ENTIETH-CE! #0 Bulyeu ayy (oun ae Vane) GUTIERRED essential writings‘THE MAKING OF MODERN THEOLOGY NINETEENTH. AND ‘TWENTIETH-CENTURY TEXTS “This majo series of checlgical tex is designed oinoduce a now gone jon of eades—cheologial stadents,sudens of telgion, profesional in tinny, an he imereted genes readeo=—to the wastings oF thse Chis ‘an eheclojzns who, since the begining ofthe nintenth contr have bad formative fluence on the development of Chiian ecology. ‘echvolumein theses isineoded co inzeduce the theologan, wowace she emergecce oF key seminal ides and ings partculaly within hee al context. and 19 show ow hey ave nerd wo the rmakiag of moder thaoogy. The primary way in which thsi done is by allowing de thelegians chosen vo addes ws in dee own toes Th shor: biograpy ofthe theologian, and an overview of his or her theology i> ‘sacon tothe tents which have ben selected fr sud, The Selected Text, ‘he bli ofeach volume, consi gly of saben eed selene fom the theoogian’s writings. Each cere alo inwodsced with information hours niin and its sgnfeance The guiding mle in aking the eletion (oF tents as Ben the question: In what way has tis patil thelogian ihaed eo the shaping of contemporary caslogy? A Selec Bibliography provides guidance for thooe whe wish wo red further boc nthe pimary le in Seondary sou Sete eo Jon W. de Gracy is Profesor of Christin Studies tthe Univesity of Cape Town, South Aiea, He is the author of many wok including Chaeh Sra n Soh Ain and Theology and Mir in Co text and Cris social and bist te thre section to each volune, The Ingodution incl ‘Volumes in this series Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology Rudolf Bultmann: Insepreing Feith for she Mader Era Peal Tilich: Theologian ofthe Boundaries Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Witmes to Jesus Christ Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom Reinhold Niebubr: Theologian af Public Life Karl Rabner: Theologian ofthe Graced Search for Meaning Gustave Gusiérres: Euensial WritingsGustavo Gutiérrez THE MAKING OF MODERN THEOLOGY Ninteenth- and Twensieth-Century Texts General Editor: Jobn W. de Gruchy GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ Essential Writings JAMES B. NICKOLOFF Editor Fortress Press Minneapolis645-068 GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ Essential Writings ‘The Making of Modern Theology series Firs Fortress Pres edition 1996, Published in cooperation with Orbis Books. Copyright © 1996 Orbis Books, All rights reserved, Excepe for brief quotations inertial stiles ‘oF reviews, no part of ths book may be scproduced in any manne: without prior wrt, ‘en petmission fiom che publishers. For permissions write £0 Orbis Books, 20. Box 308, Maryknall, NY 10545.0308 US.A, Cover design: Neit Churcher Covet photo: Courtesy of La Repadlise Lima, Peru Libraty of Congress Cataloging-in-Publicacion Data Gest, Gara, 1928 [Scene Eogit, 1996 Postal wigs Goa Gute + lied by Jars B Nickola Ie Foes Prose ct (The makingof maen cea Includes bibliographical references. a ISBN O-6-340-8 a open 1 Lierton selgys 2 Thal, Do Jane Tie Ut ec BTe.S7c aoe wl. 1, Nickoloff 96-34 cp ‘The paper used in this publication meecs the minimum requirements of Am Nacional Seandard for Information Sei Materials, ANSI 2329.48 (984, ces—Petmanence of Paper for Printed Library Manofictused in the U.S.A AP 13409 O00 99 98 97 1 2 3 6 5 O78 9 CONTENTS PREFACE AND EDITOR'S NOTE INTRODUCTION SELECTED TEXTS One Toward a New Method: ‘Theology and Liberation 1. Toward a Theology of Liberation 2. Theology and Liberation 3. Theology: A Critical Reflection 4. The Limitations of Modern Theology: On a Letcer of Dietrich Bonhoeffer 5. Theology and the Social Sciences 6. Revelation and Theological Method 7. Truth and Theology 8, Understanding the God of Life 9. Theological Language: Fullness of Silence 10, Upstream to the Source ‘Two Hermeneutical Principle Preferential Option for the Poor 11, History Is One 12, Encountering God in History 13. The Historical Power of the Poor 14, In a Foreign Land 15. The Evangelizing Potential of the Poor 16. Conflice in History 17. The Suffering of Others 18. The God Who Comes 19, Preferential Option for the Poor 20. God’s Memory 23 2B 28 30 35 9 53 60 6 a 78 9 3 95 108 nM ns 2 127 3 146Three Four Five Six CONTENTS The Gratuitousness and Exigence of Love 21, Conversion to the Neighbor 22, Freedom as a Gilt and Task at Puebla 23. Free to Love 24, The Church of che Beatitudes 25, Gratuitousness and the Freedom of God's Love 26. The Kingdom Is at Hand 27. Between Gift and Demand 28, The Way of Works Rethinking Soteriology: Liberation, Freedom, and Communion 29. The Process of Liberation 30. Chaise the Liberator 31. Eschatology and Polities 32, Jesus and the Political World 33. The Path of Liberation Liberating Evangelization: Church of the Poor 34. Creating a New Eeclesial Presence 35. The Church: Sacrament of History 36, Communiey: Out of Solitude 37. The Liberating Mission of the Church 38. Theology: An Eeclesial Function 39. Shame 40. “And They Said They Would See to Ie...” Discipleship ‘Walking according to the Spirit 41, A Spicieuaicy of Liberation :2. Poverty: Solidaricy and Protest 43. Encounter with the Lord . “L Will Not Restrain My Tongue” 45, John of the Cross: A Latin American View 46. Pastor and Witness Notes to she Introduction SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Tades 149 49 156 159 162 165 172 75 77 184 184 194 197 206 au 236 236 242 254 259 269 276 281 286 286 291 302 3 320 327 330 334 PREFACE “The present selection from the writings of Gustavo Gutierrez incorporates texts from all of his full-length theological monographs. It includes several articles from the Peruvian journal Péginar that have not before appeared in English translation, an opinion from the Lima daily La Repéblica, and the unedited texts of two public addresses (one from 1968, the ocher from 1993). The doc: uuments are organized thematically and, within each theme, chronologically. ‘The aim is wo acquaint the reader with the broad lines, finer points, and devel ‘opment over time of Gutiérrea’s thought. In Peru the prayer of thanksgiving thar follows the communion rite of the sass often involves a number of people fiom the congregation who, one by one, express thanks for God's gifs. This euly communal accidn de gracias reminds us chat gratitude stands with protest and proclamation asa pillar ofthe church of the poor. The same must be said of the theology of liberation. Here I would like to acknowledge some of those who, by their generosity; have helped me in preparing this anthology and, in the process, revealed to me the liberating power of the gilt of sell Because the humble and believing builders of God's reign—the true inspit- ess of Gustavo Gutierrer’s cheology—all coo offen remain anonymous in this ‘world, the personal friendships with members of the parish community of Cristo Redentor in Rimac (Lima) that grew during the year and a half (1986-88) I lived, worked, and learned there representa special gift In truth I ‘owe these friendships—and much more—to Gustavo Gutiérrez who, o the sur prise of many outside Peru, has long served as pastor of chat community. His sracious (and courageous) invitation to me to live and work with him allowed me to see how personal discipleship, pastoral ministry, exacting scholarship, and unconditional love stand behind his treatment of every theological prob- Jem. Iris my hope that chis anthology serves him, and ths people he serves, wll I wane 10 thank Robert Ellsberg, editor-in-chief of Orbis Books, for select ing me to assemble these texts, and J. Michael West and Joe Bonyata of Fortress Pres for coaching me through the process. Debts large and small ae also owed to the staff at the Instituto Bartolomé de Las Cases-Rémac in Lima: to mem: bers ofthe Society of Jesus (Jesuits) ofboth New England and Peru; tothe mis- sioners ofthe Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America (Maryknoll) and in particular to Stephen P. Judd and to my own teachers at the Weston {now Weston Jesuit) School of Theology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the JesuitGUSTAVO GUTIERREZ School of Theology at Berkeley, and the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. I wish co acknowledge in a special way the support Ihave received from the College of the Holy Cross (Worcester, Massachuserts). This includes the keen interest taken in my work by friends and colleagues; the exceptional willingness ‘of many students to struggle in mind and heare with the challenges posed by Gatiéeer’s theology (and whose questions have made me grapple with the same); and the public commitment to justice as well as excellence made by the Administration and Board of Trustees of the College, especialy John E. Brooks, S.J, former president of the College, in awarding the doctorate honoris causa to Gustavo Gutiérter in 1994, ‘Ac the heart of Christian commitment, Gustavo Gutierrez reminds us, stands the God whe is the Friend of Life (Wis, 11:24-26). Faithful friends—co. put it cheologically—mediate the holy Priend’s loves theie support alone—to Puc it simply—makes it possible to complete a volume such as this one. Ie is my. hhope that Mary Ann Hinsdale; Grant B. Farquharson and Brian J, McMahon; Rose Gallagher; Barbara Paul; Thomas Martia; Dennis, Marsha, and Kail Johnson; and all of my large family can recognize their contribucions hece. L know that Robere D, McCleary will be able co EDITOR'S NOTE Wohl it has not been possible to review the teanslation ofall the texts include cd in his volume, numerous alterations and sometimes substantial changes have been made in previously published material. Readers are urged, of course, to consalt the original Spanish texts when possible, INTRODUCTION The unmistakable dynamism of the “theology of liberation” formulated by Gustavo Gutiérrez in the last third of che ewenticth century is fundamentally simple to name: the twofald commitment he has made to the God of life in whom he believes and co his own people, the believing poor of Peru (and through them to all people). Yee as pastor, teacher, and theologian, he demon: sarates that being “bound” to God and ro others means in the final analysis being freed, freed from self-centered existence and freed for loving service. In places far from his home in Lima—never before considered 2 theological center of nore—he has moved readers with his reflections on the mysteries f freedom and love. Yer that same distance fiom his world makes misunderstanding possible, as debates about liberation theology have demonserated. The present volume offers a selection of representative texts which, i is hoped, will enable the reader to petccive the breadth and depth of Gutter’ radical challenge to late twentieth- century Christians. This Introduction to the texts seeks t0 assist the North Atlantic reader hear his challenge accurately. If Guriére’s cheological conclu. sions are defective, as some have claimed, le him be held accouneable: if is “re- reading” of the Christian message is on the mark, as many othets believe, let us face ic head on. In cither ese, nor only is simple aieness 0 ane of che twentieth century's most creative, yee controversial, theologians at stake, More important Iy in the view of many, the Christian communiey’s understanding and practice of the message of Christ and the church's very elaionship ca the God of the least of the least whose numbers grow daily, hang in che balance, The potency of Gutidrrer’s theological vision surely derives from che Pauline ciad on which he takes his stand: faith, whose biblical opposite is fear hope, which gives the lie to all fase “realism; and love, which alone can over- come sin and allow God to reign “on earth as in heaven.” Genuine faith is nothing more (or less} than a courageous trust in “things unseen”; Christian faith means placing one’s life in the care of the unscen God of Jesus Christ. Hope, which Gutiérrer carefully distinguishes from optimism, is rooted notin human powers but in God’s promise and fidelity co chae promise. Finaly, deeds of fove—and not words alone—give flesh to faith and hope. It should not surprise anyone at the close of the twentieth century that such faith, hope, and love mect resistance in. many quarters. Those who know the life and thoughe of Gustavo Gutigtez best recognize the courage he shares with che people he has chosen to stand alonggide, namely7 eee GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ the despised and unimportant ofthe world who struggle to recover the life given them unconditionally by dhe Creator bu stolen fiom them by others. Courage shapes Gutireee’s practice and hs theory indeed, courage is cequised to link the two dialeetcally, as Gutiérrez suggests they must be. While fea silences tongues and paralyzes hands, ich and hope, cultivated with courage, loosen tongues to protest the outrages of history and animate hands co reshape that history Gutter is convinced that in God's plan courage will overcome fear, FROM THE POOR OF PERU, FOR THE CHURCH OF CHRIST Gustavo Gutidrer’s often decisive role in national, regional, and international theological conversations and the recognition this has earned him around the ‘world? have not made him forget his own origins. Born on June 8, 1928, Gutiér- rez spent a humble childhood in Lima and, like many of his fellow Peruvians, knew the hardships of genuine poverty and illness 2s well asthe joys ofa loving family. A tying bout of osteomyelitis put him in bed from the age of twelve to cighteen, raughe him what physical pain is, and turned him into an avid coader and a cultivator of close friendships. Amang the ropics of conversations with his precocious young friends were the Christian faith and the political situation of Peru, Perhaps the most important legacy of his childhood was an exceptional sensitivity co the physical, psychological, and spiritual suffeting of others. Gutiécrez began his higher studies at che University of San Marcos in Lima as a medical student with plans to become a psychiatrist. Afer three yeats, hhowever, he decided to enter the seminary 10 prepare for ordination as a Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Lima. Recognizing his brilliance asa stu- dent, some of his friends urged him to go to Europe, a plan is bishop accept- ed. From 1951 to 1959 he studied philosophy, psychology, and theology ac the Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium), che University of Lyon (France), and the Gregorian University (Rome). He received the master's degree in phi- losophy anc) psychology in 1955 from Louvain with a thesis called “The Notion of Psychic Conflie in Freud” and che master's degeee in theology in 1959 from the Theological Faculty of Lyon. He only applied for and received the doctorate in theology from Lyon in 1985, based on his entire theological corpus and in recognition of the permanent mark he had by then left on ‘wentieth-century Christian thought, Afier ordination to the priesthood in 1959, Gusiéster began to teach theolo- ay to undergraduate lay students ar the Pontifical Catholic University of Pecu and to serve as advisor the National Union of Catholic Students. In theology courses and during retreats for students of both the humanities and social sci- fences, he encouraged his listeners to examine the meaning of huinan existence and the place of God in the world in which they lived. This led him to set che «questions and claims of fui in critical dialogue with modern thinkers such as INTRODUCTION ‘Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Karl Marx; film directors such as Luts Bufuel and Ingmar Bergman; and writers such as Peruvians José Maria Arguedas and César Vallejo ‘Aswotld Catholicism watched the extraordinary evenc ofthe Second Vatican Council unfeld from 1962 t0 1965, even attending the fourth session as a cheological assistant to Bishop Manuel Larrain of Chile. Yee he paid equal attention 0 the flux of events, both ecclesial and sociopolitical, in his own country and across Latin America, To what he saw happening in both spheres be later applied the designation “itruption of the poor.” Indeed, itis this irruption, 2 complex phenomenon known by Latin ‘American social scientists as the movinsento popular, which consticute te social context in which the theology of liberation was born and grew. To neglect the sociopolitical matrix of the theology of liberation is co close one’s eyes to the new praxis, new consciousness, and new relationship between God and humankind at the heart ofthe popular movement. In sum, he finds a new kind of society (characterized by justice), a new kind of human being (characterized by otherdire and a new kind of Christian disciple (for whom justice isa requirement of faith all coming inco being in those whose faith in God leads ‘them to fight for freedom and justice, that is, fora human life. Absent historical may of course appear preposterous and even dan- gerous. Accordingly, Gutiérrez has devoted considerable attention to the methodological problem, that is, how to perceive and interpret the shift in human consciousness he believes he detects in che present historical juncture. The solution he has proposed (to be considered below) is threefold, incorporat ing social-scentific analysis, the utopian imagination, and Christian faith “The years 1960 co 1965, then, saw what Gutiécrez came to consider signif. cant breaks in the history of the church and the history of Latin America and thus che world), namely, a new willingness by the church to embrace the world and the growing resolve of Latin Americans, and most notably Christian belicr- 15, to challenge the injustice of the societies in which they lived. It would not be inaceurateto say that this conjunction of events provided the stimulus forthe genesis of the “theology of liberation.” ‘in many respects the theology of liberation formed part of the trajectory of developments leading to the Second General Conference of the Latin American Episeopacy held in Medellin, Colombia, from August 26 o September 6, 1968, Among the few who can claim involvement at every step along the way Medellin is Gutiérree who felt mixed emotions as he listened to Pope Paul's clos- ing words to the Vatican Council on December 7, 1965. Though he shared the joy of many atthe church’s new openness to the world, he also fea sadness at the gap between the optimistic language of the Council and ee reality of Latin America, As preparations began for che frst post-vonciliar meeting of the Li American Episcopal Council (known by its Spanish acronym CELAMS in 1968, Gutiérree was a member of the theological ream at preliminary discussions on iérrez followed developments closely, grounding, such lofty cla 3GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ ‘missions and on social reality. Ac the Medellin conference itself Gutiéerez played an indispensable role as official cheologieal advisor to CELAM. In that capacity and as a member of two working subcommniteees, he made outstanding co butions to the theological sections of the documents on “Peace” “Justice,” and “Poverty of che Claurch.” Yet his influence was even wider: besides contributing subscantilly o the theological underpinnings of the document on “Education,” hi also dried the two major speeches of his bishop, Cardinal Juan Landzari Ricketes of Lima, a co-president of the conference, to the plenary sessions ofthe assembly, Even a cursory reading of the final dacuments of Medellin reveals cen- teal axes of what was becoming Gutitrez’s theology of liberation, in particular the church's decision to make a pastoral option for the poor. ‘The influence of Gutiérrerin the final seaements of Medellin is irefutable just as undeniable isthe overwhelming approval of the final documents by the assembled representatives of the church of Latin America. While the Peruvian's role should nor be minimized, neither can Medellin fairly be seen as an unwit- fing mistake by naive bishops. The results of the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate at Puebla, Mexico, a decade later with its clear delineation of the “preferential option for the pot” reafirin the wisdom and commitment of Medellin. ‘What can be said more specifically about Gutiérre's own contribution to the complex process which led to the creation of 2 theology of liberation? Chrono: logically, we might poinc to three key steps in his rethinking ofthe core of Chri clan teaching and practice. The firs took place at Petr6polis, Brazil, in 1964 at a gathering of theologians concemedl about how to relate Christian faith to the sew historical movement through which Latin America was passing. In his pre- sencation to the group, Gutiérrez raised che question of theological method by beginning with what he wok to be che eentral pastoral problem of the day, namely, how to establish a salvific dialogue between God and concrete human beings in Latin America. His ideas were later set forth in the shore treatise La pastoral en la Iglesia en América Larina (1968) in which he contrasted the prevail ing pastoral approaches ofthe Latin American cbuzch with his conviction that the church is fandamentally convoked to speak and act prophetically in history. A second step in the genesis of his thinking occurred three yeas lter during a course Gutiérrez gave in 1967 ar the University of Montréal on “The Church and Poverty.” Here he dealt not only with cheological method but more explic inly with content—specifically che three theological meanings of poverty” Ie i instructive to compare his thoughts in Montréal with the final text of Medellin ‘on the subject of poverty and che church. “A poor church condemns the unjust lack ofthis world’s goods and the sin which beget its preaches and lives out spir- itual poverty as an arirade of spiritual childhood and of openness to the Lond; commits itself ro macerial poverty. The poverty of che church is, in fact, a com stant in the history of salvation” (Medellin, "Poverty of the Church,” 4) INTRODUCTION “The thicd and decisive step in his own development rook place, appropriate ly. in his own country of Peru. In July, 1968, a month before che Medellin con ference, Guciérrez presented a proposal for a “theology of liberation” at a gath- ‘ering of priests of the National Office of Social Research (ONIS) in Chimbote, era. This marks che first time the term “chcology of liberation” was used, in Jatin America or anywhere else, as far as we ean know. Yet more important than the term is the theological content of “liberation” suggested by Gueiérrez Already at Chimbote he linked salvation and liberation understood as the work ‘of constructing a more humane temporal city, affirmed the uniqueness of Chis tian faith’s contribucion to the revolutionary process —namcly, is simultaneous radicalization and relativization of human efforts a self-liberation—and warned of the danger of Christianity’s irrelevance or worse ifthe significance of the king- dom of God for human history is not grasped by Christians. His thoughts cir. culated widely in Latin America via mimeograph and were published in 1969 in ‘Montevideo as an essay called “Hacia una Teologia de la Liberaciéin” (“Toward «a Theology of Liberation”). An invitation laer that year to address a conference of the ecumenical Commission on Society, Development, and Peace (SODE: PAX), sponsored jointly by the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace and the World Council of Churches in Cartigay, Switzerland, on the “theology of development” allowed him to refine his thinking furcher. A résumé of that pre- sentation was published in 1970 in the U.S, joutnal Theologiead Sous with the title “Toward a Theology of Liberation.” With che publication in late 1971 in Lima of Teolagia de lt lbenaciin: perpectiva, Gutiérrez presented in derail the feuits of his intellectual labor and set his agenda for theological work for the future. The scope and depth ofthe book’s challenge to current Christian think: ing almost instantly gained for Gutidrre the actention of the worldwide theo- logical community. Formulations employed in key passages became classe, and a quarter ofa century after the fist Spanish edition Gutiérren's masterpiece had been eranslated into at least cen other languages. Gutierrez himself has often pointed out chat the notional threads which he ‘was weaving together from 1964 to 1968 into the “theology of liberation” were part of the very fabric of intellectual if in Latin America during chese years and that perhaps it was only a matter of time belore something like che theology of liberation would appear. While there may be some truth in this, we now know shat Gutiérer’s role was indispensable and his contribution unique. Faieness to an individual and a regatd for historical faces are not all that is at stake here; as Gutiderer himself has pointed out, the very meaning of liberation theology. such debated for nearly three decades now, depends 10 some degree on a grasp of the facts of ts appearance in history” Like all theologies, liberation theology is the product of a particular historical moment; unlike some theologies, ibera- tion theology is fully aware of ths face.GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ, THE CAREFUL LISTENER ‘The range and complexity ofsources upon which Gutiérrez draws to understand what he takes to he the essentially prophetic character of the Judeo-Cheistian tradition give his though¢ its widely recognized depth, solidity, and Fruifulness. ‘Yer nuance and intricacy also expose his writings to misunderstanding, unwar- ranted simplification, or ideological reduction. Wich any work of Gutirer, even if it appeats stcaightforward, the reader is confronted with the distillation of a complex “conversation” between Gutiéres and a host of interlocutor: the authors of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures; later commentators on che Bible (Gnclading those who presently speak as the official teaching authority of the Catholic church); ehcological colleagues from around the globe; socal scientists from the past and presene (including analysts such as Peruvian socialist José Car- Jos Maridtegui who are largely unknown outside Latin America); Peruvian liter ary giants such as the poet Vallejo and the novelise Arguedas); the scorned and crushed of history (which includes the vast majority of his oxn people) whose voices are not easy to discern; and finally, and most importantly, the Ged in whom he confides. Frankly, its hard co imagine a bette read person than Gus- tavo Gusirez, and not just among contemporary theologians. Lec us briefly ‘examine this extraordinary range of influences on his thinking. SCRIPTURE: SPIRITUAL ANCESTORS Serious attention to the Bible and contemporary biblical scholarship permeates Guriérrer’s teatment of the Word of God and the doctrine of revelation and reflects his years of study at Lyon, a center oF biblical studies in the 1950s? Yet few outside Peru know chat he preaches carcflly crafted homilies nearly every Sunday as pastor of parish in a poor neighborhood of Lima or tbat for seven years he provided biweekly commentaties on seadings from the Catholic lee tionary as a service ro other preachers and to ordinary Catholics across the coun= try. His role as founder in 1971 and guiding spirit of Lima’s*fornadas de reflex 4a teoligica” (populaily known as the “summer course” in theology) is widely recogaized, though the extent to which Scripruze figures in course lectures and discussion groups is perhaps less well known.” He has, of course, also produced 4 major biblical commentary (On fob, Spanish 1986) aswell asa comprehensive biblical cheology (The God of Lif, Spanish 1989). Icis easy co see why some crit ies, Chistian and non-Christian alike, find Gutirer overly “traditional.” Yer there is ao way to uncerstand his thought (or his fife} apart from his appropria- tion of the Word of God, : i sis Because “the Word [of God is] contained in Seripture and transmitted by he living wadition of the church,” Gutiérrez takes his cue in interpreting that word from the actual experience ofthe ecclesial community itself. What he has noticed, and repeatedly pointed out in his writings, is that Christians not only : INTRODUCTION find answers co their questions in the Bible bue also frequently discover ehat the “Word of God puts new questions to shem. Thus, while we read che Bible, ic is also true ro say that she Bible “reads” us. Through Scripture God questions believers about the adequacy of their discipleship.” It is this second “reading” which has especially concerned Gueiérres and which led him to set forch the hermeneutical principles he follows in attempting to understand God's ques- tions to the ecelesial community. Several principles of biblical interpretation arise from the Bible itself. The ineffable mysteriousness of the God of the Bible means that understanding begins, for Guniéeeez, wich faith in the mystery. Furthermore, he leaves no doubt about the christocentric, o “christo-inalized,” nature of his faith and therefore his scripeural exegesis." Jesus Chrise is “che primordial, and in a cectain unique, source of revealed truth” and is himself the good news.” “Because he is the “fulfillment of the promise of the Father,” he is “the only way to grasp the profound unity of the Old and New Testaments.” Thus, Gutiérrez sces bibli ‘al interpretation as a dialogue between believers ofthe past and people of faith today. He specifies even further that, “because the Bible is to a great extent the capression of the faith and hope of the poor and above all because it reveals to us a God who loves preferentially those the world passes over," we must listen with special regard to those who both believe and are poor. Second, in the Bible “God's saving action manifests isefin historical events which constiute the “language” of Scripture. But believers bring their own per sonal and collective histories to cheir reading of the Bible. For Gutirer this ‘means, above all, his people's complex history of unjuse suffering, struggles to protec its sight co life, and hope in God. As a dialogue of histories—the histo- ty of past and present believers—biblical interpretation can “shed light on our present history, both collective and personal, and help us to see in ie the ines: vention of the God who liberates." ‘Third, Guridrre takes seriously the common experience of believers who identify with the Word of God despite heir distance in time and culeure from the biblical authors. Yeta sense ofthe word's “nearness” does not excuse beliew- crs today from making the effore.o understand the social, cultual, and religious contexts in which the biblical texts were weitten. Contemporary biblical schol: arship, then, can help to overcome the distance we also feel from the seriprural texts, An adequate approach must ovetlook neither the Bible's nearness to us nor its distance from us. Finally, believers today are noe the frst co aske questions of the Bible and in turn be questioned by Scripture. The church isin face che historical communi- 19 of those who question and are “questioned!” by Scripture. Gutiércee accord- ingly serves to take seriously the biblical “readings” of previous generations of believers,GUSTAVO GUTUBRREZ ECCLESIAL COLLEAGUES: ‘TRADITION AND THE CHURCH'S MAGISTERIUM From the beginning, Gutirex’s work demonstrated his conviction that “a priv- ileged locus sheologicusfor understanding the faith will be che life, preaching, and historical commitment of the church.”® Church teaching is present (and often explicitly noted) on neatly every page of Gutierrer’s writings. Indeed, his views have been profoundly shaped by the believing community's theological tradi- tion and its authoritative interpretation. In his analyses Guiérree Frequently discovers unsuspected riches, theoretical as well as practical, in che church's living theological eradition, Ac the same time he does not shy away from pointing. out inadequacies in Christian though and practice. His work in the 1960s, inchuding the preparation of A Theology of Lib- eration, was largely devoted to rethinking the pastoral practice of the chusch in Latin America whose failings raised fundamental ecclesiological questions as well, The warning he issued in his 1978 essay on the eve ofthe Latin American bishops’ conference in Puebla (“The Preparatory Document for Pucbla: A reat from Commitment”) doubtless contribured to the clarification of, and eventual consensus about, che notion of the “preferential option for the poor.” ‘The notion that the God of the Bible sides with the poor and oppressed of his- tory (a notion whose recovery owes much ¢o the Peruvian theologian) today finds broad support from he Catholic church's magisterium.”” The subtitle of ‘Gutidree’s 1986 work The Truth Shall Make You Free: Conftontationssuggests the context of conflict in which the church's theological discussion has at times pro ceeded since the Second Vatican Council, The key to understanding Gutiree's Patt in the sometimes difficult conversation between liberation theologians and other sectors ofthe church, including its magisterium, is be found in the afore mentioned fidelity he seeks to maintain to God and to the poor and the love and respect for the church which matk every sentence he writes Gutiérrez has not to date produced a full-blown treatment of the problem of doctrinal development in the history of che church, But his own de facto view may be glimpsed in his analysis of theological breakthroughs in other times. His compelling and exhaustive study of the sixteenth-ceneury debate in Spain, in which the Dominican friar and bishop Bartolomé de Las Casas took a leading role, over the theological meaning of the Conquest, the human and Christian scarus of the native inhabitants, and che correct method of evange lization to be employed by the church reveals Gutiésrez’s conviction thae the- ‘logical development and renewal are often the fru ofa shift in historical con text and, correspondingly, of a shift (conscious of not) in the vantage point from which theologians consider the mysteries of faith. When such a shi is consciously undertaken, itis possibie only through profound personal conve sion and, dialectically related to this, a shift in pastoral practice” Thus, the history of theology demonstrates more than che simple application of Cheist- 8 INTRODUCTION jan teaching to new historical contexts; what Gutiérrez finds is the Christian, community's growing understanding of its own faith. When the church Embraces and exercises the freedom offered as gift by the Spicit, ir has often discovered that seemingly “secular” historical events may shed light on the ‘meaning of its own cradition, "The foregoing means that Guciérzer finds in the life of the church a genuine locus theologious; while historical praxis serves as che indispensable medium through which the Christian community comes 10 understand God's revealed, teuth, about which ‘a great deal still remains to be learned": ‘The ultimate criteria come fiom revealed truth, which we accep: in faith, and not from prexs itself Ic is meaningless—ic woukd, among other things, be a tautology—eo say thet praxis i to be criticized “in the light of praxis. ‘We muse note, a the same time, that Gutirre speaks of criteria” in the pl al and that the modifier “ultimate” implies a legitimate role for less-than-u ‘mate criteria as well. Indeed, in Gusirter’s view the practice of faith —disciple- ship—is one such criterion for che cocrect statement of Christian truth. Buc Chistian praxis itself must always be linked to eschacology, the Christian affir- ‘mation of a world beyond the present life.**Thus, to say chat “Jesus Christ isthe hermeneutical principle for all understanding of the faith” implies “the funda rental hermeneutical circle: from humanity to God and from God to human- ity, from history to faith and from faith eo history. ..."2” The practice of ich in concrete historical context, then, isthe “indispensable condition’ for a cor- ct rellection on fath.** In Gutiéere’s view, the inescapable context in which Christian faith must be practiced today is the massive social, economic, and polisical marginalization of the majority of the earch’s people:® This alarming and painful fececonftonts Christian chinking and action; that is, ie demands 2 response which is ar one and the same time theoretical and practical. CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL COLLEAGUES Though ie is no show of false modesty when Guriéreer claims 10 bea “part-time theologian,” he as entered into some of the most significant theological con versations ofthe day with seriousness and gusto, Nor can anyone doubt that has been heard, if nor always well understood or welcomed by all, in that con- vecsation.”" His principal theological interlocucors may be divided into four groups: (1) European thinkers, Potestanc and Catholic alike, who laid the foun- dations for the theology of the Second Vatican Council (among them Kadl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Rudolf Bultmann, M.-D. Chenu, Yves Congas, Jacques Maritain, Karl Rabner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Pau! Tillich) and their heits (among them Johann-Baptist Mewz and Jiirgen Molemann)s (2) the teaching of the Catholic magisterium {especial- Iy-as formulated by Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul Il; the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and the Latin American 9GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ episcopace a ts meetings in Medellin, Puebla, and Santo Domingo); (3) North American theologians, critics as well as supporters, and in a special way those who have developed feminist, Afro-American, and Hispanic theologies of liber- ation; and, finally, gues from Latin Americ, Aca, and Asia." Besides his writings, Gucirezs active participation in theological and pastoral confer ences beyond counting testifies to his conviction that theological work must today be collaborative. (No one has yer figured out how Gutigrrez manages to do all the things he does in che time he has at his disposal.) Let me suggest some of the ways these diverse theological conversation part- ners have influenced Gutiéere's chought, in particular the Christian doctrine of salvation and its correlate, God's special love forthe lease of humanity. Though the size of Gutidrrez’s theological corpus appears modest when compared «0 ‘other major Christian thinkers ofthis cenrury, the range of interlocucors as well as his own creativity give Guciérser’s theology its widely acknowledged breadth and depth, its nuance, and is soldity—in short, its power to clarify, challenge, and convert The earliest writings of Gutiétex (From che years 1966-1971), including A Theology of Liberation, demonstrate his regard for the works of distinguished European theologians from World War I through the Second Vatican Council Widespread postconciliar cuphoria did noe hide from his view the appalling si- uation of poverty in the world or the courageous if costly elfors underway 10 end oppression. Nor did he fail to noce the challenge posed by these realities ro the Christian doctrine of salvation. Soteriology, indeed, has been the central concesn of all Gucirer’s works from the 1960s co the present, Ar the heart of| his formulation ofa theology of iberation isthe dialectical elatonship he posits between God's free gift of salvation on the one hand and human efforts ac lib- ration in history on the other. In a widely accepted (and frequently quoted) schema, he proposes that liberation be understood as a thzee-fld process which embraces (1) the creation of « just and humane soci and political carder, (2} the emancipation of human consciousness from self-concern (in the ‘ase of chose who abuse others for theit own selE-aggrandizement) ot from the lack of a sense of self (inthe case of those erushed in history by the selfishness ‘of others) to solidarity with others, and (3) redemption by God from sin fora communion of love. Liberation, emancipation, and redemption: each term enriches the others in Gutiérez’s restatement of the theory of salvation. While the strength of Gucigrrer’ssoreriological model, indeed its whole point, lies in she unity he claims for the threefold process of liberation, he is careful to dis- finguish the three levels as well. Though he rejects both a causal and a chrono- logical relationship among them, he also seeks to avoid a false identification and an equally fase juxtaposition. A direct (immediate) relationship would open the door to politico-religious messianism; the denial of any meaningful reladionship ‘would allow for an idealistic, privatized fuith ready to accommodate itself oppor tunistically to the unjust status quo in che world 10 INTRODUCTION Gutiérrer’s proposed seintezprctation ofthe doctrine of salvation and ies rla- sion to political praxis cannot be adequately understood apart from the media dng erm-—"utopia”-—he has retrieved and added ro the usa bipolar fameviork gfhath and politics. In Gucigrca’s view, God?’ saving activity (hind level) alone snes she duc but singe iran proces and thes gods ae iy Christian political prais (Gast level). Bue iti she second level—utopia— SNES covrecly and feully medias che relationship of politcal prais and tedemption from sin. Gutidree argues that grasp ofthe utopian level nor only ‘expands our understanding of liberation processes in history; icalso allows us to Se how politically liberative praxis deepens our understanding of the Christian fidh itself. Gasgrrez in no way disputes the soteriological priority of God's sav- ing activity; he docs assert che epistemological import of uopia “For Gutiérrez, utopia refers to “a personal transformation by which we live ‘vith profound inner fedam in the face of every kind of servitude.” The tans- formacion he has in mind is the movernent from fear wo trust ftom resignation to initiative, and fiom isolation to solidarity. The achievement of this transfor mation alone makes possible "a real encounter among persons in the midst of a society without socal inequalities" While such a shifcis only possible hanks to God's grace itis also brought about by persons themselves, ie. itis“human selFcreaion.”® Those who think chy find Pelagian tints hers, or imply an iera- tional illusion, would be direceed by Gutiérrez to examine che lives of Peru’ poor who, though formerly “absent ftom history,” are now becoming “active agents of theis own hiscory,” a fact widely atested in the socal-sciemiic litera ture of Latin America.* Despite old and new forms of oppression, such “new persons have halingly but surely initiated a “different history” and begua to ‘reat a qualitaively different kind of society based on solidarity eather than the radical individualism characteristic ofthe modern West.* In che ongoing strug- tle ofthe poor to achieve their own liberation and the liberation of those who oppress chem, Gutigrer finds empirical support for Karl Rahner's restatemene ofa clasic principle of Thomist theology, namely, the direct, not inverse, pro- portion between radical reliance on God and genuine human auconomy.”” Gutirtes knows that this principe is only uly understood by chose who both caperience themselves as free subjects responsible before God and who accept this esponsibility. And he sees its concrete verification in the struggle of the tnarginalized to eliminate che margin itself “the gratuitous gift ofthe kingdom is accepted in shir efforts o free themselves fiom exploitation.” The theory of salvation proposed by Gutirees reveals his debt to European calleaguies; indeed, he notes the links between the political theology of Merz, for cxamplc, and his own liberation theology: Bur from the begining he has also poinsed out the differences, and even opposition, beeween the cheology of liber ation and modern European theology." Far from being simply a more radical version of progressive European thought, the theology of liberation poses a direct challenge to the former because of the hiscorical relationship beeween nGUSTAVO GUTIERREZ, Latin America and Europe. Written from the “underside” of che history of Western development (and not simply from an earlier stage of it), theology in Latin America must, in Gutiérte’s view, challenge any understanding of God which accepts the worldwide status quo and fails to get to the roots of the inhuman suffering Wester “development” and “progress” have caused and continue to cause. While he acknowledges the urgeney for Europeans of dia- logue with secularized, nonbelieving “modem” persons, he is not willing to excuse his North Adantic colleagues fiom addressing an even mote pressing reality, but one more difficult for them to see: the shadow side oftheir own civ- Some would say that, despite a century of unparalleled crimes against humanity in Europe, the most incisive and original minds on that con- Finent have not achieved the comprehensive critique of Western civilization and Western Christianity mounted by Latin American liberation theologians, led by Gutigrez.® Thus, the question which his own Latin American context poses to him and which always serves as his eheological point of departure— namely, how co tell chose who suffer unjustly chat God loves them—is in fact not simply a “Latin American” question. Gutigrree’s principal theological incerlocutor—namely, the “non-person” of today (meaning those sreaied as nnon-persons by the world)—~is che creation of the world of modernity itself. As , “non-persons" pose universal, and not simply “local,” questions co soci- ery and (0 the church, Without a doubt Gucigrrez must be counted among those who have shaped the universal chuich's reception of the Sccond Vatican Council's teachings ‘The story of his role in the birch of a distinctively Latin American theology and the transformation of church's seléunderstanding largely remains to be told. Ac che heart of both stands the principle of God's “preferential option for the pot," in Gutiérrer’s view the outstanding contribution of Latin America to the world church. Though its implications remain the subjece of discussion, the principle today permeates all levels of official Catholic church teaching.“ Careful exegetical and cheological scholarship and (equally impor cently} pastoral experience have clavfied the notion which was implicie at Medellin in 1968, ratified at Puebla in 1979, and reiteraced at Sanco Domiin- {go in 1992. Indeed, some today see the promotion of justice (whose theologi ‘al foundation is the preferential option), as having achieved a status confsio- shie—that is, it is now seen to be an element so fundamental to biblical revelation and church teaching that personal decisions made in regard to ie becoine decisions for or against che faith itsclé” The contemporary church's grasp of the biblical God's predilection for the poor and the pastoral consequences of this preference owes no one a greater debt than Gustavo Gutiérrez. His recovery of this ancient and classic insight (see 1 Cor. 1:26-31) began with his recognition that the “inhuman misery” (Medel- Iin, “Poverty of the Church,” 1), “ancievangelical poverty” (Puebla 1159), and “intolerable extremes of misery" (Santo Domingo 179) which characterize Latin ilization, 2 INTRODUCTION “America constitute “insticutionalized violence” (Medellin, “Peace,” 16) end thus a violation of God's plan for the construction of a kingdom of life. The divine will cli, then, reveals itself most radically in God!s choice as objects of special concern those whose lives, whose very existence stands at greatest risk. Ih the dialectic bermeen the universality of God's love and the particularity of God's decision to stand with the poor, Gutiérrez finds mutual implication, not ‘opposition, This represents one of the eaeliest affirmations of the theology of [iberation.* Indeed, each pole demands the other; elimination of either results iva reductionism—either to an abstractionism literally fatal to the poor, or 0 a jartow sectarianism incompatible with the church’s mandate to make the reign ‘of God!’ love universally manifest. The church of che poor isthe church of a.® ‘The eesms “preferential” and “option,” a literal translation of the Spanish apcién preferencil, present English-speaking people wich certain difficulties which require clarification. First, as used by Gutiérrez and the church's magis- tetiumn, che notion of God's preference for the poor signifies the priority the nobodies” of history receive within the scope of God's care forall of creation ‘As Guriérnes has puc it, ‘of God's love, which excludes no one. Its reference implies che nvr t ‘i char we can understand the only within che framework of this universality preference, tha is, “whae comes firs” “Preferential,” then, means “having priority.” Second, it must be noted that God's aption forthe poos, and thus the eburei is not something “optional” which Christians may take or leave and continue co be followers of Christ. “To opt for the poor” (eptar por lor pobres in Spanish) imeans to make a fiee decision to side with the oppressed and powerless in their fight for justice and to stand! against all persons and structures that oppose their liberation. Perhaps, then, English-speaking Christians might best think of the “option” as “a decision eo make a commitment.” Taking sides with the poor twansforms the world into a place of justice in the process, of course, it trans- forms the lives ofthe poor and the lives of those (poor and non-poot) who make this choice. It's also worth observing that che decision (option) Christians make vis vis the poor is shaped by the angle from which reality is viewed. In Guriérrer's opinion, che priority given by God to the poor caries epistemological conse- quences for both social and theological analysis. Assigning “epistemological p rity” to che struggle ofthe poor fo life and dignity means adopting the stand- point or vantage point of the poor (that is, theit vizwpoine but not necessacily their views) in order to come to an accurate understanding of the Auman (or inhuman} character of any given context and an adequate Christian interpreta tion of shat context. To sum up: to make a preferential option for the poor ‘means to choose to give the poor practical priority and to shape one’s practice by looking at che world through the eyes of the outcasts. B‘GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ {A final word about che genesis of the notion of the preferential option for poor: though che formula itself is correctly associated with the Puebla confer- ence (1979), the fundamental ide, which synthesiees theee distinct elements, vas already present in germ at Medellin (1968) and, indeed, in Guriérrez’s own thinking as early as 1967, This can be seen by examining the three meanings of the txm “poverty” proposed by Gutiérrez at Montréal and adopted by the Latin American episcopate at both Medellin and Puebla. The correspondence between the three meanings of poverty and the three elements of the ceri “pref: erential option forthe poor” isno coincidence since Guriérrez himself developed bath from the experience of is avin people. Ashe explain, poverty refers to (1) dhe lack of wha is necessary for a human life (pivation); (2) openness eo Gods will rooted in a profound interior freedom (“spiritual childhood"): and (3) the vulnerability, material and otherwise, which comes from choosing to live in sol idarisy with those who suffer destitution chrough no choice of their own {anal- ogous to the “voluntary poverty” championed by Dorothy Day), Ic is not hard ‘w see thar privation corresponds to “the poor.” poverty of spirit makes a choice (“preference”) possible, and solidarity represents the conczetization ofthe choice made (“option”). With the expression “preferential opcion forthe poor,” Gutiée rezattempted to synthesize che three meanings of poverty in a single phrase. ‘Aword should be said about the meaning of salvation and God's preferential ‘option forthe poor in relation to two classes of people whose scruggles for ib ‘eration have provided che context for noteworthy North American contributions to the theological enterprise—namely, the struggles of African-Americans and ‘of women. Gutigrez has on many occasions acknowledged his debt to those ‘who have developed other theologies of liberation, including a black theology of liberation and a feminise theology of liberation.” In recent years he has pointed ‘out in no uncertain terms that Latin America is at one with other parts of the ‘world in perpetuating racist and sexist societies.** Acention co racial and ethnic ‘oppression should come as no surpeise in his work: as a Peruvian of indigenous ancestry, Gutirrer has long been among the keenest students of that country’s racial-ethnie divides. Indeed, he dedicated his Theology of Liberation “ewo dear friends: José Maria Arguedas,a Peruvian writer on Indian culture, and Henrique Pereira Neto, a black priest in Brazil Nor should ehe significance of his reference 10 women in the opening sen- tence of his 1971 classic be underestimated. In language considered redundanc athe time, he staes the book's purpose: “This book is an artempc at reflection, based on the gospel and che experiences of men and women committed eo the process of liberation in the oppressed and exploited land of Latin America.”®* Men and especially) women were examples to him of the “new kind of human being” and protagonists of the “new history” he saw in the making, Men and (especially) women are building a qualitatively new kind of society. Gutiérrea's novel” language thus reflected the noounzhe perceived bursting forth in human history. Perhaps the most representative response by Gueiérree to the struggle of 4 INTRODUCTION ‘women for fall liberation as human beings isto be Found not in his weitings, fers us groundbreaking insights in this regard.” but in his pastoral fing his teaching. Beginning in the easly 1960s in his capacity as vrional advisor 0 the National Union of Cathotic Students (UNEC) of Peru, fhe organized seminars for women on such topics as “A Biblical Theology of Women” and has long been a champion of cheological education for women, spesally poor and indigenous women in his own country and throughout Latin Seeren Non ofthis means of courte, tat he dos not reognive a deb of gratitude t0 those who in the ensuing years have helped him “to see with new {es our [Latin American) racial and culeural world, and the discrimination against women."® POETICAL TRUTH AND THEOLOGICAL TRUTH Frequently overlooked among the sources of Gutiérrer’s thought and discourse ie che brilliant literature of his native Peru. At home Gutiéerez has long been recognized as an expert in this legacy as well as a master stylist of the Spanish language in his own right. Yer his commentaries on the works of Perw’s great- ‘est wtiters, especially chose of poet César Vallejo (1892-1935) and novelist José Maria Aiguedas (1913-1969), reveal the profound effect they have had on his thinking. References to these two writers are seldom lacking in Gutiérrer’s own ‘writings, even che most rigorously theological Ic is Vallejo, waites Gutiérrez, “yhose witness has helped me co understand the Book of Job and relate it more fully co my own experience.” No book of the Bible has received more attention from Gutirrer as he has wrestled with the agonizing problem of how to affirm the gratuitous love of God at the origin of all things, the central theme of biblical revelation, in the face ofthe suffering of the innocent. The author of the Book of Job puss che heart of his message into che mouth of God by “capping his deepest poetical vein.” Perhaps only a “poet-theologian’—such as Gutiénrez himself—can both embrace and give expression to the mystery at the heart of creation. Vallej’s significance notwithstanding, the mose prominent literary figure in the chought-world of Gueiérer is doubtless che novelist Arguedas, with whom hhe enjoyed! a brief but profound friendship, No one should overlook the lengthy spigraph in A Theology of Liberation taken from Aeguedas' novel Todas las sangrs. This extended passage, omicted from the frst English edition of Gutiderer's ‘magnon opws and included in the evised edition only in Spanish because ofthe difficulty of translating is, sums up che central theme of Gutiérre2’s own book and, indeed, his theology. In Arguedas' creation ofa dialogue becween a poor, inixed-race sacristan and a visiting Spanish priest in a forgotten Andean town, the sacristan explains that oppressed Indians find God in theie suffering and know chat “the God of the masters is nor che same. He makes people suffer with no consolation.” Gutidrrer restates Arguedas’s insight: "The God of the mas- 15, GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ cers] is not the God of the poor, nat che God of the Bible. The biblical God is the onc who proclaims the good news to the poor." In che face of innocents fering Arguedas asserts what Gutiéres takes as a profound theological «ruth “What we know is far fess than the great hope we feel."® ‘With Arguedas, Vallejo, and earlier Peruvians, such as the sitcenth-cencury Peruvian mestico writers Guarnin Poma and Garcilaso de la Vega, Gutigrrer himself lives berween two worlds, the world of the oppressor and ehe world of the victim. With them he embraces the whole of his nation—the powerful and the powerless—by beginning wich the powerless. Gutiérrer’s theology reflects the same imerior conflice experienced by Arguedas's messi, who voluntarily joins the “frateenity of the miserable." While Arguedas saw onc cra of Pecu's history coming to an end and a new era beginning, Gutiérrez believes that we _ stand a¢ the divide becween two cras of salvation history, and thus universal hs- tory. If the old era belonged to ehe “God of the whip,” who was the enemy of the poor and of all erue revolutionaries, the new era begins with the prodama- tion of the God of life, who isthe friend and aly of che poor—and wha irpoor. Only the epistemological eupeure discussed above makes such a perception pos- sible, By befriending those who were the old God's vietims and enemies, Gutiée- rez discovers who the God of the Bible reall is, namely, the God who is Life Hope, Freedom—Friend. The God of the poor draws close to, and can most clearly be “seen” by, those who find a way to draw near the poor. If Gedis our — Jriend, we have the tbeolegcal basis for overcusning all structures of injustice. If in the poor and persecuted figure of Jesus Christ God is one of us, we are con- fronted not with the evaporation of God's transcendence, as some fea, but with the eanscendence of our captivity. Liberated humanity does not overcome Gods rather in partnership with God human beings overcome theit own enslavement, Aseven the most strictly cheologieal of his writings attest, Gutitrez has, with Arguedas and Vallejo lived in his hearc and flesh the crisis and agony of his cher- ished Peru, He learned from them that the suffering of Peru derives from the encounter—or failed encounter—of cultures and worlds two and a half millen- nia in che making, Though such a mecting could never have been simple, it remains painflly incomplete 450 years fier ie began. Wich Arguedas and Valle- jo Gariéerer came to distinguish a true from a false future for Pet. He is con- vinced thaca truly human (and thus a eruly Chistian} fuewre for Peru cannot be achieved simply by following in the footsteps ofthe nations of the modern West. Yer he also knows thar che precise shape of the new future cannot now be ly perceived or known; itis, instead, a reality “fle” and hoped for. And while the previous era is not entirely finished, the new one has already begun. Further- tore, the clash berween opposing worlds, cultuces, and historical eras chat Gutierrez sees (and suffers) in Peru affords, he believes, plimpse into the mean- ing of universal human history. ‘What are the signs ofthe new furure thae Gutiérer perceives, however indie tinctly? Ac present the false hope of personal self-realization achieved apart from 16 INTRODUCTION thers the ideal of Western individualism—stands opposed to project oFeon- ‘Gractingan “authentic fraternity in che bosom of people.” Inthe fong run indi- MMualism would destroy humanity, and, as more chan four centuries bave ‘hewn, che “modernization” of Peru along Western lines would mean the expan- ‘Gon of privilege forthe vich, nor che incorporation of ll into the nation’s life.* By contrast, che nascent solidarity among the poor—dramaticaly seen in Peru, forcxarape, when ethnic idensty geadvally gives way to. consciousness of socal lass —is the source ofa genuine hope against the ubiquitous forces of death Yer the conflict berween past and future, between individualism and fate ity, eannot give way co redempeion if those who embody the former are simply Gblterared A source of hope for Gutidree, as fr bis Peruvian mentors, rst in the capacity of hose who have been despeiled, whose humanity has been deformed, whose very soul violated, ro safeguard their humanity even as they five through the nightmare of oppression. Though ravaged for cencuries the poor of Peru, and in particular the descendants ofthe indigenous inhabitant so tlespsed by the conquerors, have never completely lose their human dignity Rather it isthe very ones thought for centuties to be barly human {and treated accordingly by those who have considered themselves superior) who alone “are capable of combating the dehumanization in the oppresiors and in them- selves.” The power ofthe poor, the disdained, and che persecuted lies not in theic capacity to desroy those whose hears of stone permit them to oppress, but te convert chem and give them hears of esh.”" For Argued the greatese pune ishment forthe “city of oppressors” (symbolized by Lima) will be its uansfor- smarion into a happy city for Gutierex the present hell of injustice will be transformed into the heavenly Jerusalem where every tar ill bbe wiped away (see Tsu, 25:8; Rev. 21:0) Signs ofthe new era and ehe new world emerging ftom within the old abound for those with eyes to see, Campasvionis necessary in any truly revolutionary pro- ject because cruelty only destroys. Zove alone makes communion possible in a smuliculeural society like Peru. Loveis not an ani-revolutionary fighe From bis- tory but the power thac gives meaning and vitality ro politcal commitment “Memory of the pase with its joys and suerings isnot simple nostalgia bu che source of renewal and subversion. Repentance (by those who wrong others) and Jfingivenes (by those who are wronged) together open the way to renewed tela- Vionship and life Inthe innocence muse and beauty noutish and expees joy. Simple hindnes saves through its power to refresh those who are tired. Finally suffering accepted in order to end suffesing is redemptive. Compassion, love, memory, repentance and forgiveness, music and beauty, gentle kindness, and redemptive suffering: these are the means by which a new era in human history comies o be and dhe signs of its coming. In theological language they are the sacraments of God's reign Tr would nor be too much to say that Gustavo Guriérrez has a living ela tionship with certain now-theologian Peruvian predecessors whose sensitivity no one hates VvGUSTAVO GUTIFRREZ, thas shaped his life and thought—which means his life with God, his under- standing of God, and thus his language about God. In writing about God h fives voice © sheir deepest concerns, sorrows, passions, and insights. And i ‘weting about chem Gutiérrez cannot, ofcourse, avoid writing abou himself [rguedas's] life, wih allies achievements and limitations, was not euncateds ‘ured toward the poor and scorned of che country, he shoved us the way t0 keep on “sucking the juice from the earth in order ro nourish those who live in our homeland.” “Arguedas is... the one who foretells the time that is coming,” writes Gutiér- rea." The frsc task of the chutch is precisely thi: to proclaim a new epoch, As a member ofthe church, he has vigorously taken up that task which, he believes, today requires recourse t0 avenues of knowledge formerly ignored of even scorned by the theological tradition, in particular che social sciences. SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS AND ‘THEOLOGICAL TRUTH Gutierrez insists on commirment ro the poor and on the epistemological privi- lege of their vantage poine on theological groursls, namely, the special care of the God ofthe Bible for the poor and God's choice of the oppressed as the favored instrument for the accomplishment of the divine will in history. All agree chat ‘Gutiérrez’s incorporation of social-scientific thought into the work of theologi- cal reflection constitutes a significant methodological innovation in conterpo- tary theology. Nevertheless, some have questioned the legitimacy of his propo- sition. For this reason itis important co delineate the nacute of the relationship Gutierez asserts beeween theological inquiry and the disciplines of history soci logy, economics, anthropalogy. and psychology. These is no question here of “subjecting” divine revelation or theological truth to social-scientfic judgment or verification; it is rather a matter of using the best cools available to achieve a sound understanding of the real world in which the chazch ms mission of evangelization. In Gutirrer’s view ewo central features of che contemporary world, and of Latin America in particular, require careful analysis the fact of massive (and stil increasing) poverty and the complex efforts of the poot to liberate themselves from poverty and its consequences. In his own effort to grasp this multifaceted situation, Guciérzez cakes a critical approach to social science. For example, he not only insists thatthe social sciences can be of inestimable value in penetrat- ing realty; he also recognizes their incipient and nonabsolute character and notes the openness of science by its very nature to constant critical reexamina- sion, He assers that Christians must interprec the fats of poverty and seruggles against it in the light of faith, He maintains 2 critical stance toward liberation movements, which, because they are immensely complex human processes, 18 INTRODUCTION ever cscape a certain degree of ambiguity. He denies that any political program gr aystem, however “scientifically” and carefully worked out, guarantees the eu for liberation, And he has frankly pointed out history's destruction oftlhu- gins about systems which claim co eliminate all evils.” "The principal touchpoints of controversy in Gutierrez’s use of socal science pave been his supposed uncritical acceprance of Marxist sociology and its infli- cnet in his thcological opinions.” Because of the conceptual intricacies of the disciplines of cheology and sociology and the necessarily complex nature of the ialogue between them which Gutiérrez has proposed, even professional the- ‘logians and sociologists may find themselves in deep water when they enter into ‘uly interdisciplinary conversation, For this reason Gutiérrez has attempted to see fort his positions as clearly as possible, notably in his 1984 essay "Theolo- xy and the Social Sciences.”” ‘While hie primary interest centers on che dialogue beeween theology and the social sciences generally—and nor the narrower conversation with Marx- jam—Guticerez sets forth guidelines for what he believes consticutes a legit inate theological use of Marxist analysis. First, he distinguishes berween “Marxist analysis” and “Marxism” understood asa “toral conception of life and therefore excluding Christan faith and ies demands." He also rules out “any totalitarian version of history which negates the freedom of the human per- son." He points out chat the question of the relationship between Marxist ideology and Marxist social analysis remains unresolved even among those who lay claim to Karl Mars’s legacy. In this debate some have followed the lead of Friedrich Engels (and later Soviet Marxisn) andl take Marxism as an indivisi- ble whole; others, such as Antonio Gramsci and the Peruvian Maristegui, dis tinguished between Marxist analysis as a scientific method and. “metaphysical materialism.” For his pact, Guviérrer differentiates the ideological and philo- sophical aspects of Marxism from Marxist analysis as a seience. He further ‘warns against exaggerating the contribution of Marxist analyses (in the plue- al)—a tendency of both defenders and opponencs—and insists that all such analyses be judged on social-scientific grounds alone.” Finally, to the surprise ‘of some, especially in the English-speaking world, the Catholic church’s high- ‘st teaching authority has on a number of occasions in the past century affirmed the facts of worldwide social conflict, class struggle rooted in the con- fice beeween labor and capital, and che oppression of the working class." The church's magisteriura has aso set forth guidelines for an authentically Cbris- tian method of analyzing these facts, which Gutiérrez affirms." ‘Guriértes's treatment ofthe question of whether and how the socal sciences may be legitimately used by the theologian helps to clarify his view of the prin cipal tasks of theology and of those which lie beyond its competence, Like all theologies, liberation theology seeks an adequate language for speaking about God.*" Today, given the profoundly inhuman conditions in which vast num bers of human beings live, such language both requires an understanding of 9GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ, poverty and its causes and seeks to make the Word of God eflicacious in his. tory by inspiting those who struggle fr liberation from unjust poverty." More precisely, while ic does nor fall to theologians “to offer strategic solutions of specifically political aleernatives” to social problems, eheir work does become - conerete (though not politically partisan) when they play a part ia the procla- mation of the Word, when they remind us that the transformation of human beings reaches deeper levels chan that of sociopolitical seructures (that is, on the aforementioned level of wropia), and when chey call acention to the dia- Togue becween God and human beings taking place at the heare of sociopolis: — ical processes.” Leaving no doubt about his position on the matter, Gutiéctez asserts thae constructing a social morality, nota politica platform or program, is theology’s proper task." This means that he will refrain from “giv[ing] | directives in fields that are the proper objects of human efforts,” such as socal liberation, but he will scek 10 show the relasionship berween these areas of endeavor and the reign of God and its ethical demands.” | How does one accomplish these properly theological tasks? For Gutigree, the conversion of theologians themselves constitutes a sine gua non for producing anything other than superficial heology. Perhaps it is this methodological requirement which, more than geography or culture, separates Gutiérrez from many of his critics. What has become ever more transparent in his writings is the content of such conversion: authentic conversion demands nothing less than a change of direction in life, “abandoning our own way... and entering the way cof others—namely. our neighbors and, in particular, the poor.” This emand—a requirement, lee us remember, or being able to think through the mysteries of God, Christ, or church adequately—is based on the claim that God's self-revelation in history is accomplished through the divine predilection for the weak." Such a view, now solidly established by critical biblical scholar- ship” and incorporated into church teaching,” means that those who would question Gutiérrez —theologians or social scientsts—must themselves speak from within an effective solidarity with the vast and complex movement of mar- ginalized peoples for iberation underway today. Yer in Gutiderez’s view, such solidarity is only possible in the final analysis through God's gift of faith and che discipl’s courageous acceptance of the gift FAITH AND THEOLOGY Wich other cheological giants ofthe ewenticth century, such as Kael Rahnee and Paul Tillich, Gutiértez understands faith as trust in God which results in the “courage tobe.” While Tillich and Rabner focus on the strugeles of individuals to accepe themselves and the limitations of their own lives and see sich accep- tance as the proof of one’s faith, Gutiderex takes up two aspects he finds insufli- ciently attended to by his predecessors: the conerete and the social character of| fBith. Ashe points out, there is only one way to entrust one's life co God—narne- 20 INTRODUCTION acing it in the hands of others. Furthermore, the gospel of Christ speci- 2 ee hie "ether anthewondemned ether God became ch dnd is present in history, but because God is identified with the poor of the spold, God's face and action are hidden in chem.” Ivis“cheze in the pot [chat] The ‘hidden God’ questions and challenges us. . . ."* God’s choice of the "Gexpised and unimportant” of the world means thar the Christian way to God mast pass through those God atcends to Gist, the poor. But the social nature ‘Of fith derives not only from the fact chat a whole category of persons mediates ‘God's presence in history in a special way; it also means that disciples entrust thet lives to God (through commitment to the poor) regetber. As Gutiérrez points ou, Jesus’ question about his true identity is directed to che disciples as 4 gzoup. “Who do you [plural] say har Tami” The answer / give tothe question ‘cannot be separated fiom the answer we give.” To che modemn Western mind sucha stacemene is difficult to fathoms in the context of communitarian cultures {auch as the Andean world), the divide between the self and the community to which one belongs cannot be so rigidly drawn. Certainly there can be no out- right opposition between the terms “me” and “my community.” Only coherence between the two allows me co speak of “my” community and “my” peopl. Entrusting one's life to God constitutes a precondition forall adequate the logical reflection. As I said above, fear, more than unbelief, is the enemy of faith and, consequently, of theology: Frith sno compatible with anattude of apprehensvenes it ca indeed lve through periods of darkness and ic can, according co casi exching, live ina lind of ballighs, bur iecannot livin fea. Job reminds Christians who su- fer persecution and invules that “there is no fear in love... and s0 one who feat senor yer perf in lve” (1 John 418). Coward inthe face ofa is new is contrary to faith, This explains the exhortation ofthe psalmist: “Sing tothe Lord a new song” (33:3)." Fear destroys self-confidence and crust of others, iacluding trust in God. Fear also restains hope, causing the fearal to abandon their dreams in favor af an empty “realism.” In the process the fearful ato deny, albei unwillingly God's promise to “create new heavens and a new earth” (Isa, 65:17: cf. Rex 21:1). Most importantly, che fearful lose heart for the long, ofien painful, jour ney to freedom. Ulsimately, of course, ear impedes love (grace) and keeps the feanful at a “safe” discance fiom others. especially fiom their suffering. Bur such a distance proves wsafe. Begettng isolation for both parties and spawa- ing indiffecence in the fearful, ear inexorably destroys the possibility of com- ‘munion, Fear, then, with its offspring despair and indifference, undermines the ecclesial community called to set its course in faith, co go Forward in hope, and to accomplish its task through love, Jesus’ deeds of love frequently have + vetbal preface: “Do not be afraid” The complete record of a person's courageous acts on behalE of others (that 2Fo GUSTAVO GUTTERREZ. is, acts of faith) is known ro God alone, of course, Gustavo Guriérrer’s intellec. tual courage, however, is acknowledged with gratieude by many. With the believing poor, and in their name, he has challenged Christians paralyzed by feat of the cross, isolated in “upper rooms” far ftom the “scum of society." and cut off from the joy of a resurrection banquet of the “uninvited” to stand with» “those robbed! of life and well-being."** And thus he invites the fearful among.us to venture forth with Jesus’ frst disciples, eo find courage and new life for our. sclves by giving life to che “nobodies” of history, and thereby to allow God to reign on earth as in heaven, One TOWARD A NEW METHOD: THEOLOGY AND LIBERATION Gussav0 Gusibrren has often nored the decisive role a reconsideration of theological ‘method played inthe birth of the theology of Kievation and agres with many other that a new mechod—rooted ina preferential option forthe poor—eanstoutes a sig- nifcans contribution of Latin America to sheological rection in the univenal church. Chapter One of the present volume traces the development of the method be fins proposed in the 1960s and continued to refine for the next thre decades. These ‘ests highlight the dialogue berween theology and other lteraures, particularly the social siemces, which he has pianeered. 1, TOWARD A THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION In July 1968, Gutirres made a proxntation in Chinibot, Peru, at a mecting of the National Office for Socal Revearoh, a Perusian organization of priests committed t0 the liberasing evangelization of the poor. Hix remarks were published a year later tinder she vale “Hacia una teologia dela liberacién” (“Toward « Theology of Libera tion’) by the Servicio de Decurentaciin MIEC-JECI, Montevideo (Uruguay). This fit formulation of a "theology of liberation,” later reengnized axa turning poine in the bstory of Christian thought, precaed the Medellin conference by one month. In remarkable fashion Gutiérres sketched many ofthe main lines ofthe sheolegical vision Ire would develop in succeeding decades. Among these were (1) the consequences for theological reflection oft serious commitment to liberative praxis and (2) the sterio- logical meaning of such pracs—tha sits significance for Christian ditiplship. The English translation of Gusitrecs sal ix by Alfed T. Hennelly 8... and is found in the volume be edited called Liberation Theology: A Documentary History (ary- enol, N.X: Orbis, 1990), 62-77. ‘As Christians come in coneact with the acute problems that exist in Latin Amer ica, they experience an urgene need to take pat in solutions to them. They sun the Fisk, however, of doing this without a recxamination of thir own basic doc- trial principles, a situation ehae can lead to dead ends and to action thats ult mately sterile. 23(GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ In chis elk I will distance myself from concrete issues in order to analyze these basic dactrnal principles. Actually, the diseancing is only apparent, since the following reflections can only be understood within a broader and richer _ approach that includes pastoral action and even political action, INTRODUCTION First ofall, lee us examine what we mean by theolagy. Exymologically speaking, theology is a treatise or discourse about God—whiich really does not tell us very much, The classic meaning of theology isan intellectual undesstanding of the faith—thacis, the effort of human incelligence to comprehend revelation and the vision of fue But faith means not onty truths to he affirmed, but also an exis: tential stance, an attitude, a commitment to God and to human beings. Thus faith understands the whole of life theologically as faith, hope, and chariy If, then, we say thar faith is a commitment to God and human beings. we affirm thae theology isthe intellectual understanding, ofthis commitment. It is an understanding of this existential stance, which includes the affirmation of truths, bur within a broader perspective. Faith isnot limited to affirming the existence of God. No, faith tells us that | God loves usand demands a loving response. This response is given through fove for human beings, and that is what we mean by a commitment to God and co cour neighbor. ‘Consequently, when we speak about theology, we are not talking about an abstracc and timeless truch, but rather about an existential stance, which tees ta understand and eo sce this commitment in the light of revelation Buc precisely because faith is above all an existential stance, it admits a dif ferentiation according co rnces and the different approaches the com- mitment t0 God and human beings. To say that faith is 2 commitment is erue forall ages, but the commitment is something much more precise: I commit myself here and now. The commitment to God and to human beings is nor what it was three centuries ago. Today I commit myself in a distinctive manner. ‘When we speak of theology, we mean a theology that takes into account is vasiation according to time and circumstances. From this we can deduce three characteristics 1 Theology isa progressive and continuous understanding, which is variable to a certain extent. If i were merely the underst of abstract ceuth, this would noc be rue. If theology is the understanding ofan existential stance, iis progressive, itis the understanding of a commitment in history concerning the Christian's location in the development of humanity and the living out of faith. 2. Theology is a reflection—char is, itis a secondl act, a turning back, a re flecting, that comes after action. Theology is not frst; the commitment is ist ‘Theology is the understanding of che commitment, and the commicment is action. The central element is charity, which involves commitment, while the ology arrives later on, 24 TOWARD A NEW METHOD. “This is whae ancient authors said with regard to philosophy: “Prinum vivere, sbinde philosophare—Erst you roust live and then philosophize.” We have inter- preted this a fist le doie vita, and then some ceflection if ¥ have time. No, the Frinciple is much more profound: philosophy, like theology, i a second act, "The pastoral consequences ofthis ae immense. Its not the role of theology to tll us what to do oF 10 provide solutions for pastoral action, Rather, theolo- py follows in a distinctive manner the pastoral action of the church and is 2 Feflection upon it 3, If i is che intellectual understanding of a commitment, theology is an endeavor that must continuously accompany that commitment, The pastoral zation ofthe church will be 2 commitment 10 God and the neighbor, while che ‘ology will accompany that activity to provide continual orientation and animate it Every action of ours must be accompanied by a reflection to orient it, to order jg. co make it coherent, so that it does nos lapse into a sterile and superficial Theology, therefore, will accompany the pastoral activity of the churc that is, che present of the church in the world, Ic will accompany that aciviey continuously, to help i co be faithful 10 the Word of God, which isthe light for theology. ‘But I insist, the first and fundamental objective isthe commicmentof Chiis- tians, One should not ask of theology moze than it can give. Theology is a sei- ‘ence, and like any discipline, has a modest role inthe life of human beings. Th fies step is action. As Pascal expressed it “Al the chings inthis world are not worth one human thought, and all che efforts of human thought ate noc worth ‘one act of charity ‘Theology is on the level of chought and reflection, and there is no theology thae is the equivalent of an act of charity. The central issue is chari ‘ment, action in the world, Al shis is what we understand by theology. There is talk coday of a theology of human liberation, Using this or other capressions, the theme has become a major preoccupation of the magisteriumn of the church in recent yeas Tf faith is a commitment ro God and human beings, it is not possible to live in today’s world without a commitment to the process of liberation. That is what constitutes a commitment today. If paticipation in the process of human liberation isthe way of being present in the world, it will be necessary for Chris- tians co have an understanding of this commitment, of this process of liberation. ‘This process constitutes what has been called since the Council a “sign of the times.” A sign of the times is not primarily a speculative problem—thae is, 2 problem to be studied oF interpreted. Por the reasons noted above, a sign of the tines is frst ofall a call co action and secondly a call to interpretation. A sign of the times calls Christians to action, The process of liberation isa sign ofthe times. Iisa call o action a the same ‘ime that it is a new theme for reflection, new because itis a global cerm for he 25GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ problems contained within ie. Thus there is a certain deficiency in {certain} attempts that are being made with regard to a theology of liberation, ... whick leave me dissatisfied. ‘We will have tobe much more concrete, bue we will also be dependent on the» progress of the science of economies for a more precise knowledge regarding the = national and Latin American reality. A genuine theology of liberation can only — be a ceam effort, a task which has not yee been attempted. : will limit myself therefore to a sketch, to recalling a few paths of inquiry, as is suggested by my title, “Toward a Theology of Liberation.” It really is toward I believe we will have t0 go much further, but we can only achieve thar through collaboration as a number of concepts become more precise. ‘ We understand theology, then, 2s an intellectual understanding of the faith Bur faith is above all a commitment to God and the neighbor. Although it implies the affirmation of eruths, Christian cruth nevertheless has the particular character of being 2 truth that is thought but that first of all is done. "To do the uth,” the gospel text requires, and that is proper to Christian truth. In this skerch we will consider three areas along the following lines: 1, The statement of the question 2. Human liberation and salvation 3. The encounter with God in history 1, THE STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION ‘The gospel is primarily a message of salvation. The construction of the world is a tase for human beings on this earth, To sta the question of a theology of lib- cration means, cherefore, to ask about the meaning of this work on eatth, the — work that human beings perform in this world vis-i-vis the faith. In other words, ‘what relationship is there berween the construction of this world and salvacion? A theology of liberation, chen, will have to reply 6st ofall to this question: Is there any connection between constructing the world and saving ‘Thus our own question is posed. The theology of liberation means estab: lishing the relationship chat exists between human emancipation—in the social, political, and economic orders—and the kingdom of God. 2, HUMAN LIBERATION AND SALVATION, Pope Paul VI said that what che charch can appropriately contribure isa global vision of the human being and of humanity, a vision that sicuates the process of development within the human vocation. This had been affirmed by Guudium «tps, and a reading of the texts will show us the theological progress chac was accomplished by [the pope's encyclical] Papularum progres. If we understand salvation as something with merely “religious” of “spirieu- al? value for my soul, then it would not have much to contribute to conerete Inuman life. But ifsalvation is understood as passing from less human conditions to more human conditions, ie means that messianism brings about the freedom 26 ‘TOWARD A NEW METHOD af captives and the oppressed, and liberates human beings from the slavery that Paul VI referred to (P47), “The sign of che coming of the messiah is the suppression of oppression: the messiah arrives when injustice is overcome. When we struggle fora just world in vahich there isnot servitude, oppression, or slavery, we are signifying the com- ing ofthe messiah. Therefore the messianic promises bind tighilyrogether the [dngdom of God and beter living conditions for human beings or, as Paul VI said, more humane living conditions, An intimate relationship exists between the kingdom and the elimination of poverty and misery. The kingdom comes to | Tif are ovo biblical themes then, ccaon/sation and dhe mesanic promises, which demonstrate the extent to which the encyclical of Paul VI is achored in revelation and the Word of God. Consequently, the pope ean say that human development “constitutes a summary of all our duties.” IE chen we ‘an understand integral developmene as passing from less human conditions to ‘more human conditions, and if within the most human elements we inchide grace, fail, and divine filiation, then we comprehend profoundly why it can be Said thae working for development is the surnmary of all our duties. 3. THE ENCOUNTER WITH GOD IN HISTORY Gaucison ct spes(45) cells us the following: “The Lord isthe goal of human his- tory, the focal point of the longings of history and of civilization, the center of the human race, the joy of every heart, and che answer to all its yearnings.” fehere isa finality inscribed in history, then the essence of Christian faith is to believe in Christ, that is to believe that God is irreversibly committed to human history. To believe in Christ, then, is eo believe that God has made a ‘commitment co the historical development ofthe huraan see. “To have faith in Chrise isto see the history in which we ae living as the pro- gressive revelation of the human face of God. “Whoever sees me sees the Father.” This holds to a certain extent for every human being according to the imporeanc eexe of Matthew 25, which reminds us that an action on behalf of human being isan action on behalf of God. Ifyou gave food and drink, you gave itto me; if you denied it, you denied it to me. CONCLUSION In closing, let us consider two well-known texts in the light of what we have been discussing, The firs is from Karl Marx: ‘The social principles of Christianity preach the need of a dominating class and an oppressed class, And to che latter clas chey offer only the benevolence of che ruling cass. The socal principles of Chistianity poiat to heaven as the compensation for all che crimes that ate commicted an earth, The socal pin. ciples of Christianity explain all che viciousness of oppressors as 2 just pun ishment either for original sin or other sins, of a8 tial thatthe Lord, in inf ”GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ nite wisdom, inflicts on those the Lord has redeemed. The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self hatred, servlity, submission, humility — Jn a word, all the characteristics of a scoundrel How could he have presented such an image of Christianity? ‘The other isa text from Isaiah: or behold I ereare new heavens and a new earths and the former things shall not be remetbeted and come into mind, [We will have changed realiey in such a way char no one will remember the past. The eesult i a global change of structures.) But be glad and rejoice forever in thar which T create: for behold, I create Jerusalem rejoicing, and her people a joy. 1 will rejoice in Jerusalem, and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in ic the sound of weeping and che ry of distress or an old man who does not fill out his days. “They shall build houses and inbabic duem; they shall plane vineyards ad ‘at their frait, They shall not build and another inhabit they shall not plant and another ext for like the days ofa uee shal che days of my people be, and ‘my chosen shall long enjoy che work oftheir hands (65:17~22] ‘This very concrete reality is the kingdom of God. In ic children will not die in a few days, The people will not work for others but for themselves, the city will be called a “rejoicing” and her people a “joy.” How could this have transformed inco what was described in the text of Marx? Unforsunately, both images are true, from different perspectives, Although the messianie promises refer to concrete material things, Marx's vision cof over a century ago continues o be repeated by human beings today. ‘The isu, chen, is whether we ae capable of realizing the prophecy of Isaiah and of understanding the kiagdom of God in its integral realty, or whether we are going 0 give the countertestimony hat is reflected in the statements of Marx. This is precisely what is at stake in our epoch. 2, THEOLOGY AND LIBERATION ‘The Introduction 10 the origina edition of A Theology of Liberation, published fr the fre time in December 1971 by she Centro de Estudios y Publicaciones in Lima, snakes lear he origin, intended audionce, purpore, and procedure of wha came 0 be recognized asthe elasie articulation of lberation sheology. In this introduction every seaguiaes the novel of he questions he poses and the incon- lusiveness of bis answers. His aim is to strengthen the commitment of Christian believer tthe multfceted liberation proces underway in Latin America in the late 1960s, This pasage i fom Theology of Liberation, xix word counts, Gatien “This book is an arempt at reflection, based on the gospel and the experiences of men and woinen committed to the process of liberation in che oppressed and exploited land of Latin America, Ir isa theological reflection born of the experi- ence of shared efforts to abolish the current unjust situa TOWARD 4 NEW METHOD ferent society freer and more human, Many in Latin America have started along the path of a commitment to liberation, and among them isa growing number ‘of Christians: whatever the validity of these pages, itis due co their experiences nd reflections. My greatest desire is nor to betray their experiences and efforts to elucidate the meaning of their solidaricy with the oppressed ‘My purpose is not to claborate an ideology to justify postures already taken, ‘or wo undertake a feverish search for security in the face of the radical challenges that conftoot the fit, oF to fashion a theology from which political action is “deduced.” Ie is rather to let ourselves be judged by che Word of the Lord, wo thinkc through our faith, o strengthen our love, and to give reason for our hope {rom within 2 commitment thar seeks to become more radical, coal, and eflica- cous. Its 0 reconsider the great themes of the Christian lle within this radi- {ally changed perspective and with regard to the new questions posed by this fommitment. This is che goal of the so-called sheology of liberation Many significant efforts along these lines are being made in Latin America Insofar a I know about them, they have been kept in mind and have conscibuted to this seudy. [ wish co avoid, however, the kind of reflection that—legitimarely concerned with preventing the mechanical transfer of an approach foreign to our historical and social coordinates—neglects the conesibution of the universal Coriscian community. Ie seems bere, moreover, o acknowledge explicitly this contribution than co inuoduce surepritiously and uncritically certain ideas tlaboruted in another context—ideas that can be fruitful among us only if they undergo a healthy and frank scrutiny. ‘A telection on the theological meaning of the process of human liberacion throughout history demands methodologically chat I define my terms. The first parc ofthis book is devoted to that purpose, This will enable me co indicate why I pay special attention in this work to the critical Function of theology with respect to the presence and activcy of humankind in history. The most impor- tant instance of this presence in our vimes, especially in underdeveloped and ‘oppressed. countries, is ehe struggle to construct a just and fraternal society, ‘where persons can live with dignity and be the agents af their own destiny. Its ‘my opinion that the term develepment does not well express these profound aspi- ‘ations. Liberation, on the other hand, seems to express them becter. Moreover, in another way the notion of liberation is more exact and all-embracing: ‘emphasizes that human beings transform themselves by conquering their liber- ‘y throughout their existence and their history. The Bible presents liberation— salvation—in Christ as the total gift, which, by Caking on the levels I indicate, ives the whole process of liberation its deepest meaning and its complete and ‘unforeseeable fulfillment. Liberation can thus be approached as a single savifc process. This viewpoint, therefore, permits us to consider the unity, withouecon- fasion, of the vatious human dimensions, that is, one’s relationships with other humans and with the Lord, which theology has been attempting to establish for some time; this approach will provide the framework for our reflection, Tes fi secondly, to show thar the problem that the theology of libera- fe(GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ : tion poses is simultaneously traditional and new. This ewofld characterise § will be more evident if analyze the different ways in which theology has his- tozically responded to this problem, This will ead me to conclude that because = the traditional approaches have been exhausted, new areas of theologieal ref ‘ion are being sought. My examination should help me remove the obstacles from my path and move ahead more quickly. The second part of the work deals with this matter. ‘The preceding analysis leads me so reconsider the “practice” of the church in today’s world. The situation in Latin America, the only continent among the exploited and oppressed peoples where Churistians are in the majority, is espe- cially significant. An artempt to describe and interpret the forms under which the Latin American church is present in the process of liberation—especially among the most commited Christian groups—will allow me to establish the = questions for an authentic theological reRection. ‘These will be the us efforts along these lines. The third part of this treatise is devored ro this atempr. The previous remarks make it clear that the question regarding the theolog- ical meaning of liberation is, in truth, a question cbous she very meaning of Chri. tianity and aboue the mission of the church, There was a time when the church responded to any problem by calmly appealing to its doctrinal and. vical resources. Today the seriousness and scope of the process that we call liberation is such that Christian faith and the church are being radically challenged. They. are being asked to show what significance they have for a human task that has reached adulthood. The greater part of my study is concerned with this aspect. approach the subject within che framework of the unity and, atthe same time, — the complexity ofthe process of liberation centered in che salvific work of Christ, Tam aware, however that I can only sketch these considerations, or more pre cisely, outline the new questions—withouc claiming co give conclusive answers. The novelty and shifting quality of che problems posed by the commitment to liberation make the use of adequate language and sufficiently precise concepts rather difficul. Nevertheless, I present this study in the hope that it will be use- ful, and especially because | am confident that the confrontation necessarily implied in publishing will allow me to improve and deepen these reflections. 3. THEOLOGY: A CRITICAL REFLECTION Theology understood as eviticalreflecion on prasis is among Gusidrreds bese-known contributions tothe discipline. fn remarka toa gathering of Latin American theolo- _gians in 1964 in Pesrépoi, Brazil, Gutiérrez argued for the “theological eritigue of certain pastoral options already made in Latin America’—including is own—as an appropriate task of the theologian. He thus gave exprsion forthe fist time tothe per- spective later t0 be known as “liberation theology.” Ae Chimbere (1968) he spoke of “eisical election onthe presence and action ofthe church in the wold in the light of ‘fith as ene of three sass of theolegy (he others are the pursuis of spiritual wridom cand rational knowledge). Three year later be was even more precse, dexcribing this TOWARD A NEW METHOD son as “ritcal reflection on historical praxis. the light of the Word (Theo: Jey ot Liberation, 11, emphis added). In 1973 be claimed that nthe Latin Arser- fan context theology will bea critical reflection from within and upon historical prc in comonation withthe Word of the Lard lived ot and ascpted in ib” (in Tic osay “Liberation Praxis and Christian Faith,” found in Power ofthe Poor, 60). ly 1988, after 10 decades of intense dicassons of his question at many level of the ‘hur, be depicted theology as ertieal reflection fubich} has for is purpose to read he camplee pravs fof Christian existence] in the light of God's word” and whoe “uleimate norms ofjudgment come from revealed truth that we accept by faith and net “fiom prassislf”(in “Expanding the Views” the esay which trv asthe introduc. tion 1 the second edition of Theology of Liberation, xxiv). The fellowing passages are from Theology of Liberation, 3, 9-12. ‘Theological reflecrion-—that is, che underseanding of the faith—arises sponta- neously and inevitably inthe believer, in al those who have accepted the gift of the Word of God. Theology is incrinsic to ale of faith seeking to be authentic and complete and therefore to the common consideration of this faith in the cecclesial community, There is present in ll Blievers—more so in every Chis- ‘ian community—a rough outline of a theology. There is present an effort t0 ‘nderstand the faith, something like a pre-understanding ofthat faith which is Jncarnated in life, action, and concrete attitude, Ic is on this foundation, and only because of it that the edifice of theology——in the precise and technical sense of the term—can be erected. This foundation is not merely ajumping-ofF point, bc the soil into which cheological reflection stubbornly and permanent- Ip sinks its roots and from which it decives is strength. But the focus of theological work, in the strict sense of the term, has under gone many transformations throughout the history ofthe church, “Bound to the tase of che church, theology is dependene upon its historical development,” ‘writes Christian Duguoe. Moreover, as Congar observed recenly, this evolution has accelerated to a certain extent in recent yeats: “The theological situation, including the very concept of theological work, has changed in the past ewenty- fie year Theology must think critically about itself, about its own foundations. Only this approach can prevent theology from being a naive discourse and make it aware of itself, in fll possession ofits conceptual elemenss. Buc we are not refer- ring exclusively co this epistemological aspect when we talk about theology as ‘tical reflection. We also refer toa clear and critial attitude toward economic and sociocultural factors which condicion the life and reflection of the Chistian ‘community. To disregard these is to deceive both oneself and others. Bue above all, we take this expression as the theory of a particular practice, Theological reflection would then necessarily be a critique of both society and che church insofar as they are convoked and addressed by the Word of God; ie would be a tical theory, worked out in the light ofthe Word accepred in faich and inspired by ¢ practical purpose and therefore indissolubly linked to histoxieal praxis faGUSTAVO GUTIERREZ By preaching the gospel message, by its sacraments, and by the charity of it, members, the church proclaims and welcomes the gift of the kingdom of God at the heart of human history. The Christian community professes a “faith ‘which works chrough charity.” Ie is—et least onght 10 be—efficacious love, action, and commitment to the service of others. Theology is teflection, a criti cal attitude. The commitment of love, oF service, comes first. Theology floes itis the second step. Whac Hegel said about philosophy can be said of theology: ic rises only at sundown. The pastoral activity ofthe church does not flow asa — conclusion from cheological premises. Theology does not generate a pastoral approach; eather it reflects upon it, Theology must be able to find in pastoral activicy the presence ofthe Spirit inspiting the action of che Christian commu nity, The life, preaching, and historical commicment of the church will be a = privileged locus seolegiens for understanding the fsth, ; “To reflect upon the presence and action of the Christian in che world means, © moreover, 0 go beyond the visible boundaries ofthe church, This is of prime - importance. Ie implies openness to the world, gathering the questions it poses, being atcentive co its historical transformations. In the words of Yves Congats “TE the church wishes to deal with the real questions of the modem world and to | attempt to respond to them, ... it must open as it were a new chapter of then- = logico-pastoral epistemology. Instead of using only revelation and eradition as starting points, as classical theology has generally done, ie must stare with fats = and questions derived from the world and from history.” Itis precisely this open- ing to the totality of human history that allows theology to fulfill its critical function vis-a-vis ecclesial praxis without narrowness. "This critical ras is indispensable, Refletion in the light of faith must con- stanely accompany the pastoral action of the church. By keeping historical achievements in their proper perspective, theology helps safeguard society and the church from regarding as permanenc what is only temporary. Critical relec- tion thus always plays the inverse role of an ideology which rationalizes and jus ties a given social and eoclesial order. On the other hand, by recalling the sources of revelation, theology helps to orient pastoral activity fe pus ie in a wider context and se helps it avoid activism and immediacisr. Theology as ert ical reflection thus plays a pat in liberating humankind and the Christian com- ‘munity, preserving them from fershistn and idolatry, as well as from a perni cious and belicding narcissism, Understood inthis way, theology has a necessary and permancnt ole in liberation from every form of religious aienation—often fostered by the ecclesiastical instieusion itself which impedes an authentic approach to the Word of the Lord. ‘Ascritical reflection on society and the church, theology isan understanding which both grows and, in a certain sense, changes. Ifthe commitment of the Chistian communicy in fact takes different forms throughout history, the understanding which accompanies the vicissitudes of this commitment will be constantly renewed and will take untrodden paths. A theology which has as its i 32 . ‘TOWARD A NEW METHOD. ints of reference only “truths” which have been established once and forall — Pnot the Truth which is also a Way—can be only static and, in the long tun, fectile In this sense che often-quoced and misinterpreted words of Henri Bouil- Jund ake on new validity: “A theology which isnot up-to-date isafalsecheology. inaly, theology thus understood, that isco say as linked to prats, plays a prophetic role insofar as ic incerprets historical events with che intention of fhveiling and proclaiming their profound meaning. According co Oscar Cull ann, this is the meaning of the prophetic role: “The propher does not lime Fimself as does the fortune-teller to isolated revelations, but his prophecy becomes preaching, message. He explains to the people the ue meaning of rents he lets them know, at every moment, the plan and will of God.” Buc if theology is based on this incerpretation of historical events and coneributes to the discovery of their meaning, it is with the purpose of making Christians ommitment within them more radical and clear. Only with the exercise of the proplictic fanction understood in chs way, will he theologian be—eo borrow an expression from Antonio Gramsci—a new kind of “organic intellectual.” The. ologians will be personally and vitally engaged in historical realities with specif- ic dates and locations through which nations, social classes, and individuals struggle to free themselves from domination and oppression by other nations, classes, and individuals. Indeed, in she final analysis, the crue interpretation of the meaning unveiled by theology is given in historical praxis. “The hermeneu- tics of the kingdom of God," observed Fwatd Schillebeeckx, “consists espe- cially in making che world a better place. Only in this way will I be able to dis- caver what these words mean: the kingdom of God.” We have here a political hermeneutics of the gospel ‘Theology as a critical reAection on historical praxis in the lighe of the Word does not replace the other functions of theology, such as wisdom and rational lnowledge; rather ic presupposes and needs thera. Buc ths is not all. Ie s not a ‘mater of a mere juxtaposition. ‘The eritical function of theology necessarily lexds co redefinition of ehese other two tasks. Henceforth, wisdom and rational Lnowledge will more explicitly have historical praxis as their point of depascure and their context. Ic is necessaily in terms of this praxis that an understanding of sptirual growth based on Sexiprure should be developed, and itis inthis samme praxis tha faith receives the questions posed by human reason. The relationship between faith and knowledge (science) will be sivuated in the context of the rcla~ tionship becween faith and society and thus in the context of liberating action. Given the theme of che present work, we will py partculae attention to this ci ical function of theology with the ramifications suggested above. This approach vill ead us co be especially aware of the life of che cburch in the werld and of commitments which Christians, impelled by the Spirit and in communion with 4 undertake in history. We will give special consideration to participation in the process of liberation, an outstanding phenomenon of our times, which ‘akes on special meaning in the so-called Thied World countries. hi 33rr GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ This kind of theology, which begins by attending toa particular ser of issues, will peshaps give us the solid and permanent, albeit modest, foundation for the theology in a Latin American penpetive which is both desired and needed. Such = an aim is not due to a frivolous desire for originality, but rather to a fundamen- tal sense of historical efficacy and also—why hide it?—to the desie 10 con- _ tribute to the life and reflection of the universal Christian community, But in = order to accomplish this, he desite for universality—as well asthe contribution of the Christian community asa whole—must be present from the beginning, ‘To conctetize this desire would be to overcome a particularistic work —provin- = cial and chauvinistic—and produce something wnigue, both ou own and uni- versal, and therefore fruit “The only future that theology has isto become the theology of the Future,” Harvey Cox has said. But this theology of the furare must necessarily bea crite ical reading of historical praxis, of the historical task in the sense we have attempted to skeich, Jfirgen Moltmann says chat theological concepts “do not limp after cealicy . . but illuminace reality by showing its fucure.” In our approach, wo ceficct critically on the praxis of liberation is not to “limp after” reality. In the praxis of liberation ehe present is, in its deepest dimension, preg- nant with the future; hope forms an inherent part of our present commitment in history. Theology does nor initiate this future which exists in the present. It does not create the vital ativude of hope out of nothing. Its role is more mod- est. Ie makes these explicit and interprets them as the true lifeblood of history. To reflect upon a forward-directed action is not to be fixed on the past It does not mean being the caboose ofthe present. Rather ic is to discern among present realities, in the movernent of history, that which is driving us toward the future. To reflect by beginning wich liberating historical praxis isto reflect in the light of the farure which is believed in and hoped for. It isto reflect with a view to action which transforms the present. But it does noc mean doing this from an armchait; rather it means sinking roots where the pulse of history is beating at this moment and illuminating it with the Word ofthe Lord of history, who irce- versibly committed himself 10 the present moment of humanity's development in order co carry i to its complete fulfillment. Icis forall these reasons that the theology of liberation proposes for us not so much a new heme for reflection asa new way co do theology. Theology as crit jcal reflection on historical praxis isa liberating theology, a theology of the lib crating transformation of the history of humaniey and also therefore that part of hhumanicy—gathered into ecelsia—which openly confesses Chast. This is athe- cology which does not stop with thinking aboue the world, but rather tries to be a moment in the process through which the world is transformed. Iti a theal- ‘ogy which opens ieself—in the protest against crampled human digaity, in the struggle against the plunder of the vast majority of humankind, in liberating love, and in the building of a new society of justice and fraternity—to the gift © of the kingdom of God. 34 ‘TOWARD A NEW METHOD 4, THE LIMITATIONS OF MODERN THEOLOGY: ON A LETTER OF DIETRICH BONHOEFFER In many of bis writings Gusidrez ames acrsical yet nuanced stance toward com- ples hssorica! development. His view of modernity for example res simple cate- {eriation. On the one hand, Gutitree acknowledges hic own debe t0 progresive iuropern sheologians and recognizes the pertinence of heir work in the context of their ou seeularized societies. Yer be ali takes his ditance from thers, not only ‘because the Latin American contest is diffrent fiom the European (i, it nether secular nor “mnadern’) but slo because the two contexts are negatively linked. At cial analssis makes plain, abuence and poverty pewer ane inignifanes, are not nrelted. While some rsemsethcentury thinkers semed the contradictions inherent in madern Western consciousness—the celebration of individual freedoms and the simuleancous enslavement of masies of people, for example—they have failed, in Gusitred’ view, to see clearly enough that an adequate sponse to such inconsistencies ‘ean only cone from beyond the modern bourgeois word, fom the world of poverty and exploitation it as produced. Gutiress reflections on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and ‘thes fist appeared in 1979 as “Los ttites de La teologa moderna: un texto de Bon oder” in Concilium. The passages below are taken fiom Power ofthe Foot io His- tory 2 28-33. ‘Theological reflection is always earsied on in a context of specific historical processes. It is accordingly bound up with these processes. The bourgeois revo- lutions and their intellectual consciousness, the Folightenment, opened an age of important changes in che concrete life conditions of the Christian churches of the West. Simultaneously, therefore, they produced new challenges for sy ‘tematic reflection upon the faith—challenges still charged with consequences in ‘our own day. ‘The new threats were perceived, in their time, by ewo important thinkers in particular. One was that central igure of medetn thought, who exerted such an influence, if rather a heterodox one, on theology, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. The other was the “father of contemporary Protestant theology,” Friedrich Schlelermacher. Until these evo appeared on the scene, only Immanuel Kant, the theological snipes, was available for being “gone back co" (Back to Kant!” the Protestant theologians loved to cry), all down the nine teenth cencury—and beyond. Another great questioner of Christianity took up these same challenges: Ludwig Feuesbach, whom Karl Barch was of course quite sight co include in his Protestant Theology nthe Nineteenth Century ‘Allchese thinkers, especially Kant, Hegel, and Schleiermacher, were the heirs of a theological tradition altogether comfortable and ae home in the medem “World come of age” of their eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. And now these same scholars woul! provide the fillipthac Protestane theology, daubeless the broadest and most far-reaching theology of modern times, would need in 35GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ ‘order co take a new and important step forward. All this was taking place while the Catholic camp kept its distance from the world of ideas, rangling ise up in a mesh of endless, wearisome polemics with political liberalism over religious fieedom and other modera liberties. In the second half of the nineteenth century, liberal theology was even more outspoken in its aecepeance of this modern, bourgeois world in which it had been born and bred. It continued the direction initiated by our three great thinkers, to be sure. Bur it left their criticisms and uneasiness behind. Now libs cial theology would actually make che modern mentality the norm of faith, as well as of theology : Mach later, Dietrich Bonhocffer would speak of the “easy terms of peace that _ the world dictated.” The school of Albrecht Ritschl isa clear demonstration, in Batth’s view, of this sponeancous, overtly bourgeois character of liberal theolo- » gy. Theology is now more a culmination ofthe spirit of the Enlightenment than a challenge to it. By the end of the nineteenth century, liberal Protestant theol- — ‘ogy became the theology of a self-assured, middle-class Christianity. Scholars recognize that itis only against this backdrop that the reaction of = the thice giants of twentieth-century Protestant theotogy—Kadl Barth, Rudolf | Bulkmana, and Paul Tillich—can be understood. Serious, rigorous, and full of courage, these thinkers’ stubborn questions challenged even the thought of the trio of giants who preceded them. ‘Bonhoeffer, who died in the Nazi extermination camp in Flossenburgin 1945, ‘was a Christian cheologian who soughe to locate God at the very heart and cen= ter of human life. He refused to see God out on its periphery. Asa result he isa theologian of great lucidity vis-A-vis the limitations of modern theology. In 2 ‘number of pithy and penetrating observations—particularly ina passage in alet- ter ofhis dated June 8, 1944, which will serve usas our point of departure for cer- tain reflections on bourgeois Christianity and the systematic reflection upon the faith chae this Christianity produced—he provides the counterweight in favor of what is most progressive and advanced in that theology. He criticizes all three members of our mighty trio of ewentieth-century cheologians, confronting them ancw with the very questions of the Enlightenment that provoked their theology. Bonhoeffer’s objection to the theology of Barth, Bultmann, and Tillch is that although they indeed questioned the Enlightenment and its theology. they failed to question ic squarely and radically. Their critique was doubtless the best this type of theology had ever undertaken. Yer we fel in our bones the limita- tions of an effort to respond ro the challenges ofthe modern world without crit- iciaing icin its coonomic bases, a8 on its social and ideological eves. For, as we shall see, no one ever vanquished the modern, bousgeois mentality while | remaining at its heare. This, it seems to me, is what Bonkoeffer's rstimony ‘communicates to us today. As we shall also see, it may even be that he surmised _ this himself, (Of cousse by taking up this passage from Bonhoeffer’ etter asthe vehicle of 36 oo. TOWARD A NEW METHOD. ut reflections we shall be obliged to make an approach co re farsow a purview—a purely theological purview, in which & ings of our material, pur vebicle, will appear only by way of occasional allusion. indeed, in order not to wander afield in our theological considerations them: ‘shes, we shall have co renounce the opportunity for detailed discussion of cer fain observations and criticisms by our author in other quarters of theology itself Burl erustthatby taking up the penetrating reflections ofthis great Chris tian and incisive theologian, who confronted the challenges of the modern world {as perhaps no one before him, we may see both the grandeur andl the historical limitations of his undertaking—and thereby discern, albeie vaguely ac fist, sanocber path to cake, ‘As had been for Barth, the proclamation of the gospel is Bonhoeffer’ cen- tral concern. His theological reflection was always bound up with bis pastoral ministry. Surely all great theologies are sprung from this same union. The intense degree of Boohoeffe’s political commitment during the last ten years of bis life only served to sharpen his concern for che proclamation of the Christian ‘message, lead him onto new terrain, and lay out before him a whole new prob- lematicvis-i-vis his discourse on the faith. The question “How may one speak of God in a world come of age?” points up two themes he will concenerate on in his writings during his time in prison in Tegel: ehe world come of age we live in and the God we believe in. Ukimately whac this question asks (and here Bon- hoeffee broaches «thisd subject as well, one chat spans the fast two) iss "Whar i Christianity really?” Thar i, “Who actually is Chris for us today?” This is che ‘question ¢heological thinking asks—that is, nonreligious thinking. For Bonhoeffer, Christan theology had become lost in misunderstandings, polemics, and apologetics with the modern world. There can be no doubs thar he is thinking even ofthe grcat theological undertakings we have cited above— the work of our three cwentieth-century giants. The basic reason, to Bonhoef- fee's mind, for the failure ofall these atrempas is chat humanity's adulthood had tot been taken for what ic was. Its teal questions have not even been heard, let alone answered, "The expressions “world come of age” or “adulthood of the world,” which Bon- hoeffec began to usc in his June 8 Jeter, are of course an allusion to che celebrat- cd passage in which Immanuel Kant takes cognizance of the new situation ‘obtaining in his own eighteenth century. Bonhoeffer proposes to take on the «ati problem—to face squarely the facvof alhumanity come of age, to accept this new world withoue reserve, to come to grips with its questions righe in the mi dle of che fel of bate, instead of heading rbbiclike for the bushes or che shad ‘wv of a massive old wall, to reason upon the faith without any nostalgia for what ‘sno more—in short, o do everything that modern cheology has not managed to do, Thisis the task to come, and Bonhoeffer fels he is in virgin territory now. Nevertheless, at no time in the course of his attempe to come to grips with a {rown-up world just ashe finds ie does Bonhoeflee point ous thar ehe historical iy in pethaps too istorical moor- 37GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ agent of modern society and ideology is the boorgeois class—that i, social class which has wrested economic and political power from the grasp of more tradicional sectors and inaugurated a mode of production that is generating new forms of exploitation and new social classes. That humanity's adulthood would bee buile upon a world of poverty and plunder does nor come into his feld of vision Icis only the facts and events marking the mastery of nature and society by reason thar figure in his account of the historical process leading to human auconomy. Concretely, these facts and events will be the great milestones in the ascent of the bourgeoisie. “The protest movements of the poor, from the late Middle Ages on, find no place in Bonhocfier's historical focus, nor does the contemporaneous labor ‘movement. I is remarkable that the phenomenon of Nazism, against which he struggled so courageously, did not lead Bonhoeffer o a deeper analysis of che “crisis in today's society.” It was the Nazi phenomenon that seems to have pro. voked his judgment upon she ultimate values of modernity. Perhaps the expla- nation is that, taken up as he is with che fascist enemy and its atacks on liberal society from the rear, Bonhoeffer was les sensitive tothe world of injustice upon which that society was built, ‘We must come to understand this new world, this world come of age. Of this Bonhoeffer is convinced. Its true that some of his expressions could lead one 19 believe chat he postulated a mundane self-complacency insteael. Bur ao, he writes: “The world muss be understood bette than it understands ise, [namely] on che bass ofthe gospel and in the light of Chris. Bherhard Bethge is right when he says that itis the chriseological perspec: tive chat is basic for Bonhoeffer. He is right again that Bonhoeffer’ reflections on humanity's adulthood are neither philosophy, nor phenomenology, but theology bhai ‘The recognition of the world’s coming of age is, with Bonhoeffer, neither phi- losophy nor phenomenology, but the knowledge of God, ic, “theology,” and {hav isa knowledge thar seeks ro follow God where he has already preceded us ‘That is why Bonoelfer’s statement about the world come of age is ist and fasta theological statement Ie is this attempe co “follow God where he has already preceded us” chat requires us to reject the religious interpretation of Christianity—that at last “to speak on the one hand metaphysically, and on the other hand indi- vidualistically.” Both ways lead us out of che world-—the former by locking God up in categories of “absolute” and “infinite,” the later by “the displacement of God from the world, and fiom the public part of human life” in order to rele= = gate him vo che “sphere of the ‘personal,’ the ‘innes;’ and the ‘peivate”” Here ‘once more we have a criticism of theology’s attemprs to respond to the sudden antacks of the modern mentality by merely falling back instead of making a’ froncal asaule For our author, when all is said and done, to seck to save the faith through TOWARD A NEW METHOD, igion ist fl to see chat religion is aways partial, whereas faith is global. I ‘A comparison wich Barch at this point is inescapable, and ie will enable us to _godersiand just what Bonhoeffer means by “religion.” Bonhoeffer always recog- ied his debt co Barth, but there ae clear differences beeween ther as well. The fast point of divergence is that, for Barth, rcligion is @ necessary product of human sciving. Of course i this is what you begin wich, holds Barth (and this jewiat his “Friendly enemy,” Schleieemaches, began with), you will never arrive at she God of the Bible, For Bonhoeffer, on che other hand, the religious inter- pretation of Christianity is something historically conditioned. Ie is a Western phenomenon, now fallen prey to che maturation of humanity. For Barth, religion issomething inherent in human nature; for Bonhoeffer, ics a stage of history. But there isa second, more important, difference, For Barth, religion isa way ‘of ining control of God. For Bonhoeffer, religion isa way of understanding God as dominator of the human person. Which of the ewo is it—the human heing’s power over God, or God's power over the human being? It is ehe latter notion that is Bonhoeffer’ recognized adversary. Ultimately, he holds, the ques- tion facing us is not, “What is the modon spicit and what can it accept in the ‘Christian faith?” ‘The question now demanding our response is much more rad- jeal:"Who is God?” ‘The answer is, God is the God of Jesus Christ. That is, God is a God who saves us not through his domination bur through his suffering, Here we have Bonhoeffer’s famous thesis of Gad? weaknes. Ie will make its mark in theology after he is gone. It is oF this God, and only of this God, that che Bible ells us. ‘And ic is thas that the cross acquites its tremendous eevelatory potential with respece «o God's weakness as an expression of his Here is a concept charged with force and power. “Ie is not che sligious act thet makes the Christian, but participation in che suferings of God in the see ‘ular life.” This is conversion. This is what itis to believe in the gospel, Whae snakes a Christian a Christian is “being caught up into the messianic suflerings ‘of God in Jesus Chris, But here we strike boom 100. Here we are at the very heart of things. The cap of humanity's matucity must be drunk to che dregs. The correct response to ‘modernity is not co place God beyond the limits of reason, of drag him into his ‘ory ftom the outside, or domesticate him in “religious sotiment,” or bole him. up in bourgeois mentality by making belief in him a human excellence. Nor again is it the answer to assert chat to move away from him is the destruction of the coor of all human culture, Nor, finally, is the answer to make of him the object oF free personal decision. God in Christ is a God suffering, and to share in his weakness is co believe in him. This is what ie means to be a Christian, Buc where is suffering today? Who are those who suffer? Thus Bonhoeffer finds himself driven Co a question full of consequences. “What does this life look like, this participation in the powerlessness of God in the world?” Bonhoeffer has walked, without fear and withoue reserve, down the road of 1 world come of age.GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ, she recognition of a world come of age—the world encountered by modern the- logy. And he walled ito the end, 0 full acceptance of that work. This is whay enabled him to point oa new way of understanding God, But now of course he will need a new way of understanding God's presence in history. And here there i isa fore in the road, and itis for us to make the choice. We may simply empha size che world’s adulthood, and keep on enthusiastically pulling out the conse. = ‘quences, without an analysis ofthe historical bases upon which this phenome: | fon has been erected —and then we shall have entered a blind lly, fruits for ‘any meaningful theology. Or we may understand this last theological effore of = Bonhoeffer’ as having led modern theology to a collision with is own dialees: cal demand for a change in perspective. Te will no fongcr do simply co continue to think in the modern mold, refuse = ing to accept the theological datum that thar mold, that mentality, has accom. © panel and justified the historical process chat creates this new world of spolia. tion and injustice. Turning our backs, in our theological reflection, on the fact = that the so-called modem spirit, which is the interlocutor of progressivistcheol § ‘ogy, is in large part the reflection ofa capitalistic, bourgeois society will lead us — setely to a few skirmishes with the rear guard of a world in decomposition. Or = at most—and Bonhoeffer saw this himself it wil permit us ro Forge a discourse ‘upon the faith for the “bourgeois, pecy, and grand.” Bonhoeffer's courage led hhim to a mountaintop, and from that mountaintop he could discern, chrough | the mises, other zoads to follow, even though he would be unable forthrighdy stride down them. Indeed, the theme of God's suffering, to which Bonhoeffer was led by his analysis of che modern world, came to him another way aswell, nan earlier text, composed before any of the letters of his prison experience, he speaks of att “apprenticeship” with which he had been favored in recent years: : I isan experience of incomparable value ro have learned to ace the great events of che history of the world from beneath: from the viewpoint of the useless, the suspect, the abused, the powerless, the oppressed, the despised—in a sword, from che viewpoint of chase who suffer. ‘We may debate just ro whac extent chis “apprenticeship” influenced Bonko-