Prompt: Liberation from Poverty, by Thomas Kinkade
In the previous article, I covered the first two prospective precedents for public engagement. In this post, as I already mentioned we will start with the concept of mission as development.
Mission as Development
In the positivist modernist model of Christian mission, the popular approach is developmental. Bosch agrees with Hiebert’s analysis that the whole developmental concept of mission 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 a disaster where “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” (Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, 2000, p. 434).
The Shift from Development to Liberation
From the above statement, we can discern by now that economic reading and the socio-economic divide are very strong in the minds of Bosch which led him to the discovery of the liberation model. Bosch explains that due to the inadequacy of the development paradigm, classical liberation theology emerged "to grapple with the problems of systemic injustice" (ibid., 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 (ibid., p. 432).
Consequently, due to the widespread influence of diverse brands of liberation themes, the antinomies then were 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
When Bosch mentioned the developing countries taking their destiny into their own hands, he identified that the way to achieve this is by liberating themselves “through a revolution” (p. 435). I am not sure what Bosch meant by that phrase. If 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 as 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.
Though such an attempt to engage in public is commendable, I am cautious when it comes to Marxist influence in missiological interpretation. 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., p. 434). If by this expression, he meant the free market social order as the source of our current predicament, instead of a solution, I worry that what we will see is more death, waste, chaos, and deeper poverty if the revolutionary 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.
Another thing I am suspicious of Bosch’s analysis is his idea of 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 he offer to change such an 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.
As to the 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 gender, religion, socio-economic status, color, and race?
Liberation from Poverty
Studying liberation theology, among numerous insights for public discourse, two primary contributions that stand out are their recognition of structural evil and God’s preferential option for the poor.
Reading Bosch confirms what I wrote in my thesis when I finished my master's degree about excesses in determining the identity of the poor. One tendency is to spiritualize the meaning of poverty and the other is to confine it purely in economic terms. I find similar ideas in Bosch's material where capitalism is identified as the socio-economic background that brought such spiritualization of biblical poverty when Christians started to gain wealth and influence. Consequently, the voice of the economically poor took some time to be heard by these rich Christians. However, when the voice has been finally heard, it occupied the center stage and poverty became the hermeneutical criterion in missiological studies. Salvation has been economically interpreted and its meaning changed to liberation from poverty. Since then, economic poverty has been idealized, and solidarity with the poor has been considered with the utmost highest appreciation. It was claimed that "the poor have an ‘epistemological privilege,’” “the new interlocutors of theology,” and the “new hermeneutical locus” (p. 436).
Bosch then introduced the importance of this new kind of trend. Similar to the transition from the development approach to the liberation approach, the poor "now refused to be defined by the West, the rich, or the whites" (ibid.). "The poor were no longer merely the objects of mission; they had become its agents and bearers" (ibid.). Hence, the idea of mission as liberation has finally broken out. The poor considered previously without a voice are now "making their voices heard" (ibid.). Starting in the 1980s, numerous studies have been made using this new hermeneutical lens.
The outcome of these studies confirms that the Bible indeed teaches such a preference for the poor. The Church forgot its roots when Christianity became dominant since the time of Constantine the Great. For these scholars, the "rediscovery of the poor in our own time is also a reaffirmation of an ancient theological tradition" (ibid.). Bosch then introduced his study of Luke 3 where he got convinced that poverty is "an all-embracing category for those who were the victims of society" (ibid.).
Consequently, the idea of the preferential option for the poor has been expanded. It was no longer confined to the Third World. The marginalized sectors even in the First World have been included. Racial discrimination is now considered a new form of poverty.
If it is true that the poor and the marginalized are the victims of society, it is of vital importance to ask the identity of those who victimize them. It appears that based on the result of the current studies, by implication the exploiters are identified as the West, the rich, and the whites.
A personal reflection is appropriate at this point. Is the foregoing conclusion accurate? Or is this a misleading identification resulting from an ideological influence? In our anti-capitalist era, many in the academe including theologians will never admit that their identification is mistaken. To prove otherwise is beyond the scope of this paper. For now, it is sufficient to say that for anyone looking for a more solid and concrete analysis, I would suggest reading the books of Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist.
I worry that if the above trend will continue, the voice of those who promote guilt by mistaken identification will become louder. Does Bosch agree with Ronald Sider's thesis (Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, 1977) that those who are guilty of "complicity in the oppression of the poor" (p. 437) are wealthy Christians? Are these Christians then worshipping the idols of money?
At the risk of becoming redundant, I want to emphasize that if the identification of the culprit is mistaken, this will lead to a dangerous association of a social offense to the wrong victimizers, which will lead again for the real exploiters to escape public view. What is more lamentable is that scholars are doing this in the name of theological and missiological studies.
If these missiologists and theologians are serious in their call to turn away from the idols of money, they should give careful attention to the existing monetary system. A concrete way of turning away from the idols of money is to find an alternative system that abides by God's moral law respecting the sanctity of private property.
Grace and peace!
Reference:
Bosch, David J. 2000. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. New York: Orbis Books.
Chilton, David. 1981. Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics.
Sider, Ronald J. 1977. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. USA: Word Publishing.