Chapter 7THE NOTION OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE REIGN OF GODPremises of Ethical and Theological ValuesThe problem of being “value-free” or “value-laden” behind any social analysis has been discussed in The Problem of “value-free” in Social Sciences in Chapter 5 and has been touched upon again in Chapter 6 (Theological Reflection on Faith and World). It has been stated that the value premises are the goals when seen from the viewpoint of action or politics. In this relation, there should be a distinction between basic ethical values and their elaboration into various operational objectives. Therefore, the value of equal distribution, for example, is manifested in the progressive taxing system, where taxes increase in accordance with earnings. Social sciences in a certain sense do not discuss the issue of ethical values. They only clarify which actions should be the most appropriate to attain certain goals. The foundation and the discussion of ethical values are the task of general ethics and, particularly, social ethics. However, in reality social scientists - like everybody else - also have their own chosen values. Generally they are not ignorant of social ethics and are willing to discuss them. Critical social scientists have certain ideals when discussing the change of the social situation. This is normal and even helpful when we realize that the methodology of the social sciences cannot determine whether the values are right or wrong. It is obvious that theology embraces certain values, which are the principles of the Christian attitude, conduct, and action. Gospel values, particularly, should direct Church praxis and Christians both in their personal life or in their commitment in the society. All value premises are in general closely related to a certain way of life (Weltanschauung), which can be religion, culture or profane ideology. Therefore, each value cannot stand alone but should be related with others because values are based on a certain worldview. Therefore, a basic conviction, such as that of the Christian faith, has two sides: the interpretation of the world reality (hermeneutics - theories) and at the same time the foundation of some imperatives which direct action (ethics - praxis). The term “theological reflection” in this book is meant to express that the two aspects, dogmatic and moral theology, are employed together in reflecting the condition of the society. Also, the term “social reflection” refers to quite a wide approach, which includes both social sciences and social ethics. In this chapter the foundation of the basic values of social and theological reflection will be described and accounted for. Considering the theme of poverty in Indonesia, social reflection will include a philosophical-ethical reflection about the goal of development. In other words, it will describe the ethics of developmental politics. Afterwards, value premises serving the theological foundation, namely the Reign of God, will be presented. The two approaches meet in critical dialogue. Notion and Goal of DevelopmentDevelopment as Prevention Against Human Suffering The problems of development such as poverty and unemployment, which require solutions, always bring us as human beings to the choice of ethical values: What is the main goal of development efforts? What criteria should be relied upon to judge the success or failure of development attempts? Of course, there are many logical and acceptable answers to such questions. In Indonesia, for example, we can mention Pancasila philosophy or three goals (trilogy) of development. However, what is obvious to us and to our culture and religion, is not necessarily acceptable to others, as seen in the disputes about the understanding of human rights, which is often labeled as too westernized. Therefore, we should look for the widest foundation for the understanding of development, which is not merely dependent on a certain religion or culture. In the present globalization era this attempt is more important because there are global problems, which can be solved by the joint efforts of all. The concept of development is described here: All development politics and development attempts should aim at solving or at least lessening human suffering in all forms and dimensions. All further and more detailed value premises, finally, only elaborate this basic concept, which can be called ‘the foundation of the ethics of development politics.’ Therefore, the starting point taken here is human suffering as a direct and spontaneous experience, which only later is formulated and given further thought. Negative experience in the form of suffering is common among all of us and, thus is universal. Suffering reveals itself in various forms, such as poverty, disease, terror, forced relocation, discrimination, unjust wages and oppression. The most horrible form is physical suffering. But the extent of suffering cannot be limited to what is seen clearly by our eyes. Suffering can have many dimensions. It may be physical, cognitive or social. It takes the whole human being with all his/her dimensions into account. People may suffer from illiteracy because they miss information and assistance, which are only available around them in written forms. People can suffer also from racial discrimination as experienced by Black people in the apartheid system in South Africa. They can also suffer because they are seen and treated as mere development objects. In facing suffering, we are almost certainly confronted by situations that we can neither accept nor justify and we demand changes though we feel helpless or cannot do anything. In other words, suffering contains in itself a (intrinsic) demand for change and solution. The demand may be direct or spontaneous. Thus, suffering or “human expense” (Berger) must be avoided and cannot be justified. The specific characteristic of this approach is the “negative” starting point, meaning that the values embraced are obtained from what is felt to be negative and consequently unacceptable. The reality of the society, which is full of conflicts, must be changed. After this basic refusal, then, there emerge ethical imperatives, whose formulation always starts with “do not.” “Upholding justice” in this approach, for example, is understood as “do not tolerate injustice.” The superiority of this approach is that we can all reveal and agree with the manifestations of injustice, which are always concrete, and we can agree with them much more easily than with opinions about what justice is as an ethical principle or about the goals of a just society. In the reality of suffering there appears dialectically what is aimed at and attempted. It is the horizon of goals, which can direct our actions and steps - however far and perhaps obscure their negative forms and formulation. What is dreamed of and, therefore, serves as the evaluation yardstick cannot be found directly or a priori. It is only through “negative dialectics” (Adorno), that the evaluation reveals itself in the formulation starting with “do not”. This somewhat general approach needs to be translated further into social analysis and political actions. Social analysis serves to examine and uncover the political, economic and socio-cultural causes and relationship behind the suffering and to search for and offer a way out for political policies. In that way, social analysis will strengthen and sharpen sensitivity to suffering. Ten Characteristics of the Notion of Development (1) This political ethics approach is based on human philosophy, concretely focusing all attention on the whole human being. The starting point and the yardstick of the evaluation is the suffering people, particularly those manipulated by ideological and political interests. Therefore, in this anthropological concept there is an implication of “preferential option for the suffering people.” From this concept we can derive an ethical imperative that human beings should be the focus and goal, of all development attempts. (2) Political ethics can be characterized as “realistic-utopian” (Berger). Unrealistic ideals, which remain only slogans, should be avoided. Ambitious and glorious goals are often used as a pretense not to do anything. Or, on the contrary, goals are often made so absolute that they can be attained only by the forces of a totalitarian political system. The above approach is very different because it starts from the reality of suffering and aims at improving the lot of the suffering as much as possible. It is a utopia seldom found in reality and a realism, which can probably be called ‘humility.’ (3) In such political ethics, to act and to do (praxis) are strategic factors. The final determinant is the involvement and concrete-practical actions to reduce and prevent present human suffering. Praxis in this sense has its own weight, in that it is not considered only as the application of theory or the implementation of what has been planned in advance though these two factors have important roles as a term of reference. Praxis always reacts to challenges of suffering which appear only if the attempts to overcome the suffering are made. It is obvious here that human beings themselves should conduct all development attempts. In other words, the emphasis on praxis is an ethical-political commitment. (4) Political ethics do not recognize an immediate and definite cure for problems. The suffering condition should be cured continuously and gradually. Development is understood as an unending continuous process. Behind this concept, there is a realistic awareness that human suffering can never be completely solved. On the other hand, it is realized that all our attempts, however good our intention, sometimes unpredictably result in suffering of a new form. This awareness, of course, should not be a pretense to stay away from development attempts, but it should permit continuous and quick criticism and correction towards all attempts of development. (5) This political ethics approach is universal in character, in the sense that suffering is an evaluation yardstick not bound to any specific culture. In this basic meaning, human ethics is singular. In this regard, two dangers are avoided. On one the hand, there is a danger of cultural relativism or value relativism in absolute forms, which denies the existence of universal values. On the other hand, there is the danger of ethnocentrism, which places a certain culture in an absolute position as a development model to be imitated by or forced on other people. Universalism does not mean that the plurality and uniqueness of each cultural circle must be sacrificed. On the contrary, every nation and country may and has to search for its own path of development in its efforts to prevent its concrete sufferings. (6) Based on the yardstick to overcome suffering, it is obvious that every culture is ambivalent because in every tradition and culture there are elements, which can obstruct or help the liberation of human beings from their suffering. This statement is true not only in developing countries but also in industrialized ones, which, on the one hand, are very successful but on the other have produced new sufferings as seen in such cases as natural destruction or loneliness, which threatens many people’s lives. (7) In this political ethics approach, there is a real place for religion seen from different angles. The starting point and the focus of all ethics is human beings with all their dimensions, including the religious dimensions. As religion plays an important role in giving meaning to and directing human life, it cannot be ignored. At least all major religions teach that human beings as the crown of creatures should not be manipulated and that they have the obligation to lessen their neighbor’s suffering. Therefore, from the viewpoint of those religions there is harmony on this issue. On the other hand, the criterion to overcome suffering is at the same time a yardstick to evaluate forms and concrete activities of each religion. It is a normal