Luther and Liberation: A Latin American Perspective

or secularized Christians. It was in fact, a fleeting episode, since it did not have, strictly speaking, greater resonance with reality as experienced by the majority of people on this continent. For Latin Americans the question of God arises in the context of life and death. Which forces in their reality are represented by God: those that foster and preserve life or those that produce death? The answer, without doubt, is not simple. On one hand, it is undeniable that the process of the Christianization of the continent took place in alliance with a project of colonization and conquest in which “God” functioned as an instrument of death.5 Nevertheless, the peoples of Latin America preserve also, in faith and the praxis of piety, a consciousness that God has been wrongly tied to these historical projects and that, on the contrary, God is, in truth, a God of life against death and, in the final analysis, its ultimate victor. Therefore, in the Latin American context the question is not one of the existence or non-existence of God. The question is rather, whom do we name when we talk of “God”: the God of life or one of the many gods of death? That is to say: the question is not about the existence of God, but about God’s justice. Thus, in Latin America the question has been placed again in the context of the long historical tradition of the true God over against the false gods, or of God over against the idols.6 With these observations in mind we turn to Luther. 5. Moreover, it should be noted how the project of conquest and the Christianization of the Americas affected theology and spirituality, not only ethics and ecclesiology, but also the more dogmatic subjects, as here the doctrine of God. As to the influences on Christology, see also chapter 3: In the Cross of Christ, Victory over all Evil. 6. See Pablo Richard et al, A Luta dos Deuses: Os Idolos da Opressão e a Busca do Deus Libertador, trans. José de Assis Coutinho (São Paulo: Paulinas, 1982). In relation to the economy, see Franz Hinkelammert, The Ideological Weapons of Death: A Theological Critique of Capitalism, trans. Phillip Berryman (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1986). It is interesting also to verify the sensibility that a Marxist like Roger Garaudy has for the biblical critique of idols and the testimony of God. See Roger Garaudy and Ernesto Balducci, El Cristianismo es Liberación (Salamanca: Sigueme, 1976), 72–76. Luther and Liberation 30 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

II. Luther’s Doctrine of God When Luther spoke about God, it was not a theoretical question for him, but above all practical, insofar as he reflected from a concrete personal relationship between the believer and his God. This relation of human beings with their “god” is fundamentally characterized by trust and the dedication of their lives. 1. The Revealed God In the explanation of the First Commandment, in the Large Catechism, Luther shows the essential characteristics of his concept of God: A ‘god’ is the term for that to which we are to look for all good and in which we are to find refuge in all need. Therefore, to have a god is nothing else than to trust and believe in that one with your whole heart. As I have often said, it is the trust and faith of the heart alone that make both God and an idol. If your faith and trust are right, then your God is the true one. Conversely, where your trust is false and wrong, there you do not have the true God. For these two belong together, faith and God. Anything on which your heart relies and depends, I say, that is really your God. The intention of this commandment, therefore, is to require true faith and confidence of the heart, which fly straight to the one true God and cling to him alone. What this means is: “See to it that you let me alone be your God, and never search for another.” In other words: “Whatever good thing you lack, look to me for it and seek it from me, and whenever you suffer misfortune and distress, crawl to me and cling to me. I, I myself, will give you what you need and help you out of every danger. Only do not let your heart cling to or rest in anyone else.”7 We must first highlight in this “definition” that it is not in any way 7. Large Catechism (LC), in The Book of Concord: The Confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 386–87, hereafter abbreviated as BC. (Also D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe [Weimer: Hermann Böhlau, 1983], 30/I, 132-33, hereafter abbreviated as WA.) The God of Life Against All Falsehood of the Idols of Death 31 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

a theoretical, doctrinal concept of God, which then would have to be grasped and accepted intellectually. What we find is rather the description of a vital relationship between human beings and “their god.” Luther starts, then, from the existential idea that every person has in her concrete way of living some fundamental value to guide her, some aim to pursue, some desire to nurture.8 But not only do human beings have a relation with their “god.” Equally—and this is even more fundamental and decisive—God establishes a relation with human beings. According to Luther, in the eyes of the human beings God shows two sides. On the one hand there is the powerful and majestic God, of whom strictly speaking we know little about and is a threat to human beings. On the other hand, there is the revealed God who is defined in the weakness of Christ, so that by God’s grace God cries, wails, and groans with human beings, specifically with sinners and the powerless—with those who are poor and marginalized, we would add. The background of this duality is unveiled with the question of where and how we can find the true God, in whom we can trust in life and death. Where, then, do we find concretely that God who establishes a true and trusting faith? According to Luther, the true God is only truly found where and when God reveals Godself. And there, where and when God reveals Godself, faith becomes certain, and no longer needs guarantees given deceptively by reason, sentiment, social condition, or human deeds. 8. Similarly, Paul Tillich defined “faith is the state of being ultimately concerned” (Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), 1 and following). However, in Tillich, despite this generic-personal formulation, the content of this faith threatens to take on ontological-metaphysical connotations (see the reflections on the being and non-being in Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), 178–90). In Luther faith is, primarily, trust, that is, a personal relationship with the object of faith, his god. Or better: the entire metaphysical god, who emerges from the reality of the human being, comes to be considered an idol, as opposed to the true God, who is revealed by God’s promise (“I, I myself, will give you . . .”). Luther and Liberation 32 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This was precisely the controversial question between Luther and Erasmus, in which the Reformer made a distinction between the Deus absconditus (the hidden God) and the Deus revelatus (the revealed God). “He [God] is present everywhere, but he does not wish that you grope for him everywhere.”9 There is one identifiable place where God has defined Godself, where God made use of God’s freedom to act decisively and utter a definite word. The divine nature is too high and incomprehensible for us; therefore he placed himself in that nature which is best known to us, namely, our [own. . .]. There he awaits us, there he wants to be found, and nowhere else. Whoever shouts at him here, will be heard immediately, for here is the throne of grace, from where nobody is excluded whenever he comes here. 10 The place of God’s revelation is therefore christologically determined. In the First Commandment we already find a reference to God’s salvific action. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exod. 20:2). The believers in the new covenant refer to the salvific action, which occurred and was established in Jesus Christ. This is the ultimate reason for the certainty of faith and the ultimate strength of life in accordance with the promised reality. There [in the humanity of Christ] you surely find it, otherwise you will run back and forth throughout all creation, groping here and groping there yet never finding, even though it is actually there; for it is not there for you.11 What does this distinction between the hidden God and the revealed God mean? The hidden God refers to God in God’s majesty, who 9. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–), 36:342. Cited hereafter as LW. (WA 19, 492, 22-23). 10. WA 10/I, 356, 9–13. 11. LW 37:69. The God of Life Against All Falsehood of the Idols of Death 33 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

cannot be fathomed, unreachable by human beings; God is a mystery to be worshipped,12 even feared for the manifestation of God’s eternal will. The hidden God in majesty is a God that has not defined Godself yet, who therefore is free for everything, “neither deplores nor takes away death, but works life, death, and all in all.”13 On the other hand, the revealed God, to whom we have access, is the God who “is clothed and set forth in his Word, through which he offers himself to us.”14 Luther asserts that human beings, in their nature characterized by the fall, do not want and cannot admit to such a revelation. They insist on their own way—yes: they have to insist on it. Therefore, human audacity aims to reach the secret of divine majesty through reason, thus entrusting the knowledge of God to the intellectual capacity of human beings. However, human beings should concern themselves instead with God incarnate, or as Paul puts it, with Jesus crucified, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, though in hidden manner [Col. 2:3]; for through him it is furnished abundantly with what it ought to know and ought not to know. [. . .] God incarnate, I say, who has been sent into the world for the very purpose of willing, speaking, doing, suffering, and offering to all men everything necessary for salvation. [. . .] It is likewise the part of this incarnate God to weep, wail, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly.15 That is, because of the opposition of the world, human sinfulness, and the injustices established in social relations, God is hidden in God’s “definition” as well. Not only is the majestic God hidden, but the revealed God is also hidden, namely in weakness. Thus, God’s love manifests itself not in an affirmation of the world but, on the 12. Martin Luther, The bondage of the will [1525], LW 33:138–40. 13. Ibid., 140. 14. Ibid., 139. 15. Ibid., 145–46. Luther and Liberation 34 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

contrary, in the weakness of Jesus Christ. It is absconditas sub contrario. Therefore God weeps, wails, and groans. God is God in weakness, in poverty, in humility, in renunciation, in sacrifice, in the cross—not because God takes pleasure in all this, but because God wants to overcome the alienation and injustice of this world. Consequently, the addressees par excellence of God’s love are sinners, the needy, suffering people, the marginalized, the weak, the sick, in sum, “the poor.” Precisely because God has defined Godself in the weakness and insanity of the cross, God’s love is not here for all in a generic way. Luther saw the Gospel in relation to the Law. Here he made a sharp and deep cut. “The Gospel is not so open that anybody may grab it, rather it is protected and well guarded.”16 The proud are excluded. They have their own justice. The Gospel is here for those humiliated in their poverty, for those who suffer, for the people in darkness. Definitively, the Gospel has preferences: it is in solidarity with some; others exclude themselves. Thus, he, the crucified, is the contradiction of God against all those who want to prescribe to God their own justice, their own wisdom, their own aims. The “crucifixus” is God’s protest, is the signal that God is the Lord, is the rejection of all those who are not his, is the judgment over all false piety, for in him, the “crucifixus,” everything which pretends to be high, noble, pious, and true in this world, without Christ, is judged.17 2. The Denunciation of Idols On the basis of this God who reveals Godself in weakness, Luther denounces the idols fabricated by human beings according to their desires and particular interests. For human beings have a subtle way of evading God: they create their own god, which Luther designated 16. Hans Joachim Iwand, “Luthers Theologie,” in Nachgelassene Werke, v.5 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974), 107. For all the problems discussed in this section, see the chapters “Christus und die Seinen” and “Wer sind die Seinen,” 105–10 and 131–76. 17. Ibid., 107–8. The God of Life Against All Falsehood of the Idols of Death 35 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

