76

 

THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION II

 

I hope that my reflections this morning would not come as a disappointment to you, because for one thing I have to admit that I am not a dilletante in politics. I am, in fact, almost an ignoramus when it comes to political affairs. I had no idea that the lectures of Dr. Carino would dwell heavily on the contemporary world political situa­tion with some special accents on the Asian political situation. I said however that I would be willing to reflect on the things he would say so I am caught in this little trap, which I got myself into in the first place.

There seem to be a number of things that my friend Fely Carino shared with you on Global and Asian Politics. It seems to me that he said something like the world in which we live is not really dominated or does not only have two competing ideologies of major political powers, but there are in fact many. Ideologically and politically, we live in a pluriform world, which is an unceasing arena of power play. Then the second lecture concentrated on his assess­ment of the current Asian political situation, which he said was dominated by two major developments and one is the increasing technocratization in our societies and its con­sequent militarism also.

The first point brings about a sense of help­lessness in me as a Filipino theological thinker amidst the interplay of power Politics where the political blocks utilize all sorts of means, fair or unfair, godly or diabolical to advance their interests. What do we do? We have the Soviet Union with its military might and we have the United States of America with its awesome military Presence all over the world; we have smaller Political blocks here in Asia and we are also forming our own. In what way is the Christian faith relevant for all of these things? Or is the Christian vision purely irrelevant in this?

I recall during my student days, the great Political theologian was Niehbur. It seems that he was saying then that when it comes to International power politicism the Christological center of theology cannot hold. This may be a wrong judgment. But in any case, I based this kind of reading on his book Moral Man and Immoral Society. It seems that he is saying that if we are dealing with an indivi­dual person, you can expect some positive responses to the Gospel, Ethical questions can be raised and ethical answers can be given on the basis of Christological faith if we are dealing with individual man and therefore man is moral. But society is im­moral; nations always act out of their own selfish interests. So communities, nation states, political power blocks — these entities are incapable of ethics and power is the only language they can understand.

Like I said I am not a student in politics, although I did dubble in political philosophy once upon a time. I remember a fellow whose name was Nicholo Machiavelli who lived sometime during the renaissance period. He came upon the world political scene at a time when the power of old Rome was disintegrating. The secular as well as the religious powers at that time were beginning to crumble. Machiavelli was such a sensitive student of political science that he was able to perceive that in the absence of the world power and some enduring political substance to which people would give loyalty and adherence to, the only thing that would happen would be that each entity in society was going to advance in its own interest by all sources of which it could lay its hand on. Machiavelli advocated and practiced pre­cisely that kind of politics. The other politician and philosopher I remember was Hugo Guccios who belonged to the 17th century. Guccios added something to the work of Machiavelli. Machiavelli simply spoke of political power play among com­peting entities. Nations and states were just beginning to arise during his time. What Guccios saw was that in the incessant strug­gle for power among political entities, there would appear some kind of harmony out of the conflicts among nation states. Because

 

77

 

no nation State could advance its own interest behind a certain limit that would endanger international politics, therefore, he spoke of certain balance, a certain harmony which would arise in the midst of the com­peting power in international politics.

In fact, he was part of a cultural milieu that saw harmony arising out of the exercise of man's freedom. You do not have to pre­scribe any kind of order at all for order was going to come about even if, for example, we in this room would simply advance our own selfish interest to the fullest limit that we would want within the context of our struggle against each other, and some kind of harmony or balance would arise. But how are these reflections relevant here? Now, of course, you would say that Machiavelli was right for about a hundred years or so; Guccios was right, but then the balance of power that he was speaking of began to break. I would not dare analyze why the harmonious world, which Guccios thought would arise, failed.

We say that Christ is the answer. We might also say, but what is the question? Must the form and substance of the question determine not only the form but also the substance of the answer? If the question would determine not only the form but also the substance then we should probably say that we must simply go into pure prag­matism. And forget about the deepest reaches of the faith.

