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
No comments:
Post a Comment