|
|
|
It was the task of the mission to implant the local Church and this it did
as we have seen already. The method used was not dialogue, leading to
inculturation, but monologue leading to a copy of the so-called sending
Church. Given the spirit of the time, this was the best the missionaries
could do.
However, in spite of the successes, there are signs which force us to
reflect. The ongoing religious movements in Papua New Guinea show that
Melanesians are still searching. Either Christ is not the answer for the
Melanesians - an alternative I cannot accept - or the missionaries failed
to understand the questions of the Melanesians. This is more likely. The
success of the small Churches, in their own way, seems to confirm that
something is not right. The butterfly syndrome shows that they too are not
the answer. Anthropological research indicates that traditional beliefs in
spirits and powers are still pervasive. Church people explain these
traditional beliefs as revivals of pagan practices, as signs of lack of
faith, etc. Are they?
The Church of the future must realise that the Word of God has been at work
in Papua New Guinea for over forty thousand years revealing God through
Melanesian cultures. The Church has been sent by the Incarnate Word to
continue that dialogue between God and his Melanesian children, not to
begin a new one. The Church does not come with all the ready made answers
for all possible questions but as the servant of the Word to dialogue with
the people, listening to their needs, listening to their religious
experiences as expressed in their pervasive and powerful symbols of
spirits, powers, and rituals, in order to be enriched and to be able to
challenge that religious experience with the scandal of the Cross.
Dialogue, challenge, inculturation: this is also the role envisaged for
the Church by the Founding Fathers of the independent State of Papua New
Guinea.
The Founding Fathers saw the future of the country resting on two pillars:
the 'noble traditions of the ancestors', and the Christian principles,
which are now an integral part of Papua New Guinea.
By saying the 'noble' traditions, the fathers of the nation recognise that
there are traditions that are not noble, that cannot be continued.
Melanesians know that they must make choices, difficult choices, and they
trust that the Christian principles will help them to choose properly. This
is the shaping role they assign to the Church in Papua New Guinea.
However, for the Church to be able to advise, it must know the culture as
well as the customs. Customs take their final meaning from the system to
which they belong and which they express. The Church must recognise and
dialogue with this cultural system. I used the singular, well knowing that
there is no singular. However, there are values which can be called
Melanesian in the singular because they are common everywhere. The Church
must recognise these values and dialogue with them.
Let me give a couple of examples and then you will understand what a task
the Church has.
Let me premise everything with a general anthropological principle. One
must distinguish between ideal and reality. The ideal is what ought to be,
the reality is the compromise we live by. As an example: Christ is the
Christian ideal. He trusts the Father on the cross when he dies betrayed by
his friends and mocked by his enemies. He dies for those who crucify him
and forgives them. Not only he forgives them, but dies to give them life.
That is the ideal of Christianity. The reality of Christianity is the way
you and I live that ideal; the reality of the daily compromises and sins.
It is the reality even of inquisition, of the witch hunts and burning, of
the crusades, of slavery, of apartheid, etc., etc., etc. The Christianity
we preach and believe in is Christ, but we know that we shall never reach
it. We only strive towards it and not even everyone does. What we see and
experience is not Christ the ideal - but sin. However, what we see does
not deny the reality we do not see.
Every culture and religion has an ideal we do not see and a sinful reality
we see. We should never get the two confused. Besides, we should never
compare the ideal of our religion with the reality of another religion or
culture. The two are not commensurable. Unfortunately, this is what we all
do most of the time: we compare the Christian ideal with the reality of
another religion or culture.
The dialogue should take place at the level of ideals not of realities
which are always distorted by human sinfulness. It is from the ideal that
the reality must and can be challenged. It is for this reason that in this
paper I will talk only about the Melanesian and Christian ideals.
II.a) Marriage.
Marriage in Melanesia, as confirmed by the research just concluded by the
Melanesian Institute, is a communitarian affair in the sense that two
groups enter into a lasting relationship through two of their members.
Moreover, the entering into a relationship takes time: it is a long process
with clear markers on its way. The more markers are passed, the stronger
the relationship, till, at the end, ideally, it should not break.
The aim of marriage is not directly the happiness of the couple but the
well-being and strengthening of the community so that the couple, others
children and everybody else, especially the sick and old, will find
security and comfort. Marriage is, by nature, a service to the community;
the greatest service of all.
The Christian marriage, on the other hand, is a contract between two free
and mature persons. It takes place at a given time and place in front of a
given officer and witnesses. This is according to Canon Law, can. 1055. The
community does not enter into it.
The key differences between the two systems regard the subject of marriage,
- who enters into marriage - the consent, - how people communicate with
each other - and the aim of marriage, - why people want to marry.
Marriage is actually a case study not of theology but of culture and
philosophy. One should not allow the theological issue to obscure the
underlying basic cultural issue. The validity of the theological issue
depends on the underlying philosophical one, and not vice-versa. The West
is so sure about the theological issue because it assumes that its
philosophical foundations are absolutely valid. Are they?
The Subject
Regarding the subject, in the West it is the couple and nobody else. The
community does not enter into the definition and legality of marriage. In
Melanesia the subjects are the two communities and the couple. The
communities enter into a special relationship through the couple. The two
realities - the communities and the couple - cannot be sep-arated. It is
not a question of the two communities agreeing to the consent of the
couple, - this would be the Western interpretation and compromise - but of
the two communities entering into a special relationship with each other.
Because of this relationship the couple is married.
What are the reasons for the cultural differences between the Melanesian
and the West?
Melanesian philosophy begins with the community. Because there is a
community there are human individuals. 'I am in relationship, therefore I
am'. One who is not in relationship does not exist as a human being. The
individual takes not only his or her identity from the community but his or
her very existence. The individuals exist because of and - as a
consequence - for the community. The West, on the other hand, puts the
individual at the centre. 'I think, therefore I am'. The individual is
first and at the centre. The two types of marriage reflect these
philosophical differences. The missiological issue is: must a Melanesian
give up his or her philosophy or culture in order to be a Christian?
Because marriage is a sacrament and that sacrament has a long Western
tradition, any dialogue on this issue is deemed useless in the conviction
that the Christian West knows what marriage is all about. However, that
knowledge is based on a philosophical tenet. One must prove that the tenet
is philosophically the only valid one and the only one sanctioned by God.
This, to my knowledge, has not been done.
Because marriage is a sacrament, one might be tempted to argue biblically.
The problem is that the Bible has been read through the tinted glasses of
Western theology and philosophy, i.e. of Western culture. As a matter of
fact, one can read the Bible from the Melanesian perspective and say: God
is communion - the blessed Trinity - and therefore community is at the
centre. Community is the beginning and the end! Community is the alpha and
omega. I am a European and my head spins trying to consider all the
implications of this philosophy. They are staggering! The ethics would have
to be rewritten. The issue is whether the Church allows itself to be
challenged in the foundations of her original culture without coming up
immediately with a pat philosophical answer. Whose philosophy, by the way?
The centrality of the community is a key 'noble tradition' of the
Melanesian Ancestors. Virtue is to serve it. The ideal person is the one
who dies for the community, like Jesus did. The Founding Fathers of the
Papua New Guinea Constitution want to build the future of their country on
this value. Is the Church willing to dialogue or does it have the answer
already? My purpose is not to argue the case but to point to the underlying
anthropological and theological issues. The Church in Papua New Guinea
cannot ignore them and be Church in Melanesia.
The Consent
The difference between the Western and Melanesian consent is that the
former uses words while the latter uses deeds. The marital consent turns
out to be a case study of cultural communication. It is unfortunate that
once again the sacrament is in danger of covering a basic cultural and
missiological issue. Is everyone obliged to subscribe to a Western
communication pattern in order to be a Christian? This is the real issue
and Marriage cannot be used as a smokescreen.
Relationships in Melanesia are expressed, strengthened and mended if broken
not primarily through words, but through actions. This is the reason why
there is no word for 'thank you' in Melanesian languages. There are deeds
of 'thank you' There is no word for 'sorry'; there are deeds for 'sorry'.
Melanesians do not create and express relationships through words but
through actions. Because marriage is a relationship, it follows that
Melanesians do not use words but actions.
The theological issue then is: do Melanesians, in order to be married
sacramentally, have to forgo their way of communication and for a moment
follow and accept the Western way of communication? The compromise to use
first the Melanesian way - in the village - and then, in Church, to use
the Western way might satisfy the jurists but it is a cultural insult. It
says through deeds - so that every Melanesian can understand it loud and
clear - that the Melanesian way of communication is not acceptable to God,
that it is not good enough for a sacrament, that it is not sufficient for
salvation. The Western way must be added to it. Is that not repeating
through actions what the first missionaries said, that Melanesians are
primitive, inferior, and have to grow up to our Western standards?
This brings up a second problem: that of marriage not being a legal moment
fixed in time and place. Words take a moment to be uttered but deeds take
time. When we judge a traditional Melanesian marriage as a 'process
marriage' in the Western sense, we miss the whole point and make a mockery
of the Melanesian values. A Melanesian marriage is the entering into of a
relationship between two groups and two people not through Western
communication but the Melanesian way.
We are not dealing primarily with marriage but with cultural communication.
Do Melanesians have to give up their way of communicating in order to
become Christians? I feel uneasy with compromises: they tend to cover up
the real basic cultural issue and postpone if not refuse its solution. They
are bandaids covering up serious untended ulcers. We Western Christians are
quick with God and the Bible. Did not God reveal himself through the deeds
of Creation? Is God's greatest communication of love not the action on the
Cross? Why can't a Melanesian couple express their 'yes' though actions?
The Melanesian 'yes' takes time - we talk about months and maybe years -
and to force it into a symbolic gesture at the time of marriage is not
primarily a pastoral compromise but a cover-up for Western cultural
colonialism. The West does not trust the Melanesian way and wants to make
sure that it is valid, as if God were Western and would not understand or
refuse the Melanesian way! A Church that wants to be Melanesian, cannot
ignore this issue.
The Aim of Marriage
According to Canon Law the aim of marriage is 'the good of the spouses and
the procreation and education of offspring', can. 1055. It is couple
oriented. The Melanesian marriage is a service to the community providing
security and continuity through offspring. Obviously, by serving the
community they serve themselves as well.
Once again we are confronted by the centrality of the community in
opposition to the centrality of the individual, in this case, two
individuals. We have already spoken about this basic cultural problem.
This has further implications regarding the role of the child in marriage.
For Western Christianity, the validity of marriage is not depending on the
child. The covenant relationship between the two individuals is central and
the child is the fruit of it, not the essence. Marriage must be open to the
child but does not depend on it. For traditional Melanesians the child is a
key aspect of the service to the community. It is an essential element of
that service. If it is not there, marriage is wanting in something
essential.
Ethically this means also, that an honest couple, beside everything else,
feel guilty because they fail in their greatest responsibility towards the
community.
I repeat: I am not arguing about marriage but about Melanesian identity,
Melanesian values, Melanesian communications. It obviously affects marriage
and other sacraments as well. However, the sacraments should not be used as
a smoke screen for Western cultural colonialism. No Church in Melanesia can
ignore these cultural issues and call itself Melanesian.
II.b) Let us take Religious Life as another Case Study.
During the Synod on Religious Life I am sure that these issues have been
thoroughly discussed. However, allow me to share some of my experiences and
personal reflections based on my work with Melanesian religious. As I see
the reality of religious life in Melanesia, the key problem is not
consecrated chastity, neither is it obedience. The key problem has to do
with poverty. This is so because of the Melanesian value system. I will try
to explain.
For me as a European, possessions are valuable in themselves. They add
something to my identity. I do not say that this is right or wrong: I say
this is what is happening, this is what I read from the way people act and
react. I display my possessions so that people can see who I am. I dress
well and put my jewels on. In a way, what I have adds something to me.
Destitution, the lack of bare minimum material things, is not only a
physical hardship, but a psychological one as well. One feels inferior,
less than the others. One feels ashamed.
Melanesians act differently and that forces me to deduce that probably they
feel differently. A traditional Melanesian does not keep valuables for him
or herself. A valuable is valuable when it is given away. For a Westerner a
valuable is something he or she keeps and treasures. I might display a bird
of paradise on the wall in my room. A Melanesian will hide it and at the
next exchange he will show it and give it away. A Melanesian who negotiated
for months if not for years to obtain a valuable shell or a necklace will
not put it around his neck. He will hide it and when the time comes, he
will give away what he worked so hard to get. Let us think of the Kula Ring
made famous by the writings of Malinowski.
Possessions are not valuable in themselves. The object is valuable because
it enables one to establish a relationship, and that relationship makes
the person, adds to his or her identity. Possessions are seen in the
light of the key value of relationships. Material things are not of great
value; relationships are. This seems to be one of the key differences
between Western and Melanesian cultures. The West values material
possessions, while the Melanesian values relationships and gives away
possessions to establish relationships. The heart of Western minded people
is on possessions, while the heart of Melanesians is on relationships. For
the sake of relationships they give away everything, their stores go
bankrupt, they overload their vehicles till they break down. They drove the
development workers up the wall with their, so-called, irresponsibility in
the handling of material things.
Because material things in themselves are not a Melanesian value their
renunciation is not necess-arily a loss: it can be a real gain. My fellow
Italian, Francis of Assisi, had a cultural point in renouncing possessions
and embracing poverty, in order to be free for Christ. But what is the
meaning for a Melanesian? I remember in my trips through the bush in my
pioneer days trying to figure out who was the big man. Possessions do not
mark him. He is powerful not because he has, but because he gave away so
much. Yes, in order to give away one has to have, but this is not my
Italian ideal and was not that of Saint Francis either. There is a basic
cultural difference I can sense but not clearly define. Western goods and
Melanesian goods are not the same: they are part of two different cultural
systems and - anthropologically - henomena take their final and full
meaning only through the system. The vow of poverty assumes that they
are identical. I seriously question this cultural assumption.
I agree that today with consumerism coming in, renunciation of possessions
might gain in import-ance. However, this is a diversive action to avoid the
real cultural issue. How does a Melanesian understand Gospel poverty? What
is evangelical poverty? Is there an absolute evangelical poverty or only a
cultural reading and interpretation of the Bible? Vows are supposed to
express and to facilitate one's dedication to Christ. Is 'lady poverty' the
ideal way to Christ for a Melanesian? Or must a Melanesian religious put up
with it because it is a Western tradition which created great saints and
still helps me, a Western missionary?
Religious life is not only special dedication to Christ, but special
service to society as well. The question is whether poverty for Melanesians
is a help or a hindrance to this service. As already mentioned, in
Melanesia, relationships are built, expressed, strengthened and mended, if
broken, through an exchange of material goods. In this system material
things are important for and necess-ary to build and strengthen
relationships. A Melanesian to express love and care must give something.
If love is mutual there will be a frequent giving and receiving of material
things. This is the way of life. For the Melanesians who went through a
Western novitiate and learned about poverty, and like to keep the
relationships with their friends and show love to everybody, there is a
basic tension. Of course through regulations one can determine how much can
be given and report how much he/she receives, and the vow is kept. In front
of the law we are all right. But this misses the point. The real point is:
is poverty helping Melanesians to come closer to Christ and to live
Christ-like, loving every one as the Father in heaven does? Or are we
saying that through clever legislation, even a Melanesian can survive under
poverty? Are we talking about legalism not breaking the law or
about coming closer to God and to people? Is it a useless burden or a help?
Is poverty a help or a hindrance?
If I said that poverty is the vow creating the most immediate problems, I
did not mean that the others do not create cultural problems. They do.
However, sufficit diei malitia sua: poverty is problem enough for this
paper!
II.c) Let us take another Case Study: the so-called Magic Mentality.
Magic is condemned as being against the first commandment. People label it
superstition, primitive logic, primitive technology, etc. However, it is an
integral part of daily life for many Melanesians. We cannot ignore it
anymore. In magic are we really faced by human limitations and sinfulness
or are we confronted with a different way of experiencing God's care for
his children? Is magic an aberration or a different though valid form of
religion?
Phenomenologically one can distinguish two basic religious experiences. In
the first experience the Ultimate, God, is experienced as caring directly
in a gratuitous way for his children. This religious experience is
expressed especially in the stories of creation. The response is the
opening of one's arms in prayer, in the classical orantes style expecting
everything from God, the Creator and giver of everything. This religious
experience was mediated in those cultures where humans depended entirely on
nature. We might call it the religious experience of gratuitness. The
Ultimate always intervenes directly by providing what is needed. Grace is
written large in this type of religious ex-perience.
However, there is a second religious experience, where the Ultimate is not
experienced as providing the food directly. The Ultimate is experienced as
providing the knowledge and the power to produce one's own food. Therefore
the strict following of that given knowledge - the ritual - and the use of
that given power is an act of gratitude and obedience to the Ultimate. It
is an act of active faith. This is the religious experience of those
cultures who depended for survival on their own knowledge and work in the
cultivation of the land. We might call this experience the religious
experience of mediation. The Ultimate intervenes indirectly by giving the
knowledge and power to achieve what is needed.
Melanesians, obviously, belong to the second category. In the eyes of the
first category, people belonging to the second category do not trust in the
Ultimate and try to manipulate God with their actions. However, for the
people of the second group, the performing of the ritual is a sign of trust
in the Ultimate who gave the power and the knowledge on how to use it. They
know that human knowledge and human effort would never suffice; that
everything depends on the gift of knowledge and power. Therefore the strict
obedience to the rituals. Of course, they did not get the power and the
knowledge directly from the Ultimate, but indirectly through their own
forefathers and mothers, through their own ancestors.
One will point to the reality of that religion, with its negative aspects,
etc. As I said at the beginning: I want to talk about the ideal not the
reality, whether the reality is the Christian or the Melanesian sinfulness.
The reality can be understood and corrected only from within the ideal.
The aim of this paper is not to solve the problems but to highlight them as
a task for the local Church. No Church can be Melanesian and ignore this
issue.
4. CONCLUSION
The Church in Papua New Guinea must sort out its role in today's society.
It must be salt and yeast to it, but it must choose the way, either by
partly creating its own parallel structures and remaining economically
dependent upon the rich North or by entering the structures of society and
becoming economically independent. One cannot live in continuous economic
dependency and be proud and independent in the other aspects of life. One
must trade immediate results for future cultural and theological identity.
The Church in Papua New Guinea has a mission to the universal Church which
is not satisfied by sending Melanesians abroad but by developing its own
theological identity and sharing it with the sister Churches all over the
world. The Papua New Guinea Church must study the way God revealed Himself
in Melanesia, highlighting not the theistic aspects - the West reflected on
them long enough - but the aspects of mediation. The Papua New Guinea
Church must have the courage to be different and be proud of it. It should
be proud of its ancestors, spirits and powers and witness to its faith and
obedience to God as expressed through them.
The prophets of old in centuries of struggle purified the tribal theistic
religions of the Israelites. The Church must be the prophet purifying the
Melanesian Christianity of today. A dean of studies of one of the
Protestant Seminaries in Papua New Guinea once remarked: 'we missionaries
were excellent in pointing out and condemning traditional religious abuses.
However, we failed miserably in presenting Melanesian alternatives. The
only alternative we offered was the traditional Western one'. To challenge
is more than just to condemn and to forbid, it is to offer alternatives
from within the system which is being challenged.
The Papua New Guinea Church - and with it the Western Church - must
reflect seriously on inculturation: is it ready to respect Melanesian
philosophy, world view, value system, and communications? Of course,
Melanesians can communicate the Western way. The question is: is the Church
willing to allow Melanesians to be Melanesians in the Sacraments, religious
life, liturgy, etc., or must they become Westerners? Often, I have the
impression that the Church is not as yet aware of this problem and this
makes it even more acute.
Missions are over, now the mission begins. Today we can learn from the
mistakes of the past, and we find better help in the social and religious
sciences. May the mission of today be as successful as the missions of
yesterday.
(This conference was given at the SEDOS Ariccia Seminar in Rome, May 1995)