Acting on Belief: Christian Perspectives on Suffering and Violence

What type of ethics should guide our behavior in contemporary conflicts? Religious groups working in many parts of the world are deeply involved in providing practical and theological answers to that question. This article examines two types of Judeo-Christian perspectives that stress the imperative to act to relieve suffering and transcend violence: liberation theology and the “religious humanitarian perspective.” Both perspectives draw linkages between ethical guidelines and action, and both have influenced broader political debates. The essay poses the following questions: What are the ethical bases of action for contemporary activists and theologians in these traditions, and have these changed with political circumstances?; and Are there ethical and practical connections between contemporary religious humanitarianism and liberation theology, and can they provide us with a coherent ethic of action to relieve suffering and reduce violence in the world? These questions are analyzed in light of current theological conceptions of evil, religious pluralism, and the uneasy boundaries between violence and nonviolence.

developed yet ongoing religious approaches to the problems of violence and suffering in the world, and each has both an activist and a theological component.
The liberation perspective formally dates from the 1968 Medellin conference of Latin American bishops. The resulting Medellin documents named "a situation of injustice that can be called institutionalized violence" and called for "bold innovations that will work profound changes" in political and social structures.3 Liberationism begins with the fundamental premise that Christian commitment involves both reflection and action to transform class, race, and gender structures that perpetuate oppression, violence, poverty, and inequality (and therefore prevent the historical realization of God's kingdom).
Liberationism, therefore, has always posited a tight relationship between theological thinking and action-most liberation theologians have also been activists, and many ordinary people have been encouraged, through the development of grassroots "base communities, " to see themselves as engaging in new ways of doing theology.4 Liberation theology developed to empower people who were viewed as both disempowered and oppressed to overcome these conditions in their own societies and rewrite "theology from the underside of history. "s Since 1968 liberation theology has spread to include not only Roman Catholic but also other types of ecumenical Christian, feminist, gay, and inter- c ACT International is a network of churches and related agencies responding to emergencies around the globe. ACT members have been active in emergencies for several decades. In 1995 they decided to join forces formally and stress a coordinated approach. ACT is based in the Lutheran

Belief Situated in world Politics
Interviews with religious activists in Europe, Central America, Asia, and North America, visits to group web sites, trends in academic theology, and a recent workshop with religious activists provide interesting answers to these questions.10 These sources indicate that belief and activism condition each other and, more particularly, that historical, theological, and political developments are deeply intertwined. As Gustavo Gutierrez, the prominent Peruvian liberation theologian, points out: "Theological reflection is always carried on in a context of specific historical processes. It is accordingly bound up with these processes. "ll Historical processes have influenced three theological shifts in particular that affect the ethical bases of contemporary activists' work: the reconceptualization of evil as collective suffering, the increasing awareness of religious pluralism, and the uneasy boundaries between violence and nonviolence. To gain insight into the intersection between religious ethics and activism, the next sections of this essay probe each of these trends, their tensions, and their implications. The conclusion suggests possible points of intersection and assesses the potential for a coherent ethic of action to reduce suffering and violence.

CONCEPTIONS OF EVIL, SIN, AND SUFFERING
The imperative to act to reduce suffering animates both liberation theology and religious humanitarianism. Social suffering, in the form of war, violence, and oppression, is the evil that each of these perspectives seeks to overcome. Yet this focus represents a significant change in Judeo-Christian thought from the conceptualization of "evil" and "sin" as individual phenomena to collective ones, in both their origins and their effects. Prior to the twentieth century, evil in most Christian thought emanated from an individually personified devil. This took the form of the Antichrist for Christians at the turn of the first millennium, and the Pope/Anabaptist/Jew in the time of Martin Luther 500 years later. During this period and beyond, the devil was seen as not only nefarious, but also subtle.12 He had power precisely because he could trick the believer into thinking he embodied the good. Christians had to beware of following the devil down false paths in the interests of their own salvation.lq Twentieth-century Christian social thought concerns itself less with the consequences of evil for individuals than with collective suffering in the form of famine and war, evils that can be transcended, at least in particular instances.14 Likewise, the perpetrator of evil has changed from an individually personified devil to structurally organized "social sin" today.lJ The Christians have a duty to try to lessen the effects of war and greed, they cannot eliminate societal imperfections. Rather, they must reckon, realistically, with the world as it is in their attempts to grapple with suffering and violence.'7 Liberation theologians in the 1960s and 1970s again reconceptualized this understanding of sin and evil. They reinforced the notion of sin as a collective phenomenon, but one perpetrated (especially for liberation theologians in Latin America) by unequal and oppressive class structures rather than an a priori immoral society. Gutierrez writes: In the liberation approach sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality-asserted just enough to necessitate a "spiritual" redemption which does not challenge the order in which we live. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact. . . . When it is considered in this way, the collective dimensions of sin are rediscovered. . . . Sin is evident in oppressive structures, in the exploitation of man by man, in the domination and slavery of peoples, races, and social classes. ]s Thus it became both possible and necessary to work to transcend these structures "within history, " to liberate the poor and oppressed in this world, as opposed to outside or beyond it.19 Contemporary faith-based humanitarian activists are also preoccupied with social suffering in the form of ethnic violence and civil war. Humanitarians must jump from crisis to crisis, and civil war to civil war, in carrying out their work in emergency assistance. Thus in the post-Cold War era especially, efforts to overcome the "poison that is violence" dominate relief and reconstruction efforts rather than attempts to end class-based oppression within particular societies.20 This is why, for example, faith-based groups emphasize the theme of "reconciliation" in their work in violence-racked societies.
Both religious humanitarianism and liberation theology, then, are motivated at least in part by the duty to ameliorate or overcome the manifestations of social sin in the form of group suffering. Yet there remains a fundamental difference between solidarity with the suffering or oppressed and the pragmatic policy of humanitarian activists to remain nonpolitical in providing assistance.
The religious humanitarian is charged with entering into a situation of tension, crisis, and suffering and trying to provide relief to all who are affected, regardless of political, religious, or other affiliation. This means being as apolitical as possible-a far cry from the role of the liberation activist/theologian, who sees belief as motivating and legitimizing political action on behalf of the oppressed classes or segments of society. Liberation theology has long promoted the dignity of the poor, that is, their right to be seen and heard rather than be shunted aside as "nonpersons. "21 Moreover, the "second wave" of liberation theology in Latin America (after the end of the civil wars) emphasizes "solidarity for the long haul" in postconflict situations, rather than the immediacy of liberation from violent oppression.22 Similarly, religious humanitarians are currently developing a new understanding of the purpose of their work, moving from an ethic of "mercy" or "charity" to a more "creationist" ethic of the "right to life with dignity" (emphasis added and hence, secularism. Although Bonhoeffer grants "government," "governance," and even "the state" an autonomous authority and respect, ultimately "faith," and for him an especially Christological understanding of ethics, cannot be relegated to "the sphere of the 'personal', " but must be enacted within the public sphere.28 For Bonhoeffer, Christ was at the center of all action, and following "the way of the cross" led to his own involvement in the plot to eliminate Hitler (for which he was imprisoned and executed). Yet the question of how to relate to a world seemingly dominated by lack of faith remained a fundamental problem.
Liberation theology challenged the Enlightenment legacy even more radical- Statement, 1998. See especially point 3, "Notwithstanding the right of NGHAs to espouse particular political or religious opinions, we affirm that assistance will not be dependent on the adherence of the recipients to those opinions. We will not tie the promise, delivery or distribution of assistance to the embracing or acceptance of a particular political or religious creed, " and point 5, "We shall respect culture and custom. " and with constant exhortations to governments to look for opportunities to end the war without concern for "total victory. "4S so Moreover, given the liberal bent of most human rights discourses, such an ethic, dwendiw on the way in which it is developed, can be open to the same criticisms leveled at these discourses-that they inevitably cover some forms of domination in an effort to expose others.
given situations. Governments rarely engage in such a self-reflective ethical function, while the tensions between activists' motivations and work often require it.
Thus, understanding the way in which religious belief conditions action in the world (and how confronting difficult historical situations modifies belief) is important for gaining insight into ethical positions on war and crisis. Yet even within and between what might be called "progressive" translational Christian theologies of liberationist and humanitarianism, tensions over the "right" course of action regarding intervention expose both the critical role of religious belief as a motivating force for the development of ethical stances in policy debates and the difficulty of arriving at generalizable standards applicable to all situations of war and crisis. These tensions can be productive if they are recognized as such and if they serve as catalysts for continual reflection and critique of the means used by all actors in the world to reduce suffering and violence.