as an idol.18 He notes: “There has never been a nation so wicked that it did not establish and maintain some sort of worship. All people have set up their own god, to whom they looked for blessings, help, and comfort.”19 Thus, the ancient heathen peoples (Romans and Greeks) had their pantheon of gods, one superior and below this an almost unlimited quantity of other gods, according to the professions, human activities, and interests. Centuries before Feuerbach, Luther observed that “they all made a god out of what their heart most desired; . . . [they] actually fashion their own fancies and dreams about God into an idol”20 that is useless and on whom, in the final analysis, one cannot rely. Analogously, Luther observed that even among Christians everyone has their own saint through whom, even when not establishing a pact with the devil, by magic they will be granted what they want to have, whether it is money or a lover.21 It is truly admirable: behind gods, private saints, and a pact with the devil, Luther detected—centuries before Marx and Freud—interests and desires! This enabled Luther to determine more concretely who the false gods, the idols, were. For sure, he did not attempt to present a full list, but gave some examples: “great learning, wisdom, power, prestige, family, and honor.” These are gods for people who trust in these values and boast about them. They boast when they have these things, and they despair when they lose them. This precisely makes it possible to unmask the idols as false gods. Luther’s test seems to be very simple: the idols don’t remain during tribulation, in the lack 18. In the original, Luther used the word Abgott for “idol,” making a pun on the word Gott, “God.” In fact, it is the nature of an idol to masquerade as God. 19. LC, BC, 388, for the explanation of the First Commandment. 20. LC, BC, 388. 21. Ibid., 387. The translation into English in the Book of Concord, “help them in love affairs” is a not so lucky euphemism. Luther and Liberation 36 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of those values, which they represent and allegedly can guarantee.22 Their nothingness is then revealed. “The most common idol on earth,” one that “clings and sticks to our nature all the way to the grave,” is Mammon: money, possessions, and wealth. “Those who have money and property feel secure, happy, and fearless, as if they were sitting in the midst of paradise. On the other hand, those who have nothing doubt and despair as if they knew of no god at all.”23 That is, this god does not pass the test of tribulation. It is a false god, an idol.24 Idolatry does not consist merely of erecting an image and praying to it, but it is primarily a matter of the heart, which fixes its gaze upon other things and seeks help and consolation from creatures, saints, or devils. It neither cares for God nor expects good things from him sufficiently to trust that he wants to help, nor does it believe that whatever good it receives comes from God.25 If, on the one hand, the false gods are expressions of human desires, on the other, they offer self-satisfaction for human beings. Human beings can through their work and worship correspond to a god, which they designed. This god is not a challenging god, critical of human sin, of the cause of the evil and injustice practiced by humans. On the contrary, this god, by its very nature the projection of interest and desires, can only confirm human beings in their values and projects, giving assurance to their desires and illusions. “The greatest idolatry,”26 however, consists in ascribing this human work of obtaining merit to the true God, wishing to oblige God to give help, comfort, and blessings, which God, in truth, is willing to give freely and without merit on the part of human beings. With this 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. WA 4, 483, 7f: “Qualis unusquisque est, talis est ei deus.” (That which one is, so is God for him.) 25. LC, BC, 388. 26. Ibid. The God of Life Against All Falsehood of the Idols of Death 37 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

artifice, human beings ironically end up transforming God (the true God) into an idol and establishing themselves as god in God’s place.27 Here lies the ultimate reason for human beings to flee from God, be it fabricating replacement idols, or making a false copy of the true God. “Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.”28 Consider the following statements: The human being establishes the image of God . . . God creates the human being in God’s own image. . . . We are reminded here of Ludwig Feuerbach, who asserted in The Essence of Christianity “not that God created the human being in his own image, but the human being created God in his own image.”29 The statement is incisive and biting. Where is its novelty? Not in the idea itself of making a god through the human being. This, as we have seen, was already found in Luther. It is also recorded in Augustine.30 The Bible, as well, raises precisely this accusation against other religions. Thus, for example, we see Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal, when they cried incessantly for him, without answer (I Kgs. 18:26-29). There we find the burning irony, whose criticism is precisely this: your god is nothing but a dead human image. The prophetic sarcasm in relation to the gods created by a human being reaches its climax in Isa. 44:9–20, a passage which describes humans using wood from the same trunk for heating and 27. Ibid., 388–89. 28. LW 31:10. This is the famous and fundamental thesis 17 of the Disputatio contra scholasticam theologiam of 1517. 29. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, trans. George Eliot (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957): “It is necessary to man to have a definite conception of God, and since he is man he can form no other than a human conception of him” (16). See also Gerhard Ebeling, “Evangelium und Religion,” ZThK 73, no. 2 (1976): 254–57 and Gerhard Ebeling, Luther: An Introduction to His Thought, trans. R. A. Wilson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), 248–51. 30. “Quod unusquisque colit et veneratur, hoc sibi deus est.” (What someone cultivates and worships, it is god to her.) On this phrase attributed to Augustine, see Gerhard Ebeling, “Was Heiβt ein Gott Haben Oder Was ist Gott? Bemerkungen zu Luthers Auslegung des ersten Gebots im Groβen Katechismus,” in Wort und Glaube, v. II: Beiträge zur Fundamentaltheologie und zur Lehre von Gott (Tübingen: Mohr, 1969), 293. Luther and Liberation 38 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

cooking, and to make themselves a god, before whom they prostrate themselves in adoration. The novelty of Feuerbach is not found, therefore, in the idea itself. It resides, in the first place, in the universality of the affirmation. For in Feuerbach the accusation of the creation of images is not made in opposition to the one true God. For him, there was no true God in opposition to the god-image. Every god is a human projection. The second novelty in Feuerbach’s formulation is that the definition is not understood as negative but critical,31 an expression of a reality that must be consciously assumed. His perception was, according to him, liberating for human beings, who then are free to build their own destiny and to be responsible for their own history, engaged in love: Hence the historical progress of religion consists in this: that what by an earlier religion was regarded as objective, is now recognised as subjective; that is, what was formerly contemplated and worshiped as God is now perceived to be something human. What was at first religion becomes at a later period idolatry; man is seen to have adored his own nature. Man has given objectivity to himself, but has not recognised the object as his own nature: a later religion takes this forward step; every advance in religion is therefore a deeper self-knowledge.32 This point, therefore, opens a chasm between Luther and Feuerbach, although both had discerned the same mechanism of the making of idols. In Luther there was an opposition between the true God and the fallen human being. It is an ontologically positive and prior relationship, without antagonism, equivalent for Luther to his own creation of an idolatrous image. Hans Joachim Iwand, interpreting Luther, formulated the relationship this way: 31. “Our relation to religion is [. . .] not merely negative but a critical one; we only separate the true from the false [. . .]. Religion is the first form of self-consciousness” (Feuerbach, 270). 32. Ibid., 13 (italics in the original). See also Rubem Alves, “Deus Morreu—Viva Deus,” in Liberdade e Fé, ed. Rubem Alves et al. (Rio de Janeiro: Tempo e Presença, 1972), 9–34; also Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, ed. and trans. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 125–26. The God of Life Against All Falsehood of the Idols of Death 39 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

When thinking of God thus as someone I crave to have and desire, I suppress him. God in accordance with me, thought of analogous to a human being, adequate for him, this is the non-god. . . . Religion, in this sense, is annihilatio Dei (the annihilation of God).33 Consequently, according to Luther, for a positive relationship to occur between God and humans, there must be, first, surrender. The richness and deep coherence of Luther’s theological conceptions consist in that this surrender is not simply from the human being alone but it is preceded by God’s own surrender on behalf of human beings. God is defined for human beings in the surrender of Christ on the cross, as we have seen. And human beings surrender themselves through faith, giving reason to God, justifying God, as Luther said.34 Or, according to the Reformer, human beings affirm themselves, thus annihilating God. And they do it creating a god, who adjusts to them, to their own desires, their particular interests, their ideologies—an idol. In Feuerbach, on the contrary, the human being has to become conscious of her own project, maturely assuming its construction, not counting on any god. In this, in particular, Luther’s vision is revolutionary, the human being in relation to God. He envisaged real and totally new human beings, who overcome their alienation, not merely renewed through their own initiative and strength—this, indeed, would be the same old human beings who deceptively project themselves—but as a new creature. It is clear that the concept of a “new creature” turns to God, the creator God.35 In Christ, however, this God reveals Godself as merciful, which, by definition, demands faith, through which the human being, in turn, “justifies” God. 33. Iwand, 33. 34. See Hans Joachim Iwand, Glaubensgerechtigkeit nach Luthers Lehre, 2nd ed. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1951), 11–14. Christology and justification by faith will be discussed more extensively in separate chapters of this book (see chapters 3 and 4). 35. This is one of the fundamental meanings of the first article of the Apostolic Creed. Luther and Liberation 40 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Who is the true God? How should we refer to God? After all, aren’t there only idols, human projections, as Feuerbach wants? How can we distinguish between idols and the true God? Feuerbach noted that in the evolutionary process of religions, the gods of the more primitive religions are always idols to a later religion. The superior religion grew in knowledge of humanity and nature, but not enough to realize that their “god” was an expression of the same projection mechanism, although more lofty.36 However, if we follow Luther’s reasoning, the fundamental difference is that, although we expect from the true God all good and refuge in our time of need, God does not disappear in adversity, that is, in the absence of the goodness expected from God. This makes sense, in that God is not a “confirmer of human projects” god, but one in opposition to fallen humanity and the reality of injustice, leading to the creation of a new confident human being through faith and, thus freed, engaged in the establishment of a new reality of justice and fraternity. What does faith cling to? Returning to the explanation of the First Commandment, in the Large Catechism, Luther based the prohibition of worshipping other gods in the promise of the one God: “I, I want to give you. . . .” The fulfillment of the commandments is anchored in the reception of the Gospel. Therefore, faith, although awaiting all good from God, does not cease in tribulation, that is, in the opposite of what was expected. According to Luther, it is precisely the believers who might be driven to the deepest abyss, indeed to hell, who will be sustained there, having their shackles broken. The true God and true faith pass this last decisive test. Is this nothing but illusion, infinitely greater than the fabrication of 36. See Ebeling, Evangelium, 256–57. The God of Life Against All Falsehood of the Idols of Death 41 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

