LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

                     THE INCLUSION OF SEXISM AS A FORM OF OPPRESSION 

                      ELSA TAMEZ 

Elsa Tamez is another liberation theologian intent on developing a biblical hermeneutic that focuses on the Latin American oppressed. She served as a professor of biblical studies at the Seminario Biblico Latinoamericano en San Jose, Costa Rica (Ferm, op. cit. p. 127).

She saw the biblical drama as a continuing struggle on the part of the poor against the rich and comfortable-a theme that she does not find in European and North American forms of biblical theology (Ibid, p. 50).  

Tamez is one of the very few Latin American liberation theologians  who made extensive use of the writings of Jose Miranda. She is one of the very few who point to sexism as a major form of oppression.  She used the biblical story of Hagar as an example of a woman who suffered oppression for three reasons: class, race, and sex.  In a modern exposition of the Magnificat (Luke 1: 46-55), she ends by addressing God:

You have created us black, brown, yellow, white and red; male and female. We praise you because, in the midst of oppression, trials, tribulations, pain and injustice-caused by sinful human beings-you reign as our Sustainer.  As in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, you have shown us that suffering is not the end but that you are the supreme and final liberator ("Biblical Hermeneutics in the Theologies of Liberation," in Virginia Fabella and Sergio Torres, eds., Irruption of the Third World Theology: Challenge to Theology (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1983, p. 186).

So we find in Tamez's work that Liberation Theology does not only focus on social class issues, but also on issues of gender and race.  Women and non-Caucasian people are included among those who are dehumanized and oppressed because of their social condition.  

So we find, then, that Liberation Theology covers the wider gamut of human suffering.  It not only seeks to talk about the suffering, but to also to  talk to and  have ties of solidarity with the suffering.  

Theology is "God-talk."  It is not an exercise in semantics, or in abstract philosophical speculation. It is a discourse about God.  And this discourse does not take place aside from the human experience of suffering. Instead, it raise the question that the Israelites raised when they were in captivity in Babylon, i.e. "How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?" 

Liberation Theology seeks to engage in a discourse about God in the context of human relations and experiences.  It brings the message of God to the people in all kinds of bondage, i.e. "I have heard the cry of my people."

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Reformed Church in America 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary, Tainan, Taiwan 

        LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

        A LATIN-AMERICAN BIBLICAL HERMENEUTIC 

        JOSE SEVERINO CROATTO 

One of the things that is necessary for any theology which is not Euro-Centric, is to have a clearly-defined biblical hermeneutic (interpretation of the Scriptural revelation).  The hermeneutic has to emerge from the existential reality of the people engaged in it, and not from the people who have imposed, through colonization, their own hermeneutic as if it were "universally valid in all times and in all places."  

In general, in spite of the variations that exist in Latin American Liberation Theology, the common thread among these theologians is that  oppression and suffering serve  as the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.  In other words, rather than utilize the Bible to shed light on the human conditions of oppression and suffering, Liberation Theology begins with the human condition as a lens through which to examine and understand the biblical message.  

One of the Latin American theologians who believes that a genuine biblical hermeneutic should emerge from the oppressed community and not the oppressing community is Jose Severino Croatto.  Croatto was the first Catholic to teach at the Instituto Superior Evangelico de Estudios Teologicos in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Ferm, op. cit. p. 126).

He insists that there can be no definitive biblical hermeneutic (or closed Christology), because the different historical accumalations of meaning require ever renewed interpretation. He is adamant on this point:

The theology of the Third World has burst upon the scene with a hermeneutic challenge.  Like the theology that is arising in the world of the poor,  all theologies of liberation (socio-political, religious, women's, black and so on) mean to decipher a liberating God's new manifestations in situations of injustice and alienation.  For, in the suffering of the poor, we are assisting at a new God-event.  The poor are raising their consciousness and fighting for liberation.  It is they, first and foremost, who "recognize" God and who pronounce the first "word"-the first interpretation-of the God event ("Biblical Hermeneutics in the Theologies of Liberation," in Virginia Fabella and Sergio Torres, eds, Irruption of the Third World: Challenge to Theology (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1983, p. 163). " 

Croatto also dwells on the unending struggle Yahweh and "oppressing gods," and asserts that, in a real sense the theme of the entire Bible is "the battle of the gods ("The Gods of Oppression," in Pablo Richard et. al, the Idols of Death and the God of Life, p. 27)." 

He is also one of a growing cadre of liberation. theologians intent on developing an authentic Christology for Latin America.  Like Leonardo Boff, he portrays Jesus as "the one who reveals human values," the one who seeks out the oppressed, the one who knows firsthand what it means to be marginalized and denounced by oppressors (Ferm, op. cit. p. 50).

Like many other liberation theologians, Croatto finds strong parallels between the experiences of the early Christians and those of the oppressed peoples of the Third World (Ibid., p 50). 

If Third World theology is to result in our drinking "from our own wells," then a Christology and a clearly defined hermeneutic must accompany that emerging theology.  The Christology and the biblical hermeneutic must be home grown rather than imported. 

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Latin American Liberation Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: A HEALTHY ATHEISM 

One of the many challenges of Christian theology is that of contending with atheism.  Theology, as a branch of religion, engages in the task of not only "proving" the existence of God, but also putting those "proofs" into systematic form. 

The major issue with the theological task relative to this, is that within religion and theology themselves, there are so many different and varying  expressions.  In certain Christian sub- communities, there is a tendency to claim their particular expression of the faith as the "one and only valid" expression.

We find the same phenomenon in Latin American Liberation Theology.  Though the common thread is oppression as the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection, we also find variation within this particular theological modality.  As I have mentioned before, Latin American Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination.

One particular Liberation theologian who brings in a unique element is Antonio Perez-Esclarin. Perez-Esclarin was a native of Venezuela.  He taught for several years at a university in Caracas, and later left his academic post to live with the oppressed (Ferm, op. cit., p. 126)

Perez-Esclarin sees the chief contribution of Latin American Liberation Theology in the fresh meaning it gives to the conception of God as liberator (Ibid.).  

With other liberation theologians, he contends that idolatry is worse than atheism.  He explores this theme in his book "Atheism and Liberation (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1978).  

Of the idolatrous God in which oppressors believe, Perez-Esclarin writes:  "It is the God of the white conqueror, the God who expects submission from those who are enslaved...the God of the colonizers who denies humanity and equality to be colonized (Atheism, pp. 57-58)." 

Perez-Esclarin believed that it was better to be an atheist than to believe in that kind of God.  He contends that the true God's incarnation in Jesus gives us a living embodiment of the concrete meaning of liberation. He develops this point in his modern parable of Jesus of Gramoven. In this narrative, he relates the story of Jesus Rodriguez, a resident of the slums of Caracas, through the course of Holy Week.  In the end he is kidnapped as a "communist activist, and disappears from history (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1980). 

So here we are faced with an interesting question.  Is it better to believe in a God who is the construction of people who believe in racial supremacy, or is it better to be an atheist?  Perez-Esclarin is more inclined towards the latter.  

As a Liberation theologian of Afro-Puerto Rican background, I tend to resonate with Perez-Esclarin.  I believe that it is more honest to deny the existence of such a deity than to affirm it.  Idolatrous Gods only exist in the minds of those who construct them and concoct a theology surrounding them.  I believe that an honest atheism clears the way for a belief in God than does belief in an idolatrous God.  

If in connection and resonance with the Scriptures of the Judeo-Christian traditions we affirm that God created humankind in the divine image, then we can avoid the idiosyncrasies and traps of having humans create God in their image.  If in connection and resonance with Latin American Liberation Theology, we affirm that this Creator and creating God has revealed Godself throughout history in a variety of ways, and uniquely through Jesus of Nazareth, and that God has been revealed as being in solidarity with the oppressed and suffering of this world, then we clear the path for humankind to come to faith in a healthy way with that God.  Healthy atheism, more so than idolatry, helps us to encounter the liberating God.

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Reformed Church in America 

Past Visiting Professor of Latin American Liberation Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                                 LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

                                 FROM PACIFISM TO ARMED STRUGGLE 

Many people who aren't familiar with Liberation Theology tend to defame and mischaracterize it.  This appears to be an easier approach than to become familiar with the literature in the field and to go into deep analysis.  The tendency is to dismiss it as "Revolutionary theology," or "Marxism in disguise."  They believe that it is a mask for those who want to "rebel" against the established authorities by resorting to armed struggle and violence.

The theologian that we are going to talk about next, took action that confirms this mischaracterization.  His initial theological approach was one of pacifism, non-violent passive resistance, akin to that of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. 

Ernesto Cardenal is a splendid example of the poet become politician.  Minister of culture in the revolutionary government of Nicaragua, he previously ministered to the community of Solentiname, a group of about two thousand persons in a remote archipelago, on Lake Nicaragua.  There he and the community engaged in a continuing series of dialogues that related the Gospel lesson of the daily Mass to their everyday lives.  Over a hundred of these dialogues, taking place over a period of ten years, have been published in the four-volume series "The Gospel in Solentiname."  This "people's church" is the very stuff out of which Liberation Theology has emerged (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1982), 

When the Solentiname community was destroyed by the Nicaraguan National Guard in the late 1970's, Cardenal gradually renounced his pacifism, which had been nurtured by Thomas Merton at the Gethsemane Trappist monastery in Kentucky years earlier.  He cast his lot with the revolutionaries seeking to overthrow the dictatorial Somoza government.  When the Sandinistas succeeded in their struggle, the poet became the politician  and remained very much involved in the Nicaraguan struggle for social justice.  He did look forward, however, to the day when the poet in him could return to the Solentiname community (Teofilo Cabestrero, Ministers of God, Ministers of the People.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1983, pp. 13-43. ).  

The above-described historical scenario, raises of course, some ethical questions.  The first question is whether Cardenal should have continued to follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King's approach to social change, i.e. non-violent passive resistance.  The second question is whether he should have, instead followed, as he eventually did, in the footsteps of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his participation in the attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler, and in the footsteps of Karl Barth, being part of the Confessing Church, which through its Barmen Declaration, decried the government of Hitler.  

There are those in the U.S.A. who might criticize Cardenal for the transition that he eventually made to armed resistance and struggle.  In the process of leveling this criticism against him, they appear to forget that the U.S.A. as a nation-state, was conceived in violence, the violence that was imposed on the citizens of the First Nations, the violence that was imposed on those who were brought to these shores through the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, and the violence that the people living in the colonies resorted to against England in order to be liberated from English imperialism.  

Is Latin American Liberation Theology in and of itself a revolutionary theology?  I would say that the answer to that is an absolute "yes" in that it promotes a social change that will result in "liberty and justice for all."

Does Latin American Liberation Theology advocate for and promote armed struggle as a means of resistance and revolution.  The answer to that is "it depends" on which particular theologian of liberation one is talking about.  Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination.  There is as much diversity in Liberation Theology as there is in any other theological current.  

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Latin American Liberation Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

                           ADDITIONAL LIBERATION THEOLOGIANS 

Up until now, we have examined the theological thrusts of some Liberation theologians.  And, since, as I have pointed out both in my doctoral dissertation (The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective) and in previous posts, that Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination, but that rather, there is as much diversity in it as there is in other theological currents, I will proceed to make mention of other Liberation theologians.  

The Latin American liberation theologians whom we have covered thus far can all be considered major figures.  But others could just as well be included in this category.  The intention in this section is to highlight the thinking of certain individuals whose writings are not only influential, but also representative of the rich diversity of Latin American Liberation Theology (Ferm, op. cit., p. 47). 

Segundo Galilea makes a strong case for theological pluralism.  A native of Chile, he lived for many years in Medellin, Columbia, where he directed the pastoral institute sponsored by the Latin American Episcopal Council (CELAM). He also served as a pastor in Santiago Chile (Ibid., p. 126).

He notes that, although Latin American Liberation theologians agree on the undeniable sinful facts of underdevelopment, oppression, and injustice that pervade Latin America, they disagree on nearly everything else.  Galilea is particularly sensitive to the charge that Marxism and blatant politicism are necessary ingredients of Liberation Theology.  He insists that no serious Liberation theologian is guilty of such a charge: every one of them makes evangelization, not politics, the starting point of theology. But, of course, those who evangelize must be sensitive to the cultural context; one does not evangelize in a vacuum. Authentic evangelization must be cognizant of the popular religion and cultural identity of those whom they want to help  achieve liberation.  In the past, mission work has too often included the imposition of cultural baggage.  For example, most of the early missionaries linked their faith with their Iberian culture; theirs was a "church made from the top down."  But if this process can be reversed, Galilea believes that more and more Latin Americans will choose to identify with the Church, and in this process of social and political transformation, the Church will also change ((Ibid., p. 48).  

This,  of course, raises the question as to whether we can in all honesty make a dichotomy between evangelization and politics.  If evangelization is defined as a message which focuses on "the life hereafter," then politics will become either subordinate or non-relevant to theology.  On the other hand, if evangelization is a message of the "Reign of God in Christ," then it definitely carries political implications, i.e. divine politics vs. human politics. 

In addition, if oppression and suffering are the "starting points" of biblical theology, as they obviously are in the book of Exodus, and in the Gospel accounts, we cannot evade or forego politics per se.  If we take seriously what God said, i.e. " I have heard the cry of my people," we cannot engage in a model of evangelization that is abstract, theoretical, or immune to the existential human conditions.  If evangelization operates in these modes, then it is simply a "feel good" type of message that is not concretized in history.  In Scripture and in the traditions of the Church, God's liberating and salvific acts are always historicized.   If evangelization is not historicized, then it is a clown show.  

Following Gustavo Gutierrez, Jose Comblin, and others, Galilea points to the need for a "liberation spirituality," a theme that he develops in his book Following Jesus (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1981). Here he argues that authentic liberation must unite the mystic with the militant, the contemplative with the politician. For Galilea, true contemplation does not mean withdrawing from the world of actions. For him, quite the opposite is true.  It means experiencing the presence of God as we encounter our neighbor in the world of action.  To be sure, there is always the risk of politicizing the Gospel as we seek for God in the here and now, but this danger must never keep us from affirming the political dimension of the Gospel.  The continuing challenge for Christians is to avoid two extremes: an introverted Christ devoid of socio-political  involvement and a revolutionary Christ engaged exclusively in political agitation.  Galilea makes an important contribution to Liberation Theology in his view of Jesus who, though not advocating a specific political program, did insist that the Gospel has profound social and political implications for the lives of the poor (Ferm, op. cit. p. 48).  

En fin, we can say that Galilea's view of the Gospel is not one of navel-gazing or contemplating the moon.  It is not a message which is insensitive or oblivious to the human condition.  Neither is it one which requires us to "look the other way."  The message of the Gospel, in Galilea's point of view, requires us to stop "on our way to church," to be the Good Samaritan and help bind up the wounds of the victim of abuse, robbery, and oppression.  

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Latin American Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary