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.