Why, for Sobrino, must theology consider the cross of Jesus as a real happening in history? Jon Sobrino is a leading liberation theologian from South America. A Roman Catholic, he was strongly involved in CELAM II, commonly known as Medellin. This was a council that led to a radical departure from the previous Roman Catholic Church support of the Latin American rulers. The council described the situation in Latin America as �institutionalised violence� against the people (Grenz & Olsen, p.210). This conference is often considered the �beginning of liberation theology. Sobrino is a Spaniard who works in El Salvador. He has first hand experience of the situation in Latin America, which has deeply influenced his theology. Sobrino has a theology, which views the cross of Jesus at the centre of Christianity and has the historical reality of the cross of Jesus as crucial to Christian thinking. At the centre of Sobrino�s thought is the crisis in Latin America. He claims that the theological roots of this crisis go deeper than ecclesiology itself. He seeks to determine a valid general frame of reference for our situation. His theology holds the real situation of people central to all areas of thinking. As such, the suffering of those oppressed in today�s society must be able to relate to the suffering of Jesus in a real way, so the cross of Jesus and his suffering on the cross must be a real event of history. To understand Jon Sobrino�s emphasis on the historical reality of the cross of Jesus, it is crucial to understand how Sobrino arrives at his Christology. The point from which he starts is the natural place to begin an analysis. Various starting points for Christology have been used in previous Christologies, but Sobrino regards these as problematical. He disagrees with starting at the Chalcedonian affirmation, partly due to the difficulties of terms such as �person�, �nature� and �hypostasis�; partly due to formal difficulties and the theological difficulty of the notion of �descent� implied in the affirmation. Another approach which Sobrino discounts is a Biblical focus, not necessarily historical, but defining the distinctive character of Jesus. Sobrino�s problem with this is that it already embodies a later process of theologising the Jesus event. Also, there are several different Christologies in the New Testament. Another, which Sobrino identifies, is to start off with experiencing Christ as present in cultic worship, and then faith knows of the existence of the historical event. The problem here is that we cannot accept that presence is the starting point for Christology, how can we determine that experience is experience and not illusion and deceit. Starting with the resurrection has some grounds recommending it, but this cannot be known directly, it is an object of our cognition and faith. K�hler�s approach of starting with Christ�s kerygma is troubled, as it is open to much arbitrariness due to its failure to offer concrete content. The teaching of Jesus is an inappropriate staring point as it ignores Jesus� eschatological character. For Sobrino, Christology cannot start with soteriology, with the aspect of Christ as saviour. If this were the case, Christology would become just another variable in anthropology; Christ would become a symbol and Christology cannot be based on human interests. (Sobrino, p.3-8). Sobrino�s starting point for Christology is the historical Jesus. He sees it important to concentrate on the objective aspect of the Christ event, not some subjective aspect involving ourselves (Sobrino, p.2). For him, it is the person, teaching attitudes and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth insofar as they are accessible to historical and general investigation. This avoids abstractionism, and therefore the danger of manipulation of the Christ event. The focusing on the Christ of faith jeopardises the very essence of the Christian faith if it neglects the historical Jesus. The historical Jesus is the hermeneutic principle that enables us to draw closer to the totality of Christ both in terms of knowledge and in terms of real-life praxis. This is how Sobrino finds the unity of Christology and soteriology (Sobrino, p.2, 8-9). At the centre of the historical Jesus is his crucifixion. This is the central facet in theology for Sobrino. It is the eschatological centre of Jesus� life. European theology came to the problem of the historical Jesus through the interest in historical criticism. In Latin America liberation theology has focused on the historical Jesus for guidance and orientation. Sobrino says that it is a useful mid-point from which to view Christ: �The historical Jesus would serve as a satisfactory midway point between two extremes: turning Christ into an abstraction on the one hand, or putting him to direct and immediate ideological uses on the other� (Sobrino p.10). Sobrino also points to the fact that there is a noticeable relationship in similarity between Latin America and the situation in which Jesus lived. This is crucial for Sobrino�s theology. There is an objective similarity in that there is widespread poverty. There is also a cognisance of the predicament that is this situation is widely regarded as sinful. According to Sobrino, there is also a similarity in the development of Christologies. In New Testament times, there was no fabricated Christology; they only possessed testimonies of people who claimed they had seen Jesus. There were two poles from which the diverse Christologies of the New Testament were developed. The first was Jesus of Nazareth; the second was the concrete situation of each community. �The resurrection of Jesus made their faith possible, but in the elaboration of a Christology they had to deal with the concrete features of Jesus� life� (Sobrino, p.13). Latin American people are confronted with the same situation. They are working out Christology by comparing their concrete situation with that of Jesus. The death of Jesus shows that he truly suffered the same way that those in poverty in Latin America do today, and as such, it is an important concrete point of reference for the people in Latin America to develop Christology from. Theology must therefore accept that the cross of Jesus as a real happening in Jesus. If it didn�t happen, then there can be no true concrete similarity in their situations. The central feature of Christianity is the assertion that Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, died by crucifixion. The idea of the death of the divine figure was what made the Christian faith so radically different from almost all of the contemporary religious faiths and traditions. Sobrino points out that theological reflection on the life of Jesus is very infrequent. When it is carried out, it does not bring out the fact that a new, unprecedented concept of God on both the theoretical and practical levels is implied by the cross of Christ. Sobrino asserts that there should be a more concerted