Theology does not and cannot take place in a historical vacuum. In order for us to understand any theological movement or system, we need to first be familiar with the context in which it emerged and developed. Since theology did not "fall from the sky," we need to take into account the geographical context, the people affected, and the factors which led to its emergence and development. We need to be familiar with the social and political factors that gave rise to theological systems. In this essay, we will consider Taiwan's history, and then utilize that history to understand how Liberation Theology developed and is developing in that region of the world.
There are today, at least 380,000 people in Taiwan now officially called "Taiwan Aboriginal Peoples," who are speakers of Austronesian languages. Their dozen extant and dozen extinct languages are agreed to be the most archaic of the Indonesian of that vast language family. Their cultures and physical attributes, which are quite varied, also identify them as Austronesian people. There have been human settlements in Taiwan since at least fifteen thousand years ago, in the paleolithic age. By the seventeenth century, there were several ethnolinguistically distinct groups settled in Taiwan. However, we cannot yet explain the development of such ethnic diversity (Michael Stainton in "The Politics of Taiwan Aboriginal Origins," Taiwan: A New History. Murray A. Rubenstein, ed. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1999, p. 29).
The original inhabitants are considered to be loyal citizens of the Republic of China. Those under 50 years of age who have had any education, will be able to converse with some ease in Chinese Mandarin, the national language. While many work as farmers, some serve as doctors, dentists, teaches, lawyers, and business persons in Taiwan's cities. Unless one goes into any one of their villages and views a special tourist performance, one may not be able to distinguish them from the Chinese. Their village homes are replete with many of the conveniences of modern life, i.e. electricity, refrigerators, air conditioners, modern propane stoves, TV, VCRs, and computer. They drive modern cars equal to those driven by the Chinese. Nearly politically conscious in Taiwan's emerging multipolitical society, they have emboldened to insist on justice for what they perceive as past inequities. Their lifestyle is rapidly entering into all phases of modern industrial society (Ralph Covell, Pentecost on the Hills of Taiwan. Pasadena: Hope Publishing House, 1998, p. 2).
This adaptation to modern life does not mean that they have abandoned their traditional culture. Dancing and music, hunting, special foods, gracious hospitality, their own languages, ancient tales of early ancestral exploits, and hard work all serve to remind of the past and give a needed foundation in their ongoing search for self-identity (Ibid.).
There are various theories regarding the origins of the aboriginal people of Taiwan. In 1889, the Dutch Indologist Henrik Kern proposed the "southern origin" theory of the Austronesian languages. He suggested that the bearers of this language family came from Southeast Asia and moved eastward through the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagos, northward to Taiwan, and eastward into the Pacific. In Kern's time, Indonesia was a Dutch colony. In the southern origin theory, Taiwan is a dead end, valuable as a living museum (Stainton, p. 29).
For aboriginal people in Taiwan, establishing the boundary between themselves and the Chinese was a constant issue in the period up to the early 1990's. ROC (Republic of China) nationalist "history" insisted that they were "a branch of the Chinese nation." Drawing a line between Taiwan's prehistory and China is also a counter-argument to Chinese claims that "Taiwan has been a part of China since ancient times (Ibid, p. 32)."
Lin Hui-hsiang, an anthropologist at Amoy University, visited Taiwan and wrote a monograph suggesting a northern theory of origin. He also published an article "Research Into Taiwan-Stone Age Tools,", which would possibly lead one to conclude that Neolithic humans in Taiwan had close relations with the southeast continental coast, and floated across the sea. In Lin Hui-hsiang we see the development of the northern original model as new data and new ideas are entered into the selection process. But we can also see that this development parallels the change in the political position of Taiwan in relation to China -from an island of no special import in 1929, to the search for roots of the Chinese nation in a period of nationalism being constructed against Japan in 1936, to the position of Taiwan as the unrecovered province of China after 1949 (Ibid., p. 34).
In 1963, Isidore Dyen proposed that Taiwan might be the place from which the Austronesian languages originated. He proposed that the place of origin of the Austronesian languages should be the place where the greatest number of language families is concentrated. If there are more than twenty languages in an area the size of Vancouver, Taiwan, according to this theory, is logically the place to look for the origin of this language family (Ibid., p. 37).
The people in Taiwan are comprised of many ethnic groups. Hoklo and Hakka, which came from Fukien and Kwangtun provinces in China during the seventeen and nineteenth centuries, constitute about 87% of the population. Aborigines, which came more than 5,000 years ago from the Philippines, Okinawa, and most probably Malaysia and Indonesia, constitute less than 2% of the population. Chinese mainlanders who fled to Taiwan after the Communist takeover in 1949, constitute about 11% of the population. There are marked differences of languages and customs among these groups. Friction and tension between native Taiwanese (Hoklo, Hakka, and Aborigines) and Chinese mainlanders developed as soon as Chinese mainlanders arrived in Taiwan. The primary sources of animosity between the two groups was the dominant position of Chinese mainlanders on Taiwan. Throughout the years, however, the differences in social and economic status within each group tend to blur ( Chen Nan-Jou, ed. A Testament to Taiwan Homeland Theology: The Essential Writings of Wang Hsien-Chi. Yeong Wang Cultural Enterprise Co. Ltd., p. 11).
Historically, there are also divisions within each group. Tensions between groups or within a group (eg., Chuanchou and Changchou origins of the Hoklos, different tribes of the Aborigines) on Taiwan have been exploited by the different intrusive rulers. The colonial rulers employed the rule "divide and rule" strategy to aggravate these tensions and to hold on their possessions in Taiwan. Serious uprisings against Ming or Ching Chinese rulers, or Japanese rulers were frequent and intensive. There were also several great rebellions. It became common to say of Taiwan: "Every three years an uprising, every five years a rebellion." However, long-standing ethnic and subethnic feuds prevented the formation of an effective united force to revolt against the common colonial rulers. In a way, the intrusive rulers on Taiwan in the last four centuries had been successful in suppressing the rise of Taiwanese consciousness with the nationalistic implications (Ibid., p.12).
Although the existence of the so-called "Taiwanese people" conceptually and ethnically speaking is real, the term is ambivalent, much depending on the ruler's attitude. In the Japanese colonial documents, people on Taiwan are called "Taiwanese," and Japanese people in Taiwan are called "natives." But later on, the Nationalist government in Taiwan prohibited any public usage of the term "Taiwanese people," conversely it asserts that there are only "Chinese" people in Taiwan, including those Aboriginal tribes who are "granted" with Chinese names by the local Chinese bureaucrats. This Taiwanese/Chinese complex becomes very confusing only domestically, but also internationally (Ibid.)
The preceding information serves as a foundation for us to understand how theology is constructed in the Taiwanese context. The subsequent essays on colonialism, land rights and sovereignty will place into perspective the emergence and development of what can properly called "Homeland Theology."
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Saturday, January 20, 2018
The Church Behind The Gates
In this final essay on theology from a prison standpoint, I would like to talk about the prison church, or as I referred to in the volunteer training sessions which I conducted, "The Church Behind the Gates." The title of this essay may come as a surprise to some, as many, if not most of us, are used to thinking of the Church as in institution of society and as a place where people gather together for fellowship, study, and worship. I will not say that these concepts about the Church are wrong, but I will say that the Church is that and more.
In the strictest sense of the word, the Church is a gathering of people of different backgrounds and walks of life who have been transformed by the liberating message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, international, and interracial community of people who have in common their allegiance to and faith in Jesus Christ. It is also a community that consists of people who together with Christ, commit themselves to combat systemic and structural injustice wherever it may be encountered and manifested.
During the 17 years that I served as the Protestant Chaplain at the Groveland Correctional Facility in Sonyea, New York, the concept of prison ministry (at least for the Protestant community) was changed. Initially, the volunteers who came to conduct Bible study, and to assist in the worship services by preaching, came with the attitude that they were there to "minister to the residents." Over a period of time, they came to accept their role in the prison ministry as a partnership with the residents, rather than seeing the residents as "targets of mission." Initially, the residents were recipients of the ministry of the chaplains and the volunteers. By the time I retired in 2009, they were considered fellow-workers.
In the last five years before my retirement, a program of theological studies was carried out in conjunction with Jesus the Liberator Seminary. This seminary was a Buffalo, New York-based organization that had a program where students would complete courses in biblical studies, church history, ministry, and theology. This was a correspondence program that residents would complete independently. The Groveland Correctional Facility served as the first prison to have an "on site" program, where several residents who had degrees in religious studies and in other areas, would together with me, teach the courses of the program. Those who completed the ten courses would receive a Certificate in Theology and would be able to use the courses as partial credit towards an undergraduate degree with Empire State College, and independent studies program of the State University of New York. One of the resident instructors had received a Master of Professional Studies degree from the New York Theological Seminary through a program that they conducted at the Ossining (Sing Sing) Correctional Facility. Upon his parole two years later, he founded a church in Auburn, New York.
Some of the volunteers who came in to the prison with an attitude of paternalism and moral superiority, withdrew their services because they could not stand the idea that these residents were on an equal footing with them in terms of ministry. They came in with the notion that they were coming to "bring Christ" to the prisoners. When they realized that Christ was already there in the lives and ministry of the residents, it became challenging and difficult for them to continue coming.
Other volunteers gladly accepted the new structure. They saw the residential leaders not as people who needed Christ, but as people who had already been transformed by Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit to carry out the ministry of Jesus Christ in that environment. When they witnessed and participated in the celebration of the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, they came to realize that the Church of Jesus Christ is not geographically or physically bound to any one location, but exists "wherever two or three are gathered in Christ's name." They also came to acknowledge the "Church Behind the Gates" as being an integral part of the world-wide Body of Christ where "the word is duly proclaimed, and the Sacraments duly celebrated."
One day before my retirement, the resident elders of the prison church and I gathered together in a special meeting to "dissolve" the pastoral relationship between the congregation and me. One of the resident elders, who possessed an undergraduate degree in Religious Studies from Syracuse University was commissioned as a resident pastor. He continued to serve in that role with the new Protestant Chaplain until the day of his parole.
I will not say that this model of governance is the perfect model for the prison church. I would, however, state, that if nothing else, there is an indication that there is a vibrant community of faith behind the gates. Liberation Theology, which I alluded to in the previous essay, is the model which this church utilizes in its governance and ministry. The prison church continues to live on in the midst of "fire, dungeon, and sword." To God be the glory!
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
The Prisons in a Theological Perspective
In the previous essay, I described some of the conditions in which incarcerated persons live. In this essay, I would like to talk about a theology which emerges from those conditions.
In the strictest sense of the word, theology is a discourse about God and things related to God. Theology reflects the ideas and notions that individuals and community of faith as a whole have about God. In that respect, I believe that it is safe to say that every member of the community of faith is a theologian. Every individual in the community and every community have something to say about God according to the way they perceive Her/Him.
For the purposes of this essay, I would say that there are two basic models of theology. One is what I would call "top down" theology, which in essence, is a theology handed down by the leaders of the Church and/or other faith communities and their educational institutions (theological schools). This type of theology consists of theories and ideas which are promoted by those in power and in the leadership of the institutional Church. This theology is for the most part, carved up independently of the "grass roots" members, i.e. the laity.
The other model of theology is what I would call "bottom up" theology which basically reflects the beliefs and experiences of the powerless in the Church and in society. This type of theology, like the theology of the first two centuries of Christianity, emerges from the experience of oppression, persecution, and suffering.
In this essay, I will making use of "bottom up" theology known in Latin America and in other parts of the developing world as "Liberation Theology," a movement which began in the late 1960's in Latin America, and has spread throughout the world into communities where people are oppressed because of class, gender, ethnicity/race, and sexual orientation. While there are various modalities in Liberation Theology reflecting these social realities, the underlying assumption is that oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In essence, theologians of liberation believe that if theology does not reflect and and address the human condition of oppression and suffering, it is not only irrelevant, but to some extent demonic.
Liberation Theology is not just "another school of thought," or what some would consider another fad that "comes and goes." As long as there is oppression and suffering in the world, Liberation Theology will continue to exist. Liberation Theology emerged from a situation of suffering, and cannot cease to exist unless oppression and suffering are completely eradicated.
In a biblical and historical sense, Liberation Theology precedes historic and traditional Christian theology. Technically speaking, Liberation Theology began when Yahweh God was revealed to the Hebrew people as they suffered the misery of bondage in Egypt. Yahweh said to Moses "I have heard the cry of my people, and have descended to deliver them." Yahweh's self-disclosure was the clarion call for Liberation Theology to emerge. The theology that the Hebrews knew and were familiar with did not emerge from the academy nor from the magisterium of the Hebrew community. Their theology arose as a result of Yahweh's self-disclosure in the midst of their bondage and Yahweh's liberating and salvific activity relative to that bondage. It was the theology that guided them through the desert into the land of Promise. It was the theology that sustained them in times of heresy and national upheaval. It was the only theology that they knew.
What should be the theology that guides the ministry of the Church in the penal system? If we are speaking of a group of people who are rightly or wrongly convicted, and living in the Babylonian Captivity" of the penal system, then it is obvious that Liberation Theology in some form should be the theology that becomes the mechanism that the Church utilizes to carry out God's mission in that context. If the oppression and suffering of the Hebrew people were the locus and mode of divine revelation, then in the same vein, alienation, captivity, and suffering should be the the model for theologizing relative to the reality of incarceration.
People who are alienated from their families and from society, as well as suffering the abuse that occurs in the penal institutions, do not have the luxury or the interest to focus on the lofty ideals and platitudes of traditional theology. The question that comes into the mind of confined persons is "What does God have to do with us in this situation that we are in and what is God's role, if any, in our future upon release as we seek to reintegrate into society and be reunited with our families?" As a Christian theologian, I sustain that if theology does not emerge from or address the situation of captivity that prisoners find themselves in, it is totally irrelevant. For prison theology to be valid, it has to be a theology that is based on Yahweh having heard the cry of the people in bondage "behind the gates." While self-righteous people in society and in the Church continue to cry "Lock them up and throw away the keys," prisoners need to hear the voice that says "I have heard your cry and have descended to deliver you."
Through Moses, Yahweh liberated the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt. Through Jesus Christ, God has liberated both Jew and Gentile from the bondage of false and unnecessary allegiance to those who oppress them by lording it over them.
Through the ministry of Christs's Church, both behind and outside the gates, God's salvific activity continues to move forward. As stated at the beginning of this essay, oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. Liberation Theology, which is in essence, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, guides us in affirming that in Christ, the prisoners that we partner with in ministry, have experienced that if anyone be in Christ, they are a new creation.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
In the strictest sense of the word, theology is a discourse about God and things related to God. Theology reflects the ideas and notions that individuals and community of faith as a whole have about God. In that respect, I believe that it is safe to say that every member of the community of faith is a theologian. Every individual in the community and every community have something to say about God according to the way they perceive Her/Him.
For the purposes of this essay, I would say that there are two basic models of theology. One is what I would call "top down" theology, which in essence, is a theology handed down by the leaders of the Church and/or other faith communities and their educational institutions (theological schools). This type of theology consists of theories and ideas which are promoted by those in power and in the leadership of the institutional Church. This theology is for the most part, carved up independently of the "grass roots" members, i.e. the laity.
The other model of theology is what I would call "bottom up" theology which basically reflects the beliefs and experiences of the powerless in the Church and in society. This type of theology, like the theology of the first two centuries of Christianity, emerges from the experience of oppression, persecution, and suffering.
In this essay, I will making use of "bottom up" theology known in Latin America and in other parts of the developing world as "Liberation Theology," a movement which began in the late 1960's in Latin America, and has spread throughout the world into communities where people are oppressed because of class, gender, ethnicity/race, and sexual orientation. While there are various modalities in Liberation Theology reflecting these social realities, the underlying assumption is that oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. In essence, theologians of liberation believe that if theology does not reflect and and address the human condition of oppression and suffering, it is not only irrelevant, but to some extent demonic.
Liberation Theology is not just "another school of thought," or what some would consider another fad that "comes and goes." As long as there is oppression and suffering in the world, Liberation Theology will continue to exist. Liberation Theology emerged from a situation of suffering, and cannot cease to exist unless oppression and suffering are completely eradicated.
In a biblical and historical sense, Liberation Theology precedes historic and traditional Christian theology. Technically speaking, Liberation Theology began when Yahweh God was revealed to the Hebrew people as they suffered the misery of bondage in Egypt. Yahweh said to Moses "I have heard the cry of my people, and have descended to deliver them." Yahweh's self-disclosure was the clarion call for Liberation Theology to emerge. The theology that the Hebrews knew and were familiar with did not emerge from the academy nor from the magisterium of the Hebrew community. Their theology arose as a result of Yahweh's self-disclosure in the midst of their bondage and Yahweh's liberating and salvific activity relative to that bondage. It was the theology that guided them through the desert into the land of Promise. It was the theology that sustained them in times of heresy and national upheaval. It was the only theology that they knew.
What should be the theology that guides the ministry of the Church in the penal system? If we are speaking of a group of people who are rightly or wrongly convicted, and living in the Babylonian Captivity" of the penal system, then it is obvious that Liberation Theology in some form should be the theology that becomes the mechanism that the Church utilizes to carry out God's mission in that context. If the oppression and suffering of the Hebrew people were the locus and mode of divine revelation, then in the same vein, alienation, captivity, and suffering should be the the model for theologizing relative to the reality of incarceration.
People who are alienated from their families and from society, as well as suffering the abuse that occurs in the penal institutions, do not have the luxury or the interest to focus on the lofty ideals and platitudes of traditional theology. The question that comes into the mind of confined persons is "What does God have to do with us in this situation that we are in and what is God's role, if any, in our future upon release as we seek to reintegrate into society and be reunited with our families?" As a Christian theologian, I sustain that if theology does not emerge from or address the situation of captivity that prisoners find themselves in, it is totally irrelevant. For prison theology to be valid, it has to be a theology that is based on Yahweh having heard the cry of the people in bondage "behind the gates." While self-righteous people in society and in the Church continue to cry "Lock them up and throw away the keys," prisoners need to hear the voice that says "I have heard your cry and have descended to deliver you."
