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 

 LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: RUBEM ALVES 

There is a question as to whether Rubem  Alves belongs in the camp of Liberation Theology or Theology of Hope.  And since Liberation Theology and Theology of Hope appear to be similar in some respects, it is difficult to make that determination.

The thinking of Rubem Alves, more than that of most other Latin American liberation theologians, is grounded in the Theology of Hope.  This theology, exemplified particularly in the writings of the German theologians Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg, emphasize the eschatological dimension of history.  History in this view is understood to be futuristic, open to new beginnings, with God as the promise of eventual fulfillment.  For these theologians, human salvation is social in character, geared toward social justice and human liberation.  God is envisioned as the "power of the future," leading humanity toward the fulfillment of social justice (Ferm, op. cit. p. 27).

Alves's close identification with European political theology has arisen, in part, from his graduate work at Union and Princeton Seminaries in the United States.  His first book, A Theology of Human Hope (1969), was based on his doctoral dissertation at Princeton University (Ibid.).

Because Alves is very much at home with the writings of Jurgen Moltmann, Juan Segundo has branded him "a disciple of Moltmann."  Such a characterization, however, is misleading, for even in his "A Theology of Human Hope," Alves is highly critical of Moltmann, a judgement that becomes increasingly severe in his later writings,  In his first book, Alves faults Moltmann for focusing almost exclusively on the transcendent dimension of eschatology, thereby giving second place to the human dimension.  For Alves, hope is not something transcendent beckoning humanity from beyond; rather hope is "the stretching out of human consciousness, as it looks beyond the unfinishedness of what is (Rubem Alves, A Theology of Human Hope. St. Meinard, Ind., Abbey Press, 1969, p. 67)."

Alves advocates what he calls a "political humanism"-that is, a creative open-ended process that continually affirms  that a better tomorrow can be achieved.  This political humanism contains three components. First, it denies finality to the present human structures; they by no means represent the final chapter in human history.  Secondly, one must always continue to hope that the future will include the elimination of  these present oppressive forms.  Thirdly, it is humanity and humanity alone that will effect these changes and created new structures that promote human justice.  Alves does not contend that the perfect social order can be achieved, but that a far better society than the present can emerge (Ferm, op. cit., p. 28).

So a fundamental question remains.  Does humankind have the capacity to create and sustain perfect social structures that mete out justice?  Or, from a Pauline, Augustinian, and Calvinistic point of view, is humanity so tainted by sin that it cannot erect these structures?  Is it possible from a Wesleyan point of view that through the power of the Holy Spirit, humankind can erect just social structures that are not perfect, but far better than what we have?  Those questions remain open-ended as human history demonstrates sincere efforts to create those structures, and at that same time, failures at the end of the day. 

For Alves the term "violence" means anything that keeps humans from realizing a better future.  In short, violence is "the power of defuturization." Alves makes much of the notion of freedom and even suggests a "language of freedom," entirely secular in nature, which "does not look behind the stars first in order to find a meaning for the earth (Alves, op. cit.,  p. 163).  

At this point we get into the squabble between "conservative" and "liberal" Christians.  Liberals will say that conservatives are so "heavenly minded that they are no earthly good," and conservatives will say just the opposite, that liberals are "so earthly minded that they are no  heavenly good."  So the question for the theological task is whether our eschatology (doctrine of the final things or history as we know it) should be whether we focus on "The other side of Jordan" as the final destiny of humankind, or whether we should focus on Jesus's words, "If I by the finger of God cast out demons, than the  reign of God is among you."  

We may ask, "Where is God in all this?"  Alves replies: "God is the power for humanization that remains determined to  make humans historically free even when all objective and subjective possibilities immanent in history have been exhausted....The beginning, middle and end of God's activity is the liberation of humans....To speak about God is to speak about the historical events that made and make people free (Alves, op. cit, p. 99)."

A fundamental question remains.  Does Alves's theology fit in more with Liberation Theology or with the Theology of Hope?  In this writer's (yours truly) opinion, to the extent that Alves does not come out strongly to emphasize that oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection, that his theology fits in more with the Theology of Hope.  This is not to say, by any stretch of the imagination that Alves's theology is either heretical or worthless.  As Ferm points out, if Alves has reached the point where he can say only that "all is vanity and a striving after the wind," in fairness  to him we should point out that this fatalism is a product of years of agonizing struggle against the forces of oppression in Latin America that seem only to grow stronger (Ferm, op. cit, pp. 29-30).  

While Alves's eschatology might appear to be and remain futuristic in its orientation, I do not believe that he is living in "La La Land."  Nor do I believe that his theology is one of "In the Sweet By and By."  He wrestles with the reality of demonic and structural evil.  Because of that, I would not exclude him from the camp of Liberation Theology.

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 

LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: JUAN LUIS SEGUNDO 

Juan Luis Segundo is one of the most prolific writers among the Latin American liberation theologians, having authored more than fifteen books.  Born in Montevideo, Uruguay, in 1925, Segundo, a Jesuit, studied philosophy in Argentina, received a licentiate in theology Louivain, Belgium, in 1956, and earned a doctorate of letters from the University of Paris in 1963. Ordained a priest in 1955, he later founded the Peter Faber Pastoral Center in Montevideo and served as its director until it closed in 1975 (Ferm, op. cit., pp. 22-23).

Segundo was already spreading the seeds of Liberation Theology prior to Vatican II and the emergence of European political theology.  His early writings-Funcion de la iglesia en la realidad rioplatense (1962) and Concepcion cristiana del hombre (1964)-refute the common charge that Latin American Liberation Theology is the stepchild of European political theology.  Segundo faults Ruben Alves for aligning himself too closely with Jurgen Moltmann and other European political theologians.  In his writings, Segundo has called attention to what he considers the flaws in European political theology, primarily its failure to give sufficient credit to human beings for their political role in fashioning the future and to appreciate the close causal connection between divine and human intervention (Ibid., p, 23).

Like Gutierrez, Segundo views theology not as an academic discipline for scholars, but as the reflection of the real-life experiences of ordinary believers.  This approach can be seen in Segundo's five-volume series entitled "A Theology for Artisans of a New Humanity," a course in theology produced by and for the grassroots communities of the Peter Faber Center during the late 1960's, and early 1970's.  In this interaction with lay Christians, Segundo focuses on several issues directly related to their daily lives. First is the crisis of the Church in the modern world.  Vatican II had issued the the challenge to the Church to enter into a dialogue with the world, a challenge that often left the Church with the insecure feeling that it had no easy answers to the immense social problems the world faced.  Yet, rather than seeing this as a threat, Segundo welcomes this insecurity, insisting that it can liberate the Church from a false complacency and enable it to become a "sign of salvation" to encourage Christians to lead more constructive and authentic lives (Juan Luis Segundo, The Community Called Church. Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1973, p 98).

The Church should admit that it does not possess all the answers. And then it should get on with its first order of business, which is serving the people (Ferm, op. cit., p. 3).

Along this same time line, Segundo disavows the traditional notion of grace as prepackaged in a sacramental system.   He argues that a careful reading of the New Testament reveals that Jesus never intended to institute a formal sacramental system, and he bemoans the the fact that this system has played such an important role in the history of the Church.  Sacraments are indeed important, but primarily as "community gestures and signs," encouraging Christians to get with the process of liberation.  Segundo says that a community gathered together around a liberative paschal message needs signs which fashion it and question it, which imbue it with a sense of responsibility and enable it to create its own word about human history.  This is precisely what the sacraments are-and nothing else but that.  Through them God grants and signifies to the Church the grace which is to constitute it truly as such within the most human community (The Sacraments Today, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1974, p.99). 

One of Segundo's most valuable contributions to Latin American Liberation Theology is his concern for the relationship between faith and ideology.  In his Faith and Ideologies he elaborates on this theme, contending that "faith is never faith without ideologies," and that ideology without faith is never an ideology."  He notes, for example, the variety of meanings attached to the term "Marxism."  Therefore, one can no more talk about an abstract "Marxist ideology" than one can extrapolate a capitalist ideology. Segundo would prefer to find new terminology that is not so laden with emotion-terminology reflective of the basic concern for Latin Americans to reconstruct their society "from the roots of their relational base up." (Our Idea of God, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1974, p. 4).

Faith and Ideologies is but the first of a five-volume series that could turn out to be one of the stunning theological achievements of our time.  This series may do for the Liberation Theology of this generation what Paul Tillich's writings did for the relationship between theology and culture in the previous generation.  Segundo is especially important because he is a Latin American Liberation theologian whose fertile and original mind ranges far and wide over a vast spectrum of theological issues.  He creates his theological thinking as a response to grass-roots communities, while keeping his Christian faith at the very core of thinking and action ( Alfred T. Henley, Theologies in Conflict: The Challenge of Juan Luis Segundo. Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1979).

This short article demonstrates what I have said and will continue to say, i.e that Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination.  There is as much diversity and variety in Liberation Theology as there is in classical theology.  Each theologian of Liberation takes a different approach to the issue.  Each one comes up with a different paradigm.  As we study each theologian individually, we see that there are differences as well as similarities. 

This, of course, makes it difficult to characterize Liberation Theology as "conservative, liberal, or progressive," because in the final analysis, each theologian has her/is perspective as to where to begin and as to what are the "means and norms."  These are among the things that make Liberation Theology both challenging and exciting.

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

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona,

Past Visiting Professor of Liberation Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                                      LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

Liberation Theology is a world-wide movement which engages the oppressed and suffering people of the world.  As has been mentioned before, it is not merely another school of thought which will have its day and then gone by, but rather, a movement which emerges from and seeks to address the situation of people, who are suffering in different parts of the world.  

This essay is the beginning of several focusing on that part of the world known as "Latin America." We might ask "Why do we need to focus on Latin America?"  My response to that is that we focus on that region of the world because it happens to be a region where people are living in dire straights, and where they have been the victims of much cruelty, dehumanization, and suffering. 

Writing in 1971, Enrique Dussel stated that Latin America had not yet produced any leading theologian (Enrique Dussel, A History of the Church in Latin America. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1981, p. 112).

This situation has changed rapidly.  Since the 1970's and 1980's, Latin American theologians have written an abundance of books and articles that have led to the conclusion that their authors are at the forefront of of the making of contemporary theology (Ferm, op. cit., p. 16).

Most observers consider Gustavo Gutierrez of Peru to be the preeminent Latin American theologian. His book "A Theology of Liberation" published in Spanish in 1971, and then translated into English in 1973 has been hailed as the "Magna Carta" of Liberation Theology (A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1973).

Gutierrez was born in 1928 in Lima, Peru. He studied for a time at the San Marcos University Medical School in Lima, where he took a particular interest in psychiatry.  Later he felt called to the priesthood.  His pursuit of theological studies took him to Louvain, Lyons, and Rome.  He returned to Peru to accept a position at the Catholic University in Lima. Ordained a priest in 1959, he moved to Rimac, a slum of Lima. He taught in the Department of Theology and Social Sciences at the Catholic Pontifical University in Lima and also served as the director of the Bartolome de Las Casas Center in the heart of Rica( Ferm, op. cit., p. 16).

Of Amerindian ancestry, Gutierrez had experienced the pangs of discrimination in his early years-an experience that prompted him to become a political activist in his undergraduate years.  His encounter with daily suffering in Rimac strengthened his resolve to focus on his priestly concerns on the plight of the oppressed. This commitment was also reinforced by his discovery of the writings of the early Spanish liberator, Bartolome de las Casas (Ibid. pp. 16-17). 

During the 1960's, Gutierrez became increasingly disenchanted with his formal theological training.  In Europe, theology had been presented primarily as an intellectual discipline, more attuned to the life of the mind than to the actual living conditions of the poor. As a priest of and to the poor, he came to see that theology-indeed the Christian faith itself -made no sense unless it came to grips with the oppression and violence endured by those who whom he was called to serve.  During the decade of the 1960's, Gutierrez encountered other priests who felt as he did-that the theology that they had been taught was irrelevant to the poor with whom they lived.  One such priest was Camilo Torres, Gutierrez's fellow student at Louvain, who became radicalized in his ministry to the poor, and was eventually murdered for his "subversive" activities (Ibid.). 

According to Gutierrez, Liberation Theology as a self-conscious movement, was born in 1968, the year that he had gathered with like-minded priests in Lima and later at the episcopal conference in Medellin, serving as the principal author of the document on peace.  He also attended the follow-up conferences in Switzerland in 1969, and Colombia in 1970 (Ibid.).

It was during this time that Gutierrez wrote A Theology of Liberation.  The book was, in essence, a reflection on what he had learned firsthand from his daily encounters with his people during the preceding decade (Ibid.).

The book is Gutierrez's answer to the question, "What is the proper role of theology and of the theologian in the attempt to faithful to both the Christian gospel and to the poor in Latin America? Historically, Gutierrez notes, theology serves a variety of purposes. One model has emphasized wisdom and understanding.  According to this model, the primary task of theology is to understand the nature of reality, and further, to provide a reasoned interpretation of the divine revelation entrusted to the Church. Thus, theology serves both to strengthen the faith of the believers and to make Christianity intellectually convincing to the non-believers. Another important theological model has stressed spiritual enlightenment and sought to bring the believer into a close relationship with Christ (Ibid.) 

Gutierrez does not wish to do away with either of these models but rather to transcend them. He suggests a vision of theology from Augustine's The City of God, and Augustine's attempt to relate the Christian faith to the everyday lives of the Christians in his turbulent time (Ibid.).  

In a later book which he writes, i.e. We Drink from our Own Wells, Gutierrez stresses the point that liberation is an all-embracing process that "leaves no dimension of human life untouched." He says that "an encounter with the Lord is the necessary point of departure for a life according to the Spirit (Ibid.).  

As one continues to engage with Gutierrez and his writings, one discovers that he believes that oppression and suffering are the starting points  for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. These conditions and situations become the prism  through which Scripture and the traditions of the Church are understood in the life of the community. 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

Past Prison Chaplain

New York State Department of Correctional Services ne  

 The heart of the Medellin documents can be summarized in two of its passages:

By its own vocation Latin America will undertake its liberation at the cost of whatever sacrifice (The Church in the Present Day Transformation of Latin America in the Light of the Council: Second Conference of Latin American Bishops. Washington, DC, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 3rd. 3d., 1979, p23).

The Lord's distinct commandment to "evangelize the poor" ought to bring us to a distribution of resources and  apostolic personnel that effectively gives preference to the poorest and neediest sectors (Ibid., p. 175).

Medellin is the cradle of Liberation Theology.  It is a clear and unambiguous assertion that the church should exercise a "preferential option for the poor"-an ideal that has become the hallmark of Liberation Theology.  However, the documents do not represent a unanimous point of view.  Both proponents and opponents of Liberation Theology can find passages to bolster their own positions.  And the documents are far more impressive in analyzing conditions than in proposing solutions.  But what Medellin did accomplish, in the words of Phillip Berryman, was "to give a green light to creative minorities all over the continent whose participation in the liberation struggle has led to a radicalization of the themes present in Medellin ("Latin American Liberation Theology" in Sergio Torres and John Eagleson, eds, Theology in the Americas.  Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1976, p. 26).

Although Vatican II and Medellin were important catalysts, they did not produce Liberation Theology.  Liberation Theology emerged from the lives of the poor and oppressed in Latin America, and, in particular, from the small basic Christian communities (CEBs-comunidades eclesiales de base) of the dispossessed-creative minorities seeking to relate their Christian convictions to their everyday lives.  These small communities, mostly in rural areas and on the outer edges of the cities, are formed by simple Christians who gather together to worship God and live out their responsibility to make Christ real in their lives (Ferm, op. cit. p. 12).

