Christian Unity

This is a reflection at the end of the 1997 version of the "Week of Prayer for  Christian Unity" celebrated world-wide every January.


Many of our ideas about what constitutes unity have been sorely strained in recent decades.  There are few among us who still think unity necessarily involves that we all think the same way, belong to the same organization or engage in exactly the same practices. Unity can surely support and even require a wide diversity. Maybe we are more conscious of that as Canadians than most precisely because of our diversity.

    What we have in common as Christians is faith in Christ.  And today's reading provides a good opportunity to ask where Jesus fits into our religious experience.  Jesus calls his first disciples and they are drawn to him like a magnet.  There must have been something very attractive about Jesus to cause grown men to leave their work, possessions, family and go off this way.  This is no less true today.  One of the major magazines in Quebec recently placed Jesus on its front cover as "Man of the Year."  What is it about Jesus that drew and continues to draw so many to him?  One thing is sure, he is not the sacarine figure so much of popular piety in North America has painted.  This is a robust figure, solidly grounded in his own times, yet with a message and a presence that totally transcends his times.  Truly a universal figure.  Moreover, by his resurrection, Jesus attains the fullness of his Messianic vocation as the Christ.  In the resurrection Jesus becomes permanently present and available to the entire human experience.  We can encounter Christ everywhere and at all times.

    Reflecting on this week of prayer for Christian Unity, it occurred to me that there are ways in which Christ is revealed in the lives of people who, while they share the values, the mentality and the practice of Jesus, also entirely escape our categories of  religion, denomination or even lifestyle.  (And,  there are also many who call themselves Catholic but who share little of what the New Testament reveals to be the mind, values and practice of Jesus.) 

    The important thing is that we do have some record of Jesus. There is a reference point.  He cannot just be anyone we want to invent.   Jesus had a specific way of looking at things, a specific set of values and a specific practice.  Throughout the centuries, different thinkers, different saints, have found quite varied dimensions of Jesus' mentality, values and practice.  For me, this includes his place among the poor and excluded, his intimate relationship as Son with God experienced as his Father and our Father -- yet Father with all the nurturing, compassionate characteristics we often attribute to Mother.  Characteristic of Jesus is the way he shared himself with anyone open to accept it. Whatever each of us may find when we turn back to the Gospels, the important thing is that these be insights that shape our religious experience,  sought out in light of very adult struggles and adult needs. 

    I find it significant and often disturbing that many adults retain the image they learned of Jesus when they were children and then hope that this will be enough to guide them through their adult years.  Obviously a child's notion, at this important religious level, will provide only children's' answers.  It's not enough for an adult.  Our search to understand Jesus is something that has to continue throughout our lives.  There has to be continual scrutiny, re-examination, re-evaluation.

    The focus of religious experience among Christians must always be to encounter the living, risen Christ in our lives and our world today.  However, in order to do that we need the reference point of the Jesus of Nazareth who became the Risen Christ.  We need to examine those specific areas of his mentality, his values, his practice that will help us recognize his presence in and around us today.

    Today we begin the countdown to the great jubilee.  No better moment for a time-out to reconsider the figure of Jesus, his place in our lives, personally but also collectively as a human family at the end of a millennium and the turning of a huge epoch in human history.

Globalization

This is a talk I gave to a large gathering about five years ago.  Even though it is dated, it might serve some purpose still. I have edited it very slightly


    The theme assigned to us has two vectors: the economic agenda called “globalization” and also the struggle for a globalization of solidarity and for societies of inclusion.  Both are important.

    Note, first of all, that between English and in French there exists a difference in the vocabulary used to talk about this topic.  In French, the term used is “mondialisation.”  The difference is significant.  “Globalization” implies a reference to geography; “mondalisation” refers much more to social structures.  What is global embraces the entire planet. What is “mondial” embraces the universe of culture and its relationships.   Obviously the reach of the economic forces at work today extend throughout the planet.  But it is the universe of meaning, relationships and communities that should especially concern us. 

    Secondly, the predecessor to globalization is mercantilism and liberalism.   Marco Polo and the explorers of the 16^th century opened up an enormous process of trade between continents.  However, for our purposes, what is significant is the way in which trade became connected with a political agenda that included colonization, the carving up of continents, the forced labour of millions to enrich Europe and the slave trade.  

Liberation Theology

This third reflection in the series on my visit to Senegal is inspired by the experience of the World Forum on Theology and Liberation where over 100 people spent six days trying to understand the challenges for the future of an authentic liberation theology. I am not going to try to provide a summary or report. Others, I hope will do so.  What I want to do is to present a very simple entry into what liberation theology is about in 2011 and one or two of the challenges facing it. In order to move forward we need to keep one eye on the future and another on the path already traced. My presentation is not academic; as usual, I write as an engaged person. (Photo of Indigenous paticipants.)

