AFRICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

                                       STEVE BIKO 

                                       EVEN THE POLICE ARE INTERESTED IN THEOLOGY 

In order to understand how Liberation Theology functions in the African continent, attention must be paid to those theologians whose theological orientation is an emphasis on justice, oppression, and suffering in that continent.  As we examine African theologians who engage in theology (God-talk) in that part of the world, we focus on how they integrate theology and social concerns

Steve Biko is one of the courageous blacks in South Africa who have given their lives for their convictions.  He was instrumental in founding the all-black South African Students Organization (SASO) (Ferm, op. cit. pp. 63-64).  

SASO had a manifesto on Black Consciousness.  Here we find the points of that manifesto:

1.  The basic tenet of Black Consciousness is that black people must reject all value systems that seek to make them foreigners in the country of their birth and reduce their basic human dignity;

2.  Black people must build up their own value system, and see themselves as self-defined and not defined by other;

3.  The concept of Black Consciousness implies awareness by the black people of the power they hold as a group, both economically and politically, and hence group cohesion and solidarity are important facets of Black Consciousness.  

4.  Black Consciousness will always be enhanced by the totality of involvement of oppressed people, hence the message of  Black Consciousness has to be spread to reach all sections of the black community (Basil Moore, ed. Black Theology: The South African Voice. London: Hurst, 1973, p. 61). 

By the early 1970's, Biko had become a forceful advocate of black consciousness and black theology, contending that the role of black theology is to give to South Africa a "more human face (Ferm, op. cit. p. 64).  

In 1972 he wrote a biting article in defense of black consciousness, affirming that:

We are aware that the white people are sitting at our table.  We know that they have no right to be there; We want to remove them from our table, strip the table of all the trappings put on by them, decorate it in true African style, settle down and then ask them to join us on our term of they wish (Donald Woods, Biko.  New York, Vintage Press, p. 79).

Biko consistently and steadfastly argued that the basic problem in South Africa is not class struggle, but racism.  Here again, we note an important difference between South African and Latin American Liberation Theology.  One might argue that the historical situations are radically different, but even so, can Latin American liberation theologians be faulted for their neglect of the racial component (Ferm, op. cit., p. 64)? 

Alfred Reid of Jamaica asks:

Where is the contribution of the 40 million blacks of Brazil?  What mark have they made on the life and thought of the Christian community? What about the blacks of Nicaragua?  What fellowship is there with the Caribbean, with Guyana, and Belize, which are part of this continent (In Torres and Eagleson, The Challenge of Basic Christian Communities, p. 263)? 

The reason for stressing the racial component is the conviction that whites really do believe that blacks are inferior.  The problem with racial integration, as Biko saw it, is that white values would continue to dominate. What black must do is to emphasize group pride.  In order to accomplish this, they must define their own worth in their own terms.  Biko believed that a new appreciation of the Christian Gospel will find God and Christ siding with the racially oppressed (Ferm,  op. cit. p. 65).

During the 1970's, Biko was in and out of jail, and often under house arrest. Efforts on the part of government authorities to silence him only heightened his efforts in support of black consciousness throughout South Africa.  Finally, on September 6, 1977, Biko was arrested and taken to jail at Port Elizabeth, Cape Province, where was tortured.  He died six days later (Ibid.).

At Biko's funeral, Bishop Desmund Tutu spoke these words:

God called Steve Biko to be his servant in South Africa-to speak on behalf of God. God called him to be the founder of the Black Consciousness Movement---Steve has started something that is quite unstoppable. The powers of evil, of injustice, of oppression, of exploitation, have done their worst and they have lost.  They have lost because they are immoral and wrong, and our God, the God of Exodus, the liberator God, is a God of justice and liberation and goodness (John Webster, Crying in the Wilderness. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1982, pp. 62, 64).

One of Biko's most ardent supporters was the white newspaperman Donald Wood who later escaped from South Africa when he was under house arrest.  Woods wrote of Biko:

If the nationalists had allowed Steve Biko to operate unfettered, within the bounds of normal law, apartheid could have been negotiated out of existence within five years for the benefit of all South Africans of every race (Biko, op. cit., p.421).

But because this was not to be, Woods continued, "the express train of white racism is now rushing at all speed on a collusion course with the express train of black anger (Ibid., p. 424).

Biko's theological position challenges us to examine theology (God-talk) not only in the context of South Africa, but of the African continent as a whole.  We have to ask ourselves if the theology focusing on black people in South Africa is relevant to black people in the rest of the African continent, and also to black people on a world-wide basis.  

Another question that comes into play is whether Biko's theological position is similar to that of James Cone, i.e. that race-based oppression and suffering should be the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.  

This theologian (yours truly) is of the persuasion that race-based oppression as the starting point is concomitant with class-based and gender-based, as well as sexual orientation-based.  As a black Puerto Rican, I see both the necessity and the value of focusing on ethnicity/race as a starting point because the biblical theme of liberation began with an ethnic group, i.e. the Hebrews.  Nevertheless, because as a Puerto Rican I am also a Latin American, I see the need and the value of focusing on social class, including that of immigration, as a starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Past Visiting Professor of Liberation Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary

Tainan, Taiwan 

 

      HOW DID BLACK CONSCIOUSNESS EMERGE IN SOUTH AFRICA?

One of the questions that we deal with in terms of engaging with oppressed people, is that of the emergence of consciousness.  Whether it is in the areas of religion and theology, or in the areas of the social sciences, we ask the question, "How do these branches of human knowledge contribute to awareness and consciousness raising?"  How do people come to the realization that they are oppressed and in need of liberation?  What does it mean to be oppressed?  How does liberation come about?  

In the realm of theology (God-talk), the issue of consciousness is totally relevant.  If theology is to address the issue of liberation, it must also address the issue of consciousness.  In other words, God-talk has to make people aware of their economic, political, and social condition. It also needs to make them aware that God is not apathetic or insensitive to their oppression and suffering.  

Some may say that religion and theology should be "race neutral."  That is a preposterous statement.  If theology is to address the issues of human oppression and suffering, and if race is the basic reason for oppression and suffering, then there is no way that theology can be "race neutral" or "color blind."  Theology has to take the issue of race into consideration of its God-talk.  

Gustavo Gutierrez, the father of Latin American Liberation Theology, spoke about "God's preferential option for the poor." He did not say that God was only interested in the plight of the poor, but rather that God had a preferential option, i.e. that God was specifically concerned with the poor relative to their social condition.  

In that same spirit, we talk about God's "preferential option for black people."  This is not so suggest or even remotely imply that God favors black people over white or other people.  God's preferential option for the poor is God's concern for black people because of their condition generated by racism of an institutional, structural, and systemic nature.  

James Cone, the father of African American Liberation Theology stated that if theology is carried out independently of the oppressed condition of black people, then it is demonic.  In other words, if theology does not address the suffering of black people, then it is a pseudo theology, because by default it negates God's historical concern for oppressed people.  

Through the years, blacks in South Africa had tried to retaliate, but with little success. As early as 1912, they established the Native National Congress, which later became the African National Congress.  In the early 1960's, South Africa withdrew from the British Commonwealth and became a republic.  This was an especially important period in the emergence of black consciousness.  The Sharpeville massacre (1960) in which seventy blacks who engaged in a peaceful protest were slaughtered, led to protests, boycotts, and strikes, which served to stiffen black resistance. The African National Congress, for many years under the dynamic leadership of Nobel Prize winner Albert Luthuli, took an increasingly active role while maintaining its nonviolent stance (Ferm, op. cit., p. 63).

The multiracial University Christian Movement (UCM), established in 1967, attracted large numbers of black students because of its willingness to take stands on social and political issues.  But many black students withdrew from it in 1969 to form the all-black South African Students Organization (SASO), motivated in large part by the inspiring leadership of Steve Biko (Ibid.). 

Another important organization that cultivated black consciousness was the Christian Institute, founded in 1963 by C.F. Beyers Naude. The Christian Institute later became a part of the South African Council of Churches, which in 1968, published "A Message to the People of South Africa" condemning apartheid.  As a result of its aggressive pro-black policy, the Christian Institute became a target of government espionage and was forced to close in 1977. It had been a major force in encouraging black consciousness in the 1960's and 1970's (Ibid.) 

On a theological level, the Institute had an impact in southern Africa similar to that of Liberation Theology in Latin America, which challenges Christians to accept the scriptural injunction to work and be with the poor.  The real threat posed by the Christian Institute lay not in its calls for some reform, but in its call for radical change-at the roots of society (Marjorie Hope and James Young, The South African Churches in a Revolutionary Situation.  Maryknoll, N.Y., Orbis Books, 1981, p. 84).

By the early 1970's black theology had begun to make an appearance in South Africa-at the same time that Latin American Liberation Theology was emerging.  One of the first books on this subject was Black Theology: The South African Voice, edited by Basil Moore (London: Hurst, 1973).

Both the book and its editor, the former Secretary General of the University Christian Movement in South Africa, were banned.  In his introductory article, "What is Black Theology," Moore points out that the term "black theology" originated in the late 1960's.  He goes on to stress that it is imperative for South African theologians to apply this new theology to their own historical situation.  He says:

Black Theology starts with black people in the South African situation facing the strangling problems of oppression, fear, hunger, insult and dehumanization.  It tries to understand as clearly as possible who these people are, what their life experiences are, and the nature and cause of their suffering.  This is an indispensable datum of Black Theology (Ibid., p. 6). 

Moore points to the concept of "Christ is black" as an important one, indicating God's identification with  an oppressed people (Ferm, p. 63).

In South Africa, there has been a vigorous effort on the part of four black theologians to relate their understanding of the Christian Gospel to apartheid and the various social evils imbedded in this society.  Four of these theologians merit special consideration (Ibid., p. 64).

Those four theologians are Steve Biko, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Allan Boesak, and Manas Buthelezi. These four theologians will be covered in subsequent articles, focusing on the content and approaches of their respective theologies.  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.  Amen.

Rev. Dr.  Juan A. Carmona 

                              GOD TALK IN THE CONTEXT OF SOUTH AFRICAN OPPRESSION 

In the spirit of my previous article, I continue to emphasize that theology (God-talk) takes place not only in the First World of Euro-America, but also in the countries (especially the underdeveloped ones) of the Third World. We ask ourselves, "What has God done and what is God doing in this part of the world?"  We also ask, how do people experience God and how do people engage in God-talk in this part of the world?  

As mentioned before, there is reluctance to talk about theology in the context of the African continent. Those of us whose mind has been colonized still tend to think that African spirituality and theology is  either "inferior" to Euro-American spirituality and theology, or at the very least, demonic and pagan.  

White settlers from Holland landed in South Africa in 1652 and established a sailing settlement near what is now the city of Cape Town.  In a manner reminiscent of the white invaders of North America, who pushed the Amerindians westward, the Dutch settlers forced the blacks into the midsection of Africa.  White immigrants, the progenitors of the contemporary Afrikaners, came in increasing numbers from many European countries and combined their forces against the native blacks.  British citizens began to settle during the latter part of the eighteenth century and for a time served as a buffer between the Afrikaners and the indigenous black population. The British, however, greedy for gold, moved to the interior, an invasion that led to the Anglo-Boer Wars (1899-1901).  The victorious British soon united all of South Africa into one white-controlled principality in which blacks had no rights-a wholesale oppression that was continued when England gave commonwealth status to the Union of South Africa in 1910.  The Afrikaners began to establish their own identity by emphasizing their own culture, tradition, and language. Their Nationalist Party, founded in 1914, made a concerted effort to institutionalize apartheid in a ruthless enactment of laws to keep blacks powerless.  The Nationalist Party, which had held power since 1948, reaffirmed apartheid in the constitutional referendum of 1983, allowing partial parliamentary recognition for Asians and "coloureds," but keeping blacks powerless.  In this resolute affirmation of white supremacy, most Afrikaners believed that they were building a Christian nation  and until recently, were supported by the "Christian"(that is, white) churches. The Dutch Reformed Church continued to be the largest and most influential church, often referred to as "the Nationalist Party at prayer" (Ferm, op.cit. p. 62). 

Ernie Regehr points out the importance of this church and its relationship  to the government: 

It is a potent irony that one of today's most perverted and unjust social systems is the creation of a regime that, perhaps more than any other modern state, views itself as a Christian theocracy. Since 1948, when the Afrikaner nationalists gained power, the Dutch Reformed churches have had the direct access to, if not control over, the country's political leadership (Perceptions of Apartheid: The Churches and Political Change in South Africa. Scottdale, Pa.; Herald, 1979), p.11) 

Similar to what happened in Latin America, the system of apartheid-oppressor versus oppressed- was not only condoned by the white parents of the First World, which gave financial support to their mission churches in Africa, but was also reinforced by First World investors from Western Europe and the United States, primarily through transnational corporations.  The participation of U.S. business in the economic system  of South Africa has increased in recent decades (Ferm, op cit. p. 62).  

Baldwin Sjollema says the following: Those who invest in South Africa should please do so with their eyes open...Economic growth has failed to benefit black people in any significant way.  The claim by transnational corporations that the apartheid system would change and human rights improve has also not come true (Isolating Apartheid: Western Collaboration with South Africa: Geneva, 1982, pp. 1,11). 

There is little doubt that a direct correlation exists between economic and political domination by First World Powers and the perpetuation of apartheid in South Africa (Ferm, op. cit., p. 62)

Does anyone see a similarity between Christian Nationalism and white Christian Nationalism in the U.S.A. in the era of Donald Trump?  Can you see why it is so important to engage in God-talk from an African perspective?   

Our coverage of Liberation Theology from an African perspective continues in subsequent articles.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary, Tainan, Taiwan 

                                        

AFRICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

One of  the challenges of talking about African Liberation Theology is talking about African theology itself.  I say this, because there is a tendency in Western Christianity to believe that Christian theology is Euro-centered, and the failure to acknowledge that the African roots of Christian theology are much, much older than than the emergence of colonial Western Christian theology.  Some of the most well-known Christian theologians from the early days of Christianity came from Africa.  Among them are Tertullian and Augustine.  

African Liberation Theology is not a mere clone of Latin American Liberation Theology.  The diverse and rich culture of Africa, in addition to its unique experience of Christianity,  represents a fresh challenge to those seeking to understand African notions of liberation (Ferm, op. cit. p. 59).

One of the many reasons why there is reticence and resistance towards African theology in general, and African Liberation Theology in particular, is because of the notion that anything that comes out of Africa is inferior and even bordering on the demonic.  The Western theological enterprise is permeated by blatant racism, i.e. that notion that "white is right," and "universally valid in all times and in all places."  Therefore, the thinking goes, any theology coming out of the African continent must be "inferior" at best and "demonic" at worst.

As is well known, the Christian Church has existed in Northern Africa since early times.  Especially prominent was the Christian community in Alexandria (Egypt) at the time of Clement and Origen in the second and third centuries.  Later, in the fifth century, the Coptic Church of Egypt, which still flourishes today, emerged as an Egyptian nationalist movement opposing Byzantine imperialism.  But it was not until the fifteenth century, with the arrival of Portuguese explorers, that Africa south of the Sahara came into contact with Western Christian imperialism.  By the nineteenth century, Christian missionaries were spreading throughout sub-Saharan Africa, usually joining forces with Western colonial powers in exploiting the inhabitants, their lands and resources, with a "prophet, antilock, we have the truth, you don't" attitude.  As a result, racism and the aftertaste of slavery have deeply infected relationships between blacks and whites throughout Africa from the first colonial settlements to the present generation (Ferm, op. cit. p. 59).

Thus, although stressing liberation from social, economic, and political oppression like its Latin American obverse, African Liberation Theology is deeply concerned with racial oppression. This component is especially strong in South Africa, where racism in the form of apartheid had been extremely virulent.   Both African and North American black theologians have faulted Latin American theologians for failing to take the racial component seriously (Ibid.).

James Cone, the father of African-American Liberation Theology suggests the following:

The Latin American theologians' emphasis upon the class struggle, with almost no mention of race oppression, made black theologians suspicious of their white European identity (Sergio Torres and John Eagles, eds.; The Challenge of Basic Christian Communities (Maryknoll, N.Y., Orbis Books, 1981, p.266).

The question that I raise is here is whether Cone's question is a valid one.  I raise that question because I am not sure that Cone gives as much emphasis to class as he does to race.  This is not to say that one is important than the other.  This theologian is of the persuasion that if theology is to be truly liberate, that the emphases on class, gender, nationality, orientation, and race must be concomitant, i.e. that they all must be dealt with equally.  

Ruvimbo Taker of Zimbabwe note the following:

The fact that the cultures of the Indians and blacks have been ignored seems to indicate why they are absent from the larger participation in Latin American life.  The rich cultural attributes of the Indians and the blacks have been ignored by the Church in conformity with the ruling dominant class (Torres and Eagles, op. cit., p. 258)

Once again the issue of race, and also of ethnicity appears to be the dominant theme in the minds of some African theologians as well as in the minds of people like Cone and possibly other African American theologians.  Should the issue of race take precedence over all the other issues previously mentioned?  This theologian says "Absolutely not!"  

John Pobee points out:

With the exception of the Republic of South Africa, racial prejudice is not so bad in Africa as in America...Consequently, African theology, though interested in liberation, is not preoccupied with liberation as much as black theology is (Toward an African Theology. Nashville:Abingdon, 1979, p.39). 

In addition, African theologians have in recent years had a far greater appreciation for indigenous religions than have their Latin American counterparts.   Even the African churches have begun to show a willingness to incorporate indigenous beliefs and practices into their teachings.  This, however, has not always been the case.  The early missionaries who came from the First World brought with them a westernized version of Christianity that looked upon the African blacks as heathen and Africa itself as the "empire of Satan."  These missionaries were convinced that either the Africans had no religion at all or what religion they had was pagan.  In fact, perhaps the most potent factor in the development of independent churches throughout Africa was the failure of mission programs of the established churches to come to terms with the African religious heritage (Ferm, op. cit., p. 60).

Even today, the "indigenization" issue has not failed to generate controversy. On the one hand, the Christian churches would have difficulty coming to terms with certain African customs-for example, polygamy.  On the other hand, some theologians, especially in South Africa, have complained that the return to African roots has amounted to a digression from the burning social, racial, and economic issues of the day.  Unlike most of their Latin American counterparts, African theologians have been more sharply divided between those who favor indigenization as a way of liberating the oppressed.  Indeed, the latter group would not consider the former group to be liberation theologians in the true sense of the term.  It is surprising to discover that many African theologians, for whom indigenization is important in liberating African religion from foreign intrusion, are less involved than most South African theologians in the social problems that impede human liberation (Ibid.).

How then shall we begin a discussion of African Liberation Theology?  There are no easy answers to this question.  In subsequent articles, we will focus on how it functions in South Africa.  We will also consider a brief historical sketch of Christianity prior to the emergence of black theology on the 1960's. ( Ibid.). 

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary                                                         

 

    LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

    THE ISSUES OF POVERTY AND VIOLENCE 

   PABLO RICHARD 

I have stated several times, and other theologians of liberation have also either stated directly or intimidated that if theology (God-talk) avoids mention of the human condition of oppression and suffering, then it is not a valid theology.  If it fails to address these conditions, then it is God-talk in abstractions. It is, in essence, a theology of accommodation and avoidance. Liberation Theology is, on the other hand, a theology of denunciation and resistance.  It is a prophetic theology which seeks to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. 

How can we claim to be engaging in God-talk while ignoring  the human condition?  How can we engage in abstractions, semantics, and speculation and not address what human beings are going through?  How can we claim to decipher the mind of God when we avoid the clear voice of God that says, "I have heard the cry of my people?"  Pablo Richard reminds us of the need to deal with these issues in his theology.

Pablo Richard was a native of Chile and taught at the National University of Costa Rica.  He was one of the writers of the book, "The Idols of Death and the God of Life," Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1983 (Ferm, op. cit., p. 138). 

In an engaging essay, "Biblical Theology of Confrontation with Idols," he traces the concept of idolatry in both the Old and New Testaments, noting how the Bible both denies and affirms liberation (Richard, chapter 1). 

In this affirmation of liberation there is the need for continuing struggle to free the oppressed from their idolatrous religious beliefs.  Richard sees the book of Exodus in terms of violence: violence on the part of the Israelites against the violence of their Egyptian oppressors. Richard sees the inevitability of violence in the movement from idolatry to liberation as crucial for our times as it was for the world of the Bible (Ferm, op, cit. p.52).  

What does "violence" mean?  Is violence something that people resort to when they don't get their way?  It is only when physical violence is imposed on innocent people, or does it also entail the auction of people as an act of rebellion against oppression?  Liberation theologians tend to view violence (armed struggle) as a just response to structural and systemic violence.  

Richard also takes pains to clarify the meaning of the phrase "people of God."  Some thinkers have sought to identify the "people of God" with the popular, hierarchical church.  But Richard prefers a more concrete, specific meaning, using the phrase to refer to the poor and oppressed, who because they have no power, are engaged in a constant uphill battle for justice and freedom.  This is where the real Church is to be found. Indeed, " to say 'church of the poor' is almost a redundancy; the church is either of the poor or it is not the church. Richard by no means wishes to exclude the rich from the church, but he does believe that the rich should cease to rich ("The Latin American Church, 1959-1978," Cross Currents, vol. 28, no. 1p. 36). 

Richard does not believe in advocating for what some would call "a theology of captivity."  He believes that this view leads to a defeatist attitude that can only weaken the determination of the oppressed and harm their course (Ferm, op. cit, p. 53). 

I do not believe that either Richard or any other liberation theologian are advocating for a "glorification" of poverty. In the same manner that they denounce excessive abundance, they also advocate for a just distribution of the good of the land. 

Is Richard advocating for socialism?  If he believes that the church should be the "church of the poor," then it would appear that Richard views the church as a model society which the secular society should try to emulate.  If this is the case, then what we are dealing with is Richard advocating for the non-poor members of the church to divest themselves of their opulence and become just like the regular members of the church (the poor).

Feel free to comment on this brief coverage of Pablo Richard 

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen. 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona  

Past Visiting Professor of Latin American Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary, Tainan, Taiwan      

 LIBERATION THEOLOGY IN A CARIBBEAN PERSPECTIVE 

NOEL ERSKINE

DECOLONIZING THEOLOGY 

One of the functions of Liberation Theology in seeking to engage in God-talk from a Third World Perspective, is to decolonize the the theology which the Europeans imposed on people from the Third World and also in the U.S.A.  By decolonize, I mean stripping theology (God-talk) from those colonial elements that maintain non-white people in a position of economic, political, and social subservience. 

Noel Erskine is important for relating liberation theology to the Caribbean context.A native of Jamaica, Erskine is much more sensitive to racism than are his Latin American counterparts. Noel Leo Erskine was a member of the faculty of Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia (Ferm, op. cit., p. 127).

In his book, Decolonizing Theology: A Caribbean Perspective, he develops the theme that, just as the Caribbean has been wrongly interpreted from a First World Perspective, so too would it be incorrectly analyzed "through Latin American lenses (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 198, p. 118). 

Erskine traces the unique history of the colonization of Jamaica, which involved the importation of Africa as slaves, and points out how the black experience of slavery in Jamaica differs from slavery in the context of North America (Ferm, op. cit. p. 51).  

For Erskine, the "decolonizing" of theology must recognize a powerful racial component that goes beyond socio-economic factors and class distinctions. Liberation from economic oppression is only part of the task. Integral freedom must be the goal of liberation (Ibid.).  

We find in Noel Erskine the same thing that we find in James Cone (the Father of African-American Liberation Theology) in the United States.  Both Cone and Erskine focus on liberation on something that needs to include race as much as the issues of gender, and social class.  

While Father Gustavo Gutierrrez, the Father of Latin American Liberation Theology focuses on "God's preferential option for the poor," Noel Erskine would focus on "God's preferential option for black people."  Neither Cone nor Erskine would imply that God favors black people because they are black, but rather because they are oppressed by the white power structure in the Caribbean and. in the U.S.A. 

Like Cone, Erskine would believes that if theology (God-talk) is done independently of the situation of oppression of black people, then  it is both demonic and irrelevant. Theological abstractions and speculation do not mean anything to people who are in economic, political, and social bondage.  

This particular Afro-Puerto Rican theologian (Yours truly) resonates with Erskine.  In order for theology to speak to colonized groups, it must raise the question "How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?"  Theology has to address their colonial bondage and poverty, otherwise, it is empty talk and rhetorical sensationalism.  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.  

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Latin American Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary, Tainan, Taiwan 

                       LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

                       MARXISM AND CHRISTIAN THOUGHT 

                       OTTO MADURO 

Otto Maduro was an avowed Christian Marxist who admitted that Marx's social analysis must be radically reinterpreted for the Latin American context.  A native of Venezuela, he taught philosophy at the University of the Andes in Merida, Venezuela (Ferm, op. cit., p. 127).  

In his book, "Religion and Social Conflicts," he provides a critical social analysis of religion, arguing that the social function of a religion will vary according to the needs of a particular society (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1982).  

Heretofore, most sociology of religion emanating from Latin America has been done from a European perspective, thus suffering the same fate as European theology.  Maduro argues that there is no such thing as "the social function of religion in general;" Latin American social theorists in each country must develop a "Latin American praxis of the socialist self-liberation of the oppressed (Ibid., p. 32). 

Maduro belongs to the large group of Latin American liberation theologians-Juan Segundo, Jose Miguez Bonino,  Hugo Assmann, Gustavo Gutierrez, Jose Miranda-willing to incorporate Marxist insights, but only in a greatly modified form (Ferm, op. cit. p. 51). 

 I would argue that it is precisely because some of these Latin American theologians incorporate Marxist insights into their theology, that many people believe that Liberation Theology is nothing more than Marxism in disguise.  Unfortunately, many of them do not even know what Marxism is because they have not taken the time to engage in the literature in the field.  Their view of Marxism is based on what they have heard in the barber shop or in the market-place.  Their view of Marxism tends to be emotionally-based and driven, They tend to rely on rhetorical and sensationalist journalism. 

Subsequently, I would also argue that the view that many people of Liberation Theology is based on barber shop talk and market place rumors.  They are not familiar with, nor have any interest in, being familiar with what Liberation Theology is really all about.  They have not read a single book by any author of Liberation Theology.  They base their view of Liberation Theology on what others have said, which is usually defamatory propaganda.  

The question that I would raise relative to Maduro's theological orientation is whether theology (God-talk) should be based on divine revelation or sociological analysis.  Should we base ourselves on "what God has said," or should we base ourselves on how social scientists approach religion and theology from a secular standpoint?  

As a Christian theologian, I continue to believe that theology should be a "revealed religion," i.e. a set of beliefs based on God's self-disclosure in history through the prophets, through the traditions, through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,  and in "these last days," through God's Son, Jesus Christ.  As a theologian who has a global perspective, I also believe that God's self-disclosure has been experienced by people outside of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions.  I do not believe for one single moment that any religious community or tradition has a monopoly on God's self-disclosure.  God is sovereign and reveals God-self that way that God wants to be revealed to humankind.  

Relative to Maduro's and other theologians of liberation utilizing sociological approaches to the fields of religion and theology, I would say that the social sciences are a way to decipher God's self-disclosure as filtered through human experience and knowledge.  Too often, believers, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition tend to treat divine revelation as if the the text were "written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth," and bypassing culture and the human social condition.  God's self-disclosure is filtered through culture, language, and the understanding of the humanities, as well as the natural and the social sciences.  

Some may object to utilizing Marxist analysis to decipher divine revelation because of the supposed hostility between Marxism and religion.   I would argue that Marxism is not anti-religion per se, but rather than it is against privileged religion, i.e the role of religion that gives people a certain status in society, and that relegates others to secondary status so that the only thing they have is hope for a "hereafter" type reign of God.  

Marxist analysis is useful, though like every other branch of human knowledge, has its limitations. Maduro was absolutely correct when he stated that it must be radically interpreted in the Latin American context.  And so it goes with religion and theology.  How people engage in God-talk in the Latin American context must be affirmed, honored, respected and taken into consideration.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen. 

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary, Tainan, Taiwan 

               

       

                     LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

                     THE INCLUSION OF SEXISM AS A FORM OF OPPRESSION 

                      ELSA TAMEZ 

Elsa Tamez is another liberation theologian intent on developing a biblical hermeneutic that focuses on the Latin American oppressed. She served as a professor of biblical studies at the Seminario Biblico Latinoamericano en San Jose, Costa Rica (Ferm, op. cit. p. 127).

She saw the biblical drama as a continuing struggle on the part of the poor against the rich and comfortable-a theme that she does not find in European and North American forms of biblical theology (Ibid, p. 50).  

Tamez is one of the very few Latin American liberation theologians  who made extensive use of the writings of Jose Miranda. She is one of the very few who point to sexism as a major form of oppression.  She used the biblical story of Hagar as an example of a woman who suffered oppression for three reasons: class, race, and sex.  In a modern exposition of the Magnificat (Luke 1: 46-55), she ends by addressing God:

You have created us black, brown, yellow, white and red; male and female. We praise you because, in the midst of oppression, trials, tribulations, pain and injustice-caused by sinful human beings-you reign as our Sustainer.  As in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, you have shown us that suffering is not the end but that you are the supreme and final liberator ("Biblical Hermeneutics in the Theologies of Liberation," in Virginia Fabella and Sergio Torres, eds., Irruption of the Third World Theology: Challenge to Theology (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1983, p. 186).

So we find in Tamez's work that Liberation Theology does not only focus on social class issues, but also on issues of gender and race.  Women and non-Caucasian people are included among those who are dehumanized and oppressed because of their social condition.  

So we find, then, that Liberation Theology covers the wider gamut of human suffering.  It not only seeks to talk about the suffering, but to also to  talk to and  have ties of solidarity with the suffering.  

Theology is "God-talk."  It is not an exercise in semantics, or in abstract philosophical speculation. It is a discourse about God.  And this discourse does not take place aside from the human experience of suffering. Instead, it raise the question that the Israelites raised when they were in captivity in Babylon, i.e. "How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?" 

Liberation Theology seeks to engage in a discourse about God in the context of human relations and experiences.  It brings the message of God to the people in all kinds of bondage, i.e. "I have heard the cry of my people."

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen. 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Reformed Church in America 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary, Tainan, Taiwan 

        LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

        A LATIN-AMERICAN BIBLICAL HERMENEUTIC 

        JOSE SEVERINO CROATTO 

One of the things that is necessary for any theology which is not Euro-Centric, is to have a clearly-defined biblical hermeneutic (interpretation of the Scriptural revelation).  The hermeneutic has to emerge from the existential reality of the people engaged in it, and not from the people who have imposed, through colonization, their own hermeneutic as if it were "universally valid in all times and in all places."  

In general, in spite of the variations that exist in Latin American Liberation Theology, the common thread among these theologians is that  oppression and suffering serve  as the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.  In other words, rather than utilize the Bible to shed light on the human conditions of oppression and suffering, Liberation Theology begins with the human condition as a lens through which to examine and understand the biblical message.  

One of the Latin American theologians who believes that a genuine biblical hermeneutic should emerge from the oppressed community and not the oppressing community is Jose Severino Croatto.  Croatto was the first Catholic to teach at the Instituto Superior Evangelico de Estudios Teologicos in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Ferm, op. cit. p. 126).

He insists that there can be no definitive biblical hermeneutic (or closed Christology), because the different historical accumalations of meaning require ever renewed interpretation. He is adamant on this point:

The theology of the Third World has burst upon the scene with a hermeneutic challenge.  Like the theology that is arising in the world of the poor,  all theologies of liberation (socio-political, religious, women's, black and so on) mean to decipher a liberating God's new manifestations in situations of injustice and alienation.  For, in the suffering of the poor, we are assisting at a new God-event.  The poor are raising their consciousness and fighting for liberation.  It is they, first and foremost, who "recognize" God and who pronounce the first "word"-the first interpretation-of the God event ("Biblical Hermeneutics in the Theologies of Liberation," in Virginia Fabella and Sergio Torres, eds, Irruption of the Third World: Challenge to Theology (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1983, p. 163). " 

Croatto also dwells on the unending struggle Yahweh and "oppressing gods," and asserts that, in a real sense the theme of the entire Bible is "the battle of the gods ("The Gods of Oppression," in Pablo Richard et. al, the Idols of Death and the God of Life, p. 27)." 

He is also one of a growing cadre of liberation. theologians intent on developing an authentic Christology for Latin America.  Like Leonardo Boff, he portrays Jesus as "the one who reveals human values," the one who seeks out the oppressed, the one who knows firsthand what it means to be marginalized and denounced by oppressors (Ferm, op. cit. p. 50).

Like many other liberation theologians, Croatto finds strong parallels between the experiences of the early Christians and those of the oppressed peoples of the Third World (Ibid., p 50). 

If Third World theology is to result in our drinking "from our own wells," then a Christology and a clearly defined hermeneutic must accompany that emerging theology.  The Christology and the biblical hermeneutic must be home grown rather than imported. 

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen. 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Latin American Liberation Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: A HEALTHY ATHEISM 

One of the many challenges of Christian theology is that of contending with atheism.  Theology, as a branch of religion, engages in the task of not only "proving" the existence of God, but also putting those "proofs" into systematic form. 

The major issue with the theological task relative to this, is that within religion and theology themselves, there are so many different and varying  expressions.  In certain Christian sub- communities, there is a tendency to claim their particular expression of the faith as the "one and only valid" expression.

We find the same phenomenon in Latin American Liberation Theology.  Though the common thread is oppression as the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection, we also find variation within this particular theological modality.  As I have mentioned before, Latin American Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination.

One particular Liberation theologian who brings in a unique element is Antonio Perez-Esclarin. Perez-Esclarin was a native of Venezuela.  He taught for several years at a university in Caracas, and later left his academic post to live with the oppressed (Ferm, op. cit., p. 126)

Perez-Esclarin sees the chief contribution of Latin American Liberation Theology in the fresh meaning it gives to the conception of God as liberator (Ibid.).  

With other liberation theologians, he contends that idolatry is worse than atheism.  He explores this theme in his book "Atheism and Liberation (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1978).  

Of the idolatrous God in which oppressors believe, Perez-Esclarin writes:  "It is the God of the white conqueror, the God who expects submission from those who are enslaved...the God of the colonizers who denies humanity and equality to be colonized (Atheism, pp. 57-58)." 

Perez-Esclarin believed that it was better to be an atheist than to believe in that kind of God.  He contends that the true God's incarnation in Jesus gives us a living embodiment of the concrete meaning of liberation. He develops this point in his modern parable of Jesus of Gramoven. In this narrative, he relates the story of Jesus Rodriguez, a resident of the slums of Caracas, through the course of Holy Week.  In the end he is kidnapped as a "communist activist, and disappears from history (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1980). 

So here we are faced with an interesting question.  Is it better to believe in a God who is the construction of people who believe in racial supremacy, or is it better to be an atheist?  Perez-Esclarin is more inclined towards the latter.  

As a Liberation theologian of Afro-Puerto Rican background, I tend to resonate with Perez-Esclarin.  I believe that it is more honest to deny the existence of such a deity than to affirm it.  Idolatrous Gods only exist in the minds of those who construct them and concoct a theology surrounding them.  I believe that an honest atheism clears the way for a belief in God than does belief in an idolatrous God.  

If in connection and resonance with the Scriptures of the Judeo-Christian traditions we affirm that God created humankind in the divine image, then we can avoid the idiosyncrasies and traps of having humans create God in their image.  If in connection and resonance with Latin American Liberation Theology, we affirm that this Creator and creating God has revealed Godself throughout history in a variety of ways, and uniquely through Jesus of Nazareth, and that God has been revealed as being in solidarity with the oppressed and suffering of this world, then we clear the path for humankind to come to faith in a healthy way with that God.  Healthy atheism, more so than idolatry, helps us to encounter the liberating God.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.  Amen.  

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Reformed Church in America 

Past Visiting Professor of Latin American Liberation Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                                 LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

                                 FROM PACIFISM TO ARMED STRUGGLE 

Many people who aren't familiar with Liberation Theology tend to defame and mischaracterize it.  This appears to be an easier approach than to become familiar with the literature in the field and to go into deep analysis.  The tendency is to dismiss it as "Revolutionary theology," or "Marxism in disguise."  They believe that it is a mask for those who want to "rebel" against the established authorities by resorting to armed struggle and violence.

The theologian that we are going to talk about next, took action that confirms this mischaracterization.  His initial theological approach was one of pacifism, non-violent passive resistance, akin to that of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. 

Ernesto Cardenal is a splendid example of the poet become politician.  Minister of culture in the revolutionary government of Nicaragua, he previously ministered to the community of Solentiname, a group of about two thousand persons in a remote archipelago, on Lake Nicaragua.  There he and the community engaged in a continuing series of dialogues that related the Gospel lesson of the daily Mass to their everyday lives.  Over a hundred of these dialogues, taking place over a period of ten years, have been published in the four-volume series "The Gospel in Solentiname."  This "people's church" is the very stuff out of which Liberation Theology has emerged (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1982), 

When the Solentiname community was destroyed by the Nicaraguan National Guard in the late 1970's, Cardenal gradually renounced his pacifism, which had been nurtured by Thomas Merton at the Gethsemane Trappist monastery in Kentucky years earlier.  He cast his lot with the revolutionaries seeking to overthrow the dictatorial Somoza government.  When the Sandinistas succeeded in their struggle, the poet became the politician  and remained very much involved in the Nicaraguan struggle for social justice.  He did look forward, however, to the day when the poet in him could return to the Solentiname community (Teofilo Cabestrero, Ministers of God, Ministers of the People.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1983, pp. 13-43. ).  

The above-described historical scenario, raises of course, some ethical questions.  The first question is whether Cardenal should have continued to follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King's approach to social change, i.e. non-violent passive resistance.  The second question is whether he should have, instead followed, as he eventually did, in the footsteps of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his participation in the attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler, and in the footsteps of Karl Barth, being part of the Confessing Church, which through its Barmen Declaration, decried the government of Hitler.  

There are those in the U.S.A. who might criticize Cardenal for the transition that he eventually made to armed resistance and struggle.  In the process of leveling this criticism against him, they appear to forget that the U.S.A. as a nation-state, was conceived in violence, the violence that was imposed on the citizens of the First Nations, the violence that was imposed on those who were brought to these shores through the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, and the violence that the people living in the colonies resorted to against England in order to be liberated from English imperialism.  

Is Latin American Liberation Theology in and of itself a revolutionary theology?  I would say that the answer to that is an absolute "yes" in that it promotes a social change that will result in "liberty and justice for all."

Does Latin American Liberation Theology advocate for and promote armed struggle as a means of resistance and revolution.  The answer to that is "it depends" on which particular theologian of liberation one is talking about.  Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination.  There is as much diversity in Liberation Theology as there is in any other theological current.  

This article is submitted in the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Latin American Liberation Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

                           ADDITIONAL LIBERATION THEOLOGIANS 

Up until now, we have examined the theological thrusts of some Liberation theologians.  And, since, as I have pointed out both in my doctoral dissertation (The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective) and in previous posts, that Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination, but that rather, there is as much diversity in it as there is in other theological currents, I will proceed to make mention of other Liberation theologians.  

The Latin American liberation theologians whom we have covered thus far can all be considered major figures.  But others could just as well be included in this category.  The intention in this section is to highlight the thinking of certain individuals whose writings are not only influential, but also representative of the rich diversity of Latin American Liberation Theology (Ferm, op. cit., p. 47). 

Segundo Galilea makes a strong case for theological pluralism.  A native of Chile, he lived for many years in Medellin, Columbia, where he directed the pastoral institute sponsored by the Latin American Episcopal Council (CELAM). He also served as a pastor in Santiago Chile (Ibid., p. 126).

He notes that, although Latin American Liberation theologians agree on the undeniable sinful facts of underdevelopment, oppression, and injustice that pervade Latin America, they disagree on nearly everything else.  Galilea is particularly sensitive to the charge that Marxism and blatant politicism are necessary ingredients of Liberation Theology.  He insists that no serious Liberation theologian is guilty of such a charge: every one of them makes evangelization, not politics, the starting point of theology. But, of course, those who evangelize must be sensitive to the cultural context; one does not evangelize in a vacuum. Authentic evangelization must be cognizant of the popular religion and cultural identity of those whom they want to help  achieve liberation.  In the past, mission work has too often included the imposition of cultural baggage.  For example, most of the early missionaries linked their faith with their Iberian culture; theirs was a "church made from the top down."  But if this process can be reversed, Galilea believes that more and more Latin Americans will choose to identify with the Church, and in this process of social and political transformation, the Church will also change ((Ibid., p. 48).  

This,  of course, raises the question as to whether we can in all honesty make a dichotomy between evangelization and politics.  If evangelization is defined as a message which focuses on "the life hereafter," then politics will become either subordinate or non-relevant to theology.  On the other hand, if evangelization is a message of the "Reign of God in Christ," then it definitely carries political implications, i.e. divine politics vs. human politics. 

In addition, if oppression and suffering are the "starting points" of biblical theology, as they obviously are in the book of Exodus, and in the Gospel accounts, we cannot evade or forego politics per se.  If we take seriously what God said, i.e. " I have heard the cry of my people," we cannot engage in a model of evangelization that is abstract, theoretical, or immune to the existential human conditions.  If evangelization operates in these modes, then it is simply a "feel good" type of message that is not concretized in history.  In Scripture and in the traditions of the Church, God's liberating and salvific acts are always historicized.   If evangelization is not historicized, then it is a clown show.  

Following Gustavo Gutierrez, Jose Comblin, and others, Galilea points to the need for a "liberation spirituality," a theme that he develops in his book Following Jesus (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1981). Here he argues that authentic liberation must unite the mystic with the militant, the contemplative with the politician. For Galilea, true contemplation does not mean withdrawing from the world of actions. For him, quite the opposite is true.  It means experiencing the presence of God as we encounter our neighbor in the world of action.  To be sure, there is always the risk of politicizing the Gospel as we seek for God in the here and now, but this danger must never keep us from affirming the political dimension of the Gospel.  The continuing challenge for Christians is to avoid two extremes: an introverted Christ devoid of socio-political  involvement and a revolutionary Christ engaged exclusively in political agitation.  Galilea makes an important contribution to Liberation Theology in his view of Jesus who, though not advocating a specific political program, did insist that the Gospel has profound social and political implications for the lives of the poor (Ferm, op. cit. p. 48).  

En fin, we can say that Galilea's view of the Gospel is not one of navel-gazing or contemplating the moon.  It is not a message which is insensitive or oblivious to the human condition.  Neither is it one which requires us to "look the other way."  The message of the Gospel, in Galilea's point of view, requires us to stop "on our way to church," to be the Good Samaritan and help bind up the wounds of the victim of abuse, robbery, and oppression.  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen. 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Latin American Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                          LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

DO WE REALLY DRINK FROM OUR OWN WELLS?  

ENRIQUE DUSSEL 

One of the issues of examining Latin American theology, or for that matter, any theology which emerges from the so-called "Third World" is raising the question of comparison and validation.  How  does Third World theology compare to and differ from classical Western theology?  

A related question would be if Third World theology, more so than Western theology, seeks to "recapture" the essence of the faith of early Christianity or is it a deviation?  After many centuries of the incrustation of Western theology in the Church, it is second-hand nature to believe that anything that comes from Euro-America is "universally valid in all times and in all places."  

Let us now turn our attention to Enrique Dussel.  Dussel has made his mark primarily as a church historian.  Born in Argentina, Dussel received his licentiate in philosophy from the University of Mendoza in Argentina, his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Madrid, a doctorate in history from the Sorbonne, and a licentiate in theology from the Catholic Institute in Paris.  For several years he taught at Cuzo University in Mendoza until his activities on  behalf of liberation forced him out of that post.  He also taught in the University of Mexico City (Ferm, op. cit. p. 126).

Dussel served as President of the Commission on the Study of the History of the Church in Latin America. Dussel's major study is A History of the Church in Latin America: Colonialism to Liberation. Jose Miguez Bonino refers to this book as "the best conceived and realized one-volume history of the Church in Latin America (A History, back cover).

In his writings, Dussel comes across more as an interpreter and synthesizer of the main features of Latin American theology than as an original thinker.  For example, he is critical of the European "Theology of Hope" for its failure to seriously take into account indigenous economic and political factors.  In so doing it "has disemboweled hope and  even turned it into opium (Dussel, Ethics and the Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1978, p. 62).

He favors socialism over capitalism, but a socialism that need not be Marxist.  For Dussel, the original sin in Latin America has been colonial domination based on capitalism.  But he faults Marxism for its failure to affirm the Other, which leaves it with a closed system lacking a transcendent reference with which to critique itself.  Dussel agrees with Miguez Bonino in preferring the term "people" to "class" in describing the oppressed.  Although the term "people" is admittedly ambiguous, it does go beyond class distinction to encompass grassroots communities in their political, economic, and cultural dimensions, a people who must play a leading role in its own liberation (Enrique Dussel is one of the first Latin American Liberation theologians to openly abjure ecclesiastical discrimination against women.  He writes: We feel confident that in the future we will see women priests, women bishops, and some day-and why not?-a woman pope. There is no theological or genetic objection: the woman is a human person (Ethics, p. 113).

Dussel also argues that we must recover the analogical dimension of Catholic theology. According to Dussel, the problem with traditional theology is that it universalized a particular European theology and abstractly superimposed it on Latin America, Africa, and Asia.  Dussel argues that the Third World must be free to develop its own distinctive methodologies and theologies, while participating analogically in Christ's universal church.  Dussel believes that the universalization of the particular is idolatrous, for it amounts to a denial of the Other.  Acceptance of the Other relativizes all particular systems. To be sure, theology must be historically grounded, but we must beware of absolutizing the finite, whether it be in Europe or Latin America.  Analogically speaking, only the Other can be absolutized; in this sense Dussel can insist that there is one theology (Ferm, op. cit. p. 46).

But Christians must also be "atheists of the fetish"-that is, they must be critical of human systems (In Torres and Eagleton, Theology in the Americas, p. 290).

For Dussel, the only authentic criterion for judging whether we are truly on the side of God is whether "we struggle unto death for the poor.  That is an objective concrete Christological criticism: 'I was hungry; you gave me to eat.'" (Ferm, op. cit., p. 47). 

Like so many of his Latin American colleagues, Dussel points to idolatry as a critical problem for Christians: believing in false gods only lulls one into somnolent complacency and an acceptance of the status quo. For Dussel and his colleagues today, the only way to escape from idolatry is to show a preference for the liberation of the poor.  To put it another way, the death of God means in reality "the death of the other human being. (Ibid.)"

Atheism in itself is not the problem; for when one claims to be an atheist, the question should be asked, Atheism with respect to what conceptualization of God? Chances are that the answer to that question would reveal many Christian atheists among the poor and oppressed (Ibid.). 

With respect to the reign of God, Dussel uses the terms "not yet" and "already" to indicate that in Jesus the reign has in one sense already come, but in another sense is "not yet'" until the poor become liberated humanizing beings: If there were no poor, then either we would be "already" in a reign without  any not "not yet" or would be in an idolatrous reign of this world ("The Kingdom of God and the Poor," International Review of Missions, April 1979, p. 115). 

In his deep sensitivity to the plight of the poor, Enrique Dussel reveals his principal concern, a concern that is in no way compromised by his scholarly skills as a historian (Ferm, op. cit, p. 47). 

En fin, what we find in this article, is that Dussel, like his other Liberation counterparts, pursues the ongoing integration between the theoretical dimensions of theology with the existential reality of those for whom theology seeks to speak.  For Dussel, the dichotomy between physical and spiritual is totally a false one.  We also find that he does not place theology and social action in a sequential pattern.  For him social action and theology go hand in hand.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY

JOSE COMBLIN 

How does theology, if at all, line up with social activism?  There are those that believe that one has nothing to do with the other and that "never the twain shall meet."  

A common characteristic of Latin American theologians is their effort to combine political activism with a deep concern for the devotional life.  A splendid example is Jose Comblin (Ferm, op. cit. p. 44). 

Born in Belgium, Jose Comblin has a doctorate in theology from the University of Louvain.  Since 1958, he  lived in Latin America.  For several years he was a member of the faculty at the Theological Institute in Recife, Brazil, until his expulsion from Brazil in 1972.  He had divided his teaching duties between the University of Chile (Talca) and the Catholic University of Louvain (Ibid., p. 126).

The author of over 27 books, Comblin assumes the role of acute political analyst in his "The Church and the National Security State (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979).  

In this study he defends the role of the church as a political agent in support of the underprivileged and their determination to build a just society.  Tracing the various historical stages of the colonial/neocolonial systems that have held Latin America in servitude-the Spanish, Portuguese, the British, and the North American (USA)-Comblin finds the last one, epitomized by the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency, the most violent.  According to Comblin, these agencies have spared no effort in perpetuating military dictatorships, consolidating financial interests,  and inhibiting human rights under the guise of an unbridled war against communism.  Comblin points out that the militancy of many Latin American liberation theologians derives from the experience of the ruthlessness of the support that the CIA and the Pentagon lend to oppressive social structures (Ferm, op. cit., p 45).

Comblin acknowledges the value of Marxist analysis in bolstering the efforts of the underprivigled to achieve justice.  But at the same time he does not hesitate to condemn the Marxist practice in which the political seeks power at the expense of the individual (Ibid.).

Comblin says, "In Marxist revolution there is no freedom for the people, only for the party.  The same science that expels freedom from history and revolution expels God from humankind and history.  The party is supposed to be sufficient to create a new world, but it ends up by creating a new power (National State Security p. 220)." 

Here are confronted with two questions? Is Comblin defending Marxist ideology and at the same time condemning its praxis?  Does Comblin believe that Marxism is contrary to the Gospel or inherent with its basic message?  

In order to determine where Comblin stands at. one would have to read his. books. One cannot "judge a book by its cover," make a determination as towhere he stands without having thoroughly read the literature in the field.  There are those who will read and take what Comblin says out of the socio-economic context in which he wrote his books, and then, unfortunately arrive at misinterpretations of what he really saying.  

Comblin believes it incumbent upon theologians to develop a theology of revolution that will take into account the deepest longings of human existence in the building of a just and free society in which everyone has a responsibility in the shaping of a new people ((Ferm, op. cit. p. 45).

Like all other Latin American liberation theologians, Comblin sees the base ecclesial communities as the seed bed for a theology of revolution.  But he does not advocate violence.  No liberation theologian prefers violence, he argues but there are times when one faces the unavoidable situation of choosing between no action, which condones the violence of the oppressors, and action that may risk fomenting violence (Ibid.).  

What is Comblin's view on salvation (redemption) as to whether it is "this worldly and political," or "otherworldly and non-political?

He says that it is political because we live enslaved to oppressive structures from which we must free ourselves in order to establish justice.  It is mystical because this effort would turn into another form of oppression if it were not motivated and suffused with, human, freedom, and love (The Meaning of Mission, p. 60).

What we've seen so far, is that Comblin's theological perspective is but another example of theological diversity among Latin American theologians.  Comblin's great achievement remains his twin commitments to revolutionary praxis and the devotional life (Ibid., p. 46)

In closing, I would say that Comblin's theological perspective challenges us to grapple with the question of violence and the "proper" approach to constructive social change.  The major issue in his writings is that he does not advocate for a passive "do nothing" attitude among Christians.  He is, in essence, a man of action.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                              

                                              LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

                                              JON SOBRINO 

There are other Latin American theologians of liberation that specialize in Christology. Jon Sobrino is one of them.

Jon Sobrino joins Leonardo Boff in making his major contribution  the development of a christology appropriate for the Latin American setting.  He was born in Spain, received a master's degree in engineering mechanics at St. Louis University in 1965 and a doctorate in theology from the Hochschule Sankt Georgen, Frankfurt, in 1975.  He has served as professor of philosophy and theology at the Universidad Jose Simeon Canas, San Salvador (Ferm, op. cit. p. 125).

In his Christology of the Crossroads: A Latin American Approach, Sobrino agrees with Boff in pointing to the close parallel between the contemporary Latin American setting and the historical context in which Jesus lived (Maryknoll, N.Y., Orbis, 1978).

Sobrino finds traditional views on the nature of Christ devoid of historical and grass-roots relevance. He calls them "Christologies of descent," because they try to superimpose on any given cultural setting a prepackaged, abstract scheme of salvation (Christology, p. 337).

These classic views begin with the dogmatic claim that God became human in Christ, and then proceed to spell out the general implications of this divine act for all humankind.  Little wonder, then, that these christologies appear historically alienating and open to manipulation, completely lacking in human relevance (Ibid., p. 353). 

Sobrino contends that the starting point for Christology should be "the underside of history," an idea that increasingly gained favor among Latin American liberation theologians.  By this term, Sobrino means that one should begin with the actual of the lives of oppressed peoples, and of a Jesus who is Himself rooted in a particular history (Ferm, op. cit. p. 45).

Here once again, we find the issue of the "starting point" for Liberation Theology.  While each liberation theologian has a different area of focus, most of them believe that oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.  This particular theologian (yours truly) also subscribes to that approach to theology.  It is this writer's opinion that if theology does not address or take into consideration the human condition, that it is then, not only irrelevant, but as the late Dr. James Cone said "demonic and oppressive."  

Jon Sobrino's Christology is an important addition the small but growing literature among Latin American theologians that seeks to develop an authentic christology for the poor and oppressed.  One might add that Marx appears only once in the book (Ferm, op. cit., p. 42).

Sobrino's overriding concern is to make Christ come alive in the context of Latin American oppression. In other words, for Sobrino, the doctrine of the person and work of Christ only become relevant when we, as James Cone said, "We don't ask the question as to what did Jesus do back then but what is he doing today? (Ibid.. p. 44).

He talks about the four American woman (nuns) who were raped and killed in El Salvador in 19890.  He says, "They are dead today. But they are also the Risen Christ, who keeps alive the hope of liberation.  Their assassinations as affected the entire world and moved it to indignation. But to Christians, this assassination also speaks to of God, because these women say something to us about God.... Salvation comes to us through all men and women who love truth rather than falsehood, who are more disposed to to give rather than to receive, whose greatest love is  giving their life rather then keeping it for themselves. This where God makes Himself present (Marykoll:Orbis, 1978).

Is Christ present in Latin America today?  If so, how?  I think that most theologians of liberation would affirm that Christ is most present among those who fight for social justice and for the eradication of unjust social policies and structures.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Latin American Liberation Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary  

Small-talk Dialogue: LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: RUBEM ALVES T...

Small-talk Dialogue:  LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: RUBEM ALVES T...:  LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: RUBEM ALVES  There is a question as to whether Rubem  Alves belongs in the camp of Liberation Theology ...

 LATIN AMERICAN THEOLOGY 

JOSE MIGUEZ-BONINO 

THEOLOGY AND THE CAPITALISM-SOCIALISM DEBATE 

One of the things that Liberation theologians emphasize is that theology has to address what socio-political and economic praxis it legitimates.  In other words, how does theology endorse or oppose certain socio-economic and political systems and why?

Jose Miguez Bonino is one of those Latin American theologians who addresses those questions. Like most Latin-American theologians, Bonino addresses the direct relationship between theology and social issues in Latin America.  He makes it clear that theology cannot exist in a vacuum and that it cannot operate devoid of its cultural and social context.  

Like Rubem Alves, Bonino was one of the very few Protestant liberation theologians in an overwhelmingly Catholic Latin America.  Alves's ties to the church weakened throughout the years as he came to advocate a "theology of captivity" centering on dreams that will protect humanity from the harsh realities of the real world.  Bonino, on the other hand, continued as an active clergyman who also served as a president of the world council of churches (Ferm, op. cit. p. 39).

Jose Miguez Bonino was born in Argentina in 1924. He attended the Evangelical Theologate in Buenos Aires, as well as Emory University and Union Theological Seminary in the United States.  Ordained to the Methodist ministry in 1948, he served churches in Argentina and Bolivia, and was an official observer of the United Methodist Church at Vatican II.  He served as a professor of systematic theology at the Higher Evangelical Institute for Theological Studies in Buenos Aires (Ibid., p. 125). 

The author of several books, Miguez-Bonino's major contribution to the development of Liberation Theology is his Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. This book serves as an excellent introduction to the main features of Latin American theology, particularly the conviction that theology must emerge out of the lives of the oppressed in their own encounter with the biblical texts, a process that that Miguez-Bonino calls "hermeneutical circulation."  He traces the development of what he calls a "new breed of Christians" in Latin America, focusing on the Christians for Socialism conference in Santiago, Chile, as pivotal in this development.  This book is also helpful in its treatment of of some of the major agreements and differences among some liberation theologians (Jose Miguez-Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975).

In his writings, Miguez-Bonino devotes considerable attention to the capitalism-socialism debate. He faults the capitalist system for its profit-motive basis (which in Latin America has resulted in the dehumanization of large sectors of the population) and its apparent indifferences to the plight of the poor. These glaring inequalities will continue to exist as long as economic dependence on outside power continues.  In a manner of reminiscent of Gustavo Gutierrez and Juan Segundo, Miguez-Bonino suggests a new form of socialism that would eliminate the basis inequalities of the capitalist system yet not be a mere parroting of doctrinaire Marxism.  He takes pains to point out that Latin American liberation theologians are not socialist ideologues fomenting radicals social change.  Rather, they are committed Christians seeking to forge a new society of liberated human beings.  They have become social activists because of their Christian faith, not because of Marxist ideology.  But they have learned that Marxist analysis is helpful in understanding and correcting social inequalities.  In echoing Jose Miranda, Miguez Bonino points out that Marxist analysis to see class struggle, not as a general consequence of sin, nor as a deplorable accident, but-as Calvin himself saw-as a war prompted by greed and power (Ibid., p. 119).

For the Christian community, this means that what is at stake is not a specifically Christian struggle, but basically a human struggle of the oppressed against oppressors.  And Christians, like everyone else interested in social analysis, need to use the best available tools, including but not limited to, Marxist thought.  If at some point revolution and even violence become necessary for the oppressed to receive their due, it is not because of any Marxist dogma, but because the violence of oppressors demands it (Ferm, op. cit. pp. 39-40).

Miguez-Bonino joins Gustavo Gutierrez, Juan Segundo, and Rubem Alves, and other liberation theologians in criticizing Jurgen Moltmann and other European theologians for advocating a "critical theory" that claims to remain above all theologies and ideologies as a kind of all-encompassing judge. Such a neutral stance, Miguez-Bonino insists, is impossible (Ibid., p. 40).

Bonino says that there is no divine politics or economics.  He states that this means that we must resolutely use the best human politics and economics at our disposal (Miguez-Bonino here is responding to Moltmann's "Open Letter to Jose Miguez-Bonino."  In his letter, Moltmann contends that Miguez-Bonino and his Latin American colleagues are closer to European political theology than they care to admit and that in their use of critical analysis of European Karl Marx, they are less distinctive than they think they are.  Christianity and Crisis, March 29, 1976).

But he also warns against the tendency among some Latin American liberation theologians to equate Christianity with a specific social program. He calls this tendency the "radical monism' of the new Liberation Theology," a view that makes the love of God and the love of neighbor one and the same ("Historical Praxis and Christian Identity," in Rosino Gibellini, ed. Frontiers of Theology in Latin America., p. 263). 

He states that such that such a stance would lead to "unwillingly deifying the history of humanity. He believes that in such a case, that we would be better to call things by their right name and profess to total immanentism (Ibid., p. 272).

Bonino says the following: "As a Latin American Christian, I am convinced that revolutionary action aimed at changing the basic economic, political, social, and cultural structures and conditions of life is imperative today in the world.  Ours is not a time for mere development, rearranging or correction, but for basic revolutionary change (which out not be to be equated necessarily with violence)...the sociological tools, the historical horizon of interpretation, the insights into the dynamics of the social process and the revolutionary the revolutionary ethos and programme  which Marxism has either received and appropriated or itself created are, however, corrected or interpreted, indispensable for revolutionary change (Grand Rapids, Erdmans, 1976, p.7).

In closing, we can ask if Miguez-Bonino is advocating for a synthesis between Christian and Marxism.  We can also ask if he is a Marxist in disguise.  Is he trying to sanitize Christian theology by utilizing Marxist categories?  

My own response is an absolute "no" to all the questions above.  I strongly believe that he is a committed, dedicated, and sincere Christian who is committed to social justice from both a faith and theological perspective.  That in his work as a believer and  as a theologian makes use of Marxist analysis among others, does not diminish his faith.  Nor does it put him in the category of atheist and agnostic Marxists.  If anything, it places him in the category of those whose commitment to social justice is faith-based and not secularly-based. 

As Ferm, says, Miguez Bonino is especially important both for his concern to develop a Christian political ethic for Latin America and for his contribution to the Christian-Marxist dialogue (Ferm, op. cit., p 40).

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                      LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

                      JOSE PORFIRIO MIRANDA 

                      ARE CHRISTIANITY AND MARXISM COMPATIBLE? 

Many people whose notion of Liberation Theology is based on hearsay and market-place rumors, tend to think that Liberation Theology is Marxism in disguise.  They believe that it is a theological sanitizing of revolution and violence as a means of social change.  They have not, for the most part, bothered to pick up a single book written by an author of Liberation Theology, nor have they seriously engaged with the contents in the field.  

One such person that they believe (again, based on hearsay) to be a "Communist in disguise" is Jose Porfirio Miranda.  They see the title of his book "Marx and the Bible," and without having read it, they judge the book by its cover, and then are quick to say "You see, I told you so."  The reaction to Liberation Theology is then, as a visceral one, rather than one based on critical and analytical thinking or rigorous research.  As one colleague of mine put it, "they are allergic to research."  

Jose Porfirio Miranda is one of the most controversial Latin American liberation theologians.  He seems to occupy his own space, having virtually no contact with the church or his theological colleagues.  A native of Mexico, Miranda is a leading advocate of Marxism as an essential tool for understanding and changing Latin American society.  He has attempted to bring out many affinities between Marxist teachings and biblical faith (Ferm, op. cit. pp. 34-35. Miranda studied economics in Germany at the Universities of Munich and Munster and in 1967 received a licentiate in biblical science from the Biblical Institute, Rome. He has taught at the Universidad Metropolitana Tztapalapa in Mexico City.).

His first book, Marx and the Bible: A Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression put him at the forefront of Latin American biblical exegesis (Jose Porfirio Miranda, Marx and the Bible. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1974).

His basic theme in this study is the positive correlation between Marx and the Bible.  Neither will have love without justice or justice without love. Both affirm that love and justice make no sense apart from the social matrix; both insist that human beings can lose their selfishness for the sake of loving the neighbor; both seek to change the world for the better rather than to simply understand it; both believe that such a change for the better can indeed take place (Ferm, op. cit. p. 35).

Miranda asks "Is it more utopian to hope for the transformation of the world through justice than it is to hope for the definitive elimination of sin in the world?  Is it more utopian to believe in the resurrection of the flesh than in the abolition of all the injustices, enmities and cruelties in the world?...In both Marx and the Bible the basis for all thought is this thesis which is the most revolutionary imaginable: Sin and evil are not inherent to humanity and history; they began one day through human work and they can therefore be eliminated (Marx and the Bible, p. 277).  

Miranda takes  pains to note the similarities between Marx and the Apostle Paul.  Both emphasize the totality of evil. Both believe that injustice and sin can be eliminated, because selfishness is a "fallen" condition, not a natural one.  Whereas Marx sees injustice and sin as primarily the consequences of an economic system (capitalism), Paul finds them imbedded in earthly principalities and powers (Ferm, op. cit. p. 35).

In his book, Being and the Messiah: The Message of St. John, Miranda stresses his earlier theme that love and justice are also one and the same in the Johannine tradition. He says that the defining characteristic of the God of the Bible is that fact that He cannot be known or loved directly; rather, to love God and to know Him means to love one's neighbor and to do one's neighbor justice (Jose Porfirio Miranda, Being and the Messiah: The Message of St. John. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1977, p. 137). 

In fairness, it should be pointed out that Miranda is not an ideologue who simply bends and twists both Christianity and Marxism to make them fit together.  Miranda is highly critical of many components of Marxist ideology; yet he is not afraid to see the positive features in Marxism and the resemblance they bear to many biblical insights.  Miranda is justified in criticizing those anti-Marxists who have never bothered to read Marx, but who have settled for a passing acquaintance with Marx through the sometimes distorted lenses of his antagonists.  What is crucial to stress here is that the Marxist component one finds in some, but not all, Latin American Liberation Theology cannot be fairly and fully appreciated until one is willing to come to terms with Jose Miranda (Ferm, op. cit., p. 38).

By no means should we minimize Miranda's own deep Christian faith. He affirms again and again that one really believes in Jesus Christ only if one also believes that the this world can be changed for the better and that the reign of God can be realized on this earth.  For Miranda the bottom line is that to  do justice-"to preach good news to the poor....to set a liberty those who are oppressed"-is to follow Christ and to know God (Ibid.).

Can religion and Marxism resonate with each other in any way?  Is it possible to eliminate sin without eliminate the causes and roots of sin?  These are the types of questions that need to be raised when making the comparisons that Miranda as a theologian of liberation writes and speaks.  These issues will continue to exist and be addressed as long as the struggle for justice continues. 

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: HUGO ASSMANN 

Hugo Assmann's advocacy of Liberation Theology has made him persona non grata in several Latin American countries.  Exiled from Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, and Uruguay, he found a place on the faculty of  the school of journalism at the University of Costa Rica (Ferm, op. cit., p. 32). 

Assmann's greatest strength lies in his ability to synthesize the major themes of Latin American Liberation Theology.  In his best known work, Theology for a Nomad Church (1976) he spells out a theology of liberation that has taken place since Medellin (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1976).  

The starting point is that every human act has a social and political setting and the Christian obligation is to work for a socio-political setting in which everyone can be fully human.  None of the "progressivist theologies" of the developed countries -secular theology, death of God theology, political theology, theology of hope-has been specific enough to be applied to the Latin American context-nor have the intraecclesiastical reforms of Vatical II, or the Christian-Marxist dialogues in Europe.  Assmann quotes with approval Jose Comblin's Assertion, "Any Latin American who has studied in Europe has to undergo detoxification before they can begin to act ((Ibid., p. 56)

This raises a very interesting question.  Are Assmann and Comblin intimating that any theology that comes out of Europe is inherently and naturally toxic, and maybe even heretical?  It appears that they are both assuming that a true liberation theologian must divest herself/himself of all European theological assumptions and presuppositions.  

Assmann singles out for special criticism European political theology, especially its failure to appreciate the need to join with the poor in overcoming oppressive political structures.  It is all very well for European theologians to talk about the importance of the role of theology in the ongoing political process and the need for Christians to be involved in political change.  Latin American theology goes beyond European political theology when it moves from abstractions to partnership with the poor in the revolutionary struggle (Ferm, op. cit. p. 32).

How is theology aligned with those involved in the revolutionary struggle?  I humbly submit that the linguistic content of theology needs to be understandable to those engaged in the revolutionary struggle. Those involved in the struggle must understand theological language in order to establish a theological underpinning to their revolutionary actions.  They need to deal with the question of "What role, if any, does God play in our struggle?"  If theology is detached from this question and in turn disengages itself from the struggle, then it is a false and irrelevant theology.  If God is not part of our struggle to construct a more just society, then. we want nothing to do with God or anything associated with God.  

Like Juan Luis Segundo, Assmann sees a new methodology as the key to Liberation Theology, a methodology grounded in the social sciences.  The essential task of theology is to analyze the actual conditions in which persons live, a task that  Assmann calls "the socialization of theology."  And when we analyze these conditions, we discover that violence has been institutionalized, as has poverty and oppression.  Here is another difference between Latin American theology and its European and North American counterparts-North Atlantic theology has never sensitive to institutionalized oppression that permits millions of human beings to remain under the poverty line.  Any theology that does not have as its starting point a preference for the poor will ignore their cries and proceed to ask the raw abstract questions that and be satisfied with wrong idealistic answers (Ferm, op. cit, p. 320).  

This goes in keeping with the theological orientation of the late Dr. James Cone, professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, when he stated that if theology does not  address the conditions and status of oppressed and suffering people, that it is then, not only irrelevant, but also demonic and heretical.  If theology is to be not only effective, but also faithful to the message of the Gospel, then it must address both in its linguistic content and thrust, an orientation towards being in solidarity with the oppressed and suffering of the world.  It must have as its central axiom,  the biblical statement of "I have heard the cry of my people."  

Assmann maintains that the worst temptation for theology is to engage in absolutes.  Indeed, even the Bible, tradition, and the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church, history of dogma, and so on, are but secondary sources of truth.  Assmann insists that a normative authoritarian theological perspective cannot take precedence over a commitment to the poor and oppressed (Assmann, op. cit. p. 104).  

When theology as a task is a message of solidarity with oppression and suffering, it ceases to be a task of establishing theological "correctness" in the classic sense of the word.  "Correct theology," in this case, becomes one which is "correct" only to the extent that it addresses and has something to say about the human condition.  It is only "correct" when it serves as the propelling engine for revolutionary action in the world relative to the pursuit of the construction of a society in which justice will prevail.

Hugo Assmann is a Latin American liberation theologian who has suffered political exile in his espousal of the plight of the poor and oppressed.  But he is convinced that the poor know about the world as God intended it to be than does anyone else.  This is precisely why Assmann insists that Christians should not hesitate to side with the poor. For, by seeing the world from the epistemological privilege of the poor, Christians will advance not only the liberation of the poor, but their own liberation as well (Ferm, op. cit. p. 34).

As a student of Latin American theology, and as a theologian of liberation, I humbly and respectfully submit that theology has to be "the voice of the poor."  It cannot be the mouthpiece of the elites who just love to hear themselves talk, nor the dictums of those whose only concern is with "right doctrine" in the classical sense of the word.  In Liberation Theology, we not only speak "about," but also "to" the poor. In Liberation Theology, the poor speak for themselves and on behalf of their fellow sufferers.  Theology is about solidarity.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary