SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN ITS HISTORICAL FORMATION 

It is very easy to assume that Christian doctrine and theology have come down to us "prepackaged" from Heaven in all its neats forms and nuances.  Christians may find it hard to believe that there was a time that there was no such thing as "theology" or "doctrine" in the Church.

I contend that the Early Church did not have the luxury of constructing theology as we know it today. The Early Church was a community "on the run," if you will. In addition to its internal battles with heresy, the Church had to contend with persecution by the Roman Empire.  Though it has been said that there was "religious toleration" in the Empire similar to what we have today in the U.S.A. and other Western European countries, as soon as the Church began to proclaim that "Christ is Lord," that was, in essence, the end of religious liberty.  The notion was, you can believe and practice anything you want, but don't put the authority of Ceasar into question."  

Even with its battle with heresy, there was the possibility of physical injury and even death. As the second and third centuries dawned, and the Church became more numerous and more powerful, the doctrinal and theological "status quo" was not looked at kindly. Being banned or excommunicated from the Church was not the only punishment for deviation from the "faith that was once delivered to the saints."  As the Church became more powerful, the death penalty, just like in the times of ancient Israel, became an option for castigating those who tampered with its theology.  

We will look in vain for anything in the first century of the Church remotely like a fully articulated theological system.  The literature of this period primarily takes the form of letters and occasional treatises answering the critics of Christianity.  It does not include any major work of a comprehensive or systematic sort.  Still there is to be found within these "confessional" and "apologetic" writings, the beginning of systematic reflection upon the central content of the Christian faith (Robert H. King, "Introduction: The Task of Theology," in Christian Theology: An Introduction to its Traditions and Tasks. Peter C. Hodgson, Robert H. King, eds. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 3). 

Systematic theology, as we have come to know it did not spring forth full-blown at the beginning of the Christian era.  It was built up gradually over time. Only with Augustine in the fifth century did the key elements come together to form what with justification can be called the "classic paradigm."  Its most distinctive feature was its historical framework: the attempt to view the whole of Christian doctrine from a "history of salvation" perspective. The result was a powerful teleology, one which has penetrated deeply into the Western consciousness, yet which in the modern period has been met with severe criticism (Ibid, p. 24). a

The Enlightenment challenged the feasibility of any kind of teleology.  In particular, it exposed the mythic character of the history of salvation teleology.  The creation story might be symbolic of God's relationship to the world; it could not be taken as a literal account of the actual formation of the world.  Likewise the fall could be regarded as expressive of the human predicament, but not as an actual historical occurrence. Even the Gospel accounts of Jesus came to be seen as having "mythic" elements, so that there was no longer one sure point on which to fix the history of salvation. The disintegration of this long-established framework is clearly one of the major factors in the present theological crisis, though not the only one (Ibid.). 

Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics, on which Thomas Aquinas relied for much of his systematization of Christian belief, has also been largely discredited. The hierarchy of being, the pattern of emanation and return, and the ideal of perfection implicit in his system would be challenged by most of not all contemporary philosophers. Indeed, even the possibility of metaphysics has been questioned, so that looking to any metaphysical scheme to provide backing for a theological system would seem to be a dubious undertaking.  If Christian theology is to achieve coherence and comprehensiveness, it must be on some basis other than metaphysics or history (Ibid.).  

The early nineteenth century was a major turning point for theology not only because most of the critical issues had emerged by then, but also because the construction of an alternative paradigm was well under way. The distinguishing features of this "new paradigm" included: the prominence given to subjectivity, the acceptance of historical criticism, a developmental view of human nature, and the presumption of a close alliance between religion and ethics. The key figure in the transition was in the transition was undoubtedly Friedrich Schleiermacher, for he both accepted the challenge of the Enlightenment and sought a constructive reformulation of Christian theology that would be faithful to tradition. Along with G.W. Hegel, he recognized the need for a unifying principle that would hold together the disparate assortment of beliefs held by encompassed by traditional theology: beliefs about God, the human condition, Christ, the Church, the ultimate end of life. He found that principle in the religious self-consciousness. Because the Christian self-consciousness, as he understood it, was profoundly shaped by the community and its history, he was able to incorporate into his new paradigm many elements of the old paradigm, including the teleology of redemption. In light of the massive shifts in assumptions, came the question of what was to provide Christian theology with its overall unity, coherence and meaning (Ibid., p. 25)?  

