(The Present North Indian Context of the Mission of the Church – a presentation at the CCBI Seminar on “How to help our institutions to become centres emanating the Good News” – Nav Sadhana, Varanasi, 10th -13th August 2003)
1. INTRODUCTION: The fig leaf could not hide the shame of humanity (cf Gen 3:17). But the fig is one of the most popular fruits in the Bible; together with the olive, grape and pomegranate.[i] Fig trees were often planted in vineyards, because of their shade, in which the farmers rested (cf 1 Kings 5:5). The Jewish people considered the fig tree among the most precious (Judges 9:10). Jesus was aware of the importance and role of the fig tree in the ethos of the Jewish people, of which he was an integral part.
2. CHRISTOLOGY: It is in this context that we need to look at Jesus’ actions and words vis-à-vis the barren fig tree (cf Mat 21:18-19, Mk 11:12-14, Lk 13:6-9). Mark and Mathew report that Jesus cursed the barren fig tree and it withered away. Luke reports it in the form of a parable, with the gardener playing and praying for more time. Mark reports that Jesus found only leaves on the tree, and no fruit, for it was not the season for figs. Yet Jesus cursed the tree and it withered away. This particular action of Jesus seems rash and harsh, and contrary to our popular perception of Jesus as one who would not crush the bruised reed (cf Is 42:3). Exegetes also have a problem with Mark’s rendering, though admittedly fig trees did bear fruit for ten months in a year[ii].
What exegetes find difficult to understand with scholarly analysis, could perhaps be understood by entering the heart of Jesus, and the forthright statement: “There is no sound tree that produces rotten fruit, nor again a rotten tree that produces sound fruit. Every tree can be told by its own fruit” (Lk 6:43–44). I see great significance in Jesus’ emphasis on fruitfulness. Like a good business manager he is talking of the end product. He is result-oriented. He cares two hoots for the shade and thick foliage, the strong trunk or deep roots of the tree. He wants results. It is this final analysis/ bottom line that Jesus looks for in his final judgement (cf Mt 25:31–46) – something that people like St. Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa understood only too well. It was the fruit of love, service and compassion – no more, no less. St. James expresses it so powerfully by saying, “It is by my deeds that I will show you my faith” (Jas 2:18). He also issues a sinister warning, “Anyone who keeps the whole of the Law, but trips on a single point, is still guilty of breaking it all” (Jas 2:10).
All this talk about fruit sounds like old hat. We’ve heard these quotes several times. Permit me to now juxtapose these sayings on the state of the Catholic Church in North India (CCNI), a process of contextualising. A tree has roots, a trunk, branches, leaves and fruit. So too the Church has long standing traditions (roots), a solid institutional structure (trunk and branches) and leaves (devotions, liturgy, sacraments). What of the fruit (loving service)? If this is missing, the entire effort is an exercise in futility. This is why it incurs the wrath of Jesus, who is in no mood to accept excuses. We cannot even blame the season. He expects us to deliver every time – in season and out of season. This is a tall order.
3. ECCLESIOLOGY: From individual trees let us move on to the forest (collective action). I revert to one of my favourite passages in the Old Testament, from the Prophet Haggai. “This people says: The time has not yet come to rebuild the Temple of Yahweh… Is this a time for you to live in your panelled houses, when this House lies in ruins? …. Think carefully about your behaviour. You have sown much and harvested little; you eat but never have enough, drink but never have your fill, put on clothes but feel no warmth. The wage earner gets his wages only to put them in a bag with a hole in it…The abundance you expected proved to be little. When you brought the harvest in, I blasted it. And why? Because while my House lies in ruins, each of you is busy with his own house. That is why the sky has withheld the rain, and the earth its yield. I have called down drought on… humans and animals and all your labours” (Hag1:2-11).
From a socio-economic or political point of view the averments made by Haggai could verily be mouthed by the Leftist opposition in Parliament, during this monsoon session (if by the Temple is understood the common good). It could alternately be an accusation by the VHP, if in their interpretation, the Temple is in Ayodhya! I wonder how Jesus would have interpreted this passage. Was it playing on his mind when he cursed the fig tree? Is it a mere coincidence that the cursing of the fig tree occurs during his visit to the Temple in Jerusalem, where he did a thorough survey (cf Mk 11:11), and then drove out the men buying and selling there (cf Mk 11:15). He was objecting to the crass commercialisation of religion, and the gross neglect of God’s people. He bursts out, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples. But you have turned it into a bandit’s den” (Mk 11:17). He is in fact quoting from the Prophet Isaiah (Is 56:7). Seen in the context of Jesus’ anger in the Temple, the withering of the fig tree no longer seems so harsh. Jesus is using it as a symbol, with a message to his disciples, who were overawed by the event. Perform, or perish.
Jesus knew the Jewish scriptures well. Even in his most excruciating moment on the cross he quoted scripture to give vent to his feeling “My God, My God why have you forsaken me?” (Mat 27: 46), which is infact a quote from Psalm 22. Why am I belabouring this point? If Jesus quoted his Jewish scriptures to make his point and drive his message home; then I choose to do the same. Perhaps Jesus was acutely conscious of the state of mind of his listeners. Had he mouthed his own theories his Jewish listeners would not have heard him out. In like manner I dare to say, don’t listen to me, I have nothing to say to you that can influence the thinking of the church in north India. But I could possibly draw your attention to what God is saying through the sacred scriptures. Infact, I suspect that a lot that is “barren” in the church today is precisely because we pay little or no heed to the Word of God.
This reflection takes me back to a seminar on new ministries in the church, organised by the National Vocation Service Centre (NVSC) Pune in 1984. Rev MJ Edwin animated it. He said that the seminar had no agenda. It would have to find its way. So we started talking about new ministries. We delved deeper to ask retrogressive questions like – What is mission – What is the Church, and finally – Who is Jesus? This may sound odd or obvious to many. But it left a lasting impression on me. In business and industry this is called “backward integration” In spirituality it is called “going back to the source”, which is what mystics like Saints Francis of Assisi and Theresa of Avila emphasised. The Second Vatican Council’s strength lay in its methodology of basing itself on scripture, rather than tradition. To apply the process of backward integration, we need to start from the very beginning, as Julie Andrews so beautifully sings in “The Sound of Music”. The order of our three-day discernment (I hate to call it a seminar) should therefore be Christology – Ecclesiology – Missiology. We cannot presume to know the answers, for that would be prejudicial to the working of the Holy Spirit. “The wind blows where it pleases; you can hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (Jn 3:8).
3(A). VATICAN II ECCLESIOLOGY: So far I have spoken in broad terms as a Christian. My ongoing reflection will be coloured by my own perceptions and experiences as a lay Catholic, rooted in north India. It may not be out of context to state that having been National President of the All India Catholic Union (AICU) for four years, and intimately connected with it for 17 years; having been elected a Director of the International Council of Catholic Men; and currently being editor of “Vishal Jagruti”, among several other assignments; my ongoing reflection is not just subjective experience, but rooted in objective truths as well.
Just as a spiritually awakened laity draws great strength and inspiration from the Bible, so too do enlightened lay leaders find inspiration in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and even The Code of Canon Law. Ironically, our bishops and clergy, who should be in the forefront of propounding and implementing Vatican II teachings, seem to be almost allergic to them! Jesus, in his earthly sojourn, experienced stiff resistance from the religious establishment of his time. We laity experience the same, from a deeply entrenched, fortified, institutionalised, monolithic Catholic hierarchy.
Why have the ecclesiastical “authorities” failed miserably in implementing the teachings of Vatican II? Why is the laity not made aware of these teachings, and the new way of being Church? Perhaps it is like asking the head honcho of a large industry to apprise his workers of all their rights and benefits! The question therefore is, “ Is the Church an authority?” When the laity asks for democratic principles to be applied to the Catholic Church, they are told that the church is not a democracy! Such church ‘authorities” are actually indicting themselves by resorting to such a mindset. I recall the words of the legendary Rev D.S. Amalorpavadas, “The church is more than a democracy. It is a community.” There can be no true community, be it a family or a church, if there is no democracy.
I am greatly influenced by Rev Peter Ribes SJ (then of NVSC Pune) for my understanding of Pre and Post Conciliar ecclesiology [iii] Let me quote form that presentation.
| PRE-VATICAN From Fixity and lethargy From stress on Structural Church, Administrative Tasks, Hierarchical Conceptions, Authority, Monolithic Universal Church, Unity and Uniformism (Latin and Roman) From stress on Intellectualism, Rational Approach, Eternal Norms, Frozen Dogmas, Orthodoxy, Transcendence In its relationship to the world: From Inwardness, Aloofness (Ghetto), Triumphalism, Conquest, Security, Power & Pomp, Commanding Fear and Respect. | POST-CONCILIAR To evolution, dynamism and life To Growth, Charism, Services, Co-responsibility, Pluralism, Local Churches, Unity in Diversity and Inculturation. To Experientialism, Existentialism, Circumstantial Morality, Development of Dogma, Orthopraxis and Immanence. To Outwardness, Openness, Modesty, a Pilgrim Church (not yet arrived) Dialogue, Search and Risk, Humility, Being Loved and Venerated. |
Each one of these expressions is pregnant with meaning, and understandable to those with a rudimentary knowledge of ecclesiology. For the uninitiated, explaining this would take hours. At this juncture suffice it to say that the CCNI is deeply entrenched in the cocoon of Pre-Vatican ecclesiology. My guru, the wise and saintly Swami Deenabandhu OFM Cap, though advanced in years, was a great proponent of Post-Conciliar ecclesiology. He said to us that the Post-Conciliar church was meant for adults. To quote Rev. Ed Daly SJ, most of us have an infantile faith, which is blindly imitative. We do something, because we are told to do so, not out of personal conviction. Sadly, 38 years after the council ended in 1965, we have not yet grown up into an adult church, as advocated by St. Paul. “When I was a child, I used to talk like a child, and see things as a child; but now that I have become an adult, I have finished with all childish ways” (1 Cor 13:11). He goes on to say, “ I was not able to talk to you as spiritual people. I had to talk to you as people… still infants in Christ; I fed you with milk and not solid food, for you were not yet able to take it” (1 Cor13:12). His exhortation to the Hebrews is even more forthright: “Indeed, when you should by this time have become masters, you need someone to teach you all over again…. You have gone back to needing milk, and not sold food. Truly, no one who is still living on milk can digest the doctrine of saving justice, being still a baby. Solid food is for adults with minds trained by practice to distinguish between good and bad” (Heb 5:11-14)[iv].
4. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NORTH INDIA: To what extent has the CCNI metamorphosised according to Post-Conciliar ecclesiology? What are the characteristics of the CCNI? Perhaps the second question needs to be addressed first, to make a dispassionate analysis.
The CCNI is not more than 200 years old, if we exclude the Catholic community established by the Jesuits, Roth and Rudolph Aguaviva, in the court of Emperor Akbar. By CCNI I mean that vast expanse of north, central, east and north eastern India that excludes the Christian communities on the west coast, from Bassein via Goa, Mangalore, to Kerala; and the southern tip of India which includes Kerala, Tamilnadu and to some degree Karnataka. Except for a few pockets in Bengal, the Catholic missionaries, who were foreigners, mainly reached out to the tribals and the dalits.
Tribals, who were animists, not Hindus, were not shackled by caste. Tribal society was largely communitarian and egalitarian. As such, it dovetailed into Christianity, which it found complementary to its tribal culture. The Jesuits worked among the adivasis of central India (now Jharkhand and Chhatisgarh). Together with their Gospel message they also worked tirelessly to free the adivasis from bondage, and the grip of moneylenders. It was total liberation. In like manner, the Salesians, with their emphasis on education and youth work, met with astounding success in the northeast. The rest of north India was largely in the hands of the Capuchins, who were monks not pastors. There was something terribly wrong with their missiology, when compared with other religious orders like the Jesuits and the Salesians aforementioned. They scattered the seed wide, even as far as Tibet. But they did not have any real impact in the heartland of Hinduism, bolstered by feudalism and casteism. They did establish a number of mission stations in far-flung rural areas, and parishes in urban areas. In some pockets some dalits converted to Christianity, and some of the menial staff of the Gora Padris became Christian. They were herded into mission compounds (Isai Tolas/ Padre Tolas), isolated from their fellow countrymen. They were expected to adopt western norms of dress, food and names. Perhaps it is for this reason that Gandhiji was constrained to remark that he liked Christ but not Christians.
During the Second World War the British interned the Italian and German missionaries, leaving a void in the spiritual leadership of the CCNI, which was rapidly filled by recruitments from south India. Post independent India saw the phasing out of the foreign missionaries. The diocesan clergy from the south was even more foreign to the infantile church in the north. “Mission” was replaced by “admissions”, with a quantum growth in educational institutions. This new brand of clergy also poached on the lost sheep of various other Christian denominations like, Anglicans, Salvation Army, Presbyterians, etc. whose European clergymen deserted their flocks in post independent India, and didn’t have a south Indian backup! These observations may seem simplistic and generalised, but they are true to a great extent. I do not wish to belittle the sacrifices of former foreign missionaries. What I am trying to say is that there was a faulty missiology and misplaced ardour.
The ethos of the CCNI is one of servility, first to the foreign missionaries and then to the southern ones. No true Local Church could evolve in the non-tribal belt. Till recent times there were hardly any local clergy. Local bishops are yet to emerge. The CCNI is far from being financially self-reliant. Lay leadership is confined to urban parishes, which in turn are dominated by migrants and job seekers from other parts of the country. Lay aspirations are limited to landing a job as a teacher in a “convent” school. The laity is missing from the critical areas of finance, business, industry, civil society and secular governance. The CCNI cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed a church at all. It is still in its embryonic stage.
For this reason it chooses to cocoon itself in the pre-Vatican mould of an insular, and authoritarian church, feeding on its own insecurity and inferiority. A cocoon, however, is not a permanent abode. The caterpillar has to metamorphose into a beautiful butterfly. If not, it will wither under nature’s curse, as with the barren fig tree. Let me briefly pinpoint some areas of concern for the laity:
* There is a major grouse against Catholic educational institutions that they mete out step motherly treatment to Catholics. In fact only 25% of Catholic children of school going age are actually in Catholic schools.[v]
* There is little or no faith formation.
* There is no accountability and transparency in the management of community assets.
* There is hardly any attempt at becoming a collaborative and participatory church.
* The vexatious issue of Rites has been imposed on the laity by an over ambitious hierarchy, with vested territorial interests.
* Clergy-laity relationships are not fraternal, as envisaged by Vatican II[vi]. We are still in a parent-child relationship, instead of an adult-to-adult one.
* Pulpit Power is used to retain the hegemony of the clergy, and belittle or sideline the laity.
* Marriage Preparation and Marriage Guidance are non-priority sectors.
* Youth apostolate revolves around who is the next one to go to Taize in France!
* Bishops, and even the Papal Nuncio, do not reply to correspondence from lay leaders/ organisations, unless it is a request for their “Message” and photograph in a souvenir for publication. George Menezes calls this the silence of an immature spouse.
* Double standards for clergy and religious vis-à-vis laity and catechists[vii]. If a bishop commits suicide he is pedestalised (a la Bp Joseph John of Faizalabad, Pakistan). But a layperson is denied burial!
* In the Post-Conciliar Church, institutions have grown between 1969 to 1990 at 158% which is double that of the growth of the Catholic population in the same period, at 76%[viii].
5. THE NORTH INDIAN SCENARIO: Those of us, who are born and brought up in the north, have been actively involved in society, or even read the daily newspapers, do not require an expose on the political and socio-economic scenario. Nevertheless we need to recall to mind some areas of particular concern:
* Corruption has become a cancer eating into the vital organs of civil society.
* While southern States like Kerala, Goa and Tamilnadu have arrested population growth; the same cannot be said for the north or northeast.
* Casteism is still rampant, more so in rural areas
* Sanitation is going to become a major problem in both urban and rural areas. We are heading for an ecological disaster. Care for the environment and ecology can no longer be an “optional subject”.
* Civic consciousnesses in urban areas is zero.
* Politicians continue to whip up communal sentiments and religious polarisation. Ayodhya and the Uniform Civil Code are cases in point.
* Women are the target for all types of perceived injustices or vengeance.
* The judiciary has become ineffective, and the criminal justice system is on the verge of collapse.
* Tribals are often the victims of the development versus displacement debate – be it the Narmada Valley or the Netrahat Firing Range. Medha Patkar talks of jal, jangal aur jamin (water, forest and land) as the basic rights of the tribals.
To what extent has the CCNI been effective in responding to these ground realities? There is no denying that our health services (especially in rural areas) have rendered yeoman’s services to the rural poor and suffering. Even in urban areas health care in Catholic hospitals is far cheaper and more reliable, that those available in either the private or government sectors. Education, especially of the girl child, has been our forte. But now we need to drastically review our educational apostolate[ix].
6. OUR MISSION: We need to discern our mission in the light of the above. We have to cast off our insular mindset, superiority complexes (a cover up for our own insecurity) and our pre-Vatican ecclesiology. I recently edited the history of a religious order celebrating its golden jubilee. I found it so insipid and uninspiring. There was a fixed pattern for mission – set up a small station, put up a small school and dispensary, call the sisters to run the show, and perhaps set up a small boarding. Mission accomplished. I have also just finished reviewing a book, “Lay Catechists –Their Formation in India”, edited by Rev CM Paul SDB. It is a reflection of how the Catholic Church, particularly in the north, has treated its frontline forces – the catechists. I have intentionally attached it to this paper – “ A Scathing Indictment.” I hope you will have time to read it. Had the laity or the catechists themselves made those observations, they could have been considered biased. However, all the quotes are from the “other”, the clergy itself. So they merit serious attention.
There is something that I have often said about mission, stemming from Jesus’ first “commissioning” of his twelve disciples (cf Mat 10:1-10). He sent then in twos, neither in single nor multiple numbers. He sent them as sheep among wolves. They went without logistic support –clothes, food, baggage or a staff to lean on. In sharp contrast, how has the CCNI gone about its mission? Whether missionary priests, parish priests or catechists, they have seldom worked in twos. Almost every one of them has worked in splendid isolation. Even where there are two priests in one station their co-operation and communication level is alarmingly low. I was initiated into Christian ministry in 1969, through the Legion of Mary. It has a cardinal rule. All ministries must be in pairs, you cannot go out alone. A church dominated by celibate singles, and a spirituality based on solitude, probably cannot comprehend the mission value of working in pairs!
The other serious flaw in our missiology, is the use of power. In the past the poor Christians were in awe of the power and status of the gora padre sahibs. Now the laity has an attitude of smouldering resentment against the perceived power and pelf of an overly institutionalised church. The other day I met a bishop, while visiting some sisters in a convent. For half an hour he waxed eloquent on how many properties he had bought up, and how he had tackled various government departments! We have missed the significance of going as “sheep among wolves”. Wolves move in packs. Their strength is in their numbers. When Jesus sent out his disciples he was aware that they were outnumbered, and the people they were sent to, had their own group loyalties. It is so similar to our north Indian scenario.
Unfortunately we have gone as tigers among the wolves, with a show of institutional, financial, intellectual and even numerical strength. The wolves run away from a tiger. If we go as wolves among wolves there will be group clashes. If we go as sheep among wolves, the wolves will be drawn to us. The wolf will actually consume the sheep. In incarnational terms, the sheep will enter into the heart of the wolf! Our missiology cannot be based on the power of the tiger; or even the equality of a fellow wolf, which will result in communal discord. (At times we are just that much too strident in our demand for equal rights). A missionary must be a sheep that is humble and powerless. St. Paul bears testimony that in his weakness lies his strength (2 Cor 12:10). St. Ignatius of Loyola, the master of spiritual discernment, in his Ignatian Exercises, says that we are aware of our weaknesses, and tend to guard against them. However, we leave our ‘strengths’ unguarded, leaving them open to the predations of the forces of evil. This has been the faulty missiological approach. Our institutional strength is in fact our biggest weakness, our stubling block.
What is the use of the tree with roots (traditions), trunk and branches (solid infrastructure, institutions and organisation), and leaves (devotions and sacraments), if it does not bear fruit (love, concern, compassion, social justice)? Earlier the ‘fruit’ was counted by the number of converts. Mercifully, that era is over.
Let us return to the Prophet Haggai. Why were the people’s efforts fruitless? God answers through the prophet himself, “Because while my House lies in ruins each of you is busy in his own house “ (Hag 1:9). We are called to change our priorities, to make a paradigm shift from individual pursuits to collective action, concerted efforts for the common good. Bishops lament that they have no control over their priests. Religious congregations seem to think that their prime concern is that their congregations flourish with more vocations and more institutions. The laity of course has no role in the church other than being fundraisers for the parish feast, and being brought out onto the streets when church personnel are attacked or molested.
The church has to become community. We have had kerygma (proclamation,) metanoia (conversion), diaconia (services), but we are far away from koinonia (community). In this context the grouse of the laity, and the treatment to the catechists, cannot be brushed aside. It has to be addressed squarely. If we are not ministering to our own people, if we are not building and nurturing a local church, the CCNI is a Barren Fig Tree. Our achievements are a figment of our imagination! Reverting to that first commissioning of Jesus, he sets out a list of priorities. We must first go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, rather than to the Samaritans or the Gentiles (cf Mat 10:5). A church that does not give priority to its own can never be called church. One must ask a poignant question, “Why are we asking the Government for reservations for Dalit Christians, when we have not made any such legal provisions in our own institutions?” Are we prepared to reserve 22% seats in educational institutions, employment opportunities, finance and pastoral committees for SC/ST Christians? If not, we have no right to make such a demand from the Government.
7. SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS: Regarding education and educational institutions please see my article on Catholic education, which studies the matter in depth. In other areas my suggestions are as follows:
* Democratise the church in letter and spirit. We need duly constituted and properly functioning parish and diocesan pastoral councils, which have a collaborative and participatory role in planning and execution.
* Encourage the establishment and functioning of Catholic Associations affiliated to the AICU. The Catholic Association is to secular life what the parish council is to parochial life. They are complementary, not competing forces.
* Finance Committees and Arbitration Boards, with due representation of competent laity, must be established for transparency in church administration.
* A sincere and sustained effort in faith formation, adult catechesis, youth guidance and marriage preparation. It is tragic that the clergy are doing everything but what they are primarily called to do.
* Do not divide the church on the basis of Rites. In a world that talks of shrinking boundaries, the divisiveness of Rites is no more than a demon from the past.
* Promote the vocation of the married deacon.
* If we have the guts, put a 10-year moratorium on recruiting vocations from the south, even if it means empty seminaries and novitiates. In any case our priest and religious to people ratio in the north is stiflingly high.
* The local people should have a voice in the selection/ election of bishops and parish priests.
* Bishops should be transferred every ten years.
* Diocesan clergy must be subjected to ongoing formation as in Religious Orders.
* “ The distinction which the Lord made between sacred ministers and rest of the People of God entails a unifying purpose, since pastors and the faithful are bound to each other by a mutual need” (LG No. 32). This key sentence from the “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church “ very aptly situates clergy-laity relationships. Clergy and the laity are different. It is the difference that unites, just like the magic mantra between the sexes. This distinction is divine, and results in interdependence. When we try to be like the other, we tend to repel rather than attract, to divide rather than to bond. We don’t want a “secularised” clergy that imitates the laity. Identify with us. Don’t try to imitate us.
8. OUR HOPE: We would not want to meet the fate of the Barren Fig Tree. Nor would we like Haggai reminding us that our wished for harvest has not materialised, and whatever little was there, was blown away by the wind. Rather, during these three days of discernment let us pray that the church be reborn in the Spirit. Let the wind blow as it pleases (cf Jn 3:5-8), so that we may hear these words of anointing, “From this day onwards, I intend to bless you” (Hag 2:19).
[i] “Dictionary of the Bible” by J.L. McKenzie SJ, Pg 276
[ii] Ibid, Pg. 277
[iii] “Shifts of Emphasis in this Church’s self understanding after Vatican II, and their Repercussions in our Vocational Apostolate” Pune, 13/7/1980
[iv] For a full development of this thought process refer to “Beyond 2000 – The Other Side”, by chhotebhai
[v] See the article “Catholic Education in India – A Lay Perspective”
[vi] See Lumen Gentium, Chapter IV
[vii] See the article “ A Scathing Indictment”
[viii] Ibid – Catholic Education….
[ix] Ibid
Leave a Reply