the import of eschatology—or any other Christian principle which is future oriented such "promise," or "hope"—in the present. Gutierrez cautions against Moltmann's interpretation as it may "replace a Christianity of the Beyond with a Christianity of the Future."[^28] In light his warnings against this type of alienation, he plays with a vision for political theology (the church as an "institution of social criticism") which is based fundamentally in historical praxis and utilizes the role of the utopian vision.[^29] Gutierrez concludes: Christian hope opens us, in an attitude of spiritual childhood, to the gift of the future promised by God. It keeps us from any confusion of the Kingdom with any one historical stage, from any idolatry toward unavoidably ambiguous human achievement, from any absolutizing of revolution. In this way hope makes us radically free to commit ourselves to a social praxis, motivated by a liberating utopia and with the means which the scientific analysis of reality provides for us. [...] To hope in Christ is at the same time to believe in the adventure of history, which opens infinite vistas to the love and action of the Christian.[^30] The poignant affect of Gutierrez's sentiment aside, it does appear, likewise, that the conclusions at which he arrives are consonant with the direction of this analysis. However, because Gutierrez is unable to throughly develop the ontological bases for the standpoint of the individual in reality, his use of hope, future—and consequently—eschatology and Kingdom are unclear. He spends a good deal of time attempting to overcome the alienating nature of eschatological thought as it appears in thought similar to that of Moltmann, but in the end does not locate humankind in a position which is not fundamentally oriented toward, or acting in pursuit of, a future world.[^31] It is in this way that even if a theology of liberation, or Christian theology in general, can identify ontological premises which help to reconcile it with a Marxist critique of religion, the practice of eschatology remains a roadblock because of its fundamentally alienating implications. That is, if God is immanent in the present (via the Incarnation, the Holy Spirit, etc) what does it means to say that God will be "more immanent" in a future state? Theology that utilizes eschatology, *requires* some "profanity" of the present state as it is defined by the "divinity" of a future one.[^32] In this way, eschatology in its traditional sense, in part because of its ontological implications, prevents theology from overcoming the Marxist critique of religion: it will always serve as a reversal of reality which alienates man from himself, and projects a dominating ideology back from the future. While this is no small task to undertake, it is essential for the progress of Christian theology (and possibly, as well, for the progress of Marxism itself).[^33] It is with then, that we continue into one scriptural example, and the witness of the early Church, to further explicate theology's potential interface with Marx's critique, develop the ontological premises put forward earlier, and ultimately to apply these premises to the realm of eschatology.

## A Reading of Paul alongside Marx

There are a number of scriptural texts which could be explicated through a materialist lens. For the sake of succinctness, this analysis will continue to develop this approach vis-à-vis the reoccurring New Testament theme of "the kingdom of God" on which Gutierrez has also built. When Paul says, "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," he is—on the basis of a Christological reframing of religion— making a critique of religion consonant with Marx's critique of religion.[^34] First, Paul is criticizing a (so-called) Christian interlocutor who sets ideological premises as necessary and sufficient causes for what is the "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."[^35] Second, Paul's emphasis on the Holy Spirit, and the arguments he makes throughout his theology, point to an ontological basis for material consideration of self, others, and the world.[^36]

Throughout his letter to the Romans, Paul is engaging with a variety of religious interlocutors. Here, he is responding to an interlocutor who does not grasp, what Paul perceives, as the most basic claim of Christian freedom in Christ consequent to the empowering of the Holy Spirit. In the context, he is arguing against the belief that an action in and of itself (in this instance, the consumption of sacrificial meat) must be subservient to a higher ideological principle which presupposes soteriological (and/or eschatological) outcomes such as "righteousness, peace and joy." Paul agrees then, with the premise that Marx lays out in *The German Ideology*: The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. [...] Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence.[^37] If Paul's appeal to religious conscientiousness rather than ideological subservience forms the basis for right action (i.e. behavior in society or world) can we also say that Paul's prescription supports a dynamic inclusion of the historical circumstances of the Christian? The emphasis on material provisions within the early Church, and throughout the scriptural witness provides a resounding affirmative answer to this question.[^38]

It is worthy of further consideration how and why Paul approves the "service of Christ in this way" as "acceptable to God *and* approved by men." In attempting to show how this passage may be consonant with Marx's ontological critique of religion, it would seem obvious *prima facie* that for anything to be denoted as "acceptable to God" undermines the essential premise that this is not ideological inversion and subject-formation. Now, however, on a second reading, we can penetrate deeper as to why it would have been insufficient for Paul to say simply that this is "acceptable to God" in this passage. In identifying an individual's conscience as a vivifying premise, Paul can divorce "right action" neither from the proper consideration of ones own material premises *nor* the outcomes of consequent intercourse in society and world. In so doing, Paul, preceding Marx, is himself attempting to undermine the inverting power of ideology and tying up a person's right action intrinsically with the circumstances of themselves and others—that is, the material circumstances and outcomes of action and life-process. It is in this spirit, that the sacrificially communal ethic which undergirds all of the New Testament is echoed thusly in the subsequent verses: "Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification." Although it is not necessarily developed into the economic or productive sense, Paul's depiction of the Christian community is based fundamentally on the axiomatic equivalence of the particular interest and the communal interest.[^39] Paul's sacrificial Christology and consideration of the role of the Holy Spirit ethically binds man to man, and frees him from the dominance of ideological imperatives.[^40] We will see how this can be developed, not on ideological religious basis that Paul himself has tried to upturn, but rather, on the ontological basis of material reality (and humankind's) inclusion into the divine life of God.

