These next two essays will focus on reflections by Phillip E. Berryman, who at the time of the conference in Detroit in 1975, was a North American theologian working in Guatemala with the Friends Service Committee. I will remind the reader that the purpose of the conference was to bring together theologians from North America and from the Third World in order to engage with each other, and also attempt to generate a contextual North American theology which would no longer be engaged in exclusive conversations with European theology, but also in dialogue with the theology of those within its own borders who either came from the Third World, or were descendants of those who did. This dialogue would "contextualize" North American theology in that together with the theologies developing in the U.S.A. (African American, Asian-American, Appalachian, Hispanic-American, Feminist, etc.), would address the cultural, economic, political, and social issues that would normally be addressed from a different perspective, i.e. abstract, philosophical, and speculative vs. concrete, historical, and specific.
Berryman begins by writing about the Second General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (CELAM) which had already been held in the city of Medellin, Colombia in August-September of 1968. Berryman points out that though it was eclipsed by the visit of the Pope to the Eucharistic Congress in Bogota, this two-week meeting was as important for the continent as the Council was for the church at large. It was indeed, a continental meeting of the episcopate (the bishops) to apply the Council to Latin America. A number of meetings and official declarations prepared the way for Medellin; we may single out Populorum Progressio, and the Letter of Sixteen Bishops of the Third World. Of course, its antecedents were not simply intraecclesiastical: One should cite the general atmosphere of 1968, the Paris May, the proliferation of political and revolutionary theologies, the radicalization of Latin American social scientists, etc. During the months preceding Medellin, there circulated a base-document in order to gather opinions. In the meeting itself, 150 bishops and 100 periti (experts) elaborated sixteen documents which were intended as authoritative orientations for the church (Berryman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 21).
Berryman goes on to inform us that Latin American theology arises out of an experience : the discovery of institutionalized violence and the dimensions of oppression. One begins at the local level, for example in a cooperative, and enters into conflict with the local power structure; gradually it becomes more evident that the oppressive system is national and international. This growing awareness brings changes in one's options from the strictly pastoral to the political (Berryman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 26).
In a section of his article entitled "A Political Theology," Berryman points out that in recent years there appeared a European political theology which may be described as a corrective to a privatized, intimistic Christianity and as a suggestion that the church should be a critical force in society. Latin American theology accepts in principle this orientation, but it seeks to be more rooted in an analysis of concrete situations, and has become politicized in practice. (Berryman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 29).
Berryman summarizes his article by saying the purpose has been to mediate something of Latin American theology to the North American theological community. Undoubtedly, he says, in some ways it has seemed more journalism than theology, due to our conviction that this theology is to be understood in context. He adds that we have been quoting and summarizing the thought of some of the principal theologians with little comment. In this final section we would like to situate it as theology (Berryman in Eagleson and Torres, p. 49).
Berryman concludes his article with some questions and intuitions. They are:
1. Third World Theology. There would seem to be some affinity with African American theology. Hispanic Christian groups are consciously looking into Latin American theology for insights. One can ask: Does not some kind of solidarity with the Third World offer a clue to the meaning of Christian poverty today?
2. Ecclesiocentrism. Latin American theology is convinced that church renewal cannot be sought independently of the struggle for liberation. Does not the charge of ecclesiocentrism (the church's self-centeredness) ring true for much of theology?
3. Critique of social reality. Are not the theologians fiddling while the world burns? What will Christ's judgment be on the theologians of our time? As an example, to what extent has Vietnam influenced the theological problematic?
4. Humankind as agent. Latin American theology is not as interested in the accomplishment of astronauts as it is in the suffering of the human family. To what extent can people become free agents taking responsible decisions in solidarity with others and "ruling the earth?" Does not this view from below offer some hints for a theological critique of society?
5. Critique of capitalism. In a poor world, the U.S.A is overdeveloped, consumes much more than its share of the world's resources, uses it military might to maintain its privileges, and still is acutely aware that it has not attained the "good life." Is there not room for a theological critique of capitalism? (If the idea puzzles, amuses, or shocks, might not this be an indication of an ideologically immersed consciousness?)
6. Political theology. Does not the apolitical stance of the church mask a complicity with an oppressive world system? In what way does the theological profession serve the poor and oppressed, who constitute the majority of humankind?
7. Methodology. Does the common pattern of liberation theology suggest something: analysis of the reality, theological reflection, commitments? Could a theological critique be made of the U.S. "historic project"--not simply a President's successive "game plans," but including other elements. Could meetings of theological societies center on this type of analysis? It would be entering into the contingent , but so did He whose life theologians have spoken of as a "scandal of particularity (Berryman in Eagleson and Torres, pp. 52-53)."
I now invite you to comment on Berryman's article. You can comment briefly on what you think is the thrust of the article. Or you can comment on any of the seven questions/intuitions that he proposes at the end. In either case, share with us the direction that you think this article is going in, and whether or not it resonates with where you are at today, theologically speaking. I am looking forward to your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
No comments:
Post a Comment