Socio-Political and Economic Concerns in Building Communities
Ninan Koshy[1]

In what may be called one of the foundation documents of the EACC/CCA, The Christian Community within the Human Community, it is stated: "The Christian community, in its history, has known a particular rhythm of relationship between itself and the human community within which it was set".

The rhythm of the Church's life in its total history is also the rhythm of its own nature. The Church lives not only in assembly but in dispersion. Those who hear Christ's name are those who have been called out of the world, but are sent to the world and placed in it. The need therefore is for this people to become more closely aware of the meaning and implications of the Christian presence in situations and occupations in which they and their fellow-beings are placed by God. The call is to every Christian individually and to the Christian community as a whole to indicate by word and example the new age that Christ has ushered in.

From the well-known opening sentence of Aristotle's Politics till the beginning of modernity, community has served to designate the human group with which politics and laws are concerned and to which all the characteristic phenomena of political life, power, authority, law, and the rest must be referred. Part of modernity's experiment was to replace community with the nation-state as the reference point for "all the characteristic phenomena of political life". The title of the Oxford Conference was Church, State and Community. Community began to be defined in broad terms as well as in narrow terms depending on the identity it provided. In most social science uses, community is an empirical concept describing a collectivity of individuals who share many values and life experiences, and can be expected to act with some degree of consensus and cooperation in political matters.

For a Christian understanding of community one starts with the contention that God takes a compassionate and unwearying high interest in each human being, indeed in all creation. "The Christian universe is peopled exclusively with royalty", says Glenn Tinder.[2] For life in community, it means that all deserve attention and an unexceptionable rule that no one is to be casually sacrificed. Each person has been immeasurably dignified by God. No one is an alien and barbarian and belongs at the bottom. Nor dare any be consigned to silence or deprived of those powers that mean full participation as members of the community. Our faith does not tolerate distinctions that violate this basic equality and universalism. The community's life is fashioned in keeping with it.

Looking at a Few Terms

Three terms need some clarification in our discussion: minority community, civil society and post-colonialism.

There is a temptation to speak of the Christian community as a minority community and to confuse the Church with the Christian community in most Asian countries. Claims are made and rights are defended in this way. The remarks by M. M. Thomas on the minority consciousness of Indian Christians are relevant here.

The Christian Church is not a minority community. Theologically the Church is the sacrament of the union between God and human beings and the sign of the goal of humankind, and therefore it represents all men and women in their search for their humanity in freedom and justice. From this perspective the Church is not concerned with being the minority or majority, but with being the conscience and servant of all men and women as they seek their social and spiritual well-being. The minority consciousness of the Indian Christian community, which makes it seek or accept conformity with the powers that be because they promise protection to it is a denial of the theological nature of the Church of Jesus Christ.[3]

There seems to be another temptation today, to substitute civil society for the word community. The term civil society stands between virtue and ambiguity. It has positive and negative connotations. Positively it signals a relativisation of state centrality in political and social life. It may be interpreted as a recovery by society of some functions and prerogatives which were traditionally the monopoly of the state. Negatively because this trend has served the purpose of curtailing the capability of the state to enforce rights and regulate the market in the service of the 'common good'. Churches have been active promoters of the civil society in the recent period. They should be aware that this activism may go either in the direction of multiplying and consolidating ties with all sorts of civil associations and transnational organizations working on social justice, gender, environment, etc. or of developing a new conservative alliance with market forces helping to disseminate the neo-liberal doctrine among the poor of the world. They should be conscious of the fact that in civil society there are many components which are community-breaking rather than building. Personally, I am not convinced of the unambiguous pristine virtue associated with civil society and hesitate to use it as a descriptive category.

Another term that Asian theologians may want to look closely in the new imperial age is post-colonialism. Third World theologians emphasise that the term means not only a simple periodization after Western countries� domination, but also a methodological revisionism that enables a wholesale critique of Western structures of knowledge and power since Enlightenment. It has been recognized that "post colonial theory is most essential to Third World theological reflection if one understands it as a critical tool addressing primarily imperialism's general and continuing ideological roles in peoples and cultures of the Third World countries"[4]. But the question has to be raised whether the theory is adequate when imperialism is no longer general but concrete as empire and the role is not just ideological but political, economic and overwhelmingly military.

Threats to Community Building in Asia

Some of the manifest challenges or threats to community building in Asia may be listed: transformation of the state; globalization; militaristic notions of national security; the empire; imperialist redefinition of war. In general they are threats posed by globalization and the war on terror. Globalization has a profound political impact on political institutions and discourse both nationally and internationally.

The 1997 Copenhagen Seminar for Social Progress makes a useful distinction between globalization as a stage in the historical evolution of humanity and globalization as a political project steering the world in a particular direction. "Calling the first a trend is to suggest that the narrowing of physical distances between peoples and the growing interdependence of countries represent both an unstoppable course of history moved essentially by the application of human reason to the development of science and technology, and a general direction of change that can be navigated by human decision. The project is global capitalism, or the application of the ideas and institutions of the market economy to the world as a whole. It is actively pursued by the United States and a number of other governments from large and small countries, by the most powerful international organizations and by the economic and financial elites of the world".

The institution most directly affected by globalization is the state. The current restructuring of states proceeds via limitation of democratic politics, declining economic sovereignty and enlistment of state administrators in the service of global circuits. In this sense the states increasingly assume, albeit unevenly or incompletely, the colonial posture administering the colonizer's needs by organizing the exploitation of labour and natural resources for global banks and corporations. These trends unravel a century long process of construction of citizenship and its social and political entitlements in the formation of nation-states.

A remarkable mutation seems to be taking place in the vocation of the nation-state in a host of Third World countries. It seems less and less to represent the interests of the nation in world affairs. Increasingly the nation state seems to represent the interests of global finance to the nation-state. The role of government is progressively shifting towards providing an appropriate enabling environment for private enterprise. Central to the new economic dispensation is a shift in the role of the state particularly in its commitment to the people. There is a major change in the paradigm of state intervention, a fundamental change in its welfare commitment.  According to The Christian Community within the Human Community:

In response to the changing social situation in East Asia today the State has a dynamic role. It is called to function not merely as a guardian of peace and order but as the chief organizer of human welfare and promoter of the growing sense of national self-hood. Ultimately a system of government will be tested by its capacity to develop a sense of community among its people, achieve their differences from economic bondage and preserve the basic liberties of individuals and associations.

While there are considerable differences among political systems it has been generally accepted that the state is a moral proxy or moral agent for meeting obligations en masse through the instrumentalities of law and administration. Since all modern economies use markets, it is important to remember that it was to address failures of the inordinate power of capitalism's market dynamics � unemployment, poverty, homelessness, extremes of wealth and income and so on � that the state was deemed a moral counterforce. Under the impact of globalization the state is abdicating this role.

The state has to be enabled to recapture its welfare commitment and reorient itself toward justice. The law and order state has to be transformed to a justice-oriented state. The state has to be continuously challenged on social and economic justice and should be rolled forward to the public space, responsible and accountable.

Globalization and Economy

The 1997 Asian financial crisis was an example of how globalization plays havoc with communities and their lives. The economies of Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia crumbled in the crisis. Previously held up by neo-liberal economies as the darlings of globalization, these countries were reduced to riots and financial ruin. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) stepped in to rescue foreign investors and impose austerity programmes that opened the way for invasion by foreign corporations that brought up assets devalued by capital flight and threw millions of people out of work. Political upheaval and conflict ensued leading to misery and loss of lives. The crisis had its origin in an American project to open up and take over the economies of its satellites or dependencies in East Asia. Its purpose was both to diminish them as competitors and to assert the primacy of the US as the globe's hegemonic power.

Globalization challenges the mission of the church in several ways. Further exploration is suggested to (i) develop social and theological analysis of the nature and manifestation of globalization, (ii) critique the secularized eschatology of the global market in the light of the promise of the reign of God, (iii) explain the role of religion in challenging the logic of the globalized market, (iv) critically support institutions such as the state to carry the concerns of marginalized people over against the dehumanizing forces of globalization (World Mission Today, A CWM Perspective April 1999).

Douglas Meeks recaptures the meaning of the word economy (oikonomia) by tracing its etymological roots to the Greek words oikos (household) and nomos (management or law). Economy means literally the law or management of the household. Theologically this means not the modern household or nuclear family but the 'public household'. It concerns the management of national and global economies as part of the household of God, which is a household of justice.[5] This understanding of economy requires Christians to regard the political economy, in the words of the US Catholic Bishops, as "one of the chief areas where we live out our faith."[6]

The War on Terror

The other challenges to building community in Asia we identified may all be considered in the context of the war on terror. The war on terror was declared by George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, in response to the horrific events of September 11, 2001. Almost two years later, the war goes on unabated, with shifting aims, new targets, expanding scope and refurbished strategies.

The main theatre of the War on Terror is Asia. The whole of Asia, from West Asia to North East Asia, has become the theatre of the war. It started in Central Asia with immediate consequences for South Asia. Already in January 2002, President Bush included North Korea in the "axis of evil". Soon after, the "second front" was officially opened in the Philippines in South East Asia. In West Asia, also called the Middle East, the ongoing wars against Palestine and Iraq were intensified and declared to be part of the War on Terror. March 20, 2003 marked the US "strike on Iraq" for occupation.

The region is now close to the classic definition of an arms race where an acquisition of a weapon by one country leads a neighbour to do the same. In a way during the past decade, after the end of the Cold War the Asian region did not witness an arms race worth mentioning, except perhaps in the Indian sub-continent. Now all countries, big and small across Asia are in the race, strengthening military forces and acquiring new weapons. Steven Metz, director of research and chairman for regional strategy and planning at the US Army Strategic Institute, said "Asia's 'diversity' should make the region a laboratory for the evolution of military affairs in the coming decade". The war on terror has accelerated the process of militarization in Asia with serious consequences. The struggle against militarization is intertwined with the struggle against globalization in Asia. The struggles for economic justice and for peace are the same.

Imperial Security and People's Rights

Several countries have enacted laws that restrict and even violate human rights, in the name of the war on terror and national security. Many governments have used the war on terror to extend and amplify the use of national security laws. In Asia, Nepal, Thailand, Philippines have all introduced new draconian national security/anti-terrorism laws while Indonesia and Pakistan have made existing laws even more stringent. It is known that in several of these countries there has been prompting and pressure by the United States to enact new legislation thus changing the concept of national security to imperial security. "There is an erosion of civil liberties in the name of combating terrorism," said Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on 20 July 2002 in a speech to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. "We are getting reports from human rights defenders, trade unionists, and journalists around the world that measures are being taken by countries saying they are combating terrorism but in fact clamping down on political opposition, freedom of the press, branding activities as being terrorist which were not so described before 11^th September".

National security has become imperial security and more than ever identified with military security posing an imminent threat to human security. It is important to develop an alternative paradigm of security, which goes beyond the limited framework of military security and is anchored on the idea of a comprehensive people's security. People's security is based on human rights, gender justice, ecological justice and social solidarity. The Ecumenical Consultation on Justice, Peace and People's Security in North East Asia, February 2001, said, "From the perspective of faith, the security of all shall be judged by the shalom security of the poorest, the weakest, the excluded, the subjugated, the minjung. The plumb line of people's security is abundant life for the least of those in a globalized economy affected by extreme poverty, division, injustice, environmental degradation and military hegemony". The notion of people's security has to be linked to the rich discussion in the Asian ecumenical movement on the concept of "people".

Redefinition of War and Just War Theory

War has been redefined. On April 16 President Bush boasted that the "U.S. is redefining war and toppling tyrants at will". "Since September 11, we have been engaged in a global war against terror. That war continues and we are winning. Our military is strong and our military is ready and we intend to keep it that way. From Kabul to Baghdad American forces and our fine allies have conducted some of the most successful military campaigns in history. By a combination of creative strategies and advanced technologies we are redefining war on our own terms (emphasis added, Toronto Star, April 17, US Military Muscle Redefining War).

Never before in history has any nation accumulated so much military power. Never before in history has any nation held such overwhelming superiority in military strength over all other nations. Any war led by the United States against any state or any combination of states will be grossly asymmetric. Above all the United States claims it has the right to go to war against any country in the name of the war on terror. The question is whether war redefined in US terms is amenable to conventional theological or moral scrutiny?

The basic theory, which has arisen within Western culture to evaluate the legitimacy of military action, is called just war theory. It has widespread acceptance as a means by which a war may be determined to be just or not. Just war theory has both religious and secular components. It is perhaps the most universally recognized moral theory by which the use of force may be evaluated. It presumes war to be immoral unless adequately justified. Several elements have to be firmly established � just cause, competent authority, immunity of non-combatants, proportionality, last resort, probability of success. The religious sources of the theory begin in St. Augustine of Hippo. The secular sources also span a considerable period of time in history. It was after the Second World War that a set of international documents and laws translated the just war theory into secular items. Several of them have become universally binding customary laws. Among them are the Geneva Conventions on War, the UN Charter and more recently the Statutes of the International Criminal Court. The UN Charter's definition of self-defence, regulation of use of force and concept of collective security reflect clearly several components of just war theory.

The positions that the Vatican takes on wars including the attack on Iraq are explicitly based on the just war theory while the World Council of Churches implicitly accepts it as well as the theory's secular versions as reflected in several international laws. Both Vatican and WCC condemned the US-led preemptive attack on Iraq. The three issues - preemption (just cause), unilateralism (competent authority) and regime change as an explicit war aim were the three paramount concerns of the just war approach in Iraq. But on just cause a more important ethical issue has now arisen in the light of the fact that there is still no evidence whatsoever that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that both the US and the British administrations manipulated intelligence information and misled the public. The war against Iraq was a war by deception.

The Empire

When we speak about empire today, we are no longer talking about imperialism in the abstract or merely as an ideology. What we are witnessing is the building of an American empire militarily and territorially. For a long time the concept of imperialism was considered outside the acceptable range of Western political discourse. It is suddenly no longer true. Comparison of US to imperial Rome and imperial Britain are common within the mainstream press in the USA. Terms like 'sole superpower', 'hyperpower', 'hegemon' no longer adequately reflect what the US is and what it is doing. In his seminal essay on America's emerging empire, Michael Ignatieff wrote:

Ever since George Washington warned his countrymen against foreign entanglements, empire abroad has been seen as the republic's permanent temptation and its political nemesis. Yet what word but 'empire' describes the awesome thing that America is becoming? It is the only nation that polices the world through five global military commands, maintains more than a million men and women at arms in four continents, deploys carrier battle groups on watch in every ocean, guarantees the survival of countries from Israel to South Korea, drives the wheels of global trade and commerce, and fills the hearts and minds of the entire planet with its dreams and desires.[7]

The occupation of Iraq is part of the empire-building project as was the invasion of Afghanistan.

The shift in terminology from dominance to hegemony to empire is significant above all because it highlights the classical concept of direct political control by an imperialist state. The emphasis is on hegemony through coercion as opposed to hegemony through leadership. It is a question of indefinite dominance.

Imperial Military Doctrines

For the drive towards empire significant changes have been made in the security policy as well as the military doctrines of the US. On 20 September 2001, the Bush administration released the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. Mandated by Congress, these four-year reviews are supposed to specify US military strategy. While generally following earlier Reviews, the document did signal a critical shift in US defence strategy and policy with a view to expanding the empire. With regard to America's wars it goes beyond any previous position. Beyond seeking decisive victory, it aims for the decisive defeat of adversaries. This it describes ambitiously in terms of changing the regime of an adversary state and occupying foreign territory until US strategic objectives are met. This strategy clearly redefines war and makes traditional criteria for evaluating the use of force irrelevant. Any war under such doctrine has to be rejected as immoral. This doctrine clearly repudiates all just war criteria and defies the UN Charter and international laws. Therefore what needs to be condemned is not 'occupation and regime change' post-facto but the doctrine itself and the imperial objective that underlies it. The Review also shows a clear shift in geographical emphasis toward Asia generally and within this a dramatic expansion of military presence and engagement in Central, South and South East Asia. The US is shifting its military forces away from Europe to Asia.

The classified Nuclear Posture Review of the US (details of which appeared in the media in the second week of March 2002) revealing Pentagon's ambitious nuclear battle plans, redefines the role of nuclear weapons as fundamental to US defence policy, places new emphasis on the utility of nuclear weapons in US military doctrine and strategy and changes the very concept of deterrence. For the first time, the US is sending strong signals that it is considering new uses of nuclear weapons. The document speaks of 'usable' nuclear weapons, small nuclear weapons that can be used in the battle field. 'First use' and 'first strike' are writ large on the nuclear agenda of the US. Instead of limiting nuclear weapons to deterrence, new uses are being sought. The US is ready to use nuclear weapons �in the event of surprising military developments� even against countries which do not possess nuclear weapons (editorial, "America as a Nuclear Rogue" the New York Times).

If another country were planning to develop new nuclear weapons and contemplating pre-emptive strikes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state. Yet such is the course recommended to President Bush by a new Pentagon planning paper.  The new nuclear Posture of the United States virtually provides justification for the nuclear weapons programmes of India and Pakistan or any other country with nuclear ambitions.

