(From the Latin American and Ukraine Experiences)
Anatoliy Denysenko
2018 Stott-Bediako Forum
Manila, Philippines
14th-15th September 2018
Introduction
The question I want to discuss in this paper is the following: what kind of revolutionary actions can be justified? This question raises others: Can Christians participate in revolutionary actions? Can they use physical power during a revolution? There are many discussions on this topic among philosophers and theologians. I am particularly interested in solving those questions, as a theologian whose theology is oriented more practically and radically, rather than theoretically and traditionally.
To order this paper logically, I will trace the following structure. I will start by discussing the Church’s task, which is usually forgotten and sometimes forbidden. Since I am interested in liberation theology in the Latin American experience, I will then present a Latin American understanding of revolution through the language of liberation theology. In the third part, I will describe some “philosophical” questions of nature, purposes, and common issues and ideas which flow from the topic discussed. After that, I will present events that took place in the Post Communist countries, especially in the Former Soviet Union and Ukraine. I will conclude with my understanding of just revolution and the Church’s participation in the process of solving social problems such as injustice and oppression.
The forgotten task of the Church
There is a need today to recognize and identify ourselves with the poor and the oppressed. There is also a need today to take part alongside those who struggle for freedom and undergo a process of liberation. I think that there are many reasons for this, but I want to point here to the fact that we cannot forget the significance of the relationship between hope and freedom. For the Christian, this is one of the most basic truths in all times, where freedom is the ethical expression of the person who hopes.[1]. Hope can be comprehended as God’s relationship with the person who has been liberated by Him.[2]
In Latin America, churches provided a place where people could meet in an atmosphere of respect and reaffirm their own faith and hope.[3] .They did this as a response to the oppressive situation, because:
the media were censored and intimidated and where governments and armies imposed their ideology of national security, the base communities provided a small space where the truth could be spoken, even if guardedly. In a situation that seemed to offer no human reason for believing things could be different, their message was that things had to change.[4]
Churches became a place where poor people could “speak their word” and where they heard that God was on their side, on the side of the oppressed and humble.[5]. Here is the hope for our secular society. We should certainly not forget to proclaim the eschatological hope of Jesus’ return, when all human alienation and all evil, be it physical or moral, will be overcome; when the consequences of sin, which are hate, divisions, pain, and death, will be destroyed completely and forever.[6] These hopes are interconnected, where the eschatological hope must go by way of political hopes.[7] According to liberation theologians, humanity needs not just the idea of a future (eschatological) hope but also something very much like the Johannine idea of ‘eternity,’ which can be explained as the “present presence of the future,” and is ultimately oriented to the needs of people.[8]
Therefore, when people see all kinds of poverty, suffering, and oppression they start to think “how sad, how terrible.” Of course, they are right, because these are terrible situations, but often they forgot one important thing. That is, the changes that are always possible.[9] The problem is that for many years Christians accepted all social-economic contexts as God’s will. But how it can be God’s will when, for example, most of God’s children suffer?[10] The worst example is when the Church follows the dictates of society. It then becomes ineffective to provide changes for the better.[11] In this case, the Church becomes lukewarm and passive as the Church was in Laodicea: “For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing; not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:17).
Hope, which God proposes to us through the Church, consists of the possibility to live with joy in a better tomorrow. As the Gospel of Matthew reports: those who suffer today shall laugh tomorrow (Mat. 5:11) and this tomorrow has begun today.[12] The church should be in solidarity with oppressed people and proclaim the hope, as it is written in this remarkable verse by Batista Libanio:
I want to sing a new song, joyful
with my people celebrate the dawn.
My liberated people!
The struggle has not been in vain!
Pilgrim through a world unequal
Exploited by the greed of capital
By the plantation owner’s power made landless
Not knowing where to go I’m homeless…
With hope I stick together with the rest
I know God never forgets the oppressed who cry
And Jesus sided with the poor and dispossessed.
The prophets keep on denouncing the evil-doers
because the earth belongs to us as family.
There should be share and share alike at table
Kindness makes the whole world lovable
and its bright stars light my way.
In rivers of justice, common labor,
Rice fields will flower.
And we will harvest liberty![13]
This is the challenge for the Church today. How can Christians be true messengers of the kingdom in every situation of life? Specifically, what can they do for their communities, and where should they begin? For Christians, it is very important to realize that we can start with the small and humble things, with what is within our reach. What’s more, Jesus teaches us that it is our duty to act (Mt. 25). In other words, to be a messenger of the kingdom, one need not participate in complicated projects. All one needs is to act out his or her faith in those places that are nearest to him or her: his or her home, work, school, labor union, neighborhood. The important thing is to take advantage of every opportunity that comes along to manifest one’s faith in the service of others.[14]
In this case, our participation in nonviolent protests against injustice, poverty, and oppression is taking the side of those who are suffering today. There is also this very significant point for the Church. The Church, as a divine institution, should remember its responsibility for the proclamation of God’s Word. There is a big danger that the Church can become just another social organization, in satisfying present human needs.
There is, however, the very real danger that the church faced by staggering social need could forsake the proclamation of the word in order to “serve tables.” It would be tragic if the church lost its identity and became only another social action group or welfare organization. The solution to this danger is not found by redoubling evangelical fervor and preaching the Gospel in a louder voice. The word of God in acts of service is an equally articulate expression of the Gospel message. It is the cup of cold water given in his name that testifies to the essence of the Christian faith. The church must make the word active in love. The teaching and ministry of Jesus are ample testimony of this way.[15]
Today many churches do not want to have any connection with political actions. Others, on the contrary, see the task of the church to challenge the political system in countries where poverty is still in a dominant position. I don’t think that it is the only task of the church to challenge the political system, but I believe that this is a part of the church’s calling. In his prayer (John 17), Jesus did not ask the Father to take us out of a world in which every day we struggle with powers of evil. Rather, in this prayer he asks the Father to give his disciples divine unity, to be one as Jesus and his Father are one. Gutierrez said that, in the context of Latin America, to be the Church means:
to take a clear position regarding both the present state of social injustice and the revolutionary process which is attempting to abolish that injustice and build a more human order.[16]
According to liberation theology, to take the side of the poor and oppressed is to continue to fight against the oppressors, such as governments if they are like this.[17]. There is a real unity when the Church takes a strong position, not only in serving each other, but in serving this dying world.
For me, peaceful revolution is my interpretation of the Exodus story, because “Exodus is far more than simply the story of Israelite slaves led to freedom.”[18]. Exodus is a many-sided book, and regardless of all critiques of liberation theology’s interpretation of this story, we cannot neglect the fact that this book contains a powerful story of deliverance from slavery and oppression. Therefore, I can see common ideas between two stories of social injustice in oppressing circumstances: the story of the Exodus and the events which took place in Latin America. These are two stories about the birth and growth of powerful forces that had big parts in God’s plan. These are two stories of how God used his people in his attempt to bring deliverance and freedom. Those two situations look the same to me, only maybe the times and locations are different – social injustice in Egypt and social injustice in Latin America. As Gutierrez has said:
What is new in Latin America is obviously not poverty and oppression, not the difficulties of the poor, their struggle for justice. Rather, what is new is that the poor themselves are becoming increasingly more conscious of their rights, and their search is ever more imprinted by the gospel. I am speaking about a process.[19]
According to Liberation Theologians, the Exodus is not only a history of God’s people in the time of Moses; it has application for life today, for contemporary circumstances; it’s paradigmatic and remains vital, thanks to similar historical experiences.[20] God’s voice is still speaking through Moses and liberation theology as well: “Let my people go, so that they may worship me”(Ex. 8:1). Therefore, the Exodus is the way to the promised land in which God’s people can establish a society free from misery and alienation.[21] As Lloyd Ogilvie once said: “life is exodus.”[22].
Ideas of Latin American Liberation Revolution
From my research of the Latin American liberation theology, I can see that this theology is trying to justify revolution, when it fights for rights of oppressed, for political, economic and social liberty. In support of this idea, I want to mention some phrases which belong to Camilo Torres, who was a liberation activist and a martyr.[23] “The Catholic who is not a revolutionary is living in mortal sin;”[24] “I am revolutionary because I am a priest;”[25] “Revolutionary action is a Christian, a priestly struggle.”[26] He was a Colombian priest becoming a guerrilla fighter who was killed in the clash with government forces in 1966.[27]
It is a fact that liberationists see commitment to the revolution as an essential part of what means to be a Christian.[28]. Sidney Rooy points out the fact that: “the response of the Church to the social revolution in our lands will determine its future.”[29]
Liberation theology often talks about theology of revolution[30]. Here, the word «revolution» means a radical change,[31] social or cultural revolution.[32] In this case the task of revolutionaries is to concentrate on taking over social institutions, until all the transmitters of culture, such as schools, works of art and literature, media outlets and, most especially, churches, convey the belief that material progress, material wealth, and material comfort are the most meaningful elements of human life. Succeed here, Gramsci promised, and taking over government “becomes a relatively painless adjustment to the changed social situation.”[33] It attempts to bring restoration in political and social areas. As Humberto Belli, a former Marxist, explains in “Nicaragua: Field Test for Liberation Theology Pastoral Renewal, September 1984:”
Revolutionary political action becomes, in theologies of liberation, the way to make Christian love for the poor truly effective. Failure to engage in the revolutionary struggle would be failure to respond to the poor’s yearning for liberation and would place Christians in the camp of the oppressors. Since it is in the poor that Jesus dwells in a hidden but real way, for Christians not to commit themselves to the revolution would be to turn their backs on Christ.[34]
The issue of using violence in the liberation process has been one of the most controversial aspects of liberation theology.[35] .In our particular case, one can see that violence is not considered sinful if it is used for resisting oppression. According to Erickson:
Liberation theologians will in some cases regard a particular action (e.g., killing) as sin if it is committed by an oppressor, but not if it is committed by the oppressed in the struggle to remove inequities. The removal of inequities is believed to result in the removal of the occasion of sin as well.[36]
Therefore, it became clear that in order to serve the poor, liberation theology “had to move into political action.”[37] Liberationists see commitment to the revolution as an essential part of a Christian’s meaning. The reasons or motifs for this, according to Camara, are the following: the need for rapid change in poor countries and the need for change in developed countries as well.[38] Revolutionary changes were always needed in the economic, scientific, political, social and religious spheres of human life. These changes were realizable in the social, cultural or structural revolutions, produced by masses. The result of these revolutions produces a new hierarchy of values, a new world vision, a global strategy of development, the revolution of mankind.[39]
There are also many disagreements with the revolutionary ideas of liberation theology. Especially, this is visible in the process of using violence in the context of the revolutionary changes. A very good example was expressed in 1985 by Bishop Hoyos, a leader of the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America, who denounced liberation theologians by saying the following:
When I see a church with a machine gun, I cannot see the crucified Christ in that church. We can never use hate as a system of change. The core of being a church is love.[40]
Rhobes, in his critique, fully rejected revolutionary ideas of liberation theologians. According to him it was not fundamentally a political revolution that was needed, but a revolution in the human heart – something found only in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), who came not to be a model political revolutionary but to die on the cross for man’s sins as the Lamb of God (Matt. 26:26-28).[41].
Philosophy of the Just Revolution
What are the criteria for a revolutionary action by which it can be justified? I think that one criterion is our view on the question of the use of violence in the revolutionary process. The important question here is whether it is ethical to use physical force against someone. In theological circles exist the four following general positions concerning the use of physical power: nonresistance, Christian pacifism, just war theory, and belief in crusade or preventive war.[42] Our view on violence is built on our understanding of the nature of force and the impact of violence. One of those views proclaims that “physical violence is forbidden to believers as a method of accomplishing a purpose.”[43] The opposite view is found in Weist’s article Can There Be a Christian Ethic of Violence? According to Weist, the resort to such means cannot be ruled out absolutely on principle; that “there can be (and may now be) situations in which their use might be justified.”[44] According to him, this kind of violence is directed not against the state, but against tyranny.[45] For example, those who hold to the position of just war theory claim that it is better to participate in the revolutionary (war) action against all kinds of evil than to allow evil, aggression, and terror to go unchecked and unpunished. They believed that to let the violence of aggressive forces go unpunished is a worse evil than to do something about it.[46] According to Holmes, “to let violence and aggression go unchecked does not eliminate the evil, nor does it leave me unimplicated if I could do something about it.”[47]
Is there a logical extension of such ideas which is applicable to struggles for justice within a society, the purpose of which is not revolution but reform?[48]
Therefore, our positions on using violence lead us to our answers to the following questions: When is revolution morally justified? And what is the connection between ethics and revolution? For us, it is very important to know Jesus’ position on revolutionary actions. Martin Hengel, in his book Victory over Violence, wrote that, according to Gospels, Jesus did not present any socio-political programs. Jesus saw that the foundation for God’s sovereignty cannot be laid by the revolutionary transforming actions of political and economical structures. The breaking up of the strong walls of injustice can be accomplished only through the transformation of the human heart.[49]
Actually, I do not fully agree with Hengel’s position. I strongly believe that God’s way is a way of nonviolence, but that does not mean that God takes the inactive side or that of standing outside of the problem. Gutierrez sees that the best way to fulfill Jesus’ command is to offer a cup of cold water in his name, because
to offer food or drink in our day is a political action; it means the transformation of a society structured to benefit a few who appropriate to themselves the value of the work of others. This transformation ought to be directed toward a radical change in the foundation of society, that is, the private ownership of the means of production.[50]
That is what Dr. Myron Augsburger calls “nonviolent strategies for change.”[51]. Yoder’s book, The Politics of Jesus, one of the best examples of this view, gives a very marvelous explanation of the political message of Jesus and its inevitable consequences. Yoder begins his book by giving some basic reasons why many Christians do not see Jesus as a politician and explaining what it means to call Jesus a politician. Yoder compares those who see Jesus as a Zealot with those who believe that Jesus thought only about the end of this world and did not care about making a social system, since it actually was not his business. Jesus represented another group of people and had no plan to actually rule. In this case, the atonement was a divine transaction that only assures us that we are forgiven and does not have anything to do with how we act.[52]
This point of view pushed Yoder to construct his own exegesis, to rethink Jesus and to give fresh arguments against his opponents, people who are trying to “spiritualize” Jesus and make him not of this world. For example, in the first chapter, “The Possibility of Messianic Ethic,”[53] Yoder presents a point of view in which Jesus is seen as one who “deals with the spiritual and not social matters.” Yoder makes reference to Roger Mehl’s The Basis of Christian Social Ethics.[54] According to Mehl, whatever Jesus said or whatever he did in the social context should be understood in a symbolic or mythical understanding of his spiritual message.[55] Yoder argues against this kind of thinking by asserting that Jesus meant what he said. When Jesus spoke about kings or nations, or wealth or poverty, he was actually speaking about those things and not using metaphorical language and not spiritualizing those things.[56] This is a good reminder for us, as well, to not over-spiritualize Jesus’ message.
The right understanding of Jesus and his mission leads to another question. What does it mean to love God? To love God means to do justice (Jer. 22. 13-16). One can also ask what it means to know God? To know God means to “deal justly and fairly,” and to “uphold the cause of the lowly and poor” in everyday life. Inversely, what does it mean not to know God? It means to “deal unjustly and crookedly, to demean the cause of the lowly and poor, by making men work without pay or health benefits on an unneeded palace.”[57]
Of course, the social gospel, with its ideals of democracy and personal freedom, is increasingly inadequate to cope with unjust and oppressive structures. I also strongly believe also that no one religious party or church denomination can establish world socialism or democracy, but I do think that we must fight for peace, justice, and freedom in our countries. Here a skeptic can use Jesus’ statement that “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place”(John 18:36) to show that it is not our task to fight for the values of this world. But then how can we escape from the “situational sin” or “social sin”?[58] If sin has corrupted our social structures and has manifested itself through injustice in state systems, then we are called to restore the social structure, to find theological and practical solutions for our social reality.[59] In this situation, the Church has begun to face the necessity of searching for the concrete reality of God’s justice and love in our world.[60]. As Methodist pastor Emilio Castro asks, “What is the essential message we must preach to our people today?[61] It is the message of justice, hope, and liberation. This message transforms the church from the “spiritual sphere” to the active sphere.
Here I want to make a small digression and point out that the traditional-secular definition of the revolution is the following:
A revolution is a rebellion carried out with the intention of creating an entirely new form of government. Examples are the American war against colonial Britain; the Bolshevik overthrowing of the Russian monarchy to create a communist state; and the attempt by the Khmer Rouge to start Cambodian history anew.[62]
This kind of revolution almost always uses physical power as a tool for fighting. In this case, it is possible to stay that this kind of revolution implies bloodshed and killing. From this definition, it is clear that the purpose of a revolution is rebellion against a worse social system in order to attempt to create a better social system. This kind of revolution should be unacceptable to Christians
The opposite view presents revolutions more as peaceful protests rather than actions which have in mind the use of physical violence. There are many forms in which protest can be expressed peacefully. For example, a protest can include the following actions recognized: a boycott, a bully pulpit, civil disobedience, and cases of culture jamming and graffiti, a demonstration or rally, flag desecration, letters and letter writing campaigns (letters to the editor, literature and art– such as the 13th century Spanish tale “The Emperor Has No Clothes”), occupation, peace camp, petitions, picketing, protest march, protest rally, protest song, public nudity, certain classes of publicity stunts, obstructing the road, a rent strike, a riot(sometimes protests lead to riots), satyagraha(non-violent protest), samizdat, self-immolation, a sitdown strike, strike action, tax resistance, formation of a tent city, a walkout and so on.[63]
This definition of revolution prompts the next question: What does it mean to be the protesting church? Many of us get into the habit of thinking that to be the church means just to organize church services, to preach and to teach. Very often our churches concentrate more on the spiritual meaning of our service and mission, and I am afraid that the Church will forget the political meaning of Christianity and its own social responsibility. After many years of “spiritualizing” the Church’s mission, today I can see an awakening to the political sense of Christian missions. For example, there is my own country – Ukraine, which was, in the past, a part of the Soviet Union. Today I can see that the Church in the former Soviet Union is starting to actively participate in the masses’ struggle against corrupt governments and oppressive regimes. I can see this in the series of Velvet Revolutions in which many Christian churches took the side of the oppressed. This gives me the faith to believe that applying theology and participating in nonviolent protests are the best answers to contemporary problems. I can see that the Christian participation in political actions against injustice in the former Soviet Union is another step in the history of the liberation theology. I think that this kind of revolution is more peaceful and more just than those which took place in the Latin American context. In the following section, I will address why this is so.
Velvet’s Peaceful Revolutions
The “Velvet Revolution” (Czech: sametová revoluce, Slovak: nežná revolúcia) (November 16– December 29, 1989) refers to a bloodless[64] revolution in Czechoslovakia that saw the overthrow of the communist government.[65] The Velvet Revolution which consisted of a number of massive protests on the streets of Prague – often several hundred thousand strong – forced the resignation of the hardline Communist Party leadership.[66]
We remember and honor the poet revolutionary Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia, where Charter 77 rendered the flowers and songs of a velvet revolution more powerful than the guns of oppression. We remember the shipyard hero, Lech Walesa, of Poland. We remember those who stood non-violently in Russia, in Yugoslavia, in Tiananmen Square, in East and West Germany. It was their fearless living that ended the Cold War, not Reagan’s saber rattling.[67]
Historically Velvet Revolutions can be characterized as the actions of democratic activists whose courage opened much of the world to freedom in the final decades of the 20th century.
Good examples of how to fight for the rights of oppressed were the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Revolution of Dignity. There were many reasons for those revolutions in my country. The main reasons, and I think the last drop of the people’s patience, were “allegations of massive corruption, voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud”[68].Those revolutions were a series of peaceful protests as a people’s response to political events inside the country. It was not a war between the west part and the east part of Ukraine; between the Russian group and the group which supported a western system of thinking; it was not a conflict between one party and another. In a case of the Orange Revolution, it was a war between the corrupt government system, represented by the Prime Ministerand the administration presidential candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, and the right of free elections by the people, represented by the opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. Those events took place in Ukraine from November 21, 2004[69] until January 23, 2005,[70] when millions of protesters put hundreds of tents on the Independence Square (better knows as Maydan) in support of Ukrainian independence. Independence from: 1) influence of communism regime; 2) Russian domination (in the political sphere and in the spiritual sphere as well); 3) corrupt clans.
From my perspective, those revolutions showed the death of tyranny and the birth of freedom in Ukraine. It is a fact that Ukrainian Revolutions gave new birth to democracy in the territory of the former Soviet Union.[71] As one foreign journalist said about his impression of Ukraine’s events:
The mood of peaceful protest on behalf of freedom, love, and brotherhood was like the ideal of activist existence. I never would have expected it, could hardly believe it, and just wanted to share it with any of you that I could. I’ve simply never been so impressed by Ukrainians since I arrived in Ukraine in February of 2001[72].
One can say that this kind of protest has a political character, which has nothing to do with the Church’s mission. I think that the Church should first take the side of protest against all kinds of injustice. I cannot say that in the Ukrainian context it was the Church that started this process. Rather, I can say the Church actively participated in this revolution, both on the side of protesting people, and on the side of those who supported corrupt governments.
In these elections, a big role was played by the Moscow Patriarchy of the Orthodox Church through Kiev’s Metropolitan Vladimir, who submitted directly to Moscow and actively supported the government’s candidate, Russia’s protégé Viktor Yanukovych. It is very interesting that during the election campaign “Russia’s” candidate used to talk about the Orthodox Church’s values and called Ukrainians western influence, which, according to him, was represented by the other candidate, Viktor Yushchenko.
According to Michael Bourdeaux, Founder and President of Keston Institute, Oxford, there is no “Orthodox Church in Ukraine” to enjoin its faithful to pro- Moscow vote[73]. Many Ukrainian churches and believers did not like dialogue with Russia, which Yanukovych advocated in his presidential campaign. Many of them started to support the opposition and questioned the future of their churches and called to break ties with Moscow through separation from the Moscow Patriarchy.[74]
There was a motto among Christians during the Orange Revolution: “Church with people.” The three most senior leaders of different Protestant Churches co-signed a statement on December 2 condemning the falsification of the recent election results. They were joined by Cardinal Lubomir Husar, head of the Greek-Catholic Church, and Patriarch Filaret, head of the Kiev Patriarchate. Together they led in ecumenical prayer in front hundreds of thousands of protesters, from the platform on December 5.[75] Many Christians recognized the opposition candidate as an open-hearted man, who was open to God and who supported dialogue between all confessions. He finished all his speeches during the protests with the words: “Glory belongs to Ukraine and glory belongs to the Lord Almighty.”[76]
During the election campaign, Christians also put up many tents, with their churches’ names, among the protesters in which groups of Christians prayed, spoke with people about spiritual things and organized religious services and public worship. They also supported the protesters with food, hot tea and warm clothes. Many civilian people point out that prayer was one of the key principles during the revolution and the peaceful unity of protesters become real because of God’s support and influence.[77]
In some way, I can see that the events which took place during the presidential elections in the Ukraine in 2004 and 2014 can find their connections with the situation in Latin America. Of course, the purpose of the Ukrainian liberation movement was not an option directly for the poor and it was not led by Catholic priests.
Did anything unusual happen during the Orange revolution (2004) and the Revolution of Dignity (2014)? I found that when revolutions started, many participants experienced love for their own neighbor, trust in people who stand near you, spiritual refreshment, justice, unity, truth, humanity.[78] They did not use guns and did not physically fight with their oppressors. They raised their voices and cried for freedom. They yearned for freedom, justice, clear politics and the opportunity to live in the “new” country.[79] During his weekly address from a window in 2004 on St. Peter’s Square, Pope John Paul II told the crowd that his thoughts were with the Ukrainians at that moment. “I assure them of my prayers for peace in their country,” the Pontiff said.[80]. I can assume that because of God’s providence, many prayers of believers and absolute unity of protesters, Ukrainian revolutions were peaceful, and we still keep this peace in our country.
In contrast to the Latin American liberation movement, which was directed by Catholics, in Ukraine all churches participated (better to say took part or entered) in the process of revolutions. I wished that the church would have been first to raise its voice in the time of protest, but still, for Ukrainian churches, this was a big hitch after a long time of inertia in the political aspect of Christian mission. The great Ukrainian national poet Taras Shevchenko (1814-61) said the following: “Love your Ukraine; love her in the harshest time. In the very last harsh minute pray to God for her.”[81]
I hope that there is a future for nonviolence revolutions. There is an invitation to all of us to participate in the nonviolent journey into the third millennium, to walk with Jesus, whom we call “The Prince of Peace,” as he walked from place to place in ancient Palestine, offering healing, forgiveness, and love in place of violence, and preaching the good news of liberation for those oppressed by the power that kills.[82] Here are a few thoughts about nonviolence according to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr:
Just as one must learn the art of killing in the training for violence, so one must learn the art of dying in the training for nonviolence… The votary of nonviolence has to cultivate the capacity for sacrifice of the highest type in order to be free from fear.[83]
A fourth point that characterizes nonviolent resistance is a willingness to accept suffering without retaliation, to accept blows from the opponent without striking back. “Rivers of blood may have to flow before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood,” Gandhi said to his countrymen.”[84]
That gives me hope to see future liberation from all kind of violence which will be realized not by using arms but by participation in peaceful protests. I am rejecting the use of physical violence and rather accepting the teaching of peace. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Mat. 5:9).
