Small-talk Dialogue: LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: RUBEM ALVES T...

Small-talk Dialogue:  LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: RUBEM ALVES T...:  LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: RUBEM ALVES  There is a question as to whether Rubem  Alves belongs in the camp of Liberation Theology ...

 LATIN AMERICAN THEOLOGY 

JOSE MIGUEZ-BONINO 

THEOLOGY AND THE CAPITALISM-SOCIALISM DEBATE 

One of the things that Liberation theologians emphasize is that theology has to address what socio-political and economic praxis it legitimates.  In other words, how does theology endorse or oppose certain socio-economic and political systems and why?

Jose Miguez Bonino is one of those Latin American theologians who addresses those questions. Like most Latin-American theologians, Bonino addresses the direct relationship between theology and social issues in Latin America.  He makes it clear that theology cannot exist in a vacuum and that it cannot operate devoid of its cultural and social context.  

Like Rubem Alves, Bonino was one of the very few Protestant liberation theologians in an overwhelmingly Catholic Latin America.  Alves's ties to the church weakened throughout the years as he came to advocate a "theology of captivity" centering on dreams that will protect humanity from the harsh realities of the real world.  Bonino, on the other hand, continued as an active clergyman who also served as a president of the world council of churches (Ferm, op. cit. p. 39).

Jose Miguez Bonino was born in Argentina in 1924. He attended the Evangelical Theologate in Buenos Aires, as well as Emory University and Union Theological Seminary in the United States.  Ordained to the Methodist ministry in 1948, he served churches in Argentina and Bolivia, and was an official observer of the United Methodist Church at Vatican II.  He served as a professor of systematic theology at the Higher Evangelical Institute for Theological Studies in Buenos Aires (Ibid., p. 125). 

The author of several books, Miguez-Bonino's major contribution to the development of Liberation Theology is his Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. This book serves as an excellent introduction to the main features of Latin American theology, particularly the conviction that theology must emerge out of the lives of the oppressed in their own encounter with the biblical texts, a process that that Miguez-Bonino calls "hermeneutical circulation."  He traces the development of what he calls a "new breed of Christians" in Latin America, focusing on the Christians for Socialism conference in Santiago, Chile, as pivotal in this development.  This book is also helpful in its treatment of of some of the major agreements and differences among some liberation theologians (Jose Miguez-Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975).

In his writings, Miguez-Bonino devotes considerable attention to the capitalism-socialism debate. He faults the capitalist system for its profit-motive basis (which in Latin America has resulted in the dehumanization of large sectors of the population) and its apparent indifferences to the plight of the poor. These glaring inequalities will continue to exist as long as economic dependence on outside power continues.  In a manner of reminiscent of Gustavo Gutierrez and Juan Segundo, Miguez-Bonino suggests a new form of socialism that would eliminate the basis inequalities of the capitalist system yet not be a mere parroting of doctrinaire Marxism.  He takes pains to point out that Latin American liberation theologians are not socialist ideologues fomenting radicals social change.  Rather, they are committed Christians seeking to forge a new society of liberated human beings.  They have become social activists because of their Christian faith, not because of Marxist ideology.  But they have learned that Marxist analysis is helpful in understanding and correcting social inequalities.  In echoing Jose Miranda, Miguez Bonino points out that Marxist analysis to see class struggle, not as a general consequence of sin, nor as a deplorable accident, but-as Calvin himself saw-as a war prompted by greed and power (Ibid., p. 119).

For the Christian community, this means that what is at stake is not a specifically Christian struggle, but basically a human struggle of the oppressed against oppressors.  And Christians, like everyone else interested in social analysis, need to use the best available tools, including but not limited to, Marxist thought.  If at some point revolution and even violence become necessary for the oppressed to receive their due, it is not because of any Marxist dogma, but because the violence of oppressors demands it (Ferm, op. cit. pp. 39-40).

Miguez-Bonino joins Gustavo Gutierrez, Juan Segundo, and Rubem Alves, and other liberation theologians in criticizing Jurgen Moltmann and other European theologians for advocating a "critical theory" that claims to remain above all theologies and ideologies as a kind of all-encompassing judge. Such a neutral stance, Miguez-Bonino insists, is impossible (Ibid., p. 40).

Bonino says that there is no divine politics or economics.  He states that this means that we must resolutely use the best human politics and economics at our disposal (Miguez-Bonino here is responding to Moltmann's "Open Letter to Jose Miguez-Bonino."  In his letter, Moltmann contends that Miguez-Bonino and his Latin American colleagues are closer to European political theology than they care to admit and that in their use of critical analysis of European Karl Marx, they are less distinctive than they think they are.  Christianity and Crisis, March 29, 1976).

But he also warns against the tendency among some Latin American liberation theologians to equate Christianity with a specific social program. He calls this tendency the "radical monism' of the new Liberation Theology," a view that makes the love of God and the love of neighbor one and the same ("Historical Praxis and Christian Identity," in Rosino Gibellini, ed. Frontiers of Theology in Latin America., p. 263). 

He states that such that such a stance would lead to "unwillingly deifying the history of humanity. He believes that in such a case, that we would be better to call things by their right name and profess to total immanentism (Ibid., p. 272).

Bonino says the following: "As a Latin American Christian, I am convinced that revolutionary action aimed at changing the basic economic, political, social, and cultural structures and conditions of life is imperative today in the world.  Ours is not a time for mere development, rearranging or correction, but for basic revolutionary change (which out not be to be equated necessarily with violence)...the sociological tools, the historical horizon of interpretation, the insights into the dynamics of the social process and the revolutionary the revolutionary ethos and programme  which Marxism has either received and appropriated or itself created are, however, corrected or interpreted, indispensable for revolutionary change (Grand Rapids, Erdmans, 1976, p.7).

In closing, we can ask if Miguez-Bonino is advocating for a synthesis between Christian and Marxism.  We can also ask if he is a Marxist in disguise.  Is he trying to sanitize Christian theology by utilizing Marxist categories?  

My own response is an absolute "no" to all the questions above.  I strongly believe that he is a committed, dedicated, and sincere Christian who is committed to social justice from both a faith and theological perspective.  That in his work as a believer and  as a theologian makes use of Marxist analysis among others, does not diminish his faith.  Nor does it put him in the category of atheist and agnostic Marxists.  If anything, it places him in the category of those whose commitment to social justice is faith-based and not secularly-based. 

As Ferm, says, Miguez Bonino is especially important both for his concern to develop a Christian political ethic for Latin America and for his contribution to the Christian-Marxist dialogue (Ferm, op. cit., p 40).

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                      LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

                      JOSE PORFIRIO MIRANDA 

                      ARE CHRISTIANITY AND MARXISM COMPATIBLE? 

Many people whose notion of Liberation Theology is based on hearsay and market-place rumors, tend to think that Liberation Theology is Marxism in disguise.  They believe that it is a theological sanitizing of revolution and violence as a means of social change.  They have not, for the most part, bothered to pick up a single book written by an author of Liberation Theology, nor have they seriously engaged with the contents in the field.  

One such person that they believe (again, based on hearsay) to be a "Communist in disguise" is Jose Porfirio Miranda.  They see the title of his book "Marx and the Bible," and without having read it, they judge the book by its cover, and then are quick to say "You see, I told you so."  The reaction to Liberation Theology is then, as a visceral one, rather than one based on critical and analytical thinking or rigorous research.  As one colleague of mine put it, "they are allergic to research."  

Jose Porfirio Miranda is one of the most controversial Latin American liberation theologians.  He seems to occupy his own space, having virtually no contact with the church or his theological colleagues.  A native of Mexico, Miranda is a leading advocate of Marxism as an essential tool for understanding and changing Latin American society.  He has attempted to bring out many affinities between Marxist teachings and biblical faith (Ferm, op. cit. pp. 34-35. Miranda studied economics in Germany at the Universities of Munich and Munster and in 1967 received a licentiate in biblical science from the Biblical Institute, Rome. He has taught at the Universidad Metropolitana Tztapalapa in Mexico City.).

His first book, Marx and the Bible: A Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression put him at the forefront of Latin American biblical exegesis (Jose Porfirio Miranda, Marx and the Bible. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1974).

His basic theme in this study is the positive correlation between Marx and the Bible.  Neither will have love without justice or justice without love. Both affirm that love and justice make no sense apart from the social matrix; both insist that human beings can lose their selfishness for the sake of loving the neighbor; both seek to change the world for the better rather than to simply understand it; both believe that such a change for the better can indeed take place (Ferm, op. cit. p. 35).

Miranda asks "Is it more utopian to hope for the transformation of the world through justice than it is to hope for the definitive elimination of sin in the world?  Is it more utopian to believe in the resurrection of the flesh than in the abolition of all the injustices, enmities and cruelties in the world?...In both Marx and the Bible the basis for all thought is this thesis which is the most revolutionary imaginable: Sin and evil are not inherent to humanity and history; they began one day through human work and they can therefore be eliminated (Marx and the Bible, p. 277).  

Miranda takes  pains to note the similarities between Marx and the Apostle Paul.  Both emphasize the totality of evil. Both believe that injustice and sin can be eliminated, because selfishness is a "fallen" condition, not a natural one.  Whereas Marx sees injustice and sin as primarily the consequences of an economic system (capitalism), Paul finds them imbedded in earthly principalities and powers (Ferm, op. cit. p. 35).

In his book, Being and the Messiah: The Message of St. John, Miranda stresses his earlier theme that love and justice are also one and the same in the Johannine tradition. He says that the defining characteristic of the God of the Bible is that fact that He cannot be known or loved directly; rather, to love God and to know Him means to love one's neighbor and to do one's neighbor justice (Jose Porfirio Miranda, Being and the Messiah: The Message of St. John. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1977, p. 137). 

In fairness, it should be pointed out that Miranda is not an ideologue who simply bends and twists both Christianity and Marxism to make them fit together.  Miranda is highly critical of many components of Marxist ideology; yet he is not afraid to see the positive features in Marxism and the resemblance they bear to many biblical insights.  Miranda is justified in criticizing those anti-Marxists who have never bothered to read Marx, but who have settled for a passing acquaintance with Marx through the sometimes distorted lenses of his antagonists.  What is crucial to stress here is that the Marxist component one finds in some, but not all, Latin American Liberation Theology cannot be fairly and fully appreciated until one is willing to come to terms with Jose Miranda (Ferm, op. cit., p. 38).

By no means should we minimize Miranda's own deep Christian faith. He affirms again and again that one really believes in Jesus Christ only if one also believes that the this world can be changed for the better and that the reign of God can be realized on this earth.  For Miranda the bottom line is that to  do justice-"to preach good news to the poor....to set a liberty those who are oppressed"-is to follow Christ and to know God (Ibid.).

Can religion and Marxism resonate with each other in any way?  Is it possible to eliminate sin without eliminate the causes and roots of sin?  These are the types of questions that need to be raised when making the comparisons that Miranda as a theologian of liberation writes and speaks.  These issues will continue to exist and be addressed as long as the struggle for justice continues. 

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: HUGO ASSMANN 

Hugo Assmann's advocacy of Liberation Theology has made him persona non grata in several Latin American countries.  Exiled from Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, and Uruguay, he found a place on the faculty of  the school of journalism at the University of Costa Rica (Ferm, op. cit., p. 32). 

Assmann's greatest strength lies in his ability to synthesize the major themes of Latin American Liberation Theology.  In his best known work, Theology for a Nomad Church (1976) he spells out a theology of liberation that has taken place since Medellin (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1976).  

The starting point is that every human act has a social and political setting and the Christian obligation is to work for a socio-political setting in which everyone can be fully human.  None of the "progressivist theologies" of the developed countries -secular theology, death of God theology, political theology, theology of hope-has been specific enough to be applied to the Latin American context-nor have the intraecclesiastical reforms of Vatical II, or the Christian-Marxist dialogues in Europe.  Assmann quotes with approval Jose Comblin's Assertion, "Any Latin American who has studied in Europe has to undergo detoxification before they can begin to act ((Ibid., p. 56)

This raises a very interesting question.  Are Assmann and Comblin intimating that any theology that comes out of Europe is inherently and naturally toxic, and maybe even heretical?  It appears that they are both assuming that a true liberation theologian must divest herself/himself of all European theological assumptions and presuppositions.  

Assmann singles out for special criticism European political theology, especially its failure to appreciate the need to join with the poor in overcoming oppressive political structures.  It is all very well for European theologians to talk about the importance of the role of theology in the ongoing political process and the need for Christians to be involved in political change.  Latin American theology goes beyond European political theology when it moves from abstractions to partnership with the poor in the revolutionary struggle (Ferm, op. cit. p. 32).

How is theology aligned with those involved in the revolutionary struggle?  I humbly submit that the linguistic content of theology needs to be understandable to those engaged in the revolutionary struggle. Those involved in the struggle must understand theological language in order to establish a theological underpinning to their revolutionary actions.  They need to deal with the question of "What role, if any, does God play in our struggle?"  If theology is detached from this question and in turn disengages itself from the struggle, then it is a false and irrelevant theology.  If God is not part of our struggle to construct a more just society, then. we want nothing to do with God or anything associated with God.  

Like Juan Luis Segundo, Assmann sees a new methodology as the key to Liberation Theology, a methodology grounded in the social sciences.  The essential task of theology is to analyze the actual conditions in which persons live, a task that  Assmann calls "the socialization of theology."  And when we analyze these conditions, we discover that violence has been institutionalized, as has poverty and oppression.  Here is another difference between Latin American theology and its European and North American counterparts-North Atlantic theology has never sensitive to institutionalized oppression that permits millions of human beings to remain under the poverty line.  Any theology that does not have as its starting point a preference for the poor will ignore their cries and proceed to ask the raw abstract questions that and be satisfied with wrong idealistic answers (Ferm, op. cit, p. 320).  

This goes in keeping with the theological orientation of the late Dr. James Cone, professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, when he stated that if theology does not  address the conditions and status of oppressed and suffering people, that it is then, not only irrelevant, but also demonic and heretical.  If theology is to be not only effective, but also faithful to the message of the Gospel, then it must address both in its linguistic content and thrust, an orientation towards being in solidarity with the oppressed and suffering of the world.  It must have as its central axiom,  the biblical statement of "I have heard the cry of my people."  

Assmann maintains that the worst temptation for theology is to engage in absolutes.  Indeed, even the Bible, tradition, and the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church, history of dogma, and so on, are but secondary sources of truth.  Assmann insists that a normative authoritarian theological perspective cannot take precedence over a commitment to the poor and oppressed (Assmann, op. cit. p. 104).  

When theology as a task is a message of solidarity with oppression and suffering, it ceases to be a task of establishing theological "correctness" in the classic sense of the word.  "Correct theology," in this case, becomes one which is "correct" only to the extent that it addresses and has something to say about the human condition.  It is only "correct" when it serves as the propelling engine for revolutionary action in the world relative to the pursuit of the construction of a society in which justice will prevail.

Hugo Assmann is a Latin American liberation theologian who has suffered political exile in his espousal of the plight of the poor and oppressed.  But he is convinced that the poor know about the world as God intended it to be than does anyone else.  This is precisely why Assmann insists that Christians should not hesitate to side with the poor. For, by seeing the world from the epistemological privilege of the poor, Christians will advance not only the liberation of the poor, but their own liberation as well (Ferm, op. cit. p. 34).

As a student of Latin American theology, and as a theologian of liberation, I humbly and respectfully submit that theology has to be "the voice of the poor."  It cannot be the mouthpiece of the elites who just love to hear themselves talk, nor the dictums of those whose only concern is with "right doctrine" in the classical sense of the word.  In Liberation Theology, we not only speak "about," but also "to" the poor. In Liberation Theology, the poor speak for themselves and on behalf of their fellow sufferers.  Theology is about solidarity.

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

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

LEONARDO BOFF 

Leonardo Boff's chief concern has been to develop a christology for Latin American Liberation Theology. Leonardo Boff, a Franciscan priest, was born in 1938. He studied theology and philosophy at Curitiba and Petropolis in Brazil and later studied at Oxford, Louvain, Wurzburg, and Munich, where he received his doctorate.  He served as Professor of Systematic Theology at the Petropolis Institute for Philosophy and  Theology (Ferm, op. cit., p. 30).

In his Jesus Christ Liberator: A Critical Christology for our time (1978), Boff suggests five criteria for constructing a suitable christology.  They are as follows:

1.  An indigenous Latin American christology will focus on human need rather than ecclesiastical dogma and structure.  

2. Its orientation will be towards the future, asking what Christ can do for the oppressed. 

3.  It will be open to dialogue with the world, and not be concerned with preserving the religious mentality of the status quo.  

4. It will stress the  social dimension of the liberating work of Christ, with special attention given to liberation for the poor and oppressed who have no voice in determining their future.  

5.  It will have as its foundation a Christ who calls us to correct action (orthopraxis) even more than to correct beliefs or orthodoxy (Maryknoll, N.Y., Orbis Books, 1978)

Applying these five criteria, the emergent portrait of Jesus is that of one who is the liberator of the human condition (Ibid., p. 63).

He is also the one who advocates the kind of radical love that knows no human discrimination; the one who reflects "all that is authentically human"(Ibid., p. 87). 

Boff describes Christ s the one who is completely open to God, and who exhorts us  to oppose the oppressors of our day as He did in His day.  His description of the person and role of Jesus is filled with down to earth imagery: "being for others to the end," "the human being par excellence," the one who for young persons is a "tremendous high," the dissenter, revolutionary, and liberator (Ibid., pp. 238-39),  

According to Boff, Jesus's intention was not to establish a new church, but to make clear the dominant qualities of a fully human being. Boff betrays his liberal theological learnings by declaring, "It is not those who are Christian who are good, true, and just.  Rather the good, true, and the just are Christians (Ibid., p. 250). 

For Boff, a christology for Latin America comes down firmly on the side of the poor and downtrodden. To follow Christ in Latin America is to seek to change the existing social structures that support poverty and oppression.  The theology of liberation of Jesus Christ the Liberator is the pain-filled cry of oppressed Christians.  They are knocking on the door of their affluent brothers and sisters, asking for everything and yet for nothing.  Indeed, all they ask is to be people, to be accepted as persons.  All they ask is that they be allowed to fight to regain  their captive freedom ((Ibid., p. 295). 

Boff even asserts that violence might be necessary for the sake of socio-economic liberation.  However, Christians will never initiate physical violence; they will resort to it only when forced by oppressors to do so (Ferm, op. cit, p. 30).  

In his subsequent writings, Boff notes how the situation in Latin America today has striking parallels with the socio-political situation of Jesus's time.  In developing this theme-one that Juan Segundo considers an improper parallel-Boff points out that Palestine, like the countries of Latin America was a dependent state suffering from the external (Roman) control.  Jesus confronted this external domination by preaching about the reign of God that would usher in a new era of human liberation.  Jesus chose to identify Himself with the have-nots, defending their rights and promising them a better day when God's purposes would be consummated on this earth.   (Ibid., p. 31). 

In summary, we find that there are two pivotal points in Boff's Liberation Theology.  The first one is that of Christology, i.e. the doctrine of the person and work of Christ.  Unlike classical Christian theology that focuses on this issue, emphasizing the questions of deity and humanity in Jesus, Boff talks about the relevance of the person of Christ to the situation of oppression and suffering in Latin America,  The question for Boff is not so much whether Jesus is divine and human at the same time, but rather that of what is Christ doing in Latin America today.  In keeping with the spirit of the late Dr. James Cone, Boff is not so concerned with what did Jesus do back in His time relative to the situation of Palestine's socio-economic and political captivity by Rome, but rather what is Jesus doing today relative the socio-economic and political captivity of Latin America. 

The second one is that of violence.  While Boff does not actually advocate for violence, he makes it clear that structural violence, i.e. that generated by the socio-economic and political entities, generates a response defense which can in turn, become violent.  So his mention of violence in his theology, makes us in the modern era, examine what is the role, if any, of violence in our time as a means of social change.

En fin, Boff challenges us to examine, not only our general theological assumptions and presuppositions, but also, in particular our christology. Is our modern-day christology one that is limited to debating the divine vs. human nature of Christ, or is it geared towards placing the person and work of Christ in a suffering world.  

I totally agree with Deane Ferm when he says that Leonardo Boff is one of the most creative and challenging Latin American liberation theologians, one who displays the many-splendored dimensions of a full-blown liberation theology (Ferm, op. cit., pp. 31-32). 

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College Seminary