In previous essays, I have mentioned that one of the criteria that is used to evaluate a particular theological system is its emphasis on the role that the Bible plays in it. We have seen this in Euro-American theology, in Latin American Liberation Theology, and we will see it again in Hispanic-American theology.
Fernando Segovia, a Professor of New Testament at the Vanderbilt Divinity School states in this article that neither the task of theologizing nor the task of interpretation -both highly interrelated and interdependent activities-takes place in a social vacuum, independent of the social location, however defined, of the theologian or interpreter in question. He informs us that such a theoretical position is by no means new, but it has come into much greater prominence, and with much greater vehemence, in the last quarter of the twentieth century than ever before. He explores the emerging readings of the Bible from within one such specific social location, namely that ethnic sector of American society generally referred to as Hispanic-Americans, a sector in which he himself stands and from which he speaks (Segovia in We Are a People: Initiatives in Hispanic-American Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992, p.21).
In an article entitled "Reading the Bible as Hispanic-Americans" for the New Interpreter's Bible, Segovia posits that no reading of the Bible can claim or pretend to be ahistorical or acultural. He says that the clause lets it be known that, at the very least, ethnic background and sociopolitical status do have an effect on the reading and interpretation of the Bible. (The New Interpreter's Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994, p. 167). For Segovia, the main concern is not a literalist approach to Scripture, nor whether the Bible is divinely inspired or not. Nor is he concerned with the issue of what doctrines can be supported by Scripture. For Segovia, the main issue is how does the cultural and social context of the reader color her/his thinking when reading the Bible, and also, how does that context generate the reader's assumptions and presuppositions relative to biblical theology?
Segovia then goes on to trace the work of four Hispanic-American theologians who represent a variety of ethnic and religious sectors, thereby bringing to light, in a broad interpretative fashion, the reading strategies adopted with regard to the Bible from within such a distinct social location. The four theologians are the following:
Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, a Cuban American and Roman Catholic, who at one time taught at Union Theological Seminary in New York. She is known in theological circles for mujerista (womanist) theology. For Isasi-Diaz, the point of departure for reading Scripture is the experience of Hispanic-American women in an Anglo-Saxon dominant culture, facing oppression from both a sexist world (as women) and a racist world (as Hispanic), with a specific focus on such oppression within religious systems. Mujerista theology is defined, therefore, as a liberative praxis, a reflection that has as its goal liberation; its basic parameters are described as follows: First , it does not differentiate between reflection and action, or between theology and ethics. Second, it does not operate out of the interpretive lens of a patriarchal (male-dominated) church, but rather out of the experiential norm of Hispanic-American women. Third, it is not sectarian but communal in character. Finally, it has survival as its primary goal. Such survival is portrayed in terms of liberation rather than equality, with the following specific aims in mind: a radical change in the oppressive structures of society, conscientization regarding the profound internalization of such oppressive structures, with individual conversion as a necessary first step; and an eschatological vision of a new society (Segovia in We Are A People, p. 33).
In mujerista theology, therefore, one finds at work the common principle of a canon within the canon, with a twist: only parts of the Bible are accepted as normative and authoritative; such parts, moreover, are so judged on the basis of a superior canon-a feminist, Hispanic liberative canon. In effect, while the program of liberation has urgent need of the Bible, the Bible itself is seen as subject to the program of liberation. Thus the Bible emerges as both liberating and oppressive, with the canon within the canon determined from the outside. (Segovia, p. 33).
Harold Recinos, a United Methodist minister and Puerto Rican born in New York City. Recinos has engaged in a critical exercise in pastoral theology from the perspective of liberation, a theology of and for the barrio (neighborhood). Recino's use of the word "barrio" denotes specifically the "ghetto" or "inner city." meaning that neighborhood where the poor and the marginalized live and are condemned to live.
For Recinos, the point of departure for theology is quite concrete: the socio-cultural situation of the large Puerto Rican communities who live in the barrios of northeastern U. S. cities (with New York City as the primary example) and its disastrous and lasting consequences for the countless individual lives in question, including the author's. The barrio is faced with a dehumanizing situation akin to apartheid and marked by racial discrimination, cultural aggression, political marginalization, and economic oppression. Given such systematic conditions, the people of the barrio find themselves overwhelmed by a host of social ills, from inordinately high levels of poverty and unemployment to widespread crime and violence, ultimately yielding a profound attitude of self-blame and fatalism (Segovia, 34).
At the heart of barrio theology, therefore, lies the Bible and more specifically, a particular reading of the Bible. For Recinos, such a reading of the Bible comes from the perspective of the barrio and its conditions, and yields a recovery of biblical Christianity: not only the realization that the sociocultural story of the barrio is shared by the people of God in the Bible, but also the discovery of a God who sides with the marginalized, with the barrio and works for their liberation (Segovia, p. 35-36).
For barrio theology, therefore, the Bible is indeed central and authoritative. Its message throughout, in both Old and New Testaments, is one of liberation: God is with the poor and for the poor. However, such a message demands a specific kind of reading, an open and explicit reading from the perspective of the oppressed, from a sociocultural situation parallel to that of the people of God in the Bible, and with liberation in mind. Thus, the liberation of the barrio is grounded in and informed by the Bible: the program of liberation is ultimately the program of the Bible itself. (Segovia, p. 36).
Virgilio Elizondo, a Roman Catholic priest of Mexican-American extraction. Elizondo has developed what he calls a theology of mestizaje, a theology of liberation for Mexican-Americans based on the principle of racial and cultural inclusion. For such a theology, it is the concrete sociocultural situation of Jesus himself as preserved in the Gospel accounts that is central and authoritative, insofar as Jesus, given his own origins as a mestizo from the borderlands of Galilee, and his message of universal inclusion, anticipates the situation and liberation of Mexican Americans (Segovia, p. 37).
For Elizondo, as in the case of mujerista theology, therefore one can see in mestizaje theology the principle of the canon within the canon at work once again, but with fundamental difference in application. Here, the Bible is not subject to a superior canon, but rather a specific strand within the Bible is singled out as the superior canon. Likewise, the Bible is not judged liberating and authoritative from the outside, but rather the Bible itself, is authoritative and liberating in the light of this canon, passes judgment from within. This superior canon is identified in terms of the Gospels, though it would be more accurate to say that it is the Synoptic Gospels that Elizondo has in mind; in fact, for Elizondo, the canon consists of the Synoptic Gospels insofar as they faithfully reproduce the life of Jesus of Nazareth (Segovia, p. 40).
Justo Gonzalez, a Cuban American and minister of the United Methodist Church, specializing in Church History. Gonzalez emphasizes what he calls a theology of "manana (tomorrow)" for all Hispanic-Americans.
For Gonzalez, manana theology represents the theology of a people "in exile": a people who will be around for many mananas to come; who hope for an altogether different manana in the light of God's reign. (Segovia, p. 42). For Gonzalez, the message of liberation demands a specific way of reading, a reading from the perspective of exile. As a result, a basic correspondence is posited between the people of God in the Bible and Hispanic Americans: a people "in exile," alien, and powerless. (Segovia, p. 45).
You, the reader, are now invited to share your comments on how different theologians define the role of Scripture in Hispanic-American theology. Feel free to share your opinions and views with us.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Hispanic- American Theology: A Historical Summary of Hispanics in the U.S.A.
I had mentioned in the previous essay that in order for one to accurately and fairly evaluate the theology emerging from the Hispanic-American community, one must first be acquainted with Hispanic-American history, if not in detail, then at least with the historical gist of that history. In this essay, I will give a present a summary of Hispanic-American history in order to make Hispanic-American theology more understandable to the reader.
I begin my making a strong recommendation that you (the readers) obtain a copy of the book "Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America," by Juan Gonzalez, New York: Penguin Group, 2000, 2011.
Gonzalez says the following: In this country (U.S.A.), just how white and black America cope with the mushrooming Latin American population will determine whether our nation enjoys interethnic tranquility in the twenty-first century or is convulsed by conflicts such as those that tore apart the multiethnic states of Eastern Europe, the old Soviet Union, and elsewhere (Gonzalez, p.xxiii)." Then he adds, "Hopefully, by the time you have finished reading this book, you will see the Latino in America from another viewpoint. We Hispanics are not going away. Demographics and the tide of history point only to a greater not a lesser Latino presence in this country. Ours, however, is not some armed reconquista seeking to throw out Anglo occupiers from sacred lands that once were Latino. It is a search for survival, for inclusion on an equal basis, nothing more. It is a search grounded in the belief that five hundred years after the experiment began, we are all Americans of the New World , and our most dangerous enemies are not each other but the great wall of ignorance between us. (Gonzalez, pp.xxiii-xxiv)."
Gonzalez places, and rightly so, the presence of Latinos in the U.S.A. within the historical context of the conquest and occupation of the Americas by Europe (especially Portugal and Spain) from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. He informs us, "The arrival of the European explorers to America began the most astounding and far-reaching encounter between cultures in the history of civilization. It brought together two portions of the human race that until then knew nothing of each other's existence, thus establishing the basic identity of our modern world. (Gonzalez, p.3)."
"Of the Europeans who settled America, those who hailed from England and Spain had the greatest impact. Both transplanted their cultures over vast territories. Both created colonial empires from whose abundance Europe rose to dominate the world. And descendants of both eventually launched independence wars that remade the political systems of our planet. (Gonzalez,p. 3)."
After covering "the roots" of a U.S. Hispanic presence, Gonzalez goes on to talk about the branches. He goes on to talk about Puerto Ricans as citizens yet foreigners, Mexicans as pioneers of a different type, Cubans as special refugees, and Dominicans who lived under the reign of Duarte to Dominicans who crossed the George Washington Bridge. Then he mentions how the history of our intervention in Central America generated immigration into this country and how Colombians and Panamanians had to work in order to overcome division and disdain.
The reader is strongly advised to obtain this book and read it thoroughly. It will demonstrate, as I've indicated before, that Hispanic-American theology did not emerge from a historical vacuum, but rather from the historical interplay between those who hold power and those who are victimized by power.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
I begin my making a strong recommendation that you (the readers) obtain a copy of the book "Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America," by Juan Gonzalez, New York: Penguin Group, 2000, 2011.
Gonzalez says the following: In this country (U.S.A.), just how white and black America cope with the mushrooming Latin American population will determine whether our nation enjoys interethnic tranquility in the twenty-first century or is convulsed by conflicts such as those that tore apart the multiethnic states of Eastern Europe, the old Soviet Union, and elsewhere (Gonzalez, p.xxiii)." Then he adds, "Hopefully, by the time you have finished reading this book, you will see the Latino in America from another viewpoint. We Hispanics are not going away. Demographics and the tide of history point only to a greater not a lesser Latino presence in this country. Ours, however, is not some armed reconquista seeking to throw out Anglo occupiers from sacred lands that once were Latino. It is a search for survival, for inclusion on an equal basis, nothing more. It is a search grounded in the belief that five hundred years after the experiment began, we are all Americans of the New World , and our most dangerous enemies are not each other but the great wall of ignorance between us. (Gonzalez, pp.xxiii-xxiv)."
Gonzalez places, and rightly so, the presence of Latinos in the U.S.A. within the historical context of the conquest and occupation of the Americas by Europe (especially Portugal and Spain) from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. He informs us, "The arrival of the European explorers to America began the most astounding and far-reaching encounter between cultures in the history of civilization. It brought together two portions of the human race that until then knew nothing of each other's existence, thus establishing the basic identity of our modern world. (Gonzalez, p.3)."
"Of the Europeans who settled America, those who hailed from England and Spain had the greatest impact. Both transplanted their cultures over vast territories. Both created colonial empires from whose abundance Europe rose to dominate the world. And descendants of both eventually launched independence wars that remade the political systems of our planet. (Gonzalez,p. 3)."
After covering "the roots" of a U.S. Hispanic presence, Gonzalez goes on to talk about the branches. He goes on to talk about Puerto Ricans as citizens yet foreigners, Mexicans as pioneers of a different type, Cubans as special refugees, and Dominicans who lived under the reign of Duarte to Dominicans who crossed the George Washington Bridge. Then he mentions how the history of our intervention in Central America generated immigration into this country and how Colombians and Panamanians had to work in order to overcome division and disdain.
The reader is strongly advised to obtain this book and read it thoroughly. It will demonstrate, as I've indicated before, that Hispanic-American theology did not emerge from a historical vacuum, but rather from the historical interplay between those who hold power and those who are victimized by power.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, April 27, 2015
Contextual Theology: U.S. HIspanic Discourse-An Overview
After having written several essays on Liberation Theology from a Latin American/ and Caribbean standpoint, I now invite you to consider entering a dialogue with us on doing theology from the context of U.S. Hispanics. Like any other cultural, ethnic, and racial group in the U.S.A, the Hispanic community in this country has its own theology. Like Liberation Theology and all other theologies, it is not monolithic. Hispanic-American theology has as much variation as any other theology.
Unlike Euro-American theology, which has a "top-down" approach, Hispanic-American theology is more of a "bottom-up" model. Like Latin American Liberation Theology, Hispanic-American theology emerges from the socio-economic, and political conditions of alienation, marginalization, oppression, and suffering.
Latin American Liberation Theology focuses on issues of social class in Latin America. It deals with how a small group of people, in some cases receiving economic and military support from the U.S.A, have relegated the vast majority of the populace in Latin America (especially in places like El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Mexico) to abysmal and abject poverty. Hispanic-American theology, on the other hand, focuses on how Hispanics (or as some would prefer to call them "Latinos") in the U.S.A are treated in the same manner that the African-American community is treated, i.e. as inferior and second-class citizens. In Latin America, it is an issue of social class. In the U.S.A, it is an ethnic/racial issue.
In order for anyone to even begin to critique Hispanic-American theology, one first has to be acquainted with the history of Hispanics in this country. One would have to research the origins of the Hispanic-American community, and also become familiar with the challenges that this community has faced.
One thing that merits attention in this discourse and cannot be overlooked is the fact that for many centuries, our ancestors from Latin America called these lands "home" long before the European colonization of the Americas was carried out beginning at the end of the fifteenth century. What is today called Central and South America was inhabited by the indigenous people who were wiped out by the diseases contrived through their hard labor for the Spaniards and other Europeans. Hispanic-Americans are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the land, especially through the lineage of the indigenous inhabitants, and also through the lineage of the people of African descent who labored and toiled, building this land (including what today is called the U.S.A.) for the benefit of Euro-America. Therefore, when some say to us "If you don't like it here, why don't you go back to where you came from?", the answer is "Oh, but we came from here, this is our land, and you are the ones who have to get the hell out of here and go back to where you came from." As someone said, "we didn't cross the border. The border crossed us." I would add to those who hold us in contempt, "This is our land, and we are here to stay."
These essays are designed to provide the information that is necessary for those who wish to critique and evaluate the way we do theology in the Hispanic-American community. They will also contain a prophetic element of denunciation by challenging the elite of the ruling class in Slavetown, U.S.A. These essays will take many readers out of their comfort zones because in them, they will find a process of deconstructing long-held myths about Euro-American cultural and national superiority.
As a pastor/theologian, I make no apologies whatsoever for the remarks above. It is said that the job of a true preacher is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. If these essays result in bringing comfort and respite to your soul, then all praise and thanks be to God who in Christ has promised us liberation from the bondage which prevents us from moving forward as a community which is part of the global community of humankind. If, on the other hand, your reading of the forthcoming essays result in your being afflicted because of their deconstructing role, then the only thing that I can say is "too damned bad." The truth has to be proclaimed regardless of the consequences. As a result of reading the comments from the essays, some may experience having a coronary, others will fall out of their chairs, and others, yet, will just be stymied and say, "and then, and then, and then, um, huma, huma, huma."
The bulk of these essays will be based on articles that are written by different Hispanic-American theologians or Latin American theologians working in a U.S. context. These articles can be found in the book, "We Are A People!: Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology. Robert Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis:Augsburg Fortress. 1992."
In anticipation of the forthcoming essays, I invite you to raise any questions or make any comments that you believe to be appropriate to this discourse. You may want to make comments or ask questions regarding this general overview. I look forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In his book (Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in the Americas, New York: Penguin Groups, 2000, and 2011) Juan Gonzales
Unlike Euro-American theology, which has a "top-down" approach, Hispanic-American theology is more of a "bottom-up" model. Like Latin American Liberation Theology, Hispanic-American theology emerges from the socio-economic, and political conditions of alienation, marginalization, oppression, and suffering.
Latin American Liberation Theology focuses on issues of social class in Latin America. It deals with how a small group of people, in some cases receiving economic and military support from the U.S.A, have relegated the vast majority of the populace in Latin America (especially in places like El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Mexico) to abysmal and abject poverty. Hispanic-American theology, on the other hand, focuses on how Hispanics (or as some would prefer to call them "Latinos") in the U.S.A are treated in the same manner that the African-American community is treated, i.e. as inferior and second-class citizens. In Latin America, it is an issue of social class. In the U.S.A, it is an ethnic/racial issue.
In order for anyone to even begin to critique Hispanic-American theology, one first has to be acquainted with the history of Hispanics in this country. One would have to research the origins of the Hispanic-American community, and also become familiar with the challenges that this community has faced.
One thing that merits attention in this discourse and cannot be overlooked is the fact that for many centuries, our ancestors from Latin America called these lands "home" long before the European colonization of the Americas was carried out beginning at the end of the fifteenth century. What is today called Central and South America was inhabited by the indigenous people who were wiped out by the diseases contrived through their hard labor for the Spaniards and other Europeans. Hispanic-Americans are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the land, especially through the lineage of the indigenous inhabitants, and also through the lineage of the people of African descent who labored and toiled, building this land (including what today is called the U.S.A.) for the benefit of Euro-America. Therefore, when some say to us "If you don't like it here, why don't you go back to where you came from?", the answer is "Oh, but we came from here, this is our land, and you are the ones who have to get the hell out of here and go back to where you came from." As someone said, "we didn't cross the border. The border crossed us." I would add to those who hold us in contempt, "This is our land, and we are here to stay."
These essays are designed to provide the information that is necessary for those who wish to critique and evaluate the way we do theology in the Hispanic-American community. They will also contain a prophetic element of denunciation by challenging the elite of the ruling class in Slavetown, U.S.A. These essays will take many readers out of their comfort zones because in them, they will find a process of deconstructing long-held myths about Euro-American cultural and national superiority.
As a pastor/theologian, I make no apologies whatsoever for the remarks above. It is said that the job of a true preacher is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. If these essays result in bringing comfort and respite to your soul, then all praise and thanks be to God who in Christ has promised us liberation from the bondage which prevents us from moving forward as a community which is part of the global community of humankind. If, on the other hand, your reading of the forthcoming essays result in your being afflicted because of their deconstructing role, then the only thing that I can say is "too damned bad." The truth has to be proclaimed regardless of the consequences. As a result of reading the comments from the essays, some may experience having a coronary, others will fall out of their chairs, and others, yet, will just be stymied and say, "and then, and then, and then, um, huma, huma, huma."
The bulk of these essays will be based on articles that are written by different Hispanic-American theologians or Latin American theologians working in a U.S. context. These articles can be found in the book, "We Are A People!: Initiatives in Hispanic American Theology. Robert Goizueta, ed. Minneapolis:Augsburg Fortress. 1992."
In anticipation of the forthcoming essays, I invite you to raise any questions or make any comments that you believe to be appropriate to this discourse. You may want to make comments or ask questions regarding this general overview. I look forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In his book (Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in the Americas, New York: Penguin Groups, 2000, and 2011) Juan Gonzales
Saturday, April 25, 2015
God and Life
The Stock Market goes up and down. My favorite team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, might win the World Series this year. I love playing with my grandchildren. A former co-worker referred to me as an "eternal romantic." A pattern of shooting and killing unarmed African American men has emerged in our time. A man loses his job after thirty-five years of giving his "blood, sweat, and tears," and now wonders how he will be able to support himself and his family. The United States government continues to pressure Iran to come up with a satisfactory deal regarding nuclear weapons.
Bruce Jenner decides to go the transgender route. A major Protestant denomination changes the definition of marriage to a "union between two persons." The Jewish community just commemorated the Holocaust. People are uprooted from their living quarters through a process of gentrification.
Medicines that were designed to prevent and treat cancer are found to be cancer-causing agents. And the list goes on, and on, and on. As someone once said, "And the band played on."
What is the "so what" of all this? Why make a big deal out of it? Where does everything lead to?
Where is God in all this? Does God give a damn about the fluctuations of the Stock Market? Is God concerned about who the winner of the World Series will be?
I write this in order to pose the question as to why we compartmentalize between "spirituality" on the one hand, and our ordinary routine life on the other. I remember a very dear and close relative of mine who criticized the style of worship in our church by saying that the Holy Spirit is someone that people think about only on Sunday morning when they are at church. Very recently, a very good friend of mine posed the question as to what makes people think that God is concerned with what goes on in the privacy of our bed room?
I think that these are all valid questions that merit our consideration. We need to ask ourselves when does God "step in" and when does God take a "back seat?" Many of us are more than willing to throw God under the proverbial "bus" when it suits our agenda or when the mere mention or thought of God is considered an interruption in our livelihood.
I remember an experience that I had as a teenager after my parents had separated. My sister and I had gone to visit our father in Manhattan. At that time, we were members of a predominantly Puerto Rican Pentecostal church on Staten Island. Based on certain Scripture passages, our church had a prohibition again eating a meat which we call in Spanish "morcilla," which is a blood sausage. My father, who had no regard for religious norms, gave us a piece of morcilla, virtually forced us to eat it and said to us "Never mind that religion bull shit." Quite frankly, I was traumatized. On the one hand, I couldn't conceive that someone in a parental would impose his norms on us, over and beyond what we at that time considered God's norm. On the hand, I did not like and still do not like morcilla. It gets me sick to my stomach.
So the question is, do we have an attitude similar to my father's?, i.e. "never mind that religion bull shit?" Do we in essence believe and think "I don't care what God says, I'm going to do my own thing?" Is God someone that we take into account only on Friday afternoon in the Mosque, Friday evening/Saturday morning in the Synagogue, Sunday morning at Church, etc. Do we "shelve" God when we leave our respective houses of worship and then take God off the shelf when we return the following week?
Please share your thoughts with us regarding God and life. Tell us if you think that God is an entity that just "rubber stamps" our decisions in life, or if God really does care what goes on in every area of our lives, including, but not limited to the bedroom. I look forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Bruce Jenner decides to go the transgender route. A major Protestant denomination changes the definition of marriage to a "union between two persons." The Jewish community just commemorated the Holocaust. People are uprooted from their living quarters through a process of gentrification.
Medicines that were designed to prevent and treat cancer are found to be cancer-causing agents. And the list goes on, and on, and on. As someone once said, "And the band played on."
What is the "so what" of all this? Why make a big deal out of it? Where does everything lead to?
Where is God in all this? Does God give a damn about the fluctuations of the Stock Market? Is God concerned about who the winner of the World Series will be?
I write this in order to pose the question as to why we compartmentalize between "spirituality" on the one hand, and our ordinary routine life on the other. I remember a very dear and close relative of mine who criticized the style of worship in our church by saying that the Holy Spirit is someone that people think about only on Sunday morning when they are at church. Very recently, a very good friend of mine posed the question as to what makes people think that God is concerned with what goes on in the privacy of our bed room?
I think that these are all valid questions that merit our consideration. We need to ask ourselves when does God "step in" and when does God take a "back seat?" Many of us are more than willing to throw God under the proverbial "bus" when it suits our agenda or when the mere mention or thought of God is considered an interruption in our livelihood.
I remember an experience that I had as a teenager after my parents had separated. My sister and I had gone to visit our father in Manhattan. At that time, we were members of a predominantly Puerto Rican Pentecostal church on Staten Island. Based on certain Scripture passages, our church had a prohibition again eating a meat which we call in Spanish "morcilla," which is a blood sausage. My father, who had no regard for religious norms, gave us a piece of morcilla, virtually forced us to eat it and said to us "Never mind that religion bull shit." Quite frankly, I was traumatized. On the one hand, I couldn't conceive that someone in a parental would impose his norms on us, over and beyond what we at that time considered God's norm. On the hand, I did not like and still do not like morcilla. It gets me sick to my stomach.
So the question is, do we have an attitude similar to my father's?, i.e. "never mind that religion bull shit?" Do we in essence believe and think "I don't care what God says, I'm going to do my own thing?" Is God someone that we take into account only on Friday afternoon in the Mosque, Friday evening/Saturday morning in the Synagogue, Sunday morning at Church, etc. Do we "shelve" God when we leave our respective houses of worship and then take God off the shelf when we return the following week?
Please share your thoughts with us regarding God and life. Tell us if you think that God is an entity that just "rubber stamps" our decisions in life, or if God really does care what goes on in every area of our lives, including, but not limited to the bedroom. I look forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Sola Scriptura: How Viable is It?
One of the many things that has the Christian churches divided amongst themselves is their particular stance on the role of Scripture. Not only are there differences of biblical interpretation leading to different doctrinal conclusions, but also differences as to what role the Bible should play in the construction and formation of doctrine and practice.
One of the many elements that lead to the Church split in the sixteenth century (the Protestant Reformation) was the insistence that the Bible alone should be the rule for faith and practice. Up until that point (and still today), the Roman Catholic Church as well as the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy hold to the position that tradition plays an equal role as the Scripture for faith and practice. It should be noted that the position of "Sola Scriptura (the Scripture alone)" was not unique to the Protestant Reformation. At least two hundred years before, John Wycliffe had been known to adhere to this position which subsequently came to be associated with Protestant theology.
The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches believe that:
1. The traditions of the Church led to the writings of Scripture.
2. Experience (the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church) also played a role in the formation of the Scriptures.
3. The Bible itself is a tradition, birthed by the traditions of the first-century Church.
The Protestant churches are divided into the following two camps:
1. Sola Scriptura- This is the notion that the Bible stands by itself without the need for further commentary or explanation for faith and practice. Those who believe this are of the mindset that the Bible should be our only rule for faith and practice.
2. Prima Scriptura- This is the notion that the Bible is the primary authority in the life of the Church, and that experience, reason, and tradition play a secondary and subordinate role in the formation of doctrine and theology. In this model, experience, reason, and tradition are to be evaluated in the light of "what the Bible says."
This writer (yours truly) would like to humbly and respectfully submit an alternative model. Since the Holy Spirit was the primary agent in the formation of the Church (both Jewish and Christian), everything that came along with that formation, i.e. experience, reason, Scripture, and tradition, should carry equal authority. I believe that to put one against the other, or to place one in a subordinate position to the other, vitiates the work of the Holy Spirit, both in the life of the Church, and in the life of the individual believer. Since experience, reason, Scripture, and tradition all come from God, it does not make any logical sense (in my humble opinion) to ascribe levels of authority to either of these four components. All four components should carry equal weight in the formation of faith development.
I submit this proposal to you for your consideration, comments, and evaluation. Please feel free to openly and honestly critique this paradigm.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
One of the many elements that lead to the Church split in the sixteenth century (the Protestant Reformation) was the insistence that the Bible alone should be the rule for faith and practice. Up until that point (and still today), the Roman Catholic Church as well as the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy hold to the position that tradition plays an equal role as the Scripture for faith and practice. It should be noted that the position of "Sola Scriptura (the Scripture alone)" was not unique to the Protestant Reformation. At least two hundred years before, John Wycliffe had been known to adhere to this position which subsequently came to be associated with Protestant theology.
The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches believe that:
1. The traditions of the Church led to the writings of Scripture.
2. Experience (the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church) also played a role in the formation of the Scriptures.
3. The Bible itself is a tradition, birthed by the traditions of the first-century Church.
The Protestant churches are divided into the following two camps:
1. Sola Scriptura- This is the notion that the Bible stands by itself without the need for further commentary or explanation for faith and practice. Those who believe this are of the mindset that the Bible should be our only rule for faith and practice.
2. Prima Scriptura- This is the notion that the Bible is the primary authority in the life of the Church, and that experience, reason, and tradition play a secondary and subordinate role in the formation of doctrine and theology. In this model, experience, reason, and tradition are to be evaluated in the light of "what the Bible says."
This writer (yours truly) would like to humbly and respectfully submit an alternative model. Since the Holy Spirit was the primary agent in the formation of the Church (both Jewish and Christian), everything that came along with that formation, i.e. experience, reason, Scripture, and tradition, should carry equal authority. I believe that to put one against the other, or to place one in a subordinate position to the other, vitiates the work of the Holy Spirit, both in the life of the Church, and in the life of the individual believer. Since experience, reason, Scripture, and tradition all come from God, it does not make any logical sense (in my humble opinion) to ascribe levels of authority to either of these four components. All four components should carry equal weight in the formation of faith development.
I submit this proposal to you for your consideration, comments, and evaluation. Please feel free to openly and honestly critique this paradigm.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Liberation Theology: The Finale-The Role of Praxis
Every theology has to be evaluated by the praxis that it supports and legitimizes. If it supports a praxis that is linked to oppressive economic, political, and social structures and policies, it is a demonic and evil theology. On the other hand, if it supports a praxis that promotes social justice, then that theology is in sync and resonation with the mission of the Church and its proclamation of the Gospel message.
In this final presentation on Liberation Theology, I will address the issue of the role that praxis plays. Through this, I wish to highlight the importance of clarity in identifying the role of praxis.
What is praxis? As Roberto Goizueta points out, many people fall into the trap of reductionism, i.e. reducing certain terms to a bare minimum. In this case, the word "praxis" is reduced to the word "practice." While practice is definitely a component of praxis, it is just that, i.e. a component.
Goizueta says: "That the notion of praxis has a long history is a fact that has all too often been ignored in the midst of contemporary debate about the primacy of praxis in the theological enterprise and indeed, in the everyday life of the Christian. If theologians are to make a significant contribution to the debate about the nature of not only Christian theology, but also Christian faith, a critical retrieval of that history will facilitate such a contribution by revealing the lacunae and distortions in the contemporary debate and suggesting ways in which we might help address these (Roberto Goizueta, Rediscovering Praxis: The Significance of U. S. Hispanic Experience for Theological Method in Roberto Goizueta, ed. We Are A People. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press. 1992, p. 53)."
The word "praxis," in Liberation Theology is associated with "action-reflection." In other words, praxis is the interaction between meditation and reflection on the sacred text of Scripture, and the tradition, on the one hand, and effective and faithful action on the other. In Liberation Theology, there is no room for the classical notion of theory preceding action, but rather, as has been pointed out previously, truth is disclosed in the doing. "Orthodoxy (correct doctrine)" goes hand in hand with "orthopraxis (correct practice)."
Assmann says: The theology of liberation insists even more on the strong historical basis of faith, including the notion of effective historical action in its very vision of what constitutes faith. Faith can only be historically true when it becomes truth: when it is historically effective in the liberation of humankind. Hence the 'truth' dimension of faith becomes closely linked to its ethical and political dimensions (Assmann in Gibellini, p.81)."
I conclude this series of essays on Liberation Theology by underscoring its canonical status in relation to Scripture. In Protestantism, the Scriptures are the primary source of faith and practice.
In Catholic and in Orthodox Christianity, Scripture goes hand in hand with the traditions of the Church. Since Scripture and tradition are not considered to be a mere product of human thinking, the message contained in them is applicable to the world of today. (Juan A. Carmona, The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective. Rochester: Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, 1982, p.51)
Liberation Theology seeks to take the message in the Scriptures and apply it to the present reality. It is a "rereading" of the Word of God. Liberation Theology seeks to reinterpret the message in the light of modern events. The accent of Liberation Theology is on the oppressed and dominated peoples in the world in general, and on Latin America in particular (Carmona, p.51).
In the light of what I have previously stated, Liberation Theology is a source for biblical interpretation, theological reflection, and action in today's world. To the extent that it is linked with Scripture, it is a source of faith and practice. I do not claim that Liberation Theology is divinely inspired, or that it has the same canonical status as Scripture. Nevertheless, it brings us back to the fountainhead of inspired truth which is found in the Scriptures and in the traditions of the Church (Carmona, p.51).
I humbly and respectfully submit these writings to you for your reading and consideration.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to comment on this as well as on the previous essays on Liberation Theology.
In this final presentation on Liberation Theology, I will address the issue of the role that praxis plays. Through this, I wish to highlight the importance of clarity in identifying the role of praxis.
What is praxis? As Roberto Goizueta points out, many people fall into the trap of reductionism, i.e. reducing certain terms to a bare minimum. In this case, the word "praxis" is reduced to the word "practice." While practice is definitely a component of praxis, it is just that, i.e. a component.
Goizueta says: "That the notion of praxis has a long history is a fact that has all too often been ignored in the midst of contemporary debate about the primacy of praxis in the theological enterprise and indeed, in the everyday life of the Christian. If theologians are to make a significant contribution to the debate about the nature of not only Christian theology, but also Christian faith, a critical retrieval of that history will facilitate such a contribution by revealing the lacunae and distortions in the contemporary debate and suggesting ways in which we might help address these (Roberto Goizueta, Rediscovering Praxis: The Significance of U. S. Hispanic Experience for Theological Method in Roberto Goizueta, ed. We Are A People. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press. 1992, p. 53)."
The word "praxis," in Liberation Theology is associated with "action-reflection." In other words, praxis is the interaction between meditation and reflection on the sacred text of Scripture, and the tradition, on the one hand, and effective and faithful action on the other. In Liberation Theology, there is no room for the classical notion of theory preceding action, but rather, as has been pointed out previously, truth is disclosed in the doing. "Orthodoxy (correct doctrine)" goes hand in hand with "orthopraxis (correct practice)."
Assmann says: The theology of liberation insists even more on the strong historical basis of faith, including the notion of effective historical action in its very vision of what constitutes faith. Faith can only be historically true when it becomes truth: when it is historically effective in the liberation of humankind. Hence the 'truth' dimension of faith becomes closely linked to its ethical and political dimensions (Assmann in Gibellini, p.81)."
I conclude this series of essays on Liberation Theology by underscoring its canonical status in relation to Scripture. In Protestantism, the Scriptures are the primary source of faith and practice.
In Catholic and in Orthodox Christianity, Scripture goes hand in hand with the traditions of the Church. Since Scripture and tradition are not considered to be a mere product of human thinking, the message contained in them is applicable to the world of today. (Juan A. Carmona, The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective. Rochester: Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, 1982, p.51)
Liberation Theology seeks to take the message in the Scriptures and apply it to the present reality. It is a "rereading" of the Word of God. Liberation Theology seeks to reinterpret the message in the light of modern events. The accent of Liberation Theology is on the oppressed and dominated peoples in the world in general, and on Latin America in particular (Carmona, p.51).
In the light of what I have previously stated, Liberation Theology is a source for biblical interpretation, theological reflection, and action in today's world. To the extent that it is linked with Scripture, it is a source of faith and practice. I do not claim that Liberation Theology is divinely inspired, or that it has the same canonical status as Scripture. Nevertheless, it brings us back to the fountainhead of inspired truth which is found in the Scriptures and in the traditions of the Church (Carmona, p.51).
I humbly and respectfully submit these writings to you for your reading and consideration.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to comment on this as well as on the previous essays on Liberation Theology.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
The Role of History in Liberation Theology
This sub-essay addresses an issue which is important to all theology. It is the role of history in the origin, emergence, formation of that theology on the one hand, and on the other, the historical issues that theology deals with. At this point, we take a look at the role of history in Liberation Theology.
As we have seen from previous essays, Liberation Theology, like all other theologies, did not begin in a vacuum. It was born and bred within the historical context of certain cultural, economic, political and social realities. In the essay on the history of Liberation Theology, we saw that there were certain antecedents that carried the seeds of LT's emergence. Unlike much of Euro-American theology, LT was not characterized by being linked to philosophical abstraction and speculation. LT was born as a result of a dysfunction in human relations, which in turn led to the agony, misery, oppression, and suffering of the masses of people in Latin America, in the so-called Third World, among certain ethnic/racial groups in Slavetown, U.S.A., and of women world-wide. Some in our time may want to include people of same-sex orientation in the category of "oppressed" people. That is an issue which is worthy of full consideration.
What is the role of history in theological reflection? This question merits our attention, in that theological reflection does not and cannot take place in a vacuum. Bonino's answer is that:
"We are not concerned with establishing through deduction the consequences of conceptual truths, but with analyzing a historical praxis which claims to be Christian. This critical analysis includes a number of operations which are totally unknown to classical theology. Historical praxis overflows the area of the subjective and private. If we are dealing with acts and not merely with ideas, feelings, or intentions, we plunge immediately into the area of politics, understood now in its broad sense of public or social. Billy Graham, the South African Reformed Church, Martin Luther King, or 'Christians for Socialism,' do not confront us primarily as a system of ideas or a theological position, but as historical agents in certain directions and with certain effects which are objectively possible to determine. The area of research is the total society in which these agents are performing; economic, political, and cultural facts are as relevant to a knowledge of these praxes as the exegesis of their pronouncements and publications. Their Christianity must be verified in relation to such questions as imperialism, apartheid, integration, self-determination, and many other sociopolitical magnitudes (Bonino in Gibellini, p. 91)." These statements serve to underscore Bonino's conviction that theological reflection cannot be divorced from history. He indicates that Christian faith and practice are to me measured by one's attitude towards these issues that are raised.
It is the position of Liberation Theology, and of this writer, that theology must be contextualized.
If theology is divorced from history, either by intent or by default, it is both irrelevant and moot. If theology is not historicized, it fails in its mission to the Church and to the world. It becomes, then, abstract gibberish and idle talk.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Please share your insights with us relative to the role of history in theology. Your contributions are very important.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
As we have seen from previous essays, Liberation Theology, like all other theologies, did not begin in a vacuum. It was born and bred within the historical context of certain cultural, economic, political and social realities. In the essay on the history of Liberation Theology, we saw that there were certain antecedents that carried the seeds of LT's emergence. Unlike much of Euro-American theology, LT was not characterized by being linked to philosophical abstraction and speculation. LT was born as a result of a dysfunction in human relations, which in turn led to the agony, misery, oppression, and suffering of the masses of people in Latin America, in the so-called Third World, among certain ethnic/racial groups in Slavetown, U.S.A., and of women world-wide. Some in our time may want to include people of same-sex orientation in the category of "oppressed" people. That is an issue which is worthy of full consideration.
What is the role of history in theological reflection? This question merits our attention, in that theological reflection does not and cannot take place in a vacuum. Bonino's answer is that:
"We are not concerned with establishing through deduction the consequences of conceptual truths, but with analyzing a historical praxis which claims to be Christian. This critical analysis includes a number of operations which are totally unknown to classical theology. Historical praxis overflows the area of the subjective and private. If we are dealing with acts and not merely with ideas, feelings, or intentions, we plunge immediately into the area of politics, understood now in its broad sense of public or social. Billy Graham, the South African Reformed Church, Martin Luther King, or 'Christians for Socialism,' do not confront us primarily as a system of ideas or a theological position, but as historical agents in certain directions and with certain effects which are objectively possible to determine. The area of research is the total society in which these agents are performing; economic, political, and cultural facts are as relevant to a knowledge of these praxes as the exegesis of their pronouncements and publications. Their Christianity must be verified in relation to such questions as imperialism, apartheid, integration, self-determination, and many other sociopolitical magnitudes (Bonino in Gibellini, p. 91)." These statements serve to underscore Bonino's conviction that theological reflection cannot be divorced from history. He indicates that Christian faith and practice are to me measured by one's attitude towards these issues that are raised.
It is the position of Liberation Theology, and of this writer, that theology must be contextualized.
If theology is divorced from history, either by intent or by default, it is both irrelevant and moot. If theology is not historicized, it fails in its mission to the Church and to the world. It becomes, then, abstract gibberish and idle talk.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Please share your insights with us relative to the role of history in theology. Your contributions are very important.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, April 20, 2015
The Role of Scripture, History, and Praxis in Liberation Theology
This last essay on Liberation Theology will be "broken down" into three sub-essays, in order to give you, the reader, an opportunity to digest the role of Scripture, history, and praxis in Liberation Theology. I will once again refer to Jose Miguez Bonino, Juan Luis Segundo, and Hugo Assmann, leading theologians of Liberation in identifying this role. In order to have an understanding of theology, one must know the role that Scripture, history, and praxis play in its construction and development. In that spirit, then, I proceed to identify the role of each in Liberation Theology.
The Role of Scripture
Bonino lays out his position very clearly. In speaking about the relationship of Scripture and truth, he says the following:
"Truth belongs, for this view, to a world of truth, a universe complete in itself, which is copied or reproduced in 'correct" propositions, in a theory which corresponds to this truth. Then, in a second moment, as a later step, comes the application in a particular historical situation. Truth is therefore preexistent to and independent of its historical effectiveness. Its legitimacy has to be tested in relation to this abstract 'heaven of truth' quite apart from its historicization (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p. 88)."
Bonino calls the classical and traditional view of truth into question and critiques it. He does not assume, that because this view has long existed, that it is God-given and to be blindly accepted. His reaction to this classical view of truth is as follows:
"Whatever corrections may be needed, there is scarcely any doubt that God's Word is not understood in the Old Testament as a conceptual communication, but as a creative event, a history-making pronouncement. Its trust does not consist in carrying out God's promise or fulfilling his judgment. Correspondingly, what is required, of Israel is not an ethical inference, but an obedient participation--whether in action or in suffering--in God's active righteousness and mercy. Faith is always a concrete obedience which relies on God's promise and is vindicated in the act of obedience: Abraham offering his only son, Moses stepping into the Red Sea. There is no question of arriving at or possessing previously some theoretical clue. There is no name of God for--to exegete--except as he himself is present in his power, i.e. his powerful acts. Again, the faith of Israel is consistently portrayed, not as gnosis, but as a way, a particular way of acting, of relating inside and outside the nation, of ordering life at every conceivable level, which corresponds to God's own way with Israel. This background, so well attested in the Psalms, for instance, may explain Jesus's use of the Word as a way to refer to himself. The motif, on the other hand, appears in parenetic contexts in Pauline literature. Faith is 'walking." It is unnecessary to point out that even the idea of knowledge and knowing has this active and participatory content (Bonino, p. 89)."
It is very clear that Bonino considers the classical conception of truth to be both faulty and unbiblical. He challenges this view and replaces it with another model of deciphering biblical truth. He states:
"It seems clear enough that the classical conception can claim no biblical basis for its conceptual understanding of truth or for its distinction between a theoretical knowledge of truth and a practical application of it. Correct knowledge is contingent on right doing, i.e. the knowledge is disclosed in the doing. Wrongdoing is ignorance. But, on the other hand, we can also ask whether this classical distinction is phenomenologically true? It seems that both Scripture and social analysis yield the same answer: there is no such neutral knowledge. The sociology of knowledge makes abundantly clear that we think always out of a definite context of relations and action, out of a given praxis (Bonino, p. 90)."
Bonino believes that there should be a direct link between the interpretation of the texts and the praxis out of which this interpretation comes. In other words, he does not believe that we should accept the traditional biblical interpretations uncritically. He says:
"Every interpretation of the texts which is offered to us (whether as exegesis or as a systematic or as ethical interpretation) must be investigated in relation to the praxis out of which it comes. Very concretely, we cannot receive the theological interpretation coming from the rich world without suspecting it and therefore, asking what kind of praxis it supports, reflects, or legitimizes (Bonino, pp. 90-91)."
Juan Luis Segundo is well known in the world of theology for what he calls the "hermeneutical circle." This hermeneutical circle is an approach that Segundo believes will enable one to relate past and present in dealing with the Word of God. Segundo believes that each new reality obliges us to interpret the Word of God afresh, to change reality accordingly, and then to go back and reinterpret the Word of God again. It is important to note Segundo's two preconditions that have to be met if there is to be a hermeneutical circle in theology. The first precondition is that:
"The questions rising out of the present be rich enough, general enough, and basic enough to force us to change our customary conceptions of life, death, knowledge, society, politics, and the world in general. Only a change of this sort, or at the very least, a pervasive suspicion about our ideas and value judgments concerning these things, will enable us to reach the theological level and force theology to come back down to reality and ask itself new questions (Juan Luis Segundo. Liberation of Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1976, p.8)."
One can note there is an element of subjectivism expressed through the first precondition. I am referring to the fact that Segundo does not identify who or what determines which questions are important enough to force us to change our customary conceptions. He goes on to say:
"The second precondition is intimately bound up with the first. If theology somehow assumes that it can respond to the new questions without changing its customary interpretation of Scriptures, that immediately terminates the hermeneutical circle. Moreover, if our interpretation of Scripture does not change along with the problems, then the latter will go unanswered or worse, i.e. they will receive old, conservative, and unserviceable answers (Segundo, p.9)."
One can readily note that Segundo is not willing to settle for anything less than a new hermeneutic. He contends that the old or traditional way of interpreting the Scriptures does not provide any solution to the problem of applying theology to the reality of everyday life.
Hugo Assmann links the Scriptures, history, and praxis. This linkage is an essential feature of his "practical theology of liberation." He stresses the importance of practice as the starting-point for the theology of Liberation. Assmann says:
In the Bible, on the other hand, words have meaning only as the expression of a deed, and theory has meaning only as the expression of a practice. Events from the structural center of biblical language. Not the casual events of the world of nature, but rather, the human events of history. The historic dimension of events dominates the biblical outlook to such an extent that, in this pre-technical world, even the facts of nature came to be taken as a point of spontaneous interaction between God and humankind, which would be impossible for us today. 'Liberation' is necessarily linked to effective action (Hugo Assmann, "The Power of Christ in History," in Frontiers of Theology in Latin America.,ed. Rosino Gibellini. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p.75)."
In summary, for those who wish to evaluate Liberation Theology on the basis of the role that Scripture plays, I say the following: Liberation Theology seeks to take the message of the Scriptures and apply it to the present reality. Liberation Theology is a "rereading of the Word of God" in the context of the economic, political, and social realities in Latin American and other parts of the world where there exist oppression and human suffering. In other words, oppression and suffering are the key to understanding the message of Scripture. In Liberation Theology, we do not find a mere citation of biblical texts, but rather a reflection of and meditation on biblical texts in the light of economic, political, and social reality.
You, the reader, are now invited to share your own views on the role of Scripture in Liberation Theology. You can answer questions such as does Liberation Theology seek to sabotage the message of the Bible, does Liberation Theology manipulate the texts of Scripture to suit itself, does Liberation Theology give us a clearer and more accurate understanding of the biblical message, etc. etc.?
Please share with us where you stand on Liberation Theology's biblical hermeneutic. I humbly and respectfully submit this essay to all for your consideration and feedback.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The Role of Scripture
Bonino lays out his position very clearly. In speaking about the relationship of Scripture and truth, he says the following:
"Truth belongs, for this view, to a world of truth, a universe complete in itself, which is copied or reproduced in 'correct" propositions, in a theory which corresponds to this truth. Then, in a second moment, as a later step, comes the application in a particular historical situation. Truth is therefore preexistent to and independent of its historical effectiveness. Its legitimacy has to be tested in relation to this abstract 'heaven of truth' quite apart from its historicization (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p. 88)."
Bonino calls the classical and traditional view of truth into question and critiques it. He does not assume, that because this view has long existed, that it is God-given and to be blindly accepted. His reaction to this classical view of truth is as follows:
"Whatever corrections may be needed, there is scarcely any doubt that God's Word is not understood in the Old Testament as a conceptual communication, but as a creative event, a history-making pronouncement. Its trust does not consist in carrying out God's promise or fulfilling his judgment. Correspondingly, what is required, of Israel is not an ethical inference, but an obedient participation--whether in action or in suffering--in God's active righteousness and mercy. Faith is always a concrete obedience which relies on God's promise and is vindicated in the act of obedience: Abraham offering his only son, Moses stepping into the Red Sea. There is no question of arriving at or possessing previously some theoretical clue. There is no name of God for--to exegete--except as he himself is present in his power, i.e. his powerful acts. Again, the faith of Israel is consistently portrayed, not as gnosis, but as a way, a particular way of acting, of relating inside and outside the nation, of ordering life at every conceivable level, which corresponds to God's own way with Israel. This background, so well attested in the Psalms, for instance, may explain Jesus's use of the Word as a way to refer to himself. The motif, on the other hand, appears in parenetic contexts in Pauline literature. Faith is 'walking." It is unnecessary to point out that even the idea of knowledge and knowing has this active and participatory content (Bonino, p. 89)."
It is very clear that Bonino considers the classical conception of truth to be both faulty and unbiblical. He challenges this view and replaces it with another model of deciphering biblical truth. He states:
"It seems clear enough that the classical conception can claim no biblical basis for its conceptual understanding of truth or for its distinction between a theoretical knowledge of truth and a practical application of it. Correct knowledge is contingent on right doing, i.e. the knowledge is disclosed in the doing. Wrongdoing is ignorance. But, on the other hand, we can also ask whether this classical distinction is phenomenologically true? It seems that both Scripture and social analysis yield the same answer: there is no such neutral knowledge. The sociology of knowledge makes abundantly clear that we think always out of a definite context of relations and action, out of a given praxis (Bonino, p. 90)."
Bonino believes that there should be a direct link between the interpretation of the texts and the praxis out of which this interpretation comes. In other words, he does not believe that we should accept the traditional biblical interpretations uncritically. He says:
"Every interpretation of the texts which is offered to us (whether as exegesis or as a systematic or as ethical interpretation) must be investigated in relation to the praxis out of which it comes. Very concretely, we cannot receive the theological interpretation coming from the rich world without suspecting it and therefore, asking what kind of praxis it supports, reflects, or legitimizes (Bonino, pp. 90-91)."
Juan Luis Segundo is well known in the world of theology for what he calls the "hermeneutical circle." This hermeneutical circle is an approach that Segundo believes will enable one to relate past and present in dealing with the Word of God. Segundo believes that each new reality obliges us to interpret the Word of God afresh, to change reality accordingly, and then to go back and reinterpret the Word of God again. It is important to note Segundo's two preconditions that have to be met if there is to be a hermeneutical circle in theology. The first precondition is that:
"The questions rising out of the present be rich enough, general enough, and basic enough to force us to change our customary conceptions of life, death, knowledge, society, politics, and the world in general. Only a change of this sort, or at the very least, a pervasive suspicion about our ideas and value judgments concerning these things, will enable us to reach the theological level and force theology to come back down to reality and ask itself new questions (Juan Luis Segundo. Liberation of Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1976, p.8)."
One can note there is an element of subjectivism expressed through the first precondition. I am referring to the fact that Segundo does not identify who or what determines which questions are important enough to force us to change our customary conceptions. He goes on to say:
"The second precondition is intimately bound up with the first. If theology somehow assumes that it can respond to the new questions without changing its customary interpretation of Scriptures, that immediately terminates the hermeneutical circle. Moreover, if our interpretation of Scripture does not change along with the problems, then the latter will go unanswered or worse, i.e. they will receive old, conservative, and unserviceable answers (Segundo, p.9)."
One can readily note that Segundo is not willing to settle for anything less than a new hermeneutic. He contends that the old or traditional way of interpreting the Scriptures does not provide any solution to the problem of applying theology to the reality of everyday life.
Hugo Assmann links the Scriptures, history, and praxis. This linkage is an essential feature of his "practical theology of liberation." He stresses the importance of practice as the starting-point for the theology of Liberation. Assmann says:
In the Bible, on the other hand, words have meaning only as the expression of a deed, and theory has meaning only as the expression of a practice. Events from the structural center of biblical language. Not the casual events of the world of nature, but rather, the human events of history. The historic dimension of events dominates the biblical outlook to such an extent that, in this pre-technical world, even the facts of nature came to be taken as a point of spontaneous interaction between God and humankind, which would be impossible for us today. 'Liberation' is necessarily linked to effective action (Hugo Assmann, "The Power of Christ in History," in Frontiers of Theology in Latin America.,ed. Rosino Gibellini. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p.75)."
In summary, for those who wish to evaluate Liberation Theology on the basis of the role that Scripture plays, I say the following: Liberation Theology seeks to take the message of the Scriptures and apply it to the present reality. Liberation Theology is a "rereading of the Word of God" in the context of the economic, political, and social realities in Latin American and other parts of the world where there exist oppression and human suffering. In other words, oppression and suffering are the key to understanding the message of Scripture. In Liberation Theology, we do not find a mere citation of biblical texts, but rather a reflection of and meditation on biblical texts in the light of economic, political, and social reality.
You, the reader, are now invited to share your own views on the role of Scripture in Liberation Theology. You can answer questions such as does Liberation Theology seek to sabotage the message of the Bible, does Liberation Theology manipulate the texts of Scripture to suit itself, does Liberation Theology give us a clearer and more accurate understanding of the biblical message, etc. etc.?
Please share with us where you stand on Liberation Theology's biblical hermeneutic. I humbly and respectfully submit this essay to all for your consideration and feedback.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Liberation Theology: Diversity of Perspectives
In the first essay on Liberation Theology, I had indicated that there is no one "Liberation Theology." In other words, Liberation Theology is not monolithic. There is as much diversity in LT as there is in any other school of thought. In this essay, I will point out to some of that diversity, so that we can have a better sense of this theological paradigm.
I can best address the question of diversity in LT by referring to three articles in Rosino Gibellini's book, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. I have previously referred to one of those articles. The articles are written by three leading theologians of Liberation. They are Hugo Assmann, Gustavo Gutierrez , and Juan Luis Segundo. The articles are the following: "The Power of Christ in History" by Hugo Assmann, "Liberation Praxis and Christian Faith," by Gustavo Gutierrez, and "Capitalism Versus Socialism: Crux Theologica," by Juan Luis Segundo.
It should be obvious to the reader of these articles that Assmann deals primarily with the problem of Christology, while Gutierrez and Segundo tend to more attentive to the question of socio-economic and political structures, and how they affect the people living in Latin America. However, this does not mean that Assmann is not concerned with these realities, for as one can note, he is interested in the development of a Christology that will be a reflection of the struggle of Latin Americans against dehumanizing structures. It is important to note that for Assmann, Latin America is not to be thought of as one single and well-defined context. He describes it as "a wide variety diversity of situations, both in socio-political and Christian terms"(Hugo Assmann, "The Power of Christ in History," Frontiers of Theology in Latin America, ed. Rosino Gibellini. Maryknoll: Orbis Press, 1979, p. 133).
This is an important point to mention because Gutierrez and Segundo tend to focus on the whole of Latin America while paying little attention to particular Latin American contexts. If I understand him correctly, Assmann believes that a good Christology should reflect the reality of diversity in the entirety of the Latin American context.
While Gutierrez's article does not reflect any attempt to construct a systematic Christology (ala Assmann), one notes that his particular image of the Christ is that of one who sides with the poor and oppressed of the world. He refers to this Christ as the "poor Christ with whom those who seek to establish solidarity with the dispossessed on this continent will tend to identify (Gustavo Gutierrez, "Liberation Praxis and Christian Faith" in Gibellini, p. 28).
Segundo, on the other hand, is more concerned with Jesus's theology than with a theology about Jesus. He makes reference to Jesus's theology of the kingdom and God's work in history. He identifies the essential ingredients in Jesus's theology: the presence and guidance of God in the historical events which are taking place (Juan Luis Segundo, "Capitalism Versus Socialism: Crux Teologica," in Gibellini, p. 253).
I am not implying that a contradiction exists between these two concerns. I am simply pointing to the differences that Gutierrez and Segundo take in relation to the study of the person and work of Christ.
For the purposes of time and space, I would strongly suggest that you, the reader, avail yourself of Gibellini's book and the articles written by these three theologians of Liberation. What follows below is a further description of the diversity that exists in LT. You are invited to read the articles in order to make sense of my description without deviating bymy detailed quotations.
Assmann goes further than both Gutierrez and Segundo in dealing with Christology. While the implications of what all three say are basically the same (I think), Assmann gives a mere specific focus. He clearly indicates that the conflict between Christologies is conditioned by the historical contradictions of the societies in Latin America. Assmann sees no immediate prospect of a solution for the conflict between Christologies. The main reason for this, he says, is "that there is no immediate prospect of a solution for the serious contradictions in our Christian America."
While Assmann, Gutierrez, and Segundo attempt to speak of the Christ within the Latin American context, each seems to have a different emphasis. Assmann is concerned with how to construct the image of Christ in such a way that the diversity of the Latin American situation will be reflected. Gutierrez is more concerned with the Christ who establishes solidarity with the poor and oppressed. Segundo is apparently more concerned with the particular acts of Christ in history.
As I have already indicated, I do not think that these approaches are contradictory, They are complementary to each other. The three approaches reflect an attempt to articulate the Christian faith in the light of the existing socio-economic and political reality in Latin America.
You are now invited to comment on this essay. Feel free to give your input and share your perspectives. Your input will be very much appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
I can best address the question of diversity in LT by referring to three articles in Rosino Gibellini's book, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. I have previously referred to one of those articles. The articles are written by three leading theologians of Liberation. They are Hugo Assmann, Gustavo Gutierrez , and Juan Luis Segundo. The articles are the following: "The Power of Christ in History" by Hugo Assmann, "Liberation Praxis and Christian Faith," by Gustavo Gutierrez, and "Capitalism Versus Socialism: Crux Theologica," by Juan Luis Segundo.
It should be obvious to the reader of these articles that Assmann deals primarily with the problem of Christology, while Gutierrez and Segundo tend to more attentive to the question of socio-economic and political structures, and how they affect the people living in Latin America. However, this does not mean that Assmann is not concerned with these realities, for as one can note, he is interested in the development of a Christology that will be a reflection of the struggle of Latin Americans against dehumanizing structures. It is important to note that for Assmann, Latin America is not to be thought of as one single and well-defined context. He describes it as "a wide variety diversity of situations, both in socio-political and Christian terms"(Hugo Assmann, "The Power of Christ in History," Frontiers of Theology in Latin America, ed. Rosino Gibellini. Maryknoll: Orbis Press, 1979, p. 133).
This is an important point to mention because Gutierrez and Segundo tend to focus on the whole of Latin America while paying little attention to particular Latin American contexts. If I understand him correctly, Assmann believes that a good Christology should reflect the reality of diversity in the entirety of the Latin American context.
While Gutierrez's article does not reflect any attempt to construct a systematic Christology (ala Assmann), one notes that his particular image of the Christ is that of one who sides with the poor and oppressed of the world. He refers to this Christ as the "poor Christ with whom those who seek to establish solidarity with the dispossessed on this continent will tend to identify (Gustavo Gutierrez, "Liberation Praxis and Christian Faith" in Gibellini, p. 28).
Segundo, on the other hand, is more concerned with Jesus's theology than with a theology about Jesus. He makes reference to Jesus's theology of the kingdom and God's work in history. He identifies the essential ingredients in Jesus's theology: the presence and guidance of God in the historical events which are taking place (Juan Luis Segundo, "Capitalism Versus Socialism: Crux Teologica," in Gibellini, p. 253).
I am not implying that a contradiction exists between these two concerns. I am simply pointing to the differences that Gutierrez and Segundo take in relation to the study of the person and work of Christ.
For the purposes of time and space, I would strongly suggest that you, the reader, avail yourself of Gibellini's book and the articles written by these three theologians of Liberation. What follows below is a further description of the diversity that exists in LT. You are invited to read the articles in order to make sense of my description without deviating bymy detailed quotations.
Assmann goes further than both Gutierrez and Segundo in dealing with Christology. While the implications of what all three say are basically the same (I think), Assmann gives a mere specific focus. He clearly indicates that the conflict between Christologies is conditioned by the historical contradictions of the societies in Latin America. Assmann sees no immediate prospect of a solution for the conflict between Christologies. The main reason for this, he says, is "that there is no immediate prospect of a solution for the serious contradictions in our Christian America."
While Assmann, Gutierrez, and Segundo attempt to speak of the Christ within the Latin American context, each seems to have a different emphasis. Assmann is concerned with how to construct the image of Christ in such a way that the diversity of the Latin American situation will be reflected. Gutierrez is more concerned with the Christ who establishes solidarity with the poor and oppressed. Segundo is apparently more concerned with the particular acts of Christ in history.
As I have already indicated, I do not think that these approaches are contradictory, They are complementary to each other. The three approaches reflect an attempt to articulate the Christian faith in the light of the existing socio-economic and political reality in Latin America.
You are now invited to comment on this essay. Feel free to give your input and share your perspectives. Your input will be very much appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, April 18, 2015
The Minium Wage-$15 An Hour
This last week, we witnessed some workers in the fast-food business protesting against the wages that they are being paid and demanding that the minimum wage be raised to $15 an hour. As with other issues, this situation generated conflicts surrounding this demand. Some, for a variety of reasons, are totally in favor of this proposal. Others, also for a variety of reasons, are totally against it. Others, yet, are willing to compromise, and negotiate and even settle for something in between.
In our capitalistic American society (Slavetown, U.S.A), the following theoretical criteria is used to pay wages and benefits. You will notice that I am emphasizing that this is the criteria in theory.
1. Education
2. Experience
3. Benefit to the Employer, especially in the private employment sector.
In reality, the criteria which is used for wages and upward mobility is the following:
1. Profitability
2. Cronyism and Favoritism- ("It's not what you know, but who you know.")
3. Consequences ("What if?)
4. Education (with qualification, subordinate to 1 and 2)
5. Experience (also with qualification, subordinate to 1, 2, 3, and 4)
This writer (yours truly) would like to propose another paradigm for paying wages. This paradigm entails ethical and moral considerations. In other words, it is not based on how much profit the employer can make, or how much the employer stands to lose if the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour. It is based on the question of what does justice require?
1. Living wage- Are the wages paid enough to enable employees to obtain decent and affordable housing? Are they enough to enable the employees to adequately support their families? Are they enough to enable the employees to obtain adequate nutrition for themselves and their families? Are they enough to pay college/university or vocational study expenses for themselves and their families, especially at private institutions? Do the wage structures include adequate health and retirement benefits? Do the employer's policies leave room for equal opportunity of upward mobility for every single employee?
2. Community/Social benefits- Is the work performed by employees conducive to the well-being of the community and society?
3. Employer Benefit- Is the work performed by the employees beneficial to the employer? (With qualification, subject to 1 and 2)
4. Education (With qualification, subject to 1, 2, and 3)
5. Experience (With qualification, subject to 1, 2, 3, and 4)
On the basis of my proposed model, I speak in favor of raising the wage to $15 an hour. The model is not based on how much the employer stands to gain or lose, and neither does it leave room for cronyism and favoritism. Some may say that I am being too "idealistic." This may or may not be the case, but I strongly believe that ethical and moral issues override the consequential issues of "what if?" I invite you the reader to comment and give your views concerning this vital matter.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In our capitalistic American society (Slavetown, U.S.A), the following theoretical criteria is used to pay wages and benefits. You will notice that I am emphasizing that this is the criteria in theory.
1. Education
2. Experience
3. Benefit to the Employer, especially in the private employment sector.
In reality, the criteria which is used for wages and upward mobility is the following:
1. Profitability
2. Cronyism and Favoritism- ("It's not what you know, but who you know.")
3. Consequences ("What if?)
4. Education (with qualification, subordinate to 1 and 2)
5. Experience (also with qualification, subordinate to 1, 2, 3, and 4)
This writer (yours truly) would like to propose another paradigm for paying wages. This paradigm entails ethical and moral considerations. In other words, it is not based on how much profit the employer can make, or how much the employer stands to lose if the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour. It is based on the question of what does justice require?
1. Living wage- Are the wages paid enough to enable employees to obtain decent and affordable housing? Are they enough to enable the employees to adequately support their families? Are they enough to enable the employees to obtain adequate nutrition for themselves and their families? Are they enough to pay college/university or vocational study expenses for themselves and their families, especially at private institutions? Do the wage structures include adequate health and retirement benefits? Do the employer's policies leave room for equal opportunity of upward mobility for every single employee?
2. Community/Social benefits- Is the work performed by employees conducive to the well-being of the community and society?
3. Employer Benefit- Is the work performed by the employees beneficial to the employer? (With qualification, subject to 1 and 2)
4. Education (With qualification, subject to 1, 2, and 3)
5. Experience (With qualification, subject to 1, 2, 3, and 4)
On the basis of my proposed model, I speak in favor of raising the wage to $15 an hour. The model is not based on how much the employer stands to gain or lose, and neither does it leave room for cronyism and favoritism. Some may say that I am being too "idealistic." This may or may not be the case, but I strongly believe that ethical and moral issues override the consequential issues of "what if?" I invite you the reader to comment and give your views concerning this vital matter.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Liberation Theology-The Assumptions
Like with any other written document, whether it be the Bible, or the sacred text of any another faith community, or literature in any field, we encounter assumptions and presuppositions on the part of the writers. Liberation Theology is no exception to the rule. Like theologians of other currents of thought, Liberation theologians work with their own set of assumptions and presuppositions. We cannot have a fair evaluation of Liberation Theology or any other theology for that matter, unless we first identify what those working assumptions and presuppositions are.
What do Liberation theologians assume when constructing and developing their theology? It is a known fact that no one does theology in a vacuum. That is totally impossible. This should come as a surprise to no one, when we consider, among other things, that no such thing as pure "objectivity" exists. We are all biased. We are all culturally conditioned, and subsequently, everything we read or write will reflect that cultural conditioning. The authors of Liberation Theology write out of their cultural matrix and particular social location like all other theologians do.
I would caution against reading Liberation Theology with our own set of presuppositions. When we bring our own baggage of assumptions, there is a tendency to evaluate what we read in the light of those presuppositions. Our assumptions color the way we interpret what we read. In this essay, I will attempt to identify the assumptions that lead Liberation theologians to their conclusions.
Gustavo Gutierrez, the person who coined the term, "Theology of Liberation," works on the assumption that there is a struggle taking place between different social groups in Latin America. On the one hand, there are the oppressive groups, and on the other, the oppressed classes. Gutierrez's social analysis leads him to conclude that there is a class struggle taking place that divides society into different classes of people.
Gutierrez says that "Liberation expresses the aspirations of oppressed peoples and social classes, emphasizing the conflictual aspect of the economic, social, and political process which puts them at odds with wealthy nations and oppressive classes (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p. 36).
Hugo Assmann elaborates on the assumption expressed by Gutierrez by speaking of a "starting point" in Liberation Theology. That starting point, says Assmann, is "our objective situation as oppressed and dependent peoples, which is forcing itself more and more strongly on the consciousness of broad sections of Christian society in Latin America." In summarizing the development of Liberation Theology in Latin America, he points out that regardless of the course which Liberation Theology should take in the future, that its analytical content or central semantic axis should not be forgotten. Assmann says that "Any discussion of liberation must always go back to its essence: denouncing domination (Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation. London: Search Press, 1975, p. 43-57)."
Ester and Mortimer Arias are pretty clear as to where they stand when they point out the depth of dehumanization that exists in Latin America. They refer to the situation in Latin America as "a situation of captivity." They share their reflections on the following words: "The last decade has been hard on our people south of the Rio Grande, in political frustrations, economic exploitation, social oppression, and military and police repression. We have been living in captivity in our own land. As in biblical times, a new theology has been born from our exile and out of our captivity-the theology of liberation. We have been rediscovering the God of the Exodus, the liberating God. Out of the depths of oppression and repression, we may have something to share with Christians of the North, something which the Lord has been saying to us throughout this dreadful experience ( Ester and Mortimer Arias, The Cry of My People. New York: Friendship Press, 1980, p. ix)."
Jose Miguez Bonino also makes allusion to this starting point in theological reflection. He states that the articulation of the obedience of Christians and the account of their faith "rest on an analysis and interpretation of the Latin American situation for which the transition from developmentalism to liberation is crucial." Bonino makes a direct link between action and reflection. He says: "Their action and their reflection are of such a nature that they make no sense outside of such an analysis. If it is wrong, they are proved wrong. An engaged faith and obedience cannot stand outside or above the world in which they are engaged. This is the reason why, in the effort to enter into this theology, we are forced to dwell on the understanding and analysis of the world in which it finds its locus (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p, 21)."
Leonardo Boff takes this same point further by saying that Liberation Theology was born as an answer to the challenges of oppressed society. He believes that Latin America provides the context in which "action-reflection" can take place. He says that Latin America is today, a theologically privileged place for action and for reflection challenging problems faced there. He refers to Latin America as a continent of colonial Christianity. He adds that Liberation Theology was born of an experimental praxis ( Leonardo Boff, "Capitalism vs. Socialism: Crux Theologica," in Frontiers of Theology in Latin America, ed. Rosino Gibellini. Maryknoll" Orbis Books, 1979, p. 13)."
We have seen that while each Liberation theologian mentioned in this essay approaches the issue from a different angle, each one is working with the assumptions that:
1. Society in Latin America is divided along the line of social classes.
2. That division in turn results in the economic marginalization of the majority by a small minority who control the resources, and which in turn creates a situation of dependence and oppression.
3. That the economic, political, and social conditions constitute the most appropriate forum for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
You, the reader are invited to comment on the assumptions and presuppositions with which Liberation theologians work. Please tell us what you think as we continue on this journey of evaluating Liberation Theology.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
What do Liberation theologians assume when constructing and developing their theology? It is a known fact that no one does theology in a vacuum. That is totally impossible. This should come as a surprise to no one, when we consider, among other things, that no such thing as pure "objectivity" exists. We are all biased. We are all culturally conditioned, and subsequently, everything we read or write will reflect that cultural conditioning. The authors of Liberation Theology write out of their cultural matrix and particular social location like all other theologians do.
I would caution against reading Liberation Theology with our own set of presuppositions. When we bring our own baggage of assumptions, there is a tendency to evaluate what we read in the light of those presuppositions. Our assumptions color the way we interpret what we read. In this essay, I will attempt to identify the assumptions that lead Liberation theologians to their conclusions.
Gustavo Gutierrez, the person who coined the term, "Theology of Liberation," works on the assumption that there is a struggle taking place between different social groups in Latin America. On the one hand, there are the oppressive groups, and on the other, the oppressed classes. Gutierrez's social analysis leads him to conclude that there is a class struggle taking place that divides society into different classes of people.
Gutierrez says that "Liberation expresses the aspirations of oppressed peoples and social classes, emphasizing the conflictual aspect of the economic, social, and political process which puts them at odds with wealthy nations and oppressive classes (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p. 36).
Hugo Assmann elaborates on the assumption expressed by Gutierrez by speaking of a "starting point" in Liberation Theology. That starting point, says Assmann, is "our objective situation as oppressed and dependent peoples, which is forcing itself more and more strongly on the consciousness of broad sections of Christian society in Latin America." In summarizing the development of Liberation Theology in Latin America, he points out that regardless of the course which Liberation Theology should take in the future, that its analytical content or central semantic axis should not be forgotten. Assmann says that "Any discussion of liberation must always go back to its essence: denouncing domination (Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation. London: Search Press, 1975, p. 43-57)."
Ester and Mortimer Arias are pretty clear as to where they stand when they point out the depth of dehumanization that exists in Latin America. They refer to the situation in Latin America as "a situation of captivity." They share their reflections on the following words: "The last decade has been hard on our people south of the Rio Grande, in political frustrations, economic exploitation, social oppression, and military and police repression. We have been living in captivity in our own land. As in biblical times, a new theology has been born from our exile and out of our captivity-the theology of liberation. We have been rediscovering the God of the Exodus, the liberating God. Out of the depths of oppression and repression, we may have something to share with Christians of the North, something which the Lord has been saying to us throughout this dreadful experience ( Ester and Mortimer Arias, The Cry of My People. New York: Friendship Press, 1980, p. ix)."
Jose Miguez Bonino also makes allusion to this starting point in theological reflection. He states that the articulation of the obedience of Christians and the account of their faith "rest on an analysis and interpretation of the Latin American situation for which the transition from developmentalism to liberation is crucial." Bonino makes a direct link between action and reflection. He says: "Their action and their reflection are of such a nature that they make no sense outside of such an analysis. If it is wrong, they are proved wrong. An engaged faith and obedience cannot stand outside or above the world in which they are engaged. This is the reason why, in the effort to enter into this theology, we are forced to dwell on the understanding and analysis of the world in which it finds its locus (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p, 21)."
Leonardo Boff takes this same point further by saying that Liberation Theology was born as an answer to the challenges of oppressed society. He believes that Latin America provides the context in which "action-reflection" can take place. He says that Latin America is today, a theologically privileged place for action and for reflection challenging problems faced there. He refers to Latin America as a continent of colonial Christianity. He adds that Liberation Theology was born of an experimental praxis ( Leonardo Boff, "Capitalism vs. Socialism: Crux Theologica," in Frontiers of Theology in Latin America, ed. Rosino Gibellini. Maryknoll" Orbis Books, 1979, p. 13)."
We have seen that while each Liberation theologian mentioned in this essay approaches the issue from a different angle, each one is working with the assumptions that:
1. Society in Latin America is divided along the line of social classes.
2. That division in turn results in the economic marginalization of the majority by a small minority who control the resources, and which in turn creates a situation of dependence and oppression.
3. That the economic, political, and social conditions constitute the most appropriate forum for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
You, the reader are invited to comment on the assumptions and presuppositions with which Liberation theologians work. Please tell us what you think as we continue on this journey of evaluating Liberation Theology.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Liberation Theology: Historical Origins and Definition
There is a phrase in Spanish that I used frequently when teaching courses on Church History. The phrase came in the form of a question, "Como fue que comenzo el bochinche (How did the gossip begin)?" In order to give a working definition to Liberation Theology (hereafter known as LT), I will give a historical background to its origin and development.
1. Antecedents
The historical roots of Liberation Theology are to be found in the prophetic tradition of evangelists and missionaries from the earliest colonial days in Latin America-churchmen who questioned the type of presence adopted by the Church and the way indigenous peoples, blacks, mestizos, and the poor rural and urban masses were treated. The names of Bartolome de las Casas, Antonio de Montesinos, and others can stand for a whole host of religious personalities who have graced every century of our short history. They are the source of the type of social and ecclesial understanding that is emerging today (Clodovis and Leonardo Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 66).
A. Social and Political Development
The populist governments of the 1950's and 1960's- especially in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico-inspired nationalistic consciousness and significant industrial development in the shape of import substitution. This benefited the middle classes and urban proletariat, but threw huge sectors of the peasantry into deeper rural marginalization or sprawling urban shantytowns. Development proceeded along the lines of dependent capitalism, subsidiary to that of the rich nations and excluding the great majorities of national populations. This process led to the creation of strong popular movements seeking profound changes in the socio-economic structure of their countries. These movements, in turn provoked the rise of military dictatorships, which sought to safeguard or promote the interests of capital, associated with a high level of "national security" achieved through political repression and police control of all public demonstrations (Boff and Boff, p.67).
In this context, the socialist revolution in Cuba stood out as an alternative leading to the dissolution of dependence which was considered to be the main course of underdevelopment. Pockets of armed uprising appeared in many countries, aimed at overthrowing the ruling powers, and installing socialist-inspired regimes. There was a great stirring for change among the popular sections of society, a truly revolutionary atmosphere (Boff and Boff, p.67).
B. Church Development
Starting in the 1960's, a great wind of renewal blew through the churches. They began to take their social mission seriously: lay persons committed themselves to work among the poor, charismatic bishops and priests encouraged the calls for progress and national modernization. Various church organizations promoted understanding of and improvements in the living conditions of the people: movements such as Young Christian Students, Young Christian Workers, Young Christian Agriculturists, the Movement for Basic Education, groups that set up educational radio programs, and the first base ecclesial communities (Boff and Boff,p 67).
The work of these-generally middle-class-Christians sustained by the European theology of earthly realities, such as humanism, social personalism, progressive evolutionism, etc., and reflections on the social dimension of dogma. The Second Vatican Council then gave the best theoretical justification to activities developed under the signs of a theology of progress, of authentic secularization and human advancement (Boff and Boff, p.68).
The end of the 1960's, with the crisis of populism, and the developmental model, brought the advent of a vigorous current of sociological thinking, which unmasked the true causes of underdevelopment. Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin. All nations of the Western world were engaged in a vast process of development; however, it was interdependent and unequal, organized in such a way that the benefits flowed to the already developed countries of the "center" and the disadvantages were meted out to the historically backward and underdeveloped countries of the "periphery." The poverty of Third World countries was the price to be paid for the First World to be able to enjoy the fruits of overabundance (Boff and Boff, p. 68).
In church circles by now accustomed to following developments in society and studies of its problems, this interpretation acted as a leaven, yielding a new vitality and critical spirit in pastoral circles. The relationship of dependence of the periphery on the center had to be replaced by a process of breaking away and liberation. So the basis of a theology of development was undermined and the theoretical foundations for a theology of liberation were laid. Its material foundations were provided only when popular movements and Christian groups came together in the struggle for social and political liberation, with the ultimate aim of complete and integral liberation. This was when the objective conditions for an authentic liberation theology came about (Boff and Boff, p.68).
C. Theological Development
The first theological reflections that were to lead to Liberation Theology had their origins in a context of dialogue between a church and a society in ferment, between Christian faith and the longings for transformation and liberation arising from the people. The Second Vatican Council produced a theological atmosphere characterized by great freedom and creativity. This gave Latin American theologians the courage to think for themselves about pastoral problems facing their countries. This process could be seen at work, among both Catholic and Protestant thinkers with the group known as Church and Society in Latin America (Iglesia y Sociedad en America Latina) taking a prominent part. There were frequent meetings between Catholic theologians such as Gustavo Gutierrez, Segundo Galilea, Juan Luis Segundo, and Protestant theologians such as Emilio Castro, Rubem Alves, and Jose Miguez Bonino. These meetings were focused on intensified reflections on the relationship between faith and poverty, the Gospel and social justice, and the like. In Brazil, between 1959 and 1964, the Catholic left produced a series of basic texts on the need for a Christian ideal of history, linked to popular action, with a methodology that foreshadowed that of Liberation Theology. They urged personal engagement in the world, backed up by studies of social and liberal sciences, and illustrated by the universal principles of Christianity (Boff and Boff, p.69).
At a meeting of Latin American theologians held in Petropolis (Rio de Janeiro) in March 1964, Gustavo Gutierrez described theology as "critical reflection on praxis." This line of thought was further developed at meetings in Havana, Bogota, and Cuernavaca in June and July 1965. Many other meetings were held as part of the preparatory for the Medellin conference of 1068; these acted as laboratories for a theology worked out on the basis of pastoral concerns and committed Christian action. Lectures given by Gustavo Gutierrez in Montreal in 1967 and at Chimbote in Peru on the poverty of the Third World and the challenge it posed to the development of a pastoral strategy of liberation were a further powerful impetus toward a theology of liberation. Its outlines were first put forward at the theological congress at Cartigny, Switzerland, in 1969: "Toward a Theology of Liberation" (Boff and Boff, 69).
The first Catholic congresses devoted to Liberation Theology were held in Bogota in March 1970 and July 1971. On the Protestant side, Church and Society organized something similar in Buenos Aires the same years (Boff and Boff, p.70).
Finally, in December 1971, Gustavo Gutierrez published his seminal work, Teologia de la Liberacion. In May, Hugo Assmann had conducted a symposium, "Oppression-Liberation: The Challenge to Christians," in Montevideo. Leonardo Boff had published a series of articles under the title "Jesus Cristo Libertador." The door was opened for the development of a theology from the periphery dealing with the concerns of this periphery, concerns that presented and still present an immense challenge to the evangelizing mission of the Church (Boff and Boff, p. 70).
2. Liberation Theology Defined
We might ask, "What is Liberation Theology?' I can best answer that question by stating that there is no one "Liberation Theology." By this I mean that LT is not a single school of thought. Rosino Gibellini says: "Liberation Theology is a richly variegated affair, in both its motifs and in the personalities involved (Rosino Gibellini, ed. Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p.x). As I point out in my doctoral dissertation, one will find diversity of thinking and methodology in Liberation Theology ( Juan A. Carmona. The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective. Rochester: Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1982, p. 36). I would venture to say that there is as much diversity in LT as there is in European theology. I would qualify that by saying that in spite of the diversity which may exist in LT, there seems to be an underlying unity in this trend of thought (Carmona, p. 36).
Gustavo Gutierrez says: "The theology of liberation offers us not so much a new theme for reflection as a new way to do theology. Theology as critical reflection on historical praxis is a liberating theology, a theology of the liberating transformation of the history of humankind-gathered into ecclesia- which openly confesses Christ. This is a theology which does not stop reflecting on the world, but rather tries to be a part of the process through which the world is transformed. It is a theology which is open-in the protest against trampled human dignity, in the struggle against the plunder of the vast majority of people, in liberating love, and in the building of a new, just, and fraternal society-to the gift of the kingdom of God (Gustavo Gutierrez. A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p. x). Here, Gutierrez is making a direct link between theology as reflection and the historical process of transformation. Liberation Theology, according to Gutierrez, would be the application of the study about God to the world of concrete historical happenings. As a critical reflection, Liberation Theology leads to self-reflection and to a critique of both church and society (Carmona, p. 37).
Hugo Assmann states: Theology is an understanding of the faith and a re-reading of the Word as it is lived in the Christian community. More than anything, it has to do with the communication of faith and proclamation of the good news, which is that the Father loves all humans. To evangelize is to witness to that love; to say that it has been reviewed to us was made flesh in Christ ( Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation. London: Search Press, 1975, p.5).
I would rephrase Assmann's statement by saying that LT is an understanding of the faith and a re-reading of the Word as it is lived in Latin America. Why do we see this type of theological reflection taking place in Latin America today? Assmann answers, This theological reflection is impelled by a desire to speak the Word of the Lord to all persons from the position of solidarity (Assmann, p.6). In Assmann's view, LT is an attempt to bring the Word of God to the world. This proclamation would be carried out from the standpoint of taking sides with the poor and oppressed of this world. Assmann is careful to point out that the type of Christian experience determines the from that theology takes at different moments in history. Nevertheless, as he describes it, theology is a "task for all times (Assmann, p.5)."
Ester and Mortimer Arias describe Liberation Theology as "the result of a new reading of the Scriptures in a particular historical situation. The experience of the Exodus became the key to a new perception of the Gospel ( Ester and Mortimer Arias, The Cry of My People, New York: Friendship Press, 1980, p. 127). Taking the Exodus story as a model for liberation, LT is a participation in that story. To the Ariases, LT is not a mere retelling of the past, but rather the incorporation of past events into present history (Carmona, p. 38).
Jose Miguez Bonino defines LT as "a question addressed to the Christian obedience of our brothers and sisters in Christ elsewhere-a question , though, that only they can answer (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p.xx)."
As we have seen, Liberation Theology is not confined or restricted to one definition . There are a variety of definitions, depending on the angle that each LT theologian is coming from, and the approach that each one uses to apply LT to reality.
I invite you, the reader, to review this essay, and make comments of your own. Your contributions are important and valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. Antecedents
The historical roots of Liberation Theology are to be found in the prophetic tradition of evangelists and missionaries from the earliest colonial days in Latin America-churchmen who questioned the type of presence adopted by the Church and the way indigenous peoples, blacks, mestizos, and the poor rural and urban masses were treated. The names of Bartolome de las Casas, Antonio de Montesinos, and others can stand for a whole host of religious personalities who have graced every century of our short history. They are the source of the type of social and ecclesial understanding that is emerging today (Clodovis and Leonardo Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 66).
A. Social and Political Development
The populist governments of the 1950's and 1960's- especially in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico-inspired nationalistic consciousness and significant industrial development in the shape of import substitution. This benefited the middle classes and urban proletariat, but threw huge sectors of the peasantry into deeper rural marginalization or sprawling urban shantytowns. Development proceeded along the lines of dependent capitalism, subsidiary to that of the rich nations and excluding the great majorities of national populations. This process led to the creation of strong popular movements seeking profound changes in the socio-economic structure of their countries. These movements, in turn provoked the rise of military dictatorships, which sought to safeguard or promote the interests of capital, associated with a high level of "national security" achieved through political repression and police control of all public demonstrations (Boff and Boff, p.67).
In this context, the socialist revolution in Cuba stood out as an alternative leading to the dissolution of dependence which was considered to be the main course of underdevelopment. Pockets of armed uprising appeared in many countries, aimed at overthrowing the ruling powers, and installing socialist-inspired regimes. There was a great stirring for change among the popular sections of society, a truly revolutionary atmosphere (Boff and Boff, p.67).
B. Church Development
Starting in the 1960's, a great wind of renewal blew through the churches. They began to take their social mission seriously: lay persons committed themselves to work among the poor, charismatic bishops and priests encouraged the calls for progress and national modernization. Various church organizations promoted understanding of and improvements in the living conditions of the people: movements such as Young Christian Students, Young Christian Workers, Young Christian Agriculturists, the Movement for Basic Education, groups that set up educational radio programs, and the first base ecclesial communities (Boff and Boff,p 67).
The work of these-generally middle-class-Christians sustained by the European theology of earthly realities, such as humanism, social personalism, progressive evolutionism, etc., and reflections on the social dimension of dogma. The Second Vatican Council then gave the best theoretical justification to activities developed under the signs of a theology of progress, of authentic secularization and human advancement (Boff and Boff, p.68).
The end of the 1960's, with the crisis of populism, and the developmental model, brought the advent of a vigorous current of sociological thinking, which unmasked the true causes of underdevelopment. Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin. All nations of the Western world were engaged in a vast process of development; however, it was interdependent and unequal, organized in such a way that the benefits flowed to the already developed countries of the "center" and the disadvantages were meted out to the historically backward and underdeveloped countries of the "periphery." The poverty of Third World countries was the price to be paid for the First World to be able to enjoy the fruits of overabundance (Boff and Boff, p. 68).
In church circles by now accustomed to following developments in society and studies of its problems, this interpretation acted as a leaven, yielding a new vitality and critical spirit in pastoral circles. The relationship of dependence of the periphery on the center had to be replaced by a process of breaking away and liberation. So the basis of a theology of development was undermined and the theoretical foundations for a theology of liberation were laid. Its material foundations were provided only when popular movements and Christian groups came together in the struggle for social and political liberation, with the ultimate aim of complete and integral liberation. This was when the objective conditions for an authentic liberation theology came about (Boff and Boff, p.68).
C. Theological Development
The first theological reflections that were to lead to Liberation Theology had their origins in a context of dialogue between a church and a society in ferment, between Christian faith and the longings for transformation and liberation arising from the people. The Second Vatican Council produced a theological atmosphere characterized by great freedom and creativity. This gave Latin American theologians the courage to think for themselves about pastoral problems facing their countries. This process could be seen at work, among both Catholic and Protestant thinkers with the group known as Church and Society in Latin America (Iglesia y Sociedad en America Latina) taking a prominent part. There were frequent meetings between Catholic theologians such as Gustavo Gutierrez, Segundo Galilea, Juan Luis Segundo, and Protestant theologians such as Emilio Castro, Rubem Alves, and Jose Miguez Bonino. These meetings were focused on intensified reflections on the relationship between faith and poverty, the Gospel and social justice, and the like. In Brazil, between 1959 and 1964, the Catholic left produced a series of basic texts on the need for a Christian ideal of history, linked to popular action, with a methodology that foreshadowed that of Liberation Theology. They urged personal engagement in the world, backed up by studies of social and liberal sciences, and illustrated by the universal principles of Christianity (Boff and Boff, p.69).
At a meeting of Latin American theologians held in Petropolis (Rio de Janeiro) in March 1964, Gustavo Gutierrez described theology as "critical reflection on praxis." This line of thought was further developed at meetings in Havana, Bogota, and Cuernavaca in June and July 1965. Many other meetings were held as part of the preparatory for the Medellin conference of 1068; these acted as laboratories for a theology worked out on the basis of pastoral concerns and committed Christian action. Lectures given by Gustavo Gutierrez in Montreal in 1967 and at Chimbote in Peru on the poverty of the Third World and the challenge it posed to the development of a pastoral strategy of liberation were a further powerful impetus toward a theology of liberation. Its outlines were first put forward at the theological congress at Cartigny, Switzerland, in 1969: "Toward a Theology of Liberation" (Boff and Boff, 69).
The first Catholic congresses devoted to Liberation Theology were held in Bogota in March 1970 and July 1971. On the Protestant side, Church and Society organized something similar in Buenos Aires the same years (Boff and Boff, p.70).
Finally, in December 1971, Gustavo Gutierrez published his seminal work, Teologia de la Liberacion. In May, Hugo Assmann had conducted a symposium, "Oppression-Liberation: The Challenge to Christians," in Montevideo. Leonardo Boff had published a series of articles under the title "Jesus Cristo Libertador." The door was opened for the development of a theology from the periphery dealing with the concerns of this periphery, concerns that presented and still present an immense challenge to the evangelizing mission of the Church (Boff and Boff, p. 70).
2. Liberation Theology Defined
We might ask, "What is Liberation Theology?' I can best answer that question by stating that there is no one "Liberation Theology." By this I mean that LT is not a single school of thought. Rosino Gibellini says: "Liberation Theology is a richly variegated affair, in both its motifs and in the personalities involved (Rosino Gibellini, ed. Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p.x). As I point out in my doctoral dissertation, one will find diversity of thinking and methodology in Liberation Theology ( Juan A. Carmona. The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective. Rochester: Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1982, p. 36). I would venture to say that there is as much diversity in LT as there is in European theology. I would qualify that by saying that in spite of the diversity which may exist in LT, there seems to be an underlying unity in this trend of thought (Carmona, p. 36).
Gustavo Gutierrez says: "The theology of liberation offers us not so much a new theme for reflection as a new way to do theology. Theology as critical reflection on historical praxis is a liberating theology, a theology of the liberating transformation of the history of humankind-gathered into ecclesia- which openly confesses Christ. This is a theology which does not stop reflecting on the world, but rather tries to be a part of the process through which the world is transformed. It is a theology which is open-in the protest against trampled human dignity, in the struggle against the plunder of the vast majority of people, in liberating love, and in the building of a new, just, and fraternal society-to the gift of the kingdom of God (Gustavo Gutierrez. A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p. x). Here, Gutierrez is making a direct link between theology as reflection and the historical process of transformation. Liberation Theology, according to Gutierrez, would be the application of the study about God to the world of concrete historical happenings. As a critical reflection, Liberation Theology leads to self-reflection and to a critique of both church and society (Carmona, p. 37).
Hugo Assmann states: Theology is an understanding of the faith and a re-reading of the Word as it is lived in the Christian community. More than anything, it has to do with the communication of faith and proclamation of the good news, which is that the Father loves all humans. To evangelize is to witness to that love; to say that it has been reviewed to us was made flesh in Christ ( Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation. London: Search Press, 1975, p.5).
I would rephrase Assmann's statement by saying that LT is an understanding of the faith and a re-reading of the Word as it is lived in Latin America. Why do we see this type of theological reflection taking place in Latin America today? Assmann answers, This theological reflection is impelled by a desire to speak the Word of the Lord to all persons from the position of solidarity (Assmann, p.6). In Assmann's view, LT is an attempt to bring the Word of God to the world. This proclamation would be carried out from the standpoint of taking sides with the poor and oppressed of this world. Assmann is careful to point out that the type of Christian experience determines the from that theology takes at different moments in history. Nevertheless, as he describes it, theology is a "task for all times (Assmann, p.5)."
Ester and Mortimer Arias describe Liberation Theology as "the result of a new reading of the Scriptures in a particular historical situation. The experience of the Exodus became the key to a new perception of the Gospel ( Ester and Mortimer Arias, The Cry of My People, New York: Friendship Press, 1980, p. 127). Taking the Exodus story as a model for liberation, LT is a participation in that story. To the Ariases, LT is not a mere retelling of the past, but rather the incorporation of past events into present history (Carmona, p. 38).
Jose Miguez Bonino defines LT as "a question addressed to the Christian obedience of our brothers and sisters in Christ elsewhere-a question , though, that only they can answer (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p.xx)."
As we have seen, Liberation Theology is not confined or restricted to one definition . There are a variety of definitions, depending on the angle that each LT theologian is coming from, and the approach that each one uses to apply LT to reality.
I invite you, the reader, to review this essay, and make comments of your own. Your contributions are important and valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, April 13, 2015
Liberation Theology: An Intermediate Consideration
This will not be one of the five essays that I will be writing on Liberation Theology. However, the focus of it will have relevance for Liberation Theology. The issues that I will be raising apply to Liberation Theology as they do to all other streams of theological thought. I admit that the issues raised in this intermediate essay stem from the challenges of Liberation Theology. Nevertheless, these challenges carry over into all theologies, and for that matter, into all aspects of the theological enterprise. One cannot engage in theological discourse relative to the validity of any theological current without taking into consideration the following questions:
1. At what point in history did a particular theology come into existence?
2. Who were the key players in the development of that theology?
3. What was the impact of the cultural-social milieu on the contents of that theology and vice-versa?
4. What type of economic, political, and social structures does that particular theology legitimize and lend its support to?
5. Does that particular theology claim and pretend to be universally valid or does it recognize its own particular application and limitations?
I take the opportunity to challenge you, the reader, to ponder on these questions, and, if possible to get a "head start" by reading any literature in the field of Liberation Theology in preparation for the next four essays.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. At what point in history did a particular theology come into existence?
2. Who were the key players in the development of that theology?
3. What was the impact of the cultural-social milieu on the contents of that theology and vice-versa?
4. What type of economic, political, and social structures does that particular theology legitimize and lend its support to?
5. Does that particular theology claim and pretend to be universally valid or does it recognize its own particular application and limitations?
