The Liberation of Puerto Rico- Diversity in Liberation Theology

I can best address the question of diversity in Latin American Liberation Theology by referring to three articles in Rosino Gibellini's book, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America.  I have referred to one of those articles twice.  The articles are written by three leading theologians of liberation.  They are Hugo Assmann, Gustavo Gutierrez, and Juan Luis Segundo. The articles are the following: "The Power of Christ in History" by Hugo Assmann, "Liberation Praxis and Christian Faith" by Gustavo Gutierrez, and "Capitalism Versus Socialism: Crux Theologica" by Juan Luis Segundo.

It should be obvious to the readers of these articles that Assmann deals primarily with the problem of Christology, while Gutierrez and Segundo tend to be more attentive to the question of socio-economic and political structures and how they affect the people living in Latin America.  However, this does not mean that Assmann is not concerned with these realities, for as one can note, he is interested in the development of a Christology that will be a reflection of the struggle of Latin Americans against dehumanizing structures. It is important to note that for Assmann, Latin America is not to be thought of as one single and well-defined context.  He describes it as "a wide diversity of situation, both in socio-political and Christian terms (Hugo Assmann, "The Power of Christ in History." Frontiers of Theology in Latin America, ed. Rosino Gibellini. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p. 133)." This is an important point to mention because Gutierrez and Segundo tend to focus on the whole of Latin America while paying little attention to particular Latin American contexts.  If I understand him correctly, Assmann believes that a good Christology should reflect the reality of diversity in Latin America.

While Gutierrez's article does not reflect any attempt to construct a systematic Christology, one notes that his particular image of the Christ is that of one who sides with the poor and oppressed of the world.  He refers to this Christ as "the poor Christ with whom those who seek to establish solidarity with the dispossessed on this continent will tend to identify (Gutierrez in Gibellini, p. 28)." Segundo, on the other hand, is more concerned with Jesus's theology than with a theology about Jesus.  He makes reference to Jesus's theology of the reign of God and God's work in history.  He identifies the essential ingredient in Jesus's theology: the presence and guidance of God in the historical events which are taking place (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 253). I am not suggesting that a contradiction exists between these two concerns.  I am simply pointing to the differences of approach that Gutierrez and Segundo take in relation to the study of the person and work of Christ.

I believe that Assmann goes further than both Gutierrez and Segundo in dealing with Christology. While the implications of what all three say are basically the same, Assmann gives a more specific focus.  He clearly indicates that the conflict between different Christologies is conditioned by the historical contradictions of the societies in Latin America (Assmann in Gibellini, p. 138).  Assmann sees no immediate prospect of a solution for the conflict between Christologies.  The main reason for this, he says, is "that there is no immediate prospect of a solution for the serious contradictions in our Christian America (Assmann in Gibellini, p. 138)."

While Assmann, Gutierrez, and Segundo attempt to speak of the Christ within the Latin American context, each seems to have a different emphasis.  Assmann is concerned with how to construct the image of Christ in such a way that the diversity of the Latin American situation will be reversed.  Gutierrez is more concerned with the Christ who establishes solidarity with the poor and oppressed. Segundo is apparently more concerned with the particular acts of Christ in history.  As I have already indicated, I do not think that these approaches are contradictory.  They are complementary to teach other. The three approaches reflect an attempt to articulate the Christian faith in the light of the existing reality in Latin America.

There is a contrast between the articles of Gutierrez and Segundo in relation to the description of the problem of the Latin American situation.  Gutierrez lays heavy emphasis on the need for making the necessary relation between liberation praxis and Christian faith.  He describes the social order in Latin America as economically, politically, and ideologically designed by a few for their own benefit (Gutierrez in Gibellini, p. 1).  Gutierrez says that a discovery has been made of this reality within the context of a revolutionary struggle.  He states that this struggle calls the existing order into question.  He also says that the goal of this struggle is to bring about an egalitarian society.  Gutierrez describes this struggling as taking place between those who are on the top and those who are on the bottom. It is rather clear that he is referring to the difference  that exists in Latin American society between the many and the few that benefit and profit from their work.  He refers to them as "members of a social class which is overtly or covertly exploited by another social class (Gutierrez in Gibellini, p. 8)." Gutierrez then goes on to say that the Church must identify with these members of society and also participate in their struggle to fashion a new social order.

Segundo takes the same approach that Gutierrez does.  He concentrates on the struggle between the poor and the mighty.  However, Segundo states in no uncertain terms that the problem is making the choice between a capitalist society on the one hand or a socialist society on the other (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 240). While Gutierrez alludes to the same problem, Segundo spells it out clearly and specifically.  He refers to a case in which these choices had to be made by some Catholic bishops in Chile.  Segundo accuses them of complying with the existing structures.

