Introduction
Liberation Theology, which roots in Latin America theology, is a bottom up theology that concerns, through the life of Jesus, how theology should be standing by the oppressed or the poor. As most scholars agree, Liberation Theology is contextual, the only thing that shared by all tokens of Liberation Theology is the fact that theologians are dedicated to “liberating” the oppressed.[1] Since she is contextual, if someone lives in Hong Kong desires to follow the footsteps of Liberation Theologians and proposes a token of Liberation Theology in Hong Kong, it is one’s duty to articulate the theology, base on how things has been happening in Hong Kong. Put things otherwise, to do Liberation Theology in Hong Kong, one has to localize the concept. In this paper, I shall first argue the limitations of Contemporary Liberation Theology, second, I shall explain poverty in Hong Kong; third, I shall propose, what we need in Hong Kong is not a strong token of Practical Theology that concerns how we can liberate the non-human; what we need in Hong Kong is a theology that helps the misfortunes to enter the kingdom of God through a critical appreciation.
Part 1: Liberation Theology as means for the ends
Since the 60’s of the last century, theologies, mostly from Latin America have realized there is a huge gap between conventional theology and theology in their context. The gap, as theologian like Gutierrez has pointed out, is between doing theology for human and non-human.[2] Conventionally, theologians have been researching on how we could preach the Good News to a world that is fundamentally physical and where most of the citizens are free agents on religions; however, in a region where most citizens have been deprived from being called agents, Liberation Theology questions, if the traditional, top down theology is making any sense at all, it is because, to those being oppressed, they have been deviated from being something traditional western society defines as human, not only do they not having a choice on religions, they barely have an option as human. As a result, in response to the context, Liberation Theology was born. Most Liberation Theologians, for instance Leonardo Boff has been trying to parallel Jesus Christ as a liberator in articulating his theology.[3] While some other theologians, usually parallel the Exodus with the current era, has proposed that God was liberating the poor and oppressed at that moment.
As most scholars have agreed, Liberation Theology does not come with a univocal form, under different context, Liberation Theology flourishes distinctively. So the only common grounds for different tokens of Liberation Theology can be generally interpreted as:
1. Liberation Theology is contextual.
2. Liberation Theology is a bottom up theology that concerns the well-beings of the poor and the oppressed.
3. Liberation Theology is not a political movement because it has strong biblical grounds.
4. Liberation Theology is a practical theology (it is about praxis).[4]
Despite the facts that many theologians have criticized the metaphysics and methodology of the theology, I do not think these criticisms have made the theory less appealing.[5] I believe the most critical problem of contemporary Liberation Theologians, they seems letting the means as an end. When one put forward a theology on liberation, why do they try to liberate the oppressed and what ends do they eager to see? We have to be very caution, the premises of Liberation Theology, as I have argued else where is a biblical perspective, it is because by citing and paralleling the life of our savior Jesus, it is highly likely that churches should spend more time in helping those in need. However, the problem of Liberation Theology is that through liberation they just lead those being liberated to become less oppressed, they are not bringing them to the eternality.[6]
Paralleling the life of Moses, when Moses liberated God’s people from Egypt, he did not just liberated them from the wicked Pharaoh, brought them out of Egypt and concluded he has fulfilled God’s request. Alternatively, he was liberating the oppressed from the suppressed and leaded them back the realm of God, a political liberation is just a mean for the religious ends. So did our savior Jesus Christ, it is undoubted, as many Liberation Theologians have quoted, Jesus’ life was to liberate the oppressed; however, to say he has been liberating the oppressed does not capture the explicit desire of Jesus that He wanted to liberate them from being oppressed to the Kingdom of God. Put things otherwise, if there is anything call Liberation Theology, liberating the oppressed is and only is the very first step of the theology, if the theology just cares to fight for vague entities like common good and social justice, it is just obvious to ask, has Jesus literally fought for these ideologies? Or has He, through relieving the tension in the society, guided people to the Kingdom of God? To most theologians, the answer is self-evidence; Jesus through liberating the poor just and only just meant to lead his believers, through repenting themselves they could enter the Kingdom of God. So if Jesus’ ultimate goal is salvation of the afterlife, what grants those theologians the right to proclaim they have to move one step further than Jesus to care only things under the sunlight when Jesus cared so much more about the afterlives than the phenomenal lives?[7]
Undoubtedly, as most theologians would argue, in a region when most of the citizens can barely function a normal life, it is just contingently impossible to preach the Good News to them. It is just like proclaiming the love of God to someone whose entire family has just been abused and killed brutally. Nonetheless, we cannot make ourselves God. It is true that the problem of evil and the injustice among the world are real and factual; nevertheless, it does not necessary mean everyone has to become a liberator of God’s creations. Put things otherwise, I believe the premises of Liberation Theology are sound, we need to bring a message to the poor and oppressed that God is liberating them; however, unlike most contemporary Liberation Theologians have been advocating, following the teachings of Jesus Christ, I suppose, when doing theology, liberation is just a political means for a religious ends The true liberation, as Jesus Christ and Paul has repeatedly suggesting, is to liberate God’s creation from sins so that they can be reunited with God.
