Liberation Theology

This third reflection in the series on my visit to Senegal is inspired by the experience of the World Forum on Theology and Liberation where over 100 people spent six days trying to understand the challenges for the future of an authentic liberation theology. I am not going to try to provide a summary or report. Others, I hope will do so.  What I want to do is to present a very simple entry into what liberation theology is about in 2011 and one or two of the challenges facing it. In order to move forward we need to keep one eye on the future and another on the path already traced. My presentation is not academic; as usual, I write as an engaged person. (Photo of Indigenous paticipants.)

   If you have followed theology for a very long time, you will remember that the classical approach to theology moved from a statement of doctrine (or dogma even) based on Church documents and then referenced to the biblical sources. Following that there could be speculation about how to understand and apply the doctrine to our times. Philosophy provided the tool for this second, speculative operation.

   When liberation theology came along there was a fundamental shift in the way theology was proposed. First of all the focus was on the socio-economic-political-cultural reality of our time through the lens of those who were economically poor, socially discarded and ultimately non-persons in society. This was the famous option for the poor.  It was an option because it was not neutral and did not claim to analyse society or religion from a neutrally objective perspective. It took sides with the struggle of the poor for a decent life, dignity and respect. It did not exclude anyone precisely because it included all those who were excluded. It sought a society in which everyone—not just those with wealth, power and influence—had a place of dignity and respect.

   As a result of this option for the poor, primacy of analysis was given, not so much to philosophy, as to what the social sciences could offer. These included sociology, political science, economics, anthropology, etc. Moreover this reference did not come at the end of the process, after establishing the doctrine. It came right at the beginning.

   The model for the methodology of liberation theology is rooted in the principles of Catholic Action: See, Judge Act, a methodology of praxis (movement from engaged action to reflection and back again in a transformed mode). This was a significant shift in methodology for theology. We did not begin with Church documents or with Scripture. First of all, we looked (see) at society to see what was happening there, to identify those who were the object of our attention, the poor, women, gays and others. More than as objects, we saw how they were subjects (agents) of their own liberation. We tried to understand the dynamics that were and are at work in subjecting them to oppression or liberating them to a new place in a new society. (You may remember that Gustavo Gutierrez defined the struggle of Latin America as not one for development but rather of liberation from oppression. This was a sociological statement, neither philosophical nor doctrinal.)

   It must be remembered then that the first step in a liberation or liberating theology is not with a restatement of what the Bible says or of what official Church documents say but rather of what we learn by looking carefully at the world around us with the tools that the social sciences provide.

   Only then to we move to the second stage that is “judge.”  This is a crucial step and sometimes one that is not well understood.  In many examples of liberation theology this would be the moment to turn to the scriptural sources and to the teaching of the Church. In some cases that is appropriate. However, it was always the practice, even if not explicitly stated, that the ultimate criterion for judging the situation of the poor and excluded was the principle of life and love (solidarity) itself. In the part called “judge” we tried to find where life was being threatened or destroyed, where love was being betrayed or nourished and we made our judgement on that basis.  This meant that we looked in Scripture and in Church teaching for those elements and insights that would help us understand how to nourish life and love (solidarity) as well as for how to discern a path toward them. We did not choose our Scripture or Church documents haphazardly. There was a fundamental criterion underlying our effort: if the perspective and value and revelation nourishes life for the poor and excluded and love then we embrace it. But we did not pay attention to doctrines or perspectives or texts that we discovered were opposed to life or to love (solidarity). Again, we were so sure, quite often, that the Bible was a word of life and that the mission of the Church was to nourish life, that we took it for granted. I underline the point because today we need to pay a lot of attention to that distinction – not all religion is liberating, not everything in the Bible is liberating, not every interpretation of our religious traditions is liberating. Liberation theology takes a very critical look at religion and its traditions.

  Finally, there was the third methodological moment: “act.”  Liberation theology is a tool for commitment, for a faith that is engaged in the world and at the service of the transformation of the world into that “other world that is possible” and that Biblically is called the “Reign of God.”  A liberation theology is a theology in action. It is not content and perhaps today not even comfortable citing texts from Scripture or Jesus. It is a theology that does not preach Jesus but rather the mission and the values and the “cause” of Jesus. Jesus talked very little about himself; he spent a lot of time talking about the Reign of God and a lot of time doing what would bring that Reign into the lives of the poor and excluded around him. Liberation theology, in its “action” phase is all about strategies to bring forward what will make Life, Justice, Love, Solidarity more present in our world. It may or may not make reference to phrases like “Reign of God.” What is important is not to announce the Gospel but to make it “live” in the lives of people. For that reason, in its action phase, liberation theology can work either inside or outside the religious framework. The action is based on “judge” and that judgement, while coherent with the Gospel, is valid quite beyond it.

  Now, all of this leads me to talk about some new trends in liberation theology. I have tried to set up the approach to liberation theology, as described above, in a way that allows us to more easily grasp the new trends or challenges.

   First of all, and not just in Latin America, but on all continents, there is a strong call to bring the thinking of liberation theology to bear on the reality of pluralism and diversity in our societies. Some of this diversity is cultural or gender-based and some is also religious. All of the social sciences are telling us that this is an important and relatively new phenomenon in many societies that is challenging the very framework of our coexistence on the planet. It has led the liberation theologians in Latin America to take a second look at the way in which the indigenous and Afro-American people have been treated following the Spanish conquest. First of all, they began to recognize that their cultures had been marginalized, sometimes ridiculed and frequently suppressed. A major shift was needed to embrace and accompany the people in the reappropriation and expression of their traditional cultures. A breakthrough happened when the indigenous and Afro-American people espoused that struggle for themselves. At that point the liberation theologians had to examine their consciences and ask also about what had happened to religion when the Spanish arrived for the conquest. They realized that, if Latin America had been colonized, the traditional religions had been also. Parallel to the decolonization of Latin America, Africa and Asia, there needs to be a decolonization of religion. At this point the theologians are looking carefully at this question. 

   However, this is a question that goes much further since it has led theologians to look at what the anthropologists and sociologists, not to mention the political scientists, have been saying about indigenous and Afro or Asian peoples on other continents. Even more, today our great North American and European metropolises teem with the presence of peoples whose religious tradition is not at all that of our Western Christianity. They are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Atheist. How are we to speak of them? Some of them find themselves quite isolated, marginalized and even oppressed in the societies that have received them as immigrants.  More again, when we look at the relations between countries, we see that there are some who are “in” (members of the OECD for example) and others are quite marginal (the group of 77, for example).  We need to go back to our “see, judge and act” in order to work it out. We need a liberating theology of political, economic, cultural, and even secular pluralism. Some of our societies are full into the dilemma of trying to sort it out and this poses a great challenge to liberation theologians today.

   There is a second great challenge for liberation theology today: developing a “Planetary Theology.”  Those who attended the World Forum on Theology and Liberation know that this was thrown around a bit and did not get a great hearing from many of the theologians present. So be it. I am one of its defenders and I predict it will be a second great leap forward in liberation theology. Already there are a number of theologians hard at work on it. This idea of a “Planetary Theology” needs to also be understood from the “see, judge, act” approach.  The option remains for the poor and excluded. In this case, the framework is broadened.  It is the planet itself whose life is being threatened, marginalized, distained. In part this is a theology that begins to incorporate and ecological perspective, an eco-theology that includes all living creatures, all of the planet and its components: sea, air, soil. This is part of the “see.”  But, the earlier analyses are not excluded either. Human life is still part of life on our planet, but needs analysis that sets it within its real context: that of the planet. We are creatures of the Earth and dependent on it. We do not understand ourselves thoroughly except in that context. Our origin is in the evolution of the planet and our destiny is inextricably bound to that of the planet. This will lead us to do our social-cultural-economic-political analysis in a much larger context and with much more precision, always with the option for the poor in mind. We need a rereading of the “see.”  We also need a rereading of the “judge” because it is not just human life and well-being that is the criterion of judgement but that of the whole planet and all its components. Underlying this is the conviction that the “life” we refer to is that of the whole as well as its parts. This makes the work of analysis and discernment much more difficult, complex and delicate. But who ever said it was supposed to be easy?

   The “action” also is transformed by our discernment (judgement) since we need to develop strategies that really produce “life for all.”  We need to reread our religious traditions, their scriptures and doctrines in the overall light of a planetary consciousness that calls out for “life for all” without exclusions and from the perspective of those and whatever is currently being left out.

  A huge “cause” lies before us: Nothing less than the transformation of the world, the transformation of our own consciousness, the transformation of our societies and ultimately, the transformation of our beleaguered planet.

   Underlying our reflections at the World Forum on Theology and Liberation was this challenge, viewed from quite different perspectives. What we realize is that it touches the deepest dimensions of our heart and soul yearning for something better, not just for ourselves, but for especially those who have borne the brunt of our heartlessness for so long.

   I return to Quebec, more than ever convinced that there is an important task before us, one that we can begin now and that will take us far into the future where the Spirit awaits us.


(Note: There is a (free) French translation of this reflection in the Bulletin (#28) of PAVÉS and also on the site of Culture et foi. I have also posted it just recently here (September 2011).