Paul continues, "For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another." Paul, not dissimilar from Marx, turns the question on its head by setting the conscious ideological imagination in dialogue with the material circumstances and outcomes of an individual's action in society and world. For Paul, in this context, the "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" that designates the "kingdom of God," can be reduced to neither the utility of "right action" or the correspondence between "right action" and a governing ideological principle (e.g. religious or Mosaic law). Rather, this "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" is a social and material consequence of *freedom from* dominating ideologies and a *freedom unto* proper treatment of peoples unique and dynamic phantasmagoric "sublimates of their material life-process." That is, if there is a divine ontological bases for existence which is shared, we are indebted as individuals, to each other. In this sense, the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, and the presence of God in the individual lays the groundwork for a "real community" by serving as an ontological basis for the individual's freedom from dominant ideologies and ideals. That is, as Marx describes it, the gift of the Holy Spirit forms the basis for a community where "individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association."[^41]

In order to identify the basis of this ontological reading of the role of the Holy Spirit we have to jump back in Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul has, up to chapter eight accounted for the plight of man in the world, and the insufficiency of the law to change people or the world—in other words, *to liberate them*. Paul, a Hebrew, pivots on the bondage of the law as it has created in him an irreconcilable dualism of nature under the law: "[...][O]n the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin." It is a dualism in which religion as law has placed on Paul an inversion of reality—namely, that it is because the law exists that man is made sinful.[^42] It is worth noting here, that this fundamental dualism set up by Paul explicates the insufficiency of religion in nearly the *precise* spirit, with which Marx critiques it. We have already seen in later passages in the letter to the Romans how Paul himself identifies the way "the law" and "religion" (in the traditional sense) can serve to establish alienating and dominating ideologies. Observing both of these interpretations in tandem, we see how Paul can additionally setup the same essential ontological critique of religion as Marx: it reverses reality and sets man in subjection to what is a predicate of his own life-process. How then, does Paul overcome this insufficient dualism? By unpacking the totalizing depth to which the ontological nature of the Holy Spirit and the incarnating work of Christ accomplishes.

At this point, Paul pivots, fundamentally, on the essence of the *Christian* revelation (that is the Gospel message) that God has taken up residence in humankind and therefore humankind can be ontologically located as participating in the immanent life of God: "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."[^43] The penetration of the Spirit into the material world, for Paul, has freed humanity from the nature of the bondage that is evident under the power of the law. Now humankind appears as balanced on the precipice before God and the world, as beings which are neither entombed by our own ascent toward God, nor subject to the sublimates of our own material circumstances. We are "the children of God," and as "the children of God," we occupy a comparable divine position to the Son of God himself. Paul sees material reality *itself* as part and parcel to the divine life. Our position in reality, is caught up with all of material reality: "[...][T]he creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." What is this freedom? It is the very same freedom from the domination of religion which Marx seeks in his critique: the freedom to exist in reality—in history, in materiality—as we really are, working only toward *what we already can be*, and not what exists outside of us, waiting to be realized. "It is the *task of history*," Marx writes, "therefore, once the *other-world of truth* has vanished, to establish the *truth of this world*."[^44] The Spirit, for Paul, establishes ontologically what Marx's has in mind when he asserts "the truth of this world;" that is, its grounding in ultimate realness. For Paul, this is grounding in the divine being.

Paul says later, "[...][W]e know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons."[^45] Notably, this is not, the alienating "eschatological dimension" which we have explored earlier. And neither is it, as he continues, a "hope" which is premised on a reality which is inaccessible to us because it exists in the future. Both the the "future" and the "hope" are, as we are, premised on the immanent nature of the God and the pregnancy of divine life that exists within our own material reality.

## Conclusion

The conclusion of this analysis, will seek to address specifically how to build upon the work of liberation theology, compensating for its idealogical and conceptual deficiencies, in light of the previous reading of Paul's letter. Another early liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff, was a Brazilian priest highly sensitive to the barriers necessary for the acceptance of liberation theologies by the Catholic Church. The reaction to his publication of *Church: Charism and Power (Essays in Militant Ecclesiology)* was critical and polemical. Its publication corresponded with his summons to Rome in 1984 and a conversation with (then) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in tandem with the Church publishing the *Instruction on Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation."*[^46] Boff published another work with his brother Clodovis Boff coinciding with the instruction in an attempt to clarify disagreements and misunderstandings. In this publication he offers an autobiographical account of the meetings in Rome and point toward the work necessary for further development of theologies of liberation. In an account of these challenges Boff writes, "[...] [O]n the theoretical level, the theology of liberation must improve its 'epistemological profile,' its theoretical status [...]"[^47] This recommendation is not unprecedented as it appears commensurate with Ratzinger's primary critique of Marxian appropriations in Liberation Theology: [...] [T]he term "scientific" exerts an almost mythical fascination even though everything called "scientific" is not necessarily scientific at all. *That is why the borrowing of a method of approach to reality should be preceded by a careful epistemological critique.* This preliminary critical study is missing from more than one "theology of liberation."[^48] It is likely that Boff's epistemological recommendation is directly correlated to Ratzinger's criticism. In either case, the publication of these criticisms, and the controversy surrounding these meetings in Rome marks the end (or first major roadblock) in the development of liberation theologies within the Catholic church. It is from these remarks concerning the nature of systematic integration of Marxian critique to which we turn in our conclusion.

