Francisco Chamberlain, SJ
What Remains To Be Done in Liberation Theology

Francisco Chamberlain is an American Jesuit, who has worked in Peru for many years. He is a member of Educational Services — El Augustino, a shanty town on the outskirts of Lima.

 

The title of this reflection is meant to be polemic. It is fashionable today among people in Latin America and in other parts of the world to ask: What remains of liberation theology? The question formulated in this way has a taste of failure or reminds us of a way of thinking that had an impact at one time and left its mark, but has now passed into history. What we are left with from this effort and what we need to be satisfied with are only remnants. From here stems the question, which is loaded with nostalgia, what has become of this way of thinking and the actions it motivated? Faced with this question I am reminded of what Gilbert Chesterton, a polemic British Catholic in the first decades of the century, said when asked if Christianity had failed. He answered that Christianity hadn’t failed because it had yet to be put into practice. His answer was obviously off-the-cuff and useful for debate, but it needs to be rounded out in many ways. Nevertheless, Chesterton’s response takes aim at an understanding I have of the question "what is left of liberation theology?" which we have started to hear. Why ask what is left when it has only recently become part of the fabric of the life of the church? Entering into a social fabric as complicated as that of the church, as has happened with liberation theology, is a long-term process. In the history of the church, 25 years is really not a very long time. It is certainly too early to hold a funeral mass for a child who is still alive, in good health and still making contributions that enlighten our time.

It is not enough, however, to reaffirm that liberation theology is still pertinent today. It is necessary, I would say absolutely necessary, to revise our way of acting. Revision is not foreign to liberation theology, but has formed part of its demands since it began. I would like to point out some considerations, which are obviously insufficient, that can contribute to this revision. A brief effort to think about these things is a fine way to celebrate the first quarter century of liberation theology.

What has not changed in the fundamental affirmations of this perspective?

A first task of our revision demands that we examine the fundamental affirmations of this perspective. I think that we are all aware that the social, political and ecclesial contexts have changed in the past 25 years, and with them many of the old ways of thinking and acting. Today, we talk about globalisation, the importance of the market, the factor of individual initiative, terms that were not present earlier and are serious changes within the context in which we live. An awareness of the changes is fundamental to understand the present, but it is not enough. Situating ourselves in the present demands another question — a question that could be asked of a dinosaur but is still necessary: What has not changed, what has remained the same, in our previous affirmations? I will mention three examples.

To begin with, liberation theology, in the light of faith and looking at the reality of our peoples, highlights for us the scandalous poverty of the continent, a scandal rooted in sin and a lack of solidarity. It keeps this in mind so that we can stimulate our solidarity with the poor, and join their struggle against poverty. In these past 25 years, liberation theology has highlighted many profound testimonies of solidarity and struggle in the church in Peru and the rest of Latin America, but, at the same time and despite the efforts, poverty not only has not improved but has in fact worsened. The scandal has not subsided. As such, the need for the liberation of our poor people, and liberation of all, is as necessary today as it was in the past. The fight on the side of the poor against poverty as a central demand of our faith is as urgent today as it was in the past. If we begin to see liberation theology as if it were a kind of "Lord of Sipan", an interesting relic but a thing of the past, we do it at the cost of the reality that surrounds us, and at the cost of the Gospel itself. It is true that liberation theology demands a new creativity today. But this creativity comes from the old affirmation of liberation theology, which means that if as church we do not stand up daily with the poor against poverty we are on the sidelines of the Gospel, and of political and social struggles. I think this was one of the major affirmations of what we call liberation theology and I also believe that this affirmation has, in no way, lost its impact or its effect.

Together with this first affirmation, there is another: the conviction that no country can be humanly viable if the poor do not have a dignified participation in it and, as such, a privileged place — preferential if you like — to be and create church and country. This conviction is based on a faith whose roots come from Jesus Christ and his way of living a human life, and in a faith in the ability of poor people to be actors, subjects and participants in Peruvian and Latin American societies. A conviction that, at one time or another, could have sounded romantic, perhaps an expression of the guilt complex of the petit bourgeois with respect to the goodness and humanity of the poor as if original sin did not have an effect below the poverty line; a romanticism that is not based on reality but present in some of its followers. A conviction of faith and experience that has matured over time but is present and important today as it was in the past. I confess that this conviction which I hold, which I believe many others also hold, that the poor occupy a privileged "place" in being and making the church and country has not only been maintained but has grown. It is a conviction that is maintained in this perspective.

A third major affirmation has to do with the issue of liberation. A review of our way of being and acting has to stem from actions. Actions that demonstrate this perspective of liberation theology have been proved. Many people who have walked with this current in the church find themselves freer, both in their families and in society. This presence in society is carried out in a local context, but that does not mean it is not proof of liberation. And liberation theology has, without a doubt, contributed to this. That the poor in Peru and the rest of Latin American have not achieved complete liberation does not mean that this perspective no longer has weight, that many examples of liberation that we promoted and witnessed are now invalid. It is important to remember that liberation theology has begun a long-term process. Placing it squarely in this long-term perspective is necessary for a just revision of our actions today.

By saying this I am not defending an understanding of liberation that reduces horizons, that is limited to personal dimensions and small spaces. This is not the point. It is, instead, returning to the three levels of liberation that were originally formulated, particularly the second level — without excluding the other two — where the subjective and personal dimension enter into what is understood as liberation. What I propose is an exercise in understanding our reality: there are many people, and not only poor people, who live, act and orient their lives in a different way because of this perspective. It is true that a reflection stemming from these three levels of liberation reveals limitations in its results and successes. But there have been successes! A review of this perspective that comes from a lack of recognition of what this has produced reduces future possibilities. With what I have said I want to show that with all of the great changes in the past 25 years not all things have changed. The fundamental affirmations of this perspective continue to be valid. The well has not run dry, but just the opposite, it appears to me to be quite full. Those who draw close to this perspective of liberation theology asking what is left of it are asking the wrong question. The true question is: Stemming from what has been done, how can we advance further? The intention of the following lines is to suggest a few guidelines to answer this question.

What do we understand by evangelisation?

I will leave to people more competent than I a more theological and systematic reflection on what the term "evangelisation" means. I am under the impression, however, that in practice "evangelisation" has been reduced by many to mean "forming the Christian community". Evidently, the existence of the Christian community is absolutely fundamental for the advent of the kingdom of God. It is this community that anticipates and makes visible the Kingdom in all is fullness. But the Gospel aims at something that cannot be reduced simply to the formation of the Christian community, which Jesus Christ called the "Kingdom". Many years ago Jon Sobrino suggested what to my mind is a very good formulation of this term and the final intention of Jesus; he said that for Jesus, the Kingdom, could be understood as a "human history according to God". Building this "history according to God", a history of true fraternity, open to the fullness that breaks the confines of history itself, is and will be impossible without the Christian community, which makes it necessary. But at the same time this history according to God transcends the visible limits of the community. Taking into account the demands of the Kingdom allows us to understand our evangelizing task. With reference to this, I would like to offer four ideas.

First, the complementarily between the pastoral work of forming the Christian community and the work of promotion, empowerment, or "development". There are many concrete experiences of ecclesial agents carrying out both pastoral and development work, but curiously there has been little reflection on the relationship between the two. While both tasks have their own logic that should not be confused, they are different forms of making the Good News of the kingdom present in our lives, complimentary dimensions of the work of evangelisation. This complimentary nature has opened up the sphere of action for the church and allowed it to have a presence and carry out actions in many more areas. The evangelising perspective of liberation theology, which reflects the perspective of the Kingdom, offers resources to frame this complementary nature between pastoral and development work. Nevertheless, they are resources that we have not yet fully exploited. Articulating this complimentarily and understanding it better to make it more effective, forms part of the revision of our framework and way of acting that is demanded today.

Grace or misfortune

The second point deals with the new global context and the manner in which we are placed within it, which is symbolized by the "hard shock", of the collapse of real socialism in Europe. A hard shock could mean tragedy, but not necessarily. It can, on the other hand, be an unexpected stroke of luck. From this point of view stems the question: Was this collapse a misfortune or blessing? A blow is certainly a reality and we are called to look for states of grace through reality. It is important to remember that in Peru we foresaw this shock in Europe with the collapse of the United Left in early 1989. But if I state that a shock can also lead to grace and not only misfortune it is because we can review the attitudes we have in our minds and put them into practice.

This new situation, for example, demands a revision of our evangelising work in the context of structural adjustment and neoliberalism (a term that often implies a negative and paralysing vision). Some time ago I was talking to a colleague, a good friend, who said, "the market is intrinsically perverse". If this were the case, some of the small business experiences I have been involved in with people from my neighbourhood would be "intrinsically" imbued with perversion. The new context, nevertheless, presents us with a serious challenge: how to reaffirm the value of solidarity in a market-oriented society that praises individualism and the ability to compete? If we think that there is an intrinsic opposition between solidarity and the market/competition, we can somehow try to maintain a kind of pristine progressive line, but we will become mere spectators on the sidelines of what is happening. There are certain kinds of purist ideas that can be used to hide mental laziness, a laziness that cannot help many people.

There is no way to place ourselves in the present with our discourse or pastoral work if we do not take into account the market, a mechanism we are challenged to humanize and not simply condemn for being "intrinsically perverse".

In Peruvian society today there are two ways of thinking. One exalts individual efforts and conformity with the so-called laws of the market as the only way of building a modern society. The other places exclusive emphasis on the communal and collective dimension of human life, and condemns with too much ease individual efforts as "individualist".

Both ways of thinking, at least in their extreme forms, are not only incompatible but also insufficient. These opposing ways of thinking stem from different ideological sources that have been introduced in great part from outside the country. Nevertheless, both forms reinforce and reproduce in one or another way the inequalities found throughout the course of Peruvian history. The line of thinking that highlights individual efforts does not fully recognize this history of inequality; the communal discourse — to use a term to describe it — does not value the process of individualisation that is necessary to build a national democratic society and reinforces, without necessarily being aware of it, the perpetuation of individuals being identified merely by social, cultural or racial categories (black, gringo, Indian, sambo, etc.).

In this effort to humanize the market society we need to recognize that individual creativity and competition are values that we should promote. Without them development is not possible. At the same time, if we do not recognize that networks of solidarity in human life come before individuality and constitute a condition that allows for individual creativity and competition, there is no way for development to be human. This means that promoting a just and human society also means creating a level of solidarity that is competitive and a level of competition that includes solidarity. Is this possible? I think that this is one of the great challenges of our time, and one of the great challenges of our work of evangelisation.

All of this cannot be separated from the perspective of liberation theology. Liberation theology does not mean an option for a determined economic or political system, but a preferential option for the poor. The fundamental question 25 years ago was how to promote liberation and life among the poor of the continent, understanding "poor" not as a simple mass but as individual people with their own dignity. This question is still valid today. It is a question that has political implications, but does not necessarily fall into one or another determined system. I want to discuss further these political implications.

Re-establish dignity in politics

In the third place, one of the challenges to liberation theology today is to contribute, from its Christian and evangelizing specificity, to the work of recovering and re-establishing dignity in politics. Today, there is a public discourse in the world, as well as in this country, that ties political activity to the work of managers, as if running a society was the same thing as running a business. There is no longer a discourse dealing only with politics, and within the context of the increasing globalisation of the economy and culture there is no debate about politics and its relation to other dimensions of human life. In addition, the policies of the Peruvian state in the past few years have been subordinated to the orientation, to the policies of multilateral institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank. Does the economy now dominate politics? What is and what should be the role of politics within today’s national and global context? Is the strong communal tradition in Peru still valid? Does this tradition offer resources and possibilities to refound political activity?

Recovering the dignity of politics will not come from a discourse or from the logic that it is only an instrument, a logic based on management, because in its true dimension politics is not about power or order, but the results we strive to achieve as a human collective. And the logic of instrumental reasoning — techniques, efficiency and market mechanisms — is not capable on its own to produce results. In this concept, I think the classic idea of what politics is about has been reversed, just as there has been a change in the biblical perspective of creation that puts things at the service of human beings and not the other way around. In this kind of logic, we arrive only at procedures without touching on the fundamental questions of where we want to go as a society and why. This is a fundamental question that gives sense and meaning to the activity and dignity of politics. From here, the public discourse today in Peru is both politically and humanly weak because it is a discourse that avoids the question of the collective goal, or the common good, that is being searched for through the market. They tell us that privatization is development. That depends. They tell us that foreign investment in good. That also depends. These two depend on the conditions on which they are based and what we get out of them as a society, and what it is we mean by society and its components. This search for what we mean by society is the principal task of politics.

It is also an ethical and cultural task. It is not only a task for professional politicians, but for all society, all citizens. What we need today in Peruvian and Latin American societies is an ethical-cultural debate that comes from the social and economic practices of our people and, above all but not exclusively, from the social and economic practices of the poor sectors, a debate that is progressively visible in the public eye. Only in this way can we talk about re-establishing dignity in politics, only by re-establishing the ethical- cultural framework of society. This is a demanding task that, without a doubt, is a long-term project. It is a task that touches the church in a special way because the church is one of the most important resources Peruvians and Latin Americans have to construct a civic ethic based on the search for consensus about what kind of society we are building and what kind of society we want to build. In this effort to begin an ethical-political-cultural debate, a debate on the kind of society we want, we must be aware of the diverse and plural efforts in society to find alternative seeds for a new kind of national life that is democratic and just.

If we take seriously the task of re-establishing politics, this requires that our collaboration in this great challenge has to go beyond the people with whom we have direct contact in our communities and in our work in order to look for new ways to truly meet others who are different from us and form part of our society.

The perspective of liberation theology, with its sensitivity to the political dimension of evangelisation, offers us resources to reinvent an ecclesial practice with an historic edge, a practice that contributes to re-establishing the dignity of the political in the construction of human society. Recuperating the ability to read and discern in political and ethical language what the church needs to do in society — in local, regional and national efforts — may be the most important contribution we can make in this effort we have called re-establishing dignity in politics.

Work, mission and discernment

To finish this reflection, I would like to suggest that one way to put into practice the perspective of liberation theology is reflecting on what we mean by "mission". Either by grace or misfortune, it is difficult for me to address this without referring to my experience as a Jesuit. This might be difficult for some readers, and, if it is, I suggest that you simply turn the page.

In my experience in the Company of Jesus — and I do not think this is a problem exclusive to the Jesuits — there is a tendency to identify "mission" with the concrete work that we have been entrusted. In this understanding of mission, meaning the same thing as work, we reduce the field of our understanding and distance ourselves from the intuition and practice of Ignatius, as well as from the founding principles of liberation theology. Mission is not the same thing as work. Mission is much larger than the simple work. In terms of the meditation on the King that begins the Second Week of Ignatian Exercises, mission is the call to participate in the conquest of the world. The task of mission, on the other hand, is only a trench in this battle, an instrument of mission. The identification of the task can have, and at times has had, ominous consequences because it limits our ability for discernment and effectively eliminates it.

I think that one of the important needs of the church today, and liberation theology within it, is to re-examine what we understand as mission. Our understanding of mission determines if our discernment is truly apostolic or simply a pious way of seeing things, which limits our playing field because it does not offer important challenges in the present, and keeps us yearning for the fictitious golden years of the past. A better understanding of mission is necessary for a serious discernment. How can we articulate what mission is today? Why does the church exist today in Peru and Latin America? Proposing and answering these kinds of questions will make our mission and work valid and have a cutting edge.

A way of helping us to explain our understanding of mission today in Peru and Latin America could be, from my point of view, reinventing the Principle and Foundation of the beginning of the Exercises. That is, what is our starting point and our level of understanding that orients us today? What does the Ignatian call "to praise, revere and serve our Lord God" mean in the language of Peru and Latin America today? The Principle and the Foundation is an affirmation of faith, but a faith found within a context. Ignatius says that the human being was created (affirmation of faith), but created for something.

How do we translate this in the terms of the liberation theology perspective so that the preferential option for the poor is central to this "for something?" How can we express today the phrase "to praise, revere and serve our Lord God?" Allow me to offer a small example, obviously insufficient, of what I am trying to say. I ask forgiveness from Ignatius and Gustavo Gutiérrez beforehand. A Principle and Foundation for our time might be something like this:

We hare been created by God and placed in Peru of the 1990’s to create a more viable country that recognises, respects and promotes the dignity of all people, and in this way, live and offer witness to our faith in Jesus of Nazareth, the God of history. We have been created and placed in Peru of the 1990’s to tear down the terrible wall of separation and lack of communication that we have inherited. We have been created to forge new relationships between men and women in this society, to promote the dignity of each person, to work so that no person is excluded from human society, and so that absolutely everyone feels like true members and participants in society. And all the things we use and all the tasks and all the work in which we are involved have to be aimed at achieving this end, this mission, for which we were created.

Finally, my example can be improved, which is not said out of false modesty. But I think it points to where we need to go to re-articulate and re-orient our mission. This re-articulation will give us a better understanding of our mission, to orient our reflection and discernment, and to frame the different works in which we are involved.

And to answer the question with which I began this article: what is left to do in the perspective of liberation theology?" A great deal!

Ref.: LADOC,

Vol. XXVII, n. 5, May/June 1997.