If Liberation Theology’s end is to lead those being oppressed to God, unlike some theologians have suggested, there might be regions that do not need Liberation Theology. It is without a question that in every single place on earth, someone, some race, some gender and so on and so forth is going to be treated unfairly; however, it does not means that whenever someone has been treated unfairly, they should have been liberated, thus Liberation Theology is the only practical theology for any city that has oppression. It is because, the term liberation is very strong, it presupposes someone or something, by using Gutierrez’s words again, is deviated as non-human. However, as I shall argue in due time, there are many cities, for instance Hong Kong, which even some citizens have been enjoying prestige more than the large rest of the citizens; nevertheless, rather than saying theology should liberate those citizens who are considered as less fortune, we have to rethink if the position of liberation is the best contextual way of doing theology. It is because, fighting with the less fortune against the evil entity that basically does not exist in the city might not be contextually necessary; on the very contrary, we can just simply walk with them. Put things otherwise, if Liberation Theology is contextual, I am going to suggest, in a city like Hong Kong, we may not need a radical form of liberation theology. It is because comparing with the harsh environment where most Liberation Theologies have been encountering, one should concluded, yes there are misfortunes in Hong Kong or even imbalances of how wealth has been disturbed; however, rather than liberation, Christian can simply lend these misfortunes a hand and lead them to the Kingdom of God. Thus, we do not need a Crusade in Hong Kong, what we need is bluntly simple: through appreciation, we march to the Kingdom of God together.[8] To sum up, I propose following Jesus Christ’s teachings, the ends of any Christian theology is to lead God’s creation to enter the Kingdom of God, if any theology has lost this focus, it is nothing more than a movement that only use Christianity as means to achieve one’s personal ends.[9]
Part 2: Poverty in Hong Kong
To most scholars in the field of social science, being largely influenced by the work of Marx, poverty is a result of class struggles. The existence of poverty has a deep social impact because the root of poverty is a result of social injustice and oppressions. Base on this agenda, it is not hard to understand why Liberation Theologians have always related oppressions with poverty, for, they believe that the existence of physical poverty is a result of human sin, greed. Following this line of thoughts, in articulating their theses, most Liberation Theologians divide poverty into levels, most importantly physical poverty and spiritual poverty. Unlike how one is going to interpret these terms by common sense, to Liberation Theologians, spiritual poverty is not about choices, it is not about an individual’s relationship with God, it is about how being physically poor, which roots from the evil of greediness, individuals have been ruled out from being able to have a spiritual life.[10] As a result, theologians’ task is not to articulate arguments about why one should believe in God or why believing in God is ethical, decent and so on and so forth, because being physically poor has already determined they are spiritually poor, so every Christian, if they believe God desires one to be spiritually rich, one has to fight against physical poverty.
So when localizing Liberation Theology, the first thing we should ask, rather than what is the definition of poverty or how many people are defined as being poor either absolute or relative poor in Hong Kong, is whether there are physical poverty in Hong Kong that deprived Hong Kong citizens from being spiritually rich. In most cases, critics in Hong Kong argues by using of Gini Coefficient the inequalities among classes have become more serious in years; nevertheless, I have to propose here, these figures, from the increase in Gini Coefficient to the number of relatively poverty in Hong Kong, is and not is the concern of theologians. It is because, to theologians, as I have been arguing since the Introduction, what makes theology, theology is the fact that we are obligated to preach the Good News to non-believers. In a context where human are deviated from human, liberation, fighting for social justice is the only means to achieve the religious ends. Nevertheless, in Hong Kong, where citizens enjoy freedom of religion, it is the obligation of the HKSAR, charity organizations, politicians to deal with social injustice; if churches spend too much time and effort on fighting ideologies, which they think God cares but ignore the most important command from Jesus Christ, one is just treating a mean as an end. [11]
Part 3: Appreciation, Criticism or Critical Appreciation
As I have discussed above, unlike Liberation Theologians have been suggesting, being physically poor does not necessary mean one is spiritually poor, it is because, in a city like Hong Kong, unquestionably, the wealth might have been disturbed unequally; nevertheless, unlike the cases in Latin America, poverty in Hong Kong does not prohibited one from being spiritually rich. At this point, we have to ask, does it necessary mean, Hong Kong does not need any token of Liberation Theology? The answer is both Yes and No. It is because, on the one hand, Liberation Theology has brought out a very profound message from Jesus’ life, Jesus is a liberator; however, on the other hand, as I have been repeatedly suggesting form the very beginning, liberation is and only is a means to a religious ends.[12] Thus, if we want to localize Liberation Theology, we have to be realistic that, Hong Kong is nothing likes Latin America, we do not need radical liberation, instead, we need to do theology through a critical appreciation.
In Genesis chapter 1, God has proclaimed that everything, which he had made is very good; however, as we all know, human fell, and in chapter 6, even God Himself regretted of creating us. However, we have to ask, isn’t God omniscience? He should have known that we would have fallen before He planned to create us, isn’t it an obvious case of contradiction? Whether God knew that or not or whether how God could regretted is out of the scoop of this paper, the important point that we can learn is that: unlike generally beliefs, God enjoys appreciating, He is critical but also appreciative.[13] To illustrate the point, let’s look at the life of Jesus. In Jesus’ life, it is true that He has been quite judgmental; nonetheless, if we read clearly, it was not rare that Jesus praised and appreciated those who were faithful and innocent. Put things otherwise, in contemporary theology, especially Liberation Theology, they have largely missed out this side of Jesus. Yes, it is true that Jesus has come to liberate the oppressed; however, it is also true that Jesus has sent a clear signal that we should have to appreciate with the good qualities one has, even it is just a very minor one and in many cases these minor things are leading one to heaven.
For instance, in John 20:24-29, it is about Thomas questioning the resurrected Jesus, asking Jesus to let him examine the wounds so that he could confirmed the identity of his Lord. This is how Jesus commented Thomas, “Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief through they have not seen me.” Compare to others who believed in Jesus’ resurrection without questions, Thomas, rigidly speaking is blasphemy; however, not only did Jesus not scold Thomas, He immediately proclaimed through Thomas misbehaving, what constituted a blessing. To me Jesus has made a critical appreciation, through criticizing Thomas, He first ascertained the good qualities of some sort of faith, second, He illuminated Thomas about how he could become better.[14] It was not the case that Thomas’ questioning was wrong, it was just there might be a better option. Another example can be quoted from the next chapter in the same book, when Jesus asked Peter if Peter has any love for Him. Surely, He can blamed Peter for not asserting Him three times; however, once again, Jesus knowing that there was something good inside Peter, He wanted to enhanced this love to a level that Peter can one day become the foundation of the Church. [15]
I think here one has to understand the two size of Jesus, Jesus is a strict teacher but he is also an inspiring mentor. He does not just criticize you and then leave you with despair and frustration, He always tells you through the good quality of you how you can repent and enter the Kingdom of God. One problem of Liberation Theology, or those who share the root of Liberation Theology is that: they have been viewing things just from a judgmental side, they are critical but fail to be appreciative. They have been very paranoid and sensitive about the things they define as wicked and evil. This standpoint has missed out a very important part of the Good News, you have to be critically appreciative, it might be true that there are flaws in a system, flaws inside human beings; however, it doesn’t mean that the only decent thing theologians can do is to fight against the system, it might be way more effective to amend the flaws through realizing the system’s advantages in itself.[16] For instance, in Hong Kong, as I have argued, the social phenomenon of poverty is factual; however, we cannot parallel the condition we encountered in Hong Kong with those in Latin America for we enjoy freedom of religion. As a result if both liberation and appreciation is biblically corrected, we have to choose, if theology is contextual, appreciation is more suitable and effective to Hong Kong in introducing God to His people.
Part 4: Appreciation Theology in Hong Kong
Granting we should be more appreciative than just being critical, we should then ask, “How does that matter to theology in Hong Kong?”[17] I think at the very beginning, we have to deliberate, generally speaking, what are the good qualities of local churches, which can benefit non-believers in Hong Kong?[18] Here like it or not churches in Hong Kong are rich, many critics accused that conventional churches in Hong Kong care only about the middle classes but have largely ignored the lower classes even these churches considered as “rich”. However, if we evaluate the condition appreciatively, we should come to the conclusion, which, rather than saying it is wrong for the churches to care so much about the rich because they are rich, or even being rich means these group of people have been depriving and oppressed the others, these churches and the prosperous can factually play a critical role in leading non-believers to God.
According to a local research in 2004, there were on average 220000 believers participating at the weekly sermon.[19] The weekly one tenth tribute at a local middle class church in North Point, which has around 300 believers participate at the Sunday sermon is $110000.[20] Suppose, roughly speaking, considering there are 100 believers have followed the tribute, it means each believer is devoting $1100 a month, which is close to the average domestic income of around $8000 per residents per month.[21] By using this rough figure, considering one third of the believers, which is 73000 of them who is earning close to $9000 a month is going to tribute one tenth, which is $900 to the church. Each month, bottom line cases, Protestants churches in Hong Kong should have received not less than $60 million cash, not to mention the large group of upper middle class who have been labeled as greedy earn many times more than the median income.[22]
Base on this reading, in Hong Kong, churches are rich and they can gather resources in helping non-believers effectively. Next question we should ask, how do we make good use of the money in helping non-believers? I believe many people is going to suggest, like most traditional churches have been doing, setting up social services centers, schools, food banks and so on and so forth for those who are in need. However, I believe, as I have brought out in the beginning, when we are doing theology practically, whenever we are doing social services in the name of God, we can never lost sight of the reason why we have to do that: the only reason of doing that is to let people repent. When we put things like this, churches have to balance out the time and money being used between physically assistances and spiritually assistances to the non-believers. As a result, practically, granting we have the resources from the prestige and prosperous, in allocating these resources in helping the non-believers in Hong Kong, we should not share the belief that because someone is poor and misfortune, they need the Good News more and only through being a charity the Good News can be preached.[23]
One can see the differences of methodology between liberation and appreciation theology. To Liberation Theology, being rich is most likely the result of greediness, which is a sin that every Christian has to fight against; furthermore, to lead non-human to the Kingdom of God, one can only do that through liberation, a radical reform, thus, is necessary. However, when we critically appreciate the context of Hong Kong, we should realize the well being of an individual can be a result of God’s blessing or individual’s hard working; and in a capitalistic society, it is unfair to label and parallel those who earns a living legally and ethically as the dictators in Latin America.[24] Furthermore, I propose that, if the well being of an individual is not a sin; we have to make good use of these resources in leading the non-believers to the Kingdom of God. A parallel analogy is, in the book of Acts, there were many rich believers who functioned the church physically, for instance, by letting believers gather at their houses. If, using contemporary Liberation Theological attitude, these believers, who most likely have slaves working for them, were just evil in God’s eyes. Yet, anyone know the Bible should have come to the conclusion, God does not prefer slavery; however, God does critically appreciate them, under that context they have been using their means to achieve the religious ends of the Good News.