Segundo states clearly that though a move towards egalitarianism must be made, the choice is not merely one of opting for a well developed capitalism or a well developed socialism.  He believes that the choice must be made from the Latin American context as an underdeveloped society (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 17). This statement harmonizes with Gutierrez's notion of the participation of Christians in the revolutionary struggle. Segundo develops it further when he says that it is not merely a choice between capitalism and socialism. He does not prescribe any model of socialism.  He defines socialism as "a political regime in which the ownership of the means of production is taken away from individuals and handed over to higher institutions whose main concern is the common good (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 249)." He says that Latin Americans do not propose a specific model of socialism because "we are not seers, nor are we capable of controlling the world of the future (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 139)."  One might think that Segundo does not give any indication of commitment.  However, he clearly articulates his focus on the social struggle.  Gutierrez does speak about the need for a new social order.  But he does not indicate what in his judgment are the solutions to the problems.

What is the relationship between Assmann's Christology and the problem of Latin America as stated by Gutierrez and Segundo? Gutierrez and Segundo describe the existing situation with different language.  It is the situation of the struggle for a society in which the evils of the present order will be eliminated.  Then there will be a new social order.  It will be a society in which all will benefit.  Gutierrez and Segundo both imply that it will be a socialist society.  I believe that Assmann is attempting to construct a Christology that will reflect this new socialist society.  He alludes to this when speaks of the Christ of the revolutionaries. According to Segundo, this Christ will stand against the Christ of the bourgeoise (Assmann in Gibellini, p. 18).  Assmann appears to imply that the Christ of the revolutionaries establishes ties of solidarity with the poor and oppressed, and that He participates with them in the struggle to construct a socialist society. Assmann's Christology harmonizes with Gutierrez's and Segundo's notion of the struggle for an egalitarian society.

The Liberation of Puerto Rico: Liberation Theology and its Assumptions

What do Liberation theologians assume when constructing and developing their theology?  It is a known fact that no one does theology without a certain set of presuppositions.  This should come as a surprise to no one, when we consider, among other things, that no "pure objectivity" exists.  It is not always possible to know what are the underlying assumptions that each theologian is operating with.  Nevertheless, I will make every attempt to point to statements of each of the theologian that I have referred to in order to make it possible to have a notion of their assumptions.

Gustavo Gutierrez sayhs that "Liberation expresses the aspirations of oppressed peoples and social classes, emphasizing the conflictual aspect of the economic, social, and political process which puts them at odds with wealthy nations and oppressive classes (Gutierrez, p. 36)."  As one reads through his book, A Theology of Liberation, one will note that there is an emphasis on the oppressed peoples and classes of the world. From this particular quoted statement it should not be difficult for the reader to detect that Gutierrez not only assumes, but also firmly affirms that there is, in Latin America, a struggle taking place between different social groups.  While the term "oppressed groups," and "oppressive classes" can be vague in his definition the reader of the book will soon note that Gutierrez sees a division in society.  He makes a rather simple division by categorizing people into two groups: oppressive classes and oppressed groups. The development of his theology indicates that he assumes that there is an oppressed group in society. This is borne out by the fact that he accents the need for liberation to be linked with the historical transformation that is taking place in Latin America.

Hugo Assmann elaborates Gutierrez's assumption by pointing to the "starting point" in Liberation Theology. He says that this starting point is "our objective situation as oppressed and dependent peoples, which is forcing itself more and more strongly  on the consciousness of broad sections of Christian society in Latin America (Assmann, p. 43)." This is a statement which reflects the assumption that the people in Latin America are an "oppressed and dependent people."  Assmann gives a brief history of the development of Liberation Theology in Latin America.  In tracing this history, he shows that regardless of the course which Liberation Theology should take in the future, that its analytical content or central semantic axis should not be forgotten. He says "Any discussion of liberation must always go back to its essence: denouncing domination (Assmann, p. 57)." These statements point clearly to his assumptions.

While Ester and Mortimer Arias do not state their assumptions explicitly, they indicate what these assumptions are by pointing to statistical data which reveal the depth of dehumanization that exists in Latin America. They refer to the situation in Latin America as a "situation of captivity." They share their reflection in the following words: "The last decade has been hard on our people south of the Rio Grande, in political frustrations, economic exploitation, social oppression, and military and police repression. We have been living in captivity in our own land!  As in biblical times, a new theology has been born from our exile and out our captivity--the theology of liberation. We have been rediscovering the God of the Exodus, the liberating God.  Out of the depths of oppression and repression we may have something to share with Christians of the north, something of what the Lord has been saying to us throughout this dreadful experience (Arias and Arias, p. ix)."  As one reads through The Cry of My People, the assumptions of Arias and Arias take on clear language.

Jose Miguez Bonino also makes an allusion to this starting point in theological reflection.  He states that the articulation of the obedience of Christians and the account of their faith "rest on an analysis and interpretation of the Latin American situation for which the transition from developmentalism to liberation is crucial (Bonino, p. 21)."  Bonino makes a direct link between action and reflection. "Their action and their reflection are of such a nature that they make no sense outside of such an analysis. If it is wrong, they are proved wrong. An engaged faith and obedience cannot stand outside or above the world in which they are engaged. This is the reason why, in the effort to enter into this theology, we are forced to dwell on the understanding and analysis of the world in which it finds its locus (Bonino, p. 21)."

Leonardo Boff takes this same point further by saying that Liberation Theology was born as an answer to the challenges of oppressed society (Boff, p. 13). He believes that Latin America provides the context in which "action-reflection" can take place.  He says, "Latin America is today a theologically privileged place for action and for reflection, challenging problems that are faced here.  It is the only content of colonial Christianity. Liberation Theology was born of an experimental praxis (Boff, p. 13)."  Not only is Boff operating with the working assumption that Latin America is in a state of oppression, but he also assumes that it provides the best context in which this critical reflection can take place.

Juan Luis Segundo's article "Capitalism Versus Socialism" betrays the underlying premise of his Liberation Theology.  He makes a link between theology and historical sensitivity. For Segundo, "Historical sensitivity in the face of starvation and illiteracy would seem to demand a society that was not ruled by competition and the quest for profit.  Such sensitivity would regard the fact that an underdeveloped nation got basic sustenance and education as the form of liberation.  Viewed in the light of potential problems in the future, this particular matter might not seem to be of overriding importance in an affluent country. But in our countries, we cannot avoid facing the issue because we live with it twenty-four hours every day (Segundo in Gibellini, p.255)."

Segundo then poses the question: "When and if those ills are eliminated in our nations, what scientific exigencies or strictures would prevent theology from saying 'Your faith has saved you'?  It is simply a matter of giving theological status to a historical happening in all its absolute and elemental simplicity: 'Is it permitted to do good or to do evil on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 256)'?

By saying that historical sensitivity would seem to demean a society that is not ruled by competition and by the quest for profit, Segundo is making an illusion to the present structures in Latin America and the First World.  This statement appears to indicate that Segundo is not in agreement with the structures of present day society in Latin America, and that consequently he is assuming that this situation of "captivity" and "dependence" should be the starting point for theological reflection.

This writer (yours truly) shares the basic assumptions of the above-mentioned theologians.  I personally make no apology for starting with these assumptions as a way of doing theology and as a way of making a theological case for the liberation of Puerto Rico from colonial subjugation.  I also believe, and make no apology for believing that oppression and suffering should be the starting points for for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.

The Liberation of Puerto Rico-Latin American Liberation Theology

                                              The Liberation of Puerto Rico-Latin American Liberation Theology

Latin American Liberation Theology is a very important part of the argument for the liberation of Puerto Rico.  It is then necessary to raise questions and attempt to provide answers that will make it possible to make a case for the independence of Puerto Rico on theological grounds.  The questions that I will seek to address are the following:

1. What is Liberation Theology?

2. What are its assumptions?

3.  What diversity of opinions does Liberation Theology represent?

4.  How do Liberation theologians address the issues of history, praxis, and the role of social theory in theological reflection?

I believe that these questions can best be answered by referring to certain theologians of Liberation.

                                                Liberation Theology Defined

What is Liberation Theology?  I can best answer that question by stating that there is no one "Liberation Theology."  By this I mean that Liberation Theology is not a single school of thought.  Rosino Gibelliini says: "Liberation Theology is a richly variegated affair, both in its motifs and in the personalities involved (Rosino Gibellini, ed., Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p.x)."  One will find diversity of thinking and methodology in Liberation Theology. It is not one particular way of thinking.  I would venture to say that there is as much diversity in Liberation Theology as there is in European theology. I would qualify this that by saying that, in spite of the diversity which may exist, there appears to be an underlying unity in this trend of thought.  I will compare the views of certain Latin American theologians in an attempt to answer that question.

Gustavo Gutierrez, a leading thinker of Liberation Theology, and in fact, known to be the one to coin the term "theology of liberation," says: "The theology of liberation offers us not so much a new theme for theological reflection as a new way to do theology.  Theology as critical reflection on historical praxis is a liberating theology, a theology of the liberating transformation of the history of humankind--gathered into ecclesia--which openly confesses Christ.  This is a theology which does not stop with reflecting on the world, but rather tries to be part of the process through which the world is transformed.  It is a theology which is open--in the protest against trampled human dignity, in the struggle against the plunder of the vast majority of people, in liberating love, and in the building of a new, just, and fraternal society--to the gift of the Kingdom of God (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p. x)."

Here Gutierrez is making a direct link between theology as reflection and the historical process of transformation.  Liberation Theology, according to Gutierrez, would be the application of the study about God to the world of concrete historical happenings.  As a critical reflection, Liberation Theology leads to self-reflection and to a critique of society and of the Church (Gutierrez, p. 11).  Liberation Theology is then , a critical way of looking at the world and also a call for changes in the structures of the Church and of of the society in which the Church exists.

Hugo Assmann, another lead thinker in Liberation Theology says: "Theology is an understanding of the faith and a re-reading of the word as it is lived in the Christian community.  More than anything, it has to do with the communication of faith and the proclamation of the good news, which is that Creator loves all people. To evangelize is to witness to that love; to say that it has been revealed to us and  was made flesh in Christ (Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation. London: Search Press, 1975, p. 5)"

I would rephrase Assmann's statement by saying that Liberation Theology is an understanding of the faith and a re-reading of the word as it is understood and lived in Latin America.  Naturally one would have to determine how the faith is to be understood and how the word is to be lived in Latin America.  That, of course, would be the task of the thinkers of Liberation Theology.

Why do we see this type of theological reflection taking place in Latin America today?  Assmann answers, "This theological reflection is impelled by a desire to speak the word of the Lord to all people from the position of solidarity (Assmann, p. 6)."  In Assmann's view, Liberation Theology is an attempt to bring the Word of God to the world.  This proclamation would be carried out from the standpoint of taking sides with the poor and oppressed of this world.  Assmann is careful to point out that the type of Christian experience determines the form that theology takes at different moments in history.

Ester and Mortimer Arias describe Liberation Theology as "the result of a new reading of the Scriptures in a particular historical situation.  The experience of the Exodus became the key to a new perception of the Gospel (Ester and Mortimer Arias, The Cry of My People. New York: Friendship Press, 1980, p. 127). Taking the Exodus story as a model for liberation, Liberation Theology is a participation in that story. To the Ariases, Liberation Theology is not a mere retelling of the past, but rather, the incorporation of past events into present history.

Jose Miguez Bonino defines Liberation Theology as a "question addressed to the Christian obedience of our brothers and sisters in Christ elsewhere--a question, though that only they can answer (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation.  Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p. xx)." Bonino believes that as a task, Liberation Theology is a critical and committed Christian reflection of the people who have decided to join the struggle in Latin America to construct a different society.  He does not believe that Liberation Theology is merely a "new school," or a set of self-contained theological tenets or positions.  In fact, Bonino points out that if Liberation Theology is made into a new school it will have its day and be gone (Bonino, p. xix). Bonino believes that the struggle is an ongoing one.

In the attempt to distinguish Liberation Theology from other currents of thought, Leonardo Boff describes it as "a global way of articulating the task of the intelligence of the faith (Leonardo Boff, Teologia desde el Cautiverio. Bogota: Indo-American Press Service, 1975, p. 13)." He points out that Liberation Theology is not a theme among others in theology. This theology is done according to Boff from the standpoint of captivity in Latin America.  He states that it is "a new way of doing and thinking in theology (Boff, p. 13)." Because it is done from the standpoint of captivity, Boff refers to it as a theology that addresses the issues of captivity and liberation.

Juan Luis Segundo sees Liberation Theology as "the claim to view theology from the standpoints which the Christian fonts point up as the only authentic and privileged standpoint for arriving at a full and complete understanding of God's revelation in Jesus Christ (Juan Luis Segundo, Liberation of Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1976)." Segundo underscores the seriousness of Liberation Theology by posing a test case. He makes a confrontation with theology and the problem of choosing between a capitalist and a socialist society. In an article entitled "Capitalism Versus Socialism: Crux Teologica," Segundo calls attention to the need for theology to be validated by the choice which is made for the development of society.


  

The Liberation of Puerto Rico: The Hermeneutical Principle

                         The Liberation of Puerto Rico: The Hermeneutical Principle

Having dealt with the issues of the inspiration and the authority of Scripture, we now move on to a very important issue which many readers of Scripture make every attempt to avoid dealing with.  It is the issue of biblical hermeneutics or in other words the principle of determining the interpretation and meaning of the text. Many readers believe that the issue at hand (whatever it may be) can be resolved merely by quoting Scripture or regurgitating "what it says."  While I believe that our theology needs to be biblically rooted, I also am convinced that our use of Scripture has to be a responsible one, and that we should make every effort to avoid a haphazard approach in our utilization of the Bible.  Biblical theology goes over and beyond the cliche of "going by what the Bible says." There are certain procedures that one must follow if one is to construct a theology which can claim to be biblically based.  They are as follows:

1. Linguistic Origins- The reader of Scripture should be aware that the Bible was not written in English, Spanish, or in any of the languages which the majority of people in the world read it in. The Bible was written in three ancient languages, i.e. Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament.  Some may ask "What is the big deal about the linguistic origins of Scripture?"  The "big deal" is that there are instances where they may be a gap between what is written in the original language of Scripture, and what we read in the modern language translations. The following are examples:

A. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for God is "Elohim."  In the Hebrew language, the word "Elohim" is plural and would be translated into English as "gods."  In essence, the opening words of Genesis would read in Hebrew "In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth."  No reader of Scripture, whether Christian or Jew,  would say that because the word "Elohim" is plural, that the book of Genesis is promoting a belief in polygamy or the worship of more than one God. How, then, can the appearance of God's name in plural be reconciled with the biblical notion of one God?  The careful student of Scripture would note through research that the reason why the word God appears in plural is because in the ancient Middle Eastern culture God was described and thought of in terms of a multiplicity of attributes such as justice, love, power, protection, etc.  The attributes of God were personalized and therefore, the term "Elohim" was used for God.

B.  In the English and other translations of the Old Testament, the term "Lord" appears for God.  However, the term that appears in the Old Testament "Yahweh" which some have translated into English as Jehovah. Thus in the English translations the twenty-third Psalm begins with the words "The Lord is my shepherd." The rendering in Hebrew is "Yahweh is my shepherd."  In Spanish, it is rendered "Jehovah es mi pastor (Jehovah is my shepherd).   Why do some translations use the word "Lord" while others use the term "Jehovah?"  If the Hebrew renders it as Yahweh, should not the translations use the original word?  The issue here is that of the use of the divine name, or what is called the Tetragrammaton.  The Hebrews/Jews had a great reverence for the Ten Commandments, especially for the one that said, "You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain.  Because they had had such a great reverence for God's name, they were afraid to pronounce it, and even went as far as becoming superstitious about it.  Therefore, whenever they came across the name Yahweh, even though it was written there, in order to avoid the slightest possibility of blasphemy, they would substitute the name Yahweh with the title "Adonai" which is Hebrew for "Lord."  That is the reason why many translations use the word "Lord" instead of Yahweh, i.e. recognizing the reverence which the Hebrews/Jews had for God's name along with the superstitions accompanying that reverence.

C. In Paul's letter to the Colossians, he makes use of the word "firstborn" to refer to Jesus.  This has lead certain groups throughout Christian history such as the Arians and the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses to sustain that Jesus was created by God and that there was a time that He did not exist,  The reasoning of these groups is, if the Scripture refers to Jesus as being the "first-born," doesn't that point to Him being a creature rather than being God the Creator as many Christians believe He is?  Here again, we run into the issue of language.  There are two words in the Greek (the original language of the New Testament) which are translated as "firstborn."  The first word is "protogenes," which means literally, the first one to be born or the oldest.  The second word is "prototokos," which means the heir or inheritor.  The word which Paul uses in the original Greek is "prototokos," rendering Jesus as the "heir" or "inheritor" of God.

D.  In John's Gospel account (John 3:16), we are told that God so loved the world (in Greek "cosmos" or "kosmos") that He gave His only begotten Son.  In one of his letters at the end of the New Testament, this very same writer tells Christians that they should not love the world ("cosmos," "kosmos") because whoever loves the "world" is an adversary of God.  Why does John at one point say that God loved the "world" and at another point tell Christians not to love what God loved?  Again it is an issue of language. In the Gospel account "kosmos" refers to human beings, and in the letter "kosmos" refers to the human systems that have been built.

2.  Cultural Origins-The careful reader of Scripture will know that the cultural mindset of the biblical writers  was different than the cultural mindset of the writers.  Thus in the culture of the biblical writers, washing the feet of guests who entered one's home was a custom reflecting hospitality.  It would correspond to the modern-day equivalent of offering a guest a cup of coffee, a soft drink, or even a glass of wine. In that culture, sexual morality was tied to property.  For example, the woman was considered the property of the man, and marriages were arranged..  That raises the question as to whether sexual morality in the Bible can be applied to a society and times such as ours? It would, no doubt, explain why Solomon would advise his readers that when they sit down at the dinner table to "put a knife to their throat."

3.  The careful reader of Scripture will note that the books of the Bible represent a variety of literary styles. There is literal history, there is allegory, metaphor, legend, myth, etc.  None of these various styles vitiate the message which comes through Scripture, but rather affirm that God speaks in a variety of ways.

4.  The reader of Scripture will note that the Bible was not written in heaven and thrown down to earth. The text reveals that divine revelation was filtered and mediated through human experience and history.  The Bible was not written in a cultural or historical vacuum.

5. Those who make not only a careful, but also, a responsible use of Scripture will note that there is an apparent time gap between the time of the events recorded on the one hand, and the time of their being recorded in written form on the other hand.  For example, the reader should know that there was a time gap of anywhere between thirty and fifty years between the time of Jesus's earthly ministry, death, and resurrection, and the time that these events were recorded.  It would be obvious that the Gospel writers did not follow Jesus around recording every single thing that He said and did.

6.  The responsible reader of Scripture will be careful to avoid reading the Scripture through the prism of her/his own upbringing in the home, community of faith, and society.  We do tend to bring the baggage of our experience and upbringing to the Bible.

7.  The reader of Scripture will not only ask "What did this mean back then?" He/she will also ask "What does this mean today and how can it be applied today?"

In order to determine what the "correct" interpretation of the biblical text is, and especially how one derives a body of interpretive theory relevant to the situation of a colonial people, one would want, I believe, to follow the following guidelines that would constitute a sound hermeneutical principle.

1.  The Bible should be its own interpreter (E. Lund, Hermeneutics. Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, n.d. p. 19).  By this I mean that the Scriptures should be interpreted by the use of the Scriptures themselves. Support for erroneous views of God, humanity, and life can be found in the Scriptures if one abandons this simple principle.  People can use the Bible to make a case for reincarnation, the infallibility of human leaders, militarism, etc. by lifting out passages, which in their thinking, establish the basis for such beliefs.  The principle of biblical self-interpretation is one which calls for us to compare the various parts of Scripture in order to arrive at some understanding of the passage in question.

2.  The words of Scripture should be understood in their usual and ordinary sense (Lund, p. 25). What I am saying is that one should examine and seek to determine how the writers of Scripture made use of familiar words.  The writers of Scripture were not addressing a certain caste of privileged people.  Therefore, they did not use language or terminology which was far and above the comprehension of the people.  A perfect example of this is that the New Testament was written in koine Greek (the Greek of the common people) and not in Attic Greek (the Greek of the upper echelons of society.) They wrote in a way that was very intelligible to their audience.  It is for that reason that we find in the writings of the Bible freedom and variety of expressions.

3.  Words should be understood according to the conjunction of the phrase (Lund, p.28).  The meaning of some words varies according to the phrase, text, or verse.  An example would be the use of the word "flesh." In Romans 3:20, this word is used to refer to persons: Therefore, by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

4. Words should be understood according to the context (Lund, p. 32).  This is made possible when one takes into consideration the verses that precede and follow within the body of the text itself.  Many times the conjunction of the phrase does not provide any clarity as to the meaning of a particular word.  In such instances, one should examine preceding and following verses so that obscure phrases can be properly understood.

5.  One should attempt to discern the purpose of the book or passages in which certain words or expressions occur (Lund, p. 39). This rule is really an amplification of the previous ones.  It is to be applied when the conjunction of the phrase and the context do not provide a clear light on the meaning of the words. One can best determine the purpose of the writing of the book or passage when they are read in their entirety. One should study the book or passage attentively and  repeatedly, taking into account all the people that the writers were addressing. This rule enables the reader of Scripture to have a better understanding of the passages which appear to be contradictory.  It also enables one to attain a broader understanding of passages which,  in themselves are clear.

6.  The Bible comes from God and possesses unity of design and teaching (Northeast Bible Institute, Biblical Hermeneutics. Greenlane: n.p., n.d. p. 1). By this I am saying that the Bible is not merely the product of the human mind.  The interaction of the divine and the human spirits produced the writing of Scripture. In spite of the diversity which exists, there is an underlying unity which becomes apparent to the reader of Scripture. One should approach the Scriptures with the assumption that they are inspired by God, and that the writers expressed the thinking of God in their writings.  If one can accept this assumption, then there is very little difficulty in accepting the basic unity of this body of writing.

7.  The Bible cannot contradict itself (Northeast Bible Institute, p. 1).  Its teaching in one part must agree with its teaching in every part.  The contrasts and the variety which one finds in Scripture in no way indicate that there is contradiction in the Bible.  Any interpretation which renders the Bible self-contradictory or inconsistent must rest on false premises.

8. No meaning should be elicited from Scripture other than that which a fair and honest interpretation yields (Northeast Bible Institute p. 1).  By this I mean that the reader of Scripture should make use of all the tools which one has available in attempting to determine what the correct interpretation of a particular passage or book may be.  To elicit in interpretation which is not found even implicitly in Scripture, is to distort the original intention of the writers of Scripture.  If possible, one should make use of the original languages in which the Bible was written. In this way, it is possible to come closer to the meaning which the writers sought to give.  In the event that one is not able to undertake a full study of the biblical languages, one should then obtain a lexicon (Bible dictionary in the original languages) which present the meaning of certain words in the original language and their meaning via translation into the languages which are spoken today.

The Liberation of Puerto Rico-The Role of Scriptures and Theology

                                                                Chapter 2

                                                                The Liberation of Puerto Rico

                                                                The Role of Scripture and Theology


Certain matters need to be clarified in order to make it possible for one to construct an argument for the independence of Puerto Rico on biblical and theological grounds.  The first issue that must be addressed is that of biblical authority.   Since Christians believe that the Scriptures are the primary authority for determining issues of faith and life, the nature of that authority must be weighed in this discussion. Furthermore hermeneutical principles (issues of interpretation) must be identified in making use of Scripture and of theology.  At some point there needs to be a synthesis between the Bible and theology. In this section of the thesis, I will attempt to clarify these matters. I will deal with the nature of biblical authority and of Liberation Theology.  I will state the principles of interpretation in my use of Scripture and Liberation Theology. Finally, I will present a synthesis of the two.


                                                           The Authority of Scripture

Throughout the centuries, the Scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian tradition have been considered the primary source of faith and practice for both Jews and Christians.  In spite of the various views of Scriptures that lay people, scholars, and theologians hold to this body of writing has been the foundation which informs the beliefs of those who believe in its message.  It is not my intention to deal with the various views of Scriptures but rather to discuss the authority of this body of writing in relation to the theme of this thesis.  If an argument for the independence of Puerto Rico is to be made on biblical grounds, then we must first deal with the nature of biblical authority.

We may begin by asking the following question: From where does the Bible derive its authority?  In order to answer that question, it might be well to determine whether or not the Bible does have any authority.  Does the Bible claim authority?

G.W. Bromiley points out the following:  In the Old Testament as in the New Testament, the claim to more than human authority is implicit, and in many places it finds direct and open expression. It is claimed, for example, that Moses received from God both the moral law and also more detailed commandments, even extending to arrangements for the Tabernacle.  The prophets maintained that they were not speaking their own words, but the message which God had given them.  Jesus Christ spoke with authority because He was conscious of speaking not merely as the historical teacher, but as the Son of God.  The Apostles, had no doubt as to the authoritativeness of their pronouncements (G.W. Bromley, "The Authority of Scripture," The New Bible Commentary, ed. Donald Guthrie. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970, p.3).

It may be objected that in the majority of these cases, the claim to authority is made only on behalf of the message delivered, and not on behalf of the written record in which that message has been handed down. Thus it may well be true that the prophets or Jesus Christ spoke with divine authority, but sometimes we have their words only at second hand.  The fact that inspiration is claimed for them does not mean that inspiration is claimed for those who compiled the record of their activity and teaching.  If this is so, there is no guarantee that what is written in the Bible is a verbatim or accurate account of the message actually delivered (Bromiley, p.3).

Against this objection we may set the fact that in the New Testament, especially with reference to the Old Testament, definite authority is claimed for the written word of the Bible.  This point emerges clearly in many parts of the the teaching of our Lord Himself.  Thus He answers the tempter with the three-fold 'It is written.' For the Jews who searched the Scriptures, He gave counsel that 'It is they that bear witness to me.'  After the resurrection, He interpreted to the disciples in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself, showing that all things must needs be fulfilled which 'were written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms.'  These and similar statements make it plain that Jesus Himself accepted the inspiration and authority of the written record, especially in so far as it gave witness to His own death and resurrection (Bromiley, p. 3).

When we come to the Apostles, we find that their testimony to the divine authority of the Bible is equally clear.  In all the Gospel accounts, great emphasis is laid upon the inspired foretelling of the work and person of Jesus Christ.  The Apostle Paul quotes extensively from the Old Testament, and his preaching to his own people is very largely an attempt to prove the Messiaship of Jesus from Old Testament history and prophecy. The statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 sums up the whole attitude of Paul. Whatever translation we adopt, it is plain from verse 15 that the Apostle has the Old Testament in mind and that he thinks of it as peculiarly inspired by God.  The other apostolic writers quote just as frequently from the Old Testament, and in 2 Peter, open testimony is borne for the inspiration of the Bible in a way very similar to that in 2 Timothy. In 2 Peter 1:21, the word of prophecy is traced back to its final author in God the Holy Spirit: 'Because no prophecy ever came by human impulse, put people of God moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.' Again in 2 Peter 3:16, there seems to be a further allusion to the written Bible as an authoritative word which must be approached with reverence and humility.  The latter verse is particularly interesting in that it couples together the Epistles of Paul and the other Scriptures, a fairly plain hint that the apostolic authors were conscious of adding to and completing the authoritative canon of the Old Testament (Bromiley, p.3).

Surveying the evidence, we may allow that the passages that treat directly of the inspiration of the Scriptures are few in number, and that there is no particular assertion of the status or authority of every individual book. On the other hand, we may note, that with the exception of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Nahum and Zephaniah, all of books of the Old Testament are directly quoted in the New Testament; and when we take into account the attitude of the New Testament to such quotations, there can be little doubt that the 'Thus says the Lord' of the prophets was taken to apply to the records of prophetic activity as well as to the oral words delivered on this or that specific occasion.  The written word was treated as the inspired and authoritative form in which the content of divine revelation had been expressed and handed down (Bromiley, p. 3).

It must be said, too, that the Bible does lay serious claim to divine origin, status, and authority.  It states clearly that is message is of God.  It traces its authority through the human writings to the Holy Spirit.  It accepts the supernatural both in prophetic utterances and in historical events.  It makes no artificial distinction between the inward content of the of the written Word and its outward from.  By its self-authentication as the divinely written Word,  its message challenges us directly either to faith or to unbelief.  In our approach to the Bible, other considerations may obtrude, but the basic challenge cannot be ignored.

The matter of biblical authority is very closely related to the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures.  I will again state I do not intend to deal exhaustively with the various meanings of the word "inspiration," but rather to point out that both the questions of authority and inspiration are matters that need to be looked at if an argument for the liberation of Puerto Rico is to be made on biblical grounds.  It is not necessary to reason in a circle in order to believe in the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures.  The doctrine of divine inspiration is based and affirmed on the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Even if we approach the Bible as an exceedingly old and worthwhile source book for this history of Israel and early Christianity, we find pervading the sources, the doctrine of divine inspiration, and this from the lips of Jesus Himself. Scattered throughout the record in every Gospel account and in every type of record-parable, history, Passion record, etc.--from first to last, is the assurance in the teaching of Jesus that the Scriptures of the Old Testament, to which He referred so frequently are true.  He made no distinction between the religious and the practical. All the teachings of Scripture were alike true for Christ; He believed them all (Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969,. 46).

In order to clarify Jesus's view of the inspiration of the Scriptures, I draw attention to certain passages in which He spoke on this subject.  The first passage is found in Matthew 5: 17-18 in which Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.  I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

As verse 17 shows, Jesus is referring to a book, commonly called 'The Law and the Prophets,' which are the sacred writings of the Jews (Harris, p. 46).'  One might object that there is too much emphasis placed on Matthew 5:17 because the words are only attributed to Jesus.  However, it is to be noted that these verses are found in the so-called "Sermon on the Mount," which is almost universally recognized as an authentic piece of Jesus' teaching.  Furthermore, this saying of Jesus has a parallel in Luke 16: 16-17.  The fact that this verse has a parallel in Luke, supports the conclusion that the doctrine of divine and verbal inspiration is indeed basic to Jesus' teaching.

Another Scriptural passage that clearly identifies the view which Jesus had of Scripture is found in John 10: 34-35.  Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law "I have said your are gods'?  If He called them 'gods," to whom the Word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--(Harris, p. 57).

In this instance, Jesus is making use of Scripture in order to show the Jews that they did not have a basis on which to accuse Him of blaspheming for simply stating that He was the Son of God.  There is no hint of doubt expressed by Jesus that He is merely assuming this for the sake of argument.  "He rests His case upon the Scripture (Harris, p. 57)."

One final passage which should be examined is found in John 5: 39-47.  Jesus says to His audience: You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life.  These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.  I do not accept praise from humans, but I know you. I know that you do not have God's love in your hearts. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in her/his own name, you will accept them. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to accept the praise that comes from the only God? But do no think that I will accuse you before the Father.  Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.  But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?

For vindication of His own claim, Jesus appeals to Moses, in whom the Jews claimed to have their trust.  But He says that they did not really believe Moses.  He confronts His Jewish persecutors by declaring that their Scriptures are true, even though they have misconstrued them.  In this passage, Jesus not only points to the authority of the Scriptures, but also goes as far as to indicate that their authority is derived from the witness which they give to Him.

In conclusion we can say that the Bible is an authoritative source of belief and practice. That authority is derivative and not inherent.  In other words, the authority of the Scriptures does not come from the Scriptures themselves.  This authority comes from the God who inspired the writings of the Bible. It is this authority which should be recognized when one makes use of the Scriptures.

The authority of Scripture is presumed and foundational for advocating the liberation of Puerto Rico.  Without this authority, the argument for Puerto Rico's independence would rely on the relativity of human opinion and perspective, and would in turn be a subjective argument.