Hand in Hand The topic of the eleventh Mozaik is ecumenism and reconciliation: stories from Europe. In this issue we consider several questions: how can we come closer together, as churches and as peoples in Europe? What can we learn from our ecumenical ancestors on this journey? These topics are of great importance now for the World Student Christian Federation Europe Region. The method of non-violence as political and spiritual force was dealt with in the WSCF Nordic Winter Meeting in Trosa, Vagnhärad (Sweden) in February 2003. Our European Regional Assembly (ERA) in Finland in October 2003 explores how WSCF as an actor of church history has shaped and continues to shape the ecumenical movement. Through this we strive to discover our roots and to look to the future. Healing and reconciliation are the themes of the Conference of European Churches (KEK) General Assembly in Trondheim, Norway, in June 2003, with the youth meeting co-organised by WSCF-Europe. We must pose the question for ourselves: what do ecumenism and reconciliation mean for us? Enormous changes in our continent in the last fifty or sixty years are still living memories: how were our communities and our churches part of these changes? What is our vision for the future? The seventeen articles inside this edition reflect upon the possibility of rereading and re-evaluating history and church history in order to enhance reconciliation among various identities. We are grateful to receive inputs from Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Spain, and also the United States of America. There are five sections of dialogue within the journal. After the introduction, the opening section, Redrafted Memories, provides a theoretical and Biblical grounding for the topic. Forgiving and kenosis (emptying-out) are means to reach understanding in the postmodern age as well, including the prominent question of female leadership in the Church. The section Cloaks of Sophia brings inputs from the realm of philosophy and history of ideas. ARISTIPPOS, DIOGENES, ROUSSEAU, BAUDELAIRE, MOUNIER and ZIGO bring us closer to the ancient Cyrenaic school, virtuous atheism and personalism. In the section Inflaming the Rainbow, the ecumenical history is looked at from different perspectives. The sometimes rebellious, sometimes tradition-respecting story of WSCF receives its place in this narrative as well. The seventeenth century Central European history appears as a foretaste of the movement for Christian unity. We are especially grateful to John George HUBER, the chair of the Faith, Order and Witness Committee of the Ecumenical Council of San Diego County, that he shares with us his vision of intra-Christian dialogue. In our fourth section, encountering the Geometry of Unity, we intend to research social and political issues, questions and answers, like poverty or church–state relations. The divided half century in this part of the globe has its mark on our way of thinking, even when approaching the enlargement of the European Union. Bible studies are a long tradition within WSCF and the Student Christian Movements. A Psalm of David, number 103, provides opportunities to reflect upon personal and communitarian reconciliation. Because we are beyond the first ten years of the journal, and after the first ten issues, we enlist the contents of the previous Mozaiks as a historical overview on what we have produced during our first decade. We encourage our readers and supporters to write-in with responses to the articles contained in this issue of Mozaik as well. Please send all comments, feedback, questions and further ideas on stories, histories and reconciliations to our email address (wscfmozaik@yahoo.co.uk). Finally, we are proud to introduce our illustrator, Agnes AVAGYAN, a member of the Armenian SCM, who has been assigned the Diva title in the Russian Guinness Book of Records for her extraordinary ability to draw with both of her hands simultaneously. Her cartoons aim to make life more enjoyable while exposing bureaucracy, injustice, ignorance and other negative features of the contemporary society to tough criticism. Her paintings are warm-coloured and point to the bright side of life. In short, her art tries to make the audience notice the conciling beauty around us without forgetting the manifoldness of life’s joys and sorrows.
MOZAIK
2003/1
Orinta Z V I K A I T E - R Ö T T I N G
The Meaning of Reconciliation Keep my words positive: Words become my behaviours. Keep my behaviours positive: Behaviours become my habits. Keep my habits positive: Habits become my values. Keep my values positive: Values become my destiny. There is no dress rehearsal: This is one day in your life. (Mahatma GANDHI)
Writing about some important words is like reaching a new fixation in the right disposition of time. Those who love peace as a way of life, use the word ‘reconciliation’ as a synonym for human relationships. Digging up the meanings of the words could be the same as creating new words and new relationships. Hanna Arendt gave the starting thought for my short search. She said that any interest and talking about a subject we do not really know, is dilettantism, but it is also strength to see the subjects in a different light and in a holistic context. Finding the meaning is a huge challenge, so I would be amateurish to do so. To feel responsible for newer words, which emerge as recontextualisations of old ones, is to make sense of a new language, which describes it. Reconciliation, the word and the idea, springs up alongside the idea of the world becoming smaller and nearer. If we use the word ‘reconciliation’, should we not know the other meanings of it and the responsibility carried by it in different illuminations? MAPPING MEANINGS The quantity and creativity of word systems in the human mind are astonishing. Our brains can comprehend meanings, but they have to be simplified, grouped and generalised. Painters can count more colour nuances than an ordinary person can distinguish. A regular eye can discern ten to twenty shades of colour, while theoretically eyes would be capable to see hundreds of colour nuances. Here we stand in front of the countless meanings and nuances crossing our minds with abstract words and take the step of a child. The human mind uses general meanings in learning to discriminate from other meanings. As children we copied what we heard from adults and transferred it into our own private dictionary, sometimes even in a mistaken way. Then we learnt the different meanings of the words. Psycholinguistic searches for aspects of pragmatic meaning of signs are saved in our memories as words. They concentrate on the semantic aspect and analyse the way the meaning of the words could be learned. According to linguists, who made their findings in the fifties, sixties and seventies, meaning can be explained in associations (to things, events or objects), in presentation or imagery, or in containing more meaning components. For example, some semantic meanings of the word ‘reconciliation’ could lead us to find synonyms (like ‘settlement’, ‘resolution’, ‘appeasement’, ‘compromise’, ‘ceasefire’ or ‘reunion’), to find antonyms (‘indecisiveness’, ‘irresolution’, ‘vacillation’, ‘hesitance’ or ‘uncertainty’) or to locate the word in a group of words (it might be ‘a subject implicating solution’ or maybe ‘state of solution’). MAPPING MISTAKES What happens to us when we use the word ‘reconciliation’ as the concept used in the political, religious or everyday relational discourse? Can we make a mistake without knowing it? Miscommunication appears in frequent company
4
>
with “awkward moments”, “inherent ambiguities”, “communication conflicts”, “communication breakdowns” and “communicative failures.” The idealistic position says that language can be perfect and “clean.” On the other hand, at least the ambiguity and indirectness, the difference between speech and intended meaning, and more generally, coherence and mutual knowledge do play a critical role in human speech. On top of all that comes our willingness to comprehend and to connect it with known or planned actions. Studies on intercultural communication use ‘misunderstanding’ as a central category. We can learn different nuances, we can choose different meanings and we can make different associations. THE FORMATION HISTORY OF ‘RECONCILIATION’ Many nations share the idea that we share a global history, and reconciliation is a word to express this common belief. The formation histories of European languages help to see those hidden connections. We can find the meanings of the shared words in their past, in their etymology. English dictionaries say: ‘reconciliation’ is ‘the act of reconciling’, ‘the condition of being reconciled’ and ‘the penance’. ‘Reconciliatio’ in Latin, ‘reconciliation’ in Old French, ‘reconsiliacion’ in Middle English: they all mean to re-establish a close relationship, to settle or resolve, to bring (oneself) to accept, to make compatible or consistent. The synonym of ‘reconciliation’ is ‘adaptation’. ‘To adapt’ means ‘to re-establish a close relationship’, as in marriage, or ‘to become compatible or consistent’. ‘To conciliate’ means ‘to overcome the distrust or animosity’, ‘to appease’, ‘to regain or to try to regain a friendship or goodwill by pleasant behaviour’, ‘to make or to attempt to make compatible’. The synonym of ‘to conciliate’ is ‘to pacify’. Dictionaries point out the connection between ‘reconcile’ and ‘pacify’. ‘To pacify’ means ‘to ease the anger or agitation’, ‘to end war, fighting, or violence’; or simply ‘to establish peace’. In Middle English it was written as ‘pacifien’, in Old French as ‘pacifier’, in Latin as ‘pacificare’. Without a doubt, the translations of ‘reconciliation’ into other languages take one or the other aspect of the meaning or add some extra. In my native Lithuanian the same word ‘susitaikymas’ could also mean ‘to reconcile with oneself to one’s fate or lot’ or ‘to put up with a situation’ and ‘to accept discomfort’. Do we all, German, Spanish and Chinese, mean the same thing when we talk about reconciliation? Probably, we do not mean the same thing. How do we learn about reconciliation? What associations, what meanings does it carry? How do we deal with the natural misunderstandings of the meaning we could not know? Where does the word come from? Can the way I understand reconciliation connect me with the meaning other people have and be implemented into practice?
MOZAIK
POLITICAL HISTORY AND ECOLOGY The meaning of the word ‘reconciliation’ can be connected and associated with many factors, fields and emotions. The next examples are just sporadically chosen ones about the usage of ‘reconciliation’ in politics and culture, in linguistics, in theology, in psychoanalysis, in pedagogy. Aborigines in Australia or First Nations in North America claim back their cultural inheritance and their socio-political dignity, and respond to the promotion of land rights, protection of indigenous sacred lands and ethics. Who could provide us – and on what basis – with the right answer when we pose the question: what does reconciliation with the newcomer nations mean in these very lands and in this context? Moving toward the approaches of ecological reconciliation we must take a broader scope. It promotes the adoption of life support systems reconciled with the mutual benefit of the country and their own life together with other beings. We remember the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in the South African Republic, the reconciliation with the Two-Thirds World and the reconciliation of democratic social politics, which support the collective decision taking into consideration the individual at the same time. LINGUISTICS AND PEDAGOGY Linguists talk about the reconciliation of language and about finding a common etymology in deliberately developed alphabets in neighbouring or opposed languages, which were developed purposefully in order to show cultural and political differences. Itamar EVEN-ZOHAR describes the case of the Urdu language. Urdu became a vehicle for separate Muslim national ideology, a vehicle of struggle for national identity in Northern India against the Hindi and Hindustani speakers and Hindu religionists. Hindi adopted more and more elements from Sanskrit, invented new words, “purified” itself from Arabic and Persian elements. Urdu went the other way around: it adopted more and more Arabic and Persian glosses and “purified” itself from Sanskrit as much as possible. Hindi has deliberately coined new words, current words, in order not to be identical with Urdu. In reconciling pedagogies, teachers speak about learning to be focused less on language in case of children of nonnative speakers in the class, and to be focused less on limitations, but on interaction or action in the class. PSYCHOANALYSIS AND THEOLOGY Psychoanalysis teaches, for example, diplomats and politicians participating in various types of negotiations to consider the shared trauma in conflict situations, which can be shaped by different intended or unintended disasters, their scope ranging from serious earthquakes to bloody terror attacks. All these phenomena are connected to the wide area of the reconciliation of our memory mechanisms in identity and identity building. Roman Catholic and Orthodox theological thinking talks about the sacrament of reconciliation among the seven sacraments. That means the
2003/1
reconciliation with God in rediscovering the compassionate heart of God and reliving a serious commitment to charity and love. “Be reconciled to God... Behold, now is the acceptable time” (2 Corinthians 5, 20 and 6, 2). MANY MEANINGS AND ONE IDEA It seams that our generation creates more universal words or internationalisms than any other generations. Misunderstanding is one of the main creative engines of ideas. The exchange between individuals and the change every individual carries subscribe to the meaning in cooperation, negotiation and perhaps not in a primarily instinctive agreement, but at least an intention to consensus. The word ‘reconciliation’ is not simple, it has endless implications we could not all discover and we cannot imagine to portray what it means to anybody else unless someone tells us and tries to continue to reflect on it in her or his own language and culture. Reconciliation is a concept, which can be described and should be learnt from different perspectives, from different associations and from the dictionaries of rare languages. The idea of reconciliation does not lose its strength and value if we get to know more and more meanings of this word. Nonetheless the idea becomes more imaginary, more connective, and more associative. This expression creates more projects and justifies the time we spent delving in our dictionary. UNIFICATION, FORGIVENESS AND PEACE We cannot easily change that we select meanings due to the capacity of our brains. Mistakes in the circumstances of a conflict are some natural facts of communication, which we realise in accepting the path of negotiating and willingness to agreement. Every culture develops the trajectory of language through history, through its ethics on ecology. The way we understand education describes the way we accept the continuous lifelong learning process. Every person individually chooses the meanings they learned in questioning their identity and religious beliefs. The meaning of ‘reconciliation’ associates different things to each member of our community, depending on the knowledge and memory of the individual on history, language and psychology. Consequently, the formation of the word ‘reconciliation’ is very far from our conscious understanding of it. But the feeling tells us the truth. There is a single idea behind the feeling of the word ‘reconciliation’ – the idea of the process of unification, forgiveness and peace. It is a very new idea in the history of our modern civilisation, therefore it has to be discussed, questioned and developed meaningfully. Suggested Reading KATZ J. J., The Philosophy of the Language. – London, 1966. ALPHER Joseph (ed.), Nationalism and Modernity: A Mediterranean Perspective. 1986. ECO Umberto, Serendipities: Language and Lunacy. Columbia, 1998. CHOMSKY Noam, Language and Thought. Rhode Island, 1993.
New York
New York,
Orinta ZVIKAITE-RÖTTING was born in Kaunas (Lithuania) and married Martin from München (Germany). She has graduated at Trinity College, Dublin (Irish School of Ecumenics) in the International Peace Studies programme (M. Phil.), currently she is working in the area of Peace Pedagogic in South Germany. She is a member of the Lithuanian Catholic Youth Organisation “Ateitis” (Future). Her email address is roettingmo@gmx.de.
5
MOZAIK
Redrafted Memories
2003/1
Lene Suh N I C O L A I S E N
Changing the Way we Remember The modern ecumenical movement has its roots in the peace efforts in the XXth century. The continent has been devastated by two world wars, an iron curtain, several ethnic conflicts and wars. The ecumenical movement has tried to respond to the needs of its time, as for instance with aid to war prisoners during World War II. Exactly because of their religious background they were allowed through doors that would have been closed otherwise. The deep conflicts that have marked Europe’s call for solutions of a certain profundity and such are not easily attained when a lasting peace is the goal. It seems though that our efforts must reach a certain level of reconciliation if peace is to last at all. This essay is a reflection on what interpersonal forgiveness means in the process of reconciliation. It suggests that the way we remember the past fundamentally determines how we can enter the future. NOURISHING THE GROUND FOR A FRUITFUL FUTURE From a Christian perspective, any discussion of forgiveness and reconciliation must be rooted in the understanding that it is from God. What makes forgiveness and reconciliation possible is the love and the grace of God and it is not achievable by human beings alone. Secondly, we need to distinguish between individual and social reconciliation. The goal of individual reconciliation is the restoration of the humanity of a person. Individual reconciliation is not about restoring a previous condition but about transformation; and in order to do so, it must contain the memory of the past. But reconciliation makes a new creation (2 Corinthians 5, 17-20) of both the perpetrator and the victim. The goal of social reconciliation is to create conditions that will prevent the previous trauma from being repeated, e.g. to avoid another war or ethnic conflict. Whereas social reconciliation is not a precondition for individual reconciliation, it is hard to imagine social reconciliation without at least some reconciled individuals in the leadership. “Forgive and forget” is a way of speaking, which indicates that it is about time to leave the past for the sake of the future. Yet this expression takes the incisiveness out of forgiving. Forgiveness is not amnesia. Against this is a Jewish proverb: “Forgetting prolongs captivity. Remembering is the secret of redemption.” The danger in this saying is to fall into the other ditch where remembering becomes a weapon to be on guard against anyone alien. When memories are used to maintain and solidify stereotypes it works the other way around, in fact it prolongs captivity. NEGATIVE DEFINITIONS OF FORGIVENESS It is crucial to clarify what is meant by “forgiveness”. As already suggested, forgiveness is not forgetting. Neither is it pretending that things are different than what they seem. It is not condoning or excusing, nor can forgiveness be equated with mere acceptance or tolerance of injustice. Neither is it the same as legal pardon, nor must we confuse forgiveness with pseudo-forgiveness. Pseudo-forgiveness is basically a manoeuvre to maintain power or gain power over others. This is the case when a
6
> > >
person continually reminds the offender of the injury done. This is exercising superiority incompatible with forgiveness. Forgiveness does not leave the offender indebted to the victim. The power to forgive is different from the power to do harm. FORGIVENESS AND MEMORY Forgiveness means abandoning the right to pay back the perpetrator with her or his own coin. Forgiveness is about not being controlled by the past. The Roman Catholic theologian Robert J. SCHREITER C.PP.S makes the point that forgiveness is about changing the way we remember. The very reason why forgiveness is not to be equated with forgetfulness is that remembrance is a key issue in the process of forgiveness. Memory is closely tied up with our identity. But our memory is a construct and changes all the time as new experiences are added and others are forgotten. Some memories are painful and can have a paralysing effect on a person, creating the sense of being trapped in the past. By bringing the memory out, through telling the story, new perspectives are added and change the way we tell and remember our story. Memory also has a preventive character. Philosopher George SANTAYANA put it in this way: “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.” In establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the South African Republic, bringing out the truth was exactly one of the intentions. Experiences from other TRCs, especially in Chile, had shown how real reconciliation was complicated by the fact that no answers were ever given regarding the human rights violations that had taken place during the military dictatorships. In order to avoid a similar situation, the telling of stories has been quintessential for the TRC in South Africa. The aim has been that no one should be able to say, “I did not know.” FORGIVENESS AS PROCESS AND DECISION Forgiveness has little to do with magic. Forgiveness is hard work and it involves both process and decision. The process involves bringing the truth to light, recognising and acknowledging the wounds as wounds. Yet process still leaves the decision to be made to forgive and at this point it becomes clear that forgiveness is not just about the deed that caused the trauma, but more about the relationship to the ongoing effects. Nothing can restore the condition prior to the trauma, but forgiveness means that the balance of power has passed from the traumatic event to the victim. The victim can decide for the future and become a survivor, which means to be able to see that there is a life after the traumatic event. I believe this is true also when it comes to forgiving oneself. A person can be burdened by the guilt of what they have caused to another person and as such
Redrafted Memories is controlled by the past to the extent where it can be difficult to see the future. Forgiveness, however, is no easy affair and the decision to forgive is where human and divine forgiveness intersect. The ability to decide to forgive comes from the restoration of humanity that is the grace of reconciliation coming from God. “Forgiveness is an acknowledgement that the victim is now a new creation and in a position to imagine a different future.” (Robert J. SCHREITER CPPS) Forgiveness is the deliberate decision and process of changing one’s way of thinking and feeling toward someone who has done harm to us. It is a willed change of heart. FORGIVENESS AND HEALING Forgiveness challenges a person to the limits of what can be considered reasonable and manageable. It challenges a person to look closer at the hurt that has been done, to bring it out in the open public realm. The Greek word for healing (soteria) also means ‘salvation’. Another meaning of the word is ‘deliverance’. When Jesus heals in the gospels, he brings salvation. The person is being restored from her or his brokenness and brought back into an organic whole. It is a transition from a marginalised existence to the centre of existence. The meaning of deliverance has an exodus-aspect. Something happens and a transition from one condition to another takes place, from the margins to the centre as in the story of the Israelites in Exodus. Forgiveness is a tremendous part of the healing for both victim and perpetrator. It is a deliverance from a state of captivity where humanity is violated. As long as the victim has not forgiven the perpetrator – if a perpetrator can be identified – the person is still captive of the past. And as long as the perpetrator has not received forgiveness and repented, the person is still captive of a dark past. The decision to forgive is a decision for the future, but can only be made if the past is addressed in an adequate way. REVENGE OR UNDERSTANDING The pain of the past can destroy a life. This was embodied in the recent Belgian movie The Son by JeanPierre DARDENNE and Luc DARDENNE. It is a story about Olivier, a carpentry teacher who works in a vocational program for troubled boys. One day a new boy, Francis arrives and after Olivier has tried to keep him out of his class, he finally decides to take him in. The atmosphere is tense. Why is Francis not welcome in the class? It turns out that Francis as a young kid had killed Olivier’s son. We understand that the murder apparently began the detour of Olivier’s life. He got divorced and the character reflects a deeply wounded and anxious person, who does not seem to have any close relationships. The movie peaks as Olivier takes Francis out to a mill to pick up wood and after hav-
MOZAIK
2003/1
ing had the opportunity to take revenge, he lets Francis go, who only at this point realises the connection with his teacher. But the movie also shows another aspect of forgiveness. I think Olivier realises that his life has been tormented enough by the deed done by Francis, and Olivier does not need to add to the heap of suffering a new terrible deed himself. I think Olivier reaches this understanding as he comes to understand Francis more. Olivier visits Francis’ home and sees what a lonely place it is. Francis also tells him parts of his story before he recognises that Olivier is the father of the child he killed, and through the story Olivier understands that Francis’ life has not been easy. He does not have much contact with his family as his mother’s new husband would not allow it and he paid a high price by the time he had served in juvenile detention. THE ROLE OF WSCF AND THE SCMS This leads me to question how the World Student Christian Federation (WSCF) and the local Student Christian Movements (SCMs) can contribute to the forgiveness and reconciliation process that need to take place in our continent. We can focus on the issues at stake and facilitate meetings and seminars where we share our experiences and where we come to realise, by getting to know the other, that she or he is not just any other, but a person of indefinite value by being the child of God. This part has a preventive character. By building bridges, we come to a better understanding of each other and understanding is quintessential in reaching the respect for others that can help prevent conflict. But WSCF and our SCMs must also be able to help people deal with traumas and as religious communities we can provide a safe and potentially healing place. The safe place, where stories can be told and retold again and again, where there are ears willing to listen and hands willing to serve is the first step toward forgiveness and reconciliation. We can help enhance the narrative and the understanding and tolerance about each other. We can help broaden the horizon, which I believe is quintessential in creating a reconciled world in blessed diversity.
Suggested Reading ENRIGHT Robert J. – NORTH Joanna (eds.), Exploring Forgiveness. Madison, 1998. MULLER-FAHRENHOLTZ Geiko, The Art of Forgiveness. Geneva, 1997. SCHREITER Robert J. C.PP.S, Reconciliation. Mission and Ministry in a Changing Social Order. New York, 1992. SCHREITER Robert J. CPPS, The Ministry of Reconciliation. Spirituality and Strategies. New York, 1998. TUTU Desmond Mpilo, No Future without Forgiveness. New York, 1999. VOLF Miroslav, Exclusion and Embrace. A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville, 1996.
Lene Suh NICOLAISEN is Lutheran and studies theology at the University of Aarhus in Denmark and she is currently finishing an MA degree at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago (USA). She has been active at all levels in the Danish YMCA and YWCA, in campus ministry and in ecumenical work. She participates in the joint World Council of Churches (WCC) and WSCF Interregional Leadership Training Program (2001–2003). Her email is: lenesn@hotmail.com.
7
MOZAIK
Redrafted Memories
2003/1
N A G Y P Á L Szabolcs
The Ministry
of
Reconciliation
“Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” (John 12, 24)
God entrusted us with the duty and responsibility for bringing God’s peace to all people on Earth. Reconciliation inside and outside is the main aim of any dialogue, be it ecumenical or interreligious, which are the great and adventurous endeavours of present-day Christianity. In dialogue the participants aim for a conversion of thinking and for building a reconciled community. These are the hoped for effects of dialogue for the person and for humanity. In our essay we present a radical methodological proposal to move forward in our ministry of dialogical reconciliation. COEXISTENCE, CONVIVENCE AND COOPERATION There are two types of dialogue: the (indirect) dialogue of love and the (direct) dialogue of truth. First, let us have a look at the dialogue of love, which embraces the sociopolitical dialogue of action and the experiential dialogue of life and participation. A group of people – not yet a community – in building up their belonging and in aiming for common identity in dialogue of love, can make three steps in the way of dialogue of life, action and participation. These steps are coexistence, convivence and cooperation. On the level of coexistence, the group aims for tolerance, understanding, respect and appreciation through the elimination of mutual prejudice, intolerance and misunderstandings, improper and inadequate words, judgements and actions. The territory of convivence offers serious reflection, reception and advancement through the open exchange of experience and witness of faith, love and hope; using honest cross-questioning and respectful listening. Thirdly, cooperation contributes to various solutions of conflicts through the promotion of consciousness and perfection; through the service of our neighbour in common human tasks, while strengthening the good and fighting against sin. As soon as a group made a commitment towards these steps, and continued to put them into practice, a community is born. The fruits of this endeavour are manifold, and concern partly the inner cohesion of the community and partly the outer common effects. As for the communitarian consequence, a certain element of ‘already and not yet’ is present in all possible opportunities for dialogue. In the process of identity-building, a new self-understanding is created, a fusion of transcendental horizons, converging to a new common horizon. A unity of reconciled differences appears which is endured and productively shaped. The community starts to maintain a consensus of conscience, providing each other with friendship, sisterhood and brotherhood. DISCOURSE ON TRUTH Parallel with the dialogue of love, the direct dialogue of truth embraces the intellectual dialogue of discourse and spiritual dialogue. Compared with non-religious types of
8
> > > > >
through
Kenosis
dialogue, the interreligious and ecumenical dialogue brings about new dimensions in the dialogical game seeking the truth. We mention interreligious dialogue first, because the cement and glue already linking the participants is strong in one hand, but general enough on the other. The basis of interreligious dialogue, apart from our common humanity, is the nature of the people seeking and serving the transcendental truth. Therefore, the community we hope as a fruit of interreligious dialogue is the theocentric community of people longing for God and the transcendental. The goal of interreligious dialogue is the deepening of our commonalties and spiritual values, the further discovery of experiences and dimensions of the divine mystery, through mutual enrichment and exchange of charisma. When focusing on the intra-Christian application of the general and the religious theory of dialogue, both the hope and the effectiveness of our method increase. Ecumenical dialogue brings about more hope for a united community than non-religious or interreligious dialogues. Its prayed-for effects are growth in faith and renewal, and the regaining of Christian credibility when encountering the world, through the visible unity of the Church of Jesus Christ. The conversion of the various denominations and confessions, the ecclesial transformation means to reopen our traditions from the perspective of the primacy of gospel-praxis. The official motto of the ecumenical movement, John 17, 21 points to the main aim of our unity: “that the world may believe”. It is not only our mission which is difficult to credit because of our division, but Christian contribution to human dialogue is also weakened by this. UNITY AND CREDIBILITY While we are in the demanding but worthwhile process of building up a wider human community or religious (inter)communion, there are three Biblical passages to lead us in our present twofold dialogical task, reconciliation. 1 Corinthians 5, 18 enlists different fruits when speaking about the diversified gifts of God: “All this is from God, Who through Christ reconciled us to Godself, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.” It is God Who is the source of reconciliation, and from God’s reconciling act we are able to bring reconciliation to the world. Matthew 5, 23-24 strongly questions our credibility as Christians without making peace: “If you are about to offer your gift to God at the altar, and there you remember that your sister or brother has something against you, leave your gift there, in front of the altar, and go at once to make peace with your sister or brother; then come back and offer your gift to God.” In Colossians 3, 13-14, forgiveness and love are bound together with unity: “Forgive one another, whenever any of you has a complaint against someone else; you must forgive each other, in the same way that the Lord has forgiven you; and to all these, add love, which binds all things together in perfect unity.”
Redrafted Memories Without forgiveness, Christianity loses its identity. Dialogue is an intermediate stage between separation and unity. It is of such an importance that dialogue can be defined as one of the marks of the Church, who tries to create a climate of reconciliation. SPIRITUALITY OF DIALOGUE After the dialogue of intellectual truth, we have to concentrate on the spiritual dialogue of truth. The change it entails is conversion, metanoia, the change of our heart. In this respect, the theological dimension of the climate of reconciliation could be enriched by the radical concept of kenosis, the way of creative transformation. As early as in 1964, a document of the ecumenical movement (Christian Encounter with People of Other Beliefs) spoke about the abandoning of much that is familiar, about a painful and dangerous self-emptying. In a kenotic way, God has relativized Godself in history. The doctrine of kenosis can be applied both to God and to Christ, thus having a Theocentric and a Christocentric emphasis. Through such self-emptying at each step, room is made for the other. This kind of kenosis is the final proof of our definitive God-centeredness, which could be seen even in self-emptying at the doctrinal level, in the name of love. In the parallel of dialectic, question and answer, or thesis and antithesis, leads to a deeper knowledge and truth, to synthesis. There the negation of negation provides us with an excellent opportunity for a double self-denial or double kenosis. Epoché (or reduction) is a similar concept used in theological thinking. It means to suspend our judgement and place in brackets our prejudices and assumptions to create a situation of silence within ourselves in pure transparency and receptivity. This requires a severe ascese. We should regulate, however, this kind of self-emptying, because if we are empty, we do not have anything to share. That is why epoché should endue the double nature of Biblical kenosis in order to be full and empty at the same time, fully divine and fully human. EMPTYING-OUT Emptying-out or kenosis in its verbal form appears only in five places of the New Testament. In Romans 4, 14 it means ‘null’; while in 1 Corinthians 9, 15 it means ‘to deprive’. In the other three places, its meaning is connected to ‘emptiness’. 2 Corinthians 9, 3 speaks about the fear that the boasting of Paul with the congregation might prove to have been empty. 1 Corinthians 1, 17 tells us about the fact that if Paul proclaimed the Gospel with eloquent wisdom, the cross of Christ might be emptied of its power. The Biblical and theological basis, which we are looking for now as a theoretical background for dialogue, as a true paradigm-shifter, can be found in the kenotic hymn of Philippians 2, 5-11. ”Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, Who, though He was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in Heaven and on Earth and under the Earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
MOZAIK
2003/1
IRISH SCHOOL OF ECUMENICS Ireland’s Centre for Reconciliation Studies M.PHIL. PROGRAMMES Ecumenical Studies (Dublin) Email: ecumsec@tcd.ie International Peace Studies (Dublin) Email: peacesec@tcd.ie Reconciliation Studies (Belfast) Email: reconsec@tcd.ie One year full-time (Two year part-time) One-term Sabbaticals available
Evening Postgraduate Diploma Programme Conflict & Dispute Resolution Studies (Dublin) Email: cdrssec@tcd.ie One-year part-time, Two evening sessions per week plus two Saturday workshops Please quote Ref. No. EPR4052002 with enquiry: Irish School of Ecumenics (Trinity College Dublin) Bea House, Milltown Park, Dublin 6, Rep. of Ireland Tel. +353-1-260 1144 / Fax +353-1-260 1158 48 Elmwood Avenue, Be8lfast BT9 6AZ, Northern Ireland Tel./Fax +44-28 9038 2750 (From RoI: 048 9038 2750)
Website: http://www.tcd.ie/ise
Békés Gellért Ecumenical Insitute (Pannonhalma, Hungary)
Established in 2001 by Archabbot
VÁRSZEGI Asztrik OSB, this Benedictine Institute is a place to pray and work for the unity of the Church by means of conferences, workshops, lectures and publications. Our young theologians are involved in the ecumenical movement internationally and in Hungary. If you wish to know more about us, contact
NAGYPÁL Szabolcs: bgoi@chello.hu
9
MOZAIK
Redrafted Memories
2003/1
On this text, we can ground the kenotic theology, and this theology we intend to use to understand the true challenge of dialogical behaviour. When God decided to engage in dialogue with the world, God decided to do it through a special form of communication: to be in communion with the whole creation. God chose to be fully human. But this was just one side of the coin: God in this process, which we call incarnation (becoming flesh), kept God’s nature (which is probably identical with identity in the human realm in our day’s language), while at the same time embracing human’s nature. The process happened without confusion, change, division or separation (as the Council of Chalcedon formulated it in 451). As Basil HUME put it, God, in a wonderful delicacy of touch, has translated Godself into human terms. DEATH AND RESURRECTION Christ Jesus refused to cling to a definition of Who He was and what rights He was entitled to, in order to go out towards the human and sinful other, to take the form of the servant, and become vulnerable unto death. Our acceptance of death is connected with the one and only hope for life. By her own dying, the Church will reveal the Crucified to the world, says Bruce D. MARSHALL. We can compare the kenotic hymn with other Biblical texts such as John 12, 24 (the grain of wheat must fall into the ground and die if it is to produce any fruit); Matthew 6, 2–6 (not to parade our relationship to the Lord outwardly but to await the reward of the Father Who sees in secret); Matthew 16, 26 (to lose our life in order to find it); and Matthew 23, 12 (to humble ourselves in order to be exalted). We are not talking about the dying for the other as the final good. This is a death in the hope of a resurrection. In this sense, the possibility of an eschatological banquet is the image of the good. “Christ’s open-handed gesture of kenosis aims and intends to undo Adam’s tight-fisted gesture of grasping for equality with God” (Jean-Marc LAPORTE SI). We have to expect the different Christian denominations to act and behave in an attitude of self-denial, self-transcendence and spiritual poverty when being active in a dialogue. An all-embracing and overwhelming ecumenical spirituality consists of an awareness of the guilt and failure of Christians, readiness for kenosis and metanoia, as well as prayer of penitence, sacrifice and supplication. The way God chose to engage in dialogue with humankind was kenosis, and we are challenged to follow Christ’s footsteps. Kenosis means powerlessness, continual purification from self-centeredness,
10
> > > > > > > >
growing in openness. Prayer and sacrifice nourish kenotic spirituality. Prayer links one with the goodness and power of God, while sacrifice strengthens prayer and promotes communion. In the process of kenosis, self-sacrifice unites prayer and sacrifice, when one becomes prayer-forothers. For a Magyar Jesuit, ÖRSY László, ecumenical dialogue is the effort to promote and sustain the healing process within the one body. The dialogue of discourse must go hand in hand with spiritual dialogue. The kenosis of Christ is the eternal model for dialogue in all the communities, because it became the entry point into the paschal mystery. Death is the door to resurrection, as well as kenosis is the door to genuine unity and reconciliation.
Suggested Reading ARINZE Francis: Letter to Presidents of Bishop’s Conferences on the Spirituality of Dialogue. Pro Dialogo 1999/2. Asian Bishop’s Institute for Interreligious Affairs, Interreligious Dialogue. Fresh Horizons for Communion and Cooperation Today (Hua Hin, 1991). Bulletin (Pro Dialogo) 1991/1. IISAKA Yoshiaki, Dialogue, Dialect, Dialectic, and Diakonia. Bulletin (Pro Dialogo) 1992/2. LAPORTE Jean-Marc SI, Kenosis and Koinonia: The Path Ahead for Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue. One in Christ 1985/2. MARSHALL Bruce D., Who Really Cares About Christian Unity? First Things 2001/1. www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0101/articles/marshall.html MILBANK John, The Ethics of Self-Sacrifice. First Things 1999/3. www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9903/articles/milbank.html ÖRSY László SI (Ladislaus Orsy), “Kenosis”: The Door to Christian Unity. Origins 1993/3. WILLEBRANDS Johannes, The Ecumenical Dialogue and its Reception. One in Christ 1985/3. NAGYPÁL Szabolcs (1974) is a graduate in law, literature and ecumenical theology. He is Roman Catholic, a theologian in the Békés Gellért Ecumenical Institute (BGÖI) in Pannonhalma, Hungary. He is a former chairperson of KÖD (Magyar SCM), and is currently a member of WSCF European Regional Committee (ERC) and global Executive Committee (ExCo). He is editor-in-chief of Student World and Mozaik.
Redrafted Memories
MOZAIK
2003/1
Henrik Lindberg H A N S E N
The Postmodern as Denominational Reconciliation Reconciliation is a basic theme of Christianity through all times. Whether you regard the ‘The Fall of Humanity’ in Genesis as a historical fact or more existentially as a continuous human event, it is an expression of humankind separated from God. Basically all theology is an attempt to pinpoint this separation and how humankind can get back to an ‘original’ relationship with God – how we can be reconciled with God and live in the way God created us. Originally there was only one Church, one body of Christ, constituted by the Holy Spirit as we read about it in Acts. This has been the ideal of thinking about the Church for many centuries, and it has been the basis for damnation between the churches ever since the Church separated in two, three, and many. This, though, has not changed the fact that all these different limbs of the one body, are each searching for the reconciliation between God and humankind – and this fact can be the bridge of denominational reconciliation between the churches in the postmodern. SOMETHING IS BROKEN AND NEEDS FIXING In Genesis, humans are created in the loving image of God. Human lives happily in Eden, close to God. But humankind diverges from the closeness – we push God away and ‘The Fall’ occurs. We are no longer in that close relationship with God, which was intended in creation. But God still wants to be close to humankind, even though we continually step out of this close relationship. And thus God incarnated. God became human to be with the creation. Again we pushed God away, we slaughtered God. Still God wants us and wants to be close to us. And this is possible through the Holy Spirit. God is still with us in our lives, in our world – in the creation. Time and time again we renounce God, but God is still here as an actual possibility for humanity. This is the message of each and every limb of the Church – no matter the denomination. Each denomination finds its claim of existence in preaching God’s willingness to be close to humankind and in passing on God’s grace. The grace being the possibility of being close to God – the message being the message of God’s loving presence in spite of humankind diverging from the closeness to God. This message can be found at the very heart of each and every denomination. If this message of reconciliation is to be taken seriously, then the different denominations have to reconcile. Reconciliation between God and humanity starts with the reconciliation among humans. Matthew 5, 23–24: “Therefore if you bring
your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” TWO PERIODS AND THE POSTMODERN Why then, has the Church been divided? And why is there a tendency to ecumenism in the Church? A key to the answer can, in my point of view, be found in the writings of Niklas LUHMANN and in the writings of Lars QVORTRUP. They divide our timeline into three periods: the theocentric, the anthropocentric and the polycentric, in accordance with the centre from which human views the world. In the theocentric period God, or the divine, is the universal transcendental principle. Science is not based on observations from human senses and rationality, but on a divine principle. Human does not strive to be innovative, but to catalyse the divine. As a product of this there can be only one Church, since God is one. The Church as such strives to be the image of God on earth. In the anthropocentric period humankind is the centre of perception and reasoning. The human subject becomes the universal transcendental principle. The world can no longer stand alone. It takes the human subject to perceive reason and categorise the world. There is no cognitive symbiosis between Creator and creation, which humanity can be part of. Humankind has to perceive the world by itself, and thus holds some of God’s creative power in the imago Dei. Humans create their own world, and strive ultimately towards the ability of controlling their own destiny by controlling the world with reason. In this period, the Church strives to reason with the rest of the world, but mainly each within the walls of their own denomination. Faith is under attack, and the Church consolidates herself. In the polycentric period there is no single centre through which humankind can illuminate everything. There are dozens and dozens of centres. Some illuminating a little area of life or of the world, others striving to illuminate everything, and thus none can claim to hold all the truth, unless humankind chooses to cling to only one centre. Clinging to only one centre of perception does not illuminate the world, but reduces it to this one perspective. There is no universal code through which we can perceive each other and the world. In the polycentric view, the Church holds no claim to the Truth, and thus there is no basis for damnation between denominations. The Church is no longer an expression of God as one, but it is an expression of the different manners, in which God is close to humanity in the world.
11
MOZAIK
Redrafted Memories
2003/1
This perspective of our time as the polycentric or the postmodern does have flaws. The whole project of dividing time in different time zones is a modern or anthropocentric way of thinking, and if the polycentric or postmodern is taken seriously, then this project will be altered as well. Then the polycentric perspectives in our timeline must step forward, and not the anthropocentric, as is the case in the modern way of dividing time so far. One could reasonably argue that we are still in the modern and only moving towards the postmodern – but then this whole project seems a bit premature. Nevertheless, I find that the thoughts of LUHMANN illuminate problems that are present right now, and therefore his thoughts are relevant. THE POLYCENTRIC AS THE BASIS OF RECONCILIATION The polycentric understanding of our world gives, in my point of view, a very precise picture of our situation. We live in a world, in a creation of endless complexity. It is full of joy and suffering, and out of this we try to grasp an understanding of our lives. But there is no easy way, no end result to look up. The Church is the meeting point of humanity, where we place our lives in the hands of God. This does not give any answers to the complexity of creation, but it gives community with the rest of the creation. This means that the Church is not one single denomination, but it is all the
denominations of the world joined by the love of God in creation. This wealth of denominations is needed because we, as humans, are different, come from different places, and live different lives. The wealth of denominations is legalised because no one person can lay claim to the truth of God, which is realised in the polycentric. God does not stabilise human life by illuminating it, but by giving the possibility of a life without absolute knowledge. God is the warranty that life is worth living without us being able to control it. Thus, the basis of reconciliation in our age, between God and humanity, and then also between denominations, must be these words from Matthew 18, 20: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” But then what is the name of God; how do we know God? The answer lies in 1. John 4, 8: “Who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” The Church praising God is not one single denomination, but the whole creation. Each denomination praises God with the loving tongue given to them by God as part of the creation. Each denomination holds the grace of God in the love of God – and who are we to question the grace of God and God’s will to be close to us? Henrik LINDBERG HANSEN was born in Denmark in the year 1974. He is settled in Aarhus, where he has ended his studies of theology and attends mass at the Danish Lutheran Church. He can be reached at this email address: LindbergHansen@hotmail.com.
WSCF Europe Activities in 2003 Agape Ecumenical Center, Italy
5–9 February 2003 Corporate Social Responsibility
28 May – 1 June 2003
28 July – 3 August 2003
Central European Sub-region (CESR)
Ecumenical Kirchentag
Coming to Terms with History and
Winter Seminar ´ Spisská Kapitula, Slovakia
Berlin, Germany
13–16 February 2003 Non-violence as Political and Spiritual Force
June 2003 Consultation for Teachers and Course Organisers Lingua Franca (LF) Meeting
Nordic Winter Meeting
21–28 June 2003
Trosa, Vagnhärad, Sweden
Healing and Reconciliation
20–23 February 2003
Nordic Summer Meeting
Stripping Religion and Culture of
Oslo – Trondheim, Norway
‘Black and White’ Thinking Unveiling the Impact of Dualistic Thinking on Power Structures Preparatory Committee Meeting in view of the Theological Conference
Memory in Eastern and Western Europe International Ecumenical Summer Seminar of ESG in cooperation with WSCF Waldsieversdorf, Berlin, Germany 1–4 September 2003 European Staff Meeting Praha, Czech Republic 27–28 September 2003
25 June – 2 July 2003 Jesus Christ Heals and Reconciles. Our Witness in Europe XII General Assembly of the Conference th
of European Churches (KEK)
Repentance and Conversion European Regional Committee (ERC) Meeting Åland, Finland
Paris, France
Trondheim, Norway
29 September – 5 October 2003
7–9 March 2003
June to September 2003
WSCF and the Ecumenical Movement
Our Witness in Europe
Lingua Franca Courses
Meeting of the Youth Sub-Group Planning
Central and Eastern Europe
Committee of the XIIth General Assembly of the Conference of European Churches (KEK)
7–14 July 2003
Discovering our Roots and Looking to the Future European Regional Assembly (ERA) Åland, Finland
Central European Culture – Wanted (Dead or Alive)
4–10 November 2003 Stripping Religion and Culture of
Paris, France
Central European Sub-region (CESR)
4–11 April 2003
Summer Seminar . Bialowieza, Poland
Unveiling the Impact of Dualistic
13–20 July 2003
Theological Conference
Indecent Embodiment
Paris, France
Ecumenical Leadership European Regional Committee (ERC) Meeting Oslo, Norway
Thinking on Power Structures
International Theological Camp in cooperation with WSCF
11–18 May 2003
‘Black and White’ Thinking
Agape Ecumenical Center, Italy
Roma and Gadje: the Challenge of
November 2003 Empire, Global Community, and Christian Discipleship
3–10 August 2003
Executive Committee (ExCo) Meeting
Solidarity Conference
Alternatives to Global Propaganda
New York, United States of America
Brasov, Romania
International Political Camp in coopera-
Being Different
tion with WSCF
Redrafted Memories
MOZAIK
2003/1
Daniela Lucia R A P I S A R D A
Called to Reconciliation: Churches and the “Sensitive” Issue of Female Leadership When thinking of reconciliation, I like to think of reconciled people, of people enjoying peace, harmony, joy among themselves, of people enjoying mutual understanding and acceptance. I like to imagine a state of grace. But the compound term “re-conciliation” does not allow me to fix it within the limits of a state: as an arrow, it points to something outside the picture I am unfolding in front of my eyes, it points to events that happened before people were actually reconciled. It also points beyond. RENOVATION OF UNION Reconciliation literally means “back to union, association”. It implies a process of at least three stages: an original good relationship between two or more parts; the arising of a conflict; and the restoration of the good relationship. Another of its meanings is “renovation”. In the process of reconciliation, restoration and renovation are in creative tension. It is not possible to go back to the past without moving ahead, without introducing elements of novelty. It is not possible to reconcile without being open to the new. Reconciliation is a process that embraces past, present and future, it is a process that develops through many and different stages. A crucial step in the process of reconciliation is removing the factor that produces enmity. It is not always possible, and when it is possible, it is not an easy task: it requires the courage to identify and name the factor of enmity; it requires the courage and strength to dismantle it. It also requires the readiness to understand, repent and forgive. In our attempt to substantiate our reflection on reconciliation, we need to move from the level of general rules and statements to that of concrete situations and people: the parts involved in the process will need to acquire faces, names, roles, memories, thoughts and feelings; conflicts will have to get dates, locations, reasons, premises and consequences. Churches and ecumenical institutions are engaged in a process of reconciliation. The gift of reconciliation that we all receive from God in Jesus Christ, calls us all to a ministry of reconciliation. On some issues, though, churches are not ready yet to reconcile. Sadly one of these issues is the role of women in the Church, more precisely: female leadership. WOMEN: ISSUE OR SUBJECT? The Framework for Common Prayer, a document recently issued by the World Council of Churches (WCC), under the paragraph “Considerations on Responsible Approaches to
some Sensitive Issues”, the paragraph 30 on “Leadership of Women”, says: “In an ecumenical context, we come together with a range of positions on the question of ordination of women, both between and sometimes within our churches, and we are not yet ready to reconcile these differences”. Not ready to reconcile. The same document says in another place: “We do not wish to judge each other. Neither do we wish to put a stumbling block before each other.” Women and their role of leadership, “sensitive issue”, come out of the document as one of the stumbling blocks on the path towards the unity of the Church and in the process of reconciliation among Christians. The ordination of women is a stumbling block for those churches that are not ready (yet?) to accept female leadership. On the other hand, the refusal by some churches to ordain women is a stumbling block for those churches and Christian women and men who consider the equality of rights and roles within the Church as a fundamental ecclesiological principle. Most of all, the exclusion of women from roles of leadership and the relegation of women to lower roles in language, theology, liturgy and ecclesiology is a stumbling block for women themselves. Not for all of them, surely for many. It is not enough to talk about reconciliation among churches over the issue of women’s role. In this way women remain “an issue”, a “sensitive issue”, among churches, in this way women remain the table over which churches discuss reconciliation. We need to move beyond this approach. Women have to be considered the subject of a process of reconciliation. We need to talk about reconciliation between churches and women: Churches need to reconcile with women over the issues of exclusion and marginalisation in language, theologies, liturgies and ministries. THE COMMUNITY OF JESUS As I said before, reconciliation contains the element of restoration: it refers to the past, a past considered good, often considered good exactly because it is the past. When talking about female leadership within churches, reference to the past is indeed a crucial issue. To which past, to which stage of church history should women refer to? The past of the Church is quite heterogeneous, the role and consideration of women in the Church has been different at different stages. What stage of church history should be normative for us? Besides, historiography is not a neutral, objective discipline. Every historiography is a selective interpretation
13
MOZAIK
Redrafted Memories
2003/1
of the past. It is possible to get closer to historical objectivity only critically reflecting on theoretical assumptions and personal political choices. The experience of the community of Jesus is normative for us. Then women lived with Jesus, listened to him, were taught by him, talked and posed questions to him. Some of these women, like Mary Magdalene or the Samaritan woman that Jesus met at the well, where sent by Jesus to preach the good news of the Gospel. Jesus himself called these women to spread the good news, ie. to be apostles and missionaries. WOMEN AND MINISTRIES IN THE EARLY CHURCH And then there is the past history of the communities of the first century ministered by the apostle Paul and by his many female co-workers: Priscilla was a missionary, a leader of a home-church and a teacher; Phebe was a diàkonos, deacon, and prostàtis, a patroness of Paul; Junia was an apostle (surely a woman according to CHRISOSTOMOS’ Homilies on the Holy Women of Romans 16). In chapter 16 of his letter to the Romans, Paul greets twentyseven people: among these, sixteen men and eleven women. The percentage of women involved in the life of Pauline communities and in missionary work is quite high, beside Phebe, Priscilla and Junia, mention is made of Maria “who bestowed much labour on us”, Triphena and Triphosa “who labour in the Lord, the “beloved Persis, who laboured much in the Lord”, the mother of Rufus, Julia, the sister of Nereus and Olympia. About many of them Paul says that they have “worked hard” in the Lord, a verb, kopiao, usually used by the apostle Paul to refer to his own missionary work and teaching. But the “idyll” did not last long: already in the pastoral letters (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) the role of women in the Church seems to have radically changed. The author of the first epistle to Timothy “cannot suffer a woman who teaches and usurps authority over a man”: she has to be in silence. Women will be allowed to be deaconesses, their ministry being limited to the training of other women. In many translations of the Greek New Testament, Phebe, diàkonos, deacon, and prostàtis, patroness, is “deaconess”, a term not yet in use at the time the letter to the Romans was written, and a ministry not yet established. Prostàtis is translated with “servant”. In many translations of the Greek New Testament, Junia the apostle has become a man, only because for many translators it was inconceivable that a woman could be an apostle. COSTS TO BE PAID From the second century on, women will see their role more and more limited, their leadership denied. Why so? One theory is that female leadership was well established in heretical movements such as Montanism, Gnosticism
14
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
and Marcionism. Fight against heresies lead the Church to drastically limit the role of women. Another reason might be that at the time when Christianity started, the role of women under Roman law and culture changed radically: if Roman women in the republican age had enjoyed a great deal of freedom and privileges, in the imperial time women would see their rights and freedom notably reduced. The Church would adapt to the moral of the Roman Empire to prove not to be subversive, to ensure Her survival. Order against heresies and the establishing of good relationships with the authorities of the Roman Empire had their costs, part of these costs were paid by women who saw their role and space within the Church lowered and diminished. It would be interesting to analyse the understanding and self-understanding of women’s role in the Church in other times and under different circumstances, but it is not possible due to the limited length of this essay. Besides, it would not dramatically change the pattern I am trying to illustrate. RECONCILIATION BETWEEN WOMEN AND CHURCHES Women need to go through a process of reconciliation with the tradition as fixed in the Bible and in the praxis of the Church, a tradition that has contributed to make their role less and less relevant, until it became marginal in normative texts and church history. Reconciliation between women and churches is indeed a difficult process, especially for those women who are aware of the role a certain interpretation of the Bible, tradition and theology have played in legitimising women’s submission and their marginalisation in the life of the Church. Still I believe that those women who decide to remain inside the Church and who decide to ground their faith on the Bible are ready to engage in that process. We hope churches will accept the invitation to get engaged in the same experience. The vision ahead, the state of grace, is the Church as a fully inclusive community, a community of equals, where the difference of gifts does not overlap with the difference of genders and is received as richness of the whole body.
Suggested Reading CRANFIELD C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh, 1975. DUBY G. – Perrot M., Storia delle donne in Occidente. L’Antichità. Roma – Bari, 1994. HARNACK A., Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrunderten. Leipzich, 1902. MACMULLEN, Woman in Public in the Roman Empire. Historia 1980/29. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA Elisabeth, In Memory of Her. A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York, 1983. Daniela Lucia RAPISARDA is an Italian Protestant. She has trained in Music (in Catania, Palermo and Roma) and in Theology (in Roma and Edinburgh). She has been active for several years in FGEI (Italian SCM) and in the Young Women’s Network of the World Council of Churches (WCC). Since August 2000 she works as Regional Secretary of WSCF Europe. She can be reached via the email address wscfeurope@xs4all.nl.
Cloaks of Sophia
MOZAIK
2003/1
R O Z S - N A G Y Szilvia
The Two Cloaks
of
Aristippos
When we hear the name of Aristippos, the first thing that comes to our mind is the student of Socrates, the father of the Cyrenaic school who looked at life as a system built of pain and pleasure. Since he taught that people should choose joy and pleasure, he was later considered a hedonist, and people tend to find a life example rather in Diogenes who lived a very simple, transparent and straightforward life. This article wishes to shed light on the life of these men from another angle, from the point of view of reconciliation. This effort may cause disturbances as we take a short leave from the leading philosophical and ethical canon. Through this approach, however, we may get closer to the virtues of openness, knowledge, and giving dignity to our fellows before applying fixed ideas to them. Let us start our meditation on lives, strategies and virtues with a text from Saint Paul: “To those under the Law I behave as one who is under the Law – although I am not under the Law; to those who are without law I am as without law – although not lawless toward God but committed to Christ’s law. I have become everything to everybody so that by all means I may have some” (1 Corinthians 9, 19-23). A PERSON OF CAT CHARACTER: REFINED FLEXIBILITY Charles BAUDELAIRE loved cats. They say that ARISTIPPOS was a man of cat character. Would BAUDELAIRE love ARISTIPPOS? One day DIOGENES of Sinope was washing some turnipleaves at the public well of Athens. ARISTIPPOS was going to pass by but DIOGENES addressed him saying, “If you could eat the turnip-leaves, you would not have to go and pay court to tyrants.” ARISTIPPOS stopped for a while and looked at him. “If you learnt how to speak with tyrants, you would not have to eat turnip-leaves anymore”, he uttered. They say that DIOGENES of Sinope was a man of stray dog character. BAUDELAIRE fancied cats because they are peaceful, mystical and they snuggle. They are careful not to have any disorder in their appearance and to their body-care and cleansing. When they are busy with something, they perform it with a noble style, discreetly and tactfully, being cautious not to disturb or embarrass the people around them. They carry music inside and sometimes purr it out of them. They have nothing in com-
mon with those loud and rough merriments that are typical to the dog’s cuddle. A cat’s joy is tender, soft, delicate and calm. The steely strength of the cat is hidden in its refined flexibility. THE PRICE TO BE PAID: RISKING OURSELVES ARISTIPPOS was born in Libya around 435 BC from the most noble and richest family of Cyrene. He was nineteen when he arrived in Greece to see the Olympic Games. There he heard about SOCRATES and went to Athens to become his student. Unlike his master SOCRATES, when ARISTIPPOS became a teacher he asked his students to pay for their education. The amount was a considerable one. Those who were smart, however, could get some discount, but the less intelligent had to pay a high price. When we are talking about reconciliation and reconciled diversities, we do not mean that every piece is to be held on an equal level. There are differences and they make the palette rich in colours. There are differences and they are to be realised, handled and valued separately according to their level of contribution to reaching the final aim. Each of us, however, has to learn the lessons of reconciliation and has to pay for them. To learn how to measure and to learn to be measured, to develop openness and to be detached even from one’s very self, to incorporate values and pains and to move beyond them in freedom has its own price and we have to pay for it. The payment means risking ourselves and aiming the highest. One father found the price too high and said that he could buy a slave for this amount of money. “Just buy a slave,” ARISTIPPOS told him, “then you will have two slaves at the end: your son and the one you bought.” SAVING BY REDUCING? DIOGENES was born in Sinope in 404 BC. He was sent into exile by the people of Sinope, so he went to Athens and joined the Cynics’ school. He was searching for freedom, which he thought is the highest good for one’s spirit. Freedom, as he thought, can be found only in pure independence. Freedom for him meant to be ‘free from’. That is why he taught to people not to be slaves of their physical or emotional needs, not to fear of cold, hunger, loneliness and not to have desire for sexual life, money, power
15
MOZAIK
Cloaks of Sophia
2003/1
or glory. And he showed an example how to live one’s life as simply as possible. ARISTIPPOS maintained that it is much better if the money is lost because of ARISTIPPOS than if ARISTIPPOS is lost because of money. It seems he was not a money-grabber, he could live in poverty too if that was required. For him, living meant to grasp the convenient moment in an appropriate mood while being a stranger anywhere and any time, living in this world but not being of this world. He was free to do anything he wanted or was required from him, because the source and focus of his freedom was in himself and not depended on the outside world. DIOGENES of Sinope lived in an old barrel. He had only three pieces of property: a cloak, a plate and a mug. Once at lunchtime he became attentive to some kids who ate their food by placing it onto a slice of bread and drinking water from their palms. Then he realised that neither a plate nor a mug is necessary to life and threw them away. Realising your needs, fixing your laws and barriers, and applying your minimalist rule can be a way to reconciliation: finding the lowest common denominator and celebrating the agreement. It only works out, unfortunately, if the other parties are ready to follow your example and reduce themselves because you have no possibilities to get closer to them. Only the other parties are able to get to know you but you have no chance at all to enjoy and be enriched by their colours and treasures because they have to leave out all of themselves in order to get closer to you. Not being accepted and being known only in your reduced parts, cannot, according to my knowledge, provide dignity and nobleness to the Self. It rather motivates for creating bad conscience and self-punishment. The atmosphere it makes is not a pleasant one for reconciliation that is strongly desired by both sides, but it is an atmosphere of self-education and obedience for the sake of certain higher ideas. But is there any idea whose application is to be preferred to loving the neighbour? DIOGENES was very old when he travelled on a ship that was occupied by pirates who sold him to a slave-trader. When he was questioned about his skills, he said, “I am good at giving commands to people.” It seems DIOGENES is the eternal example of the enslaved ruler who is a slave of his outer world and inner world too.