I want to point out that the Orange Peaceful Revolution or Revolution of Dignity, as with other Velvet Revolutions, do not belong anymore just to Ukraine or to some other particular country, but have had their own international impact, expressing ideas of human freedom and liberation from all kinds of slavery. These common ideas can be found in many other countries and through many other political movements[85].
Political organizations are now trying to export revolutionary ideas to other countries of the former Soviet Union. For example, the youth party “Pora” (It is time/Пора) supported Kazakhstan’s and Kirgizia’s opposition attempts to clean their own “country.” Before them, one can see how the Serbian youth organization “Otpor” (Repulse/Отпор) used these methods during the deposition of Milosevich it the winter of 2000. After they started, they gave many suggestions to Georgia’s “Kmara” (Enough/Довольно) movement and helped to make “Pora” in Ukraine[86].
Not only political organizations are trying to export the ideas of peaceful revolution, but also Christians. As a good example, I want to point to the protest which took place in Byelorussia during the presidential election of 2006. The bishop of the Baptist Church from Georgia, Malhaz Songulashvili (Малхаза Сонгулашвили), archpriest Vasiliy (Basil) Kobadhidze (Василий Кобахидзе) and president of the Centre of Religious Studies Lado Gogiashvili (Ладо Гогиашвили) came to Byelorussia to support this peaceful protest. They said that in their purpose was to show that Christians should always be in the first line in the fight for freedom and human rights. It is the duty of each clergyman to participate in the life of his own people and fight together with them for human rights. The Orange Revolution/Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine and the Revolution of Roses in Georgia are not to overturn governments or to attempt to grasp power, rather those revolutions are to struggle for the changes in the life of their societies. In moments like those, it is forbidden for priests to be separate from the people[87].
When those priests from Georgia came to Byelorussia, the regime suppressed their efforts to be with the people. They argued that church priests do not have the right to interfere in a political fight. Corrupt governments saw their desire to pray with people on the meeting’s place as a crime. For governments, religion means a circle of believers who can not put their “noses” out of the church. The purpose of the priests’ testimony is to show that believers, as such, as well as nonbelievers, should participate in the liberation of our own nation, because our nation deserves freedom and democratic changes[88].
For me, it looks like we are now experiencing a spiritual and political awakening in the former Soviet Union. One can see the Revolution of Roses in Georgia (2003)[89], the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and Jeans[90]revolution in Byelorussia. Of course, the governments and people of those countries will face many problems again and again in future times, but they are worthy to be honored for their attempts to raise their voice and to proclaim justice. In Georgia, people dethroned the corrupt clans of Shevardnadze (Шеварнадзе), in Ukraine, the corrupt clans of Kuchma (Кучма) and in Byelorussia tried to do so with present president Lukashenko (Лукашенко). For the countries of the former Soviet Union, those revolutions are the second phase of escaping from the totalitarian communist regime.[91]
What will be the next step in the history of peaceful revolutions on the territory of the former Soviet Union? Some people are talking about a “Birchen” revolution in Russia, against the dominant government of president Putin.[92]. I think that after many years of sleeping, countries are experiencing times of spiritual and political awakening for which the litmus test is peaceful revolutions and Christian involvement in the political life of the society.
When people stand united with certain courage against oppression, they get their way. That is an axiom in the geometry of world history.[93].
Conclusion
This paper is a short summarization of my thoughts about the peaceful revolutions, about their nature, examples and the Church’s place in these kinds of revolutions. Through this paper the reader can see that that there can be more than two ways that the Church can react to the social injustice and the situation of the oppressed in the world. One position occurs when the Church is trying to be too “spiritual” so that it becomes unable to recognize the social problems which exist around her. Another radical position is when Church fights evils of this world by using physical power –through violence. My conclusion is that the most appropriate position which Christians should take is nonviolent revolution, peaceful protest and nonviolent strategies for change.
Share your reflections and feedback below
Some questions for thought…
- What do you consider as the Church’s place in revolutions and non-violent protest?
- From the examples given, do we find specific strategies that would be useful to churches in our varying contexts?
- How do these actions of protest reflect or respond to needs in your own context?
The views and opinions expressed in these papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect an official position of INFEMIT. We seek to foster reflection through conversation, and ask you to be respectful and constructive in your comments.
Featured Photo by Gueorgui Tcherednitchenko, unchanged, view at https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacelion/471266721
[1]J. Ellul, Hope in the Time of Abandonment (New York: The Seabury Press, 1977), 239.
[3]P.Berryman, P. Liberation Theology (New York: Pantheon Book, 1987), 100.
[6]L. Boff, Jesus Christ Liberator. A Critical Christology of our time. (London: SPCK, 1980), 52.
[8]F. Herzog, Liberation Theology (New York: The Seabury Press, 1972), 10.
[9]R. McAfee Brown, A Theology in a New Key (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978), 27.
[11]R. Batey, Jesus and the Poor (New York: Harper &Row, Publishers, 1972), 76.
[13]J. Batista Libanio, “Hope, Utopia, Resurrection,”in Systematic Theology. Perspectives from Liberation Theology, ed. J. Sobrino (Maryknoll: Orbis Book, 1990), 281.
[14]O. Costas, Theology of the Crossroads in Contemporary Latin America (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1976), 192.
[16]G. Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation. History, Politics and Salvation (New York: Orbis Books, 1988)151.
[17]M. Reel, “An Abiding Faith in the Liberation Theology,” Washington Post Foreign Service, (Monday, May 2, 2005): 12.
[18] R. Enns. „Exodus,“ in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Alexander; B. Rosner (Downers Grove: Internet Varsity Press, 2000), 146.
[19]G. Gutierrez, „Liberation Theology,“ Theology Digest, Volume 35, Number 1 (Spring 1988): 34.
[20]Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, 90.
[21]P. Hebblethwaute, P. “Let My People Go: the Exodus andLiberationTheology.” Religion, State and Society. Volume 21, Number 1 (1993), 107.
[22]M. Dunnam, “Exodus,” in The Communicator’s Commentary, ed. L. Ogilvie (Waco: Word Books, 1987), 13.
[23]T.Lane, The Lion Concise Book of Christian Thought (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1996), 249.
[25]Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Christology. A Global Introduction. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 231.
[26]H. Conn, “Theologies of Liberation: An Overview” in Tension in Contemporary Theology, ed. S. Gundry; A. Johnson. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), 359.
[28]R. Nash, “Liberation Theology. Soldiers of the Cross or of Marx?” Eternity, (July/August, 1986), 16.
[29]S. Rooy, “Social Revolution and the Future of the Church.” Occasional Essay XIII. 1, 2 (June): 89.
[30]For example see: J. Comblin,“On the theology of revolution,” Theology Digest, Volume 25, Number 2, (Summer 1977): 134 – 138.
[31]E. Feil, “The Theology of Revolution: A Critique,” Theology Digest, Volume 19, Number 3 (Autumn 1971): 220.
[32]Gutierrez,A Theology of Liberation, 57.
[33]M. Finocchiaro, “Gramsci: An Alternative Communism?” Studies in Soviet Thought. 27 (1984): 124.
[34]Nash. “Liberation Theology. Soldiers of the Cross or of Marx?”15.
[35]R. Rhodes. “Christian Revolution in Latin America: The Changing Face of Liberation Theology,” Christian Research Journal, (Winter 1991), 8.
[36]M. Erickson, Christian Theology(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 592.
[37]McAfee Brown, Theology in a New Key, 61-62.
[38]H. Camara. Church and Colonialism(London: Sheed and Ward, 1969), 80.
[42]R. Clouse (ed.), War: 4 Christian View. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981.
[43]H. Hoyt, “Nonresistance,” in the War: 4 Christian View, ed. R. Clouse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 33.
[44]W. Weist, „Can There A Christian Ethic Of Violence,“ Perspective, Volume X, (1969): 118-145.
[46]A. Holmes, “The Just War,” in the War: 4 Christian View, ed. R. Clouse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 118.
[49]H. Martin, Victory over Violence (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1973), 49.
[50]Gutierrez,Theology of Liberation, 116.
[51]M. Augsburger to A. Denisenko, e-mail. 9.05. 2006.
[52]A. Denisenko, review of Politics of Jesusby J. Yoder. Evangelical Theological Seminary, Osijek, Janyary 25, 2006.
[53]J. Yoder,The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 6-7.
[54]R. Mehl, “The Basis of Christian Social Ethics,” in J. Bennet (ed.) Christian Social Ethics in a Changing World (New York: Association, 1966), 44.
[57]McAfee Brown, Theology in a New Key, 90
[58]Sin can be interpreted as the rupture of communion, with other persons and with God, then this sin can be found inside the structures, organizations and institutions, that are parts of our lives. That is the structural sin or structures of sin, which can be expressed through oppressive structures which are the fruit of exploitation and injustice. R. Goizueta, “Gustavo Gutierrez,” in The Blackwell Company to Political Theology, ed. P. Scott and W. Cavanaugh. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 293; Jose Ignacio Gonzales, Faus, “Sin,” in the Systematic Theology. Perspectives from Liberation Theology, ed. J. Sobrino; I. Ellacuria (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996), 197 – 198.
[59]G. Gutierrez “The Violence of a System.,” in Concilium Christian Ethics and Economics: The North – South Conflict, eds.,D. Pohier; J. Mieth (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark LTD, 1980), 94.
[60]Conn, “Theologies of Liberation: An Overview,” 346.
[62]“Revolutions,” in Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia, [on line], Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Revolutions, Accessed on 11.05.2006.
[63]“Protest,” in Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia, [on line], Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest, Accessed on 11.05. 2006.
[64]During those revolutions the non-violent protesters “fighting with flowers” against armored policemen.
[65]“Velvet Revolution” inWikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, [on line], Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution. Accessed on 17.04.2006.
[66]The Velvet Revolution, [on line], Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/31580.stm. Accessed on 17.04.006.
[67]D. ‘Granny D’ Haddock, “Our Velvet Revolution,” [on line]. Available at: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0117-31.htm. Accessed on 17.04.2006
[68]See more detailed information, which is available on: “Orange Revolution,” in Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia, [on line], Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution, Accessed on 17.04.2006.
[69]The day when protests began after the second round of voting in which Viktor Yushchenko’s team publicized evidence of many incidents of electoral fraud.
[70]The day of the inauguration of Viktor Yushchenko on January 23, 2005 in Kiev. The day in which the Orange Revolution reached its successful conclusion.
[71]A. Aslund. Yushchenko vs. Putin International Herald Tribune (Thursday, February 10, 2005), [on line], Available at: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/09/opinion/edaslund.php, Accessed on 17.04.2006.
[72]D. James McMinn, “What was the Orange Revolution?” [on line], Available at:
http://orangeukraine.squarespace.com/revolution/. Accessed on 17.04.2006.
[73]M. Bourdeaux, “The Christian Voice in Ukraine Election,” Religion In Eastern Europe, Volume XXV, Number 1(February 2005), 4.
[74]Х. Шагин, «Религиозные разногласия между Киевом и Москвой,» [online], Available at: http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/216246.html, Accessed on 17.04.2006.
[76]For example see his speech at December 4. Гарячий Вістник № 96. Обєднання незалежного інформаційного центру в УНІАН. Available at: http://www.civicua.org/conference/download/visnyk_96.doc, Accessed on17.04.2006.
[77]В. Ковальова, «Социологическое Иследование, Майдан в Духовному та Соціокультурному Розрізі (За матеріалами опитування «Цінності та мораль Майдану»)»Журнал Реалис(Лютий 2005), [online]. Available at: http://www.realis.org/magazinesoc.htm, Accessed on 17.04.2006.
[80]Y. Eunice, “Unjust Ukraine Election Sparks Christian Concern,” Christian Today(November 29, 2004), [on line]. Available at: http://www.realis.org/magazinesoc.htm Accessed on 20.04.2006.
[81]Shevchenko, Taras, [on line]. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/~cius/eu/articles/art-shevch.htm. Accessed on 22.04.2006.
[82]G. Harak (ed.), Nonviolence for the Third Millennium. Its Legacy and Future(Macon: Mercer University Press, 2000), viii.
[83]J. Bondurant, Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict(Berkeley:
University of California, 1965), 29.
[84]M. Luther King Jr., “An Experiment in Love,” in A Testament of Hope, ed. James M. Washington (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 18-19.
[85]Such as: Afghan News; American Libyan Freedom Alliance;Assyrian News Iraq; Belarus – Charter 97; East Turkistan;Free Africa Foundation; Free Burma; Free Burma Coalition; Free China Movement; Free Cuba; Free Lebanon; Free North Korea; Free Patriotic Movement Lebanon;Free Vietnam Alliance; Friends of Kyrgyzstan; Future of Russia; Inner Mongolia; International Campaign For Tibet; Iran – Student Movement; Iran of Tomorrow; Iraq Foundation; Kahar – Kazakhstan (rus) (kaz); Kazakhstan’s Democratic Forces;KelKel – Kyrgyz Youth;Lebanese Forces; Libyan Constitutional Union;Milinkevich – Belarus (Bel); Moldova Foundation; New Taiwan; No Putin (rus); North Korea’s Tangled Web; Pharoahs Egypt Blog;Radio; Free Nepal Blog; Radio Free Syria; Reform Party of Syria; SPS Russia (rus); Saudi Institute; Serbian; Unity Congress; Spirit of America; Students for Global Democracy; Tajikistan Votes; Turkemenistan – Youth; Turmenistan Republican Party; Uzbekistan – ERK Party; Venuezuela – Opposition. See more information on official site of Orange Revolution (English version),[on line]. Available at: http://www.orangerevolution.us/blog/OrangeRevolutionPhotos/_archives/2005/10/21/1314034.html Accessed on 22.04.006.
[86]Le Monde: Украискаяреволюция– экспортныйвариант, [online], Available at: http://www.obozrevatel.com/index.php?r=news&t=2&id=182159, Accessed on 22.02.2005.
[87]Ю. Дорошенко, Лукашенко, гонительхристиан, [on line], Available at:http://maidan.org.ua/static/mai/1143799284.html, Accessed on 22.02.2005.
[89]It was the first revolution directed against corruption on the territory of Former Soviet Union. Many politicians think that this revolution found its continuation in the Ukrainian events. L. Shelley; E. Scott ”Georgia’s Revolution of Roses’ Can Be Transplanted,” Washington Post(Sunday, November 30, 2003), B05.
[90]There was a story about this name. At September, 16, during daily protest in supporting to disappeared Byelorussian journalists and politics, police took off all nation symbols, which belong to protesters. As a response on this, young man, named Mikita Sasim (МикитаСасим) took away his Jeans jacket, lift upunder his head and started swing as he did it with his flag before police took it. See: Хартыя’97 “Джынс салідарнасць,”[on line], Available at:http://www.charter97.org/bel/news/2005/11/21/sol,Accessed on 22.02.2005.
[91]LeMonde: Украиская революция – экспортный вариант.
[92]“Tagesanzeiger”, Швейцария-Березовойреволюциинебудет, [on line], Available at: http://www.obozrevatel.com/index.php?r=news&t=2&id=181789, Accessed on 22.02.2005.
Leave a Reply