|
Thomas
J. Ascheman, SVD 1. Introduction In the early days of his public life, after an extended stay in Judah, Jesus returned to Galilee with his disciples. His ministry had already drawn both the attention and the budding opposition of religious leaders in Jerusalem. John’s Gospel tells us that as he set out he took the road through hostile Samaria rather than the safer route up through the Jordan valley. The story from the fourth chapter begins as follows: So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon. A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink". (Jn 4:5-7) I would like to take this well-known encounter between a Galilean Jew and a Samaritan as a guide for my reflections today. The text has long been a favorite of mine and has recently become a kind of touchstone for my missiological thinking. I’m a bit surprised that it is not much cited as a biblical foundation for missionary activity. Nevertheless, let us bring questions of missionary outreach to a reading of the text to see if it can help clarify our thinking and stimulate our hearts to deeper commitment. 2. Mission from the Heart of the Church 2.1 Back to the Heart I would first like to focus attention on the phrase, "Mission from the heart of the Church." It expresses a hope I share with you today – that the impulse to mission come once again from the very heart of the Church. In the first years of Christianity, as the Gospels and Acts abundantly testify, mission was certainly at the heart of the church. But in our own time, it is far from obvious that such is the case. Now, mission is generally conceived of as but one of the Church’s many activities, and perhaps even a rather peripheral one. Nearly forty years ago Vatican II’s decree on missionary activity, Ad gentes, enunciated the celebrated phrase, "The church on earth is by its very nature missionary…". But truth be told the still dominant idea of mission is that it is for specialists, for leaders or pastors, but not really for all members. This view is closely linked to a notion of mission heavily determined by geography. Some places in the world are "mission territory" and some places in the world are not. The close relationship of this image of mission to the notions of European and North American colonial expansion are of course well known. As long as geography and specialization dominate our understanding of mission, missionary outreach can never form the heart of the Church. Happily, as David Bosch’s classic work, Transforming Mission, argues, a change of paradigm in our understanding of mission is under way. There is a nearly unanimous consensus among mission theorists about that. But the shift is very far from accomplished. A brief glance at mission magazines and appeals for mission funding show that at many levels the church very quickly falls back on older images. Part of the trouble is that we find it easier to indicate what mission is not – i.e., not geography, than to say what mission is. The efforts to discern the new face of mission have been marked by vigorous debates. The various positions try to indicate the core image of the new paradigm. Some propose a theocentric model, recognizing that, after all, we are talking about God's mission in the world. A somewhat contrasting view insists on a christocentric model since, as disciples of Jesus, we announce Christ as the redeemer of all humanity. Others stress the coming transformation of all things and focus on the goal of mission, the coming of God's Reign. They advance a kingdom-centered model. And there are influential voices insisting on the role of the Church in mission, and they advocate a properly understood ecclesiocentric model of mission. These distinctions, and others, do help to bring some clarity even as they seem to generate as much heat as light. Whatever the conclusions regarding the core image of the new paradigm of mission, I think it would be profitable to take the last mentioned model and shift the terms of the debate somewhat. Thus, the more crucial question is not so much whether mission is ecclesiocentric, but rather whether the church is missiocentric. My deep hope is that mission will find its place, once again, at the very heart of the Church. Then we will be able to make evident in our practice the inspiring claim of Emil Brunner, "The Church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning". If this hope is to be realized, I believe that progress must be made in three directions. First, mission studies must match its theoretical acumen with concern for practical application. Second, the church must be encouraged to reach out in dialogue to strangers and newcomers. Third, the missionary calling of every Christian must become a basic organizing principal for all church communities. I propose to reflect on these three points in the context of the story of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman. But first let me situate these concerns within the context of our colloquium. 2.2 The theme of the colloquium This colloquium celebrates twenty-five years of service of Ishvani Kendra. It has been organized to explore the theme "The Church in Mission: Universal Mandate and Local Concerns". The focus encourages each of us, in the coming days, to share our own experience of mission and to learn from the others. A first perspective on mission is indicated in the theme’s reference to a "universal mandate". It reminds us of our common responsibility to tell the story of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, and to witness to the way his story leads us to love all of God’s peoples. In one way or another, all Christians in all parts of the world have the same mandate – love one another and share Jesus’ story with others. But every good storyteller quickly learns to pay careful attention to the context in which a story is told. As the experiences and concerns of those who hear a story vary from place to place, so also must the telling of the story. Good stories, classic stories, yield up new insights in every retelling, in every new context. And so a good storyteller pays attention to the context, closely watching and carefully listening to the hearers. Thus, attention to local concerns forms a second, complementary perspective for our symposium. Story-telling seems to me a most fitting way to describe the service that Ishvani Kendra has been providing since it’s beginnings. I am told that "Ishvani Kendra" means Word of God Center and for twenty-five years it has been concerned about telling the timeless story of God’s Word Incarnate, while paying close attention to the changing local contexts. In this way the members of the institute have sought to put mission at the heart of the Indian Church, carrying out a universal mandate in the context of local concerns. My confrere and friend, Thomas Malipurathu, the current director of Ishvani Kendra, has recently written a few lines about the original vision of Engelbert Zeitler, the founder. He noted: Zeitler had learned a considerable lot from the many years of exposure he had to the mission reality of India. He knew that the re-interpretation of the mission mandate enjoined by Jesus on his followers is a never-to-be-finished task. It was the duty of the succeeding generations of Christians to translate Jesus’ command into meaningful propositions and viable models of action. The members of Ishvani Kendra continue to seek creative ways to put this vision into practice. Through their varied activities they encourage professional mission studies, promote collaboration between theorists from the academy and practitioners from the field, and undertake efforts to communicate this vision to others. Our colloquium is one more such effort. A number of resource persons have been invited to present their reflections to help us think creatively about the next steps in mission that lie before us. They bring a wide variety of experiences, issues and perspectives from around the globe. Dr. Benigno Beltran comes from the Philippines, Prof. Elisabeth Schuessler-Fiorenza and Prof. Paul F. Knitter from the United States, Dr. John Prior from Indonesia, Dr. Ennio Mantovani from Italy, and Dr. Philip Gibbs from Papua New Guinea. India’s tremendous diversity and creativity in mission is represented in the wide-ranging concerns of Dr. Albert Nambiamparambil, Fr Tom Kocherry, Dr. A. Pushparajan, Fr Desmond De Souza and Prof. Gabriele Dietrich. May I take the liberty of speaking in the name of the assembly to say that we are both honored and blessed to have these guests here and we wholeheartedly welcome their contributions. As I indicated above, I propose to consider the story of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan Woman at the well of Jacob. It’s three dialogues concerning: living water, worship in Spirit and truth, and harvest, offer a solid foundation for exploring how mission can come from the Heart of the Church. 3. Living Water Let us listen, anew, to the opening dialogue where the topic of conversation is living water. …Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon. A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink". (His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink', you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water". The woman said to him, "Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?" Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life". The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water" (Jn 4:6-15). As a missionary there are quite a few things I really like about this passage. First, and most important is the simple reality that Jesus and the woman are present to meet one another. Every later development depends on both of them being present to meet an unexpected conversation partner. It seems such an obvious thing to say, but if missionaries do not place themselves where people gather they are not likely to have a great impact. Referring to this concern a Holy Spirit Sister recently posed the following riddle to a group of European SVD Mission Secretaries. She asked, "Why did Jesus tend to choose fishermen instead of shopkeepers as his first disciples?" The group pondered the matter for a few moments and since they are conscientious about fund-raising, they may have secretly wished that Jesus would have called a few more shopkeepers. But, they said they didn’t know – so Sister gave the answer to the riddle: "Shopkeepers stay put in their shops, waiting for someone to come by. Fishermen set out on the water, going themselves to where the fish are". She added that we missionaries must be like fishers, going to where the people are. There is a second thing I notice in the text – both Jesus and the Samaritan woman show initiative. They are strangers to one another in many ways: culturally, religiously, and socially they inhabitant different worlds. Nevertheless, Jesus struck up a challenging conversation and the Samaritan woman responded with her own challenges. Risking scandal and rejection, each of them took initiative toward the other. While presence is a first requirement for missionary outreach, there is also a need for missionary initiative. An SVD provincial in Asia recently wrote to the Generalate making the same point: "…to do missionary work in Taiwan people need to have initiative. Already two young people have left because of this reason. Here the parishes are very small and there is little pastoral work, so if the young missionaries do not have initiative to look for opportunities to contact people they will be stuck…". A third element in the passage draws my attention. Jesus and the woman talk about everyday concerns, about water. It is close at hand. Though starting from there, they open themselves to consider much deeper realities. How easily and yet how surprisingly the dialogue moves from the mundane to the profound. It is like letting a bucket down into the well, and then being surprised by the water that comes gushing up. In his meeting at the well Jesus showed himself to be a very able teacher. He didn’t need a large investment of money to make his point and to offer an invitation. In contrast missionaries today too often get badly distracted by plans to build more complex structures and efforts to develop more comprehensive organizations. Many who start out as missionaries end up as building managers. It is a little like the story of a new missionary who arrived in Africa. This young fellow had just finished an advanced degree in cultural anthropology and was hoping to build up an institute for the scientific study of local ethnology, linguistics, intercultural dialogue and inculturation. For the moment he found himself in a bush parish with an old missionary as his companion. One evening shortly after his arrival, the new missionary was sitting at a fire with the village elders. There were words of welcome on the part of the people and then the new missionary was invited to speak. Since he did not yet know the local language it had been arranged that the older missionary, who was greatly respected by the people, would serve as interpreter. The new fellow launched into an impassioned speech about his joy of being in the village, of his delight at the opportunities he would have to study the language and ways of the people, and especially of his hopes to build up a cultural institute. He spoke for about thirty-five minutes. Then the old missionary gave the translation. He spoke for about forty seconds and all the people smiled at the new missionary in appreciation. And that was it! The elders went up, one by one to the new missionary to thank him for his speech and to give him their blessings. And then they went off to their homes. Later the young fellow asked the old missionary about the surprisingly short translation of his remarks. The old man said he just told the people that the new fellow was very happy to be there and that he loved them. The rest they would figure out as time went by. As you can see, the things that catch my attention in this first dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan Woman are very practical things: presence, initiative, and starting with everyday concerns. As I hinted earlier, I think mission studies must come to pay at least as much attention to missionary practice as to mission theory. Perhaps as a North American I am too "practical-minded" to start with. Culturally, I want things to work! If this is but part of my cultural baggage, please bear with me. Or, perhaps it is my tasks as SVD Generalate Mission Secretary that have led me to stress the need for much greater attention to the practical concerns of missionaries. I have been continually and unhappily surprised at how little impact the truly important developments in mission theory have in the lives of most Christians. Consider the experience of the extended family of an Indonesian SVD missionary. He writes: I consider myself something of a "victim" of the confrontation between Catholicism and other faiths in my extended family, in my clan. When the Catholic faith arrived among my people it did not arrive with an attitude of dialogue. The conversion of part of the Duka clan resulted in a deep rupture in the family. Religion became a divisive element. In fact, the clan broke up into three parts – each one living a different religious tradition: Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity and Islam. Each group sought its own place to live – and as the groups moved away from one another the primordial family relationships completely broke down. Religious, social and political prejudices emerged. Unfortunately, the Catholicism that I was taught never really helped me to overcome the divisions that had grown up in my clan. It seems that no one had ever heard of the conciliar documents Gaudium et Spes (let alone Nostra Aetate or Unitatis Redintegratio). Sadly, this experience of the Duka family is really not that unusual. Many Christians have no idea of such fundamental missiological ideas as inculturation and evangelization of cultures, primary and new evangelization, fundamental option with the poor and interreligious and ecumenical collaboration. If such ideas do not find expression in Sunday homilies, in catechetical instruction, in the day-to-day life of Christian communities, then they certainly cannot have a significant impact on the future of mission! Fortunately, in the case of the Duka clan, the ordination of Augusto Duka as an SVD missionary ten years ago was a kairos moment that allowed for the reconciliation of the clan. All three branches of the family participated in the celebration. Augusto, is the son of a Muslim mother and a Catholic father. He contends that it was their practical wisdom as parents and the fundamental desire for unity in the clan that lead to reconciliation. If in this case I had been asked to recommend an article from a mission journal that would have been genuinely helpful in working out a reconciliation, I’m not sure I would have been able to find something. More generally, I find it quite difficult to list a short bibliography of truly "essential" reading that would be practical enough for most missionaries in the field. Happily there are some resources that do move in the direction of greater practical concern. To mention just a few, from 1997 to 2000 the Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences produced a series of leaflets entitled Partners. The aim was to encourage interreligious and ecumenical dialogue at the "grass-roots" level. Though the series is now suspended, the same office has published this year a resource manual for Catholics in Asia entitled Dialogue which is written in an easy-to-understand and easy-to-use format. It is designed to help educate groups of Christians for interreligious and ecumenical dialogue. From Africa there is the African Ecclesial Review (AFER) produced at the Gaba Pastoral Institute for the Association of Member Episcopal Conferences in Eastern Africa (AMACEA). It has been in publication for more than forty years. The description of the publication printed on the inside cover is careful to mention the practical side of things as well as the more theoretical concerns. "AFER aims at making Christ's message relevant through: disseminating reflection, discussion, informed views, documentation and pastoral ministry experience. For this purpose, articles are invited from scholars and pastoral workers". One might think that the journal’s stress on specific local experiences from the African context would make it less useful for other parts of the world. But that is not necessarily the case. Bishop Pain Ratu SVD of Atambua, Indonesia has long counted it as his favorite source of helpful missionary reflection. From Europe and Latin America one could turn to the missiological journal, Spiritus, as a source that sometimes includes reflections on more practically oriented experience. From North America, the most systematic approach to practical reflection on mission themes that I have discovered is Alan Neely’s, Christian Mission: A Case Study Approach. His methodology is to work from specific cases of missionary activity, introduced by a description of the most important elements of the cultural-religious context and a more extensive bibliography. This is followed by study questions and suggested biblical texts for reflection. The purpose of his methodology is to help develop in praxis a more open and creative missionary imagination. This call for greater attention to practical missiology is not a call to superficial scholarship. Rather, it echoes the insistence of Latin American liberation theology that theology must be done as "a critical reflection on historical praxis in the light of the Word". Steve Bevans, SVD, in an address this past summer to the Catholic Theological Society of America, stressed just this point in the context of his argument that theology in general needs to recover its missiological imagination. He insists that: "Theology needs… to move out of the isolation of its over-rationalized self conception and back to being a theology that is holistic, rooted in praxis, accessible to ordinary Christians, and strongly contextual…. (Then) theology will have as its starting point the life of the Christian community as it strives to discern what God is doing in human history and how the church might be the sign and instrument of that saving presence. In this way theology will regain its role as servant of the church as it engages in mission …theology will be done not for its own sake but in order better to preach, serve and witness to God’s Reign and the saving presence of its Lord." If we want to drink of the "living water" that Jesus offered at the well of Jacob, I believe that we will have to become more expert in developing a practical missionary imagination. 4. Worship in Spirit and Truth We turn our attention, now, to the second part of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman. Jesus introduced a very delicate topic. One would never have suspected that it would conclude with talk about worshipping in spirit and truth. Let us listen to the story: Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come back". The woman answered him, "I have no husband". Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!" The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem". Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth". The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming" (who is called Christ). "When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us". Jesus said to her, "I am he, the one who is speaking to you". …Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, "Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?" (Jn 4:16-26, 28-29). In a recent commentary on the Gospel of John, Wilfrid Harrington points out that "the fourth gospel is a gospel of personal relationships". Jesus’ relationship with the Father and with the disciples forms the constant background for all of the action. But the fourth gospel is especially remarkable for the lengthy dialogues by which Jesus reveals himself to certain individuals. The dialogues with Nicodemus in chapter 3 and with a blind man in chapter 9 are cases in point. Jesus' exchanges with the Samaritan Woman in chapter 4 follow this pattern of personal encounter and self-disclosure. When Jesus asked the woman about her husband, he certainly was pushing into very personal matters. It seems that she tried to fend off this intrusion by changing the subject – she talked about religious differences. Jesus’ answer must have come as a surprise – he did not immediately spring to the defense of Jerusalem. Instead he seemed to indicate that genuine worship was not limited to any particular place, not to Jerusalem and not to Mt. Gerazim. Studying this text from a missionary perspective highlights the differences between Jesus and the Samaritan Woman. I notice four important differences: first, it turns out that she is what we might call a "seeker," one looking for direction in the deeper questions about life. She is awaiting a Messiah, a teacher to proclaim all things. He, on the other hand, knows God intimately and his entire life is shaped by that knowledge. Second, they are different socially – he, as a man and a teacher, enjoys some status within his own society; she, as a woman, has a lower status in her society but she is also marginalized by her confused marriage situation. Third, they are different from one another culturally – he is from Galilee, she is from Samaria, and there is hostility between the two groups. Finally, they are different from one another religiously – she is a Samaritan and he is a Jew. The dialogue they engage in does not shy away from their mutual differences, instead, both sides reach across the divide with audacity and courage. The differences between Jesus and the Samaritan Woman are typical of the situations where missionary outreach is especially needed today. Though one can rightly claim that the whole Church is missionary and that the whole world is potentially mission territory, it does not follow that everything the Church does everywhere in the world is missionary outreach. There is a need to articulate the specificity of mission. Such efforts have multiplied recently. In 1990 John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio made an important contribution to the discussion by distinguishing pastoral care from new evangelization and ad gentes mission. In his view though territorial criteria are still sometimes helpful in identifying missionary situations, they are not the only, or even the principal indicators of the "new worlds" where missionary outreach is need today. David Bosch’s Transforming Mission, which appeared in 1991, surveys the question in great detail; and two more recent books in English, by J. Andrew Kirk and Donal Dorr, and one in Spanish by Eloy Bueno carry the discussion forward. The debates of the past decade have helped identify some useful perspectives on missionary outreach. But when the Society of the Divine Word gathered in General Chapter last year to rearticulate its vision for mission, it turned to an insight that has been cultivated in Asia since the early 1970’s. The First Plenary Assembly of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, held in Taipei in 1974, called for the local churches to engage in a "triple dialogue" with the cultures, the religions and the poor of Asia in order to carry out their mission of evangelization. This call was renewed during the Fifth FABC Plenary Assembly held in Bandung in 1990. The assembly stated that: Mission includes: being with the people, responding to their needs, with sensitiveness to the presence of God in cultures and other religious traditions, and witnessing to the values of God’s Kingdom through presence, solidarity, sharing and word. Mission will mean a dialogue with Asia’s poor, with its local cultures, and with other religious traditions. I find it quite amazing that the previously mentioned surveys on mission published during the past decade lack any reference to this important position of the FABC. When most missiological works deal with mission and dialogue, the discussion is generally limited to the specific question of interreligious dialogue. In contrast, the Asian bishops have taken "dialogue" as a unifying image for all the major facets of missionary outreach. After a wide grass-roots consultation, the SVD General Chapter in 2000 also chose the image of dialogue to express its fundamental understanding of mission. The capitulars stated: We believe that the deepest and best understanding of (our specific) call (to mission) is expressed in the term "Dialogue", or more specifically, "Prophetic Dialogue". (53) The SVD Chapter Statement added a fourth category, "faith-seekers", to those named in the FABC statements. The relevant texts follow: (56) Our call to mission is a call to reach out (in prophetic dialogue) to faith-seekers and to people who have no community of faith, to engage in primary evangelization and re-evangelization…. (60) Our call to mission is a call to prophetic dialogue with the poor and the marginalized of our world in seeking to promote integral human development… (64) Our call to mission is a call to prophetic dialogue with people of different cultures so as to learn from and share in the diversity of gifts given by the God of Life… (68) Our call to mission is a call to be more committed to prophetic dialogue with the other Christian Churches, with followers of other religious traditions, and with people committed to diverse ideologies. Together with all these dialogue partners we hope to hear the voice of the Spirit of God calling us forward in service… What factors led SVD missionaries to chose "prophetic dialogue" as our principal image of missionary outreach? To start with, the Society of the Divine Word has deep roots in Asia. Nearly half of all members of the Society of the Divine Word are Asian-born and they, like all SVD’s are serving as missionaries in many parts of the globe. And besides, many more members of the Society from other parts of the world are either assigned in Asia or were once assigned here. Perhaps it is for this reason that the ideas of the FABC have such a resonance for us. But the image of a fourfold prophetic dialogue was not adopted only because of the Society’s roots in Asia. A second response is that the image of " prophetic dialogue" can synthesize the diverse concerns of many local churches. Consider the fact that in the various local churches where SVD’s serve, there seems to be an awareness of the missionary challenges involved in one or more of these dialogues. So, for instance, the European Churches have recognized a crisis of unbelief and feel acutely challenged to respond to faith-seekers. The Churches of Latin America have felt called to commit themselves to a preferential option for the poor and marginalized. The Churches of Africa and Oceania have especially stressed the need for a more complete inculturation of the church and for intensified efforts for the evangelization of cultures in a time of rapid cultural change. The Churches of North America and Australia have likewise been deeply concerned about cultural questions, but in this case the context focuses more on racism and ethnocentric conflict in multicultural societies. Also, the marginalization of women has been a prominent concern. And the Churches of Asia, more than any others, call for a respectful dialogue of life, deeds, creeds and religious experience among followers of different faith traditions. As is evident, the image of "prophetic dialogue" can coordinate concerns from many different corners of the globe and it can challenge the local churches with experiences from other places. A third factor that led SVD's to see "prophetic dialogue" as a central image for our missionary outreach is that it properly stresses the personal side of our missionary activity. Some years ago, geographic images tended to dominate our ways of conceiving mission. We spoke about mission countries or about "going to the missions." More recently we spoke about going to "missionary frontiers" in all parts of the world. One important limitation of all such geographic language is that it misses what is so evident in Jesus' dialogue with the Samaritan Woman. That is, missionary outreach is rooted in interpersonal contact. The construction of large buildings, the staffing of impressive offices, the production of insightful documents and the celebration of well-prepared liturgies cannot take the place of personal contact. This was one of the concerns that our former Superior General, Henry Barlage, raised in the course of the chapter preparation. He was concerned that in the midst of language about inculturation, liberation, evangelization of cultures, primary and renewed evangelization, etc., that we might neglect the simple reality of missionary life – it is essentially a building up of personal relationships with people who are different from us. A fourth factor leading SVD’s to see missionary outreach as dialogue is that the concept gives a clearer expression to the mutual character of missionary activity. After all, it is not only the missionary who is guided in a moment of missionary outreach. Long experience reminds every one of us that the Spirit guides the missionary in such moments, but the Spirit is just as active in guiding our partners in dialogue. This was a point on which Thomas Malipurathu especially insisted during the earlier stages of preparation of the Chapter statement. His interventions and some others from Asia and from Europe challenged what was up until then a dominant image for us, i.e., "frontier situations". The notion of "frontiers" in the English and Spanish language as used in the cultures of the Americas has a basically positive impact. But the military and colonial connotations become more evident when translated into some other languages, and this is especially true in contexts where war and colonial history has left deep and more recent scars. In contrast, missionary outreach to people who are different from us, especially if that encounter begins in openness and leads to friendship, changes all the participants. The SVD general chapter statement on mission notes the kinds of changes we hope to undergo in our dialogue with others. Our dialogue with faith-seekers can lead us to a deeper faith. Our dialogue with the poor can lead us to greater solidarity. Our dialogue with people of other cultures can lead us to a more catholic spirit of appreciation of others' cultural identities. Our dialogue with followers of other religious traditions can lead us to greater trust. All of these changes prepare us for the coming hour promised by Jesus during his meeting at the well; we will be prepared to worship God in spirit and in truth. A final factor that I think leads SVD’s to think about missionary outreach in terms of dialogue is the close relationship between missionary activity and missionary spirituality. The previous point regarding "mutuality" already hints at this. Our document makes it more explicit by using the term "prophetic" dialogue with a very specific meaning: …It is clear that we do not dialogue from a neutral position, but out of our own faith. Together with our dialogue partners we hope to hear the voice of the Spirit of God calling us forward, and in this way our dialogue can be called prophetic. (54) Note here that the underlying theology of this statement is "sacramental". The dialogic encounter with the other allows for a "sacramental" moment – a moment when both sides can sense God’s Presence. One who gets a taste of the holy nature of such encounters does not easily turn his or her back on them. Such encounters are themselves opportunities to worship God in spirit and in truth. We need not limit our search for God to churches and mosques, temples and synagogues. We can also know and worship God in the friendships we nurture across barriers of belief/unbelief, social position, cultures and religions. Allow me to share one such moment I experienced in Mozambique during a visit in 1997. On one of the last days of my visit, the SVD team in Mozambique was received in grand style at a parish entrusted to its care. With great enthusiasm the people of Mogincual, both Catholics and Muslims, gathered for the "official" arrival of the new missionaries. They were escorted by the bishop of Nacala and by a Comboni missionary who had been visiting the community from time to time in the years since the end of the civil war. The drive to Mogincual was burdensome. The road is little more than a dirt path through dense brush for the last 50 kilometers. Many of the bridges along the way are in ruins. As we came into town, the traditional chief, a Muslim, was there to greet us. Gathered with him were the imam of the town mosque and many members of the Muslim community. Of course the Catholics were also out in force, greeting our arrival with enthusiastic songs of welcome. After an elaborate Eucharist we gathered under a spreading cashew tree to talk and to pay respects to the chief. I was sitting with the bishop and talking with members of the Muslim community when the chief invited the imam to speak. The imam, Mohamed Omar, is a younger man, and quite persuasive. He spoke about the urgent needs of the people after the long civil war. He mentioned the need for a school and a clinic, both of which had previously been provided by the old mission. Then he spoke about what he saw as the most urgent need, the building of a better road to connect Mogincual to the surrounding communities. His remarks ended, he came and sat beside me, radiating goodwill and openness for friendship. For a good while the whole community discussed those things that the Muslims and Catholics could do together for the betterment of their town. At last the imam summarized the whole conversation with a closing remark. He said, "We don’t need one road for the Muslims and another road for the Catholics. I think one road is enough, and we should work together to build it". I felt the imam’s offer of friendship that day. And, I was sorry to leave, because I discovered under that tree a place where God could be worshiped in spirit and in truth. I often pray for Mohamed Omar. I hope that each of you has also met a dialogue partner at some "well" or under some "tree" along the way. And I hope that you know from your own experience what it means to feel God’s presence in such an encounter. I urge you to remember to pray for your partners and friends in dialogue. 5. Harvest We turn, finally, to Jesus’ third conversation that afternoon; this one with his disciples. It was about harvest. Just then Jesus’ disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, "What do you want?" or, "Why are you speaking with her?" Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, "Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?" They left the city and were on their way to him. Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, "Rabbi, eat something." But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about". So the disciples said to one another, "Surely no one has brought him something to eat?" Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. Do you not say, ‘Four months more, then comes the harvest’? But I tell you, look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting. The reaper is already receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps’. I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor". Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, "He told me everything I have ever done". So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world" (Jn 4:27-42). The story of the private encounter between Jesus and the woman is followed by the story of the consequences their meeting had upon their respective communities. Jesus’ disciples come back on the scene and he talks with them about harvest. It is evident that Jesus and the Samaritan woman are gathering in rather different harvests. Jesus gathers in the confusion and sense of scandal of his disciples, the Samaritan woman harvests the belief of her neighbors. Missionary outreach through dialogue can often be an exciting business, but it is also fraught with dangers. Generally, the most immediate and the most painful consequence is that one becomes a cause of scandal and confusion in one’s own community of faith. Francis Oborji, a Nigerian missiologist working in Rome, took note of this in an article where he reviews some missiological trends in third world theologies. He cites a theologian from Sri Lanka who writes: "we are the first generation of Indian theologians who have looked at this unknown world of Buddhism and Hinduism… We are suspected of betraying Jesus and instead we are looking for new ways of conveying the message we have inherited, based on the questions Buddhists (and Hindus) ask us". The confusion and scandal that Jesus’ disciples experienced on seeing him talking with a woman, a Samaritan!, gets repeated over and over in history. As our experiences of missionary dialogue open us to wider experiences of God’s Kingdom, we will not fit so comfortably into the families, cultures and church communities where we once were very much at home. There is a saying by an English writer: "A mind expanded by a new idea can never return to its original dimensions". The experience of missionary outreach in dialogue certainly expands our minds with new ideas – but it does more than that. Perhaps we could add the corollary: a heart that is expanded by a new friendship can never return to its original dimensions. While the disciples were standing around, scandalized, the Samaritan woman was away telling her neighbors about the man she had met at the well. As is so often the case in so many parts of the world, while the "experts" are gathered trying to figure out what is going on, the "amateurs" are off getting the job done. This seems to be one of John’s favored themes: while Mary of Bethany anoints Jesus’ feet – Judas complains about the loss of income; while the disciples lock themselves away in the upper room, Mary Magdalene is in the garden meeting with the Lord, becoming one of the very first disciples to receive a mandate to tell the good news. The point I am aiming at is that our thinking about missionary outreach has generally been too focused on the "specialist-missionaries" and not enough on the role that all Christians play in missionary outreach. It may be that those of us who have been brought to faith in the Roman tradition are particularly susceptible to this blind spot. Our hierarchical structures, even though we frequently rail against them, condition the members of our Church to expect well-organized and systematically planned activities. We feel comforted to be led by good, professionally-trained pastors, but we sometimes let those pastors turn us all into bleating sheep! Another reason why missionary outreach has come to be viewed as an activity for specialists may be that the religious communities of priests, brothers and sisters have played such an important role in mission history. One consequence of an over-emphasis on "specialized missionary work" is the current tendency of "mission specialists" to look for lay collaborators to help them in their missionary outreach. These lay missionaries become, in-turn, a new class of specialists. While the promotion of specialized lay groups is certainly helpful in many situations, it could lead us to overlook a bigger part of the story. There is another perspective that I would like to suggest by telling about a dialogue I once experienced with a Mexican woman named Rosy. Rosy is a good friend of mine. She is a wife and mother and she is a very committed Christian. When I was working in an enormous parish in the slums of Mexico City, she was involved in just about everything. She participated in a bible-study group, she helped with fund-raising projects, she was a principal organizer of a parish group that cared for the sick and elderly of the parish. (Her mother, Guadalupe, who was already 80 years old, made daily rounds as a communion minister, so we can guess where Rosy learned about service!) Now it happened that one Sunday as Mass was coming to a close I was exhorting the congregation to come to a parish function that afternoon. As usual, I was probably laying it on too thick. I heard myself say something like: "If you are a good Catholic you will be here this afternoon!" I suppose I meant it as a bit of hyperbole, but I regretted saying it as soon as it was out of my mouth, because I knew it would get me into trouble. It didn’t take long for trouble to arrive. As I was standing out in front of the Church talking with people, Rosy came bustling up to me. Her head comes up to about the middle of my chest, but she probably outweighs me by about 15 kilos. Rosy is round. She also has pointy fingers as I discovered when she jabbed me in the chest a few times as she made her points. She was furious. She said: "Listen, mister! I want you to know that I am a very good Catholic, but I will not be here this afternoon. My first job as a Catholic is to be a good mother to my two daughters. My second job as a Catholic is to be a good wife to my husband. That is what I will be doing this afternoon because it is the only time this week that we can all be together. So let me make it very clear for you, I will not be here this afternoon because I am a very good Catholic". I agreed with her. I was also happy I didn’t suffer any bruises in the dialogue. Of course, Rosy was right. She helped me see a perspective on things that I had never before glimpsed so clearly. That is, ministry in general, and mission outreach in particular, cannot be contained in parochial categories. To put it another way, clergy and religious often make great efforts to animate lay folks to collaborate in their church-work of missionary outreach. Perhaps we should put at least as much effort into helping lay folk find still more adequate means of mission outreach in their own daily activities. This would require some really radical rethinking: What does interreligious or interethnic encounter mean for a mother or a father, precisely in their roles as father and mother? What does solidarity with the poor and marginalized mean for a husband and a wife? What does faith-sharing mean for coworkers, and neighbors, and friends? We should ask ourselves in all seriousness: who are the most important Christian missionaries in Asia today? The Missionaries of Charity, Divine Word Missionaries, the Jesuits, Salesians, the Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters? Or should we perhaps think of the Filipina workers who care for the elderly and the young in so many different countries. Maybe we should think about neighbors and family members in mainland China. Perhaps we should think about Christian teachers and workers, students and employers in Indonesia, India, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and all of the other parts of Asia. As a result of the harvest work of a Samaritan friend, Jesus was welcomed by an entire Samaritan town. If Jesus and his story is to be welcomed into still more communities in our day, then we must be willing to change structures of ministry that limit outreach. If mission is to be from the heart of the Church, then our communities need to be centers of animation for the ministry of all the members. And the focus of such ministry needs to move well beyond the needs of the community that is already gathered. 6. Conclusion In the foregoing reflections I have explored the themes of practical mission studies, missionary outreach through dialogue and the missionary calling of all Christians. I am convinced that these are three of the most critical factors if mission is to be once again at the Heart of the Church. God so loved the world… the whole world… that he gave his only begotten Son who lived here among us. He opened himself in dialogue and shared his life with disciples and with strangers. He taught us by example and has given us his Spirit so that we too can grow in love for the whole world. This is our universal call to mission in the local churches – to focus not on our own, internal problems, but on the needs of other human beings. For at the heart of the Church beats Gods love for the world.
Notes .
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, The Anchor Bible,
Vol. 29 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966) pp. 164-185.
Ref.:
Text from the Author.
|