THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH IN THE STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE
Fr. Primitivo C. Racimo
It is a great honor to be with you as you celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the C.S.I. (Church of South India) Madhya Diocesan Youth Conference.
Your invitation and my coming underscore the need and value of solidarity among struggling peoples of the world. This solidarity is forged because of our common struggle for justicc in each of our countries.
This struggle for justice challenges the Church, individually and collectively, denominationally and ecumenically. It is in this light that we ask, “What is the role of the church in the struggle for justice?”
Before we attempt to answer the question, there are two points, among others, that I would like to draw your attention to.
First, we must recognize and understand that justice is an integral element of the Kingdom of God. Having done so, we must promote it. Reading, comprehending and living out our biblical faith will lead us to such recognition, understanding and action for justice.
The Roman Catholic Bishops Synod in 1971 succinctly wrote:
“action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world appear to us a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel, or, in other words, of the Church’s mission for the redemption of the human race and its liberation from every repressive situation.”
The struggle for justice, indeed, is to work for “the redemption of the human race and its liberation from every oppressive situation.” This “oppressive situation” denies life. Thus, the struggle for justice to affirm life in its totality, is a response to the imperative of choosing life. As God said,
“…I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil… I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life… (Deut. 30:15, 19a).”
Any violation of life, therefore, is a desecration of humankind. This ruptures our relationship with the Great Creator. It also polarizes our human relations.
When we recognize, understand and promote justice as a constitutive element of our mission, we confirm that love devoid of justice is no love at all. Just as love of God apart from love of fellow people is no love of God at all.
This business of loving with justice brings us to the second point. This is the fact that justice is acted out in a given context or situation.
This means that as we act on behalf of justice we must fully comprehend the historical processes that lead to a state of injustice. Failure to do this leads us to a program of action that does not address the root causes of injustice. If and when this happens our work suffers. Worse, it may lead us away from justice.
To understand better what is at bar, let us look into the conditions of Asia in general. In these generalities we locate the particularities of our situation.
What the Second Asian Theological Conference, held in August 1984 says about Asia holds true until today:
“Our people—hundreds of millions of poor, deprived and oppressed—live their lives in a historically created situation not of their own making. As they seek to live and to have a better life, they grow in consciousness that their struggle is not only for bread and rice and shelter, but also for control of the material means of life and for freedom and active participation in deciding the direction of society.
“Why struggle? People at the underside of history —the laborers in the fields and factories, the starving and unemployed, those who live in the streets and slums, the victims of racism and sexism— are compelled to confront the restrictive and life—denying forces and powers that are the enemies of the people. The forces of denomination and exploitation —political, economic, ideological and even theological— are wielded by the superpowers and their local agents who extend and strengthen their rule over Asia and the rest of the Third World. The apparatuses of domination may not be identical in all countries but they manifest themselves in monopolies, dictatorships, racism, sexism, the feudal system, militarism and the national security state ideology. Imperialistic designs are led on one hand by the US and its allies —Japan and Western Europe- and on the other hand by the USSR and its Eastern European satellites.
“We view the emergence and growth of the national security state ideology within the context of the geopolitics of the superpowers. To maintain its own security and sphere of influence is the reason for the US bases in the Philippines, the division of Korea, and the presence of US troops in South Korea. The alarming growth of militarism of Japan is prodded by the US, though we recognize that it is the path Japan wants for its own economic interest. At the same time, we see the growing influence of the Russians in Asia particularly in Vietnam and Afghanistan. In this context regional powers simply play the rtles the superpowers want them to assume.
“In most Asian countries, national security acts are legislated in order to ensure the control of the local elite over the people as well as to benefit the superpowers. In effect, these acts thwart the very well-being and security of the people. Press freedom is curtailed; the right to assemble is suppressed; elections are rigged. Even religion and culture are used to divide and rule. This can be seen in the experience of Pakistan where the Zia regime is encouraging and reviving fundamentalist Islam to legitimize its rule and to eliminate dissent.
