A Concise History

A Concise History of Liberation Theology
By Leonardo and Clodovis Boff.
Antecedents
(image placeholder)he historical roots of liberation theology are to be found in the prophetic tradition of evangelists and missionaries from the earliest colonial days in Latin America -- churchmen who questioned the type of presence adopted by the church and the way indigenous peoples, blacks, mestizos, and the poor rural and urban masses were treated. The names of Bartolomé de Las Casas, Antonio de Montesinos, Antonio Vieira, Brother Caneca and others can stand for a whole host of religious personalities who have graced every century of our short history. They we the source of the type of social and ecclesial understanding that is emerging today.
Social and Political Development
The populist governments of the 1950s and 1960s -- especially those of Perón in Argentina, Vargas in Brazil, and Cárdenas in Mexico -- inspired nationalistic consciousness and significant industrial development in the shape of import substitution. This benefited the middle classes and urban proletariat but threw huge sectors of the peasantry into deeper rural marginalization or sprawling urban shantytowns. Development proceeded along the lines of dependent capitalism, subsidiary to that of the rich nations and excluding the great majorities of national populations. This process led to the creation of strong popular movements seeking profound changes in the socio-economic structure of their countries. These movements in turn provoked the rise of military dictatorships, which sought to safeguard or promote the interests of capital, associated with a high level of "national security" achieved through political repression and police control of all public demonstrations.
In this context the socialist revolution in Cuba stood out as an alternative leading to the dissolution of the chief cause of underdevelopment: dependence. Pockets of armed uprising appeared in many countries, aimed at overthrowing the ruling powers and installing socialist-inspired regimes. There was a great stirring for change among the popular sections of society, a truly prerevolutionary atmosphere.
Ecclesial Development
Starting in the 1960s, a great wind of renewal blew through the churches. They began to take their social mission seriously: lay persons committed themselves to work among the poor, charismatic bishops and priests encouraged the calls for progress and national modernization. Various church organizations promoted understanding of and improvements in the living conditions of the people: movements such as Young Christian Students, Young Christian Workers, Young Christian Agriculturalists, the Movement for Basic Education, groups that set up educational radio programs, and the first base ecclesial communities.
The work of these -- generally middle-class -- Christians was sustained theologically by the European theology of earthly realities, the integral humanism of Jacques Maritain, the social personalism of Mounier, the progressive evolutionism of Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac's reflections on the social dimension of dogma, Yves Congar's theology of the laity, and the work of M.-D. Chenu. The Second Vatican Council then gave the best possible theoretical justification to activities developed under the signs of a theology of progress, of authentic secularization and human advancement.
The end of the 1960s, with the crisis of populism and the developmentalist model, brought the advent of a vigorous current of sociological thinking, which unmasked the true causes of underdevelopment. Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin. All the nations of the Western world were engaged in a vast process of development; however, it was interdependent and unequal, organized in such a way that the benefits flowed to the already developed countries of the "center" and the disadvantages were meted out to the historically backward and underdeveloped wontries of the "periphery." The poverty of Third World countries was the price to be paid for the First World to be able to enjoy the fruits of overabundance.
In ecclesial circles by now accustomed to following developments in society and studies of its problems, this interpretation acted as a leaven, yielding a new vitality and critical spirit in pastoral circles. The relationship of dependence of the periphery on the center had to be replaced by a process of breaking away and liberation. So the basis of a theology of development was undermined and the theoretical foundations for a theology of liberation were laid. Its material foundations were provided only when popular movements and Christian groups came together in the struggle for social and political liberation, with the ultimate aim of complete and integral liberation. This was when the objective conditions for an authentic liberation theology came about.
Theological Development
