from.
Pages 24f says:
Obviously, the prime object of theology is God.
Okay, sounds good so far, right in line with #3.
Nevertheless, before asking what oppression means in God's eyes,
theologians have to ask more basic questions about the nature of actual
oppression and its causes.
The terms "more basic" and "actual" seem to contradict the rest of what
they've been proposing that I could accept along the lines of #3: that
spiritual reality is more real, if anything, than physical
reality (though I believe them to both be equally real--perhaps
relevant is a better word.)
Then this statement:
The fact is that understanding God is not a substitute for or
alternative to knowledge of the real world.
Which sounds like the kind of thing that would lead me to take Stance
#1, because I hear that line of thinking often from people who don't
believe in "all this spiritual BS", to whom the physical world is all
there is. Furthermore, the statement given to back it up:
As Thomas Aquinas said: "An error about the world redounds in error
about God" (Summa contra Gentiles, II, 3).
...says nothing at all about understanding God affecting or not
affecting one's understanding of the world. On the contrary, I'd say,
as one who is born again outside of the world, that understanding God
is absolutely key to understand the world for what it really is.
The Boffs' next statements, however...
Furthermore, if faith is to be efficacious, in the same way as
Christian love, it must have its eyes open to the historical reality on
which it seeks to work.
...I would agree with wholeheartedly.
Overall, it seems, I could go with #2 or #3. Some statements stand out
and make me wonder, though, where they're really coming from. Perhaps
these are all just translation issues and I'm nitpicking. Or maybe
they really are "temptations" slipping in from the authors, as their
later words might indicate on pages 64f (emphasis in original, aside
from my selective quoting):
Let us not pass over the temptations to which liberation theologians
can be liable, temptations pointed out some time ago by critics and--at
least in part--repeated by the magisterium. But at the same time it
should be noted that most liberation theologians take account of these
in their own work. Some of them are:
...overemphasis of political action. It is in prayer and
contemplation, and intimate and communitarian contact with God, that
the motivations for a faith-inspired commitment to the oppressed and
all humankind spring and are renewed.
Overstressing the political aspect of questions relating to
oppression and liberation...
Subordinating considerations of faith to considerations of society in one-sided constructs paying too much attention to class struggle
and too little to what is specifically religious and Christian. This
temptation affects exegesis and liturgy above all.
That would make the most sense to me.
It just so happens that a few more points from the same section point
more to #2 than to #3, so while we're at it:
Absolutization of liberation theology, downgrading the value of
other theologies...
Lack of concern for deepening dialogue with other Christian
churches or with other contemporary theologies...
The way to overcome all these temptations is for liberation theologians
to become ever more strongly imbued with a sense of Christ, being
"those who have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16). They also need to
be firmly linked to the ecclesial community and deeply nourished by the
vigorous mystical sustenance of popular religion and faith.
Well, aside from the connotations of "mystical", amen to that last
paragraph.
One unrelated quote comes from page 60, in apparent contrast to the
story of the Christian base community of Cuernavaca we had met with:
Despite the tensions attendant upon any living body, there is generally
a good spirit of convergence between the institutional church and this
wide network of base communities.
I say "apparent contrast" because they're easily reconciled by the word
"generally" in the quote, but that leaves a new question: What makes
Cuernavaca different from the generally true?
I think I'll leave the Boffs at this stage for now and turn to de Soto.
More on that to come...
Kev
No comments:
Post a Comment