“To counter the forces of domination, the people cannot rely on the goodwill of those who oppress them but on themselves, as shown in the growth of people’s movements all over Asia. Becoming more conscious of their rights and becoming increasingly organized are not only the peasants, fisherfolk, workers, shanty dwellers, tribal minorities and students, but also women, artists, people in media and other sectors of society. There are movements for inter-religious and ecumenical cooperation to protect human rights and for broad political objectives. These are signs of hope. Religion and culture become rich sources of inspiration as people use their own myths and symbols for a better understanding of their reality and for their liberation. These are further signs of hope. In Sri Lanka as well as in Korea, in Bangladesh as well as in the Philippines, historical processes demonstrate the people’s rejection of their inhuman condition and their determination to build a new community with dignity and equity.”
From this vivid portrayal of Asian suffering, we see the forces of death —powers and principalities— actively at work on one hand against the Asian poor, deprived and oppressed who vigorously and militantly preserve, protect and promote life.
In the light of the Asian context described earlier, we will now look at the role, or roles, of the church in the struggle for justice.
The subject of the struggle for justice is the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized. The crumbs of Asian societies. These people are the majority in Asia.
From this reality, the pastoral direction of the Church must be in solidarity with them.
This solidarity is more than a state of mind. It goes beyond uttered as well as written statements of being one with them. It requires the church, both singularly as persons and communities, much more as an institution, to direct her material and moral resources, influence and power to the service of the poor. This leads to the renewal of the church. One that touches both personal and structural dimensions.
The solidarity of the church with those who suffer injustice is in the spirit of the Incarnation. Just as God became one with people in the person of Christ, so must the church as the Body of Christ be incarnated in and with the poor.
The solidarity of the church with the poor brings us to another role of the church in the struggle for justice: the advancement of ecumenism.
The struggle for justice is not the monopoly of the church. The reign of justice, as a universal value, is the responsibility of all humankind. People who are oppressed regardless of creed or ideology, color or race, gender or age, able or disabled, demand and fight for justice. This being the case the church cannot, therefore, pursue action on behalf of justice without being linked with other groups pursuing the same cause. A church program of action on behalf for justice undertaken in isolation is the height of Christian selfishness, chauvinism and hypocrisy. This is not in line with reign of God.
The advancement of true and genuine ecumenism in anchored in serving the poor.
Being in solidarity with the poor and persistently working for the advancement of a true and genuine ecumenism in the service of the poor require the church to accept the contention that the struggle for justice goes beyond the geography of the national settings of churches.
This is so because the root causes of injustices begin in the city centers of the superpowers. These decisions are made to exploit economically and oppress the people of the Third World. These are the headquarters of transnational corporations and the centers of world political powers whose decisions affect the lives of billions of people.
It is therefore imperative that the church seriously considers the reality of imperialism in its ministry. For the church not to do so is to bless and sanctify, as it wittingly or unwittingly continues to do, the life negating work of imperialism.
The church, as one of the few institutions in the world that has a worldwide structure, network, power and influence, must mobilize its material and moral resources in denouncing and dismantling the structures of imperialism.
The structures of imperialism are built, guarded and strengthened with the help of local elites whobenefit from it. This, too, must be understood by the church, which must also recognize that it helps build, guard and strengthen these structures.
Once the church understands the role of the local elite in the growth of imperialism, it should together with the people, deny the local agents who strengthen imperialism. This will deny base-building to imperialism. And base-building denial will eventually lead to the collapse of imperialism.
This point, among others, leads us to the issue of the means of attaining justice.
There are many opinions as to how justice is ultimately attained. There are those who argue that it will be through nonviolent means. There those who reason that armed struggle is a basic component in attaining justice.
While I believe that these two views have pastoral implications in the life of the church, I believe that the church does not have to pontificate byblessing one view and condemning the other. In this instance, the church readily and easily dispenses blessings to nonviolence and hastily and cruelly condemns armed struggle.
We must take note that the two views are not absolute in themselves. As such, they are not ends in themselves. Neither will the attainment of the goals by using either strategy make it absolute in any given time and place.
What is important is that we understand the conditions that brought about the effective and victorious use of one particular means. In other words, particular conditions dictate the use of a particular strategy. Also two seemingly opposing means may supplement and complement each other.
This understanding will lead us to respect the options taken by particular groups. Such a respect will strengthen the unity of people struggling for justice and counter all who exploit differences and in this way perpetuate injustice and oppression.
In all of this, the church must therefore bear in mind that the struggle for justice is not only politico-theological and pastoral, but also highly political.
By doing so, the church has then entered into the realm of politics. In this case, the church’s role is not to fall into partisan politics for personalities but to ventilate the people’s issues. In this way, the church becomes a part in the redemption of politics.
Many quarters in the church do not favor church participation in politics —whether for personalities or issues. But as long as the lives of people are trampled upon, and the church continues to claim that it follows Jesus, the Body of Christ must participate in the political life of the people.
As Bishop Gregorio L. Aglipay, a founder and great pillar of the Philippine Independent Church, said: “I believe that the Church should take part in politics, for it is a part of our national life and any political changes that take place… are not unlikely to affect the affairs of the Church.”
Truly, politics, being a dominant factor in the destiny of society, will always affect the lives of institutions, individuals and communities. For the church not to speak or participate against political policies and systems that enslave people is an abdication of the ministry.
Aurelio Tolentino, a great playwright in the history of Philippine Revolution, succinctly put it before a congregation of the Philippine Independent Church on February 25, 1903: “… for we must not only work for the salvation of our souls, but also for the well-being of our political life.”
Earlier, we mentioned that the struggle for justice leads to personal and structural transformation. As such, the church, too, is renewed. And this renewal leads the church to a better, if not new, understanding of, Christ in the light of the struggle of the poor. With this better, if not new, understanding of Christ, it follows that a better, if not new, ecclessiology is to emerge. This challenges the present structures of the Church, and calls the present hierarchy to make an accounting. Here, an old question is once more asked with urgency: Is the hierarchy faithful to Christ’s words “
I come not to be served but to serve”?
This new ecclesiology also challenges the male-dominated character of the church in general and the hierarchy in particular. This means that the church must now face the issue of the role of women in the church. It must be acknowledged, with repentance, that the church continues to be one of the strongest bastions of oppression relegating women to the position of secondary citizens in the Kingdom of God.
The new ecclesiology also brings to a critical analysis the church’s ministry with the youth. It is high time the church moves towards a ministry with the youth. Does the church see the youth as an integral part and partner in the Kingdom of God and therefore, made to shape and create their destiny? Or will the church continue to regard the youth in the periphery outside the core of God’s reign?
The church must recognize and act with the realization that the future of the Church lies with the youth. A youth ministry that is apart from the daily agonies, struggles, and hopes of people produces a church of the fpture whose only business is to make people “christians” and not human beings. We must bear in mind that God sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, not to make people “christians” but to give life to people to be more human.
Another area that is touched as the church participates in the struggle for justice is its life of worship. Is the worship of the church expressive not only of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of the God of Justice but also of the way the poor and oppressed live that Passion, Death and Resurrection? This question is put forward because worship is used as a strong symbol to tranquilize people.
The work for justice brings the church to assess the kind of theological education/formation that it presently gives to future leaders. Do our seminaries and similar institutions shape leaders with a strong foundation on justice? Is theological education/ formation a liberating discipline?
As the church participates in the struggle for justice, its renewal is not the end of the struggle. It never ends as the forces of exploitation and domination are strong and will continue to cause in justices; our efforts will never be totally successful as we live; there will always be among us now those who will retreat, and even betray the struggle. There will always be those among us who will not participate in the battle for justice. These, among many others, make the struggle never ending.
And because the struggle for justice never ends, we then continue “to pluck up and to breakdown, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.” (Jer. 1:10)
This leads us towards a Theology of Struggle.#
http://daga.dhs.org/daga/press/Religion_Society/section2_l.htm
padidioni 