In my Toward Comprehensive Salvation post, I mentioned that David J. Bosch's treatment of Mission as Liberation is more exhaustive compared to the first two topics. I mistakenly thought that it will only take two to three articles to cover the subject. I think I can't do that. This time, I will just focus on the first four pages where he discussed the transition from the development approach in the mission to the liberation approach.
The Failure of the Development Approach
Though many Christian organizations still follow the development approach in mission, for Bosch, the whole project is based on erroneous assumptions. Its Enlightenment modernist foundation is flawed for arguing that all that the developing countries need is nothing but technological expertise. As a result of cultural insensitivity, the entire project ended in disaster. See how he describes such a tragic end:
A small elite benefited; the majority of the population found themselves in an even more desperate plight. The rich got richer, and the poor poorer ( p. 434).
As you can discern by now, economic reading and the socio-economic divide are very strong in the minds of Bosch. As I continue reading the remaining sections that are relevant to my research the more I am convinced that the Marxist influence colors the interpretation of this missiologist.
The Shift to Liberation
Due to the inadequacy of the development paradigm, classical liberation theology emerged "to grapple with the problems of systemic injustice" (pp. 432-433). And then from there, it evolved into:
A multifaceted phenomenon, manifesting itself as black, Hispanic, and Amerindian theologies in the United States, as Latin American theology, as feminist theology, South African black theology, and various analogous theological movements in other parts of Africa, Asia, and the South Pacific ( p. 432).
As a result of the widespread influence of diverse brands of liberation theme, the antinomies then was no longer interpreted between "development and underdevelopment," but between "domination and dependence, rich and poor, Capitalism and Socialism, oppressors and oppressed . . ." (p. 434).
Since then, it became a popular idea that poverty can never be uprooted by technological advancement. The fight for social justice became the fashion of the day, particularly for those coming from the academe. People from developing countries must now take matters into their hands and should fight for their liberation.
Liberation Through Revolution
I am not sure what Bosch meant by the phrase that the people will "liberate themselves through a revolution". If by the phrase, he meant the use of force to overthrow the existing system, I think he is advocating a methodology for social change that has been demonstrated a failure in the French Revolution experiment of 1789. Though such a social trial was immediately praised everywhere, its victory lasted only for a short period and ended in disgrace.
Yes, the recognition that the problems of our time cannot be confined to the mere absence of information or skills is something to be appreciated. However, I am not sure about the identity of what Bosch meant by "global structural relationships" (ibid.). If by this expression, he meant the free market social order as the source of our current predicament, instead of a solution, what we will see is more death, waste, chaos, and deeper poverty if his proposal will be followed. Due to the misidentification of the real culprit, the best that we can expect is that the power players will change, but the economic and financial exclusion of many will be maintained.
Further Reflection
If my reading of Bosch is accurate up to this point, I see his idea of liberation is understood primarily from an economic perspective. As I said earlier, it appears to me, that Marxist reading is strong in this missiologist.
In closing, I just want to conclude with a few questions:
I don't like Bosch's proxy hostility between the First World and the Third World. It is as if the rich, the oppressors, the capitalists, and the dictators all came from the First World and the Third World are merely victims, oppressed, and poor. How about those who suffer in the First World? How about the dictators in the Third World? What solution can you offer to change the abuse of power? To me, such a surface interpretation is more of an ideological product than an outcome of solid and rigid analysis. This type of interpretation ends in the real culprit escaping public attention.
What are the real root causes of the problems of our time? We have had enough of abstract expression. What we need now is more concrete identification. The task for missiologists now is to precisely identify them.
Is Bosch sure that technological advancement cannot help? Will he still maintain that argument after seeing now the impact of blockchain technology and artificial intelligence? How about the alternative provided by financial technology offering now an inclusive economic and financial system that is accessible to all regardless of religion, socio-economic status, color, race, and gender?
Grace and peace!
Source: Bosch, David J. 2000. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. New York: Orbis Books.