return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Introduction
The perspective on mission is still a point of debate. There is need for a careful assessment of the style
and purpose of mission in the emerging context of a pluriform society. The praxis of mission is closely
related to the discovery of who Christ is among us and who he is for.

Forward by James H. Cone

Although Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham writes to and for the people of India, his message has meaning for all
Christians and other justice seeking people who are committed to creating a global village that protects
the rights of the poor and provides space for the affirmation of their dignity.

Chapter 1: Perspectives on Mission

A discussion of models of mission that have emerged in the modern period as the Church responds to
the challenges of other faiths and socio-political realties in India. These models include Church
Discipleship, Proclamation, Liberation, and Dialogue.

Chapter 2: Mission and Ministry as Celebration and Sharing of Life

In India there is an awakening among the poor in all the religions to their dignity and selfhood which has
been suppressed by age-old traditions and culture. They are demanding a critical review of the
fundamentals of their faiths from the perspective of liberation.

Chapter 3: Towards a Theology of Mission in Asia

When mission is directed towards the organization of the poor or when it has resulted in creating a new
consciousness among the oppressed about their rights, then in India it is accused as being anti-national.
We have two choices: to take seriously the subversive character of mission and face its consequence, or
to carry on with activities -- charitable, developmental, and others -- which will not cause any tremor in
the existing system of things.
Chapter 4: Liberative Solidarity: Church in Witness and Reconciliation
In order to evolve an alternate form of development which is wholistic and more humane, we need to
listen to the experiences of the indigenous and tribal people -- their communitarian life and their bond
with the earth. But, by and large, our churches are mere spectators, incapable of responding to their
needs.

Chapter 5: Peace And Justice In Indian Context

The religions of India should see the relevance of the new secular framework that is emerging. It is
based on certain values which they all together can affirm -- the values of justice, equality and
participation.

Chapter 6: Mission in the Context of Endemic Poverty and Affluence

We need a spirituality that is inclusive rather than exclusive, active as well as receptive, oriented to the
coming of God’s Kingdom of righteousness and freedom throughout the world. We need a spirituality of
liberation that will open us increasingly to a life of solidarity with others, especially with the poor.

Chapter 7: From Diakonia to Political Responsibility

The Church is called to strengthen the secular/civil base of politics, to deepen its commitment to the
poor and marginalised, ensuring justice for all, especially the weaker sections, to give a prophetic
criticism against the government when it perpetuates violence and oppression, to join with others in
evolving a paradigm of development that is ecologically sound.

Chapter 8: A Theological Response to the Ecological Crisis

1. The connection between economic exploitation and environmental degradation is seen clearly in the
deforestation issue. 2. Unjust treatment of the planet by humans is one of the principal causes of the
ecological crisis. 3. The uneven distribution, control and use of natural resources are serious justice
issues. 4. The fast depletion of the natural (non-renewable) resources today raises the question of our
responsibility to future generations.

Chapter 9: Praxis and Mission - Implications for Theological Education

Mission is now understood in a holistic sense. It is participation in the transforming and liberative work
of God in God’s creation. How can theological education help the church's participation in God's
mission?

Chapter 10: Globalisation and Liberative Solidarity

An analysis of the phenomenon of globalisation and the facing of some issues that are pertinent in facing
its challenges. The author provides a model of Christian response, namely liberative solidarity, that is
rooted in the experience and spirituality of the poor.

Viewed 4432 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Introduction

Numerous articles and books have been written on mission. To

add another book on this topic is to run into the risk of repeating
all too familiar ideas. But the attempt can be justified for many
reasons.

First, the perspective on mission is still a point of debate. Some of

the traditional patterns of mission are becoming irrelevant to meet
the emerging needs and challenges of our situation. In this
collection of essays many such issues have been analysed.
Developments in science and technology communication systems
economic policies and practices, the emergence of market as the
altar at which all are required to offer their sacrifices and the
globalisation process -- all these have tremendous impact on the
lives of our people. We are also aware of other issues such as the
ecological crisis, marginalization of weaker sections and
communalism that distorts the essence of all religions. Organized
movements of people for identity and justice also raise challenges
to the Church’s mission. Therefore the questions that are raised on
the proclamation of the Gospel directed exclusively to the renewal
of individual souls is also inadequate. A wholistic message that
brings all our relationships into the orbit of divine reality alone
will be meaningful for today

Second, there is need for a careful assessment of the style and

purpose of mission in the emerging context of a pluriform society.
In fact mission is no more a Christian word. It is widely used by
people of other faiths and secular strategists. A few years ago
when Rajiv Gandhi started his campaign on science and
technology he constituted a body called technology mission.
When the U.S.A. launched its war against Iraq it described it as a
mission to liberate Kuwait. We are also familiar with the
Ramakrishna Mission and missions in other faiths In these usages
mission is conceived as an activity designed to achieve a result. It
is a programme to win others to your point of view or to your side
by persuasion and even by coercion.

Unfortunately this prevailing notion of a propagandist mission has

failed to capture the authentic message of the Gospel of Jesus. It
has distorted the message. This is not a biblical concept either.
The word is from the Latin version of the biblical word “sending.”
Missionary is ‘apostle’ and mission is “apostolate.” We are called
to be messengers of God. “As the Father has sent me, so I send
you” (John 20:27). The New Testament also uses the word
“witness” to denote the outward expression of the life of the
Church. The emphasis is not on activity -- although activity is not
totally absent -- but on life and its relationships.

A recovery of this New Testament meaning of mission is

necessary to ward off much of the distortions that have come into
our understanding of the Church’s mission. In other words,
Christian mission is not so much what we do as who we are as
God’s children It is a life lived in response to God’s purposes for
us and for all his creation. “Mission is as concrete as the life of a
people” (Legrand, p. 144). I believe that a reformulation of
mission as faith response alone can give an authentic basis for
pluralism. One’s response to one’s faith is not directed towards
denying other faith responses; rather it is always concerned with
building a world in which all God’s children with their different
gifts could praise God the Creator.

Third, the praxis of mission is closely related to the discovery of

who Christ is among us and for us. Thanks to the emphasis of
liberation theologians, we see Jesus in his social and cultural
environment and not as part of a doctrinal formulation. As
Dorothy Solle writes,

If we look at the paradigm of liberation theology, we find

there an understanding of Jesus which strives for neither
objectification of the mystery in dogma nor for
 subjectivising in personal appropriation. The liberation
theologies mention the mystery of Jesus in his historical
existence. They say of him that he was poor, hungry,
forsaken, subversive, and out of his mind; that he was a
worker, a nobody without papers, a carpenter, unemployed,
a political prisoner, tortured. They attempt to begin where
Jesus began, where he lived, where the people met him-not
in churches but in everyday life and that means in misery
He is not recognisable by his halo. (Solle :An Introduction
to Theology, p. 114).

It is this discovery of Jesus that is at the centre of our discussion

on Mission in this book. To respond to this Jesus in the concrete
is to embark on a costly form of discipleship. In fact, there is
simplicity about this Jesus. But that simplicity is offensive to our
life-style.

The papers in this book have been presented at various occasions,

and published in various journals. They have been edited to avoid
obvious repetition. But some of the ideas are repeated and I ask
the reader to bear with me. A wide range of concerns are raised
and the reader may miss a coherent presentation of a theology of
mission. The first four chapters may provide a theological basis
for mission. Included in them is a discussion on different
paradigms of mission with the first chapter giving a general
framework to it. A selected number of issues have been dealt with
in the rest of the articles. Two themes that run through these
inflections are “Life” and “Solidarity.” Mission is celebration of
God’s gift of life. “I have come in order that you may have life -
life in all its fullness.” (John 10:10). Ours commitment to life-
affirming values and structures are integral to our obedience to
Christ.

The solidarity with people, especially with the suffering, is the

way to live out mission. “Jesus also died outside the city... Let us,
then, go to him outside the camp and share his shame” (Heb.
13:12,13).

K. C. Abraham

Viewed 4434 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Forward by James H. Cone

K.C. Abraham is uniquely qualified to write about the new

developments m mission, ecology, theology and their inter-
connectedness. As the President of the Ecumenical Association of
the Third World Theologians (EATWOT) and Director of the
South Asia Theological Research institute Bangalore, he has
traveled throughout the Third World (Asia, Africa, and Latin
America), participating with grassroots people in churches and
other activist groups as they struggled to create a new future for
themselves. He has also traveled widely in the First World
(Europe and North America) where he has participated in
conference and workshops, visited churches and theological
schools, debated with theologians and economists, and dialogued
with lay people and pastors about issues of justice, peace and the
integrity of creation. This book is the result of many years of
reflection, defined by his solidarity with the poor in their struggles
against local elites in the Third World and the corporate rich in
the First World.

Although K.C. (as we have come to know him in EATWOT)

writes to and for the people of India, his message has meaning for
all Christians and other justice seeking people who are committed
to creating a global village that protects the rights of the poor and
provides space for the affirmation of their dignity. His main
theme is mission -- the very heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
But K.C. provides new insights into its meaning, derived
primarily from the God of life whose liberating presence knows
no bounds. For K.C., mission is not just what has been
traditionally called evangelism or the proclamation of the Gospel
to the unbeliever. Neither is mission simply dialogue with people
of other faiths in the hope of bringing them to Jesus. Mission is
making solidarity with poor people in their flight for justice. To
proclaim Jesus Christ without bearing witness to the justice he
brings is to distort the emancipatory power of the gospel. We
must not forget the words Jesus took from the prophet Isaiah as
the definition of his mission: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He
has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of
sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year
of the Lords favor” (Luke: 4:18-19 NRSV).

Liberative solidarity, justice and peace, ecological crisis, loving

mercy and spirituality -- these are the themes that resound
throughout this text and in the life of K.C. Abraham. They tell us
where he stands -- what the bottomline is for his perspective on
the Gospel of Jesus. Since the poor have been the main victims of
development, K.C. calls for an alternative vision of society one in
which the rights of the poor are protected and their voices are
heard.

Although these essays were written over a span of time and for
different audiences, they are held together by K.Cs deep and
passionate concern for justice, peace and the integrity of creation,
This is a book that should be read and studied by churches,
grassroots people, policy makers, theologians and others who are
seeking to create a world that is safe for all.

Viewed 4435 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Chapter 1: Perspectives on Mission

David Bosch, in an admirable book, Transforming Mission, has

provided different paradigms of mission that have emerged in the
life of the Church: Discipleship, Proclamation, Liberation,
Dialogue and others. A paradigm shift takes place as the Church
responds to the new situations and challenges. In India too we
have evolved many different paradigms of mission as the Church
seriously faced its task to respond to the specific challenges of the
Indian context. The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of
these paradigms and indicate the need for newer paradigms as we
face newer challenges.

Proclamation of the Good News: Evangelism

Perhaps the earliest paradigm of mission may be characterised as

evangelism; the proclamation of the Good News of Jesus Christ.
Missionary enterprise was guided by this model. When the
Church of South India was formed, it declared that:

It is the primary duty of every member of the church to

witness by life and word of Jesus Christ, who came into the
world to save sinners. This work of evangelisation may be
done both individually and by groups, and should include
special methods, such as lyrical preaching and the
distribution of the scriptures and other evangelistic literature
(Constitution: Ch. IV, Rule 1 and 26).1
Even today this continues to be a model widely accepted by the
members of the congregations. To act in obedience to the great
commission, and to give money and time for direct evangelism is
considered to be the primary duty of every Christian. While
acknowledging the importance of proclamation in our work of
evangelism we endeavour to keep an integral relation between
work and deed. Although in the early pronouncements on mission
a great deal of stress is placed on direct evangelism, a broader
framework for interpreting mission is discernible as the church
faced new challenges.

Nationalism: Challenge of Hindu Renaissance

The nationalist movement, a movement whose specific purpose

was the removal of foreign domination, provided a new context
for the Church to rethink its mission. Nationalism was linked with
a reassertion of Hinduism and its values. A response to the Hindu
Renaissance was therefore, an integral part of Christian witness in
modern India. A social issue that was widely discussed in regard
to this is the attitude of Christians to other faiths and the relation
of the Gospel to the claims of other religions. P. Chenchiah, who
was committed to this task, articulates the need for a change in the
Christian attitude to Hinduism in these words:

There was a type of convert in the past who hated Hinduism

and surrendered himself wholeheartedly to what he
supposed to be Christianity The convert today regards
Hinduism as his spiritual mother, who has nurtured him in a
sense of spiritual values in the past. He discovers the
supreme value of Christ, not in spite of Hinduism but
because Hinduism has taught him to discern spiritual
greatness. For him, loyalty to Christ does not involve the
surrender of reverential attitude towards the Hindu heritage.2

People like Chenchiah, V Chakkarai, A. J. Appasamy and others

made the affirmation that the living forces of Hinduism could be
“a positive key to the still inaccessible riches of Hinduism.3 They
were not content with a mere intellectual approach to Hinduism
but wanted to enter into the spirit of Hindu religion with a desire
to learn new things about their own faith and to express them on
the basis of their encounter.

A positive attitude towards Hinduism and other faiths was based

on the faith in the universal Lordship of Christ. The conviction
widely shared by many Indian theologians was that God is already
at work in whatever area of life the Christian is speaking to make
the Gospel effective. P. D. Devanandan has expressed his
conviction in the following words:

Is the preaching of the Gospel directed to the total annihilation of

all religions other than Christianity? Will religions as religions,
and nations as nations, continue characteristically separate in the
fullness of time when God would gather together in one all things
in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth?

Christian faith distinguishes between the Gospel of proclamation

of the fulfillment of Gods promise of the Kingdom, and the hope
in fulfillment of all religious faith, wherever it is found.
Fulfillment in the second sense would mean that all sincere
humans striving to reach out to God will indeed find favour with
him.4

Paradigms of Mission Inculturation and Dialogue

The new-found theological conviction and a positive attitude

towards other faiths have made distinct impact on the mission
praxis. All have agreed that the missionary era directly or
indirectly associated with colonial rule has come to an end.
Mission was no more foreign mission, directed towards the
conquest of a pagan culture and satanic religions. Mission, it was
affirmed, is the witness of a community of faith to God’s
transforming act through Jesus Christ. Mission is not an
aggressive propaganda but a way of life. Further, the Church
became conscious of its alien character and the need for becoming
rooted in the soil of this country The mission model that evolved
during this period is indigenisation or inculturation.

Attempts were made to adopt Hindu symbols, architecture, and

thought forms for worships and liturgy and also for
communicating the Gospel. Amalorpavadas, a Roman Catholic
theologian, has done some pioneering work in this area. He
describes inculturation as:

The process by which the Church becomes really incarnated

in every human group, society, culture and sharing, humble
service and powerful witness to the Spirit of the Lord at
work in the universe and dwelling in our heart. Having no
 culture of her own, she communicates with others and
expresses herself through the human and social, cultural and
religious signs of the people among whom she is
incarnated.5

Inculturation for him and other theologians is incarnational.

Culture has a broad meaning here. It stands for all aspects of life
of people in a given context. The attempt at inculturation met with
several criticisms. A majority of Christians in India refused to
accept this uncritically, with the result such attempts remained
esoteric without the church owning it. Recently a fierce
controversy was generated in the Church of South India over a
prayer used in its Synod meeting that attempted to interpret the
Christian Gospel through Hindu symbols and forms of worship
used by the exponent of inculturation, taken from the higher
forms -- Hinduism and Sanskritised Culture of the dominant
community They argue for a process of inculturation that takes
seriously the symbols that emerge from the life and struggles of
the oppressed. While inculturation is an attempt at rectifying
some aspects, of the missionary era it has not sufficiently taken
into account the class association of mission with colonial power.
The cultural distortion of Christianity is to be seen as power
distortion as well. Church and mission are closely associated with
the dominant groups and their interest, the colonial powers in the
past and the capitalist forces in the present.

Closely related to inculturation is the dialogue model. It is a

process in which Christians with sensitive awareness of the
religious heritage of others try to listen, share and to cooperate
with them in building a common humanity, based on the values
that are germane to these faiths. The focus of inculturation model
is on the life and worship of the Christian community But in
dialogue the emphasis is on shared values and on mission.
Theological convictions that underlie dialogue are important.
There is the affirmation:

a) That plurality and differences are God’s gift and integral to the
structure of God’s mission. Differences should not divide us.
They enhance the beauty and harmony of our life.

b) The centre of faith is a mystery we know only in part. Christ is

ultimate for Christians. But the way they apprehend the meaning
and interpret it are influenced by different cultural and social
backgrounds. Only when these different perceptions are allowed
to be in dialogical relationship can we begin to see the fullness of
truth.

c) The Church is only an agent and a sign of the Kingdom of God.

This presupposes that there are other signs and instruments. A
report on a consultation on “Dialogue and Mission “held in
Tambaram, Madras, clearly articulates this:

The mission of the Church, Gods active purpose in world

history being carried out by the Christian movement, need
not be, and in fact we can see is not, God’s only mission in
the world.

This is theologically certainly, more valid. For it is truer to

the God whom we know, whom Jesus Christ has revealed to
us, to recognise that he is constantly and everywhere at
work; that his mission to humankind cannot be, and has not
been, and is not now, confined within the limits of one
geographical segment or one ecclesiastical organisation or
one historical or one religious movement. The mission of
the church is worldwide; but it is not god’s only mission. It
Is not even his only worldwide mission. Anyone who
accepts the doctrine of the holy spirit, without setting
ecclesiastical frontiers to his activity already admits this is
theory, though many have yet to see and feel it in their
hearts.6

An attitude of humility and openness is the starting point for

genuine dialogue. We need to listen to the other and be willing to
learn from others.

There are different forms of dialogue. A comparative and critical

examination of different perceptions of the religious faiths, is one
of the earliest attempts at dialogue. This has not borne much fruit.
A more creative form of dialogue is expressed as cooperative
action. In solving the problems of poverty, communalism,
environmental destruction and others, all religions should unite.
There is nothing like Christian hunger or Hindu hunger! The
hungry have to be fed. To protect our environment is a task in
which we all join together. If we want to plant more trees or clean
the area in which we live, should we not ask all people to join in?

A question is often asked : Is mission unnecessary when dialogue

is practised?

Yes, we are asking for a new way of understanding and doing of

mission. Mission is still important. In fact, if we do not have a
mission we have no right to exist as a Church. But our mission is
not an aggressive crusade directed to condemning other religions
and enlisting everyone in the Church. We are committed to
sharing through our lives and action God’s liberating and
transforming presence in the world. When we participate with
people of other faiths in love and mutual trust there are plenty of
opportunities to share the source of our inspiration for our life --
Christ the giver of New Life.

We attempted a detailed discussion on dialogue as mission model

because it has challenged many presuppositions of the traditional
understanding of mission and opened a way for a meaningful
form of Christian witness in a pluralistic context7.

Nation Building: Service, Development and Justice

The struggle for independence and the process of nation building

have also brought challenges to the churches with regard to its
social and political witness. The question was posed as to how to
witness to Christ in the midst of socio-political changes? A
conviction widely shared at this point was that Christ was present
in social and political realities, judging and transforming them.
Witnessing to the Gospel in the social and political context was a
theme developed by the synod of the Church of South India that
met in 1962. A resolution passed by this synod was a landmark
concerning Indian church’s thinking on social questions.

The Synod believes that the social revolution now taking

place in India is a manifestation of the eternal purpose and
judgement of God in human history. It believes that the
Church is created by God to be a people wholly unto the
Lord and to seek the establishment of Righteousness, Mercy
and Love in human society It therefore calls the members of
the Church of South India at this critical time to a series and
prayerful consideration of the implications of this belief for
their worship, work and witness in a changing India.

The synod called upon all Christian institutions, congregations

and individuals to take seriously their responsibilities in relation
to:
 1) The need to offer the love and compassion of God in
Christ to all sorts and conditions of men;

2) The need to establish within the life of the Church a

fellowship transcending distinctions of caste and class;

3) The need that each Christian should be a politically

conscious and responsible citizen;

4) The need to witness to the kingdom of God, to set forth

and establish in society both the love and the righteousness
of God in Christ;

5) The need to make Christians in ‘secular occupation’

realise that their occupations themselves which supply the
physical and economic needs of society are also in the plan
and purpose of God for the total redemption of society.8

Several paradigms of mission have emerged at this time. One of

the traditional modes of the Church’s participation in national
situation is service, The Church in India did pioneering service by
establishing medical and educational institutions. Many charitable
institutions like orphanages and relief operations through the
Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA), have provided
help to the needy regardless of their religious affiliations. Some of
these programmes are well-known and there is no need to
describe them elaborately But the churches moved to a new phase
in this when they started developmental projects with the help of
foreign donor agencies They are directed towards self-
employment for the poor and to creating the infrastructure that is
necessary for community based development in health and other
areas.

It is important that in a situation of extreme poverty and

continuing misery of millions in rural and urban areas the
churches have to provide service for the needy. Sometimes such
actions are powerful witness to churches solidarity with people,
breaking its isolation.

In their study of the churches in North India, J.P. Alter and H.

Jaisingh make a pointed reference to one such moment in the life
of the Church in Delhi. In 1947 there broke out the worst
communal clash between Hindus and Muslims and thousands of
refugees streamed into Delhi. Christians took the lead in
ministering to the needs of victims and this was widely acclaimed:

This service to refugees was of profound significance for

the life of the Church. It demonstrated that Christians,
though neutral in the communal struggle, were not
indifferent to the sufferings of their neighbors. It created a
fund of goodwill which proved to be of great value in
subsequent discussions concerning faith Above all, it helped
to draw the Christian community out of its isolation and to
identify Christians as responsible citizens of the new
Democratic Republic.9

However, laudable and necessary such charitable and

developmental activities are, they seldom challenge the existing
system and structures of injustice that perpetuate poverty and
unequal distribution of resources. In the long run they do not
provide an answer to the search of the poor for their dignity and
justice. It is this critique that led to the awareness that the poor
have to be organized to fight for their rights and they should not
be mere objects of charity but subjects of struggle for a new, just
order. That mission of struggle for justice is the paradigm that
emerged very clearly at this time. Au awareness that the struggle
for justice is the context of Christian mission and a new vision of
Christ as Liberator,10 both these have contributed to the
emergence of this new paradigm of mission. Justice is a
dimension of the saving act of God. To participate in the struggle
for justice is to participate in God’s mission. This paradigm is
also based on the critical analysis of the economic and political
situation in India, and the phenomenon of poverty.

It brings, to our awareness the importance of organized struggles

of the poor for justice. During the past decades several groups of
young men and women have gone into organizing the landless,
marginalised groups. They are certainly Christ-inspired, but not
necessarily controlled by ecclesiastical machinery. Moreover, the
team of workers in each group is multi-religious and they work
with people of all faiths. There are many clusters of these groups
-- prominent being the Urban Industrial Rural Mission (UIRM)
and Programme for Social Action (PSA).

Initially the action group started to evolve among the

marginalised sections of society with the specific intent of raising
their critical consciousness against oppression. In this process
they have linked with the groups which are not Christian and
become part of wider movements of people such as tribals, Dalits
and workers. This partnership influenced their style of functioning.

What is disheartening in the development of action groups work,

however, is the apparent conflict between them and the church
organisations. The style and structure they have developed, which
were necessary for their expression of solidarity with the
marginalised, have moved them further and further away from the
institutional Church. The dialogue between them has not proved
very constructive. The churches keep on raising questions,
sometimes legitimate, about the style and structure of action
groups and people’s movements, without showing any readiness
to face the challenge posed by the vision and strategy (justice and
collective action) for the Church’s ministry and mission. Can we
truly say that in a situation of poverty linked with unjust
economic and political structures, justice oriented ministry should
be the preponderant form of Christian mission? If we face this
challenge honestly then the present forms of ministry and the
church structures that support them will also undergo drastic
changes. For one thing our preaching and worship will
authentically reflect the cries of the people for justice and our
church structures will become catalysts for strengthening the
struggle for all people and not just ghettos that preserve our
narrow parochial interest -- they truly become the salt of the earth.

Before we close this section a brief mention of one other point is

necessary. Questions are raised in the discussion on mission about
the relation between proclamation of the Gospel and the Church’s
involvement in politics and society. Some maintain that
evangelism should be distinct from other forms of witness like
dialogue, development, service and struggle for justice. But others
reject this separation and affirm an integral view of mission
embracing all aspects of life and its relationships. One has to
proclaim the Gospel through one’s words, deeds, and life. They
are inseparable. However, we cannot ignore the fact that on
programmatic level the Church has been making some
distinctions and it is difficult to obliterate them. But we need to
ask how each can be informed as well as critiqued by others.

For example the justice oriented approach raises critical questions

to all developmental and service endeavors of the Church. If
service projects and institution do not lead to the removal of
unjust structures, they should be viewed with suspicion. All
institutional forms of service in which significant resources of
money and personnel from other countries are even now involved,
come under critical scrutiny especially as some of them provide
subsidised service to the middle and upper middle class sections
of society. In this section we will mention some of the
contemporary challenges to Christian mission. They will be
discussed in detail in the later chapters.

a). The Struggle for Identity and Justice

The struggle by different ethnic groups for their identity and

justice has brought serious questions to the mission of the church.
Identity is a way of asserting one’s place in society. Culture and
history provide a framework for people’s self-understanding, the
source of their identity. These elements in the life of marginal
groups have been totally suppressed. A conscious recovery of
them is essential for their struggles for dignity Reflection on
mission should be related to this newly gained awareness of
marginalised groups.

In the past the Church has been ambiguous with regard to this
response to the identity question. Christian mission for sure has
enormously contributed to the social transformation of Dalits and
indigenous people. But it has been insensitive to people’s struggle
for cultural identity. The Church has often projected a view of
uniformity that suppresses all differences. But plurality is the
principle of creation.

If the struggle for Dalit and tribal identity is a demand to secure

the rightful space for indigenous people in the wider human
discourse and relationship then it should be accepted as integral to
God’s purposes for them. The theological link between Christian
faith and the struggle for identity should be strengthened and that
should be the basis for a pluriform community. The missionary
obligation should be reformulated as the church’s solidarity with
the marginalized that seeks its identity The struggle for identity is
also a struggle for justice and participation. This gives a concrete
and distinct focus for our struggle. Here the biblical tradition of
faith can make a significant contribution. The prophets were
uncompromising on their stand on justice. They rejected any
pattern of relationship that fails to ensure justice as contrary to
God’s will. I believe that this focus on justice in our identity
struggle gives us a concrete direction as well as a new theological
meaning for it.

The relation between Gospel and culture should be considered in

this context. Many things are written on it and several insights are
today widely shared. It is clear that the Gospel comes to us in a
cultural medium and for most of us in India it has come through
western culture. We need to be sensitive to these cultural
trappings. We also know that the Gospel fulfills as well as judges
the cultural aspirations of people. It is this dialectic that makes
our task daunting.

b) Ecological Crisis: God’s Cosmic Mission

Ecological crisis raises a host of new questions about the concept

and practice of mission. There was a time when we thought this
was not a Third World problem. But today we are convinced that
preserving the environmental integrity and promotion of an
ecologically responsible development are a matter of survival for
the whole world. Fast depletion of natural resources, pollution of
air, land and water, the global warming and other atmosphere
changes have catastrophic affects. A consultation on ecology and
development has correctly observed that while all are affected by
the ecological crisis, the life of the poor and marginalised is
further impoverished by it. Storage of fuel and water add peculiar
burdens to the life of women. It is said that tribals are made
environmental prisoners in their own land. Dalits, whose life has
been subjected to social and cultural oppression for generations
are facing new threats to them by the wanton destruction of the
natural environment. What we witness today is a steady
deterioration and degradation of the biosphere all life and physical
environment.

The biblical insights on our dependence on nature and our

responsibility for nature bring new challenges to our
understanding of Church and mission. The Church is cosmically
oriented (Moltmann) and participates in God’s cosmic mission.
“The mission is not for humans alone, but for the whole of God’s
cosmos. Its aim is not geographical, territorial and numerical
expansion, but transformation of the whole cosmos”11 God’s
saving activity has a threefold dimension calling persons to
commit to the Kingdom of God, justice and peace in society and
ecological health in the land (Amos 9:14-15). All three
dimensions are integral to the cosmic mission of God and they
should be expressed together. “The environment will continue to
deteriorate if we pay attention only to evangelism and social
mission.12 How concretely should we participate in God’s cosmic
mission?

It is no mere coincidence that the root word OIKOS is the same

for ecology economics and ecumenics. We are committed to
preserving the living space that is common to humans and all
other living and non-living things. At the World Convocation on
“Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation” which met in Seoul in
March 1990 the churches convenanted together to renounce “all
idols of wealth, power, race and gender superiority and security
which cause people to suffer and the earth to be dominated,
plundered and destroyed.” Further they made a commitment to
build a just economic order on global, national, regional and
International levels of all people. Ecologically oriented mission is
expressed as a commitment to a set of values that are wholistic
and humane. Perhaps, the scale of values may be summed up as
follows,

Need against greed.

Enabling power against dominating power
Conservation against consumerism
Integrity of creation against exploitation of nature.

Unless the values which we consider important become part of

our life-style, they remain vague and empty. Justice, freedom,
human dignity, enabling power, all these should be made readily
recognisable in our corporate life of the churches.

c) Is the Church Credible?

The Church proclaims and lives by the mystery of Christ. Specific

challenges from the situation provide an occasion to delve deep
into its meaning and to formulate appropriate response to it as
mission. Thus the parameter of mission expands with the ever-
widening horizon of the Gospel. But the institutional church by
far prefers to remain in the security of the familiar and the
traditional. Members often get entangled in the power struggle of
the caste and communal groupings. Self-aggrandisement of the
leadership further distorts the vision and the message of Christ.
Every religious organisation, including the church, possesses
ritual power as well as institutional power. Both can be easily
misused by the hierarchy and others in leadership positions. They
use their ritual and institutional power to manipulate people in
order to perpetuate vested interests and to maintain the dominance
of ecclesiastical functionaries. Blatant forms of corruption,
misappropriations, nepotism and other forms of misuse of power
have become a rule and not an exception.

Can this church be trusted with mission? How can the Church be
a community where different identities can flourish without fear
of domination because of its overriding commitment to the values
of the Kingdom? How can the Church truly bear the Cross of
Christ? The call is for fidelity to the Lord of the Kingdom in
everyday practice. Schillebeecks, the Dutch Catholic theologian,
developing the theme “The New Testament Churches as Exodus
Communities”13 points out that N.T. Churches were not “activist”
churches. But they have developed a paradigm in regard to their
witness in the world. They wanted to express in their life and
relationships the vision of the Kingdom with which they impact
the society.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have attempted to discuss important models of

mission that have emerged in the modern period as the Church
responds to the challenges of other faiths and socio-political
realties. We have also indicated some of the new challenges we
face today They will receive further attention in the following
chapters. A question remains : Is there a new paradigm of mission
being evolved? It is perhaps too early to make a definitive
formulation. But one may venture to describe mission as
Celebration and Sharing of Life. This will be the theme in the
next chapter. It is an attempt to express holistically our mission
embracing all our aspects of life. Mission is an endeavour of the
Christian community to celebrate and to enhance God’s gift of
life. The essential character of this life which the community
shares with other human beings and nature is interrelatedness. In
responsibility to one another and to nature life is preserved and
God’s purpose for it is fulfilled. The demand for life abundant.
“Where Jesus is, there is Life”.14 To follow Jesus is to witness to
the abundant life. More concretely it means to support values,
practices and institutions that affirm and enhance life and to
denounce systems and structures that diminish and extinguish the
lives of so many. Further, commitment to life-affirming values
should be expressed in the life and relationships of the community
of faith.

Notes:

1. Tiff Book Christian Literature Society, Madras.

2. Rethinking Christianity in India,

3 Ibid.

4. Preparation for Dialogue (Bangalore: CISRS. 1964), p. 192

5. Quoted in JAG Gerwin Van Leeuwen, Fully Indian and

Authentically Christian (Bangalore National Biblical Catechetical
and Liturgical Centre, 1990), p. 241.

6. “Tambaram Revisited, Papers and Reports of a Consultation on

Dialogue and Mission” International Review of Mission, Vol.
LXXVIII, No. 307, July 1988, pp. 366-367.

7. A helpful and comprehensive discussion on the concerns

relating to this approach is given in S.J. Samartha’s One Christ-
Many Religions, (NewYork: Orbis Books, 1991) and Indian
edition, SATHRI, Bangalore, 1992.

8. Rajaiah D. Paul, Ecumenism in Action, p. 100

9. James P. Alter et. al., The Church as Christian Community, p.35

10. This model can also be appropriately called Liberation model.

Liberation and justice are interrelated concepts.

11.Quoted from a study guide of the Presbyterian Church (USA),

1991.

12. Ibid

13. Christ, (New York Cross Roads, 1988)

14. Jurgen Moltmann, The Passion of Life (Philadelphia Fortress

Press), 1978, p. 19.

Viewed 4436 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Chapter 2: Mission and Ministry as Celebration and Sharing of Life

Our study is an attempt to see the relevance of the Gospel to the

many struggles of our people in India. In a situation of abject
poverty which is being perpetuated by unjust economic and
political structures the concern for liberation has a sense of
urgency The poor in our country are religious, but the majority are
not Christians. There is an awakening among the poor in all the
religions to their dignity and selfhood which has been suppressed
by age-old traditions and culture, and they demand a critical
review of the fundamentals of their faiths from the perspective of
liberation. We should also be sensitive to the fact that in the
present-day contest in India religious faiths continue to be used by
dominant groups to legitimise their control over the masses. In the
secular sphere, although the so called development process has
brought many gains to certain sections in our society, the control
of the economic elite over our political process and the increasing
marginalisation of weaker sections like tribals, Dalits and women
raise serious questions about justice and corruption that are
embedded in our system. This is the context we reflect upon. It is
a context where life is continuously threatened, vitiated and
destroyed by many forces of death. We need God’s life-giving
mission in our midst.

In an attempt to evolve a theological frame work for Christian

mission and ministry, I suggest a brief consideration of three
fundamental biblical insights about God in our midst and our
response to him, and draw some implications for mission and
ministry in the Indian context.

1. God is a God of life and to believe in him is to participate in

his life giving activity.

Mission and ministry are endeavours of the Christian community

to celebrate and to enhance God’s gift of life. The essential
character of this life, which the community shares with other
human beings and nature, is inter-relatedness. In responsibility to
one another and to nature life is preserved and God’s purpose for
it is fulfilled.

Faith in the God of the Bible is faith in a living, life-giving God.

The phrase “living God” is an expression commonly found in the
Old Testament (I Sam 17:26,36; Judges 8:19; Kings 17:1) ‘The
realisation of life, in all its fullness, including the material basis of
life, is the primary mediation of the approach to God” (Sobrino)1.
For Jesus, God is a God of life. St. John testifies that the word of
life is manifested in Christ. God’s own mission is giving life
(John 10:10, 14:6). Sobrino observes that God as a God of life is
“a primary and generic horizon”. This is a helpful concept. The
“genetic horizon” is common to all humanity and not an exclusive
domain of the people of a particular faith. It takes us to the very
root, the earth-base, of our experience. In this we see a “fusion of
horizons” (Gadamar) between us and that of the ancients. This has
to “become historicised and concrete in the life of Jesus
himself” (Sobrino)2. When Jesus speaks of “bread”, he is using it
as a symbol of all life: the generic horizon and concrete horizon
coming together.

Bread and food are.....primary mediations of the reality of

God. This is why Jesus favours and defends them. This is
why he eats with publicans. (Mark 2:15-17 and parallels)...
This is why the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves
(apart from the Christological and liturgical intention of the
evangelists) emphasizes that those who are hungry must be
fed, and stresses that they ate and had their fill (Mark. 6:30-
44 and parallels, 8:1-10; Matt. 15:32-39). This is why the
one who feeds the hungry has encountered both man and
the son of man. (Sobrino).3

Messianic signs are signs of life in its fullness (Matt.11:2-6). The

Kingdom which Jesus preaches is the Kingdom of those who are
deprived of life. Jesus’ uncompromising defence of life has led
him to a life of conflict with the powerful, ruling class of his time.
This conflict resulted in Jesus’ death. “His passion for life led him
to the suffering on the cross” (Moltman)4. The one who defended
and proclaimed life was put to death. Resurrection is the
affirmation that God’s “last word” is not death but life.

To believe in the God of life is to affirm the supremacy of life

over death. This also means “any assault on life -- hunger,
destitution, squalor, oppression, injustice is an attack on God, on
God’s will for the life of humankind. A denial of life, therefore is
a rejection of the God of life (Gutierrez, quoted in Araya, God of
the poor, p. 73) The demand of the God of life in Christ, the
rationale for Mission, is a demand for life abundant “were Jesus
is, there is abundant life vigorous .life, loved life and eternal
life” (Moltman)5. To follow Jesus is to witness to the abundant
life in words and deeds.

We live in a situation where this sacred gift of life is threatened,

vitiated and destroyed. Our willful resistance to God’s demand to
choose life and our refusal to participate in God’s life-giving
activity are expressed in many ways. From dowry death to nuclear
disasters one could draw up a long list of violence we commit to
one another and to nature. Our tendency to reduce all these to sin
and selfishness is often an abstraction. In the modern world, sin
and selfishness assume corporate and structural character; greed is
a personal sin but is operative in organised form in our economic
system. Caste oppression cannot be simply reduced to “personal”
factors. Caste-structure like other evil structures, has a logic of its
own. That is why our faith in a God of life has to be expressed as
affirming values, practices and institutions that affirm and
enhance life and as denouncing the systems and structures that
diminish and extinguish the lives of so many voices.6 Mission is a
response to the demand of God that life be abundant, the demand
for humanisation “The mission of salvation and the task of
humanisation are integrally related to each other even if they
cannot be considered identical” (Thomas, Salvation and
Humanisation, p. 8).

2. The God of the Bible is a liberator God and faith in the

liberator God calls for struggle against all forces of oppression.
Life is not an abstract, but an historical reality. As we have noted
the “God of life “ provides generic horizon for our faith and its
practice. But the living God in the Bible is a liberator God, the
God of the Exodus experience. Liberation theology, particularly
that from Latin America, has developed this theme on the basis of
biblical insights and the experiences of new ecclesial communities
of poor Christians.

Aloysius Pieris of Sri Lanka points out that the concept of

“liberation” is not new and mentions various perceptions of
liberation found in ancient philosophy, Roman theology, religions
of Asia, and Marxism.

“The stoic perception... sees liberation primarily as spiritual/

personal/interior. It does, however, tolerate an individual’s search
for freedom from external social structures that are oppressive --
as exemplified in the case of slavery. But it does not envisage any
radical change of social structure” (Pieris) .7 He adds that this is
the “ideological substratum” of the Roman theology (one may
add, Protestant theology as well). Further he observes that
classical Buddhism (one may add Hinduism as well) also has
similar views of liberation. It holds that structural change is a
consequence of interior liberation.

“The Marxist?’ restricts liberation to a class struggle of the poor

(proletariat) aimed at socio-economic justice.

In contrast to these three positions, “biblical revelation”

seems to advocate a unitary perception of all these aspects
social, spiritual/material, internal/structural -- whenever
these are predicated of “sin” and “liberation from
sin.” (Pieris).7

Another distinct and important aspect of the biblical view of

liberation is the pivotal role played by the poor in it. God has
entered into a pact with the poor. “The poor in the Bible are
dynamic group who are not the passive victims of history but
those through whom God shapes his history” (Soares-Prabhu).8

Biblical liberation is more than a class struggle. It is a “religions

experience of the poor” (Pieris). Thus to affirm the biblical faith
in the liberator God is to affirm a life in solidarity with the poor.

Pieris constantly reminds us that the poor in Asia are non-

Christians, and Asian reality is an interplay between religiousness
and poverty. So in affirming solidarity with the poor in Asia /
India, an inevitable consequence of the faith in a liberator God is
to enter deeply into the religious (non-Christian) experience of the
poor. The liberational thrust helps us to enter into a dialogue and
cooperation with people of other faiths.

An EATWOT consultation on “Religion and Liberation” states

that all religions, Christianity included, “are in various ways and
to various degrees both oppressive and liberative. They are
oppressive because they legitimise unjust social systems like
apartheid, and caste, and because they create their own special
forms of religious unfreedom... But history shows us that
religions can be liberative too. They have inspired powerful
movements of social protest (like Hebrew prophetism in
monarchical Israel, or the bhakti movements in mediaeval India)
which have attacked both the oppressive rigidity of the religious
systems themselves, as well as of the unjust socio-economic and
political structure of the societies in which those religions
flourished” (Voices).9

It further states that In the Third World, where all religions

together face the challenges of enslaving social and cultural
systems and the need to struggle for justice, religions should meet
each other, exploring and sharing their liberative elements. It calls
for the development of a “Liberative ecumenism, that is, a form of
inter-religious dialogue which is concerned not so much with
doctrinal, insights or spiritual experiences that different religions
can offer one another, as with the contribution to human liberation
that each can make” (“Voices,” Vol. II No. I 168 ). This is
mission, from a liberational perspective.

Mission is to share the gift of Jesus, God’s way of liberation; but

at the same time it provides an opportunity to learn from others. A
genuine dialogue is not manipulative, not a strategy for
conversion but a form of witness on the basis of trust and respect.
Participation in issues such as human rights, minority problems,
social and economic injustice which we commonly face, give a
basis for fruitful dialogue. It must also be pointed out that today
we are discovering the dynamism of people’s tradition distinct
from elite’s sophistication in our religion and culture and its
potential for liberation. People’s tradition is often maintained in
protest movements within dominant religions, in myths, stories
and legends. This dynamic heritage and its humanistic, liberative
revival have set the stage for a more meaningful dialogue and
cooperative action among the religions.

The liberation that we experience in God through Christ is

cosmic. The biblical vision of “new heaven and new earth” (Rev.
21:1) and our confession that Christ is renewing the cosmos (Col.
1:15 -20) compel us to the earth and to its liberation and
transformation. The creation’s “groaning in travail” (Rom. 8:22)
together with our own groaning is audible in the ecological crisis
we face. The marginalised groups in their struggle for freedom
and human dignity have discovered the close link between
environmental crisis and exploitation: tribals, fishermen, landless
people and women. They are pleading for an alternate form of
development which is ecologically responsible and meets the
basic needs of the people.

How do we witness to the God, the liberator of cosmos in a

situation of increasing crisis of ecology and in the context where
the people are forced to search for a responsible relation with
nature? That should be an agenda of mission. Too long we have
been preoccupied in our theology with the dimension of history in
isolation from the cosmos. We can never set the plane of human
history and nature in opposition. It is in the search of liberation of
all aspects of human life, cultures and natural environment that
we can truly affirm that salvation is the wholeness of all creation.

3. “To know God is to do justice”

The God of life, the liberator God orients the struggle of his
people in a precise direction toward the establishment of justice.
In the Hebrew faith, Yahweh appears as the Goel the defender of
the vulnerable groups from whom all rights are taken away -- the
widow, orphans, aliens and the poor. God is the “near relative”,
the protector and avenger of Israel. This is affirmed in the
covenant which Yahweh has established with his people -- and the
clear expression of that relationship is justice. It is in justice done
to the weak and helpless that Israel’s true national identity is to be
found.

Gutierrez writes:

Indeed, Israel’s identity, the meaning of belonging to the

Jewish nation, is the rendering of justice to the poor,
 rescuing their rights trodden under foot. And when the
Jewish people fails to do justice to the poor, it is false to
itself as a people. That is, it not only does evil, does wrong,
but in violating the pact of the covenant, it goes directly
against what identifies it as a people and always has : the
liberative act of the exodus, the historical experience of
having come up from Egypt thanks to its alliance, its
covenant, with God. 10

To know god is to enter into this covenant-justice-oriented

relationship. So for prophets to know God is to do justice (Jer.
22:13-16). This is the basis of mission. as doing justice.

In an interesting study of missionary activity in the later

nineteenth century in India G.A. Oddie has brought out
documents about missionaries’ involvement in agitation for social
reform. I was interested in the account of the missionary
involvement in the indigo disputes. The opposition was against
the indigo cultivation by the European planters, their own country
men. The system was such that the poor ryots had to yield to the
pressure of the zamindars and cultivate indigo. This cultivation
was not profitable and it led to the neglect of rice and other crops.
European planters working through the zamindars with the
support of police and other government machinery had thus
designed a system which exploited the poor ryots. Missionaries
organized a heroic fight against this system and at enormous cost:
imprisonment, threat, loss of job and so on and succeeded in
changing it.

One or two aspects of this involvements stand out. Response to

the gospel of Jesus Christ in a given context and the fight against
unjust structures are integrally related. Some of the missionaries
criticises their fellow workers who are involved in such social
issues. But those who led the fight were clear about this integral
relation with the gospel and the transformation of unjust
structures.

We should also notice how in their fight they were in solidarity

with all victims regardless of their caste or religion. It is true that
they were led to the fight when they saw the hardship of some of
the poor Christians. But when the fight was directed to a system
they had to broaden their base and include every one who was
subjected to the evils of the system. A deeper involvement in
social issue borne out by our commitment to the gospel takes us
to an open arena of human sufferings. It is also interesting that
when they stood by the exploited people they had to oppose their
own fellow “Christians”. In a context like that an alliance for the
sake of perpetuating a so-called Christian identity was not so
important as establishing solidarity with the suffering masses who
were not necessarily Christians.

The practice of faith in a God of life, liberation is our mission and

ministry Theo-praxis. Where life, liberation and justice are denied
in praxis God is denied. To believe is to practice. To believe in
God is to turn from oneself and to commit one’s life to God and
to all men and women in concrete practice. This is conversion, an
essential dimension of mission. Although it occurs in the realm of
the personal, it is not privatistic; it is a process translated into the
socio-economic, political and cultural sphere in which the
converted lives. It is to participate in God’s mission. Concrete
forms of it in the context in which we live were mentioned earlier.
Commitment to life-affirming values, and structures, solidarity
with the poor in their struggle for justice and for their forests and
land, and dialogue with other faiths directed towards a liberative
ecumenism are some of these.

Perhaps one may issue a word of caution here. The experience of

the ultimate which is concretised in our struggles for justice and
liberation is not the ultimate in itself The Gospel has the character
of givenness, a mystery, if you will, the meaning of which is not
exhausted in our response. ‘It continues to expand our horizon,
judging and transforming us. One of the perennial problems in
Christian understanding is to keep in tension these two dimension
-- the ultimate and concrete. But the issue is never simply either
one or the other, although accent my be placed on a particular
aspect in view of the urgency of a given situation.

I have not said anything specifically about ministry. In fact I do

not want to make any separation between mission and ministry. It
is argued that ministry is about caring of the “faithful” and
mission is what the faithful do in response to the faith. This
division is artificial when we acknowledge that Christian ministry
is our total response in faith and action (praxis) to Christ and his
message in a given situation. Ministry cannot be reduced to what
the minister does as a poojari or guru but what the community of
faith together do and how they live out the faith. In this sense
Christian ministry is a community endeavour. Mission and
ministry are signs and instruments of God’s life-giving, liberative
act. Elsewhere, I tried to suggest that there are three moments in
Christian ministry (Wilson C. ed. J, The Church, 110). First, there
is a critical awareness of the situation, particularly the factors and
structures that influence the life and struggles of people. The
second moment is the faith-reflection. Here the scripture as well
as the heritage of faith is studied and interpreted in the light of the
experiences of people . In this faith-reflection Christian
community should sink its roots into the life and culture of all
people. The third moment is action which is an interaction
between the other two moments. In a situation of injustice we
need collective action directed towards generating life-affirming,
humanising values, altering unjust structures and building new
alternatives. Ministry in this sense becomes part of God’s mission.

A question that keeps on coming is, “Can the present church be

trusted with mission?”. This demands a new look at the shape and
structure of our congregations, and the administrative bodies, the
leadership pattern and the Christian community’s relationship
with people of other faiths . It is not enough if we just introduce
Kuthuvilakku or add a few Indian Lyrics to our service. The
challenge is to express our solidarity with people of other faiths in
common quest, action, shared values and spirituality.
Indigenisation and liberation should be the same process. The
church in its mission and ministry is called to be a community
who make ‘Jesus’ theo-praxis, their own.

Notes:

1. Jan Sobrino, The Epiphany of the God of life in Jesus of

Nazareth” in Richard Pablo, Idol Of Death and the God Of Life,
Maryknoll N.Y Orbis, 1983, p. 70.

2. Sobrino, op. cit., pp. 73-74

3. Sobrino, op. cit., p. 73

4. Jurgen Moltmann, The Passion For Life , Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1983, p. 22.

5. Moltmann, op. cit., p. 19

6. Voices From the Third World, June 1988, p. 91.

7. Pieris, An Asian Theology of Liberation, Maryknoll, Orbis,

1988, p. 123.

8. Soares-Prabhu, in Vidyajyothi, New Delhi, p. 320

9. Voices, June 1988, p.152.

10. Gustavo Gitierrez in Victoria, Maya, The God of the Strategic

Covenant, Maryknoll N.Y Orbis, 1994. p. 69

Viewed 4437 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Chapter 3: Towards a Theology of Mission in Asia

Today the very concept and purpose of Christian mission is called

into question not only by Christians themselves but also by non-
Christian thinkers who are sympathetic to the good news. A mere
consideration of the problem of missionary personnel and finance
or methods of missionary involvement does not settle the present
crisis in mission. The crisis is partly connected with upheavals in
theological thought and partly related to our fresh appreciation of
the profound changes that are taking places in society at large.
The Church’s understanding of its witness to the gospel of Christ
as that of the crusader and the inquisitor, and the goal of its
evangelistic activity as proselytisation, was admirably suited to
the theology of the colonial era, and conformed to the practices of
imperialist expansion of the major western powers in Asia. Today
we reject this crusading model on the basis of new insights into
the gospel of Jesus Christ and our growing awareness of the
revolutionary upsurge of submerged peoples in Asia to affirm
their humanity.

People who reject this model, however, are driven to all sorts of
social action projects, development goals and humanist ideologies
-- all, in the name of Christian mission. Missionaries have become
project holders and mission funding agencies. This to my mind is
an easy option out of a complex situation. The mission of the
Church has to be rooted in Jesus Christ alone. The prime need of
the church today is to continue its search for new forms of
obedience to Christ in the given situation in Asia.

In this paper I want to suggest that serious attention should be

paid to a life-style that is appropriate to the Gospel for developing
a relevant form of Christian witness. I would further suggest that
the life-style we develop should be the life-style of a community
that is open to the power of its Lord and Master. John R. Mott
once asked Gandhi about his views on Christian mission. Gandhi
replied, “you can only preach through your life. The rose does not
say, ‘come and smell me’. There is no truer or other evangelism
than life’.’

It is more important for the church to realise that the true basis
and form of its witness in society is God’s transforming work in
Christ, which has cosmic and social significance. Biblical faith
also affirms that the witness to this reality is a community
endeavour or a people’s movement, true to its origin m a covenant
relation. Of course, the dynamic of the movement is not of our
making, generated and released from within ourselves, but the
transforming power of Christ himself. Our witness is a response
to this. Its form and style are that of the Suffering Servant, the self
emptying love of Christ. The Church’s witness is to conform to
this style of life in the given context

A Theological Interpretation

In modern time it is Bonhoeffer who has forced upon theological

thinking the question about life-style. A consideration of the main
thrust of his views will be helpful. It is basic to a right
understanding of Bonhoeffer to realise that this radical
interpretation of the Christian gospel in secular terms, non-
religious language, is only half of the Church’s task in the modem
world. The other, and more difficult half, is “the raising up of
Christians who witness to their Lord in the midst of the world
through an appropriate style of life.”2

Bonhoeffer has given serious thought to this. John Godsey, in his

interpretation of Bonhoeffer’s thought, has stated this clearly The
whole question of man’s language and its ability to express
meaning -- the hermeneutical question has been raised in a
decisive way, and for the Church it has become acute with respect
to the translation of the meaning of the biblical language into the
language of the twentieth century Many consider this an
altogether academic problem. But for Bonhoeffer, it was not
merely the question of finding the proper language, although
obviously it is important when one wants to express oneself non-
religiously that is without making religion the precondition of
faith. The more basic question for Bonhoeffer was whether our
lives authenticate or belie our words.3

The radical character of Christian life as envisaged by Bonhoeffer

can be brought out by a consideration of his concept of
conformation. In his Ethics he sets forth the idea of conformation
and there he advances it as the key to a genuinely Christological
ethics. ‘The way in which the form of Jesus Christ takes form in
the world “is the central concern of his ethics:

The Holy Scriptures speak of formation in a sense which is

at first entirely unfamiliar to us. Their primary concern is
not with the forming of a world by means of plans and
programmes. Whenever they speak of forming, they are
concerned only with the one form which has overcome the
world, the form of Jesus Christ....Formation comes only by
being drawn into the form of Jesus Christ. It comes only as
formation in His likeness, as conformation which the unique
form of him who was made man, was crucified, and rose
again.4

The form of Christ is not a “religious” pattern; rather it is the

pattern of true manhood, the man for others.

To be conformed with the Incarnate -- that is to be a real

man. It is man’s right and duty that he should be man. The
quest for superman, the endeavour to outgrow the man
within the man, the pursuit of the heroic, the cult of the
demigod, all this is not the proper concern of man, for it is
untrue...

...To be conformed with the Incarnate is to have the right to

be the man one really is. Now there is no more pretense, no
more hypocrisy or self-violence, no more compulsion to be
something other, better and more ideal than what one is.
God loves the real man. God became a real man.5

To be conformed to Christ is also “participation in the sufferings

of God in the secular life.”6 The participation in suffering is not
the self mortification of an ascetic. It is metanoia.
Again, Bonhoeffer rejects a religious definition of metanoia:
“That is metanoia: not in the first place thinking about one’s own
needs, problems, sins, and fears, but allowing oneself to be caught
up in the way of Jesus Christ, into the messianic event.” Christ in
the messianic event is the Suffering Servant who fulfills Isaiah 53.
Bonhoeffer lists examples of a variety of people in the New
Testament who were caught up into the messianic suffering. They
were not “sinners” in the conventional sense: the call to
discipleship, Jesus’ table-fellowship with sinners, the
“conversion” of Zaccheus; the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet
(Luke 7:36-50): Jesus’ healing of the sick: Jesus’ acceptance of
children, the shepherds, and the wise men who were present at
Jesus’ birth; the centurion of Capemaum; the rich young ruler; the
Eunuch (Acts 8), and Cornelius; Nathaniel, Joseph of Arimathea
and the women at the tomb. “The only thing that is common to all
these is their sharing in the suffering of God in Christ; that is their
faith”.7

That faith is described thus:

We throw ourselves completely into the arms of God,

taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in
the world -- watching with Christ in Gethsemane. That, I
think, is faith, that is metanoia; and that is how one
becomes a man and a Christian (cf. Jer. 45). How can
success make us arrogant, or failure lead us astray, when we
share in God’s sufferings, through a life of this kind? 8

This is metanoia, the life that participates in the sufferings of God

or the mode of existence of the servant. It is a life that is freed
from the false securities of individual as well as collective life. No
more does the burden of the past weigh down on the person who
is in this life. Accepting “vicarious action”9 as the controlling
principle, it eschews an absolutising of one’s own ego or of the
other person, either of which would deny its origin, essence, and
goal of responsible life in Jesus Christ.10

Moltmann calls this style of Christian life a “messianic life-style”.

The Christian life-style is characterised and shaped by the

Gospel. ‘Let the manner of your life be worthy of the
Gospel of Christ’, says Paul in Philippians 1:27. The life of
the Christian is messianically qualified by the Gospel, for
 the Gospel is the call into the freedom of the messianic
time.11

Freedom is characteristic of this life-style. It is not determined by

prohibitions and restraints and the desire to “be someone other
than who we really are”. A life in conformity with the Gospel
“liberates us to be ourselves and fills us with the power of the
Spirit”.12

Messianic life-style is marked by tension as it assumes the

responsibility for the world and enters into its conflicts.
Moltmann points out that Bonhoeffer rejected easy alternatives in
regard to a Christian’s orientation to the world. On the one hand
he rejected “the world-denying piety” and on the other he also
resisted a “banal secularity”.

The orientation of the beyond which wants to have God

without his Kingdom and the salvation of the soul without
the new earth, ends up basically only in establishing an
orientation to this world which builds its Kingdom without
God and wants to have the new earth without a new heaven.
The worldless, God of the one and the Godless world of the
other, the faith without hope of the one and the hope
without faith of the other, mutually confirm each other.13

Church as People’s Movement

The messianic life-style or the form of the servant is the life-style

of a community. That has been the assumption all along.
Bonhoeffer says “The Church is... Christ himself who has taken
form among us”.14 So the form of the Servant in a real way
characterises the life and witness of the Church. Concretely it is
the life and witness of a local community --the congregation.

The Church in a real sense is a people’s movement and the

Christian witness becomes a community endeavour, through its
origin in a covenant relation -- with this difference: that the
dynamic is not of our making, generated and released from within
ourselves. “Christian life-style is created by the Spirit when we
personally and in community bind our life with the life of Christ
and understand our life-history as a small part of God’s great
history of the liberating world.”15
The Church in Asia should consider seriously the implications of
the idea that the Church is a people’s movement for developing
this life-style. Moltmann has made a useful distinction between
“the Church for the people” and “the Church of the people”.16
This is helpful for our discussion. Underlying much of the
programmes, administrative structures and even the mission of
our churches is the view that we are the Church for the people.
“The church wants of course to do something for the people. But
precisely in doing this it proves that it does not belong to the
people.”17

The messianic life-style, however, is different. Jesus was a man of

the people. Moltmann asks, “Did Jesus become.... the saviour for
the people or the Messiah of the people?” Jesus moved with the
disqualified ochlos and he saw himself in this people. They were
not objects of his love, but subjects of his messianic Kingdom.
That gives the direction to the life and witness of the Church.

Where is the true Church? The true Church is where Christ

is. Christ is present in the mission of the believers and the
suffering of the “least of these”. His community is therefore
the brotherhood of the believers and the poor, the losers and
the imprisoned, the hopers and the sick. The apostolate says
what the Church is; “the least of these” say where the
Church belongs. Only if the Church realises in itself this
double brotherhood of Christ does it really live in the
presence of the crucified and exalted Christ.18

This new perspective of the Church of the people takes the

Church along the messianic path, and the Church in Asia, the
congregation, should reorder its life and witness in this style, truly
becoming a Church of the people. That is the crux of its social
witness.

As an example of this way of witness, a concrete experience of a

congregation may be mentioned here. St. Marks Cathedral
(Church of South India), Bangalore, started a programme of social
action in one of the slums in the city. The slum had all the usual
problems -- poverty, unemployment, poor housing and lack of
sanitation. Besides these, the community was divided along caste
groupings, and clashes between them were a daily occurrence. At
first, the work was carried out by trained social workers and other
paid workers. Soon it was obvious that as a result of the church’s
work, a group was being created which was dependent on a richer
institution. The emergence of this new group was only adding fuel
to social and communal antagonism. The people were the objects
of charity and there was little or no effect on the overall
development towards a new community After some time it was
discovered that there was a small Christian congregation in the
area. The presence of the congregation created a problem as well
as an opportunity for a meaningful witness. Their life-style caused
embarrassment as it was not different from that of the other
sections of the community And progress which had the label
“Christian was immediately associated with this congregation’s
life-style, which was nothing commendable. Realizing this
problem, the strategy for witness had to be changed. It was clear
that an awareness by this congregation, of its loyalty to Christ and
the life and action corresponding to it alone were the ways by
which one could speak to the larger community The congregation
was challenged to consider seriously the implications of its
commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for its responsibility to
the society. Then the dynamic of our involvement changed. The
members of the congregation became the real actors and
communicators of the Gospel. Certainly, they needed guidance
support, and help in reinterpreting the meaning of the Gospel in
terms of their needs. But their participation in the joys and
problems and plans of their slum-mates and a style of life
appropriate to their faith made a big difference.

Some of the early missionaries who were sensitive to the

questions of the style of life bear witness to the same experience.
The young C.E Andrews, when he joined St. Stephen’s College,
Delhi, as a missionary interviewed many “ leading Indian
converts” and enquired of them “the special causes which had led
them to become Christians...” Here is what Andrews found:

One after another omitted that cause which I should have

imagined to be primary -- namely the longing for personal
salvation... Many replied that it was the freedom of
Christian life compared with the bondage of caste -- the
attraction of the Christian brotherhood. Others stated that it
was the thought of Christ uniting all the divided races and
peoples of India into one -- the ideal of the Christian
Church.19

The Christian fellowship was considered the basis of Christian

faith. It is true that in later years the Christian Church in India got
itself isolated from the larger community into “mission
compounds” and denominations, and began to rust and indeed,
turning into an exclusive Christian caste or closed communal
group, instead of being an open, outgoing fellowship in the larger
society. But the moment the Church broke this isolation it made a
significant impact on society In the first chapter we have already
referred to the study of J. P. Alter and H. Jai Singh on the church
in Delhi. They pointed out that in providing refuge to the victims
of communal dashes during the partition the Church broke its life
of isolation and found a way to be in solidarity with the
suffering.20

The same study gives a description to the life and witness of the
Church in the rural areas of the Punjab:

Evangelism as we have been using the term has referred to

the formal concept, the programme of the Church, the
behaviour of the organised “Ecclesia”, the programmes of
district staffs, of church councils,, conferences, diocesan
committees and the life. But there is another; perhaps
deeper and more significant, level of evangelism and
witness. This Is the level of individual and small group
encounter with the world and its response at the level of
Koinonia. This level of encounter is organised, informal,
non-ecclesiastical. In the Punjab, the hope and despair of
the organized church lie in the fact that this “Koinonia” is
the active level of rural Church “mission” rather than the
“Ecclesia” level.21

The point is that the life-style of the congregation assumes crucial

significance for the Church’s encounter with a society which is
ridden by casteism and other problems of community living.
Already such encounters are taking place at the informal
“Koinonia” level. The Church in India as a whole should be
challenged to consider the significance of the life-style of its
congregations for a genuine encounter with the society

We are by no means suggesting that the Church should be

confined to the institutional boundaries of a particular religious
organization. There are those who do not belong to the visible
community but are part of the Church as the community of Gods
people. But we hold that only in relation to a community that
acknowledges its Lordship to Christ and lives together in
fellowship can we speak of the Church, even about the invisible
Church. That is why the local congregation assumes a central
significance when we speak about Christian witness.

Speaking to a group of theological students in India, a layman has

voiced this concern of taking the congregation seriously:

We in the secular world are learning that an organization is

as strong as -- not its weakest link, but its smallest unit. Is
there any reason why this should not be true about the
Church as well, definitely in the sociological sense, and
possibly also in the spiritual sense? If so, the renewal of the
Church in India can come only in and through its thousands
of local congregations. In fact, my growing conviction is
that the only real Church is the parish congregation held
together in common worship..... So to make the Church
related to the world is to make the parish related to its
locality. To develop a social concern for the Church is to
sensitise the parish to the society around it? 22

This can be done only by living among people as people, sharing

in their joys and sufferings, entering into their perplexities and
anxieties and understanding their achievements and failures, and
also their goals and plans.

Today many of the local congregations in India have the

appearance of in-grown communities, closed enclaves which bear
more resemblance to “castes” than to “churches” in the real sense
of the term. They often live in a ghetto-type of community, not
simply because they themselves wish to live in isolation from the
wider Hindu society

We assume that the servant model, the messianic life-style, with

its emphasis on being with the people in all struggles, will provide
a new direction to the Church in India. And this may well be true
of churches in other parts of Asia.

Some Specific Concerns

We have discussed in general terms the significance of the

messianic life-style for providing direction and content for our
mission. Some specific concerns ought to be raised m this context
Here again I can take examples only from India
(a) Mission is Solidarity with the Poor

There is no denying the fact that the overwhelming problem in

many countries in Asia is poverty. Poverty, economically
understood, is the deprivation of certain basic necessities of life --
chiefly food, shelter, and clothing. It has also to do with a certain
minimum level of economic security --reasonable assurance that
the basic necessities of life will continue to be met in the
foreseeable future.

What strikes us as the most disturbing feature of the present

situation is the continuance of mass poverty in spite of all the talk
about socialist development. The following statement adopted by
a Christian consultation is somewhat typical of the present trends
in economic development in India.

An evaluation of the performance of the economy during

the past quarter of a century presents a sordid picture. It is
officially recognised that over 40 percent of our people, i.e.,
some 250 million, still live in dire poverty without having
means to satisfy the basic necessities of life. It has been
established also that inequalities in income have increased
with the gulf between the rich and the poor becoming more
pronounced. In spite of many land reform measures in the
statute books, land still remains concentrated in the hands of
the landlords who exert tremendous political influence in
the rural area. The hold of monopoly power over economy
has increased. Unemployment has been increasing and
unemployment among the educated youth has reached
alarming proportions. Prices have been soaring, providing
high profits for a few and misery and deprivation for many.
By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that we have
been moving in a socialist direction.23

Such faulty developments clearly mean poverty cannot be

understood purely in economic terms. The richness and poorness
of man cannot be measured in terms of the quantity or variety of
goods he produces or consumes. Personal and group egoism, lack
of concern for the poor, failure to struggle for justice and for the
freedom and dignity of all -- these are manifestations of spiritual
poverty.

The struggle against poverty has thus to be gauged on both fronts

simultaneously. On the economic level, all have to unite to assure
a minimum standard of living to all people everywhere, so that all
can meaningfully and with dignity participate in the production
and distribution of goods and so that all are assured of the
necessities of life. It is in the struggle for economic justice that
one can begin to grow to the fullness of one’s moral and spiritual
stature with freedom and dignity, created in the image of God to
be creator of the good.

At another level there is need for challenging the false values that
undergird much of the present-day economic development. No
section of a society has the right to go on increasing its own
standard of living without at the same time contributing in the
measure of its economic and political strength to the
establishment of a just order. This requires a change in one’s
perspective and is in that sense a “spiritual” struggle.

A noted economist in India has voice the same concern m the

following words:

It is essential to introduce a desirable minimum and a

permissible maximum into an economic system. There is
generally wide support to the need for a desirable minimum
for all. But this would be incomplete unless it is linked up
with a permissible, maximum... The logic of such a
minimum/maximum would be a simplification of life-styles,
a reduction of wants, and a dethronement of the materialism
that governs economic and social decisions. That would be
in consonance with, the ethics of love that tends to be
articulated and affirmed in principle by Christians, but is
still to become the basic determinant of a new way of life. 24

It is significant that a style of life that will help give a new

direction to the economic development is envisaged as the form of
Christian witness in economics. This is the style of the servant.

Here it is not a question of idealising poverty, but rather of taking

it on as it is -- an evil -- to protest against it and to struggle to
abolish it. The Church’s tradition regards poverty voluntarily
chosen for spiritual ends as a virtue. The poor in spirit have
consciously detached themselves from possessions in order to be
free to be available for service of others. Gutierrez has rightly
stated that “Christian poverty an expression of love, is solidarity
with the poor and is protest against poverty”25 In fact, this is the
essential character of an ethical posture of the servant. -

(b) Mission is Empowering the Powerless

Solidarity with the poor means entering into their struggle for
justice. The cry of the poor is for justice and not for charity. As
we have noted earlier, there is a system that produces and
perpetuates poverty -- a system of exploitation which makes the
rich richer and the poor poorer. Only when there is a radical
change in this system of exploitative structures can we expect to
have any justice for the poor in India. The question which
assumes great significance is how to transform the exploitative
structures into instruments of greater justice?

A two-fold answer can be given to this. First, this will be possible

only when there is a subjective readiness on the part of the people
victimised by the society at large to engage in a struggle for the
removal of exploitation. Their consciousness has to be awakened
to the necessity and legitimacy of such a struggle.

A concomitant concern is for the poor to have more power by

organised action to exercise control over the process of decision-
making in society. Speaking about modernization, M.M. Thomas
has correctly observed.

While technological advance, agricultural and industrial

development and modernization of social structures are
necessary, they accentuate the pathological exploitative
characteristics of traditional society while destroying their
traditional humanizing aspects, if the traditional power
structures and the social institutions in which they are
embodied remain unchanged.26

In other words, unless there is a change in the existing power

relations in favour of the powerless, no justice will be achieved. It
is essentially a sharing of power so that counter-power is built up
against internal and external forces of domination.

Both these steps are directed towards a process by which the poor
acquire power for justice. This may raise a question in our minds
as to whether the power-acquiring process is m conformity with
messianic life-style. The model of submissive suffering has often
been taken as a basis for exhorting the oppressed to patience. It
has less frequently been taken by those groups which are in
power, including the church, that the model of suffering servant,
if applied to themselves, would mean a relinquishing of power in
the service of the oppressed.

Perhaps what we need is a correct perspective of power itself. In a

consultation of Asian Christian leaders on development, power is
defined as “energy controlled by man and utilized by him to
achieve freely chosen ends”27 This is a helpful definition. The
sources of power are many -- economic capacity knowledge and
skill, political rights and the physical, moral, and spiritual forces
of people. In this sense all power can be considered as a gift from
God.

But when power is used in a way that creates, supports, or

promotes injustice, or tramples upon the freedom and dignity of
persons, it is evil. One may agree with the findings of the Tokyo
consultation on development:

Power is best used when it serves justice in the forward

movement to the full liberation of man. All men have the
need and the obligation to participate not only in the
struggle for the liberation of man from all forms of
oppression, exploitation and ignorance, but also in the
positive effort to master all wisdom and power in love so
that all may attain to the fullness of the liberty of the
children of God.28

Power should be understood as an essential ingredient of a

mature, responsible life. In that sense there is no conflict with the
life-style suggested. As we have seen in the discussion of
Bonhoffer, the life of participating in the suffering metanoia is an
existence in which power is transformed for responsible human
relationship. The important point is how power, when it is
acquired, is used. There should be a movement from the egoistic
concentration of power to the power that is transformed for
service.

(c) Mission is Subversive

The foreignness of the missionary enterprise has been a source of

embarrassment to the churches in Asia. Being sensitive to this, the
churches endeavour to be more indigenous in their worship,
structure and outreach. Today, the churches in many parts of Asia
are being accused as anti-national and subversive because of their
missionary work This new charge against the churches has to be
faced seriously.

Understood rightly, Jesus’ mission was subversive in character.

He was committed to the task of turning the most cherished
values and laws of his society upside down. He saw In them so
many fetters that held people’s consciousness in bondage. He
wanted a new set of values, a new consciousness to be replaced
by them. Jesus was nailed to the cross as a subversive. The
religious and political authorities did not kill, by regrettable error,
a good man. They knew Jesus was dangerous, although he never
used a sword; he used language and symbols that challenged and
threatened the validity of the world sustained by the dominant
powers.

The Church that re-enacts the message of Jesus the subversive

should not be subservient to the privileged sections of society. It
stands for the invalidation of values and system that keep people
in bondage and to be willing agent for the ushering in of a future
of total freedom and joy

Recently, there has been some discussion on Christian mission in

the secular press in India. This was in connection with the
political agitation that caused virtual breakdown of life in Assam
and the North Eastern border states of India. This area is
predominantly Christian and the centre of missionary activity.
The government openly stated that the agitation was engineered
and sustained by none other than foreign missionaries. In the
discussion that followed many were led to believe that mission
(any Christian activity whether by nationals or foreigners) was
responsible for political disturbances. There is, however, enough
evidence to believe -- and objective reporters testify to it -- that
the agitation came out of legitimate economic and political
grievances of the people who have been neglected and treated as
second-class citizens by the majority for a long time. There is an
upheaval in their consciousness of this injustice and their due
rights. Definitely the foreign missionaries contributed generally
through their educational and other activities in creating self-
awareness in these submerged sections about their rights. The
government is finding a scapegoat for their omissions in the
foreign mission. It is true that such an upsurge and heightened
consciousness of the people would not have been possible without
the work of mission. In this sense, and not government says,
mission is subversive and the Church should own it and face the
consequences.

It is interesting that in a neighboring State, Mother Teresa is

conducting a mission of charity, looking after the dying and
discarded human beings. Her work is acclaimed by one and all,
and she has received honours from the government. However
laudable and Christian her work is, it does not challenge the
system and therefore the powers - that - be are happy. But if
mission is directed towards the organization of the poor or
resulted in creating a new consciousness among the oppressed
about their rights, then it is accused as anti-national. In many
countries in Asia we are increasingly facing these two alternatives
-- either to take seriously the subversive character of mission and
face its consequence or to carry on with activities -- charitable,
developmental, and others -- which will not cause any tremor in
the existing system of things. Yet we know that the messianic life-
style is a call to live dangerously, in the path of a subversive. Can
we take this life-style seriously?

One may go on raising other areas of specific concern. But my

main objective in this paper has been to suggest a way of looking
at mission, not necessarily concentrating our attention on
programmes and projects and methods. When we discuss mission
can we take seriously the question of the life-style of the
congregation that is true to our witness to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ?

Notes:

1.Mahatma Gandhi, The Collected Works (Abmedabad :

Navajvan Thrust, 1976). p. 37.

2. James W. Woelfel, Bonhoeffer’s Theology - Classical and

Revolutionary (New York Abingdon 1970). P. 253.

3.John D. Godsey(ed) Preface to Bonhoeffer The Man and Two of

His shorter writings (Philadelphia : Fortress press, 1965) p. 21.

4. Bonhoeffer, Ethics, p. 18.

5. Ibid. p. 18-19.
6. Letters from Prison, ed. by Eberhard Bethage (New York:
Macmillan, and London S.C.M. Press. 1967). p. 198.

7. Ibid. p. 199.

8. Ibid. p. 202.

9. Communion of Saints (New York: Harper and Row, 1961). p.

114

10. John Godsey The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(Philadelphia Westminister Press. 1960). p. 233.

11. Jurgen Moltmann, The Passion for Life (Philadelphia :

Fortress Press, 1978). p. 38.

12. Ibid. p. 38

13. Ibid. p. 42

14. Bonhoeffer. Ethics. p. 20

15. Moltmann, The Passion for Life. p. 48.

16. Ibid, p.99

17. Ibid, p.99

18: Ibid, p. 105.

19. C.F. Andrews, The Renaissance in India (Madras: CLS,

1913), p. 30.

20. James P. Alter et al., The Church as Christian Community p.35

21. Ibid, p. 196.

22. CT. Kurien, For a Renewal of the Church in India in National

Christian Council Review (Vol. XCVII, No. 4, April 1977). p.
192.

23. The Guardian, Vol. LII. No. 22, June 1978, p. 5.

24. S.L. Parmar, ‘Application of the Christian Concept of Power

to the Social order in the light of our shared quest for World
Community’. in Society and Religion, ed. by Richard Taylor
(Madras CLS, 1976), p. 42.

25. Gustavo Gutierrez Theology of Liberation (New York: Orbis

Books, 1973). p. 301.

26. Modernization of Traditional Societies and the Struggle for a

New Cultural Ethos’, in Asian Meaning of Modernization, ed. by
Saral Chatterjee (New Delhi: ISPCK, 1972). p. 33.

27. Liberation, Justice and Development, Asian Ecumenical

Conference for Development, Tokyo, July 1970. p. 54.

28. Ibid.

Viewed 4438 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Chapter 4: Liberative Solidarity: Church in Witness and

Reconciliation

December 6, 1992, rightly described as a black day” for India is

still fresh in our memory. The wild religious frenzy displayed on
that day has no parallel in our history except perhaps at the time
of partition. The total destruction of a structure associated with a
minority religious group and the communal carnage and
bloodshed that followed it have inflicted a deep wound in our
national psyche. It cannot be healed easily

The incidents that happened on December 6th should not be taken

in isolation. There is a fundamentalist upsurge in all religions
which threatens the very fabric of our social and collective life. A
fundamentalist ideology in any religion generates hatred,
suspicion and fears, in the minds of its votaries, towards other
religions. At the slightest provocation of hurt to the religious
sentiments of a given group, violent conflicts arise, causing untold
destruction of lives and property as we have witnessed in the
recent riots in Bombay

Organised in a militant way, the fundamentalist groups are

determined to capture political power. This has vitiated and
distorted our political process. When, blind, religious passion
rules the people, they cast aside all norms of justice and the rule
of law Politicians of all parties dabble with communal forces and
succumbing to their pressures deviate from the path of secular
politics. The virtual collapse of the very foundation of our
political life caused by fundamentalist forces and the politics of
opportunism creates a serious situation which inevitably raises
fresh challenges to the churches in India.

Reflecting on the present situation it is now evident that there is a

striking link between the marginalisation of the weaker sections
and the rampant forms of communalism. It is not surprising that
the slums in our cities, where there is an intense struggle for basic
necessities, have become scenes of violent conflict, M.N.
Srinivas, the eminent sociologist, observes “The richest soil for
communal frenzy to build on is poverty, illiteracy, unemployment
and slum -- like conditions -- all of which are m plenty in urban
India” (India Today, January 16-31, 1993). While speaking to a
group of Muslim families who had lost all that they had in recent
riots in Bangalore, they told us that the fault was not that they
were Muslims or Hindus but they were born poor. The poor in our
society are always vulnerable. Violence committed on them is on
the increase. They are looted, their women are raped and their
hovels are burned.

We have taken many things for granted, especially the idea of

Hindu tolerance and the Indian peoples predilection for harmony
and non-violence. All these notions are shattered. We are a violent
nation; we have become callous to the cry of the weak and
defenseless. Rajani Kothari’s incisive analysis of the changes
taking place today is worth nothing. He speaks of the threat to the
composite culture that India has always been, its community life-
style, the whole Indian identity which was the basis of a very
decentralized notion of living together, working together, having
respect for each other’s diversity, not have a sense of anything
being alien. It is that which is under threat. He further states there
is the threat to the Indian personality.

“I think the Indian personality is a very fine balance between the

aggressive component of human endeavour and the more
feminine, soft and cultured conception which tends to integrate
various dimensions rather than push along one dimension. That I
think is again going to be very difficult.”1

In this situation of worsening communal disturbances, increasing

violence and marginalisation of the weaker section and
disintegration of Indian culture and personality, we try to reflect
on the tradition of our faith. I believe that the search for a
meaningful form of witness to the gospel of reconciliation is of
paramount importance for the Church’s mission. Recently,
speaking to the new graduates of Sermpore College, Dr. K.
Rajaratnam in his Master’s address affirmed, “moments of history
of this kind have great opportunities for the Church to witness to
her faith in Jesus Christ the Reconciler and his concern for the
nation.” I should like to reflect with you on different dimensions
of this faith tradition and its relevance to the difficult situation we
are facing in the life of the nation.

The Church, A Reconciling Community

The word “reconcile” has come to mean, “to make peace.”

Literally it means to restore, to bring back to friendship or union.
In accordance with the root of the Greek word Katallaso, it means
“to make other” or renew Reconciliation is more than
justification: it makes us friends instead of enemies, new human
beings. 2 “To be reconciled” means to appear sinless before God’s
judgement (Col. 1:22), to live in peace (Col. 2:20, Eph. 2:15) a
new human being (Eph. 2:15),a new creation (II Cor. 5:17),
finally in Col. 1:20 even the reconciliation of the heavenly beings
with God. It envisages a totally new relationship that transcends
personal and corporate structures of hostilities.

St. Paul in all his letters develops this theme. N.T scholars agree
that reconciliation is an interpretative key to Paul’s theology “If
we are pressed to suggest a simple term that summarizes his
(Paul’s) message, the word reconciliation will be the “chief
theme” or centre of his missionary and pastoral thought and
practise.” T.N. Manson writes, “The driving force behind the
Gospel is the love of God”. The modus operandi is
reconciliation.” 3

Reflecting on this theme in Paul, I am struck by his intense

awareness of the many conflicts, and problems of divisions and
fragmentations, that prevailed in his time, and his conviction that
they can be overcome by the message of reconciliation of God in
Christ. The conflicts are many and varied but there is a
contemporary ring to them: irrational prejudices, ethnic tension,
cultural crisis, social discrimination and economic domination
were all present in all the conflicts of the time. Jewish Gentile
relationship is the immediate context within which Paul reflects
on his faith. It was fraught with these conflicts. The “wall of
partition” in Ephesians stands for the whole system of Jewish
piety and legal observances which constituted a barrier to
fellowship between Jew and Gentile. This impregnable fortress
was supported by Jewish self-righteousness, or religious
fundamentalism.

We cannot attempt an exhaustive study of the concept of

reconciliation. But permit me to mention some of the salient
points which are particularly relevant for our discussion:

i) Reconciliation is the power that transforms all aspects of human

relationships. Although Paul addresses himself to the Jewish
Gentile conflict, he places the reality of reconciliation in the
larger setting of God’s purposes for a cosmic renewal. This
includes the defeat of demonic principalities and powers; breaking
the barriers of separation that divided the ancient society --
Jewish-Gentile; slave-free; and male -female and the well-being
or healing of persons who are afflicted by inner conflicts.

Paul’s concept of reconciliation should be seen against the

background of a broad biblical vision of God’s reconciling and
peace making mission. This vision is best expressed by the
beautiful Hebrew word, Shalom. It is the vision of a new heaven
and a new earth, the eschatological projection of perfect order
where all people live as a single family. The relationship among
humans and between humans and nature enhance the quality of
life and it becomes the primary focus of God’s transforming
activity. When there is a rupture or distortion in this web of
relationship, then peace is denied. I believe that the centre of our
faith is this vision which was made a concrete reality in the life,
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To live by this vision and
to affirm its dynamic relevance in this conflict ridden situation
should be the starting point of our reflection.

ii) Reconciliation is a process of reversal and subversion. It is not

a “patching up” of differences between people. Unless there is a
radical change in the mode and the logic of existing relationship,
there cannot be reconciliation. Relationship based on patronising
or even tolerating the other is not reconciliation. It should come
about by an active engagement between peoples and groups. Paul
is clear on this, when he argues against imposing Jewish
ceremonial laws as a condition on the Gentiles for becoming
Christians. That would have meant one community accepting the
dominance of another. But he was convinced that God’s
reconciliation invalidates the logic of the system that maintains
division and separation. Paul knew very well that human
proneness for self-justification is what maintains them. Like
Jesus, he too saw the sin of self-righteousness as that which keeps
us far from God’s mercy and love. It is self-righteousness that
breeds fundamentalist ideologies and makes religious groups
impervious to change. A new relationship based on a new logic of
faith alone can bring about the necessary change. It is m this sense
that we talk about subversion and reversal.

iii) The affirmation that the ground of peace in this world is God’s
reconciliation of the world in Jesus Christ. He is our peace (Eph.
2:14). God in solidarity with all humanity is the source of
renewal. There is a sense in which this reconciliation precedes all
our consciousness of it. The power of Christ is greater than our
sin. The new reality is already offered to us in his calling. It is
precisely this new reality which makes us aware of our division
and of the false pretensions of the system of peace we have
established. Only when we have confronted our neighbour no
longer within a framework which lets us explain him away, but in
all of God’s promises for his peace even when they conflict with
what we think is ours, and in all his claims on us, does
reconciliation gain its proper urgency “Now in Christ Jesus you
who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of
Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has
broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his
flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might
create in himself one new man in place of two, so making
peace” (Eph. 2: 13-15).

iv) Jesus, the Universal peace-maker; is inaugurating a new

humanity. The dividing wall set up by enmity is broken down and
the divided community is made one through reconciliation with
each other. This reconciliation is only possible through the love
which Christ showed on the cross.

The reconciled community is again set within the larger

framework of God’s work of peace-making.

Some scholars see Eph. 2:14-16 as part of a Christian hymn

whose first two strophes have been preserved in Colossians 1:15-
17 and 18-20
 Strophe I The unity of all things in creation Col. 2:15-17

Strophe II The unity of all things in redemption Col. 1:18-20

Strophe III The unity of the races in the church Eph. 2:14-16

The new community is the “paradigmatic instrument in the

unification and pacification of the world”. Breaking down the
walls of division has reference to the conflict between the Jews
and the nations, but it could apply to all the groups in society.
When a communal clash arose between Hindus and Muslims in
Kerala in 1947, Mahatma Gandhi sent a cable to people who
mediated saying: “Pray Muslims show a Christian attitude to
Hindus”. What a mix up of terms! But Gandhi understood the
essence of the Christian Gospel. In Christ we can no longer define
ourselves in terms of our opposing interests, our communities that
exclude each other, our caste securities and the like, but only in
relation to one another and as members of the household of God.

The Church Witnessing to Reconciliation

The Church is called to participate in the mission of divine peace

making. But, by and large, our churches are mere spectators
incapable of responding to the situations of violence and
communal tension. Many of them are divided among themselves
and preoccupied with narrow communal or group interests. We
have lost our moral credibility to be peacemakers in God’s world.
How can we be inspired by a new vision for peacemaking? How
do we find means or patterns of Christian life and practice that are
faithful to the call for peacemaking in an increasingly violent and
divided situation?

I do not pretend to have answers to all these. But I want to

mention some of the models of peacemaking that emerged in the
Church and commend some broad direction for our corporate
action.

Service as the Ministry of Reconciliation

Inspired by the love of Christ, the Church has moved into

situation of need, providing service to the victims of society. The
service institutions and programmes of charity of the church have
been and continue to be a source of comfort and succour to the
needy regardless of caste or religion. As we have noted in the first
chapter, in times of communal clashes, between Hindus and
Muslims the church took care of refugees from both sides.

It is not surprising that Mother Teresa is being loved and

respected throughout India by all sections of people. She speaks
the language of love and compassion and her act of love is not
motivated by selfish gain. If we accept the love of Christ as the
basis of reconciliation, then the expression of it through charitable
and service programmes are important form of reconciling
mission.

We are today called upon to be in solidarity with many other

groups who are made helpless in modern society The needs of the
handicapped should receive serious attention. Children with
multiple handicaps are now about 2% of the population and in the
slum the proportion is higher. With special training some of them
can be helped. But the mentally disabled most often have to be
cared for. One of the problems created by urbanisation is the care
of the aged. Institutional care of the aged and handicapped is the
model that has come from the West. But they need to be modified
and the participation of communities is essential.

Reconciliation and people’s movements

In service the church is committed to the care for the victims of

society, but the church has the responsibility of creating just
structures that are necessary to reduce many forms of suffering --
especially the suffering that is caused by deprivation, inhumanity
and violence.

