In the previous essay, I described some of the conditions in which incarcerated persons live. In this essay, I would like to talk about a theology which emerges from those conditions.
In the strictest sense of the word, theology is a discourse about God and things related to God. Theology reflects the ideas and notions that individuals and community of faith as a whole have about God. In that respect, I believe that it is safe to say that every member of the community of faith is a theologian. Every individual in the community and every community have something to say about God according to the way they perceive Her/Him.
For the purposes of this essay, I would say that there are two basic models of theology. One is what I would call "top down" theology, which in essence, is a theology handed down by the leaders of the Church and/or other faith communities and their educational institutions (theological schools). This type of theology consists of theories and ideas which are promoted by those in power and in the leadership of the institutional Church. This theology is for the most part, carved up independently of the "grass roots" members, i.e. the laity.
The other model of theology is what I would call "bottom up" theology which basically reflects the beliefs and experiences of the powerless in the Church and in society. This type of theology, like the theology of the first two centuries of Christianity, emerges from the experience of oppression, persecution, and suffering.
In this essay, I will making use of "bottom up" theology known in Latin America and in other parts of the developing world as "Liberation Theology," a movement which began in the late 1960's in Latin America, and has spread throughout the world into communities where people are oppressed because of class, gender, ethnicity/race, and sexual orientation. While there are various modalities in Liberation Theology reflecting these social realities, the underlying assumption is that oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In essence, theologians of liberation believe that if theology does not reflect and and address the human condition of oppression and suffering, it is not only irrelevant, but to some extent demonic.
Liberation Theology is not just "another school of thought," or what some would consider another fad that "comes and goes." As long as there is oppression and suffering in the world, Liberation Theology will continue to exist. Liberation Theology emerged from a situation of suffering, and cannot cease to exist unless oppression and suffering are completely eradicated.
In a biblical and historical sense, Liberation Theology precedes historic and traditional Christian theology. Technically speaking, Liberation Theology began when Yahweh God was revealed to the Hebrew people as they suffered the misery of bondage in Egypt. Yahweh said to Moses "I have heard the cry of my people, and have descended to deliver them." Yahweh's self-disclosure was the clarion call for Liberation Theology to emerge. The theology that the Hebrews knew and were familiar with did not emerge from the academy nor from the magisterium of the Hebrew community. Their theology arose as a result of Yahweh's self-disclosure in the midst of their bondage and Yahweh's liberating and salvific activity relative to that bondage. It was the theology that guided them through the desert into the land of Promise. It was the theology that sustained them in times of heresy and national upheaval. It was the only theology that they knew.
What should be the theology that guides the ministry of the Church in the penal system? If we are speaking of a group of people who are rightly or wrongly convicted, and living in the Babylonian Captivity" of the penal system, then it is obvious that Liberation Theology in some form should be the theology that becomes the mechanism that the Church utilizes to carry out God's mission in that context. If the oppression and suffering of the Hebrew people were the locus and mode of divine revelation, then in the same vein, alienation, captivity, and suffering should be the the model for theologizing relative to the reality of incarceration.
People who are alienated from their families and from society, as well as suffering the abuse that occurs in the penal institutions, do not have the luxury or the interest to focus on the lofty ideals and platitudes of traditional theology. The question that comes into the mind of confined persons is "What does God have to do with us in this situation that we are in and what is God's role, if any, in our future upon release as we seek to reintegrate into society and be reunited with our families?" As a Christian theologian, I sustain that if theology does not emerge from or address the situation of captivity that prisoners find themselves in, it is totally irrelevant. For prison theology to be valid, it has to be a theology that is based on Yahweh having heard the cry of the people in bondage "behind the gates." While self-righteous people in society and in the Church continue to cry "Lock them up and throw away the keys," prisoners need to hear the voice that says "I have heard your cry and have descended to deliver you."
Through Moses, Yahweh liberated the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt. Through Jesus Christ, God has liberated both Jew and Gentile from the bondage of false and unnecessary allegiance to those who oppress them by lording it over them.
Through the ministry of Christs's Church, both behind and outside the gates, God's salvific activity continues to move forward. As stated at the beginning of this essay, oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. Liberation Theology, which is in essence, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, guides us in affirming that in Christ, the prisoners that we partner with in ministry, have experienced that if anyone be in Christ, they are a new creation.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Prison Theology: The Conditions of Incarceration
As a follow-up to my previous essay on whether the goal of incarceration is to punish or to rehabilitate, I now address another issue which is hardly, if ever, addressed, and to a certain extent, totally ignored, i.e. the conditions of incarceration. Some would argue that the conditions of a penal institution should be such, i.e. cruel, dehumanizing, filthy, etc., as a way to encourage residents not to reoffend, and subsequently come back to jail or prison. Others would argue that the conditions of the penal institution should be such that they are conducive to habilitation, or rehabilitation so that residents can return to society as responsible persons contributing to the growth and development of a just society.
I remember that when I was working as a Corrections Counselor at the Arthur Kill Corr ectional Facility in Staten Island, New York, I would come and discuss with my family the dynamics taking place within the prison as well as some of the resources that residents had available to them during their confinement. In one conversation, I indicated that there were a gymnasium and a swimming pool in the facility for the residents to use as part of their recreation program. One of my daughters reacted and said "Wow, they have swimming pools? I thought that was jail!"
Those who have the punitive mindset about incarceration would argue that jails and prisons should not a "Club Med," resembling a vacation resort. On the other hand, those who have a correctional mindset would argue that the conditions under which incarcerated individuals live should not be brutal and dehumanizing, but rather conditions that are conducive to the acquisition of ethical values that will result in life styles upon their release and return to society.
Many people believe that incarcerated residents should suffer as punishment for the crimes they've committed, especially if these crimes have resulted in injury or even death to others in society. Others believe that residents should be held accountable for their crimes in an environment which makes it possible for them to reflect on their actions and subsequently embark on a new direction in their lives.
From a faith standpoint, we may ask if incarceration should be geared solely to punishment or to what some would call "restorative justice." Some in the community of faith would appeal to the Old Testament notions of punishment for wrongdoing. Others in the community of faith would appeal to the restorative elements in the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as reflected in the New Testament emphasis on forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation.
