THEOLOGY IN THE SHADOW OF MARX: THE THEORY-PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP IN THE POLITICAL THEOLOGY OF JOHANN BAPTIST METZ AND IN THE LIBERATION THEOLOGY OF HUGO ASSMANN

This is a Marxist analysis of Metz (FRG) and Assmann (Brazil), who seek to assimilate Marx's definition of the theory-practice relationship (TPR) within their own constructions of theological theory.;The TPR issue is at the heart of Metz's political theology. The second chapter points out that Metz tries to avert the eventual collapse of the Christian specificum into the dialectics of social practice by relying upon Kantian-inspired epistemology. As a result, the "primacy of praxis" he recognizes is essentially the religious praxis of conversion and discipleship. Under the guise of praxiological vocabulary, Marx's notion of practice is transformed into its opposite--religious consciousness has primacy over material social practice. His organic relation to Kant demonstrates that he cannot assimilate the Marxian TPR.;Chapter Three shows how Assmann absorbs central Marxist-Leninist tenets. He insists on the primacy of social practice in the TPR as defined by Marx. Since this requires the decryption of religious consciousness in terms of its class essence, how can its claims be secured? Assmann contends that the mystery of self-giving love that grounds practice transcends scientific cognition, and that the divine fiat alone can abolish necessity and secure freedom in the eschaton. From a Marxist standpoint this project is incoherent, for his "ineffable mystery" is a purely formal notion, and his idea of God requires a metaphysical separation of necessity and freedom into antinomies that only a deus ex machina can resolve. Assmann, while accepting Marxist science and its TPR to a great extent, ultimately renders it inoperable. The residual idealism of "Christian Marxism" violates the core of Marx's scientific method.;The first chapter traces the dialectical transition of Marx's understanding of the TPR in four phases from 1837-47, when he abandoned Left-Hegelian praxiology to consolidate the historical materialist definition of the TPR as the theoretical base for his scientific method of analysis. Subsequent writings are selected to illustrate the intrinsic link that obtains between his dialectical TPR and his scientific method. It is shown how social practice has the primacy in his scientific research, social theory and revolutionary action.