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
No comments:
Post a Comment