On one hand, part of the goal of this analysis could be interpreted as a response to calls for this "epistemological profile" pertaining to the appropriation of Marxist critique in Christian theology. A theology which can construct an adequate framework for appropriation *must* account for his ontological critique of religion and ideology; this is the essence of Kee's thoroughly developed criticism of liberation theologies' uses of Marx which, to a certain extent, we have followed throughout this analysis.[^49] *However*, following Marx's own ontological critique of religion there is a fundamental problem with calling for, or proposing, a framework for utilizing Marxist critique on *epistemological* grounds.[^50] That is, a framework proposed on epistemological grounds is premised on an ideological view of rationality which is subject *itself* to Marx's own ontological critique and is in conflict with its own terms. Any theology, therefore, which attempts to build a foundation from a purely *epistemological* premise toward these purposes devolves inevitably into an irreconcilable reliance on ideology (cased in rational idealism) and fails to account for its "real" premise in life-process.[^51] Part and parcel to twentieth century thought has been the struggle to develop a framework which reconciles ontology and epistemology and can account for the prevailing material, scientific and historical premises of life.[^52] This to say, epistemological solutions, in the traditionally rational mode of consideration, fall short as a comprehensive base for the appropriation of Marxist critique in theology.[^53] The conclusion therefore, is twofold: first, that we have proposed an *ontological* framework which provides a basis for the appropriation of a Marxist critique through our exegesis of Paul's letter to the Romans and the reconsideration of the God-world relationship; and second, that this framework can buttress theologies of liberation by casting contemporary eschatology in a historical and immanent mold more consonant with the early church's understanding of "the kingdom of God."

One of, if not the, most foundational message of the Gospel is that due to the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit humankind, along with material reality itself, can be located *within* the divine life of God rather than without. Humankind is not an abstract profanity squatting outside "God," trying to penetrate the inaccessible.[^54] This appears evident in the guiding Christological and pneumatological reflection of the early Church. Theology, when humankind is in fact a participant in the divine life of God, overcomes the alienating nature which so Marx astutely observes—as we have argued here, not unlike the Apostle Paul. In its truest form Christian theology is based on the dignity of mankind—because of its participation in the divine life—and therefore, can be founded on the material premises and circumstances of humankind. In this way, theology can continue beyond the criticism that religion and ideology reconciles people with evil, and operate as a dominating ideology over them. Not, however, in the traditional way, btu rather by emerging changed by Marx's trial of fire. If we are, in fact, participants in the divine life of God as has been stipulated here, there is an ontological bases for religious thought which does not tear from humankind from its "real" self and place it in subjection to an illusion.[^55] Religion, on these premises, is not "the illusory sun about which man revolves so long as he does not revolve himself;"[^56] but rather, the recognition that man himself stands in the sun, and the sun, burns in him.

Gutierrez (and other's like Bloch and Moltmann) rely on the notion of "hope" to categorize the applicability of the "eschatological dimension" in the present age. It seems, however, that even Paul himself, attempts to reframe this when he writes, "For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it." Paul undermines the basic premise of hope as possessing a definite predicate, rather it is the *absence* of a predicate the determines the nature of the hope which Paul expresses. Recognizing that the present state of affairs is not what it could be, does not require the delimitation of its actualization in the future for us to achieve it. Rather, the potential for this "future" already exists pregnant within us, and present within the material world itself awaiting its release, realization and revelation. The liberating power of the gospel, and likewise, the mode of Marxist critique, lies not in the ability to harness the energy of humankind and direct it toward a world that could exist in the future, but in its ability to expose *the world that could exist now.* Until this basic modality of thinking and being shifts we will not reconcile the underlying incongruity of its ontological premises, the future—the eschaton—remains in ideological domination of the present.

It is evident that there are a plethora of implications for theology, sociology, pneumatology, Christology, and so on. The questions, which remain unanswered, are applicable for both the Christian and Marxist. More importantly, our premises accomplish precisely our goal: when eschatology is liberated from the alienation implicit to itself, the practical ends of study and critique are liberated likewise from eschatology.[^57] Not only is "eschatology" simply subsumed by new modes of "political theology," but it is transmuted into *present-* ology; to put it more precisely, *ontology* —the study of what we are, of what we could be, and of what we are not. We neither "descend from heaven to earth" nor "ascend from earth to heaven," instead we discover that these domains are not mutually exclusive.[^58] With Marx we can follow that "[...] the criticism of heaven is transformed into the criticism of earth," but not in the sense that they supersede each other as Marx implies—but rather, because the have become co-implicative realms.[^59] This does not only implicate the social level of study, but a study of all forms and stratifications of being from the lowest to highest level—their possibilities, their actualities and the unity of their existence.

And with the same spirit with which Leo Tolstoy ends his eponymous 1884 work, we can, on these bases, offer an emphatic rejoinder to Jesus' words: "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, 'The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.'"[^60]

[^1]: Gustavo Gutiérrez, *A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation*, (New York: Orbis Books, 1973) eds. and trans. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson, 69f: Here, he, likewise, puts a similar emphasis on materialism as it provides bases for non-dual thought: "The temporal-spiritual and the profane-sacred antitheses are based on the natural-supernatural distinction. But the theological evolution of this last term has tended to stress the unity which eliminates all dualism."