We need to be aware of the structures and forces that shape our

attitudes to and relationships with one another. Poverty, for
example is not an accident, nor the result of fate, laziness or
drunkenness. There are structural causes -- faulty economic
developments, political decisions, and policies that favour the rich
and a cultural system that excludes the poor. Only with an
awareness of such factors can we think of meaningful strategies of
change. The movements that focus their attention on such
structural questions have helped us to redefine our mission
priorities. The marginalised Dalits, tribals and women -- and their
struggle for dignity and justice have raised the question of power
that influences our relationships with different groups who control
power whether it is economic, political or cultural. Which are the
groups that have been excluded from power?
These questions are necessary for bringing about a just
relationship. Without justice, reconciliation can be a temporary
truce. A systemic change is envisioned by these movements. In
this they stand in the tradition of the prophets. Walter
Brueggemann notes,

The prophet Amos is known for his strictures against the

distortion of justice. We usually have not understood that
Amos concerns are not with incidental acts of injustice, but
with the systematic economic distortion in which the royal-
urban managers participate.4

A question is often raised about the relation between

reconciliation and the struggle for justice, especially since the
latter generates conflicts. The struggle for justice creates conflicts
with the powers of establishment that are against change. We
need change in accordance with the demand of justice. This
inevitably means instability and disorder. As S.L. Parmar has
pointed out, disorder in itself is not bad, but if it is not directed
towards the struggle for justice, it can be destructive.
Traditionally Christian thinking has favoured order over justice
and hence we are unable to relate meaningfully to situation of
change. But faith in the God of the Bible necessarily means
accepting a preference for justice over order. This will generate
conflict. In such a situation the basic question is not whether we
support conflict or not but how the conflict, disorder can be
directed towards peace with justice.

Conflict was very much part of Jesus’ ministry of Shalom. That

seems to be the experience of people who follow Jesus. They are
at odds with the inhuman and unjust values and structures of
dominant society. Jesus was able to bear up the conflict not by
retreating into a spirituality that is preoccupied with his own
security but by committing himself totally to a God who is present
in the midst of his people for their liberation. In this sense Jesus
knows that peace is a gift of God. It is also a task. Justice gives
concrete orientation to our task but every struggle for justice can
only be an approximation and there is an ever expanding horizon
to our task in the coherence of justice and faith.

iii) Liberative Solidarity: While we affirm the centrality of the

struggle for justice for our mission we need to be sensitive about a
danger to which the movements for justice are exposed. To gain
more justice the powerless should have power. But if the structure
and Orientation of newly gained power follow the same pattern as
that of the dominant groups, then today’s oppressed will turn into
tomorrows oppressors. History bears this out. I believe that
reconciliation is Jesus’ way to avoid this.

Jesus identified with the aspirations of the people for a new age,
but his strategy was different from the political messianism of his
day There is a difference between Jesus’ messianism or messianic
servanthood and ruler-messianism or political messianism.

Both the terms, “messianism” and messiah often indicate a certain

“fanaticism” and describe a hero or elitist cult. Such kind of
messianism is present in all histories. But the true messianism
emerges from the suffering people and identifies with the
sufferings of the people. The crucified messiah is on the side of
the people, posing a radical challenge to all forms of political,
royal and power messianism. Hence all powers must be under the
rule of Jesus, the messiah, who came to be a servant of the people,
who died for them, and who rose from the dead that we may rise
from the power of death historically and not just at the end of time.

It was hard even for his own disciples to understand his concept
of servant messianism. They shared with others the expectation of
a political messianism which can be achieved by striking an
alliance with political rulers or by a head-on dash with them.
Jesus seems to have rejected both these options. He thus differed
with the Zealots on the nature of the Kingdom and the power by
which it comes. “Jesus chose the power of God’s weakness over
against the ultimate weakness of coercive human power. He chose
sacrificial love over revolutionary violence not because he was
anti-revolutionary but because the revolution of God which he
represented was radical and total.”5

His identification with the powerless was total as it is revealed on

the cross. All who cry from the depths of suffering and despair
find an ally in him.

According to the gospel, Jesus willingly surrendered himself to

the will of God and even in the darkness of death he trusted God.
Easter faith proclaims that God vindicated Jesus by raising him
from the dead, thus declaring him to be the expression of God’s
own life and Kingdom.
The meaning of the resurrection of the crucified Jesus for our
understanding of God is this: God was not a distant spectator but
was decisively present, speaking, acting and suffering in all that
Jesus did and in all that happened to him. In Jesus’ acts of
solidarity with the poor and lowly, God acts. In the suffering of
Jesus, God suffers. The full force of human alienation, hostility
and injustice are experienced by God in the passion and death of
Jesus.

This is the liberative solidarity that reorients our value system and
power constellations and ushers in a new order. It is possible only
if we enter into the life of others, especially the suffering with
openness and compassions. For the spiritual resources for a new
orientation should emerge from the collective experience of the
poor and the marginalised. Liberative solidarity is the channel of
those resources. This is the only option left to us in this difficult
situation of conflict and blind fury of religious passion.

The emphasis on the poor is not new. But often they are the object
of charity or they are being managed and manipulated by social
engineers. In liberative solidarity model, the poor become
subjects. Values embedded in their collective life and in their
struggle for survival will be decisive for shaping a new order.

This model comes with poignancy when we try to respond to the

ecological crisis. In order to evolve an alternate form of
development which is wholistic and more humane we need to
listen to the experiences of the indigenous and tribal people --
their communitarian life and their bond with the earth. They are
for science and technology, but not for a neutral kind of scientism
that willingly allows itself to be used by the elite for producing
armaments. They are for industry but not industry that destroys
the ecological balance and causes pollution. In short, they are
asking for a system that accepts the interest of the poor as the
central concern. For this we need to question and reject the
accepted policies and the logic of the present economic order.
That requires tremendous moral and spiritual courage. But then
the Jesus who rejected the dominative power in solidarity with the
poor beckons us to do it. Our task is critical, as well as pointing to
new directions.

Conclusion Personal Testimony

In keeping with the purpose of this lecture, I want to share with

you a personal experience that helps me depend my own
commitment to liberative solidarity as a mode of Christian
witness.

Both my wife and I have the responsibility of caring for our brain
injured child. It is difficult and demanding but the insights we
gain from that experience are spiritually uplifting. One of the
difficulties We face when we try to relate with brain injured
children is the problem of communication. They do not follow the
normal pattern of discourse and there is no use trying to make
them conform to it. They have a world of their own. The only way
in which we can communicate to our daughter is by finding the
‘right code’ to enter into her world. My wife is able to do it but
not others. In order to communicate with our daughter we have to
change. With sensitive awareness and sympathy her world
becomes our world. Liberative Solidarity is a process by which
we see reality as the poor see it and in togetherness build new
community.

Note:

1. Rajani Kothari, Beyond Darkness, (CIEDS Collective, 1990).

2. Edward Schillebeeck, Christ, (New York: Cross Road, 1988).

3. Quoted in Ralph Martin, Reconciliation, (Atlanta: John Knox

Press, 1981).

4. Walter Brueggemann, Interpretation and Obedience

(Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 199), p. 273

5. David Miglior, Called to Freedom, (Philadelphia : Westminster

Press) p. 55.

Viewed 4439 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Chapter 5: Peace And Justice In Indian Context

I shall begin by reflecting on my Christmas vacation in Kerala. In

December we frequently encounter groups of pilgrims on their
way to Sabarimal for their darshan of Lord Ayappa. Devotees
come from all South Indian states and they travel in small groups
intermittently chanting “Lord Ayappa Sarnam”. It is reported that
every year the number of devotees is higher than that of the
previous year. The devotees undertake this pilgrimage after a long
period of preparation which includes growing a beard, wearing
beads and a special dress, observing certain dietary restrictions,
fasting and prayer. Many of them undertake this long journey by
bus but at the foot of the hill they start climbing hundreds of steps
to the temple for the final darshan of Lord Ayappa. For most of
them this pilgrimage is a way to fulfil the vow they would have
made for favours received. But they are inspired by a sense of
power of the divine. Peace is inner tranquility achieved by
rigorous discipline and ardent devotion to Lord Ayappa.

In some sense this pilgrim’s view of peace is not uncommon

among religious people. The emphasis of this spirituality is on the
interior life, or the motive of the actor. There is no spiritual
significance or necessity for effecting any change in the social
structure. The external situation becomes complex and one may
retreat to the safe haven of the inner soul for peace.

Kerala has witnessed another popular celebration. Marxist

volunteers in thousands from all over Kerala marched into
Trivandrum to participate in the concluding celebrations of thc
National Congress of the Marxist Party. Clad in red clothes and
caps they rent the air with their slogans. One of the dailies
described the final rally as “Red Sea Roaring”. The Marxist
movement, as we know, represents a way of realising peace by
the struggle of the workers for justice. For them economic justice
alone will ensure peace. There are other marginalised groups --
Dalits, tribals, unorganized workers and Women -- who also
approach peace through the road of justice. Marxists have no use
for religion in their search of peace. For them all religious
spirituality is other-worldly and narrowly communal. It is
significant that the National Congress of the Marxist Party
expressed its commitment to fostering the unity of all secular
forces and rejecting any alliance with so called religious/
communal forces.

These two approaches to peace -- one found in the recesses of our

inner life and the other in the concrete historical struggle -- are
very much present in our context. We need to discuss the
perspectives on peace and justice against this background.
However one of the main assumptions of this paper is that
Christian faith advocates a unitary perception of different aspects
of peace -- personal/social, spiritual/material, internal/external,
and there is an integral relation between peace and justice in our
concrete areas of relationships and action. Let us examine some of
the biblical insights on peace and justice.

Biblical Insights

1. The biblical view of peace, Shalom, is a vision of wholeness

that is being translated into concrete relationships and actions.

The Hebrew word, Shalom, inadequately translated as peace, is

not just an inner feeling but a dynamic reality that is expressed in
human relationships and actions. The abundance of harvest,
physical and mental healing, harmonious relationships between
humans and beasts and a new stewardship of all resources of earth
(Lev. 26:3-7, Isa. 35:1-10) are all part of Shalom experience. The
harmonious growth that is indicated by Shalom makes no
dichotomy between so-called spiritual and material realms, and it
embraces all aspects of life. The vision of a new heaven and a
new earth is a utopia, of a perfect order where all people live as a
single family. The relationships between human and nature
enhance the quality of life and that becomes the primary focus of
God’s transforming activity When there is a rupture or distortion
in this relationship, there peace is denied.

2. Peace and Justice are integrally related to each other

Shalom is a political community based on justice. There is no

Shalom if there is economic inequality, judicial perversion and
political exclusiveness. This is the message of prophets in the Old
Testament. There is no peace without justice. (Jer. 7:5-7, Mich.
2:1-12, Amos. 4:1 and Psalm 34:14).

In the Hebrew faith; Yahweh appears as the God the defender of

the vulnerable groups from whom all rights are forcefully taken
away -- the widow, orphans, aliens and the poor. God is the “near
relative”, the protector and avenger of Israel. This is affirmed in
an agreement which God has entered into with his people
(Covenant). The clear expression of that relationship is justice. To
know God is to enter into a covenant with God. A covenant that is
justice-oriented relationship. So for the prophets “to know God is
to do justice” (Jer. 22:13-16). To worship God is to “seek justice”
correct oppression, defend the fatherless and plead for the widow
(Isa. 1:17).

Justice is not an abstract concept, but the perspective from which

to judge the total system and structure of political and social
relationship-the perspective of the poor and the weak. The
prophets have a wide range of concerns : commercial exploitation
(Hos. 12:8, Isa. 3:14, Amos 8:3, Jer. 5:7, Mic. 6:10-11); hoarding
of land (Micah. 2:1-3, Eze. 22:29); dishonest courts (Amos: 5:7,
Mic. 3:5-11, Isa. 5:23); violence of the ruling classes (II Kings
33:30, Micah 3:1-12, Amos 4:1); slavery (Amos 2:6); unjust taxes
(Amos 4:11, 5:11-12); unjust functionaries (Amos 5:7, Jer.5:28).
How contemporary they all sound! We cannot leave out any
aspect of human relationships. In recent years we have become
concerned about eco-justice, that is the just way in which we use
natural resources and the environment. Here too how can we
allow a section of society to consume a majority of resources
when many have no access to it.

3. Shalom experience of a person is to live a caring, sharing and

just life in community.

We have already pointed out how Shalom is linked to a political

and even a cosmic (nature) reality based on justice. But it is
experienced as our personal responsibility to the wholesomeness
of Gods community. So, covetousness is a self-seeking act that
destroys Shalom.

Isa. : 57:17, 19-21 may be quoted here:

“Because of the inequality of his covetousness I was angry,

I smote him, I hid my face and was angry. Shalom, to the
far and near, says the Lord and I will heal him. But the
wicked are like the tossing sea, for it cannot rest and its
waters toss up mire and dirt. There is no Shalom, says my
God, for the wicked.”

Selfishness becomes the root of evil that disrupts our

relationships. In society it becomes organized in a large scale and
we need to fight them on the structural level, but we need to
counter them on a personal level -- the question of life-style,
attitude, irrational prejudices against others and other areas. More
positively we need to be “sensitive” to values that, helps enter
into the struggles of mothers. “The biblical vision of Shalom
functions always on a firm rejection of values and life-styles that
seek security and well-being in manipulative ways at the expense
of another part of creation, another part of community, or brother
or Sister” (Brueggemann). I hope it will be possible for us to give
serious thought to a life-style appropriate to our commitment to
peace and justice. However we should avoid the danger of setting
the personal responsibility in the area our struggle for peace
against structural and corporate dimensions of it. Both are
necessary and there are situations where one is emphasised more
than the other.

4. Jesus is the embodiment of Shalom.

The heart of Jesus’ preaching is the proclamation of the Kingdom

of God -- a reality that is present in the world but whose
fulfillment is yet to come. The sighs of the Kingdom are the same
as the experience of Shalom in the Old Testament -- the life in all
its fullness, the concern for community based on equality and
mutual acceptance and freedom from self-seeking security. John
the Baptist, the elder cousin of Jesus who had initiated Jesus into
public ministry sends messengers to ascertain whether Jesus is the
Messiah or not. The reply is poignantly relevant to our discussion
(Matt. 11:2-5) “Go and tell John what you hear and see; the blind
receive their sights and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the
deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good
news preached to them”. These are all indications that Jesus
adopted a new scale of values, that was different from the value
system of the dominant society in which he lived. He valued
persons over systems (Sabbath is for man, not man for Sabbath),
he affirmed the value of persons over things (His concern for
children, women); he rejected any custom or system that
marginalised people (entered into solidarity with the poor and the
weak); he was harshly critical against the self-seeking leaders
(Pharisees) and excessive dependence on mammon -- the
commodity mentality -- was abhorrent to him. His own
uncompromising commitment to the values of the Kingdom and
his solidarity with the victims of society made himself an enemy
of the powers that be. Conflict was very much part of Jesus
ministry of Shalom. That seems to be the experience of people
who follow Jesus. They are at odds with the inhuman and unjust
value and structures of dominant society Jesus was able to bear up
the conflict not by retreating himself into a Spirituality that is
preoccupied with his own security (Gethsemane) but by
committing himself totally to a God who is present in the midst of
his people for their liberation. In this sense Jesus knew that peace
is a gift of God. It is also a task. Justice gives concrete Orientation
to our task but every struggle for justice can only be an
approximation and there is an ever expanding horizon to our task
in the coherence of justice and faith.

5. The struggle for peace and justice generates creative

instability

If our concept of peace is integrated with justice then an uncritical

acceptance of status quo is not tantamount to achieving peace. We
need to change the system in accordance with the demand of
justice of the poor. This inevitably means instability and disorder.
As S.L. Parmar has pointed out, disorder in itself is not bad, but if
it is not directed towards the struggle for justice, it can be
destructive. Traditionally Christian thinking has favoured order
over justice and hence we are unable to relate meaningfully to the
situation of change. But as we have seen God of the Bible is a
God of justice and to believe in God of Bible necessarily means
accepting a preference for justice over order. This will generate
conflict. In such a situation the basic question is not whether we
support conflict or not, but how the conflict, disorder can be
directed towards peace.

There is a slogan that became popular in SCM circles at one time.

In situations of conflict we are called to be peace makers, but in a
situation of false peace we are called to create conflict. As young
people we raise questions to the patterns, and systems of our
society for the sake of better equality and justice and that is our
Christian vocation.

6. In a pluralism situation the struggle for peace and justice

should be a cooperative effort of the liberative elements in all
religions.

Commitment to peace and justice is the essence of religious faith

-- this is a conviction shared by many people in all religions -- not
Christianity alone.

An EATWOT consultation on “Religion and Liberation” states

that all religions, Christianity included, “are in various ways and
to various degrees both oppressive and liberative. They are
oppressive because they legitimate unjust social systems like
apartheid, and caste, and because they create their own special
forms of religious unfreedom... But history shows us that
religions can be liberative too. They have inspired powerful
movements of social protest (like Hebrew prophetism in
monarchical Israel, or the bhakti movements in medieval India)
which have attacked both the oppressive rigidity of the religious
systems themselves, as well as of the unjust socio-economic and
political structures of the societies in which these religions
flourished” (Voices from the Third World, p. 153)

It is further stated that in the Third World where all religions

together face the challenges on enslaving social and cultural
systems and the need to struggle for justice, religions should meet
each other, exploring and sharing their liberative elements. It calls
for the development of a “liberative ecumenism, that is a form of
inter-religious dialogue which is concerned not so much with
doctrinal insights or spiritual experience that different religions
can offer one another, as with the contribution to human liberation
that each can make” (Ibid. p. 168).

Here I would like to mention the experience of a contemporary

Hindu Swami, Swami Agnivesh. I heard him narrating his search
for a dynamic form of spirituality that is meaningful for
involvement with the untouchables. He started his work among
the poor who had become Christians with a view to reconvert
them. Let Swami speak:

As we started working with the people we saw elements of

exploitation. In poor farmers houses there was not enough
to eat and we would ask ourselves what happened? He is
producing all the food, the milk and honey and his children
are eating coarse food and the milk is being sold in the
market. They produce cotton and not enough clothes on the
bodies of their women and children. So this simple question
started working on our minds.

But when I came to Haryana and started asking these

questions and in the same vein a simple question again
came up that we want to fight against Christian missionaries
who were among the tribals, untouchables, landless
labourers. Why are they forced to accept Christianity and
then we knew that the whole society is up against the poor,
they are at the bottom of the whole structure of this
exploitation and unless and until this exploitation is
removed there is conversion into Christianity. And so why
nor strike at the root? Unless and until untouchability,
disparity, exploitation are wiped out we will not be able to
fight.

We analysed religion, here is a religion, where the idols are

washed in milk and there is no milk for the children to
drink, the rich being overfed and the poor starving and yet
the religious leaders have no feelings, why are these big
temples empty, why cannot poor people take shelter in these
temples. This was the whole system of religion and we hit
at the fundamental principle of Hinduism -- that is the
karma theory of Hinduism. We are born into this life as we
had worked in our previous lives. According to the fruits of
our karma. Poor people as you see them poor yes, but they
have done very bad things in their previous life and that is
why almighty God has given them birth in such a place.
That is why you cannot do anything. It is their karma,
written on their forehead which we cannot wipe out. If it
was written on fingertips or toes it would have been wiped
out but it was on their forehead and nothing could be done.
So everything is neatly planned and set. We started
 questioning where is it written?

We had to trace the entire vedic literature and find out who
was the enemy of the Arya? It was never a Christian, Hindu,
Muslim or a Sikh battle. Struggle is always between Arya
on the one hand and Dasyu on the other. What is Dasyu?
One who does not toil and lives on the wealth of others is
Dasyu or robber and now the lines are drawn. And on the
one hand are those Hindus, Muslims or Christians and who
do not subscribe to any religion or God but are toiling and
on the other those who are exploiting the battle has to be
between Arya and Dasyu and not between Hindu, Christian,
etc. So this was a clear case of class struggle. (From an
unpublished statement).

Similar testimonies and efforts at reinterpretation are found

among Muslims, Buddhists and tribal religion. We need to
encourage cooperative action for peace and justice what is
emerging today is a non-communal face of religious faith which is
liberative. As youth, we need to cross over action for peace and
justice.

Issues Faced Today

In the light of the perspective on peace and justice outlined above,

we need to discuss some of the concrete affirmations.

a) No to Communal Rights but Yes to Human Rights

An exclusive emphasis on minority rights is a denial of our vision

of Shalom, the wholeness. We are committed to human rights, the
right of the poor and oppressed everywhere and not to communal
rights.

When we fight for religious freedom, it is not for the right of

Christians alone, but the right of everyone to follow and practise
his or her religion. The plight of Christians from Scheduled
Castes has assumed a special place in the Church’s agenda now.
There is injustice done to them and we need to build up pressure
on the government to reconsider its policy. But if we fail to take
up the cause of the struggle of all the Scheduled Castes for basic
justice, then we appear communal. In a situation where inter-
group rivalries are intense, and the entire body politic is
considered as a balancing of communal power, it is difficult to
keep this perspective alive. But there seems to be no other way by
which we can live true to our Christian vision.

b) A Pluralistic, Secular Framework

The traditional culture in India has been a religious culture in

which there was an unbroken unity between society, politics and
region. In fact, religion provided the integrating principle and the
social structure and political authority were legitimised by it. The
break-up of this traditional integration has been the significant
aspect of modern awakening of people to the ideas of justice and
freedom and technological rationality, the foundation of a secular
framework.

Two types of reaction to this are evident. One is the so-called

traditionalist approach. It is characterised by a refusal to accept
this break-up of traditional integration and the relative autonomy
of society and politics and a desperate effort to bring them again
under the tutelage of religion. The RSS and other communal
ideologies are following this line. This kind of revivalism fails to
see the personalistic and dynamic elements of the emerging
situation and very often ends up as a struggle to preserve the
interests of the elite which had traditionally enjoyed all the
privileges.

The other extreme mode of approach is from the modernists. They

find the emerging secular society as absolute and reject the past
totally. Often it equates modernisation with radical
Westernisation. The effort is made to accept uncritically the
Western technology, Western politics and Western style of life.
From our experience we realise how inadequate and unrealistic
this approach is. No people can forget their cultural past.

What we need is a dynamic reinterpretation of the past, taking

seriously the new elements of change. The religions should see
the relevance of the new secular framework that is emerging. It is
based on certain values which they all together can affirm -- the
values of justice, equality and participation. Of course, what is
sometimes dangerous is a kind of secular attitude that is closed to
religion. Any absolutising elements in politics can be termed
inhuman and oppressive. A pluralistic outlook is necessary as a
viable form of relating one religion to another on the basis of
shared values and goals. “We work not for Christian culture but
for an open, secular, pluralistic culture informed by and open to
the insights of many faiths, including Christian faith.”

Christians have a special role to play. Whatever be the

interpretation of the modern change, it cannot be denied that the
presence of the Gospel has awakened the humanistic elements of
modern secular movements and ideologies. That presence should
continue even for the preservation of their integrity.

Viewed 4440 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Chapter 6: Mission in the Context of Endemic Poverty and Affluence

Poverty in Asia

The most disturbing aspect of the condition of a majority of

people in Asia is that they not only continue to be poor but have
become poorer even after considerable developmental activities.
The pattern of economic growth in all the countries in Asia
favours the rich and creates imbalances in the relationships
between different sections of people.

The bulk of capital investment is concentrated in the industrial or

advanced sector in the belief that rapid industrialisation would
create conditions for wider utilisation of the abundant labour
available and reduce inequalities in income distribution. But what
has really happened is that the advanced sector has achieved
considerably more expansion and led to the impoverishment of
the traditional sector. The gap between two sectors had widened.
In other words, the majority of the population are left outside the
development process.

Poverty thus is not merely an economic problem. There is a

system that produces it and perpetuates it. Broadly defined, such a
system is one in which the decision-making process and control
are concentrated in the hands of persons or groups whose interests
are so fundamentally inimical to the well-being of life as a whole.
Not only do they keep the masses away form the centres of power
but also fail to solve the basic problems of mass poverty glaring
inequalities, growing unemployment and rising prices. When
there arises any organized effort by the masses to redress their
grievances it is brutally suppressed. Imposition of authoritarian
and repressive regimes, denial of human rights and excessive
dependence of foreign elite. “A culture of silence is imposed upon
the people, thus choking their cries for dignity, self-respect, right
to life and right to food.”

Poverty disrupts the very fabric of human relationships. It brings

new forms of cultural enslavement. M.M. Thomas points out,
“While technological advance, agricultural and industrial
development and modernisation of social structures are necessary
they accentuate the pathological exploitative characteristics of
traditional society by destroying their traditional humanising
aspects, if traditional power-structures and the social institutions
in which they are embodied remain unchanged.” In this way the
problem of poverty is social and cultural as well as economic and
political. Careful analysis of seemingly concealed working of the
forces and consequences of it is highly essential. The fundamental
concern is the quality of life, the life in all its fullness. What is the
good news of Jesus Christ to this situation?

Biblical Perspectives

Let us look at some of the biblical insights that are relevant for
our consideration of the relation between the rich and the poor.

1. The Hebrew word Shalom which suggests a vision of the

Hebrew people, of good life is translated inadequately as “peace”.
But it refers to a social reality which brings the whole common
life to a new fruition. When the Hebrew says that God wills
Shalom, he visualises a life which encompasses prosperity of the
earth and people and their happiness, even at times victors over
enemies.

If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments

and do them, then I will give you rains in their season, and
the land shall yield its increase and the tress of the field
shall yield fruit. And your threshing shall last to the time of
vintage; and the vintage shall last to the time of sowing; and
you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land
securely... and you shall chase your enemies and they shall
fall before you by the sword. (Leviticus 26:3-7)
Or again, another passage:

For the lord your God is bringing you in to a good land, a

land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing
forth in valleys and hills, a land of wheat and barley, of
vines, and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees
and honey, a land in which you will eat bread without
scarcity in which you will lack nothing, a land whose stones
are iron and out of whose hills you can dig copper. And you
shall eat and be full, and you shall bless the Lord your God
for the good land he has given you. (Deut. 8:7-10)

2. The old Testament is quite unashamed of material abundance;

in fact it is taken as a mark of God’s blessings. But it is not an
unconditional blessing. The good life (Shalom) is dependent upon
Israel remaining faithful to the covenant relationship, and this
requires living sensitively with both God and the neighbour.
Always Israel reminded that material abundance is a gift from
God in nature and history. At the same time, those gifts are not
given for us to do what we like. They are to be used responsibly
for the neighbour’s good.

If there is among you a poor man, one of your brethren, in

any of your towns within your land which the Lord your
God gives you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your
hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your
hand to him, and shall lend him sufficient for his need,
whatever it may be (Deut. 15:7).

3. As Israel grows in its covenant relationship with God, so also is

this sensitivity to the responsibility to the neighbour extended
beyond their own kinsmen. A body of legislations to prevent
exploitation of all has been build up. Gustavo Gutierrez points out:

The Bible speaks of positive and concrete measures to

prevent poverty from becoming established among the
people of God. In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there is very
detailed legislation designed to prevent the accumulation of
wealth and the consequent exploitation. It is said, for
example, that what remains in the fields after the harvest
and the gatherings of olives and grapes should not be
collected, it is for the alien, the orphan, and the widow
(Deut. 24:19-21; Lev. 19:9-10). Even more, the fields
 should not be harvested to the very edge so that something
remains for the poor and the aliens (Lev. 23:2). The
Sabbath, the day of the Lord, has a social significance; it is
a day of rest for the slave and the aliens (Exod. 23:12; Deut.
5:14). The triennial tithe is not to be carried to the temple,
rather it is for the alien, the orphan, and the widow (Deut.
14:28-29; 26:12). Interest on loans is forbidden (Exod.
22:25; Lev. 25:35-37; Deut. 23:20). Other important
measures include the Sabbath year and the Jubilee year.
Every seven years, the fields will he left to lie fallow “to
provide food for the poor of your people (Exod. 23:11; Lev.
25:2-7). Although it is recognised that this duty is not
always fulfilled (Lev. 26:34-35). After seven years, the
slaves were to regain their freedom (Exod. 21:2-6) and
debts were to be pardoned (Deut. 15:1-18). This is also the
meaning of the Jubilee year of Lev.25:10ff. It was...a
general emancipation...of all the inhabitants of the land. The
fields lay fallow; every man reentered his ancestral
property, that is the fields and houses which had been
alienated returned to their original owners.1

4. But in the writings of the prophets one’s neighbourly

responsibilities is crystalised. They affirmed that without the
inclusion of the powerless in the promise of the covenant, without
a movement of justice that redirects the riches of the prosperous
toward the needs of the poor, the people are at war with their God.

It is as though the righteous God of Israel were showing a curious

bias towards all who are weak and oppressed, towards the down-
and-out who cannot help themselves, the fatherless and the widow
the deaf and the blind, the stranger and the poor. Consequently
when Israel is called to imitate this righteous God, it too shall care
for those who cannot take care of themselves; it shall not “
trample the head of the poor... and turn aside the way of the
afflicted” (Amos 2:7); it shall not oppress its slaves nor its hired
servants, be they fellow citizens or foreigners.

The ringing challenge of the shepherd from Tekoa; Amos,

reverberates through all history as a passionate plea for justice for
the poor.

Let justice roll down like water and righteousness like an

ever flowing stream.
The prophets were not against prosperity but they were concerned
about the irresponsible ways in which riches were being misused,
and that is the denial of Shalom.

5. It is in this line that at the very beginning of his ministry, Jesus

is said to have received the scroll of Isaiah (a prophet) in the
Synagogue and to have applied to himself to words of (Isa. 61:1-
2).

The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has appointed

me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to
proclaim release to the captives and recovering of Sight to
the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to
proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19).

Jesus’ proclamation includes the full dimensions of a truly human

life -- physical and mental healing, bringing new life to the poor;
a new stewardship of all resources of the earth and the gifts of the
grace of God for the flowering of human life, and to enable the
principalities and powers on earth or in the air to perform their
true political function.

But there is a difference between Israel’s understanding of the

working of God’s power and Jesus’ ministry Formerly God’s
power was completely allied to the political structures of Israel’s
life, now instead the link is with the ministry of the suffering
servant which has been embodied in Christ and which should be
continued in the Church. Those who follow Jesus will have to
take this ministry seriously since this is the ministry of a suffering
servant. Its strategy is not based on the concepts of prosperity and
power of the surrounding society, but rather it views the present
age in the light shed upon it by the power of the coming
Kingdom. It is in keeping with this that we find in the Gospel of
John, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the
world gives do I give to you “(John 14:27).

6. Three aspects of the Kingdom of God which Jesus preached

are : a new consciousness, a new set of values and a new
relationship. All these are inter-related.

Consciousness is a leaded word. What I have in mind by this is

Jesus’ unconditional commitment to God the Father and his
constant awareness that his life and ministry is God’s gracious
gift. The sources of Jesus’ freedom is in his child-like trust in the
gracious father. This ultimate trust releases him from all fears and
false securities that are characteristic of our human existence. It is
certainly not following a set of codes or laws but in the realisation
of what one is by the gift of God. That is why I call this
consciousness or awareness. Jesus’ life-style is being sensitised
and/have continuously been transformed by this consciousness.

After all it is not difficult to understand the value of gift

dimension for people who know the growing experience, for
example of a child. It grows in the awareness of being loved, or
having received the love of those who care for him. Without this
awareness he is less human.

What Jesus therefore knew about God was that not only is He free
and sovereign but he acts in love. Omnipotence is often described
as a limitless power and might. Certainly there is all aspect of it in
our consciousness of God. But it is equally if not more important
for us to realise how Jesus’ God is limitless in his compassion.
The limit sets to all acts of mercy are broken by Gods rule. The
signs of the Kingdom therefore are “the blind receive their sight
and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the
dead are raised, and the poor have good news preached to
them” (Matt.11:5).

The fundamental values this consciousness brings are freedom

and justice and love. All these are not mere abstractions or a
matter of balancing interests between persons or groups. They are
manifested in relationships. Therefore we cannot speak of our
commitment to God and our adherence to values and the building
up of new relationships in separate terms.

Kingdom of God enters into the lives of men by transforming

human relations. In this process all institutions and structures are
included. The controlling principle of this change is the radical
demand of love. The disciples had to abandon all their goods
(Mark 1:18-20; Matt 1:20-22) all that they had (Luke 5:11). The
rich man who wanted to follow Jesus was asked to sell all he had
(Mark. 10:21). In response to Peter’s comment: “Lo, we have left
everything and followed you” Jesus replied with a promise which
widens the horizon. It is addressed to everyone who for his sake,
has abandoned his home, brothers, sisters, mother, father, children
or possessions (Mark 10:28-29). In other passages Jesus had made
the absolute demand: whoever would save his life will lose it, and
whoever loses his life for my sake will find it (Matt. 16:25; Mark
8:35).

The purpose of these sayings is not to idealise poverty. In the

New Testament poverty is considered neither a virtue nor an
ideal. Disciples are asked to renounce all material possessions for
the poor as a mark of their readiness to participate totally in the
life of the community of those who hope only in the manifestation
of the love and justice of God. The emphasis is on One’s
unconditional openness to serve others in love.

In this connection it is useful to refer to the life of the early

Christians who heard the call of discipleship. Their life is
described in the Acts of the Apostles in these verses:

All whose faith had drawn them together held every thing in
common: they would sell their property and possessions and
make a general distribution on the need of each required.
(Acts. 4:32)

This is often referred to as the early Christian “Communism”. But

this is not correct. Obviously, it is not a political,... in fact, it has
nothing whatever to do with the production of economic wealth.
Indeed, its failure to provide for this has been seen as the cause of
its later breakdown. It was a spontaneous expression of Christian
love and fellowship - a deep sense of responsibility for one
another.

As Gutierrez says, Jesus does not assume the condition of poverty

and its tremendous consequences with the purpose of idealising it,
but because of “love for and solidarity with men who suffer in it.
It is to redeem them from their sins and to enrich them with his
poverty. It is to struggle against human selfishness and everything
that divides men and causes them to be rich and poor; possessors
and dis-possessed, oppressors and oppressed.... If the ultimate
cause of Man’s exploitation and alienation is selfishness, the
deepest reason for voluntary poverty is love of neighbour.”

Thus Christian love expressed in solidarity with the poor, by the

acceptance of poverty is a protest against poverty. The rejection
of riches, and brotherly love for one’s neighbour in need is the
sign of the total acceptance of Jesus and openness to the Kingdom
which is to come.

The point I want to emphasise is that the interiority and exteriority

of the Kingdom can not be separated. We express the interiority
of the Kingdom as we grapple with the issues of our daily social
existence. Conversion means changing our modes of thinking and
ordering our priorities in accordance with the will of God. It is
conversion to God and his Kingdom and therefore to his brother
and the world. “It is a choice for total change of life from self-
concern to love of neighbour; from getting and accumulating to
giving, from exploitation to mercy, from love of dominating
power to service, from pride to humility; from injustice to justice;
from seeing the world as man’s to get the most out of it, to living
in it as God’s world, destined by him for total human liberation in
the life of the person and in human community”.

Jesus’ Response: Conflict, Solidarity and Suffering

The concern for the Kingdom is concretely expressed m the life

and ministry of Jesus. Three dimensions of it are: conflict,
solidarity and suffering. The social situation of the first century
Palestine was unusually complex. Power and wealth were in the
hands of a religious aristocracy comprising of the families of
priests and a secular aristocracy which included the merchant
princes and land-owners in Jerusalem. There were also artisans;
small peasants and others who formed the middle class. A large
number became unemployed and economically marginalised. The
cultural dominance of the pure Israelites over those of mixed
ancestry (Samaritans and Gentiles) created caste conflict. Jesus’
response to such a situation of economic exploitation and social
oppression as part of his good news is important for us. They
provide direction for our mission. We will briefly look at those
three dimensions.

The demands of the Kingdom of God create conflict. “I have not

come” said Jesus, “to bring peace but a sword.” (Matt. 10:34).
When the structures of society have come to dominate and
explicit human beings the action of God creates.

In the Old Testament as we have seen, God confronts the people

with his Sword of Judgement. The faithfulness of Israel is tested
by whether the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the stranger are
cared for and God makes their cause the basis of his
condemnation. The same is true about the New Testament. The
disciples are being continuously challenged to re-order this life
and relationships to the extent of creating a virtual break from the
traditional securities of family and religion.
As Prof. West observes:

This is still the dynamic of divine peace-making. It

uncovers violence that hides beneath the structures of
earthly peace, espouses the cause of the poor and oppressed
-- but at the same time transforms their revolutionary
messianism by the power of suffering service -- and
undercuts the security of the comfortable, the powerful and
the rich. Its pattern is the surrender of self for others, the
acceptance of suffering and death because resurrection and
new creation are in Christ, the world’s reality.2

The second dimension is Jesus’ Solidarity with the people,

especially the poor and the oppressed. He proclaimed good news
to the poor, calling them blessed. All four Gospel records reflect
the profound concern for the poor. His compassion for the
harassed and helpless cannot be discussed. The Gospel certainly is
not neutral.

His table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners vividly

expresses his solidarity with the victims of established powers.
Eating is a symbol of fellowship. Jesus got into trouble for eating
with social outcasts because for the Jews, meal is also a symbol of
fellowship with God. This is why Jesus used the meal as a picture
of the Kingdom.

He had compassion for the hapless victims. This compassion was

not a mere feeling of charity, or made him work for some reform.
Rather it led him to a ministry for their release as part of a larger
vision for the transformation of man and society in a process of
total liberation.

Harvey Perkins, formerly .... of the Christian Conference of Asia

has given us an interesting Bible study with the theme of “Yoke”.
He shows how the conflict and solidarity motifs are
characteristically present in the Gospel. In Mathew’s gospel the
dominant theme is the conflict with the powers that be and in
Luke we have a picture of Jesus on the side of the poor and other
marginalised groups. He analyses the birth narratives in each of
these Gospels to illustrate his points.

The Kingdom is in conflict with the dominant consciousness and

power structures; Kingdom in solidarity with the poor; the
Kingdom is also of the Messiah, the suffering servant.

The very concept of Kingdom is closely related to the messianic

Kingdom which Jesus had been expectantly waiting for. Has Jesus
shared their vision? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Jesus
identified with the aspirations of people for a new age, but his
strategy was different from the political messianism of his day
There is a difference between Jesus’ messianism or messianic
servanthood and the ruler-messianism or the political messianism.

Jesus has given a radical reorientation to the concept of

messianism. Often messiahs are those rulers or heroes who
crusade for domination and suppression of people. But the
crucified messiah identifies himself with the suffering people.
Jesus the messiah became a servant of the people, died for them
and rose from the dead that we may rise from the power of death,
even in this world.

People who rise with him historically are the messianic people, a
sign of the Kingdom of God. Gutierrez says this people make
known the kingdom through what has been called the “messianic
inversion”. This is explained as follows:

The messianic inversion finds expression in, for example,

the statement of the gospel that “the last shall be first” (Mt.
20:16). Such an assertion contradicts the value system of
this world, in which the poor and the little folk do not count.
The ecclesial community, the messianic people, show forth
the gratuitousness of God’s love precisely in the measure
that they promote in history the creative presence of the
poor. The freely given and unmerited love of God is
proclaimed by speaking of the poor and their needs, their
rights and dignity, their culture, and, above all, of the God
who wants to place them at the center of the history of the
church.3

His identification with the powerless was total as it is revealed in

the Cross. All who cry from the depths of suffering and despair
from the freedom find an ally in him.

According to the Gospels, Jesus willingly surrendered himself to

the will of God and even in the darkness of death he trusted him.
Easter faith proclaims that. God vindicated Jesus by raising him
from the dead, thus declaring him to be the expression of God’s
own life and Kingdom.

Mission Our Response

The mission is our response to God’s liberating action in the

world. “The mission which is conscious of the Kingdom will be
concerned for liberation, not oppression; justice, not exploitation;
fullness, not deprivation; freedom, not slavery; health, not
disease; life, not death; No matter how the poor may be identified,
this mission is for them.” Some of the implication of this for our
task may be mentioned here:

1. The Mission is Radical Involvement.

This may be saying the obvious. But one or two dimensions of jt

should be reiterated. Any radical involvement that is directed
towards changing the structures of injustice becomes political. In
this sense mission is another name for political action. Conflict is
inevitable. One may not consciously advocate violence, but
disruption and disorder surround any process of restructuring of
society. Very often, emphasis on reconciliation has in effect
meant a way of maintaining the status quo against necessary
radical changes. Many of the action groups feel, for this reason,
that they should speak more of conflict and less of reconciliation.
We should not ignore the criticism implied in this position. The
message of reconciliation that does not take seriously the nature
of differences and also see the positive value of conflict for social
change will not be meaningful for the struggle of different groups
for justice. It is now widely recognised that legislation, public
opinion and other apparatuses of democratic machinery alone
cannot bring about the desired social justice for the weaker
sections in India. They should be strengthened by the militant,
organised struggle of the poor.

On the other hand, it is true that we cannot absolutise conflict.

That will, end up in creating a self-righteous and de-humanising
order as was shown in the history of revolutions. How to keep the
conflict in any struggle for social justice and for giving love in
creative tension?

2. Cultural Resources

Jesus knew that his people were being crushed under the weight
of a heavy yoke of social and political oppression. He was also
conscious of their cultural enslavement. Therefore his attention
was turned to unveiling their cultural propensities for liberation.
He spoke of the lilies of the field, the birds of the air, salt of the
earth, the light of the world and so on. All symbols are taken from
their life situation. The elemental realities thus drawn are all life-
affirming. This closeness to one’s roots and soil is expressed in
one’s culture. In Asia our religions are integrally related to our
cultures. Therefore, in proclaiming the Kingdom of God in our
context should mean taking seriously the cultural and religious
symbols and traditions which embody their vision of life and
wholeness.

The EATWOT, a fellowship of theologians of the Third World

who are heavily influenced by the liberation theology of Latin
America, met in Delhi in 1981. They were compelled to take a
positive look at the liberative potentialities of Asian religious
tradition. The final statement has given a pointed expression to
this:

To be committed to the people’s struggle for social justice

and to contemplate God within this involvement, both form
the essential matrix or theology. Without this prayerful
contemplation, God’s face is only partially seen and God’s
Word only partially heard within the participation in God’s
liberating and fulfilling action in history.4

Of course, we are aware of the ambiguous nature of our cultural

and religious heritage. We are not romanticising the ancient
religious and accepting them uncritically

Seers and saints of our land have made important contributions to

the heightened awareness of man about himself and the world.
But we have also seen the worst of these religions. They were
used for exploiting masses, for protecting the vested interests of
the high and mighty. The very idea of contemplation and silence
was used to suppress the masses and they were made to accept
passively their suffering making other -- worldly flights from
realities.

There were positive elements in them. Sometimes they are

prominently expressed in the protest movements and traditions
within the dominant religions, in myths, stories and legends. We
need to rediscover the dynamic heritage of ours. The heart of
Asian religious tradition should be found in its response to human
pain and suffering. The genius of Buddha for example is in that he
provided a new perspective on the creative meaning of suffering.
Great saints and gurus were on with the people in their anguish.
Theirs is not a spirituality of manipulative power and strength,
although there is a lot of it in Asian tradition as it is present in
every other religious tradition. But, they knew that the power of
the Ultimate is expressed in the strength of the people, in their
sacrifice, love and truth.

C.S. Song of Taiwan has given expression to this concern in his

theological interpretation of Chinese folk tale called “The faithful
Lady Ming” and ends his reflections with these poignant words
“Our political theology is located in the spaces created by the
spiritual power of Asian people in suffering. And our power ethic
is the ethic that believes in the ultimate victory of God who lives
with people and gives them the power of true love, and justice. If
this is God’s it should be ours also.”5

3. A New Spirituality

Most of us have been nurtured in the pietistic tradition and our

understanding of Christian life is influenced by it. This tradition
has been negative in its influence to the formation of any
meaningful relationship with the concerns of society. Its reduction
of the meaning of Salvation to the relationship of the individual
soul with God and its refusal to open itself to the liberative act of
God outside the familiar work are problematic. Even in circles
which are open to the new evangelical thrust for social action,
there has been no critical look at this theological framework.
What emerges from this action is a style of engagement that is
directed towards converting individuals to become “good men and
women”. Social involvement becomes a matter of giving moral
advice to people with the hope that moral men will lead immoral
societies.

We need a spirituality that provides a basis for meaningful

involvement in society and the struggles of people. It should
guide us and sustain us. We may agree with Migliorie when he
says:

We need a spirituality that is inclusive rather than exclusive,

active as well as receptive, oriented to the coming of God’s
Kingdom of righteousness and freedom throughout the
 world. We need a spirituality of liberation that will open us
increasingly to a life of solidarity with others, especially
with the poor.

M.M. Thomas in one of his early essays, when he was responding

to the challenge of Gandhian spirituality speaks of the need for a
“spiritual aristocracy” that accepts prophetic vocation as their
communal style.

The practices of traditional spirituality -- Bible reading, prayer

meditation, fellowship around the Word and Sacrament, service of
the neighbour -- are all still valid provided they have a new
orientation and new meanings. They will be linked with the
“praxis of Christian freedom in solidarity with the poor”.

One of the important points about the new spirituality is how to

read the biblical materials in terms of a dominant concern of our
times namely the removal of present oppressive structures.
Biblical symbols, stories and narratives are peculiarly relevant
struggles in concrete situations. They describe the agonies and
joys of the people, they articulate people’s questions and answers.
Today this “people character” of the Bible is made obscure by
professionals. There should be a process by which the Bible
should be reappropriated by people to be used by them for their
faith articulation.

Not only the way we read the Bible but also the practice of our
prayer should be considered in the light of new challenges. People
are taught to mechanically repeat the Lord’s Prayer and the prayer
has become a way of asking favours from God. But the prayer
should be a recalling to ourselves God’s concern for righteousness
and his solidarity with the oppressed. Is this not the real meaning
of the model prayer which our Lord has taught us? We pray for
his Kingdom his will to be done and His name he hallowed. Of
course within that framework we place before God our needs and
the needs of others. But primarily it is a way of entering into the
liberative action of God which he is accomplishing through Jesus
Christ. It is a form of protest against all forces that thwart the
purposes of God and his kingdom. That become the primary focus
and not something that is tagged on to our prayer by way of vague
intercessions for the needs of the world.

This prayer can be a passionate encounter. When we involve in a

situation of oppression we are baffled and frustrated by the force
of opposition. The landlord who is a pious Christian becomes the
enemy if you are on the side of the landless labourer. The upper
caste Christians despise you if you move closely with the
Harijans; you will be harassed by the police and government
machinery when you try to express your solidarity with the
victims of violence. In that situation, prayer, the recalling to
yourselves of the presence of God who listens to the cry of the
crushed will be reassuring.

Seen in this way the other elements of spirituality meditation,

participation in sacraments, worship -- all become a source of
strength for the liberative experiences. Eucharist is an anticipation
of the new humanity which God creates. The table Fellowship
transcends all man-made barriers. In love and sharing a divided
humanity is made one.

It is important to realise the material context from which the

eucharist has evolved. St. Paul gives the words of institution after
a critical appraisal of some of the discriminatory practices on the
basis of economic status that prevailed in the church. It is then as
a great symbol of sharing, the practice and meaning of eucharist
was endorsed. Of course the material context and the human
universal reality which it embodies are seen to be forgotten.
Instead, like other rituals, it has become a cultic act which
reinforces a narrow communal solidarity.

A spirituality of liberation of course, cannot be a theoretical

construct. It has to be evolved in mutual practice of solidarity
with the poor. A new openness to the cries and aspirations of the
marginalised groups alone is the basis of it.

The mission is God’s work as well as our responsibility. What

God is offering is fullness of life and our responsibility is the
defence of that fullness. Such defence entails conflict and
suffering. In our struggles, Jesus is present always beckoning us
to the New

Notes:

1. Gustave Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Mary Knoll:

Orbis Books, 1973) P. 366
 2. Charles C. West, “Reconciliation and World Peace”, in
Reconciliation in Today’s World, Ed. By Allen O. Miller
(Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1969) P. 109

3. Gustavo Gutierrez, The God of Life (Orbis New York

1991), P 208

4. Melbourne Conference Report, Section I (Document No. G.

09. WCC)

5. C. S. Song, the Tears of Lady Ming (Geneva: World

Council of Churches, 1981), PP 65,66

Viewed 4441 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Chapter 7: From Diakonia to Political Responsibility

What are the issues important for a consideration of Church’s

political responsibility in the present-day Indian context? This
paper attempts to highlight some of them.

1. A Brief Historical Survey

We will begin with a historical survey of the Church’s efforts to

relate itself with the political situation in modem India. The
struggle for Independence and the emergence of a new nation
together form a watershed in the life and witness of the Church of
India. There emerged a strong national consciousness in the
Church which is reflected in its theology and witness.
“Participation in nation-building,” was the phrase that summed up
the political witness during this time. The Church participated in
nation-building as a partner through its service institutions --
educational, health and developmental programmes. Diakonia
(service) was the principal form of witness. Many development
projects with the help of funding agencies have their origin in this
period.

The Church in India did pioneering service by establishing

medical and educational institutions. Many charitable institutions
like orphanages and relief operations through CASA have
provided help to the needy regardless of their religious
affiliations. Some of these programmes are well-known and there
is no need to describe them elaborately.

It is important that in a situation of extreme poverty and

continuing misery of millions in rural and urban areas, the Church
provides service for the needy. Sometimes such actions are
powerful witness to the Church’s solidarity with people, breaking
it isolation.

In their study of the churches m North India, J.P. Alter and H.

Jaisingh make a pointed reference to one such moment in the life
of the Church in Delhi. In 1947, there broke out the worst
communal clash between Hindus and Muslims, and thousands of
refugees streamed into Delhi. Christians took the lead ministering
to the needs of the victims and this was widely acclaimed:

The service to refugees was of profound significance for the

life of the church. It demonstrated that Christians, though
neutral in the communal struggle, were not indifferent to the
sufferings of their neighbours. It created a fund of goodwill
which proved of great value in subsequent discussions
concerning faith. Above all, it helped to draw the Christian
community out of its isolation and to identify Christians as
responsible citizens of the new Democratic Republic.1

However, laudable and necessary such charitable and

developmental activities are, they seldom challenge the existing
system and structures of injustice that perpetuate poverty and
unequal distribution of resources. In the long run they do not
provide an answer to the search of the poor for their dignity and
justice. It is this critique that led to the awareness by some that the
poor have to be organized to fight for their rights and they should
not be mere objects of charity but subjects of struggles for a new
just order.

For them mission is “struggle for justice.” They are critical of

some aspects of nation-building and work towards altering the
structures and practices that dehumanise people. This form of
witness is more readily found in the fringes of the Church,
especially in the so-called action groups. The mainline church is
predominately satisfied with service projects. There have been
notable pronouncements by the churches, but they remained as
rhetoric.2

The emergence of national consciousness is linked with a

reassertion of Hindu religion and its values. A response to the
Hindu renaissance was therefore, an integral part of Christian
witness in modern India. A rethinking on the Christian attitude to
other faiths was clearly evident. Christian thinkers like Chenchiah
and Devanandan argued for a more positive attitude towards other
faiths. Inter-faith dialogue with an attitude of humility and
openness and with a willingness to learn from others is thought to
be the best form of witness. Today the issue of inter-faith dialogue
is more complex. There are economic and political factors that
affect the relationships between religious communities. We will
deal with this in the next section. But we notice that an aggressive
crusading attitude towards other faiths is giving way to a more
tolerant attitude.

It is necessary to start with this brief historical note in order to

understand the present. In fact, the basic components of the
Church’s witness are present in this period (‘50s and ‘60s).
Service has been the predominant form of witness, with a
peripheral interest in prophetic witness and dialogue. Perhaps
today many are convinced that we are in a situation where
prophetic response should be deepened. To understand this we
need to analyze the contemporary challenges the Church faces.

II. Present-day Challenges

The ‘70s and the ‘80s have seen many changes in the national
scene. The domination of a rich and powerful elite over the
masses, religious and caste groups organizing to usurp political
power, a virtual collapse of the secular framework of the
Constitution, continuing misery of the poor and their exclusion
from all decision-making process, new ethnic identities and their
struggle for justice -- these are some of them. More recently we
have seen the globalisation and liberalisation in economic policies
which create a new culture that destroys indigenous communities
and traditional values. All these have to be evaluated. But we may
focus our attention on three issues which exert considerable
pressure on our political process.

a) The Impact of Modernism on Religion and the

Fundamentalist Upsurge

The traditional culture in India has been a religious culture, in

which there was an unbroken unity between society, politics and
religion. In fact, religion provided the integrating principle and
the social structure and political authority were legitimised by it.
The break-up of this traditional integration has been the
significant aspect of modern awakening of people to the ideas of
justice and freedom and technological rationality, the foundation
of a secular framework.

Two types of reaction to this are evident. One is the so-called

traditional approach. It is characterised by a refusal to accept this
break-up of traditional integration and the relative autonomy of
society and politics and a desperate effort to bring them under the
tutelage of religion. The RSS and other communal ideologies are
following this line.3 This kind of revivalism fails to see the
personalistic and dynamic elements of the emerging situation and
very often ends up as the struggle to preserve the interests of the
elite which had traditionally enjoyed all the privileges.

The other extreme mode of approach is from the modernists. They

find the emerging secular as absolute and reject the past totally.
Often it equates modernisation with radical westernisation, with
uncritical acceptance of the Western technology, Western politics
and Western style of life. From our experience we realise how
inadequate and unrealistic this approach is. No people can forget
their cultural past.

What we need is a dynamic reinterpretation of the past, taking

seriously the new elements of change. The religions should see
the relevance of the new secular framework that is emerging. It is
based on certain values which they all together can affirm - the
values of justice, equality and participation. Of course, what is
sometimes dangerous is a kind of secular attitude that is closed to
religion. Absolutising elements in politics can be termed inhuman
and oppressive. A pluralistic outlook is necessary as a viable form
of relating one religion to another on the basis of shared values
and goals. “We work not for Christian culture, but for an open,
secular, pluralistic culture, informed by and open to the insights
of many faiths, including Christian faith.” (M.M. Thomas).

In a pluralistic context religions should cooperate in strengthening

and secular/civic basis of politics. Christians in India are called
upon to accept this responsibility and not to pursue communal
politics that is preoccupied with their own interests.

b) The Struggle for Ethnic Identity and Justice

The struggle by different ethnic groups for their identity and
justice has brought serious questions as to the nature of a
pluriform community we are committed in build. It has to be
discussed against the background of two conflicting
developments. Threatened by the emergence of modern Nation-
State and the ideas of secularism, some sections in all religions
assert a fundamentalist posture in the major religions. Under the
guise of identity struggle, the fundamentalists, particularly in
major religions, are creating a volatile situation. The majority
community wants to perpetuate its dominance by controlling the
political process through its militant organisations. The Hindutva
philosophy of the BJP-RSS-VHP 4 combine is the best example.
The process has created a sense of insecurity among the minority
communities and marginal groups. This form of resurgence will
only strengthen the oppressive forces and we should reject it.

At the same time marginal groups like Dalits and tribals are
seeking a new identity for themselves based on their past religion
and cultures which had been suppressed or destroyed by dominant
communities. In their struggle against historical as well as
contemporary process of domination, the Dalits and indigenous
groups become conscious of their identity as people. Reflection
on mission should be related to this newly gained awareness of
marginalised groups.

The Church in the past has been ambiguous in regard to its

response to the identity question. Christian mission for sure has
enormously contributed to the social transformation of indigenous
people. But it has been insensitive to peoples struggle for cultural
identity. The Church has often projected a view of uniformity that
suppresses all differences.

We need to affirm that plurality is God’s gift and diversity is in

the very structure of God’s creation. We are called upon to
celebrate God’s gift of plurality and diversity.

If the struggle for Dalit and tribal identity is the demand to secure
the rightful space of indigenous people in the wider human
discourse and relationship, then it should be accepted as integral
to God’s purposes for them. The theological link between
Christian faith and the struggle for identity should be strengthened.

The struggle for identity is also a struggle for justice and

participation. This gives a concrete and distinct focus for our
struggle. Here the biblical tradition of faith can make significant
contribution. The prophets were uncompromising on their stand
on justice. They rejected any pattern of relationship that fails to
ensure justice, as contrary to God’s will. I believe that this focus
on justice in our identity struggle gives us a concrete direction as
well as a new theological meaning for it.

From a Christian perspective, identity, however, is not an absolute

category We are for an open identity and not a closed one.
Moltmann in his discussion on the doctrine of creation points out
the significance of oikas, living space for our understanding of
group identity He says any living thing needs a space, a boundary
for its secure living; but if that boundary is absolutely sealed and
closed, the living thing dies. “Every frontier enclosing the living
space of a living thing is an open frontier. If it is closed, the living
thing dies.” (Moltmann)

A renewed community which allows space for different identities

to flourish should be our common goal. We need to mobilise the
humanistic and liberative vision of regions for building a just and
participatory community. Fundamentalism is the very denial of
the essence of religion.

Commitment to peace and justice is the essence of religious faith

-- that is a conviction shared by many people in all religions not
Christianity alone.

An EATWOT Consultation on “Religion and Liberation” states

that in the Third World all religions together face the challenges
of enslaving social and cultural systems and the need to struggle
for justice, religions should meet each other exploring and sharing
their liberative elements. It calls for the development of
“liberative ecumenism.” That is, a form of inter-religious dialogue
which is concerned not so much with doctrinal insights or
spiritual experiences that different religions can offer to one
another, as with the contribution to human liberation that each can
make.5

c) The Pressure of Global Economic System on National

Politics and Culture

With the disappearance of the socialist world, the Third World

countries have entered a new phase in their development saga.
They are now totally and completely dominated by the financial
institutions and global market engineered by the First World. The
gap between the “rich” and the “poor” countries has become
greater, and this gap is no longer a relative surmountable gap, but
absolute in terms of access to key factors of production such as
capital (including technology).

Globalisation and modernisation through technological growth

have brought many serious problems. Increasing marginalisation
is the inevitable consequence of a capital intensive urban-centered
model of growth. The new economic policies introduced in India,
allegedly at the behest of IMF and World Bank, will not alter the
basic pattern of development that has been inimical to the
marginalised. There is no doubt that we need to link ourselves to
the global market system and that we should clear the rot that has
set in the public sector. But an unfettered growth of multi-
nationals and the emphasis on foreign trade are not conducive for
a pattern of development that is oriented to the needs of the poor.

A concomitant problem that model of growth has created is the

ecological crisis. Fast depletion of natural resources, pollution of
air, land and water, the global warming and other atmosphere
changes have catastrophic effects. A consultation on ecology and
development has correctly observed that “while all are affected by
the ecological crisis, the life of the poor and marginalised is
further impoverished by it. Shortage of fuel and water adds
peculiar burdens to the life of women.” It is said that tribals are
made environmental prisoners in their own land.

The Dalits whose life has been subjected to social and cultural
oppression for generations are facing new threats by the wanton
destruction of the natural environment. As the Chernobyl and
Bhopal incidents show, ecology knows no national boundaries.
Climatic changes and related environmental consequences are
globally experienced. What we witness today is a steady
deterioration and degradation of the biosphere, all life and
physical environment.6 The consultation further notes that “the
enormity of the problem is caused by the wasteful life-style of the
rich and irresponsible use of the natural resources and the
degeneration of environment by the profit oriented industry. In
this sense, the problem of ecology is closely linked with the
pattern of development which continues to create imbalances
between different sectors and allows massive exploitation of rural
and natural environment for the benefit of dominant classes.7

In this connection we must be aware of a more far-reaching and

perhaps the most devastating impact this model of growth has on
our culture. The tendency is to create a mono-culture that
encourages consumerist and profit-gaining values, destroying
whatever infrastructure is indigenously available to people.
Ashish Nandy’s words are pungent:

As this century with its bloodstained record draws to a

close, the nineteenth century dream of one world has re-
emerged, this time as a nightmare. It haunts us with the
prospect of a fully homogenised technologically controlled,
absolutely hierarchical world, defined by polarities like the
modern and the primitive, the secular and the non-secular,
the scientific and the unscientific, the expert and the
layman, the normal and the abnormal, the developed and the
underdeveloped, the vanguard and the led, the liberated and
the savable.8

While the elite-controlled government in most of the Third World

countries follow the logic of the technological growth model
which inevitably leads to the erosion of values germane to
indigenous culture and religion, serious questions are raised by
some concerned groups about an alternate model of
modernisation. M.M. Thomas calls for a “philosophy of
modernisation which goes beyond the materialistic world-view
and. respects the organic spiritual dimension of human
community life.”9

Actually, all religious and cultural traditions of the Third World

are quite sensitive to these dimensions through their reverence for
nature and concern for the primary communities like the family,
and therefore, any emerging new society needs to assimilate some
of the traditional spirit and values in their renewed form. This will
also help to give modernisation indigenous cultural roots, without
which it often brings demoralisation. In other words, Third World
development should go beyond the classical capitalist-socialist
models to develop “a society appropriate for the multi-faced
nature of human beings and their social and transcendent
dimensions.”10 From the foregoing analysis it is clear that
participation in nation-building involves a more complex
responsibility. The pressures that impinge on us are political,
cultural and religious. They point to the urgent task of building an
alternative view of society where all human beings live and
experience as “persons-in-community, m various forms of daily
social life.”11 Diversity is the natural state of a society like ours.
Plural identities should be the basis for the State. What we need is
new “confederative perceptions of unity from bottom up.”12

III. Rethinking on Church’s Witness -- Liberative Solidarity

The Church proclaims and lives by the mystery of Christ. Specific

challenges from the situation provide an occasion to delve deep
into its meaning and to formulate appropriate response to it. A
holistic vision of the Gospel which overcomes all dichotomies --
spiritual and material, personal and social, history and nature,
sacred and secular -- should be affirmed as the basis of God’s
freeing and creative act. God’s liberative work is towards the
strengthening and renewing of relationships among humans, and
between humans and nature. Life is sustained by inter-
connectedness. Fragmentation and exclusiveness are ways of
denying God’s purpose for God’s creation. Justice is the concrete
direction of God’s transforming and liberative work in our midst.
To participate in the struggle for justice is to participate in God’s
mission.

Questions are raised in the discussion on mission about the

relation between proclamation of the Gospel and the Church’s
involvement in politics and society. Some maintain that
evangelism should be distinct from other forms of witness like
dialogue, development, service and struggle for justice. But others
reject this separation and affirm an integral view of mission
embracing all aspects of life and its relationships. One has to
proclaim the Gospel through one’s words, deeds and life. They
are inseparable. However, we cannot ignore the fact that on
programmatic level the Church has been making some
distinctions and it is difficult to obliterate them. But we need to
ask how each can be informed as well as critiqued by others. For
example the justice-oriented approach raises critical questions on
all developmental and service endeavors of the Church. If service
projects and institutions do not become instruments for the
removal of unjust structures, they should be viewed with
suspicion. All institutional forms of service in which significant
resources of money and personnel from other countries are even
now involved, come under critical scrutiny, especially as some of
them provide subsidised service to the middle and tipper class
sections of society.

While we affirm the centrality of the struggle for justice for our
mission we need to be sensitive about a danger to which the
movements to justice are exposed. To gain more justice the
powerless should have power. But if the structure and orientation
of newly gained power follow the same pattern as that of the
dominant groups, then today’s oppressed will turn into
tomorrow’s oppressors. History bears this out. I believe that
reconciliation is Jesus’ way to avoid this. And it is integral to
proclamation.

Jesus identified with the aspirations of the people for a new age,
but his strategy was different from the political messianism of his
day There is a difference between Jesus’ messianism or messianic
servanthood and ruler-messianism or political messianism.

His identification with the powerless was total as it is revealed on

the cross. All who cry from the depths of suffering and despair
find an ally in him.

This is the liberative solidarity that reorients our value system and
power constellations and ushers in a new order. It is possible only
if we enter into the life of others, especially the suffering, with
openness and compassion. The spiritual resources for a new
orientation should emerge from the collective experiences of the
poor and the marginalised. Liberative solidarity is the channel of
those resources. This is the only option left to us in this difficult
situation of conflict and blind fury of religious passion.

The model comes with poignancy when we try to respond to

ecological crisis. In other words to evolve an alternate form of
development ‘which is wholistic and more humane we need to
listen to the experiences of the indigenous and tribal people --
their communitarian life and their bond with the earth. They are
for science and technology, but not for a neutral kind of scientism
that willingly allows itself to be used by the elite for producing
armaments. They are for industry but not industry that destroys
the ecological balance and cause pollution. In short, they are
asking for a system that accepts the interest of the poor as the
central concern. For this we need to question and reject the
accepted policies and the logic of the present economic order.
This requires tremendous moral and spiritual courage. But then
the Jesus who rejected the dominative power in solidarity with the
poor beckons us to do it. Our task is critical, besides pointing to
new directions.

IV Political Responsibility; Specific Tasks

In conclusion, I want to reiterate some of the concrete steps

already mentioned about the Church’s task:

a) The Church is called to strengthen the secular/civil base of

politics. All religions should be challenged to evolve a theology
that articulates the liberative and human values of their faith
which provide a basis for responsible participation in the secular
realms.

b) The Church should deepen its commitment to the poor and the
marginalised, ensuring justice for all, especially the weaker
sections. It should involve in, with other movements, the struggle
of Dalits, tribals and women for their dignity and freedom.
Mission should be reformulated as liberative solidarity.

c) The State should be called upon to be accountable to justice. A

prophetic criticism against the government when it perpetuates
violence and oppression is unavoidable for responsible
participation.

d) The Church should join with others in evolving a paradigm of

development that is ecologically sound. It should reject a value
system and life-style that destroy our culture. This also means
strengthening those communities and traditions which affirm life
and its relationships.

Notes:

1. James P Alter Ct. al., The Church a Christian Community, p. 35

2. A resolution passed by the Synod of the Church of South India in 1962 is as follows:

“The Synod believes that the social revolution now taking place
in India is a manifestation of the eternal purpose and judgement of
God inhuman history. It believes that the Church is created by
God to be a people holy unto the Lord and to seek the
establishment of Righteousness, Mercy and Love in human
society. It therefore calls the members of the Church of South
India at this critical time to a serious and prayerful consideration
of the implications of this belief for their worship, work and
witness in a changing India.” (Rajah D. Paul, Ecumenism in
Action p.100).

3. The Rashtryia Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is a fundamentalist

group within Hinduism which was mainly responsible for
demolishing the Babri-Masjid in Ayodhya in December, 1992.

4. BJP : Bharatiya Janatha Party--a political wing of the Hindu

fundamentalists working closely with RSS.

VHF Vishwa Hindu Parikshit -- this is also a forum for Hindu

fundamentalists dominated by Hindu sanyasis. All these
organisations work hand in hand.

5. Voices from the third World, 153

6. Daniel D. Chetti, (ed.) Ecology & Development, (Madras:

UELC/Gurukul & BTESSC, 1991), p. 96

7. Ibid.

8. Ashish Nandy, The intimate Enemy-Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism, quoted in
Surendra, op. cit.

9. M. M. Thomas, “Current Issues in the Third World Approach

to Modernisation,” in Bangalore Theological Forum, Dec. 1961,
p.38

10. Leonardo Boff “Liberation Theology and Collapse of Socialism,” in Youth of India, National
YMCA, Summer 1991.

11. Bastian Wielenga, “The Changing Face of Socialism and its Relevance to the Churches” in
Christian Marxist Dialogue, Spring 1991, quoted in Thomas, op. cit.

12. Kothari, “Cultural Context of Communalism in India” in

Economic and Political Weekly, Bombay, Vol. XXIV No. 2, Jan.
14, 1989.

Viewed 4442 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is director
of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological Education of the
Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle, April 1996, and is used by
permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

Chapter 8: A Theological Response to the Ecological Crisis

There was a time when we thought that ecological crisis was not a serious
problem for us in the poorer countries. Our problem, it was assumed, was
confined to poverty and economic exploitation, and the environmental
issue was rejected as a “luxury” of the industrialized countries. Social
action groups and peoples movements in the Third World countries
understandably have shown relative indifference to the problem of
ecology But today we realize how urgent this issue is for rich and poor
countries alike- in fact for the whole world. The threat is to life in general.
The life of the planet is endangered. The ecological crisis raises the
problem of survival itself. Moreover there is a growing awareness of the
organic link between the destruction of the environment and socio-
economic and political Justice.

The interconnectedness between commitment to the renewal of society

and the renewal of the earth is clearly seen in the struggle of many
marginalised groups all over the world. The indigenous people
everywhere (Native Indians in the USA and Canada, Maoris in Aotearoa-
New Zealand, Aborigines in Australia, tribal people in many countries of
Asia), and many groups who have been traditionally dependent upon the
land and the sea -- small farmers, fisher-folk, agricultural labourers -- have
kept these two dimensions together in their movements for liberation.

A majority of the poor are also landless. Agricultural developments helps

the rich landlords and not the poor. The poor in the slums of our cities are
squeezed into small hovels and their struggle is simply for living space.
Yet, to enhance and expand their comforts, the rich continually destroy
whatever is left for the poor: their villages, their forests and their people.
The stubborn resistance of the poor tribal women in the now famous
Chipko movement against the Government’s decision to turn their habitat
into a mining area, has brought to our consciousness the inseparable link
between the struggle of the poor and ecological issues.

Today the cry of the poor in the Narmada Valley in India is not only to
preserve their own habitat but to protect forests everywhere from wanton
destruction. The ecological crisis is rightly the cry of the poor. The
experience of deprivation and exploitation is linked with environmental
degradation and therefore, their perspective on these problems should be
the starting point of our discussion. It is not a problem created by
scientists or by a group of people who fancy growing trees around their
houses. It is the problem of the poor. It is integral to their struggle for
justice and liberation, and basically it is about preserving the integrity of
Creation.

Of course, committed scientists and other ecologists have helped us to

deepen our understanding of the ecological problem. In the past, nature
was thought to be an object for ruthless exploitation by the “developers”
and scientists for the “good of humans”. Little thought was given to the
perils of environmental destruction. A sense of optimism prevailed among
them about the capability of science to tame nature. Those who raised any
voice of concern about it were branded as “prophets of doom.” But today
more and more scientists are joining others with a, crusading zeal, to make
people aware of the ecological disasters. Marshalling convincing scientific
data, they tell us that the environmental degradation caused by massive
pollution of air water and land, threatens the very life of earth -- fast
depletion of non renewal resources, indeed of species themselves, the
thinning of the ozone layer that exposes all living creatures to the danger
of radiation, the build up of gases creating the greenhouse effect,
increasing erosion by the sea -- all these are brought out through their
research. Related to these are problems of rapidly increasing population,
spread of malnutrition and hunger, the subordination of women’s and
children’s needs to men’s needs, the ravages of war, the scandal of
chronic poverty and wasteful affluence.

I do not want to dwell at length on these problems. They are now well
known and much literature is available on them. My purpose is to
highlight the theological and ethical issue involved in this problem and to
suggest a possible response from the church and people’s movements. To
do this we need to clarify for ourselves some of the perspectives on the
ecological problems.

PERSPECTIVES

Growth Model Must be Changed

The ecological crisis is created by modern industrial and technological

growth and modem life-style. A paradigm of development, the western
industrial growth model, is almost universally accepted. It is a process
whereby we use enormous capital and exploit natural resources,
particularly the non renewal ones. Ruthless exploitation of nature and
fellow beings is the inevitable consequence of this pattern of
development. Decisions about the kind of goods to be produced and the
type of technology to be used are influenced by the demand of
consumerist economy where the controlling logic of growth is greed and
not need. It creates imbalances between different sectors and allows
massive exploitation of the rural and natural environment for the benefit
of the dominant classes. Much of the profit oriented growth which
destroys the eco-balance, is engineered and controlled by the
multinationals of USA, Europe and Japan. We are told that Japanese
multinationals indiscriminately destroy forests and other natural resources
m the Philippines, Indonesia and other Asian Countries. Japan is able to
preserve its own forests and trees because there are countries in the
surrounding region that supply their needs to maintain their modern life-
style!

Industrial pollution has risen alarmingly The havoc created by the gas leak
in Bhopal is vivid in our memory. Over use of fertilisers is turning our
farmlands into deserts, and the fishes in our seas and rivers are dying. In
Kuttanad area in Kerala a massive epidemic is destroying all the fishes.

Human demands for food and power are increasing faster than the
resources, which are, in fact, dwindling. It is recognised that the negative
impact of people on environment is the product of thee factors the total
population, the amount of resources consumed by each person and the
environmental destruction caused by each person. All these continue to
increase, especially because of the new life-style of the rich, and the
irresponsible use of natural resources which add a peculiar burden on the
ecosystem.

A Conferences on Ecology and development clearly states:

While all are affected by the ecological crisis, the life of the poor
and marginalised is further impoverished by it. Shortage of fuel and
water adds particular burdens to the life of woman. It is said that the
tribals are made environmental prisoners in their own land. Dalits,
whose life has been subjected to social and cultural oppression for
generations, are facing new threats by the wanton destruction of
natural environment.1

We need to ask whether the present policies of the government will help
us alter this form of development. The answer is likely to be that nothing
short of a rejection of the dominant paradigm of development and a
commitment to an ecologically sustainable form of development, will help
avert the present crisis.

Ecological Crisis: A Justice Issue

Our ecological crisis should be seen as a justice issue. This is a

fundamental perspective that distinguishes people’s view on ecology from
that of the establishment, and even of the experts. Political and social
justice is linked to ecological health. “We shall not be able to achieve
social justice without justice for natural environment; we shall not be able
to achieve justice for nature without social justice” (Moltmann).2 Several
dimensions of this echo-justice are now brought to the fore though the
experience of the struggle of the marginalised.

First, the connection between economic exploitation and environmental

degradation is clear in the deforestation issue. The massive destruction of
forests through avarice and greed results in atmospheric changes. The
poor are driven out of their habitat for the sake of “development”. In a
paper prepared by the Kerala Swatantara Matsya Thozilali Federation
(Trade Union of Fisher People) it is said, because of the massive fish
epidemic caused by the use of some pesticides, people refuse to buy fish
today This has resulted in making the fisherfolk jobless. Again, the use of
mechanised trawlers in the fish industry has resulted in threatening all fish
life, and the traditional fisherfolk have still not recovered from the loss
they have suffered.

Second, justice is actualized in just relationships. Unequal partnerships

and patterns of domination are unjust. It is obvious that today human
relationship with nature is not that of equal partners, but of domination
and exploitations. Unjust treatment of the planet by humans is one of the
principal causes of the ecological crisis.

Third, the uneven distribution, control and use of natural resources are
serious justice issues. It is estimated that 1/5th of the world population
inhabiting the Northern hemisphere consume, burn or waste at least 40-50
percent of the world’s non-renewable resources. Further, natural resources
needed to maintain the life-style of an average American is equal to what
is required by 200-300 Asians. Imagine what will happen if we extend the
same American life-style to people everywhere.

Fourth, the fast depletion of the natural (non-renewable) resources today

raises the question of our responsibility to future generations. If we extend
the five-star culture to all the countries and segments of people, then the
pressures on these resources will become intolerable. Already, we are
warned that we cannot go on exploiting the deep-level water. That will
disturb the ecological balance. Someone had compared the function of
deep water to the middle ear fluid that helps the human body maintain its
balance. The question, therefore, is how to use natural resources in a way
that sustains life and not destroys it.

Ethics of Care, Alleviation of Poverty

We need to discuss two related concerns. The first is the concept of justice
itself. The logic of justice as developed in the West emphasis rights and
rules, and respect for the other. It can be applied only to human beings --
supposedly equally. It is a balancing of rights and duties. But to include
the Cosmos in the justice enterprise, we need to affirm the ethics of care.
Justice cannot be accorded except through care. Justice expressing
compassion is the biblical emphasis. Prophets were not talking about
balancing interests and rights, but about the caring, the defending of the
poor by the righteous God. Defending the vulnerable and defenseless
should also mean defending our weak and silent partner the Earth.

We can no longer see ourselves as names and rulers over nature but
must think of ourselves as gardeners, caretakers, mothers and
fathers, stewards, trustees, lovers, priests, co-creators and friends of
a world that while giving us life and sustenance, also depends
increasingly on us in order to continue both for itself and for us.3

Secondly poverty is also a source of ecological degradation, and the

alleviation of poverty by the poor through their struggle for justice is an
ecological concerns. We cannot separate these two concerns. Unless the
poor have alternate sources of food and basic needs like fuel, they too will
want to destroy whatever natural environment is around them.

Justice in relation to ecology has a comprehensive meaning. Negatively, it

is placed against economic exploitation and unjust control and use of
natural resources. Positively, it affirms the responsibility.

A New Sense of Interdependence

The ecological crisis has impressed upon our consciousness a new

awareness about our dependence on the earth. We belong to the earth. We
share a common destiny with the earth. This awareness has sharply
challenged the modern view of reality and demands a revolution of
previously held scales of values. The modern perception of reality thanks
to the all-pervasive influence of western rationality, follows a mechanistic
model. It is functional and dualistic- spirit /flesh, objective/subjective,
reason/passion, supernatural/natural. But the ecological view is organic, in
which the emphasis is on interconnectedness and mutual inter-
dependence. It is to adopt the view of the so well captured in Martin
Bubers’ famous distinction between I-Thou and I-It. All entities are united
symbolically.

Sally Mcfague expresses this challenge thus:

 Ecological perspective insists that we are in the most profound
ways, “not our own” we belong from the cells of our bodies to the
finest creation of our minds, to the intricate, constantly changing
cosmos. The ecosystem, of which we are a part, is a whole: the
rocks and waters atmosphere and soil, plants, minerals and human
beings interact in a dynamic, mutually supportive way that make all
talk of atomistic individualism indefensible. Relationship and
interdependence, change and transformation, not substance,
changelessness and perfection, are the categories within which a
theology for our day must function4

We cannot here go into the implications of this rather provocative

suggestion. Nothing short of a “paradigm shift?’ is taking place in
theology. It is not merely anthropocentric.

Challenge to Ethics

The ecological perspective has also challenged our notion of ethics. In

fact, the ecological model of mutual interdependence can provide a new
orientation in ethics that can be source of human renewal. Our Lord asks
us to learn from the birds of the air, the lilies of the field. Values that are
essential for the survival of life are those of caring and sharing, not
domination and manipulation; domination and exploitation can only lead
to the silencing of nature and to the ecological death of both nature and
humans. The new perspective affirms our interrelatedness one to another
and nature. The scale of values that is essential for sustaining the
interrelatedness and wholeness of creation is different from the dominant
value system of modern society. One may state them as follows:

conservation, not consumerism

Need, not greed
Enabling power not dominating power
Integrity of creation, not exploiting nature

THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Church’s response is shaped by its understanding and interpretation

of its theology. A crucial aspect to be considered is the relation between
human and nature.

The Relation Between Humans and Nature

One may suggest at least three topologies that have influenced modern
thinking on this: Humans above nature; humans in nature, and humans
with nature. We can see biblical parallel for each of these. But our effort is
to see which ones come closet to the central vision.
Humans above nature

This may be the hidden ideology of the scientific and technological

culture of the period. Science was considered as power and not as a source
of wisdom. “Modern Technics”, wrote Bertrand Russel in the late forties,
“is giving man a sense of power which is changing his whole mentality.
Until recently, the physical environment was something that had to be
accepted. But to modern man the physical environment is merely the raw
material for manipulations and opportunity. It may be that God made the
world, but there is no reason why we should not take it over”. Perhaps,
very few scientists today make such a claim so unambiguously, yet this
confidence in science and technology and the instrumental, manipulative
use of nature, is very much present in modern culture.

Attempts are made to provide a biblical basis for the development of

technology in the West. They are primarily based on the exegesis of Gen.
1:28-30 and Psalms 18:6-8. During the late ‘60s, a beat-seller in theology
was The Secular City by Harvey Cox, and an influential book on mission
was Arand Van Leeuwen’s Christianity In World History. Both these
books show a preference for the view “humans above nature.” They
provide a biblical and theological basis for the technological manipulation
of nature by humans. They unequivocally affirm that technology is a
liberator, an instrument in the hands of God for releasing humans from the
tyranny of natural necessities. They paid little attention to the biblical
witness against this attitude;

The Earth mourns and withers

the world languishes and withers, the heavens languish together
with the earth.
The earth lies polluted Under its inhabitants;
for they have transgressed the laws
violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant

-Isaiah 24:4,5
Thus says God, the Lord
who created the heavens and stretched them out
who spread forth the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people upon it
and spirit to those who walk in it.

-Isaiah 42:5

In the Bible, the planes of human history and nature are never set in
opposition as these interpreters seem to be doing. The two planes are held
together in the biblical witness of faith. Liberation, according to Exodus,
is a struggle to possess the land. Faith in Yahweh, the Liberator, is also an
affirmation that God is sovereign over earth.
In an interesting study on Land in the Old Testament, Walter
Brueggemann points to the significance of land for Hebrew religious
experience. The land as promise and as problem: promised land, alien
land; landlessness and wilderness -- all these appear at different stages in
the history of the Hebrews. There is, of course a tension between
landedness and landlessness; the former becomes a cause of exploitation
and the latter leads to total trust in Yahweh.

The Christian practice that directly or indirectly supported colonialism

and capitalism comes out of this view of “humans above nature”. Lynn
White, the California Professor of History, holds this view responsible for
the modern ecological crisis. His words are strong.

Especially in its western form, Christianity is the most

anthropocentric religion the world has seen. Christianity, in contrast
to ancient paganism and Asia’s religions, has not only established a
dualism of man and nature, but has also insisted that it is God’s will
that man exploit nature for his proper ends... Hence we shall
continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the
Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence, save to
serve man.

Humans in nature

This is a reaction against the first typology It maintains that there is no

distinction between humans and nature. One gets an expression of this
view in the writings of some Romantic poets. Some of the
environmentalists, in their facile enthusiasm, lend support to this. Biblical
support may be found in the verse:

All flesh is grass

‘and all its beauty is like the flower of the field.
Surely, the people is grass,
the grass withers,
the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever.
- Isaiah 40: 6-8

Yet it is difficult to conclude on the basis of this verse that the biblical
idea is to treat human life as grass. There is a mystery of their being, and
there is a distinction between human and other creatures, but the
difference is not superiority because it comes with an awareness of
responsibility.
The command of God to Adam and Eve in Gen. 1:28-30 to have
domination over creatures is problematic. In its original Hebrew,
domination is a harsh word. It is to tame and control the forces of nature
that are destructive and violent. Taken in isolation and purely in this
context, that word gives a basis for a ruthless exploitation of nature. But in
interpreting biblical images and words, we need to see them through the
prism of our Lord’s saving mission.

“In the light of Christ’s mission,” says Moltmann, “Gen. 1:28 will have to
be interpreted in an entirely new way. Not to subdue the earth, but free the
earth through fellowship with it!” We may ask what is our understanding
of dominion? Is it not from one whom we call Lord, Domino, that is, Jesus
Christ and Him crucified?”

Lordship, therefore, has a new meaning. It is responsibility for the other in

love. The overriding emphasis in the Bible with regard to human
relationship with nature is on human responsibility for nature.

Human participation is necessary for maintaining the Cosmos Over

against the threat of Chaos. “The Earth is the Lord’s and all that fills it,
the world and all of its inhabitants.”

Because he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers -
Psalms 24:1,2.

Scholars point out that the Hebrew words for sea (yam) and river (nahar)
are also the words for ancient, near-eastern gods of chaos. If humans
break the covenant, disobey the laws of God and unjustly treat the
neighbor, then, creation will return to its primeval chaos. To maintain
creation, cosmos, human participation of responsible love and justice is
necessary.

Human participation is also needed to keep the earth fertile and productive
( Gen. 2:5, 3:17-19). Man is called the gardener and tiller. Again, humans
have no right to exploit and plunder the earth. Some of the symbols and
practices that emerged in the history Israel clearly articulate this. Sabbath
and jubilee year are two of them. Rest is a way of preventing over
exploitation of the earth. Also, the drastic change in ownership is a
poignant reminder that humans are merely trustees. They are called to
maintain the integrity of creation. Human responsibility for the whole
creation is to participate, with love and care, in God’s continuing act of
creation

Human responsibility and co-creatureliness is further emphasised with the

affirmation that all creation, along with humans, long and groan for
perfection and liberation. All distortions of creation, compounded by
human violence, disobedience and greed, will have to be redeemed in
Christ (Rev. 8:13-28). The final vision of a new heaven and a new earth
(Rom. 21:1-4) is accomplished by God and human beings together.

The Church’s Response

Although Christianity was born in a different cultural ethos where a

holistic view of reality was in vogue, the Indian Church’s theology and
practice have been, with some notable exceptions, heavily influenced by
western missionaries. With the result, at least in our Protestant churches,
little thought was given to link faith with ecology. We are all inclined to
view with suspicion any talk of nature in theology. Church practices
sometimes adopted symbols and customs that arose out of our natural
environment but seldom were they integrated with the mainstream
thinking or practice.

However, the Church’s record here is not altogether dismal. There have
been bold experiments, responses which have the potential for challenging
us. We need to critically examine them and affirm whatever is helpful and
relevant. Mention must be made of a world consultation on “Justice,
Peace and Integrity of Creation” held in Seoul, Korea, in 1990 where
representatives of Protestant and Orthodox churches gathered together to
make affirmations and covenants on their responsibility to creation.
Perhaps, it was the first time in the history of the churches that such a
significant step was taken to express concretely the Church’s response to
the ecology crisis.

Three models

There are at least three models that are available in church’s life and
practice for its response to ecological concerns.

(a) Ascetic, monastic model: Perhaps, this is the oldest form of the
church’s response aimed at integrating some concerns relating to ecology
as well as the crisis created by the misuse of the natural environment.
Renunciation was the key. Greed is identified as the source of the problem
of ecology. By adopting a simple life-style they showed a way to suppress
greed. “Small is beautiful” is the slogan coined by moderns who have
been highly impressed by the monastic models of life. Living in harmony
with nature and keeping their needs to a minimum, the monastic
communities proclaimed the message that the earth is the Lord’s and that
it should not be indiscriminately used to satisfy human avarice and greed.
It was also, a powerful protest against a wasteful life-style that is devoid
of any responsibility to the world of nature.

We see a similar response in the characteristic Indian/Asian model of

relating to the concerns of ecology Our sanyasis and ashrams were centres
where life in harmony with nature was consciously promoted. One is
reminded of a scene in Kalidasa’s Shakuntala. When Shakuntala has to
leave Kanva Mum’s ashram m order to join Dushyanta’s household, the
plants and creepers of the ashram, and also its birds and beasts, mourn her
imminent departure. Their hearts bleed at the idea of her separation from
them.

In the Church, this model has been instrumental in calling people to their
responsibility to lead a life that is in tune with nature. The problem is
addressed to individual life-styles. While the values enshrined in this
model are important, they are not adequate enough to effect structural
changes and radically alter relationships that have assumed a systemic
character. Today, we face a situation where individual greed is organized
as structures, as capitalism, market economy. They are forces that are
deeply entrenched in society. They have a logic of their own. A
constellation of power -- ideology, multinationals, market and media
control -- influence our collective life. Individuals at best can only raise a
voice of protest. What we need is collective action and countervailing
power that can alter the course of these trends. Certainly the monastic
ideals could inspire us.

(b) Sacramental/Eucharist model: Life and all its relationships are

brought to the worshipful presence of God and they are constantly
renewed. All things are received as gifts; therefore, they are to be shared.
The cup is offered, blessed and shared. Psalm 146 is a beautiful poem that
affirms the cosmic setting of our worship. We praise God in the presence
of and in harmony with all creation. They are together with us as we
praise God.

Again, in the tradition of the Church, the human person, through his
contemplation, realises his cosmic being. Scientists today say that the
volume of each atom is the volume of each universe; Cosmic power can
be absorbed by humans. Tribals are more receptive to the power or earth.
Particularly in the Protestant tradition, we have neglected this tradition of
cosmic contemplation as a source of renewal.

One of the problems with this model is on the level of practice. For many
Christians, the meaning of the Eucharist is confined to ritual observance
and not as a way of active engagement with the world. The body broken is
rarely taken as an imperative for sharing. We need to recover its dynamic
character and motivate people to be open to God’s creation and re-creation.

(c) Liberative solidarity model: According to this model, the Church is in

solidarity with the weakest; with that part of the whole creation. It is by
far a contemporary model, but its roots are in the Bible. Liberation
theologians have forcefully articulated the biblical motif for liberation in
Exodus and other passages. Salvation is liberation. But, particularly
because of their immediate context, for them liberation is primarily
political and economic. We today want to affirm that the liberation that is
witnessed to in the Bible includes liberation for Creation. According to
Paul in Romans, the work of the Spirit, freedom, extends to the total
renewal of Creation. Christ’s work of redemption takes in the whole
universe (Rom. 8:19-23). Christ, the Lord of history, initiates a process of
transformation that moves toward cosmic release (Eph. 1:1-10; Col. 1:15-
20. The unity between the hope for the inward liberation of the children of
God and the hope for the liberation of the entire physical creation from its
bondage and oppression, is the theme in Roman. The work of the Spirit is
to renew all of the earth. Ktisis, translated as Creation, includes not only
women and men, but all created things, including demonic powers. It is in
the search for liberation of all aspects of human life, histories, cultures and
natural environment that we can truly affirm that salvation is the
wholeness of Creation.

There is something common to the interpretation of liberation as a

historical process in Exodus and the liberation process in Creation in
Romans. The liberation in Exodus is linked to the cry of the oppressed,
and in Romans the glorious liberty is promised in response to the groans
and travails within us and in Creation. God has heard the cry of the poor,
and God is taking sides with the poor. In the same manner, the renewal of
earth comes in response to the cry of the poor and of the dumb creatures,
and of silent nature. It is interesting to note that when God decided to
spare Nineveh (Jonah 4:11), it was out of God’s pity for the “more than
12,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left hand (the
reference is to babies), and also much animals.” God is not interested in
preserving great cities for the sake of their skyscrapers, supermarkets, and
giant computers!

We are committed to a vision of human wholeness which includes not

only our relationship with one another, but also our relationship with
nature and the universe. We are also committed to the struggle for the
transformation of the poor, the weak, and the disfigured and over-
exploited nature. Both together are decisive for our faith, mission and
spirituality.

The covenant idea in the Bible has also influenced this model of liberative
solidarity. Both the Abrahamic covenant set within the framework of
history and the Sinai covenant which affirms God’s continued care and
commitment to the human structures and law, have assumed great
significance in our theological construction and biblical interpretation. But
the Noahic covenant and its cosmic setting are often forgotten. God is
faithful in his promise to the whole of humanity and all of his creation. It
is this broader meaning of covenant that is reflected in the World
Convocation organised by WCC on justice, peace and integrity of
creation. It calls all the churches to make a covenant based on God’s
covenant for the well-being of his total creation
The convocation calls the churches to translate their response to God’s
covenant into acts of mutual commitment within the covenant community
Four areas have been selected for specific “acts of covenanting” They
express concrete commitment to work.

• for a just economic order and for liberation from the bondage of foreign
debt;

• for the true security of all nations and people;

• for building a culture that can live in harmony with creation’s integrity;

• for the eradication of racism and discrimination, on national and

international levels, among all people.

In India, churches should enter into an act of covenanting, and commit

themselves to fight for the marginalised -- Dalits, tribals and women -- to
build a just economic order, to commit themselves to sustainable
development; justice, peace and the integrity of creation in our context.

A New Spirituality

We need to evolve a form of spirituality that takes seriously our

commitment to the earth. Mathew Fox has coined the phrase “creational
spirituality” and even initiated a new movement among the western
churches. A deep awareness of God’s gift and presence in creation is its
hallmark. This spirituality is not in conflict with liberational struggle. But
it is stated as an Important ground reality. “Awe is the starting point -- and
with it; wonder. The awe of being is part of this amazing universe... The
awe is not of a pseudo- mysticism about a state or a political party but of
our shared existence in the cosmos itself. 5

In the Buddhist tradition, greed and acquisitiveness are identified as the

source of bondage. Material progress is to be tempered by non-
acquisitiveness and sharing. Aloysius Pieris wrote: “In the Asian situation,
the antonym of ‘wealth’ is not poverty, but acquisitiveness and avarice,
which make wealth anti-religious. The primary concern is not eradication
of poverty but struggle against Mammon -- that undefinable force that
organises itself within every person, and among persons, to make material
wealth anti-human, anti-religious and oppressive”.6 Unfortunately, in its
development, Asian spirituality become preoccupied with individual
moral behaviour or with forming an exclusive community -- a spiritual
aristocracy. In both the cases, the spirituality of non-acquisitiveness lost
its neighbourly thrust.

The spirit of non-acquisitiveness, of sharing, of harmonious relationship

between humans and nature -- these are the hallmarks of true Asian
spirituality.

This is also the spirituality of the poor, derived from their closeness to the
earth and the sea, and their communication mode of existence. It sustains
them in their struggle. How else can we explain the staying power of the
marginalised and oppressed who are being continuously crushed by the
onslaught of violent forces? Alas, in our activist mode we pay little
attention to this and learn from it.

Therefore, today a conscious effort should be made to express the biblical

insights on creational spirituality. Materials for Bible study, worship and
Christian education that help us celebrate, learn God’s design for creation
and human responsibility should be made available. “Steward” images
that emphasis our responsibility, accountability and answerability ought to
be studied. Many psalms praise God, the creator. Prophets see the vision
of Shalom as the fullness of creation where harmony is the characteristic
mode of existence -- beasts and humans dwell together, the lion and the
child play together, swords are turned into plough shares. All these
establish a connection between social justice and ecological degradation.

We should learn from our Lord himself: his closeness to the earth, asking
us to learn from the birds of the air, lilies of the field; his own
commitment to a kingdom that grows as a seed that germinates and
sprouts, his response to the hungry, his breaking the bread and the wine --
finally, the salvation he achieved includes the liberation of all and we
hope for a new heaven and a new earth. Yes, there are passages that talk
about a complete destruction of all -- but they are spoken in a way which
will help us turn to God and to reject, renounce our ways of violence
towards one another and to the earth. To read in a fatalistic way is to miss
the central thrust of the Gospel.

A New Scale of Values

An ecological perspective on theology and spirituality challenges us to

adopt a new scale of values. A revaluation of the presently held value
system is called for. A WCC Consultation on “Sharing of Life;” asks us to
commit ourselves to the following, accepting a fundamentally new value
system:

• to the marginalised taking the centre of all decisions and actions as

equal partners.

• to identifying with the poor and the oppressed, and their organized
movements.

• to mutual accountability and power.

In adopting a new value system, we need to follow two important
guidelines. Decisive are the questions: whom are we listening to? Whose
interest do we present? In the case of the Narmada Valley project, are we
listening to planners, bureaucrats and technicians or to those poor tribals
who are displaced? In the fishermen’s struggle, are we carried away by
financial wizards who tell us about the importance of the export market
and of competing with other countries?

Secondly, one of the basic elements in value formation is the use of

power. In Jesus we see that the power values are transformed into bonding
values.

The New Testament clearly shows that Jesus was confronted with two
views of power opposed to each other: self-aggrandising power and
enabling power.

The former is the power that dominates, manipulates and exploits. This is
the power of the autocrats; it can also be the power of the ardent crusader
for the Gospel; it is the power of the profit-conscious industrialist and it
can be the power of a party boss who strategises against the opposition; it
can be the power of an authoritarian bishop or clergy. Some use it
blatantly, others subtly. Some use it for ends which are evil, others use it
to achieve supposedly noble objectives. The latter is the power that serves,
cares for others and builds up people. Its strategy is an end in itself.

The temptations of Jesus, his constant struggle with the disciples, the Last
Supper, the washing of the feet -- all these vividly show his own
conscious rejection of the power that manipulates and his willing
acceptance of the power that serves, the power that strengthens our bonds.
The bonding values are integral to the ecological view of reality.

Thirdly values are expressed in life-styles, practices, and structures. While

we cannot agree upon a uniform life-style, a conscious and judicious
rejection of extravagant and wasteful use of natural resources should be
priority and possibility for all. We need to put a limit to our needs. A
slavish acceptance of all that the consumerist economy produces and what
the market dictates would be contrary to ecologically responsible living.

In this connection, it is important to raise the question of the responsible

use of the Church’s own resources like property and investments. Property
development is an easy option to most of the urban churches. Here, we do
not seem to follow any guidelines that express our responsibility to
ecologically sound development. By this I do not mean the aesthetics of
the building -- although in this area too we could do better! By
commercially developing our church property, are we not endorsing the
logic and value system that governs much of commercialisation which is
ecologically harmful?
A few years ago, at St. Mark’s Cathedral, Bangalore we addressed this
issue. Situated as it is in the heart of the city, many commercial
developers had an eye on this precious piece of land that belonged to the
church. A lot of pressure was brought to bear upon the pastorate
committee. Naturally, we decided to turn to architects and developers for
advice. But, at that juncture a colleague of mine suggested that we discuss
the “theology of the building” as well. His suggestion was received with
derisive laughter by company executives and business magnates of the
congregation. Nevertheless, he made his point. “What is our Christian
witness when we enter into such an activity?” he asked. “By the activity,
he persisted, “can we raise any questions about the exploitative
mechanism that underlines commercialisation?” The ecological dimension
was not explicitly represented in the discussion. Perhaps today we should
add that too when we discuss our plans for the “development” of church
properties. The eviction of the poor for the sake of development even from
church properties is common. What is most surprising is that, in matters
like this, we seem to be uncritically accepting the logic of profit-oriented
developmentalism.

A Concern of All Religious

Ecological concerns should be taken up as a common cause of people of

all faiths. To protect our common home, we must mobilise the spiritual
resources of all religions. United Nations Environment Programme has
called all religions to celebrate together the “Environment Sabbath/Earth
Rest Day” They have provided resources for worship drawn from
Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism and Islam. It begins
with declarations -- appropriately described as “The Assisi Declaration”
drawn up by representatives of different religions. They together affirm
that “the religious concern for the conservation and ecological harmony of
the natural world is our common heritage, our birthright and our duty.”

Listen to some of the excerpts from the prayers:

Supreme Lord, let there be peace in the sky and
in the atmosphere, peace in plant world and in the
forests; let cosmic powers be peaceful:
Let Brahma be peaceful; let there be undiluted
and fulfilling peace everywhere.
-Atharvaveda

May every creature abound in well-being and peace

May every living being, weak or strong, the long and the small
The short and the medium - sized, the mean and the great
May ever living being, seen or unseen, those dwelling far
off,
Those near by, those already born, those waiting to be born May all
 attain inward peace.
-Buddhist Prayer

O God! The creator of everything!

You have said that water is the source of life!
When we have needs, you are the Giver
When we are sick, you give us health
When we have no food, you provide us with your bounty
-Moslem Prayer

Be praised, my Lord, for brother wind

And for the air, cloudy and clear, and all weather!
By which you give substance to your creatures!
be praised, my Lord, for our sister mother Earth,
who sustains and governs us,
and produces fruits with colourful
flowers and leaves.
-St. Francis of Assisi

All these worship resources can be shared among people of different

faiths. They can unite on Environment Day in praying for the earth.

Worship is not the only possible common action by different religions.

They can unite in measures that prevent ecological degradation -- such as
deforestation, pollution of lakes and rivers, and so on. Every congregation
may be challenged to undertake a specific programme on environmental
protection in cooperation with people of other faiths in the area.

Notes:

1. Daniel Chetti (ed.), Ecology and Development, (Madras: BTE/SSC and

Gurukul, 1991), p. 96.

2. Jurgen Moltmann, The future of Creation, (Philadelphia Fortress Press,

1979), p. 128

3. Sally Mcfague, Models of God, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p.

13.

4. Ibid., pp. 8-9.

5. Matthew Fox; “Creation Spirituality” in Creation, Vol.2, No.2, 1986.

6. Aloysius Pieris, Asia Theology of Liberation, (New York: Orbis, 1988),

p. 75.
Viewed 4443 times.
 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Chapter 9: Praxis and Mission - Implications for Theological

Education

Theological education in India and in other countries of Asia is

part of the missionary heritage. Missionaries started institutions --
Bible Schools, Colleges and others -- to train young people to
spread the Gospel. William Carey started a liberal arts and science
college for both “Christian and Heathen” students rather than
strictly theological seminary for missionary students native or
East Indian. But the college was considered a “Handmaid of
Evangelisation”. Carey predicted that the college would provide
an Indian Christian Teacher preacher -- “full instructions in the
doctrine he was to compact, and the doctrine he was to teach and
acquire a complete knowledge both of the sacred scriptures
(Christian or otherwise), and of those philosophical and
mythological dogmas which formed the soul of the Buddhist and
Hindu systems.” Both apologetic and missionary motifs were
present, even from the beginning. The instruction followed a
western model of education. Mission was understood as
evangelism or proclamation. As we realise notable changes have
taken place in our understanding of mission as well as in the
education philosophy. Mission is now understood in a holistic
sense. It is participation in the transforming and liberative work of
God in God’s creation. If we accept that perspective then the
fundamental question is how can theological education help the
church’s participation in God’s mission? To answer this we need
to consider some other developments one, paradigm shift in
theological thinking and two, a new understanding of the nature
of pedagogy itself. Both may be briefly mentioned.

Two developments

1. Theology, it is affirmed, is contextual. Theological reflection is

a response in faith to the realities of people, especially people
struggles for freedom, for justice, for wholeness and well-being.
A theology that does not relate itself to these contextual realities
becomes abstract and irrelevant. The church, of course, is
committed to remain faithful to the essence of given faith
traditions, but theological reflection is a task in which the church
is called upon to give an account of this commitment in relation to
many challenges, questions and aspirations of people at a
particular time and age. This task cannot be done by reiterating
some universal and abstract principles or credal formulae. They
are important. They represent the articulation of faith by people in
a particular context. We need to start from “below”, from the
experience of people. From the perspective of the day to day
struggles of the people for justice, for freedom and love, we
interpret the meaning of tradition. This paradigm shift in
theological reflection as given rise to different theologies people’s
theology, Dalit theology, black theology and feminist theology.
They all take the experience of suffering of a particular group of
people as their vantage point of theological task.

2. In our understanding of pedagogy also there is a marked shift.

Education was thought to be a process of merely disseminating
some valuable information by experts to the empty and receptive
minds of the learners. You hear the amusing characterisation that
education is inculcation of the incomprehensible by the
incompetent to the indifferent. From this “banking
concept” (Paulo Friere) of education we are now committed to a
pedagogy whereby the teacher and the taught together enter into a
process of gaining a new awareness of the condition of oppression
around them and that awareness leads them to a commitment for
change. The emphasis on context as well as liberation is common
to theology and education. Liberation is a theological motif and
provides the goal for theological education.

Some Important Concerns

a. Emphasis on Perspectival Change

Perspective is the way we look at things. We have indeed
indicated the change of perspective in theology, mission and
education. It can be summed up as liberative and ecumenical.
Both these presuppose an intense awareness of the context in
which theological education should be done. In fact it is the pre-
requisite for a meaningful theological education.

Our context is pluralistic. There are trends and issues that are
common to the Indian context. The elite domination, continuing
misery of the poor, rise of religious fundamentalism, impact of
new economic policies, ecological crisis, and so on. But there are
problems that are specific to each region. To assume that the
context of the North-East and Kerala are the same is erroneous. In
our analysis of the context, we need to pay more serious attention
to these regional variations. There ought to be a cross fertilisation
of the regional insights. The Board of Theological Education,
senate of Serampore college, has undertaken the task of
publishing a bibliography of original Christian writings in
regional language. This will be a first step towards better
communication between regions. The time has come for us to
encourage the study of languages of regions other than one’s own
for research. Many of us do not pay any attention to what is in our
regional languages. We are eager to study materials written in the
European contexts. Perspectival changes should be reflected in
our methodology It is not enough to add a new course or branch
of study to the existing curricula. When we are confronted with
new challenges, we try to domesticate them by the practice of
offering courses. Women’s concerns or contextual approach
should inform the way we teach theology or biblical studies. In
the same way we cannot assume a mission perspective in
theological education if we merely include a course or branch of
study in missiology. The transforming and liberative thrust of our
education needs careful attention.

b) Praxis and Mission

Missional thrust is transformative. With a critical awareness of the

oppressive structures in their situation, learners should be moved
for action to transform them.

This is praxis. The question should be raised: How this change-

oriented and committed form of learning can happen in our
theological studies, if we take missional thrust seriously? We
needed to reflect on theological praxis as methodology for our
education.

Here liberation theologians have something valuable to offer us.

They make a distinction between theory and practice on the one
hand, and praxis on the other. The traditional pattern of
theologising as in many other disciplines has been, first to
enunciate a theory (as in biblical or systematic theology) and then
apply it (practical theology, ethics, and so on). The assumption
hidden in this procedure is that pure and true thought about reality
can occur only when it is removed from act and practice follow
theory: doing is an extension of knowing.

Praxis-thinking challenge this assumption of western Christianity,

which is the hidden assumption of much of our education system.
It insists that thinking that occurs apart from critical involvement
ends up in constructions of theories about existence that keep us
from the real world. “Praxis is thought emerging in deed and deed
evoking thought.” To quote from a document:

Thinking is not now considered prior or superior to action;

rather, it takes place in action. The Christian religion was
founded not on a work, but on the word made Flesh. Faith is
no longer simply “applied” or completed in action, but for
its very understanding (and this is theology) faith demands
that it be discovered in action. It is necessary to relate
Christian theory and historical practice, faith and praxis.
Some theologians are talking of a theology defined as
critical reflection historical praxis. Practice refers to any
action that applies a particular theory Praxis is practice
associated with a total dynamic of historical vision and
social transformation. Through praxis, people enter into
their historical destiny. Since praxis, changes the world as
well as the actors, it becomes the starting point for a clearer
vision of God in history.

(Sergio Torres and John Eagleson, eds. Theology in the

Americas, New York: Orbis, 1982, p.435.)

This is praxis-theology. I can see someone raising an objection to

this. It may appear that in our churches there is no lack of
emphasis on experience or practice. Perhaps what we need is a
criterion for judging which experience is authentic, and for this
we need theory. The argument is valid. By praxis, we do not mean
rejection of theory. On the contrary, we need rigorous theoretical
reflection but it should emerge from the practice that is oriented to
transformation. Otherwise, it will be an artificial construct which
lends itself to domination of alien thought patterns.

Praxis is critical reflection on historical as well as contemporary

experience. Theological praxis as distinct from theory alone
should take seriously all experience in our church and our culture,
critically examine them and reinterpret them if necessary. There
are liberative humanistic vision and values in the tribal Dalit
culture which have became long forgotten. Or we are ashamed of
them because of the influence of western rationality and
Christianity that came to us through Western oriented doctrines
on or life-style and thinking. We need bold and imaginative
recovery of these elements for praxis theology that is
methodology we need to develop.

The Biblical interpretations should also be shaped by praxis and

contextual realities. We need Biblical research into the literary
genre of the text and its immediate context. But we need better
understanding of the text in terms its praxis for the people in that
context. How has the text helped enhanced their vision of God’s
transforming act? Then there is a horizon meaning to which the
text points. Can be arrive at a fusion between that horizon and the
horizon of meaning for our liberative praxis? That is the crucial
question.

(c) Formation

Theological education is also designed for ministerial formation.

Piety and learning are two goals of Serampore College education.
Piety is to be understood as a process whereby we internalise the
faith -- its vision and values -- which will decisively shape our
life-style. Discipline, prayer, worship and contemplation are all
part of this. Many aspects of this need to be considered.

I suspect that many of our student’s piety before they come to

theological studies is shaped by individualistic and other-worldly
concerns. When they are exposed to newer challenge in the
theological college they tend to react differently Some even
develop a form of double existence -- one good for seminary
answer sheets and assignments and the other for pastoral ministry.
They do not internalise the newly found enlargement of their
faith. They still want to be babes in faith. A conscious attempt is
to be made about developing a piety that is responsive to God’s
liberating and transferring act in our midst.

(d) Commitment

The cornerstone of theological education and the methodology

outlined earlier is the commitment of teachers and students to the
Gospel. The Gospel in the ultimate sense is a mystery and we
cannot exhaust it by our response and interpretation. We commit
to this ever deepening mystery in faith. But our response, however
imperfect, should have a concrete shape. All along I have
maintained that liberative praxis, a justice-oriented action is that
concrete form in our situation. We are called to commit to this
form of witness with an openness to the newer challenges of the
mystery of God’s grace.

Viewed 4444 times.

 return to religion-online

Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission by K. C.

Abraham

Rev. Dr. K. C. Abraham is a presbyter of the Church of south India and a leading Third World theologian. He is
director of the South Asia theological Research Institute, Bangalore, India and director of the board of theological
Education of the Senate of Serampore College. The book was published by Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalle,
April 1996, and is used by permission of the publisher. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted &
Winnie Brock.

Chapter 10: Globalisation and Liberative Solidarity

Globalisation is the magic word today. Economic development in

the Third World countries, we are told, is possible only if they
link up with the global economy through the global market.
Globalisation is also a cultural as well as political reality for
many. Ecological crisis, information technology and other aspects
of modern life know no boundaries. They are global issues.
Therefore it is not surprising that theological thinking and mission
praxis in recent years is influenced by globalisation. The euphoria
with which it was greeted by many theological colleges in USA
indicated its importance for theological education. This paper is
an attempt to analyze the phenomenon of globalisation and to
raise some issues that are pertinent in facing its challenges. It
suggests a model of Christian response, liberative solidarity, that
is rooted in the experience and spirituality of the poor and the
message of the cross.

1. Globalisation: An Analysis of the Phenomenon

Modern communication has converted the world into a “global

village’. TV brings into your living room events in far off lands,
drawing you closer to the gruesome war in Bosnia or the tribal
massacre in Rwanda. Air travel is fast. You have your breakfast in
one continent and lunch in another. And there is hardly a major
city in the world which cannot provide you with a Chinese
restaurant, a hamburger or a Japanese motor car.
Political and economic changes that take place in one corner of
the world affect the life of people far away. Seldom do we realise
that a drop of a few cents in the stock market in New York has
drastic effects on the economy of major cities in the Third World.
A decision of the USA not to purchase raw rubber can unsettle the
economy of Malaysia, for, example.

We may briefly mention three aspects of this process as they are

pertinent for our discussion:

(a) The process is an inevitable consequence of certain historical

as well as structural factors at work in the last 300-400 years.
Travel across the sea provided opportunity for closer relations
between countries. Travel was not for pleasure or adventure
alone, but also for trade. Spices, minerals and other commodities
of Asia and Africa created new trade routes from the West to the
East. Soon they needed to be protected from competition from
rival powers. Slowly colonial powers began to exert military and
political control over most of the countries in Asia, Africa and
Latin America. This colonial rule, as is well known, provided the
cheap raw material for the industrial expansion in the countries of
Europe and a ready market for their furnished goods.

b) The process of globalisation from the beginning was fraught

with competition, conflict, domination and exploitation. Certainly
there has been exchange off ideas and customs between peoples
of different countries. And this has been mutually beneficial. But
the ambiguous character of the process of globalisation is quite
obvious.

Colonialism is perhaps the most blatant form of exploitation

during this period of globalisation. Several consequences of
colonial rule are now well-known. It is now evident that the
industrial development of the West would not have been possible
without the cheap raw materials and labour from the colonies.
Cotton, iron, gold and minerals of all kinds were taken out of the
country, sometimes arbitrarily with the use of force or at other
times with the enthusiastic support of the local elites. Not only
that the colonies provided cheap materials but they became ready
markets for products manufactured in the West. The textile
industry is a case in point. Built into this practice is a process of
double exploitation. And the historical roots of poverty in the
Third World can be traced to this colonial exploitation.
• Colonialism has inflicted more serious damage on the colonized
people. Frantz Fanon in his famous analysis of colonialism has
brought out the condition of colonised minds. “Those who
internalise the colonial mentality”, wrote Fanon, “suffer a
systematic negation of personhood. Colonialism forces the people
it dominated to ask themselves the question constantly, ‘in reality
who am I?’ The defensive attitudes created by this violent
bringing together of the colonized man, and the colonial system
form themselves into a structure which then reveals the colonized
personality.”2 Perhaps many erstwhile colonies have not
recovered from this.

Science and technology have accelerated the process of

globalisation. For one thing, it has created “rising expectations”
about development, faster economic growth. While it has
promised opportunities for expansion of human potential, it has
also used new forces of destruction. Ecological crisis is the most
serious crisis brought about by modern technology.

c) Today there is a sense of urgency when we talk about global

realities. Nuclear threat raised the possibility of a total
annihilation of the global. This threat has drawn us together.
Ecological crisis has brought to our awareness the need for
preserving this fragile earth which is our common home. Life is
endangered and we need all resources to preserve it.3

Any consideration of globalisation therefore should keep in mind

these three aspects: inevitable, ambiguous and urgent.

II Globalisation and Third World

The global village has provided new opportunities for the

enhancement of life of our people. No doubt we need to affirm the
positive side of this development. But many in the Third World
look at this process with apprehension. They look at the global
village as an order or mechanism for greater exploitation and
political oppression. In this discussion we enter into the modern
period of globalisation.

When the Third World nations become independent of

colonialism after long periods of freedom struggle, they embarked
on massive efforts to develop their reserves and to eliminate
poverty. Development by economic growth based on rapid
industrialization was the magic word. Three ingredients of this
programme were, local elite (rulers), external resources (aid from
the developed world, multinationals) and trade. The goal was not
only to eliminate poverty, but also catch up with the First World
in modernization. But the net results of the past few decades of
development have been well summarized in the cliche -- the poor
becoming poorer -- the rich becoming richer.

On global level the gap between the rich nations and the poor
nations has increased. The average per capita income of the
developed world is $2,400 and that of the developing countries
$180. The gap is widening. The U.N. tried to change this trend,
but failed. In 1970 the U.N. suggested that 7% of 1% of the total
GNP of rich nations should be made available for the
development assistance. But actual help declined from 52% of 1%
in 1975 to 32% of 1% in 1976. This downward trend continues
and what is more distressing is that the First world countries
confirm that they have increased their military expenditure. The
existing trade patterns are inimical to the well-being of
developing nations. The aid that supposedly helps the growth of
the Third World is always with “strings” attached- and used as a
tool for continuing the First World dominance over the economic
growth of the Third World.

C.T Kurien points out that the countries of the Third World regard
the 1980s as a “lost decade in terms of their development
opportunities.” He writes,

The prices of many of the goods they export came down,

the richer countries kept them out of their markets and the
terms of trade turned against them. As is well known, many
of them have come to be caught in the ‘debt trap’. Less well
known is that the decade came to be one of net resource
transfers from the South to the North. And the gap between
the rich and the poor countries measured by percapita
income) widened.

Kurien further notes

The integration of the global economy has brought to the

fore a new set of actors who have played an increasingly
Important role in it: the transnational or multinational
corporations (TNCs or MNCs). These first attracted
comment in the 1960s, grew rapidly in the 1970s and
 emerged as powers to be reckoned with in the 1980s. Some
even argue that by the dawn of the next century they, rather
than national economies, will be the principal actors in the
emerging global economy and that we are already well into
the ‘transnational stage’ in the development of capitalism.4

The TNCs role in the Third World has now been subjected to
serious analysis by economists. These large corporations know no
national boundaries and their products find a way to the remotest
corner of the world. Between 300-500 TNCs control of the
enormous portion of world’s production, distribution and
marketing process.

The sales of an individual corporation is bigger than the GNP of

many developing countries. According to the figures supplied by
the UN in 1981, EXXON has sales of 63,896 million dollars and
General Motors, 63,211 million. Whereas the GNP of Nigeria is
48,000 million, Chile 15,770 or Kenya 15,307.

The power of the global corporations is derived from its unique

capacity to use finance, technology, and advanced marketing
skills to integrate production on a global scale in order to form the
world into one economic unit and a “global shopping centre.”

They do not bring large capital to the host countries, but they take
out huge profits. They do not generate more employment, as their
technology is not labor intensive. Profit maximization is their goal
and not development. They decide where people should live, what
they eat, drink or wear and what kind of society their children
should inherit.

