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 

 THE ROLE OF HISTORY, PRAXIS, AND SCRIPTURE IN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

As has been pointed out before, theology does not emerge or take place in a vacuum.  To treat it as such would be to do a great disservice to the theological enterprise and task.  There are always certain "ingredients," if one will, that constitute the "stuff" of theology.  In this essay, we will explore and engage in conversation regarding the "stuff" of Liberation Theology.

In a previous essay, I had spoken about the historical development of Liberation Theology.  We spoke about "people, places, and things."  We had also spoken about the need for understanding Liberation Theology within the framework of history.  Here we will speak about the role of history, praxis, and Scripture in the emergence and formation of Liberation Theology.  The best persons to define what that role is are the theologians themselves.  Once again, I will make reference to certain theologians that I have mentioned in previous essays.  

Jose Miguez Bonino speaks about the "classical conception of truth."  He describes this conception in the following manner:

"Truth belongs, for this view, to a world of truth, a universe complete in itself, which is copied or reproduced in 'correct' propositions, in a theory which corresponds to this truth.  Then, in a second moment, as a later step, comes the application in a particular historical situation.  Truth is therefore, preexistent to and independent of its historical effectiveness.  Its legitimacy has to be tested in relation to this abstract 'haven of truth' quite apart from its historicization (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation.  Phildelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p. 88)." 

Bonino is not in agreement with this conception.  In fact, he is critical of it as we can see by what he says. He states the following: "Whatever corrections may be needed, there is scarcely any doubt that God's Word is not understood in the Old Testament as a conceptual communication, but rather, as a creative event, a history-making pronouncement.  Its thrust does not consist in carrying out God's promise or fulfilling His judgement.  Correspondingly, what is required of Israel is not an ethical inference, but an obedient participation-whether in action or in suffering-in God's inference-in God's active righteousness and mercy.  Faith is always a concrete obedience which relies on God's promise, and is vindicated  in the act of obedience: Abraham offering his only son, Moses stepping into the Red Sea.  There is no question of arriving at or possessing previously some theoretical clue.  There is no name of God to call for-or to exegete-except as He himself is present in His power (i.e. His powerful acts).  Again, the faith of Israel is consistently portrayed, not as gnosis, but as a particular way of acting, of relating inside and outside the nation, of ordering life at every conceivable level, which corresponds to God's own way with Israel.  This background, so well attested to in Psalms, for instance, may explain Jesus's use of the Word to explain Himself.  The motif, on the other hand, appears in parenetic contexts in Pauline literature.  Faith is 'walking.'  It is unnecessary to point out that even the idea of knowledge and knowing has this active and participatory content (Ibid., p. 89)."

Bonino does not  believe that this classical conception of truth is either relevant or viable.  He believes that it is both faulty and unbiblical.  He adds, "It seems clear enough that the classical conception can claim no biblical basis for its conceptual understanding of truth or for its distinction between a theoretical knowledge of truth and a practical application of it.  Correct knowledge is contingent on right doing.  Or rather, the knowledge is disclosed in the doing.  Wrongdoing is ignorance.  But, on the other hand, we can also ask whether this classical distinction is phenomenologically true? Is there, in fact, a theoretical knowledge prior to its application?  It seems that both Scripture and social analysis yield the same answer: there is no such neutral knowledge.  The sociology of knowledge makes abundantly clear that we think always out of a definite context of relations and action, out of a given praxis (Ibid., p. 90)."

Bonino believes that there should be a direct link between the interpretation of the texts and the praxis out of which this interpretation comes.  In other words, we should not accept the traditional interpretations uncritically.  He furthermore says, "Every interpretation of the texts which is offered to us, whether as an exegesis or as systematical or ethical interpretation, must be investigated in relation to the praxis out of which it comes.  Very concretely, we cannot receive the theological interpretation coming from the rich world without suspecting it, and therefore, asking what kind of praxis it supports, reflects, or legitimizes (Ibid., pps. 90-91).  

What is the role of history in theological reflection?  This question merits our consideration since as has been previously mentioned, theological reflection does not take place in a vacuum.  Bonino's answer is that we are not concerned with establishing through deduction the consequences of conceptual truths, but with analyzing a historical praxis which claims to be Christian.  This critical analysis includes a number of operations, which are totally unknown to classical theology.  Historical praxis overflows the area of the subjective and the private.  If we are dealing with acts and not merely with ideas, feelings, or intentions, we plunge immediately into the area of politics, understood now in its broad sense of public or social.  Billy Graham, the South African Reformed Church, Martin Luther King, or 'Christians for socialism' do not confront us primarily as a system of ideas or a theological position, but as historical agents in certain directions, and with certain effects which are objectively possible to determine.  The area of research is the total society in which those agents are performing:economic, political, and cultural facts are as relevant to a knowledge of these praxes as the exegesis of their pronouncements and publications.  Their Christianity must be verified in relation to such questions as imperialism, apartheid, integration, self-determination, and many other socio-political magnitudes (Ibid., p.91).

These statements serve to underscore Bonino's conviction that praxis cannot be divorced from history.  He indicates that Christian faith and practice are to be measured largely by one's attitudes towards the issues which he raises.

Juan Luis Segundo is well known in the world of theology for what he calls the "hermeneutical circle."  This hermeneutical circle is an approach that Segundo believes will enable one to relate past and present in dealing with the Word of God.  Segundo believes that each new reality obliges us to interpret the Word of God afresh, to change reality accordingly, and then to go back and reinterpret the Word of God again.  It is important to note Segundo's two preconditions that have to be met if there is to be a hermeneutical circle in theology.  The first preconditions is that: "The questions rising out of the present be rich enough, general enough, and basic enough to force us to change our customary conceptions of life, death, knowledge, society, politics, and the world in general.  Only a change of this sort, or at the very least, a pervasive suspicion about our ideas and value judgments concerning those things, will enable us to reach the theological level and force theology to come back down to reality and ask itself new questions (Juan Luis Segundo, Liberation of Theology.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1976, p. 8)."

One can note that there is an element of subjectivism expressed through the first precondition.  I am referring to the fact that Segundo does not identify who or what determines which questions are important enough to force us to change our customary conceptions.  

Segundo adds: "The second precondition is intimately bound up with the first.  If theology somehow assumes that it can respond to the new questions without  changing its customary interpretation of Scriptures, that immediately terminates the hermeneutical circle.  Moreover, if our interpretation of Scripture does not change along with the problems, then the latter will go unanswered; or worse they will receive old, conservative, unserviceable answers (Ibid. p. 9)." 

Hugo Assmann links the Scriptures, history, and praxis.  This linkage is an essential feature of his "practical theology of liberation."  He stresses the importance of practice as the starting point for theology of liberation.  He says: "In the Bible, on the other hand, words have meaning only as the expression of practice.  Events form the structural center of this biblical language.  It is not the casual events of the world of nature, but rather the human events of history.  The historic dimension in this pre-technical world, even the facts of nature, came to be taken as a point of spontaneous interaction  between God and humankind, which would be impossible for us today.  Liberation is necessarily linked to effective action (Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation. London: Search Press, 1975, p.75)"

As one can tell from reading Assmann's book, this "praxis" takes place in the world of history.  In other words, Assmann clearly identifies the need for the practice of biblical understanding to be intimately connected to the issues that are raised and to the events that take place in history.  This is especially noted when he states that "The theology of liberation insists even more on the strong historical basis of faith, including the notion of effective historical action in its very vision which constitutes faith.  Faith can only be historically true when it becomes truth: when it is historically effective in the liberation of humans, hence the 'truth' dimension of faith becomes closely linked to its ethical and political dimension (Ibid., p. 81)." 

I would like to conclude this essay by briefly underscoring what I believe to be the canonical status of Scripture in relation to Latin American Liberation Theology.  The Scriptures (at least in the Protestant tradition) are the primary source of faith and practice for the Christian community. From the Scriptures we derive the truths that we need in order to function in this world.  Since the Scriptures are not considered to be the mere product of human thinking, the message contained in them is applicable to the world of today.  

Liberation Theology seeks to take the message in the Scriptures and apply it to the present reality.  It is a "rereading of the Word of God."  Liberation Theology seeks to reinterpret the Bible in the light of modern events.  The accent of Liberation Theology is on the oppressed and dominated peoples in Latin America.  Liberation Theology draws on biblical themes such as "emancipation" for its reflection.

In the light of what I have stated, Liberation Theology is a secondary source for theological reflection and action in today's world.  To the extent that it builds on the thrust of Scripture, it is a source of faith and practice.  I do not make any claim that Liberation Theology is "divinely inspired."  In nevertheless brings us back to the fountainhead of inspired truth which is found in the Scriptures.  Because of this, Liberation Theology is a secondary authority on which the arguments for authentic emancipation of Latin America rests.

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 

 ASSUMPTIONS IN LIBERATION THEOLOGY

In order for us to evaluate any theology, we should first become familiar with the assumptions of the theologians in question.  This principle holds true for most branches of human knowledge.  Like in philosophy and in the social sciences, each theologian works with a certain set of assumptions.  Those assumptions, in turn, determine the content and thrust of the particular theology at hand. 

Liberation Theology is no different.  Liberation theologians bring their baggage of assumptions and presuppositions to their system of thought.

It is a known fact that no one does theology without a certain set of presuppositions.  This should come as a surprise to no one, when we consider among other things that no pure "objectivity" exists.  By identifying the assumptions, we would be in a much better position to understand the reason why each theologian says what he/she does.

Here we will examine the assumptions of a select group of thinkers of Liberation Theology.  All of them work out their theology within a Latin American context, and subsequently, their theological thrust reflects something about the socio-economic and political conditions of Latin America.

Gustavo Gutierrez, was the one known to coin the term "Liberation Theology." In his book, "Theology of Liberation," Gutierrez, a Peruvian priest, suggests that for theology to be valid, it must emerge from the "bottom up," i.e. emerge from the existential reality of the people.  In this case, Gutierrez, is speaking a theology which does not emerge from the halls and towers of intellectual speculation, or from linking theology to philosophy, but rather, from the experience of people who are undergoing the suffering of economic, political, and social oppression on an ongoing basis.

Gutierrez, like many other thinkers in Liberation Theology, assumes that society is divided into groups, i.e. oppressive and oppressed classes.  He says, "Liberation expresses the aspirations of oppressed peoples and social classes, emphasizing the conflictual aspect of the economic, social, and political process which puts them at odds with wealthy nations and oppressive classes (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p.x)."  The reader of his book will note that Gutierrez not only assumes, but also boldly affirms that there is, in Latin America, a struggle between different social groups. 

While the terms "oppressed groups," and "oppressive classes" might appear to some to be vague in definition, the reader will soon note that from the very beginning, Gutierrez is working on the assumption of a division with society.

Hugo Assmann was a Brazilian Catholic theologian.  He was one of the key leaders in the development of Liberation Theology in Brazil.  Continuing the thread of Gustavo Gutierrez, Assmann speaks about the "starting point" in Latin American Liberation Theology.  This starting point, he says, is "our objective situation as oppressed and dependent peoples, which is forcing itself more and more strongly on the consciousness of broad sections of Christian society in Latin America (Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation. London: Search Press, 1975, p. 5).   This statement reflects the assumption that the people of Latin America are in a state of oppression and dependence.  In describing this reality, Assmann shows that regardless of the course which Liberation Theology should take in the future, i.e. that its analytical and central semantic axis should not be forgotten.  He adds, "Any discussion of liberation must always go back to its essence: denouncing domination (Ibid., p. 57)." 

Mortimer Arias was a bishop in the Bolivian Methodist Church. Together with Ester Arias, he wrote the book, "The Cry of My People ( New York: Friendship Press, `980)."  

While Ester and Mortimer Arias do not state their assumptions explicitly, they indicate what these assumptions ate by pointing to statistics which reveal th;e depth of dehumanization that exists in Latin America.  They refer to the situation in Latin America as a "situation of captivity."  They share their reflection in the following words: "The last decade has been hard on our people south of the Rio Grande, in political frustrations, economic exploitation, social oppression, and military and police repression.  We have been living in captivity in our own land.  As in biblical times, a new theology has been born from our exile and out of our captivity-the theology of liberation.  We have been rediscovering the God the Exodus, the liberating God.  Out of the depths of oppression and repression, we may have something to do with Christians of the North, something of what the Lord has been saying to us throughout this dreadful experience (Arias and Arias, p. i.x.)."  The assumptions of Ester and Mortimer Arias are apparent.

Jose Miguez Bonino was a minister in the Methodist Church of Argentina. He served on the Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches.  He was also one of the leading pioneers of Liberation Theology in Latin America.

Bonino makes an allusion to this starting point for theological reflection.  He states that the articulation of the the obedience of Christians and the account of their faith "rest on an analysis and interpretation of the Latin American situation for which the transition from developmentalism to liberation is crucial (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p.xx)."  Bonino makes a direct link between action and reflection.  He says, "Their action and their reflection are of such a nature that they make no sense outside of such an analysis.  If it is wrong, they are proved that they are wrong.  An engaged faith and obedience cannot stand outside or above the world in which they are engaged.  This is the reason why, in the effort to enter into this theology, we are forced to dwell on the understanding and analysis of the world in which it finds its locus (Ibid., p. 21)."

In essence, Bonino points to the starting assumption of Liberation Theology: Oppression and suffering are the starting points for theological reflection.

Leonardo Boff was a Brazilian former priest and also a theologian and a writer.  He also served as a professor of theology in Metropolis, Brazil.  

Boff takes the same starting point as Bonino by saying that Liberation Theology was born as an answer to thee challenges of oppressed society (Leonardo Boff, Capitalism Versus Socialism:Crux Theological, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America, ed. Rosino Gibellini.   Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p. 13)."  For Boff, Latin America provides the forum in which "action-reflection" can take place.  He states that, "Latin America is today, a theologically privileged place for action and for reflection where challenging problems are faced.  It is the only continent of colonial Christianity.  Liberation Theology was born of an experimental praxis (Ibid.)". Not only does Boff assume that Latin America is in a state of oppression, but he also assumes that it provides the best context in which this critical reflection can take place.  

Juan Luis Segundo was a priest and theologian from Uruguay.  He was also a key figure in the movement of Liberation Theology.  Also contributing to the article "Capitalism Versus Socialism," he portrays the underlying premise of his version of Liberation Theology.  He makes a link between theology and historical sensitivity.  He states, " Historical sensitivity in the faces of starvation and illiteracy would seem to demand a society that  was not ruled by competition and the quest for profit. Such sensitivity would regard the fact that an underdeveloped nation got basic sustenance and education as a form of liberation. Viewed in the light of potential problems in the future, this particular matter might not seem to be of overriding importance in an affluent country.  But in our countries, we cannot avoid facing the the issue because we live with it twenty-four hours every day (Ibid., p. 255)."

Segundo, then poses the question: "When and if those ills are eliminated in our nations, what scientific exigencies or structures would prevent us from saying 'Your faith has saved you?'  It is simply a matter of giving theological status to a historical happening in all its absolute and elemental simplicity: 'Is it permitted to do do good or to do evil on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill' (Ibid, p. 256)."

By saying that historical sensitivity would seem to demean a society that is not ruled by competition and by the quest for profit, Segundo is making an allusion to the present structures in Latin America and the First World.  This statement seems to indicate that Segundo is not in agreement with the structures of present day society in Latin America, and that consequently, he is assuming that this situation of captivity and dependence should be the starting point for theological reflection.

In summary, theology needs to be evaluated in terms of the assumptions of each theologian.  Familiarity and engagement with those assumptions puts us in a much more advantageous position to evaluate the particular theology that is being discussed.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

Many people who are vaguely familiar with Liberation Theology are of the opinion that it is a mindset which began in the Roman Catholic Church in the 1960's.  It is precisely because of this unfounded assumption, and also the belief that anything emerging from the Catholic Church is erroneous, that many people reject it outright without examining it.  

Here I begin by speaking of the historical roots of Liberation Theology.  As pointed out in the first essay, Liberation Theology, in a very historical and technical sense, began when Yahweh, the God of Israel, spoke to Moses and said to him, "I have heard the cry of my people."  It was during this time that Yahweh, through Moses, initiated the process of liberating the Hebrew people from the physical bondage of slavery in Egypt, that the Hebrews began to engage in "god-talk."  Their theology emerged out of their oppression and suffering, and out of God's liberating and salvific acts in their history.  Their theology was not generated by philosophical speculation, nor by ivory tower conversations.  They did not have the luxury of engaging in intellectual discourse.  Nor were they in any condition to construct a theology which had nothing to do with the reality of life.  Their theology was birthed by their agony and misery, and by Yahweh empathizing with them, and acting to deliver them from those conditions.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND EMERGENCE OF LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY

As stated earlier, one must evaluate theology within its historical context.  Latin American Liberation Theology did not emerge in a historical vacuum, but within the context of economic, political, religious, and social relations.  To overlook this would be to relegate theology to a set of abstractions that have no relevance to human activity and history

Leonardo Boff, a leading spokesperson for Liberation Theology, and his brother Clodovis Boff, place Liberation Theology with the framework of Latin American history in their book, "Introducing Liberation Theology," Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books 1987.  At the time of the writing of this book, Leonardo Boff was a Franciscan priest who had been educated in Brazil and Germany.  Clodovis Boff, was a Servite priest and a professor at the Catholic University of São Paulo.  Leonardo Boff is the author off Ecclesiogeneis, Jesus Christ Liberator, and Liberating Grace.  Clodovis Boff is the author of Theology and Praxis, and together with Leonardo Boff, Salvation and Liberation.  

SOCIAL AND POLlTICAL DEVELOPMENT

The populist governments of the 1950's and 1960's-especially those of Peron in Argentina, Vargas in Brazil, and Cardenas in Mexico -inspired nationalistic consciousness and significant industrial development in the shape of import substitution.  This benefitted the middle class and urban proletariat, but threw huge sectors of the peasantry into deeper rural marginalization and sprawling urban shantytowns.  Development proceeded along the lines of dependent capitalism, subsidiary to that of the rich nations and excluding the great majorities of national populations.  This process led to the creation of strong popular movements seeking profound changes in the socio-economic structures of their countries.  These movements, in turn, provoked the rise of military dictatorships which sought to safeguard or promote the interests of capital, associated with a high level of "national security" achieved through political repression and police control of all public demonstrations.  

In this context, the socialist revolution in Cuba stood out as an alternative leading to the dissolution of the chief cause of underdevelopment: dependence.  Pockets of armed uprising appeared in many countries, aimed a overt growing the ruling powers and installing socialist -inspired regimes.  There was a great stirring for change among the popular sections of society, a truly revolutionary atmosphere (Boff and Boff, p. 67).

ECCLESIAL DEVELOPMENTS

Starting in the 1960's, a great wind of renewal blew through the churches.  They began to take their social mission seriously: lay persons committed themselves to work among them poor, charismatic bishops and priests encouraged the calls for progress and modernization.  Various church organization promoted understanding of and improvements in the living conditions of the people:movements such as Young Christian Students, Young Christian Workers, Young Christian Agriculturalists, the Movement for Basic Education, groups that set up educational radio programs, and the first base ecclesial communities.  

The work of these-generally middle-class Christian-was sustained theologically by the European theology of earthly realities, the integral humanism of Jacques Maritain, the social personalism of Mounier, the progressive evolutionism of Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac's reflections on the social meaning of dogma, Yves Congar's theology of the laity, and the work of M.D. Chenu.  The Second Vatican Council then gave the best possible theoretical justification  to activities developed under the signs of a theology of progress, of authentic secularization, and human advancement.

The end of the 1960's with the crisis of populism and the developmentalist model, brought about the advent of a rigorous current of sociological thinking, which unmasked the true causes of undervdevelopment.  Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin.  All nations of the Western world are engaged in a vast process of development; however, it was interdependent and unequal, organized in such a way that the benefits flowed to the already developed countries of the "center," and the disadvantaged  were meted out to the historically backward and underdeveloped countries of the "periphery."  The poverty of Third World countries was the price to be paid for the First World to be able to enjoy the fruits of overabundance.  

In ecclesial circles by now accustomed to following developments in society and studies of its problem, this interpretation acted as leaven, yielding a new vitality and critical spirit in pastoral circles.  The relationship of dependence on the periphery on the center had to be replaced by a process of breaking away and liberation.  So the basis of a theology of development was undermined and the theoretical foundations for a theology were laid.  Its material foundations were provided only when popular movements and Christian groups came together in the struggle for political and social liberation, with the ultimate aim of complete and integral liberation.  This was when the objective conditions for an authentic liberation theology came about (Ibid., p. 68).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

The first theological reflections that were to lead to Liberation Theology had their origins in a context of dialogue between a church and society in ferment, between Christian faith, and the longings for transformation and liberation arising from the people.  The Second Vatican Council produced a theological atmosphere characterized by great freedom and creativity.  This gave Latin American theologians the courage to think for themselves about pastoral problems affecting their countries.  This process could be seen at work among both Catholic and Protestant thinkers within the group Church and Society in Latin America (Iglesia y Sociedad in la America Latina) taking a prominent part.  There were frequent meetings between Catholic theologians (Gustavo Gutierrez, Segundo Galilea, Juan Luis Segundo, Lucio Gera and others) and Protestant theologians (Emilio Castro, Julio de Santa Ana, Rubem Alves, Jose Miguez Bonino) leading to intensified reflection on the relationship  between faith and poverty, the Gospel and social justice, and the like.  In Brazil, between 1959 and 1964, the Catholic left produced a series of basic texts on the need for a Christian ideal of history, linked to popular action, with a methodology that foreshadowed Liberation Theology; they urged personal engagement in the world, backed up by studies of social and liberal sciences, and illustrated by the universal principles of Christianity (Ibid, p. 69).  

At a meeting of Latin American theologians held in Petropolis (Rio de Janiero) in March 1964, Gustavo Gutierrez described theology as critical reflection on praxis.  This line of thought was further developed at meetings in Havana, Bogota, and Cuernavaca in June and July 1965.  Many other meetings were held as part of the preparatory work for the Medellin conference of 1968.  These acted as laboratories for a theology worked out on the basis of pastoral concerns and committed Christian action.  Lectures given by Gutierrez in Montreal in 1967 and at Chimobote in Peru on the poverty of the Third World and the challenge it posed to the development of a pastoral strategy of liberation were a powerful impetus toward a theology of liberation.  Its outlines were first put forward at the theological congress at Cartigny, Switzerland in 1969: Toward a Theology of Liberation (Ibid., p. 70).

The first Catholic congresses devoted to Liberation Theology were held in Bogota in March of 1970 and July 1971.  On the Protestant side, Iglesia y Sociedad en la America Latina (ISAL) organized something similar in Buenos Aires the same years (Ibid.).

Finally, in December 1971, Gustavo Gutierrez published his seminal work, Teologia de la Liberation.  In May, Hugo Assmann had conducted a symposium, "Oppression-Liberation: The Challenge to Christians" in Montevideo, and Leonardo Boff had published a series of articles under the title "Jesus Cristo Libertador."  The door was opened for the development of a theology from the periphery, dealing with the concerns of this periphery concerns that presented and still present an immense challenge to the evangelizing mission of the Church (Ibid.).

Leonardo and Clodovis Boff propose dividing the formulation of Liberation Theology into four stages.  They are the following:

1.  The Foundational Stage

The foundations were laid by those who sketched the general outlines of this way doing theology.  Besides the all-important writings of Gustavo Gutierrez, outstanding works were produced by Juan Luis Segundo: De la Sociedad a la Teologia (1970), Liberacion de la Teologia (1975), Hugo Assmann: Teologia Desde la Praxis de la Liberacion (1973), Lucio Gera: Apuntes Para Una Interpretacion de la Iglesia en Argentina (1970), Teologia de la Liberacion (1973),  Others who should be mentioned are Bishop (later Cardinal) Eduardo Pironio, Secretary of CELAM, Segundo Galilea, and Raimundo Caramuru, principal theological consultant to the Brazilian Bishop's Conference.  There was a great ferment of activities in the shape of courses and retreats during this period (Ibid. p, 71).

On the Protestant side, besides Emilio Castro and Julio de Santa Ana, the outstanding contributions were made by Rubem Alves:Religion, Opium of the People or Instrument of Liberation (1969), and Jose Miguez Bonino:La Fe en Busca de Eficacia (1967), and Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (1975). 

Lay persons such as Hector Borrat, Methol Ferre, and Luis Alberto Gomez de Souza did valuable work in linking theology with the social sciences, as did the Belgian priest Francois Houtart, and the Chilean G. Arroyo (Ibid.).

2.  The Building Stage

The first stage was characterized by the presentation of Liberation Theology as a sort of "fundamental theology"-that is, an opening up of new horizons and perspectives that give a new outlook on the whole of theology.  The second stage moved on to the first efforts at giving the liberation approach doctrinal content. Three areas received most attention as corresponding to the most urgent needs in the life of the Church:spirituality, Christology, and ecclesiology.  There was a wide range of publications from many Latin American countries.  The main writers were: Enrique Dussell, Juan Carlos Scannone, Severino Croat, and Aldo Buntig in Argentina, Joao Batista Libanio, Frei Bretto, Carlos Masters, Eduardo Hoornaert, Jose Oscar Beozzo, Gilberto Gorgulho, Carlos Palacio, and Leonardo Boff in Brazil, Ronaldo Munoz, Sergio Torres, and Pablo Richard in Chile, Raul Valdes, Luis die Valle, Arnaldo Zenteno, Camilo maccise, and Jesus Garcia in Mexico, Ignacio Ellacurria, Jon Sobrino, Juan Pico, and Uriel Molina in Central America, Pedro Trigo and Otto Maduro in Venezuela, Luis Patino and Cecilio de Lorra in Colombia (Ibid.).  

3.  The Setting-in Stage

With the process of theological reflection well-advanced the need was seen for a dual process of "setting in" if the theology of liberation was to become firmly established.  On the one hand was the understanding that the theological current needed to be given a firm epistemological basis: how to avoid duplications and confusion of language and levels, while giving coherent expression to the themes arising from original spiritual experience, taking in the analytical stage, moving on to the theological judging stage, and so to the pastoral action stage.  Good liberation theology presupposes  the art of linking it's theories with the explicit inclusion of practice; in this area, Liberation Theology found fruitful collaborators, not only for its own purposes, but for those of the overall theological process.  On the other hand, the "setting in" process was effectively achieved through the deliberate mingling of theologians and other intellectuals in popular circles and processes of liberation (Ibid., p. 72). 

More and more theologians became pastors too, militant agents of inspiration for the life of the Church at its grass roots and those of society.  It became usual to see theologians taking part in involved epistemological discussions in learned congresses, then leaving back to their  bases among the people to become involved in matters of catechesis, trade union politics, and community organization. Some of the names are Antonio A. da Silva, Rogerio de Almedida Cunha, and Clodovis Boff from Brazil, Elsa Tamez and Victorio Araya from Costa Rica, Virgilio Elisondo from Texas, and P. Laennec from Haiti (Ibid.).

4.  The Formalization Stage 

Any original theological vision tends, with the passage of time, and through its own internal logic, to seek more formal expression.  Liberation Theology always set out to reexamine the whole basic content of revelation and tradition so as to bring out the social and liberating dimensions implicit in both sources.  Again, this is not a matter of reducing the totality of mystery to this one dimension, but of underlying aspects of a greater truth particularly relevant to our context of oppression and liberation (Ibid., p. 73).

Such a formalization also corresponds to pastoral requirements.  The last few years have seen a great extension of situations in which the Church has become involved with the oppressed, with a very large number of pastoral workers involved.  Many movements have come into being under the tutelage, to a large extent, of Liberation Theology.  In Brazil alone, there are movements or centers for black unity and conscientization, human rights, defense of slum-dwellers, marginalized women, mission to Amerindians, rural pastoral strategy, and so forth-all concerned in one way or another with the poorest of the poor seeking liberation (Ibid.).  

I hope that this presentation of the historical development of Liberation Theology in Latin America has helped to clarify and elucidate issues related to its origins.  I end by saying that all theology, whether it be Liberation Theology or other, has to be contextualized within the framework of history.  In this way, we can be in a better position to critique and evaluate its relevance or non-relevance to the world that we live in.  

Dr. Juan A. Carmona