[^2]: Alistair Kee, *Marx and the Failure of Liberation Theology*, (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990); In this book, Kee has offered an in depth and technical analysis of the "failure of liberation theology" in sufficiently addressing Marx's ontological critique of religion. Kee uses these primary categories of Marx's critique separated by chapters: "Religion as reconciliation," "Religion as reversal," and "Religion as ideology." This analysis follows in part Kee's critique of Liberation theology. However, the treatment of Gutierrez here will show 1) that there are premises which are developed in early liberation theology that have the potential to push back against Kee's critique, and 2) Kee does not go far enough into the ontological premises of theology or Marx in order to complete his analysis. Nevertheless, the scope of Kee's work is such that this analysis would not be complete without directly engaging, and is ultimately indebted to his valuation of Liberation Theology's interface with Marx's critique of religion. Therefore, Kee's account of Marx's critique of religion serves as a framework for the different aspects articulated through the remainder of this introductory synopsis as well as the remainder of this work; however, this analysis remains on its own trajectory enough for interaction with Kee to be relegated mainly to footnotes.

[^3]: This analysis will rely primarily on excerpts from the early writings of Marx as they serves the primary function of explicitly articulating Marx's critique of religion. Additionally, Gutierrez in *A Theology of Liberation* as well as Kee in *Marx and the Failure of Liberation Theology*, rely primarily on early writings, or in Gutierrez' case, almost exclusively on *The German Ideology*.

[^4]: Cf, Kee, 85-87: Here, he synopsizes his reading of Marx's critique of religion.

[^5]: Cf. Ibid, 86: "[...] [W]e should not make the mistake of thinking that it is possible to fully answer Marx by such moral reformism, however sincerely undertaken and extensively carried through. Marx's fundamental criticism is ontological: as long as religion continues in its present form it will reinforce and legitimate all forms of the inversion of reality, and will consciously or unconsciously support the ideology of the ruling class. The ontological problem cannot be solved by moral means."

[^6]: Cf. Ibid, 282f: "[...] But the ontological implications of Marx's work are more profound and extensive. Religion in its traditional form is inherently an inversion of reality. In this form it was appropriate and important in earlier epochs, but it is becoming obsolete in the modern world, and in this form deserves to be so. The future of religion, in the next epoch, depends on accepting Marx's ontological critique;" cf. Kee, 235: "[...][T]heologians who find it possible and even necessary to defend Marx in order to expound their own positions, can completely ignore the fact that Marx criticized religion, not simply bas examples of religion, but religion in itself."

[^7]: Gutierrez, 10.

[^8]: Cf. Robert C. Tucker (ed.), *The Marx-Engels Reader*, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978), 64, 198: "This subsuming of individuals under definite classes cannot be abolished until a class has taken shape, which has no longer any particular class interest to assert against the ruling class." Marxist allusion to the "classless" society in both *Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's* Philosophy of Right and *The German Ideology* deserve further comparison to the liberation theologies vision of "full communion with God and brotherhood among men." As we see here, and in further consideration of Paul's Christological theology, the assertion of the equivalency between the personal and communal interest serve undergirding aspects to all of these constructions, but a through examination is outside the scope of this analysis.

[^9]: Gutierrez, 166f. Gutierrez criticizes Yve Congar's interpretation of the salvific dimension of the Israelites' Exodus by divorcing spiritual and temporal redemption: "The impression does indeed exists that [...] there is an assumption which should be brought to the surface, namely a certain idea of the spiritual characterized by a kind of Western dualistic thought (matter-spirit), foreign to the Biblical mentality. And it is becoming more foreign also to the contemporary mentality. This is a disincarnate 'spiritual,' scornfully superior to all earthly realities. The proper way to pose the question does not seem to us to be in terms of 'temporal promise or spiritual promise.' Rather, [...] it is a matter of partial fulfillments through liberating historical events, which are in turn new promises marking the road towards total fulfillment. Christ does not 'spiritualize' the eschatological promises; he gives them meaning and fulfillment today (cf. Luke 4:21); but at the same time he opens new perspectives by catapulting history forward, forward towards total reconciliation."

[^10]: Ibid, 153; (*emphasis own*). Cf. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, *The Phenomenon of Man*, (New York: Harper & Rox, 1959): Gutierrez refers at various points to Teilhard de Chardin approvingly on the subject of defeating the dualism between matter-spirit; at the same time, he distances himself from the "naive optimism" of which Teilhard has been accused in his evolutionary contextualization of the forward progression of man. For further reading of Teilhard's perspective on the position of man in the evolutionary system he creates see "The Requirements of the Future," (p. 229-232).

[^11]: Ibid, 167.