But I think this is not the situation we are in. We are dealing with man; politics is about man. And whenever there is man, I always believe that there is always that romantic element in him. Here I say that an element of romanticism is probably the most practical kind of politics that he can play. Especially, when it comes to the deeper encounter with world politics. Romanticism, for me, is exemplified by Don Quijote dela Mancha — you know who he is. By the way, a musical play was made based on his story where he sang the popular song, "The Impossible Dream". In that song you have Don Quixote fighting with windmills, giving praise and adulation to an ordinary brothel girl thinking that this was the Princess Dulcinea and dealing with very ordinary men as if they were great knights. In doing that, people thought he was crazy. I think he was but in the process of relating to people in this way, they began to realize that there were some authentic possibilities, which they did not see before. It was through the romanticism of Don Quixote that they began to see something in themselves, which they did not notice before. Now, I think even in international politics some of this must not be lost. There is the romantic ele­ment in the Christian faith, the element of reaching for the moon, or even beyond the moon. In fact, I think our existence or the coming Kingdom of God is the very source of that romanticism of refusing to be enslav­ed by facts. This is the Christian's problem with the scientist – natural, political or what­soever. We feel that the scientists are so enslaved and so obsessed by facts that they cannot see beyond the meaning of these facts. But the Christians in politics must continue to remain in the stream of roman­ticism to criticize, to challenge, to contest the logic of political and economic domina­tion pursued by the powers of their own countries. I believe that this has happened in various parts of the world; certainly, this has affected radically American youth to a certain extent. It is too bad that the percep­tive elements of Philippine society were suddenly stripped off their voice as well as action so now we are deprived of that very articulate voice from our young. So this is my first response to the analysis of Dr.? Carino. I'm not challenging his analysis whether it is correct or wrong, but if that is so, then, we must insist on the romantic element of our faith and not simply be bogged down in the quagmire of very practical politics.

The other thing I would like to raise here is the question of the world order. I am speaking of something like the United Nations but perhaps more than the UN which has

 

78

 

greater powers than the one we now have you remember that before we had the League of Nations, which proved to be effectual. The US withdrew from it eventually and now there are signs that some powerful nations would also with­draw from the UN. At least, the USA again has withdrawn from the ILO because they got fed up with the way the third world nations are using the ILO as a forum for their grievances against the wealthy countries. But I am speaking of a world order, not only on organization but some kind of a political ethos. I do not know how we will go about it; I don't know how we are going to structure one, and I don't know how Chris­tians can be instrumental in setting it up. But again I go back to the consciousness dimension of our work. After all the things we do arise out of our own understanding of self and the world and our conscience a great deal to do with that.

I move to the other things that he mention­ed and this is the increasing technocratization of our societies and its accompanying mili­tarization. This is a very frightening fact. For it touches on the very stuff of our existence now. Technocracy means loss of freedom and I would not know how we can ever regain it. The picture is like this. If we were riding in a 747 at this time and suddenly the captain would say, "We are lost because our radar mechanism is not working anymore", he would not be asking us the passengers in the plane although our very lives are in­volved. He would rather ask his navigator who would know the direction. So, if we live in a technocrat world, things are going to be this way. I think we have to under­stand that. So that this is not a matter for us to decide by our exercise of our own freedom. Those of you who say, "We want to be free" should understand that there are some things, in which we are not free. It is simply a matter of technological decision. This is here technocracy plays a huge role in the life of societies. And in so far as we use scientific means of determining the best form of economy and politics, the best form of whatever is in our lives, then our freedom as far as those dimensions are concerned is lost. Now of course, it is not entirely lost be­cause there are large questions that cannot be determined scientifically and I suppose we have to make a careful distinction between what is scientific and what is not scientific. This would enable us to pre-empt the exercise of freedom in that huge area where man is man, where he should not be mangled by scientific processes. So here what I am trying to raise is that, "What should the Christian Church do?"

I say — to insist that we should retain our freedom to make a decision in such matters. We are not saying that this is the right way. We are simply saying that perhaps this is the wisest way. For instance, we are many here. We are going to decide on human actions: I would say that I am right, Dr. Hommes would say that he is right, you would say that you are right. There would be as many rights as there would be many people in this room. And ultimately the wisest way of going about such a decision is to put it into a vote. This is the meaning of a democratic life. So in those huge areas where we feel we should retain our humanity, the Christian church should identify precisely how they would want to go about in making decisions on such matters and this should be the area where the scientists no matter how brilliant they are should operate.

Now technology and militarism are very practical things. I suspect however that practical politics in the sense of pragmatism is not really the most practical thing. I wish I had the time to read several history books before facing you this morning to make an account in history on people who acted practically actually led the very things they wanted to protect to ruination. As I recall the Czar of Russia had plenty of opportuni­ties preventing a communist take-over in Russia. If he had appointed a Duma that was truly democratic, he would have prevented the revolution. But he did that only when the revolutionaries were already knocking at the doors of Moscow. And everything was

 

79

 

already late. I am sure that there are other illustrations in our own history that would verify this observation that people who acted practically out of their own selfishness on what the best thing to do at the moment ultimately led the destruction of their own interests.   And perhaps this may be the undoing of militaristic societies ultimately.

What I would like to say is that the romantic element again comes in here. It allows us to go beyond the factuality of things and therefore see those things that are more human, things that are more enduring in the life of a nation. The thing I would like to say about technocracy and militarism is that the Christian church should seriously propose concrete alternative to what is currently happening. I remember four years ago when I was asked by the National Council of Churches to deliver a keynote address, I challenged the NCCP "Why don't you spell out concretely what you think the political and economic structure should be if what is existing is an oppressive political system." And let us fight for it, clarify it, argue for it, lobby for it, everything we can do, let's do or it and even die for it perhaps. But let us lave some clear alternatives of what we want and not simply present a series of statements which are very ineffectual. I think an utterly unresponsive, insensitive government to a rational solution of the people's problems deserves to be overthrown. That is the time when you can speak logically and seriously of a revolution.  The government is insensitive when it is entirely unresponsive to rational human proposals to solutions hat plagued the country, then I think a revolution is legitimate but this is the very last option for a Christian to undertake.

Now, I'm not very sure whether it is simply an either or between a democratic form of government, capitalistic democracy and socialism. Dr. Carino did not say which one he would opt for. He simply said that these are alternatives for us. One suspects though hat he has an inclination towards socialism have indicated to you yesterday that I also have a bias for socialism. But I study with great care what form of socialism would like to embrace. It cannot be simply socialism, because in the minds of many these are the things we can conjure: collectivization, militaristic country. It can also be a technocratic society. There are so many things that can go into socialism which we now find so obnoxious and odious in capitalism.

So I think we should be quite careful on the kind of socialism that we want to have. It is not an accident that one has said that he was building a socialism with a human face for this is indicative of the fact that socialism before and socialism at the present moment does not have a human face. Now, I do not know whether it is possible also to build capitalism with a human face.

You would probably bark at the way we have known capitalism, in its ugly and evil form, that we wish it would just die and wither away. A lot of our young people would want to fight it and eradicate if from the face of the earth. My only caution, which I said yesterday was my hesitation about Christians existing in a socialist country I think Christians could not exist anywhere It would be absurd, it would be false for the Church to say that her members could be found only in one form of political system.

Now regarding the church, Dr. Carino said that the church could do its work much more effectively if it took seriously the fad that she can perform and that she can be simply a gasoline station. In many ways, he is correct and I'm not going to argue the point with him. I think he is speaking more as a political scientist rather than a theologian. The reality of the church is a concrete historical reality. It can be looked at historically and the Church can be content simply with being what actually she is, and this is how a lot of churches function. They stand at the crossroads of towns and they are useful for providing directions: people go there to fill up their cars with gas and ask for information, about

 

80

 

directions what is beyond, etc. And so this is what the gasoline station does and what dually the church does. In that sense, Dr. Carino is correct. But then there are those elements in the church which are secluded from Dr. Carino's vision, which – the element of transcendence, the ele­ment of radical criticism. When you go to a gas station, you go there because of some­thing you want or not something you really need or may be it is something you need about only on a superficial level. And not out of absolute necessity. When you go to church, something would happen to you. You may first be destroyed before you can be anything else. I don't think a gas station does that; a gas station makes an overhaul of your engine, it does not make a thorough overhaul of your person. So that a gas stat­ion ultimately is something that is peri­pheral to a man's existence, no matter how important traveling is. It is simply a means of man's trying to do certain things.

But when you go to church the thing that could happen to you would be to be hit right at the very center of yourself. You go through a process of disintegration and destruction, before you can come upon your true human self. This is something very beyond what gas stations can do and I would say let us keep this element in the church. If it is not there, I don't know what it is good for.

There are other places where we can go for our Utopian dreams. And there are some places where we can go to get some power. Some people would rather go to counselors and psychiatrists for that purpose, not to the minister anymore, not to the church in any case. In any case, a gas station cannot produce a Martin Luther King, nor can it produce a Mahatma Gandhi. Of course, they happen only once in a while. But it is this bits and pieces of humanity that ulti­mately prove to be the redeeming element of the human race.