liberation theology?

since joo's been in town, she's been enlightening me on several topics. one of the main ones that got my mind racing was a "new" theology that i've never heard of, called liberation theology. it's the driving theology behind Union Seminary, the school she's currently attending. according to wikipedia, liberation theology "explores the relationship between Christian, specifically Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty and human rights. The main methodological innovation of liberation theology is to do theology (i.e. speak of God) from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed of the human community." just from the little bit of research i've done since yesterday, i've discovered that liberation theology is steeped in religious controversy. no one really seems to like it. and for the life of me, i can't understand why. i've heard and read arguments that it's too liberal and postmodern, and therefore is not true to Biblical teachings. there's also a lot of talk about it being too political. i guess some ppl think christians would do better to stay out of politics and stick with the spiritual, but that doesn't entirely make sense to me since for one, there are a LOT of christians in the political arena already, shaping our government, and two, since when is "doing good," serving the poor, helping the oppressed, more about politics than about ministering? i'm asking coz i really don't know...i don't understand this completey and i'm trying to. we were talking about it briefly at work today, and one of the ppl at the center here said that the true controversy revolves around the idea of the secular vs the sacred. meaning, when christians go out to serve those in need, is it more important to preach the gospel so that they may hear and be saved or is it more important to give food/hand out blankets/etc.? he thought that most christians would say that it's purposeless to just satisfy the need without preaching the Word and that it's more important for the needy to be evangelized to. but my question is, why does it have to be one or the other? why does it have to be mutually exclusive? is it intrinsically so or do we/have we made it so? my heart tells me that it's cruel to preach without fulfilling a basic need. yet, as a christian, i can't think of anything more glorious than a relationship with Christ. isn't it possible to serve others and through that service, develop a relationship, and through the relationship, introduce Christ into their lives and then leave it up to them to decide? i mean, isn't that decision theirs anyway? ppl can't be forced to accept Christ, but they're more apt to when they have a trusted relationship with someone who earnestly seeks to follow Christ. why can't we serve the practical needs and try to reflect Christ through our service ministry? isn't that what ministry is about anyway? i'm sure it's harder than it sounds...harder than i'm making it out to be. but i'm confused. i'm trying to understand why there is controversy surrounding a theology that seeks to liberate those in bondage in Jesus' name. it's been suggested that some ppl think those oppressed and in bondage are ordained by God to be in those situations. i don't know about that. whenever i think of the oppressed or ppl in bondage...sexual slavery in cambodia and thailand...the caste system in india...those fleeing genocide in africa...i don't think to myself, "oh wow, i wonder why God put them there. He must have a reason" and go about my day. instead i think, "oh, if my heart hurts to know this, how much more anguish God must feel. what can we do about this?" i mean, i kinda think that as christians, we should be God's agents of compassion and righteousness. but i guess that's where ppl get hung up...they don't have a problem with the compassion part, but the righteousness part implies a political involvement...an appeal to governments to end or alleviate the suffering, which would mean that the governments and those in power would have to perhaps take some responsibility and institute change...which in turn is threatening in of itself. then i guess the question would have to be, how do we as a body serve, minister, and liberate without getting involved in political matters? is it possible? if it isn't, does that mean we shouldn't try? to what extent should we aim to liberate?