Globalization and Gospelization: A Theological Overview

Paper presented at CMS National Consultation, Union Biblical Seminary, Pune, January 2014

---

ABSTRACT
Globalization is not necessarily a threat to the Gospel; in fact, it must be utilized as the contextual environment of gospelization. At the same time, one must watch against fundamentalistic globalism as well as globalistic pluralism or skepticism. A theology of history that identifies Pentecost as the spiritual reversal of Babel confusion towards the final ingathering of all in Christ will not be alarmed at the trans-cultural dynamics of globalization.

---

Defining Globalization

There have been various approaches to defining globalization. Some are descriptive definitions, while others are normative and prescriptive ones. The descriptive vary according to the variation of approaches; the normative stand for or against a form of globalization.

Descriptive theories of globalisation are those that inductively define the nature of globalisation by trying to identify its essential characteristics. A few common definitions are as follows:

Globalisation can be defined as a set of economic, social, technological, political and cultural structures and processes arising from the changing character of the production, consumption and trade of goods and assets that comprise the base of the international political economy. (UNESCO)[1]

Globalization is a transplanetary process or set of processes involving increasing liquidity and the growing multidirectional flows of people, objects, places and information as well as the structures they encounter and create that are barriers to, or expedite, those flows.. . (George Ritzer)[2]

Globalization can thus be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. (Anthony Giddens, Former Director of the London School of Economics)[3]

The concept of globalization reflects the sense of an immense enlargement of world communication, as well as of the horizon of a world market, both of which seem far more tangible and immediate than in earlier stages of modernity.’ (Fredric Jameson, Professor of Literature, Duke University)

Globalization may be thought of as a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions – assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact – generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power. (David Held, Professor of Political Science, London School of Economics)

Globalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole. (Roland Robertson, Professor of Sociology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland)

Globalization compresses the time and space aspects of social relations. (James Mittelman, Professor of International Relations, American University, Washington)

Globalization refers to the expansion and intensification of social relations and consciousness across world-time and world-space. (Manfred B. Steger)

Scholars note that there are debates with regard to which dimension (politics, culture, environment, economics, religion, or ideology) contains the essence of globalisation, as each contender (approaching from his/her own disciplinary bias) tries to claim what he has been looking for as definitive of what globalisation actually is. Manfred has used the Oriental analogy of the blind men and the elephant to show how each interpretation is particularly compartmentalized against the holistic picture. The political expert regards globalisation as more a political phenomenon while the economic expert regards globalisation as essentially driven by economic processes. Manfred notes that like ‘the blind men in the parable, each globalization researcher is partly right by correctly identifying one important dimension of the phenomenon in question. However, their collective mistake lies in their dogmatic attempts to reduce such a complex phenomenon as globalization to a single domain that corresponds to their own expertise.’[4] Critics of globalisation usually attack a particular dimension (‘part’) of globalization seeing it as, for instance, capitalistically driven, economically speaking or democratically driven, politically speaking. Manfred also mentions sceptics who deny globalization as anything real and compares them to those blind men who, occupying the empty space between the elephant’s front and hind legs, groped in vain for a part of the elephant and finding none, accused his the others of making up fantastic stories about non-existent things, asserting that there were no such animals as ‘elephants’ at all.[5]

While space will not permit us here to dive into the whole arena of debate, the blind men and the elephant parable (also quoted later in one of the Lausanne papers[6] at Pattaya 2004) calls our attention to Newbigin’s critiqued of the same when applied to the theology of religions. We remember that when the pluralists claimed all religions as divergent approaches to the same Reality, Newbigin critiqued the pluralist claim as an arrogant claim to advantage over the ‘blind men’ whom it implicitly refers to as not having the privilege of seeing the full picture now available from the pluralist vantage point.[7] The various claims (actually, blind claims according to the pluralist) aren’t false, but they aren’t fully true as well. They are little ‘truths’ holding substantial chunks of information regarding the totality of what Reality is. After Newbigin’s analysis, however, the pluralist position only stands as one of the many other approaches – perhaps, a syncretistic one or just merely pluralist). The Lausanne paper draws a point of wisdom in its statement:

Rather than focus on a particular strand of contemporary globalization —say, economic globalization or technological globalization — and either celebrating or condemning, we warn against the temptation to see globalization as a single manifestation or as an either/or proposition. We suggest that before choosing sides (which we agree is compelling and sometimes unavoidable), it is necessary to consider globalization as a reality with many ‘parts.’ (Remember the elephant!) The parts include and also transcend what is typically held up as ‘globalization’— namely technologically enabled, neo-liberal capitalism driven by Western-dominated international financial institutions, multi-national corporations (MNCs) and consumer markets increasingly backed by the U.S. military. This in no way denies the significance of this face of globalization, but suggests it is not the only face, nor perhaps is it the most significant in the long run.[8]

The ‘parts’ analogy allows for the putting together of the various images of the globalisation reality captured from the various angles of approach. A syncretistic and panoramic picture may, thus, emerge without downplaying any or more points of view. The assumption would not try to identify the elephant first, but approach globalization as a mystery puzzle that one tries to solve by putting the different pieces of the puzzle together. Perhaps, coherence would only be the criteria of evaluation here. However, again, inductive descriptions will fail to agree about the various assemblages of the puzzle; since, there is no axiomatic complete theory to verify against – the paradox: if such a complete theory did exist, the differences would not.

Normative theories are about providing the axiomatic position, the definitive rule, and the interpretive framework to defining globalization. Scholars now refer to a normative theory of globalization as a globalism.[9] The Lausanne paper describes these as follows:

As a byword for prominent economic, political, or religious worldviews that have fundamental assumptions about the way the world ought to be ordered, prominent examples of globalism would include nineteenth-century colonialism, early twentieth-century internationalism, communism, fascism, and post-colonialism; and to name a few of the more well-known recent forms, types of environmentalism, feminism, and Islamicism. If globalization proper is like the ocean, globalisms are like the powerful currents and undertows which push people in certain directions.[10]

Manfred divides them into three: market globalism, justice globalism, and jihadist globalism. In his own words,

Market globalism seeks to endow ‘globalization’ with free-market norms and neoliberal meanings. Contesting market globalism from the political Left, justice globalism constructs an alternative vision of globalization based on egalitarian ideals of global solidarity and distributive justice. From the political Right, jihadist globalism struggles against both market globalism and justice globalism as it seeks to mobilize the global umma (Muslim community of believers) in defence of allegedly Islamic values and beliefs that are thought to be under severe attack by the forces of secularism and consumerism.[11]

Market globalists are those who promote the concept of a consumerist, free-market world, a global marketplace that is made possible through globalization. They paint globalization in positive and optimist colours.  Manfred lists the five claims of market globalism: (1) Globalization is about the liberalization and global integration of markets. (2) Globalization is inevitable and irreversible. (3) Nobody is in charge of globalization. (4) Globalization benefits everyone. (5) Globalization furthers the spread of democracy in the world. Improved ways of living and shared technological progress motivates political economies in favour of increasing globalization. One ultra-optimism of market globalism is that globalization involves the triumph of markets over governments as governments increasingly withdraw to make room for free interflow of goods and services. The ideological formula is:

Liberalization + Integration of Markets = Globalization[12]

Justice globalists, on the contrary, view market globalism as promoting injustice, inequality, and economic disequilibrium. Born in the ‘social justice movement’ it emerged in the 1990s as a ‘progressive network of non-governmental organizations that see themselves as a ‘global civil society’ dedicated to the establishment of a more equitable relationship between the global North and South, the protection of the global environment, fair trade and international labour issues, human rights, and women’s issues.’[13]

Distinguishing it from the peaceful strands of Islam, Manfred identifies Jihadist globalism ‘those extremely violent strains of religiously influenced ideologies that articulate the global imaginary into concrete political agendas and terrorist strategies.’[14] As such, the term ‘jihadist globalism’ in principle also applies to ‘the ideology of those violent fundamentalists in the West who seek to turn the whole world into a ‘Christian empire’’. This is possibly with reference to the dominion theologies of the West that would also consider governmental violence as a valid way to ensuring justice in the non-Christian world (even through war). But, Manfred doesn’t make it clear. Of course, if jihadist globalism doesn’t relate to the ‘peaceful strands’, then apologetic evangelism is not attacked in the definition. Jihadist globalism seems to be distinguished by the concrete political agendas and terrorist strategies it articulates. The Lausanne paper, however, does set the caveat that Christian evangelism is prone to be evaluated anywhere as ‘simply one more form of globalism seeking to dominate others’.[15] However, it also maintains that the fate to which globalization delivers us depends upon the Body of Christ.[16]

To Jan-Erik Lane, among the many different forms of fundamentalism, it is Islamic fundamentalism that can challenge the global open society most effectively, since it is the biggest single religion that promotes homogeneity in Muslim societies and Islamization of the world.[17] While the vision is global, perhaps what sets jihadist fundamentalism against market globalism is that while market globalism steers towards a global open society, jihadist globalism is a movement against a global closed society (closed exclusivism).

The Lausanne paper mentions that before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the two globalisms, Soviet-style Communism and American-inspired Democratic Capitalism fought to the brink of nuclear annihilation to control the course of an entire world system. The dominant strand now is neo-liberal capitalism of market globalism.

Other terms associated with globalization are terms such as global imaginary, globality, and glocalization. The normative theories are based on certain fundamental core values that each upholds, and globalisation is considered good or evil with reference to the respective value framework. It will be the purpose of this paper to evaluate the same with reference to the Church’s global presence in a world of increasing globalization.

Christianity’s Global Task

The ecumenical and the evangelical movements have some points of divergence on the theology of mission.[18] While one must guard against polarizing each into a corner (as dialogues breed mutual refinements), one can’t help perceive that the hues do stand apart at some point over the spectrum. Without digging into the historical stories behind each school of interpretation, let’s only briefly glance at the approaches here:


The evangelical understanding of Christian mission is best captured in the following excerpt from Billy Graham’s address at the World Congress on Evangelism, Berlin 1966:[19]

Our goal is nothing less than the penetration of the entire world. Jesus said: ‘This Gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations’ (Matthew 24:14, RSV). Here evangelism is put into an eschatological context. We are not promised that the whole world will believe. The evangelization of the world does not mean that all men will respond, but that all men will be given an opportunity to respond as they are confronted with Christ.

Most of the illustrations of the Gospel used by Jesus—salt, light, bread, water, leaven, fire—have one common element—penetration. Thus the Christian is only true to his calling when he is permeating the entire world. We are not only to penetrate the world geographically, but we are to penetrate the world of government, school, work and home—the world of entertainment, of the intellectual, of the laboring man, of the ignorant man.

The world desperately needs moral reform; and if we want moral reform, the quickest and surest way is by evangelism. The transforming Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only possible way to reverse the moral trends of the present hour.

There may be hyper or non-hyper strands in this line; but, they all usually are distinguished by their usage of terms such as evangelism, evangelization, reaching the unreached, etc.

We’ll turn to the WCC’s page oikoumene.org for the ecumenical understanding of mission:

It [the WCC] sees the mission challenges for the churches as finding a balance between a clear witness to the Gospel, the respect for people’s dignity, and solidarity with those who suffer, e.g. from exclusion, injustice or sickness. Mission emanates from worshipping churches and includes evangelism, the search for inclusive communities, various forms of healing ministries, as well as covenanting for justice. In WCC’s perspective, mission must be ‘in Christ’s way’ and strive for authentic reconciliation and peace, counting on the presence and power of God’s healing Spirit, in particular in situations of religious plurality.[20]

The statement does seem very ecumenical in breadth and scope. But, the ideas are clear: the church must seek to balance evangelism with love of neighbor as ourselves. Thus, the mission is not evangelization alone but evangelism in context of social justice and healing. There are priority issues at stake; however, terms like ‘inclusive communities’, ‘various forms’, and ‘situations of religious plurality’ mark the breadth in consideration of the definition. John Corrie notes that the WCC vision is for unity of the church and that it has done ‘a lot to  break down traditional missionary approaches, exposing imperialistic attitudes, emphasising the autonomy of the church in every land, and helping to promote that model of mission which sees it as ‘from everywhere to everywhere’.’ However, its necessity for breadth forces its theology to keep changing all the time.[21]

The ecumenical emphasis is more on the church’s role in making a better world, on social justice, liberation, and transformation of communities. The evangelical emphasis has been on evangelism and transformation of the individual through saving faith and discipleship. While the evangelical is driven by the eschatological vision of the New Creation at the end of the age, the ecumenist is driven by the existential concern of the present age. A recent declaration of evangelicals at Tubingen has called forth the church to reaffirm its call to global evangelization against the growing emphases of the ecumenists on social transformation; but, this while not disregarding our duty towards our neighbor.[22]

Perhaps, a better term that would theologically unify both the concepts would be ‘gospelization’. Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913+1828) gives two usages of the verb ‘gospelize’:

• To form according to the gospel; as, a command gospelized to us. Milton.
• To instruct in the gospel; to evangelize; as, to gospelize the savages. Boyle.

The term possesses both the notions of form and instruction. ‘To gospelize’, thus could be used to mean ‘to conform the world to the Gospel’, which also involves instruction in the Gospel. For our uses, we may define ‘gospelization’ as the process of having the world proclaimed with, impacted by, and transformed by the Gospel. As such, gospelization will be understood as the task of the church to reach the world with what essentially constitutes its being – i.e., letting its essence out. Perhaps, it should be differentiated from the term ‘Christianization’ which seems more to connote themes of conversion and social transformation after a particular strand of Christianity; and, of course, it might be a term better than the instruction-oriented usages of ‘evangelization’. While ‘Christianization’ and ‘evangelization’ both bear some form of organizational connotations, gospelization is the inevitable process of the world being affected and compelled to a response by the presence of the Gospel (in person of the church) in the world. Gospelization is both personal and propositional – it is always personal. To be salt and light are the pictures of a disciple-community. While evangelization would be more proclamation-oriented, gospelization is presence-oriented. For the world to be gospelized is like for water to be salted by the presence of salt and for a room to be illuminated by the presence of light. The key lies in letting the essence out to transform the entire. It is a holistic way of looking at the presence and purpose of the church on the earth. The purpose is to glorify the Father (Matthew 5:16).

The Gospel and the church are inseparable in the same manner as humanhood and humanity are inseparable. This so, since the Gospel precedes the church as essence precedes existence. The church didn’t come to be and then began to create the Gospel; the Gospel brought the church into being. Consequently, it is impossible for the church to be alive without the pulse of the Gospel beating in its nerves. One cannot separate the proclamation of the Gospel from the proclaimer. Thus, the church becomes responsible in presence for wherever the Gospel is either present or not present.

If the church is convinced that the Gospel will bring ultimate transformation in the world, so that humanity can taste the powers of the world to come in this world now, then, evangelism becomes imperative; but, evangelism is only the temporal aspect of a lasting internal principle. The transformed are the transforming agents – the church is salt and light in the world.


Some grass needs to be cleared in order for the ground to be seen:

1. The Great Commandment is the essential law of the church; the Great Commission is the missional task of the church. The both cannot be confused. To love is a rule and principle that would never cease to be; to preach is an obligation that will soon cease to be. That is one reason why caring for the poor, the orphans, and the widows is considered to be pure religion (James 1:27). The liberational causes and the cause of justice and mercy are principle causes – things that the church cannot silently ignore when it has the power not to ignore. To love one’s neighbor as oneself is an essential obligation. In most cases, one may not preach but still be a Christian, and draw others through a silent conformity to the essential Christian principle of love (1Peter 3:1). Being precedes manifestation.
2. The ethical rule must not be confused with the ecclesiastical task. To love is not a task; it is an essential principle. Jesus said that His disciples will be known by the love they have for one another (John 13:35). To love is not a mission that Jesus has committed to the church – to take care of the poor, orphans, and widows was a moral obligation required even in the Old Testament. When the Good Samaritan helped the wounded Jew on the road to Jericho, he was not doing social mission; he was just living out the essential principle of love. However, one must also remember that Christian mission is mission dei and ecclesiastical task proceeds from the heart of God towards God.[23]
3. The ecclesiastical task must flow out of the essential ethic. Love is the motive of evangelism; evangelism is not the motive of love. The messenger cannot shirk off his essential obligation to love and merely preach the Gospel for the sake of a job to be done. Jesus considered the caring responses of the Good Samaritan as more important than the temple services of the Levite and the priest. The essential obligation to love was more important than even the ecclesiastical office. In essence, one evangelizes because and out of love; one doesn’t love in order to evangelize. Therefore, social service with the aim of evangelization is hypocrisy. However, where evangelism exists, social service is bound to co-exist.
4. To posit the principle of operation as the goal of the operation is a confusion of identity. Love is the principle of which evangelization is only a time-bound goal – though covering eternity. Certainly, there are also things other than evangelization that the principle of love, commanded under the new covenant, covers. However, evangelization is core outreaching of the principle of love, for it aims at an everlasting result – the salvation of persons. As such it is the essential concern of being (against death for life) in opposition to the temporal concerns of the secular. Evangelization answers the ultimate existential concern of being-towards-life.
5. The task only exists because the law of being is violated. Mission exists because love is confused. Therefore, reconciliation is the prime goal. Spiritual reconciliation is lame where the pictures of equality, equity, compassion, and justice are not concretely visible. The mission lies lame because the law of being remains violated (both vertically towards God and horizontally towards fellow humans). Love towards God is the attitude and act of glorifying of God; it follows love of one’s neighbor (brother and sister) as oneself (1John 4:20-21).

Thus, gospelization involves letting the essence of the Gospel manifest itself in both conformity to the inner principle of love and the execution of the external task of verbal and practical witness to the truth. In principle, the church cannot gospelize without being present in faithfulness to itself (the inner principle of love) and to its task in the world (evangelism and disciple-making).

The inner principle of love is first vertical (towards God) and then horizontal (towards neighbor). The external task of evangelization and discipleship is only horizontal, but proceeding from the inner principle; it therefore involves, God outpouring Himself through the church to save the world from their sins. In evangelism, it is God who reaches out to the world to bring the lost to His fold.

God doesn’t use the angels or other means to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ because gospelization implies the presence of a Gospel birthed church impacting the world. Only the church is responsible in presence for wherever the Gospel is either present or not yet present to exert its transforming power. And, it cannot be present without conformity to its internal principle and its external task.

Gospelization amidst Globalization

Let’s say that globalization is the will of God for gospelization in the New Testament era (the other approach would be to regard it as anti-biblical; but, that seems less likely so for reasons that will be specified below).

Theologically, we can recognize at least four distinctions in God’s ordering of the history of humanity: the original ordering, the divisive ordering, the in-gathering ordering, and the final ordering.

1. The Original Ordering. In the original ordering, humanity is one. Nationalities didn’t exist because plurality of language and culture was unknown. This original ordering began to break down after sin when man first understood the sense of shame and guilt as the man and the woman hid behind trees to hide their nakedness. Later, jealousy, murder, and lustful imagination employed the original ordering to infect the entire humanity to the extent that God desired to wipe off the entire human a. A global flood became the only resolution.
2. The Divisive Ordering. After the Flood, humanity was given a divisive ordering. ‘Confusion’ was the word used to describe this division because humanity was ordered in such a way that each nationality wasn’t able to so much understand another. Division should have prevented any religious epidemic to be globalized irresistibly. The divisive factor was language and the barrier helped develop cultural variety. On Mars Hill, Paul understood this divisive ordering to have a singular purpose: that mankind would seek God and haply find Him (Acts 17:27). Perhaps, this divisive ordering gave birth to plurality of religions – and, it started with language. Paul’s interpretation also seems to indicate the short-term purpose of this division. It was to be till the Age of the Spirit of Grace, during which God commands all people everywhere to repent. Of course, the nations would continue to exist, but the reason for the division would not.
3. The In-gathering Ordering. Following the 6^th and 5^th centuries, empires such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Medo-persian, Greek, and Roman tried to bring a great mass of humanity under their fold. The need for interflow of economic resources invited many various ways in which humans attempted some sort of globalization. The 6^th and 5^th century also mark the beginnings of the dispersion of the Jews and the anticipation of their future ingathering. Meanwhile, the dispersion helped early Christian mission as the synagogues usually became platforms of evangelism – though not always.  While the anticipation for the future ingathering of the physical Israel caught hope, God did make a central move to gather in His spiritual Israel. The New Testament declares Christ as the Mediator – the one in whom all walls of division between God and man, and man and man, are broken. Man is no longer an enemy of God and the Jew has no advantage over the non-Jew. This was announced on the Day of Pentecost through the outpouring of the Spirit with the manifestation of tongues (understandable to everyone trans-linguistically). The Body of Christ was not based on a political covenant like Israel was based upon; the new covenant transcended all linguistic and cultural barriers. Interestingly, Paul describes praying in tongues as praying with the Spirit (non-understandable to anyone except God). The Great Commission calls forth the church to preach the Gospel to all nations and make disciples of them because the new covenant was no longer the property of a particular race or nation. The New Testament was written in Greek because God was not just the God of the Hebrews. The Gospel had to get global because God was global and His new covenant was global. The church at Jerusalem was not divided into a Greek Church and a Hebrew Church, despite their disagreements. The in-gathering ordering is captured in this statement of Jesus:  ‘And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.’ (John 10:16 NKJ) Spiritually, this comes to be through the Holy Spirit; consequently, all bias, division, and hierarchization among believers is carnal (1Corinthians 3:1-4). It is not from the Spirit.
4. The Final Ordering will happen at the end of times when all things, in heaven and on earth, will be gathered together in Jesus Christ (Eph.1:10). Then, one will say that the Kingdom of Heaven had fully come.

We may point out some reasons why globalization may be justified as favorable for gospelization:

1. The new covenant of Jesus unites the ‘called out’ into one Body. People from every nation and tongue can now be one in Christ, the New Man.
2. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit brought down the national barriers of religion.
3. Hellenization helped ease barriers and the spread of the Gospel in the early period; similarly, globalization can help ease the spread of the Gospel across boundaries today.
4. Open trade routes always helped in cross-cultural evangelism.
5. Media globalization helps to make the Gospel accessible trans-nationally and trans-linguistically all over the world.
6. Economic globalization helps the church to share their economic resources with fellow believers all over the world.
7. The independent, penetrative, open, and liberating nature of truth is bold about globalization; and, one doesn’t need to be afraid of globalization as a threat to truth – it might be a threat to fundamentalism, perhaps.
8. The Holy Spirit is the Gospelizer; therefore, organic and centralized structures of unity are not the issue – in fact, organic and centralized ecumenism is still open to corruption.
9. As globalization is an inevitable process; gospelization is also an inevitable process through the presence of the Holy Spirit. But, it also involves the conscious thrust of the church towards the unchurched areas. Interestingly, the book of Acts portrays scattering (Acts 8), sending (Acts 13), and separation (Acts 13:46) as the thrust cases; while persecution, leading of the Spirit, and open doors seem to be the thrusting agents.
10. However, gospelization doesn’t necessarily lead to conversion always; though, it does compel a conscious response. This approach trumps neither for post-millenialism nor pre-millenialism; it only posits that the Gospel’s presence compels a response of either transformation or self-annihilation.

Christian Globalism?

A proper Christian globalism must define the true form of gospelization. As such a true Christian globalism would provide the foundational ground or explanation for gospelization of the globe. We have already noted the two aspects of it as 1) the Gospel effects being let out through the love-acts of the Church 2) the Gospel message being let out through the proclamation of Truth. The first answers the Great Commandment and the latter, the Great Commission. In this way, the Church is both the pillar and the ground of truth (1Timothy 3:15) – its essential nature is truth of which it bears witness in the world. A Christian globalism, thus, should favor only a globalization that ensures social justice, social mercy, and the possibility of Christian discipleship globally. Any form of globalization that deprives the rights of a human is, therefore by rule, unprofitable for evangelization.

Similarly, any form of gospelization that attempts to reduce the significance of globalization is questionable. Sadly, the Christian church has been too expert about division-making. The denominational divisions apart, there are divisions also based on race, language, culture, caste, region, and civilization within the global church (West vs. East). The internal fragmentation makes the external responsibility a difficult mission to accomplish. While networking is a worthy concept, it might still preserve connotations of fragmentation. Gospelization will be hampered by the failure of the church to a true letting out of the Gospel. The internal principle is above the utilitarian method.

One wonders if the people-group and the Bible-into-every-language approaches have missed the significance of globalization. This neither speaks against the people-group approach nor against Bible translation. However, it is possible to miss the goal by focusing on the method. One must not lose sight of the other factors that render a method meaningful. People group approaches are good where group solidarity has also some ideological or religious threadline exclusive to the group alone. However, in the present situation, that is not always the case. Media and academic globalization have pulled down many semantic lines between groups today, especially among the new generation. Globalization compels intensive transformation of cultures by breaking down the barriers and allowing a free interflow of ideas and concepts. The very of idea of ‘context’, thus, becomes dynamic in the context of globalization.

This demands contextualization to check against extreme tribalization. For instance, to say that one must don the saffron robe in order to be meaningful in India is to disregard the non-Hindu groups. The saffron robe might perhaps appeal to a Hindu but certainly not to a non-Hindu. However, one can ask oneself if a Hindu evangelist wearing a robe, a cassock, and a cross would have any appeal for a Christian. Inclusivism is not unbiblical because God has been speaking to people everywhere in history; however, how far one can go or ought to go must be contextually determined – and the present context is more of globalization. Anachronous and incongruous contextualization may only produce cultural confusions and shocks.

But, what about saying that such contextualization is a form of the Gospel being glocalized? That needs to be delicately observed; yet there still remains the problem of an impression of some imported stuff being given a local flavor, only if it works – yet, the theologian is obliged to provide reasons why such import is necessary in the first place. Globalization just for the sake of globalization is idolatrous; similarly, rejection of globalization just for the sake of localization is equally idolatrous. But, where a theological basis can be provided, imports, exports, and adaptations can be enriching.

There are a few forms of globalistic variances in the Christian world. Snippets of them might not be enough for detailed analysis, but still be helpful to provoke one. Some major trends have been identified as Dominion Theology, Dominionism, Kingdom Now Theology, the 7 Mountains/Spheres Approach, and Christian Reconstructionism. These generally focus on the dominion mandate of Genesis 1, and/or the replacement theory (that the Church has politically replaced Israel as a nation), and/or the post-millennial view that the Church is responsible for the spread of the Kingdom of God in this world now. Some have pictured these as the Christian Right (Jihadist Globalists?) whose fundamentalist keenness is actually the result of an antithetical reaction to the secular dimension of globalization (or world-coming-to-itself; i.e. the world all over becoming increasingly this-worldly). Such fundamentalist overtures, it is argued, are anticipated within most religions in face of increased secularized globalization.

Jeffrey Hadden and Anson Shupe, authors of Teleevangelism (1988), a critical study of the merger of religion and modern telecommunications, tied it [rise of fundamentalism] directly to the rapid social change and disruption of social structures brought about by the onset of globalisation. They argued that globalisation is, in part, a ‘common process of secularizing social change’ and that it contains ‘the very seeds of a reaction that brings religion back into the heart of concerns about public policy. The secular... is also the cause of resacralization... [which] often takes fundamentalistic forms’. They also explain that, ironically, the fundamentalist voice of protest against global secularism is itself amplified by the same advanced technology of globalisation, a powerful tool that gives it global reach and an accelerated rate of growth.[24]

In some cases, the reaction assumes ‘Right’ status in pure defense against rival fundamentalist forms, a reminding pointer at the ‘clash of civilizations’ theory of Huntington. Davidson and Harris note:

The theocratic Right’s view of the United States as a Christian nation coincides with the views of one of America’s most influential social theorists, Harvard University’s Samuel P. Huntington. Although Huntington is not a Christian fundamentalist, his work opens a door that connects significant sectors of the political and economic elite to the theocratic Right. Huntington’s well-known thesis concerning the ‘clash of civilisations’ sets the framework for the Christian Right’s view of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars against Islam. But for non-fundamentalist elites, Huntington’s thesis provides a cultural and racial explanation of conflict that neatly avoids an examination of imperialism, the political demands of self-determination or the rigours of an economic analysis.

Huntington’s ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis dovetails with Ted Haggard’s fear ‘that my children will grow up in an Islamic state’. This common ideologocial identity is further strengthened by Haggard’s preaching a ‘strong ideology of the use of power, of military might as a public service’....

Another important link between the nationalist ideology of Huntington and the theocratic Right is the defence of the US against immigration and multiculturalism, for these twin evils threaten to undermine what Huntington calls ‘our core Anglo-Protestant culture.’[25]

The above analysis seems considerable in light of recent agitations against illegal immigrations, especially from Bangladesh, in the North East.[26] But such interstate religious nationalisms or communalisms are globalistically irrelevant if not always anti-globalistic.

However, there are also strands that wed globalism with politics, as pointed earlier; of course, not very surprising of the post-secular nature of the present era where politics has observed a return of religion[27] against the secular ideal of the separation of religion from politics – perhaps anticipatorily of the Hegelian dialectics of history.[28] The following quote from Christian Reconstructionist, George Grant provides a sneak preview:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ - to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.[29]

The milder and more modest approach called the 7 Spheres/Mountains of Influence may be one example of a better golden-mean that identifies the Christian’s role not just as a global evangelist but primarily more as salt and light in the world, not as a political anti-secularist, but as a gospelizer, or one whose identity exudes the effects of transformation in society. Loren Cunningham’s identifying of the 7 spheres as Arts, Business, Church, Distribution of Media, Education, Family, and Government and YWAM’s development of the respective schools at the University of Nations exemplify this approach. But, of course, the schools are only preliminary introductions that aim to provide Christian foundations to the various spheres. Those interested still need to go to the secular campuses for more professional education in the various disciplines. And, one may not need to limit the spheres to just 7 – some have already added Health as the 8^th alphabetic sphere.

Arts

Business

Church

Distribution of Media

Education

Family

Government 

However, the 7 Spheres approach also invites the assessment of the ethic-mission criteria. The essential ethic of love must be the influencing factor in the spheres – love precedes mission as discipleship precedes disciple-making.

Conclusion

The New Testament is not anti-globalistic. In fact, the Old Testament anticipates the Abrahamic blessing to flow to all nations as all nations flow towards God. It anticipates the possibility of the flow to be possible as barriers are historically eased. Perhaps, it is economics that compels the easing of barriers; or perhaps, it is social need for globalized humanity itself that prompts it; or perhaps, it is the intrinsic drive for knowledge that invites it. Theologians of history are divided over the nature of globalization taking place (postmillenially, premillenially, amillenially, or whatsoever); however, evidence points in the direction of increasing globalization as well as increasing gospelization. On the one hand while globalization is a historic process, there are ideological currents (globalisms) that drive the mechanism on. Christian globalism strongly pursues the goal of global transformation through the Gospel. While Dominionism represents the Right political globalism, the more general consensus is on the Influence models (Salt & Light model, 7 Spheres of Influence, etc). One must guard against nationalizing, communalizing, and tribalizing the church or Christianity itself; and, at the same time, one must also not get so hyper contextualistic that one loses foresight of the process of globalization. Gospelization and globalization go hand in hand; gospelization becoming the driving engine of Christian globalization where the Atonement of Christ brings back man to God and ingathers humanity in one Spirit, where love of God and love of neighbor leave no room or reason for humanity to be divided, theologically speaking. The Atonement of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit are the theological foundations of globalization (where crumbling of walls are no longer a threat since the presence of the Gospel through the Holy Spirit in the church presents the final choice of response towards God in the process of gospelization). In the past era, cultural boundaries obstructed perversity from spreading epidemically and reinviting a global punishment; in the present era, globalization provides opportunity for not only the Gospel to go global but also for evil to epidemically spread (or ripen) and be eliminated in the Last Judgment (Matt. 24:22; Rev. 14:14-20).

The church cannot be antiglobalistic because the Gospel is global and Pentecost transcends the barriers of all human divisions through the one Spirit poured out on us. While Pentecost doesn’t eliminate one’s socio-cultural identity, it does provide the real ground for one to be able to become all things to all men so that by all possible means one might save some (1Cor.9:22). Globalization is the process of free and dynamic international and intercultural interflow of information and resources. Is it a process towards a unicultural world? It seems less so since the antithesis of anti-globalism does stand at the other pole.[30] Identity movements do emerge to protect the particulars from becoming generalized or be overpowered by the giant machines of globalization. For instance, looking from the perspective of religions, while pluralism has been in style among a few, religions don’t at all seem to be blending into a single soup. The plurality remains intact. In fact, we see more religions getting apologetic in the past few decades. Globalization seems to only force one to assert one’s identity and position in the world.

Even secularism (as far as anti-religion is concerned) and liberalism have seen a decline.[31] Religious solidarity, being helped by globalization to be unmindful of geo-political-cultural barriers, is becoming a global phenomenon. There are international attempts that seek to address the religious consciousness of people trans-politically. However, some constraints get tightened as well as a result; one example would be the various filters in the visa granting procedures imposed to check religious globalism.[32]

But, what globalization significantly accomplishes is the open interflow of ideas across borders, especially through the arts, entertainment media, and social media. Social media such as Facebook and Twitter are heavily used and quoted by celebrities who recognize the significance of these tools in an age of globalization. Their power cannot be ignored; but, wisely and skillfully handled.

What should be the response of the church? Obviously, the church must be conscious of its trans-national roots in the atoning work of Christ and His mediating presence through the Spirit in the church, the church must be aware of its internal rule of love that vertically submits to God and horizontally serves its neighbor, and the church must responsibly fulfill its role of proclaiming God’s salvific truth (the Gospel) in a pluralistic world. This also means that the church cannot vouch for a kind of market globalism that could irreparably impoverish the poor while the rich grow richer.[33] Christian theology must address global economics in light of God’s word in order to testify of the truth.[34] The presence of the church in the world cannot but mean gospelization amidst globalization.

Bibliography

Books

Axford, Barrie. Theories of Globalization, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013.

Delić, Zlatan (ed). Globalization and Responsibility, Croatia: Intech, 2012.
Driscoll, William & Clark, Julie (eds). Globalization and the Poor: Exploitation or Equalizer? New York: IDEA, 2003.
Hedlun, Roger E. Roots of the Great Debate in Mission, Rev. edn., Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1981.
Lane, Jan-Erik. Globalization: the Juggernaut of the 21st Century, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2008.
Ritzer, George. Globalization: A Basic Text, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
Sommerville, C. John. The Decline of the Secular University, Oxford: Oxford University Press,  2006.
Steger, Manfred B. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, New edn, Oxford University Press, 2009).

Articles and Papers

‘World Evangelization or World Transformation’, Trans: Mrs. Dorothea Scarborough, Cape Town and Prof. Dr. Bodo Volkmann, Stuttgart (Gomaringen, Institut DIAKRISIS, Pentecost 2013).
Claydon, David (Ed.). ‘Globalization and the Gospel: Rethinking Mission in the Contemporary World’, Lausanne Occasional Paper No.30 (Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, Pattaya, Thailand, 2004), 12. Manfreds first edition of Globalization was published in 2003.
Conradie, Ernst M. ‘Mission in a Globalised World: A New Vision of Christian Discipleship’, A keynote address delivered at the conference of the Australian Association for Mission Studies (AAMS), Sydney, 22 to 25 September 2011. http://www.missionstudies.org.au/files/aams/ConradieKeynote1.pdf, Accessed on December 8, 2013
Corrie, John ‘Models of Mission in the 21c’, Trinity College, Bristol, 2010. http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/assets/files/articles/corrie_models_of_mission_in_20C.pdf.
Davidson, Carl and Harris, Jerry. ‘Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Rights rise to power’, Race & Class, Vol. 47(3), (Institute of Race Relations, 2006), 49. http://www.metaether.org
Eilers, Franz-Josef. ‘Globalization, Local Realities and Religious Communication’, NP.  ND.
Ferrara, Pasquale. ‘Globalization and Post-Secularism’, Claritas: Journal of Dialogue and Culture, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 2012) 61–70.
Gohain, Rantu, et al. ‘Post-1971 Illegal Immigration from Bangladesh: A Demographic Changed Scenario of Assam’, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Vol.3, Issue 3, March 2013.
Ice, Thomas. ‘Hal Lindsey, Dominion Theology, and Anti-Semitism’, http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-HalLindseyDominionTh.pdf
Ice, Thomas. ‘What is Dominion Theology’, http://www.pretrib.org
Marbaniang, Domenic. ‘Religious Fundamentalism and Social Order: A Philosophical Perspective’, Paper presented at the National Seminar on Religious Fundamentalism and Social Order, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, February 26-27, 2010.
Marbaniang, Domenic. ‘The Corrosion of Gold in the Light of Modern Christian Economics’, The Journal of Contemporary Christian, Vol.5, No.3 (Bangalore: CFCC, August 2013), 61-76.
McGrath, Alister E. ‘The Christian Church’s Response to Pluralism’, JETS 35/4 (December 1992) 487-501
Singh, M Amarjeet. ‘A Study on Illegal Immigration into North-East India: The Case of Nagaland,’ IDSA Occasional Paper No. 8, (New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Nov.2009)
UNESCO, ‘Globalisation’ (http://www.unesco.org/most/globalisation/Introduction.htm, accessed November 20, 2013).
WCC, Pontifical Council, and WEA, ‘Christian Witness in a Multi-cultural World: Recommendations for Conduct’, 28 June 2011.  http://www.oikoumene.org
Wykes, Olive. ‘The Decline of Secularism in France’, Journal of Religious History, Vol.4, Issue 3 (Online 9 Oct 2007) onlinelibrary.wiley.com; John H. Hallowell, ‘The Decline of Liberalism’, Chicago Journals, Vol.52, No.3 (Apr.1942), 323-349

---

[1] UNESCO, ‘Globalisation’,  http://www.unesco.org/most/globalisation/Introduction.htm, accessed November 20, 2013.

[2] George Ritzer, Globalization: A Basic Text (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 2.
[3]This and the following quotes in this section are from Manfred B. Steger, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction (New edn; Oxford University Press, 2009),  31-32. [First edn. 2003].
[4]Manfred, Globalization, 30
[5]Manfred, Globalization, 33.
[6] David Claydon (Ed.), ‘Globalization and the Gospel: Rethinking Mission in the Contemporary World’, Lausanne Occasional Paper No.30 (Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, Pattaya, Thailand, 2004), 12. Manfreds first edition of Globalization was published in 2003.
[7]Alister E. McGrath, ‘The Christian Church’s Response to Pluralism’, JETS 35/4 (December 1992) 487-501
[8] ‘Globalization and the Gospel: Rethinking Mission in the Contemporary World’, 14
[9] Barrie Axford, Theories of Globalization (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013), 26
[10] ‘Globalization and the Gospel: Rethinking Mission in the Contemporary World’, 18
[11] Manfred, Globalization, 82.
[12] Manfred, Globalization, 86
[13]Manfred, Globalization, 90
[14]Manfred, Globalization, 96
[15] ‘Globalization and the Gospel: Rethinking Mission in the Contemporary World’, 19
[16] ‘Globalization and the Gospel: Rethinking Mission in the Contemporary World’, 24 (italics and bold as emphasized in the original paper).
[17] Jan-Erik Lane, Globalization: the Juggernaut of the 21^st Century (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2008), 220.
[18]John Corrie, ‘Models of Mission in the 21c’, Trinity College, Bristol, 2010,  http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/assets/files/articles/corrie_models_of_mission_in_20C.pdf.
[19] As reprinted in Roger E. Hedlun, Roots of the Great Debate in Mission, Rev. edn. (Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1981), 194
[20] http://www.oikoumene.org/en/what-we-do/mission-and-unity
[21]John Corrie, ‘Models of Mission…’, 3,5.
[22]‘World Evangelization or World Transformation’, Trans: Mrs. Dorothea Scarborough, Cape Town, and Prof. Dr. Bodo Volkmann, Stuttgart (Gomaringen, Institut DIAKRISIS, Pentecost 2013). The joint document of the WCC, Pontifical Council, and WEA begins with the words ‘Mission belongs to the very being of the church. Proclaiming the word of God and witnessing to the world is essential for every Christian. At the same time, it is necessary to do so according to gospel principles, with full respect and love for all human beings.’ WCC, Pontifical Council, and WEA, ‘Christian Witness in a Multi-cultural World: Recommendations for Conduct’, 28 June 2011, http://www.oikoumene.org
[23] Ernst M. Conradie, ‘Mission in a Globalised World: A New Vision of Christian Discipleship’, A keynote address delivered at the conference of the Australian Association for Mission Studies (AAMS), Sydney, 22 to 25 September 2011, 5. http://www.missionstudies.org.au/files/aams/ConradieKeynote1.pdf, accessed on December 8, 2013
[24] Carl Davidson and Jerry Harris, ‘Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Rights rise to power’, Race & Class, Vol. 47(3), (Institute of Race Relations, 2006), 49, http://www.metaether.org
[25] Carl Davidson and Jerry Harris, ‘Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism..’ 57-58
[26] Rantu Gohain, Pranami Hadique, & Abhiji Borpuzari, ‘Post-1971 Illegal Immigration from Bangladesh: A Demographic Changed Scenario of Assam’, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Vol.3, Issue 3, March 2013. & M Amarjeet Singh, ‘A Study on Illegal Immigration into North-East India: The Case of Nagaland,’ IDSA Occasional Paper No. 8, (New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Nov.2009)
[27] Pasquale Ferrara, ‘Globalization and Post-Secularism’, Claritas: Journal of Dialogue and Culture, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 2012) 61–70.
[28] Domenic Marbaniang, ‘Religious Fundamentalism and Social Order: A Philosophical Perspective’, Paper presented at the National Seminar on Religious Fundamentalism and Social Order, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, February 26-27, 2010.
[29] George Grant, The Changing of the Guard (Dominion Press, USA, 1987), 50-1 as cited by Davidson and Harris, ‘Globalisation…’ 63
[30]Manfred B. Steger, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, 66-68
[31] C. John Sommerville, The Decline of the Secular University (Oxford: Oxford University Press,  2006); Olive Wykes, ‘The Decline of Secularism in France’, Journal of Religious History, Vol.4, Issue 3 (Online 9 Oct 2007) onlinelibrary.wiley.com; John H. Hallowell, ‘The Decline of Liberalism’, ChicagoJournals, Vol.52, No.3 (Apr.1942), 323-349
[32] Cp ‘Anyone with a Muslim sounding name or Middle Eastern appearance can expect heavy scrutiny upon arrival in American Samoa, and could be refused entry. Citizens of 25 predominantly Muslim countries are banned from the territory unless they have the personal approval of the Attorney General of American Samoa.’ http://americansamoa.southpacific.org/travel/visas.html, accessed on December 9, 2013; similarly, Christian missionaries also find difficulties in obtaining visas to enter certain communist, non-Christian, and secular countries.
[33]William Driscoll & Julie Clark (eds), Globalization and the Poor: Exploitation or Equalizer? (New York: IDEA, 2003).
[34]Domenic Marbaniang, ‘The Corrosion of Gold in the Light of Modern Christian Economics’, The Journal of Contemporary Christian, Vol.5, No.3 (Bangalore: CFCC, August 2013), 61-76.

Corruption: An Analysis of Theoretical Approaches with BiblicalSolutions

Paper presented during the CMS Consultation, Union Biblical Seminary, Pune, 2013

Abstract

At the root of the corruption problem is its moral and economic nature. The economic problem is a moral problem. Modern theories of corruption are usually empirical in nature. However, they are not without their ideological dimensions though in the modern scheme of things, a normative framework is usually not rationally entertained. Empiricism combined with materialism takes on the reins of economies; however, disregard of the spiritual will not bring any lasting solution. A vision of the absolute is needed. There are various ideologies and religions that provide some kind of a vision or the other. The biblical vision is both historical and prophetic as well. And, the Church is called to be the model of that vision in this pervert and corrupt world.

The very term “corruption” indicates an aberration on, a departure from, and a violation of something essentially good. The idea of what is good, however, precedes the idea of its perversion. To decry corruption without accepting the original ideal that it contradicts is equal to boxing against the wind. One can only know something is corrupt if one possesses a clear vision of its ideal, perfect, and uncorrupted form. This was what Plato attempted to do in The Republic; he attempted to paint a clear picture of what justice is, in essence, to avoid all the confusion that went to the extent of justifying injustice as just. It landed him in the theory of forms and ideas, of course, and prompted him to prescribe that no one should sit in a place of political authority unless he or she has first had a clear vision of the ideas (or, let’s say, the ideal). While some would disagree on this point, one can’t disagree that to claim corruption as an evil is to make a statement about morality.

One can only know something is corrupt if one possesses a clear vision of its ideal, perfect, and uncorrupted form.

This paper aims to first unravel the moral-economic roots of corruption and then philosophically look at a few theories of corruption. While at the heart of corruption is the problem of sin, this cannot be an excuse for not looking at political solutions to the problem of corruption itself. There have been (and are) political instances where the level of corruption was low, which indicates that a corruption-free polity is a possibility. Also, the divine institution of political authority was for the purpose of ensuring justice (Romans 13:1-7), which would be nonsensical if it weren’t practical. So, there is hope. Now, it is not necessary that such a political authority were Christian in faith in order to administer justice. The concept of justice is something that is recognized universally as an eternal and rational category. For instance, the natives of Malta in Acts 28:4 knew that no man could flee from the purview of justice; and they knew this before the gospel was preached to them. So, it is certainly possible to make a philosophical investigation of the issue of corruption. As such, we will here look at the root-elements of corruption (viz., the moral and economic roots) and also take a look at some research issues and theories of corruption.

Moral and Economic Roots

Corruption is a moral problem that has social and economic dimensions. Aristotle had already made that qualification when he announced to the world in his Politics that ethics and politics go hand in hand. His teacher, Plato, had in fact constructed the ideal Republic only to understand the meaning of justice in the ethical human individual. Yet, the ethical question is a disturbing one. Can one really talk about ethics and ideals in a rational tone? One remembers the famous Russell-Copleston debate in which Copleston tried to counter Russell by raising the question of the moral law. He asked how Russell distinguished between right or wrong. Russell replied that he could do that in the same way that he could distinguish between blue and yellow. Copleston countered: Russell distinguished between blue and yellow on the basis of sight; how did he distinguish between right and wrong. On the basis of feelings, replied Russell. Of course, he then went on to qualify that there could be individuals who have faulty eyesight (are color blind or jaundiced) and so see a not-yellow object as yellow.[i] But, then, can we also speak of corruption on the same nerve? Is there an absolute ideal which forms the basis to our diagnosis of corruption; or is it just a matter of subjective intuition? If corruption is not a moral problem at all, then it is not a problem that must demand justice at all. But, then, if morals aren’t absolute, our entire striving against corruption is ultimately absurd.

Arnold Heidenheimer and Michael Johnston have shown that the question of diagnosis is a very subtle one. The very question of how corruption is to be defined is a highly debated one.[ii]  A man of such a stature as Francis Bacon is said to have justified his corrupt practices on the argument that everyone did it. He was the unlucky one who got caught.[iii] In other words, if the whole system is corrupt then is it justifiable for a particular individual to be caught and tried? Of course, just because every thief in the world cannot be caught (or has not been caught) doesn’t mean that a caught thief is not punished? Bacon’s response also falters on the majority-justification line that Russell was holding on to. Didn’t Russell himself ask Copleston, “Why do we intellectually condemn the color-blind man? Isn't it because he's in the minority?”  If morality is not an objective issue then good and evil are matters of majority consensus. Thrasymachus, in Plato’s The Republic, had struck a deeper nerve when he argued that justice was the advantage of the stronger (and, “the stronger” could mean the wealthy, the mighty, or the majority). On the reverse, it may also be argued that it is only the stronger that have the advantage of administering justice. Thus, in a monarchy, a just king would have a regime of justice, while in a democracy a people (majority) committed to justice will assure justice. But, is that possible? That is a question that political theorists have to decide. In the present situation in India, however, at least, there seems to be a conflict of opinions. On the one hand we have those like Anna Hazare who believe that right laws alone would suffice; while those like Arvind Kejriwal believe that there can be no victory without political power (which seems to indicate his belief that politics is corrupt but people (that is, those who are not in power) aren’t corrupt, and majority vote for the right representatives should solve the problem). Of course, Anna is said to have interpreted Arvind’s move as prompted by greed and not need,[iv] but each would have his own rationale for the calculated steps one takes.

If corruption is not a moral problem at all, then it is not a problem that must demand justice at all. But, then, if morals aren’t absolute, our entire striving against corruption is ultimately absurd.

The economic nature of the problem cannot be neglected. When we talk of corruption in administrative or political situations, we usually have its economic dimension in mind. Kautilya or Chanakya (c. 370–283 BCE) had gone ahead to name his treatise on politics as Arthashastra (Economics). Money plays an important role in the whole issue of corruption. But, as the Apostle Paul pointed out, it is not money in itself but the lust for money that is the root of all evil. The Catholic Church listed greed among the seven deadly sins and called it avaritia, from which is derived our English word “avarice,” which Cambridge Dictionary defines as “an extremely strong want to get or keep money or possessions”. There are those who attempt to justify corruption on empirical and pragmatic bases, some going to the extent of even saying that corruption functions as the grease of economic growth.[v] Recent empirical findings, however, point in a different direction: corruption is not seen as grease but as sand on the wheels of growth.[vi] However, to look at phenomenal growth at the expense of moral degradation is a costly affair.

In his paper “Corruption: Causes, Consequences, and Cures”, [vii] Burmese economist U Myint proposes a corruption equation that predicts corruption as a result of economic and political opportunity minus accountability. The equation is:

C = R + D – A

In the above equation, C stands for Corruption, R for Economic Rent, D for Discretionary Powers, and A for Accountability. Economic rent, shortly defined, is monopoly profit; in other words, it is the extra profit that someone tries to earn due to his or her advantageous position. For instance, if a peon doesn’t forward your file, it may never reach the desk of the manager; so, he seeks some extra profit out of his advantageous position (it is his rent seeking activity). Suppose that peon also possesses some discretionary powers to decide whose file to forward and whose not, then the sum of his powers and position add up to a high potential for corruption. If, further on, there is no proper mechanism to hold the peon accountable for his actions, then his powers are almost absolute; and, power without accountability tends towards corruption. In the words of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Suppose such unaccountable discretionary powers and position are given to administrators, one can imagine what havoc corruption would let loose on the nation.

In Myint’s own words “The equation states that the more opportunities for economic rent (R) exist in a country, the larger will be the corruption. Similarly, the greater the discretionary powers (D) granted to administrators, the greater will be the corruption. However, the more administrators are held accountable (A) for their actions, the less will be the corruption, and hence a minus sign in front of A.”[viii]

Inherent in such an equation is also the well-known definition of corruption, viz. “the abuse of public office for private or personal gain.”[ix] However, such a definition tends to be lop-sided as it fails to take into consideration the other partner in the crime, for instance the man who bribes the official in order to get his work done. Of course, in certain situations the moral determination of the other party’s position might become difficult, for usually he might be in a situation where he has to choose between two evils: either to not get his work done or to bribe the official and get his work done. But, in the same vein, there can be the argument that bribery and graft become essential in order to compensate for the low salary. In other words, it is the government that is to blame and the solution for the latter problem can only be possible if the salary is raised. However, will higher salaries put an end to the economic problem of wants above need? We are searching in troubled waters here. U Myint drives a probing needle into the corruption vein when he observes that “The line between “need driven” and “greed driven” corruption is hard to draw and it is difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins.”[x] Real accountability must have a subjective dimension of moral commitment, or else the stringent rules to ensure accountability will only keep piling up and accomplish nothing. No wonder the slave owners of the Roman period desired to have slaves that were Christians because these were known for their faithfulness to their masters based on their accountability in love to Jesus their Lord.

The line between “need driven” and “greed driven” corruption is hard to draw and it is difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. - U Myint

In the modern scheme of understanding, corruption is defined as an interest (private or public) that is out of place or is in the wrong place. For instance, in the words of Mary Douglas[xi], “Shoes are not dirty in themselves, but it is dirty to place them on the dinning-table; food is not dirty in itself, but it is dirty to leave cooking utensils in the bedroom, or food bespattered on clothing…”; similarly, when public interests and private interests are confused in roles and place, corruption or dirt is perceived. Thus, “Private interests and public interests are both perfectly fine, as long as they stay in their proper places.  Once we have the contamination of the public by the private, politicians and politics itself become dirty, tainted, infected, and thus corrupt.”[xii] But, doesn’t the shoe and food analogy also suggest that our definitions of what is corrupt might only be culturally relative. Thus, if a culture thinks that a particular practice, say placing shoes on the dining-table, is not out of place, then it is not out of place in that culture at least. In that sense, the definition loses its absolute definitive basis and is universally not necessarily applicable. Peter Bratsis makes a penetrating observation on this classificatory definition when he says, “…if the main function of the concept of corruption is to maintain the purity of the categories of the public and private, one would expect that the question of corruption should be exclusively a domestic affair and one of no particular importance to international organizations or far flung corporations and financial institutions.”[xiii] Evidently, the issue of moral absolutes can’t be separated from the issue of economic function.

Also, if the economic problem is defined to be allocation of resources, then it also becomes an ethical problem because “allocation” involves decision-making and choice. The economic problem is not that there is a scarcity of resources and multiplicity of wants and desires. The problem is a problem of choice that arises out of limited means and unlimited wants. As a result, the aim of an economic administrator (the ruler)[xiv] becomes to increase allocative efficiency and ensure economic justice. The goal is to bring justice into the economic structure of the polity.

Thus, we can state that the problem of corruption is an ethical problem that involves morally accountable allocation of resources to bring economic justice into the political system.

if the economic problem is defined to be allocation of resources, then it also becomes an ethical problem because “allocation” involves decision-making and choice.

But, while who an individual is ultimately accountable to can be easily answered, who or what a state or polity is accountable to is a problematic question in itself. But, does that matter? Yes, it does if we consider the issue of “justice” to be absolute and not merely relative. But, if it’s not absolute, then the problem is a mere passing phenomena, a phantom appearance that need raise no concern. I think it is the corrupt that believe corruption to be an unreality that bears no personal stings; and, the criminal always hopes that the thing will pass away as a forgettable dream – only the fruits he profited will remain, but which ones? An evil tree can’t bring forth good fruit.

Theories of Corruption

Theories of corruption may be classified into three divisions based on the approach that they undertake to understand and find a solution to the problem:

1. Empirical Theories
2. Ideological Theories
3. Hermeneutical Theories

Empirical Theories

These are the present day more popular ones and feature results based on analysis of empirical data collected by various means. The theories integrate the fields of sociological research, economic research, and psychological research in order to study the causes, nature, and extent of corruption in order to be able to measure, to predict, to control, and, if possible, to eliminate instances or possibility of the same.

The value of empirical studies is great. Not only do they help to observe the phenomenon but also to map it variously, for instance, geographically, politically, and economically. One example of such mapping can be found on the website of Transparency International, an international organization that claims to be working in over 100 countries to fight against corruption.[xv]  The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), for instance, is an index of the perceived levels of public-sector corruption in various countries of the world. In the words of the organization, the Index “draws on different assessments and business opinion surveys carried out by independent and reputable institutions. The surveys and assessments used to compile the index include questions relating to the bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and questions that probe the strength and effectiveness of public-sector anti-corruption efforts.”[xvi]  The CPI 2011 listed 183 countries according their global corruption ranking; the level of corruption being indicated on colored graphs – dark red indicating the most corrupt country and light blue (or light yellow in one page) indicating the cleanest one as perceived. The Index lists New Zealand as the cleanest, with a score of 9.5, and North Korea and Somalia as the most corrupt, with a score of 1.0 each.

Observation does help one to recognize the tree by its fruit and, in many cases, discover and formulate an equation that might help to measure and predict corruption. Empirical studies done cross-country wise bring in more breadth to the research. In-depth analysis becomes possible as more variables are identified, probed, and included in the formulation of theories. Economists have constructed complex models based on such research. However, empirical studies are not without their problems.

One problem associated with empirical research is the issue of causal inference. Contrary to deductive research which leads to conclusions that can be necessarily drawn, inductive research faces the dangers of irrelevant or missing variables and improper correlations between them. Usually the question is the old age problem of trying to ascertain which came first, the chicken or the egg.

In his paper “Corruption in Empirical Research – A Review”,[xvii] German Economist Johann Graf Lambsdorff reviews some theories of corruption based on empirical studies and notes a few problems of causal correlations. He writes, “Whether corruption causes other variables or is itself the consequence of certain characteristics is sometimes difficult to assess.”[xviii] He goes on to look at some case studies where government involvement, poor institutions, inequality and absence of competition may go along with corruption, but suggests to “refrain from drawing iron-clad conclusions with respect to causalities.” For instance, he cites the case of Treisman[xix] finding significant evidence for the theory that federal states are more corrupt than centralized ones. But this relationship is said to have fallen to insignificance when other variables were included. Also, as seen earlier, there are empirical disagreements with regard to the debate whether corruption acts as necessary grease that eliminates red-tape and boosts economic efficiency or acts as sand on the wheels of economic growth. In short, simple conclusions cannot be drawn so easily. After an investigation of correlations between a number of variables like GDP, government expenditure, FDIs, international trade, public institutions, and cultural determinants, he concludes:

In a recent wave of empirical studies the causes and consequences of corruption have been investigated. It can be concluded that corruption commonly goes along with policy distortions, inequality of income and lack of competition. But to derive clear arguments with respect to causality is rather difficult. On the one hand, corruption may cause these variables but is at the same time likely to be the consequence of them.[xx]

Perhaps, one reason behind this difficulty is the need of an understanding of human nature. Human actions cannot always be mathematically calculated along deterministic lines. However, human freewill is open; so, one can’t have a closed theory to predict anything. The most that may be done is use a probability equation.

Also, empirical positivism doesn’t provide a way to account for moral decisions. Bertrand Russell was frank to admit this empirical insufficiency to Copleston when he said, “Well, why does one type of object look yellow and another look blue? I can more or less give an answer to that thanks to the physicists, and as to why I think one sort of thing good and another evil, probably there is an answer of the same sort, but it hasn't been gone into in the same way and I couldn't give it [to] you.” The empiricists themselves had long abandoned the normative function of philosophical ethics and committed themselves to metaethics or the descriptive and analytical study of moral language.

Human actions cannot always be mathematically calculated along deterministic lines...human freewill is open; so, one can’t have a closed theory to predict anything. The most that may be done is use a probability equation.... Also, empirical positivism doesn’t provide a way to account for moral decisions.

Yet, the descriptive and analytical nature of empirical research is not without its normative dimensions. As has been stated, unless there is a clear picture of the ideal of a healthy system, there will not be a way of even describing a corrupt system. As Bratsis notes,

On the one hand we have a normative political project that posits what the good is and on this basis is able to establish what is corrupt/bad. On the other hand we have the desirable/undesirable distinction established in a more technocratic and underhanded way. The proper ordering of all things social is posited in the form of ontological assumptions regarding the public/private and phenomenon that pose a challenge to this vision of how things are become branded as corrupt.[xxi]

However, the impact of the empirical is such that in the present scheme of things, the normative could not usually be given its proper place. And so, “Characteristically, most contemporary discussions of political corruption within political science occur within the sub-field of comparative politics, not normative political theory.”[xxii]

Empirical findings do have the power to pull down age-old systems; but, they do not possess the power to give birth to a normative political theory. That prerogative lies in the domain of ideological thinking. Empirical findings can only measure corruption on the basis of the ideals provided by rational or hermeneutical models.

Ideological Theories

At the heart of political revolutions is always some motivating ideology that defines the nature, form, direction, and extent of that particular revolution. Ideologies provide the framework with reference to which aspirations, achievements, and the thrust and nature of revolution can be measured. In Europe in Retrospect (1979), Raymond F. Betts describes ideology as “the secular equivalent of theology”. In his chapter on the French Revolution, he writes:

What was ideology? It was and remains a system of ideas that are usually goal- directed. Thus, it is a theoretical explanation of the world's situation and a prescription for improvement or radical change of that situation… Most ideologies are, therefore, fundamentally political, bright descriptions of the means and methods by which the instruments of revolution, party, or government ought be used for the purpose of social change.

Ideology is, in a way, the secular equivalent of theology. It directs the believer's attention to a perfected future when present woes will have dissipated and social harmony will reign.[xxiii]

The literature of political theories is quite large. A few major ones that hold relevance to the issue at hand have been selected here.

Absolute Ideals/Justice

Prominent among the political philosophers is Plato. His political ideal The Republic is spun on the axle of his central theory of the ideas. The health of the state, according to him, depends on the grip that the ideas (laws and ideals[xxiv]) have on the governance of the state. Therefore, censorship of literature (to prevent corrupt ideals) plays a very important role in public governance.[xxv] The rulers/guardians are those who must embody the knowledge of these absolutes that provide clarity of vision and ensure justice to all in the Republic. Consequentially, his theory required that the guardians possess no private property or family; they hold all things in common. In that way, he tried to do away with the whole issue of private interests in the public offices. Plato’s guardians, however, go through such rigorous training programs that make it almost impossible for them to fall and become corrupt. Corruption is injustice and the result of an improper ordering in the strata of leadership. Justice is when each member is in his right place – e.g. when only the philosophically trained are the leaders, the militarily trained are the soldiers, etc. Plato’s view would not accept a democracy in which anybody can be voted to become a leader.

From a Christian viewpoint, while there may be disapproval of the platonic “world of ideas” as such, an understanding of eternal reality versus the temporal world of shadows is certainly emphasized in the New Testament (Colossians 3:1; 2Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews 8:5; 10:1). The concept of the Ideal Guardian (Biblically, the King-Priest) of whom the earthly are mere shadows finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Shepherds of people on earth and Husbands or Heads of family at home are to reflect Christ.

With respect to the riddance of the private/public interests, however, Plato’s disciple Aristotle has a practical critique.

Common Interests

Plato’s disciple Aristotle thought his teacher’s prescriptions on rulers to be too impractical and unnecessary.  In Book II of his Politics, he says that members of a state can either have (1) all things in common or (2) nothing in common or (3) some things in common and some not. To have nothing in common is antithetical to the very concept of the constitution as a community. But, to have all things in common is considered to be quite impracticable. In fact, to have all things in common is equally antithetical to the concept of state; for, to have all things in common would result in a unity by which the essential plurality of the state would be destroyed, resulting in a big family rather than a state.[xxvi] According to Aristotle, if all things are in common, then a general carelessness and neglect is bound to follow leading to the degeneration of the state. He defines a state as “a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life.”[xxvii] To him, the “end of the state is the good life… And the state is the union of families and villages in a perfect and self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honourable life.”[xxviii] The three forms of government are royalty (one ruler), aristocracy (few rulers), and constitutional government (many rulers). The three perversions of them are: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; and of constitutional government, democracy.[xxix] Consequentially, public interests are violated in tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy – “For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all.”[xxx] Basic to the thinking of Aristotle is the defining role of “interests”. No doubt, his ethics posited happiness as the end of life. A happy state is one in which there is a right balance of interests and the government such that the happiness of all is ensured. Corruption and corrupt government go together. In a democracy, many have the opportunity to be corrupt. By Aristotelian definition, modern day Communism is nothing but the democracy of the working class.

Biblically, as well, we find a number of governmental forms in the Bible. There was a time of the Patriarchs, then the Judges, then the Kings; then, in the New Testament, the ecclesiastical leadership of elders or presbyters. While royalty was a permissive form of government for Israel, the Bible does also point out, in the Book of Daniel for instance, that the authority is divinely appointed. Time and again, however, corruption is seen as happening when the leaders (kings, elders, priests) turn away from justice and practice iniquity for dishonest gain (Micah 7:3). Essentially, justice is the biblical goal of governance.

Natural/Rational Rights

The concepts of natural liberty and division of labor play important roles in Adam Smith’s (1723-1790) The Wealth of the Nations (1776) that laid down the principles of modern capitalistic economies. The roots, however, go back to the time of the Reformation when Martin Luther (1483-1546) drew a theological division between the Church and the State and freedom of religion was looked at as a personal and absolute right. His arguments were simple: since religion is a private matter, it “is futile and impossible to command or compel anyone by force to believe this or that.” Also, “every man runs his own risk in believing as he does, and he must see to it himself that he believes rightly….How he believes or disbelieves is a matter for the conscience of each individual, and since this takes nothing away from the temporal authority the latter should be content to attend to its own affairs and let men believe this or that as they are able and willing, and constrain no one by force. For faith is a free act, to which no one can be forced.”^[xxxi] Luther’s statements favor a form of individualism and it has been noted that the idea “of capitalism grew from individualistic notions. In religion, this led to the Reformation. In politics, this led to democracy, and with the economy, this led to the capitalistic system.”[xxxii] The chief concept, greatly elaborated by John Locke (1632-1704) prior to Smith, was the concept of “natural rights”. The ideas of John Locke helped spark the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Natural law is seen as different from both positive law (enforced by humans) and divine law (declared by religion). It can be discovered by reason and applies to all people. The three natural rights are the right to life, right to liberty, and right to estate. A healthy state is that in which the rights of all the citizens are protected. Justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity go together. A corrupt state is that in which people are exploited by those in power through rent-seeking activities.

Utility

The post-Enlightenment period gradually saw the rise of skepticism and the waning of rationalistic influences. Empiricism began to take over the reins of philosophy as belief in rational absolutes began to be cast away. Truth became relative and pragmatic. Utilitarianism began to define the use and disuse of law. A few decades after the French Declaration of Rights (1791), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), a British jurist, declared that the concept of natural rights was a contradiction in terms. In his own words, “Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, -- nonsense upon stilts.”[xxxiii] He saw in the revolution, spurred by these anarchical concepts of rights, the seeds of perpetual insurrections.[xxxiv]

To Bentham, basing law on “natural” rights was equal to giving room for lawlessness. His rejection of this foundation led to the development of the modern concept of positive law (or law enacted by government). A priori definitions of laws were untenable. Experience and utility would decide the making of laws. Even liberty is no good if it is not instrumental in bringing about the good. No law is a rigid absolute; it is only instrumental towards welfare and may need to be changed in time. The defining factor was happiness; and the very notion of the law carried with it the notion of happiness for all. But “happiness” according to Bentham has no essential meaning. It is simply the experience of pleasure and the lack of pain.

In the modern pluralistic world of global relations and trade, “natural” rights is a debatable issue. For what appears to be “natural” to one cultural/religious group might not be accepted as such by another. Utilitarianism and Legal Positivism present an alternative. But, they are dangerous alternatives, because they have dealt a death-blow to the concept of an a priori “ought”.

Community

For Karl Marx (1818-1883) evil is systemic and economic. A system (e.g. capitalism) that encourages class division is inherently evil. A working class that becomes conscious of being exploited will soon take action against the ruling class. However, the struggle is perpetual unless there is a communist revolution and the division of public and private is abolished. Both Marx and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) architected The Communist Manifesto (1848) in which they envisioned:

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.[xxxv]

The ideal society according to them then is that in which “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” However, a focus on mere materialistic development in antagonism to anything metaphysical or religious only misses the difference between humanity and organism.

Hermeneutical Theories

Hermeneutical theories are theories based on an interpretation of authoritative statements that have claims of “revelatory” or “oracular” status. Usually every religious theology has some explanation about corruption in both existential and eschatological terms. For instance, Jainism talks about the cycle of time in which there is first a decline of morals (Avasarpini) and then ascension of morals (Utsarpini). Hinduism talks about the four ages (Yugas) through which morality falls to perfect demise and is salvaged only through an act of the deity. The four Yugas are Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapar Yuga, and Kali Yuga. Kali Yuga is the age of demonic vice and Hindus believe that we’re presently living in that age. Islam envisions Jihad as the means of putting an end to all unrighteousness and ushering in the Kingdom of God, while Christianity anticipates an aggravation of evil towards the end of the age climaxing in the reign of the Anti-Christ who is the epitome of the mystery of iniquity. Evil men will get worse and the growth of evil will only be curbed through the intervention of Jesus Christ and escaped through the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit.

Biblical Solutions

There are three ways in which we can biblically approach the issue of corruption: watching, witnessing, and waiting.

1. Watching. This group of instructions focuses on a believer’s role as one who is divinely wise and capable of identifying and keeping away from evil. Regardless of whether it is a royalty or an aristocracy or a constitutional government, or one of their perversions, the biblical call is to identify evil and keep away from it. Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1 are examples of instructions to watchfulness. Proverbs 28 is a classic example of sayings that strongly discourage corrupt practices. The Mosaic Law stipulated, “you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous.” (Exodus 23:8). According to Ecclesiastes 7:7, bribe debases the heart. Sadly in Micah 7:3, corruption is seen as having entered the ministry.

Watchfulness also includes responsible study and perceptiveness of what is going in the political and economic world around. The light is given to us through the Scriptures. The Bible doesn’t call us to be unrelated to the function of the world. It was Joseph’s economic solution that saved Egypt and the world around in times of trouble. We are called to wakefulness and wise living.

The Christian ruler is a watchman appointed by God. Like a shepherd who watches over his flocks and a watchman who watches over the city, he is to watch over his people. A watchman who gets drunk and dissipated with the pleasures of the world and who begins to exploit his flocks and loot his city instead of guarding it is corrupt and a vessel of dishonor. This applies to both leaders in Church as well as Christian leaders in the market place and public offices.

2. Witnessing. The Bible does talk of the possibility of reformation and restoration. However, anything that is stagnant is soon going to rot. Reformation and restoration are to be living experiences of the people. But, there can be no reforms without witnessing. Ideas bring changes. Wrong ideas bring wrong changes and right ideas bring right changes. Without a right vision, the people will perish. The Church is given the responsibility to be the light of the world. Several times the Bible exhorts the Church to hold out the word of truth in this crooked generation, to live out the word of truth by escaping the corruption in the world, and to move out to expose sin and testify of righteousness (Philippians 2:15,16; 2Peter 1:4; Ephesians 5:6-10). Of course, there is that debate of total depravity or total incapability; however, there is that consensus as well that Christians are called to be agents of change and transformation in this world. And, it begins with us.

Witnessing, however, doesn’t mean just evangelism. The Bible records the stories of people such as Joseph, Esther, and Daniel to show us examples of what it means to be salt and light in the world. These people were so strong in faith that they influenced the laws of the nations. However, if the salt itself has lost its savor, what could it be salted with again?

3. Waiting. The Bible does have an eschatological vision for the world. The two mysteries at work in the world are the mystery of godliness and the mystery of iniquity. The mystery of iniquity will climax in the advent of the Anti-Christ who is also called the Man of Lawlessness. In him and his government, evil will epitomize. However, the mystery of godliness will swallow up iniquity; for the mystery of godliness will find its Bright and Morning Star of a new beginning in the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ who will destroy the Man of Lawlessness and judge the world with righteousness. Until then, the believers are called to be faithful to the purity of the word and work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

The Bible doesn’t call us to be unrelated to the function of the world. It was Joseph’s economic solution that saved Egypt and the world around in times of trouble. We are called to wakefulness and wise living.

Final Remarks

This paper made an attempt to look at the roots and causes of corruption. We noted that the roots are moral and economic. If they weren’t moral then corruption would not invite the attention of justice. There are some theorists, however, who disregard the moral aspect by claiming that morality can’t be a root because morality has no intrinsic value; it is relative. Some tried to interpret it all in mere materialistic terms; some in humanistic terms. Some have mocked the issue of “natural rights” as being nonsense. But if absolutes are a nonsense, then we’re also assembled together to merely discuss a nonsense. The economic problem is essentially a moral one. The function of the Law, according to the Bible, is to restrain evil by the rod of justice (1Timothy 1:9). However, it is only useful when people use it lawfully (1Timothy 1:8). Biblical history teaches us that Israel fell into corruption many times despite the presence of the Law.

The biblical vision of liberty is when the law is written in human hearts and the earth is filled with the glory of God. Finally, we live in the world not to be derelicts but to be the salt and light in our own community; to be paragons of excellence in the virtues of love, hope, faith, courage, temperance, justice, and prudence. It is not a pessimistic picture, but a bright and glorious one. Truth alone triumphs!

Bibliography

Adler, Mortimeer J., & Peter Wolff. Philosophy of Law and Jurisprudence, Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc, 1961.
Aristotle. The Pocket Aristotle, Justin D. Kaplan (ed), W.D. Ross (Trans.ed.), NY: Pocket Books, 1958
Augustine. The City of God, tr. Marcus Dodsi, New York: The Modern Library, 1950.
Brown, Colin. Christianity and Western Thought vol. 1, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1990.
Casels, Alan. Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World. London: Routledge, 1996
Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy, New York: Washington Square Press, 1961.
Gandhi, M.K. An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1927.
Heidenheimer, Arnold & Johnston, Michael (eds). Political Corruption: Concepts & Contexts, 3^rd edn. (New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2002)
Lambsdorff, Johann G., Taube, Markus & Schramm, Matthias. The New Institutional Economics of Corruption, Abingdon: Routledge, 2005
Mangalwadi, Vishal. India: The Grand Experiment, Surrey: Pippa Rann Books, 1997.
Miskelly, Matthew and Noce, Jaime (eds). Political Theories for Students, MI: The Gale Group, 2002
North, Gary. An Introduction to Christian Economics, NP: The Craig Press, 1974
Plato. The Republic and Other Books, Trans. B. Jowett, Toronto: Random House, 1973.
Schaeffer, Francis A. Escape From Reason Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968.
Skocpol, Theda. States and Social Revolutions, London: Cambridge University Press, 1979
Thompson, Bard. Humanists and Reformers, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's, 1981.
Zacharias, Ravi. Deliver Us From Evil, USA: Wpublishing Group, 1997.

NOTES

---

[i] “Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God”, http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm. Accessed December 6, 2012.

[ii] Arnold Heidenheimer & Michael Johnston (eds), Political Corruption: Concepts & Contexts, 3^rd edn. (New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2002), 9-13
[iii] Carl J. Friedrich, “Corruption Concepts in Historical Perspective,” Heidenheimer & Johnston, Political Corruption: Concepts & Contexts, 18.
[iv] The Indian Express, “Anna Hazare Says He Will Not Vote for Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party”, New Delhi, Dec 06, 2012, 13:24 hrs. www.indianexpress.com
[v] Pierre-Gillaume Meon & Khalid Sekkat, “Does Corruption Grease or Sand the Wheels of Growth?” Public Choice (Springer, 2005), 122:69-97.
[vi] Johann Graf Lambsdorff, “Corruption in Empirical Research – A Review”, 9^th International Anti-Corruption Conference, Durban, South Africa, 10-15 December, 1999, 2. http://9iacc.org/papers2.html, 4,5
[vii] U Myint, “Corruption: Causes, Consequences and Cures,” Asia-Pacific Development, Journal Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2000.
[viii] U Myint, “Corruption: Causes, Consequences and Cures,” 39.
[ix] Anti-Corruption Commission Zambia, “About Corruption,” http://www.acc.gov.zm/?page_id=49. Accessed on November 27, 2012.
[x] U Myint, “Corruption: Causes, Consequences and Cures,”  41
[xi] Cited by Peter Bratsis, “Corrupt Compared to What? Greece, Capitalist Interests, and the Specular Purity of the State”, London School of Economics and Political Science, August 2003?” 17
[xii] Peter Bratsis, “Corrupt Compared to What?” 17
[xiii] Peter Bratsis, “Corrupt Compared to What?” 41
[xiv] Both Kautilya and Plato understood the importance of the ruler(s) as economic administrator. As we have seen, Kautilya’s treatise on politics was a treatise on economics as well. He called it the Arthashastra. And, Plato began the construction of his Republic on the basis of the basic human needs, viz., food, shelter, and clothing.
[xv] http://transparency.org
[xvi] Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2011, http://transparency.org
[xvii] Johann Graf Lambsdorff, “Corruption in Empirical Research – A Review”, 9^th International Anti-Corruption Conference, Durban, South Africa, 10-15 December, 1999, 2. http://9iacc.org/papers2.html
[xviii] Johann Lambsdorff, “Corruption in Empirical Research”, 3
[xix] D. Treisman, "Decentralization and Corruption: Why are Federal States Perceived to be More Corrupt.” Paper prepared for the presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, September 1999. University of California, Los Angeles, August.
[xx] Johann Lambsdorff, “Corruption in Empirical Research”, 14
[xxi] Peter Bratsis, “Corrupt Compared to What?” 19
[xxii] Peter Bratsis, “Corrupt Compared to What?”  20
[xxiii] Raymond F.Betts, Europe In Retrospect: A Brief History Of The Past Two Hundred Years, 1979,  http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/1/2_2.html
[xxiv] Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (NY: Pocket Books, 1933),  29
[xxv] Plato, The Republic and Other Books, Trans. B. Jowett (Toronto: Random House, 1973), 71-86
[xxvi] Aristotle, The Pocket Aristotle, Justin D. Kaplan (ed), W.D. Ross (Trans.ed.) (NY: Pocket Books, 1958). 283
[xxvii] The Pocket Aristotle,  298
[xxviii] The Pocket Aristotle,  312
[xxix] The Pocket Aristotle,  308
[xxx] The Pocket Aristotle,  308
[xxxi] Martin Luther, “On Temporal Authority” (1523), http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/323/texts/luther~1.htm. Accessed on December 8, 2012
[xxxii] Matthew Miskelly and Jaime Noce (eds), Political Theories for Students (MI: The Gale Group, 2002), 22
[xxxiii] Jeremy Bentham, “Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights”, Anarchical Fallacies, Vol.2 of Bowring (ed.), Works, 1843. http://www.ditext.com/bentham/bentham.html. Accessed on December 8, 2012
[xxxiv] Jeremy Bentham, “Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights”.
[xxxv] Karl Marx & Friedrich Engel, The Communist Manifesto, 1848. Chapter 2. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm