Luther and Liberation: A Latin American Perspective

Who thee shall teach to know me well, And in the truth shall guide thee.” Finally, the tenth calls to faith and discipleship: “What I have done, and what I’ve said, Shall be thy doing, teaching, So that God’s kingdom may be spread— All to his glory reaching. Beware what men would bid thee do, For that corrupts the treasure true; With this last word I leave thee.” 3. Thirdly, it is significant that Luther also knew other abrupt changes in his life, although the (re)discovery of justification has always maintained its central, decisive, and liberating character. Even his entrance to the monastery in 1505 was a sudden decision and a radical change, in the face of the fear of death, in the midst of a storm. In saying goodbye to his friends and colleagues in the study of law, he declared decisively: “Today you see me once more; hereafter never again!”24 The appeals of his friends could not dissuade him from his resolve to abandon a promising career, to decisively enter the monastery. We have already noted that he did not find there the liberation, which only the (re)discovery of justification would provide. Even after the discovery of justification, however, Luther did not stop being a frequently troubled person. Fears, doubts, weaknesses, and anxieties assailed him frequently. He found then support and encouragement to continue, not in recollecting his personal experience of justification, but in remembering of the work accomplished by Christ on his behalf. 4. Thus, we could say, fourthly, that Luther, in some sense, was 24. Quoted in Hans Mayer, Martin Luther: Leben und Glaube (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1982), 21. [Translated by M. S.] Luther and Liberation 80 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

an adherent to what we would call “permanent conversion.”25 Once again, the first of his 95 theses is significant: Jesus Christ “. . . willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”26 In the catechisms, he interpreted the meaning of baptism—note: baptism is performed only once!—affirming that “. . . the old Adam in us, together with all sins and evil lusts, should be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance and be put to death, and that the new man should come forth daily and rise up, cleansed and righteous, to live forever in God’s presence.”27 Therefore, each must consider baptism “. . . as the daily garment which he is to wear all the time. Every day he should be found in faith and amid its fruits, every day he should be suppressing the old man and growing up in the new.”28 That is to say, the experience of justification, once made, can in no way eliminate the need for daily experience; on the contrary, it should open the path. Luther’s emphasis is not found, we might say, in the conversion that has occurred, but in the conversion that continues. 5. Fifthly, we must remember that Luther described the existence of the believer as someone who is simultaneously righteous and sinful. This perception has radical consequences. It was impossible for Luther to use his experience as an example, precisely because it would be an evident expression of the persistence of sin, that is, of arrogance and vainglory. Therefore, there is the need to point always to the grace of God and God’s justice. Luther’s prayer is significant in this context: “Dear Lord and Savior, help us remain pious sinners and not become blasphemous saints!”29 That is, those who want to be pious 25. See Paul Althaus, “Die Bekehrung in Reformatorischer und Pietistscher Sicht,” in Um die Wahrheit des Evangeliums: Aufsätze und Vörtrage (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1962), 224–47. 26. LW 31:25. 27. Small Catechism (SC), in The Book of Concord: The Confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 349, emphasis added; hereafter abbreviated as BC. 28. Large Catechism (LC), BC, 449. Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 81 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

should acknowledge themselves as sinners, since those who wish to become saints blaspheme! In short: Luther did not transform his experience into a standard, to be repeated by others. That would be legalism and Luther said precisely that he had been freed by grace through faith. The reality of justification, rooted in the merciful work of God, is what mattered. Because of this reality, not of its theoretical truth, the doctrine of justification, as the summary of all doctrine, became the “article by which the Church stands or falls.”30 3. Justification as Liberation Luther’s doctrine of justification has been suspected of being individualistic and spiritualizing. It would lead to a disinterest or an ethical paralysis and, thus, should be abandoned or at least complemented by an appeal to ethical action or to cooperation with God,31 if one intends to adopt a practice of liberation. As for this criticism, unjust in my view, we observe, briefly, the following: 1. Firstly, just as Luther shifted his attention from the subjective aspect of justification to the objective, he inserted the justified one into the larger context of the salvific history of God in Christ. Therein lies the importance of Christology, whose characteristic traits we covered in the previous chapter, for justification, and here 29. Mayer, 265. 30. Expression attributed to Luther, although it cannot be confirmed. It corresponds, however, to his theology. See, for example, in the exposition of Psalm 130, where Luther spoke of the “sum of all Christian doctrine” (WA 40/III, 351, 33; text not in LW) and affirmed that it “illuminates the holy Christian church” (Ibid., 352,2), to complement: “when this article remains, the Church remains; when it crumbles, the Church crumbles” (Ibid., 352,3: “Isto articulo stante stat Ecclesia, ruente ruit Ecclesia”). See also The Smalcald Articles (BC, 301): “Nothing in this article can be conceded or given up, even if heaven and earth or whatever is transitory passed away.” 31. Juan Luis Segundo’s critique moved in this direction in his The Liberation of Theology, trans. John Drury (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 150–51. See also, in this volume, chapter 17: The Reception of Luther’s Concept of Freedom in Latin American Liberation Theology. Luther and Liberation 82 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

we encounter one more time the quoted hymn. The story of Jesus, poor and despised, but on our side, gives beforehand a dimension that surpasses fully any merely individualistic interpretation. 2. Secondly, it simply does not correspond to the verifiable data on Luther’s life and work that justification led to an ethical passivity, which more than a few adherents as well as many opponents of Luther would like to highlight. Passivity occurs, according to Luther, exclusively in the relationship with God. How liberating it was for Luther, became evident when we are faced with the discovery of being discharged from having to do all that was possible—and always failing to do something that is within our reach. Justification by faith, however, which should be exalted, is never exhausted. Moreover, it entails immediately the commitment to the neighbor and their needs. In his treatise on The Freedom of a Christian32 (1520), Luther presented precisely these two sides of the Christian experience: the wonderful freedom in relation to God, in faith, and the radical commitment to the neighbor, in love. Many of his writings, as for example the Treatise on Good Works33 and other treatises related to concrete problems, discuss exactly the inescapable ethical commitment of the Christian. Moreover, it is precisely the freedom before God that allows ethical commitment to be focused exclusively on the need of the neighbor, instead of being a cover for one’s own benefit. 3. Thirdly, we must highlight the historical liberation that the (re)discovery of justification by grace and faith represented. Luther did not encounter a response only for his own problem, but also a liberating response for what an entire generation yearned. It was not a coincidence that precisely this discovery has been so explosive as to undermine the entire sophisticated ecclesiastical system that 32. LW 31:333–77. 33. LW 44: 21–114. Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 83 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

imposed multiple burdens of conscience and financial tributes on the people. From this the sale of indulgences was only one manifestation. Pointing to the free grace of God, Luther opened a space for the liberation of minds and bodies. To the extent that this discovery unfolded in the political terrain, with Luther echoing the complaints of the German nation against internal and external ecclesiastical exploitation, and strengthening secular national political power against the “external” exploitation on the part of Rome, liberation manifested itself inevitably also in the socio-politico-economic terrain. At this point it seems appropriate to expand the reflection on the question of whether Luther’s emphasis on passivity in justification should also lead to ethical passivity and, therefore, denial of the task of liberation. Recall that the task of liberation emerges as a response to the analysis of social reality. In general terms, there is an unavoidable task of Christian love. According to Leonardo Boff,34 there are two ways to approach this issue. Boff calls the first “sacramental,” employing here terminology steeped in the Franciscan Catholic tradition. This relation is in direct and immediate contact with need. Someone sees a poor person, pities her, and thinks: “I must do something!” Eventually one gives alms or food. The aim, then, is to help in an immediate but non-reflective way, without asking if this is in fact an effective help for the poor person or if perhaps, conversely, it contributes to perpetuating the relation of poverty and dependence on the help of others. Even so, one should not simply belittle this form of “welfare” assistance, because it can also serve as a gateway to a new experiential relationship with those who are poor. However, there is also a second way of approaching the question: a scientific-analytic approach in which one looks to identify the causes 34. Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff, Salvation and Liberation, trans. Robert R. Barr (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1984), 2–3. Luther and Liberation 84 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of poverty. One discovers, then, that there are not poor people but people who are impoverished. The result of this recognition is that we should emphasize the need to also assume a method or a way of attacking the causes of injustice, of oppression, in an organized collective way. However, a reflection of this type is not in any way outside Luther’s theological horizon. Obviously, Luther did not develop in his time the Latin American theology of today. However, he designated politics as a task for which Christians are responsible. He emphasized that one has to reflect with reason liberated by faith, in order for it to be an instrument of love. It is worth then also reflecting on the effectiveness of the action. The need to find adequate paths for the purpose of restoring justice and fraternity remains affirmed. In this moment, it would be completely out of place to emphasize the passivity of justification. On the contrary, Luther argues that one must develop new decalogues,35 when it comes to assuming—freely, by the way—the ethical commitment of love and justice. What we are saying here is corroborated by Luther’s own action. In no way can we accuse him of being someone passive in the face of life’s challenges. One can accuse him of being wrong—tragically some times—but it would be difficult for one to argue that Luther had at some moment in his life remained passive and quiet, and that nothing of the events around him mattered to him. On the contrary, sometimes he was too precipitate. Maybe he would have done well to reflect a little more before positioning himself and acting. Part of the problem seems to be the unintentional result of the classification 35. LW 34:112 (thesis 53). See also Hans Joachim Iwand, Glaubensgerechtigkeit nach Luthers Lehre, 2nd ed. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1951), 46. Luther employed this expression, significantly, when he fought the Antinomians (principal exponent: Johann Agricola), whose position was characterized precisely by denying any validity of the law for people who had been justified by the gospel. Luther recognized correctly in this posture a deadly temptation from within the evangelical movement. Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 85 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

itself that Luther made of the political and social task as something provisional and terrestrial, yet necessary. At this point, instead of operating with the category of passivity, drawing on the context of justification, we should emphasize, rather, the promise that the reign of God is made visible through signs in turn mediated by people who are followers of Christ. Life as a result of grace unfolds as a merciful life. In our context it is important to emphasize still that it is not the development of an individualistic life, a mere inner peace, but also a communitarian life that becomes concrete in social relationships. The experience of the BECs can serve as a reference in the way in which they make tangible solidarity, co-existence, and the struggle that flows from the love of God received freely through justification. Life under grace will always be a threatened life because it is not fully realized. One finds a permanent tension between the cross and the resurrection. At this point, Luther’s observation is correct that the kingdom of God is God’s own; it is not the kingdom that we ourselves construct. It is about recognizing that we are in temporary situations, even the path toward consummation. This idea, however, must be complemented by another that sustains the necessity of partial embodiments of the reign of God in our reality—albeit provisional, but in fact, concrete. III. Conclusion From all that has been explained, we need to draw some conclusions for the question outlined in the beginning, that is, the relation between conversion, liberation, and justification. 1. Conversion and Justification We recognize how appropriate the Pietist emphasis on the need for Luther and Liberation 86 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

conversion is, and this as the work of God through the Holy Spirit. One renounces a fundamental biblical element when one neglects or abandons this theological topic. However, the call to conversion is perverted when from the necessity for conversion one derives a law of a standard type or even a single and finished conversion. Here, it will be indispensable to insert Luther’s distinctions between the subjective and objective aspects of the salvific event, as well as his perspective on daily conversion. Similarly, we must reflect on the relationship between baptism and conversion. Better than Luther, we can today see that baptism, especially infant, is not a substitute for conversion. Equally, however, it must be said that neither can conversion take the place of baptism, without which human experience takes the place of divine action. At this point, Luther’s linking between the single baptism and daily conversion is relevant. The emphasis on conversion as a daily process, in turn, will be undermined, if it is seen as a work detached from baptism and God’s action. In this sense, it remains valid that Pietism guards the free action of God, not wanting to see it compromised with the immediate “ethicization” of conversion. However, it would also be abusing God if we failed to see that the return to God, in justification, inevitably assumes the form of a return to the neighbor. On the other hand, it is also necessary to reflect on the historicalsocial context in which the conversionary movements themselves are inserted. When I offered a lecture on this same theme, originally, in the Carnahan Chair, in ISEDET, in Buenos Aires, José Miguez Bonino, in his response,36 aptly called to my attention that the conversion process is never a purely personal experience but is always embedded in the context of determined social transitions. Thus, he explained, in Latin American conversionary Protestantism, of the 36. See Walter Altmann, Confrontación y Liberación: Una Perspectiva Latinoamericana sobre Martín Lutero (Buenos Aires: ISEDET, 1987), 57–58. Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 87 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, “the traces of the old and the new man or woman had much to do with the historical transition: the transition from traditional society to modern society from the post-colonial world to the modern liberal world”37 in which subjectivity ends up taking the place of values previously determined by traditional society. Indeed, a rising middle class, predominantly urban, was identified with such Protestantism. Similarly, we can say that the Pentecostal conversionary wave that has swept the continent, particularly in recent decades, has much to do with social disintegration, intense migratory flows, and the growth of an industrial society. One cannot claim to explain exhaustively the phenomenon of conversion with these social reasons; neither did Míguez Bonino intend this in his speech. Since faith is always historically mediated, one should also pay attention to the theological depth of conversion, simultaneous with contextual historical reasons. So viewed, the following question is still pertinent: what implications are there for conversionary currents when the experience of social-historical transition perhaps goes in the opposite direction to social mobility, in the sense of the impoverishment of significant portions of our people? In Latin America we can then observe that a growing share of this Protestantism felt challenged by the emergence and development of liberation theology, by the need for an option for the poor, by the urgency for structural transformation and by the compulsion to a concrete commitment to the task of liberation. Without abandoning the emphasis on conversion, Protestantism sought to incorporate all social concern into its faith and into the Christian life. Although this was naturally a contentious demand within the movement itself, with different emphases and not without shocks or even defections, this experience was legitimate and congruent with the consequences of its 37. Ibid., 58. Luther and Liberation 88 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

own premises, in addition to being absolutely urgent for contextual as well as theological reasons. On the other hand, a static and “stubborn” maintenance of the understanding of conversion in terms of a radical individualism, characteristic of the transition phase from the post-colonial period to the modern, without contextual transformation, became more and more the configuration and the posture of a rigid and reactionary system. 2. Liberation and Justification The salvific event in Jesus Christ and from Jesus Christ is not always adequately expressed by the same term. We need to take into account, time and again, that it is not the dogmatic formulation itself that matters but the reality that the formulation intends to express. Whether it is appropriate or not, depends not only on accuracy and logical rigor but also on a series of contextual factors as, for example, the perception of the burning theological questions in a determined moment in space, to which the dogmatic formulations aim to respond, transmitting a determined theological reality. Thus, the same dogmatic formulation can be completely adequate in a certain context but entirely inadequate in another. Or, a dogmatic formulation, correct at a given time, may need supplementation or revision in another so that the same original reality can be faithfully transmitted. However, the reality of the salvific event already merits in the New Testament terminological and doctrinal variety, not by chance, but conforms with the theological profile of the different authors and, above all, in accordance with the respective specific situations of the original recipients of each writing. Thus, for example, the Synoptics emphasize the closeness of the reign of God. John expressed the revelation of the glory of Jesus. Already Paul could speak both of Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 89 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

justification (to the Jews in Rome, for example) and of reconciliation (to the Christians in Corinth). In Luther’s era the juridical terminology of justification became important, insofar as the problem of guilt and condemnation worried not only Luther but all people in this era. We would, however, be mistaken if we thought that the doctrine of justification, as formulated by Luther, would remain equally relevant for all eras and situations. Such a perennial theology does not exist. Paul Tillich, in his book The Courage to Be, pointed to the fact that the doctrine of justification responded particularly well to the anxieties and needs of Luther’s time, in the throes of the Middle Ages and the transition to the modern era. For our time, however, he suggested the term “acceptance”38 as a response to the problems of emptiness and meaninglessness. This proposal has, no doubt, its relevance in certain contexts, but it breathes the theologically rarefied air of an affluent and secularized society.39 However, in a context of domination and dependence, one establishes, with reason, the term “liberation.” This is perfectly adequate to express the completeness of salvation and its characteristic of process. It is at the same time relevant in its historical and personal dimension. Finally, it expresses adequately the biblical dialectic of being free from (slavery) and free to (serve), tying the ethical commitment to the free action of God. In this sense, the doctrine of justification is surmounted in our context and situation. It contains, however, a liberating potential apt to be inserted into liberation theology and practice. This potential will be briefly unfolded in only three points.40 38. Paul Tillich. The Courage to Be (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), 155–78. 39. It is revealing how often the words “accept” and “acceptance” appear in choruses appreciated especially by evangelical groups. The expression “to accept Christ” is used, in the same circles, often, as a synonym of “to come to faith” or “to convert.” 40. For a comprehensive approach to the Pauline doctrine of justification, including a reflection Luther and Liberation 90 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1. First, the doctrine of justification by grace through faith is critical of the institutional Church when the Church comes between God’s action and human action. When this happens, human action stops being a liberating process within the concrete needs of a marginalized and exploited people and becomes a response to the demands imposed by the institutional Church. Justification by faith (and only by faith!) unmasks the ecclesiastical demands with which the Church ceases to be an instrument of the good news of salvation to become a competitor or ally of the systems of domination. 2. Second, it is not difficult to trace a path of justification by grace (and grace alone!) to the inalienable worth of every human being. The ideology of human rights may not have been directly born of the Christian faith, much less Protestantism—to its shame—but rather a humanistic rationalism. However, justification by grace, strictly speaking, even radicalizes the respect for human dignity by not referring to it as merely a natural right but also attributing it to the free will of God. In the face of the multiple ideological and social demands prevailing in our society and in the system that governs it, namely production and property, culture and power, the valorization of the human being simply for what he or she is, especially in disability, weakness, impotence, poverty, marginality, and exclusion, returns to us the clue that leads to Jesus of Nazareth, born in a stable and died on a cross. 3. Finally, it is necessary in our context to rediscover the doctrine of justification in the materiality of life, specifically in the relations of class antagonism. Only then can we recover the indispensible on its current relevance in the Latin American context, see Elsa Tamez, The Amnesty of Grace: Justification by Faith from a Latin American Perspective, trans. Sharon Ringe (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993). The emphasis of Tamez’s interpretation lies in the relevance of the doctrine as a defense against the logic of an exclusionary and marginalizing system. (See also in this volume, a brief assessment in chapter 17: The Reception of Luther’s Concept of Freedom in Latin American Liberation Theology.) Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 91 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

reference to God’s law, accuser of human sinfulness, and reunderstand justification by grace and faith, and “not by works.” The rich, the powerful, the oppressors are told: “You are deluded, definitely, when you deposit your confidence in power and possessions; these values are already condemned, and you with them, if you persist in not wanting to live by grace and, therefore, persist in exploiting the neighbor. Understand that you can only be justified freely and by faith; there is no other possibility. Therefore, put an end to exploitation.” Also this is, in truth, a genuine consolation, though embedded within an indispensable and radical prior contestation. To the poor, marginalized, and exploited is proclaimed the opposite; the challenge is embedded in the message of solidarity and comfort: “Do not be deceived, as if you are only worth what you can produce, and still deliver the product of production to those who think they have the power and possessions. Do not fall into that game. You are valued for who you are, as creatures loved by God, who God is alongside. In Jesus Christ, poor wanderer who came to be accused by the religious authorities and executed by the political authorities, as a rebel, you find the deepest divine solidarity. Try this grace, live by this faith, and you also will find forms of life noncompliant with poverty, as well as modes of action that open the path to a dignified life in solidarity.” Luther and Liberation 92 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:09:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

5 Scripture—Instrument of Life Has the Bible been largely forgotten by Protestants and has it equally become the book of the Catholics? Or are we deceived by the impression that there are among Protestants signs of fatigue in the use of the Bible, while among Catholics a climate of novelty has installed itself? Doesn’t Protestant Bible reading tend to be repetitive, while Catholic reading conveys creativity and renewal? I. The Bible and the Latin American Churches Although it is advisable to avoid generalizations, there is no doubt that the relationship of the Catholic Church with the Bible has changed significantly since Vatican II. In previous Catholic practice the Bible was an almost absent book, reserved, if anything, for priests and theologians. Even there, however, it is no exaggeration to say that the emphasis was not biblical but dogmatic. The doctrine of the church absorbed and neutralized the biblical testimony. The faithful were to learn to practice piety and the basic points of the catechism but very little of the biblical story. Without doubt, this situation had much to do with counter-reform apologetics and the post-Tridentine era, disposed to reject all that came from Protestantism. As the Reformation had raised the banner of “sola Scriptura,” it was 93 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

important, so it seemed, to highlight the interpretive and doctrinal authority of the (Catholic) Church. This tendency culminated, as we know, in Vatican I (1870), which defined papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals, when the pope speaks “ex cathedra,” making the definitions himself, not through the consensus of the Church and, therefore, the definitions are not reformable.1 It is evident that the Catholic Church never defined itself as above Scripture, as so often the Protestant polemic claimed, but it judged, instead, that it was necessary to guarantee the unity and the legitimacy of its interpretation through the establishment of an authoritative interpretative body. According to recurring Catholic interpretation, only in this way would it be possible to avoid the subjectivity of each interpreter, as would occur in Protestantism; however, in practice it produced the following phenomenon, in the face of what was perceived as the arbitrary use of Scripture on the part of Protestantism. If the interpretation given by the ecclesial Magisterium is correct, authoritative, and irrevocable, why not spread this interpretation instead of the Bible, so difficult to understand and which the Protestants had so distorted? Result: in fact the Bible would come to be neglected in favor of the magisterial doctrinal interpretation. Yet, Roman theology came to speak of two sources of divine Revelation in parallel: Scripture and Tradition. In this view, not only was there a legitimate and authoritative interpretation of Scripture, but there would be, in addition to Scripture, truths of Revelation that were transmitted through Tradition, in addition to the truths contained in Scripture. The legitimate and authoritative identification of those truths would be transmitted orally in the 1. Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum/Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, Latin—English version, 43rd edition, ed. Peter Hünermann (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2012), n. 3073–74. Luther and Liberation 94 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

process of Tradition, unlike supposed “truths” not consistent with the Revelation but human constructions, once again given by the magisterium, in particular the Pope. Certainly we are not mistaken to affirm that the deep renewal undertaken within the Catholic Church with Vatican II (1962–1965) was, in large part, fruit of a rediscovery of the Bible in the preceding decades. On the other hand, Vatican II made official a new way of looking at the Bible, opening a path to a new use of Scripture.2 Thus, for example, the Vatican explicitly rejected the theory of the two sources of Revelation, moving, on the contrary, to coordinate Tradition with Scripture. According to this understanding, the apostolic tradition before Scripture came together in this writing; the ecclesiastic tradition that came after Scripture is the interpretation and the development of this. In this way the normative dimension of Scripture can be realized as the written corpus of the apostolic Tradition. Although the authority of the ecclesiastic magisterium for interpretation and the discernment of the dogmatic development of Scripture remains, there is no (second) independent source of Revelation. Second, Vatican II gave new impetus to the exegetical study of the Bible, recognizing that the interpretations given by the magisterium, although authentic, do not exhaust the richness of Scripture; this, therefore, has to be continuously mined. Moreover, against the antiscientific literalism in biblical interpretation, the validity of the modern historical-critical method of biblical exegesis was recognized. This served to bring together extraordinarily significant currents of Protestant and Catholic exegesis. Finally, the Bible was “returned” to the people, either by its reading 2. See “Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (New York: Costello, 1975), 750–65. This can also be found at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/ documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html. Scripture—Instrument of Life 95 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and preaching in Mass, or by its particular reading but, especially, by its study in community groups. The Bible has come to play an extraordinary role in the constitution and in the life of numerous BECs and Bible study circles that arose in Latin America in recent decades. There emerged a passionate direct encounter between the people and the biblical story. Without the shackles of a fixed dogmatic interpretation to be simply reproduced, as well as without the asphyxia of an exegetical-scientific scholarship monopolized by theologians, there was an amazing vitality in the discovery of the Bible with the situations of life and the social relations of the people. There are some, like the Dutch Carlos Mesters, working in Brazil, with obvious critical theological-exegetical knowledge, who used this as a catalyst for the discoveries that were made in the popular circles of biblical study,3 but they keep the originality of a new love. Further, this development was open to ecumenical participation, as seen in the significant contribution to the movement, for example, by the Lutheran Brazilian Biblicist Milton Schwantes, who died in 2012.4 As for Protestantism, we will be briefer. Protestantism came to Latin America, significantly, as the “religion of the Book.” This is valid more for the mission churches than for the transplant churches, coming from the immigration flow in several countries of the continent. While for these the Bible was an instrument of the internal 3. On the method of biblical reading advocated and exercised by Carlos Mesters, see, among others, his book Por trás das Palavras: Um Estudo sobre a Porta de Entrada no Mundo da Bíblia, vol. 1 (Petrópolis: Vozes, 1975). See also, Defenseless Flower: A New Reading of the Bible, trans. Francis McDonagh (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1989). 4. Milton Schwantes was perhaps the major inspiration for several ambitious projects: the Bibliografia Bíblica Latino-Americana (São Bernardo do Campo: Instituto Ecumênico de PósGraduação em Ciências de Religião, 1988–1995), eight published volumes covering the period from 1988 to 1995, and continuing online: http://portal.metodista.br/biblica/sobre/abibliografia-biblica-latino-americana; the Revista de Interpretação Biblical Latino-Americana (RIBLA) of a more academic nature, and the Centro de Estudos Bíblicos (CEBI), centered on popular Bible reading. Luther and Liberation 96 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

construction and consolidation of the community, it also constituted a weapon to combat Catholicism, which was considered pagan or idolatrous. Even if we discount or reject the proselytizing emphases, this does not deny that even today the Bible, as a book (not always its use), merits the utmost attention of Protestantism (and Pentecostalism). The Protestant Bible societies continue extensively supplying the Latin American consumer market (and also in other continents),5 although modern ecumenical and Catholic editions, relatively accessible, are available. However that may be, and returning to the era of controversy, the accusations that Catholics “worship” Mary and the saints were responded to with the assertion that the Protestants worshiped a book, which would be their “paper pope.” Would I be wrong in the impression that, in comparison with the vitality in the (re)discovery of the Bible in Catholic circles, there are many areas of Protestantism suffering from fatigue or sterility in the use of the Bible? I see two tendencies, both equally harmful. One would be to reproduce and repeat to exhaustion, with the mantle of biblical authority, the traditional Protestant truths. That is, Protestantism—ironic and contradictory in its many variants, it is clear—has been doctrinally codified so that the Bible can no longer breathe the air of freedom, but should be subject to the petty role of corroborating the already established doctrines. That is, although Protestantism has no theory of an authoritative magisterium or of papal infallibility, one can still have a dogmatic practice.6 Another ominous trend seems to lie at the opposite extreme: tired of dogmatizing repetitions and of the always repeated, but 5. The Sociedade Bíblica do Brasil (Bible Society of Brazil), for example, created in 1948, achieved in 2011 the milestone of 100 million Bibles published and distributed. It currently publishes more than six million copies per year and exports Bibles to over 100 countries. 6. See Rubem Alves, Protestantism and Repression: A Brazilian Case Study, trans. John Drury (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1985). Scripture—Instrument of Life 97 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

unconvincing, affirmation that they were an absolutely faithful and complete expression of the Bible, Protestants can reach, in practice, the renunciation of its use. They become frequently enthusiastic about the new and invigorating discovery of the social sciences, so perhaps they come to think they can return the Bible solemnly to its past. Luther, we know, repeatedly admitted only those discoveries and doctrines obtained “by Scripture alone” (sola Scriptura) as being congruent with the gospel. Was this also a dogmatism to be returned to the sixteenth century with funeral honors? Or would we find there some unexpected “surplus of meaning”?7 II. Scripture in Luther The fundamental significance the Bible and its study had for Luther’s personal liberation, for his rediscovery of the gospel, and for the work of the Reformation, has been discussed in the previous chapter. Some additional facts are worth mentioning here.8 1. The Importance of the Bible in Luther’s Life First, we mention the well-known episode at the Diet of Worms, in 1521. Luther was summoned to appear before the Imperial Diet. On that occasion, which he had come to with the intention of seeking dialogue about his doctrines, an outright retraction of his works was 7. The concept “surplus of meaning,” coming from the structuralist method, I take from José Severino Croatto, Biblical Hermeneutics: Toward a Theory of Reading as the Production of Meaning, trans. Robert R. Barr (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987), 37, 66–69, and 79. Unfortunately, the Spanish “reserva de sentido” is not translated consistently into English, alternately presented as “meaning surplus” (37) or “reservoir of meaning” (79). 8. See also the explanation of Gottfried Brakemeier, “Interpretação Evangélica da Bíblia a partir de Lutero,” in Reflexões em torno de Lutero: Estudos Teológicos, v. 1, ed. Martin Dreher (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1981), 29–48. Also Martin Dreher, “Teologia e Bíblia,” in Lutero, by Paulo Buss et al. (São Paulo: CEDI, 1990), 41–60. Luther and Liberation 98 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

requested of him. Luther had been excommunicated by the Pope; what was granted to him now was merely the opportunity to recant. At his request, he was granted a period of reflection until the next day. In his reply, after this time of reflection and prayer, Luther referred to “a cause of justice and of truth”9 ; within his publications he made a distinction between different categories. The first would consist of books “in which I have discussed religious faith and morals simply and evangelically, so that even my enemies themselves are compelled to admit that these are useful, harmless, and clearly worthy to be read by Christians.”10 It would not be worthy to retract these. In the second category would be works that attacked the Pope and the Papists as “as those who both by their doctrines and very wicked examples have laid waste the Christian world with evil that affects the spirit and the body,”11 culminating with an “unbelievable tyranny”12 that would devour the goods and inheritance of the German nation. If he recanted, the tyranny would become “still more intolerable.”13 The third category of books would be directed against private persons, his adversaries. Luther admitted he had been, in his language, more acerbic than he should have been but he could not see himself able to retract the content of these writings. He declared himself, however, once more willing to listen to arguments against his works and to anyone who “is able, either high or low, bear witness, expose my errors, overthrowing them by the writings of the prophets and the evangelists. Once I have been taught I shall be quite ready to renounce every error, and I shall be the first to cast my books into the fire.”14 9. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–), 32:109. Cited hereafter as LW. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid., 110. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid., 111. Scripture—Instrument of Life 99 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

It is clear, therefore, that Luther no longer recognized formal ecclesiastical authorities but only material arguments from Scripture. The secretary of the Diet, however, told him that “those things which had been condemned and defined in councils” ought not to be called into question,15 leaving only a simple unambiguous response: retraction or not. Thus obligated, Luther responded: Since then your serene majesty and your lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, neither horned nor toothed: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me!16 This episode marks in the most dramatic way, in face of the concrete risk to his life, Luther’s disposition to follow, with his conscience, exclusively the word of God attested to in Scripture. And, though the emperor had kept his word, ensuring the granted safe passage, Luther could not be sure of this in advance, and the Diet of Worms anyway eventually condemned him and his doctrines. Consequently, Luther had to live the rest of his life as an outlaw of the Empire, and could in principle be eliminated by anyone loyal to the established order. His activity was, above all, that of a biblical scholar, throughout his life. Although he would prove to be adamant when convinced of the scriptural character of his doctrines, he never understood himself as finished or the final owner of truth. Luther frequently observed that he had not yet understood Scripture, at least not in its totality. He had not “wholly understood 15. Ibid., 112. 16. Ibid., 112–13. The well-known claim that Luther had finished his speech on that occasion with the statement “I cannot do otherwise, here I stand,” (contained in the LW version) is not supported by the sources. Luther and Liberation 100 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

even a single word of all Scripture.”17 Neither had he “really understood the Ten Commandments.”18 For twelve years he remained, in class, interpreting the book of Genesis, always in a free and original way, addressing the burning issues of the day, but also permanently in the rigorous search of the biblical meaning. His last recorded words, uttered on the 16th of February in 1546, just two days before his death, are very significant: Nobody can understand Virgil in his Bucolics and Georgics unless he has first been a shepherd or a peasant for five years. Nobody understands Cicero in his letters unless he has been engaged in public affairs of some consequence for twenty years. Let nobody suppose that he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years. . . . We are beggars. That is true.19 2. The Universal Priesthood of Believers It is worth noting that Luther developed his doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers in a decidedly political writing, that is, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520).20 At this point we are not interested as much in the fact that Luther derived the Christian political vocation from the royal priesthood21 as the fact that the universal priesthood of baptized believers requires breaking the papal monopoly on biblical interpretation. There are no masters of Scripture, much less infallible as the pope would be claiming, even fewer if they learn nothing from it in their whole lives.22 The idea that it is for the pope to 17. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimer: Hermann Böhlau, 1983), 45, 152, 26–27, hereafter abbreviated as WA. [English translation by MS.] 18. WA TR 2, 303, 5 (no. 204). [English translation by MS.] 19. LW 54:476. 20. Ibid., 44:123–217. 21. On this aspect, see chapter 9: The Political Calling and the Church. 22. LW 44:133–34. Scripture—Instrument of Life 101 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

interpret Scripture or confirm its interpretation is “an outrageous fancied fable.”23 Then Luther adduced a number of Bible verses to support the universal priesthood. This is why, “We ought to become bold and free on the authority of all these texts, and many others,” . . . We ought not to allow the Spirit of freedom (as Paul calls him [II Cor. 3:17]) to be frightened off by the fabrications of the popes, but we ought to march boldly forward and test all that they do, or leave undone, by our believing understanding of the Scriptures. We must compel the Romanists to follow not their own interpretation but a better one.24 However, Luther did not intend to replace what he considered the whims of the ecclesiastical authority with the equally arbitrary judgment of the individual believer, as is often erroneously believed. To avoid such a distortion, he endeavored, together with the establishment of the theological precept of the universal priesthood, to insert the task of discernment into the broad context of community life, which also respected the diversity of functions in the ecclesial body. In 1523, he attributed to the Christian community the task of judging doctrine, in his treatise entitled That a Christian Assembly or Congregation Has the Right and Power to Judge All Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proven by Scripture (1523).25 The following year he urged the municipal political authorities (councils) to create and maintain Christian schools (1524).26 One of his main motivations was to empower everyone, men and women,27 to read and understand Scripture. He wrote 23. Ibid,. 134. 24. Ibid., 135. 25. LW 39:305–14. 26. LW 45:347–78. 27. The inclusion of women in the right to universal education was a highly progressive fact for his time. The woman is, therefore, seen as a hermeneutical subject. This claim was linked to the Luther and Liberation 102 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

multiple works (for example, sermons) as preparation aids for pastors28 in their new task of preaching from Scripture. The universal priesthood, however, is not exercised adequately through mechanical repetition of biblical passages or through arbitrary individual interpretation but within a diverse and communitarian commitment around the biblical word, in which its meaning will become clear. 3. Scriptural Interpretation Here we address the clarity of Scripture, the art of translating, and the internal canon. 3.1 The Clarity of Scripture Luther was convinced that Scripture is clear, not so much in a formal sense, as it came to be understood more and more in the later orthodoxy, but in the sense that Scripture is self-evident through the Holy Spirit, in its fundamental content, to the one who struggles with it. Of course, Scripture is unclear in many senses: historical, scientific, and others. Neither is it “clear” in the sense that it is possible to exhaust its meaning. We have seen how Luther himself advocated a permanent, daily, intense dedication to the Bible, precisely because its content is inexhaustible. We also saw that Luther himself confessed to never have come to fully understand Scripture. However, Luther was equally convinced that, once one discovered the central article of justification by grace and faith, the general sense of Scripture would be clear. In the historical retrospective that he doctrine of the universal priesthood, which did not permit the exclusion of anyone from access to the means of education. See also chapter 10: Education. 28. Luther in his time did not come to consider the possibility of opening access to the pastoral ministry for women. One can, however, also say that this consequence aligns with his fundamental theological perception, which is one of the theological reasons why the vast majority of the Lutheran churches practice today the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. Scripture—Instrument of Life 103 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

wrote in the Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Writings (1545),29 in 1545, Luther added to the account of his liberating discovery of justification by faith30 There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms [besides the “righteousness of God”—au.] an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.31 That is to say, having found the evangelical center of Scripture, all its meaning changed and became clear: the divine attributes are no longer God’s qualities that threaten and frighten us but expressions of God’s action in our favor, that liberate us. This discovery led Luther simultaneously to an intense study of Scripture and to a simplification of the exegetical method. According to the hermeneutics of the Middle Ages, in which Luther was instructed, the biblical texts had to be analyzed in four ways: the literal or grammatical, the allegorical or spiritual, the tropological or parenthetical, and the analogical or eschatological. More and more Luther began to concentrate on the literal sense of the texts: “The Holy Spirit is the simplest writer in heaven and on earth. That is why his words could have no more than the one simplest meaning, which we call the written one, or the literal meaning of the tongue.”32 Obviously, this is not the later fundamentalism or literalism but the concentration on the proper meaning of the text, which is itself also spiritual, parenetic, and eschatological, dispensing with forced and artificial spiritualization. This emphasis on the literal meaning led him, for a specific reason, to join with the humanist claim of 29. LW 34:327–38. 30. Cited in chapter 4: Conversion, Liberation, and Justification. 31. LW 34:337. 32. Ibid., 39:178. Luther and Liberation 104 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

returning to the sources and to study the ancient languages, since knowledge of the original Hebrew and Greek should prevail over any translation. 3.2 The Art of Translating Nevertheless—or rather: for this reason—Luther realized one of his most monumental works with his translation of the Bible. This indelibly stamped the modern German language.33 His commitment of fidelity was not to the letter but to the sense of the text governed by its core content, justification. In the main, his translation speaks the language of the people. Criticized for having introduced into his translation of Rom. 3:28 the word “only”—“. . . the human being is justified without the works of the law, only through faith”—Luther called his critics asses, adding a series of materials and linguistic arguments in favor of his version. The word “only” just made explicit the adversative sentence, corresponding to the language of the people: We do not have to inquire of the literal Latin, how we are to speak German, as these asses do. Rather we must inquire about this of the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. That way they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.34 3.3 The Internal Canon or the Canon Within the Canon As indispensable as Scripture is, as much as it is a vehicle of the Spirit of God, however worthy of respect even its indecipherable passages 33. See, in this respect, Heinz Otto Burger, “Luther als Ereignis der Literaturgeschichte,” in Martin Luther; 450 Jahre Reformation, by Helmut Gollwitzer et al. (Bad Godesberg: Inter Nationes, 1967), 123–38. 34. LW 35:189. “We must be guided by their language” severely softens the very peculiar and wellknown expression used by Luther in German “auf das Maul schauen”; a better literal translation is “to look to their mouthpiece.” Scripture—Instrument of Life 105 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

are (like a sun behind the clouds),35 Luther did not absolutize the letter or the book. More decisive are the work of the Spirit of God and the living proclamation of the Word of God. If Luther stressed the sufficiency and uniqueness of Scripture, he did so because of the stranglehold of the living proclamation and because of the block to the Spirit of God through ecclesiastical dogmatisms, ceremonial traditions, and private illuminations.36 Thus, for him, Scripture was merely an emergency instrument: the word of God has to be recorded in writing because of our weakness. So much was his characterization of Scripture as an emergency occurrence that Luther designated it as “a serious decline and a lack of the Spirit.”37 It is really important to be “the living voice of the gospel.” So when he defined the Church, saying “the whole life and substance of the church is in the Word of God,” and added immediately, “I am not speaking about the written gospel, but rather about the spoken.”38 Luther recalled that Christ wrote nothing and, thus, the New Testament, more than a writing, is a living voice.39 In a sermon in 1523, he affirmed, Gospel means nothing else than a preaching and a crying out of the grace and the mercy of God, merited and conquered by the Lord Christ by means of his death. And it is not what is found in books and what is written in letters; rather, it is a voice that resounds in all the world and will, pray God, be shouted and heard in all places.40 It is known that this vision gave Luther freedom—relative, but still 35. WA 8, 239, 16–18. 36. In this latest front in the battle Luther turned against those, who, in the controversy, he called derogatively and not so appropriately “enthusiasts,” who constituted a movement that emerged within the Reformation itself that defended the possibility of obtaining a direct illumination from the Spirit without the intermediation of the Bible. Luther, in contrast, advocated that the Spirit elected to make use of Scripture for the transmission of the gospel of Christ. 37. LW 52:206. 38. WA 7, 721, 12–13. [English translation by MS.] 39. Ibid., 10/I/2, 35, 1-2; see also LW 52:205–06. 40. WA 12, 259. [English translation by MS.] Luther and Liberation 106 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

unusual—in relation to the biblical texts. Once he discovered the center of Scripture, namely, the good news of God’s grace in Jesus Christ, to be received in faith, isolated passages or even various books of the Bible came to find their measure in this same center. Luther, for example, did not appreciate much the Epistle to the Hebrews41 or the Revelation of John, much less the Epistle of James, this “epistle of straw,” which “has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”42 Revelation would have often elicited sectarian interpretations,43 and the Epistle of James would serve as a legitimating ideology for the demand of good works required by the church institution for salvation.44 Therefore, Luther was tempted to exclude these books from the canon. His respect for Scripture, above personal judgments, however, did not permit this. He preserved, thus, its surplus of meaning for new situations, in which its liberating relevance could be discovered. Therefore, keeping the Epistle of James in the Canon, though he strongly criticized it, Luther preserved it so that the word of God could become effective in other contexts, such as the Latin American in later centuries to the present day, characterized by oppression and social injustice. So, Luther had to move always through a hermeneutical circle, at the same time combative and free. On the one hand, Against all the declarations of the fathers (of the church), against the art and the word of all the angels, human beings, and the Devil, I lift up 41. LW 35:395. It was a “fine teaching” mixed with “wood, straw, or hay.” 42. LW 35:362; James was “flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture” (LW 35:396). “In all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ” (Ibid.). “This James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works” (LW 35:396-97). Still, the author would be “some good, pious man” (LW 35: 397) who would have collected and shared issues of his knowledge. 43. LW 35:398-9. “The apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words” (LW 35:398). In Revelation, “Christ is neither taught nor known in it” (LW 35:399). 44. In contrast, Luther exalts the Gospel of John, the epistles of Paul and the First Epistle of Peter as “the true kernel and marrow of all the books” (LW 35:362). Scripture—Instrument of Life 107 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

the Scripture and the Gospel . . . That is where I am, that is where I am boastful, that is where I am proud and say: the Word of God is greater than anything for me.45 On the other hand, however, the criterion for the interpretation of Scripture is “what preaches Christ” (“was Christum treibt”): “That which does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or Paul might teach it; conversely, that which teaches Christ is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod do it.”46 And just before: “All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ.”47 In the end, it is impossible to find a more radical phrase against all legal and literalist understandings of the Bible than this: “Therefore, if the adversaries press the Scriptures against Christ, we urge Christ against the Scriptures.”48 III. Reality and Controversial Issues Of course, the history of hermeneutics did not end with Luther.49 Today we are barred from returning pure and simply to his conceptions. There have been multiple hermeneutical approaches since the sixteenth century. 1. Hermeneutical Approaches After Luther Protestant orthodoxy placed its emphasis on the dogmatic fixing of 45. WA 10/II, 256, 26-32. 46. LW 35:396. Unfortunately the translation contained in this work softens the “scandal” contained in the Luther’s radical affirmation, to transform Luther’s second categorical statement, into a hypothetical alternative. 47. LW 35:396. 48. LW 34:112, Thesis 49. 49. In the strict sense, we speak of hermeneutics even from Schleiermacher, who was the first to give a scientific approach to the problem of the distance between the original author and the current interpreter of a text. Luther and Liberation 108 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

doctrine. Pietism reintroduced a spiritualizing dimension in scriptural interpretation enunciating the question of “what it says for me.” Rationalist historicism made use of a systematic distrust of dogma, in search of the true historical Jesus.50 The failure of this last attempt, despite the undeniable exegetical findings of this effort, provoked in Martin Kähler,51 and in dialectic theology the recognition of the kerygmatic dimension of the biblical texts. For them, the biblical texts are not primarily historical narratives but the salvific proclamation that aims at faith. Barth stressed the need for the interpreter to be carried along by the dynamics of the subject-matter (Sache) witnessed by the biblical account.52 Barth is, thus, an important follower of the principal discovery of the Reformation that the biblical text has to be searched for its own intentions and that it is up to the interpreter to listen to it with confident and tireless dedication. The hermeneutical effort of recent decades, however, concentrated on the problem of the distance between the biblical text, written in the past, and the current situation of the interpreter. Luther demonstrated a potential openness to the questions that arise here, when, for example, he saw Scripture as a helpful instrument for the living and actual proclamation of the gospel or when he thematized the problematic of the translation of the biblical texts, searching for the linguistic expression in the mouths of the people in the houses, streets, and marketplace. However, there is no doubt that Luther could attribute to himself the correct interpretation of Scripture, and to his adversaries a false one, in a form much more immediate and direct than is possible for 50. See chapter 3 on Luther’s Christology: In the Cross of Christ, Victory over all Evil. 51. See the consequences of Kähler’s approach to Christology, discussed in the chapter mentioned in the previous note. 52. See Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn Hoskyns (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 7 [in the preface to the 2nd edition]. Scripture—Instrument of Life 109 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

us today. His hermeneutical circle unfolded itself basically through the entire text to its interior (center) or back, to its constitutive event (Christ). Modern hermeneutical circles unfold significantly from the text forward, for the current situation, or better, in reverse: from our situation to the text. One discovers that no one comes to the Scripture devoid of preconceptions that influence their reading and that have to be highlighted to achieve a greater relevance or an approximate objectivity. Thus, Bultmann53 offered an existentialist interpretation, starting from a pre-understanding given the existential situation of the interpreter, with which he listens to the biblical text, whose message should return in terms relevant to the existential situation displayed. The gospel will be the good news of overcoming, through the cross of Christ, the fatal preoccupation with the transience and limits of life. Juan Luis Segundo54 formulated a circle formally similar: from the experience of historical-social reality, with which one obtains the necessary exegetical and ideological suspicion to, then, listen to the biblical text and rescue the revolutionary dimensions that the experienced historical-social situation requires. Suspicion, yes, suspicion of the interest, desires, and the will prior to the reading of the text, is a hermeneutical instrument privileged in Paul Ricoeur,55 who thus incorporated the unmasked, de-stabilized, or uninhibited questions respectively of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. 53. See in this respect, various essays by Rudolf Bultmann, relevant to the subject matter discussed here, apart from “New Testament and Mythology,” in New Testament and Mythology: And other Basic Writings, trans. Shubert Ogden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 1-43, an article that in 1941 launched the program of demythologization, are various articles of explicitly hermeneutical nature: “The Problem of Hermeneutics” (Ibid., 69-93), “Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?” (145–53), and “General Truths and Christian Proclamation,” in History and Hermeneutic, Journal for Theology and the Church, vol. 4, by Wolfhart Pannenberg et al. (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 153–62. 54. See Juan Luis Segundo, The Liberation of Theology, trans. John Drury (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 7–38. 55. See Paul Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations, ed. Don Ihde (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974). Luther and Liberation 110 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

All these questions, which arise from our situation to the biblical text, can neither be ruled out nor find adequate treatment in Luther. Even though the experience of the BECs demonstrates that the biblical text can become relevant in an almost direct way also today, we cannot neglect the theoretical reflection on the hermeneutical problem. Nor is it a coincidence that the rediscovery of the Bible is coming creatively in the context of communities that are consciously and actively inserted in a social historical praxis. In a continent so deeply marked by systems of oppression, the experience of the suffering of the people, coupled with their struggle for liberation, is a fertile and inevitable hermeneutical field for any and all biblical reading. 2. Some Specific Problems of Biblical-Theological Hermeneutics We should, at this point, before synthesizing the relevance of Luther’s hermeneutical focus, approach, albeit briefly, some specific problems of biblical and theological hermeneutics. 2.1 The “Literal Meaning” and the “Surplus of Meaning” The problem that we face is the following: does the insistence on a “literal meaning” imply the assertion of a single and unchanging meaning of the biblical text, making absolutely unfeasible the reception of the concept of the “surplus of meaning”? Inversely, does the adoption of the conception of the “surplus of meaning” necessarily imply the full rejection of the concept of “literal meaning”? It is of paramount importance to observe, first, that Luther’s insistence as to the literal meaning was not due to the assumption that he was capturing the absolute and immutable meaning of Scripture (which, with current hermeneutical knowledge, we know does not Scripture—Instrument of Life 111 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

exist), but because the concept was apt, in a well determined ecclesialhistorical context, to identify the “source of Revelation.” This consisted simultaneously in the discovery of a personal meaning for faith and in the establishment of an external critical stance for the ecclesiastical institution that aimed to hold, in its magisterium, the monopoly on the interpretation of Scripture. It is significant that Luther detected in this monopoly precisely one of the walls that solidly protected the Roman system and that had to be destroyed. The theological instrument for both was the concept of the “universal priesthood of the baptized” that extended to the interpretation of Scripture not to submit it to individual will but to freely listen to its living voice.56 Now, this bold step was hermeneutically liberating because it triggered in an innovative way the discussion about what the biblical text would signify in a determined context. That is, it launched a process of widespread listening to what the Scripture really had to say. In fact, new meanings—which, so to speak, were in reserve—were being discovered one by one. In this sense, the Reformation was, in fact, the result of an extraordinary hermeneutical process of biblical interpretation. It is worth repeating: this process did not occur in order to achieve an absolute and unchanging interpretation but because it was intended to combat the arbitrary interpretation of the established ecclesiastical power and rested—“ideologically,” we could say—in the medieval hermeneutical method of the four meanings, originally a method of great vitality, but then more and more distorted, to the point of being an instrument of the legitimation of the established ecclesiastical and also the social system. Yet Luther not only emphasized the literal meaning of Scripture but also linked it to the principle of its self-interpretation. This represents nothing less than an intuition that Scripture, as the Spirit, 56. See LW 44:133–36; see also in this volume chapter 9: The Political Calling and the Church. Luther and Liberation 112 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

cannot be imprisoned by any method. Thus—obviously without knowing the recent structuralist interpretation—he left space open for the unveiling (or the “revelation”) of new meanings. When the method of the literal meaning was absolutized, it lost itself, consequently, its dynamic, that is, the “living voice of the Gospel,” as occurred in Protestant orthodoxy; it was no longer what Luther strove for, but far from it, and other methods of interpretation arose to make the necessary critique. Something similar has occurred with the historical-critical method, with relevant exegetical discoveries, but also undeniable limitations. Its greatest temptation, for example, seems to be scrutinizing the biblical text in historical, formal, and redactional detail, losing view of its semantic globality. Conversely, structuralism is characterized undoubtedly by returning an intense vitality and creativity to the interpretation of Scripture. However, eventually expanding the concept of the “surplus of meaning” toward an infinity of possible meanings, all relative and perhaps arbitrary, couldn’t the structuralist method run the risk of falling into a liberalism disengaged from the gospel itself? 2.2. Paul and James: Justification by Faith or by Works? A dynamic understanding of the concept of literal meaning was defended here, which does not exclude the discovery of unusual meanings for the scriptural text. We can exercise this dialectic, albeit briefly, in relation to the Epistle of James, a writing so criticized by Luther, for espousing justification through works. Does the possibility exist of re-reading of the formally contradictory texts of James (2:21) and Romans (4:2–3), with respect to justification, such that both illuminate each other?57 I affirm this possibility. Then it 57. José Severino Croatto asked me this, when I first spoke of this text in ISEDET in Buenos Aires Scripture—Instrument of Life 113 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

is possible to perceive exegetically that there are specific historical contexts for these two epistles. Paul fought legalism as the pathway to salvation, while James turned against one particular community, which used justification by faith as a pretext for its inaction. I have no doubt that Luther had unquestionable reasons to reject the ecclesiastic demand for “good works”—and they were not generic but very specific: the veneration of relics, pilgrimages, and the buying of indulgences—to merit salvation. But we who live in the Latin American context centuries later, marked by social oppression and by the responsibility of the Christian churches themselves through their establishment, we cannot but hear the prophetic witness of James, for fear that we were to deny the gratuity of salvation in Christ, essential for Paul. In fact, the ethical warning and social critique contained in the Epistle of James are extremely relevant in situations in which the abuse of the doctrine of justification by faith leads to an ethical passivity, in situations of social oppression. To speak in terms of Bonhoeffer, we would say that the doctrine of justification by faith cannot legitimately be used to “cheapen” grace and avoid the discipleship of Christ.58 That is, our practice confirms that, in fact, the biblical texts unveil themselves in new ways and new situations. And Luther was right to preserve the Epistle of James and other writings in the scriptural Canon, although he exercised an unusual freedom to criticize them, in his specific situation. (see Walter Altmann, Confrontación y Liberación: Una Perspectiva Latinoamericana sobre Martin Lutero (Buenos Aires: ISEDET, 1987), 76–77 and 79–80). 58. On the concept of “cheap grace,” see Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, trans. R. H. Fuller (London: SCM, 1959), 43–44. Luther and Liberation 114 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2.3. The History of the Constitution of the Canon The issues addressed naturally lead us to reflect on the meaning of the scriptural Canon and the mode of dealing with it. Incidentally, the history itself of the constitution of the Canon is theologically suggestive. It emerged gradually through the use of the Scriptures in ecclesial life. Only the Council of Trent (1546-1563) ended up defining for the Catholic Church, as opposed to the Reformation, the books contained in the scriptural Canon. The Reformation opted, in relation to the Old Testament, in favor of the ancient Hebrew Canon, without the so-called deuterocanonical books—also called polemically, in Protestantism, apocryphal—contained in the Greek version called the Septuagint. The Reformation did this in its declared intention to return to its origins, exempt from the deviations of ecclesiastical and human traditions. As for Luther, however, it is important to emphasize that this was not a choice made by dogmatic definition but for material reasons (the core content of Scripture) and of practical use in ecclesial life (the practice of reading and interpretation). All this means theologically that the Canon should be understood, therefore, as open in principle, but in fact closed.59 In theory, the Canon still could expand, although in fact this possibility is sealed for the Church. For if, in fact, the Church made use of this possibility given in theory, coming to include in the Canon new books (or also exclude others contained in it), it would be putting the Church above Scripture and establishing itself as a judge over the word of God. On the other hand, it is important to maintain an open Canon in theory, precisely because it allows an opening, in principle, for new perceptions of the word of God, although always in reference to those books consecrated by their own use as scriptural and that 59. On this question of the canon being in principle open, although in fact closed, see Hermann Diem, Dogmatics, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), 194–223. Scripture—Instrument of Life 115 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

remain in fact untouched as members of the Canon. Theologically, it is said for this very reason in Protestantism that Scripture imposed itself on the consciousness of the Church, and not that the Church constituted the Canon. So, in fact, to respect integrally the books criticized by him (as, for example, the Epistle of James), keeping them in the Canon, Luther, without falling into literalist conceptions, also avoided submitting the Scriptures to his own will. On the contrary, he preserved them entirely to hear the renewed voice of the gospel, in other situations. Incidentally, while classifying them as “apocryphal” and “not equivalent to Holy Scripture,” Luther translated and published the deuterocanonical books, considering them “still useful and recommended for reading.”60 In addition, remember that the question of the correct interpretation of Scripture, from a center, is not exhausted with regard to particular books, but neither is it a task that could be ended. It is imperative for all biblical passages and therefore constitutes an ongoing task. 3. The Relevance of Luther’s Hermeneutical Approach Despite registering the limitations of Luther’s hermeneutical approach under point 1 of this part of the evaluation and conclusion, different approaches of Luther remain as indispensable achievements, often lamentably lost in later times. 1. First, I highlight the discovery that the relevance of the Bible occurs in its use, not in its possession. The criticisms that Luther raised against the monopoly of the interpretation of the Bible on the part of a certain ecclesiastical body or against a sterilizing dogmatic literalism remain perfectly valid. The Bible is the living word when 60. Martin Luther, Die Apokryphen: das Sind Bücher, so der Heiligen Schrift Nicht Gleich Gehalten, und Doch Nützlich und Gut zu Lesen Sind (Stuttgart: Priv. Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1961). [Also WA DB 12, 2, 2–4; 3, 2–4]. Luther and Liberation 116 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

inserted into the practice of listening and experiencing the word of God. In fact, the Bible is not a monolithic bloc; on the contrary, it is part of a process of life, of an historical process. We have, then, on the one hand, a history of methods that intend to capture “scientifically” the meaning of Scripture; on the other—and this is theologically much more important—we register a concrete and situated efficacy of Scripture in relation to people, communities, churches, and even historical events. The scientific method will have validity and relevance to the exact extent to which it simultaneously reflects and feeds this vital and ongoing process. 2. Second, Luther emphasized that this is why even the Bible has its own law whereby the Spirit of God comes before the will of the interpreter. In light of the failure of the reconstruction of the life of Jesus in the historicizing research of the nineteenth century, and of the knowledge of the constraints to which we are subject by our pre-conceptions, desires, and interests, we could develop a more acute awareness of the theological assertion that the biblical message and story, ultimately and essentially, unveil their meaning and significance, by the efficacy of their kerygmatic core. 3. Third, we cannot forget the latest theme of the hermeneutical circle—from the current reality to the biblical text, and from this to reality—nor should we gather into a bag the past history of Luther’s circular hermeneutical reflection, from Scripture as a whole to its constitutive core, and from this to Scripture as text. What matters for faith is God’s kingdom manifested in Christ and made real in our historical situation. The Bible as a book is instrumental, forward in the direction of our historical situation and back toward the life and action of Jesus.61 61. In this sense, perhaps, we could speak of an “hermeneutical infinite” instead of a “hermeneutical circle,” that is: starting from the situation of the interpreter, one addresses the biblical text, Scripture—Instrument of Life 117 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

4. Fourth, all this gives an amazing and peculiar freedom and life in dealing with the Bible. The Bible in the hands of the people is the Reformation lived in good measure. In proclamation and study, many times in iron discipline, but always in the free search for new discoveries, the Bible was exuding its captivating perfume and exercising its transformative attraction. Scripture—space and instrument for the liberating action of the Spirit of God—invigorates a people with hopes, in yearnings, and struggles. From a dead letter, the Bible becomes an instrument of life. following it inside (its antecedent oral tradition, its historical context and form, but also listening to its core), returning from the accrued biblical text for a first capture of its meaning, to finally, with it reach anew the current situation for an applied interpretation, complementing the hermeneutical “infinite.” New situations provide the constant restarting of this hermeneutical process. That is, the hermeneutical process never ends. It always presents provisional and updatable “conclusions,” never permanent and unchangeable. Luther and Liberation 118 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:10:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

6 The Church—Poor People of God It is known that Christianity came to Latin America through the Catholic Church, in the process of the conquest and colonization of the continent by the Spanish and Portuguese.1 I. The Church in Latin America Although there have always been some prophetic and independent voices, the Church as an institution was tied to the State and to the purposes of conquest and domination of the Iberian crowns. Through the patronato system, the priests and missionaries were royal functionaries. In the service of the crown, the cross allied itself with the sword. The model and project impelling this process were what came to be called in Spanish the model of “cristiandad” (= “Christendom”).2 According to this, the Portuguese and Spanish, abstracted from the 1. For the history of Christianity in Latin America, see the works of CEHILA, especially CEHILA, História Geral da Igreja na América Latina, 11 volumes (Petrópolis: Vozes, 1977–). See also Hans-Jürgen Prien, Christianity in Latin America, trans. Stephen Buckwalter and Brian McNeil (Boston: Brill, 2013). 2. See, in this respect, Pablo Richard, Death of Christendoms, Birth of the Church: Historical Analysis and Theological Interpretation of the Church in Latin America, trans. Philip Berryman (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987). 119 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

often bellicose rivalries between them, had the historic task of universally expanding the boundaries of their own civilization, way of life, culture and beliefs, encompassing other lands and peoples who they were conquering. They considered it perfectly legitimate that, in exchange for their superior civilization and their true faith, they would receive—voluntarily if possible, by arms if necessary—the riches and labor of the people they conquered. 1. Catholicism The Catholic Church, and the Christianity it represented, constituted itself as an institution collaborating with a system of domination and oppression. In parallel, however, it was forming an extensive network of Christian popular beliefs and practices, subsequently as an expression of the suffering and the determination of surviving and resisting on the part of the oppressed and dominated people.3 If the Catholic Church can speak of a believing Latin American people, as it did in the Third Latin American Episcopal Conference, in Puebla (1979),4 this is, surely, the very ambiguous result of a history of five centuries on this continent. Christianity was brought to this continent in the context of historical domination, yet it left deep roots in the Latin American people, even in the exploited masses. They articulated their faith in an informal way, unorthodox, many times syncretistic, incorporating the heritage of black and indigenous faith. 3. See the image of the dead Christ, referred to in chapter 3: In the Cross of Christ, Victory over all Evil. 4. The Puebla Final Document on evangelization in the present and future of Latin America can be found in John Eagleson and Philip Scharper, eds. Puebla and Beyond: Documentation and Commentary, trans. John Drury (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1979). (The text approved by the Conference and published as an interim edition was subsequently amended by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican.) See also Gustavo Gutiérrez, “The Irruption of the Poor in Latin America and the Christian Communities of the Common People,” in The Challenge of Basic Christian Communities: Papers from the International Ecumenical Congress of Theology, February 20-March 2, 1980, São Paulo, Brazil, ed. Sergio Torres & John Eagleson, trans. John Drury (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1981), 107–23, especially 112–15. Luther and Liberation 120 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indeed, in the context of the memory of the 500th anniversary of the invasion of Iberian Europeans to the continent later designated Latin America,5 one must also register an increasing return to the cultural and religious values of the original peoples of this land, as well as the African peoples, originally brought as slaves to this continent. Vatican II (1962–1965) decided to reject the triumphalist vision of the Church, defined fundamentally as a pyramidal institutionaljudicial body, concentrated in the hierarchy. This ecclesiastical conception was replaced by one that defined the Church as the mystery of God, putting the people of God above the hierarchy.6 With this, the door was flung open for popular Christianity to acquire its letter of manumission and the recognition of its legitimacy. With the subsequent support given by the Second Latin American Episcopal Conference, in 1968, in Medellín, Colombia, BECs developed, constituting themselves as the most vigorous expression of this new ecclesial reality in Latin America. These communities are characteristic in living their faith in popular movements, through popular struggles, hopes, and experiences. A popular Christianity of survival and resistance moved to the stage of seeking historical liberation. This transformation of a church of domination to a church of liberation was impressive. No wonder it has also met with enormous resistance. Already at the Puebla Conference, the final text was a masterpiece of negotiated compromises; trying to reconcile opposing 5. The rescue of indigenous values originating from this continent proposes the designation Abya-Yala in place of Latin America. It is a Central American indigenous expression, of the Cuna people, which characterizes the vital geographic space as “mature land.” (See Walter Altmann, “Un Intento de Síntesis,” in Educación Teológica en Abya-Yala: Una Consulta Internacional, 20–24 de julio de 1992; Ginebra, ETE/CMI, ed. Ross Kinsler (San José: SEBILA, 1992), 84–88. 6. See “Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (Northport: Costello, 1975). It can also be accessed at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/ vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html. The Church—Poor People of God 121 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

theological currents, it sought to link the BECs more organically to the ecclesial hierarchy. On the one hand, this represented the official recognition of the positive reality of BECs, committing the bishops to recognize them as legitimate and grant them space. On the other, however, it opened the field to the controlling and disciplinary action of the ecclesial hierarchy. It was noted, in particular, that the Latin American Episcopal Council (CELAM), increasingly supported or compelled by directives emanating from Rome, began to try to maintain under its control the popular liberating vitality expressed in the BECs. Even progressive bishops’ conferences, like the Brazilian, have become increasingly moderate, through the pressures of the Vatican and of the newly designated bishops, generally conservative. However, let us not forget that a good number of Catholic bishops inserted themselves into the dynamic of popular practices, and that even national and Latin American bishops’ structures became the voice of the voiceless, especially in the dark times of the military regimes. For Protestants, therefore, we should not minimize the significance of the passage from a perspective of domination to one of liberation. It is also true that the movement of the BECs, in the Catholic realm, reached such a magnitude in the 1970s and ‘80s that its vitalizing influence on the Church as a whole could not be undone easily. In any case, however, the controlling impetus throughout the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI left their mark in that the setbacks can be seen quite clearly. Thus, if in the past these setbacks were in the face of political repression—the result of which, however, was not infrequently the strengthening of the communities—in a post-dictatorship period its weakening occurred by ecclesial control, subtle to a greater or lesser degree, or else, through the dismantling or dispersion of the social movements in the passage from dictatorial regimes to democratic regimes. In the pontificate of Pope Francis one denotes an eminently pastoral Luther and Liberation 122 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

attitude, which acknowledges the valuable contribution of the base communities to revitalize the life of the Catholic Church. 2. Transplant Protestantism In immigrant or transplant Protestantism, constituted in Latin America mainly by Lutheran communities or churches, we can observe an inverse dynamic to that outlined in Catholicism. The German immigrants who came to Brazil from 1824 were almost all from the exploited and marginalized sectors of German people.7 They were servants or small farmers in rural areas, without the conditions to maintain themselves in the incipient process of industrialization. The Hanseatic City of Hamburg even took advantage of the wave of emigration to empty their prisons.8 Despite the difficulties imposed on these immigrants, often with the non-fulfillment of government promises or with the socio-cultural-religious marginalization to which they were submitted, they had reason to be thankful: a new land to cultivate and the possibility of reconstructing their lives, free from abusive governmental interference. Returning does not seem to have been for them either a temptation or a dream—or even a possibility.9 7. Later, the enlightened liberals defeated in the German Revolution of 1848 came also to Brazil especially to the state of Santa Catarina, and in Latin America to Chile. On the history of the origins of Lutheranism in Brazil, see Martin N. Dreher, Igreja e Germanidade: Estudo Crítico da História da Igreja Evangélica de Confissão Luterana no Brasil (São Leopoldo: Sinodal-EST, 1984); Joachim Fischer, “Geschichte der Evangelischen Kirche Lutherischen Bekenntnisses in Brasilien,” in Es begann am Rio dos Sinos: Geschichte und Gegenwart der Ev. Kirche Lutherischen Bekenntnisses in Brasilien, 2nd ed., by Joachim Fischer & Christoph Jahn (Erlangen: Ev.- Lutherischen Mission, 1970), 85–204, and Hans-Jürgen Prien, Evangelische Kirchwerdung in Brasilien: Von den Deutsch-Evangelischen Einwanderergemeinden zur Evangelischen Kirche Lutherischen Bekenntnisses in Brasilien (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1989). 8. See Carlos H. Hunsche, O Biênio 1824/25 da Imigração e Colonização Alemã no Rio Grande do Sul (Província de São Pedro), 2nd ed. (Porto Alegre: A Nação, 1975), 58–61. 9. For example, in 1908, almost four decades after emigrating from Germany, Sophia Elisabein Osterkamp (great-grandmother of the author of this book) stated in a letter to her brother who emigrated to the USA: “We have lived in the forest of Brazil as small kings, free and independent. The government does not help us nor hinder us.” However, she also added, The Church—Poor People of God 123 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Among the aspects that were most pleasing to them, without doubt, was the possibility of autonomously organizing their religious communities. They created communities free from the tutelage of ecclesial structures, like the State churches linked to the German territorial governments. For a long time they resisted the formation of any supra-parochial ecclesial organism, such as the constitution of synods. The IECLB constituted itself as a federation of synods only in 1949 and in its nationwide structure only in 1968. Still today we see in communities here and there acute reservations and resistance to the central ecclesial establishment. On the other hand, however, the communities that were created developed a sharp sense of introversion for the same reasons. The guiding principle was the preservation of faith and the meeting of the religious needs in the community. The missionary perspective and the concern for an evangelical presence in Brazilian society remained relegated to the background, if not practically forgotten, and only in recent years are these being redeemed. Thus, also the ecclesial institution that was eventually formed is accepted mostly for the service that it can provide directly to the communities, for example, in the formation of pastors. Challenges to attend to the missionary and political task of the Church are much less well-received, when not explicitly rejected. That is, the question must be posed to the Church of how it can redeem its original libertarian experience and, rather than satisfying themselves in the preservation of the heritage of their religious practices, placing that experience into the historical perspective of the giving an idea of the hardships and suffering they had to endure: “I’ve become the mother of fourteen children, seven sons and seven daughters, half of them are still living. Three were born dead, a fourth one lived only six hours. Johanna died when she was seventeen months old. Karolina was twelve years old when she died, and Otto, the youngest, died three days before he completed his first year.” See Friedhold Altmann, A Roda: Memórias de um Professor (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1991), 26–27. Luther and Liberation 124 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

liberation of the Latin American peoples and of the democratization of their nations, in order to not to be pleased to be a factor in delaying the necessary social transformations or even help to the structures of domination. 3. Missionary Protestantism and Pentecostalism As for the Protestant mission churches, covering mainly Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches, I limit myself to a few observations. They were constituted in Latin America almost always from mission initiatives originating in the USA. By their very nature, missionary communities formed, directly polemical against the surrounding (Catholic) environment. They offered in exchange, besides the Protestant faith and the creation of educational institutions, the liberal views of American capitalism in development or even the concept of the manifest destiny of the USA that was beginning to spread around the world. It served, here and there, as an attraction for the small rising middle class.10 Consequently, the formation of popular Protestant communities was very rare. This Protestantism developed a critical and liberating dimension in relation to the traditional semi-feudal and oligarchic stratification in Latin America. In general, however—always with exceptions—this dimension faded when confronted with the alternative of the radical liberation of the oppressed Latin American masses. There, it preferred to stick with the bourgeois and developmental model, which was facilitated through the harnessing of Latin American economies to international capitalism; this, however, also practically took away any possibility of playing an alternative role in society, a factor in large measure responsible for the stagnation of Protestantism. 10. The influence of this social context on conversion practice and conception is described in chapter 4: Conversion, liberation, and justification. The Church—Poor People of God 125 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

In contrast, Pentecostalism has become popular in many countries.11 It speaks to the soul of the people, and it serves as a means of expression. Pentecostalism also signifies, in its way, a response to the basic needs of the Latin American population, such as health, healing prayers occupying a prominent place in its practice. Its ecclesiology is of extreme vitality, as much in its cultic expression as its missionary one. Its practice is extremely malleable. Pentecostalism is the only religious branch that really has kept pace with the many millions of migrating Latin Americans. There is no doubt, however, that it is a popular expression, on which more and more people count. As a manifestation of the people, it is necessary to be attentive to its liberating potential, frequently completely ignored or neglected in religious-cultural or sociological analysis. Even so, however, its function seems very ambiguous, in its theology and practice in the political realm, in which a dualistic conception that demonizes politics was in recent years replaced with an openly Christianizing action, theocratic, in politics. So it is still an open question as to what extent the movement could have a liberating potential for the Latin American people or if it is found to be a religious and legitimating component of the structural ills of this continent. Of course, it is not possible to find the answers to these questions using Luther’s ecclesiology. Perhaps, however, it is possible to find in it some clues to be pursued even today in our ecclesial practice and theology. 11. On the Pentecostal phenomenon, see Raúl Sepúlveda, “El Crecimiento del movimiento pentecostal en América Latina,” in Pentecostalismo y Liberación: Una Experiencia Latinoamericana, ed. Carmelo Alvarez (San José: DEI, 1992), 77–88. Sepúlveda analytically studied the social reasons for the growth of Chilean Pentecostalism, being Pentecostal himself. Most studies on Pentecostalism suffer from the lack of understanding of the deeper foundations of Pentecostalism. Luther and Liberation 126 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

II. The Church in Luther God be praised, a seven-year-old child knows what the church is: holy believers and “the little sheep who hear the voice of their shepherd.”12 These words of Luther sum up in an extraordinary way his ecclesiological conception. 1. Defining the Church As significant as the elements that comprise the definition are those excluded by it. The section of the Smalcald Articles, in which the definition appears, explicitly rejects ecclesial ceremonies and liturgical symbols as constitutive of the Church. He excluded also the institutional elements, save those given simply by the existence of the congregation of believers, that is, the fact that they meet. We leap ahead now for the sake of brevity. The organizational and institutional elements are not disregarded; without them, the existence of community in history is impossible. However, they are not seen as constitutive, so they are in principle questionable and reformable. There is, therefore, in the understanding of the church in Luther a dimension of strong institutional critique. He also excluded beforehand the predominance of an ecclesial hierarchy. Only the sheep, that is, the holy believers, and the pastor, that is, Christ, enter into the definition. He also excluded the definition of the Church starting from a universal, general organization; on the contrary, the definition comes from the base, from below, from the local community. Thus, there is not in the concept of Luther, in 1537, twenty years after the historical date given to the beginning of 12. “The Smalcald Articles,” in The Book of Concord: The Confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 324–25; hereafter abbreviated as BC. The Church—Poor People of God 127 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

the Reformation, any indication of denominational confessionalism. This is all the more significant since in that time the process of the constitution of the Reformation movement into territorial churches was already in full swing, confirming that Luther regarded this process as circumstantial and an emergency measure, but in no way substantial. “Little sheep who hear the voice of their shepherd”—nothing more than these two elements enter into the definition: the congregation of believers (lambs who hear) and the word of God (the voice of their shepherd). The Augsburg Confession adds to the preaching of the word of God, in the classic ecclesiological article (article seven), the correct administration of the sacraments.13 We observe these two elements a little more closely. First, the Church as the people of God or the congregation of the saints: We shall this time confine ourselves simply to the Children’s Creed, which says, “I believe in one holy Christian church, the communion of saints.” Here the creed clearly indicates what the church is, namely, a communion of saints, that is, a crowd or assembly of people who are Christians and holy, which is called a Christian holy assembly, or church. . . . Church is nothing but an assembly of people, though they probably were heathens and not Christians. Now there are many peoples in the world; the Christians, however, are a people with a special call and are therefore called not just ecclesia, “church,” or “people,” but sancta catholica Christiana. . . . Thus the “holy Christian church” is synonymous with a Christian and holy people or, as one is also wont to express it, with “holy Christendom,” or “whole Christendom.” The Old Testament uses the term “God’s people.”14 Thus, for Luther, the church was originally and primarily the community, the community of those who have in common faith in Christ. “Community” is the New Testament term, while in the Old 13. “The Augsburg Confession,” in BC, 42, 43 (German and Latin versions). 14. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–), 41:143–44. Cited hereafter as LW. Luther and Liberation 128 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Testament the corresponding term is “people of God.” The Church is that people. It is not the pastors, the bishops, or the Pope, because “. . . the pope is no people, much less a holy Christian people. So too the bishops, priests, and monks are not holy, Christian people. . . .”15 Where there is one baptism, one gospel, one faith, one people, there also are equal Christians, all are equally priests. No member, whatever their function, can have superior authority to these people. Luther’s translation of the New Testament was consequent with this discovery, using the term “community” (Gemeinde), instead of “church” (Kirche), an expression which he did not like, for its being generally understood in the hierarchical sense or of a building. Secondly, Luther reflected the specificity of these people: In truth, the gospel comes before the bread (Holy Supper) and baptism, as the one most certain and noble sign of the church, because it is only through the gospel that the church is conceived, formed, nourished, born, educated, fed, clothed, ornamented, strengthened, prepared, and sustained. In a word: The whole life and substance of the church is in the Word of God.16 Or: For the church was born by the word of promise through faith and by this same word is fed and preserved. That is to say, it is the promises of God that make the church, and not the church that makes the promise of God. For the Word of God is incomparably superior to the church, and in the Word the Church, being a creature, has nothing to decree, ordain, or make, but only to be decreed, ordained, and made.17 One can multiply the quotes indefinitely. For example, “In fact, the church is the child of the gospel.”18 The meaning is clear: the 15. Ibid., 144. 16. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimer: Hermann Böhlau, 1983), 7, 721, 9–13, hereafter abbreviated as WA. [English translation by MS.] 17. LW 36:107. 18. WA 2, 430, 6–7. The Church—Poor People of God 129 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:11:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms