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