from all denominations who work to fulfil this wish, knowing that the shame is not about being different but being separated. There are Christian faithful who do not make any steps to get closer to the others even though all the obstacles are removed from their way; they want to keep their own tradition until the last iota. “The new wine cannot be poured into old wineskins, else the wineskins burst, the wine is spilled and the skins are ruined. Instead the new wine is to be poured into new skins, and both shall be preserved”, as once said the Rabbi. AUTHENTIC KNOWLEDGE: THE RULER AND THE SLAVE Unlike DIOGENES, it seems freedom for ARISTIPPOS means to be ‘free for’. He wanted to be free to get to know what good and bad are about and what most people think that good and bad are about. The two experiments may differ at some points, he thought. DIONYSIOS the tyrant had him and PLATO as guests in his court. At one point the ruler asked them to wear some female clothes and dance for him. PLATO uttered that he would never do that. ARISTIPPOS responded favourably, “Why not? The one who is clean will not be dirty even on a Bacchanalia.” Let us remember the Rabbi, who said, “nothing entering a person from the outside can defile the person, but the things that come out of the person render the person unclean.” In a sunny afternoon when leaving the public spa ARISTIPPOS put on the dirty, creased and worn out cloak of DIOGENES. Finishing his bath DIOGENES came, but realising that he has no other option than putting on the purple cloak of ARISTIPPOS, he rather left the spa naked. HORATIUS who recorded this story enriched us with his comment too, saying, “I prefer ARISTIPPOS who felt at home in both kinds of cloaks.” ARISTIPPOS proved to be free to incorporate the valuable things after realising them. It seems it was clear for him that he could learn from others and he could only get to know someone in depth if he put himself into the other’s moccasin and wore it for a while, as the old Native American saying proclaims. There is no reconciliation
SAVING BY LOSING Dealing with reconciliation on a transcendental level and human level too, we can be prepared that we will be surprised by unexpected events and reactions. There are basic characteristics, basic things that have very similar consequences at each time and things that we can get to know and which make it possible to establish human sciences such as theology and psychology. However, there are situations that are outside of ordinary categories. Among them, those dealing with forgiveness and reconciliation are the most delicate ones. There is a religion called Christianity whose founder has prayed for it to be one. There are Christian faithful
16
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Cloaks of Sophia possible without authentic knowledge about each other. POLYXENOS the Sophist paid a visit to him, but seeing the women all around in expensive clothes and the spendthrift food on the table he started to accuse him that these are not worthy of a philosopher. After some time ARISTIPPOS questioned him whether he could imagine spending this day in his company. When POLYXENOS nodded his assent, ARISTIPPOS continued, “then what is your problem exactly? It seems you only accuse the expenses but not the repast.” Someone else accused ARISTIPPOS because he went to see LAIS, the hetæra. “The shame is not about going to visit her but you bring shame on yourself when you cannot leave her.” Philosophy, he explained, taught him to be able to meet anyone and spend time with that person. To give your life a high quality will not come when you leave things out or avoid getting to know them but when you know their values and aims and you are able to use them by being their ruler without being their slave. THE TRUTH HIDDEN IN PARADOXES Once there was a Rabbi who was accused of being drunkard and frequently eating together with people of low castes and prostitutes, unlike JOHN the Baptist who lived a simple life and was fasting. God is the God of paradoxes. “Only God has the power, God Who is love. Love absorbs everything into itself; its embrace dissolves even the hardest matter: When the worst evil and death become yours, both lose their own value; when you allow your own death and accept evil into yourself, both become your property and they lose their own price. Therefore, may negation be as powerful as can be, there is something that absorbs negation and thus becomes its own death, becomes the almightiness of the living, eternal God. Nothing can happen to us in God’s embrace” (Peter MLAKAR). Christianity is a religion of paradoxes. Christians received the commandment to love their neighbours as they love themselves. They have to be clear about the world that surrounds them, the values that are appealing to them, the good, the bad and the beauty and all the things in between. Then they learn that nothing more can
MOZAIK
2003/1
be told about God than God is Love and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. And they enter into love-relationships. They accept the new wine, they even incorporate it. They love and care and forgive and reconcile though they know that they do not belong to this earth only as they are mates of the saints and citizens of two worlds. PERSON OF VIRTUES AND CONTRADICTIONS ARISTIPPOS was not a Christian. Some of his principles may differ from ours. He did not focus much on salvation and eternal life but on pleasure in its purest form. He was a philosopher from Athens who lived out a working methodology of reconciliation. He handled the transcendence and his human fellows with openness, humbleness and the utmost dignity. It seems he knew that situations cannot be solved in the same way and at the same level they were produced. There is a need for paradigm-shift. Reconciliation is about forgiveness. Forgiveness is about knowing the situation, the causes and the persons involved and moving beyond them toward the eternal values. Reconciliation is about humbleness, openness, and self-denial. “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life on my account will save it”, as the Rabbi uttered once. ARISTIPPOS was not a saint. PLATO could not stand him, DIOGENES said that he is the enemy of all virtues, XENOPHON hated him. But I imagine BAUDELAIRE, the great lover of cats, would have been delighted in his company.
Suggested Reading The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Aristippus. www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristip.htm. GAUTIER Theophile, Charles Baudelaire. London, 1915. http://membres.lycos.fr/almasty/gbause/1.htm. ARNS Inke, Neue Slovenische Kunst, NSK. Regensburg, 2002. ROZS-NAGY Szilvia is Evangelical-Lutheran, an ecumenical theologian from Hungary and a member of KÖD (Magyar SCM). Currently she is writing her PhD on ecumenical and interreligious liturgies. She was a member of the Executive Committee of the Ecumenical Youth Council in Europe (EYCE) from 2001 till 2003. Her email address is szilvianagyhun@yahoo.com.
Agnes AVAGYAN - Two Hands, One Picture Born in 1980, Agnes AVAGYAN started drawing when she was two years old. From her early childhood on she was used to hearing that drawing is a tough profession as it does not provide easy living. Fortunately, her passion for art was too strong to be discouraged by this argument. She started her education in arts in 1994 at the Art College and now continues her studies in the Yerevan State Academy of Fine Arts. Agnes has had personal exhibitions in Yerevan, Armenia (1995, 1996, 1997, 2002), St. Petersburg, Russia (1996), Aleppo, Syria (2002), Beirut, Lebanon (2003), and has taken part in many group exhibitions and contests in Armenia and abroad. Since 1997, she has been a scholar of the Peace Fund. She has collaborated with numerous magazines, such as Hey, Manana, Gordzenker, Mankadz Yerkir, Karavarum, and has drawn cartoons for several newspapers. She also illustrated some books with her colourful and bright paintings, including The Zoo-Boy, UNICEF’s Children’s Rights, and Peter Pan translated into Armenian. At present, she works as a cartoonist for Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, an official organ of the National Assembly of Armenia, and a weekly online news magazine, www.ArmeniaNow.com. In 1996, Agnes’ work won the first prize for Best Emblem at the UNICEF Competition for Children’s Communication Day. In March 2002 she was chosen to take part in The Second International Caricature Forum in Dubai (United Arab Emirates), where she was the youngest and the only female participant. In the years 2000, 2001 and 2003, Agnes was the youngest artist to participate in the exhibition of the best cartoonists of Armenia. Agnes’ works have been published in Armenian, Russian, British, French, Lebanese, American, Canadian and Arab newspapers as well as in various TV programmes.
17
MOZAIK
Cloaks of Sophia
2003/1
Peter S A J D A
The Historical Message
of
Virtuous Atheism
Or the Christian–Atheist Alliance against Fundamentalism It happens from time to time that a Christian and an Atheist develop a friendship in which they realise, with mutual surprise, significant spiritual affinity. It can even seem to them as if their spiritual growth has been driven by mutually related motives and sources. On the other hand both of them realise that within their own traditions there are people with whom they never felt the same kind of relatedness and closeness. MONSIEUR DE WOLMAR – ROUSSEAU’S VIRTUOUS ATHEIST When Julie, the wife of Jean DE WOLMAR, finds out after eight years of marriage that her husband is a non-believer, an Atheist, she is consternated. Julie – who is one of the main protagonists in ROUSSEAU’s novel Julie or the New Heloise – admits, however, at the same time that her husband is a man of sound and exemplary morality. He is deeply aware of the equality of all humans, cultivates an intensive passion towards his wife and is known for astonishing impartiality and fairness in decision-making. He is a conscious administrator of his property, a faithful husband and in many other ways he is a moral example to his wife who considers him a visionary of how to incorporate virtue into everyday life. Julie remarks even that he lives a virtuous life not because of fear of punishment for his sins or a reward for his merits (as many believers do), but simply because he recognises virtue as correct and vital. ZIGO: THE PHILOSOPHICAL GENEALOGY OF MONSIEUR DE WOLMAR The Slovak philosopher Milan ZIGO draws our attention to the ideological roots of the novel character of Jean DE WOLMAR. It is to be noted that the world of thought of ROUSSEAU and DE WOLMAR are not completely identical. ROUSSEAU was rather a Deist, whereas DE WOLMAR is an Atheist (or a confessing sceptic, at least). ROUSSEAU’s determined quest for tolerance, freedom of growth and expression gave rise to several serious conflicts with his former philosophical friends, which at last contributed to the deterioration of his mental health. Even if he recognised and accepted some of the serious points of critique of religion presented by the Encyclopaedists he realised that some of the critics of religion were equally intolerant towards religious people as fanatic religious leaders were intolerant towards nonbelievers. Thus ROUSSEAU was aware not only of the existence of a “virtuous non-believer”, but also of the existence of a “virtuous Christian.” The violent attacks on religion on the part of the HOLBACH Clique were to ROUSSEAU just another form of genuine intolerance – this time with anti-religious overtones. For this reason when shaping the character of Monsieur DE WOLMAR he did not present him as a posthumous child of the antireligious libertines or iconoclasts, but rather as one of the seekers of individual virtue and wisdom. In this sense DE WOLMAR is a spiritual son of Michel DE MONTAIGNE rather than of Baron D’HOLBACH. As ZIGO observes, DE WOLMAR does
18
not mock religion, does not offer or force his attitudes on his wife, but with the light of reason examines what is authentic, virtuous and good. RELIGIOUS AND ANTI-RELIGIOUS FANATICISM The fact that intolerance is not linked with one specific type of Weltanschauung has been proved, too many times, by history. Speaking about a tolerant and virtuous Atheist could have seemed utterly sardonic during the atheist totality of Enver HOXHA in Albania or during the antichurch purges in the Leninist and Stalinist Soviet Union. But it might have seemed equally tragicomic to speak of religious tolerance during the religious wars of the postReformation period or during the spree of witch trials. Fanaticism, whether religious or anti-religious, presents the observer with an interesting issue. It has been mentioned that both an understanding Christian and an understanding Atheist are able to find common ground – but equally a fanatic Christian and a fanatic Atheist cannot complain about a lack of mutually shared elements (as to methodology at least). Through the deeply respectful relationship between Julie and Jean DE WOLMAR, ROUSSEAU tries to pinpoint that an open, tolerant and virtuous Christian can learn substantial things from her or his Atheist counterpart and vice versa. Jean and Julie explore together new ways of approaching the education of children, just treatment of employees, love for the neighbour and last but not least – they construct together the virtuous relationship between Julie and the lover of her youth, whom her husband generously incorporates into the family, knowing about the depth of the still extant emotional bond between the two. EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA VIRTUS Jean DE WOLMAR is from a certain perspective a classenemy to his wife. It is, however, her love for him, her common sense and her deeper religious intuition that keep her eyes open to see his essential search for virtuous life. Julie herself sees virtue as a religious value (especially after the love-affair of her youth) and thus faces a paradox regarding how to understand her husband from the religious point of view. At first, her heart is filled with great pain and grief (upon learning that he is an Atheist) as she has to detach herself from the image of her husband she has produced. For a number of Christians people like Monsieur DE WOLMAR fall into the class of faithless and are to be regarded with pity. For them a virtuous Atheist is a contradictio in adiecto and if they knew the secret thoughts of Madame DE WOLMAR – that her husband in fact could be a moral example to many of them – they would be scandalised. For them not only the maxim extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation), but also the concept of extra Ecclesiam nulla virtus (outside the Church there is no virtue) seems utterly plausible. A virtuous Atheist appears to many Christians as someone who is virtuous for profit or for another non-ethical reason. The virtue in an Atheist context is thus viewed as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Cloaks of Sophia a diplomatic veneer that is supposed to hide true motivation – virtue as an instrument of conspiracy. For many Christians it even seems absurd that an Atheist should pursue an inner search for virtuous life, as she or he is not bound by the admonitions of the Decalogue, by the concept of sin and does not risk eternal fire in hell. But in fact this is what astonishes Madame DE WOLMAR the most in connection with her husband – he is not virtuous because of fear and he does not avoid evil because of an award. He simply recognises the intrinsic value of virtue as such and goes for it. ROUSSEAU VERSUS THE CONCEPT OF THE EVIL OR STUPID PRIEST The idea that institutional clergy is the most dangerous element in the whole religious system of lies is as old as religion itself. Resolute critics of religion often regarded clerics and the religious as the epicentre of religious corruption. The priest and monk as the symbol of vice, cruelty or stupidity, rather than virtue, is the main protagonist in many literary works dealing with religion. Even if the figure of the cruel and complacent Great Inquisitor in DOSTOEVSKY’s Brothers Karamazov, the pervert (and in fact Atheist) bishop in DE SADE’s 120 Days of Sodom or the lascivious priests and monks in BALZAC’s Contes droletiques are presented in very different contexts, they all carry the notion of a consecrated person being an example of vice. In other words – they embody the abyss of lies between the Schein (pretension) and the Sein (reality). Even if the history of the Church presented the critics of religion with enough inspiration for their vicious-clericcharacters, according to ROUSSEAU the criticism of these should go hand in hand with the recognition of the fact that this is just one side of the coin. ROUSSEAU, to whom the criticism of church corruption appealed, acknowledged that a fierce attack on the whole of religion and on the whole of clergy will not bring us much farther than a blind rejection of Atheism on the part of fundamentalist Christians. VIRTUOUS ATHEIST AND VIRTUOUS PRIEST DINING TOGETHER In his Confessions ROUSSEAU observes that “the fanaticism of the Atheists and the fanaticism of the zealots are connected by their inherent intolerance.” When he recalls in The Reveries of the Solitary Walker some of his former Encyclopaedist friends and their pathological hate against religion he denotes them as “haughty dogmatists that could not bear without anger that someone had an opinion different from theirs.” And in Emil or on Education he maintains that a “virtuous priest” is a reality that should be taken seriously by non-believers.
MOZAIK
2003/1
ZIGO demands that in return the reality of a “virtuous Atheist” should also be taken seriously in religious circles. If one imagines with Kierkegaardian fantasy that a dinner was organised at the house of the Savoyard Vicar (ROUSSEAU’s character) in which Jean DE WOLMAR and William of BASKERVILLE (the Franciscan from Umberto ECO’s The Name of the Rose) would take part, it is difficult to imagine that the dinner would end with a hateful conflict. The dynamics of such a dinner would most probably prove to be diametrically different from a feast where the Great Inquisitor would host Atheist fanatics. VIRTUOUS ATHEISM AND ECUMENISM Even if historical Atheism might seem to have no reason to attempt to participate in the ecumenical movement striving for the unity of the Church, still there are areas where individual Atheist thinkers can contribute with their treasures to the discussion on values essential for the dialogue between churches. A virtuous Atheist might be one who observes the ecumenical dialogue from outside but some of her or his findings – resulting from a sincere quest for harmonious development of humankind – can prove vital in the examination of the deepest roots of human needs and cravings. Michael NOVAK observes that the sincerity of Jean-Paul SARTRE’s search for authenticity and responsibility contributed largely to the awareness of his own Christian vocation. Thus remaining deaf to the voice of the virtuous Atheist might be an impoverishment for Christians who in their quest for Christian unity try to discern between the essentials of their traditions and secondary priorities and rules produced along the way. In this way the painful abyss between Christianity and Atheism could be transformed into a platform of dialogue where former archenemies look for mutual enrichment. Who knows what fruits such a dialogue could produce?
Suggested Reading ROUSSEAU Jean-Jacques, Confessions. Oxford, 2000. ROUSSEAU Jean-Jacques, Emile or on Education. New York, 1979. ROUSSEAU Jean-Jacques, The Reveries of the Solitary Walker. New York, 1979. ROUSSEAU Jean-Jacques, Júlia alebo nová Heloisa. Bratislava, 1982. ZIGO Milan, Myslienkovy rodokmen Jána de Wolmar, Rousseauovho “cestného ateistu”. Bratislava, 2003. (unpublished lecture)
Peter SAJDA is a Graduate of the Faculty of Arts of the Comenius University in Bratislava and he is currently a student at the Theological Institute CMBF UK in Kosice, Slovakia. He is Roman Catholic, a member of the Order of Preachers. He is a co-opted member of the European Regional Committee of WSCF. He is also an editor of Mozaik and Student World. His email address is sajdus@szm.sk.
19
MOZAIK
Cloaks of Sophia
2003/1
Ta t s i a n a Z A V E R Z H E N E T S
The Personalism
of
Emmanuel Mounier
The theme of personalism was discussed at the ecumenical conference “The Crisis of the Church – The Crisis of the World” in Münster in March 2001. In this essay I would like to outline and reflect on some basic points of the discussion. DEFINING PERSONALISM Personalism (coming from Latin persona, meaning a person or a personality) is a trend in religious philosophy, which acknowledges the person as the prime creative reality and highest spiritual value. It views the whole world as the manifestation of the creative activity of the Supreme Person – the Lord. An important personalist discussion forum was launched in France with the publication of the journal Esprit in 1932. Personalism differentiates between the concepts of the ‘individual’ and the ‘person’. A human being is an individual as a member of society, as a part defined in correlation with the whole. As a person one can affirm oneself in free will and in an eternal source – in God. The decision of a person presupposes an intention, a choice, a moral evaluation and an affirmation of personal freedom. The main principles of Personalism find their origins in traditional Christian view of the human being. EMMANUEL MOUNIER One of the most important figures of European Personalism, who largely contributed to its philosophical development, was Emmanuel MOUNIER who, shortly before his death, summed up the ideas of Personalism in a short book of the same name. Emmanuel MOUNIER maintains that one can become a lawmaker in relation to everything, particularly in relation to the circumstances that shape one’s life. One’s internal qualities (“calling” or “intimacy” in the terminology of Personalism) have to protect both person and society from totalitarianism and from individualism. Emmanuel MOUNIER made the concept of a person a point of fundamental ontological categorisation, a point of a basic manifestation of being, where acts of volition go together with the continuity of existence. The origins of a person are not only in the person itself but in the endless united origin, in God; and they become the basis of any activity. Becoming a person coincides with the movement of human history towards a civilised way of living, towards culture and spirituality. Emmanuel MOUNIER writes from a position of responsibility and he calls for serious work. He also underlines in this connection that God (or the Absolute) is immeasurable, God cannot to be compared with the world and God will guide us and history.
20
> > > > >
IDEOLOGICAL OPPOSITION The direct impulse for the creation of this philosophy of Personalism was a worldwide socio-political and economic crisis from 1929 till 1933, the offence of fascism and totalitarianism in Europe. For personalists, this crisis was not only a crisis of economic structures but it was a crisis of humanity as well. The ideology and practice of fascism was criticised on the pages of Esprit and the editor of the journal was arrested when the Germans occupied Paris. The exit Emmanuel MOUNIER saw is the integral and spiritual revolution of humanity. He renewed the Socratic upheaval of ancient philosophy in the light of Christianity. A PERSONAL UNIVERSE The central position of Personalism as a philosophical movement is the existence of free and creative personalities. This presupposes a presence in their structures of the principle of unpredictable behaviour, which guards against strong systematisation. The rich experience of the person constantly works at the creation of situations, rules and determinations. This makes enlivening activity, communication and unity with other people possible. Nothing can enforce this experience. The person cannot be described as an object in anybody. It is the only reality which we simultaneously recognise and build from within. CHRISTIAN OPTIMISM Society was created by God and we can meet people who can help us to understand that we are on the right path, that our life is the most valuable gift and that circumstances were given to us to enable us to understand better our personal context. The works of Emmanuel MOUNIER are very optimistic in spite of the tragic historical period he lived in. They can prove vital to us Christians in periods of troubles, which are so frequent in our history. They call for work and for faith, for the ability of full, hard and interesting life. They call us to believe in God and God’s truth and they promise God’s help and care for God’s children in need.
Suggested Reading MOUNIER Emmanuel, The Hope of Hopeless. Essays (tr. Vdovina I.). Moscow, 1995. Emmanuel Mounier. In KONSTANTINOV F. (ed.), Philosophical Encyclopaedia. Moscow, 1967. Personalism (tr. Vdovina I.). Moscow, 1992.
Tatsiana ZAVERZHENETS was born in 1976. An Orthodox from Minsk, Belarus, she is works in the Christian Educational Center in Minsk. She also writes literary works which she calls “coffee-texts”. Her email address is zaver_t@hotmail.com.
> > > > > > >
Inflaming the Rainbow
MOZAIK
2003/1
John George H U B E R
Seven Roads and Seven Realities under an Ecumenical Rainbow After completing the Master of Ecumenical Studies program at Bossey in 2001, at the tender age of 71, I have been eager to tell the story of the quest for Christian unity. As I travel to various congregations and conferences, especially in my native California but also in other parts of the United States, my wife admonishes me to remember that most people know little about the ecumenical movement and are not terribly interested. Therefore, she says, try to make it interesting and tell them why it is important. Thus, I want to describe seven “roads” to unity that have been proposed by various Christian communions and movements, while also lifting up seven New Testament realities that indicate what all Christians have in common. In another desperate effort to be creative, I would like to borrow an illustration about our unity-in-diversity by suggesting that each Christian tradition could be described as a color of an “ecumenical rainbow.” But first, allow me to follow the good counsel of my spouse, Judy, and make a case for the importance of all of this. AN ANECDOTE ABOUT A GOLD MEDALLION A story about the concluding session of the Second Vatican Council has been told with “tongue-in-cheek.” The Protestant observers wanted to express their appreciation for being invited to this event that is still regarded as an ecumenical milestone. They had a gold medallion struck, so the story goes, bearing the portraits of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI on one side. When the Protestant scholars presented this medallion to each bishop and cardinal as they descended the steps of St. Peter’s, the Catholic dignitaries were very pleased. But when they turned the medallions over, so the story goes, they were stunned to see a portrait of Martin Luther. To add insult to injury, they read with dismay the words in Latin encircling Luther’s head. Here is a loose translation in English: “In Your Heart You Know He’s Right.” Of course, the veracity of the story is in doubt, but the point is very compelling. For centuries, we Christians have displayed this kind of arrogance toward each other. We have claimed that we are right and our opponents are wrong. We are reminded of our need to move from arrogance to tolerance, and on to
convergence, consensus and communion. We must realize and celebrate the new ecumenical climate that has exchanged polemics for irenics by replacing diatribe with dialogue. HANS KÜNG AND WORLD PEACE In case the prospect of bringing together the confessional families in a more harmonious relationship does not sound too relevant in today’s world of political strife, upheaval and war, a statement by Hans KÜNG may provide a fresh perspective. He writes: “There will be no peace among the peoples of this world without peace among the religions. There will be no peace among the world religions without peace among the Christian Churches.” (Christianity and the World Religions: Paths to Dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, p. 443) I would like to suggest that our ecumenical efforts are a contribution to world peace. OUR LORD’S PRAYERFUL MANDATE FOR MISSION The Sacerdotal Prayer of our Lord in John 17 is often cited as a Biblical basis for Christian unity. What is easily overlooked is that there is a mission dimension to this prayer. Jesus prays “... that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in You, may they also be in us...” And then he reveals the purpose of this unity: “... so that the world may believe....” In an agnostic world that has been turned off by religion, our visible and audible unity in Christ is more likely to bridge the credibility gap. Hopefully, skeptics will be able to say of us once again, “Behold how they love one another,” and will be drawn into our imperfect but forgiven fellowship. SEVEN ROADS TO UNITY A stranger drives into a town and asks how to get to the city hall. A resident attempts to give directions, becomes confused, and says, “You cannot get there from here!” It would seem that this is also our frustration as we try to find our way to the ecumenical goal. But it is helpful to review what various Christian traditions have proposed as a “road” to unity. I will identify seven ecumenical roads.
21
MOZAIK
Inflaming the Rainbow
2003/1
The Road to Rome The road to Rome is the Roman Catholic proposal that, if there is to be unity, all churches and ecclesial communities must come to terms with the papacy. In his 1995 encyclical, Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II admits that the papacy “constitutes a difficulty for most Christians,” but also assures us that “the primacy ... is nonetheless open to a new situation.” He proposes an agenda for “a patient and fraternal dialogue” with other Christians. Some bilateral dialogues have already indicated flexibility on this issue.
The Road to Constantinople Ecumenical gatherings early in the twentieth century reveal the road to unity for Eastern Orthodoxy. During the First World Conference on Faith and Order at Lausanne in 1927, the Second World Conference at Edinburgh in 1937, and the Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Evanston in 1954, Orthodox delegates pointed to the first seven Ecumenical Councils as the essential prerequisite for unity. For an updated perspective, see The Final Report of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC (The Ecumenical Review 2003/1).
The Road to Augsburg The Churches of the Augsburg Confession (1530) identify agreement on the Gospel and the sacraments as the satis est (it is enough) for unity. While some critics accuse Lutherans of Gospel reductionism, this Lutheran writer would insist that it is Gospel centralism. To borrow the language of the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, the verbal and visible Gospel is the highest in the “hierarchy of truths.” The ability of the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation to sign the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification on October 31, 1999 indicates the ecumenical potential of the Road to Augsburg.
The Road to Canterbury Anglicans have proposed an ecumenical four-point platform known as the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888, based on the Chicago Quadrilateral of 1886, which William Reed HUNTINGTON called an “irreducible minimum around which a united Church could gather”. In addition to Scripture, the Creeds and the dominical Sacraments, the Quadrilateral identifies “the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted” as a requirement for unity. The willingness of the Episcopal Church in the United States to establish full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, despite the ELCA’s conviction that the Historic Episcopate is important for unity but not essential, demonstrates the possibility of accommodation on this ecclesiological challenge for the ecumenical future.
The Road to Geneva Churches of the Reformed tradition trace part of their heritage to John CALVIN, whose reforming efforts centered in Geneva. H. Richard
22
NIEBUHR identifies CALVIN as an advocate of “Christ the Transformer of Culture” (Christ and Culture, pp. 217-18). I have been unable to pinpoint a specific ecumenical proposal for unity that is uniquely “Reformed,” but my Lutheran instincts sense a strong emphasis on connecting the Word with the world. There is an emphasis on prophetic ministry that produces change in society based on a moral commitment to peace and justice. This important contribution is evident in many of the controversial pronouncements of the World Council of Churches. On a more doctrinal level, the Reformed have also shown their dedication to unity by signing the Leuenberg Agreement with Lutheran and United churches in 1973. Three Reformed churches have entered into full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Geneva is a road worth exploring and traveling.
The Road to Antioch The followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” at Antioch (Acts 11:26). In the nineteenth century, some Protestants in the United States attempted to resolve the dilemma of church division by returning to an original New Testament form of Christianity. Rather than calling themselves Baptists, Congregationalists, Lutherans or Methodists, they would rally around the name “Christian.” This effort led to the formation of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), as well as additional denominations that remain divided. But on the positive side, it is the Disciples of Christ – under the leadership of ecumenists like Paul CROW, Robert WELSH, Michael KINNAMON and others – that continues to model a devotion to unity in its support of the Bossey Ecumenical Institute, the work of Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches, and the covenanted coming together of nine mainline Protestant denominations in the United States as Churches Uniting in Christ.
The Road to Amsterdam This is a road that actually traces its origin to three other roads: (1) Edinburgh 1910, (2) Stockholm 1925, and (3) Lausanne 1927. Or, to change the imagery a bit, these three roads represent a confluence of three vital “streams” – Mission, Life and Work, and Faith and Order – culminating in the formation of the World Council of Churches at Amsterdam in 1948. Subscribing to a theological basis that is Christocentric, Biblical, Trinitarian and doxological, the WCC continues to represent the most comprehensive organizational expression of the ecumenical movement, bringing together representatives of most of the major Christian communions of the world at its assemblies that convene about every seven years. Following Amsterdam 1948, these include Evanston 1954, New Delhi 1961, Uppsala 1968, Nairobi 1975, Vancouver 1983, Canberra 1991, and Harare 1998. Mark your calendars now and come to the next historic gathering at Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 2006.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Inflaming the Rainbow SEVEN ECUMENICAL REALITIES While each of the seven roads identified above has led to a measure of unity among divided Christians, and continues to indicate potential possibilities for realizing the emerging ecumenical goal of koinonia in the future, a passage in the New Testament points to seven ecumenical realities in the present. We are only too familiar with Ephesians 4,4-6 that affirms “one body,” “one Spirit,” “one hope,” “one Lord,” “one faith,” “one baptism,” “one God and Father of all.” A fresh ecumenical interpretation of this text suggests that these seven realities can be seen as the seven things that all Christians have in common. Even though there are many separate denominations, churches and ecclesial entities – as well as polarized groupings within each communion – there is ultimately one body of Christ. We are the diverse members, and Christ is the head. There are many pneumatologies and many experiences and expressions of the work of the Holy Spirit. Worship styles, for example, range “from screaming to incense” (in the unpublished words of Jaroslav PELIKAN). One rapidly growing branch of Christianity is the Pentecostal movement, focusing heavily on the reality of the Holy Spirit. But all of us trace our Christian origins to that first Pentecost recorded in Acts 2, and are united in the one Spirit. During the debates of the Evanston Assembly in 1954, there was a clash between European and North American theologians regarding eschatology. The former emphasized the “not yet,” and the latter the “here and now.” But the one hope of Ephesians 4 was articulated in the received Message that includes the words that I have quoted at numerous funeral services: “We do not know what is coming to us. But we know Who is coming. It is He who meets us every day and Who will meet us at the end – Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, we say to you: Rejoice in hope.” There are many charismatic leaders among the churches. There is the debate about papal primacy and the essential role of bishops for assuring continuity in the “faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3), as opposed to the authority of the local congregation. But we are reminded in the Ephesians text that there is one Lord. It is the Lord Who shepherds the one flock, not in an authoritarian way, but authoritatively and lovingly. Although the Stockholm Life and Work conference of 1925 declared, “Doctrine divides and service unites,” it is the Faith and Order movement that has achieved a convergence on issues like Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (see the Lima text of 1982). Our divisions over dogma are transcended by one faith, a reality that is more than intellectual or cerebral. It is relational. Someone has jokingly said that the difference between Baptists and other Christians is 250 gallons of water. It is significant that Baptists and Eastern Orthodox who find themselves on opposite ends of the liturgical spectrum choose to immerse their baptismal candidates, while others apply the water by sprinkling or pouring. But although the mode of baptism differs and the interpretations vary in emphasis, the ultimate reality of its
MOZAIK
2003/1
meaning and the mutual recognition of this sacrament by most churches – when administered with water in the name of the Triune God – enable us to recognize our unity in one baptism. There are many theologies among the churches and many approaches to God among the religions of the world. But as Christians of all persuasions join together in the prayer taught to us by our Lord, we are bound together by an ultimate reality: the one God and Father of all. UNDER AN ECUMENICAL RAINBOW A dramatic illustration of our catholicity as Christians has been proposed by Vernard ELLER, former professor at LaVerne College in Southern California. He suggested that we identify the major and minor Christian traditions by designating to them colors of the spectrum (COCU: Self-Defeating? The Christian Century, 1966, 488ff). This is a paraphrased summary of ELLER’s ecumenical rainbow: Violet (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox), Indigo (Anglican and Episcopal), Blue (Lutheran, Presbyterian and other churches of the Reformation), Green (Methodist, Congregational, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ), Yellow (Baptist, Brethren and Mennonite), Orange (Society of Friends – Quakers, Salvation Army [both have no sacraments]), Red (nondenominational movements that emphasize personal spiritual experience, eg. the Charismatic movement that exists within denominations and outside of them). As we contemplate this colorful ecumenical rainbow, how can we realize our unity, with all of its catholic breadth and theological depth? We need to trace these seven colors to their one source. The violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red of our various Christian expressions find their origin in Christ Who is the Light of the world. This one Light has been refracted through the prism of Scripture and Tradition so that it can now be seen in all its beauty and diversity in the people of God, who have been led to express their faith and to order their structures in a variety of ways, reflecting the Light of Christ in a common mission to the world. Hopefully, this physical analogy will help us to grasp and celebrate the possibility of our oneness in Christ and our koinonia in the one Triune God. How do we get there from here? We travel down various confessional and historical roads, moving through Rome, through Constantinople, through Augsburg, through Canterbury, through Geneva, through Antioch, through Amsterdam (and let us add through Aldersgate for a heart “strangely warmed”), to Jerusalem where Christ not only prayed that we would all be one, but died and rose for us in order to reconcile us and the world to God through His cross-shaped love. On our ecumenical pilgrimage, we also take seriously the seven New Testament realities (the Ephesian Septilateral?), realizing what we all already have in common and discovering our unity in diversity and our unity in mission under an ecumenical rainbow. Rev. John George HUBER, D.Min. is Lutheran, currently the Chair of the Faith, Order and Witness Committee of the Ecumenical Council of San Diego County, United States of America. His email address is john.huber@ecunet.org.
23
MOZAIK
Inflaming the Rainbow
2003/1
Kate W I L S O N
Churches Reconciled in Love? ´ 1645) The Colloquium Charitativum (Torun, What did reconciliation between churches mean for a people whose great-grandparents remembered the Reformation, a people whose neighbours were fighting a confessional war that had been raging for nearly three decades? They knew it was connected to caritas: ubi caritas, Deus ibi est. So when the King of Poland–Lithuania called a meeting between Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed in 1645, it became known as the Colloquium Charitativum, a meeting to promote loving reconciliation between the churches. This was revolutionary. Until then, meetings between two confessions had been tried, in the German lands where the Thirty Years’ War was then being fought, but this was the first time that three confessions were sitting round the same table. The king who called the meeting, WLADYSLAW IV Waza, was a Roman Catholic, whose father ZYGMUNT was famous for trying to undermine the position of non-Catholics in the historically tolerant Commonwealth of Poland–Lithuania. WLADYSLAW claimed to have called the Colloquium to “see and avert whatever causes conflict between Catholics and Protestants, by resolving these contradictions”. The Colloquium was an important witness for peace and reconciliation, but has almost been forgotten, as borders and populations have shifted between countries and churches. 150 years later, when Orthodox Russia and Lutheran Prussia were using Enlightenment ideals of toleration as a pretext to invade Poland–Lithuania; much had changed. Was the Colloquium really as conciliatory as it seemed?
new monarch promised on succeeding the throne to grant them all liberty of conscience: “I will defend and maintain peace and tranquillity among those dissident as to the Christian religion; nor will I in any other way, either through our jurisdiction or through any authority of any of our offices and statutes, permit anyone to be troubled or oppressed on account of his religion, nor will I myself trouble or oppress him. And if (God forbid) I violate my oath in any respect, the inhabitants of this Royal Commonwealth and of all the dominions of every nation shall not be bound to render me obedience...” This guarantee of confessional plurality, allowing no one church from the East or the West to dominate, made reconciliation between confessions seem a realistic possibility in Poland–Lithuania. Their attempt to re-unite drew international attention; theologians from abroad, such as Jan HÜSLEMANN from Wittenberg and the irenic Georgius CALIXTUS also attended the Colloquium in Torun. HÜSLEMANN was amazed that the Polish Lutherans did not want to defend their own confessional interests at the meeting; they explained that they did not separate toleration guarantees, as all dissenters benefited from the Warsaw Confederation. One wonders why the churches of the Commonwealth needed to meet together at all, if they were living together so harmoniously. WHOSE RECONCILIATION? Reconciliation sounds innocent enough, but who wanted whom to reconcile with what? The prime mover behind the Colloquium was the Capuchin Valerian MAGNI, whose real aim was to encourage Protestants back into the fold
EAST OF THE WEST AND WEST OF THE EAST It was no accident that such a meeting took place on Polish territory; many Poles still see themselves as “East of the West and West of the East”. The Commonwealth was the largest state in Europe in the seventeenth century, stretching almost from Berlin to Moscow. This meant that its population belonged to both the Eastern and Western Churches, and were familiar with confessional differences long before the Reformation even happened. Like many of her Central European neighbours, Poland had introduced religious toleration early, and held on to it in a period when confessional states were forming. Since the Warsaw Confederation of 1573, all members of the nobility at least, were legally equal as dissidentes in religione. Dissenters in this context meant Roman Catholics as much as Protestants and Orthodox – each
24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Inflaming the Rainbow of the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church, the main church in the Eastern part of Poland–Lithuania, was not invited. Nor were the Greek Catholics, those Orthodox who accepted the authority of the Pope at the Union of Brzesc fifty years before, in 1596. The Socinians, who did not believe in the Trinity, were also barred from the meeting, although they tried hard to attend. Protestants and Orthodox were worried enough about how the Colloquium might affect their churches to call a meeting before the Colloquium, held at Orla in 1644. Their noble leaders met at the Sejm (the Polish–Lithuanian parliament), and sent a statement to the king and primate, the Archbishop of Gniezno, affirming their religious liberty in the Polish tradition. NonCatholics were used to allying in this way in Poland–Lithuania, and took the opportunity of the Colloquium to strengthen their ties, using the Sejm to network with each other across the Commonwealth. On a local level, co-operation between churches went further than even the Colloquium could hope for. The Reformed and Lutherans in the Western province of Great Poland met before the Colloquium and published a joint statement, focussing on where they could agree. This was conciliatory: “They decided to end the conflict on Sacraments, Communion and Predestination, and other less important issues which have so far divided the churches […] they laid aside all Hatred, Conflict and Suspicion, to approach the Colloquium in good Unity and debate nobly, hand in hand” (Johannes HÜLSEMANN). This co-operation was renewed over the decades to come. So while the official Colloquium did not reflect the real diversity of churches in the Commonwealth, it stimulated reconciliation between many churches outside the framework of the meeting. Churches were coming together in unexpected ways, allying outside the controlled encounter which king WLADYSLAW had set up. AFTER THE CONFERENCE You can still visit the room in the town hall in Torun where they met. Dark wood panelling, heavy chairs, pictures on the walls of these men who died four hundred years ago; it is not that big, not that impressive, though the town hall itself is an imposing Gothic building. But you can imagine them debating, passing notes to their friends and rolling their eyes in frustration, finally calming down enough to pray together, getting refreshed by it, meeting in little groups on the stairs, quarrelling over how
> > > > > >
MOZAIK
2003/1
their names were written in the minutes. They did. They could not even agree on a final version of the minutes, and asked the king to produce a fair record for decades afterwards. In the end all confessions published their own version of events. So had the ‘ecumenical conference’ been an empty showpiece, failing to have any impact, just another free travel opportunity? Some historians, like Edmund PISZCZ, certainly think so. Nevertheless, it brought all the churches in Poland–Lithuania together, not only at the Colloquium but also in other meetings outside it. These meetings involved the Orthodox and Socinians too, and the co-operation between churches, which the Colloquium had stimulated anew, went on for decades, down to a local level. Those present at the Colloquium actually prayed together, at a time when differences between Christian denominations were being used to fuel political conflict across the continent. Such conflicts still occur, four hundred years after the Colloquium, and we are still wondering how best to pray together. Union into one Church may seem a long way off, if that is even what any of today’s churches want. Maybe every generation has to seek reconciliation over again, to find it for itself. We have come a long way. But it is still worth listening to the voices of our ancestors who tried before us. A key contemporary case for reconciliation instead of conflict between churches was to listen to each other and wait for revealed truth. Krzysztof OSTRORÓG, a Socinian minister, argued this most eloquently: “soon the truth of the Christian religion will rise like the sun, errors will vanish, just as the shadows do at sunrise.” After four centuries, are we able to listen and wait for the sun to rise as Krzysztof hoped?
ACCOUNTS OF THE COLLOQUIUM Acta Conventus Thoruniensis Celebrati 1645. Warszawa, 1646. (The Royal Records) CYRUS Jan, Idea Colloqui Charitativi. Kraków, 1646. (A Roman Catholic Perspective) HÜLSEMANN Johannes, Widerlegung der Calvinischen Relation vom Colloquio zu Thorn. Leipzig, 1646. (A Lutheran Perspective) PRAWDECKY Constantio, Entdeckung der unwahrheiten… welcher D J Hülsemann in seiner wieder legung ausspregnet. Leszno, 1647. (A Reformed Perspective)
Suggested Reading MAAG Karin (ed.), The Reformation in Eastern and Central Europe. St. Andrews, 1997. OGONOWSKI Zbigniew (ed.), Mysl spoleczna XVII w – 700 Lat Mysli Polskiej. Warszawa, 1979. PISZCZ Edmund, Colloquium chari tativum w Toruniu 1645. Torun, 1995. Kate WILSON is a Roman Catholic from Wales. She is coming to the end of a PhD about the politics of toleration in early modern Great Poland. She is a member of the Executive Committee (ExCo) and the European Regional Committee (ERC) of the World Student Christian Federation (WSCF). Her email adress is kaska@hotmail.com.
25
MOZAIK
Inflaming the Rainbow
2003/1
To r s t e n M O R I T Z
Admiring
the
Ashes
or
Keeping
the
Flame Alive?
Between Rebellion and Tradition: How WSCF History can be an Inspiration for Truth and Reconciliation? These days, it has become extremely popular in church circles across Europe to talk about reconciliation. As the ecumenical process of Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation (JPIC) reached a bit of a deadlock in the early nineties, more and more ecumenically minded people have found that the issue of reconciliation should be the top priority of the European churches. This development was most visibly symbolised by choosing “reconciliation” as the theme for the second European Ecumenical Assembly (EEA 2) in Graz 1997. Indeed it seems that Europe and the world need reconciliation. The divisions of the Cold War are still in our memory and hearts, the divisions between North and South carry on, old conflicts which we had hoped had been overcome, erupt with new brutality and in regions like the Caucasus or the Middle East the logic of war triumphs. While we might with good reasons reject the notion that we are witnessing a “clash of civilisations” (Samuel P. Huntington), we have to acknowledge that in many conflicts of our days, churches and religious communities play at least an ambivalent role, in some situations even actively contribute to unreconciled situations. WSCF HISTORY: DISCOVERING A HIDDEN TREASURE FOR RECONCILIATION Thus we as WSCF and as young ecumenically minded persons in general, need to identify what could be our role in promoting reconciliation through and within the churches so “that all may be one.” If our contribution is to be a meaningful one, we should avoid the trap of a cheap, naïve and non-reflected “let us all be a big happy family” understanding of reconciliation and community – an understanding which has in recent years too often prevailed in the ecumenical youth movement in Europe (see the debates around the World Youth Day 2000 or the European Ecumenical Encounter 2001). As WSCF we find an enormous treasure and inspiration in our own history, in the walks of lives of those men and – from the very early days – women who kept the Federation alive over the past more than hundred years. The history of those forefathers and foremothers of WSCF contains some of the most important elements of the development of modern ecumenical thinking. The development could be described as a path between rebellion and reconciliation, between maintaining traditions of the Church and reforming the Church in view of present-day challenges. It also included the insight that reconciliation could not be a cheap movement of forgetting the past and neglecting existing differences, but needed truth, debate and careful analysis. WSCF has for more than hundred years been at the forefront of this development. QUESTIONING TRADITIONAL ALLEGIANCES Already the foundation of WSCF was a rather extraordinary move. In 1895, the colonial powers of Europe were still deeply involved in efforts to colonise large regions of
26
Asia and Africa according to their national interests. Quite often mission societies were happy to lend a helping hand to these colonial activities. The WSCF founding father John R. MOTT, a US-American Methodist, also had his mind set on the “conquest of the world” – a conquest of a different kind however – “the evangelisation of the world in this generation.” It was clear to MOTT that this endeavour had to include Christians of all nations and denominations. At that time this was an extremely daring attitude, which was challenging traditional understandings of allegiance of Christians to their own nation or denomination. This transnational component of WSCF underwent difficult times in World War I, as Christians fought on both sides of the war. However, the community of WSCF continued as members on all sides of the conflict continued to pray for one another. WSCF was among the few organisations where Christians from both sides met immediately after the war to discuss in openness why this war had come about and how future generations could avoid falling into the trap of war. They dared to ask the question whether Christians could take up arms. They dared to ask this question knowing full well that they were very likely to disagree about the answer to it (a very radical position even asked whether we believe in the same Christ). RISKING CONFLICT Another important conflict, which WSCF addressed at a very early point, was the racial question. The Student World (SW) of October 1930 dealt with “aspects of the inter-racial situation.” In June of the same year, an SCM conference in South Africa brought together black, white and coloured students as well as Indians under the leadership of a WSCF Executive Committee member. A racially mixed meeting of this kind was at that time an unprecedented event in South Africa. There was immediate criticism from the leadership of the white South African movement, who expressed that such a meeting was incompatible with “the country’s feeling in the matter of social intermingling.” As this quotation shows, WSCF had once again given priority of the Biblical message over other considerations, such as diplomacy. I also find it noteworthy that we can, in this statement, recognise the pattern of describing a certain approach as “not in line with a country’s feeling or tradition” – an argument we know from the heated debates of our days, too. The Federation was willing to risk a conflict, which would continue for years, but in the end resulted in the churches’ denunciation of racism as a sin and in overcoming racial segregation. A last example is the story of WSCF in the sixties and seventies, a time when “liberation” and “liberation struggle” were the central key words of the Federation. Liberation was understood differently – in Europe, the SCMs to a large extent had a Marxist materialist understanding of it, in North America the anti-institutional drive was strong, in Africa and Asia an anti-colonial sentiment prevailed – all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Inflaming the Rainbow factors, which caused heated debates and in the end led to the regionalisation of the Federation.
REINTERPRETING THE BIBLICAL MESSAGE It was once again a moment where SCMs reinterpreted the biblical message in view of their contemporary situation and very often found answers which were contextual – and often against the mainstream debate in the Church of that time. In daring to provoke conflict, they gave a boost to new theology in the ecumenical movement. Central concepts which have shaped the ecumenical debates in the following decades were developed in the WSCF of these days. It is part of this episode in WSCF history that the debate between the activists of these days still continues – as we can see in the different attempts to come to terms with this part of WSCF histories in the publications of the nineties (see the books of Philip POTTER and Risto LEHTONEN). PROMOTING A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF RECONCILIATION Nowadays it seems that all the questions have been asked and all the fights been fought. What can be the role of an organisation, a movement such as WSCF in promoting reconciliation? I believe that we can see from these few examples from our history that the role of WSCF lies in addressing questions of reconciliation in the spirit of truth, acknowledging that this truth might be painful to face and at times involve a difficult process. It is a role which understands tradition as treasure, a treasure that must be constantly re-examined in the light of the reality of a particular time and place and in view of the question what the biblical message for this time and place would be. It is a role of acknowledging and cherishing conflict and dissent as an important part of a joint process, despite the anger, frustration and sometimes despair this conflict might bring along. POSITIVE EXAMPLES TODAY One of the positive examples of WSCF in our days is the discussion on globalisation – the question of reconciling a world deeply divided into rich and poor, into those profiting from existing markets and those being reduced to sheer commodities in the global economy. WSCF has started to address these questions in its work from the early nineties onwards (eg. the panel on globalisation at the WSCF General Assembly in Yamoussoukro in 1995). Many issues discussed at that time are by now commonplaces in public discussions. WSCF is, however, in a position – like only few other organisations – to work on a global response, to accept that the answers from radical, activismoriented SCMs in, for example, Asia Pacific will be different ones than those of SCMs from, perhaps, Central and Eastern Europe, who will be evaluating very carefully and cautiously all the blueprints for an alternative, just and sustainable alternative to capitalist globalisation > > > > > > > >
MOZAIK
2003/1
on the basis of their past experience with state socialism (the last big blueprint ideology claiming to present an alternative to capitalism). I see the sometimes painful tension in this kind of discussions is an enormous asset, which we should use more coherently and creatively. Another important discussion of reconciliation, more directly addressing the Church and its own life, is the question of the Church as an inclusive community. In recent years WSCF has not only seen vivid discussions on new forms of partnership between women and men, but developed into one of the most important for a in which groups of gay and lesbian Christians have voiced their desire to be acknowledged as an integral part of the community of saints which the Church represents. It was WSCF who hosted a hearing at the EEA 2 in Graz on the role of gays and lesbians in the Church. Hardly any other issues has turned out to be as divisive as this one, hardly any issue has so many socio-ethical, theological and ecclesiological implications. As an organisation representing the ecumenical youth, WSCF should also continue to address the role of young people in the Church. At the EEA 2 in 1997, a group of young delegates and youth organisations lobbied and achieved the result that the final text of the assembly would not only speak about a “flow of love between the generations” (paragraph A24), but would also acknowledge a “rupture between the generations” (A17). Is WSCF prepared to continue pressing for a debate how young people’s gifts can be acknowledged and used in the Church? WSCF HISTORY: AN ENCOURAGEMENT TO LOOK FURTHER What made the Federation great and at times a true agent of reconciliation was the willingness of courageous women and men to follow Jesus in his liberating message and to “enlist students in the world of extending the kingdom of Christ throughout the whole world” (WSCF declaration of objectives of 1895). This included the daring attitude of valuing the universal Biblical message higher than any allegiance to any nation, ideology, denomination or class. At the moment, however, most churches are taking a step back and are spending most of their energy to defend the status quo of denominational, national or economic interest. We have to dare to oppose this trend today and value higher that in Christ “there is no East no West.” In this way we can once again become true agents of reconciliation. Suggested Reading HUNTINGTON Samuel P., The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order. London–NewYork, 1998. LEHTONEN Risto, Story of a Storm. The Ecumenical Student Movement in the Turmoil of Revolution. Cambridge–Helsinki, 1998. POTTER Philip – WIESER Thomas, Seeking and Serving the Truth. The first Hundred Years of the World Student Christian Federation. Geneva, 1997. TORSTEN Moritz (1969) is a (United) Protestant from Germany. He was the ViceChairperson of WSCF Europe from 1995 to 1997. He lives in Brussels and worships in the St. Andrew’s Church of Scotland. His email is moritzt@yahoo.com. He acknowledges that the title of the essay is a reference to the proverb: Cherishing tradition is not admiring the ashes of yesterday’s fire, but keeping the flame alive.
27
MOZAIK
Geometry of Unity
2003/1
Alfredo S A L G A D O
Poverty and Reconciliation Reciprocated Interest – Ways of Approaching Poverty Poverty has many faces. It can be involuntary and it can be chosen. It can be a curse and it can be a means of education. Poverty can concern an individual, a group, a nation or any larger group transcending national borders. Poverty is often comparative, discovered after an encounter with those more affluent than ourselves. Poverty can appear as poverty in comparison to those more wealthy than us and then appear as wealth in comparison to those more needy than ourselves. How do we distinguish which poverty is real? How do we decide which form of poverty should be most urgently eliminated? And in what way should justice and poverty be brought about between the rich and the poor? POVERTY AS A SUDDEN STROKE – A CATASTROPHE When poverty is caused by a natural disaster, by a war or by any other sudden blow, it is most noticeable. A sudden fall in the standard of living, a sudden shortage of necessities or even a sudden reduction of prosperity are strong blows and in many instances are perceived as injustice. An attack of poverty of this kind can affect both individuals, population groups, whole nations or even continents. In history there have been countless disasters that thrust formerly wealthy nations into poverty or made poor nations even poorer. As an example from modern European history is the Potato Famine of Ireland (1845-49) that resulted in the death of nearly one million people and forced another million into emigration. The potato disease rendered Ireland largely dependent upon foreign aid. The then Prime Minister Sir Robert PEEL revoked the Corn Laws to make bread cheaper and decided to import maize that would be sold in Ireland at purchase-price. His actions, however, provoked large opposition in the owner-class and PEEL was replaced. The Potato Famine is still a vivid memory in collective Irish history. How was it possible to reconcile the wealthy with the poor in 1852, when the blight in Ireland was finally over? BORN INTO POVERTY – NO WAY OUT? Being born into poverty draws much less attention than large-scale poverty resulting from a disaster. It is one of the least noticeable kinds of poverty. It is “being used to poverty” as a reality of life. This is also one of the most difficult kinds of poverty to eliminate. People often do not know anything better than what they have and often there is little hope that the conditions could improve. In these situations, poverty has become a given. In areas familiar with long-term (civil) war, people adjust to the altered circumstances and begin to accept them as normal. In areas where shortage of resources has been a reality for many years, it is hard to imagine that the future could look differently. It is especially in this case that poverty produces long-term disillusion. Those who can leave will leave and those who cannot eventually
28
grow bitter. The flow of refugees from areas with few prospects of improvement is often halted by outer means such as the imposition of migration restrictions and people from poor areas being denied entry into the realm of the rich. CHOSEN POVERTY – EDUCATION AND COMPASSION Aside from poverty that is assigned (realised at birth or a result of a disaster), there is a poverty that is chosen. It can be chosen as a means of education, often related to religious motives, as in GANDHI’s case or in the case of hermits in many religious traditions. The idea that a life of poverty frees one’s mind from the clinging to worldly goods has been present in many philosophical systems. People who have accepted poverty in a radical way claim that such a life not only increases one’s concentration on non-material realities of life, but that it can open one’s heart for active compassion with the poor who were denied the choice. A hermit chooses poverty as an individual, but those living in poor families or nations are affected by poverty on other than just individual level. And even the most radical religious or philosophical poverty looks for moderate poverty, which is acceptable and does not exceed the individual’s capacity to bear it. There are also instances when religiously motivated poverty cannot be regulated beforehand and is accepted in the measure in which it comes. This happens in cases where an individual or a group put themselves into the service of the needy in an unprecedented way. In this context poverty is closely linked with compassion and love and can be a great witness to the ideals of the sharing of resources as well as of suffering. The service for the needy as in the case of Mother THERESA or Albert SCHWEITZER – if it was to be a sign of hope and reconciliation – needed to be practiced in a consciously accepted poverty. Such poverty was one of the signs that the involvement of these Christians was authentic and came from a desire deeply rooted in their hearts. ELIMINATION OF POVERTY – A FINANCIAL MATTER? It often seems that the elimination of poverty is closely linked with a redistribution of material resources. In many cases it is really so. But in cases where such a requirement is unrealisable for the time being other instruments need to be employed. Poverty is often linked with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Geometry of Unity phenomena that can appear secondary. One usually admits that political oppression and totalitarianism can be primary sources of long-term stagnation, but there are more subtle ways of inhibiting people’s involvement in the creation of both material and cultural goods and items. It has often been the case that classes of the population were deprived of civil freedom, property rights, economic liberty, political and social influence, which resulted in a long-term demotivation of these classes in relation to their economic and cultural creativity. The marginalisation of slaves and foreigners in ancient societies, exploitation of the cheap or free labour of “inferior” races and the exclusion of women from decision-making are notorious examples of how the wealth of one group was built on the poverty of the other. These ample examples of segregation of the rich and the poor must be taken into account when examining why certain portions of population suffered from a lack of economic and cultural creativity for some time after their “liberation” by their former “masters”. The same goes for countries and regions that were treated as colonies and seen as deposits of raw materials and depots of cheap labour. Their “liberation” from the yoke of exploitation often meant an abrupt change from one form of dependence to another. In this situation I am curious to ask what role education is supposed to play in the elimination of poverty. POVERTY AND EDUCATION Municipal charity reforms of the XVIth century (eg. in Valladolid, Rouen or Paris) tried to eliminate poverty in different ways. One of them was expelling as many paupers as possible from the city. In Rome the poor were supposed to live in a segregated area. Prisons were often institutions dealing primarily with beggars, rather than outlaws. In many cases the problem of poverty proved to be such an overwhelming issue that those in power applied cheap but effective solutions. Even if it is at times difficult to suggest alternative solutions, there have been other ways of approaching the problem of poverty. These ways, however, were devised mainly by those whose real power was utterly limited. In his book “The Tragedy of American Compassion” Marvin OLASKY argues that poverty relief work essentially needs an educational element. Or in other words – purely material compassion in which the elements of love and hope are missing is just a short-term input that evaporates with the vapor of the distributed hot soup. OLASKY argues: “Poverty fighters hundred years ago were more compassionate – in the literal meaning of “suffering with” – than many of us are now. They opened their own homes to deserted women and children. They offered employment to nomadic men who had abandoned hope and human contact. Most significantly, they made moral demands on recipients of aid. They saw family, work, freedom, and faith as central to our being, not as life-style options. No one was allowed to eat and run. Some kind of honest labor was required of those who needed food or a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
MOZAIK
2003/1
place to sleep in return. Even if the option presented by OLASKY is not applicable in all contexts, it tells us an important truth. People whose motivation and creativity are low or almost non-extant need more than just the basics necessary for their survival. They need encouragement to go on in a different way. This encouragement, including an element of hope, can be mediated by those who dispose of appropriate instruments that can be offered for an improvement of the situation of the individual struck by poverty. Only at the beginning can there be one-sided giving and encouraging. Afterwards two-sided activity is needed for further continuation of the mutually conceived idea of stepping out of the past. POVERTY AND RECONCILIATION Even if those more prosperous often feel the duty to share, they may be forgetting about their duty to learn. People who approach the poverty of others by choosing the same option for themselves – like Mother THERESA – acknowledge that there is much to learn from the reality of being poor. On the other hand, relief workers, who work with the poor but come from an affluent society, often do not look for a lesson coming from the environment of the poor. They give goods and expertise and receive gratitude. But is that enough? Learning from the poor, from their reality, is in many cases a unique chance to come nearer to the essentials of life. Their choices, their expertise of management of resources, their search for the peace of mind, their relationship with transcendence, their creativity – all these are meaningful realities that can teach those more wealthy a lesson they hardly can be taught in their own context. Reconciliation between the poor and the rich is therefore a reality that requires reciprocity – reciprocated interest and reciprocated instruction. Even if cases of emergency short-term help and cases of longer-term co-operation differ so much from each other, relief work can always be an opportunity to be instructed by new views, approaches and values. The equality of all humans has always been at the roots of relief work. Compassion and knowledge that something similar can happen to us have also been deeply rooted in the idea of helping the ones in need. Learning about ourselves from those who seem to have little to give is, however, another element that should not be overseen when bringing the light of hope into a house where there are already many other lights burning without us knowing.
Suggested Reading GEREMEK Bronislaw, Poverty – A History. Oxford, 1994. LANDES David, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. New York, 1998. OLASKY Marvin, The Tragedy of American Compassion. Washington DC, 1992. Alfredo SALGADO is a Roman Catholic from Zaragoza, Spain. He is currently studying Social Sciences in Madrid. His main focus is the development of social institutions in modern Europe. He has been involved in social programmes aimed at incorporating immigrants into the Spanish society. He has also participated in research programs among asylum-seekers in eastern Spain. He is a member of Amnesty International. His email address is alfredosalgado@todochat.zzn.com.
29
MOZAIK
Geometry of Unity
2003/1
Peter C I A C C I O
Two Parallel Histories in Europe The end of Communism in 1989 made way for the dream of one Europe, from the Arctic to the Mediterranean, from the Atlantic to the Urals, described by Nobel Peace Prize Mikhail Gorbachev as the “Common European House.” Fourteen years later, the construction of a united Europe remains a difficult process. One of the great obstacles to the building of this common house is in the ideologically divided history of Europe. It is worth reflecting on this crucial aspect. This essay will give a glimpse of what happened on the Western side of the Iron Curtain. COLD WAR, SPACE RACE AND POP PROPAGANDA The Cold War began when CHURCHILL, ROOSEVELT and STALIN, having defeated HITLER, divided Europe in two spheres of influence in Yalta (4-11 February 1945). With the decline of the XIXth century empires, the USA and USSR emerged as the main political, economic and military powers. The Cold War was a duel between them where the chosen weapon was terror. The equilibrium of terror, based on the enormous production of nuclear weapons by USA and USSR, ruled the world, more or less, for forty years. The USA and USSR strove to influence not only European countries, but also others. The Berlin Crisis (1948-49), the Korean War (1950-51), the First Vietnam War (1955-63), the invasion of Hungary (1956), the Berlin Wall (1961-89), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Second Vietnam War (1964-75), the invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968), the Afghanistan War (1978-88): they were part of this Risk game. From Sputnik, the first satellite and missile vector (1957), to REAGAN’s bluff of the Space Shield (1983-88), US and Soviet militaries and secret services played a bloody space race (many astronauts died), as a great means for propaganda. The meeting point of propaganda and space race was in mass media. Just as Mussolini used radio and cinema during his rule as a way to gain public support, this elaborate propaganda was less naïve and more subtle. In television series and in B-movies, the good terrestrials were similar to Americans and the bad extraterrestrials to Soviets. The first words of every episode of the TV-series Star Trek
30
(started in 1966) were “Space: the final frontier.” Another good TV example was V-Visitors (1983), where humanlike aliens land on Earth. They are dressed in a red uniform (a “red army”); their president says, “we want peace!” (just like the Soviet leaders) and people believing in their good intentions say, “look! They are not dangerous, they are just like us!” (as Western dissidents used to say). Instead, the Visitors were outer-space monstrous reptiles who wanted to conquer the Earth in order to put all human beings in enormous refrigerators in order to feed their species for the next generations. A clear message: you cannot believe the enemy; you have to believe the government. This kind of dualistic pop propaganda presented our Western side as a sort of romantic heaven-on-earth and the Eastern side as the Evil One. LEFT AND RIGHT ON THE BORDER OF THE IRON CURTAIN What are left and right in Italy? MUSSOLINI polluted the word “right” when, at the beginning of the twenties, having been asked where his new party wanted to be seated in Parliament, his answer was “on the right, to better face my enemies.” So, after two decades of a rightist dictatorship (including three wars), for many people, left, as the antonym of right, became a synonym of freedom, peace, justice and democracy. In fact, the leftist parties were indeed promoting these values. On the other hand, the conservatives consider themselves in the “centre.” Authoritarian regimes usually change the semantics of many potentially good words: in fact, in some former Eastern block countries the words “politics” and “revolution” became bad words. In Italy, USA and USSR, the Risk game was played without scruples: many people died, many people suffered and, at least twice (in 1964 and 1974), democracy risked to be replaced by a dictatorship, as it happened in Greece, Chile and Argentina. There were secret paramilitary structures ready to destabilise the democratic life of the nation in case the Partito Comunista Italiano (PCI) would have government responsibilities. After every parliamentary election, the US ambassador would pay a visit to the President of the Republic, intimidating him on the composition of the new government.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Geometry of Unity The PCI was a great democratic party. PCI together with Democrazia Cristiana (DC) were the main forces in the Resistenza against the Nazi-fascist occupation of Northern Italy (1943-45). The PCI actively participated in building the newly born Repubblica Italiana and in writing its Constitution (1946-48), which is usually considered a social-liberal document, since it contains the most positive concerns of PCI and DC (freedom of the individual in a strong state). The long process of independence from Moscow’s interests brought the PCI to condemn the invasion of Czechoslovakia, to accept NATO, to propose a EuroCommunism (an anti-Soviet and anti-Chinese socialist experience). During the revolts (1968-1979), the ultraleftist and Maoist students considered the PCI as a rightwing party. Those times were called Anni di Piombo (years of bullets), because ultra-left and ultra-right groups threatened the country’s everyday life. The PCI never tried to subvert the democratic status quo; instead it allied with DC against the terrorist threat. DC president Aldo MORO, who was working for a DC-PCI government, was kidnapped and executed by the Brigate Rosse (1978). I am not afraid to say that if in Italy we are more or less free and if my generation was brought up in a democratic culture, it is also thanks to the PCI. ITALIAN COMMUNIST IDENTITY Since comedies are meant to be funny movies, they are more or less free from propaganda and can be good historical documentation, regarding the everyday life of a nation. The first two movies of the Italian comedian Carlo VERDONE have two interesting characters that describe the typical Italian PCI supporter. In “Un sacco bello” (1979), Ruggiero is a young hippie. His father is obsessed with him and wants him back home. Mario tells Ruggiero that he just bought a new apartment for him if he comes back; he calls a Roman Catholic priest to convince him on family values. After a series of vain attempts, Ruggiero’s girlfriend asks, “is your father a fascist?” Ruggiero answers, “at least he would believe in something.” Mario lifts up both fists saying, “me? A fascist?! I am ultra Communist!” In “Bianco Rosso e Verdone” (1981), an old woman travels with her grandson 500 km in order to vote in her constituency in Rome. She is very ill (in fact, she will soon die), but she is so proud to vote PCI, because Communists are honest and fight power privileges. During the trip, they meet a group of Russians and she tells them that she is Communist, while her grandson says to them, “excuse her! She is quite old!” and to her, “Granny, it is not the same thing!” Italian communists were quite different from the general stereotype. They were bourgeois, with properties, with great respect for the religious institutions and with strong ethics. SCMS IN THE SEVENTIES: FAITH AND POLITICS The Federazione Giovanile Evangelica Italiana (FGEI) was born in 1969 as a fusion of Baptist, Methodist and Waldensian youth associations. Since its foundation, the link between faith and politics was the main concern of FGEI. As many Student Christian Movements in Western Europe, there was a need to have a clear political position. FGEI was leftist, not as an a priori decision, but as the conclusion of profound theological reflections. Being leftist in Italy meant the application of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7): standing alongside the poor
MOZAIK
2003/1
ones, seeking justice and peace, refusing the present unjust world by constructing a better one, opposing the “official church” if its main concerns are “easy sacrifices” and not true repentance. This clear programmatic choice revitalised our SCMs and challenged churches and society. Of course, this challenge was risky and some of our predecessors made some mistakes. The biggest mistake was the indulgence towards the Communist regimes of the Soviet block. The historical reason is that Latin American revolutionaries took inspiration by Karl MARX and liberation theologians compared the Christian message with Communist ideology. Unfortunately, there was nothing revolutionary or liberating in Communist regimes. A consequence of these mistakes was the exclusion of people who had a different vision. CAN WE BE RECONCILED WITH OUR PREDECESSORS’ HISTORY? When we read most literature produced in the seventies by FGEI members and friends, we see that it is light years far away from our current understanding and approach. Also other Western SCMs were used to write on materialistic approaches to the Bible, Christ as the first Marxist, the Gospel and class struggle, Christians for Socialism, the alliance of proletarians and “Third World people” as the foretaste of the Kingdom of God and so on. Today, these titles seem a bit weird. Nowadays we would be embarrassed to write something like this. Today some of this sounds ridiculous and it is source of laughter. My question is: do we have the right to laugh at what happened in our Western SCMs in the seventies? Do we have the right to look down on what our predecessors wrote or reflected upon? My answer is a clear “No.” Western SCMers in the seventies were ready to take all risks, even the risk that the coming generations may not understand them. Western society was living a dark time with the worst part of the Vietnam War, coup d’état in Greece, Chile, Argentina, repression of civil rights in some countries, bloody attacks from terrorist organisations. Western SCMers wished to build a better church in a better society. Most of us today may not believe this is possible, but our predecessors took the risk. For this reason I am proud to be in a SCM with these people as my predecessors. On the other hand, we should analyse their history and their mistakes, in order not to repeat them and to take the best from their experience, which is their longing for freedom and justice. This is why one of the main working fields of WSCF Europe is “Gender and Education”, as a means to overcome oppressive power structures in church and society. This is why another working field is “Solidarity,” because we should care for society and for people in need. WSCF Europe should be a means to build a “Common European House.” Nevertheless, in order to do this, we should share our experiences and we should listen to the history of people who live on the other side of what used to be the Iron Curtain. We are called to be reconciled and, with God’s help, we shall.
Peter CIACCIO was born in Belfast in 1975. He is a Methodist student at the Waldensian Faculty of Theology in Rome. He is a member of FGEI, the Italian SCM. Currently, he serves as vice-chairperson in the European Regional Committee (ERC) of the World Student Christian Federation (WSCF). His email address is peterciaccio@yahoo.com.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
31
MOZAIK
Geometry of Unity
2003/1
Suzanna V E R G O U W E
What’s Love got to Do with it? Reflections on Europe ˛ The film Bleu by director Krzystof KIESLOWSKI is one of three in a trilogy, which all carry the names of the colours of the French tricolour, metaphors for three ideals that have changed the history of Europe: liberté, égalité, fraternité. Bleu is about freedom. And about love and reconciling with past and present. In this contribution, I want to use some elements from the movie as well as their combinations as a looking glass, and a perspective on reconciliation, i.e. coming to terms with each other as citizens of Europe. THE HEALING LOVE In the title song of the film Bleu the words from chapter 13 of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, the well-known chapter about Love, are sung. The words are voiced by a soloist alternated with parts sung by a choir of women voices. They reflect one of the main themes of the movie. In blue and black colours, it tells the story of a woman, who, after having lost her husband and her only child in a car accident, struggles to find a meaning for her life again, and to become liberated from old hurt and untold stories. She keeps a few pieces of blue glass in her pocket, objects once belonging to her daughter, as a symbol of the past and the scatteredness of her existence, she carries them with her. Although broken, her life continues, until she finds wholeness again, when she realises that she cannot escape from her past, because it formed her into the person she is. She reconciles with herself, with what was before, and encounters and is found by love. For, in the end, what meaning does freedom have, if one cannot or does not experience love? If there is no one whom to share life and joy with? This is the sharp edge of liberty: there is personal liberty, but at the same time, there is the liberty, or the occurrence of life itself, which cannot be influenced by human beings. The title of the song, however, is not as one would expect related to love, but to a rather abstract, geographical entity: Europe. A grand theme with a grand message, ‘Song for the Unification of Europe’. Is it a coincidence that the title of the movie and the colour of the flag of the European Union are the same? Or that the song is in Greek, the language of the Old Testament and of the philosophies which have shaped European thinking? The question popping up is: what does love have to do with the unification of Europe? EUROPEAN IDEAS The vision of a unified Europe is not a recent one, but has been given various meanings in different contexts.
32
NAPOLEON framed his dream as ‘but one people in Europe’ at which he aimed by attempting to conquer European states. His method was a tribute to the reign of his admired ALEXANDER the Great, and the Roman emperors. Today, the aim is not a unified Europe in the sense NAPOLEON meant it. The establishment of a union of states in Europe is not based on warfare and the establishing of hegemony, but on political and economic co-operation between them in the first place. Joint action in these areas, as well as in security matters, employment, and legal issues is considered to be more effective, with as final aim the creation of ‘an area of freedom and justice’. At its foundations lay the lesson politicians drew from the disasters accompanying two world wars, which have made people in Europe realise that war does not lead to unity. If one analyses the discourse on the enlargement of the European Union, however, it becomes clear that two different entities are mixed up. It was quite shocking to read European Commission President Romano PRODI’s expression when Hungary signed the access treaty between this country and the EU: ‘We are opening our arms to welcome 75 million new European citizens [today]. This is now your homeland too. It is up to you to make it your home’. Bluntly speaking, this attitude is nourished by a mistaken concept of what Europe, and what the European Union is. That is the equation of a number of states cooperating on economic and legislative level, with the whole geographic entity of Europe. The churches in Europe hold a strong plea for the attention which is to be paid to non-materialised aspects such as diversity, traditions, and identity. I think that we also have a strong word of warning to speak in this discourse that makes use of an inclusive and exclusive language. Old borders are broken down, as in the case of Central European countries that will join the European Union next year. But also new borders are drawn up which leads to uncertainties. Because the borders entail a division of atmosphere, between those who are or are not, or have or do not have. In Central and East European countries there is fear of the unknown, for the future. People involved in agriculture live in anxiety because of fears connected with the liberalisation of the market and the drop of subsidies and competitive situations in the future. Some are afraid of an invasion of foreigners buying cheap houses thus driving up the house prices. There are others who are not interested at all, or who feel annoyed by the continuous media bombardments about the ‘accession’.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Geometry of Unity Others are positive, happy that their citizenship will no longer be a hindrance for travelling throughout the world. It is a fulfilment of their dreams, a Europe without borders. In any case, easily speaking about the creation of a European identity does not do justice to people’s feelings and experiences. We will have to accept that identity, especially European identity, has different meaning in different circumstances, shaped by varying historical experiences and cultures. Still, this does not mean that they are not European. Somehow I feel that attention for these experiences and the own dynamics of developments in the countries which are in focus now, is missing. The focus is rather from the dominant perspective, ‘they are joining Europe’ but there is another side as well. Then, the question inevitably arises: how can we go about these different expectations and backgrounds? What could it look like, a unified Europe? Let me share some experiences with you from Central Europe. WHICH LANGUAGE DO WE SPEAK? In 2001, students from five Central European countries (Austria, Czech R., Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) established the Central European Subregion of WSCF Europe. The main reasons being the need they felt to share past experiences and look towards the future together. What is the most important thing happening during the seminars which are organised, is the coming into existence of friendships. We exchange opinions, we dance and pray, we sit around the same table and say grace together. These friendships across borders in fact do increase understanding, and the vanishing of commonplace images about each other. After each conference, people voice what they have learned, and how these fora contribute to their understanding of what it means to be a young Christian in today’s world. They also find each other in a shared perception of having a Central European identity. I have experienced among them great openness towards each other and towards ‘the West’, but a distinct feeling of having their own background and dreams. Their own identity as Central Europeans. After having experienced this, it seems even shameful to look at differences as a problem. They vanish in the light of the following: are not our European societies largely based on the same value systems of Christianity, Greek philosophy and Roman law? So, which language do we choose to speak? Can we go beyond oppositions and divisive systems?
MOZAIK
2003/1
spiritual gifts granted to the members of the congregation, and upon the unity of the people with these different gifts and elements in the body of Christ, the community living in the spirit of Christ. In chapter 14 he proceeds with his speech on gifts of the Spirit. When perceived as part of a movement, chapter 13 can be seen as the centripetal and centrifugal centre, as the move from a broader perspective on Christian society and life, to the heart of Christian faith. He speaks about Love as “the most excellent way”. It is an action, which comes from within, and if given space, it leads to freedom. In its most ideal form, Love is the driving force behind reconciliation and unification. In love relationships people come closer to each other, whether they are friends, lovers or relatives. They discover a new space together, which would not be there without the other, a space which has its own dynamics. Love deconstructs boundaries. The clearest example of this is perhaps marriage between people from different backgrounds. A married couple from Serbia, she Magyar, he Romanian, learned each other’s language, raising their kids bilingual. For them, cultural differences were not a barrier to be lovers and spouses. The same goes for two other friends, who are united in marriage but were raised and belong to different denominations. Their love for each other does not suffer from these differences, because they take it as a fact belonging to their relationship, and to the very being of the other person. Out of respect and deep interwovenness with each other, they do not force the other to accept the same denomination or the same way of thinking. Love unites them above all. Of which yet another example, phrased by a participant of one of the WSCF seminars in Central Europe where nine nationalities were represented: there was so much love concentrated and materialised in one place in a way that he had not experienced for a long time. Diversity united through love in community. A way in which we can live out the message of the letter to the Corinthians. Realising that we are shaped by our experiences and backgrounds, and that we cannot escape from them. But freeing ourselves from physical and psychological boundaries which underline otherness. We should rather look for ways how we can be a colourful body, and start with sharing and saying grace around the same table. A promising song for the unification of Europe.
DECONSTRUCTING BOUNDARIES In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul speaks about a uniting force: Love with capital L, Love for and in community, about Agape. In the preceding chapter he touches upon various > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Suggested Reading VOLF MIROSLAV, Exclusion and Embrace. A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville, 1996. http://europa.eu.int/comm/publications/booklets/eu_glance /12/txt_en.htm#1
Suzanna VERGOUWE is an anthropologist, graduate of the Free University, Amsterdam, and of the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, London. She has conducted field work in Transylvania on the Greek Catholic Church, and in Vojvodina, Serbia, on the Romanian community in that area. She is currently working in Budapest as the co-ordinator for the Central European Subregion of WSCF-Europe. Her email address is cesr_intern@yahoo.co.uk.
33
MOZAIK
Geometry of Unity
2003/1
Kamelia K O N S TA N T I N O VA
Reconciling Denominations: Ecumenical Developments in Bulgaria We live in a time that is full of contradictory thinking. Our thoughts are like autumn colours. Every minute of our days is red or yellow or orange. The differences in our ways of thinking are often the reason for problems or even conflicts. But perhaps one of our gravest mistakes is that we have forgotten love. Every one of us wants to change the world but if we want to do that, we must have love in our hearts. God is Creator. We as children of God must create, too. We must create love. If we want to create peace, we need to be able to give love. It is difficult to keep our identity in this pluralistic world, when every minute of our days is pierced by globalisation. It is difficult to love, when so often we do not feel loved but even then we can draw inspiration from the greatest Love embodied in Jesus Christ. It is very important to carry Christian love in our hearts and then to try to change the world. And what is love? APOSTOLIC FATHERS My essay is an attempt to show the importance of love for our days. And having many examples we should be able to know how to keep our Christian identity. The Apostolic Fathers are among the best examples. Their words are lingering echoes of those who spoke “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” They are monuments of the power of the Gospel. They were made out of such material as Saint Paul describes when he says, “such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6, 11). But without Christ, they might have been worshippers of personified lust and hate, and of every crime. They would have lived for “bread and circus shows.” Yet to the contemporaries of a Juvenal they taught the Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount. Among enormous bestiality of humankind they reared the secret home; they created the Christian family; they gave new and holy meanings to the names of wives and mothers; they imparted hitherto unknown ideas of human dignity; they infused an atmosphere of benevolence and love; they bestowed the elements of liberty; they sanctified human society by proclaiming the universal sisterhood and brotherhood of redeemed humanity. As we read the Apostolic Fathers, we comprehend in short what Saint Paul meant when he said prophetically what people were slow to believe, “the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom; and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength...but God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are,” (1 Corinthians 1, 25–28). THE CHURCH IN BULGARIA The churches and people of Bulgaria are emerging from a complex and difficult period of history. Christianity was introduced to Bulgaria in 864 by Khan (Tsar) BORIS I, with an archbishop appointed from Constantinople. In Macedonia, the city of Ohrid became an active mission centre. Saint CLEMENT of Ohrid, a disciple of missionary
34
saints CYRIL and METHODIUS, trained a large number of Slavs for the ministry thus preparing the ground for a national church. The Bulgarian State became very powerful in the Xth century. In 927 Constantinople recognised the king as Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Archbishop of Preslav as Patriarch of the Bulgarian Church. But the Byzantine Empire gained strength and invaded the Bulgarian Empire in 971, at which time the Patriarch left Preslav and took up residence at Ohrid, Macedonia. The Byzantine Empire conquered Macedonia in 1018, and reduced the patriarchate to the rank of autocephalous archbishopric. Bulgaria regained its independence in 1186, with the establishment of the second empire based at Turnovo. After lengthy negotiations, the Bulgarian Church recognised the supremacy of the Pope in 1204. But this agreement ended in 1235, when the Bulgarian Emperor made an alliance with the Greeks against the Latin Empire in Constantinople, and the Byzantine patriarch recognised a second Bulgarian Orthodox patriarchate in return. SCHISMS WITHIN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH With the beginning of Turkish domination in 1393, the Bulgarian Church lost its autocephalous character and was integrated into the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 1870 the Ottoman government allowed the reestablishment of a national Bulgarian Church as an autonomous exarchate. Constantinople reacted strongly and declared the Bulgarian Church schismatic in 1872. This rift continued long after Bulgaria became a principality in 1878 and an independent kingdom in 1908. It was only in 1945 that the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognised the Bulgarian Church as autocephalous and ended the schism. The Metropolitan of Sofia assumed the title Patriarch in 1953 and he was recognised as such by Constantinople in 1961. During the period of Communist rule, which began in 1944, the government followed a religious policy similar to that of Soviet Union, and the church was compelled to play a largely passive role in society. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church has not escaped the turmoil that followed the collapse of the Communist system. In 1991 the new government created a Board of Religious Affairs which began to initiate reforms in the country’s religious institutions. In March 1992 it ruled that the 1971 election of Patriarch MAXIM had been illegal because the Communist government had appointed him. In 1992 a schism was provoked in the church by the political authorities in Bulgaria, resulting in the formation of a “provisional” Synod, and later the consecration of a second Patriarch. No other Orthodox church has recognised the legitimacy of this group. Following the schism, the church has experienced complex relations with the authorities. The legal status of the respective synods of the BOC remains ambiguous. CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS During the whole of Bulgarian history, there emerged problems in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Now 85% of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Geometry of Unity the population is Orthodox Christian, 15% Muslim, 0.8% Jewish, 0.7% Roman Catholic, and 0.5% other. The Orthodox Church in Bulgaria has many problems after the Communist period. Many people do not believe. They are everywhere and distort Christian thinking. For many people who believe it is difficult to understand other Christians, who are not Orthodox, because after Communism there was not too much information about them. In Bulgaria there are also other denominations. One can find the Armenian Apostolic Church, which was introduced to Bulgaria in 1826. Then there is the Roman Catholic Church. By the middle of the XVIIth century, Roman Catholic mission developed considerably in Bulgaria. In the XIXth century, some Bulgarian Orthodox considered that union with Rome would be a solution. Bulgarian Roman Catholics were re-organised in 1926, but under Communist rule, the church was suppressed. Now there are 15,000 Eastern Rite Catholics and 70,000 Latin Rite Catholics. Finally, there are the Protestant churches in Bulgaria. The Protestant mission had its beginning in the 1860s. Today there are six main Protestant churches registered in Bulgaria. ECUMENICAL SITUATION The church and ecumenical situation in Bulgaria since the changes in 1990 is determined by two problems: the schism within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the tensions between the minority Evangelical-Protestant Church and the majority Orthodox Church. The schism in the Orthodox Church not only continues but paralyses the Church to the point that She is unable to function normally and even less to respond to the challenges coming from society. There is little hope that a solution would be found in the near future. Yet if the Orthodox Church was able to overcome the conflict it would not only heal its own division but also open the way for dealing with many other urgent issues, especially inter-church relations and church–state relations. As it is now, it seems that everything is blocked because of the schism. The relationships between the Evangelical churches and the Orthodox Church continue to be strained, but there are many positive developments as well. Several leaders of the Evangelical churches shared their deep desire for a fraternal and open relationship with the Orthodox Church and their sadness because of the schism. They spoke about their respect for the Orthodox Church. One of them said, “she is also our Mother Church.” There is a National Council of Churches. Besides the above mentioned Orthodox lay movements and the Evangelical Churches the Roman Catholic Church and the Armenian Church are also members of this council. The developments in Bulgaria point to some interesting considerations in a situation in which institutional church
MOZAIK
2003/1
instruments, whether from within or from outside, have been ineffective. It seems that renewal could come from the lay movements. Their role will be crucial. It is also remarkable that they and the Evangelical churches are working together well. MUSLIMS AND JEWS Muslims form the second largest religious group after Orthodox Christians. The largest part of the Muslim population in Bulgaria is made up of ethnic Turks, who began to settle in Bulgaria after the XIVth century and who totalled one million members before 1989. There are also Bulgarians who speak Bulgarian as their mother tongue but whose religion and customs are Islamic. Their number is approximately 250,000. Secondly, large numbers of Spanish-speaking Sephardic Jews settled in the Balkans after being exiled from Spain in the XVIth century. Today there remain only around 3000 Jews in Bulgaria, with Sephardim being a larger group than the Ashkenazim. Nearly all of Bulgaria’s Jews, estimated at some 51,000, survived the war. Massive opposition by the King and leading Orthodox Church figures prevented mass deportation by the Axis powers. However the period 1946-56 saw an important exodus to Israel. INTERRELIGIOUS CO-OPERATION The relationships between Christians in Bulgaria are clear today. What about Muslims and Jews? Often even if there is no official interreligious dialogue the adherents of different religions still manage to live in peace, as they cherish love for each other. It is not possible to live in peace without love. Christians and Muslims comprise nearly half of the world’s population. The nature of the relationship between these two communities is of considerable significance for the welfare of the whole human family. Significantly, peace is at the heart of both Islam and Christianity. Christians call Jesus the “Prince of Peace.” Their prayers for God’s peace are at the heart of their spirituality. In Islam “as-salaam” is one of the ninety-nine most beautiful names of God. When Muslims meet they greet each other with “as-salaam alaikum”, which means “peace be upon you.” In the face of the deadly threats that confront both humanity and the earth itself today, there is an important contribution which these two faith communities can make: they can work together for social justice, for safeguarding and promoting religious freedom, for resolving conflicts peacefully, for addressing the plight of refugees and displaced people. Most Christians today live out lives in actual community with people who may be committed to faiths and ideologies other than their own. They live in families sometimes of mixed faiths and ideologies. They live as neighbours in the same town and village. They need to build their relationships expressing mutual human care and searching for mutual understanding. This sort of dialogue is very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
35
MOZAIK
Geometry of Unity / Bible Studies
2003/1
practical, concerned with the problems of modern life: the social, political, ecological, and above all the ordinary and familiar. THE WAY OF DIALOGUE Dialogue has to be described, experienced and developed as a lifestyle. As human beings we learned to speak. We talk, chatter, give and receive information, and have discussions – all this is not yet dialogue. Now and then, it happens that a deeper encounter arises out of our talking and our relationships, and an opening up of each, in more than intellectual terms, to the concerns of the other. This is experienced by families and friends, and by those who share the same faiths or ideologies, but we are particularly concerned with the dialogue that reaches across differences of faith, ideology and culture, even where the partners in dialogue do not agree on important central aspects of human life. Kamelia KONSTANTINOVA is an Orthodox theologian from Bulgaria. She studied ecumenical theology in the Bossey Ecumenical Institute in Switzerland. Her email address is: kkonstantinova@yahoo.com.
Dialogue can be recognised as a welcoming way of obedience to the commandment of the Decalogue, “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.” Dialogue helps us not to disfigure the image of our neighbours of different faiths and ideologies. It has been the experience of many Christians that this dialogue is indeed possible on the basis of a mutual trust and a respectful the integrity of each participant’s identity. Dialogue, therefore, is a fundamental part of Christian service within community. In dialogue Christians actively respond to the command to, “love God and your neighbour as yourself.” As an expression of love, engagement in dialogue testifies to the experienced in Christ. With God’s love in our hearts we shall keep our identity in the pluralistic world and shall have peaceful dialogue with other faiths. Suggested Reading BEHR-SIGEL Elisabeth, The Place of the Heart. California, 1992. LEMOPOULOS George, You Shall be My Witnesses. Caterini, 1993. LOSSKY Vladimir, In the Image and Likeness of God. New York, 1979. ROBERSON Ronald, The Eastern Christian Churches. Roma, 1995. SUNG Bum Yun, Ethics East and West. Seoul, 1947. YANNARAS Christos, The Freedom of Morality. New York, 1984.
Nienke P R U I K S M A
Reconciliation
and
History: Psalm 103
Archbishop Desmond TUTU of South Africa writes in his book “No Future without Forgiveness”: “…my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in theirs (those we do not share a background with, who may even oppress us NP). We belong in a bundle of life. We say ‘a person is a person through other people’. It is not ‘I think therefore I am’. It says rather: ‘I am human because I belong’. I participate, I share.” The chapter from which this quote is copied, describes a third way to deal with the trauma of a divided past: the way of Truth and Reconciliation, the way that was chosen in South Africa to start coming to terms with the legacy of apartheid. I will use the example of South Africa during this article several times as a reference for how in our time we can try and work reconciliation. Reconciliation is needed there where relations have gone awry – be it between people or between people and God – and realities are shattered. ABOUT PSALM 103 This Psalm is among those Psalms that are labelled as “hymns or descriptive praises” (N. K. GOTTWALD), as it begins and ends with blessing God. The body of the psalm cites “general and longstanding aspects of God’s goodness and power”. The verses above are the so-called body of Psalm 103 – I have left out the traditional opening and ending as they are less specific. Feel free to grab your own Bible and read the whole of the Psalm though, it always pays off to read the whole text, instead of some isolated verses. Verse 6 tells us how God will act on behalf of those who cannot act for themselves, as God did for Israel when they were slaves in Egypt (verse 7). In verses 8 to 10 the psalmist tells us of God’s ways, how God relates to people, to then show us in comparative terms in verses 9-13 how they apply to people who fear God. Verse 14 is a prelude
36
to 15 and 16, showing that God knows of the temporary character of people’s lives. This temporariness is then emphasised by the everlastingness of God’s love in verse 14 – again the love for those who fear God, keep the covenant and remember the commandments. ON THE TEXT OF PSALM 103 The Psalm uses quite some concepts that can give us a clearer idea of what reconciliation is all about, I will pick up some of them below. In verse 6 we find the word “oppressed”. Oppression is one of the main situations where reconciliation is most clearly needed. Where one person is more equal than the other, relationships go lopsided, and people cannot live to their full potential anymore – there is first of all a need for liberation (see the reference in verse 7 to Moses, referring to the Exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt), but what comes after that? To go back to South Africa, this meant that after Nelson MANDELA and many others who fought the apartheid regime were freed and free elections, that brought a landslide victory for the ANC, had been held, still things were not right. One of the first acts of the new parliament and government under president Mandela was to write a new constitution, which had an annex for the foundation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Members from this Commission came from all different groups in society: black, white, coloured, Indian, women, men, Muslims, Christians, Jews, pagans, lawyers, nurses, clerical people, etc. Archbishop Desmond TUTU was appointed as president. This firmly based the Commission in a religious context (too much according to some). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission travelled the whole of the country, heard the testimonies of oppressed and oppressors (and sometimes the distinctions were not even all that black and white). People told and learned truths, people were heard, people received amnesty, and people received
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
MOZAIK
Geometry of Unity / Bible Studies
2003/1
practical, concerned with the problems of modern life: the social, political, ecological, and above all the ordinary and familiar. THE WAY OF DIALOGUE Dialogue has to be described, experienced and developed as a lifestyle. As human beings we learned to speak. We talk, chatter, give and receive information, and have discussions – all this is not yet dialogue. Now and then, it happens that a deeper encounter arises out of our talking and our relationships, and an opening up of each, in more than intellectual terms, to the concerns of the other. This is experienced by families and friends, and by those who share the same faiths or ideologies, but we are particularly concerned with the dialogue that reaches across differences of faith, ideology and culture, even where the partners in dialogue do not agree on important central aspects of human life. Kamelia KONSTANTINOVA is an Orthodox theologian from Bulgaria. She studied ecumenical theology in the Bossey Ecumenical Institute in Switzerland. Her email address is: kkonstantinova@yahoo.com.
Dialogue can be recognised as a welcoming way of obedience to the commandment of the Decalogue, “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.” Dialogue helps us not to disfigure the image of our neighbours of different faiths and ideologies. It has been the experience of many Christians that this dialogue is indeed possible on the basis of a mutual trust and a respectful the integrity of each participant’s identity. Dialogue, therefore, is a fundamental part of Christian service within community. In dialogue Christians actively respond to the command to, “love God and your neighbour as yourself.” As an expression of love, engagement in dialogue testifies to the experienced in Christ. With God’s love in our hearts we shall keep our identity in the pluralistic world and shall have peaceful dialogue with other faiths. Suggested Reading BEHR-SIGEL Elisabeth, The Place of the Heart. California, 1992. LEMOPOULOS George, You Shall be My Witnesses. Caterini, 1993. LOSSKY Vladimir, In the Image and Likeness of God. New York, 1979. ROBERSON Ronald, The Eastern Christian Churches. Roma, 1995. SUNG Bum Yun, Ethics East and West. Seoul, 1947. YANNARAS Christos, The Freedom of Morality. New York, 1984.
Nienke P R U I K S M A
Reconciliation
and
History: Psalm 103
Archbishop Desmond TUTU of South Africa writes in his book “No Future without Forgiveness”: “…my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in theirs (those we do not share a background with, who may even oppress us NP). We belong in a bundle of life. We say ‘a person is a person through other people’. It is not ‘I think therefore I am’. It says rather: ‘I am human because I belong’. I participate, I share.” The chapter from which this quote is copied, describes a third way to deal with the trauma of a divided past: the way of Truth and Reconciliation, the way that was chosen in South Africa to start coming to terms with the legacy of apartheid. I will use the example of South Africa during this article several times as a reference for how in our time we can try and work reconciliation. Reconciliation is needed there where relations have gone awry – be it between people or between people and God – and realities are shattered. ABOUT PSALM 103 This Psalm is among those Psalms that are labelled as “hymns or descriptive praises” (N. K. GOTTWALD), as it begins and ends with blessing God. The body of the psalm cites “general and longstanding aspects of God’s goodness and power”. The verses above are the so-called body of Psalm 103 – I have left out the traditional opening and ending as they are less specific. Feel free to grab your own Bible and read the whole of the Psalm though, it always pays off to read the whole text, instead of some isolated verses. Verse 6 tells us how God will act on behalf of those who cannot act for themselves, as God did for Israel when they were slaves in Egypt (verse 7). In verses 8 to 10 the psalmist tells us of God’s ways, how God relates to people, to then show us in comparative terms in verses 9-13 how they apply to people who fear God. Verse 14 is a prelude
36
to 15 and 16, showing that God knows of the temporary character of people’s lives. This temporariness is then emphasised by the everlastingness of God’s love in verse 14 – again the love for those who fear God, keep the covenant and remember the commandments. ON THE TEXT OF PSALM 103 The Psalm uses quite some concepts that can give us a clearer idea of what reconciliation is all about, I will pick up some of them below. In verse 6 we find the word “oppressed”. Oppression is one of the main situations where reconciliation is most clearly needed. Where one person is more equal than the other, relationships go lopsided, and people cannot live to their full potential anymore – there is first of all a need for liberation (see the reference in verse 7 to Moses, referring to the Exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt), but what comes after that? To go back to South Africa, this meant that after Nelson MANDELA and many others who fought the apartheid regime were freed and free elections, that brought a landslide victory for the ANC, had been held, still things were not right. One of the first acts of the new parliament and government under president Mandela was to write a new constitution, which had an annex for the foundation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Members from this Commission came from all different groups in society: black, white, coloured, Indian, women, men, Muslims, Christians, Jews, pagans, lawyers, nurses, clerical people, etc. Archbishop Desmond TUTU was appointed as president. This firmly based the Commission in a religious context (too much according to some). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission travelled the whole of the country, heard the testimonies of oppressed and oppressors (and sometimes the distinctions were not even all that black and white). People told and learned truths, people were heard, people received amnesty, and people received
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Bible Studies
MOZAIK
2003/1
financial compensation. And yet, things still are not right. tionships. As Archbishop Desmond TUTU wrote: a person is Most of those who were poor and still are. Those that were a person through other people. We need to recognise each better off financially, mostly still are. And those distinctions other’s full humanity. It is not for nothing that the comare quite often still black and white. How can people start mandments do not only tell us how we have to relate to the working on a reconciled future when they still, every sin- divine; they are just as much about how we should relate to gle day, live the consequences? It may take generations to each other, to be in the right relationship to God. equal the economic balance between the different racial groups. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS In verse 7 and again in verse 14 we meet the verb “to Reconciliation is not a process that will let you get off easknow”. In the first case the knowledge is passed on from ily – it involves the fullness of our input. It does cost someGod to a person, Moses, and to the people of Israel. People thing: especially because things cannot go back to the status know, or can know about the ways and acts of God, of how quo, it is risky business. It means that we enter into reconGod intended us to live. In the second case it is God know- ciliatory communities, to spread the process. This may not ing about us – God knows us from mean the same thing for each of the beginning till the end, even us, we all have to find out for ourPsalm 103 when we do not act as we were selves in our contexts what this intended to act. God will not keep means: what does reconciliation 6 The Lord works vindication his anger forever (verse 9). mean, what is the example Jesus Knowledge of what concerns the set for me, how can I be a part of a and justice for all who are oppressed. O/other (divine and human), what community building a reconciled 7 He made known his ways to Moses, happened, what disrupted the right future. We al have been given gifts, His acts to the people of Israel. relationships is necessary, before a and to use those to the full of their 8 The Lord is merciful and gracious, start can be made to make things and thus our potential is a beginslow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. right. Without the truth, there is no ning of how God intended people 9 He will not always accuse, way of coming face to face again, to to live. For me, as a white Western nor will He keep his anger forever. face the future again. Knowing the European woman, this might 10 He does not deal with us according to our sins, truth about something is not necesmean facing up to the fact that my nor repay us according to our iniquities. sarily the end station either. It may comfort is being paid for, and I am help heal, but if realities are not not the person paying, that I reap 11 For as the heavens are high above the earth, changed after that, what does recthe fruits of the exploitation of peoso great is His steadfast love onciliation mean? Having circumple and natural resources elsetoward those who fear Him; stances change, but not knowing where in the world. It might mean 12 as far as the East is from the West, the truth is not the solution either. facing up to ghosts of my past and so far He removes our In the verses 8-14 we get to know putting them to rest. It might mean transgressions from us. a lot about how God relates to peothat there are social, economic, 13 As a father has compassion for his children, ple, God’s way of dealing with us. political, religious consequences so the Lord has compassion for All the characteristics are positive on every level of my life and in the those who fear Him. ones; yet they show us how remote relations I have chosen to enter God’s way of dealing is from the into. Communities take time to 14 For He knows how we were made; way we deal with our fellow grow, if only we could edit away He remembers that we are dust. humans and with God as well. the mistakes of the past, adopt a 15 As for mortals, their days are like grass; Merciful, gracious, slow to anger, state of amnesia where we can just they flourish like a flower of the field; abounding in steadfast love, not all forget and start again. Amnesia, 16 for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, always accusing, anger passes, not Nürnberg-like trials, or Truth and and its place knows it no more. dealing according to sins, not Reconciliation: these are the 17 But the steadfast love of the Lord repaying according to iniquities. choices they saw themselves facis from everlasting to everlasting Jesus was the fully human being ing in South Africa. That the latter on those who fear Him, who lived up to that ideal. It is a was chosen is an act of faith: faith challenge for each of us to try and in people who are inextricably and His righteousness to children’s children, live up to this example in our daily bound up, belonging in a bundle of 18 to those who keep His covenant lives. Jesus’ violent death is often life. And an act of faith in God, that and remember to do His commandments. taken to be the singular reconcilGod has made God’s way known to iatory act that ever happened. But Moses, the people of Israel and during his life he set us an examcontinues to do so, because we are ple for living in and creating reconciliatory communities. known by God. Reconciliation is not something that became Our acts during our lives can help creating communities fixed in one historical moment, we have to keep working on that work reconciliation now. As verse 17 states: the love of it together; it goes on and on and on – everlasting as the love God is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear of God. him. That means that God showed us reconciliation in Suggested Reading Jesus Christ, but it did not start or end with Jesus. TUTU Desmond, No future without forgiveness, London, 1999. Then there are the little additions to all those beautiful GOTTWALD N. K., The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-literary Introduction. Philadelphia, 1985. characteristics: they will befall on those who fear God (verse HARVEY Ruth (ed.), Wrestling and Resting: Exploring Stories of Spirituality from Britain and Ireland. London, 1999. 11 and 13) and to those who keep the covenant and remem- The biblical texts have been taken from the NRSV-translation (New York, 1989). ber the commandments (verse 18). Yes, our transgressions Nienke PRUIKSMA is a student of Theology at the Free University, a Reformed faculty will be taken far away from us, but there are some require- in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Her focus is Old Testament studies and hermeneufrom a feminist and contextual perspective. A member of the Dutch SCM, she ments to meet. As I wrote above, a change in reality is need- tics, served in WSCF Europe as chairperson between 1999 and 2001. Her email address is ed for reconciliation to be truly worked. Reconciliation is an nienkepruiksma@yahoo.com. act of creation, the creation of new realities and new rela> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
37