A. To what main question is Gutierrez's discussion of "the mysterious meeting of two freedoms"(ch. 9) directed, and how does he answer that question?
The main question that Gutierrez directs in his discussion of "the mysterious meeting of two freedoms" in chapter 9 is: Is it sufficient enough to explain whatever happens, especially all God's actions in history, in predictable ways which are provided by the fixed schemes of theologies?1) The succinct answer of Gutierrez to the question may be that a God-talk by rational language alone is sufficient enough and thereby a liberation theology in Latin America requires mystical language. Gutierrez answers that question by three steps: "the turning point of the world"2)(pp. 67-72), "the freedom of God"3)(pp. 72-75), and "human littleness and respect for God"4)(pp. 75-81). Let's explore how Gutierrez answer that question.
1. The turning point of the world
The innocent who suffers unjustly experience the absence or silence of God and find no language about God. Is God really absent or silent? Is it impossible for them to say about God? Gutierrez's answer is that God is present in and talking to them at the situation and thereby they can say about God. Then, why are they ignorant of the fact? For they do not understand where the divine providence has its origin.
For Gutierrez the experience of the divine absence or silence does not mean the literal absence or silence of God but implies a ciphered massage sent from God. The traditional decipherments of the cipher seem to three: the denial of the reality of evil, the understanding of evil as the result of temporal retribution, and finally the pedagogical understanding of evil. In this section Gutierrez' assault is concentrated upon the second, the doctrine of temporal retribution from two respects.
First, the doctrine misunderstands the origin of the divine providence. Gutierrez seems to think that the doctrine presupposes that the divine plan has it origin in justice. He, of course, acknowledges that the preferential love for the poor is necessary but thinks that it is not sufficient because he clearly sees that every seeking justice in the world is involved in some degrees of self-interest and thereby is at best merely the relative achievement of the universal love.5) For the reason Gutierrez maintains that God's plan is essentially rooted in the free and gratuitous love of God.
Second, the doctrine erroneously presupposes God's actions in history to be predictable. Gutierrez, however, argues that the divine activities in history are essentially free and beyond human preestimates and thereby that they are fundamentally unpredictable and mysterious. According to him, since God's love is free, it cannot be controlled or manipulated by human; while, as the divine love is gratuitous, it is given to all humankind without any charge. For the reason God takes an initiative in loving human beings which is the meeting point of two mysterious freedoms, God and human. This is what Gutierrez calls "the turning point of the world." In this respect Gutierrez seems to decipher the absence or silence of God as the meeting point of two mysterious freedoms,
2. The freedom of God
According to Gutierrez' account, Job with his friends also pretends to know all God's actions in history and protest against God. In Job 39: 4-25 God attacks against Job's protests by saying the mysterious plans of God toward the world of nature. The divine providence in creation is to allow the creatures to enjoy their own freedom. Here it can be asked: Why does God remark on that freedom instead of giving Job a direct answer to the question why the innocent suffer unjustly? Gutierrez' answer is: For God makes Job recognize that a human cannot understand fully whatever happens in history including the divine activities.
According to Gutierrez animals in nature are created to live freely on their own purpose. Humans, however, tend to misunderstand the original purpose of creation from the anthropocentric view of "utility."6) Likewise, they erroneously regard it possible to understand whatever happens in history including all God's actions. But God is essentially free, his free activities are largely unpredictable, and his unpredictable ways of behavior in history cannot understood fully by humans. For the reason only when accept the divine grace (=the grace of God's love), humans can understand the divine providence in the midst of the absence or silence.
3. Human littleness and respect for God
For Gutierrez the acceptance of the divine grace (=the grace of God's love) has two stages: the confession of human littleness and respect for God. The first stage is to confess human littleness before God. At this moment the confession does not include repentance. Gutierrez argues that, when confessing his littleness, Job does not repent his sin and still has the questions about "God's just government of the world."7) The answer to the question is sought on the second stage.
The second stage is to respect for God. Why do the innocent suffer unjustly? Why does God permit evil? Gutierrez' answer is: For God is not all-powerful in that he respects for human freedom, cannot punish evildoers arbitrarily, and his freedom is, thereby, restricted by it.8) However, Gutierrez denies that human can know God fully and completely. God is still God and human is still human even when the divine power is limited by human freedom. Why is the divine power restricted by human freedom? Is a human, in its origin, powerful enough to restrict God's power? No. The restriction is imposed by God himself.9) Why does he impose restrictions upon his omnipotence? The answer may be: For God truly loves and respects for us. Since God first loves and respects for us, it is necessary for us to respect for God.
But a question still remains: If evil will not be destroyed by God, is it out of the control of God's power? Gutierrez' answer is that evil is under God's control even though it will not be destroyed. If God controls over evil, why is there still evil? Is his controlling power not strong enough? It seems to be hard to seek the answer to the question because it is not given. The answer may be that God permits evil but will finally withdraw it just as everything come from God and will return to him. The final paragraph of chapter 9 seems to insinuate the possibility of this answer.
The Lord's signature follows: "Everything under heaven is mine." Everything that is and happens bears in some way God's trademark; that is why human beings do not understand it completely.10)
B. How adequate do you find his handling of this question?
Gutierrez's handling of the main question has both adequacies and inadequacies. He seeks the ultimate motivation for Christian praxis not in the preferential love but in the universal love because every seeking justice in history has to do with some degrees of self-interest and Christian practice without seeking spiritual value merely deteriorates into political programs. This makes him emphasize the importance of grace which is apt to be disregarded by the activist theologies. However, his assertion of the disinterested faith is doubtful because nobody in the world is exempted from the taints of self-interest. In this respect disinterestedness may be the ultimate ideal of Christian motivation but can never be achieved in history.11)
The strength of Gutierrez is found in his dealing with the divine power. If the divine power is understood all-powerful to determine every detail of the world, God becomes immoral and irresponsible because God is totally responsible for evil when God has all power while his creature has no power. If God must be morally good, his power should be restricted and shared by his creatures to some degree. For the reason Gutierrez affirms the two freedoms, the freedom of God and of human.
However, he is not consistent in championing two freedoms in that he does not deal with the source of evil. Gutierrez is silent about the source of evil as well as about the reason why he is silent about that. He just acknowledges the reality of evil clearly. But without elucidation of where evil comes, is it possible to understand the reason why the innocent must suffer unjustly and to give them the true hope?
Finally, it should be noted that the author seems to confuse between 'unpredictable' and 'unknowable' when he discusses the mystery of God in the midst of absence or silence. On the literal level we cannot know something unknowable in no way. On the same level we may or may not know something unpredictable. In this respect two words cannot be used interchangeably. Of course, the author does not use the word 'unknowable' but his logic behind his discussion of the mysterious reality of God is that the unpredictable is the unknowable. Based upon this logic, Gutierrez blames Job with his friends to be those who pretends to know the unknowable God. Unknowable is necessarily unpredictable, but not vice versa.
1) In the earlier pages of the chapter Gutierrez mentions that the aim of chapter 9 is to share the tradition of mystical language about God with the Scriptures, especially the book Job: "God speaks, but in an unpredictable way--making no reference to concrete problems and therefore not responding to the distress and questions of Job...What God says is disconcerting to the reader, but Job seems to understand it (see 40: 3-4, and 42: 1-6). Our aim is to share this understanding."(p. 68) According to this presupposition, the author interprets God's addresses to Job in Job 39: 13-25 as "an implied question: Must all that happens in history, including God's action, necessarily fit hand in glove with the theological categories that reason has developed?"(p. 75) In addition, he understands God's question to Job in Job 40: 8 as following questions: "Do you persist in staying locked into a world of easy explanations? Are you going to dispute my right to control what comes upon you? Are you trying to imprison my free and gratuitous love in your theological concept? Do you want to make yourself judge of my actions?(p. 77) Gustavo Gutierrez, On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent, trans. Matthew J. O'Connell (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1994)
2) Ibid., p. 67
3) Ibid., p. 72
4) Ibid., p. 75
5) For the reason Gutierrez argues that the retribution theory is a kind of self-interest and thereby cannot be the true motivation for Christian practice. He says: "...the doctrine of retribution is not the key to understanding the universe; this doctrine can give rise only a commonplace relationship of self-interest with God and others." Ibid., p.70
6) Ibid., p. 75
7) Ibid., p. 76
8) Gutierrez says as follows:
God wants justice indeed, and desires that divine judgement (mishpat)reign in the world; but God cannot impose it, for the nature of created beings must be respected. God's power is limited by human freedom; for without freedom God's justice would not be present within history. Furthermore, precisely because human beings are free, they have the power to change their course and be converted. The destruction of the wicked would put an end to that possibility.
Ibid., p.77
9) Gutierrez says: "Yahweh too has limits, which are self-imposed." Ibid., p. 79
10) Ibid., p. 81
11) See chapter 4 of Reinhold Niebuhr's book, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (SanFransico: Harper Collins Publishers, 1987)