Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This essay will try to examine various trajectories in understanding of God amidst sufferings and, using the narratives of the cross I will try to unfold Theo-ethical underpinnings in an attempt to understand cross as paradigm for justice in Indian tribal people’s construction of theodicy.
Typology: Summaries
1 / 29
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
rd
The question of theodicy is one of the most complicated and interesting questions both for theological and practical principles. Today, many of our ethical and religious dilemmas revolve around suffering. The relentless nature of suffering forces everyone to struggle with this issue and to seek reasons why people suffer. For those in the midst of pain, the questions about suffering can be more personal. Their suffering prompts questions about the meaning of life and the nature of God. We wrestle with perennial questions like, “Is God just?” or “Where is the God of justice?” (Malachi 2:17). This is the Indian tribal people’s paradox, which has left a plethora of interpretations in its wake, some more plausible than others, yet each focused on solving what is assumed to be the prevailing concern in the cross of Jesus: why does the innocent suffer? “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” is a question that springs from the suffering of the innocent. In the context of sufferings and contemporary situations of injustice, including discrimination and exploitation experienced by the Indian tribal communities, the question lingers, how are we to talk about God from within a specific situation, namely the violence and sufferings experienced by the tribals in India? How are we to acknowledge that God makes us a free gift of love and justice when we have before us the suffering of the innocent, poor and the weak? In this milieu, the death and resurrection of Jesus provides resources to articulate and look at the cross from a justice perspective. The innocence that Jesus vigorously claims for himself helps us to understand the innocence of an oppressed tribal people amidst sufferings and in their quest for justice. This essay will try to examine various trajectories in understanding of God amidst sufferings and, using the narratives of the cross I will try to unfold Theo-ethical underpinnings in an attempt to understand cross as paradigm for justice in Indian tribal people’s construction of theodicy.
1. CONCEPT OF INDIAN TRIBAL: Indian tribes are the autochthonous people of the land who are believed to be the earliest settlers in Indian peninsula. In India, tribals are generally called ‘Adivasis’ as they are believed to be the original inhabitants of this land who continue maintain their distinct territorial and cultural identity. Bulks of the tribals are believed to be the descendants of Dravidians who inhabited the Indian sub-continent before arrival of Nordic people, called
Aryans. Tribal populations representing ancient races and civilizations, following different faiths and practising diverse cultures are found in almost all parts of the world. Tribals are called variously in different countries. For instance, in the United States of America, they are known as ‘Red Indians’, in Australia as ‘Aborigines’, in the European countries as ‘Gypsies’, in the African and Asian countries as ‘Tribals.’ Tribals are notable for their adaptations to their physical environment. They have a symbiotic relation with the natural setting. They have unique love for their homeland, its forests, hills, rivers, etc; They have integrity of spirit deeper than conscious reasoning. It is very difficult to understand their love for their homeland which amounts to mystical identification with nature. They are peace-loving and their feelings are true. All this, in a way not subject to analysis, is a part of their religion which is known as animism. The natural setting is jointed with their own spirit in mystical communion. Their love for nature and the solidarity of community find expression in various forms of arts, dance and rituals. They have natural gifts of various handicrafts, hunting skills and martial skills.^1 1.1. ETYMOLOGY: The term ‘tribe’ derives its origin from the Latin word ‘tribus’ meaning three divisions comprising social, political and economic systems. For Romans, the tribe was a political division. In the West, as also in India, the term tribe had totally different connotation than what is prevalent now. The tribe was the highest political unit comprising several districts which in turn were composed of clans. It occupied a definite geographical area and exercised effective control over its people. Permanent settlement in a particular area gave geographical identity to a tribe. The territory under the domain of a particular tribe was generally named after it. It is believed that India derived its name, Bharat from the mighty Bharata tribe. Similarly, the vast Matsya Kingdom, covering eastern part of existing Rajasthan which flourished in the sixth century B.C. was identified with the Matsya tribe. Even today, there are a number of tribes which continue to maintain their territorial and cultural identity. For example, the states of Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura in the North-East, are named after the Mizo, Naga and Tripuri tribes respectively. Similarly, Santhal Pargans in Jharkhand, Gondwana covering parts of Chattisgarh, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh and Lahaul, Swangla and Kinnaur in Himachal (^1) A.C. Bhagabati, Emergent Tribal Identity in North-East India (New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 2001), 3-9.
A Naga freedom song Liberation, Oh! Liberation, How long is the road to liberation You can’t pretend not to see You can’t pretend not to hear You can feel the groanings of the people And hear them pray all day long.... I saw ten thousand acres of land Why should the rich want to get all of it. Of what the poor don’t have an inch of land ... The songs express the tribal people’s struggle for identity, justice and participation. There is no life worth living where economic inequalities, political dominations and landlessness exist. Both songs tell of the link between the struggle of human dignity and exploitation of earth’s resources. They also express vividly the actual state of the tribal people; how people are exploited, cheated and dehumanized, and also about their aspirations for life. In their own land, the tribals have become bonded labourers. People are forced to work in scorching sun without any protection from rain and cold. People have been crushed under the burden of heavy boulders, but do not reap the fruit of their toil. People continue to live a life of emptiness without hope, support and joy. The land and natural resources, which sustained lives for centuries, are now forcibly taken away in the name of development without proper alternatives to live on.^4
3. TRIBAL’S EXPERIENCE IN MODERN INDIA: 3.1. DISPLACEMENT: In different parts of India, the tribals have become the victims of big reservoirs, mega projects, wild life sanctuaries, mines, industries, etc. They are forcefully evicted from their ancestral land and the abode of the various spirits they worship using repressive measures and often without proper compensation. They are simply ignored, silenced and despised. For example, one lakh people are going to be displaced by the Sardar Savovar Project in Gujarat, 60-70% of whom are tribals. And around 1,30,000 are expected to be displaced by the Narmada Sagar Project in (^4) A. Wati Longchar, “Tribal Theology – Issues, Method and Perspective,” in In Search of Identity and Tribal Theology (Assam: Tribal Study Centre, 2001), 48-49.
Madhya Pradesh of whom 65-70% are tribals. Likewise, in the name of development, the tribal people’s right and their existence are completely ignored and the tribals who are already powerless and exploited are further reduced to powerlessness and bondage. Being improvised and disposed, people flee in large numbers to the cities and the towns to eke out their existence around slums and shanties in abject poverty and misery.^5 3.2. SUPPRESSION: In the search for a fuller life, justice and equality and to protect our identity and land, people are involved in various uprising movements. Since the dominant societies do not listen to our cries and do not recognize tribałs with human rights and dignity, some people have gone up to the extent of armed struggle, as a result of which many innocent people have been killed and properties have been lost. In a context where people are systematically oppressed, people seem to see no alternative, except to involve in an armed struggle. The Policy Makers, instead of recognizing the movement as a justice issue, try to suppress the movement by army rule. In the process, many tribal dominated places have been brought under many black laws. Being empowered to shoot and kill; to enter and search and arrest any suspected person without warrant, many tribal leaders have been shot dead, while many fled to the forest for safety. Many villages were burnt down to ashes, not only once, but three to four times. Churches were used sacrilegiously as concentration camps. Worshippers were beaten up or tortured to death and to add to this, women were raped even in the pulpit of worship. Such human right violations go on and on. Many continue to live in tears, pain, fear and suffering. All that people can do is to weep silently within their hearts. Indeed, silent tears of the heart crying for a just existence has become the air that people breaths in and each day.^6 3.3. ASSIMILATION: The assimilation of tribals in India is cultural, religious and physical. Though the tribal cultures and religions in ancient India provided the raw materials to build Hinduism, in the process of integration, the tribals were mostly absorbed into the (^5) John Desrochers, ed., Social Movements: Towards a Perspective (Bangalore: Centre for Social Action, 1991),
(^6) A. Wati Longchar, “Tribal Theology – Issues, Method…, 50-51.
otherwise, which attempts to “resolve the problem of evil for a theological system and demonstrates that God is all-powerful, all-loving, and just despite evil’s existence.”^12 Also, theodicy would mean, an attempt to justify the choices and justice of God in relationship with humankind. In other words, theodicy is the defence of God in the face of evil and suffering and which is intended to provide explanations for evil. A theodicy seeks to enable people to hold on to the possibility of God in the midst of pain and suffering, and to provide complex philosophical and theological arguments that justify and sustain the idea that there is God who is perfectly good, all loving, and all powerful, even in the face of the reality of the world’s pain.
5. THE CROSS AS THE DIVINE PASSIBILITY OF GOD: If we are to properly understanding the nature of sufferings, we need to look deeper into the theological expression on the impassibility and the passibility of God. Does God suffer? Is God affected by our suffering? Some theologians see the impassibility of God as one of God attributes; God who is immutable, omniscient, and eternally unchanged. They see God as “apathetic” in the sense that God exists above human emotion and remains untouched by it. The oppositional doctrine of the passibility of God sees God’s passibility as an essential attribute of God which holds that God does indeed suffer with the humanity. These aspects of the divine passibility of God are important because it supports the justice of God in the face of evil and sufferings which generates new nuances in our understanding of theodicy. Since the Patristic period Christian theology has widely held the view that God is impassable that is, God does not undergo emotional changes of state, and so cannot suffer. Toward the end of the nineteenth century a sea change began to occur within Christian theology such that at present many Christian theologians hold as axiomatic that God is passible.^13 As such, the doctrine of the suffering God is gaining ground in theological academia and articulations. It is certainly no accident that modern concern with the question of divine suffering has frequently arisen out of situations in which human suffering was acute and such human suffering became the catalyst for espousing a passible and thus, a suffering God. Kazoh Kitamori’s Theology of the Pain of God was published in Japan soon after the bombing of Hiroshima, arguing “we are living (^12) Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001), 1184. (^13) Thomas Weinady, Does God Suffer (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000), 85.
in an age of God and pain and the world today seems to be stretched out under pain.”^14 In his Nazi prison cell Dietrich Bonhoeffer reflected that “only the suffering God can help.”^15 Karl Barth asserted, “that God can suffer, as a necessary implication of God’s self-revelation in Christ and his cross.”^16 Jurgen Moltmann’s theology of the crucified God has its earliest origin in his experience as a prisoner of war, and eventually took the form of an attempt at a ‘theology after Auschwitz’. He expounded a theology of divine suffering in The Crucified God , and was even more vocal again in The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. For Moltmann, the divine suffering is closely related not only to the theodicy problem and the cross, but also to the Trinitarian nature of God.^17 James Cone in the context of the oppression of black Americans also stresses God’s identification with the suffering world and argues, “God’s suffering is a necessary part of his solidarity with the oppressed.^18 These types of theological reflections are lush grounds which we can refocus and develop positive trajectories for theodical inquiry. Hence, for those who suffer, God is not just the incomprehensible God who inflicts suffering, but the human God who cries and intercedes and suffers in the midst of their sufferings. Moreover, at the heart of the Christian kerygma is the claim that the Son of God became human and lived an authentic human life. Within that human life, Jesus’s death on the cross stands as the consummate event and from the incarnation and the cross, theologians argue for God’s passibility on two interconnected levels. First, it is because God was pained by the sufferings of the people that God sent Jesus into the world. The cross then expresses fully God’s eternal divine nature and thus, is the paradigm of a suffering God.^19 Secondly, echoing Moltmann views, the Son on the cross experienced abandonment and death. So also, God suffered the loss of the Son on the cross out of love for humanity. So, the suffering cry of dereliction was a cry being experienced within the very depths of God’s passible nature.^20 Tom Holmen argues, the cross has specifically attested God’s weakness. While for some this (^14) Kazoh Kitamori, Theology of Pain of God, foreword by Anri Morimito (Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1958), 137. (^15) Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (London: SCM Press, 1967), 3. (^16) E. Jungel, The Doctrine of the Trinity: God’s Being is in Becoming (ET: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 83-88. (^17) Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 227-278. (^18) James H. Cone, God of the Oppressed (London: SPCK, 1977), 139. (^19) Weinady, Does God Suffer …, 89. (^20) Warren McWilliams, Where is the God of Justice: Biblical Perspective on Sufferings (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 2005), 35.
needed, when the powers of injustice hold sway and crush the poor and the weak is exacerbated in the event of the cross. One could ask how the innocent death of Jesus could have been an allotment of the divine justice and righteousness because that in some way contradicts the scandal of the forsaken cross. Holmen asserts that, the cross was obviously an expression, although a brutal one, of God’s justice. Considering the sinful nature of human beings, God’s justice simply equals judgment and such divine justice would have demanded annihilation of the whole human race, thus leaving humanity in a hopeless situation. Instead, out of forbearance and love God manifested justice by shedding Jesus’s blood on the cross. In this way God can save fallen humankind without surrendering his justice. With Christ crucified, God’s justice is accomplished and at the same time those who believe in Jesus are justified. Thus, by the act of Jesus, God makes the theodicy problem disappear. Then the delay of the manifestation of the divine justice reveals itself as his merciful, saving plan.^24 This is the new reality or being of those who through baptism and faith become a part of God’s saving act of justice in Christ.^25 Flora Keshgegian argues, even though the memory of Jesus’s death was scandalous, it was glorified because human sin necessitated action for redemption. As such, the cross became not a symbol of scandal but of conquest, one that overcome from defeat to triumph.^26 There are further dimensions to the reconciliation of the scandal of the cross and divine justice. How, does God deal with the death penalty through abandonment of Jesus on the cross in its full reality, as both transgressions of law and oppression of life and justice of God on the other? This questions the role of the retributive justice of God. Retributive justice according to the “rule of law” require the offender be ‘paid back’ a punishment proportionate to the crime to “balance the scales”. Yet the victim of this crime, Jesus himself, who might have petitioned heaven’s “just retribution” against humanity, has instead taken part of the offender, interceding and pleading for God’s mercy and God graciously accepts Jesus’s plea and offers forgiveness to all humanity. Retributive justice according to “the rule of law” is not satisfied; the scale of crimes and punishment are not balanced.^27 However, we need to underline that the (^24) Holmen, Theodicy and the Cross …, 101-102. (^25) Holmen, Theodicy and the Cross …, 164. (^26) Flora A. Keshgegian, A Theology of Healing and Transformation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 168-169. (^27) Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 2012), 388-389.
cross of Jesus, consistent with Jesus’s own teaching (Matt. 5:38-48), demonstrate that the God-created cosmos, at its divine origin and deepest centre, is not ordered rationally on human terms or rule of law but by God’s gracious generosity. Belousek argues, the cross is foolishness in that it revealed the divine wisdom and power, by which the cosmos was created and ultimately hangs together, as transcending retribution such that the message of the cross confounds human wisdom and rationality. He further alludes that, the cross demonstrates precisely what the prophet testified, the divine justice transcends human logic (Isa. 55:6-9) and the power of God through the cross of Christ in an affront to human thinking (1 Cor. 1:18-25).^28 This is the scandal and the stumbling block of the cross: our thinking about God’s justice has not been transformed by the cross but remains conformed to this world shaped by the scheme of this age (Rom. 12:2). We thus expect to see in the cross the confirmation of our human assumptions about justice; we expect divine justice o be perfect instantiation of the retributive paradigm. This why we miss the point: the cross presents us with a reversal and challenges us to shift our perspective, to rethink the justice of God in the shape of the cross. Such perspective of reversing readings of the cross can be profound and yet scandalizing. We will not believe that we have been saved by God unless we are assured that retribution has been satisfied. But the cross of Christ scandalously reveals, that retribution is not near the heart of God, because the grace and mercy of God satisfies retribution.^29 The salvific significance of the cross transcends retribution by speaking the language of redemption, forgiveness and favouring the sinners for which Jesus gave up his life. Through such divinely ordained pronouncement, Jesus strips away the veneer of legitimacy from legally sanctioned retributive violence (punishment) that receives the official stamp of justice.^30 In order for God to transcend divine retribution for the sake of humanity’s redemption, God chooses not to exercise the divine prerogative of retribution which would have produce more death from humanity’s sin. Such divine redemption, forgoing retribution and forgiving humanity are essences of justice which was a costly venture for God. The scandal of the cross is that it reveals a God who is free to remain faithful and true and just; it reveals a God who despite suffering all (^28) Belousek, Atonement, Justice and Peace …, 394. (^29) Belousek, Atonement, Justice and Peace …, 389. (^30) Belousek, Atonement, Justice and Peace …, 391.
promise, newness and restoration of humanity and whole creations where justice meets God.^33
7. CROSS AND THE STRUCTURE OF INJUSTICE: For many centuries, Christian faith has given the cross a prominent place. In symbols and art, in hymns and worship, in thought and creed, and in teaching and preaching, the cross has been a symbolic feature of Christianity. The resurrection supplies the interpreting facts, giving the cross its truest place in the Christian message. This cross is a symbol of the powerless one who overcame all powers, the crucified one who sprang forth from all the bondage of dominion, the God forsaken one who cludes all human grasp and give hope and victory over all evils and power. Beyond these meanings we must recognize that the cross of Jesus cannot be understood without taking into consideration what Jesus went through on the cross. Because the life and message of Jesus are indispensable to finding a correct explanation of the phenomenon of his crucifixion. Jesus’s life begins by being born in a manger, as a refugee, belonging to a poor family that separates him from the rich. His disciples belonged to different strata of society being fisherman, tax collector, zealots, and nationalists. He ate and interacted with outcasts, sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors, and many of his teachings were against the systems and structures that oppress, discriminates and violates people. He healed on the day of Sabbath, and he make friendship that transcends cultures, faiths and religion. His teachings and theology were often provocative in contrast to the teachings of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and rabbis. Furthermore, Jesus’s proclamation of the Kingdom of God was a direct challenge to popular messianic expectation, and was also interpreted by Roman authorities as a threat or challenge to the empire. He broke the law of purity, traditional religious doctrines and teachings, and provoked hostility, suspicion and enmity. Through his actions, Jesus aligned himself with the poor and oppressed and snubbed against the affluent and the prevailing political condition. Jesus was seen by many people as a rebel or a revolutionary, as a threat to the established religious hierarchy, and to the imperial system of governance that dominated society. As such, (^33) Tim Chester, Mission and The Coming of God: Eschatology, the Trinity and Mission in the Theology of Jurgen Moltmann and Contemporary Evangelicalism (Milton Keynes; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2006), 14.
Jesus was considered as a threat to the authorities and for this he was condemned and crucified on the cross.^34 Jesus was crucified because he challenged the powers of his time. His crucifixion is tied to his life and the message he proclaimed within the specific context and experience of injustice. His death on the cross was caused by a specific political, social, economic and religious structures that opposed the kind of person Jesus was and oppose commitment to the poor. The preferential option of God for the poor is explicated in the thoughts of Gustavo Gutierrez, inasmuch as God is opposed to all forms of oppression and injustice toward the poor, because such injustice and oppression contradicts the very being of God as loving and compassion and contradicts the reality that human beings are created equally in the image of God. Jesus’s solidarity and standing on the side of the poor thus led him to the cross. Yacob argues, the cross is thus the definite consequence of a life committed to the dregs of society and in favour of liberation” and justice. But, Jesus’s death on the cross however presupposes the notion of the status quo tilted unjustly in favour of the rich and the powerful.^35
8. THE CRUCIFIED AND THE SUFFERING INDIAN TRIBALS: The meaning of both the crucified Jesus and the crucified-suffering Indian tribal communities can rightly be understood only within the context of specific unjust systems, structures created and sustained by human beings that are uneven and unjust, which feed on oppression, marginalization and exploitation of the poor and weak. These systems and structures can be fashioned for diverse reasons and interests including socio-cultural, economic, political, religious, racial, and other vices produced by the rich, powerful and the rulers of the state. The plight of the poor and their struggle for survival amidst suffering is a cause for alarm, as is also the case with the Indian tribal communities, because the tribals are one of the most exploited and divided people in India. Though there are provisions in the Indian Constitution for the protection of the rights of the tribal people, in practice their history has been a history of subjugation, oppression, and domination. Tribal lives have been marked by assimilation, alienation, and deprivation. The tribals are tagged with the disparaging terms such as backward, animist, superstitious, primitive, inferior, irrational, and so (^34) Tesfai, “Introduction,” in The Scandal if the …, 6. (^35) Tesfai, “Introduction,” in The Scandal if the …, 7.
eroded their identity. They are the most marginalized, discriminated and exploited group of people in the world. However, today, Governments, capitalist entrepreneurship, consumerism, globalization, tourism, neo-liberal economic policy have exacerbated the negative impact on the indigenous people by colluding with and advancing the interest of the financial institutions, corporations, and developmental schemes of the Governments. As such, loss of identity, dignity, and decriminalization of the tribals have resulted further in denial of human rights. This experiences of the tribals expresses their pain and suffering, and their quest for freedom and survival of the evils of society. themselves. It is a condition contrary to the will of God for all human beings. Oppression and domination of both (Jesus and the tribals) contradicts the essence of their humanity and is the end result of a provocative life that challenges the systems and structures of oppression.^39
9. CROSS AS JUSTICE PARADIGM IN INDIAN TRIBAL’S CONSTRUCTION OF THEODICY: The death and resurrection of Jesus affirms justice as an important virtue and provides a criterion to interpret and transform violence and oppression. Because it has its focus on a victim of oppression and death, resurrection theology recognizes injustices particularly in this form. It establishes a ground of suspicion against all systems of order, in that it unveils the possibility that what is claimed to be order, may in fact be a concealed violence, and what claims to serve peace may subvert it or unjust social relationships, denial of rights and dominion of subjects. The message of cross provides power which overcomes the unjust sentence of death by resurrection. Accordingly, it aimed at overcoming injustice by transforming institutions which embody injustice and by challenging ideologies which legitimate injustice. The revelation of the in-breaking of ontological peace in the death and resurrection of Jesus radically transforms the notion of justice/ Constructing theodicy through the lens of cross as a justice paradigm from an Indian tribal perspective is an attempt to reinterpret the situation of Tribal’s sufferings through the narratives of the crucified Jesus. This construction seeks to address the problem of sufferings and to reposition (^39) Athena Peralta, ed., Poverty, Wealth and Ecology in Asia and the Pacific: Ecumenical Perspectives (Chiangmai: CCA, 2010), 27-28.
theodicy in a way the speaks the language of justice as a Theo-ethical quest for redemption.^40 9.1. JUSTICE AS REDEMPTION: The cry of Jesus on the cross speaks of the suffering and loneliness of the those who feel abandoned by God. In times of suffering, the silence of God prompts us to question the existence of God in our aspiration for justice and liberation from suffering. Jesus’s lament on the cross is where he accepts abandonment and death but precisely in order to reveal God to us as love.^41 It is in his suffering that God restores and provides redemption for the world. The terrible death of Jesus was transformed into a great victory where the unjust death of Jesus on the cross was made justified through resurrection and redemption. The cross demonstrates the conflict ridden nature of every process of liberation undertaken when the structure of injustice has gained upper hand. Under such conditions redemption is made possible through sacrifice on behalf of others, as Jesus consciously chose and accepted. His death and resurrection is the triumph of life and the explication of all its latent potentialities. It is the redemption of life from all its obstacles and conflicts. It is in the cross that Jesus continues to exist among human beings, giving impetus to their struggle for liberation. It was not merely individuals who brought Christ to his death but hostile groups and sinister forces combined against him. Christ defeated the combine forces of evil and oppression. The cross reveals the victory of Christ which is not only a help and a solace to individuals in their moral need, but also serves as a victory over all hostile powers in the world. It is the redemption from bondage, from evil and powers that subvert humanity from the truth, justice, equality and freedom. As such, the God who hears the cries of Jesus in their suffering redeems them from anguish and opens new vistas to understand the justice of God. The cross further entails the expression of hope in the redeeming God who with predilection defends the poor and the oppressed including the tribal people. In the theodicy of the cross, the justice of God remains deeply compassionate in grace and loving, and is totally involved in the suffering of (^40) Jon Sobrino, Christ the Liberator: A View from the Victims (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 285. (^41) Gustavo Gutierrez, On Job: God-talk and the Suffering of the Innocent (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987), 97.
