Gustavo Gutiérrez dies aged 96

The Rev. Dr. Gustavo Gutiérrez is regarded as the father of liberation theology. I remember Gutiérrez giving a lecture series which I attended many years ago. He was wise, insightful, and had a sense of humour. He reminded me a lot of the president of our seminary, the Rev. Dr. William Hordern, like Hordern he had a strong theology of grace. For more on Gutiérrez, read the following tribute here.

Personal life and theology

At least four theologians that I am aware of have been involved in; or allegations have been made against them of inappropriate sexual behaviour.

   As a seminary student, a long time ago, I became aware of Paul Tillich’s sexual infidelity. His wife Hannah did speak of it, even though some claim that they had an agreed upon “open marriage.” When Tillich taught at Union Theological Seminary in New York, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr was apparently upset with Tillich’s attitude toward female students, and he withdrew his friendship from Tillich.

   According to some, Karl Barth was, and still is, considered the most significant 20^th century theologian. Yet of late, I read a disturbing piece about his decades-long adulterous relationship with his personal assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum. Barth apparently tried to rationalize away this extra-marital relationship, even considering it as God-intended, so much for “Thou shall not commit adultery.” One wonders how his wife felt about it, and why she would continue to tolerate it.

   In North America, for some time now, there have been allegations against Martin Luther King, Jr. too, that he was involved in several extra-marital affairs. Whether or not these can be substantiated, I don’t know.

   More recently, also in North America, there has been coverage of inappropriate sexual behaviour by theologian John Howard Yoder; over one-hundred women were sexually violated.

   I confess this leaves a bad and discouraging impression on me about the theology of these theologians. It raises a difficult ethical question: Should sexual misbehaviour, and in some cases abuse, have an effect on how we regard the theological works of these theologians? If so, how?

   As Lutherans, we have denounced and distanced ourselves from Martin Luther’s horrifying treatises, On the Jews and their lies, and Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants. However, I hazard to guess that most Lutherans don’t write off Luther completely with regards to many of his other writings. Moreover, even though we do not accept or endorse his anti-Semitism, we do appreciate a considerable number of his reforms that he introduced to Christendom.

   So, when we learn of the sins of theologians whom we previously respected; does that change how we regard their theology? If so, how? What do you think? 

Chief of Sinners?

Cartoon credit: Agnus Day www.agnusday.org

 

 

I like the irony in this cartoon, although I'm not sure I understand the humour in it. This is tomorrow's epistle lesson, wherein the apostle Paul gives himself the "honour," or "privilege" of being regarded as the "chief of sinners." I get the concluding remark regarding self-centred, and its irony. Luther, of course, defined sin as being turned in upon one's self. So does not being called "chief of sinners" epitomize that reality? Why did Paul want that honour or privilege? Was it because he had an overly guilty/shameful conscience, as some commentators try to make the case for? I'm doubtful of that, since he describes himself in Philippians as a very zealous, and advanced Torah-keeping Jew, so I don't think he'd be filled with a guilty/shameful conscience. Or perhaps is it that Paul just simply has an overly big ego or super-ego and needs/craves attention? Or related to that, is it because he insists on having authority as an apostle over those whom is is supposedly "serving," i.e. the Gentile congregations?  The phrase "chief of sinners," may very well be an honour/privilege of every human being, since we are all equals in God's eyes and presence - i.e. we are all sinners, and we are all in need of forgiveness, mercy and grace, and in Christ, recipients of the same. So, in that sense, Paul is not of a higher rank of class or status than any other human being.

   All in all, I think Paul is a rather "loner," "maverick" apostle - who ironically seems to insist in his own correctness theologically and the claim of authority to buttress that correctness; yet, ironically, in Galatians, he doesn't seem to have a lot of respect for the authority of the other apostles, since it was at least three years before he went to visit the apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem. In this same letter, Paul records a dispute with Peter regarding the latter's dietary habits, which Paul thought hypocritical. However, we don't have Peter's side of the dispute, so is Paul merely running Peter down, taking a cheap shot at him in order to exonerate himself and his authority? It's hard to come to a clear conclusion. 

   When all is said and done, regarding Paul's life and work however, I think we are left with the sense of irony and paradox that he does come across on the negative side as being patronizing toward the Gentile congregations, self-centred and overly heavy handed, and an advocate of women being submissive to men in marriage and in church leadership roles, while at the same time seeming to rethink that view in Galatians by stating there is neither male nor female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile, all are equal/one in Christ, and, of course, in terms of his theological reasoning powers and creativity, he is likely the most sophisticated of all the New Testament authors, with the exception of the author of the Gospel of John. One wonders where or how far Christianity would have gotten without Paul, since he was instrumental in founding many of the Gentile congregations in the Mediterranean world.