all the idols, being even more unreal, a religious absurdity extended to infinity? Luther understood this argument: For the world sees that those who trust in God and not in mammon suffer grief and want. [ . . . ] Conversely, those who serve mammon have power, prestige, honor, possessions, and all sorts of security in the world’s eyes.37 Wouldn’t abiding by the promise of God bring about, then, inevitably even more than an illusion, in other words, conformity with the alienated situation and ethical passivity in the face of others’ needs and injustices? Yet Luther saw it exactly the other way: “Therefore, we must hold fast to these words, even in the face of this apparent contradiction, [in the original—BS, 570- literally: ‘against what it appears to be’], and be certain that they do not lie or deceive but will yet prove true.”38 From God’s promise the believer does not derive submission and passivity, but protest and involvement, just as for Luther the Gospel led to new life. Therefore, faith is always an active faith. Or it is not faith.39 III. The Relevance and Limits of Luther’s Concept of God for Latin America Today Luther foresaw brilliantly the mechanisms of the fabrication of idols, opposing them to faith in God who reveals Godself sub contrario, on the cross, and through God’s promise inaugurates a personal practice of non-conformity with evil, injustice, and oppression. These aspects 37. LC, BC, 391. 38. Ibid., 370. Italics mine. 39. This explains why Luther in 1520 already ranks faith as the first and essential work, fulfilling the First Commandment, from which derive all other good works. (Martin Luther, Treatise on good works, LW 44:23–26.) Also in the Catechisms of 1529 the fulfillment of the First Commandment, given through faith, is the basis for the fulfillment of all the others. Therefore, Luther began, in the explanations for all Ten Commandments, in the Small Catechism, in a stereotypical way: “We are to fear and love God, so that . . .” (Small Catechism [SC], BC, 352–54). Luther and Liberation 42 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

have a lasting relevance for the Latin American situation today and its search for God’s justice, for a God of life over against the idols of death. Without doubt, the fact that Luther denounced Mammon,40 that is, riches, as the greatest idol of all, is also highly relevant. In fact, in Latin America as well capital has been recognized as an extremely powerful god, on whose altar entire peoples are sacrificed.41 In short, in what is referred to as a theology of God, we have to preserve—or rediscover—Luther in the following three elements: 1. God is on the side of those who suffer: God’s preferential place is Christologically determined. God is on the side of those who are anguished, those who depend on God. God is the hidden God who reveals Godself on the cross, not in power but in weakness. Over against the eagerness for progress and upward mobility, as well as systems of domination and privilege, Luther detected God side by side with the sinners, the weak, the impoverished, the needy, and those who suffer injustice. In Christ, God has identified with them, manifesting a redemptive and liberating solidarity. 2. God is against the idols: God is a radical critique of all the idols who want to ideologically cover up a system that causes human suffering and death or that preserves the deadly established 40. See Per Frostin, “God versus Capitalism: Would Luther Have Enjoyed Marx?,” WSCF Journal IV, no. 2/3 (1983): 13. It seems symptomatic of a theological work detached from the concern for the material conditions of life that, Gerhard Ebeling, in interpreting the First Commandment according to Luther’s explanation (Luther, 248–51), did so in a universalizing way, considering only the inseparable relationship between God and faith, and omitting the concreteness of idols, including Mammon, so present in Luther. 41. See Hinkelammert, especially 23–84. In the original version of my text, I updated the theme largely in relation to economic matters such as the development model, the wage squeeze, and external debt. In the context of the critique, there was also the following sentence: “hence, this is why social progress becomes an impossibility or, at best, a fleeting fictitious reality, while the debt cannot be settled” (Altmann, 80). The prediction was made in 1977 and sadly confirmed in full with the later development of the question of debt in the Two-Thirds World, throughout the 80s and 90s. The God of Life Against All Falsehood of the Idols of Death 43 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

injustices, through individual compensation or more, thus ensuring peoples’ uncritical adjustment to the oppressive reality. In spite of the preponderance of God’s grace, God does not cease to be a radical judge. God’s solidarity in Christ is not the confirmation of the status quo but its judgment. God in weakness is the judge of the strong (both of those who are and those who seek to be strong). In this sense, Christ is, undoubtedly, in the Gospels, comfort for the poor and in opposition to the powerful. 3. A divine promise that calls one to believe against all appearances, and struggle against the reality conditioned by the idols: God is the one who, through God’s promise, strengthens those who are anguished, gives them hope “against what it appears to be” and struggles together so that the liberating promise is realized. God is the source of promise, hope, and struggle. Luther emphasized the word of God as a promise to be believed instead of the apparent reality. This promise becomes hope, and hope leads us to persevere in protest and action. The promise averts frustration in the case of a lack of success in our endeavors, which would in turn lead either to impotent adaptation or to the attempt of imposing our projects by any means. For those who trust in God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, the promise entails a singular perseverance in the midst of adversity. We rediscovered and updated these elements of Luther’s theology. We must do so, however, aware of being in a different historical situation, both in the Church and in Protestantism in particular, as in Latin America in general. Our praxeological point of departure is clearly defined: solidarity with those who suffer under the power of the “gods of death,” the idols culminating in Mammon, the driving force of the whole system prevailing in Latin America, and the predominant cause of the suffering of the Latin American people. Luther and Liberation 44 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Unlike Luther, we must take up today the question of the global effectiveness of idols, opposing it to the relations of God with God’s people, thus: God’s promise to the people and the trust of God’s people in it. For example, when speaking of Mammon as an idol, one cannot have in mind only the personal greed Mammon evokes, but also the decisive role it plays throughout the socio-politicaleconomic structures. Therefore, the critique of and resistance to this idol should occur not only in the heart and interpersonal relationships but specifically in social relations. Thus, we must condemn in all ways the privatization of faith, which occurred with frequency and perseverance within Protestantism, as well as the limitation of faith to personal morality, leaving intact social, political, and economic structures. It is precisely this privatization that must be denounced as a sophisticated adaptation of the god Mammon, through its acceptance of the social structures of death. Consequently, in this type of Christianity the dimension of God’s promise is taken out of the concrete relations of life and death—as it was in Luther, though in a somewhat individualized form—to be thrown into the beyond.42 One lives, then, in this world, holding fast to the promise of the beyond. Then God is not opposed to idols; on the contrary, God and the idols have divided the world into different realms, giving the idols the here and now, pushing God into the 42. It is significant that the path, that Luther was tempted by, was one into which Protestantism frequently fell. It begins with losing the dimension of the promise to be able to be “against all appearances.” Substituting any guarantee for the promise, Protestantism settles itself structurally into territorial churches. There is an attempt to keep Luther as a relic, abdicating, in a second step, the concreteness and radicality of God’s judgment. Consequently, it becomes unable to detect and denunciate the idols, instead covering up the ideologies of death, which should have been unmasked in the name of God’s promise and judgment. It is not surprising then that, in the end, this Protestantism is unable to be, with Christ, together with the poor, marginalized, and needy, privileging instead the powerful and even subserviently allies itself with totalitarian regimes and states. The God of Life Against All Falsehood of the Idols of Death 45 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

future. God, then, ceases to be a just God, in the sense understood in Latin America, but a God who gives in to injustice. Thus positioned, we can resist, rediscovering God’s promise against the reality of injustice, that is, we can and must entrust our hearts and bodies to the justice of God’s promise. Thus, we will serve God and renounce the idols. The name of God will no longer be taken in vain. Luther and Liberation 46 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:59:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

3 In the Cross of Christ, Victory over All Evil How can we understand the redemptive work of Christ, according to Luther, and what is its significance for us today, in our specific context? I. The Christological Question Luther lived exactly at the beginning of the conquest and colonization of Latin America by the Spanish and the Portuguese. If we look at the history of the research and images of Jesus throughout these centuries, we find how differently the issues are highlighted in Central Europe and Latin America. As we have seen, the Reformation of Luther occurred in a time of profound transition.1 Feudalism gave way to the first forms of mercantile capitalism. Absolute territorial and nation states, independent of ecclesiastical or papal protection, were being formed. Renaissance culture, even when religious, focused on the values, beauty, and potentiality of the human being, in contrast with medieval culture, which was focused on God. 1. See chapter 1 in this book: Luther at the Crossroads between the Old and the New. 47 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1. European Research Later, we discuss Luther’s Christology in more depth. From the outset, however, let me stress what should be obvious: we will not find the distinction between what later European research came to call Christological dogma and the historical Jesus. In Luther, they still coincided, naturally. Beginning with the Enlightenment, however, in the late eighteenth century, many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus’ life, often under the premise that the historical Jesus, once discovered, would liberate people from the shackles established by the Church with its Christological dogmas. There was an assumed contradiction between the historical Jesus and Christological dogma. Nineteenth-century, central-European research was in this respect simultaneously fascinating and tragic. Numerous discoveries relating to biblical texts (the Gospels in particular) were recorded, and characteristics of the work and preaching of Jesus, hitherto concealed by theology, were highlighted. However, the new research was a failure in its aim to reconstruct the life of Jesus. Because, as Albert Schweitzer showed in his monumental The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906),2 there were as many versions of the “historical Jesus” as there were researchers. Schweitzer traced images ranging from a social revolutionary Jesus to an impostor Jesus, head of a secret society, and even Jesus as a romantic lover. Who was the real Jesus? European theological research of the twentieth century came to emphasize that the true historical Jesus is the Christ preached through faith (Martin Kähler).3 This emphasized 2. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (New York: Macmillan, 1961). This is the title used after 1913 for the work originally published in 1906 under the title From Reimarus to Wrede. 3. Martin Kähler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, ed. and trans. Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964). This lecture was given by Kahler in 1892. Luther and Liberation 48 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

that the Gospel pericopes are not, in essence, historical accounts, but kerygmatic texts, that is, proclamation of the good news of salvation in Christ. That is to say, the awareness of the difference between the historical Jesus and the Christ proclaimed was eventually incorporated positively into theology. Now it is only asserted, in contrast to the previous century, that it is not possible to reconstruct the life of Jesus and what, strictly speaking, is of interest is only the Christ proclaimed and received through faith. The pinnacle of this evolution is found in Rudolf Bultmann,4 for whom the story of Jesus’ life has no salvific significance, with the exception of the event of his death on the cross. In the last decades of the twentieth century, European theology began to see the value of the historical Jesus no longer in its a biographical construction, but in its expression that the Christ preached and confessed is none other than the one who lived and died with certain identifiable peculiarities and under specific historical circumstances. It came to emphasize that faith has a concrete historical dimension. If we cannot reconstruct the life of Jesus, we still cannot help noticing some characteristics of his action and proclamation, such as his authority over the Mosaic law and his intimacy with the poor of the earth.5 4. See Rudolf Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology: And Other Basic Writings, trans. ed. Shubert M. Ogden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). In his article “On the Question of Christology” he said: “I have never yet felt uncomfortable with my critical radicalism; on the contrary, I have been entirely comfortable. But I often have the impression that my conservative New Testament colleagues feel very uncomfortable, for I see them perpetually engaged in salvage operations. I calmly let the fire burn, for I see that what is consumed is only the fanciful portraits of Life-of-Jesus theology.” See Rudolf Bultmann, Faith and Understanding, I, ed. Robert Funk, trans. Louise Pettibone Smith (New York: Harper, 1969), 132. However, in the article “On the Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul,” he said: “It is not the historical Jesus, but Jesus Christ, the Christ, preached, who is the Lord” (Ibid., 241). 5. See for example, the positions of Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James Robinson (New York: Harpers & Brothers, 1960) and Ernst Käsemann, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1964), 15–47. Later, under the influence of research that emphasized the social dimension of the actions of Jesus, it was possible to more strongly In the Cross of Christ, Victory over All Evil 49 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2. Latin American Research If we look at Latin America, we find that in this continent the importance of the historical Jesus has been felt intensely.6 Throughout the history of the colonization of this continent, two images of Jesus crystallized: a dead Jesus and a celestial monarch Jesus.7 The first image was largely a reflection of the experience of the common people under Arab and Muslim domination.8 Jesus suffered for the people, but was helpless, powerless, and defeated. The image of the dead Christ is carried in processions and ardently venerated. The people identify with the suffering of Christ and his shed blood, although they were not mobilized to the task of transforming their situation of suffering. On the other hand, we have the image of Jesus as the heavenly monarch; Jesus is seen in the image of the King (of Spain or Portugal). His glory and power, however, are transferred to the heavens. Like the king on earth, Jesus rules as monarch in heaven. The power, glory, and richness of Jesus are not instruments of change for unjust realities; they are not agents, but attributes that serve to legitimize (ideologically) the dominant power of the Spanish or Portuguese crown, particularly over land. emphasize the political and social dimension of the preaching and action of Jesus, as well as the political reasons for the Roman authorities condemning him to death. See in this respect, the interesting fictionalized book by the theologian Gerd Theissen, The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest of the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). John Dominic Crossan’s The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991) addressed the question by describing Jesus as a oppressed and poor Jewish peasant. Together with Annette Merz, Theissen also published a guide to the research into the historical Jesus: Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998). 6. For example, Jon Sobrino, Jesus in Latin America, trans. Robert R. Barr (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987), esp. 55–77. 7. José Miguez Bonino et al, Faces of Jesus: Latin American Christologies (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1984). 8. John Alexander Mackay, The Other Spanish Christ: A Study in the Spiritual History of Spain and South America (New York: MacMillan, 1933). Luther and Liberation 50 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

However, we can also see the other, more positive side, of these images. On the one hand, we can still detect in the image of Jesus as celestial monarch, albeit in a radically distorted way, the legitimate and necessary reminder of Christ’s lordship, lordship over all the powers and, thus, the limits and judgment of these, in the sense of the Magnificat: “Brought down the mighty from their thrones and lifted up the lowly” (Luke 1:52). In the case of the dead Jesus, on the other hand, it should not escape our notice that during the centuries of oppression, often without an immediate chance of escape on the part of the oppressed, that image has been important for the essential survival of a critical conscience. It is, in the most literal sense, a passive resistance. The lifeless and dead Jesus should be seen, therefore, first of all, as a victim of evil and injustice, not its legitimator. It is true that the combination of the two images played a particularly nefarious role throughout the history of Latin America. When, on the one hand, Jesus’ power is transferred to the heavens, to the image of the effective terrestrial power of the king, and, on the other, remains a defeated Jesus for oppressed people to venerate and identify with, the result is, obviously, support for systems of domination. The task remains, therefore, to rescue the revolutionary potential of these images, as an expression of the complete solidarity of Jesus with those who suffer (the dead Jesus), and of the full lordship of Jesus over every other power (heavenly monarch). Certainly, in this process the images themselves will have to undergo transformations, to express the historical experience of liberation, through death to a new life.9 Now, I know of no other theological instrument for the transformation of traditional Christological images and their 9. See Ulrich Schoenborn, “O Camponês Crucificado,” in Fé entre História e Experiência: Migalhas Exegéticas (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1982), 60–113. From the same author: “Da Projeção Alienante à Metáfora Cristológica” (Ibid., 114–38). In the Cross of Christ, Victory over All Evil 51 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

function, than a return to the historical Jesus. Because, in this, we rediscover Jesus’ active identification with the poor, the weak, the marginalized, and needy (and not just his acceptance and forgiveness of sins). Assuming that this transformation, through the recollection of the historical Jesus, can also be the expression of a process of emerging from passivity to liberating action, there is a theological question to be resolved: How can we relate the inspiration for (our) liberating action and the liberating action effected and given as a gift by Christ? Can Luther help us with this question? II. Luther’s Christology Luther did not have the modern consciousness of a distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. Fundamentally, they coincided. Luther could easily narrate the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life. With equal ease, he could transport this to his own reality, always highlighting, however, the Jesus who justifies by grace through faith.10 1. A Living and Compassionate Christ Moreover, if we impose on Luther the modern distinction between the Christ of faith and the historical Jesus, he certainly would have preferred to confess Christ’s current action, in favor of people, rather than to narrate past events. Luther privileged the Gospel of John, with its extensive discourses of Jesus, over the synoptic Gospels, with their many accounts of Jesus’ actions during his life. The Reformer expressed suspicion and reservation about what he calls fides historica (“historical faith”).11 He criticized this faith for delighting in and 10. In this respect, it is suggestive to see, in the preaching of Luther, in particular around the texts of the synoptic gospels, with what ease (but also liberty) he made use of the narrated stories. 11. Hans Joachim Iwand, Glaubensgerechtigkeit nach Luthers Lehre, 2nd ed. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1951), 64–65. Luther and Liberation 52 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

being satisfied with what happened in the past, not experiencing the present work of Christ. The historical narrative of Jesus’ life alone does little good. It is reminiscent of something past and ineffectual. In my view, Luther’s position has a very specific contextual reason. Luther suspected that Jesus had been left in the past, so that the Church could take his place in the present. Institutional interests thus overlaid the proclamation of the gospel. Instead of being the instrumental and selfless spokesperson for the message of the free salvation of Christ, the institutional Church took the place of Christ, establishing itself as a manager and commercial steward of Christ’s grace. So, to combat the traffic in indulgences, Luther saw as indispensable the separation of the freedom of Christ and his gifts from administrative captivity in the institutional Church. His 95 Theses of 1517, which has gone down in history as the Reformation, had these two fundamental themes: “the entire life of believers to be one of repentance” (Thesis 1); and that God’s forgiveness is truly granted (Thesis 37).12 Or, as Luther put it in a particularly provocative way in Thesis 45: “Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath.”13 That is to say, Luther rejected the trade in Christ’s grace and therefore emphasized the relevance of Christ and faith, dispensing with institutional intermediaries. Another point to highlight is that, for Luther, Christology is developed from the perspective of redemption. His Christology is fundamentally soteriological. “Who and what Christ is is never a theoretical but always a practical question.”14 This aspect has two 12. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–), 31:25, 29. Cited hereafter as LW. 13. Ibid., 29. In the Cross of Christ, Victory over All Evil 53 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

parts. Luther was not as interested in who Jesus is as what he does and provides. Or rather, Luther was interested in who Jesus is only for what he does and provides. In Jesus’ work we discover his person, and not vice versa. It is clear that in faith we confess that all Jesus does is done because he, in fact, is who he is, that is: God and human. But our experiential and cognitive access to Jesus is through Jesus’ work and words. We note that Luther emphasized here not past works in the life of Jesus, but current works through which he justifies and renews each day those who believe in him. With this we already come to the second part: everything Jesus does, he does for me, for us. The traditional theological jargon, in Latin phrases, speaks of pro me or of pro nobis in speaking of the saving action of Jesus. This category of pro nobis has in fact a double aspect: in our place and in our favor. Jesus takes our place, so we can occupy his. Following Luther, it is a wonderful “happy exchange”15 (fröhliches Wechsel): Jesus, the righteous one, becomes the sinner; we, the sinners, become righteous. Humanity’s sin is cast upon Jesus; his righteousness is given to us. He dies; we live. I summarize this topic with the following characteristic quote from Luther: It is, of course, true that Christ is the purest of persons; but this is not the place to stop. For you do not yet have Christ, even though you know that He is God and man. You truly have Him only when you believe that this altogether pure and innocent Person has been granted to you by the Father as your High Priest and Redeemer, yes, as your Slave.16 14. Lennart Pinomaa, Sieg des Glaubens: Grundlinien der Theologie Luthers (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 90. [Translator’s note: The American edition of Pinomaa’s book, Faith Victorious, trans. Walter J. Kukkonen (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), leaves out the paragraph in which this statement appears.] 15. Iwand, 63. 16. LW 26:287–88. Luther and Liberation 54 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2. The Christological Article and Its Concentration in the Cross of Christ I intend to show the essential features of Luther’s Christology in his exposition of the second article of the Apostles’ Creed, that is, the Christological article. The text of the Apostolic Creed is remarkably objective and descriptive: [I believe] in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and buried. He descended to hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into the heavens. He is seated at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.17 As I said, the objective facts of the story of salvation in Christ are listed. Except for the possessive “our (Lord),” any explicit interpretation is omitted, as is any updating or reference to the person who confesses faith. This is exactly, in contrast, the emphasis in Luther’s explanation. I will refer to the exposition in the Large Catechism, but at first I quote in full the interpretation of the Small Catechism, highlighting its structure, through the layout: I believe that 1. Jesus Christ, ◦ 1 true God, begotten of the Father in eternity, ◦ 2 and also a true human being, born of the Virgin Mary, 2. Is my LORD, ◦ 1 He has redeemed me, a lost and condemned human being. 17. Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert, eds., The Book of Concord: The Confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 21-22, hereafter abbreviated as BC. See also with small variations, Small Catechism (SC), BC, 355, and Large Catechism (LC), BC, 434. In the Cross of Christ, Victory over All Evil 55 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

◦ 2 He has purchased and freed me from all sins, from death and from the power of the devil, ◦ 3 not with gold or silver but with his holy, precious blood and with his innocent suffering and death; 3. He has done all this in order that I may belong to him, ◦ 1 live under him in his kingdom, ◦ 2 and serve him in eternal righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, 4. just as he is risen from the dead and lives and rules eternally. This is most certainly true.18 Observe the following points: First, let us separate out the introduction (“I believe that”) and the concluding statement (“This is most certainly true”). The content itself remains the confession of faith in Christ, the doctrinal core. Next we move through each phrase. The first assertion (“Jesus Christ, true God [. . .] true man [. . .]” that is, human being)19 is an undisputed premise. Luther thus recapitulated the dogmatic formulation of the early church. The second assertion (“is my LORD”) is his central thesis, as indicated by the capital letters. The lordship of Christ is identified as the foundation of everything, “the substance of the article.”20 Following this is the development of the thesis, characterized by the current saving work, foremost is redemption (“has redeemed me”), later elucidated as liberation from the oppressive powers of sin, death, and the devil (the Large Catechism adds “all misfortune”),21 all powers that the Large 18. SC, BC, 355. 19. Consulting the original Greek (in which the term is “ánthropos” not “andrós”) and the ancient Latin translation (“homo” not “vir”) of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds confirms that the confession of faith refers to the humanity of Jesus, and not the fact that he is a representative of the masculine sex. Luther, equally, used the generic term “Mensch” not the specific “Mann.” 20. BC, 434. Luther and Liberation 56 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Catechism classifies symptomatically as “tyrants and jailers.”22 The following is broken down to show the price paid by Jesus, in his work (“not with silver or gold, but with his holy and precious blood and with his innocent sufferings and death”). Already in this part, Luther repeatedly introduced the person who confesses faith: “my Lord,” “has redeemed me,” “has delivered me.” That is, Luther decisively abandoned the objective tone of the Apostolic Creed, to apply it directly to the person confessing faith today. The work of Jesus is for the people, today. This purpose of his work is highlighted in the third assertion: “In order that I might be his own.” It is clearly parallel to “is my LORD.” Jesus Christ is my Lord, so that I can be his. The vice versa is also true: as I belong to Jesus, he is my Lord. “Jesus Christ [. . .] is my LORD, [. . .] in order that I may be his own” is, therefore, the fundamental assertion of Luther. To belong to Jesus, in turn, immediately unfurls to: live “under him in his kingdom” and serve him “in eternal righteousness, innocence, and blessedness.” These are, therefore, the fruits of the liberating work of Jesus. Luther was not content, evidently, with an intimate and spiritual commitment to Jesus as Lord. Finally, in the fourth assertion, Luther returned to the original dogmatic premise, testifying to the victory of Christ through the resurrection as the premise that underlies the new life of the believer (“even as he is risen from the dead and lives and reigns to all eternity”). The fruits of the new life of the believer are not produced through self-sufficiency, but are by grace a result of the power of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. I indicated the overall structure of the text of the Small Catechism, now we will move deeper into some specific observations. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. In the Cross of Christ, Victory over All Evil 57 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2.1 Redemption Through the Complete Emptying of Jesus Luther faithfully reproduced the depth of the descending line that we can observe in the Apostolic Creed, so reminiscent of the famous Christological hymn of Phil. 2:5-11: Jesus comes from the Father, born of Mary, dies the death of the cross, descends to the underworld and submits himself to the evil powers, in order to be victorious through the resurrection for an eternal kingdom. This is the mark of the “theology of the cross”23 so characteristic of Luther. It is a total emptying. The second article and Luther’s explanation reproduce this trajectory. Already when he spoke of Jesus’ humanity and life, Luther was pleased to highlight Jesus’ fragility and dependence. In his Christmas sermons, he repeatedly emphasized the infant Jesus’ humanity and fragility;24 he is really dependent. In his famous explication of the Magnificat, 25 Mary’s canticle, he never tired of emphasizing that Jesus was born of a poor and humble woman of the people, who the beautiful daughters of the powerful would not even have wanted for a housemaid. “The more we draw Christ down into nature and into the flesh, the more consolation accrues for us.”26 We hear this in Luther’s preaching. This emptying that Jesus submitted himself to is exclusively in our favor because he himself had no need to give up his glory in God. He did it solely out of mercy. And this emptying 23. As to Luther’s theology of the cross, see Walther von Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976) and Gerhard O. Forde, “The Work of Christ,” in Christian Dogmatics, v. 2, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 1–99. Thesis 21 of Luther in the Heidelberg debate (1518) is classic: “A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is” (LW 31:40; see also theses 19-20 and 22-24). 24. See Harding Meyer, Euch ist Heute der Heiland Geboren: die Gestalten der Christnacht mit Luther Gedeutet (Göttingen: Vendenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 36–47. 25. LW 21, 297-358. For a comparison of Luther and Gustavo Gutiérrez, see Hermann Brandt, Espiritualidade: Motivações e Critérios (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1978). 26. LW 52:12. Luther and Liberation 58 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

was total. In a complete reversal of the dominant values today, Jesus did not buy the ransom with gold or silver, but gave effectively all that he could give: his own life. Luther returned here to the biblical theme of 1 Pet. 1:18-19: the innocent suffers in place and in favor of the condemned. 2.2. Through the Cross, Victory over Tyrannical Powers The emptying of Jesus is sharpened in his fight against tyrannical powers. It is important to observe the drama of this battle, as Luther described it. Jesus empties himself into the situation of the captivity of humanity. Moreover, he goes into the depths of hell to liberate the prisoners. A combat of historical and cosmic dimensions befalls him. Christ becomes the supreme and only sinner, he who is eternal and unsurpassed justice. All the sin of the world is hurled, with all anger and virulence, against his justice. It is, literally, a struggle between life and death. Sin launches itself against justice, curses against blessings, death against life. Everything falls on this one: Jesus. He becomes, according to Luther, “at the same time cursed and blessed, at the same time alive and dead, at the same time grieving and rejoicing.”27 Luther’s Christology is, therefore, eminently combative. What is the result of the battle? Marvel at this: Christ emerges victorious; Satan and evil fall defeated. Sin is mighty but God’s justice overcomes it. Death is terrifying, but Jesus’ life brings the “death of death.” Evil extends itself all over the world, but God’s blessing is indestructible. Because all injustice and evil are killed, all curses and death are on this one, Jesus, demanding his solitude, suffering, pain and death, so Luther could declare: Those tyrants and jailers now have been routed, and their place has been taken by Jesus Christ, the Lord of life, righteousness, and every good and 27. LW 10:364–65. In the Cross of Christ, Victory over All Evil 59 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

blessing. He has snatched us, poor lost creatures, from the jaws of hell, won us, made us free, and restored us to the Father’s favor and grace. As his own possession, he has taken us under his protection and shelter, in order that he may rule us by his righteousness, wisdom, power, life and blessedness.28 This is the victory of the cross that transforms everything. Even in 1512, some years before the date attributed by history to the Reformation, Luther asserted confidently: “With Christ present, everything can be overcome.”29 2.3. New Life, Also Marked by the Experience of the Cross The emptying of Jesus has as its counterpart an equal transformation in the situation of the human being, only in reverse: from slavery to freedom. The Large Catechism characterizes it thus: Jesus is Lord and Redeemer, “that is, he who has brought us back from the devil to God, from death to life, from sin to righteousness, and keeps us there.”30 In the words of the Small Catechism: the “lost and condemned creature,” captive, is liberated and transformed to serve Christ “in eternal righteousness, innocence, and blessedness.”31 We observe carefully: Luther’s theology has been under suspicion, many times provoked by Lutherans themselves distorting Luther, that his doctrine of justification by faith, excluding good works from the salvific act and attributing it all to God, would lead to ethical passivity. Luther’s interpretation of the second article of the Apostolic Creed—where we would think, perhaps, that in fact it would not be necessary to speak of Christian ethics—directly contradicted this suspicion: everything Jesus does to rescue the captive has a clear 28. BC, 434. 29. “Christo Autem Praesente Omnia Superabilia.” See D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimer: Hermann Böhlau, 1983), 1, 16, 29s, hereafter abbreviated as WA. 30. BC, 434. 31. BC, 355. Luther and Liberation 60 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

