Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: unisoft!lynn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lynn Kline) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Liberation Theology (was Re: A Dialogue with Rome: part I) Message-ID: Date: 15 Dec 89 06:55:40 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 68 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu >[I got several comments making the same or related points. I have >chosen this one as representative. By the way, it might be helpful to >hear from someone who knows what liberation theology actually is. > --clh] I am a student at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley and have studied, among other things, liberation theology. I also work with Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees. I'd like to mention what I know about the topic -- this is certainly not comprehensive, but it's what stays with me based on my studies and experience with the refugees. First of all, friends of mine have studies with Gustavo Gutierrez, who wrote "A Theology of Liberation," which is considered the foundational book on the topic. From what I understand, he shies away from emphasizing liberation theology to be anything but *theology*, just like everyone else is "doing theology." I hope to take some of the charge out of the discussion with this; people often freak at the term. The foundation of liberation theology is the "fundamental option for the poor." This means that we must make our decisions and life choices based on how it will affect those who have no voice, who are disempowered and disenfranchised. This is not easy. There are many, many of these people in our world and in our country. The 70,000 dead in El Salvador (that's 1/10 of the population of the country) are an example. When we make decisions about our elections, for example, we must ask ourselves how this will affect those who are suffering, rather than just how it will affect *us*. There are different degrees at which one can make this fundamental option: (1) being "por el pobre" -- for the poor, voicing one's views and making choices on behalf of the powerless; (2) "con el pobre" -- with the poor, having some sort of concrete insertion and relationships with the disenfranchised, perhaps through one's work; and (3) "como el pobre" -- like the poor, living in voluntary poverty. What, to me, is wonderful about this is that there is room for everyone. Selling all of one's belongings is *not* the only option. All the talk of Marxism, which people often jump on, is because liberation theology uses structural analysis, which is a tool of Marx's. Period. And using this tool, Gutierrez says that institutions must be at the service of the people, especially those who were born into poverty. When 15 families in El Salvador own 75% of the wealth of the country, and their position is fortified by the country's institutions, something is very wrong. How about the horrendous educations children are receiving in the public school systems in the low-income areas of the country? The real zinger is this. Our role, as people with power and wealth, is secondary, to put our power at the service of the poor, to "accompany" them in *their* very real struggle for basic human rights. The poor are not to be patronized, adopted, helped -- but *accompanied* in their struggle. They make the decisions. Liberation theology recognizes the suffering of people in the first world who are well off, but our role is to be in solidarity with the poor -- and in that way, we will also be "liberated." Sort of turns things on its head. Liberation theology also calls for praxis and *reflection* on scripture. What does scripture say to me, based on these very real experiences of what it is like to be poor? We must have a very real insertion with the poor in order to speak about them. Otherwise there is the danger of other-world theology. Gutierrez in no way downplays the transcendent; he just does not want to downplay the very real suffering that many people in this world are experiencing today. Hope this helps. Lynn