THE NARRATIVE OF MARTYRDOM AS A POSTMODERN WAY OF DOING A MODERN LIBERATION THEOLOGY

The survival and significance of the Latin American liberation theology movement relies, to some extent, on the power of the narratives of martyrdom. Precisely by relying on these narratives, through the dynamics of the theological category of memory that leads to solidarity, liberation theology situates itself in the tension between modernity and postmodernity. The categories of narrative, memory and solidarity, which are at play in the whole dynamic of martyrdom, constitute a postmodern way of doing a modern liberation theology. Liberation theology will only be able to retain its “liberative” and “theological” element insofar as it continues to be “modern” and “postmodern” at the same time. Against the postmodern disbelief in the possibility of human emancipation, liberation theology continues to labor precisely under principium liberationis grounded in the promise of liberation contained in God’s revelation in the Scriptures. However, against the “modern” conception of emancipation based on reason and governed by the idea of progress, liberation theology envisions liberation as an integral process which takes place in a concrete, particular historical reality and under the eschatological promise of God.

Martinez's appreciation and memory of the martyrs is shared by many. Moments after Archbishop Romero was shot dead in 1980, for example, thousand pages has been written in remembrance of his martyrdom. Most recently (February 2015), the Vatican made the historic (long overdue) step to initiate the beatification process of Romero. This dynamic of remembrance has also been true in the case of the murder of six Jesuit priests and their cook and her daughter in 1989. All these memories point to a significant fact that the story or narrative of martyrdom is a living narrative that continues to thrive in the memory of so many people. As these written memories tell, the narrative of martyrdom actually proves to be a motivating factor, which eventually leads many people to the praxis of liberation.
In this essay, I argue that in its very survival, the Latin American liberation theology movement relies, to some extent, on the power of these narratives of martyrdom. Precisely by relying on these narratives which are largely based on the theological category of memory that leads to solidarity, liberation theology situates itself in the tension between modernity and postmodernity. For this reason, we can arguably see liberation theology as "a modern and postmodern" theology, at the same time. But I argue further that the categories of narrative, memory and solidarity, which are at play in the whole dynamic of martyrdom, constitute a postmodern way of doing a modern liberation theology.
It is my thesis that the twofold characteristics (modern and postmodern) belong to the defining characteristics of liberation theology.
Thus, liberation theology will only be able to retain its "liberative" and "theological" element insofar as it continues to be "modern" and "postmodern" at the same time. Against the postmodern disbelief in the possibility of human emancipation or liberation, liberation theology continues to labor precisely under principium liberationis. This belief is grounded in the theological promise of liberation contained in God's revelation in the Scriptures. Against the "modern" conception of emancipation based on reason and governed by the idea of progress, liberation theology envisions liberation as an integral process, which takes place in a concrete, particular historical reality and under the eschatological promise of God.
In the following section (second section), I try to provide a historical background, which situates liberation theology in the context of modernity and postmodernity. This exposition is meant to serve as the basis of my argument that liberation theology is necessarily modern and postmodern. The third and fourth sections elaborate the theme of martyrdom narrative as a practico-theological category in liberation theology. The focus of the third section is to see how the narrative of martyrdom plays its role in the actual lives of the people in some parts of Latin America-especially El Salvador-where martyrdom is closely related to liberation process. Thus, in this section, martyrdom is treated as a living narrative in the actual process of liberation.
In the fourth section, I attempt to elaborate the narrative of martyrdom as a "postmodern" theological category. Informed by the works of Johann Baptist Metz, I view martyrdom as a narrative, which is capable of motivating so many people along the path of liberation precisely because it presents itself as memory, which leads to solidarity. These theological categories of narrative, memory, and solidarity can be called "postmodern categories" because, as Metz shows, they set themselves against the idealist and rational tendency in "modern" theology. With these categories, Metz attempts to surpass the narrowness and naïveté of modern theology. Thus, it is justified to argue that the narrative of martyrdom-with its categories of memory and solidarity-constitutes a postmodern way of doing liberation theology.
In the final section, some conclusions and relevance of this study will be drawn. Here I argue that in and through the whole dynamics of the narrative of martyrdom, liberation theology manages to renew itself against the backdrop of the Radical Orthodoxy's criticism. Following the dynamics of this narrative, liberation theology envisions the church as a community of resistance, both against the hegemony of state and capitalism understood as a force that disciplines human desire.

LIBERATION THEOLOGY, MODERNITY, AND POSTMODERNITY
From a historical perspective, one can say that liberation theology is a "modern and Western theology." It shares some affinities with the general mode of modern thinking, for example, in its belief in both the possibility and necessity of human emancipation. But, it was born in the era when modernity had been already very ill and bitterly challenged. In the 1960's, the modernity project had been under severe attack, coming mainly from many leftist intellectuals and movements. These movements set themselves against capitalism, the most palpable progeny of modernity. that the ills they faced were produced by capitalism, they also drew, quite naturally, some inspirations from Marxism, being the most comprehensive critique of capitalism. In contrast to Horkheimer and Adorno who had lost their faith in Marxism, however, these theologians found in Marxism a critical instrument for social analysis. Thus, in short, the hope generated by the Jesus narrative was supplied by social analysis provided in large part by Marxism. With these two tools at their disposal, they embarked on a project of human liberation, especially for the poor, the victims of capitalism and modernity in crisis.
As can be seen quite clearly, liberation theology retrieves the viability and possibility of the modern project of emancipation, but not through the power of instrumental reason generated by Enlightenment, but through the under side of "modern capitalist reality," that is, the irruption and the power of the poor, to borrow Gustavo Gutiérrez's phrase.
This move is dictated both by the reality of the poor itself-with the help of Marxist social analysis-and by what liberation theologians call "God's preferential for the poor." Therefore, liberation theology can be called "modern" in the sense that it continues to believe in the possibility and necessity of human liberation in order to provide room for human persons to become subject in history. But, it differentiates itself from "modernity" as it understands liberation and subjectivity differently. In liberation theology, liberation and subjectivity can only be achieved in their fundamental connection with the poor (victims) and God. Thus, liberation theology did not fight for a modern-bourgeois emancipation. In this respect, it has to be noted that liberation theology distances itself from other strands in Christian "modern" theologies, such as that of Schleiermacher. Liberation theology does not respond to the "rational or ideological" effect of modernity, for example in the problem of modern atheism (or to borrow Schleiermacher's well-known phrase: to Christianity's "cultured despisers"). Rather, it responds to the "social" effect of modern ( Instead of universality, they seek and respect otherness and alterity. Seen from the perspective of liberation theology, the advent of postmodernism seems to be able to strengthen its concern for the poor, the Other, historicity, particularity and contextuality of theology, and the retrieval of indigenous religiosities.
But, one should not fail to notice the fact that liberation theology does not share all postmodern claims. It rejects postmodern "death of the subject" and its overall pessimism and atheism. Even when it comes closer to postmodernity, liberation theology will never be willing to give up its fundamental belief in the possibility and necessity of liberation in history as these are demanded by the specific historical reality of the poor and God's revelation.
In the following section, I attempt to describe how the narrative of martyrdom works and functions in the praxis and discourse of liberation theology. I would argue that precisely in and through this narrative of martyrdom, liberation theology presents itself as a modern theology done in a postmodern way.  19 These murderers knew all too well the influence of this man on the six priests they killed few minutes before.

THE MIRACLE OF MARTYRDOM
Probably, they wanted these "leftist clergymen" to be united in a more visible way, that is, through the shedding of their blood.

MARTYRDOM AS A MODERN-POSTMODERN CATEGORY
As I have pointed out earlier, liberation theology is a "modern" theo- In his new political theology, Metz retains some features of modernity (or Enlightenment) while at the same time criticizes modernity for its banal conception of human emancipation and subjectivity. Metz's project 21 See Johann Baptist Metz,Faith in History and Society, The main reason of why I take Metz's ideas on this specific problem, rather than one of many liberation theologians, is that in his theology these three categories are expressed and elaborated in a systematic and comprehensive manner in relation to Enlightenment and modernity. In my view, so far there has been no liberation theologian who treats these categories in such depth. By taking Metz's insights, however, I do not pretend to simply juxtapose his political theology and liberation theology. Although these two theologies share much in common, they differ in many ways. But, I believe that in these categories, Metz is very much helpful to liberation theology.
is to rescue the victims of history from this banality, which, among others, has led humanity to Auschwitz. This concern is shared by his fellow "political" liberationists from the Southern Hemisphere. Liberation theology works under the premise of God's promise and imperative for the human emancipation as subject in history, a history that is marked by modernity's illnesses.
However, as one can see quite clearly, Metz's political theology and Latin American liberation theology, while retaining some modern features, discover some new ways to conceive and do theology in a "postmodern" way. In Metz, these new ways can be seen in his explicitly new "categories" in what he calls "practical-fundamental theology": memory, narrative, and solidarity. 21 We can find none of these categories in any modern theology before. In my view, these three categories are of great help for us in our attempt to reflect on the narrative of martyrdom in liberation theology. Therefore, I will take some insights from Metz's argument, in a view to retrieve some postmodern features at play in the narrative of martyrdom. 22 As discussed in the previous section, the narrative of martyrdom operates as a narrative of life, which presents itself as memory and moves people to act in solidarity with the martyrs and those for whom the martyrs shed their blood. These three categories can be seen as postmodern in the sense that they go beyond modern categories in theology.
In the story of martyrdom, the category of narrative displays some postmodern features as it presents human emancipation not as a pro- As noted previously, the narrative of martyrdom presents itself as a kind of memory or remembrance. The power of this narrative rests not on the "self-consciousness" of the persons but rather on their capacity to remember (memory). In a sense, political theology and liberation theology retrieve the category of memory as an important category for theology. As Metz has pointed out, modern theology banished this category as it followed the track of Enlightenment's prejudice against memory.
This prejudice sprang from the spirit of Enlightenment summed up by Immanuel Kant's dictum "Sapere Aude!" which means "have the courage to use your own reason independently." 25 This autonomous reason was the sine qua non condition for the human to reach maturity (mündigkeit).
In its actuality, this dictum was set against all that was connected with the past, especially as expressed in tradition and religion. This tradition of the past had been considered a hindrance to the autonomous reason of the enlightened human. Since memory was perceived to be associated exclusively with the past, it had to be removed from human reason. As a result, modernity and modern theology marched forward with a crippled understanding of reason.
Through his new political theology, Metz attempts to rediscover "the primacy of a reason endowed with memory, that is, anamnestic reason. Moreover, the memory of and solidarity to the martyrs as well as to all those who suffer rescue them from total annihilation, that is, annihilation from history.

EPILOGUE
I have attempted at showing how the narrative of martyrdom functions in the lives of the people in the context of Latin American liberation theology. As a narrative, martyrdom has been able to motivate people in their real struggle for liberation; in memory of this narrative, people are driven to act in solidarity with those who suffer; and thus, they continue with their liberation praxis. In this way, liberation theology presents itself as a dynamic of narrative, memory and solidarity. As we have seen, for Metz, these three categories should be viewed precisely as critiques of "modern and liberal" theologies, which had been inspired largely by Enlightenment (modernity). In this line of thought, these categories can be seen as "postmodern" categories in theology.
But, these categories can only function properly as theological categories insofar as liberation theology continues to retain its "modernist" belief in the possibility and necessity of liberation of the poor and the victims. Therefore, these categories cannot be thoroughly postmodern. Rather, they constitute a "postmodern way" of doing liberation theology, which continues to be a "modern" theology. In reality, this postmodern way proves to be working well. It helps liberation theology both to be more and more "liberative and theological" in the real praxis of the people. There is no more consoling fact for liberation theology than this fact precisely because the aspects of "liberation" and "theology" rightly belong to its very identity.
The narrative of martyrdom also helps liberation theology to come to terms with the criticism of the Radical Orthodoxy as, for example, expressed by Daniel Bell Jr. in his latest book, Liberation Theology After the End of History. 33 Bell Jr. argues that liberationist failure in its battle against capitalism lies in its inadequate ecclesiology. In his view, liberationist ecclesiology is not radical enough as it envisions the church of the poor as an indirectly political church, while the state is endowed with revolutionary expectations. Liberationist view of politics as statecraft is both naïve and unrealistic, given our awareness that capitalism's victory is ontological, that is, through its power to discipline human desire. Capitalism does not work through the state, but it governs human desire through the state-form mechanism, which surpasses the state. 34 Thus, liberationist ecclesiology falls into the trap of modern narrative that divorces religion from the socio-political sphere of life and fails to recognize the root of the problem. As the antidote, the liberationists should refuse politics as statecraft and reclaim the church as a fully social, political, economic reality in its own right. Only in this way, would the church be able to fight against capitalism on the level of human desire.
Against the backdrop of Bell Jr.'s criticism, I argue that the narrative of martyrdom indeed plays the role of disciplining human desire. As memory, it penetrates the private sphere of human desire and moves this desire into the direction of socio-political solidarity. As we have seen in the case of some guerilla activists, this narrative does not necessarily presuppose an understanding of politics as statecraft. They fight against the state. In general, the narrative of martyrdom cannot be understood fully if one divorces it from "politics." In Latin America, martyrdom has been a form of resistance against the hegemony of state. In fact, the church as a community, which bears the dangerous memory of martyrdom, continues to be a community of resistance. It sets itself against the state machinery, which has been responsible for the martyr's death. Otherwise, Grande's martyrdom would not have been followed by Romero's. In its resistance, the Church of the martyrs (ecclesia martyrum) goes beyond the state. It does not only reject to share the state's narrative of victory and its solidarity among victors, but it creates its own narrative, memory, and solidarity. In this sense, it tries to discipline human desire without relying on the power of the state.
Thus, in and through the narrative of martyrdom, liberation theology appears to be a modern theology which has been done in a postmodern manner, both in its resistance against the socio-economic disease of modernity (found in poverty) and the ontological disease (in savage capitalism).