The first theological reflections that were to lead to liberation theology had their origins in a context of dialogue between a church and a society in ferment, between Christian faith and the longings for transformation and liberation arising from the people. The Second Vatican Council produced a theological atmosphere characterized by great freedom and creativity. This gave Latin American theologians the courage to think for themselves about pastoral problems affecting their countries. This process could be seen at work among both Catholic and Protestant thinkers with the group Church and Society in Latin America (ISAL) taking a prominent put. There were frequent meetings between Catholic theologians (Gustavo Gutiérrez, Segundo Galilea, Juan Luis Segundo, Lucio Gera, and others) and Protestant Emilio Castro, Julio de Santa Ana, Rubem Alves, José Míguez Bonino), leading to intensified reflection on the relationship between faith and poverty, the gospel and social justice, and the like. In Brazil, between 1959 and 1964, the Catholic left produced a series of basic texts on the need for a Christian ideal of history, linked to popular action, with a methodology that foreshadowed that of liberation theology; they urged personal engagement in the world, backed up by studies of social and liberal sciences, and illustrated by the universal principles of Christianity.
At a meeting of Latin American theologians held in Petrópolis (Rio de Janeiro) in Much 1964, Gustavo Gutiérrez described theology as critical reflection on praxis. This line of thought was further developed at meetings in Havana, Bogotá, and Cuernavaca in June and July 1965. Many other meetings were held as pat of the preparatory work for the Medellin conference of 1968; these acted as laboratories for a theology worked out on the basis of pastoral concerns and committed Christian action. Lectures given by Gustavo Gutiérrez in Montreal in 1967 and at Chimbote in Peru on the poverty of the Third World and the challenge it posed to the development of a pastoral strategy of liberation were a further powerful impetus toward a theology of liberation. Its outlines were first put forward at the theological congress at Cartigny, Switzerland, in 1969: "Toward a Theology of Liberation."
The first Catholic congresses devoted to liberation theology were held in Bogota in March 1970 and July 1971. On the Protestant side, ISAL organized something similar in Buenos Aires the same years.
Finally, in December 1971, Gustavo Gutiérrez published his seminal work, Teología de la liberación. In May Hugo Assmarm had conducted a symposium, "Oppression-Liberation: The Challenge to Christians," in Montevideo, and Leonardo Boff had published a series of articles under the title Jesus Cristo Libertador. The door was opened for the development of a theology from the periphery dealing with the concerns of this periphery, concerns that presented and still present an immense challenge to the evangelizing mission of the church.
Formulation
For the sake of clarity and a better understanding of the advances made, the formulation of liberation theology can be divided into four stages.
The Foundational Stage
The foundations were laid by those who sketched the general outlines of this way of doing theology. Besides the all-important writings of Gustavo Gutiérrez, outstanding works were produced by Juan Luis Segundo: De la sociedad a la teología (1970), Liberación de la teología (1975); by Hugo Assmann: Teología desde la praxis de liberación; Lucio Gera: Apuntes para una interpretactón de le Iglesia argentina (1970), Teologio de la liberación (1973). Others who should be mentioned we Bishop (later Cardinal) Eduardo Pironio, secretary of CELAM, Segundo Galilea, and Raimondo Caramuru, principal theological consultant to the Brazilian Bishops' Conference. There was also a great ferment of activity in the shape of courses and retreats during this period.
On the Protestant side, besides Emilio Castro and Julio de Santa Ana, the outstanding contributions were made by Rubem Alves: Religion: Opium of the People or Instrument of Liberation (1969), and José Míguez Bonino: La fe en busca de eficacia (1967) and Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (1975).
Lay persons such as Héctor Borrat, Methol Ferré, and Luiz Alberto Gómez de Souza did valuable work in linking theology with the social sciences, as did the Belgian priest François Houtart and the Chilean G. Arroyo.
The Building Stage
The first stage was characterized by the presentation of liberation theology as a sort of "fundamental theology" -- that is, as an opening up of new horizons and perspectives that gave a new outlook on the whole of theology. The second stage moved on to the first efforts at giving the liberation approach doctrinal content. Three areas received most attention as corresponding to the most urgent needs in the life of the church: spirituality, christology, and ecclesiology. There was a wide range of publications from many Latin American countries. The main writers: in Argentina, Enrique Dussel, Juan Carlos Scarmone, Severino Croatto, and Aldo Büntig; in Brazil, João Batista Libânio, Frei Betio, Carlos Maintains, José Comblin, Eduardo Hoornaert, José Oscar Beozzo, Gilberto Gorgulho, Carlos Palácio, Leonardo Boff; in Chile, Ronaldo Muñoz, Sergio Torres, and Pablo Richard; in Mexico, Raúl Vidales, Luis del Valle, Arnaldo Zenteno, Camilo Maccise, and Jesús Garcia; in Central America, Ignacio Ellacuría, Jon Sobrino, Juan H. Pico, Uriel Molina; in Venezuela, Pedro Trigo and Otto Maduro (sociologist); in Colombia, Luis Patiño and Cecilio de Llora.
The Settling-in Stage
With the process of theological reflection well advanced, the need was seen for a dual process of "settling in" if the theology of liberation was to become firmly established. On the one hand was the understanding that the theological current needed to be given a firm epistemological basis: how to avoid duplications and confusions of language and levels while giving coherent expression to the themes arising from original spiritual experience, taking in the analytical seeing stage, moving on to the theological judging stage, and so to the pastoral action stage? Good liberation theology presupposes the art of linking its theories with the explicit inclusion of practice; in this arm liberation theology found fruitful collaborators, not only for its own purposes, but for those of the overall theological process. On the other hand, the "settling in" process was effectively achieved through the deliberate mingling of theologians and other intellectuals in popular circles and processes of liberation.
More and more theologians became pastors too, militant agents of inspiration for the life of the church at its grass roots and those of society. It became usual to see theologians taking part in involved epistemological discussions in learned congresses, then leaving to go back to their bases among the people to become involved in matters of catechesis, trade union politics, and community organization.
Names again are many; a selection should include António A. da Silva, Rogério de Almeida Cunha, Clodovis Boff, Hugo d'Ans, Francisco Taborda, Marcelo de Barros, and Eliseu Lopes, all from Brazil; Elsa Tamez and Victorio Araya from Costa Rica; D. Irarrazaval, Carmen Lima, Riolando Ames, R. Antoncich, and the late Hugo Echegaray from Peru; Victor Codina from Bolivia; Virgilio Elizondo from Texas; J. L. Caravia from Ecuador; P. Läennec, from Haiti.
The Formalization Stage
Any original theological vision tends, with the passage of time and through its own internal logic, to seek more formal expression. Liberation theology always set out to reexamine the whole basic content of revelation and tradition so as to bring out the social and liberating dimensions implicit in both sources. Again, this is not a matter of reducing the totality of mystery to this one dimension, but of underlining aspects of a greater truth particularly relevant to our context of oppression and liberation.
Such a formalization also corresponds to pastoral requirements. The last few years have seen a great extension of situations in which the church has become involved with the oppressed, with a very large number of pastoral workers involved. Many movements have come into being under the tutelage, to a large extent, of liberation theology; these in turn have posed new challenges to liberation theology. In Brazil alone, there are movements or centers for black unity and conscientization, human rights, defense of slum-dwellers, marginalized women, mission to Amerindians, rural pastoral strategy, and so forth -- all concerned in one way or another with the poorest of the poor seeking liberation.
To cope with this broad pastoral need and give theological underpinning to the training of pastoral workers, a group of more than one hundred Catholic theologians (with ecumenical contacts and Protestant collaborators) have been planning a series of fifty-five volumes under the heading Theology and Liberation, with Portuguese and Spanish publication starting in late 1985 and translations into other languages planned. Its aim will be to cover all the basic themes of theology and pastoral work from a liberation viewpoint. There are too many persons involved at this stage to list them here: all those from the earlier stages would be included, together with a number of new collaborators.
Support and Opposition
Liberation theology spread by virtue of the inner dynamism with which it codified Christian faith as it applies to the pastoral needs of the poor. Meetings, congresses, theological cal reviews, and the support of prophetic bishops -- Hélder Câmara, Luis Proaño, Samuel Ruiz, Sergio Méndez Arceo, and Cardinals Paulo Evaristo Arns and D. A. Lorscheider, among many others -- have helped to give it weight and credibility.
A series of events has been instrumental in spreading this theology and ensuring its "reception" among theologians the world over:

