Download RELIGION AND THE CHALLENGE OF BEING EUROPEAN

EUROPEAN UNITY AS A CHALLENGE TO RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES.
Symposium on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Norwegian Academy
of Science and Letters
Oslo, 1.-2.November 2007
RELIGION AND THE CHALLENGE OF BEING EUROPEAN.
HISTORICAL ROOTS AND PRESENT TASKS
Halvor Moxnes,
University of Oslo
What are the historical roots of being EUROPEAN?
The title appears to set up two clearly defined structures and identities and to relate them to
each other via the term “challenge” : “Religion” and ”being European” . In order to
understand the character of the challenge one must understand what it means to be European
– and also what religion is. In her presentation Grace Davie has pointed out some of the
contemporary diversities in both concepts, and I would like to follow that up with a historical
perspective and suggest that we must start by questioning the idea of a fixed meaning in both
terms, “European” and “religion”.
First an anecdotal approach to “being European”, based on train journeys in Europe 30-40
years ago. That was during the Europe of the “Cold War”, a period that now seems as far
away as the Middle ages, with its Iron Curtain and the balance of the atomic bomb.
Travelling by train in Europe the Iron Curtain went down after Vienna. Coming to Vienna at
that time was like coming to an end station, it had the closed and cramped atmosphere of the
last outpost of civilisation before Siberia. There was no doubt that Europe ended here, that is,
the “real” Europe of democracy and freedom, that Europe that was part of “the West”. The
fortress like atmosphere brought to mind another period in Europe’s history when Vienna was
the outpost against something that was definitively NOT Europe: the attack by the Turks in
1683 . The turning back of the Turks was interpreted as Europe’s salvation for civilisation,
even if it meant that a large part of the Balkans was lost to the Turks and dropped out from the
consciousness of Europe and became “the Other”, “something else”. First the Byzantine
empire, then the Ottoman Empire and finally the Soviet Empire were not “really” Europe .
1
So “Europe” as a political, social and not least mental construct never was like Europe of
physical geography, from the Ural to Gibraltar.
Following in the steps of the Turks to to-days Turkey on study tours “in the footsteps of St.
Paul” in his travels in Asia Minor gave me surprises. The roots of Christianity was to be
found in what we now call Turkey, its European-ness being questioned in the present selfdefined Europe. The excavated parts of major cities where Christianity started : Ephesus,
Miletus, Smyrna, Pergamon, were definitively Greek cities in city plans, architecture,
sculptures. And this Greek civilization that is regarded as one of the roots of Europe was
spread in a large area beyond the confines of present day Europe.
The footsteps of St. Paul show that at his time the Mediterranean was a central geographical
and cultural area, around which the Roman Empire spread. And wherever the first Christian
missionaries went within this area of Hellenistic civilization and Roman administration they
came to towns where there were Jewish groups, the synagogues were there before the
churches. And the division between centre and periphery in a Christian view of the world
becomes visible in the story of Paul’s vision in a dream when he was in Asia Minor. He saw a
man from Macedonia who beseeched him: “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” (Acts
16:9). And Paul left the province of Asia and went to Macedonia and started his mission in
Philippi, in to-days Greece . This is one of the most cherished images in mission ideology: a
heathen who begs missionaries to bring the Gospel. This picture was the mast head of the
main publication of the Norwegian Mission Society for almost 100 years, in a creative reimagination of the historical roots of Christianity. The heathen praying for missionaries to
come was no longer a “European” asking a Jew from Asia Minor for help, but an African
eagerly awaiting Christian missionaries from Europe. History was turned on its head to
illustrate the present task for Christianity as a European religion.
Finally, my last memory of a journey in Cold War Europe – partly with bus, the last leg on
foot – concern the Women’s Peace march to Paris in 1980. Western generals and politicians
had said that the necessity of atomic deterrent was too serious a matter to have emotions
involved in the discussion of it. This caused a women’s initiative that challenged the logic of
the politics of deterrence, and eventually also the division of Europe into West and East
through a peace march the following year to Moscow. Coming into Paris the Place de la
Bastille was the obvious place to go, to the symbol of a Europe that did away with the old
2
order of hierarchy and privilege, was added a challenge to the old order of military power and
male logic.
These anecdotes point to the multiple and changing meanings of “Europe” and of “being
European,” Religion has been part of each of them, often in the role of providing identity.
What we can see from hindsight, however, is the process of changing meanings of “Europe”
that makes it difficult to speak of what it is “to be European.” Political decisions and changes
in economic systems are important, but changes in social, moral and cultural patterns are also
important and not always happening in the same way. Thus, it seems that it is more
appropriate to speak of living together in Europe as the challenge of becoming European.
RE-imagining heritages
The major religions of Europe all were developed in societies with totally different structures
from modern societies in their systems of social relations, anthropology, gender roles etc. And
they found expressions in scriptures, regarded as holy, where these social structures were
integral parts of the message. For a long time the social structures of the ancient
Mediterranean and the Levant corresponded with the structures of the societies where these
scriptures were handed down. The holy scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam were
read in the context of hierarchies of power, distinctions between genders and boundaries
towards “others”, those who were not “like us.” The situation in Europe to-day is different.
The process towards “becoming European” demand other qualities, with goals of tolerance,
diversity and pluralisms that go beyond the traditional uses of the Scriptures. This poses
challenges to values and attitudes that are deeply grounded in religious convictions and often
based on traditional readings of the Scriptures. But if developments towards more inclusive
attitudes and values shall succeed, changes must be grounded in the Scriptures and in the
heritage of the groups. It is in this context that I will employ the phrase “re-imagining the
religious heritage” of conscious attempts to search for elements in the Scriptures and
foundational experiences of the religions that can support values like tolerance and
inclusiveness.
THE CHALLENGE OF BECOMING EUROPEAN
3
I will focus on Christianity, which is the religion I know best and suggest some examples of
how a “re-imagining” of aspects of Christian heritage can happen. The Canadian philosopher
Charles Taylor points to the ambiguous character of religion as both particular and universal.
On the one hand, Taylor says: “Religion has been at the heart of many modern political
identities.” But on the other hand “it also plays another kind of role: as the underpinning of
universal, ethical, constitutional principles” (Religion in the New Europe, ed. K. Michalski,
Budapest: 2006: 10). I see the challenge that “becoming European” poses to Christianity as
that of going beyond the limited role of supporting particular political identities, and instead
to support universal and ethical principles.
There are especially three areas that I see as the main challenges to “becoming European”
today:
1. The integration of persons and groups from various ethnic, social and religious
backgrounds in the identity of “becoming European.”
2. The support of women’s’ rights and gender equality, and of diversity in the areas of
family life and lifestyles.
3. A vision for the future of Europe.
My own approach to these questions as a scholar of the New Testament and interpretation of
Christian tradition is to point to the role of the interpretation of the historical Jesus to face
these challenges. The presupposition behind this choice is the function of the history of Jesus
and in general of the foundation of Christianity as a basis for modern identities. In the 19th
century when the historical Jesus research started the images of Jesus and the Jesus
movement, as well as Paul’s mission, provided ideals and paradigms for modern societies.
Even if these scholars were critical to the dogmatic presuppositions of the churches regarding
Jesus, they did not doubt that Jesus had an important social role and was an ideal for the
foundation of Europe.
1. Jesus and the integration” of “others”
It is a problem when reading the holy scriptures of Judaism. Christianity and Islam to-day
that they come from a period where relations between one’s own group and others was more
antagonistic and often were described in conflict terminology. My main example is the
relations between early Jesus followers and other Jews as described in the New Testament.
4
Most significant is the description in the Gospels of the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish
leadership. This conflict pattern was extended in the interpretation of the Gospels and so to
speak “occupied” by the Christians. Since the Jesus story was the foundation story of
Christian Europe, this religious conflict pattern was extended also to the national and political
sphere and became a pattern of interpreting other conflicts as well. The conflict between
Jesus and the Jews was seen as a conflict between “gospel” and “law,” between the future
and the past, between progress and backwardness. It was a model that was used by Protestants
in their conflicts with Roman Catholicism and by European politicians with regard to
relations between modern empires and colonised regions. In Orientalism (1978) Eduard Said
has pointed out how Western scholars constructed a picture of the Orient as “the other”,
different from themselves. This was a pattern of interpretation applied to Muslims, Jews and
Christians in the Middle East alike. In modern readings of the conflict between Jesus and the
Jews, Jesus represented “us”, a person to identify with, while his Jewish opponents
represented “the other” and Judaism a religion that belonged to the past. In European history
Jesus in this way has served to support a European identity with the Jews as “the others.” This
is an example where scholarship can play an important role, when it “re-imagines” heritage.
One of the most important paradigm shifts in recent New Testament studies has been the shift
in this way of seeing Jesus in contrast to the Jesus. The North-American scholar E.P. Sanders
has with the book Jesus and Judaism (1985) criticized the old paradigm and claimed that it
was a result of historians accepting the picture in the gospels at face value. He argued for a
different paradigm: Jesus within Judaism, as leader for a Jewish reform movement. His view
has been accepted by many scholars and is now the dominant paradigm in New Testament
scholarship.. This is also a position that for a long time has been argued by Jewish scholars on
the historical Jesus. This has opened up for an active collaboration between Christian and
Jewish scholars. The importance goes beyond scholarly collaboration. It means that Jesus as a
cultural icon representing ideals of Western societies, cannot be put up as “non-Jewish”.
Rather, the image of Jesus as a Jew may support an integration of “others”, not just Jews,
included within a picture of humanity that is diverse and inclusive.
It may be a longer way to go for a dialogue between Christian and Muslims scholars on Jesus,
even if Jesus is also a prophet in Islam. From some Islam preachers there have been widely
publicised attacks on Christian faith in Jesus as divine, and among Christians we know
examples of unfavourable comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. The Finnish scholar
5
Heikki Räisänen, followed by the Norwegian theologian Oddbjørn Leirvik has suggested to
speak of Jesus “between” Christians and Muslims, so that no group can claim that they “own”
him. IF Jesus, with the very different positions he has within Christianity, Islam and Judaism,
can serve dialogue, that may be a contribution towards integration in Europe.
Women’s’ rights and gender equality, diversity in the areas of families and lifestyles.
Another area where the holy scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that originated in a
pre-modern society have come into conflict with modern societies, is with regard to gender,
women’s rights and diversity in families and life styles. It is well known that these scriptures
reflect patriarchal societies where the submission of all others under the male head of the
household was the norm. Divisions of gender and gender roles were based on distinctions
between men and women, male and female. The enduring problem is that these patterns and
this anthropology are closely connected with theology. These images of human patterns are
identified with interpretations of the human being in the image of God. Therefore, especially
in most forms of Islam, in Roman Catholic and Orthodox forms of Christianity and Orthodox
Judaism as well, these patterns of gender and gender roles are regarded as normative. This
has come to expression especially with regard to women’s positions in society and in the
religious communities, and presently in the discussion of inclusive marriage laws in some
European states.
Especially with regard to women there is an explicit conflict not only with social practice and
women’s position in European societies at large, but also with the justification of these
positions in national legislation and the development of human rights. It is a significant
development of human rights since UN charter in 1948 that they have been extended in
several areas, especially with regard to women and children. This shows that human rights is
not a static concept but a developing one. Human rights in its European origins have both
religious critical roots and religious roots, and they have become an important representation
of “universal, ethical, constitutional principles” (Taylor) which are one important side of what
religions support.
But this obviously requires a “re-imagination of religious heritage.” Again I know
Christianity best. And I will suggest that just as Christian faith interacted with the GrecoRoman world and expressed its faith, especially in formulations of anthropology in categories
6
from Hellenistic philosophy, Christian theologians should do it also to-day. In social terms,
it is undeniable that Jesus and the first Christian movement , living within a patriarchal
society, contributed to the humanisation of it. The religious arguments pointed towards larger
recognition of women and more equal attitudes in the relations between men and women. If
we recognize this tendency it becomes unacceptable to read these scriptures to-day as
arguments for the opposite movement, against greater recognition of women’s rights. Human
rights in their specific elaboration as women’s rights present a challenge to a hermeneutics of
Scriptures that may have to go beyond the “letter” of the texts. A preservation of
anthropology based on concepts and attitudes that were understandable in a pre-modern
society cannot represent the hermeneutical challenge of interpreting Scriptures in dialogue
with the present conditions of men and women.
This is a “RE-IMAGINATION” of the Biblical material on Jesus and gender that opens for
equal rights for women. Also in the other major moral issue that seem to be difficult to
discuss for many churches, homosexuality, the position of Jesus is important. Although
Jesus is never recorded as speaking on same-sex relations, there are other aspects of the
portrait of him that is relevant: his way of including people from the margins in his group, of
meeting outsiders with acceptance. In the churches where this issue is being discussed there
seems to be conflicting interpretations of the role of Jesus. The conservative side appears to
interpret Jesus in support of a heterosexual “identity politics” that does not include “others,”
in parallel with a political identity politics based on one’s own “national” group, with the
exclusion of “others.” Those who support the rights of gays and lesbians appear to find the
universal values of acceptance and inclusion supported by Jesus’ example. Thus, it may the
broader issues of patterns of Christian identity that is underlying the debate on homosexuals
in the churches, whether they taken to support specific identity politics, or rather are in
support of more universal principles that are open and inclusive and works towards opening
up for new identities, i.e. “becoming European” rather than “being European.”
A vision for the future of Europe.
European politicians have often emphasized that a vision for a future Europe must include
more than economic and strictly political measures. This is a topic that both Prodi and
Barroso as presidents of the European Commission have emphasized in their contacts with
7
religious leaders. So what is the relation between religion, in my case, Christianity and
politics? If the period of Christendom is over, i.e. the period where the Christian church was
part of the political system, that makes the Christian churches freer than before. And if the
Christian churches have lived with a balancing act between support for political and national
identities and the responsibility for universal values, they may now become more free to
represent universal values and visions. Thus, here too there may be an opportunity for a “reimagining” of a Christian heritage, to move away from a close identification with the political
and economic powers to a critical position.
In the history of the interpretation of the historical Jesus this move becomes visible in the
discussion of the meaning of the Kingdom of God. Earlier interpretations focused on the
WHEN of the Kingdom, and got lost in discussions of time, near or distant, eschatological.
But more recent interpretations have focused instead of the structures of common life that
Jesus’ proclamation of Kingdom represents. The term “kingdom” is the Greek basileia ,
related to basileus, king or ruler, so Jesus’ images of the kingdom of God employs a political
language, and presents a contrast to the order of daily life and power politics. The images
Jesus employs are those of the unexpected gift, without demands, for those who are poor, the
absolute acceptance and love, the inclusion of the marginalized, justice for those who are
wronged. The strength of these visions are their images, they are stories, not principles, they
paint human characters, not structures. They paint the image of God who “has no favourites”
except for humans in need of life, food, love, justice. This visual and episodic character
shows the strength of these visions as a specific contribution by Christian churches, both as a
criticism of politics that hurt people, and as an emphasis on the necessity of politics to be
human. This example represents a vision not for a geographical extension of Europe, but for a
moral extension of what it means to become an inclusive Europe.
8