|
Gustavo Gutierrez
Timothy McCarthy says that Gustavo Gutierrez, a priest-theologian, is “often called the 'intellectual father of liberation' because he first proposed the term in July 1968 and because of his 1971 book, A Theology of Liberation” (273 He goes on to say that “many regard Gutierrez as a deeply spiritual man whose vision of the 'church of the poor' teaches and inspires them as they face the overwhelming task of helping the poor” (273). It is for his work in support of the poor and in the liberation theology movement that Gutierrez is most known, and it is also through this work that his influence has been most felt after the Second Vatican Council. Because of Gutierrez's role in the liberation theology movement, a closer look at liberation theology is necessary in order to better understand Gutierrez and his thought.Krista Stevens Although precursors to liberation theology were being developed before and during Vatican II, liberation theology, as a specific form of theology, was written in the late 1960s, and much of the liberation theology thought emerged out of the changes that Vatican II advocated. McCarthy says that liberation theology emerged in the late 1960s “because liberation theologians wanted to live for, with, and as the poor, and Vatican II's concern for the poor had a positive influence on many bishops, priests, and nuns. The conciliar bishops taught that a free social order must be 'founded in truth, built on justice, and enlivened by love; it should grow in freedom towards a more humane equilibrium” (Gaudium et Spes, no. 26). Also coming from Vatican II was a new, open perspective for the Church. Vatican II “replaced the official neoscholastic theology with the perspectives of the 'new theologians.' The point of departure of the conciliar theology was modernity and the social locus of the developing countries of the West. This theology directed the church into the modem world in order to connect with its scientific and technological enterprises for the promotion of human, political, social, and economic development” (272). This new, open perspective, however, also brought new theological questions for the Church. The Church had to reevaluate what, exactly, “doing” theology meant. The traditional response had been that to do theology meant reading and analyzing biblical and patristic texts, but this theology had little to do with human existence and engaging humans. So the idea began to be developed that engaging humans can be a way of doing theology, and this idea led to an understanding of contextual theology - the notion that the way we encounter specific contexts (social situations, cultures, societies) is in itself the occasion for doing theology. Importantly, no two contexts are the same so the particular shape of the theology will be developed differently in different contexts. It is within this whole idea of contextual theology that liberation theology began to be developed. Despite the new perspectives of the Church, some critics of Vatican II believed that “conciliar theology evaded 'the basic question, the question of the profoundly unequal relationships that prevail among nations and between classes, and the price others have to pay for the benefits of the accelerated development in the central countries'” (McCarthy, 272, quoting Leonardo Boff, Faith on the Edge: Religion and Marginalized Existence, New York: Harper and Row, 1989). Liberation theology looked specifically at the context of Latin American life, and so liberation theology's “point of departure is 'the people, the social locus of the popular, oppressed classes. It strives for the liberation of these classes and seeks to win them a voice in the historical process....Liberation theology's starting point is ethical indignation in the face of the humiliating scourge of poverty, together with an encounter with the Lord in the effort to search out, in company of the poor, the pathway of liberation'” (McCarthy, 272, quoting Boff, Faith on the Edge). McCarthy goes on to say that the “ultimate vision shared by liberation theologians is of a salvation that achieves total liberation from both personal and social sin” (McCarthy, 273). Despite this basic understanding and starting point, however, McCarthy also stresses that there are many differences among liberationists, including Gustavo Gutierrez. David Ford says that “Gustavo Gutierrez has been, for good reason, one of the primary interpreters of liberation theology. Gutierrez's work moves in the direction of a radically new interpretation of Christianity; Gutierrez has taken the basic symbols of Christian experience, and radically reworked them amid the experience of God's presence in the poor, but likewise, he has used classic symbols of Christianity to give voice to the experience of the poor in history” (417). This new interpretation of Christianity can be seen most notably in two key concepts in Gutierrez's thought -salvation and ecclesiology. Gutierrez believed that most people saw salvation as exclusive and privatized. Salvation occurred to an individual person who had an individualistic relationship with Christ. Gutierrez, however, criticized this understanding of salvation for being what he described as an escapist understanding, ignoring the social and political aspects of salvation. For Gutierrez salvation rightly understood always takes the form of exodus - people set free from bondage. Salvation, therefore, is inherently social and political. This new understanding of salvation, furthermore, inevitably led to a new understanding of church. Within this understanding of salvation, the Church becomes a servant community. Gutierrez pointed to the early church as a model for this servant community, and he believed that being a member of the Church commits people to serve others, especially those marginalized by the world. For Gutierrez, this notion of servant community should form the identity of the Church. Gutierrez's liberationist ideas on salvation and ecclesiology were new and radical. McCarthy says that the “word that dominates liberation theology is the word new. This theology originates in a new experience of God that results in a new spirituality that is explained and guided by a new theology. It also offers a new self-understanding, new social structures, and a new future” (McCarthy, 273). Gutierrez was advocating a whole new way of political, social, and religious life in Latin America. For these ideas, he was met with much opposition. His “critics attempt to portray him as a man who foments violence in society and infidelity to the church. There have been Vatican attempts to censure him, but to date he has not been silenced” (McCarthy, 273). Gutierrez and other liberation theologians were perhaps most heavily criticized for seeming to stray dangerously close to advocating Marxism. They “used certain terms derived from Marxist or neo-Marxist social theory,” connecting the idea of exodus and deliverance from bondage with the Marxist advocation for freedom from class oppression (McCarthy, 275). Despite all of this criticism, Robert McAfee Brown suggests that perhaps the Vatican is becoming more accepting of Gutierrez and liberation theology in general as time goes by. McAfee says that it “is no secret that liberation theology has been in bad repute in Rome for several years, and there have been numerous attempts to clip the theological fledgling's wings....Theologian Gustavo Gutierrez or Peru was under unceasing attack for three years....” (McAfee, 552). In his article he looks at two documents issued by the Vatican in the 1980s. The first document, entitled “Instruction of Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation,”' was issued by Rome in 1984. This Instruction “communicates dismay at contemporary expressions of liberation theology” (McAfee, 552). Most of the Instruction's criticism is based around a fear a fear and condemnation of Marxism: “The Instruction issued a head-on challenge: if one accepts any single part of the Marxist analysis ('class struggle,' for example), one would inevitably become ensnared by the Marxist world view in its entirety” (McAfee, 552). Almost two years later, however, the Vatican issued a second Instruction on liberation theology that, while still voicing much concern in regard to liberation theology, seems to be more accepting of the theology as a whole. The Instruction “comes to the not-surprising conclusion that human aspirations for freedom are widespread, that many gains have been registered, but that most of them entail the likelihood of new forms of oppression if separated from grounding in the Christian gospel” (McAfee, 552 The Instruction also uses scripture to “point to the need for practicing love and justice and to insist that 'there is no gap between love of neighbor and desire for justice” (McAfee, 552-553). Despite this seeming affirmation of some liberationist ideas, the Instruction also warns against some aspects of liberation theology. McAfee says that throughout “the document there is great stress on concern for the poor, though in a deliberate attempt to undercut the Puebia phrase, 'a preferential option for the poor,' the awkward phrase 'a love of preference for the poor' is substituted. But the idea is the same....” (McAfee, 553). Finally, a “warning is issued against 'reductive sociological and ideological categories' that would make the 'option for the poor'...'a partisan choice and a source of conflict,'“ and theologians “are admonished to be careful to interpret the experience from which they begin 'in light of the experience of the Church herself” (McAfee, 553). All of these debates serve to indicate the importance that Gustavo Gutierrez and his liberation theology had and still have after the Second Vatican Council. No matter what criticism he may receive, he can and should be recognized for his work in striving to help the poor and to free them from oppression. Works Cited Gustavo Gutierrez, We Drink from Our Own Wells: The Spiritual Journey of a People Maryknoll: Orbis Books: 1992 Abstract by Krista Stevens Gustavo Gutierrez addresses some of his critics who accuse him and his theology of liberation of placing too much emphasis on politics and of straying dangerously close to a Marxist world view. He bases his defense on his look at the spiritual experience of Christians which he believes “is at the heart of the movement set afoot by the poor of Latin America as they seek to assert their human dignity and their status as daughters and sons of God” (1). Part One of Gutierrez's book is entitled “How Shall We Sing to the Lord in a Foreign Land?” He begins Part One by pointing out that no Christian life can exist without prayer and thanksgiving to God. He goes on to say that these prayers are framed by the particular situations in which people find themselves living and so in “our Latin American context we may well ask ourselves: How can we thank God for the gift of life when the reality around us is one of premature and unjustly inflicted death? How can we express joy at knowing ourselves to be loved by the Father when we see the suffering of our brothers and sisters?” (7). In the first chapter of Part One, entitled “In a Foreign Land,” Gutierrez seeks to describe the Latin American reality of “premature and unjustly inflicted death” and how this reality is important within his theology of liberation. He says that this reality is characterized by a poverty that is “'inhuman' and 'anti-evangelical'....Such poverty represents a situation of 'institutionalized violence'“ (9). This poverty results in hunger, sickness, death, and oppression. Gutierrez importantly points out, however, that in dealing with this poverty, “we are not dealing here simply with a 'social situation,' as though it were a state of affairs unrelated to the fundamental demands of the gospel message. Rather we are confronted with a reality contrary to the reign of life that the Lord proclaims” (10). He goes on to say that this poverty and oppression is what makes Latin America a “foreign” land, and he bases this idea on Scripture. He says that in “the Bible the land is one object of the promise of life. The children of God are promised a land of their own in which they will live as the proper inhabitants and not as outsiders or strangers. A foreign land, on the contrary, is a place of injustice and death....A 'foreign' land is one that is hostile and has therefore lost its meaning as a gift from God” (10-11). Gutierrez believes that because of the poverty and oppression in Latin America, the people of these countries are forced to live as outsiders in their own land. It is this reality of Latin American life that Gutierrez seeks to reform with his liberation theology. He realizes, however, that efforts for reform will be met with resistance. He says that “those who involve themselves in this struggle likewise become 'strangers' to Latin American society and even to some sectors of the church. They are in fact alienated from the status quo and its beneficiaries, who regard themselves as the owners of lands, goods, and persons” (11-12). Gutierrez recognizes that the biggest opposition to reform will come by way of those in power - the land owners, the factory owners, and even church authority. Those who push for reform, therefore, must be prepared to be met with opposition: “At the present time—men and women who try to side with the dispossessed and bear witness to God in Latin America must accept the bitter fact that they will inevitably be met with suspect. They may even be regarded not as followers of Jesus Christ but as intruders: they come from the outside, make their way in, and create problems, simply because they think–and, be it said, live–differently” (12). This suspicion and opposition, however, only serves to authenticate their efforts for reform. Gutierrez says that suspicion “within the Christian community itself is nowadays a component of the cross of Christians who seek to bear witness to the God of the poor. By that very fact, it is also a factor that serves to purify their commitment” (12-13). So according to Gutierrez, it is as Christians that we are called to push for reform and change in these societies. The Latin American reality is not only socially unjust but it is scripturally and religiously unjust. A Gustavo Gutierrez Bibliography
|