[^12]: Cf. Ibid, 153-160; Kee, 172f; Kee supports this reading of the importance of the scriptural links between creation and salvation in Gutierrez thought. Here, he also critiques the use of the Exodus narrative within theologies of liberation (the narrative is utilized throughout a variety of liberation theologians beyond Gutierrez such as José Miguez Bonino, *Revolutionary Theology Comes of Age*, (London: SPCK, 1975), p. 87). In response to Bonino's assertion that "The Exodus experience is paradigmatic, Kee writes: "Or is it not in important respects rather the opposite? First, in terms of conscientization, there is no evidence in the Exodus account that the Hebrews took any initiative in the analysis and transformation of their situation. But secondly, there is a moral issue. Were there no poor and oppressed Egyptians when the Hebrews lived in slavery? Is it entirely in order that their firstborn were killed so that the Hebrews might go free? How many brave liberation theologians who flourish Exodus like a weapon have read that smallprint?" Kee continues by quoting Ex. 12:29 (cf. Ex. 11:4f) where the narrative tells us the Lord also smote "the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon" in Egypt. Kee's critique of liberation theologies use of the Exodus narrative is apt. It is not, however, debilitating to the use of this narrative in general, but rather a pointed critique of the less than sufficient depths which it has been probed by liberation theologians, despite their utilization of it. What really undergirds this critique—which, to this point, is not throughly dealt with by liberation theology—is how the Christian theologian accounts for the role of scripture within a historical materialist approach.

[^13]: Gutierrez, 177; (*emphasis original*).

[^14]: Cf. Ibid, 177: "Without liberating historical events, there would be no growth of the Kingdom. But the process of liberation will not have conquered the very roots of oppression and the exploitation of man by man without the coming of the Kingdom, *which is above all a gift*;" (*emphasis own*). It seems here, that Gutierrez is still required to recreate the dualism he is attempting to overthrow, but instead of being set explicitly in terms of matter-spirit, it is set in present-future terms within history.

[^15]: Ibid, 175.

[^16]: Ibid, 175.

[^17]: Ibid, 198: "To be saved is to reach the fullness of love; it is to enter into the circle of charity which unites the three Persons of the Trinity; it is to love as God loves. The way to this fullness of love can be no other than love itself, the way of participation in this charity, the way of accepting, explicitly or implicitly, to say with the Spirit: "Abba, Father" (Gal 4:6). Acceptance is the foundation of all brotherhood among men. To sin is to refuse to love, to reject communion and brotherhood, to reject even now the very meaning of human existence."

[^18]: Ibid, 195

[^19]: Ibid, 199

[^20]: Ibid, 200 (*emphasis original*)

[^21]: Ibid, 195: "This encounter with God in concrete actions towards others, especially the poor, is so profound and enriching that by basing themselves on it the prophets can criticize—always validly—all purely external worship;" 199: "[...] [T]his charity exists only in concrete actions (feeing the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, etc.); it occurs of necessity in the fabric of relationships among men;" 200: "[...] [H]e will find the authentic love of God only by means of a real, concrete approach to men."

[^22]: Ibid, 192f.

[^23]: Ibid, 194

[^24]: Cf. Tucker, 144; Marx employs his designation of species-life, and species-being following but also re-contextualizing Feuerbach. A large part of this, is because of his ontological critique of religion: "Feuerbach starts out from the fact of religious self-alienation, of the duplication of the world into a religious, imaginary world and a real one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis. He overlooks the fact that after completing this work, the chief thing still remains to be done." Part of this critique of Feuerbach is rooted in his use of species-being as an alienating premise and essentially still a reversal of reality; Cf. Tucker 33f, esp. n. 1: In *On the Jewish Question*, he does it in the context of his critique of the state: "In the state, on the contrary, where he is regarded as a species-being, man is the imaginary member or an imaginary sovereignty, divested of his real, individual life, and infused with an unreal universality." The of the goals of this paper is to suggest that a deeper understanding of Christian ontology can potentially contribute to a Marxist valuation of material reality. One suggested instance is in the fruitful parallel between Marx's species-being and implications of these ontological premises suggested here which require further consideration but are outside the scope of this analysis.

[^25]: This emphasis on ontology (the christological and pneumatological dimension) and the question of the divine nature of the material world itself is not unprecedented in contemporary theology outside of theologies of liberation (including black, feminist and queer examples which follow the same lines) vis-à-vis ecology, psychology, the modern sciences, and relational ontology (for example) Surely these premises must be further developed. These studies here, help to compensate for what is a lack of basic ontological and pneumatological development of the most fundamental Christian premises of faith; the premises are obfuscated historically in part, by various co-optings of traditional philosophical (read: monotheistic, Neoplatonic, etc.) categories of divinity which fail to represent the basic mindset and experience of the early church. It has found its most throughly developed source in Karl Rahner's reconsideration of the categories of *theologia* and *oikonomia* (immanent and economic Trinity): cf. Karl Rahner, *The Trinity,* (New York: Seabury Press, 1973), esp. 15-21, and Catherine Mowry LaCugna, *God For Us*, (New York: Harper Collins, 1973); LaCugna has developed Rahner's axiomatic equation of the *theologia* and *oikonomia* to great lengths. For the ecological ramifications of these governing ontological principles: cf. Denis Edwards, *Jesus the Wisdom of God: An Ecological Theology* (New York: Maryknoll, 1995); Denis Edwards, *Ecology at the Heart of Faith,* (New York: Maryknoll, 2006); Denis Edwards, *Partaking of God: Trinity, Evolution and Ecology,* (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2014); Denis Edwards, "'Everything is Interconnected': The Trinity and the Natural World in *Laudato Si'," The Australasian Catholic Review* (2016); Denis Edwards, "The Attractor and the Energy of Love: Trinity in Evolutionary and Ecological Context," *The Ecumenical Review* 65, no. 1 (2013), 134: "The Holy Spirit can be understood as the dynamic life-giving presence of God to the whole process of the emergence of a universe, uniting it, and every part of it, to the Word in the relationship of continuous creation. It is this relationship that enables the existence of entities and their becoming. Without this relationship there is no existence and no emergence. The relationship with the Spirit enables both;" For the scientific, psychological and psycho-social import of this pneumatological thought: cf. Amos Yong, *The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination*, (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2011); other works engaging Modern Science along these lines refer to process theologian Joseph Bracken, S. J.: Joseph Bracken, *The World in the Trinity: Open-Ended Systems in Science and Religion*, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014); Joseph Bracken, *Christianity and Process Thought: Spirituality for a Changing World* (Conshohocken: Templeton Press, 2006); Joseph Bracken, "Intersubjectivity and the Coming of God" *The Journal of Religion* (2003): Here, Bracken puts forward his essential hypothesis in process-systems terms: "For, if one concedes that the three divine persons by their dynamic interrelation coconstitute a conjoint field of activity for the workings of the divine life, and if one further concedes that this divine matrix likewise serves as the ontological ground of being for the world of creation, then one has at hand the ontological basis for asserting that the divine persons and their creatures can coexist in their separate subjectivities and yet share the same divine life, albeit in different degrees." For our purposes here, it is enough to say that the ontological grounds of material reality, and what has traditionally be conceived of as a transcendent or immateriality are in fact *one in the same*. There is, in this sense, no need for matter-spirit dualism in religious thought, and likewise an ontological basis for the *real* (in the sense which Marx uses it in *The German Ideology*) consideration of Christian theology.