Their primary goal is to safeguard the interests of developed

countries and not the developing countries. In the recent
discussion on conserving the worlds biological diversity 5 the
behavior of MNCs has again been criticized by the Third World
leaders. The Malaysian delegate to the UN General Assembly,
1990, made the following pertinent observation:

There are various instances where transnational

corporations have exploited the rich genetic diversity of
developing countries as a free resource for research and
development. The products of such research are then
patented and sold back to the developing countries at
excessively high prices. This must cease. We must
 formulate mechanisms for effective cooperation with
reciprocal benefits between biotechnoplogically rich
developing countries and the gene-rich developing
countries.6

The local elites are also agents of globalisation their role in the
development should be recognized. When the countries became
independent the leadership was naturally transferred to the local
elites. They have developed interlocking interests with the
western industrial elite. The development model which the newly
independent countries accepted has helped them and they exert
considerable pressure on the policy decisions of the Third World
countries on globalisation.

The priorities are determined by the demand of the market-often

the greed and no need becomes the controlling factor.

TV was considered a great symbol of modern development. But

in an informal survey conducted by a sociologist it was revealed
that the people who benefit most by TV are our industrialists.
They have increased the sales of their products such as Maggis
Instant Noodles and many kinds of junk food which are not
essential to the life of ordinary people.

The growing inequality between the rich nations and poor and
between the rich and the poor in each nation is a fundamental
threat to global harmony. Globalisation and marginalisation go
together. This contradiction needs special attention. This can be
illustrated with the economic situation in India.

III Globalisation and the Indian Economy

In 1991 the Government of India introduced drastic reforms in its

economic policies which have far reaching implications for the
life of the country. The involvement of World Bank and IMF was
acknowledged as crucial in the structural adjustment. It was a
deliberate move to take the country right into the process of
globalisation. MNCs are allowed to come into the country in a big
way by liberalization of the earlier stringent regulations with
regard to the type of industry and the profits that they are allowed
to take out of the country. It is perhaps early to evaluate the full
impact of these policy changes. These reforms have helped to
revive the sluggish economy and to discard some of the
unproductive bureaucratic controls. But some of the inevitable
consequences of these reforms are quite alarming. The
indebtedness of the country (internal and external) has now
reached a staggering figure of 90.6 billion dollars. C.T Kurien
who has made a careful analysis of the trends in the present
economy, has concluded has observed thus:

If the economic reform measures in India have therefore

been sponsored by a tiny, though exceptionally powerful
and influential minority which is pursuing them to
safeguard and promote its own narrow interests, they are
unlikely to be of benefit to the bulk of the people, in spite of
claims that they are not only necessary and inevitable, but
also in the national interest. The impact of the reforms on
the lives of sections of the peoples beyond this narrow
minority, has already begun to be seen. On the basis of an
examination of the relevant figures, one estimate shows that
in the first year of reforms, “nearly 6 to 7 million people
went below the ‘poverty line’ in contrast to an annual
improvement of nearly 10 to 15 million moving above the
poverty line over the last decade.” Therefore, in overall
terms “it makes a difference in terms of a setback in poverty
alleviation pace by nearly 20 mi1lions.”7

Kurien and other economists are not saying that Indian economy
is not in need of reforms, but they point out that the “thrust of any
alternative reform measures must be towards the welfare of the
largest segments our society.”8 At present these segments are
excluded from the process of decision that affect their lives and
their condition is deteriorating. These sectors are marginalised
working class-unorganized labourers, and landless. They are the
dalits and tribals.

Increasing marginalisation of dalits, women and other sectors

continues to be a problem. Our hope that their lot would improve
is now shattered. No doubt the movement of the marginalized for
justice and participation will be stronger. But resistance to them
will be on the increase.

As we have seen, marginalisation is linked with globalisation. The

advanced sectors have achieved considerably more expansion and
led to the improvement of the traditional sector. As one report
correctly observes, “much of rural development has simply been
extension of urban development.” There is an urgent need for an
alternate form of development that meets the basic needs of the
rural people.

Among the marginalized groups struggling for justice, women is

the largest. They are fighting many issues. Cultural prejudices,
structures of patriarchy, economic exploitation and unjust laws
and traditions are some of them. Organized movements of women
are beginning to make some impact but they need to be
strengthened. The church is also of male dominated structure.
Rich resources and contribution that women can make to the life
and ministry of the church are seldom made use of. Unfortunately
prejudice against women are nurtured in our families. We tend to
foster double standards in sexual morals. Female feticide, dowry
deaths and other glaring incidents are symptoms of deep-seated
prejudices and discriminatory practices and customs.

IV Globalisation has Become the Vehicle of Cultural Invasion

The idea of progress is decisively shaped by western life-style and

its structures. Air travel, color TV, super computers and space
technology all are the symbols of progress. When a nation opts for
TV it is not just the technology but all the cultural and social life
that nurture it come with it.

Technology is power, and the power is never neutral. It becomes

the carrier of those systems and ideologies (values and cultures)
within which it has been nurtured. The tendency is to create a
mono-culture. Prof. Koyama in his inimitable style provides a
sharp critique to this in all his writings. By mono-culture we mean
the undermining of economic, cultural and ecological diversity,
the nearly universal acceptance of technological culture as
developed in the West and its values. The indigenous culture and
its potential for human development is vastly ignored. The
tendency is to accept the efficiency with productivity without any
concern for compassion or justice. Ruthless exploitation of nature
without any reverence for nature which is an integral value of the
traditional culture.

M.M. Thomas in his recent writings has reflected on the impacts

of modernization on the traditional culture. He writes,

The modernizing forces of technology, human rights and

secularism are today directed by a too mechanical view of
nature and humanity which ignores the natural organic and
 the transcendental spiritual dimensions of reality. No doubt,
traditional societies emphasize the organic and the religious
aspects of life in a manner that enslaves human beings to
natural forces and human individuality to the group dicta.
But modernization based on a mechanical world-view
atomizes society to permit the emergence of the individual
who soon becomes rootless and a law unto itself and since
rootlessness is unbearable for long, the pendulum swings to
a collectivism which is a mechanical bundling together of
atomised individuals into an equally rootless mass under
mechanical State control.9

There are groups that strive towards a critical approach to

Western values and technology. They want to retain humane
values of tradition. They see the need for a holistic kind of
development. They are for pluralism and diversity in cultures.
They are for science and technology, but not for a neutral kind of
scientism that willingly allows itself to be used by the elite. They
are for industry, but not industry that destroys ecological balance
and causes pollution. In short, they are asking for an alternate
form of development that takes the interest of the poor as central
and allows room for their culture and religion.

V Globalisation and Ecological Crisis

The pattern of development that is capital intensive and the life

style propagated by the media together create a situation where
ecological balance and sustaining power of the earth for nurturing
life is being destroyed. The problem is further aggravated by the
process of globalisation. In fact, ecological crisis is not merely a
Third World problem. The whole planet is affected and perhaps
this issue brings together concerned people of the South and
North.10 Perspectives on this question differ.

The Third World perspective on ecological crisis raises the

question of justice as an overriding concern. The life of the poor
and the marginalised is further impoverished by the crisis.
Shortage of fuel and water add peculiar burdens to the life of
women. It is said that tribals are made environmental prisoners in
their own land. Details, whose life has been subjected to social
and cultural oppression for generations are facing new threats to
them by the wanton destruction of the natural environment.
On a global level this concern about the gap in the control over
and use of natural resources should be raised to gain a correct
perspective on globalisation. The modern European person is the
most expensive human species in this world. American people
who represent about 6% of the earth’s population melt, burn or eat
over 50% of the world’s consumable resources each year. Every
24 hours citizens of U.S.A. consume 2,250 heads of cattle in the
form of MacDonald hamburgers. Extend this style to the entire
world, what will be its consequences. It is these hard questions
about the nature of development, the life-style and justice that
have to be raised. In order to pursue this kind of life-style we need
to have easy access to the mineral resources and energy Many a
political conflict arises out of this need: We try to put an
ideological garb over such conflicts. East/West conflict is now
replaced by North/South conflict. What is at stake is the sphere of
political dominance linked with control of resources. Global
peace is possible only if we can diffuse this by establishment of a
world order.

VI A New Look at the Global Village

What is the paradigm of the miracle of Global village we have in

mind? People who write and talk about global village are people
who have never lived in a village. It is therefore not surprising
that their image of the global village is born out of their references
of a technological, industrial culture. One of the prevailing
tendencies in such a culture is to put everything in manageable,
organized system. There is very little room for diversity. The
clearly defined centre exercising control over the periphery -- that
is why “melting pot” becomes a favourate image in the U.S.A.
But what we see in the village is not so neatly organized, uniform
structure. A village is a small, separate unit connected to other
units. It is of different shape and diverse character. It is a mosaic
and not a neat uniform system. The global is very much present in
the local. Diversity and not uniformity is its hallmark.

We simply assume that to gain an experience of the global we

used to travel to foreign countries. This is not true. We may travel
and see things but still miss the essential values that keep our life
human. But the consciousness that our local life is bound up with
realties and relationships that go beyond the given time and space
is what makes as truly global. It is the basic openness to the other
- it is affirming the other who is different but integral to our life. It
is necessary to affirm the local as unique, but exists in the wider
network of relationships. In other words, plurality is an essential
aspect of the global. It provides the space for different identities to
grow in dialogue. When that space is denied the marginal suffers
most. The struggle of the marginal for identity is to be seen as a
necessary process to realize the global.

Within each nation there are measures, laws that regulate the
economic activity and distribution through taxation, minimum
wages, and so on. But in international relations there is no
regulative mechanism. The UN is powerless. They have indeed
talked about a new economic order. Demands include reduction of
trade barriers, more stable commodity prices for raw materials,
easier access to foreign technologies, better terms of aid and rapid
expansion of industrialization. Some of these demands are
legitimate, although there is very little hope anything will be
changed. These demands however, do not challenge the existing
international system and its assumptions; they want a greater
share in the global economic pie. This is usually the demand of
the bureaucrats and elites. What the poor people are asking/telling
us is, unless we rethink the basic questions of life-style, the use of
natural resources and the reaction between environment and
development, we cannot address the question of a new economic
order.

Globalisation, is not a neutral process. An alliance forged by the

forces of domination for profit becomes the driving force of much
of globalisation. The poor and the marginal do not find protection
and security under it. But this process is inevitable, therefore a
blind rejection of it seems to be realistic. How do we orient the
forces of globalisation for the furtherance of justice? Can we seek
a new global solidarity of the victims of present system to build a
just global order?

VII The Search for Alternatives

The Third World perspectives on the global unity are made dear.
The present global order controlled by the MNCs, neo-colonial
forces and elites of the countries does not ensure the values of
justice and plurality. The ecological crisis has further accentuated
the problem of global injustice. The search is for a global order
where life affirming values are preserved and strengthened. This
would mean an economic system that is free of oppression.
Kurien in the above study points out that today the powerful and
all pervasive market has become “a tool of oppression”. “What
they (people) need, therefore, is not greater market friendliness
but ‘people friendly markets’. A people friendly market, he
further states, is a social institution used, deliberately under
human direction and control, the dictum ‘leave it to the market
has no place here’.11

Speaking in cultural terms, M.M. Thomas argues that a “post-

modern humanism which recognizes the integration of
mechanical, organic and spiritual dimensions, can develop
creative reinterpretation of traditions battling against
fundamentalist traditionalism and actualize the potential
modernity to create a dynamic fraternity of responsible persons
and people”.12

An alternative developmental paradigm should be supported by an

alternative vision of human bond to one another and to the earth.
It is important that this new vision emerges from the experiences
of the poor and the marginalised. “It is our conviction that a new
paradigm for just development must emerge from the experiences
of the poor and the marginalised.”13

It is not our intention to give a blue print for alternative

development. That can be evolved only by economist, political
leaders and scientist who are committed to values that are
necessary for human development. In this task we should learn
from the experiences of the poor, for they are close to the earth
and their techniques of preserving the ecosystem should be taken
seriously. Those who live close to the land and the sea have
developed a way of using earthly resources without destroying
them. By polluting our water and destroying our forests we cannot
develop. More important is the conviction that a set of values that
are integral to human survival can be learned from the life-style
and the world view of the marginal groups. They have lived in
solidarity with one another and with the earth. Their
communitarian value system is necessary for evolving a just and
sustainable form of development. This is the global solidarity that
we propose for the future, giving a new direction to the process of
globalisation. ‘People friendly markets’, ‘enabling social changes’
and ‘post modern humanism’ - are all attempts to give this
orientation to globalisation.

VIII Towards Building a Just Global Order: Theological

Considerations

Can theology be pressed into service towards building a just

global order? Does theology deepen our commitment to a new
global solidarity based on justice and peace? The vision for
theologising should emerge from the experiences and traditions of
faith of the people. Sometimes theologians turn such visions into
rigid systems and absolute ideals. But the emphasis on contextual
theology is an effort to ground theology in the immediate
experiences of oppression and suffering of people.14

The faith articulation of women and indigenous groups struggling

for their dignity and freedom has helped us in our search for a
relevant theology They are important for our task of building a
global solidarity. A holistic view of reality and non-hierarchical
form of community are integral to their vision of life. This vision
has to be recaptured in our theology. Some of our feminist writers
and theologians who are committed to develop ecological
theology are beginning to articulate this new vision of doing
theology.

Holistic View of Reality

Our perception of the structure of reality changes as we become

aware of new areas of human experience and knowledge. The
dualistic model of classical understanding -- spirit/matter, mind/
body -- is not adequate to interpret our contemporary experience.
Moreover, our feminist thinkers rightly point out that such a
dualist view of reality is largely responsible for maintaining a
patriarchal and hierarchical model of society. A holistic model is
closer to our life experiences, including our relation with nature.
In fact, theologians who write about ecological concerns are
united in their opinion that a holistic view of reality is basic to a
responsible relation between humans and nature. An organic
model of reality should replace a mechanistic model in our times.
An organic model can interpret “the relation between God and
world in ways commensurate with an ecological context”. Sally
McFague, taking into consideration the insights from
contemporary cosmologists, has described the organic model in
the following words:

The organic model we are suggesting pictures reality as composed of multitudes of

embodied beings who presently inhabit a planet that has evolved over billions of years
 through a process of dynamic change marked by law and novelty into an intricate, diverse,
complex, multi-leveled reality, all radically interrelated and interdependent This organic
whole that began from an initial high bang and eventuated into the present universe is
distinguished by a form of unity and diversity radical beyond all imagining: infinite
differences, and diversity that is marked not by isolation but by shared atoms over millennia
as well as minute-by-minute exchanges of oxygen and carbon dioxide between plants and
animals. All of us, living and non-living, are one phenomenon, a phenomenon stretching
over billions of years and containing untold numbers of strange, diverse, and forms of
matter -- including our own. The universe is a body, to use a poor analogy from our own
experience, but it is not a human body; rather, it is matter bodied forth seemingly infinitely,
diversely, endlessly, yet internally as one.15

Radical inter-relatedness and interdependence of all creation is of

paramount significance as we perceiver reality “By reality,”
Writes Samuel Rayan, “is meant every thing; the earth and all that
it contains, with all the surprises it holds for the future; people and
their creations; the conditions in which they live, their experience
of life as gift, their celebration of it, no less than their experience
of oppression and death, and their struggles and hopes and
wounds and songs”.16

Leonardo Boff goes further and affirms that “Ecology constitutes

a complex set of relationships. It includes everything, neglects
nothing, values everything, is linked together. Based on this we
can recover Christianity’s most early perception; its conception of
God.”17 For him “world is a mirror of Trinity.”

This provides a new perspective on Christology. Our tendency in

modern theology to subsume all the new questions of theology
under a framework that may be described as ‘Christocentric
Universalism’ is perhaps not the most helpful paradigm. Too
much weight is put on this. Christ-in-relation seems to be a better
way of affirming the trinitarian concern of the process of
transformation and renewal. A spirit-filled theology that responds
to the pathos of people and their liberative stirrings should be
evolved. The characteristic posture of the spirit is openness and an
ability to transcend limits. The affirmation of the solidarity of the
poor is the spirit’s creative activity. To discern the spirit’s
working, we need ‘Christic’ sensitivity, but it can never be wholly
interpreted by Christological formulations.

If radical interrelatedness is the characteristic of the reality and

therefore of the divine, then openness to the other is the essential
mode of response to God. The openness becomes the seed for
creating new relationships and a new order.

The struggle today is for open communities. Again the awareness

of the need for the communities is not new. But today we face a
situation where the identity struggle of different groups is
projecting the shape of communities as classed, each group
defines its boundaries over against the other. The question is how
can we build a global solidarity of open communities. A
community of communities that accepts a plurality of identities in
a non-threatening, but mutually affirming way is the core of our
vision.18 In fact, the Church is meant to be this solidarity.
Leonardo Boof writes:

The ecclesial community must consider itself part of the

human community which in turn must consider itself part of
the cosmic community. And all together part of the
Trinitarian Community of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.19

We have a long way to go if we take this vision seriously. The

churches are so introvert that they are incapable of becoming a
sacrament of this community of open communities in this world.

Mission has to take seriously this task of recreating communities:

It means a critical awareness of the process and structures that are
inimical to an open community. Forces that threaten life, practices
that seldom promote justice and love, and above all an attitude of
apathy towards change.

Liberative Solidarity: A Form of Global Mission

A holistic vision of reality is the basis for non-hierarchical open

communities. But this vision of wholeness should have a concrete
direction. In the prophetic vision of a community, compassion is
the concrete dimension of it (Micah 6:5). It is solidarity that is
liberative and life-affirming.20 Justice and loving mercy are the
words used by the prophet. Together they may be translated into
liberative solidarity. The logic of justice as developed in the West
emphasizes rights and rules and respect for the other. It is a
balancing of duties and rights. But in the prophets justice includes
caring. Justice expressing compassion is the biblical emphasis.
Prophets were not talking about balancing interests and rights, but
about caring, the defending of the poor by the righteous God. This
emphasis comes with poignancy when we consider our
responsibility to the earth. It is a defenseless and weak partner of
humans in creation. Caring love comes from compassion by
standing at the place where the poor are and being in solidarity
with them. It is this solidarity that makes us raise questions to the
dominant models of globalisation.

It also points to a new direction for global community that

celebrated sharing and hope. Jesus rejected the imperial model of
unity, which in his time was represented by the Roman empire
and the power wielders of Jerusalem temple. He turned to Galilee,
to the poor and the outcasts, women and the marginalised. He
identified with them. His own uncompromising commitment to
the values of the kingdom and his solidarity with the victims of
society made himself an enemy of the powers-that-be conflict was
very much part of his ministry. It resulted in death. On the cross,
he cried aloud, “My God, my God, why have you forgotten me?”
It is a cry of desperation, a cry of loneliness. But it is a moment of
solidarity -- a moment when he identified with the cries of all
humanity.

In solidarity with the suffering, Jesus gave expression to his hope

in the liberating God who has his preference in defending the poor
and the dispossessed. It is in this combination of total
identification with the depth of suffering and the hope that
surpassed all experiences that we see the clue to Jesus’ presence
in our midst and future he offers us. New wine, a new logic of
community that comes from a solidarity culture was projected
against the old wine, the old culture.

The promise of God’s future in such a solidarity culture is

an invitation to struggle, advocacy for the victims, and
compassion. People who are drawn to the side of the poor
come into contact with the foundation of all life. The Bible
declares that God encounters them in the poor. With this
step from unconsciousness to consciousness, from apathetic
hopelessness regarding one’s fate to faith in the liberating
God of the poor, the quality of poverty also changes
because one’s relationship to it changes.21

The solidarity culture is sustained by spirituality, not the

spirituality that is elitist and other-worldly, but that which is
dynamic and open.

In our struggle for a new global order we need to mobilize the

superior resources of all religious traditions, not only the classical
religions, but the primal religious traditions as well. In fact, the
classical religions tend to project a type of spirituality that is
devoid of a commitment to social justice. There are, however,
notable exceptions. We begin to see a new search for the
liberational form of spirituality in these religions. See for example
the writings of Swami Agnivesh and Asgar Ali Engineer.22
Tagore’s words express this kind of spirituality:

Here is thy footstool and there rest thy feet where live the
poorest, lowliest, and the lost.

When I try to bow to thee, my obeisance cannot reach down

to the depth where thy feet rest among the poorest, the
lowest and the lost. (Gitanjali).

But a distinct challenge comes from the Indian spirituality

tradition. Its focus upon inferiority is to be considered important
when we talk about a commitment for action. Amolarpavadoss in
all his writings emphasized this . Freedom also means liberation
from pursuit, acquisition, accumulation and hoarding of wealth
(arta), unbridled enjoyment of pleasures comfort (kama), without
being regulated and governed by righteousness and justice
(dharma), without orientation to the ultimate goal (moksha).23

Mention has already been made about the spirituality of

indigenous groups. Their holistic vision and communitarian value
systems are essential for the emergence of a new global order.
They are signs of freedom we long for. “Where the Spirit of the
Lord is, there is freedom” (Paul). Our longing for a free and open
order is a spiritual longing. Only when communities live with
mutual respect, when they together eliminate all caste, atrocities,
when they together remove and hunger, when all their religions
sing the song of harmony, when they together celebrate God-
given unity, then the Spirit is free. Towards that global solidarity
let us commit ourselves.

This reflection on liberative solidarity can be conclude by

mentioning two concrete expressions of it.
One, the emergence of dalit theology in India. Dalits are the
oppressed groups, marginalised for centuries by the social and
cultural systems. Today dalit consciousness based on a new found
identity has provided the impetus for a dalit theology, Prof. A.P.
Nirmal describes the methodology as follows:

Dalit theology wants to assert that at the heart of the dalit

peoples experience is pathos or suffering. This pathos or
suffering or pain is prior to their involvement in any activist
struggle for liberation. Even before a praxis of theory and
practice happens, even before a praxis of thought and action
happens, they (the dalits) know God in and through their
suffering. For a Dalit theology “Pain or Pathos is the
beginning of knowledge.” For the sufferer more certain than
any principle, more certain than any action is his/her pain-
pathos. Even before he/she thinks about pathos; even before
he/she acts to remove or redress or overcome this pathos,
pain-pathos is simply there. It is in and through this pain-
pathos that the sufferer knows God. This is because the
sufferer in and through his/her pain-pathos knows that God
participates in human pain. This participation of God in
human pain is characterized by the New Testament as the
passion of Jesus symbolized in his crucifixion.24

Two, a few months ago I visited a Buddhist monk in the southern

provinces of Sri Lanka. I had heard about his intense involvement
in the struggles of people for freedom and justice. Three of us,
theologians, sat at his feet listening in rapt attention to the stories
of his involvement how at the risk of his own life he had to
defend young activists. He was constantly in clash with the
powers that be. At the end, one of the group asked him, “Sir, how
do you explain the motivating power that sustains you in all
these?” He thought for a moment and then said, “I do not know,
perhaps I am inspired by the compassionate love of Buddha.” And
then looking intently on us he asked, don’t you think Jesus also
teaches us about compassion.” I ventured to say, “Yes, but there is
a big difference between the response of some of us Christians to
our Christ, and your response to your Buddha.” I do not see the
same intensity of commitment to the passion of Jesus in our
churches. That is the crux of the problem. Can compassion,
another name for liberative solidarity, unite us?

Notes:
1. Mahatma Gandhi’s famous strategy for creating an awareness
of the evil of the colonial rule was the call to boycott foreign
made clothes and to wear clothes made from home spun materials.

2. The Wretched of the Earth (Harmandsworth: Penguin Books),

1988, p. 250.]

3. Numerous writings are available from scientists and ecologists.

But is important to note that the churches have taken this up as an
area of concern. World Council of Churches materials are made
available to the churches for study and reflections. See Eco
Theology (Ed. David Hullmann), (Geneva:WCC, 1994).

4. CT. Kurien, Global Capitalism and the Indian Economy, Tracts

for the Times/6 (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1994), pp 57-58.

5. It is recognized that the tropics bold a rich reserve of the

planets biological diversity. Variety of species that exist here are
being eliminated by destruction of tropical forests. The UN has
expressed concern over this and efforts are underway to preserve
them, through the World Wild Life Fund, the World Band and
other agencies. But many Third World leaders argue how these
efforts are neglecting the point of view of the South. Bio-
diversity, it is pointed out; is destroyed by the pattern of
development adopted by MNCs and others in the North. They
further observe that the farmers’ wisdom and techniques of
preserving the diversity should be recognized and taken seriously.
See. Vandana Shiva and others, Bio-diversity - Social
Perspectives, World Rainforest Movement, Penang, Malaysia,
1991.

6. Ibid., p. 11

7. C.T. Kurian. op. cit., p. 120.

8. Ibid., p. 123.

9. M.M. Thomas, The Nagas Towards AD. 200 and other

Selected Addresses and Writings, (Madras: Centre for Research
on New International Economic Order, 1992) p. 27.

10. See the recent publication of WG.C. Eco Theology (Ed. David
Hullmannn, 1994).
11. C.T. Kurien, op.cit., p. 123.

Also see, Amartya Sen, Beyond Liberalisation: Social

Opportunity and Human Capability (New Delhi: Institute Of
Social Science, 1994). This eminent economist compares India’s
policy for liberalisation with that of China and observes that the
force of China’s market economy rests on solid foundations of
social changes that have occurred earlier, and India cannot simply
jump on to that bandwagon without paying attention to the
enabling social changes in education, health care and land reforms
- that made the market function in the way it has in China (pp. 26-
27).

12. M.M. Thomas, op. cit., p. 27

13. K.C. Abraham (Ed.) Spirituality of the Third World,

NewYork: Orbis Books, 1994, p.1.

14. Speaking to a group of German pastors the other day I

remarked that all theologies were contextual theologies and Karl
Barth was a contextual theologian. Predictably my comment was
that Barth had rejected a kind of contextual theology found in the
liberal tradition. But they had to agree that Barth was concerned
about the word in the European situation obtaining after the
World War and the crisis of liberalism. Further it was pointed out
that his own experience in his parish made a big difference in the
manner in which he theologised. Kosuke Koyamas contribution in
developing contextual theology in Asia should be acknowledged.

15. Sally McFague, The Body of God, (Fortress Press, 1993)

Special mention has to be made about Sally McFague’s another
Models of God (Fortress, 1987). Also refer Jurgen Moltmann,
God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of
God; (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985). Elizabeth Schüssler
Fiorenza, In Memory of Her. A Feminist Theological
Reconstruction of Christian Origins, (New York: Cross Roads)
Felix Wilfred, From The Dusty Soil. (University of Madras:
Department of Christian Studies, 1995) p.258 f.

16. J.R. Chandran (Ed.) Third World Theologies in Dialogue,

Bangalore: EATWOT-INDIA, 1991, p. 47

17. Voices from the Third World, Vol. XVI, No. I p.115.
18. S.J. Samartha has expressed this concern in his discussion on
pluralism.

“The new global context the Church has to define its identity and
role in history in relation to, rather than over against other
communities. What; for example, is the relationship between the
Buddhist sangha, the Christian ecclessia and the Muslim ummah
in the global community? When every religion has within it a
dimension of universality it is to be understood as the extension
one’s universality overcoming other particularities? In what sense
can the community we seek become ‘a community or
communities’ that can hold together unity and diversity in
creative tension rather than in debilitating conflict?” (Samartha,
One Christ -Many Religions; Indian edition SATHRI Bangalore,
1993, p. 13).

19. Voice from the Third World, Vol. XVI No. 1, p. 115.

20. Preferential option for the poor is the characteristic mode of

response in the liberation theology. In some situations it may be
misconstrued as patronizing attitude. Liberative solidarity has the
advantage of the entering into a different relation with the poor.
Their experience and their spirituality hold the key for a future
order. To acknowledge our indebtedness to the poor is to seek a
new future.

21. Dorothee Solle, On Earth as in Heaven, USA: Westminster, p.

16.

22. See especially Asghar Ali Engineer, Islam and Liberation

Theology: Essays on Liberative Elements in Islam, (New Delhi:
Sterling Publishers, 1990).

Here the influence of liberation theology cannot be ignored. All

the religions are challenged to take seriously the emphasis on
liberation.

One may quote the stirring words of Deane William Fern at the
close of his essay “Third World Liberation Theology: Challenge
to World Religions in Dan Cohn-Sherbok, World Religions and
Human Liberation, (New York:Orbis, 1992), p. 19. “Liberation
theology issues a call not only to Christianity but to the other
religions of the world as well. Are these religions willing to show
‘a preferential option for the poor’? Can the communities of the
poor which are irrupting throughout the Third World be the basis
for a new “peoples theology” which seek to liberate humanity
from all forms of oppression : poverty, servitude, racism, sexism,
and the like? Can justice and spirituality become partners in a
world embracing enterprise? Can the struggle for justice and
belief in God come to mean one and the same thing? Herein lies
the stirring challenge of third World Christian liberation
theology.”

23. Theology of Development, (Bangalore NBCLC, 1979), p. 15.

24. KP.Nirmal (Ed.)A Reader in Dalit Theology, U.E.L.C.I.,

Madras, 1990.

Viewed 4445 times.