   If you have followed theology for a very long time, you will remember that the classical approach to theology moved from a statement of doctrine (or dogma even) based on Church documents and then referenced to the biblical sources. Following that there could be speculation about how to understand and apply the doctrine to our times. Philosophy provided the tool for this second, speculative operation.

   When liberation theology came along there was a fundamental shift in the way theology was proposed. First of all the focus was on the socio-economic-political-cultural reality of our time through the lens of those who were economically poor, socially discarded and ultimately non-persons in society. This was the famous option for the poor.  It was an option because it was not neutral and did not claim to analyse society or religion from a neutrally objective perspective. It took sides with the struggle of the poor for a decent life, dignity and respect. It did not exclude anyone precisely because it included all those who were excluded. It sought a society in which everyone—not just those with wealth, power and influence—had a place of dignity and respect.

   As a result of this option for the poor, primacy of analysis was given, not so much to philosophy, as to what the social sciences could offer. These included sociology, political science, economics, anthropology, etc. Moreover this reference did not come at the end of the process, after establishing the doctrine. It came right at the beginning.

   The model for the methodology of liberation theology is rooted in the principles of Catholic Action: See, Judge Act, a methodology of praxis (movement from engaged action to reflection and back again in a transformed mode). This was a significant shift in methodology for theology. We did not begin with Church documents or with Scripture. First of all, we looked (see) at society to see what was happening there, to identify those who were the object of our attention, the poor, women, gays and others. More than as objects, we saw how they were subjects (agents) of their own liberation. We tried to understand the dynamics that were and are at work in subjecting them to oppression or liberating them to a new place in a new society. (You may remember that Gustavo Gutierrez defined the struggle of Latin America as not one for development but rather of liberation from oppression. This was a sociological statement, neither philosophical nor doctrinal.)

   It must be remembered then that the first step in a liberation or liberating theology is not with a restatement of what the Bible says or of what official Church documents say but rather of what we learn by looking carefully at the world around us with the tools that the social sciences provide.

   Only then to we move to the second stage that is “judge.”  This is a crucial step and sometimes one that is not well understood.  In many examples of liberation theology this would be the moment to turn to the scriptural sources and to the teaching of the Church. In some cases that is appropriate. However, it was always the practice, even if not explicitly stated, that the ultimate criterion for judging the situation of the poor and excluded was the principle of life and love (solidarity) itself. In the part called “judge” we tried to find where life was being threatened or destroyed, where love was being betrayed or nourished and we made our judgement on that basis.  This meant that we looked in Scripture and in Church teaching for those elements and insights that would help us understand how to nourish life and love (solidarity) as well as for how to discern a path toward them. We did not choose our Scripture or Church documents haphazardly. There was a fundamental criterion underlying our effort: if the perspective and value and revelation nourishes life for the poor and excluded and love then we embrace it. But we did not pay attention to doctrines or perspectives or texts that we discovered were opposed to life or to love (solidarity). Again, we were so sure, quite often, that the Bible was a word of life and that the mission of the Church was to nourish life, that we took it for granted. I underline the point because today we need to pay a lot of attention to that distinction – not all religion is liberating, not everything in the Bible is liberating, not every interpretation of our religious traditions is liberating. Liberation theology takes a very critical look at religion and its traditions.

  Finally, there was the third methodological moment: “act.”  Liberation theology is a tool for commitment, for a faith that is engaged in the world and at the service of the transformation of the world into that “other world that is possible” and that Biblically is called the “Reign of God.”  A liberation theology is a theology in action. It is not content and perhaps today not even comfortable citing texts from Scripture or Jesus. It is a theology that does not preach Jesus but rather the mission and the values and the “cause” of Jesus. Jesus talked very little about himself; he spent a lot of time talking about the Reign of God and a lot of time doing what would bring that Reign into the lives of the poor and excluded around him. Liberation theology, in its “action” phase is all about strategies to bring forward what will make Life, Justice, Love, Solidarity more present in our world. It may or may not make reference to phrases like “Reign of God.” What is important is not to announce the Gospel but to make it “live” in the lives of people. For that reason, in its action phase, liberation theology can work either inside or outside the religious framework. The action is based on “judge” and that judgement, while coherent with the Gospel, is valid quite beyond it.

  Now, all of this leads me to talk about some new trends in liberation theology. I have tried to set up the approach to liberation theology, as described above, in a way that allows us to more easily grasp the new trends or challenges.

   First of all, and not just in Latin America, but on all continents, there is a strong call to bring the thinking of liberation theology to bear on the reality of pluralism and diversity in our societies. Some of this diversity is cultural or gender-based and some is also religious. All of the social sciences are telling us that this is an important and relatively new phenomenon in many societies that is challenging the very framework of our coexistence on the planet. It has led the liberation theologians in Latin America to take a second look at the way in which the indigenous and Afro-American people have been treated following the Spanish conquest. First of all, they began to recognize that their cultures had been marginalized, sometimes ridiculed and frequently suppressed. A major shift was needed to embrace and accompany the people in the reappropriation and expression of their traditional cultures. A breakthrough happened when the indigenous and Afro-American people espoused that struggle for themselves. At that point the liberation theologians had to examine their consciences and ask also about what had happened to religion when the Spanish arrived for the conquest. They realized that, if Latin America had been colonized, the traditional religions had been also. Parallel to the decolonization of Latin America, Africa and Asia, there needs to be a decolonization of religion. At this point the theologians are looking carefully at this question. 

   However, this is a question that goes much further since it has led theologians to look at what the anthropologists and sociologists, not to mention the political scientists, have been saying about indigenous and Afro or Asian peoples on other continents. Even more, today our great North American and European metropolises teem with the presence of peoples whose religious tradition is not at all that of our Western Christianity. They are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Atheist. How are we to speak of them? Some of them find themselves quite isolated, marginalized and even oppressed in the societies that have received them as immigrants.  More again, when we look at the relations between countries, we see that there are some who are “in” (members of the OECD for example) and others are quite marginal (the group of 77, for example).  We need to go back to our “see, judge and act” in order to work it out. We need a liberating theology of political, economic, cultural, and even secular pluralism. Some of our societies are full into the dilemma of trying to sort it out and this poses a great challenge to liberation theologians today.

   There is a second great challenge for liberation theology today: developing a “Planetary Theology.”  Those who attended the World Forum on Theology and Liberation know that this was thrown around a bit and did not get a great hearing from many of the theologians present. So be it. I am one of its defenders and I predict it will be a second great leap forward in liberation theology. Already there are a number of theologians hard at work on it. This idea of a “Planetary Theology” needs to also be understood from the “see, judge, act” approach.  The option remains for the poor and excluded. In this case, the framework is broadened.  It is the planet itself whose life is being threatened, marginalized, distained. In part this is a theology that begins to incorporate and ecological perspective, an eco-theology that includes all living creatures, all of the planet and its components: sea, air, soil. This is part of the “see.”  But, the earlier analyses are not excluded either. Human life is still part of life on our planet, but needs analysis that sets it within its real context: that of the planet. We are creatures of the Earth and dependent on it. We do not understand ourselves thoroughly except in that context. Our origin is in the evolution of the planet and our destiny is inextricably bound to that of the planet. This will lead us to do our social-cultural-economic-political analysis in a much larger context and with much more precision, always with the option for the poor in mind. We need a rereading of the “see.”  We also need a rereading of the “judge” because it is not just human life and well-being that is the criterion of judgement but that of the whole planet and all its components. Underlying this is the conviction that the “life” we refer to is that of the whole as well as its parts. This makes the work of analysis and discernment much more difficult, complex and delicate. But who ever said it was supposed to be easy?

   The “action” also is transformed by our discernment (judgement) since we need to develop strategies that really produce “life for all.”  We need to reread our religious traditions, their scriptures and doctrines in the overall light of a planetary consciousness that calls out for “life for all” without exclusions and from the perspective of those and whatever is currently being left out.

  A huge “cause” lies before us: Nothing less than the transformation of the world, the transformation of our own consciousness, the transformation of our societies and ultimately, the transformation of our beleaguered planet.

   Underlying our reflections at the World Forum on Theology and Liberation was this challenge, viewed from quite different perspectives. What we realize is that it touches the deepest dimensions of our heart and soul yearning for something better, not just for ourselves, but for especially those who have borne the brunt of our heartlessness for so long.

   I return to Quebec, more than ever convinced that there is an important task before us, one that we can begin now and that will take us far into the future where the Spirit awaits us.


(Note: There is a (free) French translation of this reflection in the Bulletin (#28) of PAVÉS and also on the site of Culture et foi. I have also posted it just recently here (September 2011).

World Social Forum – Dakar 2011

This is the second in a series of reflections on events in Dakar, Senegal, Feb 6-11, 2011. For the first reflection see below.  A third will follow.

  On the web site of the World Social Forum there is a short commentary by Chico Whitaker, one of the founders of the Forum, indicating that the 2011 session in Dakar would probably not be the largest—there were 150,000 in Brazil at the last one—but that it would be no less significant.

  His prediction is borne out. The mix of Africans from many different countries though for obvious reasons especially from Senegal and the other countries of West Africa, was very good. There were also lots of people from Europe and a good representation from Latin America, especially Brazil. Still the march was much smaller than earlier editions of the Forum and the participation in the workshops appears to have been smaller. This latter is hard to judge because the Forum was held at the university while it was in full session. It was often difficult to know who was there for their university classes and who was at the forum.

  This leads to a second prior observation: the whole event was very badly organized, chaotic in fact. Many of the workshops had to be held in tents hastily set up to provide space. In itself that was no great problem since the weather in Dakar is nothing less than spectacular: sun, sun and sun. Nevertheless, no one knew where anything was taking place the first day and the confusion, unfortunately, continued throughout the week. It was even difficult to find out where to register, and once there, to actually follow the procedure. Many people just attended all the events without registered since there was no control.

  Our little delegation from Montreal was primarily geared to the World Forum on Theology and Liberation which was taking place at the same time and within the context of the WSF. However, because of the difficulty of knowing what happening and where, we found ourselves confined in large measure to our own events.

  Nevertheless, I would like to comment on a few special moments for me.

  First of all, I attended a workshop that dealt with the problem of refugees to Europe. As you know, Europe has all but closed its doors to Africans seeking either refuge in Europe or even just as immigrants. (Canada is not lagging far beyond on this score!) We were able to hear from several of those who had lived in Europe with the accompaniment of NGOs there before being deported back to Africa. What was new to me was the way in which the European NGOs had kept in touch with these deported people and supported them in their efforts to readjust back into their homelands after the traumatic experience of deportation. As far as I know this is not something that we have done here and it bears investigation. With time, some of these people can and do become major figures in the struggle for “another world that is possible” in their own lands.

  One of the experiences that was described was the “Caravan,” a travelling group that passed throughout Senegal stopping in populated areas to raise peoples’ awareness of the problem of refugees who have been deported back to Senegal. They also went to the border with Mali and spoke with refugees who were still there. It was a project that revealed the intensity of the effort to establish coordination in the struggle for survival in Senegal.

  A second workshop occurred on the last day. It was organized by several groups, among them Secour chrétien in France. The focus was on the relationship between Europe (especially France) and Africa. The topic was how to stop the political, economic and military power of  African dictators. In the context of the struggles going on in North Africa, the Middle East and potentially in several other areas, the theme went to the heart of this moment. The situation of neo-colonialism in the relationship between Europe and Africa was clearly laid out, the issues identified and, most interestingly a number of projects and movements to effect change were brought forward. To my mind, one of the most telling interventions came from someone during the open mike period. He was a Tunisian leader who spoke eloquently of the struggle that had led to the fall of the government in Tunisia. However, he added, the real dictators that humiliate and hold us back are not in Africa. We have done our work and now you have to do yours. He invited us to consider getting rid of those real dictators, the heads of state of European governments who manipulate the economy and politics of Africa. He referred very specifically to the president of France. It made me think of the challenge to face a change of political direction here in our own land.

  As you may or may not know, Senegal is 95% Muslim with only 3 or 4 % Christians – including all labels. As a result I was particularly interested in hearing from Muslim thinkers and discovering the relationship between these two communities there. Participation in several workshops of the theology forum provided that context. The first thing to say is that the Muslim presence was very slim and often the best interventions came quite spontaneously from people who happened to drop in on a workshop. Also, since the Christians are a tiny minority and the Muslim presence is very strong, they do feel that their future is threatened. This is not because of any religious fanaticism but because of factors that many of us Catholics will easily recognise from our own practices in the past. When a young girl wants to marry a Muslim there is pressure for her to become Muslim. The children will then also be raised as Muslim. If a Catholic boy wants to marry a Muslim girl, there will be pressure for her to remain Muslim and to some extent also for him to become Muslim. This gradual eating away at the Christian population disturbs the leaders.

  Secondly, liberation theology and theology of religious pluralism has very little roots in Christian thinking at least as far as was evidenced in our experience in Dakar. The Christians have a tendency to formulate their world—quite beautifully it must be said—in terms of the Gospel and biblical values. But those I spoke with seemed unaware of the dynamic that took place when they attempted to deal with more mundane issues of life in society with Muslims. In fact, from the little I heard, they seemed to handle it very well, but without any self-awareness of how that worked. We were told that generally the relationship between Christians and Muslims in Senegal is extremely good. People accept to co-exist in society together and work together for the good. Many families are made up of members from both religious traditions. Sometimes brothers and sisters share different traditions. All the above is generally accepted as part of the life in which no major tensions exist about those religious borders. Moreover it seems that the Senegalese people, on the whole extremely poor, are deeply committed to democratic life and the electoral process. (The President was quite unhappy with our presence in his capital and said so in no uncertain terms. It is very likely he and his party will be defeated in upcoming elections if one is to judge by the comments of many I heard from.) It is something to watch for in 2012.

For a final statement, please see: http://www.dakar2011.org/spip.php?article51