Getting to Know Jon Sobrino (by Michelle García)
When I first landed in El Salvador, all I knew about the tiny Central American country was its war. What I found was lush mountain ranges, volcanoes, and air heavy with grief. It was 2003, and I was there to produce a documentary for a public radio series titled Despues de las Guerras/Centra America: After the Wars about the violence suffered by women during and after the 12-year civil war that ended in 1992 with a death toll of 75,000 mostly innocent civilians.
I returned to El Salvador in 2006 for six months on a Knight Fellowship with the International Center for Journalists. The violence, once largely relegated to gang controlled areas, had spread across the country. Impunity was rampant. Voices of dissent were marginalized. Rights curtailed in the interest of security. The first forceful voices I heard came from the pulpit, from Jesuits denouncing the violence and its profiteers.
I had the opportunity to interview Jesuit theologian Jon Sobrino. (See Goodness Revealed: An interview with liberation theologian Jon Sobrino in the January 2008 issue of Sojourners.) Just a few months earlier, the Vatican had publicized a written notification that branded his some of his writing as "erroneous and dangerous."
Sobrino admonished the church for drifting away from the reality of its flock. The U.S. and Europe, he said, are merely "anecdotes," their imperial gaze a perversion of the mission of Jesus on this earth. He challenged the assumption that wealthy nations can exploit poor nations and return later with a promise to save them.
Sobrino's book Where is God?: Earthquake, Terrorism, Barbarity, and Hope draws a compelling connection between the tragedy inflicted on New York by terrorists, El Salvador when a tremendous earthquake strikes, and in Afghanistan when a world superpower seeks vengeance.
Another important work that sets liberation theology in a current context is the anthology published in Sobrino's defense after the Vatican's sanction titled Getting the Poor Down From the Cross: Christology of Liberation. It contains the arguments for the tenets of liberation theology by some of the world's leading theologians, the primacy of the world's poor, and the duty of the Church to "walk with them."
In the epilogue, Sobrino writes, "If a Christology animates the poor of this world, victims of terrible sins - including ones committed by so-called believers - to maintain their faith in God and in his Christ, and to have dignity and hope, then this Christology will have its limitations of course, but I do not consider it to be dangerous in the world of the poor, but rather something positive. However, it is possible that it will be seen - and it has been seen - as dangerous in other worlds."
Michelle García recently completed a Knight Fellowship with the International Center for Journalists in El Salvador. Previously she wrote for The Washington Post from its New York bureau. She is based in New York.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
A Christianity that speaks to power prophetically, rather than echoes it, will be seen as a threat to that power.
That is why Constantine had his Rome digest Christianity, to try to remove its prophetic judgment of thoroughly worldly Rome, which no amount of martyrdom had managed to compromise up to that time.
And that is why in countries like El Salvador, you can recognize the truth-tellers by their martyrdom.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | December 20, 2007 2:40 PM
Thank you, Sojourner Truth, for that insight.
I've been telling the sisters and brothers I know for some time that the devil's second-best trick ever was the Constantinian establishment, which turned the Faith into just another religion.
But you don't think it was inadvertent on Constantine's part, merely his enthusiasm following his conversion (hich is another debated question). You're saying it was deliberate on his part, to pull the Church's teeth. I'll have to think about that one!
No one in his right mind (!) wants to be a prophet; so many prophets wind up martyrs...
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | December 20, 2007 4:32 PM
Constantine himself was never baptized.
He wanted the Jesus who never was, the one who was shown all the kingdoms of the world that would be His, if only He would bow down.
As do some of us try to worship in our own Roman spring.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | December 20, 2007 4:52 PM
Christianity with its message that God is not fixated on power, wealth and status is so threatening to the establisment (surely an accurate translation of "ho kosmos") that it has to be co-opted.
Posted by: don gisselbeck | December 20, 2007 7:19 PM
If you want America to save your country from tyrants you better have oil qnd geo-strategic importance, oh and be willing to put up with a massive dose of bombs. mercenaries, depleted uranium, cvil wars and torture chambers.
El Salvador knows all too well about America's war on "terror". We helped the God fearing, private ownership loving, socialist hating government deal with a lot of terrorist nuns down there, and some really mean human rights workers too.
Can there be mercy without repentance? Peace without justice?
Capitalism is idolatry if it is not balanced by the politics of the common good, it is as willing to produce slave trade as more efficient bicycles, mercenaries as digital toys and tools. History shows that there are always those who will do anything for wealth and power and find a way to call it God's blessing.
Posted by: jonabark | December 21, 2007 12:41 AM
Jonabark, the FLMN was every bit as brutal and murderous as the side the US gov't supported in the Salvadoran civil war. Neither party escaped that conflict unstained by war crimes. There were no winners in that conflict; all Salvadorans were losers.
The question now is, how can Salvadorans restore the rule of law to their gang-ravaged country without re-instituting the oppressive strategies of the past? How can they bring economic hope to those trapped in poverty, in spite of big-US-corporation-sponsored "free trade" agreements? And what can--or should--Christians in the US do to help the churches in El Salvador?
Posted by: Don | December 21, 2007 7:38 AM
Hi Don, I wrote the piece and your questions were constantly on my mind while I was in El Salvador.
Sobrino makes an interesting and clear point: people in the United States must look more closely at themselves, their worldview, their power and how they wield it.
Regarding the rule of law, a critical problem, largely undiscussed, is impunity. A very high level of impunity. The initial reaction to violence is to say what can be done to curb it but again, look at institutional power.
Only some three percent of murders result in a conviction.
Regarding poverty, again, there is an assumption that poverty must be tackled. But it already has been--with immigration. And that brings up a whole host of other questions.
And lastly, regarding what can or should be done, I think Sobrino speaks to that when he says: I seeks the truth not because I am a religious person but because I am human.
There are many critics of "free trade" agreements but little discussion about how people are probably unwilling to give up the low, low prices. Immigration, gangs, poverty, those issues are debated and discussed with many unspoken assumptions and within a tightly constructed frame.
But, as you already know, once we leave our comfort zone and discard assumptions about ourselves and the world, it quickly becomes apparent that those frames are just that and they serve to hide the truth.
Posted by: Michelle Garcia | December 21, 2007 11:11 AM
We "want" what they have but we don't "want" their problems - even when what we wanted contributed to those problems. Even if what we still "want" continues to contribute to those problems, we pretend we don't have any mutual ownership of those problems. The reality, though, is that we're all in it together and trying to evade that just makes it worse for all of us - because consequnces can't be evaded forever.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | December 21, 2007 1:59 PM
Dear Michelle:
Gracias por su respuesta.
My wife and I spent a week in El Salvador in 2006, as guests of an evangelical church. We immediately fell in love with the beautiful country and its wonderful inhabitants. But we were also introduced to the reality of gang violence (though thankfully we didn't experience it first hand) and the economic situation of many. I've been trying to follow the news from there since we returned.
We're hoping we can go back, maybe within the next year or two.
Fr. Sobrino is absolutely right: Americans need to engage in self-examination. But how can that happen? What reality-check do we need to recognize these things? We have a lot of things to reevaluate.
We continue to keep the Salvadorans in our prayers, the ones we now count as friends as well as the nation as a whole.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | December 21, 2007 8:00 PM
I would have to agree with Don that the FMLN was every bit as brutal as the US-backed forces. It doesn't justify what the US did, but it is true that there were no clean hands (with the exception of the Liberation Theologists, the Jesuits, Romero, and some of the evangelical churches) in that war.
In the mid-1990s, I had the privilege of interviewing probably one hundred El Salvadoran Refugees. What was utterly clear to me was that there were at least as many stories of abuses at the hands of the guerillas as there were at the hands of the military. In fact there were probably more horrifying stories about the guerillas than about the military. I later learned that both sides would disguise themselves as the other when carrying out these atrocities. It was therefore impossible to ascertain which side was responsbible for each action reported.
If you want some interesting reading, there is a book called The Massacre at El Mozote. It is the well documented story of how the military massacred a village of Pentecostal believers. It is really sad. And, of course, our God-fearing, democracy-loving government denied it ever happened.
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 22, 2007 7:29 AM
I find the posts that depict the FMLN as being every bit as violent as the Salvadoran military almost laughable. Anyone who says this obviously has no idea what took place in El Salvador in the 70s and 80s.
The Salvadoran military and its domestic policies were beholden to the landed aristocracy of the country and therefore the mulitnational corporations and foreign policy of the US. The United States made that country into a killing machine which resulted in the death of many, many people, mostly innocent bystanders who just wanted to keep the little bit of land they had access to.
And of course, this kind of violence is going to result in the opposition pushing back. Which is exactly what the FMLN did, and thank God they did.
It is shameful that there are those who feel obligated to quickly indict the FMLN. Is it just to soothe your conscience? The FMLN fought against a brutal, murderous military which was backed by the United States. I for one am glad they stood up for justice and the plight of the poor.
Posted by: Lonnie | December 22, 2007 6:22 PM
"I find the posts that depict the FMLN as being every bit as violent as the Salvadoran military almost laughable. Anyone who says this obviously has no idea what took place in El Salvador in the 70s and 80s...It is shameful that there are those who feel obligated to quickly indict the FMLN. Is it just to soothe your conscience? The FMLN fought against a brutal, murderous military which was backed by the United States. I for one am glad they stood up for justice and the plight of the poor."Posted by: Lonnie
Lonnie, you seem very quick to judge what it is that I am saying. I in no way am in support of the Salvadoran government of the 70s and 80s. In fact I agree that there was probably no alternative but for people to take up arms. But having said that, the guerillas were no saints either. I discovered this when I interviewed many, many Salvadoran asylum seekers and to my astonishment they attributed atrocities to the guerillas as often, if not more often, to the guerillas than to the government forces. Like I said before, there was a great deal of confusion in the war and it seems that both sides impersonated each other. I was really surprised at the number of guerilla atrocities that I heard about and it shattered my preconceived notions. Again, that did not change my views on the Salvadoran government, but it did inform me of the complexity and utter confusion that reigned down there.
And for the record, I really don't need to sooth my conscience. I never supported our government in what they were doing in El Salvador, so please don't judge me by attributing a bad motive to what I am saying. I am merely reporting what I heard. To do otherwise would be dishonesty.
I can only report on what I heard from my clients. If that runs in afoul of the views of my colleagues on the left, so be it. The world is not all black and white and those who seek to change a bad situation often do end up committing bad acts themselves.
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 22, 2007 9:25 PM
I think part of the problem here is a truly improper equation. When the government rapes, beheads, and cuts off the genitals of anyone without due process this is a far greater crime than if a criminal organization does so. The government's legitimacy and role is to uphold and defend people and the law against criminality, not to propagate its own.
In this case there was a widespread outcry against government and private abuses of power which included a large spectrum of Salvadorans. The government responded with a murderous campaign of terrorism against any political , spiritual, labor-rights based, or human rights based oppositio. This campaign was far stronger than any honest attempt to protect civilians from FMLN actions. The fact that this produced violent guerilla organizations who also used criminal violence is historically predictable.
In response to Don, I never in my first post mentioned the FMLN and certainly never have or intend to justify their use of violence against civilians though I question any real comparability of scale, abuse of civilians etc. The US did not just vaguely "support the government". They actively trained them in torture , criminal methods of repression, and sent agents to directly participate in human rights atrocities for political purposes. This is established by FOIA documents. The truth is that the US has been a fundamental opponent of democratic process and has been far more committed to private capital interests and an economic elite than to our founding ideals of justice, equality, and participatory government.
I think your equation is deeply flawed and deeply troubling. How does the actions of a guerilla organization justify the murder of Nuns, Bishops, and nonviolent political critics. Why is it that in nations that denied fundamental economic and political participation to indigenous peoples the US was not the champion of those rights, but the supporter of those who wished to deny those rights?
Posted by: jonabark | December 26, 2007 12:51 AM
Jonabark, my comments had much more to do with the evils of war than with the political situation at hand. In none of my comments was I trying to justify the US government's support for the Salvadoran government and its military, or to justify the actions of that government and military. To be sure, the US support for that government was reprehensible. To be sure, the government's slaying of the Salvadoran martyrs--Oscar Romero, the six Jesuits, and the four Maryknoll workers--was a horrific crime, comparable in every respect to other similar government crimes in history, such as the slaying of Archbishop Thomas Becket back in the 12th century. But you are trying to make the evils done by one side worse than the evils done by the other side. The bottom line is that innocent people wound up dead or wounded no matter who the perpretrator was.
Do you really believe that just because the FMLN started out with the moral high ground that their abuses were more excusable than the government's? I would maintain that they lost the moral high ground by their violent actions. Did the FMLN have to respond to the government's violence in kind? The result of responding to violence with more violence is always an escalation of violence.
I repeat my assertion: there were no clean hands by the end of the Salvadoran civil war. What would have been the result if the FLMN, instead of becoming guerilla fighters, had mounted a nonviolent campaign against the government, similar to Ghandi's campaign? True, we might have seen just as many deaths, but they would have all been at the hands of the government. More importantly, the FMLN would have kept the moral high ground, and today we could justifiably lay all the violence at the feet of the Salvadoran government and its US backers. But by responding to the government's violence with their own violence, the FMLN became like their enemies. That's always what happens.
Peace!
Posted by: Don | December 26, 2007 8:09 AM
Just a quick comment about the FMLN: I visited El Salavdor in 1988 and 1990 and met with officials from the Human Rights Commission, Tutela Legal, as well as dozens of church people, labor organizers, the Mothers of the Disappeared, popular organizations, and in every instance the message was the same--the army and the death squads were responsible for the vast number of violent deaths. I remember seeing a chart in a dusty old office at the Human Rights Commission (i think)and listed on it were those murdered for the year 1980 and those thought responsible. The several thousand dead listed were murdered by various differently named death squads, the Treasury Police, the El Salvadoran Military,etc. and only a handful of deaths were attributed to the guerrillas. I don't think the guerrillas would have been as successful as they were without the support from most of the peasants and popular organizations; and I don't think they would have had their support if the FMLN conducted themselves as brutally as the Salvadoran military and their various allies.
Peace with justice!
Posted by: Doug Smith | January 4, 2008 12:06 PM
Please refer to:
http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_casesA.html
the UN Truth Commission Report, which concludes that approximately 5% of the complaints were against the FMLN. Perhaps many of these 5% would have sought asylum in the USA. The victims of the government and its forces were more likely to seek asylum in Sweden, Australia and Canada.
The complete report is entitled:
"From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador:
Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador",
and is available at:
http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html
Posted by: Brian | January 5, 2008 9:38 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?