Religion and Liberation

Regletto Aldrich D. Imbong

INTRODUCTION

                The concept of evil is one among the frequently debated topics on philosophy of religion. Thinkers of the said discipline present arguments against theism on the basis of the concept of evil. For example, William Rowe contended that “evil is evidence against theistic beliefs.”[1] The existence of evil supports more the non-existence of a Divine being than the opposite.

                But the concept of evil here might be too general. There are natural evils as in the case of natural disasters[2], personal evils as in the case of crimes or violations against civil laws, and there are also social evils: the evil committed by a particular superior group to another inferior group. This paper deals with the third kind of evil as cited. Though this paper will not directly answer the question on why God allowed this evil to be experienced by some, this paper will present the responsibility of the theist (and somehow challenges the “theists” who are, directly or indirectly, responsible for the occurrence of these social evils) in the midst of all these social evils. In other words, this paper would expose the real task of a theist, at the same time challenging the old concept of the “other-worldly” focused theist.

                This paper is divided into three parts. First is the introduction, and then followed by an explication of the cause/s of social evils, by citing human-made systematic economic projects. This again will be followed by an exposition of the concept of liberation in relation to the social evils. Finally, the conclusion will present the task and responsibility of what it is to be a theist (especially a Christian)       One limitation of this paper is that, if not purely, it utilizes Christian theology and the Scriptures. This paper specifically studies the nature of social evils and the possible remedies to it, using the lenses of liberation theology which is pioneered by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutierrez.

SETTING THE SCENE

                What do I really mean by social evils? In general, it is the evil of oppression, exploitation and poverty. It is the evil committed by a dominating social class that oppresses an inferior class for the interest and benefit of the former. This is the evil we see in the industry, where capitalists exploit the miserable conditions of the workers, giving them low wages or withholding their benefits; in the hinterlands, where landlords arbitrarily raise land rents, or if not, grabbing the lands from poor farmers at the detriment of the latter; in the government, where big amounts of money are stolen from the treasury of the tax-paying citizens causing poverty to the latter. These are social evils and these give suffering to the many who are oppressed.

                What causes these evils? This is a fundamental question for it lays the ground for God’s responsibility or non-responsibility of these evils. All these evils, in a word, result to poverty. Using my own definition, poverty is that miserable state of which no one wishes for, except those who (hypocritically or not) claimed to practice the vow of poverty. Furthermore, poverty is not just the lack or absence of wealth but the result of the act of stealing or dispossessing someone of wealth. Poverty is evil; who could have willed it?

                Gutierrez, basing his argument from the scriptures, explicated that poverty is a condition which scandalizes and is hostile to the dignity of the human person, and hence, is not the will of God.[3] There are poor because self-centered people willed it to be so. In the Scriptures, Isaiah condemned, “you are doomed,” those people who victimize others:

                You make unjust laws that oppress my people. That is how you keep the poor from having their rights and from getting justice. That is how you take the property that belongs to widows and orphans. (Is: 10: 1-2)

The point is clear; the centuries-old argument that poverty is willed by God is a fallacy. Rizal had already disproven this when he attacked the friars who utilized religion as a fortress, armor castle and weapon to further oppress the Indios.[4]

                But until today, evil still exists. People in power or perhaps, nations in power willed it to be so, for their advantage. In a worldwide scale, there is the illusory concept of globalization (the term first introduced by Thomas Kuhn) which gives way to trade liberalization, deregulation and privatization.[5] What has this globalization done to the hoi polloi? Through systematic programs of action, monopoly capitalists sponsored summits (like the APEC) that implemented destructive projects to underdeveloped countries.

Surplus capital from global centers of capitalism went into… budgetary and trade deficits, privatization of trade assets, importation of luxury goods, supply for component for low value-added export-oriented manufacturing, sale of telecommunication equipment, real estate development and other speculative activities.[6]

In other words, the implementers of globalization sponsors projects the apparently gives aid to underdeveloped countries. But behind the veil of appearance, those projects are in fact injurious to the underdeveloped countries for it creates both 1. dependency of the former to the dole-outs of the superior countries and 2. the exploitative conditions in the underdeveloped countries.

                Another concrete example of a systematic project implemented by another monopoly capitalist sponsored organization, WTO (World Trade Organizations), is the Agreement of Agriculture (AoA). After implementation of the said project, “industrialist countries like the US and the EU experienced tremendous growth of their agricultural exports and remain the top agricultural traders in the world… [P]oor countries, in contrast, have been at the losing end as they are compelled to import increasing amounts of agricultural commodities while their exports continue to dwindle.”[7] And why are their exports decreasing? This is still in relation to the AoA’s regulation to reduce the support of the government for domestic producers, a regulation imposed only to underdeveloped countries[8] and hence, destructive to the latter (which is what’s happening in the Philippines).

                Back to the question raised above, what causes these evils? Not God but the few exploiters who control the (world) economy. This is not willed by God nor is it a divine retribution as punishment for the sins of a people, as expressed In the Filipino concept of gaba.[9] And who is the victim of these evils? The many exploited who barely have the means to redeem themselves out of such inhuman conditions. And if these exploited barely have the capacity to redeem themselves, who will liberate them from these evils?

LIBERATION AS THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION

                First and foremost, we must have a common understanding of what a theist is. A theist is a person upholding theism. Borrowing from Rowe’s definition of theism, “it is the view that there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being…”[10] The most common term used to signify this Being is God.

How should these social evils be treated? I have explained from the previous section that these evils are not from nor willed by God. And the victim of these social evils is woman/man herself/himself, the person created in God’s image or likeness.[11] Taking in particular the social evil called poverty[12], this (and the rest of all social evils) must be rejected and protested.[13] Why? It degrades a person making him/her less human and sometimes comparable (or at times even lower) to the conditions of brutes (like the pets of the world’s richest men/women). These state of affairs offend the human person, and hence, to God himself/herself.[14]

                The human person has to be liberated. He/she has to be emancipated out from these miserable and inhuman conditions. This process of liberation, which is always initiated by God, has always been at work in history. And here, through the Scriptures, we can see a God who interferes, a God who is not indifferent with the plight of His/her people, a God who relates.[15] When God saw the Israelites enslaved and exploited by the Egyptians, God sent Moses to deliver His/Her people out from Egypt. Thus in Exodus, we learned that,

                …[T]he Lord said, “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them from the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the country of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites. The cry of the Israelites has now come to me; I have also seen how the Egyptians oppress them. So come, I will send you to Pharaoh to bring my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt.[16]

God (or in the case above, Yahweh) never remained aloof and indifferent. God does justice and therefore, He/She is Holy.[17] God, through His/Her greatest act of sacrifice, even incarnated Himself/Herself in the person of Jesus; to be near to His/Her beloved people and to personally show to the world the process of liberation and redemption. As a consequence, his life was the price of this commitment to liberation. Thus, Fuellenbach argued that the death of Jesus was in connection to his preaching of God’s Kingdom that challenged, if not all, then some realities and questions religious or socio-political structures that caused the suffering of the people during his time.[18]

This is an important point to be considered, especially for Christians. One is said to be a Christian because he/she follows Christ. But who was Christ? In so many instances, Christians are victims of what Comblin terms as “iconization”[19] of Jesus’ life: Jesus has been placed out from the actual world, out from the world of history and is purely treated in theological means and forgetting his human reality, therefore, an icon. In iconization, it is presupposed that Jesus actually did not interfere with the “worldly” events, such as politics.

But iconization is an absolute distortion of the real Jesus, probably crafted by conservative Christians who are guilty of the reality being suppressed by the concept of iconization. It is important then to cite a few but basic examples that would disprove the concept of iconization. Jesus was a man of many companions. But among his close circle of friends i.e., the apostles, some were zealots. The zealots were among the people resisting Roman oppression.[20] Because of Jesus’ prophetic (bold and fearless) proclamation of the gospel, he attracted people “who were strong nationalists, who fiercely opposed Roman domination, and who ardently awaited the impending arrival of the Kingdom which was to end…”[21] the situation of domination. But Jesus was over and above the zealots. His political consciousness was not narrow nationalism as proven by his non-exclusivist orientation. The Samaritans and the pagans, as non-Jewish people, were contemptuously rejected by the zealots. But since the “message of Jesus is addressed to all men” then the “justice and peace he advocated know no national boundaries,” as reflected on his behavior and treatment with the pagans and Samaritans.

Jesus also confronted the groups with power during his time. As a form of mockery, Jesus called Herod “the fox” (Luke 13:32). He even placed the publicans (who were known collaborators of the dominators) among sinners (Matt. 9:10; 21:31; Luke 5:30; 7:34)[22]. Finally, Jesus criticized the Sadducees, who were the majority of the Sanhedrin (the council that condemned him), and the Pharisees against their “religion made up of purely external rules and observances.”[23] To this, Jesus “accompanied this criticism with a head-on opposition to the rich and powerful and a radical option for the poor…”[24] Hence, the Christian Church, as a Church established by Christ himself, must have a preferential option for the poor, and not the opposite.

Finally, Christ died as a rebel. Quoting directly from Gutierrez,

According to the Roman custom, the title on the cross indicated the reason for the sentence; in the case of Jesus this title denoted political guilt: King of the Jews… The Sanhedrin had religious reasons for condemning a man who claimed to be the Son of God, but it also had political reasons: the teachings of Jesus and his influence over the people challenged the situation of privilege and power of the Jewish leaders. These political considerations were related to another which affected the Roman authority itself: the claim to be Messiah and King of the Jews… This action reached its public, judicial decision before Pontius Pilate, the representative of the Roman state, and holder of political power.[25]

The arguments I presented above are all consistent with the contention that God never willed evil to happen to His/Her Creatures. He/She even want Him/Her out from these evil conditions either indirectly (e.g. by sending Moses as the means for liberation) or directly (e.g. by sending His/Her only begotten Son who sacrificed his life for the cause). It is through liberation that man/woman is freed from sin. Liberation here is threefold. First, it is social liberation. It must change the existing social structures. If social changes or reforms are to be made within the boundaries of existing oppressive social structures (which are the very cause of social evils), it is a futile task. Only through a radical break from existing structures, the status quo, will social liberation be achieved. Second, it is psychological liberation. Social liberation satisfactorily includes psychological liberation.[26] There must be liberation not just of the outer reality but also of the inner reality that enslaves one into doing or submitting oneself into inhuman acts. Finally, it is spiritual liberation. It is being one in the Spirit of Christ, where men/women are in communion with one another.

CONCLUSION

Religion is born out from faith. But what is faith? Faith is not just the affirmation of the existence of a Divine Being. Most importantly, faith is “an existential stance.”[27] It is a response-action to the belief of a Divine Being. It is a “commitment to God and to Human Beings,” a commitment to liberation.[28] Thus, James’ words were and always remain to be true: faith without action is dead. Our faith tells us that God loves us first (as shown in our history). And this love of God needs a response. But how can we show our love to a Being whom we don’t even see, hear or feel?

Our response to God’s love “is given through love for human beings.”[29] This remains to be the second most important commandment, “love your neighbor as you love yourself.” (Matt. 22: 39). To have a basic understanding of this “love of god expressed through human beings,” let us recall when Christ narrated the Last Judgment,

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘away from me, you that are under God’s curse! Away to the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels! I was hungry but you would not feed me, thirsty but you would not give me a drink; I was a stranger but you would not welcome me in your homes, naked but you would not clothe me; I was sick and in prison but you would not take care of me.’ Then they will answer him, ‘when, Lord, did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and we would not help you? The King will reply, ‘I tell you, whenever you refused to help one of these least important ones, you refused to help me.” (Matt. 25: 41-45)

                Religion without action is empty. Inherent in the concept of religion is the concept of liberation. Love of God is always reflected on the love of the neighbor, especially the poor, victims of injustice and oppression. This is genuine Christianity. And this genuine Christianity has cost lives of many who wished to end injustice and oppression, not forgetting the fate of the political Jesus. Indeed, to follow Christ is not easy; for to follow Christ is to serve the people!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Fuellenbach,  John. Hermeneutics, Marxism and Liberation Theology. Manila: Divine Word Publications,                  1989.

Gutierrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History Politics and Salvation. trans. Caridad Inda and John Eagleson. New York: Orbis Books, 1973.

_____________. The God of Life. trans. Matthew J. O’Connell. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991.

Ibon Issue Primer Series. WTO: Supreme Instrument for Neoliberal Globalization. Manila: Ibon Books,    2005.

Peterson, Michael and VanArragon eds. Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004.

Mercado, Leonardo. Elements of Filipino Theology. Philippine: Divine Word University Publications,         1975.

Nickoloff, James ed. Gustavo Gutierrez: Essential Writings. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1996.

Sison, Jose Maria. For Democracy and Socialism Against Imperialist Globalization. Philippines: Aklat ng Bayan, Inc. 2009.

Zaide, Sonia and Zaide. Jose Rizal: Life, Works and writings of a Genius, Writer, Scientist and National     Hero. 2^nd ed. Quezon City: All-Nations Publishing Co., Inc., 2008.

PERIODICAL

Barcelona, Salvador. “The Changing Image of God in Process Philosophy.” Kritike. No. 1 (June 2007).

Trakakis, Nick. “Is Theism Capable for any Natural Evil at All.” International Journal for Philosophy of       Religion. No. 57: 35-36 (2005).

---

[1] Michael Peterson and Raymond  Van Arragon, ed., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion,.  (USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004), 3

[2] For a more thorough discussion on the concept of natural evil as against theistic beliefs, read Nick Trakakis, “Is Theism Capable for any Natural Evil at All,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. No. 57: 35-36 (2005).

[3] Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation: History Politics and Salvation, trans. Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (New York: Orbis Books, 1973), 291.

[4] Quoted by Zaide from Rizal’s letters with Father Pastells in Epistolario Rizalino. Sonia Zaide and Gregorio Zaide, Jose Rizal: Life, Works and writings of a Genius, Writer, Scientist and National Hero, 2^nd ed. (Quezon City: All-Nations Publishing Co., Inc., 2008), 221.

[5] Jose Maria Sison, For Democracy and Socialism Against Imperialist Globalization (Philippines: Aklat ng Bayan, Inc. 2009),120.

[6] Ibid., 123.

[7] Ibon Issue Primer Series, WTO: Supreme Instrument for Neoliberal Globalization(Manila: Ibon Books, 2005), 51.

[8] Ibid., 55.

[9] Leonardo Mercado, Elements of Filipino Theology (Philippine: Divine Word University Publications, 1975), 84.

[10] Michael Peterson and Raymond  VanArragon, ed., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion,.  (USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004), 4.

[11] Genesis 1:26

[12] We must take note that there are two kinds of poverty. Material and spiritual poverty. The former refers to a scandalous situation experienced by many who are victims of oppression, inequality and exploitation. The latter is an attitude which practices openness to God and spiritual childhood. Of the two kinds, what needs to be condemned is the former. For further reading, see James Nickoloff ed., Gustavo Gutierrez: Essential Writings (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1996), 299.

[13] Ibid., 302.

[14] Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation: History Politics and Salvation, trans. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (New York: Orbis Books, 1973), 64.

[15] Salvador Barcelona, “The Changing Image of God in Process Philosophy,” Kritike. No. 1 (June 2007): 101.

[16] Ex. 3: 7-10, NRSV

[17] Gustavo Gutierrez, The God of Life, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991),20.

[18] John Fuellenbach, Hermeneutics, Marxism and Liberation Theology (Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1989), 70.

[19] Quoted by Gutierrez in Gutierrez: Essential Writings, ed. James Nickoloff (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1996), 225.

[20] Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation: History Politics and Salvation, trans. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (New York: Orbis Books, 1973), 226-227.

[21] Ibid., 227.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 228.

[24] Ibid.

[25] James Nickoloff ed., Gustavo Gutierrez: Essential Writings (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1996), 209.

[26] Ibid., 189.

[27]Ibid., 24.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.