1 week Ago By Daniel Franklin Pilario
Donald Trump has won in the US . This is not the first. It is a repeat of 2016.
But he is not alone. There are many others like him. Growing populist governments have become (in)famous worldwide: Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, Narendra Modi of India, Norbert Hofer of Austria, Marine Le Pen of France, Viktor Orban of Hungary, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and many others.
Rodrigo Duterte in 2016. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in 2022.
All these populist leaders who surprisingly gained massive support among their peoples display the necessary rhetorical but also physical/real violence needed both to keep people “in place.” Ironically, populism identifies politics with “the will of the people and anchors the political world in the vertical opposition between two homogeneous, fundamentally antagonistic groups that are judged differently: the people, who are good, and the elite, who are evil,” according to the chapter “Populism and Religion” in the Oxford Handbook of Populism. This good-evil spectrum is common practice of theologians and religious thinkers as they resort to the “Manichaeist” worldview, in reference to “the ancient religious movement whose radical worldview divided the world into the diametrically conflicting principles of Light and Darkness to describe the centrality of such dualism in the populist worldview.
” Populism and religions Already in this moralistic framing, populism exhibits its intrinsic relationship to religions. Religious populism is two-dimensional. One of its dimensions is overtly religious; also called “politicization of religion.
” This “manifestation of religious populism proclaims to be following, or fulfilling, the will and plans of the Almighty — with whom the groups feel, and believe, that they have a privileged relationship,” the Oxford Handbook of Populism states. It looks at itself as fighting godless enemies in this world in the name of God. The religious language of the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement reminiscent of the Trump era is a good example.
The second dimension is the “sacralization of politics” in contemporary societies which aims to pervade modern politics with the experience of the sacred in order to “fundamentally change mundane everyday evil politics.” A good number of conservative faith affiliations coming from evangelical but also in the mainline churches, which anoint rightist politics, can be cited as example. These dimensions look distinct but they actually overlap on the ground.
Must Read [OPINION] On the indefensible: US Evangelicals’ obsessive support for Trump This seemingly unbreakable relationship between religions and populist politics already makes it hard difficult for liberation theology to prosper. Populism: Its Filipino face Since 2016, the Philippines finds itself in the international headlines as sharing in a distinctly populist climate. The government led by Rodrigo Duterte, and later, the Marcos-Duterte tandem exhibit identical characteristics of all other populist leaders worldwide: Duterte shows paternalistic governance; his followers call him “Tatay.
” The act of othering (“us” versus “them”) characterize his policies. Those who did not fit their schemes are “othered,” many of them silenced, others are eliminated. This is not only rhetoric, but violent action.
He has imprisoned his main critics; he killed 35,000 drug addicts because they do not fit his banner program of a drug-free Philippines. He has eliminated human rights activists, indigenous peoples, their lawyers, etc. This continues even in the midst of the pandemic.
The implementation of the politics of fear and terror present in populist regimes worldwide is the same style of governance you find in the Philippines. Must Read [The Wide Shot] Duterte exploits Filipino view of God as ‘Punisher’ However, what I am interested with is the theological scene: what are the theological responses to the populist movement in the Philippines? I can characterize three distinct responses: spiritual response (the place of conservative churches); sociopolitical response (the place of liberation theologies); non-involvement response (majority of the population, who are not really Duterte supporters but whose theological position does not also warrant to oppose him and get involved; this is the majority position) Let me focus on the first response: a good number of the population belong to the so-called megachurches whose theology provides the characteristically populist response. But these same theologies that prop up populist regimes are common in all denominations, religions, and faith affiliations.
This theological direction has common characteristics. First is its notion of divine authority which props up violent regimes. Many of these churches hold on Romans 13:1 to the letter: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.
” So Duterte is truly God-sent. He is an anointed leader to heal this nation because our situation needs such divine intervention. A research done in Payatas where I work on weekends has one pastor saying this argument on Duterte’s war on drugs : “Duterte as president is clearly an act of God to ‘teach the country a lesson.
’ He believes that drug addiction is a sinful condition that has its own consequences. The violence of the war on drugs is at one level a divine judgment and he leaves it up to the government to fully execute it. At another, the anti-drug campaign is meant to convince the rest of the public of what sin does in the end.
” (cf. Cornelio and Medina, “Christianity and the War on Drugs,” 2019). Second is this theology’s apolitical dimension.
Many of these churches foster apolitical theologies. Since the world is ambivalent, Christians better no engage the world — almost literally applying “we are in the world but not of the world” discourse in the gospel of John (17: 16). If there is prophetism, it is not found in political engagement; it is in serving as “contrast communities,” living a totally different life than the rest of the world around.
However, in the experience of the Philippines, many of these churches anoint “Christian leaders” (in the spirit of Romans 13:1), pray over them, endorse them in elections (some in exchange of political favors), etc. This dualistic theological frame makes their members all supporters of Duterte’s regime. The third characteristic is the belief in prosperity theology among the middle class members.
The middle class and higher income demographics already hint at its politically conservative position. If business is good, why rock the boat? This theology also looks up to the Bible for support, for instance, Deuteronomy 8:18: “Remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors.” Prosperity theologians assert having the right believing, right thinking, and right doing to achieve wealth.
And since Duterte, at least in the beginning, campaigned to create economic prosperity in the Philippines, these Christians are automatically Duterte supporters, even if the pandemic has sent the Philippines way down in the economic ladder. To sum up: first, all these characteristics are present in the megachurches from different denominations — evangelical, mainline Protestants, and Catholics alike. Second, though distinct theological arguments, they all converge to preserve the status quo, thus support the present populist government.
Third, the majority Christian population who are seemingly neutral and non-engaged in fact find this dualistic, privatized theology convenient to their political non-involvement regardless of this government’s corruption and incompetence, killing and violence, violation of human rights, and blatant disregard of human dignity. Challenges to churches Let me outline some of the present challenges to theologies, in particular, and to the Church, in general: a. Prophetic theologies.
In the context of blatant disregard of human dignity in populist regimes, together with real poverty among our people, there is a need to recover prophetic theologizing in our times. The forms can vary, and they should, but the “prophets” need to stand up to the “kings” as it was in the Old Testament, in the time of Jesus and the courageous voices of martyrs in Christian history. b.
Catholic Social Teaching as resource. This prophetic task in modern times does not need to start from scratch. The Catholic faith has a long tradition called the Social Teaching of the Church which outlines its positions on sociopolitical and economic issues consistent with the gospel.
Our Protestant brethren also have a parallel body of prophetic writings. How to bring this “best kept secret of the Church” to our grassroots communities should be a service theologians and pastoral workers creatively strive to do. c.
Restructuring of theological formation. If theologies prop up populist regimes, theologies should also ground resistance in our times. A restructuring of theological curriculum in seminaries and access of the laity to theological formation are necessary towards making liberation theologies speak again to our times.
We need to ask what kind of theologies are taught in our seminaries and theological centers. d. Resistance from below.
Resistance does not necessary start with theologians and church authorities. Theologies of liberation can only start from the lives of the victims, from the ground of suffering itself. They are the real prophets today; their lives are lives of resistance.
Theologians need to learn from them. – Rappler.com Father Daniel Franklin Pilario is the seventh president and third alumnus president of Adamson University in Manila.
Born in Hagdan, Oslob, Cebu, Pilario belongs to the Congregation of the Mission (Vincentians) in the Philippines..
