Continuing our reflections on the Conference "Theology in the Americas" in Detroit in 1975, I now move on to a letter written by Gregory Baum, who at the time of his writing was a Professor of Theology at St. Michael's College in Toronto Canada. The letter was written to Sergio Torres, a Roman Catholic priest from Chile, and Executive Secretary of "Theology in the Americas: 1975," and one of the main organizers of the Conference.
One of the points that Baum highlights in his letter to Torres, is one that has previously been highlighted in this series of essays, i.e. the need for North American theology to be faithful to its own context, while at the same time appreciating and learning from other theologies and the contexts in which they emerge and develop. Baum writes, in a sense, from a Canadian standpoint, to a theologian who no doubt, is carrying the baggage of Latin American Liberation Theology. In a subsequent essay, we will cover Torres's response to Baum. We will now consider Baum's letter and consider whether or not what he says has relevance for the theological enterprise and task for today.
In his letter, Baum says to Torres, " While I agree with the approach to theological reflection outlined in the paper (referring to the preparatory documents), I do not think that it is useful for North Americans to start reflecting on their condition with the eyes of Latin Americans. It seems to me the consciousness of a people must be raised by reflections on their own condition, on their history, on the structures of oppression to which they themselves, or at least certain groups among them, are exposed. In your paper you offer important theological material helping Americans to understand their own situation. But since you select this material mainly in the light of what happens in Latin America, it is not enough. Unless we can discover our own enslavement, we cannot as a people reach out for a new collective existence. If you confront Americans simply with the Latin American analysis, you only make them feel guilty, you make them wish they could help others, but since they will not find the right perspective for understanding among themselves, they will not find a language that can be heard their countrymen and hence they will remain powerless. We have to begin where we are. We must listen to Latin Americans and to their analysis, but then must start analyzing our own history and our own situation of affluence and poverty (Baum, in Eagleson and Torres, p. 87)."
Baum's letter to Torres of course raises questions for us forty years later. Are we Americans (especially those of European extraction) still so arrogant that we still believe that Euro-American theology, and the Euro-American way of interpreting the Bible, are the "correct" and "universally valid" positions in the theological task? Do we measure truth (especially God's truth) in terms of what comes out of the Euro-American context? Does Baum's letter to Torres constitute the reverse of the supposed supremacy of Euro-American theology, i.e. is Baum saying that Latin American theology is pretending to be the "correct" and "universally valid one?"
Baum continues by saying " I do not like the way in which the paper makes Latin American Liberation Theology the model from which we must learn. Canadians are only too willing to learn from others. In Canada, a thinker is not recognized unless he/she has made a name for herself/himself in another country. This is a heritage from the colonial days. Anglo-Canadian intellectuals used to turn to England; now they often turn to the U.S.A. For the sake of liberation, they should be encouraged to be in touch with their own tradition and find in it resources of reflection and new vision (Baum in Eagleson and Torres, p.88)."
In your opinion, is Baum rejecting Latin American theology wholesale? Or is he just simply saying that no one theology (including Latin American) can claim to be the universally valid one that can pontificate for the world-wide Church of Christ?
Baum continues: "In Canadian Protestantism, to give an example, a sophisticated and action-oriented social gospel movement extended into the thirties, a movement that transcended Reinhold Niebuhr's rejection of the American social gospel and reflected an extended dialogue with Marxist thought. Most Canadian theologians are not even aware of this. The last thing we need in Canada is to be told to turn to another country. What we need is confidence that important things have happened in our own history and are happening now, thanks to which we are enabled to discern the structures of oppression in which we are involved ((Baum in Eagleson and Torres, p.88)."
Since much of the theology in America has been inherited by the Euro-American Protestant Missionary Enterprise, do you think that Baum's letter to Torres is a warning for we Americans to reevaluate it, and perhaps come up with a theology that emerges out of own North American context?
In his concluding remarks, Baum says: "Canadians, in particular, should not make the analysis of the American empire the only source of reflection. We are dependent on the empire and to a large extent owned by it, and at the same time we are willing collaborators with American foreign policy and the dominant business interests. But we also have our own internal structures of oppression, which we must study. At Canadian universities, students are often more interested in protesting the Vietnam involvement of the United States, and following American politics than in learning French and dealing specifically with Canadian issues. Canadians are very much in need of discovering the destiny written into their history, their geography, their human experiences, and this includes the vastness of their as yet unpopulated land, and the space and richness available to be shared with other people. While we must listen to Latin Americans and analyze the influence of the American empire, we must develop our own sense of independence from the United States so that we can assume a more responsible role in international affairs. We are in need of our own theology of liberation (Baum in Eagleson and Torres, p. 89)."
As you reflect on the contents and thrust of this letter, what would you venture to say about its validity or invalidity? What relevancy, if any, does this letter written forty years ago, have for the Church today? Please feel free to give your input.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
No comments:
Post a Comment