"Life in all its Expressions!"

Painting by French artist Francoise Nielly.  The artist says
of her art: "I love the racial diversity, the blend of colors,
of people, the contrasts… Life in all its expressions!

In a conversation about churches and religion recently, I was asked if I consider myself a Protestant. After a short pause, I responded “no – I really think of myself primarily as a Christian.” (And in saying that, I want to clarify that I am not using the designation “Christian” in the colloquial sense as referring only to the self-designated “born again” folks, as over-against Catholic or Protestant. In my view, this is a false distinction. All who center their faith in Jesus, the Christ – individuals, as well as faith communities – are, by definition “Christ-ian.”)

But to go back to the original question and my initial response, I would more accurately describe myself as “a person of faith.” You see, I have come to a place in my life where I consider myself to be a broadly ecumenical person. The term “ecumenical” has often been used within Christianity to refer to openness between the various Christian denominations. However today there is a growing recognition that there needs to be a greater openness among all faith traditions as well as with those who claim no faith. It is within this stream of broad openness, of an inter-faith/no faith ecumenism, that I journey. And from this place I view and relate to all people as my sisters and brothers.

Our world has been too long divided along religious lines. All we have to do is listen to the daily news to know that wars are fought and people die for the cause of religious differences. This, despite the fact that virtually every religion affirms some form of the so-called Golden Rule: “Treat others as you want to be treated.”^*  And so I choose – and my faith calls me - to stand in a place where I recognize and treat all people as my sisters and brothers.

I grew up in a Christian home and as an adult I have grown into faith as a Christian. Thus, the place from which I engage life is, broadly speaking, within the Christian tradition. As I have expressed in other posts, I find the biblical story and the Christian ritual and liturgy to be value-filled and meaningful. I am drawn to the fact that there is a powerful and consistent (although not always practiced) call within this heritage to live on the side of creating a world of justice, of equality among all peoples, of care for our world, and of peace. I also find here a call to the depth and mystery of relationship and life. Thus the title of this blog: "Journey Inward and Journey Outward."

However, while this is the place where I stand, I do not do so in an exclusive manner. On one hand, I do not view Christianity as the “only way.”^±  And, on the other hand, I do not feel “chained to the cross,” to quote a good friend's comment on my last posting. In fact through participating in the rituals and learning about other traditions I have not only gained appreciation for the many ways in which humankind encounters the Divine, but have also deepened my experience and understanding of my own faith tradition.

Today, especially, I urge that it is critical that we stand together – all people of faith/no faith. I find the rhetoric of persons like Donald Trump to be despicable. And I am not only saddened but alarmed that so many of my fellow citizens would identify with and support such smallness of mind and heart. That these views even get traction is an embarrassment to us as a nation and evidence, I believe, that the United States is an empire in decline, struggling to maintain a false sense of preeminence.

In contrast, as people of faith I believe we are called to something different. I believe we are called to recognize the common humanity of all people, to recognize that all of us are children of the Divine; in the words of artist Francoise Nielly, to honor "Life in all its expressions!" I believe that we are called especially to stand with those who are suffering and marginalized. And so, I choose to stand with my black brothers and sisters and with my middle eastern and Muslim sisters and brothers, challenging systems and attitudes of racism and xenophobia and being a part of efforts to create a truly welcoming and diverse society.^†  This, for me is what it means to be Christian, this is what it means to be a person of faith!

*In preparing this post, I discovered an organization that promotes the Golden Rule with a vision of “a world with more compassion, respect and understanding for all life.”
±For a series of insightful, if at times controversial, essays on this theme, see John Hick and Paul F. Knitter, eds. The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987.
†View the video, “Hell You Talmbout” - a powerful expression of solidarity with the struggle of the African American community in the U.S. today.

Evangelicals in the 21st Century: Some Observations

Outdoor venue at the Wild Goose Festival 2015.

This year I had the opportunity to attend two Evangelical events. In the summer I was at the Wild Goose Festival, described by some as a kind of “Evangelical Woodstock.” And then in the fall I accompanied my 93-year-old mother to Panama for the centennial anniversary of the mission organization that she and my dad served in for almost 40 years. As a “recovering fundamentalist/evangelical” I found it intriguing to listen in – now as an outsider - on the issues that evangelicals are struggling with in the 21^st Century. Related to various themes, what I heard were folks anguishing over how to be a part of the modern world within the context of still maintaining their evangelical identity.

From my own Evangelical years, I remember attending Moody Bible Institute in the early 70s and being instructed in no uncertain terms that listening to rock music, having a beer or glass of wine, attending movies, and even going to see the Broadway musical Godspell all constituted sinning. In fact, if I were caught doing any of those things I would have been severely reprimanded and probably expelled from the school. So it came as a bit of a surprise to me when some years later, after I had already departed the Evangelical/Fundamentalist camp, I discovered that Evangelical churches were promoting drums and electric guitars and rock & roll-rythmed praise songs (even dancing) in worship. Today MBI Radio stations across the country offer Christian rock music as well as movie reviews, including recommending movies to their audience - even PG13 and R-rated movies (unheard of back in the 70s)!

Similarly, during my student years at Moody, Karl Barth was condemned as a Christianity-undermining “neo-orthodox” theologian. We learned that he along with the older “liberal theologians,” including the social gospel movement were anti-God and anti-Christ, not Christian at all. And Catholic – and especially liberation theology - were anathema. In more recent years however, Barth at least, seems to have gained significant favor among Evangelicals, identified as one of their own. And, as my observations in this piece reveal, perhaps a move toward a social gospel and at least a tentative openness to the liberation tradition as well.

These experiences and others along the way have led me to the conclusion that there is something superficial, lacking in truly rooted integrity within Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism. What at one time is affirmed with utmost certainty as the truth is later somehow found not to be so. What is for a moment deemed absolute turns out to be relative to the times (even though they will ardently disavow any kind of relativism). What was wrong yesterday is today deemed to be alright; or conversely what was seen as Truth (“with a big 'T'”) yesterday may be up for question now.

What I witnessed in the Evangelical settings I visited this year was people anguishing over how to re-shape once again their Evangelical stance in order to massage into place acceptable connections with formerly unacceptable ideas, ideas that seem impossible to reject now in the world of the twenty-first Century. This, while still maintaining the guise of biblical literalism and salvation so central to the Evangelical/Fundamentalist core.

One of the leading themes that was voiced repeatedly at Wild Goose was the deep pain related to identifying as gay or lesbian within the Evangelical community. There were expressions of anger, even rage – understandably – over experiences of being called sinful, being shunned, or even being told they and their friends are going to hell for being gay. Similar disbelief and exasperation were expressed over perspectives suggesting that the solution to gayness is healing or conversion, that “God will bring you back to your true identity as straight.” The other part of this conversation were those wrestling with how to fully claim gay identity within an authentic Evangelical faith and theology. Given what I have observed in the past, what I anticipate is that within a few years (or decades) Evangelicals will find a way to affirm that being gay or lesbian is fully compatible with authentic Evangelical faith.

At the conference in Panama there were two messages that caught my attention. One came from a Colombian pastor, Alex Chiang, who spoke candidly and at times forcefully to the audience of mostly North American and not always fully receptive white missionaries. He challenged the missionaries to recognize that the “pure Gospel” they claim to bring to Latin America is in fact laden with European and North American cultural, historical, and political baggage. “You have proclaimed a gospel that is superficial, lacking depth and lacking roots” he challenged, “a gospel that has done damage to the people and to the church in Latin America.” 

My Mom (bottom left) in group picture at the
Centennial Celebration in Panama.

“Latin America is Catholic!” Chiang asserted somewhat defiantly. Citing the example of Jesuit missionary, Luis Espinal, who was martyred in Bolivia for taking a stand with the poor, and quoting Brazilian liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, he argued that the Catholic church has changed significantly. “So, in coming to our countries as missionaries you must be clear,” he challenged. “Do you view the Catholic Church as an enemy (as did the missionaries of an earlier era), or do you recognize them as partners in proclaiming the true gospel?”

On the political level he argued that the so-called “leftist” governments so demonized within the official political rhetoric and policies of the United States are in fact loved and valued by the people, especially the poor, in Latin America. “So, don't come to our countries carrying the political baggage of your government. Rather, come with open hearts and minds to listen. If you are going to be missionaries in our countries, leave your preconceived ideas behind and be open and learn about our cultural, religious, and political reality!” He closed his presentation showing the video by rap artist Calle 13: “Soy America Latina” (“I am Latin America”).

The other challenge at the Panama conference came from well known (in Evangelical circles) speaker and author Bob Moffitt. His central message - also not always well received - called for a radical change in the foundational premises of Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity. One of his key affirmations was that “To hold that proclamation (evangelism) and conversion are primary is an error.” Contrasting with the central focus of Evangelicalism, he proposed that “Jesus made followers, not converts; he pointed to the Kingdom (of God) not to salvation!” “In Jesus practice, discipleship is the first step. Within this relationship, conversion may (or may not) happen. And it may come first, but often it will not come at all.”

Instead of claiming the superiority of their own unique position with God and emphasizing the priority of conversion, Moffit challenged the Evangelical audience to “demonstrate the love of God.” “This,” he affirmed, “is the most essential part of following Jesus.” He continued: “We (Evangelicals) tend to get caught up in numbers, but what is important is not the quantity of believers or churches but the quality.”

Offering a Kingdom-centered theology, Moffitt proposed that “the purpose of the church is not salvation, not church planting, but equipping God's people by serving, by making disciples. When we do this, God enters into our society and transforms. What we need today is a demonstration of God's love. It is this demonstration of a new kind of humanity,” he concluded “that will bring people to Christ. A follower of Jesus is someone who serves, someone who looks like Jesus.”^*

Hearing Chiang and Moffitt, I reflected on the fact that what they are proposing - now within Evangelical/Fundamentalist circles - are in fact understandings that have been held for decades by most within the mainline and Catholic communities. For me, this was encouraging to hear, and it confirms a suspicion I have held for a long time – that despite its staunch claim to staying true to an "unchanging New Testament gospel", Evangelicalism is also an evolving faith perspective. The only difference is that it tends to lag some decades behind other part of the Christian church.

As for the question of the place and acceptance of gays within the Christian community, broader segments of the church are at various places along the spectrum of views regarding human sexual and gender identity. What I witnessed at Wild Goose is, again, simply a confirmation that sooner - although probably later - Evangelicals will come around on this issue too. In the meantime however, some are choosing to leave the Evangelical churches and others to leave Christianity altogether. 

*For a more complete understanding of Moffitt's approach, see his new book If Jesus Were Mayor.

TRAVEL TIPS

Some personal observations and learnings from recent travels between the United States and countries in Central and South America. 

• If you prefer flight crews who are stressed out, rude and who make you feel like a jerk if you ask for any assistance, I recommend you choose U.S. Airlines - United, American, Etc.  On the other hand if you prefer flight crews who are smiling, polite, and who offer assistance even before you ask, I recommend you choose one of the many Central and South American airlines that now have flights to and from the United States.

  

  Window view on an early morning flight

  
  
• If you would prefer not to hear any language on your flight except English, a U.S. Airline would be the recommended choice. Of course, in the event of an emergency consider the fact that the other-language speakers on your flight, whose presence has been ignored in all the announcements, may not have fully understood the emergency procedures so in the ensuing confusion you will probably end up dying along with them.
• If, on the other hand, you don't mind hearing a variety of other languages on your flight - both in the airline announcements as well as among the people around you; if you prefer that the flight crew be multi-lingual and if you even enjoy the sounds of different languages or the challenge of learning something new, then the Central and South American airlines are definitely your best choice. 
  
  
• If you are from the United States, recognize that calling 
  yourself an "American" is a rather vague reference, as everything from Canada, south all the way to Tierra del Fuego, is in fact America - North and South. In Latin America they have a more accurate way to identify those from the U.S. The term is (in Portuguese) "Estadunidense," the equivalent for the U.S. to “Bolivian”, “Brazilian”, “Panamanian”, etc., because all of us are American! The easiest way to say it in English is to identify as a "citizen of the United States," or by introducing yourself as "from the United States." 
  
  
• If you forget a small pair of cuticle scissors, a plastic shaving razor, or any sharp object in your carry-on bags it will, of course, be removed and theoretically discarded when you go through security to ensure everyone's safety on the flight. However, once the flight is under way and when meal time comes, the flight crew provides every passenger with metal knives and forks. 
  
  
  
  
  
• If you are boarding a direct flight flying from an international airport to a U.S. airport, the imperial over-reach of U.S. policies requires that you go through security twice. The first time is on your way to the gate, as we are familiar with in the U.S. However before your flight departs you will be required to line up a second time, take off your shoes, take everything out of your pockets, and have your carry-on items inspected again before you are allowed on the plane. After this second security check you are locked in the gate area - no more coffee breaks or potty breaks - until you board your flight.
  
  
• If you tend to be very schedule conscious and irritated by delays, Latin America may at times be a challenge for you. On the other hand, if you are a laid back, go with the flow, and relaxed kind of person who enjoys life and people, you will get along just fine!
  
  Bon Voyage!!
  

“Si Me Matan . . .” ~~ “If They Kill Me . . .”

                  In my recent pilgrimage to the country of El Salvador I witnessed and 

             personally experienced the mystery in these words.  In the face of the violence

  

                 and injustice of this world, hope stands defiant.  Life overcomes death!

I had the privilege recently, along with a group of 26 co-workers and friends to be present for the beatification of Archbishop Oscar Romero. This celebration took place in the little nation of El Salvador in Central America, the country where the Archbishop was born and lived his life and witness. During a time of unspeakable violence in the late 1970s – violence perpetrated by the Salvadoran government, a government and violence supported by U.S. tax dollars – Archbishop Romero became an outspoken defender of those being victimized and killed, average citizens and especially the poor. Like Jesus, and like prophets of all ages, because of his clear message challenging the powers of his time, on March 24, 1980 he was shot and killed while celebrating Mass.

His accusers claimed that he was a subversive, a communist. But the words he spoke were from the Bible: “do not kill,” “love your neighbor,” “do justice.” And those who knew him personally will tell you even today that those are the words he lived by. Although Archbishop, rather than live in the Archbishop's residence he chose to live in a sparse room at a small hospital where cancer patients were cared for. He loved visiting, encouraging and praying with the patients there. In addition to celebrating Mass at the Cathedral, he was also known to visit smaller parishes around the city and in the country each week. He enjoyed meeting and visiting with the people, hearing their stories, sharing their struggles as well as their joys. His biographers recall that he was a disciplined man, strict with himself, a man who although bookish and shy was bold in his commitments and personal integrity. He was also known to be a man of prayer.

In one of his last homilies he spoke directly to the military: “In the name of God, I ask you, I implore you, I command you – stop the repression!” Having received numerous death threats himself, on one occasion he reflected: “Si me matan, resucitaré en el pueblo salvadoreño.” “If they kill me, I will rise again in the Salvadoran people.” And the command was given, a sharp-shooter was sent, and he was killed with a single bullet to the heart.

Now 35 years after his death he has been named “a martyr killed in odium fidei”(because of hatred of the faith) and Pope Francis has proclaimed his beatification, the first step to becoming a saint. And so it was for the celebration of this historic moment, that our group decided to go to El Salvador.

Looking back, I'm not sure what I expected to encounter on this pilgrimage. My wife and I (along with others in our group) had been invited to stay in the homes of families in the capital city of San Salvador. And so, in part, I anticipated the warmth of the typical Latin American welcome and hospitality. I was also looking forward to enjoying delicious pupusas (one of the best known national plates of El Salvador) and other authentic Salvadoran foods. We would visit the cathedral where the Archbishop celebrated Mass and where his crypt is located today.

Image of Bishop Romero in the lower level of the
Cathedral, where his crypt is located.  The day we
visited, this musician sang songs honoring the
Bishop's legacy of standing with the poor.

We would also visit the University of Central America, where in 1989 six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter were massacred by members of an elite battalion of the Salvadoran military (a battalion, incidentally, trained in the United States). These places, which I had visited one other time some years ago, I knew would carry with them the weight, pain and visual horror (there are pictures and clothing still blood-stained from those who were killed) of the deaths. They would be a reminder of the more than 75,000 Salvadorans murdered and disappeared during this time of violence as well. But I also imagined the crowds gathered in the Plaza Divino Salvador del Mundo (Divine Savior of the World Plaza), celebrating – intense tropical heat not withstanding – this long-awaited moment of acknowledgement and recognition of a man already considered a saint in El Salvador and beyond.

However, regardless of what I may have anticipated, it could not come near to the reflection and emotions of being there. What I experienced in El Salvador was less about death, and more about LIFE – Resurrection Life! Members of San Antonio de Soyapango, the parish that hosted us, and the families who received us were exuberant in their welcome and gracious hospitality. And folks we met everywhere were overflowing with gratitude and appreciation. People would come up to us on the street to express how moved they were that we had come such a distance, from another place, to honor their hero. They seemed almost surprised to learn that the life and testimony of their Salvadoran Archbishop had reached so far. But there was also recognition of this reality in the signs and t-shirts proclaiming “San Romero de America” (Saint Romero of the Americas).

Officially we were there to celebrate the beatification of a martyr. But the message everywhere was that Monseñor Romero is not dead. At every turn one was reminded of the Archbishop's famous words: “If they kill me, I will rise again in the Salvadoran people.” And it was clearly evident that he lives on. Through the years of war that followed his death, when one did not dare let his name pass one's lips out loud in El Salvador, his message and spirit were nevertheless kept alive within and among the people. In the words of his homilies, copies of which he left in the parishes where he preached, his call to live the Gospel, to follow Jesus “the only true leader,” the promise and hope that his life and death proclaimed, lived on. Those who had to flee El Salvador for their own safety during the war recounted and kept alive in other places – in communities here in the United States - their personal memories of the gentle caring and fearless truth-telling of their Salvadoran Archbishop. Leading up to the day of beatification, t-shirts, posters and road-side signs proclaimed the deep mystery and witness: “Romero Vive!” (Romero Lives!).

And being in El Salvador, I witnessed and personally experienced the mystery in these words! Standing in stark, stubborn defiance to the gruesome violence of the war years and challenging the gang violence of the present day, the Salvadoran people we met expressed a sense of hope and life that gets under the skin, that tests the boundaries of the rational. It is not a naive or reality-denying kind of hope. There is grimness and sadness to be seen in weary eyes and faces etched with a haunting sense of pain and loss. Almost everyone in this country has lost someone in the war or in the current violence. At the same time though there is also an honest hope and a gutsy, rooted belief that the Divine has touched this land. As one theologian put it: “With Monseñor Romero, God has passed through El Salvador” (Ignacio Ellacuria).

And in struggling to put words to what I experienced in El Salvador, it is to this Mystery that I attempt to bear witness. Revisiting the story of Bishop Romero, sensing the real presence of his spirit in places where he lived and died his own prophetic witness, and – and, yes, being with the Salvadoran people (!) I met God!! I met once again the God of the Jewish Prophets and the God of Jesus, whose call is to the radical challenge of siding with the poor, with victims, with the powerless and the marginalized. It is a call for me as a white brother to find an acceptable and authentic way to put my voice and body on the line in the movement of Black Lives Matter! It is a call to denounce and vote out of office those who from positions of power and economic gain would block healthcare for poor families and children. It is a call to take the personal risk of placing myself physically and politically between immigrant families and those who would with xenophobic or racist motives seek to enforce unjust and anti-immigrant laws; a call to stand in the way of the injustice and to demand justice for immigrant children separated from their parents by deportations and for immigrant youth deported back to the violent communities from which they fled for their lives. It is a call to question and act on the side of creating alternatives to a global system that benefits from the violence and madness of war, that creates wealth for a few at the expense of impoverishing an ever-growing majority. It is a call to challenge this system that threatens the very existence of life on this planet in the name of short term gain and out-of-control materialism. It is a call to envision and engage in concrete strategies for creating a new world order characterized by justice which leads to peace, that promotes equality among all people, that ensures a healthy abundant life for every person, and that supports the long-term viability of this home that we share with all other species and that we call Earth.

Santo Romero Vive!! Saint Romero Lives!!

Reaching for Liberation – Part 6 “Salvation in Real and Historical Time”

This is the final of six posts in which I draw on an article by liberation theologian, Ignacio Ellacuria,¹ to reflect on and seek to re-frame the connected themes of sin, Jesus' death, and salvation.

-------------------------------------

Jesus died because he believed in and proclaimed the real historical possibility of a different kind of world, a world that would subvert and fundamentally change the existing structures of his time. But his words were a worry, and the growing enthusiastic response from his followers became a threat to those who held the power and who benefited from the way things were, and so on the basis of trumped up charges he was found guilty and executed.

Jesus' core message, the salvation he announces, is the Reign of God. Not some far off reality in some distant “celestial” place. Not something we abide this worldly life for, awaiting our “reward” after our physical death. No, the salvation he came announcing is the hope and radical possibility that here in this world, on our planetary home called Earth, our lives together can be fundamentally different. This is what the Gospels are about. This is what “gospel” means: Good News! “This is the time of fulfillment,” Jesus announces. “The Kingdom of God is at hand!”

And the Kingdom, the Reign, he announces is not some unearthly place in glory flitting among the angels but, rather, a new way of being right here and now. In the society of first century Israel, illness, poverty, imprisonment were understood to be the result of one's own sins or the sins of one's family or ancestors. This is not unlike our own day where the tendency is to view poverty, crime and even illness still as reflecting, to a large extent, one's own individual bad choices somehow disconnected from the social and economic context in which one lives. We mouth the saying “it takes a village to raise a child” but often place blame on the lone individual who goes off course.

Jesus, on the other hand, turns this perspective on its head. He reaches out and literally touches the untouchables (see for example Mark 1:40-45) – and those who were outcast find themselves once again accepted and welcomed back into the community. Instead of blaming the victim, suggesting that the poor or the criminal deserve the suffering that is theirs, Jesus baldly proclaims that the imprisoned will be set free, the oppressed liberated, and the poor will be the recipients of glad tidings (Luke 4:18-19). This is what he means when he preaches the Reign of God! Furthermore he challenges those who would be his followers with the expectation that we will be neighbor and sister/brother to the rejected ones, the marginalized and outcasts of our own world (see Matthew 25:31-46 “the judgement of the nations”; see also the Jesus' comment on the Great Commandment followed by the parable of the good Samaritan - Luke 10:25-37).

The Latin American theologian, Ellacuria, does not stop with this re-framing of our understanding of salvation but takes the reflection one step further. While confessing that in faith we understand Jesus' life and death as uniquely reflecting “the definitive presence of God among human beings,” he reminds us that equally important is Jesus promise that, through God's spirit, His (Jesus') mission is continued in us. He challenges the community of folks who would be his followers to “take up our own crosses and follow Him.”² “This continuity,” argues Ellacuria, “is not purely mystical and sacramental, just as [Jesus' own] activity on earth was not purely mystical and sacramental. In other words, worship, including the celebration of the eucharist, is not the whole of the presence and continuity of Jesus.” In keeping with the theme that our faith must be practiced historically, must be rooted in real time, Ellacuria argues that “there must be a continuation in history of what he (Jesus) carried out in his life. . .”

"Many suffer so a few may enjoy,
many are dis-possessed so that a few may possess."

The understanding that Ellacuria proposes is that salvation continues to be proclaimed and struggled for and died for in our world today. This takes place especially in the lives of the “crucified people, whose crucifixion is the product of actions in history.” In our world, he writes, “the majority of humankind” experiences life as crucifixion, a deliberate and often times violent death that is the consequence of structures and systems that benefit the few at the expense of the many. “Many suffer so a few may enjoy . . . many are dispossessed so that a few may possess.” This is the way our world is today, writes Ellacuria, and surely the systems and structures that make our world like this “must be regarded as sin.” Nevertheless, in the midst of often unspeakable misery, loss and violence one still encounters - miraculously we might say - the prominent and palpable presence of grace in the real lives of suffering people, this in the experience of real and loving community. And in this reality, against all odds, is born the hope and belief that life still is victorious over death “a victory already announced in the resurrection of Jesus, but one that must be won in a process of following in his steps.” This is the faith-grounded hope and real, historical reality that we name salvation!

And so, salvation is not just about ME - as I began with in this series.³ In fact it is not about me, or you, or anyone individually. Rather it is about our world and the whole human race, about the well-being of every person (and of every living species and of the survival and health of the Earth itself). It is less about another world and more about a new world right here where we are, a world that emerges in real life, in the concrete, messy realities of human history. A world envisioned, struggled for, and made real, where all of humankind live in justice, in caring, in abudance, in healing. Where the presence and life of a loving and gracious God are found to be truly present, forming the very core of human community. This is SALVATION!

_____________________________________________________

1  The article is reprinted in various collections of Ellacuria's work. It is also availble online in Spanish (http://www.seleccionesdeteologia.net/selecciones/llib/vol19/76/076_ellacuria.pdf 2015-03-6) and

English (http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/ellacuria.asp 2014-01-18).
2  Note that this statement from Jesus stands out as so central to Jesus' teachings that it is recorded in all three of the synoptic gospels: Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23.

3  See the my first post, “Growing up Evangelical,” at http://spiritandpraxis.blogspot.com/2015/02/reaching-for-liberation-part-1-growing.html

Reaching for Liberation – Part 5 “The Crux of the Matter” or “Jesus Died BECAUSE of Sin”

This brings us to the crux - pun intended - of the questions I am wrestling with in this series of reflections (and just in time for Holy Week!). If the central meaning of the cross, i.e. Jesus' death, has to do with overcoming sin and creating salvation, what is the nature of this connection?? In what ways are sin and Jesus' death related? And in what sense does death give rise to hope and salvation? It is the way these three – sin, death, salvation - come together in Ellacuria's re-framing that intrigued me the most in reading his article, and that opened up a new and liberating way for my understanding of faith.

An important foundational point for Ellacuria is the insistence that theology be related to real life. In the tradtional approach the God-required/God-ordained death of Jesus, humankind's intangible sinful nature, and the resulting salvation to a life in heaven seem somehow detached from human life, a sort of mystical overlay on reality. To this Ellacuria counters: “A faith apart from history, a faith apart from historic events, whether in the life of Jesus or in the life of humankind is not a Christian faith.” The cross, he argues, must not be about “an expiatory masochism of a spiritualizing sort, but the discovery of something real in history.”

In support of this he points to the way in which the gospels came to be written. It is not that the disciples or even Jesus understood from the outset the direction and purpose of his life. Meaning and understanding came afterwards. It is in experiencing the presence of the Living One that the disciples are led back to reflect on their Teacher's life and to begin making sense of his death. It is “the resurrection that points back toward the crucifixion,” writes Ellacuria. Contrary to the traditional viewpoint, Jesus did not come into this world with the goal or purpose of dying. And while his death is connected to sin, the connection is not some mystical-sacrifical taking upon himself of sin or the punishment for sin. Rather, his death comes as the historical consequence of the life he led.

As I developed in greater detail in my previous post,¹ sin expresses itself and is experienced in the real world as destructive power. It stands as antithesis to the Reign of God proclaimed by Jesus. What he announced - glad tidings to the poor, liberty to captives, recovery of sight to the blind, and freedom for the oppressed - stood out in stark contrast to the experience of political oppression, poverty, imprisonment and poverty-related disease suffered by many of the common folks of his day, the pueblo, to use a helpful Spanish word. His was an historically rooted proclamation, relevant to the concrete daily life of real people, especially the poor. As long as he was seen as just one more pseudo-messianic figure talking about other-worldly or unattainable ideals (as much of traditional Christianity has finally made him out to be) he could be ignored. But when he began gaining a growing number of followers and when it became clear that his preaching challenged the power structures of his day, he became a threat and was seen as an enemy of those who benefitted from the way things were.

It is clear from the gospels that Jesus eventually understood that his life and teaching would lead to his own death (see, for example, Matthew 16:13-21; esp v 21), at which point he could have chosen to back down. But his message of hope was clear: God desires and calls us to imagine and engage in the struggle (the lucha) to create a different kind of world, one where all share in the abundance of the earth, where there is true community, forgiveness and sharing, where there is true and comprehensive peace among all. Proclaiming and living this message of hope was his mission, and he stuck with it, regardless of the consequences to which it would lead. And so, confronting the power structures of his world would eventually lead to his death at the hands of those who felt threatened by his message and the impact it was having. 

Understanding faith as truly historically rooted leads us to the recognition that Jesus did not die for our sins, but because of sin. His death came as a consequence of the vision he proclaimed and the life he lived challenging the power structures and those who held the reigns of power of his day.  His death was for a cause, and the cause was a grounded vision and a historically active and strategic commitment to creating a more just world - especially for those placed at the margins by the political, economic, social, and cultural-religious power structures of his day.

---------------------------

1 See Searching for Liberation – Part 4: “So What About Sin?” at http://spiritandpraxis.blogspot.com/2015/03/reaching-for-liberation-part-4-so-what.html

Reaching for Liberation – Part 4 “So What about Sin?”

This is the fourth of six posts in which I draw on an article by liberation theologian, Ignacio Ellacuria, to reflect on and seek to re-frame the connected themes of sin, Jesus' death, and salvation.

-------------------------------------

Another area that Ellacuria helps reframe is the understanding of sin. Traditionally veiwed as a universal human malaise, sin has also been understood primarily in individual, personal terms. Passed on from generation to generation ever since Adam and Eve's original sin, it is understood that every human person is sinful by nature and, arising from this sinful nature, are the inevitable immoral and sinful acts that characterize every human life. From this perspective the consequences of sin - death and separation from God – are understood at the individual and personal level and so also, similarly, the understanding and benefits of salvation.¹

By contrast and in keeping with a broader theological development within liberation theology, Ellacuria emphasizes instead the structural character of sin. This approach, while acknowledging the human experience of brokenness, sees the impact and responsibility of this brokenness less at the individual level and more on the collective plane. And so, for example, the human propensity of greed for power ends up expressing itself in nations going to war. Or as another example, the human insecurity that is greed for material and financial wealth results in the legislation of laws enabling the exploitation of workers or even the condoning of slavery; or on a different key it leads to the exploitation of the earth's natural resources to the disregard for the impact this will have on other species and on the generations of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

And so, although not denying the reality of individual or personal moral failures, the approach taken by Ellacuria places emphasis on human brokenness at large, the ways it ends up being embodied in the very structures of society. And it emphasizes the negative impact, the injustice, this sinful character at the structural level creates in the lives of individuals, communities and of whole societies.

The town where I live is economically and, to some extent still, racially segregated. Historically there were town laws which prevented African Americans from buying homes in the “white part of town" and whites were discouraged from living in the “black part of town" – and no one did. Legislated city boundaries meant that much of the “black part of town” lay outside the city limits and so received no

The landfill was built at the edge of the "black part of town."

city services like water, sewer, garbage pick-up, etc. Schools in the “black part of town" were significantly under-funded, in contrast to the schools located in the “white part of town”. Some years back the county negotiated the creation of a large landfill at the edge of the “black part of town”. Poor families in the vicinity were lured into supporting this plan with the promise of receiving a few thousand dollars each. Of course the creation of the landfill meant that property values in the “black part of town” plummeted. Once the landfill became operational, local water supplies, which still in large part were drawn from wells, became contaminated. And, although families had been promised that there would be signficant benefits and no negative impacts from the landfill, it was the local poor families and their children who had to put up with the toxic stench on hot, windless Florida days. These are examples of sinfulness, the reality of human evil and brokennes, embeded and expressed structurally in the political, economic, and social realities of a local community.

The flip side of this coin is that when there is resistance to the impact of unjust structures, those in positions of power and who benefit from the structural set-up use the power available to them to crush the resistance. And so, as we have witnessed in the news over the last few months, when the folks in Ferguson, Missouri came out to peacefully and legally protest a culture of racial profiling and oppression by local authorities, they were confronted with tear gas and military-style (war-making) machinery and weapons. Sinful structures, once entrenched, use all the might available to them to block change!

In the extreme case, unjust structures are defended at the price of human life. Because of their active opposition to the violent oppression being carried out against rural poor communities by government forces in El Salvador (supported, by the way, by U.S. funding and training), on November 16, 1989 Ignacio Ellacuria, the other Jesuits in his community, along with their house-keeper and her dautgher were savagely murdered. Another example is Lutheran pastor and theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was imprisoned and on April 9, 1945 was executed by hanging for his efforts against Hitler and Nazism. Yes, when unjust power structures are challenged or threatened, they are capable of going to any extreme to protect the status quo.

-----------------------------------

In the next post we will look at the question of the Jesus' death and how his (and all death) is related to sin.

______________

1  For greater elaboration on this traditional view see the second post in this series. http://spiritandpraxis.blogspot.com/2015/02/reaching-for-liberation-part-2-sin.html

Reaching for Liberation – Part 3: “Jesus Came to Die.” – “Really?!?”

This is the third of six posts in which I draw on an article by liberation theologian, Ignacio Ellacuria, to reflect on and seek to re-frame the connected themes of sin, Jesus' death, and salvation.

------------------------------

A key theme I have aimed at writing about in my blog is the importance that a continuing sense of faith and spirituality have in my life. Closely connected to this is my commitment (mi compromiso) that faith must be lived; that it must be embodied in and connected with the concrete, earthly realities of daily life: Journey Inward ~– Journey Outward; Journey Outward ~ Journey Inward. At the same time writing these posts has also served as a vehicle for me to explore my understanding of faith in ways that enable me to talk of faith with full integrity and Twenty-first Century meaningfulness. This has meant on a number of occasions distancing myself from my fundamentalist upbringing and in a few instances from more mainline traditional Christian views. So now, again, with understandings of sin, the meaning of Jesus' death, and salvation. I am grateful to liberation theologian and martyr Ignacio Ellacuria, S.J., for his 1978 article: “El Pueblo Crucificado” / “The Crucified People”¹ which helps re-frame these questions.

A good starting point is to look at the question of Jesus' primary purpose and message. What Ellacuria highlights is something that theologians and biblical schoars have often recognized but without making the connection that Ellacuria makes to salvation: that is, that Jesus' purpose and mission was to announce the Reign (Kingdom) of God. This was his central message. In the gospels of Mark and Matthew Jesus begins his public ministry announcing: “This is the time of fulfillment. The Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe this good news” (Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17).

Luke's gospel elaborates. We are told (Luke 4:16ff) that Jesus inaugurates his ministry in the synagogue “in Nazareth, where he had grown up.” On the sabbath he was invited to read from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He does so, choosing the following passage:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives

and recovery of sight to the blind,

to let the oppressed go free,

and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”

He then rolls up the scroll and sits down. When the people look to him for a comment, he says simply: “Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.” In other words, the Power and Reign of God is present, it is here in your midst!

A few verses later, in Luke 4:43 Jesus makes it explicit. Explaining to the crowds following that he could stay no longer, he says: “To other towns I also must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this purpose I have been sent.”

In Luke 8:1 we read again that Jesus journeyed from one town and village to another “preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God.” Mark's gospel, chapter 4, also records a series of parables where Jesus offers some practical images providing metaphors for what the kingdom is like.

So from his own mouth as recorded in the Gospels, Jesus negates the traditional Christian view that he came to die. While later in his ministry it becomes clear to him that his life and ministry are leading to his death, the stated purpose and goal of his ministry, his mission, is not to die but to announce and call people to recognize and align their lives with the in-breaking Reign of God. This is the first point re-framed in Ellacuria's article. And this, for me, opens up a whole new understanding and perspective!!

---------------------------------------

In the next post we will unpack the question of sin, understood as a structural expression of evil that leads to death. 
____________________

1 The article is reprinted in various collections of Ellacuria's work. It is also availble online in Spanish (http://www.seleccionesdeteologia.net/selecciones/llib/vol19/76/076_ellacuria.pdf 2015-03-6) and

English (http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/ellacuria.asp 2014-01-18).    

Reaching for Liberation – Part 2 “Sin, Jesus' Death, and Salvation – The Problem”

This is the second of six posts in which I draw on an article by liberation theologian, Ignacio Ellacuria, to reflect on and seek to re-frame the connected themes of sin, Jesus' death, and salvation.

---------------------------------

I confess that for some time now in my own faith journey I have found the concept of “salvation”, as understood in the evangelical-fundamentalist context that I grew up in^*, less than satisfying. First off I find puzzling the whole concept of Jesus coming to earth for the primary or sole purpose of dying. The explanations given for how his death functions and of its necessicty for the salvation of humankind is equally perplexing. In fact, the focus on Jesus' death is such that it functions almost to the exclusion of his life. An additional aspect of this view is that it makes getting to heaven the primary purpose in God's saving action for humankind. In fact evangelicals and fundamentalists quite commonly will urge accepting Jesus “so that you will be sure that you go to heaven when you die.” So this theology not only minimizes the importance of Jesus' life but also minimizes the imporatnce of earthly life for all human beings. In fact there is at least an implicit, if not explicit, disdain expressed for “this sinful world.” Instead, primary value is given to the guarantee of the eternal “afterlife.”

Although I have for years been uncomfortable with the traditional Protestant-Evangelical-Fundamentalist (and, I might add, Catholic) explanations in this area, I had not found a satisfactory alternative understanding until I recently discovedred an article written in 1978 by Spanish liberation theologian, Ignacio Ellacuria. He offers a new frame for understanding sin, the meaning of Jesus' life and death, and salvation, that brings contemporary (21^st century) clarity and meaning to concepts that I have found to be lacking both rationally and experientially. In this and the following refections I hope to unpack in my own voice what I appreciate and have gained from Ellacuria.

First the question of sin. Traditionally sin has been understood primarily in an individual and personal sense. Eve and Adam in the Edenic Garden myth of Genesis disobeyed God's command that they not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This disobedience was viewed in the narrative as a personal infraction creating personal guilt and a rupture in the relationship with God. The consequence was punishment, being banished by God from the paradisical garden. Together with expulsion from the garden came the announcement of a variety of maladies that would attend humankind and impact the earth itself from that day forward.

Detail of "The Expulsion from the Garden of Eden" by
early Renaissance Italian artist Masaccio.

More than simply a mistake or bad moment of behavior, this act of disobedience blemished Adam and Eve in an irrevocable way. In consequence of their act, they became “sinful” beings - beings that, by nature, were no longer ok. From that day forward they would be soiled in a  way that would make them naturally, fundamentally unacceptable to God. Furthermore,  this “soiledness,” this “blemishedness” or  “brokenness” would be passed on to their  offspring and to their offspring's offspring and so  on, to every human being and to all future  generations of humankind.

Finally, this quality of being sinful would express itself through further acts of sin. Thus, the first couple's son Cain would soon thereafter in the biblical narrative kill his younger brother Abel out of jealousy. And not long afterwards essentially the entire human race would be found to be “wicked.” By chapter 6 of Genesis there was only one man, Noah, who found favor with God.

And so, according to this traditional view, a bad act carried out by the mother and father of the human race gives birth to a universal malaise that in turn leads every human being to act in ways that are self-damaging, damaging to each other, damaging to the earth, and an affront to God. And because of our sinful condition and our acts of sin, every one of us stands guilty before God. No woman or man qualifies on their own merit to be accepted by God. Rather, without some form of escape or rescue, we are condemned to eternal separation from our Creator.

This is where “salvation”comes into play. As described earlier, according to the traditional Christian view Jesus is the one who provides salvation. Through his death he takes on the guilt of humankind so that despite their sinfulness, humans can once again be befriended and re-united with God. From this perspective, as a divine being Jesus takes upon himself in a supernatural way the sinfulness and personal, individual sins of all human beings. Those who accept this gift of clemency are “saved” to live in friendship with God in this life. But even more importantly, in being saved they enter the promise and hope that at the end of this earthly life they will be caught up to live eternally and fully in God's presence in heaven.

---------------------------------------

In the next post, we will begin looking at some of the ways Ellacuria's helps us re-frame this theology. We will be looking specifically at the question of  Jesus' primary earthly purpose and message.

_________

* See Part 1 at http://spiritandpraxis.blogspot.com/2015/02/reaching-for-liberation-part-1-growing.html

Reaching for Liberation – Part 1: “Growing Up Evangelical”

This is the first of six posts, in which I draw on an article by liberation theologian, Ignacio Ellacuria, to reflect on and seek to re-frame the connected themes of sin, Jesus' death, and salvation.

----------------------------------------

“On July 12, 1957, at the age of four and a half years, I, David Crump, accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior and was saved.”

In my family and in the evangelical-fundamentalist faith context in which I grew up, being able to pinpoint the date and time of this rite of passage was absolutely necessary and expected. As quoted above, it was even written down for the record.

The process followed a predictable pattern. Hearing and accepting the fact that one is a sinner and that as such one is destined for the frightening fires of an eternal hell, the invitation would be made – sometimes almost demanded - to say a simple prayer: “Jesus, I recognize and confess that I am a sinner destined for death and hell. I also recognize and believe that you died for my sin. I ask you to forgive and cleanse me and come into my life. Save me Lord! From this day forward I commit myself to live for you.”

Anyone who openly gave voice to this affirmation was deemed “saved.” In other words, they were no longer bound for hell but were guaranteed a blissful and eternal life with God in heaven. In the brand of evangelicalism in which I grew up, this guarantee was irrevocable: “Once saved, always saved” was the by-word. And so, in my fourth year, after hearing a sermon and invitation at a church camp and having heard this message since the time that I had suckled at my mother's breast, to my parents delight I responded, made my confession, and was saved!

During my early college years, at a Bible College, I would learn that within the Protestant and later evangelical-fundamentalist traditions various understandings developed to explain how this “salvation” works. All of these approaches hold some basic themes in common. First is the view that all human beings are irrevocably contaminated by sin. Secondly, is the understanding that a holy God cannot tolerate sin and so sinful human beings, although part of God's creation, cannot be accepted by God without some kind of intervention. Finally, it is believed that the intervention must be divine. Only God can fix this problem, and that is where Jesus comes in. Jesus comes to earth as “God in human form.” As such he can be the solution, and the solution comes in his death.

This is where the various theological viewpoints diverge. There are different understandings of how Jesus' death functions as an intervention to overcome human sin and thus bring about a re-alignment with God and the guarantee of heaven, i.e. salvation. One view, drawing on the Jewish understanding of sacrifice, holds that although all of us as human beings deserve to die in our sinfulness and separation from God, Jesus (like a sacrificial lamb) died in our place. Another view takes a more economic perspective. It suggests that as sinners, human beings although originally created by God, because of sin they no longer belong to God. In order for them to be returned to their rightful owner, a price must be paid and that price is the voluntary death of God's Son, Jesus. Yet another view holds that because of their sinfulness, human beings must be punished in order for God to forgive and accept them. According to this approach Jesus, in his death, takes the punishment in the place of humankind and transfers to humankind the resulting forgiveness and acceptance.

These approaches all share the belief that Jesus came to earth with the foreknowledge and primary purpose of dying, as the divinely demanded intervention on behalf of humankind. Also characteristic of the evangelical-fundamentalist faith in which I grew up was the insistence that human beings in some sense individually, personally, accept what has been done for them in Jesus' death in order to gain its benefits.

------------------------------------------

In the next post we will explore how for me, this whole construction has become problematic.