purpose in the person who is the object of his liberating action: service in righteousness, innocence, and blessedness. Luther stated succinctly in a certain passage, “He is our abstraction, and we are His concretion.”32 The wonderful exchange that made the righteous Christ the sinner and we sinners righteous is not arbitrary speculation; it is, instead, experiential, practical truth. Now we must introduce another point. While the reality of the world and of life continues to be marked by the power of evil and injustice, although already defeated in Christ, the new life of those redeemed by Christ will take the same shape as his life. That is, the provisional mark of new life is not glory, but the cross. It is true that Luther abandoned the medieval figure of the imitation of Christ. But Luther replaced the term “imitation of Christ” with another, certainly far more radical: “conformation with Christ.”33 Note the term in Latin: conformitas. It has nothing to do with conformity and stagnation. On the contrary, it is “con-formitas,” that is, to become “con-formed” with Christ, to take on the same form as Christ. Yes: through the wonderful exchange between Christ and those who believe in him, one comes to merge with Christ, if one holds on to him, and is led by him to new life.34 That is, while the term “imitation of Christ” suggests a human capacity to repeat his work, the expression “conformation with Christ” indicates that whoever believes is placed by God on the path of a new life, thanks to the unconditional gift of Christ. Free from bondage, free from sin, death, and the curse, the new life is expressed in accordance with the cross of Christ, in the same downward movement of God’s love to the depth 32. LW 11:318. 33. See Iwand, 60–62. As to the transformation of the concept of the “imitation of Christ,” see also Karl Holl, The Reconstruction of Morality, ed., James Adams and Walter Bense (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979), 71. Also in the German original: Karl Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, v. 1. Luther (Tübingen: Mohr, 1923), 208, footnote 1. 34. Iwand, 61. In the Cross of Christ, Victory over All Evil 61 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of evil and suffering, in the same emptying of mercy, in the same carrying of heavy burdens, in shared loneliness. To suffer, according to Luther, is the royal attire of the Christian. Now, conformation in the cross; in the end, conformation in glory.35 III. Conclusion Let’s ask ourselves now to what extent Luther’s Christology remains relevant today, for those who live within this dramatic Latin American historical development. We venture the following considerations. 1. The Rediscovery of the Value of the Historical Jesus Obviously, we will not find in Luther any formal support for the rediscovery, in Latin America, of the value of the historical Jesus for the practice of liberation. This is so because, as we have seen, for him the distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith had not yet developed. At the literal level, we might even find what some might be tempted to classify as “spiritualizing tendencies” in Luther’s criticism of the so-called “historical faith.” We recognize, however, a specific historical context for this position of Luther, that is, the rediscovery of the freedom and grace of God in the face of the Church’s commodified usurping of the means of grace. His assertions may not be simply repeated without modification, when in the new historical situations the Church does not function 35. It is true that this idea can be abused—and in fact was with remarkable frequency—when exploitative, dominating, and oppressive forces suggest to people why they are exploited, dominated, and oppressed and must endure suffering with patience: masters over against slaves, whites over against black and native peoples, men over against women. Following Leonardo Boff, we must distinguish between a suffering that is imposed on people—and to which the only possible response for a Christian is to protest and resist—and a suffering that is a consequence of solidarity, a “suffering that is born in the struggle against suffering.” See Leonardo Boff, Passion of Christ, Passion of the World: The Fact, their Interpretation and their Meaning Yesterday and Today, trans. Robert Barr (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1977), 117. Luther and Liberation 62 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

as a fundamental structure of domination but is open to being an instrument of liberation, amidst oppressive systems that do not stem from it but that, on the contrary, are independent of it or even in opposition to it. Conversely, it is important to remember that the specific context of the rediscovery of the historical Jesus in Latin America is not, as it was in previous centuries in Europe, of antidogmatic sentiments, but the necessity of de-spiritualizing Jesus, instead, experiencing Jesus within the concrete reality of this continent. One good example of the need for reformulation in different contexts is the issue of the paradigmatic features of Jesus, which in Luther is related to the issue of the hidden God. For where would God be in this Jesus who is so unique and so deprived? Jesus was born in a stable; no room was available to Mary in her advanced state of pregnancy. And he died on a cross, between two murderers, outside the city, in a profane and condemned place. The life of Jesus unfolds between these two moments, the one of birth and the one of death, both in abandonment and weakness. The trajectory of his life proceeded in accordance with this principle, and to this end. In the light of faith, of our trust, we see God present there—precisely there. Without faith, however, it would not be possible to detect God’s presence; we would only see one man who tragically failed. Now, the hallmark one sees in the course of Jesus’ life was his presence in solidarity alongside all those who were in need, were marginalized, and who suffered because of injustice and oppression. This begins with the sick, with those who suffered physically or psychologically, and because of this, may have been socially marginalized. He was there in solidarity with these people and ready to help them. It continues with women, whose dignity Jesus affirmed through his words and, above all, through his deeds. It continues with those who have been displaced from the land, with the hungry, In the Cross of Christ, Victory over All Evil 63 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and with those persecuted by evil spirits. He welcomed the children, moved away from the adults, who were self-sufficient. He proclaimed the poor blessed, who in the Gospel of Luke (6:20) are not the poor in spirit, as in Matthew (5:3), but the physically poor, made poor by a system that generates poor people. He exalted the people broken under the weight of their guilt and unmasked the supposed holy ones. These, among others, are characteristic features of Jesus. One cannot simply spiritualize them, turning the Jesus of “flesh and blood” into a Platonic Christ, sweet and harmonious for all. In these characteristic traits of his life we must seek the meaning of the historical Jesus. 2. Christology in Soteriological Perspective It is important to understand Christology from the perspective of soteriology, so it is not distorted, turned into a legitimating theology, as we can see with the image of Christ as a celestial monarch. If we keep Christ’s work as the gateway to the person of Christ, then the image of the king, the celestial monarch, has to be measured by what the particular king, Christ, concretely does. Jesus’ lordship is active, walking the path of emptying, the kenotic trajectory to the cross. In this context of the theology of the cross, of the kenosis of Jesus, we need to integrate our discovery of the value of the historical Jesus, in his active identification in solidarity with the poor and oppressed. A word about Christ’s resurrection is appropriate at this point. It should not be dissociated from the cross, in order not to trivialize its meaning. On the contrary, it must be maintained with absolute coherence: the resurrection occurs through the experience of the cross. To find hope within a desperate situation, to have hope there, is an experience of resurrection amidst the reality of the cross. The resurrection always occurs amidst situations of evil, of alienation, of Luther and Liberation 64 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

the cross. In times of darkness, the most violent repression, hope, mobilization, and the possibility of an alternative are born. Such moments are concrete, tangible, historical manifestations of an experience of resurrection.36 3. Combative Christology We have seen that Luther’s Christology is dynamic and combative, never static and accommodating. We observe this aspect exactly when his theology focuses on the cross, the point of confluence of the cosmic and historical battle between evil and justice, curses and blessings, death and life. There is no defeated resignation; all suffering is in solidarity and, therefore, paradoxically victorious. The dead Jesus of Latin American popular veneration can be an expression of resigned and helpless suffering—positively, however, there is even in this characterization an essential element for survival under oppression—but the crucified Christ, interpreted by Luther, is a combatant of divine love. His cross reveals itself, ultimately, not as a defeat but as the victorious culmination of a complete combat: thus “Christus victor” 37—victorious Christ. 4. Con-formation with the Cross of Christ The suspicion that accentuating the action of God might paralyze human action misses the point of what Luther discovered, 36. This refers not only to social experience, but also personal. For example, a person who is suffering from a disease, eventually incurable, can experience the vigor and energy of living in the confidence that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is coming, although it does not look that way from the objective configuration of the situation. In any case, confidence in the resurrection opens, equally, a possibility of a more positive and confident posture in the face of the life that (still) is given. 37. See Gustav Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, trans. A. G. Hebert (New York: MacMillan, 1977). See also: Gustav Aulén, The Faith of the Christian Church (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1948), 226–31. In the Cross of Christ, Victory over All Evil 65 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

proclaimed, and practiced. The more concentration there is on the redemptive action of God, the greater the liberating action of believers in Christ. It is true that he contended that we are free from the need to imitate Christ, because his work is fundamental, unrepeatable, complete and, thus, inimitable. For this reason, however, he concluded that we are free for new liberating actions, innovative and creative, in accordance with what our imagination and our discernment indicates to us is a work of love. In the course of history, Lutheran churches have lost the combative dimension present in Luther’s Christology, as well as the concept of con-formation with the cross of Christ. Lutheran churches came to establish themselves under the tutelage of political powers.38 Thus, the situation created was the exact opposite of that for which Luther had struggled. He struggled precisely against the political hegemony of the institutional Catholic Church of his day. He fought the papal claim of authority to exercise power over the political realm. And there he pointed to the crucified Christ. With the reversal of the situation, through the establishment of the territorial churches under the authority of the princes, the combative aspect of Luther’s Christology was forgotten, and the necessity of following the path of Jesus Christ was neglected, as was joining with Christ in his kenosis, his emptying. This was because these dimensions of Luther’s Christology would have been obviously dangerous to the established order. Therefore, it is vital to take account of this rediscovery: linked and melded to Christ, through his redemptive work, we became his liberating con-formation, in the experience of the cross and in combating all forms and forces of evil. 38. See the description of this process of the formation of territorial churches in chapter 6: The Church—Poor People of God. Luther and Liberation 66 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:06:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

4 Conversion, Liberation, and Justification In his novel Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter, the renowned Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa describes with irony a character “in a certain sense much, much more grave” than a criminal type, that is, “a believer.” Gumercindo Tello, a Jehovah’s Witness, is accused of raping a girl of thirteen. In him one can detect that serenely stubborn gaze of a man who knows, who has no doubts, who has solved all his problems. Rather short in stature, he was a young man, doubtless not yet thirty, whose frail physique, nothing but skin and bones, proclaimed to the four winds his scorn for bodily nourishment and the material world, with hair cropped so short his skull was nearly bare, and a swarthy complexion. He was dressed in a gray suit the color of ashes, the costume neither of a dandy nor of a beggar but something in between, which was dry now but very wrinkled from the baptismal rites, a white shirt, and ankle boots with cleats. Just one glance sufficed for the judge—a man with a flair for anthropology—to discern immediately his distinctive personality traits: circumspection, moderation, fixed ideas, imperturbability, a spiritual vocation.1 In the novelist’s description, we see the marks of the religious fanatic: 1. Mario Vargas Llosa, Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter, trans. Helen R. Lane (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1982), 115. 67 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

his determination to live an excessively regimented religious life, a sense of missionary zeal, and a break with social reality. If, however, we were able to see through the fanatical extremism, eliminating this wicked facet, we cannot fail to mention, still there, an essential element of all Christian faith lived authentically: a refusal to accommodate itself to situations of perversion and alienation prevailing among human beings and in society. I. The Issue and the Controversy Historically, the task and the contribution of protesting against a barren stagnation of the Christian faith in seventeenth century Protestant orthodoxy fell to Pietism.2 Orthodoxy sought to establish, with logical rigor, doctrinal truth—better: doctrinal truths. It built an impressive rational framework, each time more sophisticated, which aimed to reproduce faithfully, in formulations, divine revelation. It was a great intellectual work, which sought, with extreme zeal, the objectivity of faith. People assented to these truths. “To believe” came to be understood as this intellectual adherence to formulated doctrines. Pietism made a historical critique of orthodoxy. It is true that, later, it incorporated into its own doctrinal construction many of the elements elaborated by orthodoxy, such as its literalism in the interpretation of Scripture. The doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Scripture is a theological construction of Protestant orthodoxy. This, so to speak, “guarantees” doctrinal objectivity, supposedly free of the 2. For a succinct description of the theology of Protestant Orthodoxy and of Pietism, see Paul Tillich, Perspectives on 19th and 20th Century Protestant Theology, ed. Carl Braaten (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 9–23 and Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, ed. Carl Braaten (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 276–87. See also Bengt Hägglund, Teologins Historia: En Dogmhistorisk Översikt (Lund: CWK Gleerups Förlag, 1969), 274–312, as well as Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. III: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century (New York: Abingdon, 1975), 226–89. Luther and Liberation 68 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

subjectivity of faith of the one who interprets Scripture. Moving to the twentieth century, we see that Karl Barth, the great dialectical theologian, classified principally in the United States as “neoorthodox,” made an important distinction between “verbal inspiration” and “literal inspiration.” Verbal inspiration would be theologically indispensable, inasmuch as the Scripture testifies to Christ, the divine “Word.” Literal inspiration, however, should be rejected as an attempt to give a miraculous guarantee to the scriptural witness. Analogously, he defended the “inspiration” (Inspiration) of Scripture as an active process of the permanent initiative of God, but he rejects the “inspiredness” (Inspiriertheit), an ontological quality of the Scripture as text.3 Returning to the time of the emergence of Pietism, Pietism decidedly abandoned the rigid, often cold and detached objectivity of orthodoxy. Its whole alternative emphasis was on the personal appropriation and relevance of faith. There was not an assent of the intellect, but a surrender of the heart. One did not ask what the truth itself is, to assent and adhere to, but rather what God’s Word says “to me,” a discovery that leads to a new way of life. It is clear that there were also among the orthodox the conviction that objective truth shapes the lives of those who, through faith, adhere to it. But Pietism was little interested in this objectivity; the experience of faith—better: new life—was the core of emphasis and attention. It is obvious that if orthodoxy fell into the temptation of detached objectivism, then Pietism submitted to the temptation of arbitrary subjectivism. There is an element, central in Pietism, in which both personal surrender and the action of God are simultaneously realized. God and the person meet in the experience of conversion. Certainly we do not deceive ourselves when we recognize in the Pietist 3. See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. I, part 2. The Doctrine of the Word of God, ed. G. W. Bromley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960), 517–21. Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 69 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

emphasis on the need for a personal conversion a cry for radical renewal and authenticity. Conversion is, frequently, a dramatic and remarkable episode in the life of the one who is converted. In any case, it implies the personal surrender of the “old me” before a God who is at the same time both demanding and forgiving. There is a radical judgment about the past life and an equally radical possibility of a new life. This is why one can observe in reports of conversion a deep fissure between a “before” and “after.” Invariably, the “before” is characterized as soulless and empty, while the new is replete with meaning and wonders. The need for every human being to convert (or to be converted?), the effective experience of conversion (or of new birth) for its members, and the constant call to conversion of others make up the beating heart of the Pietist movement, even today. I understand, on the other hand, that these fundamental convictions of Pietism are not fixed necessarily in certain specific forms of conversion, such as a sudden one that can be named with date and time. There are, however, currents derived from Pietism that establish this requirement. The risk of this extreme position is clear: the experience of conversion takes the place of conversion itself, and human action replaces the divine. Nevertheless, wherever the call to conversion is neglected, the Pietist movement inevitably detects signs of spiritual decay, which, in its understanding, become death when the very need for conversion comes to be explicitly denied. If we look, briefly and comparatively, at liberation theology, we find a significantly different use of the term “conversion.” There is talk of conversion “to the Realm of God and to the neighbor,” which is more accurately described thus: “conversion to the Realm of God as conversion to the transformation within history” and “conversion to God within conversion to the human being.” So said Hugo Assmann, in his Teología desde la Praxis de la Liberación. 4 Gustavo Gutiérrez, for Luther and Liberation 70 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

his part, approached “conversion to the neighbor” in these terms: “To know God is to do justice” and “Christ in the neighbor.”5 In this reinterpretation of conversion we observe at least two characteristic traits. First, love of God and love of the neighbor and human action and divine action are fused. Thus, Assmann wrote about “the Christian paradox of the radical unity of the love of God and the love of the neighbor.”6 Second, we observe that conversion is historicized. Again, Assmann: “This is the Christian paradox that has tremendous revolutionary meaning: in order to be converted to God and the prospect of God’s realm, it is necessary to be converted, here and now, to humanity’s history.” He concluded, “It is in the struggle for human liberation that the love of God materializes (see Matthew 25).”7 Gutiérrez also dealt with the subject in his chapter entitled “Encountering God in History,” which concludes with a section devoted significantly to “A Spirituality of Liberation.”8 Compared with Pietism, there is no doubt that the issue of conversion experienced, at the same time, an expansion in terms of its historicization and materialization, and a displacement of its decisive centrality, in favor of the concept of liberation. This reinterpretation inevitably prompted the decided protest of the Pietist movement. Perhaps it could be accepted as a radical call to an active faith. However, it does not exclude the critique to have taken the consequences as causes. As much as Pietism can emphasize new life and personal decision, there can be no doubt that 4. Hugo Assmann, Teología desde la Praxis de la Liberación (Salamanca: Sígueme, 1973), 147–48. [This portion of Assmann’s book was not translated for the American version, Theology for a Nomad Church (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1976)]. Quotations cited here were translated by the original translator, Mary Solberg, hereafter referred to as MS. 5. Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation, ed. and trans. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1973), 194, 196. 6. Assmann, 148. 7. Ibid. 8. Gutiérrez, 189, 203. Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 71 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

it understands conversion as coming from God and exclusively from God, by God’s Spirit. New life and the love of the neighbor ensue, perhaps chronologically, in any case logically. The action of God, in the person, is understood as an indispensable premise, as the first event, without which all the rest is vain, flawed, fleeting, and not blessed. Inversely, for liberation theology the Pietist perspective is too narrow, which would reveal an individualizing and ahistorical reduction. Liberation theology, in turn, reflects a new historical moment, in which the term “liberation” aims to do justice to the entire social and historical human being, reflecting not an abrupt change at the individual level (conversion), but a process of the transformation of history, in favor of a more human and fraternal life and society. In Luther, the key term is neither “conversion” nor “liberation” but “justification.”9 Is it a respectable dialogue partner for the other two? Or is it a term to be discarded as obsolete, if not illegitimate? II. Justification as Personal Transformation and Social Liberation Toward the end of his life, in 1545, in retrospect, Luther described his (re)discovery of justification. We find it in the Preface to the first volume of the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Writings. 10 Luther resisted for a long time the idea of a collection of his works. Finally, he acceded and wrote a preface in which he recalled the early days of the Reformation, nearly three decades before. The first observation 9. Perhaps this distinction is debatable, since it would still be correct to claim that the concept of “freedom” is also central in Luther’s theology. On the relationship between “freedom” and “liberation,” see chapter 17: The Reception of Luther’s Concept of Freedom in Latin American Liberation Theology. 10. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–), 34:327–38. Cited hereafter as LW. Luther and Liberation 72 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 can make is that justification by faith, as a doctrine, is an expression of Luther’s deep personal experience. 1. The Discovery of Justification In the monastery and even after, as a professor of biblical theology, Luther struggled with the question, “How can I find a merciful God?” The response was found in the context of the late medieval theological conception that “to the one who does everything one possibly can, God gives grace” (facere quod in se est). The question of guilt and condemnation afflicted the monk and theologian. God is a just God, who, thus, punishes sin, but who is willing to give grace, conditioned only to those who “do everything they possibly can.” This did not mean that a person has to save oneself, as the antiCatholic Protestant polemic many times insisted on affirming. On the contrary, it was clear: grace comes from God. However, the person has to strive to merit and respond, even if “only” in whatever way one could. However, Luther took pains to do everything he possibly could. The practices recommended by monastic theology and piety were, above all, constant prayer, rigid asceticism, thorough selfexamination, sincere penance, disposition to the humblest services, and so on. All this Luther exercised meticulously. However, despite all the effort, Luther felt as if he moved from one failure to another. He was helped, it is true, by the council of his superior, Staupitz, to look more at the cross of Christ than at himself but he blocked out the observation that he did not have to be so rigidly scrupulous in the self-examination of his miniscule flaws. For, how could he disregard them? If he did, how could he have done all that was possible? And, if he had not done all that was possible, how could he obtain grace, since that fulfillment was the condition for obtaining it? That is to say, the requirement to Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 73 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

do “just” what is within our reach, apparently so mild and easy, imposed an unbearable burden. Furthermore, Luther came to discern, later, on the path of meriting God’s grace the expression of a deep selfishness, that is, as such, the total sin. Pursuing this path—he came to recognize- inevitably leads to one of two effects: to vainglory and to arrogance or to desperation. It is in this that Luther was lost, with his insurmountable scruples. He began to believe himself hopelessly condemned and, therefore, to hate God. Interestingly: a seemingly gracious God, disposed to give grace to those who “only” do what is possible, came to be experienced as a tyrannical God, yet fair. The hatred of God intensified when Luther was faced with Paul’s statement in Rom. 1:17a that “In it the righteousness of God is revealed.” Let us quote: “. . . as if, indeed, it is not enough that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the Decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted. At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justified us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”11 That is to say, in confronting the biblical text, Luther’s search for a merciful God received an unexpected response, amidst the clash of doubts, revolts, and hatred of God. It resulted in a radical change, 11. Ibid., 337. Luther and Liberation 74 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

which Luther didn’t hesitate to classify in the following words: “Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates.”12 Luther’s account, no less than thirty years after the event, retained the indelible marks of deep personal experience. I don’t believe that any Pietist can help but divine in it a story of authentic conversion.13 There is a confrontation with the biblical text; a struggle and resistance culminating with personal surrender; and a fissure between before and after, from hatred of God to the entrance, now free, to paradise. The desperation of condemnation gave way to certain happiness of justification. This same shift in the understanding of a furious God in anger to a savior God in mercy, as well as the passage of Luther from hostility to God to happiness in God, we see in several passages of his “table talk.”14 Those to which I refer here are of different dates, respectively from 1532, 1538, and 1540, indicating that it was indeed a fundamental and decisive event in the life of the Reformer. Luther expressed this experience, too, in the hymns he composed. The most significant one in this context is “Nun freut euch, lieben Christen gmein” (Dear Christians, let us now rejoice). The melody is a lively folk song adapted by Luther. The first stanza reflects the joy of those who are justified: Dear Christians, let us now rejoice, And dance in joyous measure: That of good cheer and with one voice, 12. Ibid. 13. It is known, for example, that John Wesley, founder of Methodism, had his own conversion experience deeply connected with the study of this passage from Luther’s writings. (See Duncan Reily, Metodismo Brasileiro e Wesleyano: Reflexões Históricas sobre a Autonomia [São Bernado do Campo: Metodista, 1981], 73, 87–90). 14. LW 54:193-94 (Table Talk no. 3232c); 308-9 (no. 4007); D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimer: Hermann Böhlau, 1983), TR 5, 26, 18-26 (no. 5247), hereafter abbreviated as WA. The important no. 5247 is not in LW; the one with that number should be numbered no. 5252, according to the original in WA. Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 75 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 sing in love and pleasure. Of what to us our God hath shown, And the sweet wonder he hath done; Full dearly hath he wrought it. The next two stanzas look back at the situation before justification, describing the captivity and despair of one who knows himself condemned: Forlorn and lost in death I lay, A captive to the devil, My sin lay heavy, night and day, For I was born in evil. I fell but deeper for my strife, There was no good in all my life, For sin had all possessed me. My good works they were worthless quite, A mock was all my merit; My will hated God’s judging light, To all good dead and buried. E’en to despair me anguish bore, That nought but death lay me before; To hell I fast was sinking.15 Stanzas four to ten present the great turnaround, in the form of a history of salvation. However, I will refer to it later. For now, as we describe the discovery of justification in Luther, with its significant parallels with the Pietist experience of conversion, one must also examine the question further, expanding the range of analysis and focusing on new aspects. 15. LW 53:219–20. The hymn appears in English in the Lutheran Book of Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978), as #299, “Dear Christians, Let Us Now Rejoice.” Unfortunately, this translation has consistently spiritualized and weakened Luther’s original text. For example, in stanza 5, the pointed challenge of the original “salvation for the poor” was blunted by the universalized “bring to all salvation”; in stanza 6, “my poor form” was sentimentalized into “a servant’s form”; in stanza 7, “I will fight thy battle” was de-scandalized into “for you I strive and wrestle”; stanza 10 narrows “the kingdom’s work” to the realm of our “preaching,” while in the original it comprises our “doing and preaching” (italics added by author). Luther and Liberation 76 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

2. The Deepening and Distinction of the Doctrine of Justification It is necessary to attend to some significant peculiarities of Luther’s understanding of justification, which will also mark some important differences from the Pietist understanding of conversion. 1. In the first place, there is an apparently surprising fact. On the one hand, Luther, in his multiple writings and in his numerous sermons, never ceased to proclaim justification by faith, in countless variations. On the other hand, despite the accounts of a personal nature to which I refer, he was extremely stingy with the story of his personal experience. It only occurs occasionally. Particularly in his sermons he refuses to make use of his personal experience. Luther never used his own experience of justification to induce others to the same experience. This placement of priority is so obvious that Luther, at the end of his life, apparently did not know how to date with precision his discovery of justification. In his preface to the Latin writings he located it in 1518-1519, but it almost certainly occurred some years earlier.16 This leads to the following distinction. 2. Secondly, Luther makes a clear distinction between the subjective and objective aspect of justification. Personal experience is necessary and profound, as we see. However, it is private and nontransferable. In short, it is not what matters. What is important, therefore, is the objective reality of justification in Christ. Luther never intended to point to himself, but exclusively to Christ and his work. For this, his testimony was never “personal” in the sense of relating his experience as an example, but it was always centered in Christ, in his work. We remember the picture of Lucas Cranach, the Elder, referred to in the first chapter, on the altar of the church in the 16. On the debate over the date of Luther’s reformation discovery and his personal experience (the so-called “tower experience”—Turmerlebnis—as it allegedly occurred in the study tower of the Wittenberg monastery), see Marc Lienhard, Martin Luther: Un Temps, une Vie, un Message (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991), 384–94. Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 77 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

city of Wittenberg. He showed Luther, in the pulpit, preaching to the gathered community. In the center of the picture is the crucified Christ, to which Luther points with finger and arm extended, causing the community’s attention to return to the cross of Christ. In Christ there is justification. His good news to the community can be received in faith, joyful, and liberating. In this way, each will have a personal experience. None of these personal experiences, however, can and should take the place of Christ’s work. It is significant, therefore, that the above hymn continues, from the fourth stanza, not with the story of Luther’s personal experience, but with the exposition of the history of salvation, in the form of a narrative of Christ’s salvific work: Then God was sorry on his throne To see such torment rend me; His tender mercy he thought on, His good help he would send me. He turned to me his father-heart; Ah! then was his no easy part, For of his best it cost him. In the following verses we see the characteristic features that we recorded in the previous chapter, namely: the descending, kenotic line of Christology; the solidarity and struggle of Jesus; reciprocal belonging between Jesus and the believer; new life: To his dear Son he said: “Go down, ‘Tis time to take compassion. Go down,17 my heart’s exalted crown, Be the poor man’s salvation.18 Lift him from out sin’s scorn and scath, Strangle for him that cruel Death,19 17. Signaling the descending Christological line. 18. Here poor also denotes poverty. 19. Note the soteriology with the price of the very life of Jesus. Luther and Liberation 78 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

That he with thee live ever.” The Son he heard obediently, And by a maiden mother, Pure, tender—down he came to me, For he would be my brother. Secret he bore his strength enorm,20 He went about in my poor form,21 For he would catch the devil. He said to me: “Hold thou by me, Thy matters I will settle; I give myself all up for thee, And I will fight thy battle.22 For I am thine, and thou art mine,23 And my place also shall be thine; The enemy shall not part us.” The eighth stanza describes the price paid to liberate those who were condemned: “He will as water shed my blood, My life he from me reave will; All this I suffer for thy good— To that with firm faith cleave well. My life from death the day shall win, My innocence shall bear thy sin, So art thou blest forever.” The ninth notes the protection that issues from the risen and exalted Jesus for the believer who lives the way of the cross: “To heaven unto my Father high, From this life I am going; But there thy Master still am I, My spirit on thee bestowing, Whose comfort shall they trouble quell, 20. Note the theological conception of God’s action sub contrario. 21. Note here the theme of emptying, the kenotic line. 22. Note the combative Christology. 23. Note the theme of mutual belonging. Conversion, Liberation, and Justification 79 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