First reaction as input for as discussion of
Rene Grotenhuis’s ‘Do not be afraid’
Tilburg, 31 March 2011
I congratulate Rene with this very substantial and valuable lecture. I could
easily fill my time with mentioning all the elements I agree with and find
important – in fact almost the whole lecture
For the sake of our further reflection and debate I will point out what I
consider an omission. Now, it is always a bit awkward to criticise a lecture for
what has not been said. Of course a lot has not been said- as speaker you make
a selection of all the things you could possibly say on the basis of what you
find important. However, in my view in the lecture I identify an omission that
considering the character and purpose of the lecture should have received
some attention, if even by way of PM. I refer to the way the meaning of
religion is elaborated in the context of development work. To explain my point
I connect to Grotenhuis’s lecture with three words: Inclusivity, equality and
spiritualty, the last word being the last word of the (body of the) lecture, that
however is hardly elaborated.
Grotenhuis asserts that Christianity –at least in the Roman Catholic version – is
an inclusive religion. With what he says in that context I largely agree. But it
seems to me that this statement needs to be complemented with another
assertion. The Christian message is inclusive: it is meant for everybody, every
human being that hears it is invited to join the community since fundamentally
all humans are equal, independent of cultural, ethnic background, of life style
etc. People are invite as they are. But the Christian message does not leave
them as they are, but calls for a renewal and offers that! The Christian
community is an inclusive community but at the same time a counter cultural
community in which not everybody will feel at home right away.
In his presentation of the Catholic Christian tradition Grotenhuis concentrates
on the social message, though he does refer to the life and teachings of Jesus
Christ as reported in the gospels. He writes: “This Catholic social teaching is the
basis for my view on the contribution of Christianity to a transforming world”
(p. 25). Grotenhuis rightly doesnot just speak in general about faith-based
organisations and work but makes it more specific substantial by elaborating
on his own, the Roman Catholic tradition.
But that Christian tradition entails more than a social teaching, valuable as it is
in itself. I would even say that Christianity – and as far as I can see this applies
also to the RC tradition- is not in the first place a social teaching, but a message
of grace and salvation. But grace should not be made cheap: it is not
something that works automatically. It asks for a personal response, however
insecure, preliminary and incomplete. That is also why I dare to question the
observation of Grotenhuis that the most important root problem of poverty is
inequality (p35) and that as a consequence development is defined as change
of power relations. A change of power relations, necessary as it often is, does
not necessarily entail a the pursuit of better values; we also need a change in
people!
The Christian message does not only tell us why values like human dignity,
solidarity, subsidiarity and the common good – the four principles of Catholic
social teaching - are important and should be given shape in society. The
gospel does not just address the mind and morality of people – it does and it
should – but it addresses the deepest motivations and fundamental choices of
people in their religious relations, the spirituality of people and their ethos!
The Christian message and the Christian community entail the power to at
least begin to transform people and communities since the Spirit of God uses
them in His work. This message of the power of the Gospel as a vehicle of the
power of the Spirit is needed especially in countries and cultures where people
are aware of so many other powers that seem to influence and sometimes
bind them.
But the reference to the spirituality of Christianity it is also vital for maintaining
a connection with the constituency of your NGO, of Cordaid. One of the major
tasks of our organisations as NGO’s is to connect people from our countries to
people in other, i.e. Southern countries. Elsewhere I have defended the thesis
that one of the tasks of the Ngo’ s is to monitor and promote the humane
character of the globalisation process that so often threatens to aggravate the
life conditions of vulnerable communities.
To fulfil this task we as NGO’s need to really be civil society organisations that
are rooted in the population. Faith-based organisations like churches are in an
excellent position to build and maintain a living relationships with their
constituencies. But in our postmodern culture, in which personal experience is
deemed more important than institutional loyalty, such relationships will only
flourish if there is common spirituality.
This makes the task that Grotenhuis has set for himself and Cordaid, namely to
formulate a vision on the good life, even more important.
Maybe to some extent we can work together in this endeavour. I see
sufficiently common ground for such a collaboration and sufficiently
differences to make it a real learning experience on both sides
I realise that with this proposal I introduce a tension in the work: making
explicit the religious background and the corresponding spirituality of one’s
organisation may raise a difficulty in attempts to reach out or work together
with people and organisation that adhere to a different belief. This could
obscure the inclusiveness of intentions and our work. I rather live with this
tension than not being able to appeal to the deepest motivations and
spirituality of my constituency and the communities that are represented by
our partners in the South. Making explicit one’s religious motivations does not
mean that the religious, in this case the Christian, message should always be
announced. In many circumstances it is good to let the deeds speak their own
message. But in my view being explicit about my own faith and spiritual
position at appropriate moments, and an openness to share and listen to
anybody else interested in doing so, very well go together.
Maybe we should reflect more on the moments and manners in which we can
do justice to the fullness of the Christian message without raising obstacles to
fruitful collaboration with people and organisations who at the human level
pursue the realisation of the same values.
Prof.dr. Henk Jochemsen,
Alg directeur Prisma
Bijz hoogleraar christelijke filosofie, WUR