ASSUMPTIONS IN LIBERATION THEOLOGY

In order for us to evaluate any theology, we should first become familiar with the assumptions of the theologians in question.  This principle holds true for most branches of human knowledge.  Like in philosophy and in the social sciences, each theologian works with a certain set of assumptions.  Those assumptions, in turn, determine the content and thrust of the particular theology at hand. 

Liberation Theology is no different.  Liberation theologians bring their baggage of assumptions and presuppositions to their system of thought.

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.  By identifying the assumptions, we would be in a much better position to understand the reason why each theologian says what he/she does.

Here we will examine the assumptions of a select group of thinkers of Liberation Theology.  All of them work out their theology within a Latin American context, and subsequently, their theological thrust reflects something about the socio-economic and political conditions of Latin America.

Gustavo Gutierrez, was the one known to coin the term "Liberation Theology." In his book, "Theology of Liberation," Gutierrez, a Peruvian priest, suggests that for theology to be valid, it must emerge from the "bottom up," i.e. emerge from the existential reality of the people.  In this case, Gutierrez, is speaking a theology which does not emerge from the halls and towers of intellectual speculation, or from linking theology to philosophy, but rather, from the experience of people who are undergoing the suffering of economic, political, and social oppression on an ongoing basis.

Gutierrez, like many other thinkers in Liberation Theology, assumes that society is divided into groups, i.e. oppressive and oppressed classes.  He says, "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 (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p.x)."  The reader of his book will note that Gutierrez not only assumes, but also boldly affirms that there is, in Latin America, a struggle between different social groups. 

While the terms "oppressed groups," and "oppressive classes" might appear to some to be vague in definition, the reader will soon note that from the very beginning, Gutierrez is working on the assumption of a division with society.

Hugo Assmann was a Brazilian Catholic theologian.  He was one of the key leaders in the development of Liberation Theology in Brazil.  Continuing the thread of Gustavo Gutierrez, Assmann speaks about the "starting point" in Latin American Liberation Theology.  This starting point, he says, 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 (Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation. London: Search Press, 1975, p. 5).   This statement reflects the assumption that the people of Latin America are in a state of oppression and dependence.  In describing this reality, Assmann shows that regardless of the course which Liberation Theology should take in the future, i.e. that its analytical and central semantic axis should not be forgotten.  He adds, "Any discussion of liberation must always go back to its essence: denouncing domination (Ibid., p. 57)." 

Mortimer Arias was a bishop in the Bolivian Methodist Church. Together with Ester Arias, he wrote the book, "The Cry of My People ( New York: Friendship Press, `980)."  

While Ester and Mortimer Arias do not state their assumptions explicitly, they indicate what these assumptions ate by pointing to statistics which reveal th;e 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 of our captivity-the theology of liberation.  We have been rediscovering the God the Exodus, the liberating God.  Out of the depths of oppression and repression, we may have something to do with Christians of the North, something of what the Lord has been saying to us throughout this dreadful experience (Arias and Arias, p. i.x.)."  The assumptions of Ester and Mortimer Arias are apparent.

Jose Miguez Bonino was a minister in the Methodist Church of Argentina. He served on the Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches.  He was also one of the leading pioneers of Liberation Theology in Latin America.

Bonino makes an allusion to this starting point for theological reflection.  He states that the articulation of the 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 (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p.xx)."  Bonino makes a direct link between action and reflection.  He says, "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 that they are 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 (Ibid., p. 21)."

In essence, Bonino points to the starting assumption of Liberation Theology: Oppression and suffering are the starting points for theological reflection.

Leonardo Boff was a Brazilian former priest and also a theologian and a writer.  He also served as a professor of theology in Metropolis, Brazil.  

Boff takes the same starting point as Bonino by saying that Liberation Theology was born as an answer to thee challenges of oppressed society (Leonardo Boff, Capitalism Versus Socialism:Crux Theological, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America, ed. Rosino Gibellini.   Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p. 13)."  For Boff, Latin America provides the forum in which "action-reflection" can take place.  He states that, "Latin America is today, a theologically privileged place for action and for reflection where challenging problems are faced.  It is the only continent of colonial Christianity.  Liberation Theology was born of an experimental praxis (Ibid.)". Not only does Boff assume 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 was a priest and theologian from Uruguay.  He was also a key figure in the movement of Liberation Theology.  Also contributing to the article "Capitalism Versus Socialism," he portrays the underlying premise of his version of Liberation Theology.  He makes a link between theology and historical sensitivity.  He states, " Historical sensitivity in the faces 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 a 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 the issue because we live with it twenty-four hours every day (Ibid., p. 255)."

Segundo, then poses the question: "When and if those ills are eliminated in our nations, what scientific exigencies or structures would prevent us 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 do good or to do evil on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill' (Ibid, 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 allusion to the present structures in Latin America and the First World.  This statement seems 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.

In summary, theology needs to be evaluated in terms of the assumptions of each theologian.  Familiarity and engagement with those assumptions puts us in a much more advantageous position to evaluate the particular theology that is being discussed.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

Many people who are vaguely familiar with Liberation Theology are of the opinion that it is a mindset which began in the Roman Catholic Church in the 1960's.  It is precisely because of this unfounded assumption, and also the belief that anything emerging from the Catholic Church is erroneous, that many people reject it outright without examining it.  

Here I begin by speaking of the historical roots of Liberation Theology.  As pointed out in the first essay, Liberation Theology, in a very historical and technical sense, began when Yahweh, the God of Israel, spoke to Moses and said to him, "I have heard the cry of my people."  It was during this time that Yahweh, through Moses, initiated the process of liberating the Hebrew people from the physical bondage of slavery in Egypt, that the Hebrews began to engage in "god-talk."  Their theology emerged out of their oppression and suffering, and out of God's liberating and salvific acts in their history.  Their theology was not generated by philosophical speculation, nor by ivory tower conversations.  They did not have the luxury of engaging in intellectual discourse.  Nor were they in any condition to construct a theology which had nothing to do with the reality of life.  Their theology was birthed by their agony and misery, and by Yahweh empathizing with them, and acting to deliver them from those conditions.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND EMERGENCE OF LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY

As stated earlier, one must evaluate theology within its historical context.  Latin American Liberation Theology did not emerge in a historical vacuum, but within the context of economic, political, religious, and social relations.  To overlook this would be to relegate theology to a set of abstractions that have no relevance to human activity and history

Leonardo Boff, a leading spokesperson for Liberation Theology, and his brother Clodovis Boff, place Liberation Theology with the framework of Latin American history in their book, "Introducing Liberation Theology," Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books 1987.  At the time of the writing of this book, Leonardo Boff was a Franciscan priest who had been educated in Brazil and Germany.  Clodovis Boff, was a Servite priest and a professor at the Catholic University of São Paulo.  Leonardo Boff is the author off Ecclesiogeneis, Jesus Christ Liberator, and Liberating Grace.  Clodovis Boff is the author of Theology and Praxis, and together with Leonardo Boff, Salvation and Liberation.  

SOCIAL AND POLlTICAL DEVELOPMENT

The populist governments of the 1950's and 1960's-especially those of Peron in Argentina, Vargas in Brazil, and Cardenas in Mexico -inspired nationalistic consciousness and significant industrial development in the shape of import substitution.  This benefitted the middle class and urban proletariat, but threw huge sectors of the peasantry into deeper rural marginalization and sprawling urban shantytowns.  Development proceeded along the lines of dependent capitalism, subsidiary to that of the rich nations and excluding the great majorities of national populations.  This process led to the creation of strong popular movements seeking profound changes in the socio-economic structures of their countries.  These movements, in turn, provoked the rise of military dictatorships which sought to safeguard or promote the interests of capital, associated with a high level of "national security" achieved through political repression and police control of all public demonstrations.  

In this context, the socialist revolution in Cuba stood out as an alternative leading to the dissolution of the chief cause of underdevelopment: dependence.  Pockets of armed uprising appeared in many countries, aimed a overt growing the ruling powers and installing socialist -inspired regimes.  There was a great stirring for change among the popular sections of society, a truly revolutionary atmosphere (Boff and Boff, p. 67).

ECCLESIAL DEVELOPMENTS

Starting in the 1960's, a great wind of renewal blew through the churches.  They began to take their social mission seriously: lay persons committed themselves to work among them poor, charismatic bishops and priests encouraged the calls for progress and modernization.  Various church organization promoted understanding of and improvements in the living conditions of the people:movements such as Young Christian Students, Young Christian Workers, Young Christian Agriculturalists, the Movement for Basic Education, groups that set up educational radio programs, and the first base ecclesial communities.  

The work of these-generally middle-class Christian-was sustained theologically by the European theology of earthly realities, the integral humanism of Jacques Maritain, the social personalism of Mounier, the progressive evolutionism of Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac's reflections on the social meaning of dogma, Yves Congar's theology of the laity, and the work of M.D. Chenu.  The Second Vatican Council then gave the best possible theoretical justification  to activities developed under the signs of a theology of progress, of authentic secularization, and human advancement.

The end of the 1960's with the crisis of populism and the developmentalist model, brought about the advent of a rigorous current of sociological thinking, which unmasked the true causes of undervdevelopment.  Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin.  All nations of the Western world are engaged in a vast process of development; however, it was interdependent and unequal, organized in such a way that the benefits flowed to the already developed countries of the "center," and the disadvantaged  were meted out to the historically backward and underdeveloped countries of the "periphery."  The poverty of Third World countries was the price to be paid for the First World to be able to enjoy the fruits of overabundance.  

In ecclesial circles by now accustomed to following developments in society and studies of its problem, this interpretation acted as leaven, yielding a new vitality and critical spirit in pastoral circles.  The relationship of dependence on the periphery on the center had to be replaced by a process of breaking away and liberation.  So the basis of a theology of development was undermined and the theoretical foundations for a theology were laid.  Its material foundations were provided only when popular movements and Christian groups came together in the struggle for political and social liberation, with the ultimate aim of complete and integral liberation.  This was when the objective conditions for an authentic liberation theology came about (Ibid., p. 68).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

The first theological reflections that were to lead to Liberation Theology had their origins in a context of dialogue between a church and society in ferment, between Christian faith, and the longings for transformation and liberation arising from the people.  The Second Vatican Council produced a theological atmosphere characterized by great freedom and creativity.  This gave Latin American theologians the courage to think for themselves about pastoral problems affecting their countries.  This process could be seen at work among both Catholic and Protestant thinkers within the group Church and Society in Latin America (Iglesia y Sociedad in la America Latina) taking a prominent part.  There were frequent meetings between Catholic theologians (Gustavo Gutierrez, Segundo Galilea, Juan Luis Segundo, Lucio Gera and others) and Protestant theologians (Emilio Castro, Julio de Santa Ana, Rubem Alves, Jose Miguez Bonino) leading to intensified reflection on the relationship  between faith and poverty, the Gospel and social justice, and the like.  In Brazil, between 1959 and 1964, the Catholic left produced a series of basic texts on the need for a Christian ideal of history, linked to popular action, with a methodology that foreshadowed Liberation Theology; they urged personal engagement in the world, backed up by studies of social and liberal sciences, and illustrated by the universal principles of Christianity (Ibid, p. 69).  

At a meeting of Latin American theologians held in Petropolis (Rio de Janiero) in March 1964, Gustavo Gutierrez described theology as critical reflection on praxis.  This line of thought was further developed at meetings in Havana, Bogota, and Cuernavaca in June and July 1965.  Many other meetings were held as part of the preparatory work for the Medellin conference of 1968.  These acted as laboratories for a theology worked out on the basis of pastoral concerns and committed Christian action.  Lectures given by Gutierrez in Montreal in 1967 and at Chimobote in Peru on the poverty of the Third World and the challenge it posed to the development of a pastoral strategy of liberation were a powerful impetus toward a theology of liberation.  Its outlines were first put forward at the theological congress at Cartigny, Switzerland in 1969: Toward a Theology of Liberation (Ibid., p. 70).

The first Catholic congresses devoted to Liberation Theology were held in Bogota in March of 1970 and July 1971.  On the Protestant side, Iglesia y Sociedad en la America Latina (ISAL) organized something similar in Buenos Aires the same years (Ibid.).

Finally, in December 1971, Gustavo Gutierrez published his seminal work, Teologia de la Liberation.  In May, Hugo Assmann had conducted a symposium, "Oppression-Liberation: The Challenge to Christians" in Montevideo, and Leonardo Boff had published a series of articles under the title "Jesus Cristo Libertador."  The door was opened for the development of a theology from the periphery, dealing with the concerns of this periphery concerns that presented and still present an immense challenge to the evangelizing mission of the Church (Ibid.).

Leonardo and Clodovis Boff propose dividing the formulation of Liberation Theology into four stages.  They are the following:

1.  The Foundational Stage

The foundations were laid by those who sketched the general outlines of this way doing theology.  Besides the all-important writings of Gustavo Gutierrez, outstanding works were produced by Juan Luis Segundo: De la Sociedad a la Teologia (1970), Liberacion de la Teologia (1975), Hugo Assmann: Teologia Desde la Praxis de la Liberacion (1973), Lucio Gera: Apuntes Para Una Interpretacion de la Iglesia en Argentina (1970), Teologia de la Liberacion (1973),  Others who should be mentioned are Bishop (later Cardinal) Eduardo Pironio, Secretary of CELAM, Segundo Galilea, and Raimundo Caramuru, principal theological consultant to the Brazilian Bishop's Conference.  There was a great ferment of activities in the shape of courses and retreats during this period (Ibid. p, 71).

On the Protestant side, besides Emilio Castro and Julio de Santa Ana, the outstanding contributions were made by Rubem Alves:Religion, Opium of the People or Instrument of Liberation (1969), and Jose Miguez Bonino:La Fe en Busca de Eficacia (1967), and Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (1975). 

Lay persons such as Hector Borrat, Methol Ferre, and Luis Alberto Gomez de Souza did valuable work in linking theology with the social sciences, as did the Belgian priest Francois Houtart, and the Chilean G. Arroyo (Ibid.).

2.  The Building Stage

The first stage was characterized by the presentation of Liberation Theology as a sort of "fundamental theology"-that is, an opening up of new horizons and perspectives that give a new outlook on the whole of theology.  The second stage moved on to the first efforts at giving the liberation approach doctrinal content. Three areas received most attention as corresponding to the most urgent needs in the life of the Church:spirituality, Christology, and ecclesiology.  There was a wide range of publications from many Latin American countries.  The main writers were: Enrique Dussell, Juan Carlos Scannone, Severino Croat, and Aldo Buntig in Argentina, Joao Batista Libanio, Frei Bretto, Carlos Masters, Eduardo Hoornaert, Jose Oscar Beozzo, Gilberto Gorgulho, Carlos Palacio, and Leonardo Boff in Brazil, Ronaldo Munoz, Sergio Torres, and Pablo Richard in Chile, Raul Valdes, Luis die Valle, Arnaldo Zenteno, Camilo maccise, and Jesus Garcia in Mexico, Ignacio Ellacurria, Jon Sobrino, Juan Pico, and Uriel Molina in Central America, Pedro Trigo and Otto Maduro in Venezuela, Luis Patino and Cecilio de Lorra in Colombia (Ibid.).  

3.  The Setting-in Stage

With the process of theological reflection well-advanced the need was seen for a dual process of "setting in" if the theology of liberation was to become firmly established.  On the one hand was the understanding that the theological current needed to be given a firm epistemological basis: how to avoid duplications and confusion of language and levels, while giving coherent expression to the themes arising from original spiritual experience, taking in the analytical stage, moving on to the theological judging stage, and so to the pastoral action stage.  Good liberation theology presupposes  the art of linking it's theories with the explicit inclusion of practice; in this area, Liberation Theology found fruitful collaborators, not only for its own purposes, but for those of the overall theological process.  On the other hand, the "setting in" process was effectively achieved through the deliberate mingling of theologians and other intellectuals in popular circles and processes of liberation (Ibid., p. 72). 

More and more theologians became pastors too, militant agents of inspiration for the life of the Church at its grass roots and those of society.  It became usual to see theologians taking part in involved epistemological discussions in learned congresses, then leaving back to their  bases among the people to become involved in matters of catechesis, trade union politics, and community organization. Some of the names are Antonio A. da Silva, Rogerio de Almedida Cunha, and Clodovis Boff from Brazil, Elsa Tamez and Victorio Araya from Costa Rica, Virgilio Elisondo from Texas, and P. Laennec from Haiti (Ibid.).

4.  The Formalization Stage 

Any original theological vision tends, with the passage of time, and through its own internal logic, to seek more formal expression.  Liberation Theology always set out to reexamine the whole basic content of revelation and tradition so as to bring out the social and liberating dimensions implicit in both sources.  Again, this is not a matter of reducing the totality of mystery to this one dimension, but of underlying aspects of a greater truth particularly relevant to our context of oppression and liberation (Ibid., p. 73).

Such a formalization also corresponds to pastoral requirements.  The last few years have seen a great extension of situations in which the Church has become involved with the oppressed, with a very large number of pastoral workers involved.  Many movements have come into being under the tutelage, to a large extent, of Liberation Theology.  In Brazil alone, there are movements or centers for black unity and conscientization, human rights, defense of slum-dwellers, marginalized women, mission to Amerindians, rural pastoral strategy, and so forth-all concerned in one way or another with the poorest of the poor seeking liberation (Ibid.).  

I hope that this presentation of the historical development of Liberation Theology in Latin America has helped to clarify and elucidate issues related to its origins.  I end by saying that all theology, whether it be Liberation Theology or other, has to be contextualized within the framework of history.  In this way, we can be in a better position to critique and evaluate its relevance or non-relevance to the world that we live in.  

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Liberation Theology-Continued

                                              LIBERATION THEOLOGY-CONTINUED

Gustavo Gutierrez, the person known for coining the term "theology of liberation," tells us that theology of liberation offers us not so much a new theme for theological reflection, but 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 humankind-gathered into ecclesia, and which openly confesses Christ.  This is a theology which does not stop with reflecting on the world, but rather, tries to be a 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 Reign of God (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p. x).

Here Gutierrez makes a direct link between theology as reflection and the historical process of transformation.  Liberation Theology, according to Gutierrrez, would be the application of a discourse 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 the Church.  Liberation Theology, is then, a critical way of looking at the world and a call for change in the structures of the Church and the world.

Hugo Assmann says that "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 the 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 lived in Latin America.  Subsequently, one would seek to determine how the faith is to be understood and how the Word is to be lived in Latin America.  That, in essence, would be the task of Liberation Theology.

We may ask as to why this type of theological reflection takes place in Latin America.  Assmann says: This theological reflection is impelled by a desire to speak the Word of the Lord to all people from a position of solidarity (Ibid. 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 establishing ties of solidarity with the oppressed and poor people of the world.  Assmann is careful to point out that the type of Christian experience determines the form that theology takes at different moments in history.  Nevertheless, as he describes it, "theology is a task for all times (Ibid. p. 5)."

Esther 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 (Esther and Mortimer Arias, The Cry of My People. New York: Friendship Press, 1980, p. 127)."  Taking the Exodus story as a model for freedom, Liberation Theology is a participation in that story.  For 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 sisters and brothers 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 position.  In fact, Bonino points out that if Liberation Theology is made into a new school, that "it will have its day and be gone (Ibid., p.. xix)."  

In the attempt do distinguish Liberation Theology from other currents of thought, Leonardo Boff describes it as a "global way of articulating the task of thme 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.  Because of this, Boff refers to it as a "theology of liberation from captivity."

Juan Luis Segundo sees Liberation Theology as "the claim to view theology from the standpoint 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, "Capitalism Versus Socialism:"Crux Theologica," Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. Rosino Gibellini, ed.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p. 40)."  Segundo underscores the seriousness of Liberation Theology by posing a test case.  He posits a confrontation with theology and the probleming choosing between a capitalist society and a socialist society.  Segundo calls attention to the need for theology to be validated by the choice which is made for the development of society.

As previously pointed out, Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagtination.  There are differences as to motifs and prisms through which  different theologians engage in social analysis. The one thing that most, if not all Liberation theologians have in common, is that they believe that biblical interpretation and theological reflection have oppression and suffering as their starting points.  While historically speaking, the Scriptures and the traditions have been seen as sources which shed light on the present situation, Liberation Theology does just the opposite, i.e. it uses the present situation to shed light on the Scriptures and the traditions.  While that approach carries the risk of eisegesis (reading into the text), it also carries the advantage of making the text and the tradition come alive.  It allows for there to be and interaction between the text and the traditions on the one hand, and the current situation on the other hand as a continuous event.

Subsequent chapters will focus on the historical development of Liberation in Latin America, and the major assumptions and presuppositions on the part of Liberation theologians.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Liberation Theology: The Latin American Context

In order for us to begin to tackle the field of Liberation Theology, we first need to define what it is and what are the major assumptions and presuppositions.  I will begin by saying that Liberation Theology is not merely another school of theological thought, nor merely a mindset.  It goes much further that, and subsequently, is something that will never be irrelevant or "out of style."

In a very general sense, Liberation Theology begins with the doctrine of Creation, the Fall, and Redemption.  Liberation Theology takes seriously the divine initiative in all of these events.  It affirms God as the Creator of all things, and the Liberator of humankind from the consequences of the Fall, i.e. slavery to sin, both individual and structural.

In that same vein, Liberation Theology focuses on God's act of the liberation from the physical slavery of the Hebrew people in Egypt.  Yahweh God speaks to Moses and says to him, "I have heard the cry of my people."  God identifies with the affiliction, misery, and suffering of the Hebrews.  God conveys to Moses that he is being called to initiate, from a human standpoint, the process of dismantling the structures of slavery, and leading the people out of what at one time was the house of abundance, and then became the house of bondage.

The failure to acknowledge and recognize the biblical roots of Liberation Theology will result in a gross misunderstanding as to what it is, and cause many to demonize and even distort not only its contents, but also its thrust. In addition, if one fails to recognize the roots of Liberation Theology, then the tendency will be to either think of it as one school of theological thought among others, and also to equate it with ideologies and movements such as Marxixm and political and social revolution. It will also result in placing Liberation Theology within the framework of extreme humanism, which tends to "write off" divine initiative and overemphasize human achievement. The task of defining Liberation Theology is a difficult and complex one. There is no one "theology of liberation." Rosino Gibelleni says that "Liberation Theology is a variegated affair, both in its motifs and the personalies involved (Rosino Gibellellni, 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.  There is as much diversity in Liberation Theology there is in European and other theologies. Nevertheless, there is an underlying unity in Liberation Theology's trend of thinking.  (To be continued).

                                                                              THE ROLE OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

In most every religious syand indstem, there are scriptures (sacred texts) and traditions that define and identify the beliefs and practices of that system.  In some cases, such as in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the sacred texts constitute the basic core of their belief systems.  In other words, the beliefs and practices of that system are based on "what the text says."

In some segments of Christianity, the doctrine and theology are based on "what the Bible says."  In other segments of Christianity, the theology is based on the hermeneutics (interpretations) of the text, and also on how the preceding oral tradition gave way to the text.

Until recently, almost the entire spectrum of theological opinion would have agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, together with the doctrinal interperpretations, occupy a unique and indispensable place of authority for Christian faith, practice, and reflection.  But this consensus now seems to be falling apart (Edward Earley and Peter C. Hodgson in "Scripture and Tradition." Christian Theology: An Introduction to the Traditions and Tasks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 60). 

Formation of the Scripture Principle in Postexilic Judaism,

What is called the scripture principle, originated as a solution to  a major crisis in Israel's history, i.e. the dispersion of the Jewish people following the Babylonian Exile.  This event significantly modified Israel's social institutions, separated a portion of the Jewish people from those institutions, and brought about an acute threat of cultural and religious assimilations. The Diaspora Jews, now lacking the land, temple, and priesthood, created two new institutions for preserving their socioreligious identity: the synagoue and the written Torah (Ibid., p. 64)

Under these circumstances, "scripture" came to mean a written deposit of the complete and definitive revelation of Yahweh to the people, functioning as the primary source of cultic and moral regulaltion to the community.  Threee basic convictions came to be held about the Torah:

1.  It is the exhaustive location of a now past divine communication, relative to all present and future time and places, containing at least implicitly, an answer for every need and crisis.  

2.  It is toally and equally valid in all its parts and details.

3.  It contains symbols, references to the nation, land, holy city, and temple, permitting the endurance of a people whose self-understanding remained that of a dispersed nation, a quasi-political and religious entity, having as its regulated law what was originally given for its life as a nation in possession  of its own land (Ibid., pps. 63-64).

The Christian Appropriation of the Scripture Principle

Although as an offspring of Judaism, the early Christian community inherited the Hebrew/Jewish scriptures and soon produced a collection of writings of their own, it did not necessarily have to adopt the scripture prinicle.  In fact, through the first century and a half of its existence, a certain tension can be discerned over precisely this issue (Ibid., p.67).

In Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the basic notion is that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Early Church (experiences and traditions) preceded written revelation.  So, in some respects, experience and tradition "gave birth" to the Scripture.

In Protestantism. it was and still is believed that the Scripture carries primacy over the tradition and over experience.  The rules of "Prima Scriptura" and "Sola "Scriptura" relegate experience and tradition to a secondary status.  

Has the "House of Authority ( whether the traditions and Scriptures as interpreted by the Church, or the Scriptures themselves as the final authority in the life of the  Church) collapsed?  That is something that will have to be determined on an ongoing basis by lay people, ministers, scholars, and theologians.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona