|
|
|
Youth Plenary
Friday the
27th, 17:00
Introduction by Peter Sajda,
Moderator of the Youth Plenary
1st Youth
Voice: Christian Roar Pedersen, Youth Ecumenical
Bodies and Reconciliation in Europe
Music:
Jaromir Nohavica, Tesinska
Pictures: The Old
versus the New?
2nd Youth Voice: Nadzeya
Cherkas, Christian Communities as a Starting Point
for Reconciliation and Unity.
Live Music: Siri
Gjaere, voice
Pictures: The Broad versus the
Narrow?
3rd Youth Voice: Daniela Rapisarda
Zsuzsa Rihay, Ecumenism and the issue of the
One and Many
Symbolic action: Enlightening
the logo of the XII KEK Assembly
Music: Niccolo
Paganini, Capriccio number 24
Pictures: One or
Many?
4th Youth Voice: Gyrid Gunnes, Gender
and Reconciliation
Live Music: Carl Petter
Opsahl, clarinett
Pictures: Man versus Woman?
5th
Youth Voice: Kaisa Aitlahti, Churches as a bridge
towards reconciliation – an example from history
Music:
Goran Bregovic, Ederlezi
Pictures: Wounding without
Healing?
6th Youth Voice: Michel Charbonnier
– Dirk Thesenwitz, Being healed as a community
Live
Music: Siri Gjaere, voice, Carl Petter Opsahl, clarinett
Pictures:
Stagnation or the Way?
Responses from the audience:
Bishop
Bärbel Wartenberg-Potter
His Beatitude Archbishop
Anastasios of Albania
Closing words by Daniela
Rapisarda,
Peter Sajda, Slovakia
World
Student Christian Federation
* * *
Peter
Sajda
Introduction of the Youth Plenary
Dear
Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
Let me welcome
you cordially to the Plenary of Youth.
This
Plenary has been prepared by members of three youth
organisations – the Ecumenical Youth Council in
Europe (EYCE), Syndesmos and World Student Christian
Federation, Europe Region (WSCF-E).
Before
I introduce to you the structure and the aims of
the Youth Plenary in brief, let me share with you
a couple of thoughts that crossed my mind while
preparing this Plenary.
In the time when
we were collecting the materials for the Youth Plenary
I was reading a book on Philosophy of Law written
in the 1930s by a Slovak philosopher who is today
unknown even in Slovakia. In his book I stumbled
across a statement about youth, which caught my
attention and made me think. The statement said:
Youth is an ”eternal beginner”: An eternal
beginner.
To be completely honest with you I
was not sure whether I should agree or disagree,
so I just kept the statement as a subject for contemplation.
I
was trying to imagine what that forgotten philosopher
could mean? Did he mean that youth has no expertise,
that it just believes to have something to say,
but in fact all that it wants to say has already
been said? And the inexperienced youth just doesn’t
know?
As I meditated over the sentence, the
connection between eternity and time came to my
mind. It seems we can look at the period of youth
from at least two perspectives of time.
From
the perspective of Chronos - the linear time
of events: and then being young is just a transitory
stage in one’s life.
Or from the perspective
of Kairos - the time of Divine visitation, in which
God discloses to us our vocation in Life: and then
youth is a time when God speaks to us in a special
way.
In these consideration an image from
Paulo Coelho’s book The Alchymist came to my mind:
A
young person is someone who gets a teaspoon filled
with precious liquid. This person is supposed to
walk through a beautiful garden, while holding the
spoon between his/her teeth trying not to spill
the precious liquid. Again a double perspective,
a double task appears: The person with the spoon
is called not only to avoid spilling the precious
liquid in the teaspoon, but he/she is also called
to perceive all the beauties around while walking
through the garden.
From the mentioned perspectives
youth appears to be an interesting and blessed time,
and potentially an interesting and blessed beginner.
But let me make the statement even more colourful.
Seneca
says that even a beginner can be a very wise person.
A wise beginner is the beginner that realises and
admits that he or she is a beginner. Such a person
is authentic because he or she does not lie to him/herself
about his/her inner development.
A wise beginner,
then… sounds like a paradox. A beginner being one
from whom you should teach, a beginner who has the
vocation to teach.
Once a friend of mine
told me that he doesn’t understand how somebody
can write a biography of a person he or she doesn’t
like… Ha said he cannot understand why somebody
spends years in archives just to find out things
that don’t appeal to him/her.
Following the
spirit of the statement of my friend, I believe
that the speeches you will hear from young people
in this Plenary will not witness about the youth
that is indifferent, superficial or too radical
without a sufficient basis of experience and knowledge.
I rather believe that they will witness
about youth that is full of energy, ideas, inspiration
and self-criticism. And last but not least – that
it is a wise and interesting beginner, from in whose
experience you will be able to find seeds of inspiration.
One last thing, I believe that in a way
all of us try to remain young in spirit and heart.
Therefore we might be able to admit to ourselves,
that in spite of all our experience and knowledge
(which anyway remain partial and incomplete), we
are eternal beginners through all our life.
Before
I finish just a few words about the structure of
the plenary.
You will hear six inputs of young
people from all over Europe coming from the networks
of WSCF, Syndesmos and EYCE. They will share with
you their views on various kinds of reconciliation
and healing: Stories that focus on a variety of
topics and cover very different backgrounds.
After
each story we invite you for a short meditation.
There will be music from the Czech republic,
Italy, Serbia and live music by two Norwegian artists:
Siri Gjaere and Carl Petter Opsahl.
The music
will be accompanied by a slideshow which we have
composed in the form of short Socratic dialogues.
The pictures you will see are in dialogue with each
other – they show series of opposites but in the
end focus on wholeness and integrity.
In
the middle of the plenary there will be a symbolic
action of young people combined with 12 violin variations
on the same theme (Capriccio nr. 24) by Niccolo
Paganini.
At the end we will invite two renowned
church leaders and a representative of the stewards
to join us with their message….
Christian
Roar Pedersen, Denmark
Ecumenical Youth Council
in Europe
Youth Ecumenical Bodies and Reconciliation
in Europe
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
In
my presentation I will focus on the role of young
people in the reconciliation process in Europe and
the importance of ecumenical youth bodies in that
process.
With regard to the ecumenical youth
organisations I see one of their primary roles as
being bridge builders and facilitating young people
in the reconciling process of tearing down the walls
that separate us today. The organisations are to
be meeting places between young Christian people
that would not normally meet. And the organisations
are to give them tools so that they are able to
meet each other on equal ground. The latter would
include both language and theological skills – if
we are not able to talk to each other or do not
know whom we are talking to it all does not make
any sense.
The Ecumenical Youth Council in
Europe started 35 years ago in the middle of the
Cold War. One of its primary tasks was to function
as a bridge builder between young Christian people
of the east block and the west block. This was done
by arranging seminars on different topics, having
exchange programs, and by holding common work camps,
where young people entered into a learning process
while doing practical work.
I remember one
of my first ecumenical meetings in 1997. One day
we were on an excursion to Berlin and I had the
pleasure to walk the streets of the city with young
man who had now grown old. This man had been actively
involved in exchange programs during the Cold War
- and suddenly, as he told the stories from back
then, history was made alive. Berlin is today one
city and no longer divided, but in the words of
this man the Iron Curtain was up again and we were
followed by the secret police. Very vividly I saw
before my eyes the importance of ecumenical youth
work back then: to build bridges and to tear down
the image of the people on the other side as being
enemies.
Even though it is hard to measure
these things I think that the work done by the ecumenical
youth organisations, such as EYCE and WSCF, had
an important role to play in preparing for the events
of 1989 – when the wall came down. And just as important:
when the wall came down the young people were more
prepared to meet the other side because of the ecumenical
work that had been done. They had been trained and
acquired skills in meeting “the other side”. And
suddenly they found themselves in a Europe where
“the other side” was not behind a wall, but to an
increasing degree a close neighbour.
Today
a visible wall no longer divides Europe and the
reconciliation and healing process between east
and west has begun. The skills in the field of intercultural
and interdenominational meeting and learning that
the young persons have acquired are more needed
now than ever - in order to be able to meet the
new challenges we face today.
In a Europe
where xenophobia is rising - in a Europe where Christians
see each other as competitors and opponents - in
a Europe that has enough in its own culture and
people – there are still many walls we have to bridge
- until one day they too come down.
I will focus
on 3 of the walls that we need to bridge today.
1.
Denominations: The fact alone that when we talk
about churches we still tend to use the political
terminology of the cold war and talk about east
and west as two blocks over and against each other,
tells us that there is still a long way to go. The
reality of Europe today is quite different than
that picture. East is no longer east and west is
no longer west! We have Orthodox churches in the
west and we have Protestant and Catholic churches
in the east. With the problems and joys that it
causes!
So the denominational wall has moved
closer to many of us than it was before. Old problems
see the light in a new setting. This makes the role
of the ecumenical youth organisations bigger because
they can offer young people experience and skills
in the field of ecumenical meeting that they cannot
get anywhere else. To be able to build the bridges
on the local level we need the expertise of the
European organisations!
2. Young and old:
in society a wall has risen between young and old.
Young is good and young is beautiful, we are taught
- in commercials and in lifestyle magazines. Old
means decay and old people are often seen as a burden
for society. The result is fear of death and a desperate
clinging to youth.
A frightening thing is
that in our Christian organisations we have to some
degree taken over this pattern of separation between
young and old! Among us as Christians there is a
tendency look at young people as a special group.
Young people should not be treated like that - as
a minority that has to be dealt with. Instead young
people should be treated as an integrated part of
the church and the ecumenical bodies! The story
I told you from Berlin were about a young person
and an old person meeting. It was the story of how
generations can learn from each other. A task for
both the youth organisations and organisations like
CEC is to examine how we can involve the young people
more in “the big league” and the mature church leaders
more in the “little league” – to speak in the language
of sports.
3. Religions: Europe has become
increasingly multi-religious in the last decade.
Today most children have classmates who are Muslim
or come from a non-Christian religion. In our work
it is important that we do not confuse ecumenical
work with inter-religious work, but at the same
time we need to be able as Christians to relate
to the reality in which we live - a reality where
people of different faiths live together. So when
we train young people in building those reconciling
bridges it is important that we do not build a new
wall around us toward other religions. We need to
learn how we as Christians relate to people of other
faiths.
To conclude: I hope that I have made
it clear that the challenges of ecumenical youth
work are different today than they were before.
But the principles of that work remain the same:
to build reconciling bridges. Maybe one day the
young people of today will walk the streets of their
home town and inspire a young person by telling
him or her about the bridges they helped to build.
Thank
you for your attention!
This presentation
is an extract of a longer paper, which is available
upon request. pedersen@myrealbox.com
Nadzeya
Cherkas, Belarus
Syndesmos
Christian Communities
as a Starting Point for Reconciliation and Unity
One
of my first impressions when getting involved in
youth ecumenical work was a feeling joy, joy of
being together, despite having different experiences
of faith, ways of understanding spirituality, coming
from practices in churches that had lived for centuries
in isolation and even hostility towards one another.
At
our youth ecumenical events, we challenge and are
challenged by many questions we disagree upon, but
we commit to show tolerance, humility, wisdom and
care during discussions and common prayers, which
make us, experience what is reconciliation in Christ.
By no means do we accept everything uncritically
or ignore differences; we acknowledge them honestly.
The
ecumenical experience is enriching for all the participating
parties, as I have noticed. For me as an Eastern
Orthodox, it was inspiring to learn from Protestants
a lively non-regulated prayer and address God directly
with the needs of the day and the present moment.
And my Protestant friends were intrigued by the
Trinity concept, Orthodox saints and tradition and
by the liturgical richness in which all the senses
and the whole of the body are involved. It has happened
that when an event came to an end we felt so close
to each other that the departure was even painful.
We were healed from hostility by God’s grace. I
was eager to have this ‘being in a Christian community’
experience every day in my life. So I started deepening
my spiritual life and began to learn to discover
God’s will.
It is there in that depth that
I was able to understand that to be a Christian
means to pray to the Heavenly Father, and, receiving
the Holy Spirit, confess love, tolerance, wisdom,
knowledge and fear of God. It was there in that
depth that I was able to recognise our unity in
Christ and the Holy Spirit. It was the deepening
of my spiritual life that helped me to better understand
the extent of the Church. The activity of the Holy
Spirit is not limited to the canonical boundaries
of churches, and it rejoices in seeing anything
that is true, that is of Christ, wherever it is
to be found.
In the depth I also discovered
that Christianity is not only about individual self
perfection, improving one’s behaviour and character,
but more about being a Church, a chosen people,
a holy nation, a people belonging to God, according
to the apostle Peter’s words (I Peter, 2.9). This
can be realised only in a communal way of life,
given as a gift from God. It is the Christian community
that is the starting point for the uniting of souls
in oneness and love. Here started my service of
a Christian, my taking responsibility for the church,
accepting that my sins are the reasons for its troubles.
Unity cannot be brought about if we just come to
church on Sundays, pray on our own and depart. Unity
by God and with God and each other is built only
if we come to church to pray, and, serving together,
receive Holy Communion and the Holy Spirit, and
then witness faith to the world.
This revelation
of serving in the community, and learning God’s
will through it, has made me feel acutely the pain
of divided Christendom. I have met people living
in Christ’s true Spirit whose hearts cannot but
be filled with tears because of the present disunity.
We learn that Christian division is a sin before
God for Jesus prayed for us: “…that they all may
be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You;
that also may be one in Us, that the world may believe
that You sent Me” ”(John. 17:20-21); Christian division
is also a sin before the Church because we divide
and destroy it, ignoring Jesus’ words that there
should be one herd and One Shepherd. It is also
a sin before the world, because it expects us to
be fully credible messengers of love, faith, hope
and reconciliation, but we lose this chance, being
spread in several thousand different Christian groups
and having been often hostile to each other.
We
should be sincere and admit that many modern believers
have lost community spirit. We declare that we are
members of the Church, that is, of a living body,
while our situation is such that we live today on
the basis of the rights of the individual. And so
even theology has become an academic knowledge about
something. We are filled with information about
God. But what defines theology in the Church is
concrete knowledge and experience of God Himself,
personal encounter with Him, personal experience
of faith. To have faith means to give oneself, to
offer oneself with an absolute trust in God to those
whom we love.
So, in most churches sobornost’
(which is a Slavonic term, encompassing both catholicity
and conciliarity) is much endangered. Most people
are strangers in their parishes, not reconciled
and not united. So how can they care seriously about
other Christians? I experienced it almost impossible
to talk about faith and its gifts with those who
do not live in faith, love and serving, discovering
God’s will and fulfilling it. Is it reasonable,
is it possible, to strive for the unity with other
Churches without leading community life of unity,
love, self-sacrifice and mutual responsibility in
one’s own parish? No, I do not think so. That is
why, I believe, ecumenical movement has not reached
the expected results. Attempts of reconciliation
and unity have been made mostly on the official
level.
Pharisaic arrogance, xenophobic “island
mentality” and non-Christian fanaticism (where faith
is separated from love) is possibly the sign of
the fact that many believers have departed from
the true faith in God, in Christ, and in the Church.
Some would claim their church possesses the only
truth. The more a church is conscious of this, and
remains faithful to the word of Christ, so much
more it should feel the obligation to enter into
dialogue and discussion with other Christian churches,
in a spirit of love and humility. For the richer
we become spiritually, the more we learn, the greater
is the wish to share. To share the truth revealed
to us in our faith. Where there’s a continuous intensive
church life, there is understanding of the sin and
the wish for repentance, there’s real interest and
will for strengthening common Christian witness
in the world. There’s a struggle to fulfil God’s
will and search for the Trinitarian life, in which
the Divine Persons live together without separation
and isolation, without confusion and uniformity.
The
true spirit of ecumenism is faith, love and hope,
humility and service. These are the fruits of revival
and awakening of true Christian consciousness first
within Christian denominations and then among them,
reconciling with each other and together looking
for real answers to the “dead ends” of the civilisation
we live today.
Yes, these are difficult
issues and we, as humans, can not give direct answers
to them. But those walking on the path of faith
and love, being open and faithful, testify that
the Holy Spirit of Christ tears out old “wineskins”
(Luke5:37) of denominations, goes over their boundaries,
announcing New Time in Church life according to
the New Testament words from Revelation “Behold,
I make all things new” (Rev. 21:5). And we only
have to be able to feel His Action and with all
our heart, deeds and works say: “Amen, Let it be
Your Will, oh God”.
Daniela Rapisarda, Italy
– Zsuzsa Rihay, Hungary
World Student Christian
Federation
Ecumenism and the issue of the
One and the Many
1.The relation between Unity
and Diversity, between being One and being Many
seems to be a fundamental issue for Ecumenism.
2.I
agree with you, it is a fundamental issue.
1.I
also have the impression that between Unity and
Diversity is not only stated a difference, I feel
that to Unity and to Diversity are attributed very
different values.
2.What do you mean?
1.I
mean, to Unity is attached a highly positive value,
Unity is our highest goal, while Diversity, the
being Many, is seen more as a regrettable, unlucky
condition that needs to be overcome as soon as possible.
Why do you think it is so? Why is Unity considered
more valuable than Diversity, why is being One considered
a far better status than being Many?
2.Well,
I could start by saying that the issue of the relation
between the One and the Many is a rather fundamental
concept in Greek Philosophy. A philosopher called
Plotinus used to say that Oneness – the One – is
the source of all beings. The One Plotinus talks
about the highest being, beyond the world of ideas.
From this Being the whole cosmos emanates. Plotinus
says that the One is the true reality, while the
Many are imperfect and disconnected, lacking harmony
and unity. The Many tend to the One.
1.Do
you think what you have just said is relevant in
relation to ecumenism?
2.Well, I would say
so. Plotinus’ thought had quite an impact on the
development of Christian theology. But I must also
say that the God, the One, Plotinus talks about
is not exactly the same as the Christian God. The
God of Plotinus is One, and only One, the Christian
God is One and triune, is One and three at the same
time. Diversity becomes part of God. Unity and Diversity,
the One and the Many have both place in God.
1.I
like what you say. I would like to add more: you
just said that in the thought of Plotinus the Many
tend towards the One. But we know that the Incarnation
means that God becomes man, God meets us where we
are, on the level of human history, or on the level
of the Many. God loves the world, human history,
the Many. Shouldn’t we also love the Many?
2.Surely
the idea Plotinus had of the world as imperfect,
disharmonious reality is different from what we
learn in the bible of the world as creation of God,
as the good creation of God. But we also have to
say that harmony is the status human beings enjoy
in the garden of Eden. The story of Adam and Eve
in the garden tells us that the will of God for
the world is harmony.
1.Yes, but Adam and
Eve are two, and not one. And they are two even
before the fall. This must tell us something about
human reality being many and not one from the very
beginning, even before sin.
2.I think we
need to distinguish between unity and uniformity.
Unity can be a very dynamic concept that includes
diversity, still keeping the positive value of Unity
as to harmony and integrity. In the ecumenical movement
we strive for unity because we believe we are called
to Unity God. You will remember the prayer of Jesus
in John.
1.Do you think the church is one
or many today? Is the church more One or more Many?
2.
I believe, that in more than a century of ecumenical
work, we have learned to recognise that Christian
families have a lot in common. We share a great
part of fundamental believes, and of theological
interpretation, we have similar rites. What we have
in common needs to be acknowledged and celebrated,
valued and nurtured. But we don’t share all, we
don’t agree on all. We could say, Churches are at
the same time One and Many. There is still a long
way to go to achieve Unity.
1.What do you
mean then by Unity of the Church?
2.I mean
structural unity.
1.while listening to you,
I realise that I have a different idea of Unity.
For me the event of Pentecost, the beginning of
the history of the church, is the miracle of understanding
diverse languages, is the miracle of understanding
in diversity. For me, at the beginning of church
history there is diversity.
2.I can see that
we have different ideas of Unity. We could say that
there is not Unity in the way we understand unity.
But don’t you think that churches and Christians
should at least make an effort to really become
One? To achieve visible unity?
1.Honestly,
I wonder if that is possible at all. Human history
is many, and it is many from the very beginning,
how can we possibly manage to become One?
2.But
there was a time were the Church was One. If you
think of the first five centuries of Christian history,
then the church was one.
1.In what sense
was then the church One?
2.They managed to
agree on the content of their faith, on fundamental
theological statements. It was the result of a long
battle against heresies. In the end the battle was
won and orthodoxy triumphed.
1.Yes, I remember
Arius and the others. I know that it was important
to define what was the right doctrine, but people
like Arius were imprisoned and killed. The definition
of one doctrine, of the right doctrine has caused
quite a number of human lives. Those people considered
“heretics” within different groups and at different
times have been tortured and massacred. And this
is all part of the history of the Church. There
are very few Christian denominations that in their
history have never persecuted others, and they were
themselves victims of heavy persecutions. If this
is the way Unity has been achieved in the history
of the Church, then I think we have to question
that way and see if there are not other ways to
strive for unity.
2.Well, I think we should
not exaggerate now. What you just said is true,
but it is something that belongs to the past. Today,
Christians don’t kill each other. Today they meet
in ecumenical gatherings, like this one. I think
the church has found better ways to strive for unity.
1.Yes,
you are right, to have a different opinion within
the church, an opinion different from the main one,
the dominant one, doesn’t cost human lives today.
Still, you cannot deny that those who think differently
from the mainstream are still silenced. ….
2.If
unity is our main goal, then it might have its costs.
Then we need to define a hierarchy of ideas, some
are more biblical than others, some more consonant
with tradition than others, some will be better
then others. Some will find space and some others
will need to be silenced.
1.But what if God
is trying to speak through those voices that have
been silenced. Then the church will have missed
that voice. I have the impression that the ideal
of unity among human beings, the ideal of unity
on the level of history and of the many, has as
a necessary complement the definition of what is
right and what is wrong, of what is in and what
is out. I can see the need of making distinctions,
but you will agree with me that if you and I will
be in or out, right or wrong, will depend to a very
great extent on the opinion of who is defining rules.
I believe the ideal of One in human terms becomes
a very exclusive principle, stating quite clearly
that some are in and some are out, that some have
a greater right to speak while others should better
keep silent, that some are more suitable for specific
tasks than others. I am not sure this is the Church
I dream about.
2.What do you dream about?
1.I
dream of an inclusive Church. A church where voices
are listened to, where every human being is taken
care of, where gifts are received and empowered.
I dream of a church open to the voice and the contribution
of all believers. I believe that we need to be open
to the Many, to diversity, if we want to create
sufficient space for all.
2.But then you
will run the great risk of living in a church of
Many that has lost the dimension of the One, that
has lost the relation to the One.
1.I don’t
think so. I believe the relation to the One is given
by our reference to Christ, our relating and following
Christ. I believe Christ is the principle of unity
among the many that we are. In this sense for me
ecumenism is about witness to Jesus Christ Healer
and Reconciler. In our common reference to Christ
we discover our Unity in Diversity.
2.I agree
with many of the things you say; I don’t agree with
all you say. Still I believe it has been interesting
to talk to you. Goodbye.
1.Goodbye.
Gyrid
Gunnes, Norway
student of theology in Oslo, WSCF-E
Gender
and Reconciliation
To speak about reconciliation
and gender is a challenging task because one speaks
on a deeply structural and personal level at the
same time. Most women and men live together happily,
as friends, as fathers and mothers, as spouses,
as children. We love and respect each other and
are thankful for the great gift of caring for and
learning from each other.
But this is not
the whole picture. Countless human beings throughout
Europe and the world are victims of violence. The
majority of them are women, victimised because of
their gender in domestic violence, prostitution
and trafficking. Men beat, buy and victimise women
physically and symbolically. This happens both on
a structural and on a personal level.
The
first step in reconciliation is to dare to speak
truthfully about these problems. This truthfulness
may lead to a commitment to act justly. No reconciliation
can happen before we dare to speak truthfully and
act justly. The slogan of the women’s protest in
Graz in 1997 was exactly this: no reconciliation
before justice. I believe that it is still true
and valid now, 5 years later. Justice in this context
means to speak openly about the oppressive character
of what gender implies in church, and to see what
secular gender roles churches support and legitimise.
I
invite you all to consider the parallels between
the situation in the former apartheid regime of
South Africa and the meaning of gender in our churches
today. The churches and secular societies
of the world condemned the churches in the apartheid
regime for using the Bible and the Christian faith
as an ideological legitimisation of a regime that
made colour the only significant factor for determining
a person’s life.
On this background, I see
a paradox in the fact that church is a context where
gender to a great extent will limit and extend the
possibilities of your life. If you are a man, you
may become a priest and through that you are given
access to a powerful theological and liturgical
tradition. As a priest you are part of the church
hierarchy and the decision-making forum of your
church. If you are a male, God is talked about in
your gender. If you are a male, your experiences
are the context for doing and thinking theology.
If you are woman, you are, in many churches, deprived
of access to the priesthood. If you are a woman,
using your gender as a metaphor for speaking about
God is seen as controversial. If you are woman,
many churches set moral standards on your reproductive
rights. These are grave limitations of the autonomy
of a human being.
The comparison between
racism and sexism is indeed a provocative one, even
within the Norwegian Lutheran context. Nevertheless,
I believe it is an important one. We are so good
at naming difficulties and knowing what should be
done when the problem is far away from us, like
the case with racism in South Africa. But when discrimination
happens due to a factor just as arbitrary as skin
colour, for example gender, the situation is suddenly
very different. Even in Norway, faith communities
are not bound by the law to enforce equal rights
for men and women in the workplace. Faith communities
are given this exemption in the name of freedom
of faith. Freedom to do what? Freedom for whom?
The consequence of such an exemption would imply
also the acceptance of faith communities` refusal
to employ coloured people in the name of freedom
of faith. Public opinion would never allow this.
As
a white person, I would feel extremely uncomfortable
with living and working within the framework of
racist theology and praxis. Thus I am puzzled by
the fact that, over and over again, men in clerical
positions often are my opponents. If I was male,
I would be the first to warm-heartedly support women’s
ordination and gender inclusive language. I invite
men in the assembly today to become uneasy and ambivalent
to a sexist church-praxis and God-language. I challenge
all men in the assembly to be just as uncomfortable
and embarrassed as you would be as whites in a racist
church.
We are now in the middle of the Decade
against Violence initiated by the World Council
of Churches. If we wish to take seriously the spirit
of the decade, I believe we need to see that violence
- personal and structural - has a gender dimension.
In Norway, no statistic is as gender divided as
the criminal statistics of whom violently victimises
whom. Deep in my heart I want all churches to become
truthful and credible witnesses in the struggle
against violence. Before this is possible, I believe
that churches have to look on their own sexist praxis
and theology.
Jesus was a man who challenged
the religious authorities of his day. He broke down
boundaries of who could commune with whom. As a
Jew, he befriended Samaritans and Romans. As a man,
he spoke to and respected women. He came to tell
us a story about liberation – for all. I believe
that truthfulness, justice and reconciliation are
different stages on the path to liberation. Therefore
I believe that accepting or tolerating any kind
of discrimination in ecumenical discourse is a betrayal
of that liberation which is our common goal.
Thank you
Kaisa Aitlahti, Finland
EYCE
Churches as a Bridge towards Reconciliation
– an example from the history
My name is Kaisa Aitlahti. I came
to this assembly through the Ecumenical Youth Council
in Europe and work here as a steward. I came from
Helsinki in Finland. For the last year I have been
writing my Master’s Thesis in church history. As
many times in the research, I also faced some painful
and difficult developments in the history. In my
case, that was confronting the history of the island
of Cyprus. We have heard and read a lot about the
developments on the island in the past months, but
I am not going to talk about that. I just pick one
small example from the history to help us think
weather churches and religions can have an effect
on achieving reconciliation or not.
Cyprus has not had an easy way
to go during its over 40 years of independence.
In 1974 there was a grave war, of which some of
you know the reasons much better than I do. Since
that particular year, 1974, Cyprus has been divided
into two parts: Greek Cypriots, who to the biggest
part are Greek Orthodox, living in the south and
Turkish Cypriots, who are Muslims, living in the
north. The war led to a serious refugee problem
and hundreds of thousands of people had to leave
their homes to go to their “own” side of the boarder
between the two national groups.
In the politics there didn’t seem
to be much hope left. The boarder, the so-called
Green Line between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish
Cypriots was, and still is clearly also the boarder
between two world religions: Christianity and Islam.
Changes in the traditional population areas of the
Orthodox and the Muslims were dramatic. Many Muslim
mosques ended up in the hands of the Christians
and the opposite happened to the Christian churches.
People on both sides were furious because of the
various misuses of their holy buildings. Many charges
were raised because of the dishonour of them.
But the leaders of the religious
groups were not satisfied. On both sides there was
at least one spiritual leader who promised to interfere
in the situation. They promised to stop the misuse
of the churches and mosques, to clean them to the
pre-war condition and to let surveyors testify the
actions approved. The leaders stated that neither
propaganda nor national fanatics’ order to deepen
the tension between the Greek and the Turkish should
manipulate the religions. In their opinion the mission
of the religions on Cyprus was to build a bridge
of peace and tolerance. They wished that both religions
could help building the spirit of love between the
national groups. The religions didn’t have to adapt
the political way of thinking and emphasise the
boarder between the groups. At least for me as a
young person it is easy to say that as equal images
of God, it should be a natural aim of us not to
separate but to bring together and unite.
Of course I am not an expert in
things concerning Cyprus and I can’t tell to which
extension the situation there, in an extreme need
for reconciliation, really was improved. But even
in the far north, in Finland, the Christian newspapers
were happy to tell that the churches were active
peace builders on Cyprus.
As we all know, the argument between
the Greek and the Turkish is still not totally settled.
The same kind of division is visible and reconciliation
needed in many places – different national groups
are separated from each other by their religion
as well as by their ethnic background. This is the
case in Northern Ireland and former Yugoslavia,
just to name two examples. We can ask weather religion
has any effect on reconciliation at all in the world
of politics, industry, information technology and
profit-seeking, or if it is just another brick in
the wall between communities. Did the spiritual
leaders of Cyprus bring reconciliation any closer?
Well, they failed to achieve full
reconciliation on the island at that time. But they
show us an important tool to be used in the struggle
for reconciliation, and that is respect. They were
strong in what they believed in, but at the same
time they let the others be true to themselves and
their traditions as well. By building hierarchy,
by placing religions and people on higher or lower
levels, by subordination, there is no way to reconciliation.
In my opinion the way to reconciliation is in living
together: loving and not judging our neighbours,
respecting them in what they are and not trying
to change them, accepting the different colours
of life that are there for us to enjoy.
So again, can the churches and
their leaders bring reconciliation any closer? That
is, can we bring reconciliation any closer? Scepticism
is not the answer. Faith could be one. If we put
small things together we can see how much difference
they make. I think – and I hope that we can all
believe in it – that the churches can and must have
an effect on achieving reconciliation. And why?
Simply because what religion gives us is hope. It
makes us do small things for a better future. We
pray, we discuss, we share, we understand, we learn,
we respect. As long as we have faith and hope we
also have a chance for reconciliation. It is a long
process but as Christians we are definitely obliged
to be a part of it whereever we live.
Michel Charbonnier, Italy - Dirk
Thesenvitz, Germany
EYCE
Being healed as a community
Dear sisters and brothers of all
ranks,
I have the pleasure to introduce
to you Mr. Michel Charbonnier from Italy.
Here with me is Mr. Dirk Thesenvitz
from Germany. We are representing the Ecumenical
Youth Council in Europe in this Assembly.
We will share with you our vision
of how the Churches of the past can have a future
in Europe.
The first step into this future
has to be that we all agree on one thing:
we as Churches need healing – healing
of our witness.
Our societies in Europe consider
us Churches as relicts from the past. Are they mistaken?
No, because we lost our capacity
to be hear witness of the hope that is within us.
But: this is not yet the whole
thing: the problem is even much bigger. This perception
of Churches being relicts of the past, unable to
communicate the Gospel to normal people in Europe,
comes not only from outside, from society around
us, but it is a perception of many people deep inside
our Churches.
Whereas we see a small inner circle
of self-satisfied men and women considering themselves
to be ”The Church”, a growing majority of Christians
in Europe find themselves outside the life of the
Church. (This phenomenon can be observed from parish
level up to CEC level.) This shows us that
as Churches, we do not only need healing in our
relationships with society, but we also need healing
inside.
We need healing like the man with
the withered arm in the Gospel according to Mark
3, 1-5. As you know, at the end of the story, the
man is healed. But it is more important for us to
understand what is leading him to this end. Jesus
doesn’t even touch this paralytic man. Jesus only
calls him to three different actions: Stand up!
Stand in the middle! And stretch out your hand!
In doing this the man is healed.
What can we learn from these three
actions?
Stand up:
if you want to get healed you have
to stand up – with all your body and with all your
being.
If one part of the body is paralytic
the whole body has to move to get healed.
Stand in the middle:
do not hide yourself and your weakness
to yourself and to the others.
This way you can accept your own
limitations and make yourself visible to everyone
– for if you’re not visible, how could you be a
witness?
Stretch out your hand:
if you stretch out your hand to
get healed, you stretch it out to yourself, but
at the same time, you stretch it out to the others
Getting healed and turning towards
the others is happening in the same action.
Now, what do these reflections
have to do with our healing and our witness as Churches?
If we want to get healed we have
to stand up with our whole body. It is not helpful
for the body of the Church to wave with one withered
ecumenical arm while its feet are walking in at
least two different ways.
If we want to be living witness
we must also be ready to recognise our own weaknesses
and stand up in the middle with all our parts –
leaving no one behind
If we want to be a healed and a
healing community of Churches in Europe we have
to stretch out our hands
Towards ourselves – and towards
the others
Towards the parts we are hiding
- and towards those who are hiding from us
In the Ecumenical Youth Council
in Europe, we have been trying for 35 years to build
up a healing community across many borders, borders
of culture, of denomination, of education, of language,
economy and gender.
We have come here to stand up and
give witness, also and strongly of our shortcomings
on this way and our need for healing. It is here
that we want to give thanks for the precious moments
of success we have been granted. Moments of sharing
on an equal level as sisters and brothers in Christ,
blessed times of ecumenical prayer life and strong
bonds of unity and friendship built beyond all borders.
We have come here as pilgrims to
stretch out our hands – towards ourselves, to you
all and to all the youth of your churches, no matter
if they are Orthodox or Anglicans, farmers or theologians,
Protestants or Catholics, workers or students: all
of them are welcome in EYCE to stand up with us
in the middle, to get healed and to bear witness
of Christian hope in the future of Europe.
Thank you and may God bless you.
|
|
