In order to understand why Liberation Theology developed in Latin America, we must first come to grips with its colonial and neo-colonial history. As has been pointed out before, Liberation Theology did not emerge in a vacuum. There were circumstances and reasons as to why we see its emergence and development in this corner of the world. In essence, we will note that Liberation Theology is both an anti-colonial theology which denounces the status quo of economic, military, and political imperialism, as well as a post-colonial theology which seeks to address the concerns and issues prevalent in those societies which either are sovereign or in the process of becoming sovereign.
In his book, "The History of Latin America: Collision of Cultures," Marshall C. Eakins says "Following the lead of Columbus, the Spanish swept across the Caribbean within a generation, conquering and destroying the native peoples in their path. The Spanish moved through the conquest of islands what I call a 'stepping stone process.' They would conquer an island, establish a base of operations, and then move outward from there in a step-by-step pattern, Hispaniola, for example, becoming the staging ground for invading Cuba, and then Cuba for the conquest of Mexico. From island to island, the Spanish replicated the original process in Hispaniola, while adding new features to respond to the different lands and peoples they encountered. In a pattern that would be reproduced across Latin America for the next century, the conquerors divided the spoils-plunder, land, and Indians among themselves. The conquest operated on something of a senior system. The senior members of the expeditions got the best spoils, and those who got the smaller shares, along with those who arrived in the later waves of conquistadors, were pushed outward to find their own riches and to conquer their own lands. Unlike the Portuguese, who consciously set out to build their factories, or trading posts, the Spanish came to conquer, pillage, and then settle as colonists. After the initial conquest, they recognized that all future wealth would have to come from the land, and the key to producing on the land was the exploitation of non-European labor (Eakin, p. 62)."
When put into a historical perspective, Liberation Theology is a theology which emerges within the framework of genocide, land-grabbing colonization, and slave labor. It develops against the backdrop of conquest and eventual marginalization. Liberation Theology is what Luis Rivera-Pagan calls "Theology from the Margins," i.e a theology which is generated among conquered and marginalized people.
Columbus's arrival brought a new economic system that also changed the socio-cultural organization of the indigenous people. The native women were no longer equal to the men; they were raped and taken as objects of possession by the colonizers as a means to subjugate the population. The Church allowed only men as the leaders of religion, and only white Spanish men at that; not even the colonizer's own mixed blood offspring were acceptable as servants of God. Five hundred years later, women ae still submissive to men (Lydia Hernandez in an article "Even Today What Began Five Hundred Years Ago." New Face of the Church in Latin America, Guillermo Cook, ed. Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1994, p. 19).
As the military conquest drew to a close in the sixteenth century, the Spanish and Portuguese turned to making their new possession productive long-term enterprises. Cultivation and exploitation of the land became the primary objective of the developing colonial regimes. Land without labor, however, was useless to the colonizers. The populations of Spain and Portugal were not very large, perhaps some 10 to 11 million, combined in the sixteenth century. The monarchies of both had little interest in a large out-migration of their subjects; rather, they needed them to provide an adequate and compliant labor force in Iberia. Mexico and Peru, on the other hand, had populations that were each possibly double that of Spain and Portugal combined. Quite literally, the Americas were built from the sweat and blood of African and indigenous people. And much of the economic expansion in Europe after 1500 was fueled by the wealth of the Americas produced by this sweat and blood. Out of this coercive labor system emerged the most burdensome legacy of the colonial period-the large landed estate (Eakin, p. 96).
As we continue to examine these negative historical realities in Latin America, we can then begin to understand why our theology is referred to as "a theology of liberation." It is a theology which seeks to advocate from liberation from the oppressive structures which have come into being as a result of imperialistic conquest, genocide, colonization, and slavery.
In the next essay, we will focus on the impact of U.S.A, neo-colonialism in Latin America. The impact of imposition of the U.S.A. structures and subsequent policies will be examined, as we seek to evaluate the need for a theology of liberation in this region.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Thursday, June 20, 2019
The Asian Origins of Latin America
Like it happens often times with other parts of American history, especially North American history, the approach that has been taken, traditionally speaking, is to write history from the standpoint of the conquerors, altogether ignoring the conquered, or at the very least, relegating them to secondary status in terms of their contributions to civilization and historical development. In this essay, I will deal with the Asian origins of this region of the world, for as Dr. Ivan Van Sertima points out, there were people of both African and Asian descent here, thousands of years before the colonizing Europeans were even born. In the previous essays we viewed, in summary fashion, albeit, the pre-European African presence in the Americas. In this essay, we will view, even if in summary fashion, the pre-European Asian presence in the Americas in order to better understand the thrust of Liberation Theology.
Marshall C. Eakin, Professor of History at Vanderbilt University, gives us a gist of this pre-European presence in the Americas. He states "The first Americans arrived in a series of migrations from the Asian continent across the Bering Strait, possibly as far back as 40,000 years ago. The last wave of migrants were the Eskimo or Inuit, who traveled across the frozen expanses of the Arctic about 4,000 years ago. Archaeologists have long debated the dates of the earliest arrivals, with more traditional and conservative scholars arguing against any clear proof of migration before about 12,000 years ago. Although not an archaeologist, I believe that that there is growing evidence, especially from Chile, that the dates should be pushed back at least 20,000 years ago. All agree, however, that by 10,000 years ago, humans occupied most of the Americas from Canada to Tierra del Fuego. The islands of the Caribbean and the plains of southern South America were probably the last major regions to be populated, only 2000 years before the arrival of Columbus. In contrast to the striking diversity of their languages and cultures, Native Americans were extraordinarily homogenous in genetic or biological terms. The blood type of most Native Americans, for example, is O, a type common to more than 80 percent of them. For reasons that are not entirely clear, these early migrants did not bring with them the diseases of the Old World. Some have hypothesized that the cod Arctic passage served as a type of 'filter,' killing off dangerous microbes. None of the Native American populations had exposure to diseases that ravaged the Old World: influenza, small-pox, measles, malaria, yellow fever, plague, typhus. For this lack of exposure and immunity, they would pay a very high price during the European invasion and the conquest which went along with that invasion and the conquest which went along with that invasion (Marshall C. Eakin, The History of Lain America: Collision of Cultures. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, p. 27)."
When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean in 1492, he believed that he had reached the "Indies," something of a generic term for Asia in his day. He called the natives "indios," and this word stuck, entering into the vocabulary of many languages. The term "Native American" has gained wide acceptance in the last few decades, but it is also problematic. The term "America" is also Euro-centric. It is a name given to the New World by a German cartographer in the early sixteenth century to honor Amerigo Vespucci, of the best-known early explorers. Most native groups before the Conquest simply called themselves "the people," and they saw the rest of the population around them as "the Other," to use the parlance of contemporary academics. There is no "politically correct" term to be employed. One of the most radical groups of the 1970's, for example, called it "the American Indian Movement." One growing movement now promotes the term "indigenous peoples." It is one of the great ironies of the early twentieth century that the term "Indian" has now become a generic label adopted by native peoples all across the America to create a sense of solidarity. In effect, they have accepted the lumping of all native peoples together, something the Europeans artificially did in the sixteenth century to peoples with supposedly no sense of common identity or solidarity (Ibid. p. 28).
Recent archaeological finds have pushed back the dates of first occupation and raised interesting possibilities of transoceanic contacts. More and more finds, such as those at Monte Verde in Chile, and the discovery of skeletal remains in the state of Washington, put into question the issue of Asiatic immigrants after 12,000. Clearly the dates should be pushed back, and there is growing evidence for the presence of non-Asiatic influence and genes. Asian migrants formed the basic genetic stock of the Native Americans, but there were probably other transoceanic contacts (Ibid., p. 29).
Whether these pre-European trans-oceanic contacts were fundamental to cultural development is a matter of debate. There are some who hold to the view that the native people of the Americas were too ignorant and unfit to have produced what were clearly the remains of incredibly sophisticated civilizations. They also tend to believe that the Native Americans were incapable of creating great cultures on their own (Ibid.).
I conclude this essay by saying that we can no longer subscribe to the notion that Latin America came into "civilization" as a result of and after the European conquest. The African and Asiatic origins of Latin America need to be weighed if we are to talk about a theology which deals with the oppression of the people of this region during and after the European conquest. The notion of while cultural "superiority" needs to be deconstructed, demythologized, and dismissed for once and for all. The theology that we are dealing with in these essays, did not emerge from the European ivory towers of comfort and speculation, but rather from the colonization and subsequent subjugation of the peoples of the Americas. Let us keep that in mind.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Marshall C. Eakin, Professor of History at Vanderbilt University, gives us a gist of this pre-European presence in the Americas. He states "The first Americans arrived in a series of migrations from the Asian continent across the Bering Strait, possibly as far back as 40,000 years ago. The last wave of migrants were the Eskimo or Inuit, who traveled across the frozen expanses of the Arctic about 4,000 years ago. Archaeologists have long debated the dates of the earliest arrivals, with more traditional and conservative scholars arguing against any clear proof of migration before about 12,000 years ago. Although not an archaeologist, I believe that that there is growing evidence, especially from Chile, that the dates should be pushed back at least 20,000 years ago. All agree, however, that by 10,000 years ago, humans occupied most of the Americas from Canada to Tierra del Fuego. The islands of the Caribbean and the plains of southern South America were probably the last major regions to be populated, only 2000 years before the arrival of Columbus. In contrast to the striking diversity of their languages and cultures, Native Americans were extraordinarily homogenous in genetic or biological terms. The blood type of most Native Americans, for example, is O, a type common to more than 80 percent of them. For reasons that are not entirely clear, these early migrants did not bring with them the diseases of the Old World. Some have hypothesized that the cod Arctic passage served as a type of 'filter,' killing off dangerous microbes. None of the Native American populations had exposure to diseases that ravaged the Old World: influenza, small-pox, measles, malaria, yellow fever, plague, typhus. For this lack of exposure and immunity, they would pay a very high price during the European invasion and the conquest which went along with that invasion and the conquest which went along with that invasion (Marshall C. Eakin, The History of Lain America: Collision of Cultures. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, p. 27)."
When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean in 1492, he believed that he had reached the "Indies," something of a generic term for Asia in his day. He called the natives "indios," and this word stuck, entering into the vocabulary of many languages. The term "Native American" has gained wide acceptance in the last few decades, but it is also problematic. The term "America" is also Euro-centric. It is a name given to the New World by a German cartographer in the early sixteenth century to honor Amerigo Vespucci, of the best-known early explorers. Most native groups before the Conquest simply called themselves "the people," and they saw the rest of the population around them as "the Other," to use the parlance of contemporary academics. There is no "politically correct" term to be employed. One of the most radical groups of the 1970's, for example, called it "the American Indian Movement." One growing movement now promotes the term "indigenous peoples." It is one of the great ironies of the early twentieth century that the term "Indian" has now become a generic label adopted by native peoples all across the America to create a sense of solidarity. In effect, they have accepted the lumping of all native peoples together, something the Europeans artificially did in the sixteenth century to peoples with supposedly no sense of common identity or solidarity (Ibid. p. 28).
Recent archaeological finds have pushed back the dates of first occupation and raised interesting possibilities of transoceanic contacts. More and more finds, such as those at Monte Verde in Chile, and the discovery of skeletal remains in the state of Washington, put into question the issue of Asiatic immigrants after 12,000. Clearly the dates should be pushed back, and there is growing evidence for the presence of non-Asiatic influence and genes. Asian migrants formed the basic genetic stock of the Native Americans, but there were probably other transoceanic contacts (Ibid., p. 29).
Whether these pre-European trans-oceanic contacts were fundamental to cultural development is a matter of debate. There are some who hold to the view that the native people of the Americas were too ignorant and unfit to have produced what were clearly the remains of incredibly sophisticated civilizations. They also tend to believe that the Native Americans were incapable of creating great cultures on their own (Ibid.).
I conclude this essay by saying that we can no longer subscribe to the notion that Latin America came into "civilization" as a result of and after the European conquest. The African and Asiatic origins of Latin America need to be weighed if we are to talk about a theology which deals with the oppression of the people of this region during and after the European conquest. The notion of while cultural "superiority" needs to be deconstructed, demythologized, and dismissed for once and for all. The theology that we are dealing with in these essays, did not emerge from the European ivory towers of comfort and speculation, but rather from the colonization and subsequent subjugation of the peoples of the Americas. Let us keep that in mind.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Monday, June 10, 2019
The Latin American Historical Context of Liberation Theology
One of the most important things that must be taken into account with any given stream of theological thought is its historic context. Close attention must be given to the geographical soil in which a particular theology emerged, and also, how the history of the region played a role in the development of that particular theological system. Liberation Theology is no different. It emerged and developed within the geographical and historical confines of a certain region and a certain people. And while there are different "Liberation Theologies," which are unique to certain regions and certain social classes, in this essay, I will devote attention to the Latin American context.
A Euro-centric approach to the history of Latin America has dominated the majority of the literature in this region. It is as of Latin America was dormant waiting for the Europeans to come and "discover" it in order to even be mentioned in history books. It would be very easy to assume that prior to the arrival of the Europeans in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, that there was nothing of historical significance taking place in that part of the world. Since the history of the Americas has been written for the most part from the ethno-centric standpoint of Europe, it is necessary to debunk and demythologize the notions that accompany this mindset.
The collision of three peoples-Native Americans, Europeans, and Africans-gave birth to Latin America. For thousands of years prior to the European arrivals, the Native Americans had lived in isolation from the inhabitants of what became known as the "Old World." The peoples of Africa, Asia, and Europe had fought, traded, and otherwise intermingled since the rise of the human species throughout these regions (Marshall C. Eakin, The History of Latin America: A Collision of Cultures. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, p. 1).
It is claimed that in spite of this, however, that they had lost any sustained contact with the populations of the Americas for millenia. Eakin is of the position that on October 12, 1942, Columbus "reunited" the inhabitants of the Old World and the New World and initiated an ongoing exchange of humans, plants, animals, and microbes that created (and continually re-creates) Latin America. The collision of Native Americans, Europeans, and Africans, like three powerful streams converging to produce a roaring river, mixed the three peoples into a dazzling variety of combinations, producing something new and unique in world history. As the decades and centuries passed, the turbulent river gradually split into many different streams, but all had their origins in the great waterway formed by the initial clash of these three groups (Ibid.).
Most of us, who have been born, raised, and "educated" in the Americas (especially in the U.S.A.) have been raised to believe that Columbus "discovered America." The notion that has been given to us is that the "real history" of the Americas begins with the Europeans. In this essay, I will deconstruct this falsehood and myth.
On one of Columbus's voyages, he came upon evidence of the contact between Guinea and the New World. From a settlement along the South American coast, on which his companions landed on August 7, 1498, the natives brought handkerchiefs of cotton very symmetrically woven and worked in colors like those brought from Guinea, from the rivers of Sierra Leone, and of no difference (John Boyd Thatcher, Christopher Columbus: His Life, His Work, His Remains. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1903, Vol. 1, p. 392).
Not only were they alike in style and color, but also in function. These handkerchiefs, he said, resembled almayzars-Guinea headdresses and loin cloths. "Each one is a cloth so woven in colors that it appeared an almayzar with one tied on the head and the other covering the rest (Ibid., p. 393)."
These were among the earliest documented traces of the pre-Columbian African presence. Within the first and second decades of the so-called "discovery" of African settlements and artifacts were to be sighted by the Spanish. When they were not reported as mere asides, they were ignored and suppressed. But history is not easily buried. In the oral traditions of the Native Americans, and the Guinea-Africans, in the footnotes of the Spanish and Portuguese documents, part of the story lies. Another part lies embalmed under the American and African on earth. As this earth is now being lifted by archaeological picks and trowels, a new skeleton emerges of the history of these adjacent worlds (Ivan Van Sertima, They Came Before Columbus. New York: Random House, 1976, p. 16).
Inspired by his encounter with the southern sea, Vasco Nunez de Balboa and his companions decided to push further south along the isthmus. They came upon an indigenous settlement where to their astonishment, they found a number of war captives who were plainly and unmistakably African. These were tall black men of military bearing who were waging war with the natives from some settlement in the neighborhood. Balboa asked the natives whence they got them, but they could not tell, nor did they know more than this, that men of color were living nearby, and that they were constantly waging war with them (Lopez de Gomara, Historia de Mexico,Anvers 1554).
Peter Martyr, one of the earliest historians of America reports on this remarkable encounter between the Spanish conquerors and the blacks. "The Spaniards," wrote Martyr, "found Negroes in this province. They only live one day's march from Quarequa and they are fierce." It is thought that Negro pirates from Ethiopia established themselves after the wreck of their ships in these mountains. The natives of the Quarequa carry an incessant war with the Negroes. Massacre or slavery is the alternate fortunes of these peoples (F.A. Mac Nutt, ed. and trans. De Orbo Novo: The Eight Decades of Peter Martyr d'Anhera,. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1912).
An encounter with New World Negroes was also reported off Colombia. Fray Gregoria Garcia, a priest of the Dominican order who spent nine years in Peru in the early sixteenth century, pinpoints an island off Cartagena, Columbia as the place where the Spanish first encountered blacks in the New World. Once again, the blacks were found as captive among the natives. In a book silenced by the Spanish Inquisition, Garcia wrote "Here were found slaves of the lord-Negroes-who were the first our people saw in the Indies (Alexander von Wuthenau, The Art of Terracotta Pottery in Pre-Columbian Central and South America. New York: Crown Publishers, 1969, p, 167)."
Darien and Columbia were easily accessible to African ship-wrecked mariners. These places lie within the terminal area of currents that move with great power and swiftness from Africa to America. These currents may be linked to marine conveyor belts. Once you enter them you are transported (even against your will, even with no navigational skills) from one bank of the ocean to the other. It is important to point out how many small, isolated black communities have been found on the American seaboard at the terminal points of these currents. Alophonse de Quatrefages, professor of anthropology in the Museum of Natural History in Paris, noted in his study, the Human Species (published in 1905) that "black populations have been found in America in very small numbers and as isolated tribes in the midst of different nations. Such are the Charuas of Brazil, the black Caribees of Saint Vincent in the Gulf of Mexico, the Jamassi of Florida, etc. Such again is the tribe of which Balboa saw some representatives in his passage of the Isthmus of Darien in 1513. Yet it would seem, from the expressions made use of by Gomara, that these were Negroes. This type is well-known to the Spanish (Alphonse de Quatefages, The Human Species. New York: Appleton, 1905, p. 200)."
De Quatrefages shows how the location of these African New World communities coincides with the terminal points of Africa-to-America currents or sea roads. "We only find these black men in America those places washed by Kouro-Siwo, a Pacific current known as the black stream and the Equatorial current of the Atlantic and its subdivisions. A glance at the maps of Captain Kerhallet will at once show the rarity and distribution of these tribes. It is evident that the more or less pure black elements have been brought from Africa through some accident at sea; they have there mixed with the local races, and have formed those small isolated groups which are distinguished by their color from the surrounding tribes (Ibid. pp. 201-202)."
These Spanish sightings of African in the New World and the later discovery by anthropologists and distinctive black settlements along the American seaboard (outside of the mainstream of the post-Columbian slave complex) constitute only one strand of the evidence of pre-Columbian contact between Africa and America. An overwhelming body of new evidence is now emerging from several disciplines, evidence that could not be verified and interpreted before, in the light of the infancy of archaeology and the great racial and intellectual prejudice. The most remarkable examples of this evidence are the realistic portraitures of Negro-American in clay gold, and stone unearthed in pre-Columbia strata in Central and South America (Van Sertima, p. 26).
It has only been in recent decades, however, that this evidence has begun to filter down to the general public. When in 1862, the head of a black man was found in the Canton of Tuxtia, near the place where the most ancient of pre-Columbian settlements were discovered, the historian Orozco y Berra declared that there was bound to be an important and intimate relationship between Mexicans and Africans in the pre-Columbian past ( M. Orozco y Berra, Historia Antigua y de la Conquista de Mexico. G.A. Esteva: 1880, Vol. 1, p. 109).
In his time, however, the Negroid heads could not be conclusively dated. We know now, without a shadow of a doubt, through the most modern methods of dating, that some of the Negro stone heads, found among the Olmecs, and in other parts of Mexico and Central America, are from as early as 800 to 700 B.C.E. Clearly American history has to be reconstructed to account for this irrefutable piece of archaeological data. Explanations, not excuses, have got to be found. The time has come to disperse the cloud of silence and skepticism that has settled over this subject for over a century (Van Sertima, p. 26).
The purpose of this essay has been to present a non-European approach to Latin American history. The primary reason for this is to dispel the notion of Caucasian cultural superiority. Further research and study will reveal that Africans and their descendants in pre-Columbian America were not the brute savages depicted in American history books, nor were they intellectually underdeveloped. The reader/researcher will discover that they were a people who were very skilled, and that together with the indigenous people of the Americas, they built up a great civilization.
For Liberation Theology to be understood in the Latin American context, one must take into account the history of the groups who lived and worked in this context. One must also understand the impact of European colonization on this region of the world in order to know and understand why a movement such as Liberation Theology developed in the first place. Only as one studies these facts, can a non-colonial theology be understood and properly evaluated.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan a. Carmona
A Euro-centric approach to the history of Latin America has dominated the majority of the literature in this region. It is as of Latin America was dormant waiting for the Europeans to come and "discover" it in order to even be mentioned in history books. It would be very easy to assume that prior to the arrival of the Europeans in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, that there was nothing of historical significance taking place in that part of the world. Since the history of the Americas has been written for the most part from the ethno-centric standpoint of Europe, it is necessary to debunk and demythologize the notions that accompany this mindset.
The collision of three peoples-Native Americans, Europeans, and Africans-gave birth to Latin America. For thousands of years prior to the European arrivals, the Native Americans had lived in isolation from the inhabitants of what became known as the "Old World." The peoples of Africa, Asia, and Europe had fought, traded, and otherwise intermingled since the rise of the human species throughout these regions (Marshall C. Eakin, The History of Latin America: A Collision of Cultures. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, p. 1).
It is claimed that in spite of this, however, that they had lost any sustained contact with the populations of the Americas for millenia. Eakin is of the position that on October 12, 1942, Columbus "reunited" the inhabitants of the Old World and the New World and initiated an ongoing exchange of humans, plants, animals, and microbes that created (and continually re-creates) Latin America. The collision of Native Americans, Europeans, and Africans, like three powerful streams converging to produce a roaring river, mixed the three peoples into a dazzling variety of combinations, producing something new and unique in world history. As the decades and centuries passed, the turbulent river gradually split into many different streams, but all had their origins in the great waterway formed by the initial clash of these three groups (Ibid.).
Most of us, who have been born, raised, and "educated" in the Americas (especially in the U.S.A.) have been raised to believe that Columbus "discovered America." The notion that has been given to us is that the "real history" of the Americas begins with the Europeans. In this essay, I will deconstruct this falsehood and myth.
On one of Columbus's voyages, he came upon evidence of the contact between Guinea and the New World. From a settlement along the South American coast, on which his companions landed on August 7, 1498, the natives brought handkerchiefs of cotton very symmetrically woven and worked in colors like those brought from Guinea, from the rivers of Sierra Leone, and of no difference (John Boyd Thatcher, Christopher Columbus: His Life, His Work, His Remains. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1903, Vol. 1, p. 392).
Not only were they alike in style and color, but also in function. These handkerchiefs, he said, resembled almayzars-Guinea headdresses and loin cloths. "Each one is a cloth so woven in colors that it appeared an almayzar with one tied on the head and the other covering the rest (Ibid., p. 393)."
These were among the earliest documented traces of the pre-Columbian African presence. Within the first and second decades of the so-called "discovery" of African settlements and artifacts were to be sighted by the Spanish. When they were not reported as mere asides, they were ignored and suppressed. But history is not easily buried. In the oral traditions of the Native Americans, and the Guinea-Africans, in the footnotes of the Spanish and Portuguese documents, part of the story lies. Another part lies embalmed under the American and African on earth. As this earth is now being lifted by archaeological picks and trowels, a new skeleton emerges of the history of these adjacent worlds (Ivan Van Sertima, They Came Before Columbus. New York: Random House, 1976, p. 16).
Inspired by his encounter with the southern sea, Vasco Nunez de Balboa and his companions decided to push further south along the isthmus. They came upon an indigenous settlement where to their astonishment, they found a number of war captives who were plainly and unmistakably African. These were tall black men of military bearing who were waging war with the natives from some settlement in the neighborhood. Balboa asked the natives whence they got them, but they could not tell, nor did they know more than this, that men of color were living nearby, and that they were constantly waging war with them (Lopez de Gomara, Historia de Mexico,Anvers 1554).
Peter Martyr, one of the earliest historians of America reports on this remarkable encounter between the Spanish conquerors and the blacks. "The Spaniards," wrote Martyr, "found Negroes in this province. They only live one day's march from Quarequa and they are fierce." It is thought that Negro pirates from Ethiopia established themselves after the wreck of their ships in these mountains. The natives of the Quarequa carry an incessant war with the Negroes. Massacre or slavery is the alternate fortunes of these peoples (F.A. Mac Nutt, ed. and trans. De Orbo Novo: The Eight Decades of Peter Martyr d'Anhera,. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1912).
An encounter with New World Negroes was also reported off Colombia. Fray Gregoria Garcia, a priest of the Dominican order who spent nine years in Peru in the early sixteenth century, pinpoints an island off Cartagena, Columbia as the place where the Spanish first encountered blacks in the New World. Once again, the blacks were found as captive among the natives. In a book silenced by the Spanish Inquisition, Garcia wrote "Here were found slaves of the lord-Negroes-who were the first our people saw in the Indies (Alexander von Wuthenau, The Art of Terracotta Pottery in Pre-Columbian Central and South America. New York: Crown Publishers, 1969, p, 167)."
Darien and Columbia were easily accessible to African ship-wrecked mariners. These places lie within the terminal area of currents that move with great power and swiftness from Africa to America. These currents may be linked to marine conveyor belts. Once you enter them you are transported (even against your will, even with no navigational skills) from one bank of the ocean to the other. It is important to point out how many small, isolated black communities have been found on the American seaboard at the terminal points of these currents. Alophonse de Quatrefages, professor of anthropology in the Museum of Natural History in Paris, noted in his study, the Human Species (published in 1905) that "black populations have been found in America in very small numbers and as isolated tribes in the midst of different nations. Such are the Charuas of Brazil, the black Caribees of Saint Vincent in the Gulf of Mexico, the Jamassi of Florida, etc. Such again is the tribe of which Balboa saw some representatives in his passage of the Isthmus of Darien in 1513. Yet it would seem, from the expressions made use of by Gomara, that these were Negroes. This type is well-known to the Spanish (Alphonse de Quatefages, The Human Species. New York: Appleton, 1905, p. 200)."
De Quatrefages shows how the location of these African New World communities coincides with the terminal points of Africa-to-America currents or sea roads. "We only find these black men in America those places washed by Kouro-Siwo, a Pacific current known as the black stream and the Equatorial current of the Atlantic and its subdivisions. A glance at the maps of Captain Kerhallet will at once show the rarity and distribution of these tribes. It is evident that the more or less pure black elements have been brought from Africa through some accident at sea; they have there mixed with the local races, and have formed those small isolated groups which are distinguished by their color from the surrounding tribes (Ibid. pp. 201-202)."
These Spanish sightings of African in the New World and the later discovery by anthropologists and distinctive black settlements along the American seaboard (outside of the mainstream of the post-Columbian slave complex) constitute only one strand of the evidence of pre-Columbian contact between Africa and America. An overwhelming body of new evidence is now emerging from several disciplines, evidence that could not be verified and interpreted before, in the light of the infancy of archaeology and the great racial and intellectual prejudice. The most remarkable examples of this evidence are the realistic portraitures of Negro-American in clay gold, and stone unearthed in pre-Columbia strata in Central and South America (Van Sertima, p. 26).
It has only been in recent decades, however, that this evidence has begun to filter down to the general public. When in 1862, the head of a black man was found in the Canton of Tuxtia, near the place where the most ancient of pre-Columbian settlements were discovered, the historian Orozco y Berra declared that there was bound to be an important and intimate relationship between Mexicans and Africans in the pre-Columbian past ( M. Orozco y Berra, Historia Antigua y de la Conquista de Mexico. G.A. Esteva: 1880, Vol. 1, p. 109).
In his time, however, the Negroid heads could not be conclusively dated. We know now, without a shadow of a doubt, through the most modern methods of dating, that some of the Negro stone heads, found among the Olmecs, and in other parts of Mexico and Central America, are from as early as 800 to 700 B.C.E. Clearly American history has to be reconstructed to account for this irrefutable piece of archaeological data. Explanations, not excuses, have got to be found. The time has come to disperse the cloud of silence and skepticism that has settled over this subject for over a century (Van Sertima, p. 26).
The purpose of this essay has been to present a non-European approach to Latin American history. The primary reason for this is to dispel the notion of Caucasian cultural superiority. Further research and study will reveal that Africans and their descendants in pre-Columbian America were not the brute savages depicted in American history books, nor were they intellectually underdeveloped. The reader/researcher will discover that they were a people who were very skilled, and that together with the indigenous people of the Americas, they built up a great civilization.
For Liberation Theology to be understood in the Latin American context, one must take into account the history of the groups who lived and worked in this context. One must also understand the impact of European colonization on this region of the world in order to know and understand why a movement such as Liberation Theology developed in the first place. Only as one studies these facts, can a non-colonial theology be understood and properly evaluated.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan a. Carmona
Thursday, June 6, 2019
The Nature of Liberation Theology
In order to evaluate any theology, one must first deal with its nature as well as its contents. One must ask questions such as what economic, political, and social structures does it legitimize, what are the issues that it addresses, and what type of praxis does it support? Liberation Theology is not immune to these kinds of considerations.
The questions that we can raise are "Why even bother having a Liberation Theology?. Why can't Liberation Theology be considered another branch of theology? Why can't it be incorporated into 'normal,' 'standard,' or 'universal' theology?" There is an underlying assumption that existing theology, if, indeed one exists, is 'normal,' 'standard,' and 'universal.' Those who hold to this position tend to assume that any theology which does not conform to this supposedly universal theology is "outside the realm," and subsequently to be considered as "heretical and unsound." In this essay, we will address this presumptuousness and explore the nature of Liberation Theology.
Let be begin by reiterating what I have said in previous essays, i.e. that Liberation Theology is not just another school of theological thought. It is a movement that will continue as long as there is injustice, oppression, and suffering in the world. It is not a passing fad. Neither is it a "fly by night" concoction of disgruntled people. It goes much further than that. In nature, it engages with the existential reality of people living in certain, economic, political, and social conditions.
Euro-American theology, which many assume to be "universally valid," is a colonial theology. It is a theology which assumes Caucasian cultural, intellectual, and moral superiority. It is a theology, which by and large, emerges from the Euro-American axis of economic, military, political, and social hegemony. It is, in general, a bed partner of the Euro-centric approach to and view of history. The notion of Caucasian superiority has and continues to permeate the curriculum of our educational institutions, including the theological schools. While it claims, to a certain point to be "biblically based," its biblical hermeneutic is one which emerges from the standpoint of power. It is a theology
that it general, has emerged and been developed independently from the experience of suffering people. The "conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist" component of it, tends to lay emphasis on the "hereafter." It tends to support the economic system known as "capitalism," which in general, is a system which allows some to "prosper" at the expense of the many, and also supports the ever-widening cleavage between the "haves" and the "have nots." Even its most "liberal" components reflect an attitude of condescension and paternalism towards people of the so-called "Third World."
Liberation Theology, on the other hand, emerges from the experience of suffering, and, is in fact, an anti-colonial theology. It does not support colonialism, nor does it endorse an economic system which by its very nature prevents people from having access to the resources which are necessary for survival with dignity. Liberation Theology takes it thrust from the Gospel, which in essence, is a message of equality.
Unlike "liberal" Euro-American theology, Liberation Theology does not seek to "reform" the economic, political, and social structures of Latin America, and instead seeks to promote a total restructuring and revamping of the present system, so as to generate full equality for all. Because of its emphasis on egalitarianism, many people (especially those in power) have come to suspect Liberation Theology as a "Communist theology," or at the very least, a "Marxist infiltration" into Christian theology.
New ways of theological thought and praxis have been taking shape in Latin America, in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Afro-America, and the Hispanic Diaspora in the U.S.A. Theological initiatives been flowering throughout the oppressed world, and the struggle for the pursuit of human freedom as the gift of the God that wills all persons to be free, has been gaining momentum. The new wave of articulation of the faith and the search for common dialogue and solidarity among Third World theologians have made an impressive mark on the consciousness of Third World Christians. African American Theology, Minjung Theology, Liberation Theology, and Emancipatory Theology have all been promoted as authentic expressions of understanding the faith in Third World contexts. Local theologies proclaim the Gospel of freedom as the essential meaning of the person and work of Jesus Christ. A central theme is Paul's dictum in Galatians 5:1 "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast, therefore, and do not submit to a yoke of slavery (Kortright Davis, Emancipation Still Comin. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990, 105).".
There are some who may want to think of Liberation Theology as "theology of resentment," or perhaps a "theology of sour grapes," i.e. a theology which reflects bad will and resentment against Western imperial theology. Others may even think of it as a "theology of emotion," reflecting blind and uninformed passion, and perhaps even a theology of "revenge" against the West. I humbly and respectfully submit that it is neither of these. Liberation Theology, while emerging from the reality of oppression and suffering, also reflects rigorous and serious engagement with the Scriptures and with the traditions. Any one familiar with the literature in the field will note that contrary to the notion that some may have, Liberation Theology also reflects rigorous scholarship in that the vast majority of its writers are conversant with Western imperial theology.
Like Western theology, Liberation Theology has an ethical/moral dimension. It seeks to take the essence of the moral imperative of the Gospel, and apply them to Christian living in our time. This ethical/moral dimension seeks to include and integrate the perspective of the poor rather than to reflect a set of ethics delivered from "the top down." Like Liberation Theology as a whole, liberation ethics reflect a "bottom up" theology, i.e. a theology which comes not from the authority of the social institutions, but rather from the grassroots community within the church and society.
The ethics and morality of Liberation Theology do not have a privatistic thrust. What they seek to do is to lead us to a wider challenge: the building of a new society and the ways that might lead to it (Antonio Moser and Bernardino Leers, Moral Theology: Dead Ends and Alternatives. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 60).
The incursion of the poor into theological and ecclesial consciousness is not really a new phenomenon; it has taken place in previous eras. The novelty now is in their strength, intensity and breadth of the phenomenon. Such a development has come about because the "modern world" with its resources and its apparent abundance has transformed the destitution imposed on so many millions of human beings into a scandal to the Christian conscience (Ibid.)."
The problems reflected by the morality of the manuals (traditions) and by renewed morality are human problems, and as such affect the whole of humankind. Nevertheless, they do not affect everyone in the same way and to the same extent. It is not a matter of devising one moral theology for the impoverished and another one for the more fortunate. It is a question of redressing the balance, bringing the problems of the impoverished to the fore, as well as making sure that all moral problems are addressed in a fairer way. This means not rejecting the valid intuitions of the morality and of renewed morality, but basically re-working them, in such a way that their most evangelical aspects can be brought out. This means that the more fortunate are not left out-but deeply challenged (A. Melo, Classe Media E Opcao Preferencial Pelos Pobres. REB 43, 1083).
The morality of the traditions specialized in resolving cases with individuals as its horizons. Renewed morality broadened this horizon, basing itself on human, and to some extent, social sciences. But neither system (traditional or renewed) gave enough space to the social level. Both are in effect, micro-moralities, even if broadened (Moser and Leers, p. 63).
The liberation model of morality lays stress on the social element: not as an exclusive angle from which to approach what it means to be human, but as the basic perspective which leads to a better understanding of the individual and the personal spheres. Without denying personal responsibility, it sees individuals as forming part of a greater whole and their behavior understood as stemming from this greater whole (Ibid.).
A new society cannot be built on moral norms, we need to avoid "voluntarism." Society has mechanisms which normally even contradict moral norms. Nevertheless, because it operates on the level of conscience, moral education can have an effect on society. Its influence can be positive or negative, a force for change or a force for conservatism. It is in this sense that education for practice of justice and love can be put forward as a way to usher in the creation of a new society (Ibid., p, 65).
En fin, in order for one to evaluate Liberation Theology, one must have not only a knowledge of its historical origins and contents, but also a familiarity with its nature. This means asking questions such as how does it proceed to address the issues which are of concern to it, and also, how does the Liberation approach differ from the classical approach and that of renewed morality? What type of praxis does it support? How does Liberation Theology go over and beyond renewed or reformed morality? These are the basic questions that constitute the challenges for Liberation Theology now and in the future.
This essay is submitted in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
The questions that we can raise are "Why even bother having a Liberation Theology?. Why can't Liberation Theology be considered another branch of theology? Why can't it be incorporated into 'normal,' 'standard,' or 'universal' theology?" There is an underlying assumption that existing theology, if, indeed one exists, is 'normal,' 'standard,' and 'universal.' Those who hold to this position tend to assume that any theology which does not conform to this supposedly universal theology is "outside the realm," and subsequently to be considered as "heretical and unsound." In this essay, we will address this presumptuousness and explore the nature of Liberation Theology.
Let be begin by reiterating what I have said in previous essays, i.e. that Liberation Theology is not just another school of theological thought. It is a movement that will continue as long as there is injustice, oppression, and suffering in the world. It is not a passing fad. Neither is it a "fly by night" concoction of disgruntled people. It goes much further than that. In nature, it engages with the existential reality of people living in certain, economic, political, and social conditions.
Euro-American theology, which many assume to be "universally valid," is a colonial theology. It is a theology which assumes Caucasian cultural, intellectual, and moral superiority. It is a theology, which by and large, emerges from the Euro-American axis of economic, military, political, and social hegemony. It is, in general, a bed partner of the Euro-centric approach to and view of history. The notion of Caucasian superiority has and continues to permeate the curriculum of our educational institutions, including the theological schools. While it claims, to a certain point to be "biblically based," its biblical hermeneutic is one which emerges from the standpoint of power. It is a theology
that it general, has emerged and been developed independently from the experience of suffering people. The "conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist" component of it, tends to lay emphasis on the "hereafter." It tends to support the economic system known as "capitalism," which in general, is a system which allows some to "prosper" at the expense of the many, and also supports the ever-widening cleavage between the "haves" and the "have nots." Even its most "liberal" components reflect an attitude of condescension and paternalism towards people of the so-called "Third World."
Liberation Theology, on the other hand, emerges from the experience of suffering, and, is in fact, an anti-colonial theology. It does not support colonialism, nor does it endorse an economic system which by its very nature prevents people from having access to the resources which are necessary for survival with dignity. Liberation Theology takes it thrust from the Gospel, which in essence, is a message of equality.
Unlike "liberal" Euro-American theology, Liberation Theology does not seek to "reform" the economic, political, and social structures of Latin America, and instead seeks to promote a total restructuring and revamping of the present system, so as to generate full equality for all. Because of its emphasis on egalitarianism, many people (especially those in power) have come to suspect Liberation Theology as a "Communist theology," or at the very least, a "Marxist infiltration" into Christian theology.
New ways of theological thought and praxis have been taking shape in Latin America, in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Afro-America, and the Hispanic Diaspora in the U.S.A. Theological initiatives been flowering throughout the oppressed world, and the struggle for the pursuit of human freedom as the gift of the God that wills all persons to be free, has been gaining momentum. The new wave of articulation of the faith and the search for common dialogue and solidarity among Third World theologians have made an impressive mark on the consciousness of Third World Christians. African American Theology, Minjung Theology, Liberation Theology, and Emancipatory Theology have all been promoted as authentic expressions of understanding the faith in Third World contexts. Local theologies proclaim the Gospel of freedom as the essential meaning of the person and work of Jesus Christ. A central theme is Paul's dictum in Galatians 5:1 "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast, therefore, and do not submit to a yoke of slavery (Kortright Davis, Emancipation Still Comin. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990, 105).".
There are some who may want to think of Liberation Theology as "theology of resentment," or perhaps a "theology of sour grapes," i.e. a theology which reflects bad will and resentment against Western imperial theology. Others may even think of it as a "theology of emotion," reflecting blind and uninformed passion, and perhaps even a theology of "revenge" against the West. I humbly and respectfully submit that it is neither of these. Liberation Theology, while emerging from the reality of oppression and suffering, also reflects rigorous and serious engagement with the Scriptures and with the traditions. Any one familiar with the literature in the field will note that contrary to the notion that some may have, Liberation Theology also reflects rigorous scholarship in that the vast majority of its writers are conversant with Western imperial theology.
Like Western theology, Liberation Theology has an ethical/moral dimension. It seeks to take the essence of the moral imperative of the Gospel, and apply them to Christian living in our time. This ethical/moral dimension seeks to include and integrate the perspective of the poor rather than to reflect a set of ethics delivered from "the top down." Like Liberation Theology as a whole, liberation ethics reflect a "bottom up" theology, i.e. a theology which comes not from the authority of the social institutions, but rather from the grassroots community within the church and society.
The ethics and morality of Liberation Theology do not have a privatistic thrust. What they seek to do is to lead us to a wider challenge: the building of a new society and the ways that might lead to it (Antonio Moser and Bernardino Leers, Moral Theology: Dead Ends and Alternatives. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 60).
The incursion of the poor into theological and ecclesial consciousness is not really a new phenomenon; it has taken place in previous eras. The novelty now is in their strength, intensity and breadth of the phenomenon. Such a development has come about because the "modern world" with its resources and its apparent abundance has transformed the destitution imposed on so many millions of human beings into a scandal to the Christian conscience (Ibid.)."
The problems reflected by the morality of the manuals (traditions) and by renewed morality are human problems, and as such affect the whole of humankind. Nevertheless, they do not affect everyone in the same way and to the same extent. It is not a matter of devising one moral theology for the impoverished and another one for the more fortunate. It is a question of redressing the balance, bringing the problems of the impoverished to the fore, as well as making sure that all moral problems are addressed in a fairer way. This means not rejecting the valid intuitions of the morality and of renewed morality, but basically re-working them, in such a way that their most evangelical aspects can be brought out. This means that the more fortunate are not left out-but deeply challenged (A. Melo, Classe Media E Opcao Preferencial Pelos Pobres. REB 43, 1083).
The morality of the traditions specialized in resolving cases with individuals as its horizons. Renewed morality broadened this horizon, basing itself on human, and to some extent, social sciences. But neither system (traditional or renewed) gave enough space to the social level. Both are in effect, micro-moralities, even if broadened (Moser and Leers, p. 63).
The liberation model of morality lays stress on the social element: not as an exclusive angle from which to approach what it means to be human, but as the basic perspective which leads to a better understanding of the individual and the personal spheres. Without denying personal responsibility, it sees individuals as forming part of a greater whole and their behavior understood as stemming from this greater whole (Ibid.).
A new society cannot be built on moral norms, we need to avoid "voluntarism." Society has mechanisms which normally even contradict moral norms. Nevertheless, because it operates on the level of conscience, moral education can have an effect on society. Its influence can be positive or negative, a force for change or a force for conservatism. It is in this sense that education for practice of justice and love can be put forward as a way to usher in the creation of a new society (Ibid., p, 65).
En fin, in order for one to evaluate Liberation Theology, one must have not only a knowledge of its historical origins and contents, but also a familiarity with its nature. This means asking questions such as how does it proceed to address the issues which are of concern to it, and also, how does the Liberation approach differ from the classical approach and that of renewed morality? What type of praxis does it support? How does Liberation Theology go over and beyond renewed or reformed morality? These are the basic questions that constitute the challenges for Liberation Theology now and in the future.
This essay is submitted in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Monday, June 3, 2019
Diversity in Liberation Theology
At the beginning of this series of essays, I had indicated that there is no one "Liberation Theology." Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination. There is as much diversity and variety in Liberation Theology as there is in any other theology. The one fundamental difference between Liberation Theology and any other theology is that Liberation Theology, as has been previously pointed out, is not merely another school of thought. Liberation Theology is a movement that will remain alive as long as there is injustice, oppression, and suffering in the world.
I will address the question of diversity in Latin American Theology by referring to an article in Rosino Gibellini's book, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. The article is written by three leading theologians of whom I've previously made mention of. They are Hugo Assmann, Gustavo Gutierrez, and Juan Luis Segundo.
It should be obvious to the reader of this article 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 reflective of the struggle of Latin Americans against dehumanizing structures. It is important to emphasize 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 situations, both in socio-political and Christian terms (Hugo Assmann, "The Power of Christ in History," Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. Rosino Gibellini, ed. 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 contribution 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 this world. He refers to this Christ as the "poor Christ with whom those who seek to establish solidarity with the oppressed 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 to God's work in history. He identifies the presence and guidance of God in the historical events which are taking place (Segundo in Gibellini, 53). I am not suggesting that contradiction exists between the two concerns. I am simply pointing to the differences that Gutierrez and Segundo take in relation to the study about the person and the work of Christ.
Assmann goes further than both Gutierrez and Segundo in dealing with Christology, While the implications of what all three say appear to be 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 (Ibid. p. 138). Assmann sees no immediate prospect for 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 (Ibid.)."
While Assmann, Gutierrez, and Segundo each attempt to speak of the Christ within the Latin American context, each seems to have different emphasis. Assmann is concerned with how to construct the image of Christ in such a way that the diversity in the Latin American situation will be reflected and addressed. 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 previously noted, I do not think that these approaches are contradictory. They are complementary to each 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 approaches 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 the Christian faith. He describes the social order in Latin America as economically, politically, and ideologically designed by a few for their own benefit (Ibid., p. 1). Gutierrez says that a discovery has been made of the reality within the context of the revolutionary struggle. He states that this struggle call the existing order into question. He also says that the goal of the struggle is to bring about an egalitarian society. Gutierrez describes the struggle describes as taking place between those who are on the top and those who are on the bottom rung of the socio-economic latter. It is rather clear that he is referring to the differences that exist between the social classes in Latin America. His specific concern is those who are working for the benefit of the few. He refers to them as "members of a social class which is overtly or covertly exploited by another social class (Ibid., p. 8)."
Gutierrez then states that the Church must identify with these members in 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 is more specific in stating that the problem is making the choice between a capitalist society on the one hand, and a socialist society on the other (Ibid., p. 242).
Segundo states clearly that though a move towards egalitarianism must be made, the choice is not merely one of opting for well-developed capitalism or a well-developed socialism. He believes that the choice must be made from the Latin American context as an underdeveloped continent (Ibid., p. 249). This statement harmonizes with Gutierrez's option 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 mans of production is taken away from individuals and handed over to higher institutions whose main concern is the higher good (Ibid., p. 239)." He also adds 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 (Ibid., p. 139)."
What is the relationship between Assmann's Christology and the problems 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 be benefit Gutierrez and Segundo both imply that it will be new socialist society. Assmann is attempting to construct a Christology that will reflect this new socialist society. He alludes to this when he speaks of the Christ of the revolutionaries. According to Segundo, this Christ will stand against the Christ of the bourgeioise (Ibid., p. 249). Assmann seems to imply that the Christ of the revolutionaries establishes 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.
As we have seen, there is as much diversity in Liberation Theology as there is in any other theology. The one commonality that we have seen in this essay is that all of the theologians quoted speak from a Latin American standpoint. As all other Liberation theologians, they believe that oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
This essay is submitted in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
I will address the question of diversity in Latin American Theology by referring to an article in Rosino Gibellini's book, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. The article is written by three leading theologians of whom I've previously made mention of. They are Hugo Assmann, Gustavo Gutierrez, and Juan Luis Segundo.
It should be obvious to the reader of this article 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 reflective of the struggle of Latin Americans against dehumanizing structures. It is important to emphasize 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 situations, both in socio-political and Christian terms (Hugo Assmann, "The Power of Christ in History," Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. Rosino Gibellini, ed. 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 contribution 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 this world. He refers to this Christ as the "poor Christ with whom those who seek to establish solidarity with the oppressed 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 to God's work in history. He identifies the presence and guidance of God in the historical events which are taking place (Segundo in Gibellini, 53). I am not suggesting that contradiction exists between the two concerns. I am simply pointing to the differences that Gutierrez and Segundo take in relation to the study about the person and the work of Christ.
Assmann goes further than both Gutierrez and Segundo in dealing with Christology, While the implications of what all three say appear to be 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 (Ibid. p. 138). Assmann sees no immediate prospect for 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 (Ibid.)."
While Assmann, Gutierrez, and Segundo each attempt to speak of the Christ within the Latin American context, each seems to have different emphasis. Assmann is concerned with how to construct the image of Christ in such a way that the diversity in the Latin American situation will be reflected and addressed. 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 previously noted, I do not think that these approaches are contradictory. They are complementary to each 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 approaches 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 the Christian faith. He describes the social order in Latin America as economically, politically, and ideologically designed by a few for their own benefit (Ibid., p. 1). Gutierrez says that a discovery has been made of the reality within the context of the revolutionary struggle. He states that this struggle call the existing order into question. He also says that the goal of the struggle is to bring about an egalitarian society. Gutierrez describes the struggle describes as taking place between those who are on the top and those who are on the bottom rung of the socio-economic latter. It is rather clear that he is referring to the differences that exist between the social classes in Latin America. His specific concern is those who are working for the benefit of the few. He refers to them as "members of a social class which is overtly or covertly exploited by another social class (Ibid., p. 8)."
Gutierrez then states that the Church must identify with these members in 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 is more specific in stating that the problem is making the choice between a capitalist society on the one hand, and a socialist society on the other (Ibid., p. 242).
Segundo states clearly that though a move towards egalitarianism must be made, the choice is not merely one of opting for well-developed capitalism or a well-developed socialism. He believes that the choice must be made from the Latin American context as an underdeveloped continent (Ibid., p. 249). This statement harmonizes with Gutierrez's option 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 mans of production is taken away from individuals and handed over to higher institutions whose main concern is the higher good (Ibid., p. 239)." He also adds 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 (Ibid., p. 139)."
What is the relationship between Assmann's Christology and the problems 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 be benefit Gutierrez and Segundo both imply that it will be new socialist society. Assmann is attempting to construct a Christology that will reflect this new socialist society. He alludes to this when he speaks of the Christ of the revolutionaries. According to Segundo, this Christ will stand against the Christ of the bourgeioise (Ibid., p. 249). Assmann seems to imply that the Christ of the revolutionaries establishes 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.
As we have seen, there is as much diversity in Liberation Theology as there is in any other theology. The one commonality that we have seen in this essay is that all of the theologians quoted speak from a Latin American standpoint. As all other Liberation theologians, they believe that oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
This essay is submitted in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)