[^26]: José Míguez Bonino, *Christians and Marxists*, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 105f: Bonino reaches the ontological premises which we are trying to single, but fails to properly develop them and cannot assert grounds for his argument that are not subject to religious critique: "Love is ontologically ultimate [...] There is no undifferentiated 'ground of being', no universally discoverable 'reason', no unnamed 'energy' to which we can appeal or from which we can derive or to which we could trace the concrete will and purpose which has been manifested in the history of God's self-revelation. He is as he has acted—in creation, in Jesus Christ, in the power of his Spirit. The concrete threeness and unity of an active love is the ultimate reality."

[^27]: Cf. Romans 8:18-25; (see below).

[^28]: Gutierrez, 218.

[^29]: Cf. Ibid, 220: This criticism of alienation is compared to Marx criticism of Feuerbach: "Marx's idea of praxis is different; it is based on a dialectical conception of history—necessarily advancing, with eyes fixed on the future and with real action in the present, towards a classless society based on new relationships of production;" 220ff: Gutierrez recounts (but acknowledges in the insufficiencies of) the work of Johann Baptist Metz, in defining the practice of "political theology;" 232ff: Gutierrez also builds off the work of Karl Mannheim in co-opting his distinction between utopia and ideology. Cf. Johann Baptist Metz, "The Church and the World in the Light of a 'Political Theology,'" in *Theology of the World*, (Scribner, 1968), 107-140; Cf. Karl Mannheim, *Ideology and Utopia*, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1936) trans. Louis Wirth and Edward Shils; esp. 192-204;

[^30]: Gutierrez, 238f.

[^31]: Cf. Joseph Bracken, "Intersubjectivity and the Coming of God" *The Journal of Religion* (2003), 386f: Bracken here is critical of Moltmann's echatological vision: "[...][I]n both [Moltmann's] *Theology of Hope* and in *The Coming of God*, what appears to be missing from Moltmann's presentation is a deeper philosophical understanding of the relationship between time eternity whereby God can 'come' to human beings out of the future and offer them hope for something new and different in their lives." He goes on to put forth an ontological argument within the confines of his unique neo-Whiteheadian process thought that attempts to account for continuity of change through divine inter-subjectivity without recapitulating the alienating aspect of eschatological thought.

[^32]: John Polkinghorne, *The God of Hope and the End of the World* (New Haven: Yale UP, 2002), 149: "In so far as present human imagination can articulate eschatological expectation, it has to do so within the tension between continuity and discontinuity. There must be sufficient continuity to ensure that individuals truly share in the life to come as their resurrected selves and not as new beings simply given the old names. There must be sufficient discontinuity to ensure that the life to come is free from the suffering and mortality of the old creation." Polkinghorne's point is well taken and it is along the same lines by which we criticize eschatology. But ultimately it exposes the insufficiency with Christian religious thought that Marx sought to uncover, and we are trying to reconcile here: as long as we think of "new creation" as something that is inaccessible to us either because it is "new," "spiritual," future, divine, we will remain subject to whatever predicatory ideology we construct outside of us, awaiting our arrival.

[^33]: Cf. Walter Benjamin, "Parolipolemena to 'On the Concept of History,'" *Selected Writings: 1938-1940* (Harvard UP: 2003), ed. Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings, vol. 4, 402: In this compilation of Benjamin's fragmented essays on the concept of history, it he refers to this fundamental present-future tension of the humanistic outlook. "The historical materialist who investigates the structure of history performs, in his way, a sort of spectrum analysis. Just as a physicist determines the presence of ultraviolet light in the solar spectrum, so the historical materialist determines the presence of a messianic force in history. Whoever wishes to know what the situation of a 'redeemed humanity' might actually be, what conditions are required for the development of such a situation, and when this development can be expected to occur, poses questions to which there are no answers. He might just as well seek to know the color of ultraviolet rays. *Marx says that revolutions are the locomotive of world history. But perhaps it is quite otherwise. Perhaps revolutions are an attempt by the passengers on this train—namely, the human race—to activate the emergency brake.* " (*emphasis own)*. It is not that we must to delimit the future state in order to bring it about, but rather, it is consideration of the future, in and of itself, that restricts our ability to realize the situation which we desire. Cf. Edgar Bauer, "Critique's Quarrel with Church and State," in *The Young Hegelians: An Anthology* (New York: Humanity Books, 1999) ed. Lawrence S. Stepelvich; 271: E. Bauer, on a similar foundation, builds a more anarchist vision of the free community: "Therefore you ask me what 'the free community' is, what it looks like, how it is possible. To that I can give you no answer, *for who is permitted to think beyond his own time?* Our time, though is critical and destructive;" (*emphasis own*). Cf. Mark 13:31 (Matt. 24:36); And as it pertains to this analysis, not even Jesus—God in human form—knew the time of his "second coming:" "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Jesus, himself, would not have disagreed with Benjamin or Bauer on this valuation of history and eschatology.

[^34]: Bonino, 66-68: Here, Bonino, another early liberation theology supports this reading of the biblical criticism of religion as consonant with Marx's critique. Cf. Kee, 235-240; Kee is complementary of Bonino's accomplishments and perspectiving in interfacing Christianity and Marxism but still regards it as lacking: " *Christians and Marxists* is a fascinating book. [...] Although in his study of Marx Bonino comes close to our sources, he still avoids the fundamental challenge of Marx's criticism of religion [...]"

[^35]: This section of his letter to the Romans provides one of his most developed antinomian arguments. The unique antinomian posture of Paul's theological argument, can be better understood in concert with Marx's critique of religion when one considers the parallels between Paul's criticism of the Law, and Marx's critique of Religion and Ideology. This deserves further explication along these lines, and can contribute, for example, to a deeper consideration of Martin Luther's particular fascination with this question in *Disputations against the Antinomians* (not available in print, only through various online fragments; cf. lutheranpress.com) although it is outside of the scope of this analysis.

[^36]: See n. 24; This is not unlike Marx re-contextualization and emphasis on the "species-being" as an ontological premise for the individual's orientation toward communal life.

[^37]: Tucker, 154; Cf. Tucker, 28: In *On the Jewish Question*, Marx's also sets up a similar critique of religion when he criticizes the Jewish interlocutor who wants to remain Jewish in the state even if it requires he "take second place to the citizen, and he will be a *citizen* although he is and desires to remain a Jew. In other words, he is and remains a *Jew*, even though he is a *citizen* and as such lives in a universal human condition" (*emphasis original*). He goes on to quote Bauer from *Die Fähigkeit der heutigen Juden und Christen, frei zu werden*: "It is only in a sophistical and superficial sense that the Jew could remain a Jew in Political life. Consequently, if he wanted to remain a Jew this would mean that the superficial became the essential and thus triumphed."

[^38]: Romans 15:26-27: "For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things." Cf. Acts 4:28ff.

[^39]: Cf. Tucker, 160f.

[^40]: Cf. Acts 4:31-35: It is premised on these bases that the early Church was in essence communistic: "And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness. And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need." The nature of the correlation between Pentecost and sharing of resources is easily overlooked: the gospel message serves *not* fundamentally as an ideological imperative for sharing, charity, etc. but as an *ontological* basis for the connection of the individuals well-being, to the corporate well-being.

[^41]: Cf. Tucker, 197.

[^42]: Karl Barth, *The Epistle to the Romans,* (Oxford UP, 1972) trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns *,* 270: "Paul is thrust into a dualism which contradicts itself. He is shattered on God, without the possibility of forgetting Him." Barth affirms, this is the alienated existence in which the preChristian exists, prior to the freedom of God enjoyed through the Incarnation in the Holy Spirit.

[^43]: Romans 8:1f; Cf. Gordon D. Fee "Paul and the Trinity: The Experience of Christ and the Spirit for Paul's Understanding of God," in *The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity,* (Oxford UP, 1999) eds. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, SJ, and Gerald O'Collins, SJ, 64f: This pneumatological reading is supported by contemporary historical-critical New Testament scholarship: "[...][T]here is little question that Paul sees the Spirit as distinct from God; yet at the same time the Spirit is both the interior expression of the unseen God's personality and the visible manifestation of God's activity in the world." What is not developed from here are the ontological premises and their implications which have been proposed here.

[^44]: Tucker, 54. Marx continues: "The immediate *task of philosophy*, which is in the service of history, is to unmask human self-alienation in its *secular form* now that it has been unmasked in its *sacred from*. Thus the criticism of heaven is transformed into the criticism of earth, the *criticism of religion* into the *criticism of law*, and the *criticism of theology* in to the *criticism of politics*;" (*emphasis original*). The only change Paul would make to this claim, is that we have not "unmasked" alienation in its sacred from, but rather, it has been shattered by the *secular* becoming *sacred*. Cf. Gutierrez, 69: "The temporal-spiritual and the profane-sacred antitheses are based on the natural-supernatural distinction. But the theological evolution of this last term has tended to stress the unity which eliminates all dualism." Gutierrez agrees with the collapse of this essential dualism, but he does not go through the lengths we are going to here to understand the ontological principles on which this is based and how it squares with Marx's historical materialism; cf. Gutierrez,

[^45]: Romans 8:22ff

[^46]: Cf. Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff, *Liberation Theology: From Confrontation to Dialogue*, (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985) trans. Robert R. Barr; 79ff; Boff's Church: Charism and Power has been republished (with a slightly more mollified subtitle) in light of recent recognition of his work: Leonardo Boff, *Church Charism and Power: Liberation Theology and the Institutional Church,* (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012); see editor's note on p. vii for an recapitulation of the meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger.

[^47]: Boff, 37

[^48]: Ratzinger, 8 (*emphasis own*)

[^49]: Kee, 282f; Cf. Peter Scott, "[Review:] Marx and the Failure of Liberation Theology by Alistair Kee," *Journal of Theological Studies* 42, no. 1 (1991), 436: "[...] Kee argues that liberation theology, contrary to the opinions of many of its critics, fails to take Marxism seriously enough;" cf. Kee, 195-201: Here, Kee takes Clodovis Boff to task for his work *Theology and Praxis: Epistemological Foundations,* (Maryknoll: Orbisbooks, 1987). He argues for the insufficiency of "theological presuppositions and assumptions" which C. Boff attempts to explicate methodological. However, it seems, Kee has missed the very point of his own criticism—the problem with reconciling Marxism and Christianity is not *epistemological*, it is *ontological*.

[^50]: Cf. Scott, 437ff: Here, Scott criticizes Kee (appropriately) for failing to properly develop the epistemological bases for Marx's critique of religion as reversal insofar as Kee relies on it for his criticism of Liberation Theology. Kee, notably, does this self-admittedly, and it is also agreed, by both Scott and Kee, that the debate with Marxism on this point emphasizes the lack of development Marx undertakes himself. Nevertheless, Scott's question of Kee is correct; however, it is framed within the confines of the "epistemology" of both theology, and Marx's critique of religion: "[...] [W]e have to ask the question: what sort of theology might respond to the Marxist critique? Or, put more sharply, we must ask what are the epistemological principles that Marxisim insists Christian theology must meet in order to be liberative and not ideological?" He concludes; 441: "[W]e need to know, at the level of epistemology, how any theory, including theology, functions as ideology, how it functions as reversal. And we need to know the Marxist conditions for a theology to be liberative. If we could answer these questions, we could begin to construct a theology, against the epistemological ground rules laid down by Marxism, that *perhaps* might escape the charge of reversing reality;" (*emphasis original*). From both the Christian and Marxian perspective the question is misplaced when seen, in the primary sense, as "epistemological" rather than ontological. In order for it to be epistemological, it must be based first on a proper *ontological* account of knowledge—this, it seems, is *the* fundamental "epistemological" suggestion Marx makes with his critique of religion as reversal: since religion (knowledge, ideology etc.) first arise from life-process, they must be understood first in this regard—that is, ontologically. Only from this standpoint, can one develop an "epistemology" which appropriately accounts for the place of humanity and life-process within the course of material history.

[^51]: Cf. Tucker, 149ff esp. 155: "Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc.— *real*, active men, as they are conditioned by a *definite* development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these up to its furthest forms. *Conciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process,"* (*emphasis own*).

[^52]: One under-appreciated writer worth mention, who has worked extensively along these lines is Hungarian chemist-turned-philosopher Michael Polanyi (1981-1976): cf. *Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy,* (Chicago UP: 1958); Michael Polanyi, *Knowing and Being*, (Chicago UP: 1969), ed. Marjorie Greene; and Michael Polanyi, *The Tacit Dimension*, (Chicago UP: 2009).

[^53]: Cf. Boff, 53: "The 'urgency of practical incidences' proclaimed by the *Instructions* does not automatically produce these practical incidences, all idealistic illusions to the contrary nowithstanding. Hell is paved with good intentions. 'Good ideas" do no work *ex opere operato*. Liberation, as the structure of the word suggests, is an *action*, and it consists in the act of liberating captive freedom. Liberation activity can receive illumination and support from the 'thematics' of liberation, but they cannot replace it;" Liberation theologians (like Boff does here), attempt to address a similar sentiment insistently through their emphasis on praxis over theory, action over idea. This, of course, is a consonant and appropriate response to Marx's critique of religion as we see Boss express here. All this to say, early theologies of liberation would support the implications here, although laying the groundwork for appropriation epistemologically, rather than ontologically, fails to give a complete consideration of the basis for "action" (as Boff insists) that holds up against Marx's critique of ideology.

[^54]: Cf. Tucker, 53: "But *man* is not an abstract being, squatting outside the world."

[^55]: Cf. Ibid, 54: "The call to abandon their illusions about their conditions is a *call to abandon a condition which requires illusions*."

[^56]: Cf. Ibid, 54:

[^57]: Cf. Teilhard de Chardin, 273f: Despite what is often deemed a deterministic evolutionary framework for the progress of man, Teilhard's concluding sentiments on the future, are consonant our basic thesis here: "No one would dare to picture to himself what the noosphere will be like in its final guise, *no one,* that is, *who has glimpsed however faintly the incredible potential of unexpectedness accumulated in the spirit of the earth.* The end of the world defies imagination," (*emphasis own*).

[^58]: Tucker, 154.

[^59]: Ibid, 54: "Thus the criticism of heaven is transformed into the criticism of earth, the *criticism of religion* into the *criticism of law*, and the *criticism of theology* into the *criticism of politics.* "

[^60]: Luke 17:20f KJV; cf. Leo Tolstoy, *The Kingdom of God is Within You*, (US: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970), 380.