I take the opportunity to challenge you, the reader, to ponder on these questions, and, if possible to get a "head start" by reading any literature in the field of Liberation Theology in preparation for the next four essays.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Liberation Theoogy: An Overview
This will be the first in a series of five essays focusing on Liberation Theology. The term "Liberation Theology" has become familiar to many people for better or for worse. The unfortunate thing is that even many, if not most of the people who have heard the term, or even about the theology itself, have a negative view of it without knowing anything or very little about it. Many people base their views and opinions about Liberation Theology on what they have heard others say about it. In other words, their evaluations and opinions about Liberation Theology are based on rumors that they have heard either on the streets, in the market-place, or in the barber shop. People tend to opine without bothering to read the literature in the field. Their opinions and perspectives about Liberation Theology are based on second-hand information which is usually not accurate. This second-hand information usually seeks to demonize and discredit Liberation Theology. Among the reasons that are given to defame and discredit Liberation Theology are the following:
1. It is a theology which emerged within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church. Those who reject Liberation Theology on that basis tend to assume and belief that the entirety of Roman Catholic theology is apostate, false, and heretical. According to that point of view, since Roman Catholicism is a falsification of Christianity, any doctrinal declaration that comes out of the mouth of Catholics must be considered false from the onset. To that assumption, I would respond as follows:
Liberation Theology, in the strictest sense of the word, did not emerge out of Roman Catholicism. Liberation Theology began during the time that the Hebrew people were slaves in Egypt. Yahweh God spoke to Moses and said to him, " I have heard the cry, the agony, and the misery of my people, and I am descending to liberate them." The knowledge of God on the part of the Hebrew people would emerge out of God's liberating acts in history, both during the period of bondage in
Egypt, and subsequently during the Exile in Babylon. The theology of the Hebrew/Jewish people did not originate in the ivory towers of academic institutions, nor in the comfort of air-conditioned spaces. Their theology was not a system of mere philosophical speculation, nor "heady thinking," nor "mental gymnastics," nor what African American theologian James Cone would call "intellectual masturbation." The theology of the Hebrew/Jewish people was rooted in their historical condition of bondage and oppression and in God's intervention to liberate them from those conditions.
I would add that this writer does not subscribe to the belief that the entirety of Roman Catholic theology is false. There are aspects of Catholic theology that I do not agree with, just as there are aspects of Protestant/Evangelical theology that I am not perfectly comfortable with. However, to disagree with certain parts of a church's doctrines should not lead us to reject the entirety of their theological system. There is a combination of truth and error in every church. No one church can claim to have it "all together." No one church can claim or pretend to have a monopoly on divine truth.
I would add that though a Catholic priest (Father Gustavo Gutierrez) was the first to coin the term "Liberation Theology," and even though Liberation Theology as a modern way of thinking started in the Catholic Church, there are Protestant ministers and theologians who have adopted Liberation Theology as a paradigm for doing both ministry and theology. Names like Ester and Mortimer Arias, and Jose Miguez Bonino are Protestant leaders, amongst others, whose names will appear in these essays. This writer (yours truly) himself, wrote his doctoral dissertation on Liberation Theology in 1982 relative to the political status of Puerto Rico, and has also incorporated Liberation Theology in his recently completed book "The Puerto Rican Diaspora: A Model Theology." I have also written a series of articles on theology from a prison standpoint utilizing Liberation Theology as a means of analyzing the conditions of incarceration from a theological standpoint.
2. Liberation Theology does not conform to the standards of Euro-American theology. Any system of thought which does not conform to Euro-American thinking is inferior and invalid. After all, Euro-American thinking is universally valid, in all times and in all places. Euro-American thinking should be "normative" for all churches and theological institutions. Euro-American thinking should prevail in other areas of life as well, but especially to any discourse about God. To that arrogant, imperialistic, pompous-ass, presumptuous, and racist position, this Afro-Puerto Rican theologian says "Pure, absolute, and unadulterated bullshit." That attitude is reflective of the notion that anything that is white is superior. As will be discovered, Liberation Theology challenges the notion that Euro-American theology is superior to all others. It will soon become apparent, that Euro-American theology serves to legitimize the white-power structure on a global basis. Liberation Theology takes the Euro-American -centered scholarship out of its comfort zone.
3. Liberation Theology is "Marxist, revolutionary, and socialist in disguise." This notion rests on false assumptions. While some Liberation theologians make use of Marxist socialist analysis, the basic root of Liberation Theology is the Gospel of Jesus the Christ, which emphasizes equality and justice for all humankind.
4. Liberation Theology goes against "what the Bible says." Any person who is acquainted and familiar with the literature of Liberation Theology will have to admit that this statement is naïve at best and totally dishonest at worst. Liberation Theology seeks to take "what the Bible says," and make it relevant to the situation of oppressed social groups and nations. When one reads any type of written documentation in Liberation Theology, one will discover, that Liberation Theology seeks to make an honest restatement and application of the Christian faith and message in today's world.
The essays to follow on Liberation Theology will focus on the following topics:
The Definition of Liberation Theology
The Assumptions of Liberation theologians
The Diversity in Liberation Theology
The Role of Scripture, History, and Praxis in Liberation Theology.
In the meantime, you, the reader, are invited and encouraged to do some research of your own on Liberation Theology. Avoid basing yourself on what other writers say about Liberation Theology, and read books and other written material by Liberation authors for yourself. In this manner, you view of Liberation Theology will be less biased.
I invite you to comment on this introductory essay, as well as on subsequent essays. Your contributions will be important to this discourse.
Grace and peace,
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
1. It is a theology which emerged within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church. Those who reject Liberation Theology on that basis tend to assume and belief that the entirety of Roman Catholic theology is apostate, false, and heretical. According to that point of view, since Roman Catholicism is a falsification of Christianity, any doctrinal declaration that comes out of the mouth of Catholics must be considered false from the onset. To that assumption, I would respond as follows:
Liberation Theology, in the strictest sense of the word, did not emerge out of Roman Catholicism. Liberation Theology began during the time that the Hebrew people were slaves in Egypt. Yahweh God spoke to Moses and said to him, " I have heard the cry, the agony, and the misery of my people, and I am descending to liberate them." The knowledge of God on the part of the Hebrew people would emerge out of God's liberating acts in history, both during the period of bondage in
Egypt, and subsequently during the Exile in Babylon. The theology of the Hebrew/Jewish people did not originate in the ivory towers of academic institutions, nor in the comfort of air-conditioned spaces. Their theology was not a system of mere philosophical speculation, nor "heady thinking," nor "mental gymnastics," nor what African American theologian James Cone would call "intellectual masturbation." The theology of the Hebrew/Jewish people was rooted in their historical condition of bondage and oppression and in God's intervention to liberate them from those conditions.
I would add that this writer does not subscribe to the belief that the entirety of Roman Catholic theology is false. There are aspects of Catholic theology that I do not agree with, just as there are aspects of Protestant/Evangelical theology that I am not perfectly comfortable with. However, to disagree with certain parts of a church's doctrines should not lead us to reject the entirety of their theological system. There is a combination of truth and error in every church. No one church can claim to have it "all together." No one church can claim or pretend to have a monopoly on divine truth.
I would add that though a Catholic priest (Father Gustavo Gutierrez) was the first to coin the term "Liberation Theology," and even though Liberation Theology as a modern way of thinking started in the Catholic Church, there are Protestant ministers and theologians who have adopted Liberation Theology as a paradigm for doing both ministry and theology. Names like Ester and Mortimer Arias, and Jose Miguez Bonino are Protestant leaders, amongst others, whose names will appear in these essays. This writer (yours truly) himself, wrote his doctoral dissertation on Liberation Theology in 1982 relative to the political status of Puerto Rico, and has also incorporated Liberation Theology in his recently completed book "The Puerto Rican Diaspora: A Model Theology." I have also written a series of articles on theology from a prison standpoint utilizing Liberation Theology as a means of analyzing the conditions of incarceration from a theological standpoint.
2. Liberation Theology does not conform to the standards of Euro-American theology. Any system of thought which does not conform to Euro-American thinking is inferior and invalid. After all, Euro-American thinking is universally valid, in all times and in all places. Euro-American thinking should be "normative" for all churches and theological institutions. Euro-American thinking should prevail in other areas of life as well, but especially to any discourse about God. To that arrogant, imperialistic, pompous-ass, presumptuous, and racist position, this Afro-Puerto Rican theologian says "Pure, absolute, and unadulterated bullshit." That attitude is reflective of the notion that anything that is white is superior. As will be discovered, Liberation Theology challenges the notion that Euro-American theology is superior to all others. It will soon become apparent, that Euro-American theology serves to legitimize the white-power structure on a global basis. Liberation Theology takes the Euro-American -centered scholarship out of its comfort zone.
3. Liberation Theology is "Marxist, revolutionary, and socialist in disguise." This notion rests on false assumptions. While some Liberation theologians make use of Marxist socialist analysis, the basic root of Liberation Theology is the Gospel of Jesus the Christ, which emphasizes equality and justice for all humankind.
4. Liberation Theology goes against "what the Bible says." Any person who is acquainted and familiar with the literature of Liberation Theology will have to admit that this statement is naïve at best and totally dishonest at worst. Liberation Theology seeks to take "what the Bible says," and make it relevant to the situation of oppressed social groups and nations. When one reads any type of written documentation in Liberation Theology, one will discover, that Liberation Theology seeks to make an honest restatement and application of the Christian faith and message in today's world.
The essays to follow on Liberation Theology will focus on the following topics:
The Definition of Liberation Theology
The Assumptions of Liberation theologians
The Diversity in Liberation Theology
The Role of Scripture, History, and Praxis in Liberation Theology.
In the meantime, you, the reader, are invited and encouraged to do some research of your own on Liberation Theology. Avoid basing yourself on what other writers say about Liberation Theology, and read books and other written material by Liberation authors for yourself. In this manner, you view of Liberation Theology will be less biased.
I invite you to comment on this introductory essay, as well as on subsequent essays. Your contributions will be important to this discourse.
Grace and peace,
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Demythologyzing the Devil
In many religious communities, there is the concept of evil forces vs. good forces. In the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition there is the notion of God vs. the Devil or Satan. It is not my purpose here to deny outright the existence of spirit-beings that are devoted to evil and to the destruction of humankind, but rather to put these things into proper perspective for our consideration.
The Christian Church has for centuries believed in the existence of evil spirit beings. In order to support this belief, they have used certain passages of the Bible to justify holding on to these ideas.
Some Christians believe that the reference to the earth being "without form and void" in Genesis 1:2 refers to a cataclysmic destruction brought on by an evil force against God's creation. In their thinking, since God does not make anything imperfect, that chaos spoken of in Genesis has to be attributed to a destructive evil spirit hell-bent (no pun intended) on opposing God and God's creation. Interestingly enough, the Babylonian account of Creation, which has similarities with the biblical account of creation, contains the myth that the earth was in a state of disorder because the evil god Marduk invaded it and wreaked havoc. Christians who hold on to this view do not consider the alternative possibility, i.e. that God's creation process was not finalized, and that this is the reason why Genesis speaks about the earth being without form and void.
Then as the story moves on, we are told about a serpent (snake) in the Garden of Eden who seduces the woman to eat of the fruit which God had prohibited her and her husband to eat of. It is to be noted that some interpretations of this story are very sexist in nature, in that they suggest that the reason why the snake approached the woman instead of the man was because the woman supposedly was more susceptible and vulnerable to temptations. Another interpretation of this would be that the man was a "dud," because he was standing right there and was not smart enough to resist eating the fruit when his wife offered it to him. In either case, the Church has taken the historical stance that this snake was the Devil. Nowhere in Scripture do we find support for this notion
In the book of Job, we find Satan (from the Hebrew "Ha Satan," the adversary) being part of the Council of God. He is reported to have reported to God along with the other "sons of God." Here again, the Church has misused Scripture to make it sound like this story is about an evil spirit being, when it is very clear that here Satan is the prosecuting attorney of God's Assembly.
In Isaiah 14:12 there is a reference to Lucifer (from the Hebrew word "Helel" which means angel of light). For whatever reason the Church has used this passage to explain the origin of evil, i.e. that Lucifer was an angel given much glory by God, and who got carried away with it, and as a result was demoted by God and relegated to the lower regions of the universe. However, a very close reading of the book of the prophet Isaiah will reveal this passage was an oracle against the king of Babylon, and not against any spirit-being.
We find reference again to Satan in the book of Daniel, where it is mentioned that this spirit-being was successful in delaying the angel of God from coming to Daniel's help. Since the book of Daniel is part of the literature which was written during the Babylonian and Persian captivity, one can't help but wonder where Daniel, as a literary document, reflected Persian influence regarding the existence of spirit-beings, as appears in Persian literature.
And then of course, in the Gospel accounts, we find reference to the Devil tempting and engaging in conversation with Jesus. It is possible that the Gospel writings reflected post-Exilic Judaism, which no doubt, was influenced by Babylonian and Persian spirituality. The references to the Devil in the book of Revelation are part of the use of cryptic code language to disguise the diatribe against the Roman Empire.
What do we then do with the Devil and the demons as actual entities? Do we believe in them because we take a literal approach to what the Bible says about them? Do we classify them as literary myths borrowed from pre-Christian spirituality? Or do we just ask if it makes any difference?
This writer is not concerned with whatever position people take. If people, for whatever reason, wish to hold on the traditional belief in the existence of evil spirit-beings, that is their choice to which they are entitled. If any one opts for any of the other possibilities, that is also their choice to which they are entitled. No one should impose their belief on others because they believe that their position is the absolute truth. This writer happens to believe that regardless of what position one takes, the message of the Gospel is very clear, i.e. in Christ all evil will be conquered and vanquished. The writer of Revelation tells us of the scenario where the voice is heard "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever."
I humbly and respectfully submit this to you for your comments and input. Your contribution will be very, very valuable.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The Christian Church has for centuries believed in the existence of evil spirit beings. In order to support this belief, they have used certain passages of the Bible to justify holding on to these ideas.
Some Christians believe that the reference to the earth being "without form and void" in Genesis 1:2 refers to a cataclysmic destruction brought on by an evil force against God's creation. In their thinking, since God does not make anything imperfect, that chaos spoken of in Genesis has to be attributed to a destructive evil spirit hell-bent (no pun intended) on opposing God and God's creation. Interestingly enough, the Babylonian account of Creation, which has similarities with the biblical account of creation, contains the myth that the earth was in a state of disorder because the evil god Marduk invaded it and wreaked havoc. Christians who hold on to this view do not consider the alternative possibility, i.e. that God's creation process was not finalized, and that this is the reason why Genesis speaks about the earth being without form and void.
Then as the story moves on, we are told about a serpent (snake) in the Garden of Eden who seduces the woman to eat of the fruit which God had prohibited her and her husband to eat of. It is to be noted that some interpretations of this story are very sexist in nature, in that they suggest that the reason why the snake approached the woman instead of the man was because the woman supposedly was more susceptible and vulnerable to temptations. Another interpretation of this would be that the man was a "dud," because he was standing right there and was not smart enough to resist eating the fruit when his wife offered it to him. In either case, the Church has taken the historical stance that this snake was the Devil. Nowhere in Scripture do we find support for this notion
In the book of Job, we find Satan (from the Hebrew "Ha Satan," the adversary) being part of the Council of God. He is reported to have reported to God along with the other "sons of God." Here again, the Church has misused Scripture to make it sound like this story is about an evil spirit being, when it is very clear that here Satan is the prosecuting attorney of God's Assembly.
In Isaiah 14:12 there is a reference to Lucifer (from the Hebrew word "Helel" which means angel of light). For whatever reason the Church has used this passage to explain the origin of evil, i.e. that Lucifer was an angel given much glory by God, and who got carried away with it, and as a result was demoted by God and relegated to the lower regions of the universe. However, a very close reading of the book of the prophet Isaiah will reveal this passage was an oracle against the king of Babylon, and not against any spirit-being.
We find reference again to Satan in the book of Daniel, where it is mentioned that this spirit-being was successful in delaying the angel of God from coming to Daniel's help. Since the book of Daniel is part of the literature which was written during the Babylonian and Persian captivity, one can't help but wonder where Daniel, as a literary document, reflected Persian influence regarding the existence of spirit-beings, as appears in Persian literature.
And then of course, in the Gospel accounts, we find reference to the Devil tempting and engaging in conversation with Jesus. It is possible that the Gospel writings reflected post-Exilic Judaism, which no doubt, was influenced by Babylonian and Persian spirituality. The references to the Devil in the book of Revelation are part of the use of cryptic code language to disguise the diatribe against the Roman Empire.
What do we then do with the Devil and the demons as actual entities? Do we believe in them because we take a literal approach to what the Bible says about them? Do we classify them as literary myths borrowed from pre-Christian spirituality? Or do we just ask if it makes any difference?
This writer is not concerned with whatever position people take. If people, for whatever reason, wish to hold on the traditional belief in the existence of evil spirit-beings, that is their choice to which they are entitled. If any one opts for any of the other possibilities, that is also their choice to which they are entitled. No one should impose their belief on others because they believe that their position is the absolute truth. This writer happens to believe that regardless of what position one takes, the message of the Gospel is very clear, i.e. in Christ all evil will be conquered and vanquished. The writer of Revelation tells us of the scenario where the voice is heard "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever."
I humbly and respectfully submit this to you for your comments and input. Your contribution will be very, very valuable.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Thinking "Outside the Box"
One of the main issues that causes divisions among us is that of ideological differences. We cannot avoid having ideological differences, as we all, for a variety of reasons, believe the way we do. We all have a set of beliefs in the area of politics, social issues, and religion. Some of our beliefs are shaped and formed in our home environments, others in our communities of faith, and yet others, through the educational system.
It is my purpose here, not to advocate for a particular ideology, but rather, to have us examine and question ourselves as to why we believe the way we do. In the area of religious and theological belief systems, we tend to become defensive, and even at some points aggressive when confronted with a set of beliefs that is different from ours. We tend to demonize people whose ideology is contrary to ours, and we dismiss them with derogatory terms as "apostate, heretical, false, etc." A common cliché and slogan of dismissal among conservative evangelical Christians is the term "liberal." It is used to dismiss outright any belief system that does not conform to the traditional view of an "inspired" book such as the Bible. So-called "liberals," in turn, dismiss conservative evangelicals as "obscurantists," i.e. living in the Dark Ages or living with outmoded ideas.
How can we bridge the ideological gap that exists between Christians? I am not a proponent of any one abdicating or surrendering their beliefs just for the sake of accommodation. That would not be ethical. One has to hold on to beliefs which emerge out of true conviction, and not out of accommodation to social or popular expectations. I propose the following, though not expecting that it will be a perfect solution to the problem of ideological barriers.
1. Examine thoroughly the background of those beliefs which are different from yours. In other words, acquaint yourself with the historical emergence of those beliefs, in terms of how they started, with whom, where, and the reasons for them. In this way, you will have a better idea why people believe the way they do.
2. Examine your own belief system in the same way as above, i.e. who, why, what, when, how, and where, rather than just accept or hold on to them blindly.
3. Give room to the possibility that there is truth outside of your theological "box," i.e. don't be so bigoted and narrow-minded, and dogmatic. If you stay stuck in your ideological box, you will miss out on the opportunity to find great truths in other boxes.
4. If you use the Bible as the main source of your beliefs and practices, do not simply quote it or use it for proof-texting. Acquaint yourself with the cultural and historical background of each biblical segment that you read. Identify that background and it will help you to see what you read in a much broader light.
5. Be willing to engage in open dialogue with others, especially with those whose beliefs are different. Since none of us has monopoly on the truth, we all have a lot to learn from each other.
6. Respect the right of others to believe as they do. Give them the same respect that you expect from them for your beliefs.
7. Be "liberal" in the strictest sense of the word. By this I mean be open to a wide variety of perspectives. If the sacred text that we revere and honor so much, itself reflects a variety of theological perspectives, who are we, then to be adverse and closed to different perspectives.
Feel free to comment on this essay. Your input will really be valuable and appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
It is my purpose here, not to advocate for a particular ideology, but rather, to have us examine and question ourselves as to why we believe the way we do. In the area of religious and theological belief systems, we tend to become defensive, and even at some points aggressive when confronted with a set of beliefs that is different from ours. We tend to demonize people whose ideology is contrary to ours, and we dismiss them with derogatory terms as "apostate, heretical, false, etc." A common cliché and slogan of dismissal among conservative evangelical Christians is the term "liberal." It is used to dismiss outright any belief system that does not conform to the traditional view of an "inspired" book such as the Bible. So-called "liberals," in turn, dismiss conservative evangelicals as "obscurantists," i.e. living in the Dark Ages or living with outmoded ideas.
How can we bridge the ideological gap that exists between Christians? I am not a proponent of any one abdicating or surrendering their beliefs just for the sake of accommodation. That would not be ethical. One has to hold on to beliefs which emerge out of true conviction, and not out of accommodation to social or popular expectations. I propose the following, though not expecting that it will be a perfect solution to the problem of ideological barriers.
1. Examine thoroughly the background of those beliefs which are different from yours. In other words, acquaint yourself with the historical emergence of those beliefs, in terms of how they started, with whom, where, and the reasons for them. In this way, you will have a better idea why people believe the way they do.
2. Examine your own belief system in the same way as above, i.e. who, why, what, when, how, and where, rather than just accept or hold on to them blindly.
3. Give room to the possibility that there is truth outside of your theological "box," i.e. don't be so bigoted and narrow-minded, and dogmatic. If you stay stuck in your ideological box, you will miss out on the opportunity to find great truths in other boxes.
4. If you use the Bible as the main source of your beliefs and practices, do not simply quote it or use it for proof-texting. Acquaint yourself with the cultural and historical background of each biblical segment that you read. Identify that background and it will help you to see what you read in a much broader light.
5. Be willing to engage in open dialogue with others, especially with those whose beliefs are different. Since none of us has monopoly on the truth, we all have a lot to learn from each other.
6. Respect the right of others to believe as they do. Give them the same respect that you expect from them for your beliefs.
7. Be "liberal" in the strictest sense of the word. By this I mean be open to a wide variety of perspectives. If the sacred text that we revere and honor so much, itself reflects a variety of theological perspectives, who are we, then to be adverse and closed to different perspectives.
Feel free to comment on this essay. Your input will really be valuable and appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, April 6, 2015
Theology of Hope
Theology of Hope is a school of thought (some might think of it as a movement) that is part of the politically oriented theologies that emerged in the era of the Confessing Church, during the time that Adolf Hitler ruled in Germany. Christians who protested against the Hitler regime reflected on the meaning of what it meant to be a Christian in the face of injustice and state-sponsored terrorism. Like pastors Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both of whom led the church in prophetically denouncing Hitler and his policy of dehumanization, Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg spoke of hope in the midst of the despair that was enveloping Europe. Moltmann wrote his three books, Theology of Hope, The Crucified God, and The Church in the Power of the Spirit.
Theology of Hope focused on the Resurrection as the starting point for building up enthusiasm for the final moment in history (the eschaton). Both Moltmann and Pannenberg were convinced that the atrocities being imposed on humanity through the Hitler regime would eventually come to an end like all other evils. The Resurrection was the central point of hope, not only for the Jews living in Germany and other parts of Europe, but also for all of humanity who suffered from whatever their sufferings could be named. The final moment of history should serve as an encouragement and inspiration to those who fought and struggled against an evil system. Unlike another theology which would emerge later, and which will be the focus of my next essay on a series of theological schools (Liberation Theology) and used the sufferings of the Hebrews under Egyptian bondage and Babylonian captivity as a starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection, Theology of Hope focused more on the end of history. The central biblical motif was the Resurrection in that it represented life conquering over death.
I should note that Theology of Hope is not a "pie in the sky by and by" type of thinking. Neither is it a theology which merely speaks about "On the other side of Jordan." It does not cater to the notion that we should sit with our hands crossed "waiting for Jesus to come." Theology of Hope does not encourage passivity. If anything, it promotes the notion that the Church should immerse itself in the struggle for justice, not only on a national basis, but on a global basis as well. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the Theology of Hope, is considered the driving force of the Church's political and social involvement, leading to transformation. Unlike Liberation Theology, Theology of Hope does not make as much use of critical and social analysis in order to initiate structural change. Some might consider the "hope" in the Theology of Hope to be an "elusive" reality which is not manifested in the present moment, but rather as one that will emerge as a concrete reality in the not too distant future. Theology of Hope finds signs of encouragement for the future "here and there," but does not hail any movement or accomplishment as the arrival of the kingdom of God
I invite and encourage you, the reader, to engage in the literature of the Theology of Hope, and to come up with your own evaluation. I highly recommend acquaintance with Moltmann's book, The Crucified God, so that you can have a clearer idea of the central motifs of Theology of Hope. Please feel free to share your perspectives and views with us.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Theology of Hope focused on the Resurrection as the starting point for building up enthusiasm for the final moment in history (the eschaton). Both Moltmann and Pannenberg were convinced that the atrocities being imposed on humanity through the Hitler regime would eventually come to an end like all other evils. The Resurrection was the central point of hope, not only for the Jews living in Germany and other parts of Europe, but also for all of humanity who suffered from whatever their sufferings could be named. The final moment of history should serve as an encouragement and inspiration to those who fought and struggled against an evil system. Unlike another theology which would emerge later, and which will be the focus of my next essay on a series of theological schools (Liberation Theology) and used the sufferings of the Hebrews under Egyptian bondage and Babylonian captivity as a starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection, Theology of Hope focused more on the end of history. The central biblical motif was the Resurrection in that it represented life conquering over death.
I should note that Theology of Hope is not a "pie in the sky by and by" type of thinking. Neither is it a theology which merely speaks about "On the other side of Jordan." It does not cater to the notion that we should sit with our hands crossed "waiting for Jesus to come." Theology of Hope does not encourage passivity. If anything, it promotes the notion that the Church should immerse itself in the struggle for justice, not only on a national basis, but on a global basis as well. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the Theology of Hope, is considered the driving force of the Church's political and social involvement, leading to transformation. Unlike Liberation Theology, Theology of Hope does not make as much use of critical and social analysis in order to initiate structural change. Some might consider the "hope" in the Theology of Hope to be an "elusive" reality which is not manifested in the present moment, but rather as one that will emerge as a concrete reality in the not too distant future. Theology of Hope finds signs of encouragement for the future "here and there," but does not hail any movement or accomplishment as the arrival of the kingdom of God
I invite and encourage you, the reader, to engage in the literature of the Theology of Hope, and to come up with your own evaluation. I highly recommend acquaintance with Moltmann's book, The Crucified God, so that you can have a clearer idea of the central motifs of Theology of Hope. Please feel free to share your perspectives and views with us.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, April 2, 2015
What is this about Easter?
Here comes Peter Cotton Tail, hopping down the bunny trail. Put on your Easter bonnets, and prepare for the Easter parade. Egg hunts, really? Spring flowers? Hum! Easter's on its way. Wow!
Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of our Lord. So we are told. The tradition has been handed down from one generation to the other. But with all the glamor and celebrations going on, you would think that the resurrection is the last thing on people's minds. After singing Christ the Lord is Risen Today, or another related hymn, Jesus Christ is Risen Today on Sunday morning, what do we do when we leave church and go home? Do we continue to rejoice in the good news of the resurrection, or do we leave that behind at church just to go home and have a ham dinner with our family and/or friends? What is Easter really about? Is it about wearing our "Sunday best?" Is it an occasion for a fashion show? Is it a continuation of Saturday night at the Apollo?
This writer (yours truly) believes strongly in the historical event of the resurrection. The Apostle's Creed reminds us of that when it reads "The third day He rose again from the dead." I also believe in the power of the resurrection to transform lives, both individually and collectively. I also believe in the challenge that a certain theologian, Rudolf Bultmann presents. Bultmann spoke about the resurrection in terms of our dying to our selfishness and sense of inadequacy and rising to the maximum of our potential. Bultmann apparently was not concerned, as many of us would be with whether or not the resurrection was a literal historical event. In fact, Bultmann believed that for us to understand and apply the message of the Gospel in our time, we would have to "demythologize" the New Testament, i.e. strip it of its mythical elements, and reinterpret it in the light of today's reality. I would like to invite you to participate in demythologizing the story of the resurrection. In saying that, I am not denying the historicity of the resurrection. As I said, I take it to be a literal historical event which has historical implications.
If the resurrection is merely an event of the past, it is myth and has no relevance for us today. But if that event of the past energizes us to immerse ourselves in the struggle for human liberation, then it is a powerful event. If we leave it in the past, it is just an encrusted and stale legend. It would then, force us to ask what is the "so what" of a past historical event?
Precisely because God's action in resurrecting the crucified Lord is so powerful, I humbly and respectfully submit the challenge for all of us to be immersed in this wonderful power. I submit that this power should be a motor force that drives us into the struggle against all forms of human injustice, whether it be classism, racism, sexism, or any other type of "ism" that destroys God's creation. Because Christ is risen, we say "hell no" to all types of dehumanization. May the power of the Risen Lord motivate us to go out and combat everything and everyone that seeks to destroy all the good things which God has made. May the Risen Lord empower us through the Holy Spirit to engage in liberating and redemptive task. Happy Resurrection Sunday!
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of our Lord. So we are told. The tradition has been handed down from one generation to the other. But with all the glamor and celebrations going on, you would think that the resurrection is the last thing on people's minds. After singing Christ the Lord is Risen Today, or another related hymn, Jesus Christ is Risen Today on Sunday morning, what do we do when we leave church and go home? Do we continue to rejoice in the good news of the resurrection, or do we leave that behind at church just to go home and have a ham dinner with our family and/or friends? What is Easter really about? Is it about wearing our "Sunday best?" Is it an occasion for a fashion show? Is it a continuation of Saturday night at the Apollo?
This writer (yours truly) believes strongly in the historical event of the resurrection. The Apostle's Creed reminds us of that when it reads "The third day He rose again from the dead." I also believe in the power of the resurrection to transform lives, both individually and collectively. I also believe in the challenge that a certain theologian, Rudolf Bultmann presents. Bultmann spoke about the resurrection in terms of our dying to our selfishness and sense of inadequacy and rising to the maximum of our potential. Bultmann apparently was not concerned, as many of us would be with whether or not the resurrection was a literal historical event. In fact, Bultmann believed that for us to understand and apply the message of the Gospel in our time, we would have to "demythologize" the New Testament, i.e. strip it of its mythical elements, and reinterpret it in the light of today's reality. I would like to invite you to participate in demythologizing the story of the resurrection. In saying that, I am not denying the historicity of the resurrection. As I said, I take it to be a literal historical event which has historical implications.
If the resurrection is merely an event of the past, it is myth and has no relevance for us today. But if that event of the past energizes us to immerse ourselves in the struggle for human liberation, then it is a powerful event. If we leave it in the past, it is just an encrusted and stale legend. It would then, force us to ask what is the "so what" of a past historical event?
Precisely because God's action in resurrecting the crucified Lord is so powerful, I humbly and respectfully submit the challenge for all of us to be immersed in this wonderful power. I submit that this power should be a motor force that drives us into the struggle against all forms of human injustice, whether it be classism, racism, sexism, or any other type of "ism" that destroys God's creation. Because Christ is risen, we say "hell no" to all types of dehumanization. May the power of the Risen Lord motivate us to go out and combat everything and everyone that seeks to destroy all the good things which God has made. May the Risen Lord empower us through the Holy Spirit to engage in liberating and redemptive task. Happy Resurrection Sunday!
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Risen Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)