foundation for religious criticism, considering that those religions can promote or hinder the liberation of human beings from suffering. (8) The above concept of development permits a rather broad consensus about the goals of development, which is difficult to attain in a positive approach. Such a basic consensus is very important and useful for all attempts and political policies of development, whose success very much depends on the cooperation of as many people as possible. (9) Human rights can also be viewed as an elaboration of politics ethics. They should not be considered as a number of demands formulated a priori or derived from a certain theory or philosophy. From its emergence, human rights should be understood in the context of common history, which is a history of the suffering of incalculable human victims. From this common history, there arises a strong common desire to stop any human oppression and to declare loudly the rights of every human being. In other words, human rights should be interpreted in the pattern of “negative dialectics” as do-not imperatives. In this sense, human rights are universal demands and are not merely the product of Western liberal thinking. (10) Finally, among all development approaches, the model of “basic needs” seems to be the most suitable and in the same direction as the political ethics mentioned above. This is because this model also starts from the most essential needs for human life. In other words, they are very basic needs. The term “need” alone already sounds negative in the sense that it refers to a certain absence. Besides, the focus of the attention of this model is concrete human beings and not abstract theories. Development Ethics of “Pancasila” Philosophy Human suffering may evoke various responses. In the Javanese culture, suffering is accepted as one’s fate nrima, (cf. Socio-Cultural Approach in Chapter 10). However the farmers’ rebellion in the past was related to the expectation of the arrival of King Justice (Ratu Adil). The independence struggles against the colonial power show that there is a limit to accepting suffering. The same thing might apply to the laborer’s current protests and demonstrations. Suffering is truly ambivalent. The philosophy of Pancasila (The Five Principles) formulates some basic convictions as the foundations for human beings living together humanly and freely in the unitary Republic of Indonesia. Each principle can be related to our ethical reasoning about the goal of development: to overcome or at least reduce all forms and dimensions of human suffering. Pancasila also comes out of human experience. Human beings are touched by the Ultimate, the Life Giver. Before the Ultimate human beings can only succumb, worship and glorify. The belief in the One God shows a worshipping and honoring attitude and a loyalty to God as the only reliance of life. Therefore, there is no reality in the world, which deserves worship, honor or loyalty like God. Political power or any other power in the world needs to be desacralized and relativized by the oneness of God. Only in that way can God be accepted as God and human beings as human beings. As members of a nation and citizens of a country, we manifest our humanity, which is open and directed to the One God, in national unity, democracy and social justice. These are values that should be defended. We cannot accept a condition where one is cornered or ignored let alone living in suffering. We cannot accept exploiting and oppressing powers, which alienate and abandon others. Pancasila as a political decision contains values which should be defended and which support attempts to overcome any form and dimension of human suffering, as mentioned above. However, we should distinguish between Pancasila as inheritance or ideal and Pancasila as actually internalized and practiced. Due to the differentiation, reflection about Pancasila as internalized and practiced always involves critically creative elements, namely attempts to reveal irresponsible praxis and to responsibly present alternatives. Practicing the values of Pancasila is different from talking about Pancasila. Forced relocation for the sake of development, and for the sake of Pancasila, without the necessary care for the relocated poor, for example, cannot be accepted by any common sense person because humanity is oppressed. The Philosophy of Pancasila has its strength and limitation. It formulates laudable human values. However, as a formulation it has been manipulated to include political interests, which do not fight for values formulated in Pancasila. In relationship to Pancasila, faith demands that Christians fight for the values of Pancasila that they express these values in action, that they remain open to urgent needs, and critical towards frozen formulas, and alerted against its abuse by the interests of certain groups or people. Pancasila in the Indonesian society, which is characterized by the poverty and plurality of religious experience, contains an invitation to conduct dialogue and cooperation among different social groups and followers of different faiths and religions. Here, the oneness of God will be the foundation of the unity of their struggles. The Reign of God as the Goal of the FaithfulChristians and the Reign of God Faith in Jesus as the Savior means accepting him fully, not only in his glory beside God but also in his whole life and concern for the Reign of God with its praxis, even to the cross. Because the Reign of God is the core of Jesus’ mission, struggle and ideals, unity with Jesus means unity in desiring and participating in the realization of God’s Reign. In other words, the Reign of God is the goal of the life of the believers. “The Reign of God” is a symbol taken from political life (cf. Psalm 72). It is a relational symbol expressing the relation between God and human beings. Seen from God’s viewpoint, the Reign of God is God who reveals and gives himself to human beings. The Reign of God is God himself who is reigning with his almighty power and unlimited compassion, and who is present among human beings, saving them. The Reign of God is a situation where people receive God and let him reign in their life. This means that in their social and personal life human beings do not replace God with any other thing or any other person. Because of this relational aspect, the Reign of God is, on the one hand, a complete gift of God and, on the other hand, human acceptance. As a gift, the Reign of God cannot rely on human virtues, including diligence in following the laws presented by scribes or the struggle of the zealot’s weaponry and violence. God has come with His unlimited love and the only reasonable human answer must also be love. Freely and powerfully, God has approached human beings not with force of decree but with mercy. “The Reign of God has come near. Repent and believe in the good news” (Mk 1:15). God has come to save. Go to him and hurry up to welcome him with all your heart to enter a new reality. Trust your life to God, don’t hesitate and don’t worry! Development in the Perspective of the Reign of God The understanding of God’s Reign can be described in four aspects. First, God reigns to save human beings (the soteriological aspect). Second, the Reign of God announced by Jesus has opened a new image about God (the theological aspect). Third, the Reign of God has been and is being realized in the present time towards its completion at the end of the world (the eschatological aspect). Fourth, the Reign of God is closely related with Jesus Christ (the Christological aspect). 1. For the Sake of Human Salvation (the soteriological aspect) In relation to the negative dialectics mentioned above, it is interesting that the announcement of the Reign of God has started from a negative situation, namely the sinful condition of all sufferings, the unsaved condition that needs salvation. The foundation of the arrival of the Reign of God is God’s own action, namely salvation or liberation. Both words indicate a negative situation, which should be overcome. The goal of the world is one complete salvation or liberation, the full completion of the Reign of God. To overcome the above negative situation means that inhuman or less human situations must be made more human. The imprisoned and the oppressed must be liberated. The Reign of God integrates and fulfils human beings. The Reign of God is an event and situation. If God reigns, God cares for the salvation of human beings and the salvation of the world. Salvation or liberation is not only spiritual liberation but also a physical liberation touching the whole human being as a person as well as a social being. In the language of social reflection, God’s salvation and liberation is meant to eradicate suffering of any form and dimension. It also implies a “political” dimension, which is a public, societal and practical dimension. This has been shown very clearly in Jesus’ life, words, and actions. This political dimension should be more emphasized because human beings can be liberated if they are not uprooted from their social environment and history. The understanding of this soteriological aspect will be made clearer in the following chapter about the Reign of God for the poor (see Qualitative Dimension of Absolute Poverty in Chapter 8). 2. New Image of God (the theological aspect) Jesus’ announcement of the Reign of God has presented a new revelation about who God is. His announcement has been determined by His own personal experience with God whom he called Abba, the Beloved Father. His disciples were taught to pray “Our Father” (Mt 6:9-13; Lk 11:2-4). God is the Motherly Beloved Father because He has provided everything for human beings, who are called God’s children. The same Father “makes his sun rise on the evil people and on the good and sends the rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Mt 5:45). God is the Father of all human beings without exception. Therefore, the recognition of God as Father implies a vocation to accept neighbors as sisters and brothers in God’s one and same family. Only so does God’s new image become a living reality for human beings. If there is one God the Father for all human beings, in principle all human beings have the same dignity and, therefore, are equal before God. This basic equality should be seen in social life. Faith demands that we provide ample freedom and dignity for the poor who need not feel inferior. These are all revealed clearly in the “shared meal” (communion) of the Eucharist, which also extends an invitation to establish sisterhood and brotherhood among all in daily life. The desire of the good news about the Reign of God is human sisterhood and brotherhood, which is developed in such a way that there will be no people starving, neglected or exploited. 3. Towards the Completion at the End of the World (the eschatological aspect) The Reign of God has been and is being manifested in our present time, but it is not yet complete. It is realized in human actions and movements but cannot be reduced to limited human images, such as obedience to laws or political theocracy. Jesus considers the Reign of God as one, which is basically open, directed to the future with hidden manifestations. It is currently dynamically realizing itself to its completion at the end of the world. We have received the gift of the Reign of God by participating in its realization. Therefore, the Reign of God is at the same time the desire and the goal because its realization has been dynamically progressing to its completion. This means that the Reign of God has changing implications for changing the world. Complete liberation has already begun with Jesus’ experience though it is not yet finished because it is still an eschatological hope, fully met only at the end of the world. The tension between the past and the future should be maintained and experienced, and it will vanish only at “the end of the world”: the end of human individuals or human societal communities. Such a transition is a kind of leap and contains a primacy of the eschatological future. This eschatological aspect also means that all our efforts in the present world and society are temporary in nature and thus cannot solve human problems completely. Complete solution is found only at the completion of the Reign of God (eschatologischer Vorbehalt). Therefore, any political powers (parties, individuals or ideologies) and other powers (capital, achievement, prestige) that are perceived or which consider themselves to be absolute do not have any place in the movement of the Reign of God to its completion. Assigning absoluteness to limited worldly realities cannot be tolerated and can even be called idolatry. This is because such a practice worships something or somebody who does not deserve such worship; it takes over the glory of God, who has given us the totality of our life. In this sense, political powers need to be desacralized and relativized by the Oneness of God. This understanding is in accordance with what is presented in theses 2 to 4 in Ten Characteristics of the Notion of Development in Chapter 7. Recognizing the power of the Merciful God also means rejecting powers and forces, which work against the power of the mercy of God. It should be acknowledged that currently we are facing the power of God’s Reign and the power of the Anti-God’s Reign, the life-giving power and the death-inducing power, the liberating power and the imprisoning power. Therefore, we should look forward to and at the same time participate in the realization of the Reign of God, our salvation and liberation. Profane history and salvation history are not identical but inseparable. The vertical or transcendental dimension is encountered in the horizontal or worldly dimension. Such a thought in the categories of a theology of hope emphasize the historical meaning, the need for repentance, metanoia, change and exodus toward the eschaton. 4. In Jesus Christ (the christological aspect) The announcement of the Reign of God is closely related with the person of Jesus Christ himself. Jesus’ life, proclamation, and actions have realized the Reign of God. This identification is most clearly seen in Luke (11:20):”But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the Reign of God has come to you.” The life of faith, following Jesus Christ, means living in the movement of the Reign of God. Jesus inspires, and empowers us in participating to realize the Reign of God as understood above. In the light and the power of Jesus, we can be widely open to all movements, which reduce people’s suffering regardless of their religions, races, ethnicities, or nationalities. Closedness or exclusivism is against the movement of the Reign of God, which has been initiated by Jesus. In the light and the power of Jesus, we can live and act for the sake of the Reign of God. We can also suffer and die humanely in this world. To bear Jesus’ cross is not an attitude or an experience of life, which maintains suffering but an attempt, and a consequence of our commitment in the movement of the Reign of God. In this way, we can fully involve ourselves in the world and serve the interests of our neighbors and the society because we, in whatever condition, are always in the hand of God. Selected Materials for Private or Group Study(1) Interpret Mt 25:31-46 in the following context: What does the text say about God’s attitude towards the poor? -What is the main concern? -How far does this text contain hope for the rich? What is the relationship between faith and orthopraxis? -Why don’t both the righteous and the unrighteous realize that they meet God in the poor? (2) In PP 14 there are concepts of growth, progress or development: “The development we speak of here cannot be restricted to economic growth alone. To be authentic, it must be well rounded; it must foster the development of each man and of the whole man”. The concept of “whole humanism” is elaborated further in PP 21: “What are truly human conditions? The rise from poverty to the acquisition of life’s necessities, the elimination of social ills; broadening the horizons of knowledge; acquiring refinement and culture. From there one can go on to acquire a growing awareness of other people’s dignity, a taste for the spirit of poverty, an active interest in the common good, and a desire for peace. Then man can acknowledge the higher values of God himself, their author and end.” -Explain and compare those concepts with that of development presented in this chapter. (3) Articles 27 to 34 SRS continue the reflection of the concept of development and discuss not only about underdevelopment but also super-development. It is stated that the theological foundation is biblical anthropology. Elaborate this theological thought as revealed in the text! (4) Is the concept of suffering in social reflection about the goal of development not contrary to the concept of suffering on the cross in the Christian faith? Selected ReadingsAswab Mahasin 1979 ”Hak Asasi Manusia.” Prisma, 8; 12: 3-10. Berger, P.L. 1982 Piramida Kurban Manusia. Jakarta: LP3ES. Eka Darmaputera 1987 Pancasila: Identitas dan Modernitas, Tinjauan Etis dan Budaya. Jakarta: Gunung Mulia. Fuellenbach, John 1989 The Kingdom of God: The Heart of Jesus’ Message for Us Today. Manila: Divine Word Publications. Küng, Hans 1978 On Being A Christian. New York: Collins. Magnis-Suseno, Franz 1987 Etika Politik: Prinsip-prinsip Moral dasar Kenegaraan Modern. Jakarta: Gramedia. 1992 ”Ajaran Sosial Gereja dan Negara Pancasila.” Spektrum, 20 no. 2:47-59. Müller, J. 1982 ”Pembebasan Manusia Dari Penderitaan” in Piramida Kurban Manusia. P.L. Berger, Jakarta: LP3ES, 7 - 26. Myrdal, G. 1970 Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. Abridged edition by S.S. King. Harmondswoth: Penguin. 1973 The Challenge of World Poverty: A World Anti-poverty Programme in Outline. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Sobrino, J. 1978 Christology at the Crossroads. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, particularly pp. 41-78.
|