In the eighties and early nineties the Vatican took the position that "the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons by others could be morally acceptable, but acceptable only as an interim measure and only if deterrence were combined with clear steps toward progressive disarmament". By mid-nineties the Vatican came to the conclusion that "nuclear deterrence prevents genuine nuclear disarmament". In 1998, 73 Roman Catholic Bishops in the US stated that "nuclear deterrence as a national policy must be considered as morally abhorrent because it is the excuse and justification for the continued possession and further development of nuclear weapons."[8]

Already in 1983 at the Vancouver Assembly, the WCC had stated, "We believe that the time has come when the churches must unequivocally declare that the production and deployment as well as the use of nuclear weapons are a crime against humanity and that such activities must be condemned on ethical and theological grounds". The WCC had categorically rejected nuclear deterrence. The churches have yet to state clearly their position with regard to the new nuclear doctrines on war fighting and the links of such doctrines with the empire.

The most important document which spells out the ideology of empire and its military doctrine is The National Security Strategy of the USA presented to Congress on 20 September 2002. The 33-page document presents the most aggressive approach to national security since the end of the Cold War. It declares that strategies of containment and deterrence � staples of American policy since the 1940s � are all but dead. One of the most striking elements of the new strategy is its insistence that "the President has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago". The adoption of such a perspective clearly advances the notion of American Empire called "leadership".

Robert N. Bellah in an article in The Christian Century (March 8, 2003) says,

"In spite of the fact that with respect to the word 'empire' Bush is apparently still in a state of denial, his National Security document is nothing if not a description of empire� No nation will be allowed to surpass or even equal American military power. �Although the document several times uses the time-honoured phrase 'balance of power', it is very unclear what that phrase can mean in a situation where we have all the power and no one else has anything to balance it with".

The document argues that while US will seek allies in the battle against terrorism, "We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defence by acting preemptively". As the document has admitted, "Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat". US has changed the doctrine to preventive war and still calls it pre-emption. This goes against all international laws and the UN Charter. Preventive war makes no distinction between defence and offence. A military doctrine that makes no difference between offence and defence is a constant threat to peace. In making a preventive attack on Iraq, the President was acting as if the US is an empire with global domination. Not only the practice but also the theory have to be rejected on ethical and theological terms.

Empires Require Gods

In The Structure of Nations and Empires (1959), Reinhold Niebuhr writes that empires require gods. In one chapter he examines lessons from three empires emerging in the Middle Ages after the Roman Empire, the eastern empire centred in Constantinople where the emperor constituted both religious and political authority, the western empire which emerged in Europe and associated with the Catholic Pope as dominant in the tension between church and state, and the Islamic empire which emerged in the seventh century A. D. Here is his conclusion to the chapter:

The impulse to dominion on every level, but particularly on the imperial level, is able to use the most varied and contradictory religious impulses and philosophies as instruments of its purposes. The similarities, which we have noted in the three occidental empires point to a pattern of continuity, which is more universal than western history. It is that quasi-universal community and dominion is bound to use religious quests for ultimacy and universality as instruments for its purposes.

Edward Knudson in an article "The Temptation to Empire" in Public Theology (March 27) says that three strong "religious" movements together now seek to justify an American empire.

The first and most obvious, of course, is the religious right. It has emerged as a much stronger force than most people would have thought possible at the time Niebuhr was writing. The religious right in its covenantal theological form teaches that the United States is a Christian nation destined to lead the world in bringing all people under the dominion of their understanding of biblical morality. Or, in its Pentecostal form the religious right teaches the central role of this country within universal, apocalyptic history: for these folks the end of the world is near. These are indeed universal visions, which require a notion of this country as empire.

George W. Bush received considerable support from the religious right in his election. He speaks their language of opposing with military force all evil in the world. Since 11 September 2001 Bush's rhetoric has been continuously punctuated by the words 'evil' and �evildoer�. Perhaps the most extreme use of the terms came in the service in the National Cathedral on 14 September 2001 in which Bush declared that it is our responsibility to history" to "rid the world of evil".

Knudson adds that there are two quasi-religious forces also at work in the present American culture. One is the idea of the market. The market has become a kind of god in the thinking and belief system of intellectuals and politicians today, who are furthering the interests of those so-called private economic corporations who have grown to be so powerful within the country. It is this universal market god that now is used to justify an American Empire, particularly through world economic institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

In 1995 addressing a conference of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, Bishop Lesslie Newbigin warned the Europeans against the free market becoming their God. There are close links between globalization and militarism. Globalization buttressed by the military power of the United States is an important part of the new architecture of imperial world order. From being a non-territorial colonialism, globalization is taking a new shape, which needs control and occupation of territories. Free market has been elevated to the status of a god under globalization.

Knudson says that the second quasi-religious belief justifying American empire has a longer history. It is the god of nature, appealed to by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, the god that justifies the natural rights of human beings. George Bush appealed to this god when he said that liberty is not just a value of the United States but is God's gift to every individual in the world. This belief is very important in the history of the country. What must be seen here, however, is that this language is used by the president to justify going to war with a country that presents no immediate threat to this country. To use the belief in liberty not as Jefferson did, as a basis for a people to reject the dominance of another, but as an abstract justification for military dominance of another country is a contradiction not unperceived by the victims of such domination and their neighbours in the Middle East.

There are many people in the United States, with considerable influence in the administration, for whom these three gods are essentially one. It is this god, which is now being used by leaders with imperial ambitions for the US, just as Niebuhr says is the predisposition of all empires. There appears to be large sections of Christians in Asia who also worship the Trinity of the Empire.

Towards the Community of Peace

The wall right across the UN headquarters in New York is known as the Isaiah wall. On it in bold letters is written the well-known prophecy of the future fellowship of peace: "They shall turn their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nations shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more". These words are usually credited to Isaiah though the same words are spoken by Micah. Who was the first and original author? Some biblical scholars think that both prophets quoted a third one whose prediction at that time was very popular. This man obviously differed from the two who were doomsday prophets. They lived in times when it was thought that wars were inevitable; wars were like natural phenomena like floods. People probably confronted Isaiah and Micah with the prediction of the prophet of peace. Do you not believe that war will come to an end?

They responded by incorporating this wonderful vision into their prophecies of doom. 'We also believe that wars will come to an end. We also share that longing for peace'. They assured the people that God himself shares it. But after employing the words of prophecy, which has become the charter of secular peace movements, they added some words of their own as if they were laying down some conditions. Isaiah added, "O House of Jacob, come let us walk in the light of the Lord". And Micah added: "All the peoples walk each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God, forever and forever".

In a way we are living in times similar to those of the prophets. War seems to be inevitable. There is talk of permanent war. The mightiest nation of the earth has declared a war, which we are told will continue for a long time to come. That nation has amassed the most powerful military force in all history and fashioned doctrines that will make wars inevitable.

In highlighting the obstacle to peace, Micah goes to the heart of the matter. "All the peoples walk each in the name of its god". 'Walk in the name of' means they trust them, they are inspired by them in their actions, they obey them. These gods are class ideologies, narrow nationalism, free market, globalization, imperial security, national security, national status and pride. All these are gods of war and their shape is militarism. They delude us with peace as their ultimate goal, but they demand for the present trust in threat and violence.

Does the prophet Micah acquiesce in this hopeless situation? The second half of his addition reads: "But we will walk in the name of the Lord our God, forever and ever". This is our contribution to the future of humankind to walk in the name of Jesus as the key to the ultimate and victorious purpose of God. Paraphrasing the eminent Dutch theologian Hendrikus Berkhof, let me say, "We are called (negatively) to a radical mistrust in the gods of the Empire and (positively) to a conspiracy of fundamental trust in a God who paid such a price to invest his love in his rebellious creation".

As instruments of God's love and justice, we are called to give public and prophetic voice to a vision of a world that embodies not our worst fears, but our best hopes. We believe in a divine multicultural and multilateral world where conflicts are resolved nonviolently through understanding and negotiation. Fellowship of peace and community building are by "people of the way", the name Jesus people wore before early onlookers in Antioch tagged them "Christians" forever. Before they were Christians they were "the people of the way". The details are lost in the mists of history but not entirely so. A way of life was to be learned and lived and it was to be learned and lived together as the community's own way.

The church which is faithful to the prophetic biblical vision can never allow itself to become trapped within the limits of what the dominant forces of any society insist is realistically possible. It is theologically and morally obliged to resist visions of economic development, which result in the economic development of the few at the expense of the many, and dominant nations at the expense of dependent nations. It is equally obliged to challenge projects of imperial domination of people and nations. It is mandated to reject categorically theories of inevitability and permanence of war. These visions, doctrines and projects are all community-destroying and adversely affect the people of Asia.

A vision of God's kingdom on earth is a vision of a community at peace because it is a community within which justice reigns. If the church loses that vision, allowing that the prevailing order at any given time is essentially all that can be hoped for, it neglects an essential eschatological contribution to society.

_______________________
Notes: