Comparing the Christology from Below vs the Christly from Above
Liberation theology is a religious
movement arising from Latin America in the late 20th century. Its
principle methodological excogitation was interpreting Christian faith out of
the experiences of the oppressed and an attempt to develop a theology through
the lens of the poor. Liberation theology proposes to fight poverty by confronting
its alleged source sin. In doing so, it investigates the correlation between
Christian theology and political activism, especially highlighting such themes
as social justice and poverty. It emphasizes the heightened awareness of the “sinful”
socioeconomic and political structures that have a tendency of privileging the rich
at the expense of the poor. Liberation movement began within the Catholic Church
but has now grown into an international and interdenominational movement.
Various forms of liberation theology have since been developed which include
Asian, Black and African liberation theologies. A priest from Peru Gustavo
Gutiérrez, who was one of the movement’s major proponents, coined the term “Liberation
theology” in 1971. Similarly Jon Sobrino is also a Liberation theologian from
Elsavado and in his book Jesus The
Liberator, Sobrino is operating with a Christology from below. He locates
Jesus historically as a human being who walked in Palestine between 7–2 BC to AD 30–33,
focusing primarily on Jesus’ life, his mission and his fate. On the other hand
Wolfhart Pannenberg similarly operates with a Christology from below but he
starts from a different place than Sobrino. Pannenberg begins with the
resurrection whilst Sobrino starts with Jesus’ life, message of the kingdom of
God and the cross. Drawing from the biblical motif of the poor, Sobrino asserts
that God is revealed as having a preference for those who are “marginalized,”
“oppressed,” “poor,” “subjugated,” and “weak.” Sobrino emphasizes praxis over
doctrine. Sobrino asserts that “The crucified God is not a phenomenon that can
be approached through theoretical concepts; but through practical cooncepts; it
is not a case for theo-logy but for theo-praxis: the question is, what process
does the crucified God initiate?”[1] Pannenberg is mainly concerned with orthodoxy
whilst Sobrino is primarily preoccupied with orthopraxis. Sobrino aims to show
that kingdom is not only a concept but also a practice.[2]
Sobrino is operating with a Christology
from below just like Pannenberg, Schleiermacher and Ebling. He asserts that, “…I
have chosen as my starting point the reality of Jesus of Nazareth, his life,
his mission and his fate, that is usually called the ‘historical Jesus.’ ”[3] For
Sobrino, Jesus focused his life on promulgating and establishing the kingdom of
God for the poor, who confronted social sin, who defended the victims of this
world by facing up to his persecutors. Jesus ended up a casualty himself and through
his life and death revealed the love of God for humanity.[4] Sobrino,
aided by his social location as an El Salvadorian, he intends to correct the
Christology from above, often favored by the oppressors, that tends to neglect
the struggles of the disenfranchised. The Christology of Sobrino reveals that
it is pertinent to return to the Jesus of history in order to retrieve what is
meant to be a true follower of Jesus. Sobrino suggests a different approach to
theology by seeking to elucidate the correlation between the soteriology and
the historical struggle for emancipation. As a critical reflection on
historical praxis, through the hermeneutical lens of the poor, theology is a
liberating theology.
Following intensive studies of the
scriptures through historic criticism Sobrino denied the fact that we can know
next to nothing about the historic Jesus. He asserts that, “If we could really not
know anything about him, or only significant things, the claim to produce a
Christology based on the historical Jesus would be futile. Christology would
become at most a christomythology, which might have an interest for what the
myth symbolized, but would radically invalidate a claim that is essential to
the Christian faith, that God’s saving approach to this world is Jesus of
Nazareth is real and historical.”[5] Sobrino does not ignore the issues raised by
literary criticism but he believes that there are some few things we can know
about the historic Jesus. Similarly, Rudolph Bultmann also believed that very
little can be known about the historic Jesus because much of what we find in
the synoptic Gospels are accounts of faith not history. When talking about the
historic Jesus, Sobrino argues that, “…it is not possible to gain access to the
‘historical’ Jesus, but only to a ‘historical version’ of Jesus.”[6] I
believe Sobrino is saying that historical criticism can never adequately
reformulate the correct picture of Jesus that is universally accepted. Historical
criticism is marred with challenges such as discrepancies with parallel biblical
accounts, discrepancies with non-biblical material, historical improbabilities,
supernatural occurrences, modifications or creations of the early church and
insufficient evidence. Given the limitations of historic criticism, Sobrino
argues that we can only get a historical version of Jesus, a vague version of
Jesus. Sobrino is saying whatever version of Jesus we get, it is not going to
be a completely accurate depiction of the historic Jesus.
This historical Jesus according to
Sobrino was championing the causes of the weak, the lost, the least and the
last. Jesus preached the kingdom of God to the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized,
and the outcasts. In light of the plight of the poor, Sobrino argues that, “As
an eschatological reality, the kingdom of God is universal, and open to all,
though not all in the same way. But the kingdom is addressed directly only to
the poor. And this being so, it is essentially ‘partial.’ ”[7] Jesus
had a preferential option for the poor. Sobrino defines the poor as those for
who are unable to afford the basic things of life, those who are maltreated,
disadvantaged, misused and enslaved by oppressive social, economic and
political structures.[8] Moreover, he makes it clear that the terminology of "the
poor" in scripture has social and economic connotations that
etymologically go back to the Greek word, ptōchos.[9] However he
highlights in the Gospels that the rich and the poor are spoken of
dialectically. He insists that the Greek word ptōchos appears twenty five times,
and in twenty-two cases refers to the economically disenfranchised.[10]
It only refers to the spiritually poor three times. Therefore Jesus
prophetically emphasized the partiality of God to the poor.[11]
The historical Jesus was against anti-kingdom, his kingdom was
contradistinctive and antithetical to anti-kingdom. The kingdom of God was
totally against oligarchies, governments, armed forces, party politics and
sometimes, churches and cultural institutions that tyrannized the poor.[12]
According to Sobrino the historical Jesus was not divine because Jesus had a
God. God was not man, he was a mystery and therefore different from Jesus. Jesus
and God were supremely dialectical. Jesus depended on a God he called Father,
to him God was ultimate and Jesus put his total trust in him.[13]
I do however find a number of
differences between Sobrino and Pannenberg. Pannenberg is mainly preoccupied
with orthodoxy. Pannenberg is on a philosophical quest for truth, whilst
Sobrino is primarily concerned with orthopraxis. Sobrino asserts that, “ For
heremeneutics this means that kingdom is not only a ‘meaning’ concept –meaning
hope – but also a ‘praxic’ one, implying putting its meaning into practice:
that is, the need for a practice to initiate it, and thereby generating a
better understanding of what kingdom is.’’ Sobrino wants us to appreciate that
liberation theology is not merely concerned with the transformation of the
individual (personal salvation), but also with the transformation of societal
structures that dehumanize masses of people (liberation from structural sin).
Liberation theology is not preoccupied with personal salvation but insist that societal
salvation comes from God and is effected ultimately by God.[14] Prophetic
praxis therefore is a process of rhetorically de-ideologizing, denouncing and
unmasking anti-Kingdom.[15] On
the other hand Pannenberg’s classical theology is mainly concerned with
theoretical interpretation of the texts from scripture and tradition.
Pannenberg is never concerned with structural sin or social activities governed
by ideology. He does not mention injustice or systematic oppression, most
likely because these issues were never a concern in his context. In his book
Jesus-God and Man, Pannenberg declares that Soteriology must follow Christology
and not the other way round.[16] He
speaks of salvation as an individual experience.
Another difference is that Sobrino
believes that Jesus was killed because of his preaching and activity. Jesus’
mission represented a direct threat to the religious powers of his time, and
indirectly to every oppressive power. Jesus was a man in conflict with the
dominant powers of his day. Sobrino asserts that Jesus got in the way of power
and offended institutional power. Sobrino argues that, “ Put in terms suggested
earlier, the divinities (Jesus’ God and the idols) are fighting. So are the
mediations (the kingdom of God and anti-Kingdom). That is why the mediators (Jesus
and his adversaries) are in conflict: ‘Whoever is not with me is against me.’”[17]
The death of Jesus was not a coincidence but a consequence of his life, which
was an incarnation in an anti-Kingdom, which brought death to defend the
defenseless.[18] Sobrino
declares that Jesus’ death was not necessarily due to blasphemy as classical
theology traditionally purports. He suspects that the early Christians of faith
might have edited the religious trial to make it appear as if the Jews were
solely responsible for the death of Jesus.[19] Sobrino
insists that the most plausible reason for Jesus’ death was that, the members
of the priestly caste viewed Jesus as a religious reformer of the cultural
practices of his time.[20] Jesus
was convicted for intending to destroy the Temple, which was the center of
political, social and economic power in Israel.[21]
Jesus had a political trial and he died on the cross as a political offender.
Crucifixion was a Roman’s method of punishing all political revolutionists. As
far as Sobrino is concerned groups were the ones responsible for Jesus’ death
and in this case oppressive religious and political groups. Pannenberg does not
agree with Sobrino, Pannenberg thinks that the Jews killed Jesus and the Romans
only carried out the crucifixion.[22]
For Pannenberg Jesus broke the law and he came under the curse of the law. He
states that, “ Even Paul himself probably did not intend such a superficial
meaning, but had in view that the curse expresses the exclusion of the
transgressor from the community of God’s people. Jesus could come under the
curse of the law only if and to the extent that he stood as a transgressor
against the law and thereby against God himself who had given the law.”[23] Jesus’
claim to authority on the same level as God automatically meant blasphemy in
the eyes of the religious leaders. Jesus stood as a transgressor of the law and
hence deserved to die.[24]
Pannenberg and Sobrino also do not
agree on the starting points of their Christologies. Let me clarify that they
both operate with a Christology from below but Panneberg places more emphasis
on the resurrection whilst Sobrino places more emphasis on the cross, Jesus’
life and message of the Kingdom. Pannenberg
argues that the development of
Christendom can only be elucidated on the basis of the belief that the
resurrection of Jesus was a historic event.[25]
The crucifixion would have threatened the faith of the disciples but it is only
what God did to Jesus in and through the resurrection that the early Christian
faith grew and exploded into a global phenomenon. The resurrection made them
believe in the divinity of Jesus and the fact that he was the Messiah.[26]
Sobrino on the other hand starts with Jesus’ life, his mission and his fate.[27]
His focus points are the kingdom of God and the cross. Sobrino is preoccupied
with the practical implications of theology. He is not merely concerned with
concepts but more concerned with praxis.[28]
He affirms that the cross is not the end of Jesus because God raised him from
the dead.[29] He
however does not believe that all the liberative aspects of Jesus’ life depend entirely
on the resurrection. For him the cross is fundamental in the sense that it
reveals that God suffers with us. The issue is not that God is with us or among
us but radically God is like us.[30]
God suffers like us and the cross helps us to identify with the crucified
people of the world hence the crucified people are the body of Christ.[31]
Sobrino
and Pannenberg both believe in the resurrection of Jesus. They both agree that
the resurrection is a real event in history. However Sobrino’s formulation is unique
in the sense that his resurrection is a modification of European theology. European
theology demythologized the resurrection and gave it existential, human, and
perennial equivalents. This gave birth to hope. But the Latin Americans
modified and radicalized the resurrection by making it an object of hope for
the oppressed and the poor.[32]It
was turned into a practical theology. Sobrino affirms the resurrection of Jesus
was not a return of a dead body or as being caught up into heaven but as the
action of God eschatologically interrupts into history. Sobrino thinks that the
resurrection was not an event that occurred in history but an event witnessed
in history. He also believes in the diversity of interpretations of the
resurrection. Similarly Pannenberg believes that the resurrection of Jesus
occurred as a metaphoric event since we cannot know from a human point of view
the exact nature of resurrection. He argues that the disciples spoke of the
resurrection in metaphorical language.[33]
The Gospels only speak of visions of Jesus’ disciples and also appearances of the
resurrected Jesus.[34] Nevertheless we are still talking about a real
event in history not biased by the notion postulated by natural science that
the supernatural is impossible.[35] Pannenberg however never links the
resurrection to praxis.
Both Sobrino and Pannenberg agree on
the ignorance of Jesus, they both believe that Jesus was not omniscient. Panneberg
limited the knowledge of Jesus to purely human experiential knowledge. He
states that “ However, to attribute to the soul of Jesus a knowledge of all
things past, present, and future, and of everything that God knows from the
very beginning, the sense of a supernatural vision, makes the danger more than
considerable that the genuine humanity of Jesus’ experiential life would be
lost.” In this sense Jesus was totally human with limited knowledge. Sobrino
also affirms that Jesus did not know all things. His Christology is low. He
argues that Jesus increased in wisdom according to Luke 2:52. He refers to Karl
Rahner, who speaks of Jesus’ error. Jesus did not know everything about God due
to his human limitations. Therefore Jesus was not all knowing as traditionally
claimed by classical theology.
I agree with what liberation
theology is attempting to accomplish through the reinterpretation of the
scriptures through the hermeneutical lens of the poor. This is the proper
interpretation of the life, mission and fate of Jesus. My challenge however
with liberation theology is how it addresses the issue of non-violence as a
method of fighting injustice. There is no way in which the socially,
economically and politically powerful will relinquish their power, wealth and
privilege peacefully. I think that since Liberation theology does not believe
in eschatological resurrection, which would be the time to address injustices,
and it also does not believe in violence, it gives the poor a false hope of
liberation. This becomes another form of ideology that oppressors can use to
keep the oppressed bound. Liberation theology is designed using Marxist concepts
but without coming clean about issues of violence. Liberation theology is a
form of reductionism that ignores personal sin and focuses on social sin. I
believe that it should focus on both personal and social sin. There needs to be
a symbiotic relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Sobrino has a
brilliant way of using rhetoric mobilize the masses for action; he seems less
concerned with the philosophical quest for truth. I also sense that Sobrino
seems to have a secret affinity to the traditional definition of resurrection
and maybe that is why he has hope in the resurrection. Liberation theology is
not philosophical clear and distinct. It seems to wobble between two sides. It
loves some of the teachings of Classical theology but at the same time embraces
most of the teachings of liberal theology. However I love their emphasis on
praxis and not to be merely concerned with academic concepts. Social Justice requires
radical action in history and not to wait for an unforeseeable future. Sobrino
clearly articulates the functions of the kingdom and anti-kingdom. I have
learnt a lot about anti-kingdom from his theology and I think it is a brilliant
formulation that can be used to fight ideology.
Bibliography
1.
Pannenberg,
Wolfhart. Jesus: God and Man. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987,
©1968.
2.
Sobrino,
Jon. Christ the Liberator: A View from the Victims. Maryknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis Books, ©2001.
3.
Sobrino,
Jon. Jesus the Liberator: A Historical-Theological Reading of Jesus of
Nazareth. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1993.
[1] Jon Sobrino, Jesus the
Liberator: A Historical-Theological Reading of Jesus of Nazareth
(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1993), 246.
[2]
Ibid, 87.
[3]
Ibid, 37.
[4] Jon Sobrino, Jesus the
Liberator: A Historical-Theological Reading of Jesus of Nazareth (Maryknoll,
N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1993), 232.
[5]
Ibid, 61.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Ibid, 82.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Ibid, 81.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Ibid, 83.
[12]
Ibid, 94,125.
[13]
Ibid, 138.
[14]
Ibid, 230.
[15]
Ibid, 161.
[17] Jon Sobrino, Jesus the
Liberator: A Historical-Theological Reading of Jesus of Nazareth
(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1993), 196.
[20]
Ibid.
[21]
Ibid.
[22] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus:
God and Man, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987, ©1968), 206.
[23]
Ibid, 254.
[24] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus:
God and Man, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987, ©1968), 254.
[25]
Ibid, 83.
[26]
Ibid, 88.
[27] Jon Sobrino, Jesus the
Liberator: A Historical-Theological Reading of Jesus of Nazareth
(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1993), 36.
[28]
Ibid, 87.
[29]
Ibid, 272.
[30]
Ibid, 245.
[31]
Ibid, 264.
[32] Jon Sobrino, Christ the
Liberator: A View from the Victims (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, ©2001),
34.
[34]
Ibid.
[35]
Ibid.
Comments
Post a Comment