emphasis in theology on the cross of Jesus and the scandal of the event and what it means for today. It is absolutely crucial to the Christian people. The cross has traditionally been the main focus of popular festivity in Latin America. The great Christian feast for peasants and oppressed people is, for Sobrino, Good Friday, not Easter Sunday. This has always been a passive element of Christian faith in Latin America. A more activist focus on the cross has now emerged. The situation directly affects the conception of Jesus� resurrection: �The present situation rules out any merely romantic conception of Jesus� resurrection. It forces us to reflect theologically on the death of Jesus, and ultimately on the crucified God. Without the cross the resurrection is idealistic. The utopia of Christian resurrection becomes real only in terms of the cross� (Sobrino, p.180). Thus, the historical reality of the cross of Jesus is critical to the theological notion of Christian resurrection. Without it, it is impossible to conceptualise the resurrection of Christian people with concrete reality. Here it is also crucial to remember the presence of God on the cross. Absence would make the cross irrelevant to the notion of Christian resurrection. The presence of God and therefore the death of God is scandalous. The sense of scandal about Jesus� death is critical for Sobrino. Sobrino asserts that right from the earliest attempts at interpretations of the Christ event. The presence of God on the cross and therefore God dying has led many people to postulate theological schemes that avoid the scandal of God dying. There are two aspects to the scandal. The Son dying in disaster. The second aspect is even harder to accept, even if one is willing to accept the first point. It is that the Father was passive on Jesus� cross. Christian theology finds it almost impossible to ponder his passivity in the face of Jesus� cross. The way to accept these, according to Sobrino, is to arrive at knowledge of God starting from Jesus� cross. This is opposed to the common way of arriving at Jesus� cross through some previously held knowledge of God. This is strongly related to the earlier point of the starting point for Christology (Sobrino, p. 190-195). Theological considering of the death of Jesus leads to a reformulate conceptions of God. The cross breaks down self-interest that prompts us to ask questions about the deity and his reality as a human being. The church in the first few centuries had difficulties in fitting the cross of Jesus into the Greek thought that was dominant in philosophical circles. Greek thought�s task was to clarify the relationship between order and disorder. The notion of nothingness that the cross implied was completely alien to Greek thought. Christianity got around the concept of the Creation out of nothing by Biblical thought, but it did not know how to incorporate the kind of nothingness that is death into a conception of God. Death was not questioned in itself; it was a transition to another kind of existence. Sobrino sees this as crucial to any historical theology of liberation. There is so much death in oppressed societies. The notion of death cannot be limited to a theoretical transition to another existence. This is not satisfactory to people living in constant fear of their lives. Liberation theology must get beyond Greek thought. Sobrino cites Bonhoeffer saying, �Only a God who suffers can save us� as apt. For Sobrino, this is worthy of close analysis because the very essence of Christian God is at stake. The notion, as St. John stated that God is Love is central, though perhaps difficult to fully comprehend, i.e. how can God express his love in this world of misery where so many are oppressed. Sobrino says that love has to be credible to human beings in an unredeemed world. He says �We must consider the possible revelation of God in the cross of Jesus.� If the cross of Jesus was not a historical reality, the revelation of God in the cross could not have occurred. Without the physical reality, the revelation could not have been experienced by normal human beings, such as us (Sobrino, p.195-198). �One initial way to recover the original meaning of Jesus� cross is to see it as the historical consequence of his life.� This is the natural way to view the cross, coming as it does at the end of Jesus� life. This requires considering God�s plan, which could be considered in completely ahistorical terms. This would suggest that God chose one event arbitrarily in Jesus� life to carry out the work of redemption. Sobrino sees it differently. God became incarnate in history and accepted its mechanisms, ambiguities and contradictions. It follows that the cross reveals God in conjunction with the historical path that leads Jesus to the cross, not just in himself. The revelation is the issue at debate here. Does God reveal himself just at key points in Jesus� life, such as the transfiguration and his baptism or throughout the whole of the life of Jesus? Chalcedon affirms that the Logos assumed a human nature. This is too abstract for Sobrino. To be human is to be historical, and to find oneself immersed in a given situation and respond to it. Jesus� situation is a contrast: there is the eschatological proclamation of the kingdom of God; then there is the existence of sin. �Sin has an external embodiment that gives shape and structure to the overall situation.� This is crucial in understanding the incarnation of God and therefore the crucifixion. The structure of the life of Jesus on Earth is therefore laden with contradiction. It leads to Jesus facing �a choice between two deities: either a God wielding oppressive power or a God offering and effecting liberation.� Jesus going to the cross is no random event in the face of the dilemma presented to him. The course is also a trial of the deity. �The path to the cross is nothing else but a questioning search for the true God and for the true essence of power. Is power meant to oppress people or to liberate them?� The historical nature of the cross is the ultimate proof of the path of Jesus� life and the nature of God who is a liberating God. This is crucial for liberation theology. In conclusion, the reality of the cross opens the reality of freedom from and oppression for people in the real world. Without the cross being accepted as a real historical event, the reality of salvation through the cross would be impossible to achieve for Sobrino. Various effects on theology have led Christian thought to side-step the reality of the cross through the ages. Sobrino holds it at the centre of his theology and feels that it must therefore be viewed as a historical reality. �Because of Jesus, we can die in the hope of resurrection; we can look forward to a new heaven and a new earth.� Bibliography Christology at the Crossroads, Jon Sobrino (1976, ET 1978); SCM Press. 20th Century Theology, Stanley J. Grenz & Roger E. Olson (1992); The Paternoster Press.
