Salvation Panel. Johnson, in Consider Jesus, analyzes the relationship between Christology and

Transcription

1 Murphy 1 Daniel Murphy Professor Hilkert Theology November 2015 Salvation Panel Johnson, in Consider Jesus, analyzes the relationship between Christology and social justice in chapter five. Her first task in this analysis is contemplating the problem of pluralism in modern Christianity; there are so many different ways of approaching this question that correspond with the plethora of different Christologies in existence today. However, she simplifies the different viewpoints into two categories: descending and ascending Christology, which we have studied earlier in the course. Her goal is to show that in both cases, there is an intrinsic link between Christology and social justice in the world. Johnson first considers descending Christology and John Paul II s work in Redemptor Hominis. In this approach, Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, became human, and in that incarnation, we are united to Him. Thus, this incarnation is redemptive and human dignity is elevated, sealed with the blood of Christ (72). Therefore the wellbeing and justice of all human flesh is a major concern of the Church. Johnson now considers ascending Christology and the works of the American Catholic Bishops. Their view is that the historical Jesus of Nazareth preached in word and deed of the Reign of God. It is essential then, that the Church, founded on the call to follow Jesus, imitate Jesus s ministry. Thus, social justice is a direct result of this Christology. So, both approaches produce the same result: that the Church and all of its followers have a spirit of social justice.

2 Murphy 2 In chapter six, Johnson analyzes what is meant by liberation theology, as she calls it, a peoples theology. Johnson outlines liberation theology, briefly, as recognizing oppressive situations in the world and analyzing Christian traditions to find possible theological reasons supporting this oppression. Then, this tradition is reinterpreted to produce a new, liberating understanding. Liberation theology reinterprets the cross as Jesus s promise that the reign of God is near and that He has a preference for those oppressed. Johnson finally argues that not to adopt this theology is to be complacent with these oppressive situations, thus it is necessary to incorporate it into Church doctrine. Sobrino builds upon Johnson s definition of liberation theology, but expands upon the idea by incorporating its importance in South American theology. Sobrino writes that liberation theology, the view that Jesus has a preference for those being oppressed, is needed in South America due to the lower standard of living compared with other areas of the world. He advocates for the development of this theology, just as Johnson does, because it presents a relevant theology as well as an identity for Jesus that can be physically grasped. The first additional reading I studied was Anselm Min s Dialectic of Salvation and Liberation. In it, she discusses a theological definition of salvation that I found useful in my panel position and possible shortfalls in the idea of liberation theology. Min first frames the issue of liberation theology as a radical perspective that confuses liberation with salvation. Liberation, Min writes, is subordinate to salvation because salvation transcends liberation. This attack on liberation theology is similar to the attack brought about by the Cardinal Ratzinger and the Vatican. Ratzinger wrote that liberation theology infringes on the integrity of salvation in its transcendence, individuality, and wholeness

3 Murphy 3 (80). The result of liberation theology, as was noted above in my earlier research, is the necessity for the Church to partake in global social justice. Ratzinger, very eloquently, writes to some it even seems that the necessary struggle for human justice in the economic and political sense constituted the essence of salvation. To them, the gospel is reduced to purely an earthly gospel (82). Min agrees with Ratzinger s posit, strengthening her argument that the relationship between salvation and liberation is unity in difference (84). After studying Anselm Min s argument, I decided to read some of Ratzinger s own commentary in A Certain Liberation. He frames liberation theology much in the same way that Johnson does, by noting its recent emergence in Latin America and potential to radically change Church doctrine. Ratzinger brings forth first his criticisms of liberation theology, noting the political nature of liberation theology, a facet that is often hailed as practical. He continues after incorporating Bultmanian theology that liberation theology proposes a Church of the People that is in opposition to the hierarchical church (181). Ratzinger notes that the exodus is very often seen as a symbol of liberation theology; God conquers earthly evil and salvation is replaced by liberation, rejecting its metaphysical importance and meaning. As he continues, he proves that liberation theology would reinterpret all of Christianity, and thus it is important to show traditional practically to compete with the practicality of liberation theology. I dealt primarily with the question of Does salvation occur in this life or after death? Due to the format of our panel and my own initial beliefs, I focused on the notion that salvation occurs after death, or in the eschatological sense, drawing on the works of Ratzinger and Min. My outline is below:

4 Murphy 4 1. Build off of earlier presenters to form a rigorous definition of salvation, to review a. salvation is the transcendent, eschatological fulfillment of human existence in a life freed from sin, finitude, and mortality and united with God. (Min 76) b. Salvation transcends liberation (Min 80) i. Liberation is earthly, as Johnson suggests, a product of liberation theology. Liberation is transitory. ii. Salvation is transcendent and permanent (Min 76) 2. The path to salvation is in this life a. Jesus is the Way (Johnson) i. It is our earthly will to follow Jesus in this life ii. Liberation theology: we must act with justice in this life to truly be a disciple of Jesus. b. We will be judged by our earthly actions at the end of time i. This judgment determines our salvation. (Hebrews 9:27 : And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment ) 3. Salvation is realized after death a. Jesus s death and resurrection is the key to salvation i. The death and resurrection was in one sense, atonement for the sins of humanity. (Anselm) b. Salvation is an eschatological, transcendent event, because of its nature. The Passion of Christ is the basis of salvation.

5 Murphy 5 i. Only through death can we too be raised to life. After grappling with this question and conducting my research, I have found meaning, if personal, in this seemingly unanswerable yet important question. On the one hand, the validity of my position, that salvation occurs after death, versus the opposing position, that it occurs before death, hinges on a linguistic interpretation of the idea of salvation. Is salvation the act of receiving the grace or protection of God, in some sense, liberation? Or, is it a transcendent state of life in union with God and free from sin? This theological debate was lengthy between a member of my panel and me, but we did come to a meaningful, concrete conclusion. Whether salvation occurs before or after death, both sides share a commonality: salvation is a gift bestowed by God in correlation with our actions during our lifetime. The Johnson and Sobrino pieces associated with this panel frame these salvation questions in this way by necessitating liberation theology in Church dogma. This new theology has been cultured in places of extreme poverty, such as areas in South America, and requires Christian justice to liberate oppressed peoples. This theology calls Christians to act as Jesus did, much in the same way that our actions are judged in the eyes of God so that He may bestow salvation upon us. Ratzinger and Min, though, question the validity of liberation theology in part by analyzing its influences on soteriology. That is, if we are to accept liberation theology and incorporate it into Church teaching, then we are confusing liberation and salvation and thus disregarding the spiritual and eschatological significance of salvation. I agree with Min and Ratzinger in that they are correct to voice caution about liberation theology s implications with regard to salvation, but I still see value in the theology as a

6 Murphy 6 whole. My view is that liberation theology can indeed liberate, but we must continue to value the spiritual significance of transcendent salvation. In short, the Church can hope to liberate its people on Earth, but more importantly, it must guide its people to a more significant and permanent salvation after death by the grace of God. In a sense, though, it does not matter whether salvation occurs before or after death. Though I personally agree with Ratzinger and Min that salvation is transcendent and eschatological, what is most important is that our actions on earth determine our salvation, regardless of its temporal or metaphysical designation. By the grace of God and by our own free will we can participate in new life through the Passion of Jesus.

7 Murphy 7 Works Cited 1. Johnson, Elizabeth A. Consider Jesus: Waves of Renewal in Christology. New York: Crossroad, Print. 2. Sobrino, John. Jesus the Liberator. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, Print. 3. Min, Anselm Kyongsuk. Dialectic of Salvation: Issues in Theology of Liberation. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, Print. 4. Ratzinger, Joseph. A Certain Liberation. Ignatius Press: Print.