THE LATIN AMERICAN STORY-THE CONCLUSION

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

Up until this point, we have surveyed how Liberation Theology emerged and functioned within the Latin American context.  We have also seen how Liberation Theology seeks to address the issues that have been and continue to be of concern in the Latin American context.  We now bring this series of essays to a conclusion by asking "What is the story of Latin America relative to the continued theological process in its context?"  In many respects, the Latin American story is the story of all oppressed nations and groups in the world.  While the issues may not be the same in every context, the common denominator is oppression and injustice, on the one hand, and how Christian theology and the Gospel of Jesus Christ address those issues, on the other.

The powerful theme of the Latin American story has great emancipatory significance to those who are engaged in the relentless struggle for meaning and personhood in the Caribbean and Latin America.  Theology is an important dimension in the study of human existence, and those who engage in theological reflection should always take full account of the intercultural nature of our common experiences and aspirations.  The intercultural theological process must play a critical role if we are to engage in an authentic search for sustained personhood, spiritual maturity, authentic emancipation, and common growth toward the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.  This is the goal of our participation in theological reflection and Christian witness; this is the mission of Christ to which we profess allegiance.  We therefore seek to explore the meaning and scope of the Latin American story as an intercultural matrix in the search for a new theological process with distinctive liberating connections (Kortright Davis, Emancipation Still Comin: Explorations in Caribbean Emancipatory Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990, p. 117).

At this point we may stop to ask "How can Liberation Theology address the issues of cultural, economic, racial, and social injustice in an environment which is not exactly monolithic?" Marshall Eakin presents to us the image of Latin America as "a collision of three powerful streams converging to produce a roaring river that mixed three peoples into a dazzling variety of combinations that were new and unique in world history (Marshall Eakin, The History of Latin America: Collision of  Cultures. New York: Palgrave Mac Millan, 2007, p. 270)."

Over centuries , the turbulent river gradually diverged into many different streams, but all had their origins in the great river formed by the initial clash of Native Americans, Europeans, and Africans.  Many Americas took shape within the political and cultural construct we now call Latin America., and the construct has been a work in progress.  By the beginning of the twentieth century, the story of Latin America became more difficult for this history to be narrated coherently.  The collisions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, gave birth to a series of patterns with variations, but the narrative of conquest, colonization, and the emergence of new societies has a coherence that is lacking when we look at the region over the last century. The colonial era has a powerful unity primarily European conquest and colonialism, and the multiple reactions to these wrenching transformations.  By the end of the eighteenth century, the mighty river of Latin America had already begun to split off into many distinct streams, a trend that the wars for independence accelerated. The similar process of independence, early nation-building, and entry into the international economy, however, provide us with a new set of common patterns even as the newly emerging nations produce increasingly divergent paths (Ibid., ops. 270-21). 

If the region is not exactly monolithic, then Liberation Theology has a challenge in dealing with the context. Nevertheless, it also has opportunities to address in a coherent manner, the issues that emerge out of each individual national context.  The Exodus story remains the main theological paradigm which establishes the emergence, formation, and development of Liberation Theology in a Latin American context, and also constitutes the driving power that brings it into the context in a relevant manner.

Jose Miguez Bonino challenges us to take into account the religious diversity in Latin America.  He says, "Not all plurality is so peaceful.  Social contradictions, ideological differences, conflictive historical projects are also reflected in the religious world.  They evoke religious and theological responses which create tension and conflict, not only between religious groups, but, perhaps even more within them.  Thus we are not facing a "return of the gods," but "a conflict of the gods (Jose Miguez Bonino, "The Condition and Prospects of Christianity in Latin America," in the New Face of the Church in Latin America, Guillermo Cook, ed. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994, p. 261)."  

Religion means different things to different people and the concrete manifestation of their religious behavior often indicate what is their definitional approach.  If religion is used merely as a systematic attempt to supplement felt inefficiencies in the human order, then the rise in human sufficiency will create a corresponding fall in the need for religion.  A fleeting glance at post-Christian Europe will illustrate this point quite clearly.  If, on the other hand, religion consists in the movement of one's purposeful response to ultimate reality and the pursuit of total fulfillment, then it grows with the person and undergirds all human experiences.  The Latin American story is the integrative experience of a people whose religion is characterized by this latter approach.  Because their God has been "a help in ages past," Caribbean and Latin American people hold unflinchingly to the assurance that, in prosperity or poverty, God is "the hope of years to come" (Davis, op. cit. p. 117). 

The Latin American story is thus a most powerful framework through which Americans, especially those of African and indigenous descent, can move forward in an intercultural theological process in the struggle for Christian solidarity and the search for more concrete expressions of human freedom. We can contribute to each other's freedom by the collective engagement in the common discovery of our rich heritage.  Many of the tensions that have existed between Latin Americans of African and indigenous background, on the one hand, and African Americans on the other, have resulted from a lack of knowledge of each other, from our reluctance to understand each other's historical and cultural struggles, and from our insensitivity in communicating with each other.  The same holds true for Latin Americans of African and indigenous background on the one hand, and Latin Americans of European background on the other (Ibid., p 126).

In essence, then our struggle is an internal one as well as with external forces.  It is the story of the fight to rid ourselves of the shackles of imposed external colonization, and at the same time, a struggle against the internal barriers which exist among us as a colonized people.  It would be totally unfair to both assume and assert  that our problems are due exclusively to our colonial legacy.

In conclusion, we may be considering the Latin American story as nothing more tan a contemporary representation of the Joseph story.  Joseph was Jacob's dreaming son.  Nevertheless, his own experience of hurt by his brothers resulted in his own salvation, and that of his brothers. Egypt for them was the land of liberation from hunger, and subsequently became the land of bondage.  The Latin American story is a continuing experience of Egypt, and the eternal spiritual truth is this: If you do not know your Egypt, then you cannot know your Exodus (Ibid. p. 129).

The Latin American story will unfold over and over again. The story will be told over and over again.  As long as oppression and suffering continue to be a reality in the Latin American region, there will not be an  end to the story.  There is a sense in which the Latin American story is a universal story.  We conclude this series of essays by saying "The Struggle Continues."

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

THE LIFE OF LIBERATION: WE PRAISE GOD 

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

One of the many issues that comes up from time to time is that of the relationship between theology and worship.  I have often time advocated for and promoted the notion of a worshipful theology on the one hand, and a theology of worship on the other.  They are not contradictory to one another.  The Church of Jesu Christ needs to have a theology which celebrates the liberating and salvific works of God in history, and at the same time, a well thought-ought worship.  The two go "hand in hand." We cannot do a theology that does not have a component of celebration and praise, and neither can we have a worship which is based on blind and uninformed emotions.  

A big challenge for the Church of Christ in Latin America, and also for the Church which exists under oppressive conditions in all parts of the world is to consider the following questions:

1.  How can we as a Church construct and develop a theology which emerges not from ivory tower speculation, but rather from the reality of suffering?

2. How can we as a Christian community carry out celebration and worship in the midst of oppression and suffering?

3.  How can we as a Church make the distinction between faith as an anesthetic on the one hand, and faith as a lens of reality on the other?  

There are no east answers to the above questions.  The Church has a call from God to articulate its faith in such a way that it will be understandable to both its constituents and to the world to which it seeks to apply the message of liberation.  The Church is also called to teach its constituents and the world how to "sing the Lord's in a strange land."  The Church is, furthermore, called to enable its constituents to have a critical and analytical view of the socio-political environments in which it operates.

New ways of theological thought and praxis have been taking shape in Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Afro-America.  Theological initiatives have been flowering throughout the oppressed world, and the struggle for the pursuit of human freedom as the gift of God, who wills all persons to be free, has been gaining momentum.  The new wave of the 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 theologians.  Black theology, Minjun theology, liberation theology, and emancipatory theology have all been promoted as authentic expressions of understanding the faith in Third World contexts.  Local theologians 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 Galatian 5:1, "for freedom Christ has set us free, stand fast, therefore, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery (Kortright Davis, Emancipation Still Coming. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, p. 108)." 

"Freedom" and "liberation" are central motifs in Latin American theology.  We may ask "freedom" and "liberation" from what?  Classical evangelical theology tends to focus on individual  conversion from sin. The emphasis tends to be on liberation from individual sins such as sexual immorality, vices of alcohol, drug, and tobacco consumption, and in many cases, abstention from certain types of social entertainment.  The biblical concept of liberation, however, is more structural and systemic, which approaches human beings in their social settings.  

Traditional evangelical theology also focuses on "spiritual" liberation, which prepares people for celebration for the hereafter.  Liberation Theology focuses on having the Church carry out a liberating mission which will enable us to celebrate the "here and now," as we engage in God's liberating acts, which are designed to dismantle unjust social and political structures,  and replace them with structures which will allow all people to live in dignity.  

In spite of the many advances made in Liberation Theology-advances that have caused reactionary governments to take countervailing action and to encourage theological espionage (police interested in theology?), -there remains a need for substantial range of reflective action.  Because the notion of "liberation" has been overlaid with exclusive, and even divisive, ideological, and political concerns, the term "liberation" seems to be in urgent need of emancipation.  When North Atlantic liberals speak of "liberation," they often seem to mean something different from what the word stands for in the lives of those on the underside of  history.  And yet, both types of people are genuinely in search of freedom.  Therefore, the. importance of context must be borne in mind, since what is wine for one might be poison for another.  For those on the underside of history, i.e. the historically poor and oppressed, the notion of emancipation might be  more meaningful than the notion of liberation.  It ushers in a deeper range of theological reflection and response than is usually offered in the varieties in contemporary theology (Davis, op. cit., p. 106).

How, then, do we move forward from liberation to praise? As worship, Liberation Theology gives concrete meaning to the evangelical vision of a new heaven and a new earth by seeking to bring into historical reality the freedom from heaven on earth.  This emancipatory vision of present conditions in the light of future possibilities enkindles the heart with joyful courage and the lips with joyful praise (Ibid., p. 115). 

Howard Thurman says, "I will sing a new song. As difficult as it is, I must learn the new song that is capable of meeting the new need. I must fashion new words born of all the new growth of my life, mind, and spirit (Howard Thurman, Meditations of the Heart. Richmond: Friends United Press, 1976, p. 206)." 

This celebration in the midst of suffering is reflected in a song of the Latin American and Hispanic Churches, i.e. "Yo Canto en el Gozo, Yo Canto en la Prueba (I Sing in Times of Joy, I Sing in Times of Trial.  It also reflects the words of the Psalm writer who says "I will praise the Lord at all times, His praise will continually be in my mouth (Psalm 34)."  

Liberation Theology teaches us how to sing the Lord's song as we march towards freedom. The difficulties and troubles of the present do not hinder us from pursuing the freedom to which God has called us and to which God moves us.  The goal of complete liberation inspires us to remain in the struggle.

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

SPECIFIC ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

Like in other branches of theology, and like other theologies, Liberation Theology is an ongoing matter.  It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "once and for all" type of movement or activity.  Neither is it a "finished product" that was once carved and handed down to posterity.  

In keeping with this series of essays, I reiterate that we need to be faithful to the message of  Liberation Theology.  Why do I say this?  It is because, for all intents and purposes, Liberation Theology is a contemporary restatement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is not the Gospel itself, nor can we put it on a par with Scripture in terms of a norm of or  standard of faith.  It takes the message of Scripture, especially the Gospel, and in fidelity to that message, applies it to the situation in which we are living today, i.e. situation in which society is divided into oppressed and oppressive social groups.

NEW HISTORICAL SITUATION: CHANGES IN LIBERATION THEOLOGY

The crisis of historical socialism in Eastern Europe and the advent of human-face perestroika in the Soviet Union ended the Cold War. The worldwide confrontation between East and West -the so-called socialist block and the so-called democratic block-ceased.  Now capitalism is being touted as the only alternative for all of humanity.  When capitalism was forced to compete with socialism, it was concerned with showing a human face, with carrying out development policies in the Third World so that poor nations would not opt for socialism.  Now that capitalism has no competitors, it no longer needs to keep up a humanitarian facade. Nor must it concern itself with Third World development. It can definitely impose itself as the only solution.  Now we have a totalitarian World Order.  The government of the United States, as international policeman, imposes its military and political hegemony upon the entire world in order to ensure the acceptance by all of one capitalist system.  The Third World has no alternative but to submit or perish (Pablo Richards, "Challenges to Liberation Theology" in New Face of the Church in Latin America. Guillermo Cooke ed, Maryknoll: Orbis Books. 1994, p. 246)

During the 1960's and 1970's, which saw the birth and maturation of Liberation Theology in Latin America, capitalism was promoting a development policy for poor nations that in the process made them more dependent.  The liberation concept was used, then, to construct a model for autonomous or non-dependent development, even substituting the term "liberation" for "development." A "theological break" took place as we moved from development theology to liberation theology.  Dependence theory made it possible and necessary to develop both a theory and a strategy for liberation and revolution in the Third World.  "Developmentalism" and "reformism" were radically critiqued as dependency models and the "ideological break" was expressed by the term "liberation.  This new all-embracing concept pointed to many new breaks.  It expressed a new theory and a new praxis.  It became the reference point that defined a new culture, new ethics, and a new spirituality, as well as a new theology (Ibid., p. 248).

These developments make us ask "Is Liberation Theology" a restating of the "faith once delivered to the saints, or is it pseudo-theology? Because of its emphasis on social revolution and transformation, there are many that take it to be a revolutionary movement wearing the garb of theology.  Because Liberation Theology does not support the "status quo," it is categorized as "theology stemming from demonic origins."

The challenge to Liberation Theology-all of these profound structural changes in the dominant system challenge us both theoretically and practically.  We need to develop new concepts to help us acquire a better grasp of the new historical reality, and the possibility of transformation.  With the so-called crisis of Marxism, attempts have been made to undermine the capacity to theorize-to destroy the theoretical space that is needed to resist and continue struggling.  The right to think alternatively is under threat as are the hopes and utopias.  Countering these realities, Liberation Theology must again engage in dialogue, both critically and creatively, with the social sciences-particularly with economics, ecology, and anthropology.  At this new juncture, we must repossess our historical rationale in order to think critically and systematically about our faith in the God of life (Ibid., p. 249).

TRANSFORMING LIBERATION PRACTICE: NEW ROLE FOR LIBERATION THEOLOGY

Liberation Theology, as mentioned before, is a critical and systematic reflection upon faith with a practice of liberation.  The concept of "practice" is therefore crucial to Liberation Theology.  The changes that have been previously described relative to the dominating system and in the situation of the poor, also modify liberation practice and the way we think about it.  This is, to be sure, a challenge for Liberation Theology.

The new world juncture demands new thinking about Liberation Theology. It challenges us with new concerns.  Liberation Theology has the maturity and the necessary strength to face up to this moment in history, with its concerns and challenges.  This is not the end of Liberation Theology, as some people may have hoped, but rather a historical opportunity for its rebirth.  The new juncture opens up unchartered paths for the growth of Liberation Theology.  But this will require that it be seriously reconceptualized and reformulated in response to the new historical situation (Ibid., p. 257).

Liberation Theology has a future.  This fact should be a source of hope for the poor and oppressed people of this world.  What ultimately matters is the future of liberation and the future of the poor.  Liberation Theology's future is a function of the vital future that we desire for our entire threatened planet and cosmos. The solidarity of all of the oppressed, as well as of that of all conscientious women and men is needed.  It is with hope and solidarity that Liberation Theology will be constructed for the twenty-first and subsequent centuries (Ibid.)

As pointed out in previous essays, Liberation Theology is not merely a "new school of thought," or even merely another school of theological thought.  Neither is Liberation Theology a new fad that will have its day and be gone.  Liberation Theology is not a fashion show, nor is it empty rhetorical regurgitation. Liberation Theology seeks to take seriously the message of the Gospel, and make it applicable to contemporary reality. As long as there is injustice and oppression in the world, there will always be a Liberation Theology.

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

THE CHURCH AND LIBERATION THEOLOGY

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

One of the many issues that arises frequently in the life of the Church is that of "what does theology have to do with the Church?"  It is, indeed, a very strange question, in that it is assumed that theology emerges from and is constructed by the Church.  Nevertheless, it appears from time to time, that theology exists in a world of its own, and making occasional inroads into the life of  the Church.  There are many in the Church that believe that theology is not only irrelevant, but also unnecessary for the Church.  Those who think this way believe that theology amounts to ivory tower speculation that has no relationship whatsoever to the practice of the faith.

Throughout this series of essays, we have seen that Liberation Theology is a movement within the Church that seeks to address the ills of society, i.e namely those of oppression and injustice of all kinds.  Liberation Theology, therefore, in some sense, seeks to be the voice of Christ on  behalf of the downtrodden of this world.  Liberation Theology takes the message of the Gospel and that of Scripture as a whole, seriously, in both its contents and approaches.  We now turn our attention to the issue of Liberation Theology in the life of Christians , both individually and collectively.  As we will discover, Liberation Theology is not a mere activity of intellectual pursuit or abstract speculation, but rather a movement, which to a certain extent, is the driving force for the Church of Christ to engage in the quest for social justice.

A New Model: A Church from the Poor

In the 1970's, there arose a growing consciousness of the true causes of underdevelopment as a problem that is not simply technical or political.. It is the consequence of a type of capitalistic development in the countries of the North Atlantic which in order to maintain the current levels of growth and accumulation, needs to establish unbalanced relationships with those countries that are technologically backward, though rich in raw materials.  These latter countries are kept in underdevelopment, that is, the other side of development.  This dependency creates oppression on economic, political, and cultural levels.  In view of this, the long-range Christian strategy is to achieve a liberation that guarantees a self-sustained development that meets the need of the people, and not the consumerist needs of rich countries and groups associated with those countries (Leonardo Boff, Church: Charism and Power. Liberation Theology and the Institutional Church. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1985, p. 7).

The historical subjects of this liberation are the oppressed who must develop a consciousness of their oppressed situation, organize themselves, and take the steps that will lead a society that is less dependent and less subject to the injustices.  Other classes may and should join this project of the oppressed, but without trying to control it.  In this way, beginning in the early seventies, countless young people, intellectuals, and a whole range of movements arose to make such a liberation viable. They made an option for the people: they entered the world of the poor, embracing their culture, giving expression to their claims, and organizing activities that were considered subversive by the forces of the status quo.  More than a few took on the violence of urban guerrillas and campesinos, and were violently repressed (Ibid., p. 8).

Countless Christians and organizations took part in this process.  They were generally individuals and groups of middle class extraction, full of idealism, but lacking political sense in terms of the concrete viability of such a popular liberation (Ibid.).

Later, after years of harsh repression, the bases of the Church took on exceptional importance both ecclesiologically and politically. The people themselves took responsibility for their destiny.  This generally began with reading the Bible and proceeded to the creation of small-base (grass-roots) ecclesial communities.  Initially, such a community serves to deepen the faith of its members, to prepare the liturgy, the sacraments, and a life of prayer.  At a more advanced stage, these members began to help each other.  As they became better organized and reflect more deeply, they came to the realization that the problems they  encountered have a structural character.  Their marginalization is seen as a consequence of elitist organization, private ownership, that is, of he very socioeconomic structure of the capitalist system.  Thus, the question of politics arises and the desires for liberation is set in a concrete and historical context.  The community sees this not only as liberation from sin from which we must always liberate ourselves, but also a liberation that has economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions.  Christian faith directly seeks the ultimate liberation and freedom of the children of God in the Kingdom, but also has historical liberation as an anticipation and concretization of the ultimate liberation (Ibid.).  

Latin America 

The present conditions and the future prospects of Christianity in Latin America cannot be analyzed as if Christianity wee a self-contained and autonomous reality.  The qualification, "in Latin America" has to be taken consciously, seriously, and responsibly as a conditioning framework for any significant reflection on the question.  To unpack what is contained at present and future in "Latin America" seems such a theologically and sociologically risky enterprise as to be almost folly.  We must, however, try to suggest some lines that we might explore, in order to point out some significant variables.  We can propose some approaches, even while we are aware of the ambiguity inherent in this exercise, and consequently of the provisional and contingent nature of all the hypothesis that we may formulate (Jose Miguez Bonino, "The Conditions and Prospects of Christianity in Latin America," in New Face of the Church in Latin America, Guillermo Cook, ed. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994, p. 260).

As far as the social, political, and economic conditions, it is probable that the dominant tendencies which prevail today in most Latin American countries will continue for the immediate and perhaps mid-term future.  Latin America will remain, directly or indirectly under the unifying hegemony of the United States and the neo-liberal orthodoxy proclaimed and and supervised by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the international banking and financial system of the new world.  It will continue under the security order which the UN seems to have taken on (Ibid.).

If such a hypothesis is valid, we can expect that there will be in Latin America a worsening conditioning of the economic condition of the large majorities-a growth in the gap between rich and poor.  There will be a tendency to revert to two-class societies with small and very conditioned middle sectors, and a large totally marginalized percentage of the population.  Politically, this will mean formal democracies with different types and measures of control or repression.  Possibly, there will be an increase of local social explosions and occasional violent confrontations, social and political protests, and certainly growth in delinquency.  But we should not be quick to expect an ideal revolutionary situation or profound structural changes.  All of this means, of course, a high degree of social anomie and marginality (Ibid.).

As we can see, theology cannot be divorced from life.  Theology has to be historicized.  And because theology is the Church's expression of its understanding of divine revelation, the Church and its mission cannot be divorced from life.  Liberation Theology seeks to make the Church "keep it real." In future essays, we shall continue to examine how the Church in Latin America, through Liberation Theology, seeks to address the various issues of economic, political, and social injustice.

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

CHALLENGES TO LIBERATON THEOLOGY 

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

Up until this point, we have examined and discussed the colonial and Neo-colonial history of Latin America and how this history has contributed to the emergence and development of Liberation Theology in this region of the world.  We have looked at the factors that have contributed to this emergence.  Against that background, we now proceed to raise questions about the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for Liberation Theology in Latin America.  We know deal with the "so what?" of the history that we have discussed.

As previously mentioned, Liberation Theology has its roots in God's liberating and salvific acts in human history.  From a Judeo-Christian standpoint, it can be said to begin with the emancipation of the Hebrews from Egypt.  It continues throughout their history, including their exile to and return from Babylon.  Subsequently, the story of liberation develops into a paradigm for all oppressed classes and social groups that experience bondage in one way or the other.  

What are the challenges that lie ahead for "God talk" in Latin America?  There are, indeed, many challenges that we can think of and mention.  I will list, but a few that we can consider relevant to our discussion and for our conversation.  Pablo Richard tells us "If the world has changed so profoundly, the theology of liberation must also change. In faithfulness to its original spirit and methodology, we must recreate it.  In response to the present challenge, we need a new theology of liberation to follow upon that which we have known.  Furthermore, this reconstruction of Liberation Theology should be an essential part of a new process of resistance and affirmation of life. In spite of the idolatry of Western Christianity, we need to renew our faith in the God of the poor and the God of life.  In order to rebuild our solidarity and hope, we need to find new ways of doing Liberation Theology (Pablo Richards, "Challenges to Liberation Theology," in New Face of the Church in Latin America. Guillermo Cook, ed. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994, p. 246)."

Richards's statement leads us to ask whether there should be a theology of liberation in the first place, and it so, what is its relevance?  Why should we continue with this razzle dazzle of Liberation Theology? Can't it just simply be incorporated into classical and traditional theology?  Can't we just continue to treat it as an appendix to classical theology?  

Many people believe that with the fall of historical socialism in Eastern Europe-the crisis of Marxism and the imposition of the New-Economic Order-that Liberation Theology has no future.  We are, as it is said, living in the end of history, the final triumph of capitalism.  Any alternative ideas, any hope for a different world, all liberating utopias are irrelevant and condemned to failure.  It is said that theology of liberation has meaning. The experiences of those who enjoy the privileges of the New Economic Order is that never again there shall be a people motivated by hope. This triumphalism and this expectation of the oppressor's brutality in the face of the reality of poverty, misery, and oppression that continues to dominate a huge majority of the human race (Ibid., p. 245)." 

The historic rationale for Liberation Theology is still in place.  As long as the scandal of poverty and oppression exists-while there are Christians who live and reflect their faith critically in the struggles for justice and life-there will be a liberation theology (Ibid.).

Those who believe in the eventual total demise of socialism, also tend to believe that any ideology associated with it (including, but not limited to Liberation Theology), will also undergo a demise. They believe that capitalism as an economic system is destined to prevail because it is a God-ordained mandate.  Subsequently, their attitude with socialist ideology is to "Pack up your bags, go home, and when you leave, take Liberation Theology with you."  

The main question, however, is not what will happen to Liberation Theology.  More importantly, it is what will happen to the lives of the poor, to human life?  What is to become of their liberation and the commitment of Christians to their lives and to their emancipation? We do Liberation Theology to keep their future alive, to keep our commitment alive.  Yet, Liberation Theology will not continue to exist by mere inertia or by dint of repeating old formulas.  We will also need to reconceptualize Liberation Theology at this juncture in history.  We must recreate and reprogram Liberation Theology with an eye to the future (Richard, op. cit., ops. 245-246).

Liberation Theology in the Latin American context was born in the 1960's and evolved in the 1970's as Christians became involved in the historical process of liberation.  It was born as we reflected-theologically, critically, and systematically- on our experience of God in the practice of liberation.  The content of this theology has always been our experience of God.  But we live, celebrate, and reflect upon it  in the context of a liberation practice.  We are not dealing with a new theological subject matter, but rather with a new way of doing theology.  The object was not liberation, but God Himself.  As a matter of fact, the theology of liberation was never feared merely because it spoke about liberation, or because it was political.  It was feared because the starting point of its reflection concerning God were the poor and the threat to life and justice in the Third World.  Liberation Theology able to discover the unsettling presence of God in the lives of the oppressed and in the liberation struggles. Conversely, it denounced the unsettling absence of God in the oppressor's world and in Western culture.  The concept of "practice" helped Liberation Theology to understand history critically, from the perspective of the oppressed.  While classical theology used Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, Liberation Theology made use of the more critical and liberating stream of the social sciences (Ibid.). 

Oppressors hide their oppression behind abstract and universal themes.  In marked contrast, Liberation Theology discovers oppression in history, and reflects upon it with a view to overcoming it.  It goes beyond rational discourse to becoming transforming practice.  This is its only logical rationale (Ibid., p. 247)

The basic structure of Liberation Theology-a critical and systematic reflection on the experience of God in the practice of liberation-remains unchanged at this crucial juncture in history.  To be sure, the Liberation Theology structure and the rationale have not changed because today, more than ever, God is present in a special way in the world of the oppressed.  He reveals Himself in their struggle for liberation.  But having said this, we must also recognize those elements which are new in the present historical juncture,  making it both necessary and possible for us to rethink and recreate Liberation Theology (Ibid.).

In subsequent essays, we will continue to deal with the challenges and opportunities that Liberation Theology offers us.  It lays before us the possibilities of thinking and rethinking our theology.

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 LIBERATION THEOLOGY AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF NEO-COLONIZATION

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

In the previous essay, we dealt with how Spanish colonization and imperialism had an impact on Latin America.  We can see how the conquest planted the seeds of rebellion and resentment, and, at the same time, the emergence of a theology that would address those economic. political, and social ills.

Today, we can continue to look at and evaluate what has properly been called "Neo-colonialism," under the aegis of the U.S.A.  While many people in the Caribbean and Latin America see the arrival of U.S.A. troops and the economic system of the U.S.A. as "liberation" from the cruelties of the Spanish empire, our coverage today will demonstrate that it is just the opposite, i.e. passing the goods (lands and resources) from one set of thieves to another set of thieves, and, how in both cases, that imperialism has done its utmost to protect the stolen goods.

Latin America and the Caribbean today, have become proving grounds for various experiments in neo-colonialism-transnational corporations, Japanese vehicles, tracking stations, satellite dishes, foreign television, military exercises, millions of tourists, and off-shore schemes.  It is in the light of these considerations that the realities of the Caribbean/Latin American conditions have to be understood.  They explain why the current structures of poverty continue to be overlaid with a veneer of progress instead of being dismantled altogether; why the prospects for the sharing of power among the broad masses of landless people are neither nearer nor clearer; why in some cases of political independence has essentially ushered in new forms of structured economic dependence; and why the ideals of racial, cultural, and regional integration are ignored more often than they are pursued.  The process of underdevelopment, which began in 1492, has never been substantially challenged. The only major shifts in the region have been from one form of  dependency to another (Kortright Davis, Emancipation Still Comin. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990, pp. 3-4)

In the century after the wars for independence in Latin America, two powers-one prominent and one emerging-would vie for political and economic influence in Latin America. Great Britain, the preeminent power in the world at the beginning of the nineteenth century, would be the most potent external political and economic influence on Latin America into the 1930's. The United States, as it emerged as an industrial and economic powerhouse throughout the nineteenth century, would challenge the British for influence in the region.  In the first century after independence in the 1780's, the power and influence of the United States radiated westward and southward from the Old Thirteen Colonies.  It was on the North American continent and in the Caribbean basin that the United States would truly challenge and then supplant the British throughout the nineteenth century. U.S. influence was minimal south of Central America and the Caribbean.  British power in South America began to wane with the First World War, and would be completely replaced by the end of the Second World War (Marshall C. Eakin, The History of Latin America:Collission of Cultures. New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2007, pp. 230-240).

The Spanish-American War in 1898 marks a watershed, not only in the role of the United States in Latin America, but also the U.S. role in the world.  In many ways, 1898 marks the emergence of the United States on the world stage, and the beginning of more than a rise to global supremacy that continues into the twenty-first century.  Throughout the nineteenth century, the United States marched across the North American continent, conquering, colonizing, and creating one of the largest domestic markets the world had ever seen.  By 1898, the Second Industrial Revolution was in full swing in the Unites States, built on iron and steel, the internal combustion engine, petroleum, power and a revolution in chemistry that would produce (among other things) fertilizers and explosives that would transform agriculture and warfare.  The Civil War in the 1860's had brutally halted expansion and integration of the continent.  In the decades after the war, railroads crisscrossed the nation, binding the regions together, and steamships carried U.S. troops and exports across the oceans (Ibid. p. 246). 

In the 1930's, several patterns were clear.  The British preeminence in nineteenth-century Latin America (especially South America) was rapidly disappearing and U.S. power in the region was growing dramatically.  U.S. investment in the region moved past that of Great Britain, the United States had decades of direct economic and military involvement across the Caribbean basin and the Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. policy-makers were hard at work on forging a Pax Americana in which the United States would "lead" the rest of the hemisphere.  The Second World War would accelerate all of the processes, opening an era of unprecedented U.S. power and influence in Latin America after 1945. As the peoples of the region forged their identities as Mexicans, Nicaraguans, Chileans, Brazilians-as Latin Americans-they did so in a complex and deeply conflicted relationship with the Colossus of the North (Ibid., ops. 251-252).  

Against this backdrop of history, we must stop to ask, "What is the relationship between theology and these historical developments in Latin America?"  As has pointed out several times before, theology does not emerge from or operate in a vacuum.  Theology is developed within the framework of human relations and historical occurrences. History shapes and at the same time is shaped by theology.  A knowledge of history helps us o understand the contents and nature of theology.  A knowledge of theology, on the other hand, enables us to give a meaning to history.

Liberation Theology, which addresses how the emergence and development of economic, political, and social structures under the influence of U.S. imperialism, seeks to identify, unmask, and denounce the environmental ills that these structures have generated.  Liberation Theology seeks to bring about a restricting of Latin American society, so that there will be a more fair, just, and equitable system for all of its inhabitants.  

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 COLONIAL HISTORY OF LATIN AMERICA 

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

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 economics, 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.

Following the lead of Columbus, the Spanish swept across the Caribbean within a generation, conquering and destroying the native people in their paths.  The Spanish moved through the conquest of 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, became the staging ground for invading Cuba, and then Cuba for the conquest of Mexico.  From island to island, the Spanish replicated the original process on 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 natives among themselves.  The conquest operated on something of a seniority 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 latter 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 come 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 (Marshall C. Eakin, The History of Latin America: Collision of Cultures. New York: Palgrave Mac Millan, 2007, p.62)

When put into a historical perspective, Liberation Theology is a theology which emerges within the framework of land-grabbing colonization, slave labor, and genocide.  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 are still submissive to men (Lydia Hernandez in "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 possessions productive long-term enterprises. Cultivation and exploitation of the land became the primarily objective of the developing colonial regimes.  Land without labor, however, was useless to the colonizers.  The population of Spain and Portugal were not very large, perhaps 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 America produced by their sweat and blood.  Out of this coercive labor system emerged the most burdensome legacy of the colonial period -the large landed estate (Eakin, op. cit, 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 for liberation from the oppressive structures which have come into being as result of imperialistic conquest, genocide, slavery, and colonization.  

In future essays, we will focus on the impact of U.S.A. neo-colonialism in Latin America.  The impact of the 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 this region.

This essay  is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 ASIAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

The vast, sprawling continent of Asia, exhibits even more variety than do Africa and Latin America.  Each country has its own distinctive history and traditions, and each has had its own unique encounter with Western colonialism.  More than 85 percent of all Asians suffer from abject poverty and oppression (Dean William Ferm, Third World Liberation Theologies: An Introductory Survey. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1986, p. 76.)

An added ingredient in the Asian setting is the living presence of many major religions competing for the allegiance of humankind.  To be sure, Latin America has its indigenous religions-heretofore ignored by their liberation theologians-but Catholicism has been the dominant faith there for the past four centuries. Native American religions have not only survived the aggression of Christian and Muslim invaders, but have become a rich source of of spiritual insight for African theologians.  The situation in Asia is unique, however, for here we find Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism Jainism, and other religious traditions coexisting in an infinite variety, compounding rather than alleviating certain forms of human oppression-for example, discrimination against women.  A further complicating factor is that Asian Christians are a tiny minority, but with 3 percent of Asians identifying themselves as Christians and with only the Philippines claiming a majority of Christians.  It is ironic that most contemporary Asians consider Christianity, despite its roots in the Middle East, a foreign religion, a product of Western colonial expansion (There are important exceptions -e.g. the Orthodox churches).

Asian liberation theology has thus had to contend with two additional components that set it apart from most forms of liberation theology in Latin America and Africa.  First, it daily encounters other major living religions. Secondly, in most Asian countries, Christianity is a very small minority group.  Both of these factors have had a profound impact on the content and methods of liberation theology in that part of the world (Ferm, op. cit.).  

Christianity-Protestantism in particular-had very little impact in Asia until the nineteenth century, which witnessed the rapid growth of First World missionary societies that established outposts throughout the continent.  Like their African and Latin American counterparts, most Western missionaries stressed the importance of individual conversion to Christ, with little emphasis on the social dimension, and with even less appreciation for the positive values to to be found in other religions.  In the twentieth century, the burgeoning of anti-colonial, anti-Western sentiment has seen the development of forms of Christianity divested of foreign cultural baggage baggage and leadership, a step vitally necessary to the survival of Christianity in Asia (Ibid., p. 77).  

U Ba Hmyn of Burma set the future course clearly at the third Assembly of the World Council of Churches in New Delhi in 1961 when he said: No theology will deserve to be called ecumenical in the coming days which ignores Asian structures.  It may use the term "ecumenical," but it will really be parochial and Western only (Hans-Ruedi Weber, Asia and the Ecumenical Movement, 19895-1961. London, SCM, 1966, p. 15). 

There is no adequate way to give even a postcard summary of developments in recent Asian theology that have led to the emergence of liberation theology. Asia is a many-splendored continent. It demands many distinctive strategies tailored to the indigenous specifications of particular areas (Ferm, op. cit., p. 77).

Asian liberation theology is a rapidly growing, multifaceted phenomenon similar in its basic aspirations to African and Latin American liberation theology,  yet distinctive  in its pluralistic religious setting (Important Asian liberation theologians include Koson Srisang of Thailand,  Khin Maung Din of Burma, James A. Veitch of Singapore, Vitalino r. Gorospe of the Philippines, and C.S. Song of Taiwan). 

One should not even begin to speak with a shred of confidence about the "pros and cons" of Third World liberation theology until one gains some degree of sensitivity to and appreciation for its multiple Asian versions.  Asian liberation theology is original, complex, rich bewildering, and immensely fertile.  It provides important models for liberation, not only for the Third World, but also for the First World (Ferm, op. cit., p. 99).

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary                              

THE ASIAN ORIGINS OF LATIN AMERICA

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

These next two essays will focus on Liberation Theology from an Asian context.  We begin by talking about the Asian origins of Latin America.

Like it happens often-times with other parts of 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 contribution to civilization and historical development.  In this essay, we will deal with Asian origins of this region, for as Dr. Ivan Van Sertima points out, there were people of both African and Asian descent here, thousands of years before the European colonizations of the West.  We will view, even if in summary fashion, the pre-European presence in the Americas in order to 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 Straight possibly far back as 40,000 years ago.  The last wave of migrants was 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 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 about 2,000 years before the arrival of Columbus.  In contrast to the striking diversity of their languages, 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 cold Arctic passage served as a type of 'filter,' killing of dangerous microbes.  None of the Native American populations had exposure to diseases that ravaged the Old World: influenza, smallpox, 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 the invasion (Marshall C. Eakin, The History of Latin America: Collision of 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 work 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, one 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, were called '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 Americas 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 supposedly no sense of common identity or solidarity (Ibid. p. 28).

Whether these pre-European trans-oceanic contacts were fundamental to cultural developments is a matter of debate.  There are some who hold to the view that the native peoples 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., p. 29).

I conclude by stating that we can no longer subscribe to the notion that Latin American 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 white 'cultural superiority' needs to be deconstructed, demythologized, and dismissed for once and for all.  The theology that we are dealing with did not emerge from the European ivory towers of comfort and speculation, but rather from the colonization and subsequent subjugation of the people of Latin America.  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.  

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 THE AFRICAN CONTEXT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

I have often times stated that Liberation Theology is not a school of thought, but rather a movement.  It is a historical movement that dates back many centuries, even before the Christian era.  It did not begin in Latin America, but in the African continent.  

I began this series of essays (based on my lectures delivered at the Tainan Theological College/Seminary in Taiwan during the academic years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 while serving as a Visiting Professor of Theology).  I deliberately initiated these lectures focusing on Latin America and the Latinx Diaspora in the U.S.A. because I am a Latino (specifically Afro-Puerto Rican) scholar/theologian.  As such, my theology is based on the experience of oppression and suffering on the Caribbean, Latin America, and what I call for lack of a better term, "Slave Town, U.S.A."

Having said that, I will note that technically speaking, Liberation Theology began in Africa, which historians consider the cradle of human civilization.  It began when Yahweh God (the God of Israel) said to Moses, "I have heard the cry of my people and am concerned about them."  This encounter between Moses and Yahweh lead to the eventual emancipation of the Hebrew people from Egyptian bondage.  

If, indeed, the African continent is the cradle of human civilization, then it is apropos that our study of theology (God-talk) should begin there.  This is not say, however, by any stretch of the imagination, that there was no dealing with God and other human civilizations outside of Africa prior to the birth and coming of Moses.  God is not limited to any cultural, ethnic, national, racial, or social group.  God is a cosmic and transcendent God, who is not confined to any geographical area of the world, or to any national or racial group.  I respectfully submit that wherever there has been oppression and suffering, that this is where we find and experience the divine presence.

African Liberation Theology is not a mere clone of Latin American Liberation Theology.  The diverse and rich culture of Africa, in addition to its unique experience of Christianity, represents a fresh challenge to those seeking to understand African notions of liberation (Dean William Ferm, Third World Liberation Theologies: An Introductory Survey.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1986, p.59).

As is well known, the Christian Church as existed in northern Africa since early times.  Especially prominent was the Christian community in Alexandria at the time of Clement and Origen in the second and fourth centuries.  Later, in the fifth century, the Coptic Church of Egypt, which still flourishes today, emerged as an Egyptian nationalist movement, opposing Byzantine imperialism.  By the nineteenth century, Christian missionaries were spreading throughout sub-Saharan Africa, usually joining forces with Western colonial powers in exploiting the inhabitants, their lands and resources, with a "pro white, anti-black, we have the truth, you don't" attitude.  As a result, racism and the aftertaste of slavery have deeply infected relationships between blacks and whites throughout Africa from the first colonial settlements to the first generation (Ibid.). 

Thus, although stressing liberation from social, economic, and political oppression like its Latin American obverse, African Liberation Theology is deeply concerned with racial oppression.  This component is especially strong in South Africa, where racism in the form of apartheid has been extremely virulent.  Both African and North American black theologians have faulted Latin American theologians for failing to take the racial component seriously (Ibid.).  

James Cone, considered to be the "Father" of African American Liberation Theology, is one of the black American theologians who makes this critique.  He says, "The Latin American theologians' emphasis upon the class struggle, with almost no mention of race oppression, made black theologians suspicious of their white European identity (Sergio Torres and John Eagles, eds., The Challenge of Basic Christian Communities (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1981, p. 266)."

Ruvimbo Taker of Zimbabwe also notes: The fact that the cultures of the Indians and black have been ignored seems to indicate why they are absent from the larger participation in Latin American life. The rich cultural attributes of the Indians and the blacks have been ignored by the Church in conformity with the ruling dominant class (Ibid., p. 258).

But in other countries other than South Africa, the racial component is not important.  John Pobee points out that "With the exception of the Republic of South Africa, racial prejudice is not so bad in Africa as it is in America.  Consequently, African theology, though interested in liberation, is not preoccupied with liberation as much as black theology is (Toward an African Theology. Nashville, Abingdon, 1979, p. 39). 

In addition, African theologians have in recent years had a far greater appreciation for indigenous religions than have their Latin American counterparts.  Even the African Christian churches have begun to show a willingness to incorporate indigenous beliefs and practices into their teachings.  This, however, has not always been the case.  The early missionaries who came from the First World brought with them a westernized version of Christianity that looked upon the African blacks as heathen, and Africa itself as the "empire of Satan."  These missionaries were convinced that either the Africans had  no religion at all or what religion they had was pagan.  In fact, perhaps the most potent factor in the development of independent churches throughout Africa was the failure of mission programs of the established churches to come to terms with the African religious heritage (Ferm, p. 60). 

Even today, the "indigenization" issue has not failed to generate controversy.  On the one hand, the Christian churches would have difficulty coming to terms with certain African customs-for example polygamy.  On the other hand, some theologians, especially in South Africa, have complained that the return to African roots has amounted to a digression from the burning social, racial, and economic issues of the day.  Unlike most of their Latin American counterparts, African theologians have been more sharply divided between those who favor indigenization as a way of retrieving their African heritage, and those who favor indigenization as a way of liberating the oppressed.  Indeed, the latter group would not consider the former group to be liberation theologians in the true sense of the term.  It is surprising to discover that many African theologians, for whom indigenization is so important in liberating African religion from intrusion, are less involved than most South African theologians in the social problems that impede human liberation (Ibid.).

Gwinyai Muzorewa  states that " It is not clear why most Africans tend to shy away from politicizing their theology.  In my opinion, both theologies are concerned about restoring the proper image of black humanity, an image which had been grossly distorted by Europeans and white Americans (Gwinyai Muzorewa, The Origins And Development of African Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1985, p. 55)."

Ruvimbo Tekere says in his criticism of Latin American Liberation Theology: A marriage of these cultures, traditional and Christian, is critical for Latin American Liberation Theology. Traditional or native culture is not opposed to the Gospel.  Only in such a marriage, when the oppressed and dominated feel they have a heritage that contributes positively to the present, will they participate fully in the Christian Church without a schizophrenic identity of "Christian" and heathen (Torres and Eagles, op. cit., p. 259)."  

How can we even begin a discussion of African Liberation Theology?  The discussion cannot be confined exclusively to any geographical region of the African continent.  

The relationship between the Christian faith and African beliefs remains a troubling issue for many of the Christian churches, particularly when such beliefs and practices go against the grain of "normative" Western teachings.  It is assumed that the Western-imposed Christianity is universally valid "in all times and in all places.  It is treated as "God-given," and African spirituality is considered "diabolical."  

As we can see, Latin American Liberation Theology can no more be exported to Africa than it can be imported to North America.  Emphases will be different and will reflect varying stages of growth in the development of a full-blown, all embracing Liberation Theology (Ferm, op. cit., p. 75).

To learn from others: "This is a call to transcend our cultural limitations and congenital blindness. To do this, even partially, is to achieve a measure of liberation, a new vantage point, a broader horizon, a fresh vision of the world, a better look at humanity and what it means to be human (Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches: Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p.  60)"

In closing, I reiterate what I intimated at the beginning of this essay, i.e. that since Africa is considered the cradle of human civilization, that any talk of Liberation Theology should begin by a focus on the oppression and suffering of the people in that continent.  I also end by saying, that whatever good and positive there may be in Western theology (European and American), and that whatever we can learn by engaging in it. that it is not "normative" for our African theology.  If anything, we might just consider African theology as "normative" for in defining Christian theology not only for the African Christian community, but for the world-wide Christian community as a whole.  We should drink from the wells of the cradle of human civilization.  

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 THE LATIN AMERICAN 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 paid 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, we will pay particular attention to the Latin American context.

A Euro-centric approach to the history of Latin America has dominated the majority of the literature relative to this region.  It is as if Latin America were dormant, waiting for the Europeans to come and "discover" it in order to be even mentioned in the 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 significant 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 ethnocentric standpoint of Europe, it is necessary to debunk and demythologize the notions that accompany this mindset.

The collision of the 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: 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 millennia (Ibid.).  Eakins is of the position that on October 12, 1492, 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 recreates) 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.).

On one of Columbus's voyages, he came upon evidence of the contact between Guinea an d the New World.  From a settlement that 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," African settlements and artifacts were to be sighted by the Spanish.  When they were not reported as mere asides, they were ignored or 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 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 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.  These were the first blacks that had been seen in the Indies (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 Quarequa carry an incessant war with these Negroes.  Massacre or slavery are the alternate fortunes of these peoples (F.A. Mac Nuts, ed. and trans. De Orbo Novo: The Eight Decades of Peter Martyr d'Anghera. . 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 captives among the natives.  In a book silenced by the Spanish Inquisition, Garcia wrote, "Here we 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 skill), from one bank of the ocean to another.  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.  Alphonse de Quatrefagas, professor of anthropology at 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 expressions made use of by Gomara, that these were true Negroes.  This type is well-known to the Spanish (Alphonse de Quatrefages, 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 in those places washed by Kouro-Siwo, a Pacific current known as the 'black stream,' and the Equatorial current of the Atlantic or its divisions.  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., pas. 201-202)."

These Spanish sightings of Africans in the New World and the later discovery by anthropologists of 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-Africans 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 the general public.  When in 1862, the head of a black man was found in the Canton of Tuxtla, near the place where the most ancient of pre-Columbian statuettes were discovered, the historian Orozco y Berra declared in his History of the Conquest of Mexico 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 B.C. to 700 B.C.  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 the Africans and their descendants in pre-Columbian America were not brute savages as has been 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.  

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 THE NATURE OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

In order to evaluate any theology, one must first deal with its nature as well as with its contents.  One must ask questions such as what economic, political, and social structures does it legitimize, what are the issues it addresses, and what type of praxis does it support?  Liberation Theology is not immune to these kinds of considerations.  

The first question that we can raise is 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? Those questions carry in and of themselves a degree of arrogance and presumptuousness.  There is an assumption that the existing theology (if one does exist), 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 me begin by reiterating what I have said in previous essays, i.e. that Liberation Theology is not just another school of thought.  It is a movement that will continue as long as there is injustice, oppression, and suffering in the world.  It is not just 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.  This 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 extent, to be "biblically based," its biblical hermeneutic is one which emerges from the standpoint of power.  It is a theology that in 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.  Liberation Theology, 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 Libration Theology as "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 American, in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Afro-America, and the Latinx Diaspora in the U.S.A.  Theological initiatives have been flowering throughout the oppressed world, and the struggle for the pursuit of human freedom as the gift of God wills all persons to be free, has been gaining momentum.  The new waves of articulation of the faith and the search for common dialogue and solidarity among Third World theologians have made an impressive mark on the 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 of Paul's dictum in Galatians 5:1, "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand therefore, and do not submit to a yoke of slavery (Kortright Davis, Emancipation Still Comin: Exporations in Caribbean Emancipatory Theology. Maryknoll: New York. Orbis Books, 1990, p. 105)."

There are some who may want to think of Liberation Theology as a "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 is 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 and have extensively engaged with Western imperial theology.

Like Western theology, Liberation Theology has an ethicals/moral dimension.  It seeks to take the essence of the moral imperatives of the Gospel, and apply them to Christian living in our time.  The 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 reflects 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 Leeers, 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 (M.D. China, El Evangelismo. Bogota, 1962). The novelty now is in their strength, intensity, and breadth of the phenomenon.  Such a development has come about because of 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 fortunate.  It is a question of redressing the balance, bringing the problems of the impoverished  to the fore as well, making sure that all moral problems are approached in a fairer way.  This means not rejecting the valid intuitions of the traditional 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 are deeply challenged (A. Melo, Classe media e opcao preferencial pelos pobres.  REB 43, 1983, pp. 340-50).

The morality of the traditions specialized in resolving cases with  individuals as its horizons.  Renewed morality broadened this horizon, basing itself on humanities, 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 the individual and the personal spheres.  Without denying personal responsibility, it sees individuals as forming part a greater whole and their behavior properly 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 the 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 basic familiarity with its nature.  The 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 Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 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 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 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.

The question of diversity in Latin American Liberation Theology will be addressed by reference to an article in Rosino Gibellini's book, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America.  The article is written by three leading theologians of liberation.  They are: Hugo Assmann, Gustavo Gutierrez, and Juan Luis Segundo, who have been mentioned in previous essays.  

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 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, ed. Rosino Gibellini.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p 133)."  This is an important point to mention because Gutierrez and Segundo tend to focus on the whole of Latin America while paying little attention to any  particular Latin American context.  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 the world.  He refers to this Christ as 'the poor Christ' with whom those who seek to establish solidarity with the dispossessed on this continent will tend to identify (Gutierrez in Gibelliini, 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, p. 253).  I am not suggesting that a contradiction exists between the two concerns.  I am simply pointing to the differences that Gutierrez and Segundo take in relation to the person and 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 contradiction of the societies in Latin America (Assmann in Gibellini, p. 138)

Assmann sees no immediate prospect of a solution for the conflict between Christologies.  The main reason for this, he says, is "that there is no immediate prospect of a solution for the serious contradictions in our Christian America (Ibid.).

While Assmann, Gutierrez, and Segundo attempt to speak of the Christ within the Latin American context, each seems to have a different emphasis.  Assmann is concerned with how to construct the image of Christ in such a way that the diversity of the Latin American situation will be 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 already 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 Christian faith.  He describes the social order in Latin America as economically, politically, and ideologically designed by a few for their own benefit (Gutierrez in Gibellini, p. 1).  

He says that a discovery has been made of this reality within the context of revolutionary struggle.  He also states that this struggle calls the existing order into question.  In his view, the goal of this struggle is to bring about an egalitarian society.  Gutierrez describes this struggle as taking place between those who are at the top and those who are at the bottom.  It is rather clear that he is referring to the difference that exists in 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 these members of society and also participate in their struggles 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 or a socialist society (Ibid., p. 42). 

While Gutierrez alludes to the same problem, Segundo spells it out clearly and specifically.  He accused certain Catholic bishops of complying with the existing structure rather than opting for a socialist society.  

Segundo clearly states that though a move toward egalitarianism must be made, the choice is not merely one of opting for a well-developed capitalism or a well-developed socialism.  He believes that the choice must be made from the Latin American context as an underdeveloped continent (Segundo, 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 means 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 states 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." One might think that Segundo does not give any indication of commitment.  However, he clearly articulates his focus on the social struggle.  But he does not indicate what in his judgement are the solutions to the problem.  

What is the relationship between Asmann's Christology and the problem of Latin America as stated by Gutierrez? Gutierrez and Segundo describe the existing situation with different language. It is  the situation of the struggle for a society in which the evils of the present order will be eliminated.  Then there will be a new social order.  It will be a society in which all will benefit.  

Gutierrez and Segundo both imply that it will be a socialist society.  Assmann is attempting to construct a theology 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 bourgeoise (Segundo, p. 249).

Assmann implies 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.  

This essay is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary