SPARTAKUS AND LIBERATIVE CHRISTIANITY: AN ANABAPTIST REFLECTION

SPARTAKUS AND LIBERATIVE CHRISTIANITY: AN ANABAPTIST REFLECTION Rudiyanto Rev. Rudiyanto (Rudolfus Antonius) is an ordained minister of Gereja Kristen Muria Indonesia (Indonesian Muria Christian Church). He got his Magister Theologiae from Duta Wacana Christian University (UKDW), Yogyakarta, Indonesia. He is now a lecturer at Abdiel Theological College, Ungaran, and Theological Faculty of Satya Wacana Christian University (UKSW), Salatiga, and doing research for doctoral degree with the subject Socialism of Bung Karno and Political-ethical Responsibility of Anabaptist Christian in Indonesian Context, at Duta Wacana Christian University. He can be reached through publicatheologia@gmail.com and www.theologiapublica.blogspot.com Abstract SPARTAKUS is a Christian youth organization founded as a Christian response to a capitalist-laden Indonesia in the beginning of 21th century. It is developing ideas and praxis of Liberative Christianty as an interpretation and revitalization of Pancasila. The Pancasila itself is the basic principles of the Republic of Indonesia. It is proposed firtsly by Sukarno, a leftist nationalist some time before the proclamation of Indonesia’s independence at August 1945. It is Sukarno’s Pancasila which is considered seriously and critically by SPARTAKUS because of the former’s socialist spirit. In the effort to interpret and revitalize Pancasila, SPARTAKUS is theoretically doing three things: it is (1) drawing inspiration from the Gospel of Liberation (its perspective in reading the Bible), (2) using Scientific Socialism as a method of social analysis, and (3) envisioning a “Socio-democratic” Indonesian Society which it conceives as a fully democratic society. By doing those things, SPARTAKUS conciously sees itself as a Christian Leftist organization. It sees itself as such, because it is opposed to capitalism, imperialism/neoliberalism, militarism, fascism, patriarchy and sexism, racism, and religious intolerance. Since its inception at 2012, SPARTAKUS has involved itself in social movements, especially labours’ movement and democratic struggle in Semarang, Central Java. Its ideas and praxis has led the authorities associate it with Communism, a cliche usually used by the authorities to identify every idea and movement critical to capitalism since the beginning of Soeharto’s New Order. This paper tries to explain SPARTAKUS ideas and gives the author’s theological reflection on it. The author itself is an ordanied minister of Indonesian Mennonite Church known as Gereja Kristen Muria Indonesia (GKMI). Since 2010 the Synod has commissioned him to teach at Abdiel Theological College in Ungaran and then at theological faculty of Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga. The two cities are located in Central Java, Indonesia. In this paper he tries to reflect on SPARTAKUS as an Anabaptist Christian. Anabaptism has been historically suspicious to the Powers, including the state. The author uses some ideas of the late Mennonite social ethicist and theologian John Howard Yoder while tries to develop it’s own theological and ethical position. It is, then, in some sense a paper about Christian Leftism by an Anabaptist. Key Words: Pancasila, Liberative Christianity, Scientific Socialism, Socio-democratic Society, Anabaptist. ******* On 17 October 2012 several Christian young people and students in Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia, have declared the founding of SPARTAKUS (Serikat Perjuangan Pemuda Kristen untuk Sosialisme, Union of Christian Youth’s Struggle for Socialism). Using SPARTAKUS as acronym, the declarators express their admiration and respect to Spartacus, the great ex slave who had led the liberation movement in Roman Republic several decades before Christ. Using the term “Socialism”, they stated that the organization has Leftist political orientation, which in the one side denounces the present economic and political system which they view to be the root of exploitation, oppression, and marginalization of human beings, and in the other side looks for and fights for new ekonomic and political system which would have been more just and humane. SPARTAKUS formulates it’s Leftist political orientation in three main elements: the Gospel of Liberation, Socio-democratic Society, and Scientific Socialism. The Gospel of Liberation, i.e., the good news about God who chooses to be on the side of the poor and involves Himself/Herself in every praxis of human liberation in history, is SPARTAKUS’ theological inspiration, spirituality, as well as its point of reference of theological reflection. Socio-democratic Society, i.e., fully democratic society, which endorses people’s sovereignty on political and economic spheres, which would overcome exploitation, oppression, and marginalization, and live out liberty, equality, and brotherhood/sisterhood of humanity, is SPARTAKUS’ vision. Scientific Socialism, i.e., a series of critical theories in the line of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, and Antonio Gramsci, is SPARTAKUS’ tools of social analysis. The combination of these three main elements we call Liberative Christianity, and serves as SPARTAKUS’ principles. In four years of its existence, SPARTAKUS has been active in political life, particulary in Semarang. It has a cell with regular meetings to prepare Christian Socialist cadres. It has a forum open to theological students to discuss social issues and Christian responses. It has participated in the struggle of working class, though in a small scale, for example, involving its cadres and sympathizers in May Day celebration every year, denouncing Militerism, Fascism, Patriarchy, and Sexism through the movement of Obor Marsinah, and carrying out the solidarity campaign for Abdul Hakam dan Agus Budiono, two labour activists belong to SPBI (Solidaritas Perjuangan Buruh Indonesia, Solidarty of Indonesian Labours Struggle), who were criminalized by certain companies in Gresik, East Java. SPARTAKUS is now also a leading participant in “Gerakan Demokrasi” (Movement for Democracy) after police suppressions of democratic rights of citizens in Semarang. Through facebook and blog, SPARTAKUS is also trying to introduce its ideas. In Indonesian context, it is common to ask about the relationship between any organization and its principles to Pancasila, the basic principles of Republic Indonesia. So what is the relationship between Liberative Christianity and Pancasila? Taking the word “Scientific Socialism” (including “horrific” names like Marx, Engels, dan Lenin), SPARTAKUS has been associated by the authorities to PKI (Partai Komunis Indonesia, Communist Party of Indonesia). This association implies that SPARTAKUS with its Liberative Christianity is anti-Pancasila (and thereby has no right to live in Indonesia). To be sure, it is a gross misunderstanding, because PKI’s ideology was Communism/Marxism-Leninism, namely a dogmatic system which formulated the teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin according to Joseph Stalin and his followers. “Communism” is defined as Marxism-Leninism in the Decree of Provisional Constitutional Assembly No. XXV/1966. This Decree also banned both “Communism” and Communist Party of Indonesia. See C.S.T. Kansil & Rudy T. Erwin, Kitab Himpunan Hasil Karya MPRS (Jakarta: Erlangga, 1970), pp. 190-2. Meanwhile, Scientific Socialism is not always identical to Marxism-Leninism (=Stalinism). For SPARTAKUS, Scientific Socialism serves as a tool of social analysis. It means that SPARTAKUS does not adhere to ideology of Communism/Marxism-Leninism. Liberative Christianity and Pancasila Liberative Christianity is a way to interpret and revitalize Pancasila. By doing this, Liberative Christianity serves a prophetic and critical Christian attitude toward Capitalism and Imperialism/Neoliberalism, Militarism and Fascism, Racism, Patriarchy and Sexism, and Religious Intolerance. The Gospel of Liberation, as its theological inspiration, spirituality, and theolodical reflection point of reference, is clearly compatible with Pancasila. Belief in the oneness of God is expressed in respect to humane values, love of the nation, and commitment to democracy and social justice. Using the words of the late Father Mangunwijaya, an Indonesian Catholic liberation theologian, it means “glorifying God and lifting up humanity” – especially those who are poor – exploited, oppressed, and marginalized. On that basis, SPARTAKUS with its Liberative Christianity denounces the present economic and political system (Capitalism, which nowadays comes to its highest stage, Imperialism), Militarism and Fascism, Racism, Patriarchy and Sexism, and Religious Intolerance, and aspires to and fights for a new economic and political system (Socialism or socio-democratic society). Particulary, SPARTAKUS’ vision or aspiration, i.e., socio-democratic society is compatible with the fourth and fifth principles of Pancasila, especially according to the version of its original conceptor, Bung Karno (Soekarno, the first president of Republic Indonesia). In his speech (which since then is well-known as the speech of Lahirnya Pancasila of the Birth of Pancasila) before BPUPKI (Badan Penyelidik Usaha-usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia, Council for Investigating the Preparations of Indonesian Independence) at 1 June 1945, Bung Karno connected Nationalism to Internationalism to become Socio-nationalism, Sukarno, “Lahirnya Pancasila”, in Bung Karno dan Tatanan Dunia Baru, eds., Iman Toto K. Rahardjo & Herdianto WK (Jakarta: Grasindo, 2001), p. 25. and Democracy and Social Justice to become Socio-democracy. Ibid. Socio-nationalism is a nationalism committed to social justice and brotherhood/sisterhood of human beings. Socio-democracy is people’s democracy, which is none other than people’s sovereignty on political and economic spheres. If the people were truly sovereign politically and economically, social injustice would come to an end and a just and prosper society, which Bung Karno had called “Sosialisme ala Indonesia” would be realized. According to Bung Karno, this was what to be achieved accross “the golden bridge” or independence of Indonesia. Then, who is meant by “the people”? At first glance, the answer is very clear: the people are Indonesian citizens. But if we try to trace it further, we will find that according to Bung Karno the people are “Marhaens.” Marhaens, Bung Karno said, are “Indonesian proletariat, Indonesian peasants, and other Indonesian poors.” Sukarno, “Marhaen dan Proletar” (Fikiran Ra’jat, 1933), in Sukarno, Pokok-pokok Ajaran Marhaenisme menurut Bung Karno (Yogyakarta: Media Pressindo, 20023), p. 13. Because of that, “socio-nationalism is Marhaen nationalism” Sukarno, “Demokrasi-Politik dan Demokrasi-Ekonomi” (Fikiran Ra’jat, 1932), Ibid, p. 27. , which wants to “improve social conditions, in order to change the imbalance to a perfect condition, in which no one would be oppressed, no one would suffer of poverty.” Ibid. In other words, socio-nationalism “is nationalism in politic AND economy, a kind of nationalism which is meant to seek for political and economic well-being, country and livelihood well-being.” Ibid. In the same way, socio-democracy is “the real democacy, which seeks for political AND economic well-being, country and livelihood well-being.” Ibid. So, socio-democracy is “political democracy and political democracy.” Ibid. According to Bung Karno, socio-nationalism and socio-democracy define Marhaenism. Sukarno, “Marhaen dan Proletar,” Ibid, p. 13. Bung Karno said, “... for us Indonesian Marhaens, our principles are nationalism and Marhaen-ity, socio-nationalism and socio-democracy ... Society we will establish in the future should be a society of socio-nationalism and socio-democracy, the governance we will manage should be socio-nationalist and socio-democratic governance, the republic we will establish should be socio-nationalist and socio-democratic republic, a political and social republic in which there would not be capitalism and imperialism.” Sukarno, “Azas; Azas Perjuangan; Taktik” (Fikiran Ra’jat, 1933), in Ibid, 36. But in Mencapai Indonesia Merdeka (To Achieve a Liberated Indonesia), Bung Karno warned: “... a Liberated Indonesia would be just a bridge, even though it would be a golden bridge, which would be managed with all watchfulness, least on that bridge the victorious chariot of Marhaens would be piloted by other than Marhaens. Accross that bridge, there would be two ways: one way would lead to the world of salvation for Marhaens, the other to the world of destitutttion for Marhaens; the one to the world of justice and prosperity for all, the other to the world of tears and suffering for all. Woe to Marhaens, if that chariot would be going to the second way, to the world of Indonesian capitalism and Indonesian bourgeosie.” Sukarno, Mencapai Indonesia Merdeka (Jakarta: Yayasan Idayu, 20012), p. 86. Because of that, Bung Karno cried out: “... Marhaens be watchful! Keep your victorius chariot to remain in your control, keep political power in your hands, in your iron hands, in your hands of steel!” Ibid. How would the people or Marhaens keep or maintain the victory and their political power? Bung Karno answered, “By political democracy and economic democracy, so in the future, accross the golden bridge, Indonesian society would be ruled by the people themselves unto their salvation, - it would be made to be a society in which there would be no capitalism and imperialism. By political democracy and economic democracy, in the future Marhaens would be able to establish an Indonesian state which would true the people’s state – a state in which all political affairs and economic business would be managed from the people, by the people, and for the people!” Ibid, 93-4. Negatively speaking, the people’s state “would not be feudalism ... would not be constitutional monarchy ... would not be a republic as it has been established in nowadays France or America, which is a truly republic of capitalist ‘democracy’.” Ibid, 94. Positively speaking, the people’s state would be “a political and economic republic which in all respects would submit to people’s sovereignty.” Ibid. Precisely, “Political affairs, diplomatic affairs, educational affairs, job, art, cultural affair,whatever affairs and especially economic business should be under that sovereignty: All enterprises would belong to the state, the people’s state, not to the bourgeois or feudal state, all fruits of those enterprises would serve to satisfy the needs of the people. No enterprise woud be permitted to fill capitalistically the pocket of bourgeois state; but political and economic Republic of Indonesia would belong to the people, it would be a design of an association of the people, a common work of the people, an equality of the people.” Ibid. Liberative Christianity is compatible with Bung Karno’s vision of a Liberated Indonesia as people’s or Marhaens’ state. It should be the people’s state which would serve people’s or Marhaens’ interests. The state would be the means by which the people or Marhaens establish political and economic democracy. The state would be the people’s or Marhaens’ tool to realize a socio-democratic society. Liberative Christianity, nevertheless, is critical to Bung Karno’s lack of concrete way to realize Marhaen’s sovereignty. Instead permitting the proletarians, the peasants, and other Indonesian poor people to organize themselves in order to hold the state’s power, Bung Karno had placed himself above the people and Indonesian standing army (which was the strongest bulwark of the bourgeosie and feudalist), especially in the years of Guided Democracy (1959-1966). He ruled the state in authoritarian way. In fact, Bung Karno’s leftist rhetoric was made ineffective by his Bonapartist position. Meanwhile, Liberative Christianity “offers” operating principles to implement people’s or Marhaens’ sovereignty. This principles reject Etatism/Statism, which precisely would separate the state from the people/Marhaens and place the state in a position which would be stronger than the people. This operating principles are also opposed to Anarchism, which denies the presence of the state. This principles confirm the superiority of the people/Marhaens as well as underline the role of the state as a tool and servant of the people/Marhaens. In democratic control of the people/Marhaen, the state would be a servant of the people/Marhaens in order to realize a socio-democratic society. In the conception of Liberative Christianity, socio-democratic society is a national society which is committed to social justice and internationalism, which runs its politics and economy in democratic-participatory way. Essentially, this requires certain relation between the people and the means of production. Means of production consist of objects of work and tools of work. Objects of work are those taken directly from nature (raw materials) and those which have been touched by human works. Using language of 33rd article of 1945 Constitution, objects of work include “land, water, and all the wealths which are contained in them” and “production factors are related to livelihood of the people.” Tools of work are all things used by humans as tools to change the objects of work. Tools of work consist of tools of production (from rude tools of stones from pre-historic era to modern machines), and land, buildings, enterprises, roads, etc. Society is the provider of workforces or ability of work. Uncombined with the ability of work, tools of production would be still remained as the piles of dead things. Conversely, without combination with tools of production, the ability of work could not be actualized. In a socio-democratic society, ownership, control, and access to the means of production have democratic character. The means of production are property of society. They do not belong to individuals privately. Society organizes itself in councils of workers, whose basis are in factories or communities around them. In those councils, society makes the plans of production and distribution in a democratic-participatory way. In socio-democratic society, the state is a tool of society to strengthen socio-democratic order as well as to put an end of capitalism and imperialism. To strengthen socio-democratic order, the state makes a synchronization and coordination of the plans of production and distribution made by the councils of workers, and formulates them as national economic program. To put an end of capitalism and imperialism, the state nationalizes big enterprises, both local and foreign, which have so long ruled the livelihood of the people, and gives their management to the councils of workers. The state also enforces the progressive tax to the wealthies, and regulates the market and the management of small and medium enterprises in order to serve the needs of the people. Meanwhile, as a tool of the people, the State submits to them. Firstly, it means the abolition of violence apparatuses of the old capitalist state, namely the standing army and the regular police. The tasks of defense and security are the tasks of all members of society, which by recommendation of the councils of workers are appointed in rotation to be trained and to be in charge for certain period and will be back to the councils after the period. Secondly, it means that the state officials are people’s deputies or representatives, which are sent based on elections in the councils of workers. As “apostles of the people”, those officials are paid no more than a skilled worker’s payment, monitored by the people, and at any time can be recalled by the council which has sent him and substituted by another one elected in that council. Clearly, councils of workers do not just have business with the plans of production and distribution. The councils are also responsible of elections, monitoring, recall, and substitution of state officials. Furthermore, councils of workers also serve as forums to discuss educational systems, cultural needs of society, cultural strategy, environmenetal conservation, budgeting politics whics is effective based on community’s needs, etc. Shortly, through councils of workers the people exercise their economic and political sovereignty. In other words, socio-democratic society is democratic-participatory society. Liberative Christianity and Scientific Socialism Commonly, Scientific Socialism is viewed as identical to Marxism. Marxism is Socialism based on science, not just moved by good intention or great dream about how to run society better. This science has as its essence the understanding of the dynamics of production modes and their impacts on the developments of societies throughout the history of humanity. The science includes the understanding about the relations among the social class which have been shaped by the modes of production, economic and political studies, and objective and subjective conditions of societies changes. Related to the relationship between Liberative Christianity of SPARTAKUS and Marxism or Scientific Socialism, there are at least two crucial questions. Firstly, the status of Marxism in Liberative Christianity. Secondly, what variant of Marxism is used by Liberative Christianity. The Tool of Social Analysis Related to the first question, Marxism is just one element in Liberative Christianity. Marxism is its third element, which serves as scientific equipment or tool of social analysis in order to understand the present society and the possibilities of transforming it. In this context it is important to note that Liberative Christianity of SPARTAKUS does not follow ideological Marxism which is atheistic. Liberative Christianity holds the view that as a tool of social analysis, Marxism is non-theistic tool. Liberative Christianity also holds the view that Christians who are committed to the Gospel of Liberation and aspire to socio-democratic society can use this non-theistic “knife” without putting aside their theistic belief. Christians can learn from Bung Karno’s position toward Marxism. He said that Marxism is “just a method to solve economic, historical, political, dan social problemsn” Sukarno, “Soekarno, oleh... Soekarno Sendiri” (Pemandangan, 1941), in Sukarno, Bung Karno dan Wacana Islam, eds., Iman Toto K. Rahardjo & Herdianto WK (Jakarta: Grasindo, 2001), p. 180. and “Any method of thinking and scieance of struggle do not necessarily contradict any religion, especially if that religion is a reasonable religion as I have visioned.” Ibid. Meanwhile, there must be a trialog which is critical, open, and continuous between the Gospel of Liberation (the first element, as theological inspiration, spirituality, and theological reflection point of reference), Socio-democratic society (second element, as the vision), and Scientific socialism in the context of praxis of justice: solidarity with the poor, the formation of political-critical consciousness of the people/Marhaens to struggle as the subjects of history. Which Marxism? There are several “schools” in Marxism. We may mentioned among them: Orthodox Marxism of International II, which is economic-deterministic in its approach to social changes (and it finally degenerated to revisionism, reformism, and social-chauvinism as seen by the decisions made by the most members of it to support their own countries in the First World War); Marxism-Leninism alias Stalinism, i.e., interpretation and crystallization of the teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin according to Stalin and his followers – which had become the official ideology of the former totalitarian Soviet Union after Lenin, Eastern European countries, and the most Communist Parties in the world till the fall of Eastern Bloc in 1991; Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, i.e., Marxism-Leninism plus Chairman Mao’s thought and praxis which later have become official ideology of Communist Parties which base themselves in peasantry as their main social basis and wage guerrilla warfare; Bolshevik-Leninism alias Trotskyism, which see the golden thread in the thoughts of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky as “self-liberation of proletariat” (or “Socialism from Below”), workers’ democracy, internationalism, and permanent revolution; and Other versions which are commonly called as neo-Marxism (for example Western Marxism which was inspired by the thoughts of Georg Lukacks, Antonio Gramsci, and Frankfurt School) and post-Marxism (for example the thoughts of Ernesto Laclau & Chantal Mouffe, etc.). Variants (1) to (4) are ideological Marxisms. Variants (5) are more analytical. In analytical (and non-dogmatic) attitude, Liberative Christianity tends to neo-Marxism and post-Marxism. In commitment to Socialism from Below, proletariat democracy, and internationalism, Liberative Christianity is close to Trotskyism and at the same time develops critical-appreciative attitude toward the thoughts of Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci, and various Marxian contributions which are useful to understanding society better. An Anabaptist Reflection I’m an Anabaptist, an ordained minister of Gereja Kristen Muria Indonesia (Indonesian Muria Christian Church, an Indonesian Anabaptist-Mennonite denomination). Since 2010 my Synod sent me to teach theology at Abdiel Theological College in Ungaran, Central Java (and since 2016 the Synod has sent me to teach at theological faculty of Satya Wacana Christian University in Salatiga, Cental Java). I have participated to found SPARTAKUS and worked with my comrades, most of them have been my students at Abdiel Theological College. The question which may be asked is “What is your view as an Anabaptist on SPARTAKUS? How can Anabaptism be compatible with SPARTAKUS’ ‘ideology’ and praxis?” Firstly I am aware that Anabaptism has an outlook which is theologically dualistic toward social world. See Robert Friedmann, The Theology of Anabaptism: An Interpretation (Scottdale/Kitchener: Herald Press, 1975), pp. 38-41. In one side there is an old order, which is ruled by “the prince of this world.” Darkness is the characteristics of the old order, in which men and women do not know Christ and live sinfully. On the other side there is a new order, which is ruled by Jesus Christ. Light is the characteristics of this order, in which newborn men and women know Christ and live according to His will. The state is a part of the old order. In His/Her providential works, God has given some place to the state in order to control the humanity’s evil by violence: the sword. The Church, a koinonia of Christ’s disciples, is a part of the new order. Having been called out of the darkness, Christ’s disciples live out love, peace, and non-violence. Historically, based on this dualistic outlook, the Anabaptists have withdrew themselves from “the world” or society at large. They have rejected to be involved in governmental offices, to make an oath, and to go to war. They have emphasized the importance of the Church as a community in which Christ’s disciples live in the spirit of brotherhood/sisterhood, religious freedom, and internal economy inspired by solidarity. See Walter Klaassen, Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant (Kitchener: Pandora Press, 2001), p. 53. At first glance, my involvement in SPARTAKUS is not compatible with Anabaptism. In one side, SPARTAKUS gets involved with the “world”, the old order, while on the other side Anabaptism has separated the new order of Christ from the old order of “the prince of this world.” The questions is, how about the task commissioned by Christ, that the Church and His disciples give witness to the world? It is true that the existence of the Church herself, as the community of Christ’s disciples living out love, peace, and non-violence, has been a witness to the world. But, does it imply that the Church being “in the midst of the world” or society at large, and not the Church withdrawing herself from it? If so, is it possible to “live out love, peace, and non-violence” to be limited in the borders of the Church and out of contact with the world? If Christ’s disciples live in love, peaceful, and reject violence, don’t the people of the new order have encounter with the people of the old order who, though living out violence, really need an alternative way of life? Beside of it, ethically, related to Christ’s calling to love our neighbours, are the old order and everythings attached to it worthy to leave in the darkness while Christ’s disciples bussy themselves with the new one? Is it impossible for the people of the new order to intervene the old one, so that “the light shines in the darkness and the darkness can’t overcome it” (John 1.5)? Furthermore, they are many people of the old order share the same concerns with the people of the new order, related to, for examples, brotherhood/sisterhood