Liberation Theology meets Humankind Embrace

Liberation Theology as an Analytical Reflection on Praxis, and Where Theology and Humankind Embrace
One among the most important Christian theological developments within the past 100 years is liberation theology. The doctrine's advocates regard it as a novel means to 'do theology', rather than a subfield of theology. The method aims to view the universe with regard to being involved with disadvantaged and subjugated individuals. It also endeavors to discover, within the Bible, analytical instruments as well as the energizing force to bring about drastic change to that universe (Anderson 1979, 4). The direct sources may be traced back to the 60s' developments in Latin America's Roman Catholicism, together with blatant social and economic disparities and widespread local feelings of bias.

This dissertation will look at the above objectives by reviewing the following points: The paper's foremost section will study theology's contextual character and liberation theology's introduction in response to actual history, as well as the challenges it presents for the Church's faith. The subsequent section will deal with the accepted practice of liberation theological reflection. Finally, the paper will connect humanity with theology by analyzing diverse social elements of our lives. However, considering this dissertation's word count constraints, liberation theory's history and development cannot be adequately covered by the paper. Theology as Critical Reflection
Liberation theology mulls over practice, bearing the element of faith in mind. For comprehending this statement's scope, evaluating the question raised at the start of this discussion, for understanding the close interrelationship between spirituality and theological method from this standpoint, is valuable. Lastly, we will be able to detail current challenges.

The abovementioned concepts have intensely permeated the concept of liberation theology, and its interpretative structure is developed accordingly. Here, it is possible to summarize as well as expand. Commencing with the condition of subjugation and persecution, the foremost driving principle was that one cannot become a true Christian unless one strives, with those who are persecuted, for freedom and constructing a fully human and fair society. Therefore, theology itself cannot commence with a conventional philosophy-grounded model of the present circumstances', with successive 'pastoral' applications. The distress linked to the situation generated the additional understanding that a theoretical assessment can never, in fact, be separate from the debasing scenario (Gutierrez 1988). An 'idealist' philosophical approach had to make way for a systematic model of observing, collating, theorizing and hypothesis testing, all of which had to be conducted in liberative, humanizing change's interests. This assumed the shape of the social scientific model's application, particularly that of Marx's sociological examination of class-based fights for liberation. However, at this juncture, it would be right to highlight the fact that the model's fundamental philosophical ground is that process (or becoming) forms the basic mode of a created being; further, thought represents a type of becoming/being, which aids the general development of humanity, history, and civilization.

But liberation theology, indeed, has another philosophical approach to interpretation which is, in broad terms, an 'existentialist' philosophical stance. This has served North-American and European theology well. The approach implies a more extensive phenomenology-grounded assessment of people in their world, rather than a narrow, individualistic standpoint as adopted by a few existentialist proponents. Owing to its phenomenological basis and reflection on the effects of observed behaviors, the model can offer philosophical support to the field of sociology. Its chief value lies in emphasizing overall components of reality, particularly of man. The older static, 'essentialist' ideology was incapable of considering the above. Particularly, of course, man's historical aspect has been highlighted by the existential approach, as has the argument that individuals aren't mere class members without remainder; rather, they are irreducibly distinctive. A third standpoint of reflection -- the metaphysical -- is not excepted either, if one understands it as clarifying critical existential implications, rather than describing further, real being (Gutierrez 1990). While every liberation theologian will not agree to a central, metaphysical ground, discourse on metaphysics' role has to wait to consider the end, evaluative aspect. This subsequently constitutes the instrument to interpret Christian sources, and has to successively strengthen and guide the interpretative instrument.

A critical consideration, as mentioned above, on construing the "signs of the times" repeats to the Church the fact that the mystery surrounding Incarnation deals with the entry of individuals of God's eternal Word into history and time, in Christ of Nazareth. Consistent with the scriptural outlook on the association between man and God, the Council presents the Almighty as a historic power who is with his people both in bad times and good, rather than as some metaphysical entity. Experiencing the Almighty is a part of experiencing history (not nature) as a fundamental reality. History, in this context, represents an account of human existence, commitment, situation, and decision-making rather than a mere recounting of occurrences and events (Boff 1979, 36). The reality of divinity and humanity ought not to be regarded in terms of the metaphysical and the static (as is implied by the word "nature"). It should be considered in dynamic terms as springing from history (the divine is free self-communication with the other, while human beings are very open to Absolute Mystery or Something More). Reflection on Praxis
Right from the outset, liberation theology's basis has been praxis -- an element that is widely believed to be this theological school's root. Many deem it as the fundamental, defining facet of liberation theology. This represented a sharp deviation from Western conventional theological thinking, and has remained a debatable approach for a number of reasons. One criticism revolves around whether or not this theology is, in truth, contextualized, as it apparently reflects European philosophical principles rather than Latin American theological foundations or tradition (Anderson 1979).

The above criticism is a commonly raised one, and initially appears persuasive. However, one can see that it is actually inaccurate, as it is, of course, more than possible to have a concept emerge in one area but take hold elsewhere. Contending that no genuine Australian or American culture exists merely because of their adoption of the English language (which they brought with them from a different continent) is a ridiculous argument. Cultural principles, values, theologies and other forms of cultural expression are transportable as well as flexible, and get altered, to some extent, in their new settings. Suggesting otherwise means making a false claim that distinct, 'pure' ideologies exist which have no interaction, whatsoever, among themselves (Boff 1979; Anderson 1979). Although ideologies interact, and hence, have an influence on each other, this doesn't render them inauthentic. Therefore, if the liberation approach to theology is founded partially on a philosophical praxis with European origins, this doesn't invalidate the idea's novel meaning in the Latin American context.

A great irony in this regard is that, European scholars and theologians are attempting at dictating the theological approach best suited to Latin America, whilst simultaneously complaining that Latin American liberation theology is guided by their own native (i.e. European) philosophy. Hence, the criticizers are themselves committing the same fault they blame liberation theologians for. To achieve meaningful contextualized theology, the significance of intellectually and geographically separate theologies must be decisively decided by theologians. As such, individuals not belonging to Latin America (in particular) and the liberation theological school must not proclaim the appropriateness of praxis being the basis and defining aspect of the liberation theological approach. This connotes multiplicity in global theologies; however, one needs to perceive this as an indication of religious strength, and not a compromise or a weakness. In Rowland's crisp words, North American must learn to become part of an interpretative community (1999, p.10).

How can one speak about a Lord who is revealed to humanity as love within a reality that is marked by oppression and poverty? From the liberation theology standpoint, the foremost step is contemplation about Him and practicing His will; only in the next moment can one think about Him. In other words, the Almighty's veneration and doing His will are essential prerequisites for reflecting on the Almighty. In fact, one can attempt a respectful and genuine discussion of the Almighty only as an outcome of dedication and supplication. By means of dedication that is concretely directed at the disadvantaged, one can find God (cf. Matt. 25.31 -- 46). However, concurrently, this discovery strengthens one's accord with the disadvantaged and renders the relationship more genuine (Watson 2008). Human history reflects that dedication and contemplation form key elements of Christianity. Consequently, one can't avoid them when endeavoring to study and understand faith. Through harmony with poor people and contemplation, the mystery comes to light. This -- the first action -- is termed practice of a Christian life. It is only after this that life begins inspiring reasoning -- the next act.

As an analytical reflection based on the Word embraced via faith on Christians' presence in a turbulent world, theology ought to aid us in understanding the link between a faith-centered life and the pressing need for constructing a fair and benevolent society. This calls for making the ideals of hope, charity and faith, that dedication entails, clear. It also assists in rectifying potential deviations, in addition to recalling certain elements of a Christian life that will likely be overlooked considering the current and pressing political priorities, no matter how charitable they might be. This represents critical reflection's function that, by definition, ought not to be a posteriori Christian justification. Theology essentially aids the dedication to liberation theology in being more effectual, solid, and evangelical. Theology serves the Church's evangelization, emerging from it as a Church function (Comblin 1998).

Through faith, one can find the basis of every theological approach. But it must be an essential acceptance of God's Word's gift as told by the Church -- a meeting with Him, and akin to sibling love -- instead of being a logical compliance with the message. It addresses the totality of existence. Receiving the Word, breathing life into it and making it a tangible gesture -- it is here that a grasp of faith commences. This is what Saint Anselm of Canterbury's "credo ut intelligam" means. The preeminence of God's love and the blessing of faith both accord theology meaning. True theology always remains spiritual, as the Church's Fathers have understood it to be. All this implies that a life led by faith form's theology's basis as well as goal. Thus, to have faith in (life) and comprehend (or reflect) always form components of a circular association. Theology and Humankind Embrace
One cannot separate the supernatural from the ordinary. In other words, according to social theology, one cannot and must not separate the social from the theological. This doesn't mean that the element of theology has performed this role across the whole of history, any more than the Bible, which is the main input for theological development. On the latter aspect, for example, modern-day individuals who suggest that theology is superior to social science will probably consider the Scriptures a worldview manuscript that offers a guideline, rather than a blueprint, for how the Trinity expects mankind to be organized, including its crucial relationships with the Almighty (Beed and Beed 2010). Still, they believe the Biblical interpretation needs to be continually reexamined and reevaluated, bearing in mind historical, linguistic, archeological and theological developments. These inputs are seen throughout Scriptural interpretative history, for effectively and more precisely ascertaining the character of authentic, justified Scriptural knowledge.

This, however, is different from asserting that social scientific theory needs to play a central part, as well, in deciding modern Biblical theology or interpretation, or that early Scriptural interpretation gave rise to theologies that present-day Biblical theologies and interpretation might cast doubts on. No issue is yet settled that social scientific theory essentially reveals Scriptural thought's character more precisely or significantly alters its dominant tenets, compared to other interpretations of the Word (Beed and Beed 2010). One may adopt a critical stand towards Biblical theology and interpretation without employing social scientific tools.

The above contention may be demonstrated for multiple facets of life. Consider the Church's democracy, for instance. Historically, ecclesiology may have taken shape to defend overbearing and unjust behaviors and systems. Hence, Barnes (2001) indicates that Catholicism's authoritarian structure must consider significant social theorizing regarding the community frameworks of responsibility and authority, under social science, for incorporating into their Church a few balances and checks characteristic of democracy. The bigger problem is reevaluation of previous theologies supporting authoritarianism, comparing them with theological views that foster democracy, and revealing Biblical themes which may point out forms of democracy. Such exercises have been witnessed from time to time throughout the course of the previous century (e.g., (Carnegie, 1914)). For instance, if Maritain's 1945 work can state that humanity's democratic impulse represents a temporal representation of the Gospel's inspiration, then this needs to be analyzed. Similar conclusions are reached by Ruether and Bianchi (1992) as well as Mott, Schaefer and Mason. If the above arguments are valid, they foster the creation of political ecclesiology that stresses democracy. In contradistinction, there are some historical and modern theologies that give excuses for all kinds of oppression. If a number of theologians from Germany espoused an understanding of Christianity that supported Nazi thought (2001, p.249), there is a risk of absorption of secular notions into theology -- this process is a common occurrence throughout theological history.

None of the above is intended to repudiate the fact that significant secular social hypothesizing has addressed authoritarian versus democratic systems. However, social scientific input by means of organizational theory -- for instance, with a cybernetic examination of the Church and ecclesiology, does not constitute a necessary condition for the Catholic Church's democratic reformation. For example, Phan's (2001) work that supports the applicability of ecclesial cybernetics by Granfield is not clear on how social scientific terminology like "non-linear, systems with multiple feedback loops and variable elements" helps advocate for the Church's democratization. Mccann (1993) and Ruether and Bianchi (1992) convey similar ideas in simple, mainstream language. The former, however, uses a business theory as base. If theological reflection, the Bible, Coates' (1996) claim of "common sense" assessment, and the Church's initial history, unfettered by social scientific jargon's importation, are able to indicate democratic structures, then these form guides which may be related to the Church by believers (and, according to de Gruchy (1995) and Witte Jr. (1993), contemporary society). In this respect, one can draw parallels with social scientific secular philosophers. However, social scientists tend to overstate the inventiveness of their findings. For example, an oligarchic "iron law," as an inclination towards mass apathy among all human institutions is no social scientific discovery (1991). In fact, it is an experiential reflection of individuals who have participated in mass social institutions; this common knowledge, common sense, deduction was subsequently validated by social scientific scholars. If social theologians endeavored in this direction, they too would be equally likely to make this observation. On the other hand, assessment of social scientific input against theological input has been employed by Granfield and others. This broaches a debated topic, with Phan contradicting Watkins' (1991) assertion that theology is dwarfed when compared to social science. Indeed, Mccann's (1993) corporate theory input appears to significantly surpass theological input.

Coleman's (2001) claims, that a majority of theological accounts may find it hard to address social sin meaningfully, is another example cited of theology's inadequate association with social life. If this were true, the course for theology will not invariably be importing sociological concepts into the supposedly lacking theological sphere. Social theology, just like sociology, can analyze social frameworks by means of their corresponding theological frameworks. However, as mentioned previously, vastly divergent bases exist for their individual assessments. The answer for theology would be: pressing for reconsideration of its root ideas and material, for sharpening and developing its social sin assessment. For example, Wright (2004), among others, has studied a number of instances from Old Testament's Israel where cultural prejudice, deformation and structural isolation are evident. Powers and principalities is a second concept in theology that is publicized in connection with social sin (Berkof 1962). When a moderate, widely-adopted, introductory, systematic, Protestant theological manuscript can dedicate a whole section to sin's social structure without citing the example of social science even once (Erickson 1998), considerable scope exists for more complex theology to broaden social sin analysis. Once again, connections and analogies may be made using social scientific thought.

There are a number of instances in which theologians have hesitated in their attempts to amply consider its notions' implications for society. Two examples are cited by Coleman (2001): 1) The Catholic Church is oblivious to power structures which neglect different 'social interests' when preaching about common good; 2) Theology fails to see the opportunity costs of deliberating on the ideal polity's perspective. The answer to both issues is making theology come up with more critical analyses by itself, right from their foundation of primary sources to formulating metaphysical hypotheses. A few ideas relating or similar to social scientific ideas can aid this undertaking (e.g. "opportunity costs.") However, opportunity costs simply refer to costs characteristic of alternatives. They aren't revealed through economics of a once-new concept. This concept is intrinsic to one's common sense. Moreover, it has been utilized, gauging alternatives' benefits and drawbacks. All that economics has achieved is formalizing the term. However, when doing so, it has failed to present solutions to opportunity cost quantification for alternatives (PHAN 2000).

Social science and social theology have a few shared goals and principles. For example, numerous social scientific scholars and approaches convey preferential treatment and upliftment of the disadvantaged -- social theology agrees. However, the distinction is that, the latter can come up with its own assessments based on its rich source materials (like the Scripture) to pursue the above strategies. That is, social theology requires no social scientific theory for verifying the fact that these strategies must be pursued, or for understanding the reason behind so much poverty in the world, or for ascertaining how to adopt strategies for improving the lives of the underprivileged. Rich Scriptural text, theology and tradition can, by themselves, produce the required formulations in view of prevalent socio-economic situations. According to Contra Merkle's 2001 work, the Church needs no social scientist's assistance, or that of social scientific theories and principles, for reminding it of the fact that, when attempting a societal transformation, it is not possible for theology or the Church to just apply historical principles to modern-day contexts. Even the Church's Fathers refrained from doing so. They implemented Biblical principles relevant to context, and the situations and eras wherein they dwelt (Phan 1984). Theological social study, wherein theology represents the chief force, will be able to achieve this in the present day (reflected, for instance, in the aforementioned cited literature, which aren't reliant on social science). This is particularly so because social scientists are themselves in disagreement with regard to acceptable policies and theories for bringing about improvements in the poor's conditions, among other things.

No implication may be seen or construed in the whole of the aforementioned advocacy that theology must concern itself entirely with examining the social consequences of its thought system. Theology's chief issue is not our world's wellbeing; rather, its focus is the Trinity's glorification. However, as indicated by Barnes (2001), the world's well-being is ever a part of "living for Jesus." Meanwhile, social theologians will probably not agree with the idea that it is possible to formulate sound strategies for guaranteeing the unlimited continuance of stability in society that involves "relinquishing Christian identity" -- a possibility put forward by Blundell. In view of social theology's theological foundation, this kind of aspiration represents an oxymoron. One cannot attain any indefinite worldwide stability unless mankind explicitly realizes the Trinity's role. If humanity were to follow the gospel sincerely as Jesus's manifestation, our world's condition can slowly improve. Summary and Conclusion
Liberation theology mulls over practice, bearing the element of faith in mind. The abovementioned concepts have intensely permeated the concept of liberation theology, and its interpretative structure is developed accordingly. But liberation theology, indeed, has another philosophical approach to interpretation which is, in broad terms, an 'existentialist' philosophical stance. This has served North-American and European theology well. A critical consideration, as mentioned above, on construing the "signs of the times" repeats to the Church the fact that the mystery surrounding Incarnation deals with the entry of individuals of God's eternal Word into history and time, in Christ of Nazareth. As an analytical reflection based on the Word embraced via faith on Christians' presence in a turbulent world, theology ought to aid us in understanding the link between a faith-centered life and the pressing need for constructing a fair and benevolent society. Through faith, one can find the basis of every theological approach.

One cannot separate the supernatural from the ordinary. This, however, is different from asserting that social scientific theory needs to play a central part, as well, in deciding modern Biblical theology or interpretation, or that early Scriptural interpretation gave rise to theologies that present-day Biblical theologies and interpretation might cast doubts on. None of the above is intended to repudiate the fact that significant secular social hypothesizing has addressed authoritarian versus democratic systems. However, social scientific input by means of organizational theory -- for instance, with a cybernetic examination of the Church and ecclesiology, does not constitute a necessary condition for the Catholic Church's democratic reformation. There are a number of instances in which theologians have hesitated in their attempts to amply consider its notions' implications for society. Social science and social theology have a few shared goals and principles. No implication may be seen or construed in the whole of the aforementioned advocacy that theology must concern itself entirely with examining the social consequences of its thought system.

To conclude, liberation theology, just like all theology, revolves around the Almighty and His love, which, in the end, represent the sole theme of liberation theology. However, as God's love is a secret in Christian revelation (which is all theology's starting block), the foremost question deals with how one is to speak about a mystery. For effectively performing this critical deliberation on historical practice using their methodology, a liberation theologian needs to look at social sciences. For facilitating a change in structures which subjugate the poverty-ridden people of the world, liberation theologians should possess accurate information regarding the economic and sociopolitical circumstances of individuals to whom Christ's message is conveyed. References
Anderson GH and Stransky TF, (eds), (1979). Liberation Theologies in North America and Europe (Mission Trends No. 4), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979

Barnes, M, (2001). "Introduction," in M. Barnes (ed.), Theology and the Social Sciences. Maryknoll: Orbis, xi-xviii.

Beed C. and Beed C, (2010). Theology as a Challenge to Social Science, AEJT 16.

Berkof H, (1962). Christ and the Powers. Scottdale: Herald.

Bianchi E. and Ruether R, (eds.), (1992). A Democratic Catholic Church. New York: Crossroad.

Boff L, (1979). Liberating Grace, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis books.

Carnegie W. (1914). Democracy and Christian Doctrine, London: Macmillan.

Coates J, (1996). The Claims of Common Sense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coleman J, (2001). "Every Theology Implies a Sociology and Vice Versa," in M. Barnes (ed.), Theology and the Social Sciences. Maryknoll: Orbis, 12-33.

Comblin J, (1998). Called for Freedom: The Changing Context of Liberation Theology, New York: Orbis.

De Gruchy J, (1995). Christianity and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Erickson M, (1998). Christian Theology 2nd edn. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Gutierrez G, (1988). A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.

Gutierrez G, (1990). "Towards a Theology of Liberation." Liberation Theology: A Documentary History. Edited by Hennelly. Alfred T. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 62-76.

Maritain J, (1945). Christianity and Democracy, London: Geoffrey Bles.

McCann J, (1993). Church and Organization. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.

Merkle J, (2001). "From Catholic Social Teaching to Catholic Social Tradition," in M. Barnes (ed.), Theology and the Social Sciences. Maryknoll, Orbis, 241-258.

Phan P, (1984). Message of the Fathers of the Church: Social Thought, Wilmington: Glazier.

Phan P, (2001). "Social Science and Ecclesiology: Cybernetics," in M. Barnes (ed.), Theology and the Social Sciences. Maryknoll: Orbis, 59-87.

PHAN PC, (2000). METHOD IN LIBERATION THEOLOGIES, Theological Studies 61, 40-63

Rowland C. (ed), (1999). The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watkins C, (1991). Organizing the People of God: Social Science Theories of Organization in Ecclesiology, Theological Studies 52: 689-711.

Watson GJ, (2008). Liberation at the Crossroads: Where Divinity and Humanity Embrace (Master of Theology (Th.M)). University of Notre Dame Australia.

Witte Jr. J, (ed.), (1993). Christianity and Democracy in Global Context. Boulder: Westview.

Wright C, (2004). Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.