Reading Karl Barth in Myanmar: the Significance of His Political Theology for a Public Theology in Myanmar
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Public Theology 12 (2018) 416–439 brill.com/ijpt Reading Karl Barth in Myanmar: The Significance of His Political Theology for a Public Theology in Myanmar David Thang Moe Ph.D Candidate, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, KY, USA [email protected] Abstract This article pays particular attention to the three themes in Barth’s macro-political theology and their contextual significance for a micro-political theology for Myanmar. First, I explore Barth’s renewed doctrine of political Lordship in response to the tradi- tional doctrine of two kingdoms. Second, I examine his hermeneutics of the dialectical relation between church and state and the ethical role of the church in the sociopo- litical situation in the light of his theological document of the Barmen Declaration against the evil of Nazism and the errors of the church. Finally, I seek to show how Barth’s political theology and liberation theology are convergent and divergent in their synthetic goals of transforming unjust rulers and liberating the oppressed, reforming and renewing the ethnic church, and establishing an embracive and reconciled com- munity in Myanmar. Keywords Barth – Myanmar militarism – Lordship – Political Theology – The oppressed 1 Introduction It is perhaps rather unusual to invoke the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886– 1968) on behalf of a political and public theology that is relevant to contem- porary Myanmar. The most recent practice has been to concentrate on the differences between those who argue on the basis of a liberation theology and those who seek a way to nurture civil society in general. At face value Barth © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/15697320-12341554Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 01:27:14PM via free access Reading Karl Barth in Myanmar 417 seems to be an unlikely presence despite his being widely regarded as one of the fathers of contemporary political theology. The situation in life that confronted Barth was a world away from that of ethnic minorities wrestling with matters of identity and rights under a mili- tary regime where the overwhelming majority of citizens are Buddhists. The origins of his political thought are to be found his ten years of pastorate in the Safenwil village of less than 2,000 people (1911–1921).1 The formative years of his political theology was cast against a background of great upheavals tak- ing place on the other side of the world: World War I (1914–1918), the October Russian Revolution (1917), the General Strike in Switzerland (1918), and the rise of Nazism during the 1930s.2 In due course Barth would become the principal author of the Barmen Declaration and the Confessing Church in response to Nazism (1934). Of critical importance in the evolution of his thinking was his Commentary on Romans. First published in 1918 the second edition appeared in transla- tion in English in 1933. Nazism was coming to power. Barth now left behind an earlier reticence and argued that the problems facing Paul in the Roman Empire were similar to those confronting his contemporary Christians. Barth had begun to address explicitly the following kinds of questions: “what is the relation of theology to politics? What is the role of the church in politics? What is the relation of the Bible to culture or the newspaper? What is the preacher to preach?” Those same questions lie behind the task of a Christian witness and theol- ogy in Myanmar today. The military regimes continue to discriminate against the ethnic Christians, especially the Chins, Kachins and Karens because of their ethnic minority status and their religious identity as Christians in a Buddhist majority country.3 The argument is extended to include the common people—Pyithu-dukkha—who share an analogous experience. Pyithu-dukkha is a combination of two Burmese words. Pyithu refers to the 135 racial groups, whereas dukkha means suffering. When the words are com- bined pyithu pyitha then means all citizens of the country. When dukkha is placed alongside Pyithu, the meaning is implied exclusively to the non-ruling 1 Clifford Green, ed, Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 13–14. 2 George Hunsinger, ‘Toward a Radical Barth’, in George Hunsinger, ed, Karl Barth and Political Politics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1972): pp. 181–234 at p. 224. Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909–1936 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 61, 184. 3 Kanbawza Win, ‘Are Christians Persecuted in Burma?’ in Asia Journal of Theology, 14:1 (April 2000): pp. 170–117. International Journal of Public Theology 12 (2018)Downloaded 416–439 from Brill.com09/26/2021 01:27:14PM via free access 418 Moe classes. Pyithu-dukkha refers to the suffering masses of people.4 Dukkha itself needs to be defined in two ways. First, the idea of dukkha as a cosmic reality is comparable to the Buddha’s first sermon on the Four Noble Truths. According to the first truth, dukkha is a cosmic reality of pain. It is similar in this respect to Paul’s use of sin as the cause of death (Rom. 5:12; 8:21–22). Dukkha is also a cause of evil. It possesses a moral sense. It is in this latter sense that the term dukkha will be employed. Just as Hitler causes suffering to the Jews, so the evil- regimes cause suffering to Pyithu-dukkha. According to the second Noble Truth, the cause of suffering is one’s desire.5 It is mistake to see the people’s suffering in Myanmar as a result of their vol- untary desires, however; their suffering is a consequence of the evil desires of the rulers. In Myanmar, a rich country blessed with natural resources, such as jades and minerals, the people’s poverty is the result of the rulers’ sin of omis- sion (the failure to do what they should do) and commission (they do what they should not do). They fail to promote the welfare of people; instead they exploit the Pyithu-dukkha.6 The socio-political oppression is so rampant in so- ciety that dukkha becomes a common spoken term for people to express their daily suffering. Melford Spiro rightly wrote that Dukkha is the most frequently used term in Burma; it is on everyone’s lips at work and on a trip. For Burmese, as for the rest of humankind, the notion that life involves suffering is not an article of faith; it is a datum of everyday experience.7 Pyithu-dukkha is the point of departure for an appropriate public theology. Its boundaries are set by three theological questions. What is the role of Christian community and other religious communities in the context of Pyithu-dukkha? How should a political-cum-public theology in Myanmar discern the relation- ship between divine authority and political authority? What is the public goal of political theology? Barth’s writings from another fraught context can here serve as a foil. It can do so in three ways. The first is by giving due attention to his renewed doctrine 4 For full account of definition of Pyithu-dukkha, see David Thang Moe, Pyithu-Dukkha Theology: A Paradigm for Doing Dialectical Theology of Divine Suffering and Human Suffering in the Asian-Burmese Context (Lexington, KY: Emeth, 2017), pp. 4–9. 5 Lynn A. De Silva, The Problem of the Self in Buddhism and Christianity (Colombo: The Center for Religion and Society, 1975), pp. 34–36. 6 Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom from Fear (New York: Penguin, 1991), p. 168. 7 Melford E. Spiro, Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982), p. 74. International Journal of Public TheologyDownloaded 12from (2018) Brill.com09/26/2021 416–439 01:27:14PM via free access Reading Karl Barth in Myanmar 419 of the political Lordship as the ground for his hermeneutics of political theol- ogy. The second emerges out of his hermeneutics to do with the dialectical relationship between church and state and the role of the church in a politi- cal situation8 as shown in the Barmen Declaration. The third is by way of a comparison made with the liberation theologies of Gustavo Gutiérrez and its Asian expression through the work of Aloysius Pieris. How are Barth’s political theology and these liberation theologies interrelated in their common goals of liberating the oppressed and transforming the unjust rulers, reforming and renewing the ethnic church, and establishing an embracive community? 2 With Reference to Political Lordship Barth took the idea of Christ’s Lordship as an organizing principle for his politi- cal theology. It has been argued by Jürgen Moltmann (among others) that here he is indebted, by way of critique and appropriation, to Martin Luther. For the sake a theology relevant to the situation in Myanmar the difference between their renderings of the doctrine two kingdoms within which Lordship is em- bedded is critical. According to Luther “[t]here are two kingdoms—one is the kingdom of God, the other is the kingdom of the world.”9 His doctrine has its theological origin in a Jewish apocalyptic conflict between God and the devil, between Cain and Abel and between the righteous and unrighteous. Luther declared that “[w]e must divide Adam’s children and all people into two parts. The first those righteous belong to Christ and the rest unrighteous those who belong to the kingdom of the world.”10 His theory of the two kingdoms tended towards eschatology and lent itself to a separation between church and state. For Luther this doctrine of the two kingdoms provided for the spiritual rule of God and the secular rule of the world / devil.