Suffering and Salvation in Ciudad Jurez:

5: On the Possibility of Salvation

123 5 On the Possibility of Salvation T he horrific suffering brought about by the feminicide, the depth of its underlying roots, the limited ability of Anselmian atonement soteriology to respond, and the practices of resistance that have grown from the ashes of this tragedy lead us to our final topic: how the practices created by those who have lost loved ones to the feminicide carry theological insight into the meaning of salvation. Through the practices of resistance, we discover that two dimensions of salvation take on increased importance. First, salvation is necessarily actualized in history, albeit not fully. Second, salvation necessarily entails making visible the elemental social relations of all humanity and all creation . We must clarify what these two aspects of salvation might mean and how they come to the fore through the practices of resistance. The meaning of salvation cannot be reduced only to these two aspects. However , we must examine the “the salvific character of historical acts,” the ways in which particular historical acts bear the presence of God more fully, “and how that presence is actualized and made effective in them.”1 As God’s salvific presence is actualized more fully in history, this salvific presence makes the social, spiritual unity of all humanity and creation more visible. If salvation means being released from the clutches of evil, if it means being released from guilt and sin, if it means being freed from anxiety no matter the form this freedom takes, then surely these practices, as a 124 5 Suffering and salvation resistance to and subversion of that which fractures social relations, reveal a vision of a transformed humanity, a humanity that sees more clearly, that embraces more fully the fundamental spiritual unity of all creatures. While suffering in and of itself is not salvific, our response to suffering, our own and that of others, matters nonetheless. Through the example of the women in Juárez, we learn that community is the condition for the possibility of salvation. “Community” as developed here embraces and includes the two dimensions of salvation: history and relationality. Those who have suffered the feminicide teach us that community is born and sustained by commonly held decisive events that we claim as significant to us whether they date from a long-ago past or point toward an anticipated, far-off future. These events are recognized, interpreted, and celebrated as decisive in the life of the community. Those who have suffered teach us also that community is forged by a commitment to others, particularly to the most vulnerable, and from a commitment to see our lives as inherently connected to those who live now, those who lived long before our lifetime, and those who will live long after we are dead. They teach us that community comes into being through a process whereby we understand our present moment in light of the past, with an eye toward the future, and in relationship to others. In so doing, these practices of resistance point toward the fundamental spiritual unity of all humanity and creation, and in this way they serve as a portal to God’s saving presence in history. To develop the claim that community conditions salvation, we examine the existential and theological challenge presented by social suffering, such as that found in the example of the feminicide. What do those who have suffered the feminicide suggest to us by their response to it? What lies in the balance of their response to the feminicide? What kind of response affords us a glimpse of the “salvific character of historical acts”?2 What kind of response does not? In other words, how does the primacy of community come to the fore in the practices of resistance? What constitutes community? Finally, we will see that these practices of resistance, more than revealing the primacy of community, direct our attention toward the claim that community is the condition that makes salvation possible. On Matters of Suffering and Response Many feminist theologians, among others, develop the claim that suffering in and of itself is not salvific. As Elizabeth A. Johnson argues: On the Possibility of Salvation 5 125 The depth of suffering Jesus experienced on the cross, the wretched suffering as such, is not in itself salvific. Indeed, speaking from the historical point of view, numerous theologians today do not hesitate to call his execution a tragedy, disaster, fiasco, an unmitigated failure. Rather than being...