JohannBaptistMetz’s Memoria
Passionis andthePossibilityofPolitical Forgiveness
JoasAdiprasetya
ConstructiveTheology,JakartaTheologicalSeminary,Jakarta,Indonesia
Theideaof memoriapassionis promotedbyJohannBaptistMetzprovidesa strongbasisforcorrelatingtheChristiancreedofthedeathandresurrection ofJesusChristandourpoliticalengagementinatrocioussituations. However,Metz’sideaofmemoryandrememberingisnotsufficientaswe attempttoconstructajustandpeacefulsocietybasedontheChristian notionofforgiveness.ThisarticleattemptstomakeuseofMetz’s memoria passionis,whileatthesametimeproposingthenecessityofpoliticalforgivenessasanintrinsicaspectofsuchamemorativefaith.Insuchaproposal,forgivingandrememberingmustbetwounavoidableandintertwined dimensionsof memoriapassionisJesuChristi
KEYWORDS JohannBaptistMetz, memoriapassionis,forgiveness,remembering, dangerousmemory
Thestoryofacellist
Sarajevo,May27,1992.VedranSmailovic,acellistoftheSarajevoOperaOrchestra,stoodathiswindowandwatchedalonglineofhungrypeoplestandingina breadline.Unexpectedly,amortarshellscreameddownfromthesky.Twenty-two men,women,andchildrenwereimmediatelykilled.ItwasthedayafterthatbreadlinemassacrewhenSmailovic startedtoplayAlbinoni’smelancholy “Adagioin G.Minor.” Everydayatexactly4:00p.m.foratotaloftwenty-twodays one tohonoreachofthevictims heplayedthesamemusic,rememberingtheinnocent victims.Manywonderifhechosethismusicknowingitwasreconstructedfroma pieceofmusicfoundintheruinsofDresdenaftertheSecondWorldWar.Albinoni’s musicsurvivedthebombing,asifithadwaitedtobeusedasaremembranceof Sarajevo’stragedy.1
1 PaulR.Bartrop,Smailovic,Vedran.In:Abiographicalencyclopediaofcontemporarygenocideportraitsofeviland good(SantaBarbara,CA:ABC-CLIO;2012). politicaltheology,Vol.18No.3,May,2017,233–248
Thememoryofsufferingisundoubtedlybitter,butnoonecanescapeit.Theonly waytodealwiththatbittermemoryistoacceptandcreativelyallowittobecomea “dangerousmemory.” ThistermispopularizedbyJohannBaptistMetz,whoconstructshisowntheologythroughthememoryofhispersonalstory.
TowardstheendoftheSecondWorldWar,attheageofsixteen,Iwassnatchedoutof schoolandconscriptedintothearmy.AfterahastytraininginthebarracksatWüzburgI arrivedatthefront,whichbythattimehadalreadyadvancedovertheRhineinto Bavaria.Mycompanyconsistedsolelyofyoungpeople,welloverahundredofthem. Oneeveningthecompanycommandersentmewithamessagetobattalionheadquarters.Iwanderedduringthenightthroughshattered,burningvillagesandfarmsteads, andwhennextmorningIreturnedtomycompanyIfoundonlythedead:dead bodies,overwhelmedbyacombinedfighter-bomberandtankattack.Icouldonly lookintothestill,deadfacesofallthosewithwhomonthepreviousdaysIhad sharedtheanxietiesofchildhoodandthejoysofyouth. Icannotrememberanything butasilentcry.Icanstillseemyselftheretoday,andmychildhooddreamshavecollapsedbeforethatmemory. 2
Inthislight,IwillexploreMetz’s memoriapassionis asatheologicalstartingpointfortakingthesideofthevictims.However,itisevidentfromtheoutsetthat Metzdoesnotprovideasufficientbasefor “politicalforgiveness, ” ashefocuses histheologyontheliberatingpowerof memoriapassionis thatsimplydrawsa strictdemarcationbetweentheoppressedandtheoppressor.Giventhisfact,Iwill havetogobeyondMetzindiscussingthepossibilityofthepoliticalforgiveness forthevictimizers.
Politicaltheologyaspracticalfundamentaltheology
JohannBaptistMetzbeganhisearlyworkwithwritingtwodissertations(oneunder CorethonHeideggerandanotherunderRahneronThomasAquinas).3 Theseextensivestudiesledhimtostress “man’sabilitytomediatebetweenBeingandentities (betweenGodandworld)becausemansharesthecharacteristicsofboth[…]He viewsman’s apriori constitutionintermsofsharedbeinginasharedworld.”4 Thesepropositionsinfluencedhiswholetheologylater,especiallyashecoinedthe term “politicaltheology.”
Metz’sunderstandingof “asharedworld” iscentralinhisbook, Theologyofthe World (1971),andcharacterizesthefirststageofhiswork.Here,heevaluatessecularizationasapositivemanifestationofGod’sdominioninhistory.
Thesecularityoftheworld,asithasemergedinthemodernprocessofsecularizationand asweseeittodayinagloballyheightenedform,hasfundamentally,thoughnotinits individualhistoricalforms,arisennotagainstChristianitybutthroughit.Itisoriginally
2 JohannB.Metz,JohannBaptistMetz.In:JürgenMoltmann,editor.HowIhavechanged:reflectionsonthirtyyearsof theology,(Harrisburg,PA:TrinityPressInternational;1997),p.31;emphasismine.
3 RogerD.JohnsprovidesanexcellentanalysisoftheinfluenceofHeidegger,Coreth,Rahner,andThomasinMetz’s theology.SeeRogerD.Johns,editor,Manintheworld:thepoliticaltheologyofJohannesBaptistMetz(Missoula, MT:ScholarsPress;1976).pp.61–8.
4 Johns,Manintheworld,p.80.
aChristianeventandhencetestifiesinourworldsituationtothepowerofthe ‘hourof Christ’ atworkwithinhistory.5
Thepositiveappropriationofsecularizationisbuttressedwithatleastthreefundamentalconcepts.First,theincarnationofGodbecomestheframeworkofsecularization,astheincarnationappears “whollyas ‘flesh,’ asearth,assecular world,andGod[…]nowbecomesoperativeintheeconomyofthemovementof history.”6 Second,hecontinueshisincarnationalargumentwithacorrectionof theunderstandingoftheworld,movingfromcosmocentricGreekphilosophyto anthropocentricHebrewandChristiantheology.7 “Toseetheworldnotasa cosmos,notasnatureinterpretingitself,butashistory,toseeitinitsrelationto man,asmediatedbyhim,meanstointerprettheworldinitsformal anthropocentricity.”8 ThisanthropocentricityleadsMetztocomprehendtheworldasbeing hominized,meaningbothpluralisticanddehumanized.9 Third,Metzcharacterizes thesecularityoftheworld,withitsorientationtowardsthefuture,asbasedonthe biblicalbeliefinthepromisesofGod.RogerD.JohnsarguesthatinordertodifferentiatehiseschatologyfromBloch’sphilosophyofhope,Metzproposeswhathe callsGod’s “eschatologicalproviso,” whichprovidesthedialecticaltension betweenthefutureandpresentsituation,aswellasthebasisfortheexistencefor thechurch.10 Consequently,everypresentoccurrenceshouldbeseenaspartial untilitisfulfilledinthefuture.
Systematically,thesethreereflectionsleadMetztopronouncehispoliticaltheology,whichhedefinesas,
[…]acriticalcorrectionofpresent-daytheologyinasmuchasthistheologyshowsan extremeprivatizingtendency(atendency,thatis,tocenterupontheprivateperson ratherthan “public,”“political” society).Atthesametime,Iunderstandthispolitical theologytobeapositiveattempttoformulatetheeschatologicalmessageundertheconditionofourpresentsociety.11
However,wecannotfindinhis TheologyoftheWorld anyfurtherexplanationor explorationofwhathemeansbythiskindoftheology.Inotherwords,thisbookis onlyapreliminaryintroductiontothediscussionofpoliticaltheology,foundinhis magnumopus, FaithinHistoryandSociety (1980),whichalsocharacterizesthe secondstageofhiswork.
Inthisbook,Metzbroadenshisearlierdefinitionofpoliticaltheologyasapracticalfundamentaltheology.Likeanellipse,thispracticalfundamentaltheologyhas twofixedfoci:theprimaryof praxis,andthestruggleforthe subject. “Itisa
5 JohannB.Metz,Theologyoftheworld(London:Burns&Oates/NewYork:HerderandHerder;1971).pp.19–20.
6 Metz,Theologyoftheworld,p.32.
7 ForMetz,ChristianityisnotthemixtureofHebrewfaithandGreeklogic.HisavoidanceoftheGreekinterpretationof Christiantheologyislargelyanantecedent,notaconsequence,ofhisattentiononAuschwitzandJudaism,especially withhis memoriapassionis.SeeGasparMartinez,Confrontingthemysteryofgod:political,liberation,andpublictheologies(NewYork:Continuum;2001).p.77.
8 Metz,Theologyoftheworld,p.54.
9 Ibid.,pp.70–7.
10 Johns,Manintheworld,107–08;cf.RebeccaS.Chopp.Thepraxisofsuffering:aninterpretationofliberationand politicaltheologies(Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks;1986).p.40.
11 Metz,Theologyoftheworld,p.107.
theologythatoperatessubjecttotheprimacyofpraxis.”12 Thepracticalfocusofthis politicaltheologyispreciselyusedtomovebeyondRahner’stranscendentaltheology andeventofleshoutRahner’sthesiswithconcretehistoricalandsocialevidence.13 NotonlydoesMetzunderstandpraxisasmorality,buthealsorelatesittosocial engagement.Inthislight,praxiscannotbe “sociallyneutralandpolitically innocent.”14
Theseconcernsrelatetothesecondfocusofhiswork,thestruggleforthesubject. Ashedoesin TheologyoftheWorld,Metzwarnsagainstthedangerofprivatized theologiessuchastheexistentialtheologyofdemythologization,personaltheology, andtranscendentaltheology.Althoughthosetheologiesarealsoconsidered “theologiesofthesubject,” theydonotplacethehumanpersonwithinasocialandpoliticalcontext.Humanpersons,inthosetheologies,areviewedabstractlyasisolated fromtheircommunityandfromhistory.Incontrast,thepoliticaltheologyofthe subjectlocateshumanpersonsinhumaninterrelationship notonlyco-existence aswellasinGod’spresence.15 Onlyuponthisbasiscanpoliticaltheologybea “practicalcriticismofacultureofhatredandacultureofapathy.”16 Theexperience oftheHebrewpeoplethroughtheExodus,accordingtoMetz,isanexample par excellence ofbecomingsubjects.
Incontrasttothefirststage,Metz’ssecondstageworkisnowcriticalofworld history.Secularization,whichwaspraisedinthefirststageofhiswork,isnow seenbyMetzashavinga “tragicflaw,” thevictimizationoftheweak,whichisto beconfrontedwithconcretepraxis.Hiscriticalstandofsecularizationtoagreat extentappearsashediscussestheconnectionbetweenthechurchand “bourgeois” society.Heseesthreeimagesofthechurch,whichareincompetitionwitheach other: “aprebourgeoispaternalisticchurch,abourgeoissupply orservices church,andapost-bourgeoisinitiative-takingchurch.”17 Thefirstimageofthe church,Metzargues,belongstothepast,withitsconcentrationontakingcareof thepeoplepaternalistically.Thismodelmanifestsitselfinclergyresignationtothe dangerposedbybourgeoissocietyanditsinfluenceonthechurch.Rather,the clergyreactstobourgeoissocietywithalegalisticattitudethat,ironically, “offers norealhelpforthegrassrootscommunitiesattheparishlevel.”18
Thesecondimageisthebourgeoischurch,whichtosomeextentreflectsthelarger bourgeoissociety.Thebourgeoischurchischaracterizedwithindividualismthatis farfromMetz’sproposalofthetheologyofthesubject;for “thebourgeoissubject […]isestablishedwithhisownself-interestandhisownfuture.”19 Insucha church,themessianiccharacterofatruechurchisweakenedanddistorted.Itproclaimshopewithoutexpectationandjoy,lovewithoutsolidarity,andspirituality withoutdiscipleship.Thishappens,accordingtoMetz,simplybecause “religion
12 JohannB.Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety:towardapracticalfundamentaltheology(NewYork:SeaburyPress; 1980).p.50.
13 Martinez,Confrontingthemysteryofgod,p.58;cf.Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.84.
14 Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.54.
15 Ibid.,p.61.
16 Ibid.,p.62.
17 JohannB.Metz,Theemergentchurch:thefutureofChristianityinapostbourgeoisworld(NewYork:Crossroad; 1981),p.86.
18 Metz,Emergentchurch,p.6.
19 Ibid.,p.5.
doesnotlayclaimtothebourgeois;instead,thebourgeoislaysclaimtoreligion. Religiondoesnottransformsociety;rather,bourgeoissocietydoesnotrestuntilreligionfitsinwithitselfandwithwhatitconsiderreasonable.”20
Inordertogobeyondthetwoimagesofchurch,Metzproposesthethirdimage, thatis,thepostbourgeoisinitiative-takingchurch,whichhefindmostcloselyinthe LatinAmericanbasecommunities.Thisnewchurchcanonlyberealizedifthe churchbecomesculturallypolycentric.Thisnewmodel,Metzbelieves,enablesthe churchtorecognizehermembersassubjectsthroughitsefforttobea “community ofmemory.”
Memoriapassionis asadangerousmemory
AsapracticalhermeneuticofChristianity,politicaltheologymustbea “narrative theology.” Inregardtonarrativeasatheologicalcategory,Metzmaintains, “the beginningandtheendcanonlybediscussedinnarrativeform.”21 Iassumethat Metzemploysthiscategorytoemphasizethetemporalaspectofhistheology,as wellastointroducethelinkagebetween memoriapassionis andtheeschatological hopethatliesbetweenthe arche andthe telos.WhileheshareswithMoltmann thepoliticaldimensionofChristianhopeandeschatology,hedevelopshisown “turningtothepast” usinganarrativebridge.Here,wefindthesecondcategory inMetz’stheology,memory.
Therelationshipbetweennarrativeandmemoryiscentralinhis FaithinHistory andSociety.Yet,thesecategorieshavetobelinkedwithChristianredemptionand emancipation.HisthesisisthatChristiansoteriologyis “afundamentallymemorativeandnarrativesoteriology.IttriestokeeptheChristianmemoryofredemption aliveinnarrativeformasadangerousandliberatingmemoryofredeemed freedomandtodefenditbyargumentinthesystemsofourso-calledemancipative world.”22
Becauseofthenotionofemancipation,then,politicaltheologianscannotunderstandChristianredemptionasmerelyanabstractsoteriologicalconcept.Herethe historyofredemptionisalsoahistoryoffreedomfromsufferinginitsmostconcrete sense.
Fromthisperspective,MetzreinterpretstheclassiccredoofChristianfaith: memoriapassionis, mortisetresurrectionisJesuChristi. 23 Forhim,this memoria JesusChristi isdouble-sidedintermsofitstemporality.Ontheonehand, “itanticipatesthefutureasafutureofthosewhoareoppressed,withouthopeand doomed.”24 Ontheother,itintroducestherememberedfreedomofJesusintocontemporarysociety.Onlybymaintainingthisdouble-sidednessofChristianremembrancecanthechurchdrawitsstrengthtocriticizealloppressiveideologiesand
20 Ibid.,p.83.
21 Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.206.
22 Ibid.,p.133.
23 Therearefourphrasesthatheemploysalongwiththeterm “dangerousmemory”;allofthesearealmostinterchangeablealthoughtheyhavetheirownspecificemphasis:memoryofthedeadandvanquished;concretememoryofsuffering andfreedom;memoryaseschatologicalhope;memoryofthesuffering,deathandresurrectionofJesusChristor memoriapassionis, mortisetresurrectionisJesusChristi
24 Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.90.
systems.Therefore,this memoriapassionis isadangerousmemory,becauseitunites Jesus’ narrative mortisetresurrectionisJesuChristi withinthenarrativeofthe victims’ sufferinginhistoryanddrawsfromitliberatingstrength.Itisalsoasubversivememory,inthatitacknowledges “anactivepresenceinhistoryofGod’sinterruptiveactofsalvationattheendofhistory,whenGodwillrescuethosewhom historyhasdestroyedandforgotten.”25 TheEucharist,whichtraditionallyhas hadonlyritualmeaning,nowhasitssocio-politicalmeaningthroughthememory ofthevictimsinhistory.26
Moreover, passionisetresurrectionisJesuChristi mustbemaintainedinbalance. Martinezrightlywarnsthedangersofseparatingbothmemorialevents.
If memoriaresurrectionis canbecomeadangerouslyvictoriousideologywithout memoriapassionis,thelattercanbecomecompletelydefeatistandhopelesswithout theformer.Thosetwobelongintrinsicallytogether.27
Memoriapassionis alsogivesChristianpraxisaspecialpathos,sinceitisgrounded inpassionaswellaspracticalaction.ItisthepassionthatleadsMetztocompletehis politicaltheologywithhisthirdcategory,thatis,solidarity.Hemaintains,
Itisinthissolidaritythatmemoryandnarrative(ofsalvation)acquiretheirspecificmysticalandpoliticalpraxis.Withoutsolidarity,memoryandnarrativecannotbecomepracticalcategoriesoftheology.Inthesameway,withoutmemoryandnarrative,solidarity cannotexpressitspracticalhumanizingform.Itisonlywhentheyco-existthatmemory, narrativeandsolidaritycaneffectivelybecategoriesofapracticalfundamental theology.28
Thereisanotherissuetodiscusshere,thatis,theologyastheodicy.If memoria passionis expressesGod’sinterruptioninhistorytorescuethosewhosuffer,then whyaresufferingandinjusticesooverwhelming?ForMetz,thistheodicyquestion, Theodizeefrage ,isthecentralprobleminChristiantheology afterAuschwitz. Notuntil1973didMetzbeginhisseriouslyreflectiveworkonAuschwitzand Holocaust,whenheworkedonthefirstdraftoftheGermansynodaldocument, “OurHope” (UnsereHoffnung).29 Heconfesseshonestlyhishesitation, “Slowly,muchtooslowly,Ibecameaware andtherealizationofhowlongI hadhesitatedmademeevenmoreuncomfortable! thatthesituationinwhich Iamatheologian,thatis,trytotalkaboutGod,isthesituation after Auschwitz. ”30
AccordingtoMetz,thetheodicyproblembringstherelationshipbetweenChristianityandJudaismintoanewform.Auschwitz,inthislight,isbothanendanda
25 Martinez,Confrontingthemysteryofgod,p.66.
26 Ononehand,MetzcriticizesthesacramentalismandritualismintheCatholicchurchthatdistorttheimportanceof graceasfreedom;ontheotherhand,hearguesthatthe anamnesis ofChristianEucharististobeincorporatedwithinthe frameworkofanarrativeactionsothatwecan “relatethesacramentalactionmorecloselytostoriesoflifeandsuffering and[ ]revealitasasavingnarrative.” SeeMetz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.208;cf.Metz,Emergentchurch,p.56.
27 Martinez,Confrontingthemysteryofgod,p.67.
28 Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.230.
29 EkkehardSchuster etal.,Hopeagainsthope:JohannBaptistMetzandElieWieselspeakoutontheholocaust (NewYork:PaulistPress;1999),p.15.
30 JohannB.Metz,Apassionforgod:themystical-politicaldimensionofChristianity(NewYork:PaulistPress;1998), p.54.
turningpointforChristiantheology.MetzagreeswithElieWieselwhosays, “The reflectiveChristianknowsthatitwasnottheJewishpeoplethatdiedinAuschwitz, butChristianity.”31 AuschwitzwasanendforChristianity.Inthesametime,itcan beaturningpointforChristiantheology,onlyifChristiansafterAuschwitz “understandtheiridentity[ ]inthefaceoftheJews” (notinthefaceofJudaism).32 Thisis tosaythatpoliticaltheologycannolongerbesituationlessandsubjectless.After Auschwitz,everytheologythatisunrelatedtorememberingconcretesubjects mustceasetoexist,becauseAuschwitzdoesnotonlypresentaquestionoftheodicy butalsoofanthropodicy.33 Here,again,hedeniestheahistoricalandsubjectlessPlatonicorGreekmodelofanamnesis.TheremembranceofthevictimsofAuschwitz shouldbereconstructedfrommysticalHebrew-Christiantradition,thatis, “amysticismofsufferingunto not ‘in’— God” (leidenanGott),asdemonstratedbyJob andJesus.34 Hismovetomystical(andnegative)radicalizessomewhathis “turnto thesubject” intowhatIwouldcalla “turndeepintotheinnercoreofthesubject.” If thisisso,hislackof “theologicallywarrantedpracticalsteps,” ascriticizedby Ashley,isstillmoreserious.35
BeyondMetz:thelimitof memoriapassionis
Metz’stheology,especially “afterAuschwitz,” belongstothetraditionofnegative theology,inthesensethatitholdsthataspeculativegraspofGodisnotpossible. Nevertheless,histheologyisnotcompletelynegative.Rather,itspathoscomes fromaneschatologicalhopethatGodwillcomeandinterrupthistory,forthe livingandthedead.Myintentioninthissectionistorevealandexplorethe crucialomissionofMetz’stheology,thatis,forgiveness.RarelydoesMetzspeak aboutforgivenessasaninherentdimensionofChristianfaithrelatedtothecategoryofmemory.Onlyoncedoeshespeakofthechurch’sworkofreconciliation, whenhediscussestheecumenicalrelationshipbetween “thepoorchurch” and “therichchurch.”36 Despitehisinvitationto “aradicalprocessofrepentance,” histoneinthisarticleismuchsofterthaninwritingswherehespeaksaboutpoliticalatrocities.Forinstance,hesoftenstheradicaldisparitybetweenthe oppressedandtheoppressorsbysayingthattherichchurchescanbe “oppressed oppressors.”
ThislackofforgivenesslanguageisalsoobviouswhenMetzspeaksabout memoriapassionisJesuChristi,whichtraditionallyincludestheforgivingaspect ofGod’sgrace.Iamnotsuggestingthatwespiritualizethistheme;noramI arguingthatMetzhasover-politicizedthesuffering,deathandresurrectionof JesusChrist.Onthecontrary,thetruemeaningofGod’sactioninhumanhistory
31 Schuster etal.,Hopeagainsthope,p.17.
32 JohannB.Metz,FacingtheJews:ChristiantheologyafterAuschwitz.In:ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenzaandDavid Tracy,editors.TheHolocaustasinterruption(Edinburgh:T&TClark;1984),p.26.
33 Metz,Emergentchurch,pp.22,31.
34 Metz,Passionforgod,p.66.J.MatthewAshleyprovidesanextensiveanddeepanalysisontherelationshipbetween Metz’smysticalspiritualityandhispoliticaltheology;JamesMatthewAshley.Interruptions:Mysticism,politics,and theologyintheworkofJohannBaptistMetz(NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress;1998).
35 Cf.Ashley,Interruptions,p.195.
36 JohannB.Metz,Messianicor “Bourgeois” religion?OnthecrisisofthechurchinWestGermany.Concilium.1979;5 (125):68–70.
throughJesusChrististobelivedoutholistically:personallyandsocially;spiritually andpolitically;temporallyandtimelessly.Forgiveness,whichwasdeliberately omittedbyMetz,isasimportantanaspectofGod’sactinChristasGod’scritical judgmenttowardstheoppressor.Thereisalwaysthepossibilityofforgivingthe oppressor.Oneofthemostbeautifulimagesofthisdouble-sidedmeaningof soteria intheBibleisthatofferedbythePsalmist:
LetmehearwhatGodtheLordwillspeak, forhewillspeakpeacetohispeople, tohisfaithful,tothosewhoturntohimintheirhearts. Surelyhissalvationisathandforthosewhofearhim, thathisglorymaydwellinourland. Steadfastloveandfaithfulnesswillmeet; righteousnessandpeacewillkisseachother.
(Ps.5:8–10,NRSV)
Wehear truth and righteousness ascentralthemesinMetz’swritings,butwe rarelyhearhimspeakof mercy and peace.Again,inhiswritingontheBeatitudes (Matt.5.3–11),Metzonlyreflectsonselectsentencesthatfithispoliticalagenda.37 Metz’sselectivity,ontheonehand,isreasonablewithregardtoavoidingthe dangerof “politicalamnesia” andimpunity;justiceshouldbeupheld!Perhapshe feltthatthesufferingoftheJewsatAuschwitzwassooverwhelmingthatmercy andforgivenessforthevictimizerswereimpossible;theywerejustunforgivable! Nonetheless,hedoesinjusticenotonlytotheoppressors “assubjects” butalsoto thewholenessoftheChristianmessage.Inthissense, memoriapassionis canbe dangerousifitisusedselectively.ThesituationinthemodernBalkansprovides anexampleofthedangerofselectivememory.
In1989theSerbianleaderSlobodanMilosevicheadedthecelebrationscommemorating the600th anniversaryoftheBattleoftheKosovoin1389,whenSerbshadfoughtagainst thetroopsoftheemergingOttomanEmpireandlost.Theirdefeatsealedhundredsofthe yearsofsubordinationtothesultansofConstantinople.Rememberingthisbattle becametheinterpretativekeyfortheformationoftheidentityoftheSerbianpeople. TheyhadfoughttodefendthevaluesofChristianEuropeagainsttheTurkishinfidels. Yetsincethissacrificehadneverbeenappreciated,Serbscametoseethemselvesasthe heroicvictims[ ]Itbecamethekeytoreadingtheirhistory,enablingthemnotonly tocreateandnurturetheirownself-imagebutalsotoidentifytheirenemiesandtogeneratepatternsofsuspicionandhatred.38
PerhapsMetz’smostimportantarticlediscussingtheplaceofthevictimizersas subjectsintheprocessofrememberingis “InthePluralismofReligiousandCultural Worlds.”39 Here,hefollowsPaulF.Knitter,suggestingthattheinterfaithencounter
37 Metz,Passionforgod,pp.157–63.
38 GeikoMüller-Fahrenholz,Theartofforgiveness:theologicalreflectionsonhealingandreconciliation(Geneva:WCC Publications;1997),p.46.Thetechniqueof “chosentrauma” wasalsoemployedbySoeharto’sregimeagainsttheCommunistsinthe1960s.Theoppressedcouldbemoreoppressivethantheirpreviousoppressorscould.Inthiscase,memory istheobstaclefortruepeaceandreconciliation.
39 JohannB.Metz,Inthepluralismofreligiousandculturalworlds:notestowardatheologicalandpoliticalprogram. CrossCurrents.1999;49(2).
TABLE1
RELATIONSHIPBETWEENREMEMBERANDSANCTION. Sanction YesNo
RememberYesProsecutingForgiving NoRevengeForgetting
hasitscommonalitynotina “subjectless” and “situationless” (Metz’sterm) commongroundbutincommonsuffering.40 Relatedtothisissue,Metzalso arguesthat “thestruggleforjusticecangenerateauniversalhorizononlybyits ‘negativemediation,’ onlybyresistingunjustsuffering.”41
MetzusestheformerYugoslaviaasacasetoshowthattheir “purelyselfregarding memoriapassionis, ” ortheirselectiveremembrance, “becamenotan organofunderstandingandpeace,butasourceofhostility,hatred,andviolence.”42 Onthecontrary,hepraisestheencounterbetweenRabinandArafatas “theywant tolooknotonlyattheirownsuffering,butalsotorememberthesufferingofothers, thesufferingoftheir formerenemies. ”43 Whatdoeshemeanby “formerenemies”? Aretheynowreconciled?Isreconciliation,therefore,thepreconditionoftreating enemiesassubjects?Ifitisso,then,westillhaveaproblemwithMetz’sunderstandingofforgiveness.Isitpossibletoforgivetheenemieswhiletheystillremainour enemies?
Thefollowingsectionswilldiscussthepossibilityofforgivinginrelationto remembering.Onlybyemployingbothcreativelyarereconciliationandtrue peaceattainable.Morethanthat,forgivenessalsoopensthepossibilityofmaintainingourfaithinGod,whohasbeen Deusabsconditus (theabsentGod)duringand afterAuschwitz.Inshort,forgivenessinthelightofremembranceistheonlywayto acceptGodas Deusabsconditus and Deusrevelatus.
Forgivingmemoryandmemorativeforgiveness
Inhis “ThePhilosophyandPracticeofDealingwiththePast,” TuomasForsberg providesausefultabletoshowtherelationshipbetweenrememberingandgiving politicalsanction44 (Table 1).
However,IwillreviseForsberg’stabletomakeitfitthethemeofthisessay.The issueofreconciliationisnotonlydealingwiththequestionofwhethertogivesanctionornot,butalso,andprimarily,withthechoicetoforgiveornot.Forthis purpose,Isuggestforgivenessasthefourthcategoryofa “new” politicaltheology, alongwiththethreeothercategoriesMetzprovides(memory,narrative,and
40 PaulF.Knitter,Oneearth,manyreligions:multifaithdialogueandglobalresponsibility(Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks; 1995),pp.56–7.
41 Metz,Pluralismofreligiousandculturalworlds,p.233.
42 Ibid.,p.233.
43 Ibid.,p. 233;emphasismine.
44 TuomasForsberg,Thephilosophyandpracticeofdealingwiththepast:someconceptualandnormativeissues.In: NigelBiggar,editor.Buryingthepast:makingpeaceanddoingjusticeaftercivilconflict.(Washington,DC:Georgetown UniversityPress;2001),p.61.
TABLE2
RELATIONSHIPBETWEENREMEMBERANDFORGIVENESS.
solidarity). 45 IhereuseDesmondTutu’sdefinitionofforgivenessas “abandoning yourrighttopaybacktheperpetratorinhisowncoin,butitisalossthatliberates thevictim.”46 Tutu’sdefinitionofforgivenessobviouslyreflectshispersonalexperienceandinvolvementinthereconciliationprocessinSouthAfrica.Itisalsovery importanttoemphasizeTutu’sdistinctionbetweenforgivingandforgettingasit willalsobeusedinthispaper.Tutuisoftheopinion, “Inforgiving,peopleare notbeingaskedtoforget.Onthecontrary,itisimportanttoremember,sothat weshouldnotletsuchatrocitieshappenagain”47 (Table 2).
Thelimitof memoriapassionis wehavediscussedabovedoesnotmakeitinsignificantasaconditionforapeacefulreconciliation.Onthecontrary,itprovides thefirststepofanyreconciliatoryprocess.Rememberingisanecessarycondition, butnotasufficientcondition,ofreconciliation.Wecannothavereconciliation withoutremembrance,norwithremembrancealone.Thevalueofrememberingis alsoevident,sinceitpreventsusfromanyefforttoassociatereconciliationandpoliticalforgivenesswithpoliticalimpunity(remember-yes/forgive-no).
Wehaveamnesty(remember-no/forgive-yes)insofarasthecrimesofthevictimizersinthepastareforgivennotbythevictims,butbythethird-partyagent(government,forinstance).Novictimsareinvolvedwithintheprocess,eitherbecausethey aredeadorbecausetheyavoidforgivingtheiroppressors.Yet,theworstamnesty happenswhenforgivenessisgivenwithoutprimarilyrememberingthesufferingof theoppressed.Inthiscase,amnestyistheformalexpressionofamnesia.
Anothersolutionisrevenge(remember-no /forgive-no),whenthereisnowillingnessonthepartofthevictimseithertoremembertheirownsufferingorto forgivetheirvictimizers.Theonlywaythatmakessensetothemistodototheir oppressorswhatwasdonetothem.48
Bothamnestyandrevengeareformsofforgettingthe memoriapassionis.Forgetting,therefore,isthefirstoppositeofremembering(ana-mnesis).Forgetting (a-mnesia)isanactofcuttingoneselfofffromone’sownhistory,anerasingof memory.However,forgettinggetsitsexistentialemphasisthroughthesecond
45 Metz,infact,mentionsmanyothercategoriesthatareincludedinhisthreecategories,suchaslove,interaction,work, suffering,struggle,sorrow,reason,language,timeandsoon.SeeMetz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.183.J.Matthew Ashley,oneofthemostprominentinterpretersofMetz’swork,inourpersonalcorrespondence,expresseshisdisagreementwithmysuggestiontomake “forgiveness” afundamentalanthropologicalcategoryinthesamewayastheother three.However,Iwouldarguethatthisispossible,becausethiscategoryhasbeendiscussedwidelyinmanydisciplines: theologically,psychologically,philosophicallyaswellasanthropologically.
46 DesmondM.Tutu,Nofuturewithoutforgiveness(NewYork:Doubleday;1999),p.272.
47 Ibid.,p.271.
48 DonaldShriverhaslistedsevenformsofrevengethatcanpossiblybechosen,fromterrortopassivity:terror,vindictiveness,retaliation,punishment,restitution,protest,andpassivity.DonaldW.Shriver,Anethicforenemies:forgiveness inpolitics(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress;1995),pp.30–1.
oppositeofremembering:dismemberingaction.Dismemberingseparatesone’sidentityfromone’scommunity,removesone’ssufferingfromthatofothers,inshort,alienatesthem.
Wehavediscussedthreeoptionsofhowwecandealwithrememberingandforgiving.Noneoftheseoptions,Ibelieve,isadequateforfacilitatingreconciliation.A trueandpeacefulreconciliationhappensonlyifrememberingandforgivingcome together;theyareliketwosidesofthesamecoinofreconciliation.Insum,anew politicaltheology,beyondMetz,shouldbebasedona “forgivingmemory” and “memorativeforgiveness.” Inthissense,asPaulRicoeurargues, “forgiveness givesmemoryafuture.”49
Thethemeofpoliticalforgivenessnowiswidespreadaroundtheworld,especially sincethelateof1980s,whenoppressiveregimesinmanycountriesfell.Ithasdrawn attentionfromthinkersandpractitionersfrommanyfields;theologytoanthropology,philosophytopsychology.50 Theresultisthatthediscussionofthisthemehas evolvedinverycomplicatedways.Giventhissituation,Iexplorethreefundamental issuesrelevanttoChristianethicsofrememberingandforgiving.Yet,becauseofthe complexityofeachissue,myexplorationandreflectionwillbebriefanddeservingof furtherstudy.Forthispurpose,IemployMetz’svaluablecontributionsaswellas explorepossibilitiestogobeyondhim.
Treatingtheoppressedandtheoppressorsassubjects Metziscorrectwhenheproposeshispoliticaltheologyofthe subject.Opposedto anysubjectlesstheology,hejoinshimselfwiththepostmodernspiritof “turning tothesubject.” Moreover,healsoarguesthatunlesswetreatenemiesassubjects, politicaltheologywilltendtobeoppressiveaswell.AlthoughMetzdoesnot speakmuchofforgiveness,hisemphasisonthe subject isstillusefulforourdiscussion.Ifrememberingshouldbecentralizedon thevictimsandthevictimizersasthe subjects,thenitisalsothecasewithforgiving.Weforgivesomeone(thedoer)instead ofsomething(thedeed).51 Thecentralityofsubjects boththevictimsandthevictimizers shouldalsofreeusfromtreatingeachsubjectaspurelyinnocentor purelyevil.Inmanycases,thevictimsbecomethevictimizersinanotheroccasion, andvice-versa.Evenmore,itisonlyinextremelyrarecasesthatthevictimsdo notcontributeinthesufferingthattheyhaveexperienced.Inthesametime,it wouldalsobeproblematic,boththeologicallyandmorally,tostigmatizethevictimizersasthepureevil,withoutrecognizingsomemoralgoodnessontheirpart.52 AJewishpoliticalphilosopher,HannahArendtradicalizesthenecessitytoview theoppressorsassubjectsinhernarrativereportonthetrialofNaziofficial AdolfEichmanninJerusalem.53 WithoutdiminishingEichmann’sresponsibility forcrimesagainsthumanity(hostisgenerishumani),shelocates “thelessonthat
49 QuotedinDavidM.Kaplan,ReadingRicoeur(Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress;2008),p.81.
50 Anextensivereviewofliteratureonforgivenessfrom1901to2001iswrittenbyNigelBiggar.Hisreviewincludes booksfromtheology,philosophy,politicalethics,aswellasempiricalstudies.NigelBiggar,Forgivenessinthetwentieth century:areviewofliterature,1901–2001.In:AlistairMcFadyenandMarcelSarot,editors,Forgivenessandtruth: explorationsincontemporarytheology(Edinburgh/NewYork:T&TClark;2001).
51 Cf.JacquesDerrida.Oncosmopolitanismandforgiveness(London/NewYork:Routledge;2002),p.38.
52 Inthiscontext,RoyBaumeister’srejectionof “themythofpureevil” isofimportancehere.Cf.RoyF.Baumeister.Evil: insidehumancrueltyandviolence(NewYork:W.H.Freeman;1997).
53 HannahArendt,EichmanninJerusalem:areportonthebanalityofevil(NewYork:VikingPress;1963).
thislongcourseinhumanwickednesshadtaughtus” as “thelessonofthefearsome, word-and-thought-defyingbanalityofevil.”54 WhileothersdepictEichmannasevil personified,Arendtexpresseshersurprisethat “thismanwasnota ‘monster,’ butit wasdifficultindeednottosuspectthathewasaclown.”55
ThedistinctionbetweendoeranddeedechoestheChristiandistinctionbetween thesinnerandthesin.Thisisnottosaythatthedoeris beyondthereachof justice,sinceasapersons/healsohasthemoralcapacitytoberesponsiblefor whats/hehasdone.Rather,thisistosaythatnoperpetratoris beyondthereach offorgiveness. 56 Yet,onemayarguethatthedoerandthedeed,whilefundamentally distinctive,cannotpracticallybeseparated.Werelatetoothersonlythroughtheir exteriorityanddeeds.Ifthisistrue,onemayalsoargue,therecouldbeacondition wherethedeedandthedoerareinexpiableandirreparable;inshort:unforgivable!
Tothis,JacquesDerridaagreesthatthepresenceoftheunforgivable(theinexpiableandtheirreparable)maybeverypossible,yetherejectsthenotionthatthatwe cannotforgiveanyoneanymore,since “forgivenessforgivesonlythe unforgivable.”57
Ifoneisonlypreparedtoforgivewhatappearsforgivable,whatthechurchcall ‘the venialsin’ thentheveryideaofforgivenesswoulddisappear.Ifthereissomethingto forgive,itwouldbewhatinreligiouslanguageiscalledmortalsin,theworst,theunforgivablecrimeorharm.Fromwhichcomestheaporia,whichcanbedescribedinitsdry andimplacableformality,withoutmercy[…]thereisonlyforgivenessifthereisany, wherethereistheunforgivable.Thatistosaythatforgivenessmustannounceitselfas impossibilityitself.Itcanonlybepossibleindoingtheimpossible.58
Derrida’sargumentundoubtedlydepictsaChristianspiritofforgiveness.Weare calledtoimitateGod’sactofforgivingthroughJesusChrist.Itisthecentralthemeof ChristiansoteriologythatGodforgivesusevenforour “unforgivable” sins.Therefore,despiteitsawfulnessandugliness,GodhasdemonstratedGod’swillingnessto getintoJesus’ crucifixioninordertosolvetheparadoxoftruthandmercy,justice andforgiveness.Yet,theproblemremains:howweasthefollowersofChrist bridgethegapbetweenjusticeandpoliticalforgivenessinourownmoralsituations.
Justiceandpoliticalforgiveness
Digesermaintainsthat “theideaofpoliticalforgivenesswillbestillbornifjusticeand forgivenessstandinoppositiontooneanotherandifthedemandofjusticetrumps allotherconcerns.”59 Heisabsolutelyright.However,wefaceacomplexproblem, sincejusticeistraditionallyassociatedwithrevenge(retributivejustice),orwitha neutraldistributionofrightsorresources(distributivejustice).Inthesecases, justicecertainlycannotbereconciledwithforgiveness;eitherbecausetheycontradict tooneanotherorbecausejusticedepreciatesthevalueofhumanlife.Inshort,both conceptsignoretheimportanceofthevictims.
54 Arendt,EichmanninJerusalem,p.231.
55 Ibid.,p.49.
56 Cf.PeterDigeser,Politicalforgiveness(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress;2001),p.63.
57 Derrida,Oncosmopolitanismandforgiveness,p.32.
58 Ibid.,pp.32–3.
59 Digeser,Politicalforgiveness,p.36.
Themostpromisingconceptofjustice,atleastuptonow,thatcanserveforthe reconciliatoryprocessisoneofrestorativejustice.Byrestorativejustice,Digeser meansaconceptthatseeks “toremedythesedefectsbyrestoringtothevictim andtothecommunitythelossesthatresultfromcrime,byreconcilingthetransgressor,tothevictimandthecommunity,andbyachievingthesegoalsthroughtheactive participationofallpartiesinvolved.”60 Thefocusofrestorativejustice,therefore,is onrehabilitatingandhealingthedignityofthevictimandthevictimizer.61 Inthis light,thepossibilitiesofreconciliationandtheemergenceofanewcommunityis opened.
HowarewetoevaluateMetz’sunderstandingofthesubjectfromthisperspective? Obviously,thecentralityofhumanbeingsinrestorativejusticecanbereconciled withMetz’spoliticaltheologyofthesubject.However,suchaconceptofjusticeis stillproblematicifweconfrontitwith memoriapassionis thathasbeenforgotten foralongtime.Therealvictimsmayhavediedorthereconciliationprocessmay haveinvolvedathirdparty thedescendantsofthevictim,governmentorother parties onbehalfofthevictims.Inthiscase,restorativejusticecanonlybe employedsymbolically.62
Isforgivenessasubstituteforjustice?Onlyanamnesicforgiveness Iusethis oxymoronically cansubstituteforjustice,asitisnotatrueforgiveness.As MiroslavVolfputsit,
Forgivenessisnomeredischargeofavictim’sangryresentmentandnomereassuagingof aperpetrator’sremorsefulanguish,onethatdemandsnochangeoftheperpetratorand norightingofwrongs.Onthecontrary:everyactofforgivenessenthronesjustice;it drawsattentiontoitsviolationpreciselybyofferingtoforegoitsclaims[…]Only thosewhoareforgivenandwhoarewillingtoforgivewillbecapableofrelentlesslypursuingjusticewithoutfallingintothetemptationtopervertitintoinjustice,wecould add.63
Historyandtheriskofforgiveness
TimeandhistoryarecentralinMetz’sunderstandingofpoliticaleschatology. However,wehaveseenthatAuschwitzmakestheconfidenceinGod’sactionin historymoreproblematic.Itdepictsthe “interruptionofevil,” incontrastto God’sinterruptioninMetz’searliertheology.Inthislight,HannahArendt’sexplorationofforgivenessisuseful.Shemaintainsthattheconsequencesaswellasthe “frustration” ofhumanactionaremarkedbyirreversibility,unpredictability,and anonymity.64 Thosethreeconsequencesarefrustratingpredicamentsforhuman life,buttheyarestillremediablethrough “thepotentialitiesofactionitself.” Whiletheonlywayoutofthepredicamentofirreversibilityistheactofforgiving,
60 Digeser.Politicalforgiveness,Ibid.,reconciliation(Geneva:WCCPublications;2000),p.44.
61 Tutu,Nofuturewithoutforgiveness,p.55.
62 Irealizethecomplexproblemofpoliticalforgivenessinrelationtoresponsibilityofthegovernmenttopunishcriminalsthatisextremelydifficulttosolve.However,theissueisnotmyfocusinthispaperandIsuggestaspecificresearch onthismatterinthefuture.
63 MiroslavVolf,Exclusionandembrace:atheologicalexplorationofidentity,otherness,andreconciliation(Nashville, TN:AbingdonPress;1996),p.123.
64 HannahArendt,Thehumancondition(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress;1958),p.220.
thepossiblesolutionofunpredictabilityiscontainedinthehumancapabilityto makeandkeeppromises.65
Sinceanactionissimplyirreversibleandimmediatelybelongstothepast,one cannotundowhatonehasdone.Whatremainsisthefactthatwearethevictims ofconsequencesforever.Forgivenessisanactionthatinterruptssucharecurrence ofconsequences.Incontrastwithrevengethatis “thenatural,automaticreaction totransgressionandwhich[…]canbeexpectedandevencalculated,” theactofforgivenessisunexpectedandunconditioned “bytheactwhichprovokedit.”66 BelievingthatforgivenessisrediscoveredbyJesusofNazareth,Arendtmaintainsthat “only love canforgivebecauseonlylove[is] willing toforgivehimwhateverhe mayhavedone.”67 Inher TheLifeoftheMind:Willing,Arendtalsoregardslove asthetransformationofwill;even, “theWill[…]canalsobedefinedasLove.”68 However,followingAugustine,Arendtarguesthatwillcannotbeseparatedfrom memoryandintellect,sincetheyareonemindandmutuallyrefertoeachother. “MemoryandIntellectarebothcontemplativeand,assuch,passive;itistheWill thatmakesthemfunction.”69 Inshort,accordingtoArendt,loveistheactivation ofwill,memory,andintellect;andoneoftheresultsofsuchmentalactivityisforgiveness.Herewefindagaintheconnectionbetweenmemoryandforgiveness. UsingArendt’sperspective,wecansaythatwithouttheforgivenessthatcomes fromthehumanwill,memorycannotbefruitfulandconstructive.
Asforgivenessisaremedyforirreversibility,theabilitytomakeandkeeppromisescanbearemedyfortheunpredictabilityofthefuture.Onceweforgivesomeone, thereisnocertaintythats/hewillnotrepeatthewrongthathasbeendonebefore. Theonlyreasonableactionistobelievethepromiseofthevictimizer.Inthislight, promiseis “isolatedislandsofcertaintyinanoceanofuncertainty,”70 thatcanbe misusedeasilybythosewhohavebeenforgiven.Althoughpromise-makingisa risk,theactofmakingandkeepingpromisescanacttoinstillasenseofhopeof reconciliationforthevictims.
Conclusion
IhavediscussedatlengthMetz’spoliticaltheologyofthesubjectandhisnotionof memoriapassionis asatheologicalcategory,throughwhichwecantakethesideof thevictims.Ialsohavedemonstratedthelimitofsucha memoriapassionis inthe lightofpoliticalforgiveness.Inthefinalsections,Ihaveexploredthreeimportant themesthatariseinMetzbutneedtobewidenedifweseepeaceandreconciliation asourultimategoals.
65 Ibid.,pp.236–7.
66 Ibid.,p.241.ItisalsoMiroslavVolf ’smainthesisthatforgivenessshouldbeunconditional(1996).Tendaysafter9/ 11,Volfsaysinhisinterviewfor ChristianityToday, “[ ]awilltoembraceandbereconciledwithourenemy[ ]is absolutelyunconditional.Thereisnoimaginabledeedthatshouldtakeapersonoutsideourwilltoembracehim, becausethereisnoimaginabledeedthatcantakeapersonoutofGod’swilltoembracehumanity.” TonyCarnes.To embracetheenemy:isreconciliationpossibleinthewakeofsuchevil?Aninterviewwithmiroslavvolf,Christianity today,September1,2001, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/septemberweb-only/9-17-53.0.html.
67 Arendt,Humancondition,pp.242–3;emphasismine.
68 HannahArendt,Thelifeofthemind:vol.II:willing(NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich;1978),p.102.
69 Arendt,Willing,p.99.
70 Ibid.,p.244.
Toconclude,Metzhasprovidedanecessaryandfundamentalbasisforlong journeytowardsreconciliation.However,Metz’sproposalisnotsufficienttobe theonlyanswerforourultimategoal.BytranscendingMetz’s memoriapassionis, wehaveprovedthathisproposalisreallyvaluable.Ialsohavepointedoutthat withoutwillingnesstomoveforwardbyemployingforgiveness,remembering couldbedangerousinitsnegativesense.
Ihavetriednottoeaseorromanticizeforgivenessandreconciliation,asiftheycan beeasilyreached.Onthecontrary,itismorepainfulforthevictimstostepoutfrom theirplaceandembracetheirtrespassers.Likememory,Ibelieve,forgivenessisalso dangerous.Byforgiving,thevictimsopenthemselvestoavulnerable,unpredictable, openfuture.Theyareinvitedtowalktowardthefuture,eitherwithorwithouttheir forgivenoppressors,howeverpainfulitmightbetothevictims,suppliedonlywith tenuouspromise.However,bydoingthis,thevictimsbecomethepriestsof “civic sacrament, ”71 presenting thecovenantalGodinChrist.Insuchnewsacrament, Godinterruptshistoryoncemore,afterhehasbeen absent inAuschwitz,Papua,Sarajevo,andmanyotheratrociousplaces.Reconciliationisnota utopia.Rather,itisa eutopia afterall!72
ORCID
JoasAdiprasetya http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2208-4407
References
Arendt,Hannah.Thehumancondition,CharlesR.Walgreenfoundationlectures.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress; 1958
Arendt,Hannah.EichmanninJerusalem:areportonthebanalityofevil.NewYork:VikingPress; 1963
Arendt,Hannah.Thelifeofthemind:Vol.II.Willing.1sted.NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich; 1978 Ashley,JamesM.Interruptions:mysticism,politics,andtheologyintheworkofJohannBaptistMetz,studiesin spiritualityandtheology.NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress; 1998 Bartrop,PaulR.Smailovic,Vedran.In:Abiographicalencyclopediaofcontemporarygenocideportraitsofevil andgood.SantaBarbara,CA:ABC-CLIO; 2012.pp.300–01.
Baumeister,RoyF.Evil:insidehumancrueltyandviolence.NewYork:W.H.Freeman; 1997. Biggar,Nigel.Forgivenessinthetwentiethcentury:areviewofliterature,1901–2001.In:AlistairMcFadyenand MarcelSaroteditors.Forgivenessandtruth:explorationsincontemporarytheology.Edinburgh/NewYork: T&TClark; 2001.pp.181–217.
Booth,W.James.Theunforgotten:memoriesofjustice.AmPolitSciRev. 2001;95(4):777–91. Carnes,Tony.Toembracetheenemy:isreconciliationpossibleinthewakeofsuchevil?Aninterviewwith MiroslavVolf.ChristianityToday,September1,2001, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/ septemberweb-only/9–17–53.0.html
Chopp,RebeccaS.Thepraxisofsuffering:aninterpretationofliberationandpoliticaltheologies.Maryknoll, NY:OrbisBooks; 1986
Derrida,Jacques.Oncosmopolitanismandforgiveness.London/NewYork:Routledge; 2002 Digeser,Peter.Politicalforgiveness.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress; 2001 Forsberg,Tuomas.Thephilosophyandpracticeofdealingwiththepast:someconceptualandnormativeissues. In:NigelBiggareditor.Buryingthepast:makingpeaceanddoingjusticeaftercivilconflict.Washington,DC: GeorgetownUniversityPress; 2001.pp.57–72.
71 W.JamesBooth,Theunforgotten:memoriesofjustice.AmericanPoliticalScienceReview.2001;95(4):783.
72 While utopia means “noplace,” eutopia means “goodplace.”
Jacques,Geneviève.Beyondimpunity:anecumenicalapproachtotruth,justice,andreconcilation.Geneva: WCCPublications; 2000.
Johns,RogerDick.Manintheworld:thepoliticaltheologyofJohannesBaptistMetz.Missoula,MT:Published byScholarsPressfortheAmericanAcademyofReligion; 1976.
Kaplan,DavidM.ReadingRicoeur.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress; 2008. Knitter,PaulF.Oneearth,manyreligions:multifaithdialogueandglobalresponsibility.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis Books; 1995.
Martinez,Gaspar.ConfrontingthemysteryofGod:political,liberation,andpublictheologies.NewYork: Continuum; 2001
Metz,JohannB.Theologyoftheworld.London/NewYork:Burns&Oates&HerderandHerder; 1971
Metz,JohannB.Messianicor ‘bourgeois’ religion?OnthecrisisofthechurchinwestGermany.Concilium. 1979;5(125):68–70.
Metz,JohannB.Faithinhistoryandsociety:towardapracticalfundamentaltheology.NewYork:Seabury Press; 1980
Metz,JohannB.Theemergentchurch:thefutureofChristianityinapostbourgeoisworld.NewYork: Crossroad; 1981.
Metz,JohannB.Facingthejews:Christiantheologyafterauschwitz.In:ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenzaandDavid Tracyeditors.Theholocaustasinterruption.Edinburgh:T&TClark; 1984.pp.26–33.
Metz,JohannB.JohannBaptistMetz.In:JürgenMoltmanneditor.HowIhavechanged:reflectionsonthirty yearsoftheology.Harrisburg,PA:TrinityPressInternational; 1997.pp.31–36.
Metz,JohannB.Apassionforgod:themystical-politicaldimensionofChristianity.TranslatedbyJames MatthewAshley.NewYork:PaulistPress; 1998.
Metz,JohannB.Inthepluralismofreligiousandculturalworlds:notestowardatheologicalandpolitical program.CrossCurr. 1999;49(2):227–36.
Müller-Fahrenholz,Geiko.Theartofforgiveness:theologicalreflectionsonhealingandreconciliation.Geneva: WCCPublications; 1997
Schuster,Ekkehard,JohannesBaptistMetz,ElieWiesel,andReinholdBoschert-Kimmig.Hopeagainsthope: JohannBaptistMetzandElieWieselspeakoutontheholocaust,studiesinJudaismandChristianity. NewYork:PaulistPress; 1999
Shriver,DonaldW.Anethicforenemies:forgivenessinpolitics.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress; 1995 Tutu,Desmond.Nofuturewithoutforgiveness.1sted.NewYork:Doubleday; 1999 VandenBroek,TheoP.A.andDarpanAriawinangun. MemoriaPassionisdiPapua:KondisiSosialPolitikdan HakAsasiManusia:Gambaran2000.Jayapura:SekretariatKeadilandanPerdamaian,KeuskupanJayapura, &LembagaStudiPersdanPembangunan; 2001.
Volf,Miroslav.ExclusionandEmbrace:atheologicalexplorationofidentity,otherness,andreconciliation. Nashville,TN:AbingdonPress; 1996.
Notesoncontributor
JoasAdiprasetyaistheDeanofPublicRelationatJakartaTheologicalSeminaryin Jakarta,Indonesia,wherehealsoteachesconstructivetheologyandtheologyofreligions.HislatestbookisAnImaginativeGlimpse:TheTrinityandMultipleReligious Participations(2013).
Correspondenceto:JoasAdiprasetya,JakartaTheologicalSeminary,Indonesia. Email:j.adiprasetya@sttjakarta.ac.id
Copyright Political Theology the property Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not copied emailed multiple sites posted a listserv without the copyright express written permission. However, users may print, download, email articles for individual