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