The internal unity of a Christian church can be attained or maintained today only by minimizing and playing down the radical historical oppositions that divide its members. In other words, one must pass over in silence such matters as color, social class, political ideology, the national situation, and the place of the country in the international market. At the same time one must stress the values that are presumably shared by all the members of the Church in question. In short, the Church must pay a high price for unity. It must say that the issues of suffering, violence, injustice, famine, and death are less critical and decisive than religious formulas and rites.
At this point someone might complain, with some reason, that I am erring by going to the opposite extreme; that I am wrong in placing only
religious rites and formulas over against things that are historically decisive. After all, one might object, don't the shared features go beyond mere formulas and rites? Don't they include a deep faith and general conceptions about God and the importance of eternal life?
If I do not place these latter issues in the balance scale, it is precisely because they are shared in common by all. One person pictures a God who allows dehumanization whereas another person rejects such a God and believes only in a God who unceasingly fights against such things. Now those two gods cannot be the same one. So a common faith does not exist within the Church. The only thing shared in common is the formula used to express the faith. And since the formula does not really identify anything, are we not justified in calling it a
hollow formula vis-a-vis the decisive options of history?
It would seem that the Church cannot arrogate to itself the divine right of choosing between the oppressors and the oppressed precisely because of this overevaluation of Christian unity.
Juan Luis Segundo
The Liberation of Theology, Orbis: 1976, pp. 42-3.
8 Comments:
Very true. Unity has been such a hot topic recently... and was caused a number of divides... strange how that works...!
Interesting thoughts.
I would have to disagree. On several points.
"The internal unity of a Christian church can be attained or maintained today only by minimizing and playing down the radical historical oppositions that divide its members."
Really? Only? The only methodology for ecumenism is the WCC's method? I think this assertion is completely errant. Especially in light of the Pauline rhetoric for unity in 1 Corinthians.
And I think he has a lack of understanding of what true liturgy is. It is not "formulas and rites."
I think he is addressing a valid point, but I think his argumentation is way off. He fails to have good definitions of what Church unity, rites and formulas, and "picturing God" actually mean.
I think for someone as committed as you are to historical theology, and tradition-dependent rationality, you ought to be more sensitive to contextual analysis. At least try to imagine what it would be like to be Segundo, before you jump to the conclusion that he's missing your Anglo-American, Campbellite, Post-Liberal boat.
Try again.
thank you for your pejorative non-reply.
and this is my non-reply to that.
dialogue isn't really fostered in this way, is it?
Stephen,
My reply was not pejorative, and it certainly wasn't a non-reply. I am merely challenging you to put your own philosophical commitments to work here. Your reading of Segundo's remarks is a sloppy one, and one that is based on your own traditional framework and historical situation, not Segundo's. You know better than that. I'm not ridiculing you for being an Anglo-American, Campbellite, Post-Liberal. I'm all those things too. I'm pointing out that Segundo was not those things and thus his remarks need to be read in a different context in order to be properly understood. You should be able to do that quite well.
So try again.
Furthermore, I might add, as a reply to your accusation that I gave a non-reply, that your original critique was actually a non-critique, because you didn't provide any positive account of the concepts you claim Segundo has wrong. We don't know what you think they are, and we don't know why you think what you think about what Segundo thinks they are, thus, we don't know what to think about what you think they are in contrast to what you think Segundo thinks they are. That's what I think.
Okay, let me start by saying that I don't know what Segundo's context is. I don't know who he is, and all I have of him is this isolated pericope. But with that in mind, I still think that whatever language he is speaking of, he is confused about the Christian language.
He presupposes that the only way to gain or maintain Christian unity is by passing over any disputed political or social matters. This seems to be the opposite of the Pauline rhetoric in 1 Corinthians. When Paul in confronted with divisions on the basis of social realities, he does not try to play down the differences for the sake of Christian unity, but rather he calls the oppressors to be what they are already supposed to be. He does not allow for least common denominator Christian unity, he rather calls the oppressors bad Christians who need to become better ones.
Is it not possible that when those in league with the Junta of Chile were partaking in the rites and rituals they were doing so not as Christians themselves?
I'm not sure if I am being clear so allow me some further elaboration.
The God of the Scriptures aligns himself with the poor and the weak, over against the oppression of the rich and the powerful. This is the God of the Nicene Creed. Those who stand in the assembly week after week and read those words and participate in the Body and the Blood of Christ and then proceed to extend oppression in their actions and inactions are not somehow a different branch of Christianity with which the oppressed branch needs to achieve unity, they are themselves bad Christians, Christians who are failing to play their part in the story.
Furthermore, I think his definition of religious rites and formulas seems to be shallow and unbiblical. Is not the Eucharist socially subversive against the economic oppression of the powerful? I would argue that it is subversive whether or not those partaking are aware of this subversion in the same way that Christ is present in the Eucharist whether or not those partaking of it believe in the real presence or not.
I also think that Segundo fails to properly view the oppressors (as Moltmann would) as victims of the system themselves. They are victims who need to be released from the vicious cycle of oppression by following the risen Messiah. I think his concluding statement is one of the problems I see (and again, I think Moltmann would agree) with Liberation Theology. While I agree that God does tend to align himself with the oppressed over against the oppressors, he does not exactly capitulate himself to these dichotomies. He offers a third way. I can't help but feel that some Liberation Theology seems to be the Zealotry that Jesus refused to align himself with.
Finally, the Christianity that Segundo seems to be articulating is a Christianity of constant sectarianism. I think that we can work toward dialogue and unity without denying the oppressed justice. We can articulate that we really do disagree on certain areas, but we need to be willing to compare our theological systems to see which is more coherent and more theologically faithful to the biblical and historical revelations of the church.
"let me start by saying that I don't know what Segundo's context is. I don't know who he is, and all I have of him is this isolated pericope."
Well, there's always Wikipedia.
"He presupposes that the only way to gain or maintain Christian unity is by passing over any disputed political or social matters."
No he doesn't. This comes from your stilted, over-literal reading of him. You need to read more patiently and give people the benefit of the doubt. Segundo obviously is not contradicting 1 Cor. He is saying that in practice, this is usually the way that "unity" is achieved in churches. I thought that would be obvious, and that I gave enough of the extract to ensure that understanding.
He does go on to advocate genuine dialogue.
"I think his definition of religious rites and formulas seems to be shallow and unbiblical."
Why is it that you don't ask questions, but have all the answers? Once again, Segundo is speaking contextually, and, contextually, he's saying the exact same thing as Isaiah 58, and Jesus' favorite adage, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." God hates liturgy that doesn't liberate. So does Segundo. So do you, but you seem quicker to defend liturgy than liberation.
Segundo does not believe liturgy itself is hollow and empty. That would make him a very strange catholic. He believes, f-ing rightly, that liturgy is hollow and empty when it is used (as it frequently is) to cover over decisive political differences rather than to incite decisive political unity. Can you hear Segundo's voice yet?
"I also think that Segundo fails to properly view the oppressors (as Moltmann would) as victims of the system themselves. . . . I can't help but feel that some Liberation Theology seems to be the Zealotry that Jesus refused to align himself with."
Wow, Stephen. I don't know how you're getting this out of this little extract. How much liberation theology have you read exactly, that you would be equipped to make this judgment? It almost seems like you want liberation theology to disagree with you and "the Bible." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you're not giving Segundo, and I'll assume that this isn't true.
"Finally, the Christianity that Segundo seems to be articulating is a Christianity of constant sectarianism. I think that we can work toward dialogue and unity without denying the oppressed justice. We can articulate that we really do disagree on certain areas, but we need to be willing to compare our theological systems to see which is more coherent and more theologically faithful to the biblical and historical revelations of the church."
Well, Segundo thinks we should dialogue also, but his approach to it is a bit more practical than yours. Comparing our "theological systems to see which is more coherent and more theologically faithful" hardly works in the academy. I'm not sure it's the best approach for building unity in churches. If it is, it will rarely work.
At any rate, I don't know how you feel informed enough to assert that Segundo is "articulating a Christianity of constant sectarianism."
If you really want to dialogue, as you claim, you really need to learn to ask questions. Now, I can make assertions here because I know you, and I love you.
Post a Comment
<< Home