Há grande probabilidade de termos comunidades de fé em nossos dias como aquela descrita em Atos dos Apóstolos, na qual não havia nenhum necessitado. O que nos falta? Examinando bem as lideranças daquela igreja, bem como a própria vida e exemplo de Jesus, a generosidade era algo marcante e decisivo para determinar as ações. Mas de onde vinha isso? O Antigo Testamento deixa muitíssimo claro que desde o princípio o Criador e Deus de Israel tinha em mente uma sociedade de justiça. Essas providências e provisões são apresentadas em inúmeras passagens do Pentateuco, elas são louvadas nos livros de sabedoria, e os profetas as proclamam destemidamente, tirando quaisquer dúvidas quanto à origem do movimento social que tomou conta da primeira comunidade de fé. Ao examinar os currículos de uma seleção de nossas escolas de teologia, porém, descobrimos que não existe esta compreensão da importância da generosidade na liderança de nossas comunidades de fé. O ensino teológico está alcançando um nível cada vez mais elaborado, científico o que é muito bom, mas a sensibilidade solidária precisa ser cultivada. Para isso, precisa ser exemplificada, vivida, passada adiante. E se não começou no próprio lar, precisa ter seu início na igreja. Zaqueu, após o momento de graça com o Mestre, sabia muito bem o que fazer com os seus bens materiais pois conhecia as Escrituras. Propomos um currículo que coloque a generosidade como a marca do egresso um desafio que exigirá unidade na instituição, um corpo docente coeso, capaz e flexível, e a dedicação dos alunos, em sala de aula, nos projetos, em seus relacionamentos, na família, na comunidade. Ficará óbvio também que o neoliberalismo, o individualismo e o consumismo acabarão sendo desmascarados neste processo de formação pastoral. / There is a high probability of having faith communities in our day as the one described in Acts of the Apostles, in which there was no need. What do we lack? Examining the leaders of the early church as well as the life and example of Jesus, generosity was something striking and decisive to determine their actions. But where did this come from? The Old Testament makes it abundantly clear that from the beginning the Creator and God of Israel had in mind a society of justice. These measures and provisions are found in innumerous passages of the Pentateuch, they are praised in the books of wisdom, and the prophets proclaim them fearlessly taking away any doubts as to the origin of the social movement that swept the first community of faith. By examining the curricula of a selection of our schools of theology, however, we dont find this understanding of the importance of generosity in the leadership of our communities of faith. Theological training in Brazil is reaching an increasingly more elaborate, scientific plateau - which is very good, but the need to cultivate solidary sensitivity is obvious. For that purpose it must be exemplified, lived out, passed on. And if the process did not start at home, it must have its beginning in the church. Zacchaeus, after the moment of grace with the Master, knew very well what to do with his possessions - because he knew the Scriptures. We propose a curriculum that places generosity as the brand of the graduates - a challenge that will require unity in the institution, a faculty that is cohesive, capable and flexible, and the dedication of the students in the classroom, in the projects, in their relationships, family, in the community. It will also become obvious that neoliberalism, individualism and consumerism will eventually be unmasked in the process of forming a new generation of pastors.

'Institutional critique' is a term that refers to a range of diverse artistic practices and discourses that emerged at the end of the 1960s and that continue in the present. In spite of their differences, they all share a concern with the institutional conditioning of artists and artworks. Various historicizations of institutional critique (Alberro and Stimson, 2009; Raunig and Ray, 2009; Welchman, 2006) concur that one could distinguish two 'phases': artists of the 1960s and 1970s allegedly investigated the possibilities of an escape towards an 'outside' of the art institution, whereas those of the 1990s analysed the ways in which the artistic subject reproduced the structures of the art institution. Since the beginning of the 2000s various artists and authors have revisited the histories and legacies of institutional critique. This growing interest was triggered by the perceived intensification of a process that began at the end of the 1960s; it refers to the recuperation and neutralization of artistic types of critique by what Boltanski and Chiapello (2005) have called the 'new spirit' of capitalism. In this context, the Austrian philosopher Gerald Raunig and the members of the European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies have proposed the hypothesis that 'a new phase' of institutional critique was to emerge. However, this proposition was based less on empirical evidence, than on a 'political and theoretical necessity to be found in the logic of institutional critique' (Raunig, 2009, 3). This thesis is a response to this set of circumstances. By asking 'what are the conditions and possibilities of institutional critique?' it investigates the categories of institutional critique's logic. My main argument is that a 'phase change' of institutional critique could and should be understood through the apparatus of Derridean deconstruction. This implies a criticism of the idea that one needs to escape the art institution in order to respond to urgencies stemming from the social, economic, and political realms (Truth Is Concrete Platform, 2012). At the same time, I will also refute the idea that institutional critique is trapped in the art institution (Fraser, 2009a). Institutional critique works on the remainder and rest that necessarily escapes the instituting will and intention of defining and describing in an exhaustive manner the whatness of what (art) is (Boltanski, 2011). I show that between critique and the art institution there is an irreducible relation of symbiosis and cohabitation, and that the deconstructive logic of institutional critique allows it to be both partner and adversary, at the same time, of the art institution.