SIGNS OF THE TIMES - REFLECTION 1

I don’t know about you, the person reading this blog, but me - I must confess that this past year has been a pretty discouraging time here in the U.S. and, from what I can tell, around much of the world.  This blog is about “journeying inward,” to find spiritual stamina and groundedness and from that grounding to “journey outward” to be engaged in community and in the world, to live out and make real the values and truths discovered in the inward journey.  And then, continuing, from the experiences, challenges and victories of the journey outward, to journey inward again for clarity and renewing – an ongoing, inward and outward moving.  While the description sounds individual, the best practice is that it be a shared, communal movement of people together.  And it does not need to be only people sitting in the same room together, but people sharing their experience through all variety of media and across distances of place and time – people that may not actually know each other personally, but who gain nourishment and encouragement and hope from each other’s reflections and actions.

But this past year has been a tough one, for myself and for many people I know.  Here in the U.S., the unanticipated election of a president whose name I refuse to put in print, and so refer to as #45, has turned out to be more disastrous and demoralizing than we ever imagined, as our hearts sank watching the results come in on election night.  While this administration has for the most part been a failure on the legislative front, they have moved at lightning speed to - in the words of former White House advisor and now critic of the President, Steve Bannon – “deconstruct the [so-called] administrative state.” And, in so doing, they are successfully setting aside and undermining policies that have taken decades to achieve.  UN Human Rights Spokesperson, Rupert Colville, in a video posted by the United Nations, correctly characterizes the views expressed by #45 as going “against the universal values the world has been striving so hard to establish since World War II and the holocaust.” He goes on to state that the views of this “political figure” (he too refuses to offer the dignity of giving a name) “open the door to humanity’s worst side . . . encouraging and validating racism and xenophobia.”  So, that is what we are living here in the United States, a reality that impacts not only this nation but people and realities around the world.

I have also watched, over the last year and a half as my “heart country,” Brazil, has progressed down a similarly (if not worse) destructive path.  Initiated by a U.S.-supported parliamentary coup that removed the elected president from power, the imposed government moved quickly to set a course that clearly favors a wealthy, powerful and corrupt minority while under-cutting and removing policies that benefit average citizens, targeting especially those programs that benefit and provide a safety net for workers and the poor. And it is not only here in the U.S. and in Brazil.  Listening to the news it seems that much of the world is in crisis.

FAITH TRADITIONS SPEAK OF
"SIGNS OF THE TIMES"

Faith traditions speak of  “signs of the times.” Within the gospel tradition of the Christian faith, in being questioned by the religious authorities of his day, Jesus responded to them with a challenge. “Looking at the sky,” he said, “you know how to judge the weather, however you do not know how to judge the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3).

As a kid, growing up in the outback of Brazil, I was pretty good at predicting the time and weather by looking at the sky. Trying to understand what is going on in our world, and attempting to envision what our present choices might mean for the future . . .  well that’s a bit tougher!  In this regard though, Ignacio Ellacuría - President of the University of Central America (UCA) in El Salvador from 1979 to 1989, a leading voice in Latin American liberation theology, and a martyr for justice – provides a helpful framework for consideration.  In his essay titled “The Historicity of Salvation,”[1] he offers two lenses for looking at the world. There are, he suggests, “actions that kill life, and [on the other hand] actions that give life.”  Those actions and systems that kill life, he refers to as “sin;” and actions that give life, he names “grace.”[2] 

These qualities, he argues, occur not only within personal, individual actions, but are expressed systemically as well.  “Some social and historical structures,” Ellacuría argues, “objectify the power of sin and serve as vehicles for that power against humanity, against human life,” what he refers to as “structural sin.” By contrast, other “social and historical structures objectify grace and serve as vehicles for that power [that] favors human life,” which he refers to as “structural grace.”[3]  Sin and grace are not to be understood here “primarily from a moral viewpoint . . . but from the perspective of that which makes God’s life [absent, or] present among human beings.”[4]

Although I never met him in person, through his books Ellacuría has become a mentor to me.  I have found his thought to be inspiring and deeply profound, offering a theology and faith that nurture my own;  that are not about “pie in the sky,” but a following of Jesus, in a grounded “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth . . .”[5] way.  His reflection on sin and grace, I believe offers a concrete way to read the signs of our times,  a critical criterion for discerning where and how we are called, as people of faith, to place ourselves in this world. 

Where are the places and what are the actions and structures that negate life, that literally kill, in our world?  And where are the places and what are the actions and structures that give life, that bring life in our world?  We will consider these questions in my next posting.

---

[1] Michael Lee, ed., Ignacio Ellacuría: Essays on History, Liberation, and Salvation. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2013), 137-168.

[2] Ibid., p. 150

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] From the prayer that Jesus taught his followers.  Our Father, who art in heaven . . .

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 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.