P ART T WO

P

-C

M

C

: C

P

Samuel Ngun Ling

Myanmar: A Historical Context

To speak about Myanmar, formerly Burma, one cannot avoid referring to three Bs – namely, Burma, Baptist, and Buddhism. Burma renamed as Myanmar today is economically still a suffering nation, politically a lamenting country, and religiously a chanting land. The dominant political system before the recent changes is known as the Burmese way to socialism, also described by Kosuke Koyama, the Japanese theologian, as the ‘Burmese way to loneliness’.² Burmese society is predominantly a Theravada Buddhist society in south-east Asia and is also a melting-pot where altogether 135 different ethnic and language groups exist together mutually interacting, with a total population of 53 million today. The Christian population is estimated to be 6% of the total population, the majority of which belongs to the Baptist denomination so that it represents one of the largest Baptist populations the world.

Historically and politically speaking, Myanmar underwent five stages of political systems: first, monarchical rule from the early eleventh to the late nineteenth century (c 1885). There were three Anglo-Burmese wars in the colonial period from 1824 until 1885, when the last Burmese King Thibaw was dethroned. The Christian Protestant mission, particularly the American Baptist mission, arrived on 13th July 1813.

Second, Myanmar experienced colonial rule under the British Indian Empire for 124 years from 1824 to 1948. The Buddhist Nationalist movement was born out of this long suffering from the colonial womb, which later gave rise to a strong anti-Christian voice. The long history of the Christian-Buddhist conflict (particularly the Karen and Burman ethnic conflicts) is considered to be rooted in the experience of colonial dominance.

Third, Myanmar tasted a short-term parliamentary democracy system for fourteen years from 1948 to 1962. This democratic system was stamped out

1 This paper is part of my lecture given at Union Theological Seminary, New York ,on 2nd December 2008, at the invitation of Prof. Dr Paul Knitter. Its character as a lecture has been retained for this publication.

2 See Douglas J. Elwood (ed), What Asian Christians are thinking (Manila: New Day Publishers, 1978), 29. Here Kosuke Koyama seems to subtly refer to the Burmese way to socialism.

by a theocratic system – and the issue of making Buddhism the state religion under the then Prime Minister U Nu prompted strong ethnic Christian resistance.

Fourth, General Ne Win introduced the policy of ‘the Burmese way to socialism’ which lasted for 26 years from 1962 to 1988 which completely failed and resulted in making the country one of the poorest countries in the world today.

Fifth, the military once again took power in 1988, and controlled the country under military capitalism for eighteen years until the 2015 democratic election. In recent times, socio-political restrictions, economic and religious oppression have become a common issue in the life of the church and Christians in Myanmar.

The Challenges of Power in Myanmar

Myanmar today is entangled in two political struggles: the restoration of democracy and struggles for ethnic minority rights. Decades of ethnic fighting, political repression, human right violations, economic crisis and the breakdown of the health care and education systems, have caused immense suffering, most notably for minority peoples who are often Christians. These have consequently led to huge problems of internally displaced peoples within, and externally misplaced refugees/asylums outside, the country, often the victims of exploitation.

The Problem of a Non-Buddhist in a Buddhist Country

A resurgence of Buddhism and of Buddhist nationalist movements stressed very clearly that all Burmese nationalities owed loyalty to Theravada Buddhism. To a Burmese Buddhist, embracing a foreign religion like Christianity almost meant ceasing to be Burmese, because a person who is not a Buddhist is regarded as non-Burmese. Buddhism in Myanmar has taken on an ethnic identity. There is a Buddhist philosophy which states,

‘To be an authentic Burmese is to be a Buddhist.’³ This philosophy still dominates majority Buddhist thinking and is also a great challenge and even a threat to the national identity of every non-Buddhist in post-colonial Myanmar.

In modern Myanmar, there are two streams of cultural encroachment:

one is religious and the other is political. As a religious stream, the Buddhist government often makes an attempt to employ Buddhist religion and culture as a core element for redefining modern Myanmar nationality and its national ideology so that socio-structurally Burmese society becomes more mono-ethnic than multi-ethnic. This religion-based

3 Samuel Ngun Ling, Christianity through our neighbour’s eyes. Yangon: MIT, 2014.

nationalism is known as ‘Burmanization or Buddhistization’, or in Burmese Amyo, Batha, Tathana. This is the Myanmar Buddhist nationalist concept of ‘Burmese nationalism’ summarized in Burmese language. The literal meaning of these three terms is Nationality, Religion, Mission. This Buddhist philosophy tries to build up a Buddhism-based national identity, but there is resistance from ethnic minorities such as Christians and Muslims who try to de-Burmanize themselves so that they protect themselves from invasion by the predominantly Buddhist religion and culture. In the process of Burmese nationalization, Buddhism is considered as most ‘favoured religion’. The previous military government leaders claimed official freedom of worship and equality for all on religious grounds but, at the same time, they reserved a clause giving ‘favouritism’

or ‘special distinctiveness’ to Buddhism over other religions. Article 361 of the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar continues to claim that ‘The Union recognizes the special position of Buddhism as the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens of the Union’.⁴

Being a Minority Christian

Despite its more than two hundred years of existence in the country, Christianity is still considered to be alien to Burmese society. Christian missions continue to be perceived as part of what was known as the western imperialists’ three Ms: Merchant, Missions and Military. Christians are often viewed as pro-western, pro-British, pro-American as advocates of western cultural influence whose presence could turn out to be a threat to Buddhist nationalism and the solidarity of the nation. This historical stigma is damaging interfaith relations, thereby weakening interfaith co-operation at national level. In such circumstances of prejudice, both the minorities of Christians and non-Christians alike are facing serious identity crises in their struggles for preserving, sustaining and promoting both their Christian and their ethnic identities. In fact, as long as there is freedom of expression and the right to worship for all religions, there is an opportunity for building a community of interfaith relations. As long as there is political suspicion and suppression, there will be tension and conflict between religious communities.

The ethnic minorities are doubly marginalized, as ethnic minorities and as Christians, and face a serious religious identity crisis. The principle of Buddhist nationalism tries to redefine who is a minority and who is a Christian, consequently leading to the social exclusion, marginalization and religious discrimination of ethnic minorities. Marginalization further pushes the poor, the powerless and the illiterate to the outer rims of society.

4 ‘The Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar’, published in 2008 by the Myanmar government (Ministry of Information, Printing & Publishing Enterprise, 2008), 151.

Being a Post-modern Minority

According to post-modernism, the post-modern situation identifies itself as post-Enlightenment, post-colonial, post-patriarchal and post-Christian. In the post-colonial period, minority peoples rose to free themselves from the grip of external and internal imperialistic powers. In this situation, colonized nations are reclaiming and re-establishing their national identities as agents and subjects in the whole of the historical process. In the post-patriarchal situation, feminist critiques of modernity have exposed the way in which rational and social structures were used to suppress and oppress women. In fact, Christian feminist theologians have revised their theological categories to ensure that they boldly witness to those women who are over half of world’s population. These paradigmatic shifts have brought many levels of change in society, among which, globalization has brought tremendous change.

Globalization is the process of the transnational integration of global economic systems to capitalism. On one hand, it promotes organised and relative comforts and new social values, and redefines: (i) the meaning of life, (ii) human morality and thinking, (iii) human happiness, and (iv) the relationship between humans and nature. And, on the other hand, globalization also produces a powerful centre of wealth and power in the hands of a dominant few. As a result, the gap between the rich and the poor has become wider and deeper, leaving many poor countries vulnerable to unpredictable breakdowns in democratic structures, economic life and human relationships.⁵ Globalization seeks to stimulate economic growth internationally but it often has negative consequences, especially for impoverished nations and their environment.⁶ In any society where an unfettered free-market ethos dominates, those most affected by the impact of globalization are often the poor and vulnerable. While the global economy promises prosperity to all citizens of the world, in many instances, it benefits only the rich and powerful in those countries. While globalization aided by the explosion of technology has also improved life for many, especially in the nations of the global South, the benefits have not sufficiently spread to the poor and weak of the countries of the South.

There are negative effects, particularly environmental issues. The issue of global justice remains a concern in the era of globalization.⁷

5 Wolfgang R. Schmidt, ‘Globalization – Universality – Utopia’, in Theology and Cultures, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Tainan, Taiwan: Chung Jung Christian University and Tainan Theological College and Seminary, 2004), 11.

6 Schmidt, ‘Globalization – Universality – Utopia’.

7 See Samuel Ngun Ling, ‘Communicating Christ in Myanmar: Issues, Interactions, and Perspectives’, a paper presented and published by the Association for

Theological Education in Myanmar (ATEM), 2005.

Minority and Religious Pluralism

Religious pluralism is a reality of our time, as Stanley J. Samartha remarked, ‘To reject exclusivism and to accept plurality, to be committed to one’s faith and to be open to the faith communities of our neighbours, to choose to live in a global community of communities, sharing the ambiguities of history and the mystery of life – these are the imperatives of our age.’⁸ Given a multicultural and religious situation, religious pluralism does not necessarily create a loss of one’s own faith tradition, culture or identity but rather it helps to enrich common life, community relationship and global ministry. Actually, it comes as a critique of the present globalization that is built on capitalism – the capitalist value of privatizing one’s own space and property, and zealously guarding it. But religious or cultural pluralism comes as a demand of ‘the other’ to come into our private space, where we jealously guard our God and our religion. This therefore requires an altogether new orientation. Religious pluralism provides us with an opportunity to speak out and be heard, with an assertion that every view deserves to be given a hearing, including those views which are decidedly religious.

Generally speaking, a Christian living in the post-modern era is constantly engaged in a process of creative negotiation between one’s faith commitments and the various other pluralisms that exist, regardless of whether they are religious or political or economic or social.⁹ Here, creative negotiation would require not only discernment but also the ability to work for the common good of humanity and not just for one’s own religious, ethnic, cultural or national group. The pronouncement of the theologian Hans Kung continues to reverberate with wisdom: ‘No survival without a world ethic. No world peace without peace between religions. No peace between the religions without dialogue between the religions.’¹⁰

Religion and Ethnic Conflict

The horror and the consequences of 9/11 still weigh upon the world although the years have passed. The world today continues to be full of tragedies, hatred, fears, killing, destruction and war. The current situation calls for an even more fervent determination to rebuild communities across divisions and boundaries. Destructive forces masquerading as religious loyalty destroy the fabric of civil society in many countries. Ethnic conflict

8 S.J. Samartha, “Globalization and its Cultural Consequences”, in Ethical Issues in the Struggle for Justice (eds) M.P. Joseph and Daniel D. Chetti (Tiruvalla, India:

CSS/BTTBPSA, 1998), 193.

9 John McGowan, Postmodernism and Its Critics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), 215.

10 Hans Küng, Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic, trans. John Bowden (New York: Continuum, 1993), xv.

rages in many parts of Africa and Asia. For that, we need not only a theoretical acknowledgement of religious pluralism but also a pedagogy of encounter: the various ways of people living together despite the tragedies that divide us and make us into strangers and enemies. Religion can be a potential source of either peace or of conflict. It can liberate or torture, it can heal or harm, humanity. The ideal goal of most world religions is working for the good of humanity. In their ideal vision, religions aspire to transform peoples and cultures for the better. Many world religions do have as their basic teaching the cultivation of compassion. Religions try to turn their adherents’ inward piety towards the outward practice of compassion.

In a general reading of religions, it could be said that the one who has love and compassion with a pure heart experiences peace within. When there is anger and hatred within, one becomes miserable, irrespective of whether one is a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim. It is therefore important for all religious adherents to focus on the inner aspects of religion and avoid conflicts over its outer shell, which are the various rites, rituals, confessions and dogmas.

Unfortunately, religion causes conflicts and violence when it is hijacked by forces that are political, economic or even geopolitical. In fact, it would be a great mistake to link terrorism simply with a particular religion. For some analyses, terrorism is actually born out of discontent and frustration produced by extreme marginalization and poverty. The increasing gap between the poor and the rich will continue to be a breeding ground for conflicts, and religion will be hijacked by the forces that fight for their survival. No amounts of arms and ammunition will root out terrorism if oppressive policies remain unchallenged. Global justice is the only path to reducing conflicts and terrorism. From another aspect, terrorism has opened our eyes to look afresh at the social and political dynamics of religious pluralism.

Religion, Power and Identity

For many, religion provides, on the one hand, a powerful source of identity for people, and on the other, a force for violent activities. Identity such as ethnic or religious identity is a given social status while being a religious minority is often a status of human origin,¹¹ because of the abuse of religions by political power. Religion plays an important role in preserving and promoting people’s identity. There is an awakening of marginal identities in many parts of Asia – ethnics, tribal, Dalits and others. These

11 Samuel Ngun Ling, ‘Ethnicity, Religion and Theology in Asia: An Exploration from the Myanmar Context’, a paper presented at a Consultation on Ethnic Minorities in the Mekong Region on 23rd-25th November 2007 at the Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong, in Hans Hoerschelmann (ed), Ethnicity, Religion and Theology: A Consultation on Ethnic Minorities in the Mekong Region (Hong Kong: LTS, Mekong Mission Forum Publication, 2007), 6-7.

marginal identities naturally clash with a revival of dominant nationalist ideologies that often bear the stamp of religion. Felix Wilfred, an Indian theologian, observes: ‘The challenge posed by identities is cushioned by attempting to integrate them within a national framework or common project. In the process, the weaker power positions in which identities find themselves finally result in their being effectively discriminated against. In sum, the ideology of bourgeois liberal nationalism followed by post-colonial states proves to be quite detrimental to the cause of identities.’¹² In sum, any situation of religious and cultural pluralism, social and cultural identities of different religions should be maintained and preserved, without making any religion or culture superior to others in the name of identity.

Religion can become an abuse of power of a predominant group when it is not used as a source of relationships. Power that is embedded especially in relationships between religious communities is seldom reflected upon by many of us. Sometimes, discussion of religious pluralism seems to be too abstract and theoretical that it does not take into consideration the ground realities or root causes of conflict. Religious conflicts are usually not about doctrines and beliefs, but are somehow triggered by social, economic and political factors. The control of resources, political power and the fear of losing one group’s influence – all these contribute a great deal to religious conflicts. Our theology of religions should emerge from lived situations or experience and should not emerge from detached study. We need to pose the question of interfaith relations not only as a theological question but as a question relating to power, justice and community. It is in this area of human relationships that some of the sharpest questions of theology and faith should be raised.

Towards a New Global Spirituality

Some major religions like Christianity have today become strongly institutionalized in terms of their centuries-old establishment. The problem is that they have been too preoccupied with their own institutional problems and have, therefore, lost touch with practical issues facing local communities. Religion becomes a status quo when its institutional leaders adhere strongly to the traditions of the religion alone. Institutional religions therefore fail to address various socio-politico-ethical issues or to raise prophetic voices against social evils that have profoundly affected human society today. The focus of religious pluralism is not to construct a new religion, but to seek a new world – a world in which people matter more than systems and traditions – and a world where there is equality and justice.

12 Felix Wilfred, ‘Identity: Suppressed, Alienated, Lost’, in Concilium, 2000/2, 31-38.

The kind of spirituality that every religion seeks must be dynamic, liberative and life-affirming. Spirituality is the power of daring to live, to act, to serve and to share. The capitalist concept of economic power has to do only with selfish possession, consummation and domination. The promises of economic globalization come to us in rivalry with the promises of our religions. It is therefore considered to act as ‘the religion of market’, to borrow the words of M.P. Joseph, an Indian theologian.¹³ This ‘religion of market’ is losing its human face, creating a gap between rich and poor, between powerful and oppressed, between the social classes, and between neighbours within the same locality. The rich neighbour may no longer see his or her poor neighbour who lives nearby, but will rather talk with a friend who lives far away. While globalization brings us closer to each other in terms of information technology, it can also make those of us who live nearby to appear to be further and further away, leaving an unbridgeable gap between friends and neighbours. In contrast with the emerging trends of ‘religion of market’, the spiritualities of all religious traditions envision a different view of power for life – the power to dare living, giving and sharing with others. This is the real power that the Christian and non-Christian traditions must continue to develop. Jesus’

washing of his disciples’ feet is the great symbol of a dynamic religious power. Gotama the Buddha taught that even the morsel in the beggar’s bowl should be shared. Sharing, not the accumulation of possessions, is the criterion for a liberated life. The inner power of any religion should be our common ground for our new global spirituality.

In our approach to a new global spirituality, religion must play the role of a peace-maker or pacifier. The problem of religious conflicts over centuries is never the Bible or the Torah or the Quran. Indeed, the problem is never the faith – it is the adherents, and how the adherents of religions behave towards each other. We must, once again, teach our peoples the ways of peace and the ways of tolerance.

We Christians are taught in the book of Acts how a new global spiritual community came into existence. On the day of Pentecost, with the coming of the universal Spirit of God, people of diverse languages understood each other. A new language was born with the birth of a new global community – a common language of love. Love remains our common global language for all religions today. Mutual understanding was further expressed as mutual responsibility. The community of Pentecost became a caring community – the community of love. In this age of communication, our religion must be able to bring about a community of mutual respect, love and tolerance. We need a spirituality that can bring an antidote and thus heal fragile and broken human relationships.

13 M.P. Joseph (ed), Theologies and Cultures (Tainan, Taiwan: Chang Jung Christian University & Tainan Theological College and Seminary, 2004), 3.