Evaluación del Desempeño Profesional de los Docentes

All theology takes its roots from the person of Jesus (Christology). Jesus Christ is the rallying point of all theology. The understanding of Jesus as the Messiah include amongst others the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, his sending by God the Father, his mission on earth, his death on the cross, his resurrection and his ascension into heaven.

In the contemporary studies of Jesus Christ, two outstanding approaches are used, namely;

(a) Christology from above: This approach seeks to explain Jesus as the eternal logos, the pre-existing divine person who became man in order to reconcile humanity to God.

Jesus is the ‘true God from true God’(church’s creed) which has its foundation in John’s gospel(Jn 1:1ff)

(b) Christology from below: this approach emphasizes the life and ministry of Jesus with particular emphasis on his prophetic mission on earth. This is the more favoured approach for liberation theology. Christology from below is Christology that starts from the historical existence of Jesus. He is studied from the point of view of his life on earth, on his humanity, his deeds, messages and mission. The liberation Christ brought was not just limited to salvation from sin but liberation of the complete human person. It is the liberation of man from all that prevents him from attaining his full humanity. It is the liberation from poverty and exploitation and all sorts of oppression.

Liberation theology sees in Jesus the hope of the poor and oppressed. He preached the good news to the poor, setting prisoners free and liberation to the afflicted (Lk

4:16-139 19). Thus, Jean-Marc Éla says, “salvation in Jesus Christ is liberation from every form of slavery.”²⁹⁷

The following documents contain elements of liberation theology as well.

i. Gaudium et Spes (GS)

Gaudium es Spes (GS), the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World sets the tone as it were for the theology of liberation. While “De homine” dwelt extensively on the human nature, GS dealt more closely with man’s actual condition in the world rather than on the human nature as historical.²⁹⁸ GS has elements that can be traced back to two preceding encyclicals by Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth) and Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher). Although the intention of GS was not to develop a theology of liberation, it, however, spoke directly of freedom and since freedom in its theological meaning is coextensive with the theme of salvation, liberation thus becomes a human as well as a Christian concern.²⁹⁹ As Victor Wan-Tatah writes: “Gaudium et Spes provided the methodological and thematic fuel for liberation theologians of Latin America. The secular sciences had to assist in theological reflection, and man’s actual condition had to be measured by the standard of justice, the pre-condition for peace”³⁰⁰.

ii. The Medellin Conference (1968)

Taking place just at the conclusion of the Vatican II council, the Medellin conference was the 2^nd general conference of Latin American bishops which provided a new tone to the liberation efforts by stating “It is the same God who, in the fullness of time, sends his son in the flesh so that he might come to liberate all men from the slavery to which sin has subjected them:

hunger, misery, oppression, ignorance, hatred and injustice”³⁰¹.

While rejecting the temptation to use violence means to achieve these, it approved “a pastoral approach which encourages and favours the efforts of the people to create and develop their

297 Emmanuel Umeh, 2004, The Promotion of Human Rights and Social Justice : A Call to Liberation Theology for The Church in Nigeria, Frankfurt am Main, p.98.

298 Unconcerned with or unrelated to history or to historical development or to tradition. (See Wordweb dictionary).

299 Victor Wan-Tatah, 1988, p.119.

300 Ibid.

301 Ibid, p.120.

140 own grassroots organizations for the redress and consolidation of their rights and the search for true justice”³⁰².

One results of the conference was the realization that Latin America needed to develop its own unique identity if it were to develop itself. Many saw a clear relationship between the underdevelopment of the third world countries and the development of the advanced countries. And that the Latin American countries needed to break away from the cultural domination and exploitation of Europe.

Latin American theologians soon realized that patterning their development after the modern society was bound to be unsuccessful. This was the reason why all the developmental strategies of Latin American from 1950s until about the 1970s were fruitless for two major reasons.

1. Generalized ahistorical approach: The adoption of the ahistorical character of the problem imported from outside, which made the underdeveloped people depended socio-politically, economically and culturally on the modern societies.

2. Defective notion of development: This is effectively an offshoot from the first. As long as development continues to be seen from an economic and modernisation point of view, changes could only be effected within the formal structures of the existing institutions. In this case, only the interests of international economic powers, rich and powerful political leaders and their allies would be protected. The root causes of the problem, therefore, remain unchanged. Thus, a comprehensive humanistic approach that takes into account the broad scope of the problem which includes societal structures that perpetuate oppression and injustice would be most appropriate.

Development as a social process implies also the ethical dimension including concerns for ethical human values.

iii. Puebla Conference (1979)

Puebla was the result of division that arose among Latin American bishops as a result of the conclusions of Medellin. Many criticized clearly the Medellin model of liberation preferring to go to the old model of modern domination. This drew widespread criticism not only from Christians and theologians from Latin American but also from Europe, United States, Asia and Africa. Medellin was thus on trial. There were deliberate attempts to exclude liberation

302 Ibid.

141 theologians from the consultative stage of preparation for the Puebla conference. Some even lobbied for the outright condemnation of liberation theology.

However, this movement was largely unsuccessful and as a result Puebla ended up following the Medellin conference, a reference point in support of liberation theology and its principle.

In no distant time, this idea spread to Africa as well.