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