A century and a half after Schleiermacher, is still with us. The major theological systems of the modern period all address it in one way or the other. The Christocentricism of Karl Barth, with its elevation of of one of the traditional items of belief to the status of chief organizing principle for the system as a whole, offers one kind of solution. Paul Tillich's method of correlation,with its appeal to the exisential situation of the believer as a constitutive element in the structuring of theology, provides a different kind of solution. Yet important and influential as these proposals have been, none has prevailed. If there can be said to be a single overriding task for theology at the present time, it is to recover a sense of wholeness, the unity, and integrity of the Christian witness. The factors that mitigate against this effort are probably as powerful now as they ever were.  In some respects, they may now be even more powerful for they have penetrated more deeply into our thinking. In addition, there are new factors present that challenge not only the classic paradigm, but also its modern successors (Ibid.).

One of these new factors is the encounter with other religions on a global scale. Traditions that were only theoretical alternatives at one time, are live options for many present-day Christians-even traditions as far removed from Western experience as Hare Krishna and Zen Buddhism. These religious traditions challenge some of our most firmly held beliefs and assumptions. Traditions with their origins in India, for instance, are singularly indifferent to all issues relating to history. Their "theological systems," if we may speak of such, bear no trace of a historical framework-cosmological perhaps, but not historical.  Zen, in particular, is very radical by our standards, challenging any sort of teleology and even calling into question the substantiality of the self. We have scarcely begun to respond to this challenge (pp. 26-27). 

Closer to home there have been a number of events in this century that have served to undermine confidence in the Christian interpretation of history and the teleological framework on which it is centered. The Holocaust is one of them, the ecological crisis another. Can we assume divine sovereignty over history when history issues in the mass extermination of innocent men and women? Can we assume that all things are ordered to human good when the relentless pursuit of human goods leads to the destruction of the environment and disruption of the ecological balance in nature? Even the theologies of liberation offer no real answers to this challenge, for though they are critical of fall forms of social oppression-and of the complicity of the theological establishment in that oppression-they rely for their criticism to a large extent upon a theology of history that is itself problematical (Ibid., p. 26).

So we may after all be in the midst of another paradigm shift. If so, the task of systematic theology will be more than a constructive task. The responsibility of the theologian will be to help us discern what is essential to our faith and to express it in ways that are both comprehensive and comprehensible (Ibid.).

En fin, as my theology mentor and professor, the late Dr. Paul Fries would always say, "Theology is tentative."  We can never claim to have it "all together."  Since it is a human endeavor and construction, we can never claim that theology is "infallible" or "God-given."  Indeed, we seek to comprehend God's self-disclosure in history, but given the human condition, and what Fries would call the "noetic effects of sin," we can never pretend that we have God "in our pockets."

I close by reiterating what I said at the beginning, i.e. that we cannot treat theology as if it were something that came pre-packaged from Heaven and given to the Church "for once and for all."  Theology is a human construct, reflective of our condition, including our arrogance, flaws, quirks, and propensity to sabotage God's self-disclosure to suit our own ends.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen. 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

WHY THEOLOGY? IS IT REALLY NECESSARY?  

As we encounter different claims regarding doctrinal and theological perspectives, we can't help but ask if it is really necessary to have a theology in the life of the Church and of the individual believer.  We might ask "What is the use?"  Many consider theology a total waste of time, and others consider it something that is totally unnecessary. 

As I continue to hear of and witness so much atrocity, suffering, and tragedy in the world, though I have always loved the study of theology (God-talk), I sometimes become discouraged and disillusioned, and even adopt the attitude of "what the hell?"  I say to myself "let's just focus on suffering, and the hell with all this theological razzle dazzle." I ask myself, "Does God even care whether or not we have a theology?"

Some would say that theology is in a state of disarray. There are no commanding theological figures on the level or order of Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann, etc.  But I wonder if that even matters, given the issue of the relevancy or non-relevancy of theology in our time.  

While there have been battles in history surrounding certain issues such as fundamentalism vs. liberalism, biblical literalism vs. biblical criticism, etc. it appears that there is an apathy, not only in the world, but also in the community of believers, towards things theological. It appears that the average person sitting in the pew does not know about or even care to know about these theological controversies.  The attitude is one of "let's prepare ourselves for Christ's second coming," or "let's commit and dedicate ourselves to eradicating social ills."  

I personally, see the importance of the role of theology.  The reason for this is because I believe that we have to be clear as to what we believe and why.  Indeed, there is suffering going on in the world, but I think that having a well-thoughtout  theology, will enable us to deal with that suffering in a manner which is both effective and faithful to the message of the Gospel.

There are some advantages in the present situation. For one thing, there is greater ecumenicity (interfaith relations among Christians of different orientations and traditions).  A person beginning the study of theology now is free as never before to draw upon the resources of many different traditions-Catholic as well as Protestant, Calvinist as well as Lutheran.  Even the Eastern Orthodox tradition has become accessible to theologians from the West, as it was not in earlier times. In fact, if there is any one characteristic that sets the present situation off from all previous ones, it is the manifest pluralism of religious traditions.  Christianity is conceived far more broadly today than at any time in its history, and traditions outside Christianity are taken more seriously than they once were.  It is not inconceivable even that a Christian theologian should learn from a Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic thinker (Robert H. King, "Introduction to the Task of Theology," in Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks., Peter Hodgson and Robert H. Kings, eds.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 1).

Another positive feature of the present time is the increased recognition that theology, for all its reliance upon tradition, is a constructive undertaking.  What has previously been set down cannot simply be taken for granted.  The tradition we have received has evolved over time, and we ourselves contribute to its further development by the way in which we appropriate and apply it. We had therefore, best take responsibility for what we say and in the way we say it.  That is especially true if what we seek is a "systematic theology," for whatever else that term may mean, it surely connotes a deliberate ordering of ideas, the self-conscious articulation of a theological position (Ibid., p. 2). 

Still there is no real consensus about either the substance or the task of Christian theology. The tendency is rather toward a kind of laissez-faire eclecticism, with theologians pursuing various thematic interests, but no one undertaking a genuinely inclusive, unified approach to the exposition of Christian doctrine. Even a serious and sustained critique of traditional positions is difficult to mount, because it is not at all clear from what stance or on what grounds such a critique would be carried out.  We are, for the most part, uncertain even  as to what the options are (Ibid). 

So perhaps the best approach would be to review how we have arrived at where we are: to examine what have been the paradigms for systematic articulation of Christian faith in the past, and the ways in which these paradigms have been challenged, transformed, and replaced in the modern period (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) 

We are, in other words, called to tell the story of Christian theology, with a view to better understanding the present exigency.  This approach ought not to be expected to resolve the outstanding issues, but it should put us in a better position to appreciate what those issues are and to take the measure of the task before us (King, op. cit., p. 1).

In summary, the task of theology, if I may say so, is to retrieve to the extent possible, "the faith once delivered to the saints."  Theology is a hermeneutical task, i.e. seeking to effectively and faithfully interpret the experiences, traditions, and scriptures which shape and form it. 

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

THE LATIN AMERICAN STORY-THE CONCLUSION

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

Up until this point, we have surveyed how Liberation Theology emerged and functioned within the Latin American context.  We have also seen how Liberation Theology seeks to address the issues that have been and continue to be of concern in the Latin American context.  We now bring this series of essays to a conclusion by asking "What is the story of Latin America relative to the continued theological process in its context?"  In many respects, the Latin American story is the story of all oppressed nations and groups in the world.  While the issues may not be the same in every context, the common denominator is oppression and injustice, on the one hand, and how Christian theology and the Gospel of Jesus Christ address those issues, on the other.

The powerful theme of the Latin American story has great emancipatory significance to those who are engaged in the relentless struggle for meaning and personhood in the Caribbean and Latin America.  Theology is an important dimension in the study of human existence, and those who engage in theological reflection should always take full account of the intercultural nature of our common experiences and aspirations.  The intercultural theological process must play a critical role if we are to engage in an authentic search for sustained personhood, spiritual maturity, authentic emancipation, and common growth toward the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.  This is the goal of our participation in theological reflection and Christian witness; this is the mission of Christ to which we profess allegiance.  We therefore seek to explore the meaning and scope of the Latin American story as an intercultural matrix in the search for a new theological process with distinctive liberating connections (Kortright Davis, Emancipation Still Comin: Explorations in Caribbean Emancipatory Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990, p. 117).

At this point we may stop to ask "How can Liberation Theology address the issues of cultural, economic, racial, and social injustice in an environment which is not exactly monolithic?" Marshall Eakin presents to us the image of Latin America as "a collision of three powerful streams converging to produce a roaring river that mixed three peoples into a dazzling variety of combinations that were new and unique in world history (Marshall Eakin, The History of Latin America: Collision of  Cultures. New York: Palgrave Mac Millan, 2007, p. 270)."

Over centuries , the turbulent river gradually diverged into many different streams, but all had their origins in the great river formed by the initial clash of Native Americans, Europeans, and Africans.  Many Americas took shape within the political and cultural construct we now call Latin America., and the construct has been a work in progress.  By the beginning of the twentieth century, the story of Latin America became more difficult for this history to be narrated coherently.  The collisions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, gave birth to a series of patterns with variations, but the narrative of conquest, colonization, and the emergence of new societies has a coherence that is lacking when we look at the region over the last century. The colonial era has a powerful unity primarily European conquest and colonialism, and the multiple reactions to these wrenching transformations.  By the end of the eighteenth century, the mighty river of Latin America had already begun to split off into many distinct streams, a trend that the wars for independence accelerated. The similar process of independence, early nation-building, and entry into the international economy, however, provide us with a new set of common patterns even as the newly emerging nations produce increasingly divergent paths (Ibid., ops. 270-21). 

If the region is not exactly monolithic, then Liberation Theology has a challenge in dealing with the context. Nevertheless, it also has opportunities to address in a coherent manner, the issues that emerge out of each individual national context.  The Exodus story remains the main theological paradigm which establishes the emergence, formation, and development of Liberation Theology in a Latin American context, and also constitutes the driving power that brings it into the context in a relevant manner.

Jose Miguez Bonino challenges us to take into account the religious diversity in Latin America.  He says, "Not all plurality is so peaceful.  Social contradictions, ideological differences, conflictive historical projects are also reflected in the religious world.  They evoke religious and theological responses which create tension and conflict, not only between religious groups, but, perhaps even more within them.  Thus we are not facing a "return of the gods," but "a conflict of the gods (Jose Miguez Bonino, "The Condition and Prospects of Christianity in Latin America," in the New Face of the Church in Latin America, Guillermo Cook, ed. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994, p. 261)."  

Religion means different things to different people and the concrete manifestation of their religious behavior often indicate what is their definitional approach.  If religion is used merely as a systematic attempt to supplement felt inefficiencies in the human order, then the rise in human sufficiency will create a corresponding fall in the need for religion.  A fleeting glance at post-Christian Europe will illustrate this point quite clearly.  If, on the other hand, religion consists in the movement of one's purposeful response to ultimate reality and the pursuit of total fulfillment, then it grows with the person and undergirds all human experiences.  The Latin American story is the integrative experience of a people whose religion is characterized by this latter approach.  Because their God has been "a help in ages past," Caribbean and Latin American people hold unflinchingly to the assurance that, in prosperity or poverty, God is "the hope of years to come" (Davis, op. cit. p. 117). 

The Latin American story is thus a most powerful framework through which Americans, especially those of African and indigenous descent, can move forward in an intercultural theological process in the struggle for Christian solidarity and the search for more concrete expressions of human freedom. We can contribute to each other's freedom by the collective engagement in the common discovery of our rich heritage.  Many of the tensions that have existed between Latin Americans of African and indigenous background, on the one hand, and African Americans on the other, have resulted from a lack of knowledge of each other, from our reluctance to understand each other's historical and cultural struggles, and from our insensitivity in communicating with each other.  The same holds true for Latin Americans of African and indigenous background on the one hand, and Latin Americans of European background on the other (Ibid., p 126).

In essence, then our struggle is an internal one as well as with external forces.  It is the story of the fight to rid ourselves of the shackles of imposed external colonization, and at the same time, a struggle against the internal barriers which exist among us as a colonized people.  It would be totally unfair to both assume and assert  that our problems are due exclusively to our colonial legacy.

In conclusion, we may be considering the Latin American story as nothing more tan a contemporary representation of the Joseph story.  Joseph was Jacob's dreaming son.  Nevertheless, his own experience of hurt by his brothers resulted in his own salvation, and that of his brothers. Egypt for them was the land of liberation from hunger, and subsequently became the land of bondage.  The Latin American story is a continuing experience of Egypt, and the eternal spiritual truth is this: If you do not know your Egypt, then you cannot know your Exodus (Ibid. p. 129).

The Latin American story will unfold over and over again. The story will be told over and over again.  As long as oppression and suffering continue to be a reality in the Latin American region, there will not be an  end to the story.  There is a sense in which the Latin American story is a universal story.  We conclude this series of essays by saying "The Struggle Continues."

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

THE LIFE OF LIBERATION: WE PRAISE GOD 

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

One of the many issues that comes up from time to time is that of the relationship between theology and worship.  I have often time advocated for and promoted the notion of a worshipful theology on the one hand, and a theology of worship on the other.  They are not contradictory to one another.  The Church of Jesu Christ needs to have a theology which celebrates the liberating and salvific works of God in history, and at the same time, a well thought-ought worship.  The two go "hand in hand." We cannot do a theology that does not have a component of celebration and praise, and neither can we have a worship which is based on blind and uninformed emotions.  

A big challenge for the Church of Christ in Latin America, and also for the Church which exists under oppressive conditions in all parts of the world is to consider the following questions:

1.  How can we as a Church construct and develop a theology which emerges not from ivory tower speculation, but rather from the reality of suffering?

2. How can we as a Christian community carry out celebration and worship in the midst of oppression and suffering?

3.  How can we as a Church make the distinction between faith as an anesthetic on the one hand, and faith as a lens of reality on the other?  

There are no east answers to the above questions.  The Church has a call from God to articulate its faith in such a way that it will be understandable to both its constituents and to the world to which it seeks to apply the message of liberation.  The Church is also called to teach its constituents and the world how to "sing the Lord's in a strange land."  The Church is, furthermore, called to enable its constituents to have a critical and analytical view of the socio-political environments in which it operates.

New ways of theological thought and praxis have been taking shape in Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Afro-America.  Theological initiatives have been flowering throughout the oppressed world, and the struggle for the pursuit of human freedom as the gift of God, who wills all persons to be free, has been gaining momentum.  The new wave of the articulation of the faith and the search for common dialogue and solidarity among Third World theologians have made an impressive mark on the consciousness of Third World theologians.  Black theology, Minjun theology, liberation theology, and emancipatory theology have all been promoted as authentic expressions of understanding the faith in Third World contexts.  Local theologians proclaim the Gospel of freedom as the essential meaning of the person and work of Jesus Christ.  A central theme is Paul's dictum in Galatian 5:1, "for freedom Christ has set us free, stand fast, therefore, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery (Kortright Davis, Emancipation Still Coming. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, p. 108)." 

"Freedom" and "liberation" are central motifs in Latin American theology.  We may ask "freedom" and "liberation" from what?  Classical evangelical theology tends to focus on individual  conversion from sin. The emphasis tends to be on liberation from individual sins such as sexual immorality, vices of alcohol, drug, and tobacco consumption, and in many cases, abstention from certain types of social entertainment.  The biblical concept of liberation, however, is more structural and systemic, which approaches human beings in their social settings.  

Traditional evangelical theology also focuses on "spiritual" liberation, which prepares people for celebration for the hereafter.  Liberation Theology focuses on having the Church carry out a liberating mission which will enable us to celebrate the "here and now," as we engage in God's liberating acts, which are designed to dismantle unjust social and political structures,  and replace them with structures which will allow all people to live in dignity.  

In spite of the many advances made in Liberation Theology-advances that have caused reactionary governments to take countervailing action and to encourage theological espionage (police interested in theology?), -there remains a need for substantial range of reflective action.  Because the notion of "liberation" has been overlaid with exclusive, and even divisive, ideological, and political concerns, the term "liberation" seems to be in urgent need of emancipation.  When North Atlantic liberals speak of "liberation," they often seem to mean something different from what the word stands for in the lives of those on the underside of  history.  And yet, both types of people are genuinely in search of freedom.  Therefore, the. importance of context must be borne in mind, since what is wine for one might be poison for another.  For those on the underside of history, i.e. the historically poor and oppressed, the notion of emancipation might be  more meaningful than the notion of liberation.  It ushers in a deeper range of theological reflection and response than is usually offered in the varieties in contemporary theology (Davis, op. cit., p. 106).

How, then, do we move forward from liberation to praise? As worship, Liberation Theology gives concrete meaning to the evangelical vision of a new heaven and a new earth by seeking to bring into historical reality the freedom from heaven on earth.  This emancipatory vision of present conditions in the light of future possibilities enkindles the heart with joyful courage and the lips with joyful praise (Ibid., p. 115). 

Howard Thurman says, "I will sing a new song. As difficult as it is, I must learn the new song that is capable of meeting the new need. I must fashion new words born of all the new growth of my life, mind, and spirit (Howard Thurman, Meditations of the Heart. Richmond: Friends United Press, 1976, p. 206)." 

This celebration in the midst of suffering is reflected in a song of the Latin American and Hispanic Churches, i.e. "Yo Canto en el Gozo, Yo Canto en la Prueba (I Sing in Times of Joy, I Sing in Times of Trial.  It also reflects the words of the Psalm writer who says "I will praise the Lord at all times, His praise will continually be in my mouth (Psalm 34)."  

Liberation Theology teaches us how to sing the Lord's song as we march towards freedom. The difficulties and troubles of the present do not hinder us from pursuing the freedom to which God has called us and to which God moves us.  The goal of complete liberation inspires us to remain in the struggle.

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

SPECIFIC ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

Like in other branches of theology, and like other theologies, Liberation Theology is an ongoing matter.  It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "once and for all" type of movement or activity.  Neither is it a "finished product" that was once carved and handed down to posterity.  

In keeping with this series of essays, I reiterate that we need to be faithful to the message of  Liberation Theology.  Why do I say this?  It is because, for all intents and purposes, Liberation Theology is a contemporary restatement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is not the Gospel itself, nor can we put it on a par with Scripture in terms of a norm of or  standard of faith.  It takes the message of Scripture, especially the Gospel, and in fidelity to that message, applies it to the situation in which we are living today, i.e. situation in which society is divided into oppressed and oppressive social groups.

NEW HISTORICAL SITUATION: CHANGES IN LIBERATION THEOLOGY

The crisis of historical socialism in Eastern Europe and the advent of human-face perestroika in the Soviet Union ended the Cold War. The worldwide confrontation between East and West -the so-called socialist block and the so-called democratic block-ceased.  Now capitalism is being touted as the only alternative for all of humanity.  When capitalism was forced to compete with socialism, it was concerned with showing a human face, with carrying out development policies in the Third World so that poor nations would not opt for socialism.  Now that capitalism has no competitors, it no longer needs to keep up a humanitarian facade. Nor must it concern itself with Third World development. It can definitely impose itself as the only solution.  Now we have a totalitarian World Order.  The government of the United States, as international policeman, imposes its military and political hegemony upon the entire world in order to ensure the acceptance by all of one capitalist system.  The Third World has no alternative but to submit or perish (Pablo Richards, "Challenges to Liberation Theology" in New Face of the Church in Latin America. Guillermo Cooke ed, Maryknoll: Orbis Books. 1994, p. 246)

During the 1960's and 1970's, which saw the birth and maturation of Liberation Theology in Latin America, capitalism was promoting a development policy for poor nations that in the process made them more dependent.  The liberation concept was used, then, to construct a model for autonomous or non-dependent development, even substituting the term "liberation" for "development." A "theological break" took place as we moved from development theology to liberation theology.  Dependence theory made it possible and necessary to develop both a theory and a strategy for liberation and revolution in the Third World.  "Developmentalism" and "reformism" were radically critiqued as dependency models and the "ideological break" was expressed by the term "liberation.  This new all-embracing concept pointed to many new breaks.  It expressed a new theory and a new praxis.  It became the reference point that defined a new culture, new ethics, and a new spirituality, as well as a new theology (Ibid., p. 248).

These developments make us ask "Is Liberation Theology" a restating of the "faith once delivered to the saints, or is it pseudo-theology? Because of its emphasis on social revolution and transformation, there are many that take it to be a revolutionary movement wearing the garb of theology.  Because Liberation Theology does not support the "status quo," it is categorized as "theology stemming from demonic origins."

The challenge to Liberation Theology-all of these profound structural changes in the dominant system challenge us both theoretically and practically.  We need to develop new concepts to help us acquire a better grasp of the new historical reality, and the possibility of transformation.  With the so-called crisis of Marxism, attempts have been made to undermine the capacity to theorize-to destroy the theoretical space that is needed to resist and continue struggling.  The right to think alternatively is under threat as are the hopes and utopias.  Countering these realities, Liberation Theology must again engage in dialogue, both critically and creatively, with the social sciences-particularly with economics, ecology, and anthropology.  At this new juncture, we must repossess our historical rationale in order to think critically and systematically about our faith in the God of life (Ibid., p. 249).

TRANSFORMING LIBERATION PRACTICE: NEW ROLE FOR LIBERATION THEOLOGY

Liberation Theology, as mentioned before, is a critical and systematic reflection upon faith with a practice of liberation.  The concept of "practice" is therefore crucial to Liberation Theology.  The changes that have been previously described relative to the dominating system and in the situation of the poor, also modify liberation practice and the way we think about it.  This is, to be sure, a challenge for Liberation Theology.

The new world juncture demands new thinking about Liberation Theology. It challenges us with new concerns.  Liberation Theology has the maturity and the necessary strength to face up to this moment in history, with its concerns and challenges.  This is not the end of Liberation Theology, as some people may have hoped, but rather a historical opportunity for its rebirth.  The new juncture opens up unchartered paths for the growth of Liberation Theology.  But this will require that it be seriously reconceptualized and reformulated in response to the new historical situation (Ibid., p. 257).

Liberation Theology has a future.  This fact should be a source of hope for the poor and oppressed people of this world.  What ultimately matters is the future of liberation and the future of the poor.  Liberation Theology's future is a function of the vital future that we desire for our entire threatened planet and cosmos. The solidarity of all of the oppressed, as well as of that of all conscientious women and men is needed.  It is with hope and solidarity that Liberation Theology will be constructed for the twenty-first and subsequent centuries (Ibid.)

As pointed out in previous essays, Liberation Theology is not merely a "new school of thought," or even merely another school of theological thought.  Neither is Liberation Theology a new fad that will have its day and be gone.  Liberation Theology is not a fashion show, nor is it empty rhetorical regurgitation. Liberation Theology seeks to take seriously the message of the Gospel, and make it applicable to contemporary reality. As long as there is injustice and oppression in the world, there will always be a Liberation Theology.

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary