Jesus of Galilee and the Crucified People

TheologicalStudies 70(2009)

JESUSOFGALILEEANDTHECRUCIFIEDPEOPLE: THECONTEXTUALCHRISTOLOGYOF

JONSOBRINOANDIGNACIOELLACURI ´ A

TheauthorarguesthattheChristianhistoricalrealismofIgnacio Ellacurı´aandthe“savinghistory”ChristologyofJonSobrinoform apost-VaticanIIcontextualtheologyunifiedbytwofundamental claims:thehistoricalrealityofJesusistherealsignoftheWord madeflesh,andthe analogatumprinceps ofthelife,death,and resurrectionofJesusofNazarethistobefoundtodayamongthe “crucifiedpeoples”victimizedbyvariousformsofoppression aroundtheglobe.SobrinoandEllacurı´aaresituatedasimportant interpretersofRahner,IgnatiusLoyola,Augustine,Medellı´n,and keyEuropeanphenomenologists.

THEFUNDAMENTALTHEOLOGY ofIgnacioEllacurı´aandtheallied ChristologyofJonSobrinoformwhatIbelievemaybethemostfully developedcontextualtheologywrittensinceVaticanII.1 Thisremarkable collaborationreflectsepoch-shapingeventsinLatinAmericaandthe

ROBERT LASSALLE-KLEIN receivedhisPh.D.fromtheGraduateTheological Union,Berkeley.Heisassociateprofessor,chairofReligiousStudies,anddirector ofPastoralStudiesatHolyNamesUniversity,Oakland,Calif.Specializingin Christology,fundamentaltheology,andliberationtheologies,hehasrecentlypublished“Lahistorizacio ´ ndelafilosofı´adelareligio ´ ndeRahnerenEllacurı ´ ay Zubiri,”in Historia,E ´ ticayLiberacio ´ n,ed.JuanA.Nicola ´ sandHe ´ ctorSamour (2007);andwithKevinBurkehehasedited LoveThatProducesHope:The ThoughtofIgnacioEllacurı ´ a (2006).Inprogressis BloodandInk:IgnacioEllacurı´a,JonSobrino,andtheJesuitMartyrsoftheUniversityofCentralAmerica.

1 TheEnglishtitlesoftheOrbiseditionsofJonSobrino’stwo-volumeChristology(whichisthefocusofmuchofthisarticle)areseriouslymistranslatedfromthe Spanish,castingtheminthemodelofSchillebeeckx’stwovolumes, Jesus and Christ, andobscuringthefocusof both volumesonJesusChrist. Jesucristoliberador: Lecturehisto ´ rica-teolo ´ gicadeJesu ´ sdeNazaret (SanSalvador:UCA,1991)becomes JesustheLiberator:AHistorical-TheologicalView (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1993); and LafeenJesucristo:Ensayodesdelasvı´ctimas (SanSalvador:UCA,1999) becomes ChristtheLiberator:AViewfromtheVictims (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis, 2001).WhereItranslatedirectlyfromtheSpanishratherthanquotetheEnglish,the Spanishversioniscitedfirst,followedbytheEnglish.Itshouldbenotedthatthe voluminouswritingsofIgnacioEllacurı´aandJonSobrinocoverinconsiderable depthmanytopicsotherthanfundamentaltheologyandChristology.

347

CatholicChurchinElSalvador,aswellaslongyearsofJesuitfriendship, sharedministry,persecution,andfinallymartyrdomattheUniversityof CentralAmerica.TheimpressivecorpusproducedbytheseJesuit“companionsofJesus”2 isunifiedbyitssharedconvictionthatthe analogatum princeps ofthelife,death,andresurrectionofJesusofNazarethisto befoundtodayamongthe“crucifiedpeoples”ofLatinAmerica,andthe billionsofvictimsofpoverty,inequality,structuralinjustice,andviolence aroundtheglobe.

Sobrinosummarizesthecentralthemesassociatedwiththisclaiminan evocativepassageonGalileepublishednotlongafterthebrutalassassinationofIgnacioEllacurı´awithfiveJesuitcolleaguesandtwolaycoworkers onNovember16,1989.

GalileeisthesettingofJesus’historicallife,theplaceofthepoorandthelittle ones.Thepoorofthisworld—theGalileeoftoday—arewhereweencounterthe historicalJesusandwhereheisencounteredasliberator.AndthisGalileeisalso wheretherisenChristwhoappearstohisdiscipleswillshowhimselfashereallyis, astheJesuswehavetofollowandkeeppresentinhistory:thehistoricalJesus,the manfromNazareth,thepersonwhowasmercifulandfaithfultohisdeathonthe cross,theperennialsacramentinthisworldofaliberatorGod.3

ThisanalogyembodiesSobrino’sresponsetoVaticanII’smandate“of readingthesignsofthetimesandofinterpretingtheminlightoftheGospel”4 andintroduceshishope-filledvolumeonthemeaningofJesus’resurrection,thesendingoftheSpirit,andhiscalltofaith-filleddiscipleship. Methodologically,theanalogyreflects40yearsoflivingwiththe“preferentialoptionforthepoor”discernedbyLatinAmericanbishopsshortlyafter

2 IgnatiusLoyolanamedtheorderhefoundedonAugust15,1534(officially approvedSeptember27,1540,byPaulIII) LaCompan˜iadeJesus,andreferredto itsmembersas“companionsofJesus.”Thespiritualityandthemysticaltheologyof Ignatiusembodiedintheorder’snamefindsexpressionintheideaofEllacurı´aand SobrinothatfollowersofJesusarecallednotonlytosharetheburdenofhiscross butalsototakethecrucifiedpeopledownfromthecross.Thismetaphorechoes thefamousopeningwordsofthe32ndGeneralCongregationoftheSocietyof Jesus(December2,1974,toMarch7,1975):“WhatisittobeaJesuit?Itisto knowthatoneisasinner,yetcalledtobeacompanionofJesusasIgnatiuswas: Ignatius,whobeggedtheBlessedVirginto‘placehimwithherSon,’andwhothen sawtheFatherhimselfaskJesus,carryinghisCross,totakethispilgrimintohis company.WhatisittobeacompanionofJesustoday?Itistoengage,underthe standardoftheCross,inthecrucialstruggleofourtime:thestruggleforfaithand thatstruggleforjusticewhichitincludes”(SocietyofJesus,“JesuitsToday”nos.1 and2,Decree1, Documentsofthe31stand32ndGeneralCongregationsofthe Societyof Jesus(St.Louis:InstituteofJesuitSources,1977)401.

3 Sobrino, JesustheLiberator 273.

4 Gaudiumetspes no.4,in VaticanCouncilII,ed.AustinFlannery,O.P.(Northport,N.Y.:Costello,1975).

VaticanIIasGod’swillfortheChurch,andplacesthatdiscernmentina hermeneuticalcirclewiththelife,death,andresurrectionofJesusChrist.5 Substantively,itreflectsSobrino’sclaimthat“wehavedonenothingmore than—startingfromJesus—elevatetherealitywearelivingtothelevelofa theologicalconcept,totheorizeaboutachristologicalfaiththatweseeas realfaith.”6 AndasaniconofChristiandiscipleship,itreflectstheinfluence ofArchbishopOscarRomeroontheJesuitsofElSalvadorasamodelofthe callbyIgnatiusLoyolatodiscernandcollaboratewiththeworkofthe Trinityintheworld.Iwillsaymoreaboutthisneartheendofthearticle.

What,then,isthesignificanceforcontextualtheologiesaroundthe worldofthe substance and methods informingtheanalogydrawnby SobrinoandEllacurı´abetweenthehistoricalrealityofJesusChristand the“crucifiedpeoples”oftoday?InthisarticleIwillidentifytwoelements definingtheirapproachthatIbelieveshouldandlikelywillhelpshape otherfundamentalandchristologicalcontextualtheologiesintheyears ahead.First,Ellacurı´adevelopsaprofoundhistoricalrealism(aChristian historicalrealism,ifyouprefer7)thatismanifestedinhisconceptsof “historicalreality”andthe“theologyofsign,”whichheusestoframea LatinAmericanfundamentalcontextualtheology.Second,buildingon Ellacurı´a,SobrinointegratestheseconceptsinwhatIwillcallacontextualizedLatinAmerican“savinghistory”Christology,whichstarts“from below”withthehistoricalrealityofJesus.

5 ItisessentialtoevaluatethelegitimacyandadequacyofSobrino’smethodologicalpresuppositionsintermsofthehermeneuticalcircleheseekstocreate betweentheoptionforthepoorofthecontemporarychurch,andthechurch’s normativetraditionregardingJesusChrist.Sobrinoasserts,“LatinAmerican Christology...identifiesitssetting,inthesenseofarealsituation,asthepoorof thisworld,andthissituationiswhatmustbepresentinandpermeateanyparticularsettinginwhichChristologyisdone”(Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator 28).Noted AmericanChristologistWilliamLoewearguesthatSobrino’sChristology“admirably”representsthekindoftheologicalreflectionapprovedin Libertatisconscientia, claimingthat,“whileheinsistsonthechurchofthepoorastheecclesialsettingof histheology,whatisreceivedinthatsettingasthefoundationofhistheologyisthe apostolicfaithofthechurch”(WilliamLoewe,“InterpretingtheNotification: ChristologicalIssues,”in HopeandSolidarity:Sobrino’sChallengetoChristian Theology,ed.StephenJ.Pope[Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,2008]143–52,at146).

6 Sobrino, Jesucristoliberador 30,mytranslation.SeeSobrino, JesustheLiberator 8.

7 Inahandfulofstrictlyphilosophicalworks,wherehedevelopsthecategoryof “historicalreality,”Ellacurı´adoesnotrefertoexplicitlyChristiancategoriesorto faith.However,inthemajorityofhiswritings(ethics,politics,education,and theology),heusesthecategoryinreferencetoexplicitlyChristianconcepts,norms, values,andecclesialconcerns.

THECHRISTIANHISTORICALREALISM OFIGNACIOELLACURI ´ A

HistoricalReality

Historyandmetaphysicshavelongbeenconsideredantinomies,yet CatholicandChristiancontextualtheologiesandphilosophiesneedboth. InthissectionIwillbrieflysummarizethemeaning,andthephilosophical andtheologicalroots,oftheterm“historicalreality,”thedefiningconcept ofEllacurı´a’s(Christian)historicalrealismwhereintheantinomyisovercome.BuildingontheworkofSpanishphilosopherXavierZubiri,Ellacurı´aclaimsthat“historicalreality”istheproperobjectofacontextualized LatinAmericanapproachtophilosophyandtheology.8

Ellacurı´a’smagnumopus, Filosofı´adelarealidadhisto ´ rica (1990,posthumous),summarizesthephilosophicalargumentsforthiscoreelementof his30-yearefforttodevelopaLatinAmericanphilosophyandtheology capableofconceptualizingthefaith,hope,andstruggleoftheContinent’s “poormajorities”tokeeptheirfamiliesalive.9 Ihavearguedelsewhere thatEllacurı´aisRahner’smostimportantLatinAmericaninterpreter, buildingonZubiri’sgroundbreakingworkonHeideggerandContinental phenomenologyinordertohistoricizeRahner’ssupernaturalexistential andhistheologyofsign.10 WhileIcannotdojusticetoZubiri’sarguments

8 IgnacioEllacurı ´ a, Filosofı´adelarealidadhisto ´ rica (SanSalvador:UCA,1990) 42.Forbook-lengthstudiesandcollectionsonthephilosophicalrootsofEllacurı´a’s theologyseeKevinBurke,S.J., TheGroundBeneaththeCross:TheTheologyof IgnacioEllacurı´a (Washington:GeorgetownUniversity,2000);MichaelE.Lee, BearingtheWeightofSalvation:TheSoteriologyofIgnacioEllacurı´a (NewYork: Crossroad,2009);KevinBurkeandRobertLassalle-Klein,eds., LoveThatProducesHope:TheThoughtofIgnacioEllacurı ´ a (Collegeville,Minn.:Liturgical, 2006);He ´ ctorSamour, Voluntaddeliberacio ´ n:Lafilosofı´adeIgnacioEllacurı ´ a (Granada:Comares,2003);Jose ´ SolsLucia, Lateologı´ahisto ´ ricadeIgnacioEllacurı ´ a (Madrid:Trotta,1999);andJonSobrinoandRolandoAlvarado,eds., Ignacio Ellacurı´a:“Aquellalibertadesclarecida” (Santander:SalTerrae,1999).

9 IgnacioEllacurı´a,“Funcio ´ nliberadoradelafilosofı´a,” Estudioscentroamericanos 435–436(1985)45–64,at46;alsoEllacurı ´ a, Vientean˜osdehistoriaenEl Salvador(1969–1989):Escritospolı´ticos,3vols.(SanSalvador:UCA,1991)1:93–121,at94.ForEllacurı´a’seffortstodevelopaLatinAmericanphilosophyand theologysee“BibliographyoftheCompleteWorksofIgnacioEllacurı´a,” Love ThatProducesHope 255–79.

10 IamindebtedheretotheearlyworkofMartinMaier,whichfocusesonthe Ellacurı´a-Sobrinocollaboration,emphasizesEllacurı´aasanimportantinterpreter ofKarlRahner,especiallythroughhiseffortsto“historicize”Rahner’ssupernaturalexistential,andassertsthatEllacurı´aseekstodevelop“atheologyofthesigns ofthetimes.”Myownworkismorespecific,however,inasserting(1)the“saving history”characterofSobrino’sChristologyanditsrootsinEllacurı´a’swork;(2) thatEllacurı´asubordinatesRahner’ssupernaturalexistentialwithinthelarger horizonofahuman“historicalreality”thathasbeentransformedbygrace;and

here,awordiswarrantedonthisworkanditsimplicationsforEllacurı´a’s understandingofthehistoricalrealityofJesus.

ZubiriattemptstopreservetheinsightsofHeidegger’sontologyof beinginthefaceoftheclaimthatrelativitytheoryandcontemporary sciencehaveshownthat“space,time,consciousness,[and]being,are notfourreceptaclesforthings.”ForZubiri,thisinsightleadstothepotentiallydevastatingconclusionthat“modernphilosophy...hasbeenriding upon...fourincorrectsubstantivations:space,time,consciousness,and being.”11

TakingapagefromHeidegger’smentor,EdmundHusserl, Zubirirespondsbycreatingaphenomenologicaldefinitionof“reality” (or“reity”12 ashecallsit).Thus,Zubiridefinesrealityasthe“thing”whose apprehensionhasthecharacterofbeingsomething“initsown”right(en propio),assomething“ofitsown”(desuyo),or“assomethingthatalready iswhatitisbeforeitspresentation,asa prius,moreinametaphysicalthanin atemporalsense.”13 Studentsoftheemergenceofsystemstheoryduringthis periodwillnoticethatZubiri’sdescriptionofreality(or“reity”)soundslike thephenomenologicalversionofa“boundary-maintainingsystem.”

BuildingonhisstudiesofEinstein,Planck,Schro ¨ dinger,andothers, Zubirithendescribes“historicalreality”asthemostself-possessing(de suyo or“ofitsown”)oftheseriesofsubsystemsthatcomprisethenatural andhistoricalecologyof“thecosmos.”Historicalrealityisthe“laststage ofreality”inwhichthematerial,biological,sentient,andpersonaland collectivehistoricaldimensionsofrealityareallmadepresent,and“where wearegivennotonlythehighestformsofrealitybutalsothefieldofthe maximumpossibilitiesofthereal.”14

Focusingonthehumanperson,Ellacurı´aassertsthathistoricalreality “iswhereallofrealityisassumedintothesocialrealmoffreedom.”

(3)thatEllacurı´areinterpretsRahner’stheologyofsymbolasatheologyofsign. SeeMartinMaier,“TheologiedesGekreuzigtenVolkes:DerEntwurfeinerTheologiederBefreiungvonIgnacioEllacurı´aundJonSobrino”(doctoraldissertation, UniversityofInnsbruck,1992);andMaier,“KarlRahner:TheTeacherofIgnacio Ellacurı´a,”in LoveThatProducesHope 128–43.Formydevelopmentofthis theme,seeRobertLassalle-Klein,“RethinkingRahneronGraceandSymbol: NewProposalsfromtheAmericas,”in RahnerbeyondRahner:AGreatTheologian EncountersthePacificRim,ed.PaulCrowley,S.J.(Lanham,Md.:Rowman& Littlefield,2005)87–99;andRobertLassalle-Klein,“Lahistorizacio ´ ndelafilosofı ´ a delareligio ´ ndeRahnerenEllacurı´ayZubiri,”in Historia,e ´ tica,yliberacio ´ n:La actualidaddeZubiri,ed.JuanA.Nicola ´ sandHe ´ ctorSamour(Granada:Comares, 2007)113–230.

11 XavierZubiri, Inteligenciasentiente:Inteligenciayrealidad (Madrid:Alianza, 1980)15,mytranslation.AlltranslationsofuntranslatedSpanishworksaremine.

12 Ibid.57

13 IgnacioEllacurı´a,“Lasuperacio ´ ndelreduccionismoidealistaenZubiri,” Estudioscentroamericanos 477(1988)633–50,at648.

14 Ellacurı ´ a, Filosofı´adelarealidadhisto ´ rica 43. CONTEXTUALCHRISTOLOGYOFSOBRINOANDELLACURI

Elsewhere,heasserts:“Thepersonaldimensionoflife...consistsin achievingself-possessionthroughdefiningoneselfintermsofonewayof beinginrealitywhenconfrontedwithrealityasawhole.”15 Zubiriexplains, “Whenthehumanperson,therealityanimal,begetsanotherrealityanimal, thepersondoesnotonlytransmithisorherlife,thatis ...certainpsychoorganiccharacteristics,butheorshealso,inexorably...,setsthemupina certainwayofbeinginreality.”16 Eventually,however,thedemandsof everydayliferequireustointerpretandtomakechoicesaboutwaysof beingintheworldthathavebeeninherited,therebyforcingustodefineour ownhistoricalreality.Asaresultofthisprocess,Zubirisays,echoing Heidegger,thecreationofhistoricalrealityinvolves“theconstitutionofa newkindofworld,”inwhich“realitybecomesaworld.”Thus,ifHeidegger canbesaidtounderstand dasein asthekindofbeing(i.e.,thehuman person)thatmusttakeastandonitsbeing-in-the-world,thenwecouldsay byanalogythatZubiriandEllacurı´aunderstandhuman historicalreality as thatrealitythatmusttakeastandonitshistorical-reality-in-the-world.17

Ellacurı´aandZubirithenformulatetheterm“historicization”torefer totheappropriationandtransformationofthehistorical(i.e.,traditioncentered)andnatural(i.e.,thematerial,biological,andsentient)dimensionsofreality18 throughwhichthisprocessofhumanself-definitiontakes place.ForZubiri,historicizationisdrivenbythefactthatwhensomething “isalreadygivenasareality,Inotonlyhavetoallowittobe[dejarque sea],butIamforcedtorealizetheweightofit[hacersecargodeella] asareality.”19 Ellacurı´aagrees,butarguesthatthisprocessof“facing uptorealthingsasrealhasatripledimension.”20 Emphasizingthecomponentofhumanfreedom,heassertsthathistoricizationinvolvesnotonly

15 Ibid.493.

16 XavierZubiri,“Ladimensionhisto ´ ricadelserhumano,” Sieteensayosde antropologı´afiloso ´ fica,ed.Germa ´ nMarquı´nezArgote,(Bogota:Universidad SantoToma ´ s,CentrodeEnsenanzaDesescolarizada,1982)117–74,at127.

17 Zubiriarguesthathumanpersonsindividually(andcommunitiesaswell) graduallydefinetheirownhistoricalrealitythroughtheprocessofcreating,transmitting,andactualizingorabandoningthe“traditions”of“waysofbeinginreality” passedontothembyothers.SeeEllacurı ´ a, Filosofı´adelarealidadhisto ´ rica 528; andZubiri, Laestructuradinamicadelarealidad (Madrid:Alianza,1989)325.

18 Forthetwoprimarymeaningsof“historicization”seeEllacurı ´ a, Filosofı´ade larealidadhisto ´ rica 169;and“Lahistorizacio ´ ndelconceptodepropiedadcomo principiodedesideologizacio ´ n,” Estudioscentroamericanos 335–36(1976)425–50, at427–28;trans.as“TheHistoricizationoftheConceptofProperty,”in TowardsA SocietyThatServesItsPeople:TheIntellectualContributionofElSalvador’s MurderedJesuits,ed.JohnJ.HassettandHughLacey,forewordLeoJ.O’Donovan(Washington:GeorgetownUniversity,1991)105–37,at109.

19 ThisisEllacurı´adescribingZubiriin“LahistoricidaddelhombreinXavier Zubiri”526.SeeZubiri, Sobrelaesencia 447.

20 Ellacurı´a,“Haciaunafundamentacio ´ n”419.

(1)“becomingawareof,”“understanding,”or“realizingaboutreality”(hacersecargodelarealidad);butalso(2)anethicaldemandtotakeresponsibility foror“topickupreality”(cargarconlarealidad);and(3)apraxis-related demandtochangeor“totakechargeofreality”(encargarsedelarealidad).21

Buildingonthisfoundation,Ellacurı´aandSobrinoapplythephilosophicalcategoryof“historicalreality”(and“historicization”)toJesusandto Christiandiscipleshipinthreekeyways.First,SobrinoendorsesEllacurı´a’s argumentthatatrulyLatinAmericanChristologymustbeshapedbya “newhistorical logos ...whichtakesintoaccountthehistoricalrealityof Jesus.”22 HeexplicitlycitesEllacurı´a’sassertion,followingRahner,that “thisnewhistorical logos muststartfromthefact,indisputabletotheeye offaith,thatthehistoricallifeofJesusisthefullestrevelationofthe ChristianGod.”23 Second,bothauthorsassertthatthehistoricalrealityof JesusofNazarethisdefinedorhistoricized(Sobrinosays“created”24)in largepartthroughthewordsandactionsthatdefineJesus’basichistorical stancetowardthehistoryandpeopleofIsrael,hisrelationshiptothe Father,hismission,andtheaffirmationinfaith(byhisdisciples)thatheis risenfromthedeadandglorifiedwiththeFather.Andthird,both Ellacurı´aandSobrinoassertthatGod’shistoricalself-offerisdefinitively mediatedbythehistoricalrealityofJesus(Sobrinosays“thehuman,Jesus, istherealsymboloftheWord”25),whichisdescribedintheGospelsand formstheproperobjectofLatinAmericanfundamentaltheologyand Christology.InmysecondpartIwilladdresshoweachoftheseelements istakenupinSobrino’sChristology.

TheologyofSign

Ellacurı´a’sphilosophyofhistoricalrealityleadshimtohistoricizeRahner’stheologyofsymbolasatheologyofsign.26 Hiscoreclaimhere,that

21 Ibid.

22 IgnacioEllacurı ´ a, FreedomMadeFlesh:TheMissionofChristandHisChurch (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1976)27;trans.JohnDruryfrom Teologı´apolı´tica (San Salvador:SecretaridadoSocialInterdiocesano,1973);citedinSobrino, Jesusthe Liberator 46–47.

23 Ibid.;citedbySobrinoin JesustheLiberator 47.Ellacurı´acriticizesRahner’s moretranscendentalfocus,however,claimingthat“theyardstickofChristian livingisnottobesoughtinsomeallegedsupernaturalgracewhosepresenceeludes theobjectivityofpersonalandsocialawareness;itistobesoughtinthefollowing ofJesus,whichisavisibleandverifiablereality”(FreedomMadeFlesh 31).

24 Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator 319. 25 Ibid.

26 Rahnerarguesthattherepresentativecharacterofthesymbolmustbedistinguishedfromthe“merelyarbitrary”formsofreferencesuggestedbyother“conceptswhichpointlinguisticallyandobjectivelyinthesamedirection: eidos, morp , sign,figure,expression,image,aspect,appearance,etc.”Hesaysthesymbolis“the

“Godrevealedhimselfinhistory,notdirectly,butinasign:...the humanityofJesus,”27 isacontextualizedreinterpretationofRahner’sfamousassertionfromhistheologyofsymbolthat“theincarnatewordisthe absolutesymbolofGodintheworld.”28 ThelatterfollowsfromRahner’s “basicprinciple”that“allbeingsarebytheirnaturesymbolic,because theynecessarily‘express’themselvesinordertoattaintheirownnature.”29

ButEllacurı´ahasshiftedtheemphasisfrom“symbol”to“sign”inpartto coherewithMedellı´n’sresponsetothecouncil’smandatetoreadthesigns ofthetimesandinterprettheminlightofthegospel.Accordingly, Ellacurı´aarguesthatthe“missionoftheChurch”istobe“asign,andonly asign,oftheGodwhohasrevealedhimselfinhistory,...ofJesus,the Lord,theRevealeroftheFather.”30

In1978Ellacurı´afurtherhistoricizedthistheologyofsignforaLatin Americancontextwiththestartlingclaimthatthe“principal”signofthe times“bywhoselighttheothersshouldbediscernedandinterpreted”is “thehistoricallycrucifiedpeople.”31 BuildingonArchbishopRomero’s famous1977homilytotheterrifiedpeasantsofAguilares,32 Ellacurı ´ a definesthe“crucifiedpeople”asthat“vastportionofhumankind,which isliterallyandactuallycrucifiedbynatural,...historical,andpersonal

highestandmostprimordialmannerinwhichonerealitycanrepresentanother... fromtheontologicalpointofview,”because“thesymbolstrictlyspeaking(symbolic reality)istheself-realizationofabeingintheother,whichisconstitutiveofits essence”(KarlRahner,“TheTheologyoftheSymbol,” TheologicalInvestigations, vol.4[Baltimore:Helicon,1966]221–52,at224,225,234).Ellacurı´a’stheologyof signismostfullyarticulatedin FreedomMadeFlesh.LaurenceA.Egan,M.M.,in thebook’sforeword(vii–ix,atviii)describesEllacurı´aasa“formerstudentofKarl Rahner”who“hastriedtocombinetheinsightsofRahnerwiththoseoftheTheologyofLiberation—asynthesis...imbuedwiththerealityofCentralAmerica.”

27 Ellacurı ´ a, Teologı´apolı´tica 9; FreedomMadeFlesh 18.

28 Rahner,“TheologyoftheSymbol”237.Theargumentofthissectionis developedmorefullyinRobertLassalle-Klein,“RethinkingRahneronGraceand Symbol”93–96.

29 Ibid.224–25.

30 Ellacurı ´ a, Teologı´apolı´tica 48; FreedomMadeFlesh 89.

31 IgnacioEllacurı´a,“Discernir‘elsigno’delostiempos,” Diakonı ´ a 17(1981) 57–59,at58.The“crucifiedpeople”firstappearsinIgnacioEllacurı´a,“Elpueblo crucificado,ensayodesoteriologı´ahisto ´ rica,”in Cruzyresurreccio ´ n:Anunciode unaIglesianueva,ed.I.Ellacurı´aetal.(MexicoCity,CTR,1978)49–82;translated as“TheCrucifiedPeople,”in MysteriumLiberationis:FundamentalConceptsof LiberationTheology,ed.IgnacioEllacurı´aandJonSobrino(Maryknoll,N.Y.: Orbis,1993)580–604.

32 TwomonthsaftertheassassinationofRutilioGrande,ArchbishopRomero deliveredthisimportanthomilytotheJesuit’sformerparishonersinAguilares,El Salvador,tellingthetraumatizedpeasants,“YouaretheimageofthepiercedSavior”(“HomiliaenAguilares[June19,1977], Lavozdelossinvoz:Lapalabravivade Monsen˜orOscarArnulfoRomero [SanSalvador:UCA,1980]207–12,at208).

oppressions.”33 HetiesthisterrifyingsigntoJesuswiththeclaimthatit hasdefined“therealityoftheworldinwhichthechurchhasexistedfor almosttwothousandyears,[literally]sinceJesusannouncedtheapproach oftheReignofGod.”Intheend,Ellacurı´a’sclosestfriendandcollaborator,JonSobrino,claimsthatEllacurı´adefined“hislife,andhisvocationas aJesuitand,deeperstill,asahumanbeing”34 intermsof“aspecific service: totakethecrucifiedpeopledownfromthecross.”35

SobrinoandEllacurı´ainsistthatthisstrikingmetaphorforMedellı´n’s optionforthepoorultimatelyplacesaclaimontheuniversalchurch. Indeed,theirwholeprojectcouldbedescribedasanattempttoshowhow followersofJesusaredrawnintoamystical“analogy”36 betweenthelife, death,andresurrectionofJesusChrist,37 andthestrugglesofthecrucified peopletobelieveandtosurvivethe“worldofpoverty ...today ”38 This finalpointtakesusintowhattheGreekFathersoftheChurchcalled “theosis,”which,forEllacurı´aandSobrino,impliesthatfollowingthe historicalrealityofJesusdrawsthediscipleintoatransformativeparticipationinthedivinemysteryoftheinnerlifeofGod.Buildingonthe trinitarianmysticismoftheSpiritualExercisesofSt.Ignatius,Rahner’s

33 IgnacioEllacurı´a,“TheCrucifiedPeople,” MysteriumLiberationis 580–603, at580.

34 JonSobrino,“IgnacioEllacurı´a,theHumanBeingandtheChristian:‘Taking theCrucifiedPeopleDownFromtheCross,’” LoveThatProducesHope 1–67,at5, trans.RobertLassalle-Kleinfrom“IgnacioEllacurı´a,elhombreyelcristiano: Bajardelacruzalpueblocrucificado,” Revistalatinoamericanodeteologı´a 32 (1994)134.

35 Ibid.Throughoutthisarticle,emphasesinquotationsareoriginalunlessotherwiseindicated.

36 SeeSobrino, JesustheLiberator 254–73;and ChristtheLiberator 3–8.

37 Sobrinoidentifiesthree“typicalsituations”of“present-daydeathsforGod’s Kingdom[that]arelikeJesus’death”(JesustheLiberator 268).Therearepriests, nuns,catechists,delegatesoftheword,students,tradeunionists,peasants,workers, teachers,journalists,doctors,lawyers,etc.,whostructurallyreproducethemartyrdomofJesus—”theydefendedtheKingdomandattackedtheanti-Kingdom”with apropheticvoice“andwereputtodeath”(ibid.269).Therearethosewhodiean ethical“soldier’sdeath,”defendingtheKingdombyopenstruggle,using“some sortofviolence.”Hebelievessuchapersonmay“shareinmartyrdombyanalogy” by“layingdownone’slifeforlove”(ibid.270).Then,“finally,therearethe [innocentandanonymous]masseswhoare ...murdered,eventhoughtheyhave notusedanyexplicitformofviolence,evenverbal.”Sobrinonotesthat,“Theydo notactivelylaydowntheirlivestodefendthefaith,orevendirectlytodefend God’sKingdom.”For“theyarethepeasants,children,women,andoldpeople aboveallwhodiedslowlydayafterday,anddieviolentlywithincrediblecruelty andtotallyunprotected.”But,heargues,“theirhistoricalinnocence,”likethatof theSufferingServant,showsthey“areunjustlyburdenedwithasinthathasbeen annihilatingthem”(ibid.270–71).

38 Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator 4.

recoveryoftheeconomicTrinityin20th-centuryCatholictheology,and Augustine’scontributionstoChristiansemioticsandWesterntrinitarian theology,thetwoJesuitsofferusadeeplytrinitariantheologyofsign.This isemblemizedbySobrino’sclaimthatthedisciplewhorespondstothe grace-filledcalltotakethecrucifiedpeopledownfromthecrossbecomes alivingsignofthelife,death,andresurrectionofJesusChrist,thesending oftheSpirit,andtheongoingworkoftheTrinityintheworld.Iwillsay moreaboutthisintriguingandpotentiallycontroversialmetaphorbelow.

SOBRINO’S“SAVINGHISTORY”CHRISTOLOGY

JonSobrino’stwo-volumeLatinAmericanChristologybuildsonEllacurı´a’sphilosophicalconceptofhistoricalrealityandhistheologyofsign. GivenwhatIhavealreadysaidabouttheRahnernianrootsofEllacurı´a’s fundamentaltheology,itwillcomeasnosurprisethatSobrinodefineshis projectinrelationtoRahner’s“twobasictypesofChristology.”39 Rahner distinguishes“the‘savinghistory’type,aChristologyviewedfrombelow,” whichhefindsintheNewTestament,fromwhathecalls“the metaphysical type,aChristologydevelopingdownwardsfromabove,”40 whichheassociateswithChalcedonandtheearlyecumenicalcouncils.Rahnerpresciently predictshistypologywillbemisunderstood,particularlytheaffirmation thataChristologyfrombelow“understands,andmustunderstand,this processof‘risingup’asanactpropertoGodhimself.”Certainlyrecent criticismssuggestthatSobrino’sappropriationofthisaspectofRahner’s approachtoChristologyhasalsobeenmisunderstood.41

39 KarlRahner,“TheTwoBasicTypesofChristology,” TheologicalInvestigations,vol.13,trans.DavidBourke(NewYork:Seabury,1975)213–23.

40 Ibid.213–14.

41 Sobrino’sassertionthatthehistoricaldevelopmentofdogmaaboutJesus Christreflectsthehistoricalcharacterofthedivineeconomyofsalvationappears nottohavebeenconsideredintherecentnotificationissuedbytheCongregation fortheDoctrineoftheFaith(CDF).Thedocumentclearlyadmits,ontheone hand,that“FatherSobrinodoesnotdenythedivinityofJesuswhenheproposes thatitisfoundintheNewTestamentonly‘inseed’andwasformulateddogmaticallyonlyaftermanyyearsofbelievingreflection.”However,itcriticizesa“reticence”that“failstoaffirmJesus’divinitywithsufficientclarity,”which,itasserts, “givescredencetothesuspicionthatthehistoricaldevelopmentofdogma...has arrivedattheformulationofJesus’divinitywithoutaclearcontinuitywiththeNew Testament”(CDF,“NotificationontheWorksofFatherJonSobrino,S.J.,”in HopeandSolidarity 256).ReadingSobrino’sworkasanexampleofwhatRahner calls“savinghistory”Christology,however,supportstheinterpretationthatwhat thenotificationseesas“reticence”isinsteadareflectionofSobrino’sanalytical focusonthechurch’s“processof‘risingup’”fromitsfirstgenerationfaith-filled responsetothelife,death,andresurrectionofJesusChristtothefullyelaborated fourth-centurydoctrinalclaimsofChalcedonasanactinspiredbytheHolySpirit and“propertoGodhimself.”ReferringtothecriticismoftheCDF,William

Describing“savinghistory”Christology,Rahnerarguesthat“thepoint ofdepartureforthisChristology...isthesimpleexperienceoftheman Jesus,andoftheResurrectioninwhichhisfatewasboughttoitsconclusion.”Heargues:

Theeyeofthebelieverinhisexperienceofsavinghistoryalightsfirstontheman JesusofNazareth,andonhiminhis fullyhumanreality,inhisdeath,inthe absolutepowerless[ness]andintheabidinglydefinitivestatewhichhisrealityand hisfatehavebeenbroughttobyGod,somethingwhichwecallhisResurrection, hisglorification,hissittingattherighthandoftheFather.42

SobrinoexplicitlytieshisChristologytothis“undertakingofKarlRahner...torestoretoChristhistruehumanity,”which“insistedonthinking ofthehumanityofChrist“sacramentally.”43 AndSobrinoadoptsthe“basicallychronological”patternofchristologicalreflection“foundinthe NewTestament,”where“Jesus’missionofservicetotheKingdom”raises “thequestionaboutthepersonofJesus,”ultimatelyansweredbythe disciple’s“confessionofhisunrepeatableandsalvificreality.”44 Reflecting Rahner’scharacteristicinsistenceontheunityofthehistoricalJesusand theChristoffaith,Sobrinoconcludes:“Asaresultthe real pointofdepartureisalways,somehow,thewholefaithinChrist,butthe methodological pointofdeparturecontinuestobethehistoricalJesus.Thisisobjectively, thebest mystagogy fortheChristoffaith.”45 SobrinoandEllacurı´afurther insistthatonecomestoknowtheresurrectedJesusmainlybypickingup andcarryingthehistoricalburdenofhismessageabouttheKingdomof God,46 andbyacceptingthesufferingthatcomestothosewhotryto historicizetodaythevaluesoftheKingdomthatdefinedthehistorical realityofJesus.

Loewecorrectlypointsoutthat“theCongregationdoesnotinsistthatSobrino should bereadassayingthis,nordoeshistextsupportsuchareading.Rather theoppositeisthecase”(Loewe,“InterpretingtheNotification”146,150).

42 Rahner,“TwoBasicTypes”215,emphasisadded.

43 Sobrino, JesustheLiberator 45.

44 Jesucristoliberador 104; JesustheLiberator 55.

45 Ibid.

46 Likemanytheologians,Ellacurı´aandSobrino,fromMedellı´non,placegreat emphasisontheKingdomofGodasadefiningelementofthemessageandministry ofJesus.Ellacurı´a,however,characteristicallylinksthefundamentaltheological significanceoftheKingdompreachedbyJesustowhathecalls“thetranscendental unityofthehistoryofsalvation,”arguingthattheKingdomrevealsthat“thereare nottwohistoriesbutonesinglehistoryinwhichthepresenceoftheliberatorGod andthepresenceoftheliberatedandliberatorhumanbeingarejoinedtogether” (IgnacioEllacurı´a,“Lateologı´adelaliberacionfrentealcambiosociohistoricode AmericaLatina,” Revistalatinoamericanadeteologı ´ a 4[1987]21).

TheHistoricalRealityofJesusChrist

Exactlywhat,then,doSobrinoandEllacurı´ameanbythe“historical reality”ofJesus?AndhowdoesSobrinomakethehistoricalrealityof JesustheproperobjectforhiscontextualizedLatinAmerican“saving history”Christology?Iaddressthesequestionsinthisandthefollowing sections.Then,heedingRahner’sprescientwarning,Iwillconcludeby suggestinghowSobrino’s“savinghistory”Christologymakesthe“process of‘risingup’”fromthehistoricalrealityofJesustotheChristoffaithinto “anactpropertoGodhimself.”47

SobrinoassertsthatthehistoricalJesusisboththewaytoChristandthe startingpointforLatinAmericanChristology.HesaysthatLatinAmericanChristology“presupposes...faithinthewholerealityofJesusChrist.” Buthenotesthat“themethodologicalproblem”remains:“wheredoesone startingivinganaccountofthiswhole?”Soheargues,“Ihavechosenas mystartingpointthe reality ofJesusofNazareth,hislife,hismissionand hisfate,whatisusuallycalledthe historicalJesus.”48

Hereitisworthnotingthat,whileSobrinogenerallyreferstothe“reality”ofJesusratherthanEllacurı´a’smoreprecise“historicalreality”of Jesus,themeaningandtheapproacharegenerallythesame.Thisconjunctionoftheterms reality and historicalJesus shouldalsoalertustoSobrino’saffinitywithRahner’sinsistenceontheunityofhistoryand transcendenceinJesus.ThisisclearinSobrino’sstatement,“JesusChrist isawholethat,toputitfornowinasimplifiedway,consistsofahistorical element(Jesus)andatranscendentalelement(Christ),andthemostcharacteristicfeatureoffaithassuchistheacceptanceofthetranscendental element:thatthisJesusismorethanJesus,thatheis the Christ.”49

Sobrinooutlines“themeaningofthe historicaldimensionofJesus inLatin AmericanChristology,”startingwithwhathecalls“(1)themost historical aspectofJesus:hispracticewithspirit.”50 Hethenmoves“(2)fromthe practiceofJesustothe person ofJesus,”and“(3)fromthehistoricalJesus tothewholeChrist.”51 Whilevolumeone, Jesucristoliberador,tracesthese themesthroughtheNewTestamentfrom“themissionandfaithofJesus”to hiscrucifixionanddeath,volumetwopicksupthetrailfromtheNew

47 Rahner,“TwoBasicTypes”214.

48 Sobrino, JesustheLiberator 36–63,at36.

49 Ibid.36–37.

50 Ibid.50.Sobrino’snotionofthe“poorwithspirit”goesbacktoanearlyessay byEllacurı´aontheBeatitudeswhereheinterpretsthefirstbeatitudeofMatthew 5:3as“Blessedarethepoorwithspirit”(IgnacioEllacurı´a,“Lasbienaventuranzas comocartafundamentaldelaIglesiadelospobres,”in Iglesiadelospobresy organizacionespopulares,ed.OscarRomeroetal.(SanSalvador,UCA,1979) 105–18;repr.inEllacurı ´ a, Escritosteolo ´ gicos 2:417–37,seeesp.423.

51 Sobrino, Jesucristoliberador 96,100,102; JesustheLiberator 50,52,54.

TestamentresurrectionaccountsthroughthedevelopmentofChristologyin theearlychurchandthefirstecumenicalcouncils.Inallthis,Sobrinomakes itclearthatthedepositoffaithremainsnormative,andthatheisreadingit fromaLatinAmericanecclesial“setting”52 definedbytheoptionforthe poorandtheperspectiveofthevictimsofhistory.Inthefollowingthree subsections,IwillsummarizethecoreclaimsofSobrino’stwovolumeson eachoftheaforementionedpoints.Iwillalsolinkthemtohisprofound historicalrealismandtohisvisionofwhatIwillcallaLatinAmerican “savinghistory”Christology;itstarts“frombelow”withthehistoricalreality ofJesus.

“TheMost Historical AspectofJesus:HisPracticewithSpirit”

Sobrinobeginswiththedefinition,“By‘historicalJesus’wemeanthe lifeofJesusofNazareth,hiswordsandactions,hisactivityandhispraxis, hisattitudesandhisspirit,hisfateonthecross(andtheresurrection).”53 Thisinclusionofboththe“spirit”andtheresurrectionofJesusinwhat Sobrinocallshis“historical”realityhelpsusseethathisunderstandingof thehistoricalrealityofJesustranscendsthepositivismofhistoricalfacts. Indeed,hearguesthat“themosthistoricalaspectofJesusishispractice, and...thespiritwithwhichheengagedinitand ...imbuedit.”Butwhat exactlydoesSobrinomeanbyJesus’“practicewithspirit”andthe“spirit” ofthepracticeofJesus?

Sobrinosaysthis“spirit”referstoJesus’“honestytowardtherealworld, partialityforthe littleones,deep-seatedmercy,[and]faithfulnesstothe mysteryofGod.”Butwhatis“historical,”observable,orempiricalabout thisspirit?Ontheonehand,heargues“thisspiritwasdefinedandsobecame real,throughapractice,becauseitwaswithinthatpractice,andnotinhis pureinwardness,thatJesuswaschallengedandempowered.”Thus,Sobrino contendsthatwecandiscoverthespiritofJesusbyexamininghispractice.54

“Ontheotherhand,”Sobrinoinsists,“thisspiritwasnotmerelythe necessaryaccompanimentofJesus’practice,butshapedit,gaveitadirectionandevenempoweredittobehistoricallyeffective.”55 Thespiritthat suffusesJesus’practicecannotbecapturedby“whatissimplydebatablein spaceandtime.”56 Infact,heargues,“the historical is...whatsetshistory inmotion.”Andthisispreciselywhathasbeen“handeddowntousasa trust...[in]theNewTestament...asnarrativespublishedtokeepalive throughhistoryarealitystartedoffbyJesus.”Thus,heconcludes,theNew TestamentislessinterestedinempiricallycataloguingJesus’activitiesthan incapturingandpassingonthespiritofJesustohisdisciples,whenthis

52 Sobrino, JesustheLiberator 28. 53 Ibid.50–52,esp.50.

54 Ibid.52.

56 Ibid.51.

55 Ibid.

“spirit”isunderstoodasthefundamentalrelationships,loves,commitments,andself-understandingthatdefinedhislife.57

Aftertheseintroductoryremarksonmethod,volumeoneprovidestwo lengthysectionsonfactorsthatdefinethehistoricalrealityofJesus.“The firstthingthatstrikesoneinbeginningtoanalyzetherealityofJesusof Nazareth,”Sobrinowrites,andwhat“emergesincontrovertiblyfromthe Gospels”isthat“Jesus’lifewasanoutward-directedone,directedto something ...expressedbytwoterms:‘KingdomofGod’and‘Father.’”58 Bothterms,Sobrinoasserts,“areauthenticwordsofJesus”and“allembracingrealities.”The“KingdomofGod”definesforJesus“allof [historical]realityandwhatmustbedone,”and“by‘Father’Jesusnames thepersonalrealitythatlendsultimatemeaningtohislife.”59 But,he concludes,“webeginwithJesus’relationshiptotheKingdom,becausethis ishowtheGospelsbegin...andbecause,Ithink,onegainsbetteraccess tothewholerealityofJesusbystartingfromhisexternalactivitieson behalfoftheKingdomandbymovingfromtheretohisinnerrelationship withGod.”60 Sobrino’sstartingpoint,itmustbenoted,isnotdetermined arbitrarilybutisbasedonatrajectoryhediscoversintheGospels.

BuildingonEllacurı´a’sthreedimensionsofhistoricizationmentioned above,SobrinothenoutlineshowJesus(a)understandstheKingdomof God,(b)takesresponsibilityfortheKingdomofGod,and(c)carriesout transformativeactivitiesonbehalfoftheKingdomofGodthroughhis “practicewithspirit.”Eachofthesemomentsissummarizedinthesubsectionsbelow,includingwhateachcontributestoSobrino’sunderstandingof the“spirit,”orthedefiningaspectsofthepersonofJesushistoricizedinhis practice.

Jesus’KingdomofGod:AHoped-forUtopiaAddressedtotheSufferingPoor

SobrinosaysthatJesusarticulatesaspecific“concept”oftheKingdom ofGodintheGospels,andthathepresentstheKingdomasprimarily addressedtothepoor.61 HesaystheSynopticJesusunderstandstheKingdomasa“hoped-forutopiainthemidstofthesufferingsofhistory,”62 a viewJesusshareswiththeHebrewScripturesandJohntheBaptist.Jesus believestheKingdomis“possible”and“somethinggoodandliberative,”63 whichreflectsnotonlythecommon“expectation”ofthecountryfolkof Galileeandfirst-centuryIsraelbutalsothehopesandaspirationsof oppressedpeoplethroughouttheages.

57 Ibid. 58 Ibid.67.

59 Sobrino, Jesucristoliberador 121; JesustheLiberator 67.

60 Sobrino, Jesucristoliberador 122; JesustheLiberator 67.

61 Sobrino, JesustheLiberator 69. 62 Ibid.70.

63 Ibid.75.

Ontheotherhand,SobrinoobservesthatJesusbreakswithJohnthe BaptistandtheHebrewprophetsinfourimportantways.First,“Jesusnot onlyhopesfortheKingdomofGod,[but]heaffirmsthatitisathand,that itsarrivalisimminent,[and]thattheKingdomshouldbenotonlyan objectofhope,butofcertainty.”64 Second,Jesusinsiststhat,whilethe KingdomisGod’sinitiative,gift,andgrace,itsactualcoming“demandsa conversion,[or] metanoia.”Thiscreates“ataskforthelistener”thatdiffersaccordingtohisorherlocationinthecycleofoppression.Thus,“the hopethepoormustcometofeel”mustnotbeconfusedwith“theradical changeofconductrequiredoftheoppressors.”Ineithercase,however, “demands[are]madeonalltolivealifeworthyoftheKingdom.” 65

Third,whiletheKingdomimpliesa“crisis”and/or“judgmentonthe worldandhistory,”66 Jesuspresentsitas“goodnews”forthepoorthat “hastobeproclaimedwithjoyandmustproducejoy.”67 Thisspiritofjoy andhope“iswhyJesusarousedundoubtedpopularsupportthroughout thewholeofhisministry.”68

Fourth,Sobrinoarguesthat,whileJesus“didnotexcludeanyonefrom thepossibilityofenteringintotheKingdom,”heprimarilyaddressedthe KingdomofGodtothepoor.69 Accordingly,forJesus,“proclaiminggood news tothepoor ofthisworldcannotbeamatterofwordsalone,”since “whatthepoorneedandhopefor”isachangeintheirhistoricalreality.70 Therefore,whileJesus’understandingoftheKingdomasliberatinggood newsforthepoorprovokeshopeandrequiresconversion,italsodemands acommensurate“messianicpractice”capableofhistoricizingthisspirit.

JesusAssumesResponsibilityfortheKingdomofGod throughHis“MessianicPractice”

SobrinoseesJesusasdrivenbyaspiritofethicalresponsibilityforthe Kingdom,whichhehistoricizesthrougha“messianicpractice”71 as“proclaimer and initiator oftheKingdomofGod.”72 ToappreciatetheroleofJesus’ miraclesinthispractice,Sobrinosayswemustseethemthroughtheeyesof thepoorcountryfolkofGalileeasliberativesignsandexpressionsofGod’s compassion.Themiraclesarousefaith“inaGodwho,comingclose,makesus believeinnewpossibilitiesactivelydeniedtothepoorinhistory.”Theyelicit “afaiththatovercomesfatalism...sothatbelievers,nowhealed,areconvertedsoastobecomethemselvesprinciplesofsalvationforthemselves.”73

64 Ibid.76.

66 Ibid.77.

68 Ibid.

70 Ibid.87.

72 Ibid.87.

65 Ibid.76–77.

67 Ibid.78.

69 Ibid.79.

71 Ibid.161.

73 Ibid.93.

Second,SobrinosaysthatwhenJesuscastsoutdevils,hisGalilean audienceappreciatesJesus’recognitionthat“theKingdomimplies,of necessity,activelystrugglingagainsttheanti-Kingdom.”74 Third,Jesus’ welcomingandforgivingcommonsinnerssimultaneouslyliberatesthem fromthemselvesandovercomestheirmarginalization.75 Hecallsthepowerfulto“anactivecessationfromoppressing”andasksthepoortoaccept “thatGodisnotlike ...theiroppressorsandtherulingreligiousculture.”76 Fourth,JesustellsparablesabouttheKingdomthatsimilarlycall theoppressortoconversion,defendthepoor,andjustifyhisactionson theirbehalf.77 Andfifth,Jesusgathershisfollowersformealsandother joyfuleventsthat“aresignsofthecomingoftheKingdomandofthe realizationofhisideals:liberation,peace,universalcommunion.”78

Intheend,SobrinoarguesthatLatinAmericanliberationtheology “makestheKingdomofGodcentralforstrictlychristologicalreasons”79 groundedintheKingdom’sdefiningroleinJesus’messianicpractice,and theconvictionthathishistoricalrealityistherealsignoftheWordmade flesh.SobrinoarguesthatthemessianicpracticeofJesushistoricizeshis spiritofcompassion,joy,forgiveness,courageouswillingnesstoconfront oppression,andhiscallforpersonaltransformation.Andheconcludesthat thismessianicpracticeleadsJesustoa“propheticpraxis”thatdecisively altersthehistoricalrealityoffirst-centuryIsrael.

“PropheticPraxis”:Jesus’TransformativeActivities fortheKingdomofGod

Jesusdefendsthefirstfruitsofhismessianicpracticeinserviceofthe KingdomofGodthrougha“propheticpraxis”of“directdenunciationofthe anti-Kingdom,”80 whichSobrinosayschangesbothJesus’immediatecontextandthehistoricalrealityofIsraelforever.Hedistinguishesthispraxis fromJesus’“messianicpractice”thatproduces“signs”oftheKingdombut isnot“aimedatbringingaboutthetotaltransformationofsociety.”81 Onthe otherhand,inthecontroversies,unmaskings,anddenunciations“Jesus denouncesthescribes,thePharisees,therich,thepriests,therulers... [who]representandexercisesomekindofpowerthatstructuressocietyas awhole.”Jesus’propheticactions,Sobrinoaffirms:(a)seektoreformand changethe“realities(thelaw,theTemple)inwhosenamesocietyis structured”;(b)exposestructuralabusesofinstitutionalpoweras“anexpressionoftheanti-Kingdom”;and(c)“showthattheanti-Kingdomseeks

74 Ibid.95.

76 Ibid.97.

78 Ibid.103.

80 Ibid.161.

75 Ibid.95–99.

77 Ibid.100–101.

79 Ibid.123.

81 Ibid.160.

tojustifyitselfinGod’sname.”82 Inthisway,thepropheticactivityofJesus historicizesaspiritoftransformative“‘praxis’ ...because ...itspurpose[is] thetransformationofsociety.”Hesaysthispraxisdemonstrates“thatJesus, objectively,faceduptothesubjectofsocietyasawhole—includingits structuraldimension—andsoughttochangeit.”83

Sobrinothenanalyzescontroversies,unmaskingsofliesandother mechanismsofoppressivereligion,anddenunciationsofoppressorsand theiridols,whicharetoonumeroustoreviewhere.Heconcludes,however,byexaminingJesus’expulsionofthetradersfromtheTemple(Mk 11:15–19;Mt21:12–17;Lk19:45–48;Jn2:14–16),whichservesasanexplanationforthecrucifixion.Iwillsaymoreaboutthisbelow.Heinsiststhat invirtuallyallthecontroversies,unmaskings,anddenunciations,“Jesus notonlyproclaimstheKingdomandproclaimsaFatherGod;healso denouncestheanti-Kingdomandunmasksitsidols.”Heconcludesthat “inthispraxis,Jesuscanbeseentobeinthelineoftheclassicprophets ofIsrael,ofAmos,Hosea,Isaiah,Jeremiah,Micah...,andinthatof themodernprophets,ArchbishopOscarRomero,...MartinLutherKing, Jr.”Thus,Jesushistoricizesapropheticspiritinkeepingwiththeprophetic traditionsofIsraelthroughapropheticpraxisdesignedtoconfront,reform, andtransformthecurrentabuseofitsancientinstitutionsandpracticesby contemporaryfirst-centuryelites.84

Withthisclaim,Sobrinoconcludeshisargumentthat(a)JesusunderstandstheKingdomofGodasjustice,forgiveness,andmercyforthe sufferingpoorandthemarginated;(b)Jesus’“messianicpractice” respondsinaliberatingmannertothissuffering;and(c)Jesus’transformative“propheticpraxis”isbothgoodnewsforthepoorandleadsinevitablytohiscrucifixion.Sobrino’spointisthatthemerciful,liberating,and propheticspiritthatsuffusesJesus’proclamationandinitiationofthe KingdomofGodasgoodnewsforthepoor,alsoprovokesresistanceby theforcesoftheanti-Kingdom.Sadly,theawfullogicoftheanti-Kingdom willinglysacrificesthepoorandtheirdefenderstopreserveitstreasures. Unfortunately,thislogicalsoimpliesthatthosewhoshareJesus’spiritof serviceoftheKingdomasgoodnewstothepoorwillbecrucifiedaswell.

“FromthePracticeofJesustothe Person ofJesus”

Icome,then,towhatSobrinocallsthesecond“historicaldimensionof Jesus inLatinAmericanChristology.”85 HearguesthatJesus’“practice withspirit”oftheKingdomofGodasgoodnewsforthepoor(which includeshispropheticpraxis)leadsdirectlytohiscrucifixion,thedefining

82 Ibid.161.

84 Ibid.179.

83 Ibid.

85 Ibid.50.

momentofthelifeand“the person ofJesus.”86 Praisingthisdimensionof Sobrino’swork,biblicalscholarDanielHarringtonarguesthat“Sobrino’s ‘historical-theological’readingofJesusofNazarethoffersimportantmethodologicalcontributionstoboththehistoricalandtheologicalstudyof Jesusandhisdeath.”87 HarringtonpointsoutthatSobrinocorrectly eschewsthe“narrowversionofhistoricalcriticism”foundinmanyauthors andformulatesa“moreadequateandfruitfulwayoftreatingancient sources,”which“involvestakingseriouslythehistoricaldataaboutJesus andtryingtodotheologyonthebasisofandinlightofthesedata.”88

HarringtonagreeswithSobrinothat“Jesus’deathwasnotamistake, tragicorotherwise,”andthat“whatgotJesuskilled ...wasthefactthathe wasaradicalthreattothereligiousandpoliticalpowersofhistime.”89 Jesus“gotintheway”bydefendingthevictimsoftheirpolicies,inthe nameoftheKingdomofGod.90 Asevidence,Harringtoncitesthefactthat “thefourGospelsareunitedinpresentingJesusasthevictimofpersecutionandinsuggestingthathisdeathwas...thelogicalconsequenceof whoJesuswasandthecircumstancesinwhichhelivedandworked.”91

Harringtonthenasks,“DidJesusknowbeforehandthathewasgoingto sufferanddieinJerusalem?”92 Notingthatbiblicalscholarsgenerallyview thethreepassionpredictions(Mk8:31;9:31;10:33–34)aslaterinsertions, HarringtonsaysthatSobrino“wiselypointstothefateofJohntheBaptist”toarguethatJesuswenttoJerusalemreadytoacceptdeath“outof fidelitytothecauseofthekingdomofGod,outofconfidenceintheone whomhecalled‘Father,’andoutofloyaltytohispropheticcalling.”93 Withthismove,heargues,Sobrinocorrectlysituates“thelinkbetween thehistoricalJesusandtheChristoffaith”preciselyat“therootofJesus’ resolvetogotoJerusalem ...[and]hisunderstandingofhislifeasservice onbehalfofothers,eventothepointofsacrificialservice.”ThisisSobrino’sexplanationforhowthedivineeconomyofsalvationishistoricized throughwhattheGospelsportrayasthedefiningmomentofthehistorical realityofJesus:hisdecisiontoacceptsufferinganddeathinordertofulfill hismessianic,prophetic,andpriestlymissionfromtheFathertobringthe KingdomofGodasgoodnewsforthepoor.

CitingtheTempleincident(Mk11:15–19)andJesus’prophecyofthe destructionoftheTemple(13:2),HarringtonsupportsSobrino’sargument that“itisreasonabletoconcludethatatthe‘religioustrial’[beforethe

86 Ibid.52–54.

87 DanielJ.Harrington,S.J.,“WhatGotJesusKilled?Sobrino’sHistoricalTheologicalReadingofScripture,”in HopeandSolidarity 79–89,at81.

88 Ibid. 89 Ibid.

90 Ibid.82. 91 Ibid.

92 Ibid. 93 Ibid.82–83.

Sanhedrin]JesuswasaccusedofwantingtodestroytheTemplenotonly becausehecriticizedcertainaspectsofitbutalsobecauseheofferedan alternative(theKingdomofGod)thatimpliedthattheTemplewouldno longerbethecoreofthepolitical,social,andeconomiclifeoftheJewish people.”94 Similarly,HarringtonendorsesSobrino’sacceptanceofLuke’s chargesinthe“politicaltrial”beforetheRomangovernor,PontiusPilate (23:2),asverylikelyhistorical:“Wefoundthismanpervertingournation, forbiddingthemtopaytaxestotheemperor,andsayingthathehimselfis theMessiah,aking.”95 Harringtonarguesthat“thechargethatJesusmade himself‘theMessiah,aking,’wouldhavebeenespeciallyincendiaryinthis context.”Thus,theEvangelists’descriptionoftheinscriptiononthecross, “TheKingoftheJews”(Mk15:26),nottomentionthepublictorture itself,wouldhaveservedasbrutalpublicwarningsto“would-beMessiahs ...temptedtoleadanuprisingagainsttheRomanoccupiers.”96

ItiscrucialtounderstandthatSobrinoisarguingthatJesus’relationship withtheFatherultimatelyguidesandmotivatesthenatureofhisobedient servicetoGod’scalltoinitiatehisKingdom,whichishistoricizedthrough aliberativepropheticpracticethatleadstoJesus’faith-filleddeathonthe cross.HarringtonnotesappreciativelythatSobrinofinds“stronganalogies betweenfirst-centuryPalestineandlate-twentieth-centuryElSalvador,” whichopenupnewinsights“thatotherinterpretersinothercircumstances maymiss.”97 Sobrinoadmits:“Ihavenothingtocontributetotheexegeticalelucidation”ofscripturalaccountsofthedeathofJesus,but,heinsists, “thepointIwanttomakeisthatthecrossthatdominatestheThirdWorld greatlyilluminatesthecoherencewithwhichthepassionanddeathof Jesus—asawhole—aredescribed.”98 Thus,thereceivedtraditionclearly remainsnormativeinSobrino’sanalogicalapproach.Buthisworkenters thehermeneuticalcircleinitiatedatVaticanIIthroughthecommitmentto readtheterrifyingsignofthecrucifiedpeopleofLatinAmericainlightof thehistoricalrealityofJesus’“praxiswithspirit,hiscrucifixion,andhis resurrection,”99 andviceversa.Harringtoncorrectlyarguesthatitisthis perspectivethatdefinesSobrino’sprimarycontributiontotheinterpretationoftheNewTestamentcrucifixionnarratives.

94 Ibid.83.

96 Ibid.84.

98 Sobrino, JesustheLiberator 196.

95 Ibid.

97 Ibid.85.

99 Sobrinoclearlyinsistsonthenormativityofthereceivedtradition(Christthe Liberator 36),whileillustratingDavidTracy’swidelyaccepteddefinitionofsystematictheologyas“thedisciplinethatarticulatesmutuallycriticalcorrelationsbetween themeaningandtruthofaninterpretationoftheChristianfact,andthemeaningand truthofaninterpretationofthecontemporarysituation”(DavidTracy,“TheFoundationsofPracticalTheology,”in PracticalTheology:TheEmergingFieldin Theology,ChurchandWorld,ed.DonS.Browning[NewYork:Harper&Row, 1983]61–82,at62).

“FromtheHistoricalJesustotheWholeChrist”

Volumetwo, LafeenJesucristo,dealswithwhatSobrinocallsthethird elementof thehistoricaldimensionofJesus,shifting“fromthehistorical JesustothewholeChrist.”100 Theperceptivereaderwillnotethathere Sobrinomovesfarbeyondtheboundsoftheusualtreatmentofthe“historicalJesus”(e.g.,heincludestheResurrection)preciselybecausehis Rahnerian“savinghistory”approachtoChristologyleadshimtointerpret thehistoricalrealityofJesusasthelivingsacramentoftheWordofGod.

Sobrino’sapproachismarkedbythehistoricalrealityheattributesto theNewTestament“paschalexperience”andtoitsinterpretationand acceptanceinfaith.ThisemphasisonthehistoricaldimensionoftheResurrectionemblemizesSobrino’s“savinghistory”approachtothehistorical realityofJesus.Hisanalysisisdrivenbywhathecallsthe“realityprinciple,”101 whichhesaysis“thecentralpresuppositionoftheChristologiesof theNewTestament.”Therealityprincipleisakindofscribalexegetical standardthatworkstolimittheadditionofvarioustitlesandotherelementstothestoryofJesusintheNewTestamentsothat“therealand historicalsubjectisstillJesusofNazareth.”102 Thekeypointisthatthe realityprincipleallowstheNewTestamentauthorstocrediblyclaim— givenfirstcenturyscribalstandards—that“Faith ...is referredbackto ‘whatwehaveheard,whatwehaveseenwithoureyes,whatwehave lookedatandtouchedwithourhands’(1John1:1).”103

SobrinoobservesthatNewTestamentwitnessestotheresurrectionof Jesusarepresentedasfirsthandaccountsofa“paschalexperience,”which “claimstobebasedina reality thathappenedtoJesusandwas,insome way,observable.”104 ButwhatexactlydoesSobrinomeanwhenheasserts that“theNewTestamentbuildsitsreflectiononthis realityofthehistorical Jesusandhisresurrection”?105 Havingoutlinedintheprevioussectionthe definingelementsofhisunderstandingofthehistoricalrealityofJesus, IwillfocusinthissectiononSobrino’sanswertothequestion,“Whatis historicalinJesus’resurrection?”106

Sobrino’sobservationthatthecanonicalGospels“neverdescribeJesus’ resurrection”leadshimtoassertthat“inordertoknowwhathappenedto Jesus,weareofnecessityreferredtowhathappenedtothedisciples”and whathecalls“theEasterexperience.”107 Hethenexaminesthepre-

100 Sobrino, Jesucristoliberador 102–4; JesustheLiberator 54–55.

101 Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator 225. 102 Ibid.225.

103 Ibid.

104 Sobrino, Jesucristoliberador 413;thissentenceispartofaparagraphnot translatedintheEnglishedition.

105 Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator 226,emphasisadded.

106 Ibid.64.

107 Ibid.55.

Paulinekerygmathatscholarsplaceamongtheearliestsummariesofwhat Christiansbelieved(1Cor15:3b–5):“thatChristdiedforoursinsinaccordancewiththescriptures,andthathewasburied,andthathewasraisedon thethirddayinaccordancewiththescriptures,andthatheappearedto Cephas,thentothetwelve.”

FromthismaterialSobrinodrawsthreeproperlyhistoricalclaims.First, thekerygmatictexts“affirmthatsomethinghappenedtoJesus’disciples, somethingtheyattributeto theirencounterwithJesus,whomtheycallthe risenLord.”108 Second,“achangewasworkedinthedisciples...beforeand afterEaster.”Thetextsdescribechangesin“theplacesinwhichtheywere (fromGalileetoJerusalem);theirbehavior(fromfeartobravery);[and] theirfaith(from‘Wewerewaiting,butitisnowthethirdday’to‘TheLord isrisenindeed’).”Third,thekerygmadoesnotreflecttheimpactofJesuson hisfollowersduringhislifeanddeathbutemergesfromthedisciples’experienceoftheResurrection.“The objective conclusion,therefore,hastobe... [that]forthemtherewasnodoubtthatthissubjectivefaithhada correspondingrealitythathappenedtoJesushimself.”109 Sobrinoconcludes, “Fromahistoricalpointofview,Idonotthinkonecangofurtherthanthis.”

ThisbringsSobrinofacetofacewiththeproblemoftheexactnatureofthe relationshipofhistoryandfaith,hisresolutionofwhichultimatelydefineshis interpretationofthehistoricalrealityofJesusfromaLatinAmericancontext. Sobrinoarguesthat“theproclamationofthemessagethat‘GodraisedJesus fromthedead’”presentsChristianswithahistorical“invitation”toa“reasonablefaith.”DrawingananalogybetweentheclaimsoftheResurrectionand theExodus,Sobrinonotesthatbothaccountsconfrontreaderswithhistorical eventsthatsomehavebelievedcanbereasonablyinterpretedasactionsofthe transcendentGod.SobrinoagreeswithJohnHenryNewmanthatthefaith thatGodhasactedinhistorythroughsucheventscaninfactbeseenasa “reasonableresponse”toa“sumtotalof[historical]indicators,”whichhesays includecredibletexts,personalexperiences,andthelong-lastingimpacton believersoffaith.Inthepresentcase,SobrinoarguesthatScripturefirst confrontsthereader/hearerwithtestimoniesto“thepresenceoftheeschatologicalinhistory”fromwitnessesthat“appeartobehonestpeople.”Second, readers/hearersjudgetheseclaimsthroughanalogiestotheirown“presentday”historicalencounterswith“somethingultimate.”Andthird,readers/ hearersnotethatbelievingacceptanceoftheseclaimsconsistently(butnot always)generates“greaterpersonalhumanization”andthecreationof“more andbetterhistory.”110

ThesefactorsleadSobrinotoconclude“thatunderstandingJesus’resurrectionasaneschatologicaleventisananalogousproblemtothatof 108 Ibid.64,emphasisadded. 109 Ibid.64–65. 110 Ibid.

knowingGodthroughanydivineaction.”111 Theunderlyingidea,groundedinEllacurı´a’sChristianhistoricalrealism,isthathistoryandfaithare notoppositesbutareinextricablyintertwinedinhumanhistoricalreality, which,asIhavenotedabove,musttakeastandonitshistoricalrealityin theworld.AdaptingthethreequestionsthatKantsayseverypersonmust face,Sobrinothenaskswhathistorical knowledge, whathistorical praxis, andwhathistorical hope “areneededtodayinordertounderstandwhatis beingsaidwhenwehearthatJesushasbeenraisedfromthedead?”AsI willshowinthenextsection,Sobrinopredictablyarguesthat“thereplies willabovealltakeaccountofwhatthescripturaltextsthemselvesrequire,” whileatthesametimereflectingwhatemergeswhenthestoryofJesusis “rereadfromtheLatinAmericansituation.”112

Inthissection,then,IhaveoutlinedimportantaspectsofwhatSobrino meansbythe“historicalreality”ofJesusChristandhavebeguntosuggest itsplaceinhisChristology.HereSobrinoclearlybuildsontheconceptof “historicalreality”developedbyEllacurı´awithhisvisionofaLatinAmericanChristologyguidedbyahistorical logos capableofarticulatingthe salvificsignificanceofthehistoricalrealityofJesus.Ellacurı´a’snotionof historicalrealityasthatrealitywhichmusttakeastanceonitshistoryin theworldisexemplifiedinSobrino’sclaimthatJesusdefineshislife,his person,andthesalvationhebringsthroughhisfundamentalhistorical stancetowardtheFather,hispeopleIsrael,themissionhegivesJesusto initiatetheKingdomofGod,andhisactionofraisingJesusfromthedead. ThesearethedefiningelementsofthehistoricalrealityofJesusChristas witnessedbytheGospels,andSobrinoarguesthattheyguidehiscontextualizedrereadingofthetradition.

ButIhaveonlybeguntosuggesttheplaceofthehistoricalrealityof JesusinSobrino’soverallreadingofchristologicaltraditionfromaLatin Americanperspective.InwhatfollowsIwillalludetohowSobrinobuilds onEllacurı´a’sRahneriantheologyofsign,thetrinitarianspiritualityof IgnatiusLoyola,andmostespeciallyArchbishopRomero’svisionofthe poorasthecrucifiedimageofChristtoarguethatitisthe“victimsof history”whohelpusunderstandandenterthehistoricalrealityofJesusas the“realsymbol”oftheWordmadeflesh.113

TheFaith,Hope,andLoveofthe“Victims”ofHistoryasthe HermeneuticalKeytotheHistoricalRealityofJesus’Resurrection

TheoriginalityofSobrino’sapproachtoChristologyisreflectedinthe questionheaddstothoseofKantmentionedabove:“Whatcanwe

111 Ibid.35.

113 Ibid.319.

112 Ibid.36.

celebrateinhistory?”114 Sobrinocontendsthat,“howeverscandalousthis mayseem,”wemustaskwhatthereistocelebrateintheblood-stained historyof“theLatinAmericansituation.”Heanswerswiththree“hermeneuticalprinciplesfromthevictims”ofhistory,whichhebelieveslaythe foundationforunderstandingacceptanceoftheresurrectionofJesusina LatinAmericancontext.115 First,hesaysthatthehistorical hopeofthe crucified inthevictoryoflifeoverdeathis“themostessentialhermeneuticalrequirementforunderstandingwhathappenedtoJesus.”116 Hebegins byasserting:“Ifhumanbeingswerenotbynature‘beingsofhope’orwere unabletofulfillthishopeoverthecourseofhistorywithitsupsanddowns, theresurrectiontextswould...beincomprehensible.Itwouldbeliketrying toexplaincolorstoablindperson.”117 Historicizingthisclaim,hearguesthat HebrewscripturecallsIsraeltofaithandhopeintheGodoflifeandjustice whohasbeenrevealedthroughIsrael’shistoryofoppressionandliberation. Similarly,NewTestamentaccountsoftheresurrectionofJesuscallfor“hope inthepowerofGodovertheinjusticethatproducesvictims,”118 andoverthe crucifixionanddeaththattriestodefeatthepromisesoftheKingdom.Thus, heconcludes,“Humantranscendentalhopeisanecessarybutinsufficient conditionforunderstandingJesus’resurrection.”119

Butwhereinhistorydoweactuallyfindthishope,andhowdowemakeit ourown?Theanswer,Sobrinosays,“isdifficult;itrequiresustomakethe hopeofvictims,andwithittheirsituation,ourown.” 120 Likeaparableof Jesusthatturnstheworldonitshead,hope“islikeagiftthevictims themselvesmaketous.”Inordertomakeitourown,however,“wehave toslotourselvesintothishope,andbydoingsowecanrebuild—with different,throughultimatelysimilar,mediations—theprocessfollowedby Israel’sfaithinaGodofresurrection.”Thus,bymakingthehistoricalhope ofhistory’svictimsintoourownhope,“weprogressinfindingaGodwhois lovingandonthesideofthevictims,sowecanrespondtothisGodwith radicalloveforthem.”Ontheonehand,adoptingthehopeofthevictims “makesthequestionoftheultimatefateofthesevictimsmoreacute,” whichcanbeuncomfortable.Ontheotherhand,however,itimpliesnot

114 Ibid.

115 Ibid.35.MatthewAshleyassertsthatSobrino’shermeneuticalprinciplesare formulatedinreferenceto“ahopethathopesfirst ...fortheraisingtofulllifeof thepoor;apraxisdevotedtoraisingthemupnowbystrivingforjusticeforthe poorand...aknowingthatisopentothesurpriseoffindingGodrevealedinthe poor”(J.MatthewAshley,“TheResurrectionofJesusandResurrectionDiscipleshipintheSystematicTheologyofJonSobrino,”summarizedinTathaWiley, “Christology,”CatholicTheologicalSocietyofAmerica, ProceedingsoftheSixtieth AnnualConvention 60[2005]104).

116 Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator 45. 117 Ibid.36.

118 Ibid.42.

120 Ibid.

119 Ibid.45.

onlythat“wecan...‘hope’thattheexecutionerwillnottriumphover them,”butalsothatweareinvitedto“resignourselvestoafinaland fulfillinghope.”121

Second,SobrinoassertsthatthehopeofthevictimsinGod’svictory overdeathisonlytrulyunderstoodthrougha praxisoflove thattakesthe crucifiedpeopledownfromthecross.Thisprovocativeassertionreflects Sobrino’sideathat,if“theultimaterootofallhopeis...alwayslove,” then“theKingdomcannotbeunderstoodonlyaswhatishopedfor...but also...aswhathastobebuilt.”122 Sobrinoarguesthat,justasloveleads JesustoinitiatetheKingdomandtoacceptsufferinganddeathonits behalf,sowhenheappearstohisfollowers,“therisenLordsendsthem outtopreach,baptize,forgivesins,feedthefaithful,and ...(Matthew 28:19–20;John20:23;21:15,17)...liketheearthlyJesus,tohealandcast outdemons(Mark16:17–18).”123 Thepointisthatloveofneighborimplies actiononbehalfofthebeloved.

Similarly,Sobrinoinsiststhat“understandingtodaythatJesushasbeen raisedbyGodentails[notonly]thehopethatwecanbe raised,but...that wealsohavetobe,insomeway, raisers.”124 Hereitisimportantto appreciatetheinterlockingcharacterofSobrino’strinitariantheologyof signandthe analogatumprinceps hedrawsbetweenthefateofthecrucifiedpeopleandthelife,death,andresurrectionofJesus.Sobrinoargues that,justasinduecourseGod’s“justicewasdonetothecrucifiedJesus,... sothecourseofactioncalledforis[forus]totakethecrucifiedpeople downfromthecross.”125 Hethenmakesthestartlingclaim:“Thisisaction onbehalfofthevictims,ofthosecrucifiedinhistory,thattriesinasmall way—withofcoursenohubris—todowhatGodhimselfdoes:totakethe victimJesusdownfromthecross.”126

Lestthereadermissthesignificanceandpotentiallycontroversialnature ofthisclaim,itisworthnotingthatinaprivateletterleakedandpublished in1984,JosephRatzinger,headoftheCongregationfortheDoctrineof theFaith,mentions(citinganearlierwork)“theimpressive,butultimately shockinginterpretationofthedeathandresurrectionofJesusmadeby J.Sobrino...thatGod’sgestureinraisingJesusisrepeatedinhistory... throughgivinglifetothecrucified.”127 Respondingtowhatheseesasa misstatementofhisclaim,Sobrinocautions,“IhopeitisclearthatIam nottalkingofrepeatingGod’saction,anymorethanItalkedofbringingin theKingdomofGodinthepreviousvolumeofthiswork.”Heargues,

121 Ibid.

123 Ibid.46.

125 Ibid.48.

122 Ibid.

124 Ibid.47.

126 Ibid.

127 Originallypublishedin 30Giorni 3.3(1984)48–55;republishedin IlRegno: Documenti 21(1984)220–23;citedinSobrino, ChristtheLiberator 48.

however,“WhatIdoinsistonisgivingsigns—analogously—ofresurrectionandcomingoftheKingdom.AndthisisalsowhatIgnacioEllacurı ´ a meantwhenhe...usedtheexpression‘takingthecrucifiedpeopledown fromthecross’asaformulationoftheChristianmission.”128

Itisdifficult,ifnotimpossible,tounderstandSobrino’sclaim(and Ellacurı´a’saswell)withouttakingnoteofitsrootsinIgnatianspirituality, andhowthosearearticulatedinSobrino’stheologyofsignandhisunderstandingofthehistoricalrealityofJesus.129 Inthefamousmeditationon theTrinityfromtheSpiritualExercises.Ignatiuscallstheretreatantto directcollaborationwiththeworkoftheTrinityintheworld.130 This meditationiscitedbythe32ndGeneralCongregationoftheSocietyof Jesus(1974–1975)131 asoneofthedefiningelementsofthemissionand spiritualityofJesuitstoday;thereferencecomesinadocumentfirst draftedbytheCentralAmericanJesuitsduringtheveryyearsinwhich SobrinowrotethetextcitedbyRatzinger.ThemeditationontheTrinityis alsocitedbytheformernovicemasterofbothEllacurı´aandSobrinointhe definingtalkoftheepoch-changing1969retreatatwhichtheCentral AmericanJesuitsofficiallyembracedtheoptionforthepoorprofessedby theLatinAmericanBishopsatMedellı´n,Colombia(1968).Outliningthe vocationofaJesuit,MiguelElizondowrites:

TheIgnatianvocationalexperienceconsistsinatrinitarianexperience,ofthe Trinitypresentandoperativeinthisworld,inallthings...realizingitsplan

128 Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator 48.Thefirstinstanceofthismetaphoriscitedas IgnacioEllacurı´a,“LasIglesiaslatinoamericanasinterpelanalaIglesiade Espan ˜ a,” SalTerrae 3(1983)230.

129 InhisimportantessayonIgnacioEllacurı´aasaninterpreterofIgnatianspirituality,AshleyassertsthatEllacurı´a’s“philosophyandtheologyhadastheirgoalthe communicationofapowerful‘fundamentalintuition’fromthe SpiritualExercises,” whichhelaterdescribesasa“mysticismofthehistoricalevent.”Inarelatedarticle, AshleyassertsthatEllacurı´atriedtoputthisspirituality“attheserviceofthechurch inLatinAmerica ...by seekingphilosophicalandtheologicallanguageandargumentstoarticulatetheencounterwithChristthatisstructuredbyIgnatiusLoyola’s SpiritualExercises,”andwhichisembodiedintheIgnatiantraditionof“contemplationinaction.”WhileIagreewithandbuilduponAshley’sinsightsinthisregard,my articleplacesmoreemphasisonthetrinitariandimensionsofIgnatianspirituality (whichAshleyrecognizes)andtheirinfluenceonEllacurı´a’stheologyofsign.SeeJ. MatthewAshley,“IgnacioEllacurı´aandthe SpiritualExercises ofIgnatiusLoyola,” TheologicalStudies 61(2000)16–39,at37,39;“ContemplationintheActionof Justice:IgnacioEllacurı´aandIgnatianSpirituality,”in LoveThatProducesHope 144,145,164n.54.

130 DavidL.Fleming,S.J., TheSpiritualExercisesofSaintIgnatius:ALiteral TranslationandaContemporaryReading (St.Louis:TheInstituteofJesuit Sources,1978)70–74,102–9.

131 “OurMissionToday:TheServiceofFaithandthePromotionofJustice”no. 14, Documentsofthe31stand32ndGeneralCongregationsoftheSocietyofJesus 414.

forthesalvationofthewholeworld.InthisexperienceIgnatiusseesthatall thingsarebornfromGodandreturntoGodthroughthepresenceandoperationofGod’sself.Andnotonlybymeansofthepresenceandoperationof God,butthroughtheinsertionofhumanityinhistory.Intothishistoryof salvationcomesthehuman“parexcellence,”Christ,andwithhimallpersons chosentoactivelycooperateintheoperationoftheTrinity,torealizethe salvificplanofGod.132

Here,then,weseetheIgnatianrootsofSobrino’sclaimthatChristians arecalled“todowhatGodhimselfdoes:totakethevictimJesusdown fromthecross.”Thediscipleiscalledtocollaboratewiththeworkofthe Trinityintheworld.TheinitiativeforthiscalloriginateswiththeincarnationoftheWordinJesusChristandthecallbytheHolySpirittojoinhim indiscipleshipandservice.Asaresult,Elizondosays,“thedefinitiveGod ofIgnatiusisgoingtobetheGodofthisworld.”ForIgnatiusandhis Jesuits,“actionbecomesatotallydifferentcategory....Lovewillnotbe principallyaffectiveorcontemplative,butalovethatisrealizedinworks, thattranslatesintoservice,thatisrealizedinthiscooperationwithGod.” “Thus,”Elizondoargues,“actionwillbeforSt.Ignatiustheresponseto thistrinitarianGodandthesignoftheactivepresenceoftheTrinityin IgnatiusandinthelifeofhisSociety.”133

Sobrino’spoint,then,isthat,whenthedisciplerespondstoagracefilledcallbyJesusChristtotakethecrucifiedpeopledownfromthe cross,heorsheiscaughtupinwhattheGreekFatherscalled“theosis,” becomingalivingsignofGod’swork(includingtheResurrection)in JesusChrist.Unfortunately,justasJesus’propheticpraxisleadsinevitably tohiscrucifixion,so“actiononbehalfofthecrucified...isalsoautomaticallyagainsttheexecutionersand...conflictive.”134 Sobrinosaysthis praxisimplies,ontheonehand,that“actionattheserviceoftheresurrectionofthe dead,[and]...theresurrectionofthe many ...shouldalsobe social[and]political,seekingtotransformstructures, toraisethemup.”135 Ontheotherhand,however,italsoimpliesthatsuchactionwillbring persecutionandsufferingtothedisciplesofJesus,transformingtheminto livingsignsofhislife,death,andresurrection.Thus,thedisciplewho respondstothecall,embodiedinthehistoricalrealityofJesus,toloving actiononbehalfofthepoorisdestinedtobecome,analogously,aliving

132 MiguelElizondo,“LaPrimeraSemanacomocomienzoindispensablede conversio ´ n,”in Reunion-EjerciciosdelaViceprovinciaJesuiticadeCentroamerica, Diciembre1969,”vol.2of Reflexio ´ nteolo ´ gico-espiritualdelaCompan˜iadeJesus enCentroamerica (SanSalvador:ArchivesoftheSocietyofJesus,CentralAmericanProvince,SurveyS.J.deCentroamerica)1–8,at3.

133 Ibid.3,4.

135 Ibid.

134 Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator 48.

signoftheKingdomandtheeconomyofsalvationcarriedoutinJesus Christ.

Third,Sobrinosaysthatwelearnfromthevictimsofhistorythat,“inthe finalanalysis,toknowJesus’resurrectionwehavetoacceptthat realityisa mystery thatisbeingshowntousgratuitously.”136 Sobrino’spointisthat, “If...oneconfesses[theResurrection]...assomethingreal,thenitis necessarytohave...faithinGod’spossibilitiesforinterveninginhistory.” Thisimplies“anunderstandingofrealityasthatwhichbearswithinitself andpointsto[ward]aneschatologicalfuture.”137

Thisconjunctionof“history”and“reality”reflectsEllacurı´a’sunderstandingofhistoricalreality,includinghisrejectionofthenarrowfocusof “nineteenth-centurypositivism”138 onhistoryasempiricaleventsandits inabilitytoconceptualizethepossibilityofradicalhistoricaldiscontinuity. Sobrinoarguesinsteadthatthereligiousclaimthatthetranscendentis knownthroughhistory,likethemorespecificChristianclaimthat“the Resurrectionistheappearanceoftheeschatologicalinhistory,”139 presupposesthateventsrevealahistoricalrealitythatis“more”thantheempirical eventitself.This“more”isepitomizedintheaforementionedtrinitarian IgnatianspiritualitythatsuffusestheworksofSobrino,Ellacurı´a,and Rahner,andthatleadsthemtosuggestthatthe“more”revealedinhistory isthemysteryofGodandoftheeconomyofsalvation.

AttheendofvolumetwoSobrinosuggests:“Onthisjourneythrough history,notgoingoutsidehistorybuttakingfleshanddelvingdeepinto history,itcanhappenthatrealitygivesmoreofitself,andtheconviction cangrow(ordecrease)that...thejourneyisenvelopedinthemysteryof thebeginningandtheend,amysterythatantedatesus,fromwhichwe come,whichmovesustogoodandleadsustohopeforeternallife.”140 Here,hefurtherhistoricizesforaLatinAmericancontexttheIgnatian spiritualityandthetrinitariantheologyofEllacurı´aandRahner.TheoriginalityofSobrino’swork,however,springslessfromhisinterestinIgnatian spiritualityoraRahnerianfascinationwiththedialecticofhistoryand transcendencethanfromtheusebyEllacurı´aandSobrinoofthesesources toarticulate,afterVaticanII,theexperienceoftheLatinAmericanchurch inlivingwiththeoptionforthepoor.

Thus,theinfluenceofSobrino’sLatinAmericancontextcanbeheard intheremarkableclaim:“Thismysteryisgrace,andthevictimsofthis world,thecrucifiedpeoples,canbe,andinmyvieware,themediation ofthisgrace.Thevictimsprovidethedynamism—thequasi-physical ‘shove’—forcarryingoutthetaskofjourneyingthatinvolvestakingthe

136 Ibid.53.

138 Sobrino, Jesucristoliberador 50.

140 Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator 340.

137 Ibid.

139 Ibid.52.

crucifiedpeoplesdownfromtheircross.”141 Sobrinofinallyconcludes, however,that“thegreatestencouragementcomesfromthosewhoinspirewiththeiractuallives,thosewhotodayresembleJesusbyliving anddyingashedid”(nomatterwhotheyare).Thesearethepeople likeArchbishopOscarRomero,whopickupthishope,takeresponsibilityforit,andcarryoutJesus’compassionate,loving,andtransformative“practicewithspirit.”ReflectinghisIgnatianpreoccupationwith discerningthepracticalmeanstocollaboratewiththehistoricalwork oftheTrinityintheworld,Sobrinoconcludes,“ThisisGod’sjourneyto thisworldofvictimsandmartyrs,...itisthewaytotheFatherand thewaytohumanbeings,[and]aboveall[itistheway]tothepoorand thevictimsofthisworld.”142

“RisingUp”fromtheHistoricalRealityofJesustothe ChristofFaith:“AnActPropertoGodHimself”

WearenowinapositiontosummarizehowSobrino’sChristology embodiesRahner’snotionthat“savinghistory”Christologiesmakethe “processof‘risingup’”fromthehistoricalrealityofJesustotheChristof faith“anactpropertoGodhimself.”143 HereSobrinoclearlybuildsupon thetrinitariancharacterofEllacurı´a’sRahneriantheologyofsign.

Sobrino’strinitarian(andIgnatian)approachtoChristologyleadshim tosituateChalcedon’steachingontheunityofhumanityanddivinityin JesusChristwithinthelarger,more“holistic”frameworkofthedivine economyofsalvation(theongoingworkoftheTrinityintheworld). Sobrinorejectsthetendency“tounderstandtheunityofthedivineand thehumaninJesusChristas...theunionoftworealitiesthat... couldexistindependentlyofoneanother.”Hearguesinsteadfor“the sacramentalityofthereal,”endorsingRahner’sclaimthat“thehuman, Jesus,istherealsymboloftheWord.”144 ForSobrinoandRahner,this claimimpliesadynamicunderstandingofroleofhumannatureinthe economyofsalvation,whichRahnerplacesundertheheadingoftheologicalanthropology.Sobrinowrites:“TheWord...tookonhuman natureincreatingitandcreateditintakingiton.”Hispointisthat“the humanityofChristis...thatcreatedrealitywhichbecomestheWord whentheWordalienatesitself,goesoutwardfromitself.”Thismeans thatwhatEllacurı´aandSobrinocallthehistoricalrealityofJesusChrist ultimately“remainsthesymboloftheWordforalways,includinginthe beatificvision.”145 HereSobrinomeansthatthehistoricalrealityofthe life,death,andresurrectionofJesusistherealsymbol,thedefinitive

141 Ibid.340.

143 Rahner,“TwoBasicTypes”214.

142 Ibid.

144 Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator 319.

145 Sobrino,“Jesus,RealSymboloftheWord,”inibid.

revelatorysignoftheWordofGodinhistory.Ellacurı´aemphasizesthis pointwithhisclaimthat“thehistoricallifeofJesusisthefullestrevelationoftheChristianGod.”146

ThekeyideainallthisisthattheinitiativeinSobrino’s“savinghistory” approachtoChristologyoriginateswiththeworkoftheTrinityinthe world.Ellacurı´amakesthepointclearlywhenhestates:“Itisinthe incarnationwhereoneappreciatesuptowhatpointGodhasinteriorized himselfinhistory.”Thus,Ellacurı´aconcludes:

FollowingSt.Augustineandwithgreatertruththaninhisformulation—nolite forasire,ininteriorehominishabitatveritas [donotgooutside,truthresideswithin humanity]—itshouldbesaid: noliteforasire,ininteriorehistoriaehabitatVerbum trinitarium [donotgooutside,theWordoftheTrinityresideswithinhistory].That is,theWordpersonallyresidesinhistory,andthehistoricalincarnationofthe WordmakestheFatherandtheHolySpiritpresent...inhistoryinaradically distinctmanner.147

Thekeypoint,then,isthattheself-revelationandself-offeroftheWordof GodachievedinthehistoricalrealityofJesusChristisanactionofthe Trinity.

ForEllacurı´a(asforSobrino),thisnotionoftheTrinityactingthrough thehistoricalrealityofJesuspresumesthat“thepresenceofGodinthe mediationofJesusdoesnottakeplacelikeamomentarydocetiststep.”148 Rather,“itisarealcontinuingpresence,whosefullrealitywillbegivenin theSecondComing.”Thus,“theresurrectionandtheexaltation[ofJesus] inheavenmanifesttranscendence,buttheyarenotanegationofhistory.” AndhereIreturntothequestionofwhatishistoricalintheresurrectionof Jesus?ForEllacurı´a,inadditiontowhathasalreadybeensaid,theResurrectionmeans“that[Jesus]sendstheSpirit,whoishisSpirit,theSpiritof Christ,preciselyinordertocontinuedwellingamonghumanityuntilthe endoftheages.”149 ThisSpiritproduceshistoricalwitnessesandliving signsoftheresurrectionlikeArchbishopOscarRomeroandthemany thousandswhohavefollowedhisexample.

Intheend,SobrinoisarguingthatthehistoricalrealityofJesusChristis theverysacramentofGod’sself-revelationandself-offer,andthatthe acceptanceofthisofferraisesupwitnessestotheResurrection,andliving signsoftheworkoftheTrinityintheworld.Thus,usingRahner’sformulation,Sobrino’sargumentimpliesthatthe“processof‘risingup’”from thehistoricalrealityofJesustotheChristoffaithmustbeseenas“anact

146 Ellacurı ´ a, FreedomMadeFlesh 27.

147 IgnacioEllacurı´a,“Feyjusticia,” Escritosteolo ´ gicos,vol.3(SanSalvador: UCA,2002)307–73,at319–20;repr.from Christus 42(August1977)26–33,and (October1977)19–34.

148 Ibid.

149 Ibid.

propertoGodhimself,”150 wherebytheHolySpiritempowersthedisciple torespondinfaithtothecalltofollowJesusChrist,therebyfulfillingthewill oftheFatherbysaying yes tothehistoricalself-revelationofthemysteryof God.Giventhisperspective,itseemsonlyfairtosuggestwithSobrinoand RahnerthatothercontextualChristologiesusingthispromising“saving history”approachmightbeexpectedtodiscoverananalogoushistorical logos operatingintheirownparticularhistoricalcontext.

CONCLUSION

Inconcluding,IreturntothequestionwithwhichIbegan:Whatisthe significanceforcontextualtheologiesaroundtheworldofthesubstance andthemethodsinformingthe analogatumprincips drawnbyJonSobrino andIgnacioEllacurı´a,betweenthehistoricalrealityofJesusChristandthe “crucifiedpeoples”oftoday?IhavearguedthatEllacurı´adevelopsaprofoundhistoricalrealism,providingkeyconceptsfromfundamentaltheologythatSobrinousestodevelopacontextualizedLatinAmerican“saving history”Christologythatstarts“frombelow”withthehistoricalrealityof JesusChrist,andwhichheinterpretsastherealsignoftheWordmade flesh.Morespecifically,IfirstoutlinedhowEllacurı´auseshisconceptof “historicalreality”toformulatea“theologyofsign”(historicizedasa theologyofthesignsofthetimes),whichclaimsthat(a)the“crucified people”arethedefiningsignofthetimestoday,151 and(b)disciplesofthe Jesusarecalledtotakethecrucifiedpeopledownfromthecross.Second, IhavetriedtoshowhowSobrino’sLatinAmericanChristologybuildson theseclaimstoarguethat,whenfollowersofJesusheedhiscalltotakethe crucifiedpeopledownfromthecross,theyaretransformedintolivingsigns fortheuniversalchurchoftheKingdom,theresurrectionofJesus,the sendingoftheHolySpirit,andtheongoingworkoftheTrinityintheworld. Intheend,Ihavehighlightedtheimportanceofafewkeyconcepts developedbySobrinoandEllacurı´aduring40yearsoflivingwiththe “preferentialoptionforthepoor”discernedasGod’swillfortheChurch bytheLatinAmericanbishopsafterVaticanII.Ihavesuggestedthat Ellacurı´a’sfundamentaltheologyandSobrino’s“savinghistory”Christologyshouldbeplacedtogether,formingwhatIbelievemaybethemost fullydevelopedcontextualtheologywrittensinceVaticanII.Moreimportantly,Ihopethatsomeofthekeyelementsoutlinedherewillcontribute tothedevelopmentoffundamentalandchristologicalcontextualtheologiesnowemergingaroundtheglobe.

150 Rahner,“TwoBasicTypes”214.

151 Ellacurı´a,“Discernir‘elsigno’delostiempos,” Diakonı ´ a 17(1981)58;also Ellacurı´a,“TheCrucifiedPeople”580–603.