return to religion-online

Ethical Issues in the Struggles for Justice by Daniel Chetti and M.P. Joseph


Daniel Chetti is Director of Programmes at the South Asia Theological Research Institute (SATHRI), Bangalore, India. M. P. Joseph teaches Ethics at the United Theological College, Bangalore, India. Published by The Christava Sahitya Samiti, Cross Junction, Tiruvalla 689 101, Kerala, in collaboration with The Board of Theological Text books Programe in South Asia, Copyright 1998. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.


Chapter 15: Globalization and its Cultural Consequences by S. J. Samartha


(S. J. Samartha, the first Director of the Dialogue Program of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, guides doctoral students at SATHRI.)

So much has been written about globalization that so little new can be said about it today. A good deal has been said about its economic and political effects, but not much about its cultural consequences. This is an attempt to draw attention to this dimension of globalization, and to review some of the theological responses to it in recent years.

1

Globalization has a long history as a political and cultural reality and as a religious and cultural movement. The thrust to go to "the uttermost ends of the earth" is intrinsic to certain religions like Christianity and Islam and, earlier than these two, to Buddhism as well. Marxism too, until recently, pursued its globalizing ambitions with relentless zeal.

Three stages are identified in the march of globalization in recent centuries.1 The first stage began with the European voyages and exploration that brought Vasco da Gama to the western shores of India (1498). During subsequent centuries colonization reached its height when it was taken for granted that "the Europeanization of the earth", "the westernization of the world" and "the Christianization of all people" were beneficial to the entire globe. This period ended with the conclusion of world war II (1939-45), but its ideological, theological and cultural consequences are alive even today.

The second period lasted for a much shorter period from 1945 to 1989 when the Berlin wall came down, and when subsequently with the weakening of Marxist ideology, the socialist states in Eastern Europe disintegrated. This was the period when nations of Asia and Africa resisted globalization on the basis of the plurality of their own particular cultures. Plurality changed globalization, and particularities fought against the creeping tide of uniformity. This, however, has proved to be a short period of struggle torn between enthusiasm and helplessness.

We are now at the beginning of what may be considered as the third stage when, with the removal of socialism as an alternative, the whole world is thrown open to the claim of market economy, liberal democracy and the powerful march of Western cultural values all over the globe. This claim, in theory and practice, is as exclusive as any made by certain religions in history, and has the same tragic consequences on the life of other people who refuse to accept such claims. Religious fundamentalism and secular fundamentalism are not too far apart in their intentions and consequences.

Anthony Giddens points out that to discuss globalization today we need a wider conceptual framework than sociology can provide because, according to him, sociology has a tendency to study societies as "boundaried" communities whereas globalization cuts across all boundaries of time and space. Globalization is a matter of relationships across the whole earth. He writes, "Globalization refers essentially to that stretching process, in so far as the modes of connection between different social contexts or regions become networked across the earth’s surface as a whole."2

This results in an intensification of worldwide social relationships which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring thousands of miles away. The visual impact of images sent instantly through electronic media networks shapes the consciousness of the global community in such a way that the local becomes the global and the global local. The global and the local are now inextricably related. Akio Morita, chairman of the Sony Corporation in Japan, has invented a new word to describe it: "globalization" or looking in both directions.3 Certain features of globalization need to be noted here.

Its most obvious feature is the advocacy of the free market system allied with liberal democracy or authoritarian rule, as the only way of economic management for the entire globe. Political leaders of Third World countries are simply told that they have to adjust themselves and fit into this new global economic order. The manner in which India is being pressured to accept certain mega power projects costing millions of rupees and to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) are examples of this. According to Dilip S. Swamy, "A genuine search for a new vision, a new paradigm of development, is pre-empted by the very process of globalization, to which all countries are expected to adjust or conform"4

Closely connected with this is the regionalization of manufacture and the division of labor made possible through the worldwide diffusion of machines and industrial techniques, and the training given to people from different countries so that people in their own countries can provide "cheap" labor for the manufacture and distribution of goods which most people of developing countries cannot afford to buy. The developing countries may protest but they are in no position to decide on this matter because they depend on economic resources and techniques from developed countries.

Furthermore, there is a centrist political pull that seeks to draw nations together within a new political order or geo-political system, defined not in terms of national sovereignty or cultural identity but in terms of the economic well-being and styles of life of certain powerful nations. This is backed by a massive and menacing military power. The notion of "national sovereignty" is declared to be an outmoded concept. This negates the politics of democratic dissent within the political life of nations, particularly the poor ones, and creates a gaping void in the collective morality of nations because it prevents them from evolving a political system that can better respond to their own political needs.5

In the absence of an alternative the whole world is now suddenly thrown open to a global culture symbolized by Western ways in drinks, clothes, movies and music, styles of life and value systems, all of which have a powerful influence on the minds of people, particularly of the younger generation. The embeddedness of power and its close ties with the economic and political forces, enables it to enter the cultural homes of other people without restraint. K.C. Abraham points out that "Globalization has become a vehicle of cultural invasion", leading to "a mono-culture that suppresses economic, ecological and cultural diversity, and has a tendency to accept efficiency and productivity without concern for justice and compassion towards people".6

The word "culture" here stands for a whole range of ways in which people embody and express their reality. A religious faith gives culture categories of ultimate meaning, purpose and hope. "As authentically human, culture is the tilling of history by human self-expression," remarks John F. Kavanaugh, "it is also the friendly and symbolic dwelling place of the human spirit, whereby new generations are cultivated rather than suppressed. It is, finally, sacred: a revelation of the Spirit in time".7 In Asian societies religions and cultures are inextricably woven together in the fabric of a multi-layered reality. There are cultures that threaten and enslave and there are cultures that liberate and enhance life. The threat in the globalization of one dominant culture must be resisted; the promise of the new in the intermingling of cultures must be accepted.

The combination of two factors, namely, the enormous advances made in electronic technology and the widespread use of the English language, has greatly increased the range and strength of globalization today. There is no defense against the invasion from the skies. "The new media have the power to penetrate more deeply into a receiving culture than any other previous manifestation of Western technology", writes Anthony Smith. "The result could be immense havoc, and intensification of social contradiction within developing societies today.8

Language has always been used as an instrument of domination. The global spread of the English language, used by the four major networks, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC, is the most powerful medium of cultural penetration. It is estimated that there are more people speaking English in India today (60 to 70 million) than in Britain (56 million). No Indian language is spoken by more than 10% of the people except Hindi which is spoken by 39%. English has become the lingua franca, the medium of communication, of about 200 million newly created and growing middle class people in India.9 Equally significant is the importance of English as a global language. In more than 70 countries English is the official or semiofficial language. It is estimated that 70% of the world’s mail is written in English.10

Asian theologians are in a dilemma here. If they write in their particular regional language they cannot communicate with their own colleagues in other language areas or with theologians in other countries of the world. This state of affairs cannot be changed but has to be accepted. Globalization does not prevent Indian theologians from writing in their own languages but imposes on them an obligation, at least on some of them, to write in English as well because, without doing so, their insights cannot be shared with other theologians in the world. If language, like labor, is a socially responsible expression of self, then English has to be regarded as a functional language in a multilingual society.11 We have to gain cultural freedom by going through the experience of cultural bondage.

2

Three paradigms of culture change have been identified in the ongoing process of globalization.12 One is the notion of "a clash of civilizations" based on "a self-image of the West" and "enemy images of the rest" that makes conflict between civilizations inevitable until one overcomes the other. There is a mood of certainty, even historic inevitability, about this because of the recent collapse of socialism.13 Another is described by the term, "McDonaldization," a word taken from the fast food industry in USA, to indicate a process of standardizing a particular commodity throughout the world. A strict uniformity is imposed through control of labor, ingredients and appearance. It becomes familiar and predictable; there are no surprises.14 There is a third paradigm -- Hybridization -- quite different from those two because it affirms a plurality of cultures against the domination of one, rejects the move towards uniformity and, by drawing attention to the mingling of cultures in history, facilitates the emergence of the new. It rejects the theory of "a clash of cultures" and draws attention to "dialogue between cultures", based on the "resurrection of subjugated knowledges". It springs from the experience of the poor, the Oppressed and the marginalized people and is based on their actual experience in daily life. Fast food stalls, part of a culture in most cities of Asia, are for the poor, where the mingling of menus is a common experience. Pieterse describes these three paradigms in the following words:

Cultural differentiation or lasting difference, cultural convergence or growing sameness, cultural hybridization or on-going mixing -- each of these represents a particular politics of difference: as lasting and immutable, as erasable and being erased, and as mixing and in the process of generating new, translocal forms of difference. Each involves different subjectivities and larger perspectives. The futures evoked by the three paradigms are also dramatically different.15

The assumptions behind the paradigms of domination and uniformity need to be questioned. A few years before the Second World War (1939-45) E. Husserl, invoking the spirit of Europe, wrote:

Europe alone can provide other traditions with a universal framework of meaning. They will have to "Europeanize" themselves, whereas we; if we understand ourselves properly will never, for example, "Indianize" ourselves. . . . The "Europeanization" of all foreign parts of mankind is the destiny of the earth.16

Plurality is the dominant mark of the post-modern era. All exclusive claims -- economic, political, religious and cultural -- are under attack. The Judeo-Christian tradition is no longer the norm for the whole globe. The enduring plurality of religions and cultures, of languages and ethnic roots, provides the basis to reject domination and uniformity. A diversity of cultures and an open-ended view of the possibilities of cultural exchange provide an antidote to the forces of cultural globalization.17 In India, the ideology of Hindutva seeks to define "Indianness" and to dominate the whole nation. It fails to see the enduring multi-cultural character of Indian civilization over the centuries. Not just the Hindu, but also the Buddhist and the Jam, the Christian, the Muslim and the Sikh, and even earlier than these, the primal cultures of dalits and tribals provided both a defense against cultural domination and possibilities of mutual enrichment. "Any culture which has demonstrated survival value for a society over centuries", writes Pjotr, "is equally valid as every other culture which has proven its survival."18 In the present context of globalization it is not only necessary to reject "the Western pretence of universalism," writes Rajni Kothari, "but also for non-Western cultures to seek answers to their problems from within and, in the process, not only provide pluralism in techno-cultural system but, through such pluralism, help Westerners themselves to deal with the new crop of problems they now encounter. This is a perspective that is widely being shared."19

3

h what ways can the Church respond to the plurality of religions and cultures is a question that has engaged its attention for a long time. Sometimes, it is discussed under the term "inculturation" and sometimes under "indigenization." Today the question is how the Church can respond theologically to the challenge of globalization. For some years a wide ranging study on "Gospel and Culture" has been going on in the World Council of Churches, that led to a world conference in 1996 on the theme "Called in One Hope: the Gospel in Diverse Cultures."20 One is struck by the plurality of cultural contexts in Asia, Africa and Latin America, from which the authors of so many articles speak about this matter. The gospel of Jesus Christ provides substance and direction to Christians in different cultural contexts to resist forces of domination and uniformity. So too, the religions of neighbors of other faiths help them in a similar manner. Faith has a critical-creative function in all cultural contexts.

In this connection S. Wesley Ariarajab draws attention to a pertinent point. He observes that in the earlier decades of the ecumenical movement the emphasis was on the Gospel and religions, and that after the Tambaram conference 1938, attention shifted to Gospel and cultures. He suggests that, one reason for this shift was the inability of the missionary movement to come to an agreement on a theological response to religions.21 This remains true even to this day in the ecumenical movement. Once again now, the attention has shifted to cultures. In the contemporary debate on globalization and culture change religions are hardly mentioned. An inability or unwillingness on the part of the missionary movement to respond theologically to the plurality of religions seems to drive it more and more to studies on culture.

Two comments are made here. One is the most obvious one, namely, the persistence of religion in human life and its intimate connection with cultures, particularly in Asian societies. Even in such a highly technological society like that of Japan it is reported that there are 81,511 Shinto shrines, 77,186 Buddhist temples and 6,446 Christian churches, well attended by people.22 Second, the strongest defense against the creeping tide of a secular global culture today is based on religions -- Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim. In India, for example, Hindutva, is not just a political ideology against what is called "pseudo-secularism", but also a cultural movement against what are regarded as alien values of globalization. If this observation is correct, then, the question is not just one of the relation between church and cultures in the context of mission but also of the relation between church and other communities of faith in the context of globalization.

Among Indian theologians, K.C. Abraham has given considerable attention to this matter23 As his theological starting point he affirms that "a Christ-in relation" framework is more helpful in supporting the church’s efforts to transform and renew the process of globalization than "an exclusive Christo-centric-universalism". He writes, "if radical inter-relatedness is the characteristic of reality and therefore of the divine, the openness to the other is the essential mode of response to God. This openness becomes the seed for creating new relationships and a new order."24

There are three components in his theological response to globalization. One is to provide a foundation for it in the experience of the poor, and in the message of the cross because it is the poor who suffer most by the economic effects of the globalization of the market. He remarks, "The growing inequality between the rich and the poor nations, and between the rich and the poor in each nation, is the fundamental threat to global harmony. Globalization and marginalization go together."25

Another is the link between the renewal of society and the renewal of the earth. According to Abraham, without accepting this inter-relationship between the two any Christian theological response to globalization would be impoverished.26

The third component is the undergirding of this theological response by a "spirituality" that is "not elitist or other worldly, but that which is dynamic and open". It is encouraging to note that to Abraham, this spirituality is not exclusively based on Christian resources but also on the resources of other religious traditions. He writes,

Only when communities live in mutual respect, when they together eliminate all caste atrocities, when they together remove hunger, when all their religious sing the song of harmony, when they together celebrate God-given unity -- then the Spirit is free. Towards that global solidarity let us commit ourselves.27

Thus, while recognising the need for a "Christic-sensitivity" in order to discern the work of the spirit in the world, Abraham rejects a "Christcentred exclusiveness" which ignores the faith-commitments of other people and prevents Christians from co-operating with their neighbours in the common struggle against the harmful consequences of globalization.

A recent article suggests a different theological approach to globalization. Stating that "a contemporary theology of catholicity provides an understanding of the church that is strikingly similar to that which is emerging from reflection on globalization", Richard Marzheuser argues that "globalization" and "catholicity" are two modes of one ecclesiology; that "globalization" can find a home in "catholocity" and vice versa; and that therefore, rather than opposing it, the church must use globalization to promote its own catholicity. According to him, there are at least four referents in the theological usage of globalization: mission and evangelism, ecumenical reconciliation, dialogue between Christianity and other world religions, and the worldwide struggle for justice. Catholocity demands that all these be integrated into the fabric of the Church’s life and identity.28

The world "catholocity" has a long history, and churches in the world have interpreted it in different ways. Marzheuser affirms that "two characteristics of divine catholocity are inner diversity and fullness: a diversity of persons and a fullness of being that makes them one"29 He quotes Avery Dulles with approval with remarks, "Catholic suggests the idea of an organic whole, of a cohesion, of a firm synthesis of a reality which is not scattered, but, on the contrary, turned towards a centre which assures its unity, whatever the expanse in area or the internal differentiation might be." And Dulles adds, "the entire cosmos has in Christ its center of unity, coherence and fulfillment."30

4

To avoid any misunderstanding it must be stated that ecclesiology and the nature of catholocity are not under discussion here. The question is about the implications of the suggestion that there is no clash between globalization to gather together scattered elements to its own center and integrate them into the fabric of the Church’s life.

A couple of observations are in order. One is that globalization is not "a neutral" or "value free" process. Earlier discussion has indicated that it has both beneficial and harmful consequences on the life and cultures of other peoples. Therefore a critical stance towards it is required on the basis of the concern of the gospel of Jesus Christ for fullness of life. A second observation is about the plurality of religions and cultures which endures in history in spite of all efforts to draw them into one center and integrate them into the fabric of one religious community.

Each of the four referents or areas of theological concern in globalization-mission, ecumenism, dialogue with world religions, and the struggle for justice -- has within it a persistent plurality that seeks to obliterate their identities, draw them around one center, and integrate them into the life of one single community.

The use of the word "mission" in the singular goes against the ground reality of "missions" throughout history. There are people who ignore the connection between Christian mission and the forces of colonialism in the previous era. Colonialism facilitated the efforts of the Church to "globalize" itself through mission. The use of the word "mission" in the singular ignores the plurality of "missions" in history. Earlier than Christianity the Buddhists had their "mission" which continues even to this day without allying itself with any kind of colonialism or globalization. A Roman Catholic scholar in India, George Soares Prabhu, draws attention to the hermeneutical implications of "two mission commands" the earlier one of the Buddha and the later one of Christ, to their respective disciples.31 If the Buddhist mission came earlier the Muslim mission came later than Christianity. If the Christian mission allies itself with the forces of contemporary globalization what happens to these "other missions"? If the ecclesia globalizes itself what happens to the Buddhist sangha and the Muslim ummah?

Plurality persists within the ecumenical movement itself. "After a century of intense theological activity, the churches in most places seem no closer to unity," reports Alan Falconer, the director of the Faith and the Order Commission of the WCC to a major meeting in Tanzania.32 Konrad Raiser, the General Secretary of the WCC, has called on the main Christian traditions -- the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and Pentecostal churches -- to start preparations in the year 2000 for "a universal church council to reconcile the main issues, including the authority of the Pope." Monsignor Eleuterio F. Fortino, under-secretary at the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has stated that the proposal was "fully shared" by the Vatican.33 This means that in spite of all efforts for unity the plurality of churches persists in history.

"Hybridization" has been mentioned as the third paradigm of culture change in globalization in contrast to the trends of domination and uniformity. The term has always been suspect partly because of its racial overtones and partly because of a fear of "syncretism." But it is widely discussed in post-colonial and post-Orientalist studies on cultures and religions. It stands for an intermingling of cultures, a border-crossing, that sometimes leads to the emergence of the new. "Related notions are global oikoumene, global localization, and local globalization . . . as a rich and creative approach to globalization and culture."34 The intermingling and "creative mix-up" of religions and cultures have occurred throughout history. In India, for example, through the intermingling of many religions, languages and cultures, new forms have emerged not only in styles of life, in food, clothing, music and architecture but also in religion. Sikhism is a fruit of the interaction between Hinduism and Islam. In the ongoing competition between tender coconut water and coca cola, between tandoori chicken and Kentucky fried chicken, between the saree and the blue jeans the indigenous components are most unlikely to disappear. On the contrary, new mixing up of menus is already taking place. The pizza base might look the same but the "toppings" are now a creative mixture attractive to the eye and succulent to the taste.

Christian dialogue with people of other living faiths and the world wide struggle for justice are the other two areas referred to in the process of globalization. Here too there is an ongoing cooperation, of people of different religions and cultures coming together for common purpose in global society, without surrendering their identities or centers of faith. At the centenary celebrations of the Parliament of Religions in Chicago (1993) a statement on "Global Ethic" was signed by the leaders of world religions which highlighted their commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order; a culture of non-violence and respect for life; a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women; and a culture of tolerance and truthfulness."35

So too, the issue of justice has brought together people of different religions and cultures without destroying their identities. For example, Christian dalits in India, who were earlier fighting for justice as Christians, basing themselves exclusively on biblical resources, now realize that there are resources in other religious traditions as well to undergird the struggle for justice. The recently established Dalit Solidarity Programme has brought together Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim and Sikh people.36 Their centers of faith are not obliterated. The boundaries of their communities are not disturbed. Their identities are recognized. There is traffic across the borders. People recognize the urgent need to fight together against injustice in society. Justice is a human need but its roots are in the righteousness of God.

The plurality of religions and cultures, of languages, ethnic identities and social systems, is the best defense against the forces of domination and the push towards uniformity. Mere diversity is not plurality. Diversity often leads to fragmentation of life, conflict and confusion, at best, to a sullen co-existence. But when diversities are accepted within the wholeness of life that holds together all things in its embrace, then, new possibilities emerge in history. To reject exclusivism and to accept plurality, to be committed to one’s faith and to be open to the faith-commitments of our neighbors, 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.

Globalization is a process that is inescapable and irreversible. People in developing countries have to go through it, and come out of it, not subdued or vanquished, not tamed, manipulated or controlled, but transformed as a people to meet a new future with hope.

 

Notes:

1. Robert Schreiter "Contextualization from a World Perspective", Theological Education, Vol. 30, Supplement I, 1933, pp. 79 ff.

2 Anthony Giddens ‘The Globalization of Modernity" quoted in Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory (Eds.) Patrick Williams and Paula Chrisman, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York 1993 p. 181. See also his book The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press Cambridge, 1990 pp. 52-78.

3. K. Ohmas The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Global Marketplace, Collins, London 1992, quoted by Jan Nederveen Pieterse "Globalization and Cultures: Three Paradigms" in Economic and Political Weekly Vol. XXXI No. 23 June 8. 1996 p. 1389-1393.

4. Dilip S. Swamy, "Alternative to Globalization", Mainstream XXXII No. 20, April 8, 1995, p. 16. This was a paper presented to the Christian Conference of Asia on the theme ‘Towards a New Economic Vision", Quezon City, Philippines, November 23, 1994. A great deal has been written about this matter by Indian thinkers, for examples, MA. Oommen, "Anatomy of Globalization: More a Moral Crisis than a Development Dilemma", Mainstream Annual 1995 pp. 23ff; Chakravarthy Raghavan. "Globalization Model: An Uneven Development", Mainstream XXXIV No. 32 July 13, 1996 pp. 8 if; Madhu Limaye "Globalization and the Third World" Mainstream April 9, 1994 pp. 5-6, etc.

5. "Intellectuals Against Globalization" Times of India New Delhi, April 28, 1995, p. 8, a statement prepared and signed by 70 intellectuals in India.

6. KC. Abraham, Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives on Mission, Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalla, Kerala, India, 1996 pp. 147 ff.

7. John F. Kavanaugh, Still Following Christ in a Consumer Society, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, revised edition, 1991, p. 71.

8. Anthony Smith, The Geopolitics of Information: How Western Culture Dominates the World, Oxford University Press. New York, 1980, p. 176.

9. Kumar Ketkar, "Do We Really Need English?" in Sunday Times Review, Bangalore April 17, 1994, p. 1.

10. Times of India, Bangalore, March 28, 1996, p. 8.

11. See Anvit Abbi, "Language as Social Truth" in Review of Explorations in Indian Socio-linguistics: Language and Development series, WI. 2 Sage Publications, New Delhi 1995 in The Book Review Vol. XX No. 8 August 1996 New Delhi, pp. 30-31.

12. Jan Nederveen Pieterse "Globalization and Culture: Three Paradigms", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXI Jan 22, 1996 p. 1389-1393.

13. Samuel P. Huntington, ‘The Clash of Civilizations" Foreign Affairs, 1993 No. 72 (3) pp. 22-49. Quite a few Indian thinkers have criticized this notion e.g., Nilesh Kumar, "And Never the Twain Shall Meet", Mainstream January 22, 1994, pp. 33 if. Avjit Pathak, ‘Thoughts on Cultural Invasion", Mainstream, February II, 1995, pp. 23 if.

14. George Ritzer, The McDonaldisation of Society, Pine, Forge/Sage, Thousand Oaks, London, 1993, p. 19.

15. Pieterse op. cit., p. 1.

16. Quoted by Wilhelm Halbfass, India and Europe: An Essay in Philosophical Understanding, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi, first Indian edition 1990, p. 167.

17. See Hajime Nakamura, Ways of Thinking of Eastern People, revised English translation (Ed) Philip P. Winter, East West Centre Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1966.

18. Hesseling Pjotr. Organizational Behaviour and Culture, 1971 quoted in Claude Alvares Homo Faber: Technology and Culture in India and China, and the West 1500 to the present day, Allied Publishers, Bombay 1979 p. 11.

19. Rajni Kothari in Foreword to Claude Alvares’s book Homo Faber op. cit., xi.

20. See International Review of Mission Vol. LXXIV Nos. 332/333 January/April 1995 and subsequent issues.

21. S. Wesley Ariarajah, Gospel and Culture, WCC Publications, Geneva, 1994, "Gospel and Religion" pp. 1 ff and "Universality and Particularity" pp. 28 ff.

22. N. Krishnamoorthy, "Religion in the Land of Non-Religion", The Hindu Magazine, Bangalore, Sunday May 8, 1994 p. XIII.

23. KC. Abraham, Liberative Solidarity: Contemporary Perspectives in Mission, Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalla, Kerala, India 1996 see esp. chapter X "Globalization and Liberative Solidarity" pp. 138 ff.

24. Ibid., p. 154.

25. ibid., p.145

26. Eco-Justice: A New Agenda for the Church’s Mission, BUILD, Bombay n.d. pp. 2 ff; see also his article, "Globalization: A Gospel and Culture Perspective" in the International Review of Mission, LXXV No. 336 January 1996, WCC Geneva, pp. 85-92.

27. Liberative Solidarity p. 157.

28. Richard Marzheuser, "Globalization and Catholicity: Two experiences of One Ecclesiology", Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Vol. 32 Spring 1995 No. 2 pp. 179-192.

29. ibid. p. 184.

30. Both quotations are from Avery Dulles, The Catholocity of the Church, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1958 quoted by Marzheuser on p. 168.

31. George Soares-Prabhu, ‘Two Mission Commands: An Interpretation of Matt.28-16-20 in the light of the Buddhist text Mahavagga 1:10-11:1," in Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. (Ed) R.S. Sugirtharajah, Orbis/SPCK, new edition, Maryknoll and London, 1995, pp. 319-336.

-194- -- 195 --

Ethical Issues in the Struggles for Justice

32. Ecumenical News International Number 16, 21 August 1996 Bulletin 96-04555.

33. Both quotations are in Ecumenical News International Number 157 August 1996 Bulletin 96: 96-0405.

34. Pieterse op. cit., p. 1996.

35. One World, WCC Geneva, No. 190. November 1993 p. 10.

36. See Dalit Solidarity (Ed.) Bhagavandas SPCK, Delhi, India, and James Massey, 1995.

Viewed 125668 times.