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