Granting what I have been saying is true, I believe through appreciation, local theology should be less critical and judgmental; furthermore, neither we should try dividing local citizens into groups. It is because, the first premises of doing theology: is to let non-believers repent from sins, it is never decent to divide them by classes, genders and races. Furthermore, even if there are inequalities in Hong Kong, we have to be very caution not to fall into the slippery slope that all inequalities are resulted from a single hegemony or only through liberating the oppressed things can be changed. It is because, theology itself cannot create an utopia on earth, the only thing we should do is to preach.
Consequently, in helping spiritual poor in Hong Kong, which refers to someone lacking the passion to God, churches have to send a very clear message to the non-believers that life without God is no life for human and Hong Kong is a very blessed city, there might be inequalities but none of us is going to die because we don’t have food or being executed because we say Donald Tsang sucks big. Though the social securities is not perfect and we do not have a comprehensive medical and retirement system, most importantly to Christianity, all citizens in Hong Kong enjoy freedom of religion that permits one to choose what one believes, which means being spiritual poor is a matter of choose, it is not determined. So, considering the resources on hand, rather than spending a lot of money on charity, fighting for inequalities and social justices. Churches should have used their resources in preaching the Good News. Certainly, in some cases through charity, Good News is spread flourishingly while in some cases mass media can be an effective means. To sum up, what I have been stressing here is that, the target of the resources is neither the physical poor nor the physical oppressed, it is because Hong Kong is a city where all citizens have freedom in choosing their religion and the only religious ends for Christianity is to lead these non-believers, rich or poor, through any possible means to understand the grace and love of our Creator.
Undoubtedly, someone might object what I have said because I might have been too optimistic, living in Hong Kong is not as good as I have said and I am just fortunate not seeing the dark side of city. Here, as I have been arguing since part 2, I assert there are inequalities, I assert there are misfortunes; but I deny there is non human, there is spiritual poor like Liberation Theology has defined. So if there is anything we need to liberate, it is not the system itself, it is about the value we share in Hong Kong, the value that believing in God is useless. Here one might further argue, “This is exactly why we should fight against Capitalism, which is the root of atheism.” As the paper is about theology, I just want to discuss in brief how we should react to this line of thoughts. I suppose, following the Bible thoughts, criticisms without an answer is just vain. So it might be true that Capitalism is limited, but it might also be true that this is already the best contingent system for Hong Kong..[25]
As a result, following Jesus’ teaching on appreciation, appreciating the good quality of local churches, being having the resources to preach the good news in Hong Kong, a place where citizens’ spiritual poverty is not a result from physical oppression, is contextually effective and appropriate. It is because, if we adapt Liberation Theology in Hong Kong, we might have ignored the fact that theology’s goal is to liberate the spiritual poor but not the physical poor and theology is also about appreciating virtue, for instance, we can interpret the prosperous are willing to share with the poor rather than just oppressing the poor.
Conclusion
In this paper, I have argued how contextually, Liberation Theology is not a preferable way in conducting theology in Hong Kong. Still, there are a few things that worth to be discussed. At the very beginning, as I have argued in this paper, my primary concern is the spiritual poverty in Hong Kong; nevertheless, as a Christian, it is our obligation to ask, what is Hong Kong Churches’ role in a globalized world? For instance, just talk about Mainland China; it might be the case that spiritual poverty is a result of physical poverty, since we are that close to China, is there anything local theologians should do or what is the role of local theology concerning China? Furthermore, as I have argued appreciation is very important to theology; nevertheless, since the enlightenment, the world has become more judgmental than ever. I just wonder, if being critically appreciative rather than strongly critical can be a unique quality or fragment of Christianity. All these things demand and answer and I believe it is theology’s work to examine them so that God’s will can be served.
Reference
Boff, Leonardo and Clodovis Boff. Introducing Liberation Theology (Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1987)
Christopher Rowland ed., The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007),
ESCOBAR, SAMUEL. "liberation theology." The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought. McGrath, Alister E. Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/
tocnode?id=g9780631198963_chunk_g978063119896314_ss8-1
tocnode?id=g9780631198963_chunk_g978063119896314_ss8-1
Goizueta, Roberto S. "Gustavo Gutiérrez." The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology. Scott, Peter and William T. Cavanaugh (eds). Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.
lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631223429_chunk_g978063122342922
lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631223429_chunk_g978063122342922
liberation theology." A Dictionary of Contemporary History. Townson, Duncan (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 1999. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631209379_chunk_g978063120937913_ss1-9>
[1] "liberation theology." A Dictionary of Contemporary History. Townson, Duncan (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 1999. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631209379_chunk_g978063120937913_ss1-9>
[2] Goizueta, Roberto S. "Gustavo Gutiérrez." The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology. Scott, Peter and William T. Cavanaugh (eds). Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.
lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631223429_chunk_g978063122342922>
lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631223429_chunk_g978063122342922>
[3] Boff, Leonardo and Clodovis Boff. Introducing Liberation Theology (Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1987)
[4] ESCOBAR, SAMUEL. "liberation theology." The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought. McGrath, Alister E. Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/
tocnode?id=g9780631198963_chunk_g978063119896314_ss8-1>
tocnode?id=g9780631198963_chunk_g978063119896314_ss8-1>
[5] The criticisms come from a lot of angles, in the very beginning, some have questioned whether borrowing terms like class struggles from Marxism is appropriate. Furthermore, some have questioned if theology is all about the oppressed, it has reverse discriminated those who are of well beings. Last but not least, some share the worry that a contextual reading of theology leads to relativism. As I have to agree, all these concerns make sense; however, I shall explain in due time, the limitation of Liberation Theology.
[6] A fair reading to contemporary Liberation Theology is that: they have always included repenting from sins and re-union with God into their agenda. However, having something in the agenda is a thing, executing it is another. As Liberation Theology prior practice to truth, it is just a logical inevitable that when doing the theology, most of the concerns have been focused on liberation. Nevertheless, what I desire to discuss in this paper is that: it might be true that in a context like Latin America, it might be decent; however, in a city like Hong Kong, granting we follow the premises of Liberation Theology, we may not need a radical liberation and I shall examined the thesis in due time.
[7] Undoubtedly, it is very possible that, as Liberation Theology claims to be contextual, under certain circumstances, a theologian can proclaim, liberation in context is a must and they should have moved a step further than Jesus. I assert, it can be the case, but one has to be very caution, as it is clearly stated in the Bible, non-believers and those who do not repent is evil in God’s view, so liberating non-human to human and leaving them as the sinner in God’s eye can be even worst then leaving them being non-human. By using a slimily, it is like one brings them out from the dictator but directly gives them to the devil. Furthermore, it is not a straw man, because rather than criticizing it is the case, I believe it is worthy to point out, that, base on the metaphysics of Liberation Theology (like it or not there is always a metaphysical side of anything.) there is a danger that one will confuse the means of liberation as the ends.
[8] Here I am suggesting both the Kingdom of God on earth and in the afterlife. I believe this is just different side of the same coin. I suppose most Liberation Theologians have the same mindset like I do. Their original premises, there is no church when there is no human; however, as I have argued above, in most cases, Liberation Theology slight becomes a political movement more than a religious movement when theologians have been fighting against the injustice and lost the track that, the only goal of theology is to lead people to God. So the means can be liberation or appreciation but the ends must be leading them to the Kingdom of God, if we can work with God in this life, great, but it is just not the end of the story.
[9] As a believer, I believe only God is able to judge the intention of an individual. I do not think and do not dare to accuse any theologians, who have spending their effort or even their lives dedicated to theology, as someone who is fighting for his/her own benefit. What I mean to suggest here, if we read from the history, a good intention, even a biblical based intention, can turn ugly when one becomes think their words are God’s words. In this paper, rather than being a critic criticizing any particular theologian guilty of something, I am trying to give warnings. It might not have happened but it is something we should be as careful as we can.
[10] To Liberation Theologians like Gutierrez, it is appropriate to say that in dividing poverty, he does not mean there are different ways in interpreting poverty. Being spiritually poor is a contingent consequence of physically poor.
[11] However, one should not take this as churches accept and tolerate inequalities; on the very contrary, in a society where justice can never be done, we have to put faith in the afterlife, as the Bible has clearly stated. So theologians have to put priorities and as I shall examine in due time, if one wants to fight against inequalities, liberation is neither the necessary or effective means in Hong Kong.
[12] Granting the premises of Liberation Theology true, if lives are excluded from the salvation because of dictatorship or other political repressions, a radical form of theology, which concerns how to better off the environment so that individuals can have a choice could be the only option of theologians. Certainly, conventional theology might beg to differ because they believe God is in charge and these unfairness can be viewed as tests of God. Here, I am not going to settle the dispute about which way in doing theology in that context is biblical, what I am interested in is: Hong Kong is not a place like Latin America, as a result, even churches are more keen on participating politically, we cannot detached ourselves from the religious ends.
[13] God being appreciative is very different from God being Love. Conventionally, human being is defined as something not worthy of God’s loves but the benevolent God mercies us and made us dear because He loves us. Saying God appreciate mankind does not necessary mean we are worthy or we can be righteous by one’s effort. On the very contra, to say God is appreciative suggests that God does not just criticize our wrong doing, if we do something good, even just a simple act, God appreciates. When we interpret God this way, it is inevitable for us to question, do we need to try to appreciate the other like God has been doing?
[14] Here Jesus has been made use of the foundation good quality of Thomas, though a second level faith, but still something Jesus treasured.
[15] More examples can be found:
[16] I believe most scholars, especially those critics who have been accusing the flaws of Capitalism would disagree my saying that there is something intrinsic good of Capitalism; however, it is not important to my discussion here, because what I am pointing out is that, in some systems, liberating and fighting against the system is decent while under certain circumstances, using amendments is a more effective means to achieve the religious ends. It is because, if we believe theology is contextual and theology’s goal is to find a way to preach to Good News to every individual, an effective means is what we should look for. If we just being stubborn claiming we have to defeat the social injustice, sexual discrimination and so on and so forth so that we can create an utopia on earth, plainly, it is just unrealistic and just violate the basic principles of Liberation Theology.
[17] Here I have parallel a critical spirit as the essence of Liberation Theology. As I have argued in this paper, being critical to different social values can be contextually right; however, as I have argued, it is not the case in Hong Kong.
[18] In this essay, I shall concern the theology of Protestant Churches only.
[19] http://research.hkchurch.org/stats/stats_5.htm
[21]Census and Statistics Department, social data: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/
products_and_services/products/publications/statistical_report/social_data/index_tc_cd_B1130301_dt_latest.jsp
products_and_services/products/publications/statistical_report/social_data/index_tc_cd_B1130301_dt_latest.jsp
[22] It is an over simplified version of how much protestants churches is receiving in Hong Kong. What I mean to show is that, being rich is not evil, to run a church and other social services, we need capitals and this is something we already have and should not be deviated and labeled as evil.
[23] Unlike Liberation Theology, I do not believe there is priority between poor non-believer and rich non-believer, it is because in Hong Kong, as I have argued, there is poverty, there is misfortune; but, not much of these people can be defined as the spiritually poor by using Gutierrez’s definition. It is because some citizens in Hong Kong are enjoying less than the median; however, it doesn’t make their journey to the Kingdom of God harder. As Jesus has also suggested in Mark 19, “It is simpler for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a man with much money to go into the Kingdom of God.” Put things otherwise, we have one mission and one mission only, leading non-believer to the Kingdom of God, in Hong Kong when everybody shares this opportunity, saying the poor deserves more time and effort is just reverse discriminating the prosperous.
[24] I do not mean poverty is a result of laziness, there are many reasons for poverty in Hong Kong. As I have suggested above, some are intrinsic and some are extrinsic. What is important here is that, in a city where we have a fair judicial system and relatively fair opportunities among gender, races and ages, it is paranoid and injustice to call those who get rich off as oppressors.
[25] I am open to a system that is better than Capitalism; however, as far as I know, Capitalism, though has it weakness is already one of the best workable systems we can use in Hong Kong. It is pretty much like I have criticized the limitation of Liberation Theology but I have to agree, in a region like Latin America, Liberation Theology is basically the best contextual theology theologians can advocate.
沒有留言:
張貼留言