Translated from Spanish to English with Google translator.


In the "Point 1" we could see that the economic domination of Europe on Latin America originates from the time of its colonization, being the result of cultural and ideological domination [1]. We also note that at the end of the 2nd World War, the European powers war were exhausted, clearly emerging two new "Poles of Power":

1. The US leading the "Western Bloc" (a "Agiornada" version of the old "Western Roman Empire") after defining the Allied victory against the 3rd Reich of Adolf Hitler and having defeated the Japanese Empire with the fateful pumps Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic.

2. U.S.S.R. as a counterpart to the US I was formed in the modern version of the old Eastern Roman Empire, leading the entire Eastern Bloc.

These two empires not assumed as such a Cold War that began in 1945 (end of the 2nd World War) he broke out and officially ended in the fall of the U.S.S.R. in 1991 ... although every so often arise some "sparks" between the US and the current Russian Federation, as could clearly be seen in the Russian conflict - by Ukrainian Crimea (February 2014) and the current Syrian War.

US pressure Latin America can be seen with the naked eye. The old U.S.S.R. at the time he set foot on the continent to support and finance the Cuban Revolution, at the beginning of the Cold War (1952). The US response was a blockade to the Cuban regime that has just now dissolving in 2016. In addition, to stop the advance of communism in the rest of the continent, supported, funded and attended all the military dictatorships of it.

Similarly to US led and imposed on the geopolitical, it did in all other planes, cultural, educational, art and communication. Obviously also the influence was a theological level.

Before the 2nd World War theology was digitized by Europe, Protestantism did not have much weight in the region, the few existing missions had been accompanying economic missions, and initially to meet the needs of their own representatives.

In his book "What is theology?" David Roldan (Father) notes, hand sociologist and Brazilian anthropologist Darcy Ribeiro [2] that Latin America does not have a cultural vision and own ideological, which is also given in Church circles: There was a Latin American theology, ie own and to respond to local needs.

Riberio notes that despite the lack of homogeneity of language and culture among the various Latin American peoples and be the fruit of two (the Spanish and Portuguese) different colonizing currents have in common the fact of having been colonized with the same system: extermination of native peoples bellicose, subjugation and humiliation of the peace, destruction of local culture and expropriation of natural resources, systematically razing to transfer those funds to their European headquarters. In the case of Brazil, the bellicose indigenous populations were eliminated and replaced by slaves brought from Africa, with the purpose of producing crops impossible to perform in the "Motherland".

Roldán writes [3]: Leaving the linguistic-cultural level, Ribeiro now examine the dualism that has been the focus of Anglo-American and Latin American and ideological connotations that this represents. Thus they oppose each other the two Americas: the rich and the poor, in symmetrical form of power. The central pole: North America ( "America for Americans," "American way of life", "manifest destiny") and the peripheral pole: Latin America. A thriving America is the result of the work and entrepreneurship. The other is the backward, the underdeveloped peoples or, even, "under-developing '. That is composed of prosperous villages and workers. The other for lazy people, lacking in initiative.

It is the image would have us believe? Or is the sad and harsh reality? In the beginning of the XXI century it is doubtful if the reality is because it is what we are inducing us to be or just so.

In 1979 I participated in the Anniversary Party of the 50th anniversary of the Japanese community in the city of Belen de Escobar, Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. In 1929, two hundred families of that nationality were established in the city, wanting to work as a single capital.

Already in '79 everything worth of Bethlehem de Escobar it was Japanese, the best shops, the best flower nurseries, the best restaurants, the best schools, the best rides ... while the native population continued with the same problems 1929. for this reason I say that is not just what they want us to believe, but something is there in the phrase lazy people and lacking initiative. The question is actually Latin America seems to be the "Backyard" of US

Theologically, referring to Latin America against Europe, says Jose Luis Romero [4]: ​​"... Turning now to the theological level, for many years has been talking about" European theology "," German theology, "" American theology " as expressions of different theological schools, whose speeches were responding to particular interests and situations. And nobody, or almost nobody fretted about it. But as soon as he began to speak of "Latin American theology" many screamed to the sky. Why? Perhaps, as a sign of dependence we want to submit as Latin Americans. For just as there is a cultural and economic dependence, also it has been a theological dependence generated a greater or lesser degree, depending on the case.

Jose Miguez Bonino says: "[...] the Christian church has a long debt with Latin America: Four and a half centuries of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism one have not produced the least of creative thinking that these peoples have the right to expect from those They claim to have received the mission to proclaim the Word of God to men ". And it is because this situation was both Catholicism and the Reformed Church.

When it is stated that "no theology" is in reference to a theology that reflects local needs, as long as there preaching is because there is a "theological discourse".

Against the liberalism of the nineteenth century there was a reaction that led to Fundamentalism in the early twentieth century in the US

Fundamentalism claimed creeds considered essential as:

1. The authority of the Bible
2. The Divinity of Christ
3. The atoning work
4. The justification by faith
5. The Trinity
6. The second coming of Jesus Christ.

Many missions of faith, predominantly American origin, were enrolled in this stream. His first missionaries and their immediate disciples were more or less vehement spokesmen of these currents.

David Roldan says: "The fundamentalist current led to identification dispensationalism and is and continues today in areas of some church denominations. In general, there is within this current serious and thorough studies of European theology. Predominant emphasis on the classical doctrines with little interest in the correlation of the biblical message to the concrete reality in which the church is involved. Overall it is a theology that reacts to any developments in the field of thought, is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific and repeatedly uses the Bible as a dictates probantia [5], assuming direct access to the Bible is possible without a hermeneutics without budgets "mediation.

Fundamentalism is common within the Word out of context of the passage, which usually do not take it into account; and therefore also not take into account the current context, striving only an application of Scripture to a moment in the life of the believer, which is common to use "devotionals what God says for your life" is say a purely existential and cyclical in the life of the individual concerned. This generates a state of de connection between the Bible and reality, where the facts are separated from the story (a-historicity).

Fundamentalism is responsible for most of the "Evangelical Folklore" and its lack of theological study has been a breeding ground for the Prosperity Gospel.

But while in the US the reaction was Liberalism Fundamentalism in Europe was the Neo-orthodoxy, which is basically back to rescue the biblical message from hermeneutics, exegesis, study and analysis of contexts.
Neo-orthodoxy, where Karl Barth movement stands out, not a single system, it is not a unified movement. In the best it can be described as an approach or attitude that began in a common environment but soon expressed in various ways. It began in the crisis associated with the disillusionment following World War I, with a rejection of Protestant scholasticism, and the negation of liberal Protestant movement.

The neo - orthodox movement has made a number of important contributions to twentieth century theology. With its emphasis on Scripture as the container of the Word it emphasized the unity of Scripture and helped to precipitate a renewed interest in hermeneutics. With its rejection of nineteenth century Protestant liberalism and its return to the principles of the Reformation it helped to rejuvenate interest in the theology of the Reformers of the sixteenth century and the church fathers. He has reemphasized the importance of preaching and the church as communion of believers.

There is a relevance of the theology of Karl Barth for the Latin American theological context.

David Roldán defined, in the words of Darcy Ribeiro, focus on Latin America (compared to North America) and the poor sector, backward, underdeveloped, etc. (P.119). It should be noted that this "vision" of Latin America is the product of cultural domination which operates from the colonial times.

Then he says that this rule also includes the theological level, on page 120 says that European and North American theologians put resistance to the awakening of Latin American theology, "As a sign of dependence we want to submit as Latin Americans". To which, according to Juan Luis Segundo "have to risk creating a theology that responds to the situation itself" (p. 123). At this point, the author describes the theological currents were present in Latin America.

I understand that observed in the chapter an effort to show the relevance of the theology of Karl Barth for the Latin American theological context, because Miguez Bonino acknowledges that it was the Barthian theology that, after the crisis of liberalism, offered for the Latin American theologians the best prospect for theological reflection on the situation that existed.

Jose Miguez Bonino, as a witness said, "the liberal strategy is conformed us as theology: something was missing; It is for the years 1945 to 1947 we discovered Carlos Barth's theology, which came to us mainly in French translations. We began to read and to feel deeply attracted and challenged. We found there something that made us feel at ease. I've wondered what made us feel at ease with Barth. And I think it's the fact that the Bible Barth returned to us as a message, not in spite of a road passing by critics but from there. Rolando Gutierrez Cortes also bears witness to the "singular opportunity to be accepted as a disciple of Dr. Karl Barth dining" highlighting "how Dr. Barth saw the Bible and taught us to read." On the late influence of Barth in the theological formation of the Protestant leaders of Brazil. On page 131, the book's author says that the Uruguayan Pastor Emilio Castro, (who was a student of Karl Barth), praises the theology of Barth and forth three basic points:

to. That should be a priority for every Christian to work for freedom there that the word of God can be heard and answered responsibly.

b. Christians should be involved in social issues always putting more emphasis on the man in the institutions.

c. Every social situation should be questioned from the kingdom of God. (That is what the Lord would, who would help or support)

Barthian theology adds that serves as a necessary corrective. It reminds us of the ambiguity of any historical situation where good and evil are developed simultaneously in the same; We also remember that our enthusiasm must go through the sobriety test. Because even if liberation theology is done, the only one with real power to release Jesus.

A little later (from page 132 to 135), by the commentary of Jose Miguez Bonino, it is clear that the point stronger among Barthian theology and Latin American (despite their chronological and social and cultural contexts are common totally different) it is that both take the side of the poor and weakest members of society, understood as the right choice, because God always preferred the oppressed and the oppressors resisted. Míguez concludes that despite the differences in context, theology is Barthian which makes more contributions to Latin American theology of ISAL (Church and Society in Latin America) which then evolve '68 in liberation theology.

On page 142 there is a quote on an article by Peter Wagner, where the author analyzes the theology of the ISAL (Church and Society in Latin America) and mentions among its leaders Bonino, Emilio Castro and says that the influence of noticeable Barth among other theologians.


[2] Darcy Ribeiro (Minas Gerais 1922 - Brasilia, 1997) was an intellectual and political Brazilian known for his work in education, sociology and anthropology
[3] Page What is theology? David Roldan. 119 (PDF)
[4] Page What is theology? David Roldan. 120 (PDF) José Luis Romero, situations and ideologies in Latin America, Buenos Aires: Ed. Sudamericana, 1986, p. twenty-one.
[5] Dicta probantia: aphorism that means apodictic force (true, unconditionally true), especially in the biblical sense, in which an article of faith, or of what follows is based.
Read more:



Entradas populares de este blog

Reflexión. La parábola de las 10 vírgenes. By Fabian Massa

NEWS. Второй зверь. By Fabian Massa.

Reflexión. El primer discurso de Pedro y la conversión de los 3.000. By Fabian Massa.