1. The congress at El Escorial, Spain, in July 1972 on the subject of "Christian faith and the transformation of society in Latin America."


2. The first congress of Latin American theologians, held in Mexico City in August 1975.


3. The first formal contacts between liberation theologians and advocates of U.S. black liberation and other liberation movements-feminist, Amerindian, and the like.


4. The creation of the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians (EATWOT) in 1976 and the congresses it has held: Dar es Salaam in 1976, Accra in 1977, Wennappuwa, Sri Lanka, in 1979, Situ Paulo in 1980, Geneva in 1983, Oaxtepec, Mexico, in 1986. All these produced Final Conclusions with their particular characteristics, but all within the framework of liberation theology.


5. Finally, the international theological review Concilium (published in seven languages) devoted a complete issue (vol. 6, no. 10, June 1974) to the subject of liberation theology, with all the articles coming from Latin American liberation theologians.

A number of important reviews in Latin America have become regular vehicles for the publication of articles and discussions by liberation theologians: in Mexico, Christus, Servir, and Contacto; in Venezuela, SIC; in Chile, Pastoral Popular, in Brazil, Revista Eclesiástica Brasileira (REB), Grande Sinal, Puebla, and Perspectiva Teológica; in El Salvador, Estudios Centroamericanos (ECA) and Revista Latinoamericana de Teología; in Panama, Diólogico Social.
Most countries in Latin America also have centers for theological and pastoral studies: CEAS (Centro de Estudos e Ação, Salvador), CEP (Centro de Estudios y Publicaciones, Lima), ITER (Instituto de Teologia do Recife), DEI (Departamento Ecuménico de Investigaciones, San José, Costa Rica), CAV (Centre Antonio Valdivieso, Managua), and many more. They have been important for training students imbued with a liberation approach.
While all these developments were taking place, reservations and opposition began to be expressed by some who feared the faith was becoming overpoliticized, and by others who mistrusted any use of Marxist categories in analyzing social structures. Also many were unable to accept the deep changes in the structure of capitalist society postulated by this theology. This negative reaction crystalized around three figures in particular: Alfonso López Trujillo, formerly secretary and later president of CELAM, Roger Vekemans of CEDIAL (Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo e Integración de América Latina, Bogota) and the review Tierra Nueva, and Bonaventura Kloppenburg, formerly director of the Medellin Pastoral Institute, later auxiliary bishop of Salvador, Brazil, and author of Christian Salvation and Human Temporal Progress (1979).
The Magisterium of the Church
As a general rule, the magisterium watches the development of new theologies with close attention but rarely intervenes and then only with great caution and discreet support or opposition.
As far back as 1971, the final document "Justice in the World," the topic of the second ordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops, already showed traces of liberation theology. Its echoes had become much stronger by 1974, at the third assembly of the Synod, on "Evangelization of the Modern World." The following year, Paul VI devoted fifteen paragraphs of his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi to the relationship between evangelization and liberation (nos. 25-39). This discussion forms the central core of the document, and without attempting to summarize the Pope's position, we can just say that it is one of the most profound, balanced, and theological expositions yet made of the longing of the oppressed for liberation.
The magisterium has also produced the "Instruction on Some Aspects of Liberation Theology, " under the auspices of the Prefect and Secretariat of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated August 6, 1984, and published September 3. The main points about this document are its legitimation of the expression and purpose of liberation theology, and its warning to Christians of the risk inherent in an uncritical acceptance of Marxism as a dominant principle in theological endeavor. The subject had been studied in Rome since 1974, and had been the concern of innumerable sessions of the International Theological Commission, though it did not publish my results until 1977, when it produced a "Declaration on Human Development and Christian Salvation" (included as an appendix in Kloppenburg's book mentioned above), which shows a grasp of the questions such as was to be expected from such an august theological body.
The magisterium of the church in Latin America has expressed itself primarily through the documents of two conferences. The second general conference of the episcopate of Latin America, held at Medellin, Colombia, in 1968, spoke of the church "listening to the cry of the poor and becoming the interpreter of their anguish"; this was the first flowering of the theme of liberation, which began to be worked out systematically only after Medellin. The third general conference, held at Puebla, Mexico, in 1979, shows the theme of liberation running right through its final document. The liberation dimension is seen a an "integral put" (§§355, 1254, 1283) of the mission of the church, "indispensable" (§§562, 1270), "essential" (§1302). A large put of the document (§§470-506) is devoted to evangelization, liberation, and human promotion, and a whole chapter (§§1134-56) to the "preferential option for the poor," a central axis of liberation theology.
The general tenor of the pronouncements of the magisterium, whether papal or coming from the Synod of Bishops, has been to recognize the positive aspects of liberation theology, especially with reference to the poor and the need for their liberation, as forming put of the universal heritage of Christian commitment to history. Criticisms of certain tendencies within liberation theology, which have to be taken into account, do not negate the vigorous and healthy nucleus of this form of Christian thinking, which has done so much to bring the message of the historical Jesus to the world of today.

When we were growing up

When we were growing up we never lived more than 20 or 30 minutes from any of our grandparents.  My mother took us to visit every weekend.  We spent a few hours visiting each one every Saturday.  It was our traditional Saturday routine. When I was a young man…maybe 20 or so it became apparent that I was going to lose my first grandparent.  It was emotionally distressing and traumatic on many levels.  I did not know how to cope with death; I had no tools or experience with it.  I had never lost a family member or a friend and the whole experience was new to me.

I received a call from my mother one night; I don’t remember what day of the week, just that it was very late.  She told my that Grandma Pearl had suffered a heart attack and things looked pretty bad.  She asked me to drive down and meet the family at the hospital.  I can recall it as clear as if it was yesterday.  I don’t think I ever moved so fast in my life.  I was out the door in a flash and on my way to the hospital in Stockton.  When I arrived I went in to see her and she did not look like the person I remembered growing up.  She had changed a lot over the years and had been losing her self in Alzheimer’s for some years, but even with all that taken into account she was different.  She looked like she was dying.

She looked at me and she smiled and then said….”Thank you for coming Wayne”.  Wayne was the name of one of my uncles and he and she had been estranged for many years.  I was a little flustered and did not to quite what to do.  After a moment or two’s hesitation I just said “I love you” She began to cry as did I.  I moved quickly towards her and put my arms around her.  I remember holding her so tight….I was afraid that if I loosened up just a little she might pull back a tad and recognize me.  We just sat there for some time in my arms crying.  I kept telling her over and over that I had to come, that I had missed her so, and that I always loved her.  

After a while the emotions began to wane and she stilled.  I backed away quickly but it did not seem to matter.  She was not even looking at me anymore.  The moment of clarity that I had experienced was over.  I left the room and went down to the waiting room down the hall.  Hours past and family members came and went.  It seemed that we were everywhere.  In the room, in the cafeteria, in the waiting room….you name it.  But me, I could not move.  I just sat there deep in despair.  I was in agony over lying to my grandmother in her last days.  I was scared that the real Wayne might show up, although I knew intellectually he was far away and likely did not even know.  I was angry at myself for what seemed a betrayal.  A few family members tried to talk to me about the situation but gave up after a few minutes.  I guess they assumed I was swallowed up in my grief and since I had been alone in the room with grandma I had no person to share my feelings with.  I was afraid to tell anybody for fear of being judged. I did not want to add any more drama to a family crisis that carried more than enough traumas in and of itself.

Grandma had a series of heart attack in the late afternoon.  It was these that would take her life shortly thereafter.  Everyone was gathered around her except me.  I was outside the door listening, waiting; I don’t know what I was doing.  I heard her ask where is Billy.  Why isn’t Billy here?  Things like that.  My mother and sister both came out a few times and asked me to come in the room.  I just could not.  Not only because of the charade I had pulled earlier……I was afraid of death, afraid of losing someone I loved, scared of what I might see.  I remember the sounds of her death, the sounds of her last breaths, it was horrible.  I knew it was over when I heard my mother and her sisters wailing, other people were crying.  I stood up and practically ran out of the hospital.  I remember crying most of the way home.  The phone was ringing when I got there.  I did not answer.  Later that night my sister showed up at the door.  She said I was a monster for not saying my goodbyes to grandma.  She told me that grandma died needing me at her side.  I lost it; I was just a blubbering fool from there on in.  My sister smelled blood and dove in for the kill.  I don’t remember much of what she said except that everyone was there for her except me and that in her delusional state she even thought Wayne had been there, but of course nobody believed her.

I did not speak to anybody on that side of the family for almost a year.  Mother and sister included.  My sister and I reconciled and through her I was able to put things back on track with my mother.  It took some further time to put things right with the others and with some normalcy never returned.  So much time has passed and I still have not told them the truth of what happened that night.  It has never seemed right and I don’t want to work up old wounds.  I don’t know if I’m right or wrong in this but one thing I do know, at least now in retrospect with a few years under my belt.  I know she understands.

Moving Beyond

Moving Beyond Self-JudgmentDr. Marcus Borg
Lent invites us to reflect about what is most central in the Christian life, and it also invites us to reflect about our own lives in relationship to that. It is a deeply spiritual season, like the season of Advent. Lent is perhaps the most spiritual season of the year--a season when we participate in the death and resurrection of Jesus, journeying with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, taking part in that journey and participating in that dying that He underwent himself and being raised to newness of life, just as the season of Advent is a season of preparation where we prepare for the birth of Christ within us.
Lent is also a penitential season, a season of repentance, a very somber season (perhaps even more somber in my memories of childhood than it is now). It is that season of the church year when we lose the Hallelujah within the Episcopal Church--stop singing it or saying it--when the altar is progressively stripped. It is a season of giving things up.
My sermon today combines the theme of Lent as a season of repentance with one of the more famous sayings of Jesus, which is also my text for today. It is one of the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, that great collection of Jesus' teachings that the author of Matthew assembled in a three-chapter discourse from Matthew 5 through Matthew 7. The particular beatitude I'm going to speak about is Matthew 5:8, a very familiar one. It goes like this: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."
I want to begin by talking about how I understood repentance and being pure in heart earlier in my life, all the way back to childhood and adolescence. In those years, these two themes--repentance and being pure in heart--came together, intersected in my life, and that's because, in my mind, repentance was very much associated with sin. It meant to turn from your sins. It meant owning one's sins and feeling really guilty about them and resolving not to continue in them. Lent as a season of repentance was thus a season of trying to shed my sins.
I heard this saying about being pure in heart moralistically, that is, as a moral demand -- a very rigorous and demanding moral demand -- and that's because I heard the saying in the context of Jesus teaching about lust being the same as adultery, anger being the same as murder. I heard those intensifications that we find in the Sermon on the Mount as meaning that we are supposed to be pure on the inside and not just on the outside.
I was a pretty good boy in many ways, a pretty good adolescent for that matter (I missed a lot of wonderful opportunities), and yet this saying would deeply conflict me. Even though I knew that my external behavior wasn't really all that bad, I also knew that on the inside I was not pure. I had impure thoughts, which of course we all recognize as a euphemism for sexual fantasies, and I felt very badly about them.
I also had other impure thoughts. I was covetous. There were lots of things that I wanted. I had doubts. My faith was imperfect, not pure, and so the season of Lent as a season of repentance meant trying to purify my thoughts, trying to purify myself on the inside. I would work hard on this, trying to get rid of my impure thoughts, though I was never successful. They remained, and I experienced them as an indictment of my repentance, as a sign of the failure of my repentance.
I now understand both repentance and being pure in heart very differently, and that's what I now want to tell you about. Let me begin with repentance. You will recall that in my childhood I thought of repentance as meaning turning from my sins. I now see that in the Biblical tradition, repentance actually had very little to do with sin and guilt.
We can see this by looking at the Hebrew and Greek roots of the word, which are different in each case. The Hebrew root of the word for repentance -- teshuvah -- means to return from exile. It's associated with the Jewish people coming back from the Babylonian exile to the Promised Land, to Jerusalem, to the place of God's presence. To repent was to return from exile.
Now, do a spiritual metaphorization of that. What does exile correspond to in our lives? Well, it's that feeling of separation from that to which we belong. It's that feeling of alienation. It is what Paul Tillich called a couple generations ago that experience of estrangement, separation from that to which we belong, that lies very near the experience of all of us. So repentance means a journey of return from our alienation.
The Greek roots of the New Testament word point to another meaning, and I see these as complementary, not as competitive meanings. The Greek verb metanoeo used in Mark 1:15, "The Kingdom of God is at hand, repent, "has two Greek words as its root -- meta which means "after" sometimes, but in this context means "beyond," and noeo comes from the Greek word for noose, which means mind. To repent in terms of its Greek roots in the New Testament means to go beyond the mind that you have.
It's a very interesting notion of repentance to go beyond the mind that you have. The minds that we have of course are minds shaped by our socialization; minds shaped by our culture with all of its labeling and domestication of reality and all of its desires; minds shaped by our past; minds shaped by the age we live in. To repent means to go beyond the mind that you have to another mind.
I now understand pure in heart quite differently as well. To explain, I need to talk briefly about the Biblical meanings of both heart and pure. The heart in the Biblical tradition is most frequently a metaphor for the self at its deepest level, a level of the self below our thinking, our feeling and our willing, a level of the self below our thoughts and behaviors. The heart or the self at its deepest level is actually in control of our thinking, our feeling and our willing. And thus, when I was a teenager, by trying to purify my thoughts, I was working on the wrong thing. The problem wasn't with my thoughts. It was a level of myself much deeper than my thoughts.
We see this meaning of the heart in Jesus' well-known saying about the tree and its fruits. It's found in Luke 6:43-45, also in Matthew, therefore is very early material. Jesus says, "A good tree does not bear bad fruit, and a bad tree does not bear good fruit." Then, in case that's puzzling, He goes on to say, "Figs are not gathered from thorns [you don't get figs from a thorn bush], nor are grapes gathered from a bramble bush." You get grapes from a vine, not from a bramble bush. All of this is an image for the heart and its behaviors, behaviors in a comprehensive sense, meaning our internal thoughts as well as our external behaviors.
The point of the whole saying is that to try to change your heart by fooling around with your thoughts is like hanging figs on a thorn bush. You still have a thorn bush. You don't change it by diddling with the fruit. We need changed hearts.
The other meaning here is pure -- to be pure in heart. You will recall that I had understood that moralistically. I think I got that moralistic understanding of pure hearts from the notion that to be pure is to be spotless in a moral sense. It is to be unstained. It is to be free from sin. But there is another meaning of pure in the Biblical tradition, which I think is the meaning intended in this verse.
This is pure as undivided. This is pure as whole. You recall the old Ivory soap advertising slogan -- 99 and 44/100ths percent pure. That means to be whole, to be undivided.
To be pure in heart is to be a whole self, an undivided self. What does that mean? Let me try to explain it by talking for a moment about the divided self or the divided heart. When we think about this, we realize we're divided in many ways. Let me give you some examples that range from the trivial to the more serious, to begin with the trivial.
We are divided whenever we are doing two things at the same time, which is pretty darn often when you think about it. Some of you right now might be sitting there listening to me and thinking about what you have to do when you get back to the office. That's absolutely natural, but that's a divided self. It's not always a bad thing to be doing two things at the same time. For example, I do a lot of commuting, and some of that commuting is on a wide-open highway with very little traffic. I will think about other things while I drive, and it's very fruitful. So it's not always bad to have this kind of division within the self, in which we're doing two things at the same time. But if you can never stop doing two things at the same time, that becomes far more serious, as when that internal chatter is always going on in our heads like a sound track commenting on everything we're experiencing. We're divided at that point.
More seriously, we experience the divided mind whenever that internal critical voice comes on in our head -- that voice that second-guesses you, that gets down on you. The tricky thing is that sometimes that voice should be listened to. Sometimes there are things that we get into that we probably shouldn't be into, and that voice can serve a function there. But again, if you're like me, that critical voice can be critical when it really has no reason to be so, that critical voice that basically says to us, "You're never enough, you're never enough."
In addition to that kind of divided mind, there is also what we might call a divided will. By this I mean that we want or desire more than one thing. Again, there is nothing terribly unusual about that. We live in a culture that conditions us to want a whole bunch of stuff. Most of us want to make an adequate income. I don't know that there's anything wrong with that. Some of us want to be successful in addition to that. We also want to be a good family person who has quality time with spouse and children, and we want time for rest and recreation so that we have a balanced life. All of those are okay wants, I think. I don't know about the successful one, but the other ones strike me as okay.
But all of you know -- unless you've reached that level of saintliness that some people do -- all of you know that these wants very oftentimes conflict. Can you have adequate R&R and an adequate income and quality family time and so forth? Sometimes it's not just that there are too many wants to fit into our days, but sometimes the wants directly conflict with each other. And we are divided.
In other words, this phenomenon of the divided self is our common state. Yet, if your life is like mine, the very best moments in your life are probably those moments when you have not been divided, when you have been undivided, whole, wholly present. This, I'm suggesting, is what it means to be pure in heart, to be undivided, to be whole.
A very provocative way of putting this comes from the great 19th century philosopher/theologian, radical Christian Soren Kierkegaard. He sums up what it means to be pure in heart with a three-phrase definition. I'm going to give you the first phrase first. Commenting on this verse -- blessed are the pure in heart -- Kierkegaard says, purity of heart means to will one thing, not many. The second and third phrases I'll do together, for they fill out his definition of purity in heart.
The second phrase: to will it unconditionally. What is that one thing? The third phrase: one's own self-acceptance. Purity of heart is to will one thing, to will it unconditionally, and that one thing is one's unconditional self-acceptance.
Most of us most of the time put conditions on our self-acceptance. Again just reflect about your own life here. I can accept myself if ____and you can start filling in the blank yourself …if I'm attractive enough, successful enough, healthy enough, sensitive enough, et cetera. Whenever we attach conditions to our self-acceptance, then we begin to live the life of trying to measure up. We try to meet those conditions so that we can feel okay about ourselves.
This is life under the superego, that voice that says you're never enough. What Kierkegaard says is purity of heart is leaving that way of being; it is willing one's own unconditional self-acceptance. Now, in some ways, that sounds outrageous. Isn't that the way of narcissism? Isn't that the way of sociopathic narcissism even to accept one's self unconditionally? It's at this point that Kierkegaard becomes a Christian theologian, namely, he goes on to say that the reason we are to accept ourselves unconditionally is because God accepts us unconditionally.
This is very different from many forms of conventional Christianity, where God will accept you if your repentance is earnest enough, if your faith is strong enough, if your righteousness is good enough, and if you feel guilty enough about the times that your righteousness isn't good enough. Those are all conditional forms of the Christian Gospel, and once you have a conditional form of the Christian Gospel, you're no longer talking about grace. You're talking about performance, measuring up, works. Kierkegaard, as a radical Christian theologian in the Lutheran and Augustinian and Pauline tradition, says grace means God's unconditional acceptance of us. And if God accepts me unconditionally, who am I to put conditions on it?
By the way, this is also one of the central themes of Lent, unconditional grace. Two of the most common meanings or interpretations of the Cross are expressions of this, that understanding of the Cross which sees it as a demonstration of the depth of God's love for us. How much does God love us? God loves us so much that God is willing to part with that which is most precious to God, namely, within the language of the story, the only beloved Son. That's the depth of God's love for us.
The other very common interpretation of the Cross sees it as the once-for-all sacrifice for sin. If the once-for-all sacrifice for sin has happened -- and don't literalize that or it becomes nonsense -- if the once-for-all sacrifice for sin has been made, that means that God has already taken care of our sin and guilt. It is a metaphorical proclamation of unconditional grace, which is the central meaning of Good Friday and Easter.
I think we are kind of afraid of this unconditional self-acceptance. If I accept myself unconditionally, does that mean I'm never going to change? Even though I might be a little bit comfortable with accepting myself unconditionally, do I want other people to accept themselves unconditionally?
To guard against a misunderstanding, unconditional self-acceptance does not mean that nothing will change or that none of us need to change. Rather, if we begin to see ourselves as God sees us -- as precious in God's sight and honored and beloved -- we will begin to change. We will experience that freedom of the children of God, that self-forgetfulness of faith, that freedom from self-preoccupation that enables us to be wholly present to the moment and wholly present to the person in front of our face, free to see. An internal transformation begins that begins to change everything.
So the season of Lent, the journey of Lent, is about dying to that divided self, the split self, the preoccupied self. It's about becoming pure in heart, undivided, whole. It's about going beyond the mind that you have. It's about a journey of return from exile. It's about endings and beginnings. It's about waking on Easter with a new heart, a new self, an undivided heart, a whole heart-- for blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Amen.

Notes from the Joseph Cycle

Gen 45:4  Then Joseph said to his brothers, "Come closer to me." And they came closer. He said, "I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt.
Gen 45:5  And now do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life.
Gen 45:6  For the famine has been in the land these two years; and there are five more years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest.
Gen 45:7  God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors.
Gen 45:8  So it was not you who sent me here, but God; he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.


During this exchange Joseph was probably seated on a chair of state looking down upon his brothers.  He asked them to draw closer to him in a gentle manner, perhaps to speak without being overheard, perhaps so they might better see his features. When he revealed his true self they must have felt apprehension and maybe fear.  Then surprisingly he admonishes them not to grieve nor be angry with themselves for their actions.  Joseph explains that they were but instruments of God in this and he had been sent to Egypt to preserve life.  Uncounted numbers of lives which had been preserved in Egypt as well as the Levantine region through Joseph’s careful preparations.  He repeats his statement that God has sent him there before them.  He seems to do this to relieve their sorrow and guilt. He impresses upon them that it was to preserve them and their posterity.  Their actions put him in a position to deliver them into safety and their actions were the will of God.

Joseph did not react in wrath seeking vengeance.  He took the higher road and sought to discern the greater good in the actions that had befallen him.  Life had given young Joe a pile of lemons and he made lemonade for everyone.


Gen 50:15  Realizing that their father was dead, Joseph's brothers said, "What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong that we did to him?"
Gen 50:16  So they approached [194] Joseph, saying, "Your father gave this instruction before he died,
Gen 50:17  "Say to Joseph: I beg you, forgive the crime of your brothers and the wrong they did in harming you.' Now therefore please forgive the crime of the servants of the God of your father." Joseph wept when they spoke to him.
Gen 50:18  Then his brothers also wept, [195] fell down before him, and said, "We are here as your slaves."
Gen 50:19  But Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God?
Gen 50:20  Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.
Gen 50:21  So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones." In this way he reassured them, speaking kindly to them.

After Jacob/Israel had passed into death Joseph’s brothers were fearful that Joseph would seek vengeance upon them for the cruelty they had done him.  This seems to indicate that despite Joseph’s gracious and friendly manner towards them in Egypt they were still fearful of being held to account for what they had done.  Their guilt led them to believe that Joseph would act in a way other than that which he had indicated.  The root of their concern seems to have been that Joseph may have felt wrathful throughout, and had only withheld his indignation during their father’s lifetime out of respect for him.  Perhaps this is the way they themselves would have acted in same or similar circumstances and they were unable to comprehend someone behaving otherwise.

They sent to their brother saying that their father had instructed them to tell him that he desired Joseph to forgive his brothers of all they had done to him.  Perhaps this was a lie, perhaps it was the truth, we can not know.  There seems to be no mention of it in the dying statement and blessing of Jacob to his sons.  

The plea is powerful in that it makes note of their common parentage and the fact they were all followers of the same God.  Joseph is portrayed as weeping upon hearing these words.  Perhaps he was concerned over their emotional distress, but he may have also been saddened, in that they should hold him in such low opinion and distrust, despite all the kindness and generosity he had shown them.  Joseph seems to have forgiven their misdeeds long ago.

When they heard this they took heart reply.  They went to their brother themselves and fell down before him.  They humbled themselves, prostrating themselves before him in shame, declaring themselves to be his servants.  Joseph again took the high road and admonished them to fear not, and posed the question, am I in the place of God?  Joseph refused to allow them to assume the place of servants.  His words must have lifted their spirits and hearts.

Joseph did not let them completely off the hook and called their attention to the fact that they had intended him ill, but softens this statement with the caveat that despite their intentions God had meant him not ill but good
And through God’s plan many lives had been spared death in the famine.

He told them not to fear him that he would take care of them and their children.  He comforted them and spoke kindly to them.  Joseph proved himself to be a man of compassion who was not willing to let people problems override the underlying fabric of God’s divinely ordained plan.