Through Moses, Yahweh liberated the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt. Through Jesus Christ, God has liberated both Jew and Gentile from the bondage of false and unnecessary allegiance to those who oppress them by lording it over them.
Through the ministry of Christs's Church, both behind and outside the gates, God's salvific activity continues to move forward. As stated at the beginning of this essay, oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. Liberation Theology, which is in essence, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, guides us in affirming that in Christ, the prisoners that we partner with in ministry, have experienced that if anyone be in Christ, they are a new creation.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Prison Theology: The Conditions of Incarceration
As a follow-up to my previous essay on whether the goal of incarceration is to punish or to rehabilitate, I now address another issue which is hardly, if ever, addressed, and to a certain extent, totally ignored, i.e. the conditions of incarceration. Some would argue that the conditions of a penal institution should be such, i.e. cruel, dehumanizing, filthy, etc., as a way to encourage residents not to reoffend, and subsequently come back to jail or prison. Others would argue that the conditions of the penal institution should be such that they are conducive to habilitation, or rehabilitation so that residents can return to society as responsible persons contributing to the growth and development of a just society.
I remember that when I was working as a Corrections Counselor at the Arthur Kill Corr ectional Facility in Staten Island, New York, I would come and discuss with my family the dynamics taking place within the prison as well as some of the resources that residents had available to them during their confinement. In one conversation, I indicated that there were a gymnasium and a swimming pool in the facility for the residents to use as part of their recreation program. One of my daughters reacted and said "Wow, they have swimming pools? I thought that was jail!"
Those who have the punitive mindset about incarceration would argue that jails and prisons should not a "Club Med," resembling a vacation resort. On the other hand, those who have a correctional mindset would argue that the conditions under which incarcerated individuals live should not be brutal and dehumanizing, but rather conditions that are conducive to the acquisition of ethical values that will result in life styles upon their release and return to society.
Many people believe that incarcerated residents should suffer as punishment for the crimes they've committed, especially if these crimes have resulted in injury or even death to others in society. Others believe that residents should be held accountable for their crimes in an environment which makes it possible for them to reflect on their actions and subsequently embark on a new direction in their lives.
From a faith standpoint, we may ask if incarceration should be geared solely to punishment or to what some would call "restorative justice." Some in the community of faith would appeal to the Old Testament notions of punishment for wrongdoing. Others in the community of faith would appeal to the restorative elements in the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as reflected in the New Testament emphasis on forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation.
Whether one favors punishment for wrongdoing as an end in and of itself, or correctional punishment leading to repentance and restoration, the fact of the matter remains that there is much human suffering taking place in the penal institutions. Whether the suffering comes as a result of the wrongdoing of the residents, or as a result of other external factors, the fact remains that there is suffering. The Hebrew people underwent punishment at the hands of the Babylonians because of their deviation from the norms and standards given to them by Yahweh God. They had previously also suffered at the hands of their Egyptian taskmasters. In both cases, they experienced dehumanization, oppression, and suffering.
Do incarcerated individuals really experience suffering. My answer to that would be an absolute "yes." They suffer the following:
1. Physical, and some cases, emotional alienation from their loved ones. Physical absence does not provide much opportunity for emotional nurture and in fact, decreases it to a certain extent.
2. Physical and emotional abuse from some of those who work in the correctional system, especially in the ranks of security. This results very often in a much lower self-esteem than what they may have had before entering the penal system. It also contributes to the breaking of the human spirit and to a sense of despair and hopelessness. An example of this is where certain prison employees refer to the residents as "a piece of shit," or as "dirt bags."
3. Emotional and physical abuse from fellow-residents. Due to the creation of an internal society where conflict and tensions exist, in many cases, residents abuse and oppress each other. There are instances of "in-house" fighting resulting in injury and even death, and in some cases, sexual abuse from fellow residents.
4. Emotional suffering stemming from guilt/or remorse about acts committed or alleged to have been committed. Many residents genuinely reflect on the actions which have resulted in their incarceration, and regret them. Others suffer not because they actually regret their actions, but because they have "been busted."
5. Physical conditions of the institution. In many of the older facilities, residents as well as employees have to live or coexist in slum-like conditions. As those who live in the slums, they have to deal with the reality of things such as vermin (mice, rats, and cockroaches).
6. Lack of proper health care. The penal system's health care is set up in such a way as to give incarcerated persons the minimum degree of health care. There is rampant the belief that incarcerated individuals are not entitled to the same quality of health care as people in society. Subsequently, many residents suffer and even die as a result of this negligence.
7. Lack of educational tools necessary for survival in a "post-release " situation. There are many who do not believe in having "educated criminals." There are others who believe the money used for educating jail/prison residents should be given or be used for "law abiding" citizens to be educated.
What should be the role of the community of faith relative to human suffering in the penal institutions? As a Christian minister, I propose the following:
1. Affirm residents as people created in the image and likeness of God.
2. Establish ties of solidarity with residents. The attitude should not be one of condescension or paternalism, but rather one of "I am with you brother/sister."
3. Encourage (not force or pressure) residents to participate in the community of faith.
4. Promote residential leadership in the community of faith. From the Christian standpoint, this would involve developing the Prison Church.
5. Advocate for the rights of residents to have quality health care and the highest level of education possible.
6. Advocate for the right of residents to have access to decent housing conditions while incarcerated.
7. Advocate for residents to be treated with respect and dignity while being held accountable.
8. Help prepare residents to take on leadership roles in the community upon their release.
9. Help to strengthen the relationship between residents and their families.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
I remember that when I was working as a Corrections Counselor at the Arthur Kill Corr ectional Facility in Staten Island, New York, I would come and discuss with my family the dynamics taking place within the prison as well as some of the resources that residents had available to them during their confinement. In one conversation, I indicated that there were a gymnasium and a swimming pool in the facility for the residents to use as part of their recreation program. One of my daughters reacted and said "Wow, they have swimming pools? I thought that was jail!"
Those who have the punitive mindset about incarceration would argue that jails and prisons should not a "Club Med," resembling a vacation resort. On the other hand, those who have a correctional mindset would argue that the conditions under which incarcerated individuals live should not be brutal and dehumanizing, but rather conditions that are conducive to the acquisition of ethical values that will result in life styles upon their release and return to society.
Many people believe that incarcerated residents should suffer as punishment for the crimes they've committed, especially if these crimes have resulted in injury or even death to others in society. Others believe that residents should be held accountable for their crimes in an environment which makes it possible for them to reflect on their actions and subsequently embark on a new direction in their lives.
From a faith standpoint, we may ask if incarceration should be geared solely to punishment or to what some would call "restorative justice." Some in the community of faith would appeal to the Old Testament notions of punishment for wrongdoing. Others in the community of faith would appeal to the restorative elements in the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as reflected in the New Testament emphasis on forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation.
Whether one favors punishment for wrongdoing as an end in and of itself, or correctional punishment leading to repentance and restoration, the fact of the matter remains that there is much human suffering taking place in the penal institutions. Whether the suffering comes as a result of the wrongdoing of the residents, or as a result of other external factors, the fact remains that there is suffering. The Hebrew people underwent punishment at the hands of the Babylonians because of their deviation from the norms and standards given to them by Yahweh God. They had previously also suffered at the hands of their Egyptian taskmasters. In both cases, they experienced dehumanization, oppression, and suffering.
Do incarcerated individuals really experience suffering. My answer to that would be an absolute "yes." They suffer the following:
1. Physical, and some cases, emotional alienation from their loved ones. Physical absence does not provide much opportunity for emotional nurture and in fact, decreases it to a certain extent.
2. Physical and emotional abuse from some of those who work in the correctional system, especially in the ranks of security. This results very often in a much lower self-esteem than what they may have had before entering the penal system. It also contributes to the breaking of the human spirit and to a sense of despair and hopelessness. An example of this is where certain prison employees refer to the residents as "a piece of shit," or as "dirt bags."
3. Emotional and physical abuse from fellow-residents. Due to the creation of an internal society where conflict and tensions exist, in many cases, residents abuse and oppress each other. There are instances of "in-house" fighting resulting in injury and even death, and in some cases, sexual abuse from fellow residents.
4. Emotional suffering stemming from guilt/or remorse about acts committed or alleged to have been committed. Many residents genuinely reflect on the actions which have resulted in their incarceration, and regret them. Others suffer not because they actually regret their actions, but because they have "been busted."
5. Physical conditions of the institution. In many of the older facilities, residents as well as employees have to live or coexist in slum-like conditions. As those who live in the slums, they have to deal with the reality of things such as vermin (mice, rats, and cockroaches).
6. Lack of proper health care. The penal system's health care is set up in such a way as to give incarcerated persons the minimum degree of health care. There is rampant the belief that incarcerated individuals are not entitled to the same quality of health care as people in society. Subsequently, many residents suffer and even die as a result of this negligence.
7. Lack of educational tools necessary for survival in a "post-release " situation. There are many who do not believe in having "educated criminals." There are others who believe the money used for educating jail/prison residents should be given or be used for "law abiding" citizens to be educated.
What should be the role of the community of faith relative to human suffering in the penal institutions? As a Christian minister, I propose the following:
1. Affirm residents as people created in the image and likeness of God.
2. Establish ties of solidarity with residents. The attitude should not be one of condescension or paternalism, but rather one of "I am with you brother/sister."
3. Encourage (not force or pressure) residents to participate in the community of faith.
4. Promote residential leadership in the community of faith. From the Christian standpoint, this would involve developing the Prison Church.
5. Advocate for the rights of residents to have quality health care and the highest level of education possible.
6. Advocate for the right of residents to have access to decent housing conditions while incarcerated.
7. Advocate for residents to be treated with respect and dignity while being held accountable.
8. Help prepare residents to take on leadership roles in the community upon their release.
9. Help to strengthen the relationship between residents and their families.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Prisons: Punishment or Rehabilitation?
There are various philosophies underlying the correctional system enterprise. There are some who believe that the main purpose of confinement is to punish convicted felons for the wrong they have done or have been convicted of doing. There are others who believe in confinement as a tool of rehabilitation to prepare residents to reenter society with a "clean slate." Then there are those who believe that incarceration should serve both purposes.
The late Thomas Coughlin, who was Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services while I was a prison chaplain, indicated that he had a problem with the concept of "rehabilitation." He stated that the word "rehabilitation" carried the implication of restoring residents to their original condition. According to Coughlin, many of these residents had not been on the "right foot" to begin with, and therefore, in his opinion, the word "rehabilitation" was a misnomer. He preferred the word "habilitation" which implied that the purpose of confinement was to have residents start off on the "right foot" upon release from prison.
Commissioner Coughlin served his term while Mario Cuomo was governor of New York State. Governor Cuomo had a fairly liberal policy, in which residents were released relatively early to parole. During his tenure, the Department of Correctional Services provided for residents to have access to higher educational programs while they were confined. Various colleges and universities established satellite or residential campuses at various facilities. Many residents took advantage of this opportunity by enrolling in the college programs and obtaining degrees in different fields of study. Both Governor Cuomo and Commissioner Coughlin believed that if residents obtained a college education during their confinement, they would be "habilitated" or "rehabilitated," and returning to the community in a much different and better condition then when they first entered the penal system. They would then reenter society with the necessary tools to become productive and law-abiding citizens.
When Governor Cuomo was not re-elected in 1995, George Pataki, a Republican, was elected Governor of New York State. His was a more conservative approach to incarceration in which he eliminated the college programs because according to him, tax-payers were paying too much money just for the state to end up with "educated criminals." He rationalized that residents should not receive a free education when there were law-abiding citizens who had a difficult time financing their education.
Under Pataki's tenure, Parole Commissioners who had a more conservative bent were appointed. Residents who appeared before the Parole Board were denied release several times before going home. The approach under Pataki's tenure was more of a punitive one. The mindset that existed under the Pataki administration was that "once a criminal, always a criminal." The fundamental belief was that criminals could not change or be rehabilitated.
By the time I retired in 2009, another Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, had been elected. Like his father Mario's, his administration was more liberal in regard to Parole. More residents were released at their first or second Parole Board appearance.
Unfortunately, under Cuomo's tenure, the college programs were not reinstated, at least not completely. The same mindset that existed under the Pataki administration continued to be permeated. This was in spite of the fact that it had been stated that 75% of residents who received a college degree while incarcerated, did not return to prison after their parole release.
The same thing had been said about residents who were involved in religious programs of one kind or another. During the administration of Mario Cuomo and George Pataki, there had been proposals to lay off chaplains in order to maintain a "balanced budget." Negotiations between the state and the faith groups resulted in no chaplains losing their jobs. The elimination of college-level programs, and the proposed lay offs of chaplains led many to believe that the punitive mindset was the prevailing one in society, including among those who worked for the Department of Correctional Services.
As a Minister of the Gospel working in a correctional facility, I always took the approach that I wasn't there to question the guilt or the innocence of those convicted and eventually confined. I even shared that position with the residents with whom I came into on a daily basis. It was my position that my role as a chaplain was to:
1. Be the face and presence of Christ in an environment of dehumanization and oppression.
2. Affirm the dignity of the residents as creatures and children of God.
3. Encourage the residents to join a community of faith as a part of their restoration.
4. Encourage the residents to pursue higher education or employment that was consistent with their goals and aspirations.
5. Nurture and upbuild the residents who were members of "the Church behind the Gates."
6. Enable the members of the prison church to discover their gifts and utilize them in the Body of Christ.
7. Carry out a program of theological studies that would equip the residents to exercise their gifts and serve as leaders in the prison church.
Through the above steps, the chaplains would enable the residents to be prepared to reenter society and be reunited with their loved ones. They would return as people who would contribute to growth and social development in a positive way.
The work of the faith community with the prison residential community is neither punitive nor rehabilitative. It is one of redemption and liberation from oppression, both individual and systemic.
It is God's liberating and salvific activity in history that will enable the "Church behind the Gates" to carry out the ministry of Christ both effectively and faithfully.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona, Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary
The late Thomas Coughlin, who was Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services while I was a prison chaplain, indicated that he had a problem with the concept of "rehabilitation." He stated that the word "rehabilitation" carried the implication of restoring residents to their original condition. According to Coughlin, many of these residents had not been on the "right foot" to begin with, and therefore, in his opinion, the word "rehabilitation" was a misnomer. He preferred the word "habilitation" which implied that the purpose of confinement was to have residents start off on the "right foot" upon release from prison.
Commissioner Coughlin served his term while Mario Cuomo was governor of New York State. Governor Cuomo had a fairly liberal policy, in which residents were released relatively early to parole. During his tenure, the Department of Correctional Services provided for residents to have access to higher educational programs while they were confined. Various colleges and universities established satellite or residential campuses at various facilities. Many residents took advantage of this opportunity by enrolling in the college programs and obtaining degrees in different fields of study. Both Governor Cuomo and Commissioner Coughlin believed that if residents obtained a college education during their confinement, they would be "habilitated" or "rehabilitated," and returning to the community in a much different and better condition then when they first entered the penal system. They would then reenter society with the necessary tools to become productive and law-abiding citizens.
When Governor Cuomo was not re-elected in 1995, George Pataki, a Republican, was elected Governor of New York State. His was a more conservative approach to incarceration in which he eliminated the college programs because according to him, tax-payers were paying too much money just for the state to end up with "educated criminals." He rationalized that residents should not receive a free education when there were law-abiding citizens who had a difficult time financing their education.
Under Pataki's tenure, Parole Commissioners who had a more conservative bent were appointed. Residents who appeared before the Parole Board were denied release several times before going home. The approach under Pataki's tenure was more of a punitive one. The mindset that existed under the Pataki administration was that "once a criminal, always a criminal." The fundamental belief was that criminals could not change or be rehabilitated.
By the time I retired in 2009, another Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, had been elected. Like his father Mario's, his administration was more liberal in regard to Parole. More residents were released at their first or second Parole Board appearance.
Unfortunately, under Cuomo's tenure, the college programs were not reinstated, at least not completely. The same mindset that existed under the Pataki administration continued to be permeated. This was in spite of the fact that it had been stated that 75% of residents who received a college degree while incarcerated, did not return to prison after their parole release.
The same thing had been said about residents who were involved in religious programs of one kind or another. During the administration of Mario Cuomo and George Pataki, there had been proposals to lay off chaplains in order to maintain a "balanced budget." Negotiations between the state and the faith groups resulted in no chaplains losing their jobs. The elimination of college-level programs, and the proposed lay offs of chaplains led many to believe that the punitive mindset was the prevailing one in society, including among those who worked for the Department of Correctional Services.
As a Minister of the Gospel working in a correctional facility, I always took the approach that I wasn't there to question the guilt or the innocence of those convicted and eventually confined. I even shared that position with the residents with whom I came into on a daily basis. It was my position that my role as a chaplain was to:
1. Be the face and presence of Christ in an environment of dehumanization and oppression.
2. Affirm the dignity of the residents as creatures and children of God.
3. Encourage the residents to join a community of faith as a part of their restoration.
4. Encourage the residents to pursue higher education or employment that was consistent with their goals and aspirations.
5. Nurture and upbuild the residents who were members of "the Church behind the Gates."
6. Enable the members of the prison church to discover their gifts and utilize them in the Body of Christ.
7. Carry out a program of theological studies that would equip the residents to exercise their gifts and serve as leaders in the prison church.
Through the above steps, the chaplains would enable the residents to be prepared to reenter society and be reunited with their loved ones. They would return as people who would contribute to growth and social development in a positive way.
The work of the faith community with the prison residential community is neither punitive nor rehabilitative. It is one of redemption and liberation from oppression, both individual and systemic.
It is God's liberating and salvific activity in history that will enable the "Church behind the Gates" to carry out the ministry of Christ both effectively and faithfully.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona, Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)