Whether one favors punishment for wrongdoing as an end in and of itself, or correctional punishment leading to repentance and restoration, the fact of the matter remains that there is much human suffering taking place in the penal institutions. Whether the suffering comes as a result of the wrongdoing of the residents, or as a result of other external factors, the fact remains that there is suffering. The Hebrew people underwent punishment at the hands of the Babylonians because of their deviation from the norms and standards given to them by Yahweh God. They had previously also suffered at the hands of their Egyptian taskmasters. In both cases, they experienced dehumanization, oppression, and suffering.
Do incarcerated individuals really experience suffering. My answer to that would be an absolute "yes." They suffer the following:
1. Physical, and some cases, emotional alienation from their loved ones. Physical absence does not provide much opportunity for emotional nurture and in fact, decreases it to a certain extent.
2. Physical and emotional abuse from some of those who work in the correctional system, especially in the ranks of security. This results very often in a much lower self-esteem than what they may have had before entering the penal system. It also contributes to the breaking of the human spirit and to a sense of despair and hopelessness. An example of this is where certain prison employees refer to the residents as "a piece of shit," or as "dirt bags."
3. Emotional and physical abuse from fellow-residents. Due to the creation of an internal society where conflict and tensions exist, in many cases, residents abuse and oppress each other. There are instances of "in-house" fighting resulting in injury and even death, and in some cases, sexual abuse from fellow residents.
4. Emotional suffering stemming from guilt/or remorse about acts committed or alleged to have been committed. Many residents genuinely reflect on the actions which have resulted in their incarceration, and regret them. Others suffer not because they actually regret their actions, but because they have "been busted."
5. Physical conditions of the institution. In many of the older facilities, residents as well as employees have to live or coexist in slum-like conditions. As those who live in the slums, they have to deal with the reality of things such as vermin (mice, rats, and cockroaches).
6. Lack of proper health care. The penal system's health care is set up in such a way as to give incarcerated persons the minimum degree of health care. There is rampant the belief that incarcerated individuals are not entitled to the same quality of health care as people in society. Subsequently, many residents suffer and even die as a result of this negligence.
7. Lack of educational tools necessary for survival in a "post-release " situation. There are many who do not believe in having "educated criminals." There are others who believe the money used for educating jail/prison residents should be given or be used for "law abiding" citizens to be educated.
What should be the role of the community of faith relative to human suffering in the penal institutions? As a Christian minister, I propose the following:
1. Affirm residents as people created in the image and likeness of God.
2. Establish ties of solidarity with residents. The attitude should not be one of condescension or paternalism, but rather one of "I am with you brother/sister."
3. Encourage (not force or pressure) residents to participate in the community of faith.
4. Promote residential leadership in the community of faith. From the Christian standpoint, this would involve developing the Prison Church.
5. Advocate for the rights of residents to have quality health care and the highest level of education possible.
6. Advocate for the right of residents to have access to decent housing conditions while incarcerated.
7. Advocate for residents to be treated with respect and dignity while being held accountable.
8. Help prepare residents to take on leadership roles in the community upon their release.
9. Help to strengthen the relationship between residents and their families.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
I remember that when I was working as a Corrections Counselor at the Arthur Kill Corr ectional Facility in Staten Island, New York, I would come and discuss with my family the dynamics taking place within the prison as well as some of the resources that residents had available to them during their confinement. In one conversation, I indicated that there were a gymnasium and a swimming pool in the facility for the residents to use as part of their recreation program. One of my daughters reacted and said "Wow, they have swimming pools? I thought that was jail!"
Those who have the punitive mindset about incarceration would argue that jails and prisons should not a "Club Med," resembling a vacation resort. On the other hand, those who have a correctional mindset would argue that the conditions under which incarcerated individuals live should not be brutal and dehumanizing, but rather conditions that are conducive to the acquisition of ethical values that will result in life styles upon their release and return to society.
Many people believe that incarcerated residents should suffer as punishment for the crimes they've committed, especially if these crimes have resulted in injury or even death to others in society. Others believe that residents should be held accountable for their crimes in an environment which makes it possible for them to reflect on their actions and subsequently embark on a new direction in their lives.
From a faith standpoint, we may ask if incarceration should be geared solely to punishment or to what some would call "restorative justice." Some in the community of faith would appeal to the Old Testament notions of punishment for wrongdoing. Others in the community of faith would appeal to the restorative elements in the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as reflected in the New Testament emphasis on forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation.
Whether one favors punishment for wrongdoing as an end in and of itself, or correctional punishment leading to repentance and restoration, the fact of the matter remains that there is much human suffering taking place in the penal institutions. Whether the suffering comes as a result of the wrongdoing of the residents, or as a result of other external factors, the fact remains that there is suffering. The Hebrew people underwent punishment at the hands of the Babylonians because of their deviation from the norms and standards given to them by Yahweh God. They had previously also suffered at the hands of their Egyptian taskmasters. In both cases, they experienced dehumanization, oppression, and suffering.
Do incarcerated individuals really experience suffering. My answer to that would be an absolute "yes." They suffer the following:
1. Physical, and some cases, emotional alienation from their loved ones. Physical absence does not provide much opportunity for emotional nurture and in fact, decreases it to a certain extent.
2. Physical and emotional abuse from some of those who work in the correctional system, especially in the ranks of security. This results very often in a much lower self-esteem than what they may have had before entering the penal system. It also contributes to the breaking of the human spirit and to a sense of despair and hopelessness. An example of this is where certain prison employees refer to the residents as "a piece of shit," or as "dirt bags."
3. Emotional and physical abuse from fellow-residents. Due to the creation of an internal society where conflict and tensions exist, in many cases, residents abuse and oppress each other. There are instances of "in-house" fighting resulting in injury and even death, and in some cases, sexual abuse from fellow residents.
4. Emotional suffering stemming from guilt/or remorse about acts committed or alleged to have been committed. Many residents genuinely reflect on the actions which have resulted in their incarceration, and regret them. Others suffer not because they actually regret their actions, but because they have "been busted."
5. Physical conditions of the institution. In many of the older facilities, residents as well as employees have to live or coexist in slum-like conditions. As those who live in the slums, they have to deal with the reality of things such as vermin (mice, rats, and cockroaches).
6. Lack of proper health care. The penal system's health care is set up in such a way as to give incarcerated persons the minimum degree of health care. There is rampant the belief that incarcerated individuals are not entitled to the same quality of health care as people in society. Subsequently, many residents suffer and even die as a result of this negligence.
7. Lack of educational tools necessary for survival in a "post-release " situation. There are many who do not believe in having "educated criminals." There are others who believe the money used for educating jail/prison residents should be given or be used for "law abiding" citizens to be educated.
What should be the role of the community of faith relative to human suffering in the penal institutions? As a Christian minister, I propose the following:
1. Affirm residents as people created in the image and likeness of God.
2. Establish ties of solidarity with residents. The attitude should not be one of condescension or paternalism, but rather one of "I am with you brother/sister."
3. Encourage (not force or pressure) residents to participate in the community of faith.
4. Promote residential leadership in the community of faith. From the Christian standpoint, this would involve developing the Prison Church.
5. Advocate for the rights of residents to have quality health care and the highest level of education possible.
6. Advocate for the right of residents to have access to decent housing conditions while incarcerated.
7. Advocate for residents to be treated with respect and dignity while being held accountable.
8. Help prepare residents to take on leadership roles in the community upon their release.
9. Help to strengthen the relationship between residents and their families.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Prisons: Punishment or Rehabilitation?
There are various philosophies underlying the correctional system enterprise. There are some who believe that the main purpose of confinement is to punish convicted felons for the wrong they have done or have been convicted of doing. There are others who believe in confinement as a tool of rehabilitation to prepare residents to reenter society with a "clean slate." Then there are those who believe that incarceration should serve both purposes.
The late Thomas Coughlin, who was Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services while I was a prison chaplain, indicated that he had a problem with the concept of "rehabilitation." He stated that the word "rehabilitation" carried the implication of restoring residents to their original condition. According to Coughlin, many of these residents had not been on the "right foot" to begin with, and therefore, in his opinion, the word "rehabilitation" was a misnomer. He preferred the word "habilitation" which implied that the purpose of confinement was to have residents start off on the "right foot" upon release from prison.
Commissioner Coughlin served his term while Mario Cuomo was governor of New York State. Governor Cuomo had a fairly liberal policy, in which residents were released relatively early to parole. During his tenure, the Department of Correctional Services provided for residents to have access to higher educational programs while they were confined. Various colleges and universities established satellite or residential campuses at various facilities. Many residents took advantage of this opportunity by enrolling in the college programs and obtaining degrees in different fields of study. Both Governor Cuomo and Commissioner Coughlin believed that if residents obtained a college education during their confinement, they would be "habilitated" or "rehabilitated," and returning to the community in a much different and better condition then when they first entered the penal system. They would then reenter society with the necessary tools to become productive and law-abiding citizens.
When Governor Cuomo was not re-elected in 1995, George Pataki, a Republican, was elected Governor of New York State. His was a more conservative approach to incarceration in which he eliminated the college programs because according to him, tax-payers were paying too much money just for the state to end up with "educated criminals." He rationalized that residents should not receive a free education when there were law-abiding citizens who had a difficult time financing their education.
Under Pataki's tenure, Parole Commissioners who had a more conservative bent were appointed. Residents who appeared before the Parole Board were denied release several times before going home. The approach under Pataki's tenure was more of a punitive one. The mindset that existed under the Pataki administration was that "once a criminal, always a criminal." The fundamental belief was that criminals could not change or be rehabilitated.
By the time I retired in 2009, another Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, had been elected. Like his father Mario's, his administration was more liberal in regard to Parole. More residents were released at their first or second Parole Board appearance.
Unfortunately, under Cuomo's tenure, the college programs were not reinstated, at least not completely. The same mindset that existed under the Pataki administration continued to be permeated. This was in spite of the fact that it had been stated that 75% of residents who received a college degree while incarcerated, did not return to prison after their parole release.
The same thing had been said about residents who were involved in religious programs of one kind or another. During the administration of Mario Cuomo and George Pataki, there had been proposals to lay off chaplains in order to maintain a "balanced budget." Negotiations between the state and the faith groups resulted in no chaplains losing their jobs. The elimination of college-level programs, and the proposed lay offs of chaplains led many to believe that the punitive mindset was the prevailing one in society, including among those who worked for the Department of Correctional Services.
As a Minister of the Gospel working in a correctional facility, I always took the approach that I wasn't there to question the guilt or the innocence of those convicted and eventually confined. I even shared that position with the residents with whom I came into on a daily basis. It was my position that my role as a chaplain was to:
1. Be the face and presence of Christ in an environment of dehumanization and oppression.
2. Affirm the dignity of the residents as creatures and children of God.
3. Encourage the residents to join a community of faith as a part of their restoration.
4. Encourage the residents to pursue higher education or employment that was consistent with their goals and aspirations.
5. Nurture and upbuild the residents who were members of "the Church behind the Gates."
6. Enable the members of the prison church to discover their gifts and utilize them in the Body of Christ.
7. Carry out a program of theological studies that would equip the residents to exercise their gifts and serve as leaders in the prison church.
Through the above steps, the chaplains would enable the residents to be prepared to reenter society and be reunited with their loved ones. They would return as people who would contribute to growth and social development in a positive way.
The work of the faith community with the prison residential community is neither punitive nor rehabilitative. It is one of redemption and liberation from oppression, both individual and systemic.
It is God's liberating and salvific activity in history that will enable the "Church behind the Gates" to carry out the ministry of Christ both effectively and faithfully.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona, Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary
The late Thomas Coughlin, who was Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services while I was a prison chaplain, indicated that he had a problem with the concept of "rehabilitation." He stated that the word "rehabilitation" carried the implication of restoring residents to their original condition. According to Coughlin, many of these residents had not been on the "right foot" to begin with, and therefore, in his opinion, the word "rehabilitation" was a misnomer. He preferred the word "habilitation" which implied that the purpose of confinement was to have residents start off on the "right foot" upon release from prison.
Commissioner Coughlin served his term while Mario Cuomo was governor of New York State. Governor Cuomo had a fairly liberal policy, in which residents were released relatively early to parole. During his tenure, the Department of Correctional Services provided for residents to have access to higher educational programs while they were confined. Various colleges and universities established satellite or residential campuses at various facilities. Many residents took advantage of this opportunity by enrolling in the college programs and obtaining degrees in different fields of study. Both Governor Cuomo and Commissioner Coughlin believed that if residents obtained a college education during their confinement, they would be "habilitated" or "rehabilitated," and returning to the community in a much different and better condition then when they first entered the penal system. They would then reenter society with the necessary tools to become productive and law-abiding citizens.
When Governor Cuomo was not re-elected in 1995, George Pataki, a Republican, was elected Governor of New York State. His was a more conservative approach to incarceration in which he eliminated the college programs because according to him, tax-payers were paying too much money just for the state to end up with "educated criminals." He rationalized that residents should not receive a free education when there were law-abiding citizens who had a difficult time financing their education.
Under Pataki's tenure, Parole Commissioners who had a more conservative bent were appointed. Residents who appeared before the Parole Board were denied release several times before going home. The approach under Pataki's tenure was more of a punitive one. The mindset that existed under the Pataki administration was that "once a criminal, always a criminal." The fundamental belief was that criminals could not change or be rehabilitated.
By the time I retired in 2009, another Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, had been elected. Like his father Mario's, his administration was more liberal in regard to Parole. More residents were released at their first or second Parole Board appearance.
Unfortunately, under Cuomo's tenure, the college programs were not reinstated, at least not completely. The same mindset that existed under the Pataki administration continued to be permeated. This was in spite of the fact that it had been stated that 75% of residents who received a college degree while incarcerated, did not return to prison after their parole release.
The same thing had been said about residents who were involved in religious programs of one kind or another. During the administration of Mario Cuomo and George Pataki, there had been proposals to lay off chaplains in order to maintain a "balanced budget." Negotiations between the state and the faith groups resulted in no chaplains losing their jobs. The elimination of college-level programs, and the proposed lay offs of chaplains led many to believe that the punitive mindset was the prevailing one in society, including among those who worked for the Department of Correctional Services.
As a Minister of the Gospel working in a correctional facility, I always took the approach that I wasn't there to question the guilt or the innocence of those convicted and eventually confined. I even shared that position with the residents with whom I came into on a daily basis. It was my position that my role as a chaplain was to:
1. Be the face and presence of Christ in an environment of dehumanization and oppression.
2. Affirm the dignity of the residents as creatures and children of God.
3. Encourage the residents to join a community of faith as a part of their restoration.
4. Encourage the residents to pursue higher education or employment that was consistent with their goals and aspirations.
5. Nurture and upbuild the residents who were members of "the Church behind the Gates."
6. Enable the members of the prison church to discover their gifts and utilize them in the Body of Christ.
7. Carry out a program of theological studies that would equip the residents to exercise their gifts and serve as leaders in the prison church.
Through the above steps, the chaplains would enable the residents to be prepared to reenter society and be reunited with their loved ones. They would return as people who would contribute to growth and social development in a positive way.
The work of the faith community with the prison residential community is neither punitive nor rehabilitative. It is one of redemption and liberation from oppression, both individual and systemic.
It is God's liberating and salvific activity in history that will enable the "Church behind the Gates" to carry out the ministry of Christ both effectively and faithfully.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona, Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Theology from the Prison Standpoint: Prison Expansion
I think that I am safe in saying that the vast majority of us think of jails and prisons as places where criminals and "bad people" go to be punished for wrongdoing. I'm also inclined to believe that most of us are convinced that every person who is incarcerated deserves to be confined for what they've done or been convicted of doing. We tend to participate in the mindset of "lock them up and throw away the keys." I would venture to say that this thinking is due to how we have been socialized and brainwashed through our social, educational, and political systems, and the role that the news media play in order to have us support the status-quo by undermining and vitiating any attempt to effect concrete social change.
Consequently, we tend to favor the expansion of the penal institutions. In other words, we advocate for the construction of additional facilities so that we can segregate and alienate these persons from the general population in society. It's been said that the prison enterprise is one of the fastest growing industries in America.
Dr. Robert Kruschwitz, Director of the Center for Christian Ethics and Professor of Philosophy at Baylor University, informs us that about 1 in every 100 persons is incarcerated. While that number appears to be rather small, when multiplied, it results in hundreds of persons confined to our penal institutions.
The mere fact that people would advocate for the expansion of jails and prisons indicates that:
1. There appears to be a wide-supported belief that people who are confined, are people who by nature, tend to commit crimes and participate in a criminal lifestyle.
2. Many believe that the more correctional facilities are built, the safer society will be.
I personally would question these two ideas. I believe that they both rest on faulty premises. I do not believe, for one single moment, that any one person or group is more criminally more inclined than another. While I do acknowledge that there is a volitional element in the commitment of crime, I also believe that there are socio-economic factors that contribute to and result in certain criminal acts being carried out. Furthermore, I do not believe that social safety is guaranteed by the construction of more facilities. If, indeed, as I believe, crime is rooted in socio-economic conditions, then these conditions have to be dealt with and seen as the main factor of social crimes. We cannot continue to take the "band-aid" approach to the solution of social problems such as criminality. This approach does not even begin to "scratch the surface."
The question of whether correctional facilities are constructed in order to stimulate the economies of certain communities is an issue that needs to be considered. Whether or not this is true, we cannot escape the reality that most of the people who are employed by the correctional system in these communities would have a very difficult time finding employment that would compensate with the generous salaries and fringe benefits that they receive by being employed in a correctional facility. At one correctional facility where I worked as a correctional counselor, some employees were heard to be complaining about "these damned inmates." The Superintendent of the facility said to them "I don't know why you continue to complain about the inmates. If it weren't for them, half of you would be working at MacDonald's." Half of the staff reported to work the next day wearing McDonald's hats in order to protest what he said.
The reality is that even if these facilities were not built with the purpose of stimulating the economy or generating employment, the employees, many of whom do not have a high level of formal education, and furthermore, denounce crime and detest residents, do benefit greatly from working in the correctional system. I remember that one co-worker at a facility where I served as a chaplain stated, "I don't know if crime pays, but it sure pays me." Are correctional employees "poverty pimps," capitalizing on the misery of the residents? It depends on who you ask.
Even as a chaplain who was compensated generously, and in fact, paid much higher than the average parish pastor or priest, I had to struggle with the issue as to whether I was there because I believed that God had called me to the prison ministry, or because the level of remuneration was comfortable. Most of my colleagues in the prison ministry who wrestled with the same question would respond by saying "both/and."
As a Christian minister working in both parish and institutional settings, I've had to confront the following issues:
1. Ethical-If our actions and lifestyles are based on the teachings and example of Jesus, we would ask the question that has become popular among certain Christians, i.e. "What would Jesus do?" Theologian James Cone says that we are not to ask what Jesus did back then, but rather, what is He doing today. If Jesus were living in the twenty-first century, would He advocate for the expansion of our correctional facilities? Would He support the "lock them up and throw away the keys" attitude?
While I do not wish to be presumptuous in thinking that I know for sure what Jesus would do, my reading of the Gospel accounts leads me to believe that Jesus would not advocate for prison expansion. I strongly believe that Jesus's compassion would be more geared towards dealing with the systemic problems that generate incarceration, i.e. religious persecution, social injustice, political oppression of all types, etc. Neither do I believe that Jesus would advocate for the concept of "lock them up and throw away the keys." In keeping with the prophetic tradition of the Jewish community, Jesus's message and ministry were geared towards humane treatment of confined individuals and eventual release from prison. When Jesus said that the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him to "proclaim liberty to the captives," He was not talking about some ethereal freedom, or "in the sweet bye and bye" type of freedom. He was clearly talking about about liberation from socio-economic and political oppression, which in His day and time, included wrongful arrest and incarceration.
What, then, is the correct response of the faith community towards prison expansion? I would not say that there is one correct answer. As a minister/theologian, I can only offer the following imperfect and limited responses:
a. Examine the true reasons for prison expansion. Is it really for the safety of the community and society, or is it for the economic benefit and expediency of localities through "job creation?"
b. Evaluate prison expansion in the light of our respective faith mandates. In terms of the Christian faith, we evaluate the issue like we would any other social issue, i.e. in the light of the compassionate message of the Gospel, a message whose main thrust is humanization and liberation.
c. Galvanize all social entities to achieve the maximum degree of justice relative to the increase in the numbers of incarcerated persons. The faith community needs to insure that social and political structures respond to the basic human needs of the residents and that we cease the wrongful convictions and incarceration of innocent persons.
2. Practical- How do Christ-loving, justice-loving, peace-loving, and people-loving individuals who are employed in the correctional system integrate compassion and justice for incarcerated individuals with the need to earn a just salary? By a just salary, I mean a compensation that will enable them to meet the basic needs of clothing, food, education, housing, and recreation for themselves and for their families. There are no easy answers to that question.
I do not believe that the Gospel calls for us to glorify poverty. Consequently, I do not believe that Christians are called to take "a vow of poverty." The Word of God calls for us to work for a just compensation and to work for the construction of a social system in which each one can receive a just compensation in accordance with her/his basic needs.
If prison expansion were to result in our obtaining employment that helps us to adequately provide for the basic needs of our family, then we are called to insure that it does not become a means of exploiting the residents nor that it becomes a means of perpetuating the "caste system" that is present in our society where some in the working class are barely able to "make ends meet," and others are earning an excessive amount of money at the expense of the underemployed. In essence, what I am saying is that if we are to have prison expansion, then we must work for:
a. Justice for the residents. The residents must be treated with dignity and respect.
b. Justice for the workers. The employees must be given a just remuneration.
c. Justice for the community. The workers in the community must not be relegated to poverty and "second-class" status on account of the correctional system paying its commissioners and administrators excessive salaries and benefits. The economy of the community has to be restructured so that there is parity between those who work in the correctional system to provide for their families, and those in the community who provide for their families in other work places.
This essay was written by one who worked one year as a counselor in the correctional setting, and 21 years as a prison chaplain. It was written in the hope that the message of Christ's Gospel will resonate in the ears of all who read it.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona, Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
The Central and South American Diaspora
In this final essay on the Hispanic Diaspora in the U.S.A., I will focus on all the Hispanic groups who for a variety of reasons, have migrated to and settled in the U.S.A. Much could be said about them like has been said of other Hispanic groups. The reasons for the immigration might be somewhat varied, but are, in essence, the same basic reasons why other Hispanic groups have come to the U.S.A.
We begin this time, by first posing the theological question, i.e. how do we evaluate the presence of Hispanics in the U.S.A. from a theological standpoint? What does Liberation Theology have to say, if any thing, about this situation? Is Liberation Theology as applicable to the socio-economic and political conditions of Hispanics in the U.S.A. as it is in Latin America? If so, what are the differences and the similarities of how it is relevant?
We have previously observed that Liberation Theology in Latin America and the Caribbean addresses the issues of imperialism, colonization, genocide, classism, and racism. It also addresses the issues of poverty and suffering. We will discover that in the U.S.A. Liberation Theology addresses these very same issues as well as the issues of second-class treatment, immigration, and deportation.
Much of the story of Latin America in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been one of the transformation of the colonial heritage of large-landed estates, governed by a light-skinned elite who controlled a largely non-white slave or free labor force, and often employing authoritarian methods of political control. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, Latin America has become an overwhelmingly urban society characterized (in most countries) by racial and cultural mixture. The economies of the region have moved in very diverse paths. While some places remain heavily dependent on the export of agricultural products and raw materials, Latin America is the most industrialized region of what used to be called the "Third World." After centuries of monarchs and dictators, democratic regimes prevail in many countries of Latin America. The most enduring legacy of the colonial collisions is the staggering socioeconomic inequity in nearly every country. As Latin America moves further and further away from the legacies created out of the collisions of the sixteenth-century Conquest, the "social question" remains the largest facing Latin Americans. These inequities form one of they key features of Latin American identity. The central challenge for Latin American in the twenty-first century is how to mobilize its citizens through democratic, representative politics to elect leaders who will pursue forms of economic development that will some day diminish the substantially enormous socioeconomic inequities that have so long plagued Latin America. In many ways, the current challenge of Latin America is finally to dismantle this vicious legacy of the colonial heritage that helped define the region. Ironically, those countries that are most successful in this pursuit of development and equity will no doubt, redefine what it means to be Latin American (Marshalll C. Eakin, The History of Latin America: A Collision of Cultures. New York: Palgrave MacMillian, 2007, pp. 417-418).
The socioeconomic and political conditions of Hispanics in the U.S.A. must be evaluated and understood against the background of the aforementioned. The economic conditions of many of the countries of Latin America, were generated by the foreign economic policies of the U.S.A., thus generating migration to the north. In addition, as we have previously seen in the cases of Cuba and the Dominican Republic, we encounter the irony that migration is generated to the very same country that has given economic, military, and political support to the countries from which these Hispanics proceed, and which in turn, have been ruled by dictators. An analogy to this situation would be that I am oppressing you indirectly by giving aid to the person who is oppressing you directly. And then you come to running to me to escape the oppressive condition in which you find yourself due to my indirect support of that condition.
Hispanics (or Latinos) with roots in Central America include Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans,s Panamanians, and Costa Ricans. While Central Americans began entering the United States in small numbers as early as the nineteenth century, immigration from Central America to the United States did not reach significant levels until the late twentieth century, and so Hispanics with roots in Central America are truly newcomers. They are such newcomers that in 2000, 34.5% of the foreign-born population of the U.S.A. was from Central America, according to the March 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Data. Scourges of every kind-from military dictatorships, right-wing death squads, and guerilla insurgencies to grinding poverty and hunger-are what triggered the movement north of peoples from most Spanish-speaking Central American countries. In the 1990's, with democracy in place in Central American nations, economic chaos was the primary factor motivating Central Americans to head north the the United States. Economic upheaval continues to drive Central American immigration to this day (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latino History. New York: Penguin Group, 2007, pp. 240-241).
A significant percentage of the Central American population in the U.S.A. has relatively low levels of educational attainment. Among the foreign born aged twenty-five or older, only 44.3% have a high school diploma, according to Census 2000 data. The high school graduation rate is lowest among those born in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and highest among those born in Costa Rica and Panama. As a consequence, the overwhelming majority of Central Americans are employed in lower-paying jobs, and a good number live in poverty (Ibid.).
Latinos of Spanish-speaking South American ancestry, include Colombians, Ecuadorians, Peruvians, Argentineans, Chileans, Venezuelans, Bolivians, Uruguayans, and Paraguayans. Although they began immigrating to the U.S.A. in small numbers as early as the nineteenth century, South Americans, like Central Americans, are relatively new to the American scene. The vast of majority of Spanish-speaking South American immigrants came to the U.S.A., after 1960, and a large percentage arrived after 1980. In the year 2000, 6.6% of the foreign-born population in the U.S.A. was from South America (Ibid.).
Most Spanish-speaking South Americans have come to the U.S.A. in search of greater economic opportunity, although some such as Colombians and Chileans, have also sought shelter from war, military dictatorships, and political instability. In recent times, the people of South America have experienced the most trying period in their history since the days of military dictatorship almost two decades ago. Unraveling economies, rampant unemployment, escalating crime, and social-turmoil-as well as inept rule, abuse of power, and large scale corruption-have not only fueled popular protests that have toppled governments, but have also stimulated immigration the the United States (Ibid.).
Hispanics with roots in Spanish-speaking South America belong largely to the middle and upper-middle classes and reside primarily in urban areas. In 2000, they were most concentrated in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area. As a group, they are generally well-educated. For this reason, they are employed in large numbers in the managerial and professional sector. Very few are employed in agriculture (Ibid).
The Census 2000 figures relative to Americans with roots in Spanish-speaking Central and South America are not very reliable. As with the Dominican population, the Central and South American populations in the U.S.A. are much smaller than experts estimate. Some attribute this to a trend among Hispanics of relinquishing national self-identification and embracing a pan-Latino identity. Many others, however, attribute the under count to the fact that the Census 2000 form did notle include examples of possible ethnic descriptions to guide those filling it out, such as "Salvadoran," or "Nicaraguan," terms that appeared on the 1990 Census form, and a great many simply identified themselves as "Hispanic." Based on the U.S. Census Current Population Survey for 1998 and 2000, the Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research at the University of Albany estimates that the actual size of the various subgroups of Spanish-speaking Central and South Americans in the U.S.A. was much larger in 2000 than what Census 2000 indicates (Ibid).
Relative to how much political clout Hispanics in the U.S.A. have, the following can be said: If political power is measured by the number of Hispanic leaders in all levels of government in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the answer to the question is "mucho." And if it is measured in terms of the significance of Latino voters to the Democrats and the Republicans, then the answer is again "mucho," since both parties acknowledge that the days of alienation and so-called "voter apathy" among Latinos are gone. With this in mind, both parties have been both courting Latinos, who are considered a "swing group," able to be won over by either party, due in part to their religious and demographic diversity. What makes Hispanics such a sought-after voting bloc is the fact that the Hispanic population has been growing at a phenomenal rate, and thus with each passing year, Latinos constitute a greater percentage of the U.S. population. They are projected to eventually represent 14% of the electorate. Also, a good number of Latinos are recent arrivals with no political allegiances at all, and thus their affiliation is up for grabs. Hispanics are also concentrated in a number of key electoral states, including California, Texas, New York, and Florida (Ibid., pp. 283-284).
The question of partisan affiliation among Hispanics in the U.S.A. is a complex one from both a social and theological standpoint. From a social standpoint, the question that is raised is whether Hispanics are participating in a genuine democratic process, or is it what is called often-time in the African-American community in the U.S.A. "the illusion of inclusion?" Is it really a "melting pot," or is it more of "salad bowl" in which Latinos live "side by side" with other ethnic and racial communities in the U.S.A? Based on present trends within the government of the U.S.A., i.e. criminalization, defamation, stereotyping, etc., it is safe to say that Hispanics in the U.S.A. are still being treated with condescension, and paternalism. No one can deny that we are considered, even if in a subconscious and subtle manner, to be "second-class" citizens/residents. As will be seen in subsequent essays, Hispanics constitute at least 30% of the incarcerated population in the U.S.A.
From a theological standpoint, the question is even more complex. The educational, economic, and political "achievements" in the U.S.A. have been realized within the framework of the economic system known as "capitalism," a system in which a small number of people are able to "lord it," so to speak, over the resources which are necessary for survival, and also, one in which the privileged few advance at the expense of the many. Liberation Theology, which has historic roots in Latin America, denounces such a system, which in both our Latin American countries and in the U.S.A., continue to perpetuate the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots."
In tracing the historical origins of Liberation Theology in Latin America, we find that that the end of the 1960's with the crisis of populism and the developmentalist model brought about the advent of a rigorous current of sociological thinking, which unmasked the true causes of underdevelopment. Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin. All nations of the Western world were engaged in a vast process of development; however, it was interdependent and unequal, organized in such a way that the benefits flowed to the already developed countries of the "center" and the disadvantages were meted out to the historically backward and underdeveloped countries of the "periphery." The poverty of Third World countries was the price to be paid for the First World to be able to enjoy the fruits of overabundance (Clodovis and Leonardo Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 68).
If these inequities that our Latino sisters and brothers experienced were the driving-force behind immigration to the U.S.A., they did not cease to exist in the "land of abundance." which like for the Hebrew people, eventually turned out to be for Hispanic people "the land of bondage." The participation in the economic and political life of Hispanics in the U.S.A. is one of engaging in "reformist" approaches to social change. The reformist approach describes placing "band-aids" on the socioeconomic problems that Hispanics and others encounter in the U.S.A. Liberation Theology seeks not to "reform," but rather to "overhaul and restructure" the system. Liberation Theology enables us to see that the "reformist" approach to social change is nothing more than a perpetuation of a dehumanizing social system.
En fin, if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to be fully and genuinely implemented in the Hispanic community in the U.S.A., it cannot be done as long as we take a "paella in the sky" approach to social change. Neither can Hispanics afford to embrace the so-called "prosperity Gospel," that is pervasive in the U.S.A. As Liberation Theology seeks to do in Latin America, the Hispanic Church in the U.S.A. must proclaim and implement within its own faith communities, a Gospel which calls for:
1. Doing theology from the "periphery" and not from the "center." The theology of the Hispanic Church needs to be one which emerges from the continued oppression and suffering in the Hispanic Dialpsora, and not one which is done from those Hispanics who "have made it," so to speak in U.S.A. society.
2. Liberation Theology in the Hispanic Diaspora should impel us to strive for socioeconomic system in which there will no longer be a "center" nor a "periphery". The struggle for the Hispanic Diaspora is a quest for the construction of the Beloved Community, i.e. the Reign of God in Christ.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
We begin this time, by first posing the theological question, i.e. how do we evaluate the presence of Hispanics in the U.S.A. from a theological standpoint? What does Liberation Theology have to say, if any thing, about this situation? Is Liberation Theology as applicable to the socio-economic and political conditions of Hispanics in the U.S.A. as it is in Latin America? If so, what are the differences and the similarities of how it is relevant?
We have previously observed that Liberation Theology in Latin America and the Caribbean addresses the issues of imperialism, colonization, genocide, classism, and racism. It also addresses the issues of poverty and suffering. We will discover that in the U.S.A. Liberation Theology addresses these very same issues as well as the issues of second-class treatment, immigration, and deportation.
Much of the story of Latin America in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been one of the transformation of the colonial heritage of large-landed estates, governed by a light-skinned elite who controlled a largely non-white slave or free labor force, and often employing authoritarian methods of political control. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, Latin America has become an overwhelmingly urban society characterized (in most countries) by racial and cultural mixture. The economies of the region have moved in very diverse paths. While some places remain heavily dependent on the export of agricultural products and raw materials, Latin America is the most industrialized region of what used to be called the "Third World." After centuries of monarchs and dictators, democratic regimes prevail in many countries of Latin America. The most enduring legacy of the colonial collisions is the staggering socioeconomic inequity in nearly every country. As Latin America moves further and further away from the legacies created out of the collisions of the sixteenth-century Conquest, the "social question" remains the largest facing Latin Americans. These inequities form one of they key features of Latin American identity. The central challenge for Latin American in the twenty-first century is how to mobilize its citizens through democratic, representative politics to elect leaders who will pursue forms of economic development that will some day diminish the substantially enormous socioeconomic inequities that have so long plagued Latin America. In many ways, the current challenge of Latin America is finally to dismantle this vicious legacy of the colonial heritage that helped define the region. Ironically, those countries that are most successful in this pursuit of development and equity will no doubt, redefine what it means to be Latin American (Marshalll C. Eakin, The History of Latin America: A Collision of Cultures. New York: Palgrave MacMillian, 2007, pp. 417-418).
The socioeconomic and political conditions of Hispanics in the U.S.A. must be evaluated and understood against the background of the aforementioned. The economic conditions of many of the countries of Latin America, were generated by the foreign economic policies of the U.S.A., thus generating migration to the north. In addition, as we have previously seen in the cases of Cuba and the Dominican Republic, we encounter the irony that migration is generated to the very same country that has given economic, military, and political support to the countries from which these Hispanics proceed, and which in turn, have been ruled by dictators. An analogy to this situation would be that I am oppressing you indirectly by giving aid to the person who is oppressing you directly. And then you come to running to me to escape the oppressive condition in which you find yourself due to my indirect support of that condition.
Hispanics (or Latinos) with roots in Central America include Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans,s Panamanians, and Costa Ricans. While Central Americans began entering the United States in small numbers as early as the nineteenth century, immigration from Central America to the United States did not reach significant levels until the late twentieth century, and so Hispanics with roots in Central America are truly newcomers. They are such newcomers that in 2000, 34.5% of the foreign-born population of the U.S.A. was from Central America, according to the March 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Data. Scourges of every kind-from military dictatorships, right-wing death squads, and guerilla insurgencies to grinding poverty and hunger-are what triggered the movement north of peoples from most Spanish-speaking Central American countries. In the 1990's, with democracy in place in Central American nations, economic chaos was the primary factor motivating Central Americans to head north the the United States. Economic upheaval continues to drive Central American immigration to this day (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latino History. New York: Penguin Group, 2007, pp. 240-241).
A significant percentage of the Central American population in the U.S.A. has relatively low levels of educational attainment. Among the foreign born aged twenty-five or older, only 44.3% have a high school diploma, according to Census 2000 data. The high school graduation rate is lowest among those born in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and highest among those born in Costa Rica and Panama. As a consequence, the overwhelming majority of Central Americans are employed in lower-paying jobs, and a good number live in poverty (Ibid.).
Latinos of Spanish-speaking South American ancestry, include Colombians, Ecuadorians, Peruvians, Argentineans, Chileans, Venezuelans, Bolivians, Uruguayans, and Paraguayans. Although they began immigrating to the U.S.A. in small numbers as early as the nineteenth century, South Americans, like Central Americans, are relatively new to the American scene. The vast of majority of Spanish-speaking South American immigrants came to the U.S.A., after 1960, and a large percentage arrived after 1980. In the year 2000, 6.6% of the foreign-born population in the U.S.A. was from South America (Ibid.).
Most Spanish-speaking South Americans have come to the U.S.A. in search of greater economic opportunity, although some such as Colombians and Chileans, have also sought shelter from war, military dictatorships, and political instability. In recent times, the people of South America have experienced the most trying period in their history since the days of military dictatorship almost two decades ago. Unraveling economies, rampant unemployment, escalating crime, and social-turmoil-as well as inept rule, abuse of power, and large scale corruption-have not only fueled popular protests that have toppled governments, but have also stimulated immigration the the United States (Ibid.).
Hispanics with roots in Spanish-speaking South America belong largely to the middle and upper-middle classes and reside primarily in urban areas. In 2000, they were most concentrated in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area. As a group, they are generally well-educated. For this reason, they are employed in large numbers in the managerial and professional sector. Very few are employed in agriculture (Ibid).
The Census 2000 figures relative to Americans with roots in Spanish-speaking Central and South America are not very reliable. As with the Dominican population, the Central and South American populations in the U.S.A. are much smaller than experts estimate. Some attribute this to a trend among Hispanics of relinquishing national self-identification and embracing a pan-Latino identity. Many others, however, attribute the under count to the fact that the Census 2000 form did notle include examples of possible ethnic descriptions to guide those filling it out, such as "Salvadoran," or "Nicaraguan," terms that appeared on the 1990 Census form, and a great many simply identified themselves as "Hispanic." Based on the U.S. Census Current Population Survey for 1998 and 2000, the Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research at the University of Albany estimates that the actual size of the various subgroups of Spanish-speaking Central and South Americans in the U.S.A. was much larger in 2000 than what Census 2000 indicates (Ibid).
Relative to how much political clout Hispanics in the U.S.A. have, the following can be said: If political power is measured by the number of Hispanic leaders in all levels of government in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the answer to the question is "mucho." And if it is measured in terms of the significance of Latino voters to the Democrats and the Republicans, then the answer is again "mucho," since both parties acknowledge that the days of alienation and so-called "voter apathy" among Latinos are gone. With this in mind, both parties have been both courting Latinos, who are considered a "swing group," able to be won over by either party, due in part to their religious and demographic diversity. What makes Hispanics such a sought-after voting bloc is the fact that the Hispanic population has been growing at a phenomenal rate, and thus with each passing year, Latinos constitute a greater percentage of the U.S. population. They are projected to eventually represent 14% of the electorate. Also, a good number of Latinos are recent arrivals with no political allegiances at all, and thus their affiliation is up for grabs. Hispanics are also concentrated in a number of key electoral states, including California, Texas, New York, and Florida (Ibid., pp. 283-284).
The question of partisan affiliation among Hispanics in the U.S.A. is a complex one from both a social and theological standpoint. From a social standpoint, the question that is raised is whether Hispanics are participating in a genuine democratic process, or is it what is called often-time in the African-American community in the U.S.A. "the illusion of inclusion?" Is it really a "melting pot," or is it more of "salad bowl" in which Latinos live "side by side" with other ethnic and racial communities in the U.S.A? Based on present trends within the government of the U.S.A., i.e. criminalization, defamation, stereotyping, etc., it is safe to say that Hispanics in the U.S.A. are still being treated with condescension, and paternalism. No one can deny that we are considered, even if in a subconscious and subtle manner, to be "second-class" citizens/residents. As will be seen in subsequent essays, Hispanics constitute at least 30% of the incarcerated population in the U.S.A.
From a theological standpoint, the question is even more complex. The educational, economic, and political "achievements" in the U.S.A. have been realized within the framework of the economic system known as "capitalism," a system in which a small number of people are able to "lord it," so to speak, over the resources which are necessary for survival, and also, one in which the privileged few advance at the expense of the many. Liberation Theology, which has historic roots in Latin America, denounces such a system, which in both our Latin American countries and in the U.S.A., continue to perpetuate the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots."
In tracing the historical origins of Liberation Theology in Latin America, we find that that the end of the 1960's with the crisis of populism and the developmentalist model brought about the advent of a rigorous current of sociological thinking, which unmasked the true causes of underdevelopment. Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin. All nations of the Western world were engaged in a vast process of development; however, it was interdependent and unequal, organized in such a way that the benefits flowed to the already developed countries of the "center" and the disadvantages were meted out to the historically backward and underdeveloped countries of the "periphery." The poverty of Third World countries was the price to be paid for the First World to be able to enjoy the fruits of overabundance (Clodovis and Leonardo Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 68).
If these inequities that our Latino sisters and brothers experienced were the driving-force behind immigration to the U.S.A., they did not cease to exist in the "land of abundance." which like for the Hebrew people, eventually turned out to be for Hispanic people "the land of bondage." The participation in the economic and political life of Hispanics in the U.S.A. is one of engaging in "reformist" approaches to social change. The reformist approach describes placing "band-aids" on the socioeconomic problems that Hispanics and others encounter in the U.S.A. Liberation Theology seeks not to "reform," but rather to "overhaul and restructure" the system. Liberation Theology enables us to see that the "reformist" approach to social change is nothing more than a perpetuation of a dehumanizing social system.
En fin, if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to be fully and genuinely implemented in the Hispanic community in the U.S.A., it cannot be done as long as we take a "paella in the sky" approach to social change. Neither can Hispanics afford to embrace the so-called "prosperity Gospel," that is pervasive in the U.S.A. As Liberation Theology seeks to do in Latin America, the Hispanic Church in the U.S.A. must proclaim and implement within its own faith communities, a Gospel which calls for:
1. Doing theology from the "periphery" and not from the "center." The theology of the Hispanic Church needs to be one which emerges from the continued oppression and suffering in the Hispanic Dialpsora, and not one which is done from those Hispanics who "have made it," so to speak in U.S.A. society.
2. Liberation Theology in the Hispanic Diaspora should impel us to strive for socioeconomic system in which there will no longer be a "center" nor a "periphery". The struggle for the Hispanic Diaspora is a quest for the construction of the Beloved Community, i.e. the Reign of God in Christ.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)