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