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
No comments:
Post a Comment