I can best address the question of diversity in Latin American Liberation Theology by referring to three articles in Rosino Gibellini's book, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. I have referred to one of those articles twice. 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 readers of these articles that Assmann deals primarily with the problem of Christology, while Gutierrez and Segundo tend to be 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 diversity of situation, 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 Books, 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 Latin America.
While Gutierrez's article does not reflect any attempt to construct a systematic Christology, 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 (Gutierrez 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 reign of God and God's work in history. He identifies the essential ingredient in Jesus's theology: the presence and guidance of God in the historical events which are taking place (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 253). I am not suggesting that a contradiction exists between these two concerns. I am simply pointing to the differences of approach that Gutierrez and Segundo take in relation to the study of the person and work of Christ.
I believe that Assmann goes further than both Gutierrez and Segundo in dealing with Christology. While the implications of what all three say are basically the same, Assmann gives a more specific focus. He clearly indicates that the conflict between different Christologies is conditioned by the historical contradictions of the societies in Latin America (Assmann in Gibellini, p. 138). 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 (Assmann in Gibellini, p. 138)."
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 reversed. 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 teach other. The three approaches reflect an attempt to articulate the Christian faith in the light of the existing reality in Latin America.
There is a contrast between the articles of Gutierrez and Segundo in relation to the description of the problem of the Latin American situation. Gutierrez lays heavy emphasis on the need for making the necessary relation between liberation praxis and Christian faith. He describes the social order in Latin America as economically, politically, and ideologically designed by a few for their own benefit (Gutierrez in Gibellini, p. 1). Gutierrez says that a discovery has been made of this reality within the context of a revolutionary struggle. He states that this struggle calls the existing order into question. He also says that the goal of this struggle is to bring about an egalitarian society. Gutierrez describes this struggling as taking place between those who are on the top and those who are on the bottom. It is rather clear that he is referring to the difference that exists in Latin American society between the many and the few that benefit and profit from their work. He refers to them as "members of a social class which is overtly or covertly exploited by another social class (Gutierrez in Gibellini, p. 8)." Gutierrez then goes on to say that the Church must identify with these members of society and also participate in their struggle to fashion a new social order.
Segundo takes the same approach that Gutierrez does. He concentrates on the struggle between the poor and the mighty. However, Segundo states in no uncertain terms that the problem is making the choice between a capitalist society on the one hand or a socialist society on the other (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 240). While Gutierrez alludes to the same problem, Segundo spells it out clearly and specifically. He refers to a case in which these choices had to be made by some Catholic bishops in Chile. Segundo accuses them of complying with the existing structures.
Segundo states clearly that though a move towards egalitarianism must be made, the choice is not merely one of opting for a well developed capitalism or a well developed socialism. He believes that the choice must be made from the Latin American context as an underdeveloped society (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 17). This statement harmonizes with Gutierrez's notion of the participation of Christians in the revolutionary struggle. Segundo develops it further when he says that it is not merely a choice between capitalism and socialism. He does not prescribe any model of socialism. He defines socialism as "a political regime in which the ownership of the means of production is taken away from individuals and handed over to higher institutions whose main concern is the common good (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 249)." He says that Latin Americans do not propose a specific model of socialism because "we are not seers, nor are we capable of controlling the world of the future (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 139)." One might think that Segundo does not give any indication of commitment. However, he clearly articulates his focus on the social struggle. Gutierrez does speak about the need for a new social order. But he does not indicate what in his judgment are the solutions to the problems.
What is the relationship between Assmann's Christology and the problem of Latin America as stated by Gutierrez and Segundo? Gutierrez and Segundo describe the existing situation with different language. It is the situation of the struggle for a society in which the evils of the present order will be eliminated. Then there will be a new social order. It will be a society in which all will benefit. Gutierrez and Segundo both imply that it will be a socialist society. I believe that Assmann is attempting to construct a Christology that will reflect this new socialist society. He alludes to this when speaks of the Christ of the revolutionaries. According to Segundo, this Christ will stand against the Christ of the bourgeoise (Assmann in Gibellini, p. 18). Assmann appears to imply that the Christ of the revolutionaries establishes ties of solidarity with the poor and oppressed, and that He participates with them in the struggle to construct a socialist society. Assmann's Christology harmonizes with Gutierrez's and Segundo's notion of the struggle for an egalitarian society.
No comments:
Post a Comment