of humanity, religious freedom and tolerance, and solidarity and social justice? Reflecting on those questions, I got some help from the thoughts of the late John H. Yoder, an Anabaptist-Mennonite theologian and social ethicist. See his book, Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster Press, 20022), especially chapter 8: “Christ and Power”, pp. 134-61. Based on the study of Reformed theologian, Hendrikus Berkhof, about the Powers in Corpus Paulinum, Yoder spoke about Powers or structures (religious, intellectual, moral, political structures, etc.) which have been used by God to govern human lives. Those structures have originally been parts of good creation. But they have rebelled against God and fell. Claiming for themselves absolute values, the structures have been enslaving humanity. So humans “are lost in the world, in its structures, and in the current development.” Ibid, 143. Even though, it is in this world wer are being preserved by God and enabled by Him to become who we are. Because of that, we have been waiting for the redemptive work of God. The redemption has been worked out by God through Jesus Christ, who by living human existence which was truly free has overcome the Powers. On the cross, Christ “disarmed the governors and the powers” and “make them public spectacle” (Colossians 2.15). The Church has been created as a “new humanity” (Ephesians 2.15) by the victory of Christ over the Powers. The mission of the Church is to bear a witness, that is to proclamin the victory and the lordship of Christ over the Powers by becoming “the conscience and the servant within human society.” Ibid, 155. The Church has to understand “when and where and how God is using the Powers” Ibid. Related to it, Christ’s disciples have to take their position on the side of those who are oppressed by the Powers and carry out the call “to contribute to the creation of structures more worthy of human society.” Ibid, 154. For me, Yoder has substited dualism between the old and new orders with the Powers and the Church. Jesus Christ has overcome the Powers, and through the Church and His disciples He has been intervening the exploiting, oppressing, and marginalizing structures, and tried to create the more humane and just structures. In context of SPARTAKUS ideas and praxis, I see that the victory of Christ has three very significant functions. First, that victory is a prasupposition of the Gospel of Liberation. Second, that victory allows me to accept Scientific Socialism critically. Third, the victory enables me to appreciate critically the vision of socio-democratic society: that society is different with the Reign of God; it is just an imperfect shadow of the Reign of God, that is as far as human liberations from exploitation, oppression, and marginalization is continuously carried out. Conclusion SPARTAKUS is a Christian youth organization which has political character. This politic is Left, consciously choosing to be on the side of the poor, namely those who are exploited, oppressed, and margninalized. This Leftist Politic is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ whic is a good news for the poor, uses Scientific Socialism as a method of social analysis, and aspires to Indonesian society which is more democratic in the sense of economy and politic. This Leftist Politic also tries to interpret and revitalize Bung Karno’s Pancasila, while at the same time rejects his Bonapartism. Negatively spoken, Leftist Politic of SPARTAKUS rejects all forms of exploitation, oppression, and marginalization as being seen continuously in Capitalism and Imperialism/Neoliberalism, Militarism and Fascism, Racism, Patriarchy, and Sexism, and Religious Intolerance. As an Anabaptist, I affirm the Gospel of Liberation, Scientific Socialism, and Socio-democratic Society, while at the same time reject every effort to absolutize the method and every steps which are inspired by the principle “end justifies means”, including violence, in the struggle for Socio-democratic Society. *** Laus Deus May God be Praised BIBLIOGRAPHY Friedmann, Robert, The Theology of Anabaptism: An Interpretation. Scottdale/Kitchener: Herald Press, 1975. Kansil, C.S.T. & Rudy T. Erwin, Kitab Himpunan Hasil Karya MPRS. Jakarta: Erlangga, 1970. Klaassen, Walter, Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant. Kitchener: Pandora Press, 2001. Rahardjo, Iman Toto K., & Herdianto WK, eds., Bung Karno dan Tatanan Dunia Baru. Jakarta: Grasindo, 2001. Rahardjo, Iman Toto K., & Herdianto WK, eds., Bung Karno dan Wacana Islam. Jakarta: Grasindo, 2001. Sukarno, Pokok-pokok Ajaran Marhaenisme menurut Bung Karno. Yogyakarta: Media Pressindo, 20023. Sukarno, Mencapai Indonesia Merdeka. Jakarta: Yayasan Idayu, 20012. Yoder, John H., Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster Press, 20022. 11