Liberation Theology-Continued

                                              LIBERATION THEOLOGY-CONTINUED

Gustavo Gutierrez, the person known for coining the term "theology of liberation," tells us that theology of liberation offers us not so much a new theme for theological reflection, but as a new way to do theology.  Theology as critical reflection on historical praxis is a liberating theology, a theology of the liberating transformation of humankind-gathered into ecclesia, and which openly confesses Christ.  This is a theology which does not stop with reflecting on the world, but rather, tries to be a part of the process through which the world is transformed.  It is a theology which is open in the protest against trampled human dignity, in the struggle against the plunder of the vast majority of people, in liberating  love, and in the building of a new, just, and fraternal society--to the gift of the Reign of God (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p. x).

Here Gutierrez makes a direct link between theology as reflection and the historical process of transformation.  Liberation Theology, according to Gutierrrez, would be the application of a discourse about God to the world of concrete historical happenings.  As a critical reflection, Liberation Theology leads to self-reflection and to a critique of society and the Church.  Liberation Theology, is then, a critical way of looking at the world and a call for change in the structures of the Church and the world.

Hugo Assmann says that "Theology is an understanding of the faith, and a re-reading of the Word as it is lived in the Christian community.  More than anything, it has to do with the communication of faith and the proclamation of the good news, which is that the Creator loves all people. To evangelize is to witness to that love; to say that it has been revealed to us and was made flesh in Christ (Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation. London: Search Press, 1975, p. 5)."

I would rephrase Assmann's statement by saying that Liberation Theology is an understanding of the faith and a re-reading of the Word as it is lived in Latin America.  Subsequently, one would seek to determine how the faith is to be understood and how the Word is to be lived in Latin America.  That, in essence, would be the task of Liberation Theology.

We may ask as to why this type of theological reflection takes place in Latin America.  Assmann says: This theological reflection is impelled by a desire to speak the Word of the Lord to all people from a position of solidarity (Ibid. p. 6)."  In Assmann's view, Liberation Theology is an attempt to bring the Word of God to the world.  This proclamation would be carried out from the standpoint of establishing ties of solidarity with the oppressed and poor people of the world.  Assmann is careful to point out that the type of Christian experience determines the form that theology takes at different moments in history.  Nevertheless, as he describes it, "theology is a task for all times (Ibid. p. 5)."

Esther and Mortimer Arias describe Liberation Theology as the "result of a new reading of the Scriptures in a particular historical situation. The experience of the Exodus became the key to a new perception of the Gospel (Esther and Mortimer Arias, The Cry of My People. New York: Friendship Press, 1980, p. 127)."  Taking the Exodus story as a model for freedom, Liberation Theology is a participation in that story.  For the Ariases, Liberation Theology is not a mere retelling of the past, but rather, the incorporation of past events into present history.

Jose Miguez Bonino defines Liberation Theology as "a question addressed to the Christian obedience of our sisters and brothers in Christ elsewhere-a question though, that only they can answer (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation.  Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p.xx)."

Bonino believes that as a task, Liberation Theology is a critical and committed Christian reflection of the people who have decided to join the struggle in Latin America to construct a different society.  He does not believe that Liberation Theology is merely a "new school," or a set of self-contained theological tenets or position.  In fact, Bonino points out that if Liberation Theology is made into a new school, that "it will have its day and be gone (Ibid., p.. xix)."  

In the attempt do distinguish Liberation Theology from other currents of thought, Leonardo Boff describes it as a "global way of articulating the task of thme intelligence of the faith (Leonardo Boff, Teologia desde el Cautiverio.  Bogota: Indo-American Press Service, 1975, p. 13)."  He points out that Liberation Theology is not a theme among others in theology.  This theology is done, according to Boff, from the standpoint of captivity in Latin America.  Because of this, Boff refers to it as a "theology of liberation from captivity."

Juan Luis Segundo sees Liberation Theology as "the claim to view theology from the standpoint which the Christian fonts point up as the only authentic and privileged standpoint for arriving at a full and complete understanding of God's revelation in Jesus Christ (Juan Luis Segundo, "Capitalism Versus Socialism:"Crux Theologica," Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. Rosino Gibellini, ed.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p. 40)."  Segundo underscores the seriousness of Liberation Theology by posing a test case.  He posits a confrontation with theology and the probleming choosing between a capitalist society and a socialist society.  Segundo calls attention to the need for theology to be validated by the choice which is made for the development of society.

As previously pointed out, Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagtination.  There are differences as to motifs and prisms through which  different theologians engage in social analysis. The one thing that most, if not all Liberation theologians have in common, is that they believe that biblical interpretation and theological reflection have oppression and suffering as their starting points.  While historically speaking, the Scriptures and the traditions have been seen as sources which shed light on the present situation, Liberation Theology does just the opposite, i.e. it uses the present situation to shed light on the Scriptures and the traditions.  While that approach carries the risk of eisegesis (reading into the text), it also carries the advantage of making the text and the tradition come alive.  It allows for there to be and interaction between the text and the traditions on the one hand, and the current situation on the other hand as a continuous event.

Subsequent chapters will focus on the historical development of Liberation in Latin America, and the major assumptions and presuppositions on the part of Liberation theologians.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Liberation Theology: The Latin American Context

In order for us to begin to tackle the field of Liberation Theology, we first need to define what it is and what are the major assumptions and presuppositions.  I will begin by saying that Liberation Theology is not merely another school of theological thought, nor merely a mindset.  It goes much further that, and subsequently, is something that will never be irrelevant or "out of style."

In a very general sense, Liberation Theology begins with the doctrine of Creation, the Fall, and Redemption.  Liberation Theology takes seriously the divine initiative in all of these events.  It affirms God as the Creator of all things, and the Liberator of humankind from the consequences of the Fall, i.e. slavery to sin, both individual and structural.

In that same vein, Liberation Theology focuses on God's act of the liberation from the physical slavery of the Hebrew people in Egypt.  Yahweh God speaks to Moses and says to him, "I have heard the cry of my people."  God identifies with the affiliction, misery, and suffering of the Hebrews.  God conveys to Moses that he is being called to initiate, from a human standpoint, the process of dismantling the structures of slavery, and leading the people out of what at one time was the house of abundance, and then became the house of bondage.

The failure to acknowledge and recognize the biblical roots of Liberation Theology will result in a gross misunderstanding as to what it is, and cause many to demonize and even distort not only its contents, but also its thrust. In addition, if one fails to recognize the roots of Liberation Theology, then the tendency will be to either think of it as one school of theological thought among others, and also to equate it with ideologies and movements such as Marxixm and political and social revolution. It will also result in placing Liberation Theology within the framework of extreme humanism, which tends to "write off" divine initiative and overemphasize human achievement. The task of defining Liberation Theology is a difficult and complex one. There is no one "theology of liberation." Rosino Gibelleni says that "Liberation Theology is a variegated affair, both in its motifs and the personalies involved (Rosino Gibellellni, ed. Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. Maryknoll:Orbis Books, 1979, p.x.).  One will find diversity of thinking and methodology in Liberation Theology.  It is not one particular way of thinking.  There is as much diversity in Liberation Theology there is in European and other theologies. Nevertheless, there is an underlying unity in Liberation Theology's trend of thinking.  (To be continued).

                                                                              THE ROLE OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

In most every religious syand indstem, there are scriptures (sacred texts) and traditions that define and identify the beliefs and practices of that system.  In some cases, such as in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the sacred texts constitute the basic core of their belief systems.  In other words, the beliefs and practices of that system are based on "what the text says."

In some segments of Christianity, the doctrine and theology are based on "what the Bible says."  In other segments of Christianity, the theology is based on the hermeneutics (interpretations) of the text, and also on how the preceding oral tradition gave way to the text.

Until recently, almost the entire spectrum of theological opinion would have agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, together with the doctrinal interperpretations, occupy a unique and indispensable place of authority for Christian faith, practice, and reflection.  But this consensus now seems to be falling apart (Edward Earley and Peter C. Hodgson in "Scripture and Tradition." Christian Theology: An Introduction to the Traditions and Tasks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 60). 

Formation of the Scripture Principle in Postexilic Judaism,

What is called the scripture principle, originated as a solution to  a major crisis in Israel's history, i.e. the dispersion of the Jewish people following the Babylonian Exile.  This event significantly modified Israel's social institutions, separated a portion of the Jewish people from those institutions, and brought about an acute threat of cultural and religious assimilations. The Diaspora Jews, now lacking the land, temple, and priesthood, created two new institutions for preserving their socioreligious identity: the synagoue and the written Torah (Ibid., p. 64)

Under these circumstances, "scripture" came to mean a written deposit of the complete and definitive revelation of Yahweh to the people, functioning as the primary source of cultic and moral regulaltion to the community.  Threee basic convictions came to be held about the Torah:

1.  It is the exhaustive location of a now past divine communication, relative to all present and future time and places, containing at least implicitly, an answer for every need and crisis.  

2.  It is toally and equally valid in all its parts and details.

3.  It contains symbols, references to the nation, land, holy city, and temple, permitting the endurance of a people whose self-understanding remained that of a dispersed nation, a quasi-political and religious entity, having as its regulated law what was originally given for its life as a nation in possession  of its own land (Ibid., pps. 63-64).

The Christian Appropriation of the Scripture Principle

Although as an offspring of Judaism, the early Christian community inherited the Hebrew/Jewish scriptures and soon produced a collection of writings of their own, it did not necessarily have to adopt the scripture prinicle.  In fact, through the first century and a half of its existence, a certain tension can be discerned over precisely this issue (Ibid., p.67).

In Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the basic notion is that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Early Church (experiences and traditions) preceded written revelation.  So, in some respects, experience and tradition "gave birth" to the Scripture.

In Protestantism. it was and still is believed that the Scripture carries primacy over the tradition and over experience.  The rules of "Prima Scriptura" and "Sola "Scriptura" relegate experience and tradition to a secondary status.  

Has the "House of Authority ( whether the traditions and Scriptures as interpreted by the Church, or the Scriptures themselves as the final authority in the life of the  Church) collapsed?  That is something that will have to be determined on an ongoing basis by lay people, ministers, scholars, and theologians.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona