TheologicalStudies
METHODINLIBERATIONTHEOLOGIES
PETER C.PHAN
[Theauthorarguesthatdespiterealdiversitiesamongdifferent kindsofliberationtheologians,theyareallonacommonjourney, headingalongdifferentpathstowardthesamedestination.Acommonelement,theirmethod,unitesthem.Heanalyzesthethreecomponentsofthismethod:theuseofpraxisandacademicdisciplines otherthanphilosophy,theinterpretationofScriptureandtradition, anditsrelatingtheorytopraxis.Finally,heshowshowacorrect understandingofthemethodusedbyliberationtheologianswill obviateseveralobjectionscommonlyleveledagainstthem.]
FUTUREHISTORIANSOFCHRISTIANTHEOLOGY
willnodoubtjudgeliberationtheologytobethemostinfluentialmovementofthetwentieth century,possiblyevensincetheReformation.1 Theycertainlywillpainstakinglydocumentitsemergenceasindependenttheologicalmovementsin thelate1960sandwillmarvelatitsspectacularexpansionthroughoutthe entire oikoumene inamatterofjustacoupleofdecades.2 Theprofound influenceofliberationtheologywillbeevidentnotonlyfromthewayithas penetratedfar-flungcountriesandcontinentsandpermeatedallthe branchesofChristiantheology,frombiblicalstudiesthroughsystematicsto ethics,3 butalsofromthecritiquebytheRomanmagisteriumaswellas
PETER C.PHAN,presidentelectoftheCatholicTheologicalSocietyofAmerica, istheWarren-BlandingProfessorofReligionandCultureintheDepartmentof ReligionandReligiousEducation,attheCatholicUniversityofAmerica,Washington.HeobtainedtheS.T.D.fromthePontificiaUniversitasSalesiana,Rome, andthePh.D.andD.DfromtheUniversityofLondon.Heiscurrentlypreparing abookontheSynodofAsia.Recentlyhehasedited JourneysattheMargin: TowardanAutobiographicalAmerican-AsianTheology (Liturgical,1999)and The GiftoftheChurch (Liturgical,2000).
1 Forhelpfulgeneralintroductionstoliberationtheologywhicharelegion,the followingmaybeconsulted: MysteriumLiberationis:FundamentalConceptsofLiberationTheology, ed.IgnacioEllacurı´aandJonSobrino(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis, 1993); TheFutureofLiberationTheology, ed.MarcH.EllisandOttoMaduro (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1989); LiberationTheology, ed.CurtCadoretteetal. (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1992);andPeterC.Phan,“TheFutureofLiberation Theology,” TheLivingLight 28/3(1992)259–71.
2 Forexcellentdocumentation,see LiberationTheology:ADocumentaryHistory, ed.AlfredT.Hennelly(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1990).
3 Theseries“TheologyandLiberation,”whichmayincludesome60volumes,
METHODINLIBERATIONTHEOLOGIES
vigorousattacksbypoliticalauthoritieswhohaveregardeditasthemost perniciousthreattodemocracyandthecapitalisticsystem.4
Eventhoughitiscustomarytorefertoliberationtheologyinthesingular,itisobvious,evenfromacursorystudyofitshistory,thatitisbyno meansahomogeneousanduniformsystem.Ithasbeenpracticedindifferentcontextsandcontinents NorthAmerica,CentralandSouth America,Africa,andAsia,justtomentionthosewhereithasattracteda sizablenumberofadherents.5 Ithastargetedvariousarenasofoppression gender(whitefeminist,womanist,and mujerista theology),sexual orientation(gayandlesbiantheology),race(Blacktheology),class(Latin Americantheology),culture(Africantheology),andreligion(Asiantheology),againjusttocitearepresentativefew.Ofcourse,theseformsof oppressionarenotrestrictedtoaparticularregion;rathertheyareeach widespreadin all partsoftheglobeandareoftenintimatelyinterlocked witheachotherandmutuallyreinforcing,sothatanygenuineliberation theologyanywheremustfightagainstallformsofoppression,bethey sexism,heterosexism,homophobia,racism,classism,culturalandreligious discrimination,allatonce,sidingineffectivesolidaritywithvictimsofall formsofoppression.Inthissense,itisappropriatetorefertoliberation
attemptstoreformulateallthebasictheologicalthemesinlightofthetheologyof liberation.
4 ForthecritiquebytheVatican,seethedocumentsbytheCongregationforthe DoctrineoftheFaith, “InstructiononCertainAspectsofthe ‘TheologyofLiberation’,” Origins 14(September13,1984)193–204and “InstructiononChristian FreedomandLiberation,” Origins 15(April17,1986)713–28.Theseconddocumentreflectsamorepositiveattitudetowardliberationtheology.Foranevaluation oftheVatican’sdocuments,seeJuanLuisSegundo, TheologyandtheChurch:A ResponsetoCardinalRatzingerandaWarningtotheWholeChurch, trans.JohnW. Diercksmeier(Minneapolis:Winston,1985)andAnselmKyongsukMin, Dialectic ofSalvation:IssuesinTheologyandLiberation (Albany,N.Y.:StateUniverstiyof NewYork,1989).Forabalancedassessmentofthecritiqueofliberationtheology, seeArthurF.McGovern, LiberationTheologyandItsCritics:TowardanAssessment (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1989).Oppositiontoliberationtheologyhasnot beenlimitedonlytosilencingsomeofitsmorevocalexponents(e.g.Leonardo Boff).ThemurderofmanyChristiansengagedinthestruggleforjusticeincluding thesixJesuitsandtwowomeninElSalvadorin1989isattributabletoviolent oppositiontotheviewsofliberationtheology.JonSobrinohaspointedout: “The corpsesoftheJesuitsshowthatthistheologyisnotelitistbutofthepeople,because ithasrisenindefenseofthepeopleandsharedthepeople’sdestiny”;seeJon Sobrino,IgnacioEllacurı´aandothers, CompanionsofJesus:TheJesuitMartyrsof ElSalvador (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1990)51.
5 Forpresentationsofliberationfromtheglobalperspective,seeAlfredT.Hennelly, LiberationTheologies:TheGlobalPursuitofJustice (Mystic,Conn.:TwentyThirdPublications,1995); LiftEveryVoice:ConstructingChristianTheologiesfrom theUnderside, ed.SusanBrooksThistlethwaiteandMaryPotterEngel,rev.ed. (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1998);andPriscillaPope-LevisonandJohnR.Levison, JesusinGlobalContexts (Louisville,Kent.:Westminster/JohnKnox,1992).
THEOLOGICALSTUDIES
theologyintheplural:thereareliberation theologies. Itisimportanttotake accountofthisdiversityofliberationtheologies,sinceitisacommon mistaketolumpallliberationtheologiestogetherasanundifferentiated theologicalmovement.
ThisdiversityhasbeenwellexpressedbyMaryPotterEngelandSusan BrooksThistlethwaite: “Therearedistinctiveemphasesinliberationtheologies;theyarenotclones.Noneofthem NorthAmericanfeminist liberationtheologies,womanist, mujerista, gayandlesbianliberationtheologies,AfricanAmericanliberationtheologies,NativeAmericanliberationtheologies,LatinAmericanliberationtheologies, minjung theologies, orothers,includingthosewhoasyethavenotfoundawaytonametheir theologicalsituationforthemselves isinterchangeablewithanyofthe others.Eachhasitsownpeculiarinterests,emphases,viewpoints,analyses, andaims,dependentupontherequirementsofitsownparticularsocial context.”6
Whileacknowledgingtheseimportantdiversities,thisarticlewillfocus onwhatbindsliberationtheologiestogether,namely,theessentialelementsoftheirmethod.Itwillexaminetheresourcesliberationtheologians makeuseof,theirhermeneuticalapproaches,andtheircriteriaoftruth.In otherwords,thearticlewillstudythethreeelementsoftheepistemology ofliberationtheology itsanalytical,hermeneutical,andpracticalmediations.7 Itwillillustratethesemethodologicalconsiderationswithawiderangingappealtothewritingsofavarietyofliberationtheologiansthemselves.Itintendstoshowthatliberationtheologians,whatevertheirnationalandculturalprovenance,arefellowtravelersonacommonjourney, albeitthroughdifferentroutes,tothesamedestination.
AVARIETYOFGRISTTOTHETHEOLOGICALMILL:THE SOCIOANALYTICMEDIATION
Ithasbeenassertedthatliberationtheologiesarenotsimply “genitive theologies” inwhichliberationwouldbenomorethanonesubjectamong
6 LiftEveryVoice 5.
7 SeeClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis:EpistemologicalFoundations, trans. RobertBarr(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1987)xxv; TeoriadoMe´todoTeolo´logico (Petropolis,Brazil:Vozes,1998).Thesethreecomponentscorrespondtothethree actsofsee-judge-actcharacteristicofthemethodusedbysupportersofCatholic ActionamongtheYoungChristianWorkers(theJocists)foundedbyJoseph Cardijn(1882–1967).Ontheconnectionbetweenthemethodofliberationtheology andCatholicAction,seeAgenorBrighenti, “Raı´zesdaepistemologiaedome ´ todo daTeologiadaLibertac ¸ ao.Ome ´ todover-julgar-agirdaAc ¸ aoCato ´ licaeas mediac ¸ oesdateologialatino-americana” diss.CatholicUniversityofLeuven,1993. SeealsoClodovisBoff, “EpistemologyandMethodofLiberationTheology,” in MysteriumLiberationis 57–85andLeonardoBoffandClodovisBoff, Introducing LiberationTheology, trans.PaulBurns(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1987)22–42.
METHODINLIBERATIONTHEOLOGIES
many,conventionaltheologiesaboutsomehithertoundiscoveredrealityor dealingwithanewtheme.Rathertheclaimisthatliberationtheologiesare newwaysofdoingtheologyinwhichliberationisakindofhorizonagainst whichthewholeChristianfaithisinterpreted.8 Inotherwords,theyare essentiallyatheologywithanewmethod.
Partofthemethodologicalnoveltyliesinthepartners-in-dialoguewith whomliberationtheologiesconverse,ortoputitdifferently,inthekindsof gristtheybringtotheirtheologicalmills.GustavoGutie ´ rrezhasargued that,incontrasttotheologyaswisdomandtheologyasrationalknowledge whichdialoguealmostexclusivelywithNeoplatonicandAristoteleanphilosophiesrespectively,liberationtheologyisa “ criticalreflectionon praxis.”9 Asreflectiononhistoricalpraxis,liberationtheologieswillhighlightcertainChristianthemesthatmighthavebeenobscuredinthepast, suchascharityasthecenterofChristianlife,theintrinsicconnection betweenspiritualityandactivism,theanthropologicalaspectsofrevelation, theverylifeoftheChruchasa locustheologicus, thetaskofreflectingon thesignsofthetimes,actionasthestartingpointfortheologicalreflection, the(Marxist)emphasisonthenecessityoftransformingtheworld,andthe necessityoforthopraxisinadditiontoorthodoxy.10
ConversationwiththeSocialSciences
Tocarryoutthiscriticalreflectiononhistoricalpraxiseffectivelyaspart oftheirmethodologyliberationtheologiesmustenterintodialoguewith
8 “[T]hetheologyofliberationoffersusnotsomuchanewthemeforreflection asa newway todotheology.Theologyascriticalreflectiononhistoricalpraxisis aliberatingtheology,atheologyoftheliberatingtransformationofthehistoryof humankind gatheredinto ecclesia whichopenlyconfessesChrist” (Gustavo Gutie ´ rrez, ATheologyofLiberation, rev.ed.,trans.SisterCaridadandJohnEagleson[Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1988]12).SusanBrooksThistlethwaiteandMary PotterEngelusethebuildingmetaphortoexpresstheradicalchallengeofliberationtheology: “Liberationtheologiesarenotaboutrearrangingthefurnitureinthe houseoftheology,orevenaboutredecoratingorremodelingthehouse.Rather, theyareaboutrebuildingthefoundation(method)andredesigningthefloorplan (categories)” (LiftEveryVoice 14).JuanLuisSegundoexplainsthisnewwayof doingtheologyindetailin TheLiberationofTheology, trans.JohnDrury(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1976).
9 GustavoGutie ´ rrez, ATheologyofLiberation 5.Inanearlierlecture(July1968) givenatChimbote,Peru,Gutie ´ rrezgaveadefinitionoftheologyinrelationto praxis: “Theologyisareflection thatis,itisasecondact,aturningback,a re-flecting,thatcomeafteraction.Theologyisnotfirst;thecommitmentisfirst. Theologyistheunderstandingofthecommitment,andthecommitmentisaction. Thecentralelementischarity,whichinvolvescommitment,whiletheologyarrives lateron” (Hennelly, LiberationTheology:ADocumentaryHistory 63).
10 SeeGustavoGutie ´ rrez, ATheologyofLiberation 5–11.
thesocialsciences.11 Tohelptransformthestructuresthatoppressthe poor,liberationtheologiansmusthaveanaccurateknowledgeoftheconcretesociopoliticalandeconomicconditionsofthepeopletowhomthey conveytheChristianmessage.Theexpression “(preferential)optionfor thepoor” describeswellthefundamentalcommitmentorthe “firstact,” to useGutie ´ rrez’smemorablephrase,outofwhichliberationtheologiansare supposedtodotheir “secondstep” ofreflection.12 However,toknowwho thepoorareinoursocietyandthecausesoftheirpovertyrequiresmore thanexpertiseintheBibleandphilosophy;whatisneedediswhatClodovis Boffcallsthe “socioanalyticmediation.”
Withregardtotherelationshipbetweentheologyandthesocialsciences ClodovisBoffrejectsfivewaysofconceivingandpracticingitinthepast. Theseheterms “empiricism” (absenceofsocioanalyticmediation), “methodologicalpurism” (exclusionofsocioanalyticmediation), “theologism” (substitutionforsocioanalyticmediation), “semanticmix” (faultyarticulationofsocioanalyticmediation)and “bilingualism” (unarticulatedsocioanalyticmediation).13 InsteadoftheseinadequatewaysBoffrecommends
11 AmongliberationtheologianstheonemostinsistentupontheneedfortheologytodialoguewiththesocialscienceswasJuanLuisSegundowhosetheological projectwastodialoguewiththesocialsciencesinorderto “de-ideologize” the customaryinterpretationoftheChristianfaithanditslanguagethathideand ligitimateoppressionorsocialinjustice.SeeJuanLuisSegundo, SignsoftheTimes: TheologicalReflections, ed.AlfredHennelly,trans.RobertBarr(Maryknoll,N.Y.: Orbis,1993),especiallytwoessays: “TheologyandtheSocialSciences” (7–17)and “TheShiftWithinLatinAmericanTheology” (67–80).Inthelast-mentionedessay Segundowascriticalofhiscolleaguesforhavingmadethepoorratherthanthe de-ideologizingofChristiantraditiontheprimarylocusorsourceoftheology.
12 “TheChristiancommunityprofessesa ‘faithwhichworksthroughcharity.’ It is atleastoughttobe realcharity,action,andcommitmenttotheserviceof others.Theologyisreflection,acriticalattitude.Theology follows;itisthesecond step” (GustavoGutie ´ rrez, ATheologyofLiberation 9).Foracriticalevaluationof Gutie ´ rrez’sunderstandingofthe “preferentialoptionforthepoor” inthelightof ThomasAquinas’snotionofcharity,seeStephenPope, “ChristianLoveforthe Poor:Almsgivingandthe ‘PreferentialOption’,” Horizons 21(1994)288–312;PatrickH.Byrne, “Ressentiment andthePreferentialOptionforthePoor,” TheologicalStudies 54(1993)213–41;StephenPope, “ProperandImproperPartialityand thePreferentialOptionforthePoor,” TheologicalStudies 54(1993)242–71.Fora criticalexaminationoftherelationshipbetweenorthopraxisanddoingtheology, especiallyasproposedbyJuanLuisSegundo,seeBernardJ.Verkamp, “OnDoing theTruth:OrthopraxisandtheTheologian,” TheologicalStudies 49(1988)3–24. 13 SeeClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis 20–29.AccordingtoBoff, “empiricism” wronglyassumesthatknowledgeisimmediatelygiven(“thefactsspeakfor themselves”); “methodologicalpurism” istheepistemologicalversionof “sola fides”; “theologism” isthetheoreticalcorrelativeofsupernaturalismthatconsiders theologicalinterpretationastheonlytrueoradequateversionofthereal; “semanticmix” isahybriddiscourseinwhichtheologyandsociologyaresimplymixedand
METHODINLIBERATIONTHEOLOGIES
thatweunderstandtherelationshipbetweenthesciencesofthesocialand thetheologyofthepoliticalas “constitutive” insofarasthesocialtheories becomethedatafortheology: “Thesciencesofthesocialenterintothe theologyofthepoliticalasa constitutivepart. Buttheydosopreciselyat theleveloftherawmaterialofthistheology,atthelevelofits material object notatthatofitsproperpertinency,orformalobject.”14
ItiswellknownthatmanyLatinAmericantheologians,atleastintheir earlywritings,adoptedthetheoryofdependencetoexplaintheeconomic underdevelopmentandexploitationinLatinAmericaasthehistoricalbyproductofthedevelopmentofother,mostlycapitalistcountries,andhence calledfortheabandonmentofthedevelopmentalmodelinfavorofliberationor “socialrevolution.”15 InhismorerecentwritingsGutie ´ rrezhas shownhimselfmuchmoreawareofthelimitationsofthetheoryofdependence.16 Nevertheless,thetendencytoseektherootcausesofallformsof oppressionandtoconsiderthemintheirhistoricaldevelopmentremains influentialonthemethodologyofalltypesofliberationtheology.For example,BlacktheologyhastracedtherootsofAfricanAmericans’ socialpoliticalandeconomicoppressionbacktoracismandtheideologyofwhite supremacy.17 Similarly,Asianfeministtheologianshavehighlightedhow “capitalism,patriarchy,militarism,andreligio-culturalideologiesworktonotfullyintegrated,oftenwiththeologydominatingsociology,asisfoundinsome magisterialdocumentsonsocialproblemsandinsomepoliticaltheologies;and “bilingualism,” whichiscloselyrelatedwith “semanticmix,” juxtaposessocioanalyticdiscourseandtheologicaldiscourse,seekingtoplaytwolanguagesonthesame fieldsimultaneously,oftenresultingincontradictionsandwithsociologydisplacing theology.
14 ClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis 31.UsingLouisAlthusser’sepistemology, Boffsuggeststhatthe “thirdgenerality” ofthesocialsciences,i.e.theirtheories, becomethe “firstgenerality” ofliberationtheology,i.e.itsrawdata.Ielaborate thispointinmysecondsection.
15 SeeGustavoGutie ´ rrez, ATheologyofLiberation 49–57.Gutie ´ rrezcitesthe worksofsociologistssuchasFernandoHenriqueCardoso,TheotonioDosSantos, andAndre ´ GunderFrankamongmanyothers.
16 SeeGustavoGutie ´ rrez’sessayentitled “TheologyandtheSocialSciences” firstpublishedin1984andlaterincorporatedinhis TheTruthShallMakeYouFree: Confrontations, trans.MatthewO’Connell(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1990)53–84. HereGutie ´ rrezinsistsonthenecessityofacriticaluseofsocialtheoriesingeneral: “Weneeddiscernment,then,indealingwiththesocialsciences,notonlybecause oftheirinchoativecharacter...,but alsobecausetosaythatthesedisciplinesare scientificdoesnotmeanthattheirfindingsareapodicticandbeyonddiscussion” (58).
17 SeetheworksofJamesH.Cone,GayraudS.Wilmore,andJ.DeotisRoberts. SeeinparticularGayraudS.Wilmore, BlackReligionandBlackRadicalism:An InterpretationoftheReligiousHistoryofAfricanAmericans, 3rded.(Maryknoll, N.Y.:Orbis,1998);GayraudS.WilmoreandJamesH.Cone,ed., BlackTheology: ADocumentaryHistory,1966–1979, 1(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1993)and Black
gethertoescalatethedegreeofwomen’soppression.”18 SomeU.S.HispanictheologiansperceivetheoriginofthemarginalizationofHispanic AmericansintheinabilityofAnglostoaccepttherealityof mestizaje and mulataje.19
Theuseofthesocialsciences,especiallythetheoryofdependenceand theconceptofclassstruggle,hasbroughtaccusationsofMarxistideology againstliberationtheologies.Liberationtheologianshavedefendedthemselvessuccessfullyagainstsuchacharge,fromGutie ´ rreztohisyounger colleagues.TheydistinguishbetweenMarxismasanatheisticandtotalitarianideology(whichtheyvigorouslyreject)andasatoolofsocialanalysis;theyalsopointoutthedifferencebetweenclassstruggleasafact(the existenceofwhichcannotbedeniedinLatinAmerica)andtheMarxist interpretationofclassstruggleasalawofhistory.20
“ThePsychologicalToolsofIntrospection”andInterreligiousDialogue WhateversuccessliberationtheologiansmayhavehadintheirselfdefenseagainstaccusationsofMarxismandhoweverfruitfulisthediaTheology:ADocumentaryHistory,1980–1992, 2(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1993). GeorgeC.L.CummingshasarguedthatBlackTheologyisrootedinsixfactors:the AfricanslavetradeandAmericanslavery,segregationinpostemancipation America,MartinLutherKingJr.andthecivilrightsmovement,MalcolmXandthe BlackMuslimmovement,BlackPowerandtheblackrebellionsinthe1960s,and thestruggleofBlackChristianstodefinetheiridentityandmission;seehis A CommonJourney:BlackTheology(USA)andLatinAmericanLiberationTheology (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1993)2.ForBlackCatholictheology,see TakingDown OurHarps:BlackCatholicsintheUnitedStates, ed.DianaL.HayesandCyprian Davis(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1998),inparticularM.ShawnCopeland’sessay “MethodinEmergingCatholicTheology” 120–44.
18 ChungHyunKyung, StruggletoBetheSunAgain:IntroducingAsianWomen’s Theology (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1990)106.Seealso WeDaretoDream:Doing TheologyasAsianWomen, ed.VirginiaFabellaandSunAiLeePark(HongKong: AsianWomen’sResourceCentreforCultureandTheology,1989).
19 SeetheworksofVirgilioElizondo,especiallyhis Mestizaje:TheDialecticof CulturalBirthandtheGospel (SanAntonio:MexicanAmericanCulturalCenter, 1978)and TheFutureisMestizo:LifeWhereCulturesMeet (Bloomington,Ind.: Meyer-Stone,1988);seealsoRobertoGoizueta, CaminemosconJesu ´ s:Towarda Hispanic/LatinoTheologyofAccompaniment (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1995).
20 SeeGustavoGutie ´ rrez, TheTruthShallMakeYouFree 61–63,69–75;Enrique D.Dussell, “TheologyofLiberationandMarxism,” MysteriumLiberationis 85–102; andArthurMcGovern, “DependencyTheory,MarxistAnalysis,andLiberation Theology,” in TheFutureofTheology 272–86.Withregardtosocialisminliberation theology,PeterBurnshascarefullyevaluatedthecritiqueofopponentsofliberationtheology,inparticularMichaelNovak,andhasconvincinglyshowedthatsuch acritiqueisnotwellgrounded.Burnsalsopointsoutthedangerthatliberation theologymayloseitsdistinctivethrustifitmutesitsoptionforsocialismasthe resultofthecollapseofCommunism;seePeterBurns, “TheProblemofSocialism inLiberationTheology,” TheologicalStudies 53(1992)493–516.
METHODINLIBERATIONTHEOLOGIES
loguebetweentheologyandthesocialsciences,AloysiusPieris,aSriLankanliberationtheologian,whilerecognizingtheindebtednessofAsian theologianstotheirLatinAmericancolleagues,haspointedoutthat “‘liberation-theopraxis’ inAsiathatusesonlytheMarxisttoolsofsocialanalysiswillremainun-Asianandineffective.Itmustintegratethepsychological toolsofintrospectionthatoursageshavediscovered.”21 Thereasonforthe necessityofthisadditionaltoolisthefactthat,asPierishasargued,inAsia besides “imposedpoverty” thereisalso “voluntarypoverty” thathasbeen freelyassumed,mainlybymonks,toliberateothersfromimposedpoverty andaboutwhichMarxistsocialanalysishasnothingtosay.This “introspection” notonlyservesasabracingcorrectivetoKarlMarx’sthesisthat religionsaretheopiumforthepeoplebutalsohighlightsthepotentialthat religionshaveforsocialtransformation.
Furthermore,thismethodologyhasforgedanewlinkbetweensociopoliticalandeconomicliberationandinterreligiousdialogue.SinceLatin AmericaispredominantlyChristian,interreligiousdialoguehasnotbeen anurgentissueformostofitstheologiansnorhasitservedasamethodfor theologicalreflection.22 ThisisalsotrueofBlack,Hispanic,andfeminist theologiesintheU.S.However,thisisnotthecasewithAsiawhichisthe birthplaceofmostworldreligionsandwhereChristiansarebutatiny minorityandthereforemustcollaboratewithadherentsofotherreligions inordertoachievetheiragendaforsocialtransformation.Byinterreligious dialogueasatheologicalmethodismeantnotonlytheologicaldiscussions amongchurchrepresentativesandacademics,butalso “dialogueoflife,” “dialogueofaction,” and “dialogueofreligiousexperience.”23 Itisfrom thesefourformsofinterreligiousdialoguethatatheologyofliberation mustbeconstructedwhosegenuinewellspringmustbespiritualityandnot
21 AloysiusPieris, AnAsianTheologyofLiberation (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis, 1988)80–81.
22 Insteadofinterreligiousdialogue,LatinAmericanliberationtheologianshave recentlypaidattentionto religiosidadpopular asasourceforliberation.SeeCristia ´ nParker, PopularReligionandModernizationinLatinAmerica, trans.Robert Barr(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1996)witharichbibliography(265–84);aswellas MichaelR.Candelaria, PopularReligionandLiberation:TheDilemmaofLiberationTheology (Albany,N.Y.:StateUniversityofNewYork,1990).Theologians PabloRichard,DiegoIrarra ´ zaval,JuanLuisSegundo,andJuanCarlosScannone haveproducedsignificantworksonthistheme.
23 SeePontificalCouncilforInterreligiousDialogueandtheCongregationfor theEvangelizationofPeoples, DialogueandProclamation, June20,1991(Rome: VaticanPolyglot,1991)no.42.SeealsotherichcollectionofJohnPaulII’sstatementsoninterreligiousdialogueandreactionsfromBuddhists,Jews,andMuslims in JohnPaulIIandInterreligiousDialogue, ed.ByronL.SherwinandHarold Kasimov(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1999).
secularideologies.Hence,itisofgreatsignificancethatinrecenttimes liberationtheologianshaveincreasinglyturnedtoChristianspiritualityas thequarryoftheirreflections.24
Ontheotherhand,thankstoitsnewlinkwithliberation,theverynature ofinterreligiousdialoguehasbeentransformed.Itcannolongerbecarried outasaleisurelyformofinculturationinwhichvariouselementsare borrowedfromotherreligionsandgraftedontoone’sown akindof “theologicalvandalism,” tousePieris’sexpression.25 Ratheritshouldbe practicedaspartofthetaskofliberation,sinceinculturation,asPierisputs it,isnothingbutannouncing “thegoodnews inourowntongues toour people(thatis,thecontentofinculturation) namely,thatJesusisthenew covenantorthedefensepactthatGodandthepoorhavemadeagainst mammon,theircommonenemy(thatis,thecontentofliberation).For liberationandinculturationarenottwothingsanymoreinAsia.”26
Interreligiousdialogueaspartofthemethodofliberationtheologiesalso valorizessacredtextsandpracticesofAsianreligionswhichhavenourishedthespirituallifeofAsianpeopleforthousandsofyearsbeforethe comingofChristianityintotheirlandsandsincethen.27 Intimatelyconnectedwiththesereligiousclassicsiswhatiscommonlyreferredtoas Asianphilosophies.28 Lastly,interreligiousdialoguealsohighlightstheimportanceofAsianmonastictraditionswiththeirrituals,asceticpractices, andsocialcommitmentforconstructingliberationtheologies.29
24 See,e.g.,GustavoGutie ´ rrez, WeDrinkfromOurOwnWell, trans.Matthew O’Connell(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1984);JonSobrino, ASpiritualityofLiberation:TowardaPoliticalHoliness, trans.RobertBarr(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis, 1988);LeonardoBoff, PassionofChrist,PassionoftheWorld, trans.RobertBarr (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1987);SegundoGalilea, FollowingJesus (Maryknoll, N.Y.:Orbis,1981);NestorJae ´ n, TowardaLiberationSpirituality, trans.Philip Berryman(Chicago:LoyolaUniversity,1991); AsianChristianSpirituality:ReclaimingTradition, ed.VirginiaFabella,PeterK.H.Lee,andDavidKwang-sun Suh(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1992.Onthespiritualityofliberationtheology,see PeterC.Phan, “PeacemakinginLatinAmericanLiberationTheology,” E ´ gliseet the ´ ologie 24(1993)25–41.
25 AloysiusPieris, AnAsianTheologyofLiberation 53,85.
26 Ibid.58.
27 SeeAloysiusPieris, LoveMeetsWisdom:AChristianExperienceofBuddhism (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1988)andhis FireandWater:BasicIssuesinAsianBuddhismandChristianity (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1996).
28 HighlysignificantinthisregardaretheprolificwritingsofJungYoungLee, especiallyhis EmbracingChange:PostmodernInterpretationsoftheIChingfroma ChristianPerspective (Scranton:UniversityofScranton,1994)and TheTrinityin AsianPerspective (Nashville:Abingdon,1996).
29 EventhoughThomasMerton,BedeGriffith,andRaimundoPanikkarcannot
METHODINLIBERATIONTHEOLOGIES
StoriesfromtheUndersideofHistory
Besidessocialanalysisandpsychologicalintrospectionaccompaniedby interreligiousdialogueaspartoftheirmethodology,liberationtheologians digdeepintothehumusofpeople’slivestofindresourcesfortheirreflection.Thestoriesoftheselivesareoftennotrecordedinhistorybooks writtenbyvictorsbutmustberetrievedfromtheforgottenandoppressed pasttoformthe “dangerousmemory” (JohannBaptistMetz)bywhichthe stimulusforsocialtransformationmaybenourishedandsustained.Among Asianliberationtheologians,Choan-SengSongstandsoutasthepreeminent “storytheologian.” AgainandagainheurgeshisfellowAsiantheologianstomakeuseofthestoriesnotonlyoftheBiblebutalsoofpoorand oppressedpeople,the “undersideofhistory” (GustavoGutie ´ rrez),and theirfolktales,oldandnew,asfoodfortheirtheologicalthought.Song believesthatthemostimportantskillforAsiantheologiansistheabilityto listentheologicallytothewhispers,cries,groanings,andshoutsfromthe depthsofAsiansufferinghumanity.Whatisneeded,saysSong,isthe imagination,the “third-eye,” thatis,thepowerofperceptionandinsight (satori)thatenablestheologianstograspthemeaningbeneaththesurface ofthingsandphenomena.Itispreciselythislisteningtoandreflection uponthestoriesofsufferingpeoplethatmakestheologyaliberationtheology.30
TellingstoriesoftheundersideofhistoryisalsopracticedbyKorean minjung theologyasitsfundamentalmethod.31 AsYoung-ChanRohas
beregardedasliberationtheologians,theyhavemadeimportantcontributionsto thedialogueregardingWesternandEasternmonasticism.
30 Songisahighlyskillfulpractitionerofstorytheology.Forhisreflectionson storiesaspartofthetheologicalmethod,seehistenthesesin TellUsOurNames: StoryTheologyfromanAsianPerspective (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1984)3–24,and “FiveStagesTowardChristianTheologyintheMulticulturalWorld,” in Journeys attheMargin:TowardanAutobiographicalTheologyinAmerican-AsianPerspective, ed.PeterC.PhanandJungYoungLee(Collegeville:Liturgical,1999)1–21. ForSong’sowntheologicalworks,seeinparticular Third-EyeTheology:Theology inFormationinAsianSettings, rev.ed.(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1990;originaled. 1979); TheCompassionateGod (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1982); Theologyfromthe WombofAsia (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1986);hischristologicaltrilogyentitled The CrossintheLotusWorld:Jesus,theCrucifiedPeople (NewYork:Crossroad,1990); JesusandtheReignofGod (Minneapolis:Fortress,1994);and JesusinthePowerof theHolySpirit (Minneapolis:Fortress,1994).Forabook-lengthstudyofSong,see KarlH.Federschmidt, TheologieausasiatischenQuellen:DertheologischeWeg Choan-SengSongsvordemHintergrundderasiatischenokumenischenDiskussion (MunsterandHamburg:Lit,1994).
31 On minjung theology,see AnEmergingTheologyinWorldPerspective:CommentaryonKoreanMinjungTheology, ed.JungYungLee(Mystic,Conn.:TwentyThird,1988);AndrewSungPark, TheWoundedHeartofGod (Nashville:Abing-
wellargued,therealityof han, whichis “thecumulativeunresolvedfeeling thatarisesoutofpeople’sexperienceofinjustice,” andwhichisthesource of minjung theology, “revealsitselfinthe telling oftragicstories.”32 This storytellingmethodisalsowidelyadoptedbyBlacktheology,Native Americantheology,andfeministtheologyofvariousstripes.Thetelling,of course,oftentakestheverbalform,inproseorpoetry,butisnotlimitedto it.Itcanbedoneinsongs,drama,dance,ritual,symbolization,visualart, andfolklore.
Oneoftheresultsofstorytellingasatheologicalmethodiscontextualization.Storytellingmakesliberationtheologiesconcrete,rootedinreal lifeexperiences,andhistorical.Throughstoriesthenarratoracknowledges herorhisinescapablesocial,political,andeconomiclocationandimplicitly affirmsthevalidityofhisorherexperience.Bythesametoken,inrecognizingthecontextualityoftheirowntheologies,liberationtheologiansalso carryout,atleastindirectly,anideologycritiqueinsofarastheyrejectthe claimstouniversalityofthedominantorofficialtheologyandshowthatit tooisinescapablylocatedinaparticularsocial,political,andeconomic context.Ontheotherhand,storytellinghelpsliberationtheologiansbridge thegapinhibitingcommunicationamongpeopleofdiverseculturesbecausestoriescreateacommunalfundfromwhichliberationtheologians candrawinspirationfortheirreflection.Inthiswaystorytellingcontributes tobuildingupakindofconcreteuniversality,outofparticularstoriesand histories,frombelowasitwere,ratherthanthekindofabstractuniversalityandnormativenessthatthedominanttheologyattemptstoimposeon othersfromabove.
“DOYOUUNDERSTANDWHATYOUAREREADING?”
(ACTS8:30): THEHERMENEUTICALMEDIATION
Outofthisabundanceandvarietyofgrist,howcanonebakeasingleloaf ofbread?Ortovarythemetaphor,outofsomanynotes,howcanliberationtheologiesavoidbeingacacophonyandproduceaharmonioussymphony?Morefundamentally,howshouldthesesourcesbeusedtoconstructaChristiantheologyofliberation?Liketheeunuchwhowasasked byPhilip, “Doyouunderstandwhatyouarereading?” readersofthese sourcesmaybeforcedtoreply, “HowcanI,unlesssomeoneguidesme?” don,1993);andYoung-ChanRo, “Revisioning Minjung Theology:TheMethodof the Minjung,” in LiftEveryVoice 40–52. 32 Young-ChanRo, “Revisioning Minjung,” in LiftEveryVoice 49.Accordingto Ro, minjung theologyis “mythos-not logos-orientedtheology.For[the]narrative elementisunderstoodtobeessentialto minjung theology,because han mustbe told,heard,touched,felt,andresolved. Atragedyisnotatragedyuntilitistold” (50).
METHODINLIBERATIONTHEOLOGIES
51
(Acts8:31).Inotherwords,thenextissuetobeconsideredisthehermeneuticalmediationofliberationtheologies:Howshouldoneinterpretthese varioussourcesinsuchawaythattheyacquirewhatClodovisBoffcalls “theologicalpertinency”?33 Morespecifically,howshouldliberationtheologianscorrelatethemwiththeChristiansources,namely,theBibleand tradition?Afterall,liberationtheologyis,asGutie ´ rrezhassaid, “acritical reflectiononChristianpraxis inthelightoftheWord.”34
TheHermeneuticalCircleandIdeologyCritique
Oneofthekeyelementsofliberationtheologians’ interpretationofthe Bibleandtraditionisthe “hermeneuticalcircle.” JuanLuisSegundo,the UruguayanJesuitwhowroteextensivelyonhermeneutics,describeditas “thecontinuingchangeinourinterpretationoftheBiblewhichisdictated bythecontinuingchangesinourpresent-dayreality,bothindividualand societal EachnewrealityobligestointerpretthewordofGodafresh, tochangerealityaccordingly,andthentogobackandreinterprettheword ofGodagain,andsoon.”35 Segundospecifiedfurtherthatthehermeneuticalcirclecontainsfoursteps: “Firstly thereisourwayofexperiencing reality,whichleadsustoideologicalsuspicion. Secondly thereisapplicationofourideologicalsuspiciontothewholeideologicalsuperstructurein generalandtotheologyinparticular. Thirdly therecomesanewwayof experiencingtheologicalrealitythatleadsustoexegeticalsuspicion,thatis, tothesuspicionthattheprevailinginterpretationoftheBiblehasnottaken importantpiecesofdataintoaccount. Fourthly wehaveournewhermeneutic,thatis,ournewwayofinterpretingthefountainheadofourfaith (i.e.,Scripture)withthenewelementsatourdisposal.”36
Mostliberationtheologiansadoptthehermeneuticalcircle,especiallyits ideologycritique,intheirinterpretationoftheBible.37 Thus,feministtheo-
33 ClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis 67.
34 GustavoGutie ´ rrez, ATheologyofLiberation 11;italicsmine.
35 JuanLuisSegundo, TheLiberationofTheology 8.
36 Ibid.9.
37 Forgeneralexpositionsofbiblicalexegesisinliberationtheology,seeNorman K.Gottwald, TheTribesofYahweh:ASociologyoftheReligionofLiberatedIsrael, 1250–1050B.C.E. (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1979); TheBibleandLiberation:PoliticalandSocialHermeneutics, ed.NormanK.Gottwald(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis, 1983);FernandoBelo, AMaterialistReadingoftheGospelofMark, trans.Matthew O ’ Connell(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1981);MichelCle ´ venot, MaterialistApproachestotheBible, trans.WilliamJ.Nottingham(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1985); J.SeverinoCroatto, BiblicalHermeneutics:TowardaTheoryofReadingasthe ProductionofMeaning, trans.RobertBarr(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1987); Voices fromtheMargin:InterpretingtheBibleintheThirdWorld, ed.R.S.Sugirtharajah (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1991).
logianshaveunmaskedpatriarchyandandrocentrismhiddeninChristianity;38 AsianliberationtheologiansinsistonreadingtheBibleinthepostcolonialistcontext; 39 andBlacktheologyrevealsracialmotifsinthe Bible.40 Furthermore,liberationtheologiansoftenpromotetheinterpretationoftheBiblebythepoorthemselveswholearnhowtoquestionthe teachingsoftheBiblefromtheperspectiveoftheiroppression.41
Thereishoweveranotherquestionthatstillneedsclarification,namely, howtobringthevarioussourcesIhaveenumeratedaboveintodialogue withtheBiblesothatwhatresultsfromthiscorrelationofthetwo sources socialtheories,theteachingsandpracticesofnon-Christianreligions,andstoriesoftheundersideofhistoryontheonehandandthe ChristianScripturesontheother becomesChristianliberation theology, andnotjustreligiousdiscourse,philosophyofreligion,orthehumansciencesofreligion?
TheHermeneuticalMediation
InansweringthisquestionClodovisBoff’sreflectionsonthesecond mediationofliberationtheologies thehermeneuticmediation arehelpful.DrawingonLouisAlthusser’sexplanationoftheprocessoftheoretical practice,Boffsuggeststhattheproductionofknowledgeiscomposedof threemoments.42 First,ascienceasaproductionofknowledgebeginsnot
38 ForWhitefeminists,seetheworksofElisabethSchusslerFiorenza,Rosemary RadfordRuether,andElizabethJohnson.ForLatinafeminists,seetheworksof ElsaTamez,AdaMarı´aIsasi-Dı´az,andMarı´aPilarAquino.ForAsianfeminists, seetheworksofChungHyunKyungandKwokPui-lan.ForBlackfeminists (womanists),seetheworksofDianaL.Hayes,M.ShawnCopeland,ToinetteM. Eugene,andJamiePhelps.Forageneralevaluationoffeministhermeneuticsin relationtoliberationtheology,seeSharonH.Ringe, “ReadingfromContextto Context:ContributionsofaFeministHermeneutictoTheologiesofLiberation,” in LiftEveryVoice 289–97.
39 SeeRasiahS.Sugirtharajah, AsianBiblicalHermeneuticsandPostcolonialism: ContestingtheInterpretations (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1998).
40 SeeCainHopeFelder, TroublingBiblicalWaters:Race,Class,andFamily (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1980).SusanBrooksThistlethwaiteandMaryPotter Engelsummarizeideologycritiquebyliberationtheologians: “...allliberation theologiansagreeononebasicprinciplefortheuseofanysource:suspicion.All sources,whetherMarxistanalyses,ancientChristiantexts,theScriptures,or ‘classic’ literature,mustbeusedcriticallyandapproachedwiththesuspicionthatthey furtherthedominantmodeofoppression” (LiftEveryVoice 11).
41 ThemostfamouscollectionoftheseinterpretationsisErnestoCardenal, The GospelinSolentiname, 4vols.(Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1982).
42 LouisAlthusser’sworksavailableinEnglishinclude: EssaysinSelf-Criticism (AtlanticHighlands,N.J.:Humanities,1976); LeninandPhilosophyandOther Essays (NewYork:MonthlyReview,1971); PoliticsandHistory:Montesquieu, Rousseau,Hegel,Marx (NewYork:Schocken,1978); ReadingCapital (NewYork:
METHODINLIBERATIONTHEOLOGIES
withrealorconcretethings,butwithgeneral,abstract,andideological notionsthatitencountersinagivencultureandthatitusesasitsraw materialordata(its “firstgenerality”).Thesecondmomentofthetheoreticalpractice,calledthe “secondgenerality,” isthe “working” onthese datatoproduceabodyordeterminatesystemofconceptsthatdetermine aspecifictypeofscience.Outofthis “working” onthefirstgenerality emergesathought-product,aspecific,concrete,scientifictheorywhichcan becalledthe “thirdgenerality.” Toputitconcisely, “theoreticalpractice producesthirdgeneralitiesbytheoperationofasecondgeneralityupona firstgenerality.”43
Theology,insofarasitisa “science” ortheoreticalpractice,followsthis three-stepproduction: “Theologicalpracticecomprisesafirstgenerality its ‘subject,’ ormaterialobject asecondgenerality,whichisthebodyof itsasymptoticoranalogicalconcepts,andfinallyathirdgenerality,the theologicaltheoryproduced.”44 Anythingwhatsoevercanbetheology’s firstgenerality;thereisnothing,includingeverysourcethathasbeenmentionedinthefirstpartofthisarticle,thatcannotbetherawmaterial,or subjectmatteroftheology.Butitbecomestheologyonlyifitis “worked on” inthesecondgenerality “inthelightofrevelation,” whatThomas Aquinascalledthe “formalobject” (the objectumquo, the ratiosecundum quam, the ratioqua)oftheology,thatis,faith,toproduceabodyoftheologicalknowledgeorscience.
Asfarasliberationtheologiesareconcerned,accordingtoClodovis Boff,theirfirstgeneralityisconstitutedbysocialtheories(thethirdgeneralityofthesocialsciences)aswellas,itmaybeadded,byotherreligious andculturaldatasuchasthosementionedabove.Intheirsecondgenerality liberationtheologies “work” onthisfirstgeneralitybymeansoftheological conceptsderivedfromtheBibleandtraditionthroughanadequatehermeneutics(thesetheologicalconceptsconstitutethethirdgeneralityof classicaltheologiesthatBoffcalls “firsttheology”).Whatresultsfromthis operationonthefirstgeneralityconstitutesliberationtheology.
Togiveanexample:inordertoarriveatanunderstandingofwhat “liberation” means,liberationtheologiansstartnotfromtheBibleortraditionbutfromthedataofoppression/liberationasthesocialsciences understandthem.Thissociologicalconceptformsthefirstgeneralityof theirtheologicalscience.Thetheologiandoesnotwork with but upon the conceptof “liberation” derivedfromsociologicalstudies.Inthiswaythe
Schocken,1979);and ForMarx (NewYork:Schocken,1979).ForAlthusser’spresentationoftheprocessoftheoreticalpractice,seeespecially ForMarx chap.4,no. 3; ReadingCapital 40–43;and LeninandPhilosophy 60–63.
43 ClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis 72.
44 Ibid.73.
socialsciencesaswellasotherhumansciencesformanintrinsicandconstitutiveandnotanadventitiouspartoftheology.Thetheologian’staskis totransform,withthehelpoftheproperlytheologicalconceptof “salvation” (thethirdgeneralityof “firsttheology” nowfunctioningasthesecond generalityofliberationtheologies),thesociologicalconceptof “liberation” (thethirdgeneralityofsociologynowfunctioningasthefirstgeneralityof liberationtheologies)insuchawayastoproduceatheologicaltheorythat “liberationissalvation” (thethirdgeneralityofliberationtheologies).45
Centraltothistheoreticalpracticetoproducealiberationtheologyis clearlythesecondgenerality,thatis,the “working” onthefirstgenerality ofliberationtheologiesthatisconstitutedbythethirdgeneralityofthe socialandotherhumansciences.Inotherwords,itisthehermeneutical mediationbetweenthesocialsciencesandothersciencesontheonehand andtheBibleandtheChristiantraditionontheother,betweenourpresent sociallocationandthepastChristianwritings.Herewecomebacktothe hermeneuticalcirclespokenofabove.ClodovisBoffdrawsourattentionto thedialecticalcircularitybetweenScriptureaswrittentextandScriptureas WordofGodreadintheChurch,betweenthecreationofmeaningandthe acceptanceofmeaning,betweenstructureasvehicleofcommunicationand meaningasneedingstructureforsupport,andbetweenhermeneuticsas employmentoftechnicalapparatusofinterpretationandhermeneuticsas acreativeinterpretation(Sinngebung).46
AstotheprocessofcorrelatingtheScripturetooursociallocation, ClodovisBoffwarnsusagainsttwounacceptablecommonpracticeswhich hetermsthe “gospel/politicsmodel” andthe “correspondenceofterms model.” The “gospel/politicsmodel” seesthegospelasacodeofnormsto bedirectlyappliedtothepresentsituation.Suchapplicationiscarriedout inamechanical,automatic,andnondialecticalmanner;itcompletelyignoresthedifferencesinthehistoricalcontextsofeachofthetwotermsof therelationship.
The “correspondenceoftermsmodel” setsuptworatioswhichitregards asmutuallyequivalentandtransfersthesenseofthefirstratiotothe secondbyasortofhermeneuticalswitch.Forinstance,anattemptismade toestablishanequivalency(theequalsign)betweentheratioofthefirst partoftermsandthatofthesecondpairofterms:Scripture:itspolitical context theologyofthepolitical:ourpoliticalcontext;exodus:enslavementoftheHebrews liberation:oppressionofthepoor;Babylon:Israel
45 Ibid.87–88.Evenwithoutthehelpofsocioanalyticmediationonecanseethat salvationinScripturealsoincludessociopoliticalandeconomicliberation.But withoutsocioanalyticmediationitisimpossibletoknowwhatthisliberationmeans today forusandtheconcreteformsit(andhencesalvation)musttake.Hereliesthe dangerof “semanticmix” and “bilingualism” mentionedabove.
46 Ibid.135–39.
captivity:peopleofLatinAmerica;Jesus:hispoliticalcontext Christiancommunity:itscurrentpoliticalcontext.Althoughbetterthanthe “gospel/politicsmodel” insofarasittakesintoaccountthehistorical contextofeachsituation,the “correspondenceoftermsmodel” isstill unacceptablebecauseitassumesaperfectparallelbetweenthefirstratio andthesecond.
The “CorrespondenceofRelationshipsModel”
Incontrasttothesetwomodels,ClodovisBoffproposeswhathecallsthe “correspondenceofrelationshipsmodel” whichheclaimsisinconformity withthepracticeoftheearlyChurchandtheChristiancommunitiesin general.Inschematicformthismodellooksasfollows:JesusofNazareth: hiscontext ChristandChurch:contextofChurch Churchtradition: historicalcontext ourselves:ourcontext.Inreducedform,itlooksas follows:Scripture:itscontext ourselves:ourcontext.
InthismodeltheChristiancommunities(representedbytheChurch, churchtradition,andourselves)seektoapplythegospeltotheirparticular situations.Butcontrarytotheothertwomodels,thismodeltakesboththe BibleandthesituationtowhichtheBibleisappliedintheirrespective autonomy.ItdoesnotidentifyJesuswiththeChurch,churchtradition,and ourselvesontheonehand,nordoesitidentifyJesus’ contextwiththe contextoftheChurch,thehistoricalcontextofchurchtradition,andour contextontheother.Theequalsign( )doesnotrefertotheequivalency amongthetermsofthehermeneuticalequationbuttotheequalityamong therespectiverelationshipsbetweenthepairsofterms.AsBoffputsit, “Theequalsignrefersneithertotheoral,northetextual,nortothe transmittedwordsofthemessage,noreventothesituationsthatcorrespondtothem.Itreferstotherelationshipbetweenthem.Wearedealing witha relationshipofrelationships. Anidentityofsenses,then,isnottobe soughtonthelevelofcontext,nor,consequently,onthelevelofthemessageassuch butratheronthelevelofthe relationship betweencontext andmessageoneachside[Scriptureandourselvesinthereducedschema] respectively.”47 Thisfocusontherelationshipbetweenthetermsofeach pairandtheequivalencyamongtheserelationshipsratherthanonaparticulartextoftheScripturetobeappliedallowsbothcreativefreedomin biblicalinterpretation(not “hermeneuticpositivism”)andbasiccontinuity
47 Ibid.149.Thisbynomeansimpliesthatliberationtheologianswillnotappeal tospecifictextsorbooksoftheBible.Onthecontrary,astheBoffbrothershave pointedout,certainbiblicalbooksarefavoredbyliberationtheologians,suchas Exodus,theProphets,theGospels,theActsoftheApostles,andRevelation;see LeonardoandClodovisBoff, IntroducingLiberationTheology, trans.RobertBarr (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1986)34–35.
56 THEOLOGICALSTUDIES
withthemeaningoftheBible(not “improvisation adlibitum”): “The Christianwritingsofferusnota what, buta how amanner,astyle,a spirit.”48
OneofthemeritsofClodovisBoff’scorrespondenceofrelationships modelofthehermeneuticalmediationisthatitsafeguardstheexegesisof liberationtheologiansfromthedangersofbiblicism,fundamentalism,and eisegesistowhichsomeoftheirearlyworkswereprone.Inthisrespecthis hermeneuticswouldcommandwhole-heartedagreementfrommostliberationtheologians.Itistobenotedhoweverthatsomerecentliberation theologianswouldcontesthisgrantingprimacytotheScriptureasthe normaccordingtowhichlaterinterpretationsistobemeasured.Thoughhe maintainsthatanygenuinehermeneuticalrelationship(“dialecticalhermeneutic”)involvescircularity,Boffbelievesthat “thiscircularityfunctions withinan articulationwithadominantterm. Thethrustofthedialectichermeneuticmovementcomesfrom Scripture andismeasured,inthelast instance,uponScriptureas normanormans.”49
IncontrasttoBoff,liberationtheologiansfromamulti-religiouscontext inwhichclassicsofotherreligionsarewidelyreadtendtodenythenormativenessoftheChristianScriptures.Forexample,KwokPui-lanexplicitlyrejectsthesacralityoftheBible,itsstatusascanonicalwriting,andits normativity,andproposeswhatshecallsa “dialogicalmodelofinterpretation” inwhichtheBibleisseenasa “talkingbook” invitingdialogueand conversation.50 R.S.Sugirtharajahcallsfora “multi-faithhermeneutics” in whichthesacredbooksofallreligionsareallowedtobeuniqueandspeak ontheirownterms,inwhichChristiansdonotclaimthattheirstoryis superiortoandmorevalidthanotherstories,andinwhichtheuniversal Wisdomtraditionisretrieved.51 Furthermore,whereasJuanLuisSegundo andClodovisBoffdonotapplythehermeneuticsofsuspiciontotheBible itself,manyliberationtheologians,especiallyfeminists,haveexposedthe patriarchalandandrocentricbiasoftheHebrew-Christiansacredtext.
Despitetheseimportantdifferencesintheirhermeneuticalpractice,all liberationtheologiansconcurthatthetaskoftheinterpreterisnotmerely touncovertheobjectivemeaningofthetextandtosolvetheriddlesof scholarship.Ratherforthemthemaingoalofhermeneuticsistotransform theunjustworld,totakean “ advocacystance ” (ElisabethSchu ssler Fiorenza)infavorofthepoorandtheoppressed,toenacttheWordofGod intheircontext.Inotherwords,essentialtotheirtheologicalmethodis
48 ClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis, 149.
49 Ibid.149–50.
50 SeeKwokPui-lan, DiscoveringtheBibleintheNon-BiblicalWorld (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1995).
51 SeeR.S.Sugirtharajah, “Inter-FaithHermeneutics:AnExampleandSome Implications,” in VoicesfromtheMargins 352–63.
METHODINLIBERATIONTHEOLOGIES
whathasbeencalled praxis, whichisthethirdmediationofthemethodof liberationtheology.
“DOINGTHETRUTH” (JOHN3:21):THEPRACTICALMEDIATION
Allliberationtheologiansinsistthatpriortodoingliberationtheology onemust “do” liberation. “Thefirststepforliberationtheologyispretheological.Itisamatteroftryingtolivethecommitmentoffaith:inour case,toparticipateinsomewayintheprocessofliberation,tobecommittedtotheoppressed....The essentialpointisthis:linkswithspecific practiceare attheroot ofliberationtheology.Itoperateswithinthegreat dialecticoftheory(faith)andpractice(love).”52
TheTheologian’sSocialCommitment
Howdoesone “do” liberation?TheBoffbrotherssuggestthatthereare threelevelsinwhichtheologianscancommitthemselvestothepoorand oppressed.Thefirst,ratherrestricted,issporadicormoreorlessregular participationinbasecommunitiesandtheiractivities;thesecondisalternatingperiodsofscholarlyworkwithperiodsofpracticalwork;andthe thirdislivingandworkingpermanentlyinsolidaritywithandamongthe people.53 Whichoftheseformsofsocialcommitmentisproperforan individualliberationtheologiancannotbedeterminedinadvance.Achoice ofoneortheotherataparticularhistoricalmomentdepends,asClodovis Boffhasshown,onthedialecticalinterplayamongthreefactorsorcircles, namely,therelationbetweenthesocialsituation(society)andthepersonal positionofthetheologian(individual),therelationbetweenanalysis(sociology)andethics(gospel),andtherelationbetweenthetheologianas theoreticianandthetheologianassocialagent.54
Ofcourse,suchapracticalcommitmentdoesnotofitselfguaranteethe truthoftheliberationtheologian’stheoreticalpracticesincethereisa differencebetweentheepistemiclocusandthesociallocus:intheformer,
52 LeonardoandClodovisBoff, IntroducingLiberationTheology 22.Forabalancedreflectionontherelationshipbetweenorthopraxisandtheologicalwork,see theessayofBernardJ.Verkamp, “OnDoingtheTruth:Orthopraxisandthe Theologian,” TheologicalStudies 49(1988)3–24.
53 SeeLeonardoBoffandClodovisBoff, IntroducingLiberationTheology 23. Thesethreemodelsoftheliberationtheologian’ssocialcommitmentwherebya synthesisoftheologyandpolitics,theoreticalpracticeandpoliticalpractice,science andjusticeisachieved,aretermedbyLeonardoBoffasthe “specificcontribution,” “alternatingmoments,” and “incarnation” modelsrespectively;seeClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis 168–71.
54 SeeClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis 171–73.
thetheologianactsasepistemicagentandisrelatedinternallytothetheologicaldisciplinethroughobjectivecognition,whereasinthelatter,the theologianactsasthesocialagentandisrelatedexternallytothesociety throughpower.Nevertheless,throughsocialcommitment,thetheologian acquiresa “sensibility” oraheightenedcapacitytodiscerntherelevanceof theimperativesofthehistoricalsituationandisenabledtodecidewhich thematicproblemisofobjectiverelevanceorsignificancewithrespecttoa givensociohistoricalconjuncture.Inadditiontothissensibilitythereis requiredthecapacityforcriticalanalysistoexamineandestablishina rigorousmannertherelevanceofthetheologicalproblematictoaparticularhistoricalsituation.
Objectionshavebeenraisedagainsttheliberationtheologian’ssocial commitmentinthenameofthedisinterestednatureofscienceandknowledge(“knowledgeforknowledge’ssake”).Itisarguedthatscience qua scienceisnomorerevolutionaryorreactionarythanitisreligiousoratheistic.Toobviatetheseobjections,liberationtheologianshavepointedout that,insofarasitisascience,thatis,fromanepistemologicalpointofview, theologyisadisinterestedcognition.However,insofarasitisasocial positivity,thatis,invirtueofitsfactualinsertionintothefabricofsocial interests,theologyisnotaninnocent,neutral,apoliticalfunctionbuta partisanandinterestedsocialinstrument.Likepractitionersofanyscience, theologianshavetopassjudgmentonhowtheirtheologyistobeemployed,whoistoemployitandforwhatpurposes,whoaretobeits addressees,andsoon,questionsthatcannotbeansweredintheepistemologicalorderbutonlyinthepracticalorder.AsBoffhasputit, “allknowledge,includingtheologicalknowledge,isinterested.Itobjectivelyintends precisefinalities.Itisfinalized,mediatelyorimmediately,bysomething externaltoitself.Thetrueproblem,consequently,doesnotresideinthe alternative:interestedordisinterestedtheology.Thetrueproblemliesin questionsofthiskind:Whataretheobjectiveinterestsofagiventheology? Forwhatconcretecausesisitbeingdeveloped?Inaword, where areits interests?”55
Finally,itmustberecognizedthatthereisnostraight,logicalpathfrom theorytopraxis,norfrompraxistotheory.Sincetheoryisconstituted throughabreachwithpraxisandsincepraxisisperformedthrougha breachwiththeory,thepassagefromonepoletotheotherisnotamatter ofdrawingthelogicalandnecessaryconsequencebutisalwaysahuman decision.Itfollowsthen,asClodovisBoffargues, “thatnotheory,beit eversorigorousorprofound,willeverofitselfengenderpraxis.Thesame holdsfortheinversecalculation:nopraxis,beitasradicalasyouplease,
55 Ibid.191.
willever,justonthataccount,issueinatheory.... Thustheoryandpraxis representirreducibleorders.”56
PraxisasCriterionofTruth
Inadditiontotherequirementofsocialcommitmentorpraxisaspartof theirtheologicalmethod,liberationtheologiansalsomaintainthatthereis anindissolublelinkbetween “orthodoxy” and “orthopraxis.” Ofthis couplepriorityisgiventoorthopraxis.Sometimesthisprimacyofpraxis overtheoryisexpressedbysayingthat “praxisisthecriterionoftruth.”
Manyliberationtheologiansareawareoftheambiguityofthisstatement.GustavoGutie ´ rrezexplicitlydistanceshimselffromthepositionthat “praxis...givesrisetotruthorbecomesthefundamentalcriterionof truth.”57 Forhim,theologybeing “criticalreflectiononpraxisinthelight oftheWord,” theultimatecriteriaoftruth “comefromrevealedtruth whichweacceptinfaithandnotfrompraxisitself.”58
Topreventmisunderstandingsofthisprinciple,ClodovisBoffmakesa carefuldistinctionbetween “theologicalcriteriology” and “pisticcriteriology.” Bytheformerhemeanscriteriaoftruthfortheologyasatheoretical practice(“truthoftheory”)andbythelatterhemeansthoseoffaithand love(“truthofpraxis”).Theformercriteriaareofanepistemologicalorder andconcernthetheoreticalpracticeofthetheologian,whereasthelatter areofanexistentialorderandconcerntheconcretepracticeofthebeliever.InlightofthisdistinctionClodovisBoffarguesthat “fromthe viewpointoftheologicalpractice,(political)praxisneitherisnorcanbethe criterionof(theological)truth....The thesisthatpraxisisthecriterionof truthistheologicallynonpertinent.Itseekstocomparetheincomparable.”59 Fortheologyasatheoreticalpracticethereareonlytwocriteria oftruth,oneofthelogicalorderandtheotherofthepositiveorder.The formercontrolstheinternalcoherenceofthetheologicalproduction,and thelatteritsexternalagreementwiththepositivityoffaith(whatthe Christiancommunitybelieves).
Withregardtopisticcriteriology,Boffnotesthatliberationtheologies oftenrefertothe “capacityoffaithforsocialtransformation.” Whileacknowledgingsuchacapacity,Boffwarnsagainsttheacriticalcriterionof pragmatismwiththeprimacygiventopracticaleffectivenessandstresses thenecessityofcriticallyevaluatingtheethicalqualityofacourseofpoliticalactionthroughthesocioanalyticandhermeneuticalmediations:
56 Ibid.193.
57 GustavoGutierrez, TheTruthShallMakeYouFree 181n.45.
58 Ibid.101.
59 ClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis 198.
“Wemaynotembracetheideologyoforthopraxy,orpraxiology,dispensingourselvesfromathoroughreflectionontheethicalcontentofagiven practiceandfromacritiqueoftheideaofefficacityandthe ‘theoretical short-circuit’ thatittendstoprovoke.”60
Whilemaintainingthedifferencebetweentheologicalcriteriologyand pisticcriteriology,Boffremindsusthattheologyisdependentuponthe practiceofjusticeandlove,asdemonstratedbythesocialpositionof theology,itsthematicrelevance,anditspoliticalintereststhatwehave discussedabove.Accordingly,saysBoff, “pistictruth atruthofpraxis andtheologicaltruth atruthoftheory callforeachother,andinteract uponeachother.Andtheydosoinarhythmthatisnotpurelylinear,but isultimatelymeasuredbythebasic ‘scansion’ oryardstickoftherealityof faith.Forthedialecticalbalancealwaysleanstowardthepracticaldimension.”61
TheDialecticbetweenTheoryandPraxis
Thefinalissueinthepracticalmediationofthemethodofliberation theologiesisthenatureoftherelationshipbetweentheoryandpraxisand itsimplicationsforthecharacterofliberationtheologiesitself.Thisrelationshiphasbeendescribedas “dialectical.” Bythisismeantthatthe relationshipisnotastaticbutadynamicone,sothattheoryandpraxisare relatedtoeachotherinaperpetualmotion.Becausetheoryandpraxisare boundupwitheachotherinmutualinclusion(perichoresis)andbecause theyaredistinguishedfromeachotherindifference(chorismos)atthe sametime,thereisbetweenthemaceaselessoscillation,a “dialectical movement,” sothatatotaltheologicalsynthesisbasedonthiskindof relationshipbetweentheoryandpraxisisneverpossiblebutalways invia, underconstruction.62 Consequently,liberationtheologiesarebynecessity antidogmaticand “openandcontinuallyrenewing.”63
Withrespecttoliberationtheologiesinparticular,thisdialecticaldrivein perpetualmotionoccursfirstofall,aswehaveseen,betweenthetwo mediations socioanalyticandhermeneutical inthetheoreticalpractice
60 Ibid.203.Bofffurtherremindsusthatthefinalanddefinitiveverificationof thetruthoffaithandthepracticeofjusticedoesnotoccuruntiltheeschatonand istheexclusiveprerogativeofGod.
61 Ibid.205.
62 Foradescriptionof perichoresis and chorismos betweentheoryandpraxis,see ClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis 210–13.
63 “Theologiesthatarecontextual, praxis-based,communal,andpropheticare theologiesthatareboundtoremainopentochangeandongoingrevision” (Mary PotterEngelandSusanBrooksThistlethwaite, “MakingtheConnectionsamong LiberationTheologiesaroundtheWorld,” in LiftEveryVoice 11).
oftheologyinsuchawaythatthependulumofcognitionnevercomesto adeadstop.Butitoccursalsoatthemoregenerallevelofthehistoryin whichtheoryandpraxisarepracticed.Atthissecondlevel,praxisholdsan analyticalprimacyovertheory,eventhoughtheoryholdsthekeytothe identityofpraxis.Thisrelationship,notesClodovisBoff, “mustberepresentedasacurrentreceivingitsfirstthrustfromthesideofpraxis,ricochetingofftheory,andreturningtopraxisanddislocatingit andsoon, overandoveragain.”64 Inotherwords,praxisexertspressureontheoryto criticallyexamineitself;theory,inturn,reacting,modifiespraxis;then theoryandpraxisaretranscended;andthespiralingnever-endingcircular movementgoesonandon.
“NEWWINEINTONEWWINESKINS”
(MATTHEW9:17):ANEW THEOLOGYWITHANEWMETHOD?
Liberationtheologies,asIhavenoted,seektobea “newwayofdoing theology.” Ofcourse,thecontentsofliberationtheologiesarenew,atleast ifonegoesbysomeofthenamesunderwhichtheyareadvocated: womanist,mujerista,minjung, andevenqueer(gayandlesbian)theologies.A coupleofdecadesagotheseappellationswerenotevenmentionedin theologicalencyclopedias!Butwhatmakesliberationtheologiesnewand forsomeathreatisnottheircontentsbutultimatelytheirmethod.AsJuan LuisSegundoalreadystatedin1974inhislecturesatHarvard, “itisthefact thattheoneandonlythingthatcanmaintaintheliberativecharacterofany theologyisnotitscontentbutitsmethodology.Itisthelatterthatguaranteesthecontinuingbiteoftheology.”65
Ofcourse,itisnotpossibletodescribewithhistoricalprecisionwhich camefirstinliberationtheologies,methodorcontent.Thequestionresemblestheproverbialqueryaboutthechickenandtheegg.Mostlikely, contentandmethodoccursimultaneously,thoughitoftenhappensthat reflectionsonmethodareundertakenonlyafteralongpracticeatthecraft orwhenthedisciplineisundergoingacrisisoraparadigmaticshift.Atany rate,themutualdependencebetweencontentandmethodispicturesquely affirmedbyJesuswhenhesaysthat “peopledonotpournewwineintoold wineskins.Iftheydo,theskinsburst,thewinesspillout,andtheskinsare ruined.No,theypournewwineintonewwineskins,andinthatwayboth arepreserved” (Matthew9:17,NAB).
Thisisnottheplacetoofferanextensiveevaluationofthemethodof liberationtheologieswithitsthreemediations socioanalytic,hermeneutical,andpractical.Todosowouldbringthearticletounacceptablelengths.
64 ClodovisBoff, TheologyandPraxis 216.
65 JuanLuisSegundo, TheLiberationofTheology 39–40.
Myprincipalintentionhasbeentodiscernintherichandevenbewildering tapestryofliberationtheologiesthethreadthatbindsthemtogetherintoa commonpattern.Thatunifyingthread,Ihavesuggested,ismethodological.LetmeenumerateinthesisformthewayinwhichthemethodIhave describedcanobviatesomeoftheoft-repeatedchargesagainstliberation theologies.
(1)ItisinaccuratetosaythatvariouskindsofliberationtheologyformulatedaftertheemergenceofLatinAmericanliberationtheologyinthe early1970sarenothingbutitsclones.Methodologically,forexample, Asianliberationtheologies,thoughindebtedtotheirLatinAmericanolder sibling,haveintroducednewmethodsoftheologizing(e.g. “psychological toolsofintrospection,” interreligiousdialogue,inculturation,andstorytelling)thatmakethemquitedistinctive.66 Furthermore,morerecentliberationtheologieshavebroughttothetheologicalmillavarietyofmaterialsfromtheirownspecificsocial,cultural,andreligiousbackgrounds.67
(2)Itisinaccuratetosaythatliberationtheologiesarefundamentally inspiredbyMarxismoraresimplytheologicalversionsoftheMarxist theoryofclassstruggle.Itistruethatliberationtheologieshavemadeuse ofthesociologicaltheoryofdependenceandMarxisttoolsofsocialanalysis,buttheseconceptsandtheories(the “thirdgenerality” ofthesocial sciences)areadoptedasthe “firstgenerality” ofliberationtheologiesand areworkedonintheir “secondgenerality” inthehermeneuticalmediation bymeansofthetheologicalconceptsof “firsttheology” toproduceabody ofgenuinelytheologicalscience(the “thirdgenerality” ofliberationtheologies).
(3)Itisinaccuratetosaythatliberationtheologiesarebiblicallynaı¨veor aresusceptibleofbiblicalfundamentalism.The “correspondenceofrelationshipsmodel” isfarmoresophisticatedthanthegospel/politicsand correspondenceofmodelsthatareoftenthoughttobethehermeneutical approachesofliberationtheologies.ThismodelavoidstheScyllaofhermeneuticpositivismofbiblicalfundamentalismandtheCharybdisof ad libitum improvisationofpostmodernism.Onthecontrary,itenablesboth creativefreedominbiblicalinterpretationandbasicfidelitytothemeaningsoftheScriptureandtradition.
(4)Itisinaccuratetosaythatliberationtheologians,withtheirrequisite socialcommitment,abandonoratleastjeopardizetheobjectivityanddisinterestednessoftheologyasanacademicpursuitofknowledge.Liberation
66 ForanexcellentpresentationofAsianliberationtheologies,seeMichael Amaladoss, LifeinFreedom:LiberationTheologiesfromAsia (Maryknoll,N.Y.: Orbis,1997).
67 Foradescriptionoftheseresources,seePeterC.Phan, “JesustheChristwith anAsianFace,” TheologicalStudies 57(1996)403–5. 62 THEOLOGICALSTUDIES
theologiansdorecognizethattheology,insofarasitisatheoreticalpractice,isadisinterestedcognitionandisnomorerevolutionaryorreactionarythananyotherscience.Ontheotherhand,becausetheologyisasocial factandbecausethetheologianisnotonlyatheoreticianbutalsoasocial agent,theologyisneverneutralandthetheologianisneversociallyuncommitted.Thequestionisnotwhethertheologyisneutralorthetheologianuncommittedbuttowhichcausetheologyispartisanandthetheologianengaged.Suchsocialcommitmentgivestheologiansa “sensibility” wherebytheycandeterminewhichtheologicalproblematicisrequiredby aparticularhistoricalsituationtowhichtheologymustbe “relevant.”
(5)Finally,itisinaccuratetosaythatliberationtheologieslapseinto epistemologicalempiricismandethicalpragmatismwhentheygrantprioritytoorthopraxisoverorthodoxyandmakepraxisintothecriterionof truth.Withacarefuldistinctionbetween “theologicalcriteriology” and “pisticcriteriology” liberationtheologiesrecognizethedifferencebetween criteriaoftruthfortheologyasatheoreticalpractice(i.e.logicalconsistencyandconformitytothecontentsofthefaith)andthecriterionoftruth forfaithasapoliticalpractice(i.e.thecapacityoffaithforsocialtransformation).Ontheotherhand,whilemaintainingthisnecessarydistinction, liberationtheologiesareabletoaffirmthedialecticalrelationshipbetween theoryandpraxis,bothinthetheoreticalpracticeoftheology(betweenthe socioanalyticandhermeneuticalmediations)andintheiractualunfolding inhistory,sothatthecharacterofliberationtheologiesasafundamentally open,ever-developingsciencecanalsobeaffirmed.
Whiletheprecedingfivetheses,andmyarticle,maybeconstruedasan apologiaforliberationtheologiesandtheirmethod,mymainintentionisto showthatliberationtheologians,despitetheirdiversityofgenderandeconomicbackground,nationalandethnicorigin,culturalandreligiousmembership,are,byvirtueoftheirsharedmethodandtasks,fellowtravelersin acommonjourneytothesamedestination.Thetemptationmustthenbe resistedtodismissliberationtheologiesaspasse ´ ,especiallyinviewofthe moribundconditionofsocialismandthenear-universaldominationofthe freemarketsystem.Onthecontrary,thankstothevirtualitiesoftheirown method,liberationtheologieswillbeabletocontributetotheemergence ofanewkindofcatholicitythatisnotapretensiontoafalseuniversalism butappreciatesandpromotestheparticularityofeachvoice,especiallythe voicesofthosewhohavenotbeenallowedtospeak,andinandthrough theseparticularvoices,constructanewharmonyforthecomingreignof God.