The Preferential Option for the Poor and the Kingdom of God

By Jaime Briceño

The necessity to engage ourselves in a new evangelization demands more than simply looking for new,
and creative ways of bringing the Gospel message to people. One may think that being “cool” about
the Gospel can really be a means to bring children, youths, and adults to a clearer understanding of
what we are called to become as the Christians of XXI Century America.

However, I would like the reader to consider that perhaps we do not fully understand the
problems that we find in our own diocese(s) with the younger generations not getting involved with
their faith, or perhaps just leaving the church after their confirmation; People who are not fully aware
that their Christian calling could perhaps be revitalized by considering a “new” proposal of what is
central to the Christian Faith. This article would be an attempt to look with new eyes at the Genesis
narrative in light of what this could tell us about our dignity as humans, before moving to look at how
the covenant relationship on Sinai, brings us to the ever-living proclamation of the Good News of Jesus,
who lived and walked with us 2000 years ago, and still holds much meaning for us, in our XXI Century
America.

In order to begin this conversation, the reader should note that this is above all, a dialogue,
and that any theological enterprise should always be a dialogue between us and the Creator, between
the people of God and those we as Christians are called to serve, because at the end there must be a
certain universality in the way we approach things. We are truly called to serve everyone, whether
Christians or non-Christians, believers or non-believers.

The narrative found in Genesis 1-3 presents us with a central theme for a Christian Life, i.e. the
source of our dignity as human beings, and the relation between creature and Creator. It is in the
declaration of being created in the “image and likeness of God” that one finds the most challenging
revelation in the whole creation story of Genesis. In light of our scientific knowledge one could well
dismiss the creation as narrative made to explain this central reality that “God created ‘humans’ in his
own image. In the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.(Gen 1:27)”
Ultimately creationism is not the real question to ask the Genesis text, since the core of the narrative is
really centered on the dignifying way God’s image and likeness is manifested in each of us.

“Why should this be central to our Christian life?” It should be central because the original
status of creative love found in Genesis, points to what makes human beings so different, and how
imprinted within us is this radical equality, a radical equality that is grounded in being made in the
image of God as male and female. Looking at it this way we can realize that whenever there is a
matter of injustice and inequality, whenever we abuse each other, or make one another objects, we are
rejecting the image of God that we should be acknowledging as a reality in one another.

Sin then becomes a matter not only of rejecting what is good for us, but also of rejecting the
fact that God is present in my brother, or my sister, within the reach of my hand. Therefore we need to
be aware that embracing the “image of God” brings the presence of God to a new reality, and this is
seen by the process of salvation inaugurated in Genesis. It is true that in Genesis 3 we are confronted
with a fallen humanity, but it is because of this that we can say that the “image” stamped on us,
becomes a sign of God’s plan of Salvation.

Clearly this great mystery of Salvation, as it unfolds in our Genesis narrative, creates a
primordial sense of entering into relationship, relationship between the creature and the Creator which
definitely moves us beyond a simplistic tale of creation to a tale of relation. So, then one can see how
the question of Creationism doesn’t really fit into this dynamic even though one could make such a case
on other ground. None of these grounds are biblical since the reality of the Genesis narrative really
points us in a different direction.

Already in understanding the proper use of the word “creation” (bara) by the Hebrew writer, the
process of creation is limited to a divine action. Therefore the action is only performed by the Divine “I
AM” separating it from any regular terms for making. Surely today’s understanding of creation should
encompass more than a simplistic making, having always in mind a covenant understanding. It is
through covenants that God enters into relationship with his people and it is already in creation that the
covenant is first begun. The connection is very simple, and is due to the fact that the God of creation
desires to enter into relationship with the world he creates out of pure love.

There is not a sense in which God wants to create in order to subdue. One can then say that the
primary action of God as Creator is not to overpower or to enter into competition with his creatures, but
rather through the covenant of love, which He already inaugurates in creation, He primarily whishes to
make himself known to his creatures, always in love. This primordial covenant keeps in mind the fact
that each creature has a purpose. According to the Genesis account, this is important to remember in
order to understand what role humanity, and the rest of creation, play in such a covenant.

It is clear that once we call to mind the process of covenant relationships one has to always
keep salvation in mind. The covenant on Sinai is the product of God’s liberative and salvific action from
the yoke of Egypt. So already this covenant is the product of the fact that each creature plays its own
role in the creation; one can begin to see all the salvation overtones there.

In light of the covenant at Sinai, moving from the exodus narrative and looking always “back”
to the creative covenant one can not help but see a process of liberation. In the Genesis narrative our
freedom is presented as part of the “image” and “likeness” each of us has, as revealed in Gen. 1:27. In
light of the covenant made explicit on Sinai, we can move to see that God’s name as it is revealed, has
a lot to say about freedom and justice. Even before God’s name was revealed, even before Moses
realized what was really happening with that burning bush, God presents the reason of his self
revelation: “I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry
because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them out of
the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land
flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites,
the Hivites, and the Jebusites”(Ex.3:7-8). God’s revelation of the knowledge of the suffering of the
people and God’s desire that the people would be delivered, from such a suffering, is what puts the
grand finale on God’s creation. The “image of God” becomes the source by which God is in solidarity
with us, a solidarity that is expressed in completion by the deliverance of God’s people.

Following this line of reasoning, one can even attempt to see how Exodus as central in Israel’s
salvation history presents us with an astonishing reality: i.e. that God responds to the cry of those who
are poor; that this involves liberating God’s people from suffering and oppression[1]. As I mentioned
before this is always marked by God’s desire to enter into relationship with his people. We are the ones
responsible to make this relationship present in our world today, while always looking at the
implications this has for our daily living and for our salvation.

For this reason, if one can see freedom as primordial for God, then it should be primordial for
us. Freedom should never be taken as a sort of dangerous idea, because, it is central for understanding
our own anthropology, the “image of God” present within us. Even before the covenant law took its
final form in the Decalogue and in the rest of the Pentateuch, particularly Leviticus, freedom from the
yoke of Egypt was needed, in order to show to what extent God’s relationship with humankind would
go. One could say in more romantic language that, the Glory of God is revealed as long as human
freedom is allowed to exist. A similar patristic idea is present in words of Saint Ireneasus, “the Glory of
God is [humanity] fully alive.” We are participating in this glory by the way we respect each other’s
dignity and freedom. Or in a similar way this was expressed by the servant of God Archbishop Romero,
“the glory of God is the poor person who lives”[2].

Clearly freedom is more than a simple ideal. As expressed by Jose Comblin the proclamation of
freedom has to be seen as a calling. “All are called to freedom: called to accept freedom, which entails
overcoming their fear of being free.[3]” Freedom is ultimately what affects us all, our longing for
freedom never seems to disappear even though, the way we sometimes express this longing, or live it,
really destroys our own dignity. Many of us know the axiom that says: “sin” is really an abuse of our
freedom; well in fact it is, Sin in all its forms, is not only an abuse of freedom, but sometimes the
greatest sin becomes our own personal rejection of freedom. Adam and Eve, in the garden rejected
their own freedom in order to pursue something that was not part of their purpose but it was in this
rejection of the freedom to accept responsibility that things got really messed up[4].

As the covenant law continues to develop into the form in which we find it in the Pentateuch, a
couple of interesting things unfold in front of our eyes that illustrate how justice and freedom should
always be central to our faith. Part of this is the Jewish concept of jubilee, which in itself bears much
weight as a revealed expression of freedom and justice. The jubilee as it is presented on Lev. 25 was a
year to allow justice to come to the land. In a sense it was a true attempt to avoid poverty,
“{the}fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; in it you shall neither sow nor reap what grows of itself nor
gather the grapes from the undressed vines. For it is a jubilee. It shall be holy to you.” (Lev. 25:11-
12a). This revelation surely illustrate how the jubilee was to really allow everyone to be restored to
their dignity, and possession of land was key for this, to the point of introducing the idea of redemption
connected to it. “If your brother becomes poor and sells part of his property, then his nearest redeemer
shall come and redeem what his brother has sold”(Lev. 25:25). Today this should always be an
illustration of how redemption in itself, has to be a dynamic of our Christian living.

The jubilee becomes an expression of God’s offering of redemption to his people. But it is in
the person of the Redeemer himself that this would take its ultimate form. It is in Jesus that the
ultimate step for ultimate liberation is taken. It is Jesus himself, who in Luke chapter 4 after taking the
scroll of Isaiah, gives us the final directions to demonstrate how justice and freedom are revealed in his
person. It is also by the way he reveals himself that he is identifying himself as The Jubilee, for his
people. According to the passage the reading from Isaiah finishes with the proclamation of the year of
the Lord's favor” (Luke 4:19). As many commentaries would agree, this is a reference to the “fiftieth
year” but more that this I would say that it is Jesus is presenting himself as the personified Jubilee.

In order to fully understand Jesus as The Jubilee, one must analyze the way Jesus identifies his
mission in verse 18 of the same chapter. The first line reads: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor” thus the proclamation of the Good
News are for the poor, is primordial for Jesus and his understanding of his Mission as Messiah. Certainly
this has to be primordial for us. One can say that he is not only identifying his role as Messiah as being
“for the poor,” he is actually encapsulating the whole of the Gospel in this reality, of being “for the poor.”
I would like you to really consider this proposition, because in order to move on to analyze the rest of
verse 18, we must be convinced that this is central for Jesus. In this way it will in order to bear
meaning for those of us who follow him today.

For me, it is through the reading of Luke 7:22 that this understanding completely unfolds. The
passage talks of the disciples of John the Baptist, who after his imprisonment, were sent to ask Jesus:
“are you the one who is to come or should we look for another?” In other words, “are you the Messiah?”
Jesus answer is significant enough, but the fact that in Luke 3, John the Baptist had already heard the
voice of God, saying of Jesus “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased (Luke 3:22) [5]”
makes the question even more significant. In this line is the final articulation of Jesus’ mission “the
poor have good news preached to them” which seems to be what finally convinces John of Jesus being
the long awaited Messiah.

As shown with the revelation at Sinai, and the core of Leviticus, the proclamation of freedom is
also core to the Messianic function of Jesus, as it is expressed by the rest of verse 18: “He has sent me
to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are
oppressed (Luke 4:18).” It is fundamental for us to express the whole implications of this by our
articulation of a preferential option for the poor. A distinction one must make is, what does “the poor”
means? First and foremost, we have to realize that “the poor” does really mean those deprived of
economical means. In no way can this be simply read as meaning those poor in spirit; though those
poor in spirit are not excluded. We need to avoid falling into making “the poor” just a relative term that
could be used to our convenience. The poor can be defined as the suffering and the oppressed, those
who find themselves in a situation of great injustice, those whose place in society is always in
predicament due to the presence of historical, racial, and economic factors that nourish their situation
and impede, for cultural and political, reasons a real expression of their dignity and freedom.

It is important to note that even though charity is good, and can be a good sign of true
commitment, the poor cannot be simply objects of charity; rather the poor have to become subjects of
a true relationship. We must show that we are willing, to enter into their situations with them and see
their faces and in so doing, live engaged in the fight for a restitution of their dignity and freedom. As it
was mentioned by the bishop at Puebla, there is “the need for conversion on the part of the whole
church to a preferential option for the poor, aimed at the integral liberation”[6].

In other words, we must realize that in no way it is just, or dignifying; when a mother cannot
feed her children; when we see children who are dying because of starvation; when there are people
who must leave family, friends, and land, in order to risk their lives crossing the desert, in attempt to
find better living in another land. This surely touches our current situation, but one can only repeat the
words of Archbishop Romero, “Es triste tener que dejar la patria, por que en la patria no hay un orden
justo para buscar trabajo” (It is sad to have to leave your country because in it there is not a just order
in which one can find a job).

The implication that this reality has for us, can be seen by looking at the proclamation of the Kingdom
of God. As we saw, the central core of our Christianity is the preferential option for the poor, and
freedom. There are ultimately expressed for us by the life, words and actions of Jesus. It is in the
Kingdom, that our participation in all that I expressed here is realized and becomes the ever living
source of our Christian hope and our Christian living.

The Kingdom of God becomes a new horizon[7] in which “God is the God of the Kingdom, the
Abba of Jesus”. Jesus enters as the mediator, but the kingdom is inaugurated by Jesus, this kingdom is
an unfinished task in history, and requires our historical intervention. “Spirituality is the liberation with
Spirit, through following Jesus in the historical building of the Kingdom.”[8] We must realize that in
order to really understand the preferential option for the poor, we need to see the Kingdom of God as
ultimate for Jesus[9]. This reality is expressed through the relationship shown in the proclamation of
the Kingdom. For Jesus it is not God alone, the Kingdom is always exposed by relations, it is “God and
Kingdom, God and nearness, God and his will, God and motherhood/fatherhood, and so on”[10].

The greatest challenge for us is to avoid a dualistic notion of the Kingdom of God, in which we
belong to this world, but the Kingdom belongs to another reality different from it. The Kingdom has to
be rooted in our historical reality, just as Jesus’ humanity was rooted in history. We can only be truly
incarnational, through an understanding of the union between the reality of the Kingdom as both
terrestrial and heavenly. In this sense this proclamation is not separate notions, or separate modes of
presence, but one relationship that is present in history. The Kingdom cannot be reduced to something
in the future which does not require effort on our part, nor can it be reduced it to the resurrection of the
dead[11]. It has to be seen as something that requires a great deal of conversion from us in order to
make the Kingdom present in the here and now. In a sense, it is always a way to keep our catholic
tradition of the “both, and”, avoiding a movement towards an “either, or.”

This is where we truly see the proclamation of the Kingdom as it is presented in relation to our
salvation in Matthew 25:34-46[12]. It is those who truly lived their call to freedom and their
preferential option for the poor, who are invited to inherit the Kingdom. What one can say was truly
present in those invited to inheritance, was a true Christian praxis. Christian praxis has to be seen as
something beyond practices, actions, or behaviors. Praxis is a combination of reflection and action that
realizes the historicity of human persons. In this sense our actions are realized in light of the way they
affect our history. History has to be seen as a whole, combining in an incarnational way, our salvation
history and our “human” history. In fact to even refer as those as separated tends to dangerously
create a dualism in which Christ own incarnation could be affected. Thus we see “Christian praxis [as]
the concrete expression in life of the historical impact of faith”[13].

This praxis can only be lived and expressed in our life in community. “Any discourse of faith
starts from, and takes its bearings from, the Christian life of Community”[14]. This is where we as
Church become an expression of the presence of the Kingdom of God, so long as we are being true to
our calling to Christian praxis. As Gustavo Gutierrez said: “To be followers of Jesus requires that [we]
walk with and be committed to the poor; when [we] do, [we] experience an encounter with the Lord
who is simultaneously revealed and hidden in the faces of the poor.[15]”

It is through Christian praxis that we become Church, because through it we participate in

Jesus own predication of his Mission, but only to the extent we are really committed to the historicity
that praxis entails. In the words of Marcelo Azevedo: “a church that is definitely not Jesus’ church, [is a
church] which today does not historically resemble or remember Jesus”[16]. And in this remembering
is always the presence of the poor, as defined earlier. We participate in the Church, by our true
commitment to justice, through it we encounter a God who is constantly entering in relationship with
us, in order to bring us to freedom and take away our sufferings.

The Eucharist as the source and summit of our faith has to draw part of its meaning from
Christian praxis. And yet, another way to express Christian praxis has to be Eucharistic living. The
Eucharist is always calling us to see the presence of Jesus in our brothers and sisters. This always
draws its meaning out of our conversion to the preferential option for poor, as was articulated in
Puebla. It is the Eucharist by which we remember the crucified Lord, and it is in the crucified Lord that
we see the face of his Church. A crucified Church, a “crucified people” as defined by Ellacuria “[as a]
collective body, which as the majority of humankind owes its situation of crucifixion to the way society
is organized and maintained by a minority that exercises dominion through a series of factors…[17]” So
Eucharist becomes the means by which we are called to a true consciousness of the existence of this
“crucified people” in our midst. The Eucharist fulfils its mission as the presence of Jesus in our midst as
long as this is realized, as long as we can see and really convert our hearts, in order to make the poor
not only objects of charity, but subjects of love.

The breaking of the bread is expressed through a communion that leads to true solidarity with
human sorrow[18]. We can be successful in the way we transmit our faith, as long as the Eucharist
makes its present in all of us. We are called in a way to make the Eucharist the means by which we
truly serve each other and continue to be committed to the poor and crucified people. We have to
become what we have received, if we receive the Jesus who comes to proclaim the Good News to the
poor, we too have to become a “Church of the poor”[19].

This of course, has multiple pastoral implications for us. The preferential option for the poor
cannot be only a nice ideal. I would like one day to see that our parishes take this calling seriously
some day and as a community move beyond making charity an object of our abundance. Only then can
we articulate such a calling as central to our faith and life in community, even perhaps to the point of
changing our parish’s mission statement to articulate in a direct and concrete way our preferential
option for the poor.

In the end it is Christ himself who considers his whole mission as Messiah, and Lord, in light of
the preaching of the Good News to the poor. It is him, who gives sight to the blind and proclaims
liberation to the captives, but, it should be us who through our praxis, in love, bring this to our present
lives.

Ultimately we can see how the meaning of the Gospel is the same. The called to solidarity with
those who are poor, has always been part of the Gospel but with a new reading we can make it even
more meaningful. By this means our own lives are to express solidarity, our own relationship with God
is express by solidarity, and our life in the Church is driven by solidarity. It was by solidarity that Jesus
came into this world, took flesh, and lived as one of us, in order to bring us salvation, to allow us to
regain with ever growing strength our true dignity and freedom, given to us by being created in God’s
image and likeness. The revelation of his mission, as being “for the poor” becomes the way that allows
us to live the reality of his Kingdom, which he himself inaugurated, and which uses our cooperation in
order to move towards its fulfillment.

We as a Church, sin, when we ignore the presence of the poor and crucified among us.
However, though condemnation of this sin is of great importance, it is equally important that those who
are being oppressed and find their dignity taken away from them realize their position as beloved
creatures made in the image of God.

The Jubilee is still present in our midst as long as we continue to bring a year of favor to God’s people.
It is really with the help of the Holy Spirit that we can continue moving forward in the process of
liberation. We must continue applying Archbishop Romero’s words and let the poor convert us, so that
we will be granted the grace of a true “sentir con la Iglesia” (lit. to feel with the church).
Sentir: their dreams, sufferings, doubts, questions, poverty and struggles. So, that we can live as a
true Christian community in which the apostolic life is ever expressed in the way we treat and love one
another, no matter what our situation, or way of life. Our Devotion, i.e.the way we live out our true
love for Christ, should always be a Devotion to the Poor.

Looking at the many questions society poses to Christianity, we should never negate the validity of the
questions being asked and must do more than just acknowledging the questions. We must move into a
true dialogue in which we are able to express with our Christian praxis the way we are really committed
to alleviate human suffering and pain. Only then will we be able through our Christian praxis to engage
in a dialogue that moves us all together towards respect for human life and dignity.

Finally, I would like to point to the fact that this way of reading revelation is neither new nor innovative
but is perhaps something we seem to forget. It is our task as Christian in XXI Century America to make
sure this becomes the backbone of our faith, as practice and proclamation, by witness and teaching. At
the end it is a question of how we must live our mission as church. Perhaps the true answer can be
found to the extent that we truly affect people’s lives, in order to allow their dignity to be expressed,
their freedom to be truly lived, and their love be truly become a life giving love.

[1] Arthur F. McGovern, Liberation Theology and Its Critics (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1989), 68.

[2] Jon Sobrino, "Communion, Conflict and Ecclesial Solidarity, " Mysterium Liberationis (1993): 619.

[3] José Comblin, Called For Freedom (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1998), 22.

[4] I am referring here to the progression of sin as it is presented in Genesis 3. One can say that as
there is a progression of freedom ultimately realized in Jesus himself, so we also see a progression of
Sin in which scapegoating, is portrayed as the ultimate rejection of our freedom, and dignity. Ultimately,
Adam and Eve, rejected the relationship that they were created to live in, and their relationship with
God, by their blaming of each other. It is then that we can see how the author of Genesis sums up the
whole dynamic of the progress of sin through the story of Eve and the serpent. Besides the temptation
presented by the serpent, it is Eve’s Pride, that urges us to give in to the temptation, by desiring
something that is not God. That is desire to “be like gods who know what is good and what is bad”(Gen
3:5). This giving in is also a clear example of Envy, envy of God and his knowledge, envy that then
leads to a change in the way of looking at the world. The libido dominandi, brings conflicting desires,
since our real nature is to be faithful to the image of God stamped on us. This is exemplified by the
passage that says “then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked
(Gen 3:7).” This aberration of the way we look at the world is what we call Concupiscence. Finally this
progression of sin or regression of our true nature is marked by the blaming of each and other
renouncing to our human freedom by supposing that our actions are a product of causality and not our
own doing i.e. Scapegoating. Even though the biblical writer affirms God’s punishment on both of the
characters for their wrong doing, it is GOD himself who saw their necessity and “for the man and his
wife the LORD God made leather garments, with which he clothed them”(Gen 3:21). God himself
clothed them, showing his infinite mercy and compassion and how the economy of salvation had been
started from the very beginning.

[5] Even though, the gospel of Luke is not clear whether John Baptized Jesus, due to the reference of
John being put in prison just a verse before Jesus’ baptism, I am drawing from the tradition of the other
Synoptic gospels the assumption of John baptizing Jesus. One could argue that the question of the
disciples of John is due to this fact, however we would have to have real proof of John not baptizing
Jesus.

[6] PD, no. 1134; cf 1157, 1158.

[7] Victor Codina, "Sacraments, " Mysterium Liberationis (1993): 660.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Jon Sobrino, Jesus in Latin America (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987), 82.

[10] Ibid pg 83

[11] Ignacio Ellacuría, "The Crucified People, " Mysterium Liberationis (1993): 585.

[12] Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I
was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you
clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous
will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you
drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did
we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you
did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' "Then he will say to those on his left,
'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was
hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did
not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then
they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or
sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as
you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into
eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

[13] Marcello Azevedo, "Basic Ecclesial Communities, " Mysterium Liberationis (1993): 650.

[14] Gustavo Guitierrez, We drink from our own wells (Maryknoll/ Melbourne: Orbis Books/ Dove
Communications, 1984), 37.

[15] Ibid 38

[16] Jon Sobrino, "Communion, Conflict and Ecclesial Solidarity, " Mysterium Liberationis (1993): 616.

[17] Ignacio Ellacuría, "The Crucified People, " Mysterium Liberationis (1993): 590.

[18] Gustavo Guitierrez, We drink from our own wells (Maryknoll/ Melbourne: Orbis Books/ Dove
Communications, 1984), 134.

[19] Pope John XXIII used this term “Church of the poor” before the opening of Vatican II, September
11, 1962: “Confronted by the underdeveloped countries, the Church presents herself as she is and
wants to be: the Church of the poor.”