The CEBs are trying to live in a demanding way and under the extremely difficult conditions of their environment, the good news which they have accepted; celebrating it jubilantly in worship and and proclaiming it courageously to those who have not yet heard it----When the oppressed poor accept the gospel as good news of liberation, and actually strive to become liberated from the oppression that is being suffered, they are, ipso facto, battling against the sin of the oppressor, inviting the latter to conversion...The great revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the radical innovation of the good news that He brings in His preferential love for the poor and sinners (Basic Ecclesial Communities: The Evangelization of the Poor. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1982, pp.64, 67-68).

CEBs have mushroomed all over Latin America.  By the end of the 1970's, approximately eighty thousand such communities existed in Brazil alone.  The CEBs are the very stuff out of which Liberation Theology grows, for they are the "poor in action" of which Liberation Theology is but a reflection.  Many of these communities use educational methods developed by Paulo Freire. He introduced "conscientization," a process by which persons  are made aware of how important it is to integrate their religious faith with their day-to-day political and social lives (Ferm, op. cit. p. 12).

The central problem is this: How can the oppressed, as divided, un-authentic-beings, participate in developing the pedagogy of their liberation?  The starting point for organizing  the program content of education or political action must be the present, existential, concrete situation, reflecting the aspirations of the people ( Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder, 1972, pp. 33, 85).

Another major development that fed the emergence of Liberation Theology was the Christians for Socialism movement, which had its beginnings in Chile in 1971.  At a meeting of eighty priests from throughout Latin America, the movement drafted a document that stated:

"As Christians we do not see any incompatibility between Christianity and socialism.  Quite the contrary is true...it is necessary to destroy the prejudice and and mistrust that exists between Christians and Marxists (John Eagleson, Christians and Socialism: Documentation of the Christians for Socialism Movement in Latin America.  Maryknoll: Orbis, 1975. p. 4.

This statement goes beyond the Medellin conference, which tried to steer a middle course between capitalism and socialism.  The theme surfaced at a convention of four hundred Latin American Christians held in Santiago, Chile, in 1972, where final document affirmed:

"The economic and social structures of our Latin American countries are grounded on oppression and injustice, which in turn is a result of our capitalist dependence on the great power centers...We commit ourselves to the task of fashioning socialism because it is our objective conclusion....that this is the only effective way to combat imperialism and to break away for our situation of dependence.  There is a growing awareness that revolutionary Christians must form a strategic alliance with Marxists within the liberation process on this continent.  Socialism presents itself as the only acceptable option for getting beyond a class-based society (Ibid., pp. 161, 163, 168, 169)." 

This "preference for the poor by way of socialism" met fierce resistance from the established political and religious structures. Governments considered this socialist credo a distinct threat to the capitalist forces that kept them in power.  And the official teachings of the church had yet to acknowledge any merit in any form of socialism.  That would occur less than a decade later in Pope John Paul II's 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens. The Christians for Socialism movement in Latin America did not survive as an independent force, but the seeds sown by it continued to germinate.  Its importance lies in its harsh criticism of the evils and abuses of a capitalist system that favors a wealthy minority and provides but a few crumbs for the oppressed majority (Ferm, op. cit., p. 12). 

For liberation theologians, the voices of the poor are indeed, in Dom Helder Camara's words, "the voice of God."  These theologians are convinced that social reform will come Latin America in one way or another.  These theologians are convinced that social reform will come to Latin America in one way or the other. Their primary mission is to promote this inevitable social reforms in a Christian context (Ibid., p. 15).  

In summary, we ask ourselves what is the future of theology (God-talk) in Latin America?  Will theological discourse reflect the interests of the rich and powerful, or will it reflect the aspirations and yearnings of the oppressed and poor of the region?  Will theology in Latin America be used to legitimize maintaining oppressive and unjust ideologies and systems, or will theological discourse breed and generate a movement for social justice? 

In this writer's point of view, any theology which legitimizes and supports oppressive ideological structures is a theology which must be exorcised and reprimanded.  Authentic and genuine theology must be contextualized in the lives of oppressed people and stimulate a movement that leads society in the direction of social justice.  Authentic and genuine theology should promote and reflect the ingredients of the Gospel of liberation and redemption.  

The Struggle Continues 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary