[Sturla_J._stalsett]the Crucified and the Crucified - A Study in the Liberation Christology of Jon...

8/17/2019 [Sturla_J._stalsett]the Crucified and the Crucified - A Study in the Liberation Christology of Jon Sobrino (Studien Zur…

1/639

The crucified and

the Crucified:A Study in the Liberation

Christology of Jon Sobrino

Sturla J. Stålsett

Peter Lang


2/639

The crucified and the Crucified


3/639

Volume 127

PETER LANGBern Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Wien

STUDIEN ZUR INTERKULTURELLEN GESCHICHTE DES CHRISTENTUMS

ETUDES D’HISTOIRE INTERCULTURELLE DU CHRISTIANISME

STUDIES IN THE INTERCULTURAL HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

begründet von / fondé par / founded byWalter J. Hollenweger und / et / and Hans Jochen Margull †

herausgegeben von / edité par / edited by

Richard Friedli, Université de Fribourg

Jan A. B. Jongeneel, Universiteit Utrecht

Klaus Koschorke, Universität München

Theo Sundermeier, Universität Heidelberg

Werner Ustorf, University of Birmingham


4/639

Sturla J. Stålsett

The crucified and the Crucified

A Study in the Liberation Christology of Jon Sobrino

PETER LANG Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Wien


5/639

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche National-

bibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at

‹http://dnb.ddb.de›.

British Library and Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data:

A catalogue record for this book is available from The British Library,

Great Britain, and from The Library of Congress, USA

ISSN 0170-9240

ISBN 3-906767-11-6US-ISBN 0-8204-5341-2

© Peter Lang AG, European Academic Publishers, Berne 2003

Hochfeldstrasse 32, Postfach 746, CH-3000 Bern 9, Switzerland

[email protected], www.peterlang.com, www.peterlang.net

All rights reserved.

All parts of this publication are protected by copyright.

Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law,

without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to

prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations,

microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems.

Printed in Germany


6/639


7/639


8/639

vii

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

IntroductionTheology, Suffering and Praxison the Brink of the Millennium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

[1] Naming our Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17[2] The crucified and the Crucified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22[3] Liberation Theology in Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27[4] Purpose and Plan of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

i. Theology in a Crucified RealityPoint of Departure and Fundamental Presuppositions . . . 41

[1] Foundational Experience:

Siding with the Poor in El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41[2] Theology in a Crucified Reality:Fundamental Presuppositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

a) To be Honest about Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45b) The Importance of the Theological Location . . . 49c) The Poor as Theological Location . . . . . . . . . . . 57d) Liberation of the Poor asTheological Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64e) The Priority of Praxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79f) Theology as Interpretation of Reality . . . . . . . . . 99g) Theology as ‘Intellectus Amoris’ . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

[3] Main Theological Heritage and Framework: Jesuit Spirituality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105[4] Critical Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112[5] Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/639

viii

ii. The Crucified People (1)From Historical Reality to Theological Concept . . . . . . . 125

[1] Development of the Theme;Influences and Parallels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127[2] Ignacio Ellacuría: The Crucified Peopleand Historical Soteriology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134[3] Jon Sobrino: The Crucified Peopleas the Body of the Crucified Christ in History . . . . . .150[4] The crucified and the Crucified: Three Axes . . . . .163[5] A Contrasting View: E. Jüngel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

[6] Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173

iii. Countering a Crucifying ChristologyThe Return to the Historical Jesus as a Way ofLiberating Latin American Images of Christ . . . . . . . . . . 179

[1] A Problematic Heritage: ‘Christologies ofConquest’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180[2] Remedy: The Latin-American Historical Jesus As Point of Departure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192[3] Critical Assessment: How HistoricalIs ‘Jesus Liberator’? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203[4] Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215

iv. The Crucified Liberator (1)Interpreting Jesus’ Life as Salvific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

[1] From Jesus’ Death to His Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219[2] First Relation: Jesus and the Kingdom of God . . . 225[3] Who is Jesus? The Mediator of the Kingdom . . . . 237[4] Second Relation: Jesus and the God ofthe Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241[5] Jesus’ Faith: A God who is Fatherand a Father who is God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246[6] Who is Jesus? ‘Son of God’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/639

ix

[7] Sobrino’s Christology and Feminist Concerns . . . 260[8] Third Relation: Jesus and his Disciples.

The Primacy of ‘Following’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267[9] From one ‘son’ to the ‘Son’:Is Jesus’ True Divinity Questioned? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275[10] Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281

v. The Crucifying Conflict A Struggle Between the God of Life andthe Idols of Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

[1] God is at Stake: Jesus’ Anti-Idolatrous Praxis . . . . 288[2] Idols and Victims: The Anti-Idolatrous Characterand Victimological Orientation of Sobrino’s Theology . .295[3] A Theologal-Idolatrous Structure of Reality . . . . . 304[4] Crucial Questions: Reality, History, Language . . . . 311[5] From the Problem of Evil toHermeneutics: P. Ricoeur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315[6] A Latin American Reception and Application of Ricoeur: J. Severino Croatto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328[7] Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338

vi. The Crucified Liberator (2)Interpreting Jesus’ Death as Salvific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

[1] Why was Jesus Killed? Historical Interpretation . . 347[2] Who Killed Jesus: Human Beings or Gods? . . . . . 360

[3] Why Did Jesus Die? Soteriological Interpretation . . 372[4] The Cross as Salvific Manifestation . . . . . . . . . . . 384[5] Jesus the Liberator – An Exemplary Martyr? . . . . 398[6] The Shifting of Models: From Struggle to Sacrifice . 406[7] Jesus – The Victorious Victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414[8] Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


11/639

x

vii. The Crucified GodHistorical Theodicy and the Mystery of God . . . . . . . . . 429

[1] The Possibility of God’s Passibility . . . . . . . . . . . . .431[2] How Does God Suffer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442[3] God Crucified in the Suffering andDeath of the Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463[4] God’s Abandonment of Jesus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473[5] The Crucified God and The Crucified People– The ‘Necessity’ of Suffering? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481[6] Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489

viii. The Crucified People (2)The Theological Significance of ContemporarySuffering: Towards a Critical Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493

[1] Christian Theology and Suffering:Relevance and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495[2] The Crucified People – Reality and Symbol . . . . . . 511[3] Constitutive Relatedness as Central Category . . . . .521[4] The crucified and the Crucified:Theological Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .537

Postscript Hope Against Hope: The Resurrection of the C/crucified . . 571

[1] The Crucified People and the Resurrection of Jesus . .573[2] Claiming the Victims’ Victory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579

[3] End of the Millennium – The End of History? . . .581 Afterword

The Reality of Continuing Crucifixionin a Globalised Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593

Selected index of names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


12/639

11

Preface

What is ‘good’ about Good Friday? Does its ‘goodness’ correspondto any historical experience at all? The small wooden crosses thathave become almost a national symbol for El Salvador may point tosuch a paradoxical experience. Like other Central Americannations, such as Nicaragua and Guatemala, this tiny country suf-

fered terribly through much of the 20th century. After half a cen-tury of military dictatorship, the 1970’s and 1980’s became years of increasing repression resulting in open civil war (1980-1992). El Sal-vador became known world-wide, not for its beautiful landscape orits hardworking and friendly inhabitants, but for the cruelties com-mitted within its territory.

It is against this background that the typical wooden crosses of El Salvador cause perplexity: They are painted in such joyful, lively colours and decorated with small drawings symbolising peacefulcommunity life: small country houses, people cultivating their land,children playing in the yard. Why these joyful colours and symbolsof life on a cross – a most horrible instrument of torture? Do notSalvadorans know what crucifixion is all about? They certainly do.During my many visits to this country since 1985, I have personally seen enough to be able to reject the suggestion that what is

expressed in these crosses is a naive or simplistic understanding of what such suffering entails. On the contrary, it is precisely theirown contemporary passion story that leads Salvadorans to presentthe cross as a source of life. Amidst the pain, Salvadoran communi-ties of faith bring testimonies of joy, communion, celebration,“hope against hope”.

This experience of life in the valley of death, of goodness onGood Friday, has led Jon Sobrino to reflect theologically upon


13/639

12

God’s participation in the suffering of the people. Such a reflectionis christological: In the face of a suffering human being the image of

Jesus of Nazareth can be recognised. It is also soteriological: Chris-tian faith finds its most profound expression in the confession thatGod’s presence in human history in and through Jesus is good forhumanity – it brings salvation. But what, more precisely, can thatmean when seen from the contemporary experience of El Salvador,of Latin America, of the South?

At the centre of the cross above, we see a Salvadoran woman,surrounded by other women working for the well-being of the com-

munity. She has her arms stretched out. Is she crucified? Are thereothers “crucified” besides Jesus? What, in that case, is their relation-ship to the crucified Jesus? This is where the “theology of the cruci-fied people” begins. It originates in a particular experience of suffering, with paradoxical glimpses of joy and celebration.Impressed by this incredible capacity for celebration in the midst of and in spite of all kinds of conflicts and hardships that are found in

El Salvador, my interest was aroused as to the theology interpreting this experience. What did it entail? What might be its contributionto the world wide theological debate?

The first version of this manuscript was presented for the degreeof doctor theologiae at the University of Oslo in February 1998.There are many persons who have been of great help and support inthis work, whom I would like to thank: Jon Sobrino and his goodcolleagues at the Centro Pastoral Monseñor Romero at the Univer-

sidad Centroamericana (UCA), San Salvador; bishop MedardoGómez of the Salvadoran Lutheran Church and his family; my supervisor professor Kjetil Hafstad of the University of Oslo andco-supervisor professor Werner Jeanrond of the University of Lund;my opponents in the doctoral defence Dr. José Míguez Bonino andDr. Kjell Nordstokke; and all the colleagues, friends and family thattook the time and effort to read through parts or the whole of this


14/639

13

manuscript at different stages, and gave their constructive and criti-cal comments.

Furthermore, I wish to thank the Norwegian Research Counciland the Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo for making thiswork financially and practically possible; Brian McNeil, Peder Nus-tad and Andy Thomas for proof-reading and linguistic assistance;Dag Tjemsland and Christian Myhre-Nielsen for computer assist-ance; and Roger Jensen for the laborious process of making themanuscript ready for print in the present version.

Last but not least, I wish to thank Anne Veiteberg, my

compañera de vida , and our two children Ådne and Eivor, for alltheir love and support.

“There is no gratitude that remains silent forever” (Sobrino).Great gratitude is due to each one of these. And yet they should notbe held responsible for the end result.

As to the translations of the texts quoted in this book, I haveused already existing English translations where available, and only

altered them where I have found it necessary. Where the texts areavailable only in Spanish, I have made my own translations, whileproviding the original Spanish wording in the notes. I have usedThe New English Bible , 1970 (NEB) for Bible quotations. Abbrevia-tions are explained in the text.

This study is dedicated to the memory of Helge Hummelvoll, a friend and a photographer, who was shot dead on a mission inSouthern Sudan on the 27th of September 1992; and to the memo-

ries of Dordi Eika, Kristin Fadum, John Finstad, Geir Nybraatenand Elbjørg Aadland, who lost their lives in the aeroplane disaster atthe Chichontepec volcanoe, El Salvador on the 9th of August 1995.

Their dedication remains a costly sign of solidarity with cruci-fied peoples.

Oslo, August 2002Sturla J. Stålsett


15/639

14


16/639

15

IntroductionTheology, Suffering and Praxis

on the Brink of the Millennium

Después de un mes de militarización, el ejército desalojó el pueblo de Aguilares.Mons. Romero decidió ir cuanto antes a Aguilares para denunciar las atrocidades cometidas y sobre todo para acompañar y dar esperanza a un pueblo aterrizado.

Muchos fuimos con él, y fue un día que, personalmente, nunca olvidaré.[…] Recuerdo también, y es lo que más me impactó de su homilía, el gran amor que Mons. Romero mostraba hacia aquellos campesinos de Aguilares, sufrientes y atemorizados por lo que habían vivido en el último mes. Cómo mantener la esperanza de ese pueblo? Cómo devolverles dignidad, al menos, en su sufrimiento? Cómo decirlos que ellos son lo más importante para Dios y para la Iglesia? Mons.Romero lo dijo con estas palabras: ‘ustedes son la imagen del Divino Traspasado,del que nos habla la primera lectura’. Ustedes son hoy el Cristo sufriente en la historia, vino a decirles. Y en otra homilía de finales de 1979, que también recuerdo

bien, hablando del siervo de Jahvé, decía Mons. Romero que nuestro liberador, Jesucristo, tanto ‘se identifica con el pueblo, hasta llegar los intérpretes de la Escri- tura a no saber si el Siervo de Jahve, que proclama Isaías, es el pueblo sufriente o es Cristo que viene a redimirlos.’ Decir a unos campesinos atribulados que ellos son hoy el Cristo presente en la historia, y decírselo con sinceridad, es la forma más radical que tiene un cristiano para devolverles, al menos, su dignidad y mantenerlos la esperanza.

Jon Sobrino1

From a concrete experience of suffering there emerges a new theo-logical perspective. In Aguilares, a small village in El Salvador in theturbulent days of June 1977, a bishop consoled a terrified popula-tion by referring them to, comparing them with, even identifying them with the crucified Christ. A theologian present, accompany-

1 Sobrino 1989e, 34-35. See also Sobrino 1992b, 86, Sobrino 1991d, 425 and

Cardenal, Martín-Baró, and Sobrino1996

,207

-212

;208

.


17/639

16

ing the bishop and the people in their celebration of faith in thosemoments of inexplicable terror, reflected on the theological content

of this consolation. It is new, and yet old: to recognise the face of Jesus the Crucified in the faces of the humiliated and downtroddenof today, and to signal this recognition by naming their suffering “crucifixion.”

This focus coincides with a general mood of profound reorien-tation in contemporary Christian theology. Johann Baptist Metz,speaking from the perspective of post-war Germany, has raised thefundamental issue of how to do theology “after Auschwitz”.2 From

the perspective of Aguilares and of other war-ridden and poor com-munities of faith in El Salvador, Latin America, and the South, JonSobrino reformulates the question: How to do theology “during Auschwitz”?3 How to do theology, try to speak of, reflect upon, actupon the reality of God in the midst of a world of innocent suffer-ing? 4

In a similar vein to Metz, another German theologian, Jürgen

Moltmann, indicated a new departure in contemporary theology in

2 Cf. e.g. Metz 1994, 611, and Metz 1984, reprinted in Metz and Moltmann1995: 38-48.

3 Sobrino 1994c, 252. Sobrino 1991d, 422: “Y es que en América Latina nohacemos teología después de Auschwitz, sino durante Auschwitz […]”,Sobrino writes, with reference to a poem by P. Casaldáliga.

4 This question is central to Latin American liberation theology. GustavoGutiérrez has framed the question similarly from the perspective of Peru: “Itneeds to be realized, however, that for us Latin Americans the question is notprecisely ‘how are we to do theology after Auschwitz?’ The reason is that inLatin America we are still experiencing the every day violation of humanrights, murder, and the torture that we find so blameworthy in the Jewishholocaust of World War II. […] In Peru, therefore – but the question is per-haps symbolic of all Latin America – we must ask: How are we to do theol-ogy while Ayacucho lasts? How are we to speak of the God of life when cruelmurder on a massive scale goes on in ‘the corner of the dead’?” Gutiérrez1987

,102

. Cf. Gutiérrez1990

a.


18/639

17

a book with the programmatic title Der gekreuzigte Gott .5 JonSobrino’s own experiences in El Salvador – particularly like the one

that day in Aguilares, but thereafter many other days as dark, andeven darker – led him, from speaking with Moltmann of “the cruci-fied God”, to speak also of “the crucified people(s)”.

What meaning can it possibly have to speak of “the crucifiedpeople” or of the “crucified in history”? And what purpose can itserve? One main purpose has already been signalled by Sobrino: torestore the victims’ dignity and to uphold their hope. Another one,closely related, is the mobilisation of a merciful intervention for

their justice and freedom – a praxis of liberation. But what aboutthe “meaning”? Theologically interpreted, a potential meaning of this terminology must be derived from a relationship to the Onewho was crucified outside the city walls of Jerusalem: Jesus of Naza-reth. Hence the theme of this book: the crucified and the Crucified.

[ 1 ] Naming our Present

“Living at the remote edge of the twentieth century, we encounter a gap between the extremity of suffering and the triviality of our sym-bolic and conceptual worlds.”6 This observation by Wendy Farley sets us right on the track for the purpose and content of this

inquiry. “The crucified people” is presented by liberation theolo-gian Jon Sobrino7 as a proper name for the sufferings of our time.Can it bridge the gap?

5 Moltmann 1973. Eng. transl. Moltmann 1974.6 Farley 1996, “Beyond Sociology. Studies of Tragedy, Sin and Symbols of

Evil”, 124-128; 124. See also Tracy 1994, where the author’s opening statementrings through the whole book: “We live in an age that cannot name itself”

(page3).


19/639

18

No matter how one may wish to assess the precision and theactual content of this name – and this is what we are about to exam-

ine – it can hardly be regarded as irrelevant. Towards the turn of themillennium, world history seems to have entered into a remarkably contradictory and confusing phase. The twentieth century, one of the worst of human history, has witnessed absurd, radical suffering of such a character that it seems to be beyond the scope of tradi-tional theodicies.8 Indeed, the “unworlds”9 of concentration camps,gulags, killing fields, war zones and nuclear waste dumps were notrestricted to the earlier part of the century, so that we could, with a

certain relief and satisfaction, regard them as nightmares fromwhich we now – finally – have woken up; evils of the past, now atlast overcome by progress, maturity, rationality. The silent litaniesfrom Rwanda, Iraq, Bosnia and Central America – barely audibleafter the media switched their microphones off and moved theircameras to other sites, but not less painfully real – still echothroughout the human community. And before, during and after

such spectacular events of repugnant and incomprehensible evilthere is an even more dramatic reality of ordinary, every-day catas-trophes: de-humanising poverty, ecological disintegration, and gen-eralised discrimination on the basis of sex, race, belief or conviction.

7 Jon Sobrino was born in Barcelona in 1938. His parents were of Basque ori-gin, and he grew up in País Vasco . He joined the Jesuit order in 1956, and oneyear later he came to El Salvador for the first time. Since then, he has lived inEl Salvador, with the exception of two lengthy periods of studies abroad. Hestudied Literature, Philosophy and the Science of Engineering at St. LouisUniversity, USA. His theological doctorate studies were carried out inFrankfurt, between 1968 and 1974, see Sobrino 1975c. Jon Sobrino was a close advisor to Archbishop Oscar A. Romero. He is now professor of theol-ogy and philosophy at the Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas(UCA), in San Salvador, El Salvador.

8 See Deneken 1993, 53-64.

9 Farley1996

, ibid.


20/639

19

And yet there are those who willingly and even joyfully pro-claim ours as a golden age. In 1989, the year of the downfall of the

Berlin wall and hence the end of the Cold War, North Americanhistorian Francis Fukuyama announced that the end of history now finally has dawned upon us, in the form of liberal democracy as the“end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final formof human government.”10 Fukuyama is well aware of the reality of the millions and millions of victims in the twentieth century, andthat they would deny that there is such a thing as historicalprogress. And yet, he writes, “good news has come”,11 because “lib-

eral democracy remains the only coherent political aspiration thatspans different regions and cultures around the globe”, and further-more, “liberal principles in economics – the ‘free market’ – havespread, and have succeeded in producing unprecedented levels of material prosperity”.12

The perspective of Fukuyama and other self-congratulatory masters of ceremony of the “brave new world order”13 is not only

10 Fukuyama’s argument first appeared in an article in The National Interest inthe summer of 1989, entitled “The End of History?” It is expanded and fur-ther developed in Fukuyama 1992.

11 Fukuyama 1992, xiii.12 Fukuyama 1992, ibid.13 Nelson-Pallmeyer 1992. At the outbreak – and as a justification – of the Gulf

War in January 1991, there was much talk of a “new world order”. Nelson-Pallmeyer quotes the following statement by President George Bush: “Wewill succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will havesent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, whocontemplates outlaw aggression. The world can, therefore, seize this oppor-tunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order, where brutality will go unrewarded and aggression will meet collective resistance […] Thecost of closing our eyes to aggression is beyond mankind’s power to imagine.This we do know: Our cause is just; our cause is moral; our cause is right.”State of Union Address, January 29, 1991, quoted from Nelson-Pallmeyer1992

, x.


21/639

20

that which emerges at the end of history. It is certainly also the per-spective of history’s victors. These victors fail to perceive that the

post-Cold War-world by no means meets the hopeful expectationsthat people were justified in having. The termination of the conflictbetween the East and the West seems only to have re-opened andstrengthened another front, the North-South.14 In this situation, anincreasing part of the world’s population has become dispensable,insignificant, excluded. There is a whole (two-thirds) world left over.15

Christian theology finds itself deeply challenged by this world

situation. Prompted by a marked shift towards a more polycentric,ecumenical, cross-cultural theology as the centre of gravity of WorldChristianity has moved South, the voices of these suffering “others”are gradually making themselves heard.16 New theologies areemerging, embedded in the same Christian tradition, but building on different experiences and addressing new situations. Latin Amer-ican liberation theology has been a main impetus and an important

14 “The 20th century started late, in 1914, with the great confrontation betweencapitalism and socialism, and ended early, in 1989, with the toppling of theBerlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. The 21th century has begun with a confrontation between North and South, between capital and labor.” XabierGorostiaga, rector of Jesuit university Universidad Centroamericana in Man-agua, Nicaragua, and also president of the Regional Coordinator of Eco-nomic and Social Research (CRIES), in a speech to the Conference of theLatin America Sociology Association, in Havana, May 1991. See Gorostiaga 1991, 31-43; 31.

15 I have described and analysed some aspects of this world situation in thearticle Stålsett 1995a and in Stålsett 1995c. Gorostiaga, op. cit.: 35, comments:“It is revealing that precisely when ‘the end of history’ and the triumph of capitalism are being announced, the World Bank published its Report on World Development 1990: Poverty , in which it emphasized poverty as ‘the mostpressing question of the decade.’ The reality of a billion people throughoutthe world with less than a $370 annual income is not only shameful, it is

unsustainable.”


22/639

21

forerunner to these, providing inspiration as well as methodologicaland substantial guidance. But the formation and growth of these

new theologies has also implied criticism of “classic” liberation the-ology, pinpointing its deficiencies and shortcomings. As liberationtheology experiences a period of crisis and profound (self-)criticism,these new theologies – black, indigenous, feminist, etc. – may now return the favour. They can represent “injection of a new life” to lib-eration theology.17

All of these theologies, “old” and “new”, emerge from the mar-gins in opposition to the established centres of theological and

socio-political praxis and thought. They could therefore perhaps belabelled “barbaric” theologies.18 More important than the actualdesignation, however, is the rise of new theological subjects in theirown right, entailed and encouraged by these theologies, and more-over, by the new theological agenda that they propose. It is on thatagenda that the reality of “the crucified people” is introduced.

16 At the end of his “journey” through two hundred years of – predominantly European – theology, H. Berkhof notes that theology is becoming a moreinternational and pluralistic discipline: “However, Western theology willsoon lose its predominance. Buenos Aires, Lagos, Bangalore, and Tokyo (letus say) will play an equal role alongside Tübingen, Edinburgh, and Chicago.

Western theology will die in its Western-ness in order to rise again in global-ness. Pluralism will then be far more extensive. But this multiplicity will beheld together through numerous dialogic relationships within a framework of an essentially unified structure and method” Berkhof 1989. Cf. Ellacuría 1975b, 326 (2.4.): “La existencia del pluralismo teológico es un hechohistórico. Es asimismo una necesidad histórica.”

17 “Para la teología de la liberación las nuevas teologías, la negra, la indígena, y también la teología feminista, han aparecido a veces como una salvación, la inyección de una nueva vida” Comblin 1993, 55.

18 Dussel1981

,20

, compare, Dussel1985

, 14

.


23/639

22

[ 2 ] The crucified and the Crucified

As the present study will show, “the crucified people” is more thanan easy catch-word, or “merely” pious talk. It expresses nothing lessthan the theological significance of contemporary suffering, accord-ing to Jon Sobrino. In view of this suffering, the fundamental chal-lenges are: how to do theology when faced with the reality of “thecrucified peoples”? And: how can theology help to bring down thecrucified from the cross(es)? Responding to these questions,

Sobrino gives paramount significance to praxis. Faced with theimmense suffering of the poor and the excluded, theology musttake the shape of a re-action in mercy, he holds. The re-action isaction in order to remove the causes of suffering. It is thus praxis,understood as action and reflection on the world in order to trans-form it in a certain direction.19

Coming from one of the leading liberation theologians, theBasque-Salvadoran Jesuit Jon Sobrino’s contributions to christology,

ecclesiology, spirituality and fundamental theology have all evokedinterest and debates throughout the world-wide theological com-munity.20 However, the main part of Sobrino’s contribution so far isin the field of christology.21 He has elaborated a christology of fol-lowing and martyrdom which aims to be a contextual, Latin-Amer-ican response to the fundamental christological question: “Who doyou say I am?” (Mk 8:29, par.), at the same time aiming to serve the

liberation of the poor and the excluded in his country and conti-nent.22

19 I shall deal with the praxis-orientation of liberation theology in general andSobrino in particular in Chapter i [2] e) below.

20 Cf. the bibliography at the end of this study.21 His main christological works are Sobrino 1976 (English translation: Sobrino

1978a); Sobrino 1982a (English translation: Sobrino 1982b); and Sobrino1991

d (English translation: Sobrino1994

c ).


24/639

23

Perhaps the most novel suggestion in the christology of JonSobrino is exactly this inclusion of “the crucified people”, and the

importance he gives to it. This is a new theological concept – a theologoumenon 23 – , and although Sobrino was not the first to sug-gest it24, he is the first to integrate it into a complete christologicalframework. He even gives it a prominent place. The theologicalcontent and significance of the crucified people in Sobrino’s chris-tology are derived from its relation to the crucified Jesus, a relation-ship which Sobrino sees as a constitutive relatedness. This emphasison relatedness or relationality leaves a profound mark on Sobrino’s

theological reflection which has not been much highlighted in thereceptions and evaluations of it so far. It will be at the centre of ourattention in this inquiry.

The very move to give the abyss of contemporary suffering thename of the key Christian term “crucified” – be it in “the crucifiedpeople”, “the crucified reality”, or “the crucified in history” – raises a series of questions in itself. What is actually meant here by being

“crucified”? What linguistic status does such a naming have? Whoare to be considered “the crucified people”, “the crucified in his-

22 “Perhaps the most important question that has arisen in a new way withinChristology is the question of who Jesus is, and where he stands, in relationto the social, political, and economic issues of human history. Among thevarious “liberation theologies,” the question of where Jesus stands in relationto the suffering and hopes of the vast masses of oppressed and destitute peo-ples is central to Christology.” Hellwig 1992, 87.

23 According to E. Schillebeeckx, a theologoumenon means “[…] an interpreta-tion having (no more) than a theological value. But this unfamiliar word isused only when it is meant to imply that a theological interpretation (a) isused to be distinguished from a commonly recognized interpretation, nor-mative for faith, and (b) is also distinguishable from a historically verifiableaffirmation.” Schillebeeckx 1979, 752.

24 As we shall see, Sobrino adopts this idea from Ignacio Ellacuría. Cf. Ellacuría 1978

a.


25/639

24

tory”? Are they called so merely because they resemble Jesus in hissuffering and death, or because they in a more direct manner repre-

sent him or are identified with him? What light is shed on this real-ity of contemporary suffering by the life, suffering and death of Jesus? And vice versa : what light can this reality, these suffering human beings possibly provide in our continuous struggle with thefundamental christological questions of the ultimate significance of Jesus Christ and his relevance for humanity today? Does such nam-ing imply a levelling of Jesus and other victims or martyrs in his-tory, so that in the end he becomes little more than the exemplary

martyr? Or does it on the contrary imply that suffering people areelevated to the status of saviours? If that should be the case, would itbe of any help to those who suffer themselves?

Sobrino’s thinking on these matters has received world-wideattention. The number of studies and dissertations in this field isnow considerable, and rapidly increasing.25 My particular emphasisin the interpretation of Sobrino on this theme will be to see the cru-

cified people in constitutive relatedness 26

to the crucified Jesus in thefirst place, and to the mystery of God in the second place. This is, inmy view, an approach that does justice to Sobrino’s own intentions.In his christology this idea of constitutive relatedness plays animportant role.27 According to this view it is not something intrin-sic to an object or a person which defines what it, he or she is. Its,

25 I consider the dissertations of Martin Maier: Maier 1992, and Nancy Eliza-beth Bedford (under professor Jürgen Moltmann, Tübingen): Bedford 1993to be the most important. The colloquium in the Karl-Franzens University in Graz, in 1992, where Jon Sobrino and theologians from Eastern and West-ern Europe met to discuss Sobrino’s approach, is also of particular interest.The main contributions to this seminar are published in König and Larcher1992.

26 “Relacionalidad constitutiva”, cf. Sobrino 1976, xiii, xvi, 73; Sobrino 1978a,50

,60

,70

,73

. Compare Moltmann1974

, 11

.


26/639

25

her or his ontological status is decided in and through the relationsin which the object or person is embedded.28

Consequently, Sobrino holds that in order to answer the funda-mental christological question who Jesus is, it is necessary to analysethoroughly the relations in which Jesus finds himself, according tothe testimonies about him. And Sobrino does not remain satisfiedwith solely an analysis of Jesus’ transcendent trinitarian relatedness– often taken into account in christologies – but insists that thismust be complemented by an analysis of his historical relatedness,which is not so commonly explored.29 Indeed Sobrino holds that it

is the latter that makes it possible to gain knowledge of the former,not vice versa.

Sobrino’s christology, accordingly, is structured around such ananalysis, in that it first explores the historical Jesus in his relation tothe Kingdom of God and then his relation to God the Father. Thesetwo fundamental relations determine the identity, activity and ulti-mate historical fate of Jesus, according to Sobrino. But Jesus is also

embedded in a profound relation to his followers, which after hisdeath and resurrection becomes what might be defined as a trans-historical relation in the Spirit. When seen in the perspective of Jesus’ death on the cross, this historical constitutive relatedness

27 “Relation”: “An aspect or quality (as resemblance) that connects two or morethings or parts as being or belonging or working together or as being of thesame kind.” Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica 1995c.

28 In this new orientation, Sobrino is not alone. It is a dominant trend in con-temporary theology – and in other branches of science. Cf. e.g. McFague1987, 10: “In other words, relationships and relativity, as well as process andopenness, characterize reality as it is understood at present in all branches of science […] (I)ndividuals or entities always exist within structures of rela-tionship; process, change, transformation, and openness replace stasis,changelessness, and completeness as basic descriptive concepts.” See below,Chapter iv , [1] and [7]; Chapter vi, [7]; and Chapter viii, [3].

29 Sobrino1991

d,40

, et passim.


27/639

26

between Jesus and his followers becomes a relatedness between thecrucified Jesus and the crucified people, the Crucified and the cruci-

fied.I shall demonstrate that “the crucified people” (and synony-mous expressions) through its relatedness with “the crucified Jesus”attains an epistemological-hermeneutical, historical-soteriologicaland ethical-praxical role in Sobrino’s theology. “The crucified andthe Crucified” thus expresses several of the most central tenets andcharacteristic emphases presented by Latin American liberation the-ology 30, such as the experience of the unjust suffering of the poor

and oppressed and their need for liberation, the urgency to ‘histori- cise’ (historizar) the concept of Christian salvation, and the insist-ence on the hermeneutical significance of the location (lugar) andhistorical context of theology. In sum, I find in this formulation anoriginal and thought-provoking expression of the theological sig-

30 Should one speak of one or many liberation theologies? One of the fiercest

critics of liberation theology, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger writes: “The theol-ogy of liberation is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon. Any concept of liberation theology has to be able to span positions ranging from the radi-cally Marxist to those that stress necessary Christian responsibility towardthe poor and oppressed in the context of a sound ecclesiology, as did thedocuments of CELAM from Medellín to Puebla.” Ratzinger chooses to usethe concept of “liberation theology” in a more restricted sense, including only those theologians who, according to Ratzinger, “in some way haveespoused a Marxist fundamental option.” Ratzinger 1990 Juan Luis Seg-undo, on his part, analysed what he saw as the development of two distinctversions of Latin American liberation theology, in Segundo 1990. ChristianDuquoc prefers to speak of liberation theologies , Duquoc 1989, 7; while

Arthur McGovern (McGovern 1989) opts to “treat liberation theology as one movement, and liberation theologians as one group”, p. xv. Although it iscorrect that “liberation theology” entails different currents and perspectives,I do not find any strong reasons for not using the singular for my purposeshere. There is a sufficient common ground and history to continue to speak

of “Latin American liberation theology” in general. Cf. Chapteri. below.


28/639


29/639

28

foreign policy.33 Although these attacks have had their effects,34 it isnot primarily because of them that liberation theology is in crisis. It

is rather something intrinsic to liberation theological method itself which now causes it to pass through a profound period of trial.Liberation theologians insist that theology should relate to con-

crete historical reality in a specific social and political setting. Andthey have underscored the dynamism of human history: the histori-

32 The Vatican, through its Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith presided by Cardinal Ratzinger, has issued two authoritative documents on liberation

theology in general. The first and more critical one, was the “Instruction onCertain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation’” issued the sixth of August,1984. Its purpose was “to draw the attention of pastors, theologians, and allthe faithful to the deviations and risks of deviation, damaging to faith and toChristian living that are brought about by certain forms of liberation theol-ogy which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed fromvarious currents of Marxist thought.” (From the introduction., p. 394 inCongregation 1990a). The second one came close to two years later, i. e.March 22, 1986 Congregation 1990b. It was a much more nuanced and con-

structive response, although not taking back the stern warnings of the firstinstruction: “Far from being outmoded, these warnings appear ever moretimely and relevant.”, paragraph 1, in op. cit ., 462 For a commentary onthese statements and their reception, see i.a. Nordstokke 1996, 250- 256, andMcGovern 1989, 15- 19. Ignacio Ellacuría’s response to the first “Instruction[…]” is of particular interest, see Ellacuría 1984b.

33 Cf. particularly the so-called Santa Fe documents, issued by the pro-Reaganthink tanks such as the Santa Fe- committee and Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD). Liberation theology was soon singled out as a threat toU.S. national security. The first Santa Fe- document, from 1980, stated that“U.S. policy must begin to counter (not react against) liberation theology asit is utilized in Latin America by the ‘liberation theology’ clergy.” Quotedfrom Berrymann 1987, 3.

34 The following observation made by one of the veterans among the liberationtheologians, José Comblin, is indeed noteworthy: “En los seminarios y en lasescuelas de teología, la prohibición de siquiera mencionar la teología de la liberación es tan fuerte que las nuevas generaciones de seminaristas y estudi-

antes religiosos la ignoran totalmente.” Comblin1993

,50

.


30/639

29

cal situation and course of events change and can be changed. The-ology is an act of reflection within this process of historical

transformation.This is exactly what has happened, then: in Latin America, as inthe world at large, the historical situation has changed, and changeddrastically. The Nicaraguan Jesuit and leading social scientist XabierGorostiaga spoke in 1991 of a “crucible of Copernican changes,greater than those seen in the 1914-1917 period.”35 In Latin America,these changes come in “times of cholera”,36 he continues, thus refer-ring to the depth of the economic and political crisis facing this

continent.Economically, there is broad agreement in that the 1980’s was a

“lost decade” for Latin America. In this period Latin America decreased its participation in the international market from 7% to4%, at the same time as foreign investment stock dropped from12,3% in 1980 to 5,8% in 1989. The UN Economic Commission onLatin America (ECLA) estimates that the number of people living

in poverty in the region increased from 112 to 184 million people inthe same period.37 Gorostiaga’s conclusion is that “Latin America’sfinancial and productive debacle in the 1980’s could be compared tothe worst years of colonial pillage.”38 Another leading analyst, Jorge

35 Gorostiaga 1991, 31.36 This expression is a play of words in Spanish. Cólera refers to the epidemic

disease which, after having been eradicated from the continent, re-ocurred atthe end of the 80’s in the slums and poor communities of several countries inLatin America, in the opinion of many due to the increasing poverty partic-ularly among the urban masses as a result of the austere “structural adjust-ment” economic policies that were pursued all over the continent. At thesame time, cólera means rage or extreme anger. The expression is, of course,also a reference to Gabriel García Márquez’ novel Love in the Times of Chol- era .

37 Gorostiaga 1991, 33.

38 Ibid .


31/639

30

Castañeda, calls this the “worst economic and social crisis since theDepression.”39 If it were not for illegal drug exports, emigration,

and an income-reducing but shock-absorbing informal economy,Castañeda believes, the outcome would have been far more tragic.40

Increasing poverty is – sadly – not at all a new phenomenon inLatin America. What is new, however, is the character of this pov-erty, and the political and ideological climate within which itoccurs. Analysing the socio-political transformations in Latin America between 1972 and 1992, Manuel Antonio Garretón, likemany other observers, highlights a positive development too: the

profound process of democratisation that the continent has gonethrough.41 Today practically all Latin American countries havelegally constituted and democratically elected governments, a factnot many would have dared to predict just a decade ago. But thisprocess has not been accompanied to the same extent by a socialand economic democratisation.42

Two lessons from the last two decades are crucial for appreciat-

ing the complexity of the current situation, according to Gar-retón.43 Firstly, that those visions which held that growth anddevelopment in and by themselves would secure a social changetowards more equity, democracy and social integration have failed.In order to achieve this, some kind of conscious redistributiveaction is indispensable. And secondly, that those political modelswhich implied redistribution by way of revolution have failed. Where this was tried, the result was generally that those who origi-

39 Castañeda 1993, 5. Castañeda’s figures are even more negative: “In 1980, 120million Latin Americans, or 39% of the area’s population, lived in poverty;by 1985 the number had grown to 160-170 million; toward the end of thedecade it was estimated at the apalling figure of 240 million.” Op. cit., 5-6.

40 Op. cit., 6.41 Garretón 1993.42 Op. cit., 23.

43 Op. cit.,18.


32/639

31

nally held political, military and economical power, the defendersof the status quo, in the long run triumphed, so that the situation

got worse than at the outset. The major challenge in Latin America in the 1990’s then, according to this analysis, is to implement a social change which implies a redistribution of power and wealth,but to do so by way of democratic means. This means that whileseeking formulas that do not exclude conflicts, the main solutionswill have to be found within the established legal and institutionalframework, relying on some basic social consensus.44 Castañeda comes to a similar conclusion. He too speaks of the “recurrent Latin

American – and almost universal – aspiration for squaring the cir-cle: how to combine change with continuity, social justice with eco-

44 Op. cit., 18. See also the interesting passage on pages 24-25: “Estamos, asílejos del ideologismo revolucionario o contrarrevolucionario que suponía elfin de las contradicciones a partir de una lucha por el poder para resolver la

‘contradicción principal’, la que automáticamente resolvía las otras. […](E)stamos también lejos del ideologismo reaccionario que afirma el fin de la historia y de las acciones colectivos por el mejoramiento de las condicionesde la vida individual y social. No han desaparecido las viejas luchas por la igualdad, la libertad y la independencia e identidad nacionales. Pero ahora tales luchas se complejifican, tecnifican, autonomizan, y no se dejan identi-ficar con sistemas ideológicos monolíticos; y además se une a ellas la lucha por la expansión de la subjetividad, por la felicidad y la autoafirmación, quedejan de ser monopólio de los sectores socio-económicos priveligiados. La principal conclusión es que ya no puede pensarse en un sujeto único de la historia porque cada uno de estos procesos y dimensiones de la vida socialreconoce sujetos y actores diferentes que a veces pueden incluso encontrarseen bandos contrarios en algunas de estas dimensiones. Ello implica, además,que el repertorio de las formas de acción colectiva heredado de la matrizclásica es insuficiente y entra en cuestión aunque no puede ni debe ser elimi-nado en la medida que no se resolvieron las contradicciones del pasado. Laspuras luchas antagónicas deben ser combinadas con búsquedas de consensos

básicos.”


33/639

32

nomic growth, representative democracy with effective govern-ance.”45

The principal distinguishing mark of liberation theology is anoption for the poor and for their liberation. But within the new panorama of Latin America the character of the poverty of the poorhas changed. Perhaps this change may briefly be formulated thus:the poor are no longer primarily oppressed and exploited, but ratherexcluded, dismissed and forgotten. They are the “left overs” of the“neo”-liberal market economies. This means that the strategies forliberation, for the overcoming of this poverty and situation of suf-

fering and indignity, must change too. What does “liberation” meanin this new context?

Furthermore, the new situation includes a new awareness of thepluriformity of the poor. The poor are many – and they may evenhave conflicting interests. The general term “poor” conceals a myr-iad of distinctions – cultural, political, racial, sexual… Who are “thepoor”, then?

Liberation theology has opted for the poor, but the poor seemto opt for popular Protestantism. The rapid growth of Pentecostalmovements is the major religious phenomenon in Latin America today.46 Although statistics are uncertain, it has been stated that400 Latin American Catholics convert to a Protestant confessionevery hour, i.e. 3,5 million persons a year.47 Between 1981 and 1987the Protestant Churches doubled their membership, reaching a total of about 50 million members.48 Given that the growth pre-

45 Castañeda 1993, 129.46 I have discussed this phenomenon and the challenge it represents for libera-

tion theology more extensively in Stålsett 1995d. The bibliography on thisphenomenon is growing rapidly. See Kirkpatrick 1988, Cook 1994, Martin1990 Stoll 1990. See also Alvarez 1992, Boudewijnse 1991, Damen 1991, andSjørup 1995. An older study is Willems 1967.

47 Damen 1991, 423.

48 Keen1992

,563

.


34/639

33

dominantly takes place among the poor segments of the popula-tion,49 it represents a particular challenge to liberation theology.

What is behind this phenomenon? What may its consequences be?In this matter, liberation theology seems to be moving from a posi-tion of neglect and superficial rejection to a more nuanced analysis. Among the self-critical questions particularly relevant to liberationtheology in this connection is the following: Where is the true“church of the poor” to be found?

These developments have put liberation theology to the test: isit still a liberating theology for the poor of Latin America, and else-

where? Criticisms and self-criticisms abound.50 However, as Chris-tian theologians know well, times of crisis and trial aresimultaneously times of new possibilities. What future for libera-tion theology then: will it stand the test? Through our reflection onSobrino’s expression “the crucified people”, or “the crucified in his-tory”, and its constitutive relationship to the crucified Jesus Christ –the crucified and the Crucified – as a representative and central

tenet of liberation theology, we shall join in this discussion on thevalidity and relevance of this particular strand in contemporary the-ology at the turn of the millennium.

I hope to show that the focus chosen for this study will be par-ticularly fruitful in view of the present situation of crisis and oppor-tunities. For, in spite of all the changes, one thing is for certain: thereality of suffering has not disappeared from the Latin Americancontinent. Neither has the need for real freedom, justice, and life

with dignity for the masses. In view of the “new” situation – inwhich everything has changed, but all is the same – Jon Sobrinoproposes that liberation theology should move from being “merely”a theology of liberation to becoming a “theology of liberation andmartyrdom”.51 It is obvious to him then, that the crucified people,the “martyr people”, have not lost their primary human impor-

49 See i.a. Escobar1994

,131

, Sjørup1995

.


35/639

34

tance, nor their theological significance. We shall accordingly approach the reality and theological significance of the crucified

people within this “new”, old situation of exclusion and oppression– prevalent not only in Latin America, but throughout the entireglobe.

50 In addition to the two “Instructions” issued by the Congregation for theDoctrine of the Faith, two other documents from this influential body should be mentioned, namely the “Ten Observations on the Theology of Gustavo Gutiérrez” (from March 1983), Congregation 1990d, and the “noti-fication” sent to Leonardo Boff in March 1985: Congregation 1990c. Otherselected works critical of liberation theology: Sigmund 1990, Chow 1992,Novak 1988, Gutierrez 1977, Ibánez Langlois 1989, Nash 1984 (contains a

helpful bibliography, pp. 249-255), Kloppenburg 1974. For an overview andmore nuanced assessment of the criticisms and responses, see McGovern1989. See also Aruj 1984, Forrester 1994, Nickoloff 1992, Duquoc 1989,Mahan and Richesin 1981, Cunningham 1994, Ogden 1989, Bigo 1992,Libânio 1989. Noteworthy self-criticisms and -assessments are found in Ass-mann 1994b, Assmann 1995, Richard 1991 (English version: Richard 1994),Comblin, González Faus, and Sobrino 1993, Duque 1996. Garretón, op. cit.,28, concludes that liberation theology in view of this new situation shouldabandon the following four “traditional” views: 1) a certain economicalstructuralism which tended to see all social conflicts as rooted in the eco-nomical sphere; 2) the vision of a unified historical subject: the victims of oppression; 3) the identification of the utopia of liberation with a revolution-ary methodology or model, and a relative negligence of an appropriate the-ory of representation and institutional mediation; and 4) a vision of civilsociety, everyday life, subjectivity, modernity and modernization which wasidentified – except in what concerned the social struggle against oppression– with traditional Catholic thought.

51 Sobrino1993

c.


36/639

35

[ 4 ] Purpose and Plan of Study

I intend in other words to discuss Sobrino’s proposal that we see therelationship between the crucified people and the Crucified Jesus asa key expression of the theological significance of contemporary suf-fering. “Theological significance” will here be taken in its doubleaspect, meaning both significance in theology and significance to theology.

I shall begin by examining Jon Sobrino’s point of departure for

doing theology, viz. the historical and theological context, back-ground and preconditions which mould his theological praxis(Chapter i). Then I will be ready to take an initial closer look at themain concept of the study, namely “the crucified people(s)” (Chap-ter ii). When the development and relative novelty of this theme inSobrino have been analysed and discussed, it will prove necessary toexamine its internal function in his christology. As it stands in this“constitutive relationship” with the crucified Jesus, I must examine

more thoroughly Sobrino’s interpretation of Jesus, and more pre-cisely, the salvific meaning of his life and death. Before undertaking this examination, however, one must take due account of the histor-ical context of christological reflection in Latin America (Chapteriii). An adequate interpretation presupposes that we set Sobrino’schristology of liberation against the background of the diverse“christologies” of domination and conquest that have been com-

mon on the continent.My exploration of Sobrino’s Jesus-interpretation will then bedone in three steps. Firstly, we shall see how Sobrino interprets Jesus’ life as salvific, or in historical terms, how Jesus can be legiti-mately claimed to be a liberator (Chapter iv ). When I re-read thehistory of the life of Jesus with Sobrino, considerable weight will begiven to the increasing conflict in which Jesus becomes part. Thisconflict is due to the very structure of reality, Sobrino contends, a


37/639

36

structure which he furthermore holds to be the same now as it wasin the time of Jesus. We are accordingly at the very root of the

(christological and soteriological) problem when we examine thecauses for this crucifying conflict (Chapter v ). Sobrino sees reality assubject to a struggle between antagonistic and absolutely incompat-ible forces: the God of life and the idols of death. This chapter, atthe centre of my study, also marks something of a turning point init. My contention is that in Sobrino’s theology, this struggle at thefoundations of reality is the ultimate explanatory ground andframework. It is the root of the problem. However, it may also be

seen as a problem in Sobrino’s thinking. Exposing the difficultiesthat it raises, and how they might be overcome, will thus be animportant task.

I will then continue with the culmination in history of thatconflict, through an interpretation of Jesus’ salvific death, in orderto understand how the terrible reality of contemporary crucifixionsmight possibly be accorded salvific significance by Sobrino (Chap-

ter vi).The death of Jesus sharply poses the question if and how suffer-ing affects God-self (Chapter vii). As already indicated, “the cruci-fied people” is a further development of the concept of a crucifiedGod, actualised by Moltmann. Understanding the relationshipbetween the crucified and the Crucified in Sobrino will thereforealso have to include this perspective of God’s suffering and death. We shall see that the particular emphasis and novelty of Sobrino’s

treatment of this controversial theme poses the question of God’srelation to human suffering from the perspective of a “crucifiedpeople”.

At this point, then, I will be ready to return to my point of departure, for a final discussion and assessment of the theologicalsignificance of contemporary suffering as it is expressed in the term“the crucified people(s)” (Chapter viii). I shall do so by presenting a


38/639

37

series of thirteen theses resulting from my critical discussion withSobrino’s proposals. The theses concern both what these proposals,

when read from my vantage-point, may signify in terms of theolog-ical content (i.e. systematic theology or dogmatics), and what they may signify in terms of method (i.e. fundamental theology). Thus Iwill apply the critical insights gained through this study in Sobrino’swritings in making some more comprehensive – although tentativeand suggestive – elaborations of a basic theme underlying thisstudy: What is an adequate strategy and method for Christian the-ology in our time? I shall return to the challenges to theology of suf-

fering and praxis.Everything concerning the relationship between the crucified

and the Crucified throughout the study is said under the presuppo-sition of the Christian faith in the resurrection of Jesus. Yet the res-urrection will not be made an explicit object of study, nor will itplay any primary role in the interpretation of this main relationship.The reasons for this are both substantial and practical, as I shall

make clear. Before ending my study, however, I shall briefly con-sider what particular light faith in the resurrection sheds on the real-ity and symbol of the crucified peoples, and vice versa – what thiscontemporary suffering implies for Christian faith in the resurrec-tion (Postscript).

Finally, some words on the spirit in which this investigation isundertaken. Although Sobrino’s theology is a consciously contex-tual theology, this study is written under the expectation and prior

understanding that “contextual” does not mean some sort of regionalism closed in on itself, nor some sort of sectarianism,expressing a dialogue into which only the carefully elected sectmembers are permitted to join.

On the contrary, by undertaking this examination I acceptLatin American liberation theology as an invitation to an open,cross-cultural, ecumenical conversation, built on the premises of


39/639

38

respectful interchange and “mutual accountability.”52 I am quiteaware of the differences between the theological and cultural tradi-

tions and real-life situations out of which Jon Sobrino reflects theo-logically and those of my own; although I have lived and worked inEl Salvador and elsewhere in Latin America myself, these differenceswill not be wiped out. The awareness of these differences gives riseto a certain caution and humility with regard to my own findingsand assessments, particularly when bearing in mind the atrocities of war and repression that Jon Sobrino and his colleagues have had toface daily for decades now, and which appear infinitely distant and

nearly unimaginable from the calmness and security of a NorthernEuropean University.

Nevertheless, no mutually respectful conversation can endurewithout an honest encounter in which all parties are permitted tospeak from their own vantage-point, with plenty of room for bothagreement and disagreement. In such a conversation, I hope andexpect that these differences – when consciously admitted – may

prove fruitful, at the very least by preventing our theological dis-course and praxis from being just “more of the same”, and thus diethe death of futility and boredom.

My aim here is not primarily to detect what I may find to beweaknesses or lay bare possible flaws in Sobrino’s liberation christol-ogy. To the extent that this will be done, it will be subsumed underwhat I see as the more important and fruitful undertaking: toexplore the possibilities which may be opened up through Sobrino’s

reading of the tragic situation of contemporary suffering in the lightof the Christian witness of Jesus; and vice versa . I shall try to reflect

52 Cf. Bonino 1993a, and various recent ecumenical documents, such as e.g. the“Message” from The Fifth World Conference of Faith and Order in Santiagode Compostela 1993: “Unity today calls for structures of mutual accountabil-

ity” (Paragraph9), in Best

1994,227

. See also Stålsett1993

.


40/639

39

on and with Sobrino’s proposals, even if this may lead me to reflect-ing against them, in part or in toto.

With a clear awareness of the contextuality of all theologicalreflection, then, this study does not in any way pretend to present a “universal” or “neutral” assessment of Sobrino, or of liberation the-ology in general. Rather, this study is undertaken with a determinedand ultimately quite practical purpose: to contribute to an interpre-tation of Christian faith which is attentive to, responsible vis-à-vis,and empowering in the real lives and struggles of the many who areexcluded and victimised in our communities, and on our planet, on

the brink of the millennium. In so doing, it wishes to pay respect tothe memory and legacy of Mgr Oscar Arnulfo Romero and IgnacioEllacuría, who were pioneers in theologically reflecting the reality of crucified peoples, committing themselves to their cause to the pointof joining in their martyrdom.


41/639

40


42/639

41

i. Theology in a Crucified Reality Point of Departure and Fundamental Presuppositions

Vivir en la realidad crucificada de América Latina, aceptada como es y no sofo- carla con nada es el primer paso para qualquier conocimiento teológico.1

Theology today ought to relate primarily to the concrete, historicalreality in which it is embedded. This basic contention of Latin American theology of liberation plays a fundamental role in JonSobrino’s theological writings, both a priori and de facto . To under-stand the theological significance of contemporary suffering as itcomes to expression through the centrality of the term “the cruci-fied people” in Sobrino’s christology, it is therefore necessary toexamine how this premise works. In other words, in this chapter ishall consider the point of departure and fundamental presupposi-

tions of Jon Sobrino’s theological endeavour. First of all, we turn tothe more immediate and personal context of Sobrino’s theology.

[ 1 ] Foundational Experience:Siding with the Poor in El Salvador 2

Why has this term, “the crucified people”, become so important toSobrino? The most obvious reason – not always taken into accountin theological analyses – is to be found in Sobrino’s personal andcommunal experience. The recent history of the church and peopleof El Salvador in general, and of the Jesuit community to which

1 Sobrino1982

a,78

.


43/639

42

Sobrino belongs in particular, conveys the immediate explanationwhy Sobrino finds it necessary to speak of a “crucified reality”.3

This history is well known and has been widely documented.4

It has been a history of suffering; a history of structural injusticethrough generations, resulting in civil war, with all its bitter conse-quences: persecution, disappearances, assassinations, massacres…More than 75,000 people were killed during the civil war in El Sal-vador between 1980 and 1992. Churches and church-membersworking with the poor and committing themselves to their causehad more than their share of these sufferings.5 The Jesuit University

in San Salvador, Universidad Centroamericana “José Simeón Cañas”,under the guidance of its rector Ignacio Ellacuría, made an explicitoption for the poor and marginalised in El Salvador early in the70’s. Ellacuría wanted to use the resources of the university in the

2 Roberto Oliveros uses the expression ‘foundational experience’ to describethe original experience and intuition of liberation theology: “Cuál es la expe-

riencia fundante de la teología de la liberación? […] Cuál fue la experiencia eintuición originales de las que brota la teología de la liberación? No fue otra que la experiencia cotidiana de la injusta pobreza en que son obligados a vivir millones de hermanos latinoamericanos.” Oliveros 1991, 18. Cf., e.g.Hennelly 1990, xix: “By far the most important background experience of liberation theology is the widespread experience of poverty, the impoverish-ment of many millions of persons because of domestic and foreign socio-economic systems.”

3 Sobrino 1992b, 7. “[…] la realidad crucificada del Tercer Mundo, ante la cualhay que reaccionar, hoy como ayer […]”.

4 See, i.a.: Anonymous 1982; Gispert Sauch de Borell 1990; Lernoux 1982;Vigil 1994; Vigil 1987c; Danner 1994; Vigil 1987b; Vigil 1987a; Hassett andLacey 1991; Carranza 1992; Romero 1989; Gómez 1993; Gómez 1992; Wright1994, Berrymann 1994, 63-106, United Nations 1993, and Stålsett 1994a.

5 See Anonymous 1982. Sobrino often takes this particular experience of theSalvadoran church(es) as his point of departure, see i.a., Sobrino 1986, 171-203, and 243-260; Sobrino 1987a, 109-125 and 185-188; Sobrino 1989c;

Sobrino1989

e; Sobrino1990

a; and Sobrino1993

a.


44/639

43

struggle for a more just and humane society. He and his staff oftentook controversial and brave stands during the years of conflict.

Accordingly, UCA – its leadership, staff and students alike – was theobject of harsh criticisms and attacks from the authorities and sec-tors loyal to the regime, even to the point of violent persecution.6

Among all the difficult moments Sobrino has lived throughduring these years, there are two that have left particularly profoundmarks on his theological work. The first one was the assassination of Archbishop Oscar A. Romero. The Jesuits at the UCA, and espe-cially Ellacuría and Sobrino, had become close co-workers with the

Archbishop during his years of ministry. Romero’s pastoral commit-ment, willingness to change, spiritual strength and charismatic per-sonality impressed Sobrino profoundly.7

The second horrifying incident was the killing of his colleagues– six Jesuit priests, amongst them Ignacio Ellacuría, together withtheir housekeeper and her daughter – at the UCA’s Pastoral Centre,the fifteenth of November, 1989. They were all cold-bloodedly mas-

sacred by an “elite” battalion of the Salvadoran Armed Forces.8

JonSobrino was abroad when it happened, while a colleague who hadborrowed his room in his absence, was shot dead.9 Thus Sobrinolost his brothers and colleagues, and escaped himself by chance. Inparticular, the loss of Ellacuría, whom he admired and with whom

6 See Ellacuría 1993c.7 Sobrino untiringly remembers Romero in his writings. In Sobrino’s opinion,

“Mons. Romero representa un ejemplo preclaro y actual de cómo unificarpráxis de liberación eficaz y espíritu de las bienaventuranzas.” Sobrino 1982a,192, n.8. Cf. i.a. Sobrino 1981b; Sobrino 1989e; Sobrino 1990c; et passim .

8 Those who were killed, were: Ignacio Ellacuría, Ignacio Martín-Baró, Amando López, Juan Ramón Moreno, Segundo Montes, Joaquín López y López, Julia Elba Ramos and her daughter, Celina Mariceth Ramos. SeeUnited Nations 1993; Doggett 1994.

9 Sobrino’s own reflections on this tragedy can be found in Sobrino 1989b /

Sobrino1990

a; cf. Sobrino1992

b,249

-267

.


45/639

44

he had a long-standing and mutually inspiring theological co-oper-ation, has been hard on Sobrino. As will become clear in this study,

Sobrino is avowedly dependent on Ellacuría’s theological and philo-sophical works in matters both methodological and substantial.10

[ 2 ] Theology in a Crucified Reality: Fundamental Presuppositions

These traumatic personal experiences, in which Jon Sobrino’s theo-logical reflection is profoundly rooted, are thus experiences of suf-fering in the midst of an active attempt to transform reality by contributing to the removal of what is seen as the root causes of general injustice, violence and suffering in El Salvador. In otherwords, they are concrete experiences of suffering which issue in a determined praxis . Sobrino has repeatedly reflected on these experi-

ences and their effect on his theological labor. This has added a strong personal and emotive tone to his theological writings, giving them a notable existential and spiritual character. But they have alsoaffected the main thrust and content of his theology. Drawing onthese experiences, Sobrino’s reflections on doing theology “in a cru-cified reality” contain at least seven fundamental presuppositions.

10 Ignacio Ellacuría, born in Portugalete, Vizcaya (Spain) on the 9th of Novem-ber 1930, came to be the most influential reference person to Jon Sobrino.The two had much in common: They were both Jesuits of Basque origin,nationalized Salvadorans and fully dedicated to contributing to the libera-tion of the poor in their capacity as theologians, scholars and priests. Ella-curía was the older, and Sobrino learned to value him highly, both as a colleague and as a friend. See Sobrino 1994a and Sobrino 1994b. MartinMaier calls their collaboration: “ein Modell theologischer Kooperation”,

Maier1992

,24

.


46/639

45

In all of these, it is obvious that Sobrino is a representative of theLatin American theology of liberation. Furthermore, the profound

influence from Ellacuría on Sobrino shows through.

a) To be Honest about Reality

First of all, Sobrino stresses what he simply calls “honradez con lo real” – honesty about what is real.11 Doing theology today requiresan act of honesty vis-à-vis the concrete reality in which the theolog-

ical endeavour takes place. This honesty about the truth of reality not only refers to a mere recording of facts or an overcoming of ignorance, but is moreover “a positive act of the spirit to get toknow the truth of things against the inherent tendency to oppressit”. Gaining knowledge is a matter of triumphing against lie. Since“suppressing the truth with injustice” – in Paul’s words – is a pri-mary expression of the sinfulness of humanity, it is necessary for thetheologian to take seriously this tendency to manipulate truth, andbe willing to change. At the root of any Christian endeavour,including theology, lies the need for conversion. And conversionmeans a change not just of mind, but also of eyes and heart.12 Thenew eyes are needed to be able to see the truth of reality .13

In order to have an opinion about what the truth of reality is,one must have at least a preliminary understanding of what ismeant by “reality”. Even though this philosophical topos of great

11 Sobrino 1992c, cf also Sobrino 1987a, 23-33; Sobrino 1992b, 64; et passim.12 Cf. the Ignatian tradition of “application of the senses”, to which I shall

return below, see Chapter i, [3].13 Sobrino 1992b, 16-19. By this, Sobrino introduces particular conditions into

the very act of cognisance. And he frames these conditions in Christian the-ological concepts; conversion, sin, etc. This immediately raises some difficultissues regarding the status of theological knowledge vis-à-vis other branches

of human knowledge. I shall return to this below.


47/639

46

importance is such a fundamental concept in Sobrino’s theology, hehas not yet undertaken a profound analysis of it in his writings. But

at least two things can be said of his understanding of “reality”.First, he shares liberation theology’s general critique of what itsees as the prevalent idealism in the more traditional, Western theo-logical methods. In accordance with Gustavo Gutiérrez, who deemsit necessary to “salvage our understanding of the faith from allforms of idealism”14, because they are nothing but “forms of evad-ing a cruel reality”15, Sobrino criticises modern European theology for attempting to solve real problems on an ideal level. In an impor-

tant article on theological method, he claims that modern Europeantheology sees its main task and liberative potential mainly as giving new meaning to faith, or regaining its lost meaning.16 Thus itbecomes “ideological”, not only because it hinders liberative solu-tions to the problems of reality, but because it covers up the realproblems, by presupposing that they can be solved through expla-nation and the giving of meaning. It covers up the “real misery of

reality” with a “partial liberation through theological discourse”, asif Christian liberation in principle could co-exist with a reality which is not liberated.17

Second, this critique of idealism leads Sobrino to opt for an“open” or “transcendental realism” to which he ultimately gives a christological foundation:

If Christ is like this, then reality too can be understood as the presence of

transcendence in history, each with the proper identity and autonomy, with-

14 “It is in deeds, not simply in affirmations, that we salvage our understanding of the faith from all forms of idealism.” Gutiérrez 1980, 22.

15 Gutiérrez 1984, 69: “Se evitará así caer, sea en posiciones idealistas o espiritu-alistas que no son sino formas de evadir una realidad cruda y exigente; sea enanálisis carentes de profundidad y, por lo tanto, en comportamientos de efi-cacia a corto plazo, so pretexto de atender a las urgencias del presente.”

16 Sobrino1975

a. This article was later published in Sobrino1986

,15

-47

.


48/639

47

out mixture or separation, by which I mean without the reductionisms thatimpoverish both. 18

This sacramental view of reality clearly goes back to Karl Rahner’screative reformulation of the thomistic legacy (transcendentalThomism) in Catholic theology.19 But it also draws on Ellacuría’sreception and application of the “open realism” of his philosophicalteacher, the Spanish philosopher Xabier Zubiri.20

17 “Sin minimizar lo auténtico del interés liberador de la teología europea hay que preguntarse sin embargo 1) si el carácter liberador del conocimientoteológico así entendido hace justicia a la liberación cr

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ronald-wilson
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

[Sturla_J._stalsett]the Crucified and the Crucified - A Study in the Liberation Christology of Jon...

Documents