Download Plissart_Xavier,_Tradition_and_Modernity

Tradition
And
Modernity
Xavier Plissart
October 2004
1
TRADITION AND MODERNITY
A. TRADITION
In this first section (A) I will offer a grid of analysis and a method of interpretation of
the social reality in order to understand the role of tradition and the way it operates.
1. A tradition
At this stage we will be dealing with a single specific social group
What is tradition?
Tradition is what is being transmitted from one generation to the next in a specific social
group so that it can perpetuate itself through the ages.
What does it consist of?
Tradition is firstly a matter of behaviour. Its principal object is the way people act in their
particular social set-up.
What is its purpose?
The ultimate aim of tradition is the survival of the group. People think in this way: “If such
behaviour has been beneficial to our forefathers since they have survived, it should be
beneficial to us too.” Natural selection indeed operates here also (social Darwinism): social
groupings that adopt and transmit a type of behaviour such that it adequately answers to the
requirements of the surroundings have the best chance to prosper and even to conquer. Those
who do not adapt may not survive.
Tradition does not select its content randomly. This very purpose of survival explains the
weight it has in society and the obligations it entails.
How?
The usual method of transmission is through imitation: people observe and do the same. To
conform to the past can therefore be considered as an ideal practice of transmission.
Tradition is being handed over naturally within the context of daily life. It is directly related
to immediate action, first at the heart of the family, but also in other social contexts such as
age groups, peers, etc. It is called socialisation: the insertion of new generations within the
network of society.
Content.
The constraints of life give rise to the adoption of certain skills and techniques that will enable
people to better cope with their environment, be it physical or social.
2
And since the relationship between context and behaviour tends to become more and more
complex, people build up a body of knowledge that tends to explain why such types of actions
are better then others.
Justification.
People justify their behaviour by establishing a correlation between what they do and the way
they interpret reality. The order of things conditions the social order. Nature (i.e. the things
that surround us as well as our own human nature) is our guide. And this natural order
becomes a natural law.
That is where we find the very roots of the moral imperative. (Proverbs can illustrate this.)
Moral behaviour.
Gradually, what was simply seen as ‘normal’ (habitual) is being considered as ‘normative’
(compulsory). Behavioural habits are then handed over by the means of moral imperatives
(obligations) or moral interdicts (prohibitions.) Subsequent reflection on these practices gives
rise to the formulation of a body of values that become emblematic of every tradition.
Deviance or refusal to conform meet with moral sanctions first of all because the future
security of the group is being jeopardised rather than out of a search for some ethical ideal.
But this ‘natural law’ will soon be understood as an obligation flowing from our very nature.
Consequences.
The consequence of such tradition is that each society cherishes its customs. They become
part if life and are organised as coherently as possible. These form the basis of a wider
horizon called culture.
To withdraw or to take distance from this general context would first be seen as a complete
lack of common sense. (‘abnormal’ - out of the norms)
But the deviance can also be felt to be dangerous to society. People can call it madness and
relate such attitude to psychological illness. Each society will therefore exercise considerable
pressure to ensure that its members conform to the norms and customs and that harmony be so
preserved.
The ultimate reference.
Finally, people will call on some Absolute to ground and justify the social obligations. This
brings us to the symbolic level and illustrates the role and place of religions. Each group
constructs in this way its own symbolic world to give meaning to its practices.
Beliefs and myths offer narratives that contain and transmit this religious message.
The social imperative thus acquires a ‘supernatural’ significance. Disobedience is no more
simply dangerous, it becomes impious. It goes against, not only the natural order, but against
the symbolic world that gives meaning to peoples’ lives. It becomes totally unacceptable.
To illustrate the above you are invited to take examples from:
The nuclear and the extended family, the clan, ethnic minorities, linguistic units, religious
groupings, the villages, institutions like the school, the army, academic life, etc.
Look can also look at situations like:
3
Funerals, marriages, agriculture, political contests, hunting, nomad existence, school
discipline, incest, theft, solidarity, murder, etc.
But it is very important to be able to put flesh on this skeleton, to utilise the analytical
grid to understand the function and the mode of operation of tradition.
We have insisted on the sequence:
Transmission of behaviour – Transmission of skills and techniques – Transmission of
knowledge – transmission of social imperatives and then – transmission of beliefs.
We have noted:
The cognitive justification (understanding) – the moral justification (natural and social order)
– The ultimate justification (religious reference)
2. Traditions
We will now widen our perspective to look at the interaction between various and
different social groups
Semantic shift
Although we have simply replaced a singular by a plural, the meaning of the word (tradition)
has been considerably altered. Previously, we were simply talking of a method of
transmission within its social context, but when we speak of ‘traditions’ we refer to a much
wider body of customs and behaviour that are peculiar to each social group and can be used to
identify it.
Differences in space
Groups differ with regard to the situations in which they find themselves.
We can therefore understand that it will be ‘normal’ and ‘normative’ for different social
groups to evolve differently so that they can respond more adequately to the specificity of
their environment.
In this way, each social group will develop different types of behaviour that can be explained
and justified through their respective context of life.
From one group to another, customs will differ and moral imperatives will differ. And each
time, religious justifications will be devised to validate and support these differences and
divergences.
As long as individuals remain within the confines of their own social context, they may not
even be aware of the existence of such differences. They cannot even think differently.
Something else is literally inconceivable.
Divergence through time
As one group evolves through time, the circumstances of its existence may change.
This is often very slow, but can sometimes be quite brisk: climatic changes or natural
disasters, population growth, deforestation, etc.
4
As tradition is being transmitted, it will therefore inevitably need to be adapted and reinterpreted.
We could call this social hermeneutics.
Differentiation.
The practice of transmission as such is potentially open to the acceptance of differentiation.
The process must necessarily allow for constant re-interpretation.
Tradition tells us: ‘That is how our forefathers, our ‘fathers’ and our ‘mothers’ have done, in
their time, and it has been good since we are here. Therefore we can never consider their
experience, their past behaviour and the values they transmit, lightly.’
But circumstances may change!
At the surface, the social obligation seems only to appeal to common sense. But it is in fact
open to the reaction and interpretation of the wise: ‘Yes, I hear the message of tradition, but I
feel that I can use it as an inspiration for me to discern and discover what my/our present
behaviour should be in the present circumstances, circumstance not quite similar to what our
ancestors have known.’
Tradition: an obligation or an option?
Indeed, as tradition is being transmitted through space and time, it gives rise to a multiplicity
of traditions. As a process, it is similar in each group. The results (customs and values)
diverge from group to group, from one social unit to another.
Consequently, what is at first experienced as an unavoidable necessity and unquestionable
obligation within one’s own group, later appears as an option within the wide range of
differences in space and time that is being observed.
3. Encounters
Social identity is being shaped through encounters.
When groups or social entities meet, they become more acutely aware of their differences in
customs and traditions. Their respective attitudes then serve as markers of their social
identity. People recognise their belonging to one specific group through the contrast they
observe between their cultural heritage and that of others. In certain circumstances a larger
reference group may be elicited. In other cases the context of reference may be quite narrow.
(Examples: the family, religion, the clan, the nation, the place of work, and a football team)
Social identity can become a source of conflict.
Differences may be minor and of lesser importance. They may simply cause some surprise
and some inner questioning. It may even be interesting to observe some ‘exotic’ behaviour.
But, at the same time, one may find it difficult to understand how other people can behave in
such different way.
The disagreement may arise over some crucial point. Each party will be firmly convinced that
it is right. This conviction may lead people to try to win over the other side, to make it see the
evil of its ways and recognise the value of their own social, moral and religious imperative.
Disagreements may easily lead to conflict since it is, after all, ultimately, a matter of survival.
Encounters may generate various forms of defence mechanisms.
5
People belonging to social groups that are not used to encounter novel situations may not
know how to react. They may feel aggressed or despised.
Within the more elaborate methods of transmission in particular (initiation rites, political
structures) there may be more resentment in front of the intrusion. The consequence will be an
attitude of resistance or even rejection of the challenge of diversity. And we will notice that it
is particularly people who are in a position of power or responsibility that feel insecure and
stand at the forefront of the resistance movement.
The danger of social sclerosis.
The attitude of resistance will entail a tendency to play down or even to reject the hermeneutic
element present in every process of transmission. Hence, the status quo will be reinforced.
That is how tradition can lead to traditionalism: only the external behaviour (practice) is being
transmitted, leaving out its purpose and objective. People who find themselves closed in into
an attitude of traditionalism will shun all proposals at reflection or dialogue since they quite
rightly feel that this may offer or impose a justification for change. They become the salves of
social and cultural sclerosis and exclude social vitality!
Encounters and adjustments.
The opposite is to respond to the challenge by accepting some gradual minor or even major
adjustments. The first reactions will be found at the level of action and reaction, in concrete
daily life, and are often primarily opportunistic. We must indeed remember that the hidden
objective is the survival of the individual or of the group. Thus people, mainly those who are
more creative and daring, will tend to be socially eclectic, picking out what can be to their
advantage. And when the whole group begins to approve of this novel behaviour, it will
integrate it into its own tradition in a manner resembling syncretism. Efforts will be made to
slowly recreated some kind of coherence to obtain a newly found traditional harmony.
There may also be confusion.
But the outcome is not always a new harmony. Because of the intensity of conflict, because of
intolerance, because of a lack of readiness to reflect and to change, encounters may also lead
to social trauma and to the unravelling of social harmony. Justifications may appear to be
equally valid on both sides, such that people will come to wonder whether they can find again
some objective point of reference. They will begin to think that ‘anything goes’ and fall into
an easy or uneasy relativism.
There is an impact on political stability.
Tradition as a process should make it possible to give to people their right value and
responsibility (the person transmitting and the person receiving). However, it may also be
used as a platform for social power giving priority to the one who transmits over the one who
receives.
Resistance to change will then transform itself into a refusal to put into question existing
power structures justifying them by appealing to the priority of social and political stability
over potential chaos.
There is an impact on the economy.
6
Since the ultimate aim of tradition is the group’s is survival, it should not be surprising that
economic structures can play an important role. Each group wants to ensure it’s material wellbeing. When encounters or changes in time challenges the status-quo we will see that the
creation of new economic opportunities may be a source of inequalities and tensions: because
of economic interest, some members of the group may militate for the maintenance of some
traditions while others may advocate the possibility of transformation.
There is an impact on ethics and religion.
The practical justification of traditions will be couched in ethical principles and their absolute
justification will appeal to religion beliefs. When shifts and challenges occur, they will
inevitably have a repercussion on the system of values that sustained the group’s social life,
and to the body of beliefs and symbolic references that gave it it’s meaning.
But harmony in society is ensured through the coherence that should exist between each
domain. Each change in behaviour will therefore create unease in the related justificatory
fields until there is acceptance of a corresponding shift in these domains.
But laws and obligations, systems of values and religious truths are often most reluctant to
change since they are the warrant of social stability. These fields will therefore often become
privileged areas of resistance to change.
Conquest or assimilation?
Traditions will give rise to different types of cultural contexts. Their dynamism in situations
of encounter or change will vary considerably and social groups will not meet, on this issue,
as equals.
When the group’s main cultural objective is limited and local, it will tend to undergo the
encounter as an intrusion or to react positively by adapting itself to circumstances. The
group’s practice will be mainly one of cultural adaptation and an eclectic attitude.
Certain groups may already have achieved a more universal cultural vision. These will tend to
dominate the encounter and try to control the social relationships from their position of
excellence. They will engage in what we could call cultural proselytism.
The absolute: unique or plural?
The conquering groups will tend to validate their position by an appeal to ultimate
justifications: the Good, the Right, the Truth, and the Beauty. Through the intermediary of
religions, these justifications will be given a divine significance and weight.
Religions that stress the reference to a unique justification (e.g. monotheisms) will tend to be
more universalistic, more hegemonic and often more intolerant. They will try to impose their
social traditions and values by appealing to their own ‘divine’ right.
Religions that are open to a plurality of ultimate justifications will be more shifting and more
adaptable. They will be less arrogant. Challenged by change through encounter they will tend
to favour cultural and religious syncretism.
Whether they adopt a unitary or a plural world-view will also have considerable consequences
on the way groups view and practice the question of political power. Thus social groups may
justify conquest while others may favour conviviality.
7
In order to integrate fully the input of this first part it is essential to see it’s
relevance in and through one’s local experience en circumstances. It is most
beneficial to do this with people who belong to the same or to similar
traditional background.
Find some examples of:
Syncretism
Eclectism
Identity shifts
Hegemonic traditions
Subservient traditions
Resistance through traditional rites
Political resistance
Economic resistance
Justification through ‘revelation’
Traditional sclerosis
Traditionalism
Social ‘Darwinism’
Social hermeneutics
Traditional wisdom
Successful assimilation
Successful conquest
Permanent confusion
Behavioural impact on ethics
Behavioural impact on religious beliefs
Social solidity through the politico-religious alliance
Social confusion through ethico-religious separation
The disappearance of obsolete customs
The permanence of obsolete customs
Etc…
One fundamental question remains:
Can we find a middle way between total relativism (all traditions are justifiable and
none can be condemned), and absolute universalism (we should find absolute values that
are valid for people of all places and all times)?
8
B. MODERNITY
In this second section (B) we will examine diachronically (through time) the factors
explaining and defining the emergence of a specific ‘tradition’, that came to be called
Modernity.
1. Transition to the Modern Era
Humans select and transmit through tradition certain types of behaviour that ensures their
survival as a group and as individuals.
Hence, they will observe their environment and their context of life in order to better
understand the constraints they have to undergo and cope with them adequately.
In the general network of relationships that constitutes their existence their will discover a
certain regularity, a certain order. To ensure an adequate correspondence between the natural
order and the social order seems to be the essence of the wisdom of life. They will
subsequently elaborate schematic theories (in the symbolic field) that explain and interpret
this order, giving it an absolute dimension. (Mythology)
Philosophy.
In the history of humanity there appears to be a crucial period during which thinkers began to
consciously appropriate to themselves this activity of interpretation. This created a field of
human reflection leading to interpretative schemata situated below the religious field but
beyond the field of daily experience.
This occurred between the 6th and the 4th century before our era.
The most important people to influence this transition were:
In the East:
Lao Tzeu (Taoism): searching for a universal natural harmony.
Kong Fu zi (Confucianism): recommending human excellence and social order.
Siddhârta Gautama (Buddhism): advocating the elimination of suffering through detachment,
and universal compassion.
In the West:
Plato (Platonism): there is an ideal world where all things are perfect and permanent. The
present world is only an appearance of this ideal world.
Aristotle (Aristotelism): Our human reason can disclose the natural order in reality through
the method of abstraction. That enables us to understand and cope with this world.
The ‘one’ and/or the ‘many’.
9
These reflections mark a turning point in the history of humanity. Confronted with the same
reality, and wishing it to be orderly in order to be able to cope with it (traditions create order
to favour survival), humans can chose two different tacks.
The East gave priority to the ‘oneness’ of the real, searching then how to understand and cope
with multiplicity within this ‘One’. The challenge will be to realise this essential unity,
healing all divisions of multiplicity in reality in order to achieve natural, social and existential
harmony. The danger, or the difficulty to overcome, will be to remain in actual confusion.
The universe is “one”: we must enter into this universal harmony; we want to include all.
Order through inclusive harmony. Priority to non-action. (“wu wei” in Taoism)
The West gave priority to the ‘multiplicity’ of the real, then searching for signs of ideal or
existential oneness within the ‘many’. The challenge will be to underline all signs of unity and
to denounce the divisive force within this multiple reality. The danger, or the difficulty to
overcome, will be to loose sight of the diversity.
The universe is “multiple”: we must find ways of unifying it; we want to classify all divisions.
Order through structural classification. Priority to action. (Creation and creativity)
N.B. We are looking here at philosophical currents claiming a universal dimension. Other
perfectly valid philosophical positions did not pretend to be universally applicable.
2. The role of Christianity
Confronted with these philosophical currents, religious theories had to adapt. When this took
place, “traditional religions” became marginalized or extinct.
In this course, however interesting it would have been, we will not be able to examine the link
between philosophies and religions in the East.
On the other hand, what happened in the West has a direct bearing on our study.
Platonism.
Christianity opted for a rapprochement with the philosophy of Plato. The one unchanging God
took His central place in the world of ‘ideas’. His perfection became the ideal. This world
below could only be an imperfect reflection of divine perfection. Revelation was a downward
movement disclosing the divine mystery. Salvation was the upward movement towards
perfection. Christ was the intermediary. This became the theological schema dominating
Christian theology during the first centuries. It blossomed into what was called
Augustinianism.
Unfortunately, this way of thinking tends to undervalue human rational capabilities.
Aristotelism.
Yet the importance of the human person is at the centre of the Gospel message.
As Christianity matured, it became necessary to take this aspect into account in the
theological framework.
Thomas Aquinas took his inspiration from the philosophy of Aristotle and underlined the
power of natural rationality in all human activities. He developed a theology showing how the
‘supernatural’ could come to fulfil the natural. Instead of stressing the figure of a God coming
down from above, he underlined the idea of a God being reached (and reachable) from below.
10
It is in this revolutionary synthesis (Thomism) that we can find the profound roots from which
modernity emerged.
The ‘supernatural’ did not have to be thought of as another world any more. It could be seen
as an essential and complementary dimension of all existing reality. Natural and supernatural
are the two poles of one essential whole.
Pantheist and humanist misrepresentations were (and still are), of course, unavoidable.
Reason and reality: Pandora’s box is open.
With this as a starting point, the moderns attributed an increasing significance to the two
central elements in the philosophy of Aristotle: natural reality and human reason.
Rationalism will underline this rational capability of human beings enabling them to construct
their own interpretation of the reality that surrounds them.
Empiricism will underline the reliability of the reality we can observe and show how we can
refer to it as a base for the valid understanding of things.
These are the two pillars supporting the enormous construction we call Modernity.
Humans discover the secrets of matter, and this knowledge gives value to their life and
ensures their survival. They become self-assured. The religious dimension gradually looses of
its relevance.
Science and technology become obvious instruments of progress.
Industrialisation will make this progress almighty.
3. The impact of literacy
The use of writing will transform the techniques used to transmit traditions. Oral transmission
allows for loss of memory, change and transformations. These can serve as filters and
instruments of selection.
Permanency.
Writing will solidify the content of traditions. (Think of the 10 commandments carved on
stone tablets) (Verba volant, scripta manent) (Consider also the specificity of the religions of
‘the book’ – Judaism, Christianity, Islam) It becomes impossible to change and interpret
traditions as one would wish because there is a stable and permanent reference.
Writing will extend our memory. Our cultural heritage will become richer through the
permanency and the accessibility of written documents. We are not condemned to forget
traditions that are no more of immediate utility. We can keep them in stock. We can restored
them and even bring them back to life. (See the revival of the Hebrew language) Whatever
may become practically obsolete does not necessarily become obsolete with regard to
knowledge.
Universalism.
11
Writing will widen the traditions’ horizon. Within an oral culture it took years to get to know
all traditions; only the elders could go through the process and explain and justify the
customs. In a context of literacy even the youth can have access to the customs, skills and
wisdom, and reach a level of knowledge that will surpass that of the elders.
Writing will also allow for far more diverse contacts through space and time. It will be
possible to know how people live without ever going to meet them. It will be possible to
know how our ancestors lived without ever having lived with them. A report can be made of
all that by others and people can get informed. This will widen considerably the awareness of
diversity.
Teaching.
In oral cultures traditions were handed over from one generation to the next through an active
process of socialisation in a daily life context. Writing will cause dissociation between
teaching and life. At the same time it will make it possible to increase the content of
knowledge as a whole, placing it in a school setting where specialisation becomes possible.
School education becomes a major factor in the process of socialisation. The family is less
important.
Laws.
Within an oral tradition authority will rest on the person (subject) who masters and transmits
the customs. Writing will give to tradition and customs an objectivity that finally resides in
the text. Authority will therefore come to rest on the people who have access to the text, those
who are literate. Theirs will be the task to interpret ‘correctly’ the content of the text. The link
with experienced people may become less important.
Setting the laws into writing will tend to harden them. It will become a more solid reference
that may come to compete with the more flexible transmission of customs. It will also be
reserved to specialists; those who have access to the legal records and can interpret them,
rather than being the responsibility of experienced and wise people.
Doctrine.
The use of writing will also tend to confer a more absolute value to religious experiences.
What people have experienced in the past is set into writing. It then becomes a point of
reference that will soon go beyond the limited and relative value of its original occurrence.
That is how we can come finally to speak of ‘holy’ books
4. Some characteristics of Modernity
Another truth.
Moderns attach more validity to experiential truth than to ‘revealed’ truth.
They value the human rational ability to create in the universe and in their lives the ‘order’
that enables them to cope with reality, rather than to submit to an existing order. They are
convinced that they can get to know and understand the whole of the universe surrounding
them and consequently become able to control it to their own advantage, and eventually
master it completely.
12
Another priority.
Moderns know that the earth turns around the sun, but they place themselves at the centre of
the universe because through their rationality they make it their own. (Appropriation and
ownership)
Moderns are concerned with existence rather than with essence. They think of what the world
becomes what it is through our own intervention rather than being what it is as such, given or
imposed on us. They look towards a future that is theirs to fashion. They examine the process
of evolution that has brought them to this day and firmly intend to become, from now on,
actors rather than slaves of it.
Control.
Moderns become able to cope with their environment, to the extent that they will draw profit
from all possible material resources to their own advantage. They make use unashamedly of
the richness of the whole earth to construct a world that, according to them, should be (or
become) a better world for all.
Medical science.
Moderns learn to know and to take care of their own body. They become able to eliminate all
kinds of sicknesses. Suffering is alleviated as much as possible and an acceptable level of
well-being is accessible to most. Even though they cannot overcome the last humiliation that
is death, they soften its impact and its repulsive aspect as much as possible.
Psychology.
Moderns have come to discover the mysteries of their own psyche. They have become able to
control most of its malfunctioning by discerning the causes and finding appropriate remedies.
They are able to make use of this knowledge to manipulate individual and collective
behaviour.
Politics.
Moderns have gained confidence in their ability to understand and control their social life.
They want to create for themselves a better society. While stressing the value of the person as
an individual (freedom), they try to elaborate way of living together (democracy) that would
allow for an optimal personal growth for each (equality) while ensuring the maintenance of a
common welfare (fraternity.)
Scientific progress.
The most striking aspect of modernity is perhaps the absolute confidence they have in
humanity and in its positive potential.
They are convinced that they are on the road to progress, and that they are the actors of it.
They feel that this makes of their culture (civilisation) an example to all others. They have
created a ‘developed’ society while others are underdeveloped or, at best, developing. They
feel justified because their success is a warrant of their right. The positive results
13
(utilitarianism, pragmatism) give them the right and even the duty to embark of this
‘civilising’ enterprise.
Driven by this conviction, they have transformed our planet to the benefit (so they say) of all.
They have succeeded, which is the proof they are right. They have done away with the former
blind process of evolution and transformed it in a conscious project of humanising their
world. Passive hominisation has become active humanisation.
Ethics.
Moderns want to construct their own ethical framework according to their own judgment.
They are allergic to all forms of heteronomy. They claim and take total responsibility for the
present order they live in and for the future they plan for. They want to draw up themselves a
set of values that could be common to the whole of humankind (human rights) and that could
serve as a directive for all individuals and societies.
5. The supernatural becomes obsolete
The theological vision of St. Thomas considered that all things natural contained in
themselves a positive potential. This was an openness to receive the message of Revelation,
offered as a response and an opportunity to expand the essential dimension of all things.
Revelation acquired a particular significance in matters related to the crucial questions of the
origin and the end of all things.
Moderns took up this idea of a positive potential contained in nature and in human beings, but
they felt it less and less necessary to envisage its fulfilment through an intervention coming
from outside.
Absence of God.
Agnostic humanism does not deny the possibility of a supernatural ‘dimension’ but judges
that, since it is non-demonstrable, it should remain an optional and personal opinion.
Scientific agnosticism goes one step further and judges that the ‘God’ hypothesis is
unnecessary.
Atheistic humanism puts forward the opinion that the religious dimension is, at best
meaningless, and at worst, infantilising. Human beings will be mature and self-fulfilled only
on the condition they accept the death of God (Nietzsche.)
Militant atheism goes one step further and claims that religion and faith in God are in fact
obstacles to human liberty. The very notion of a superior Being is alienation.
Positivist humanism argues that reason by itself is quite able to acquire all necessary
knowledge to understand our universe, and that we have thereby a sufficient basis to decide
on the course of action to take to conduct our lives correctly and build a better world for
ourselves. We do not need to ‘receive’ another moral code.
Scientific positivism goes further to claim that scientific knowledge founded on observable
reality is the only valid knowledge.
14
Freudian psychologists see the religious domain as the result of an unconscious universe, the
outcome of unresolved vital tensions. These can be discovered, and the tensions can be
resolved. Religious tendencies can and should be cured.
Jungian psychologists tend to see the religious domain as a potentially beneficial interior and
unconscious universe. People can be guided to utilise it as a source of harmony in the
construction of a mature personality.
Materialist humanism looks at the human phenomenon as a whole, including its religious
tendencies, as an outgrowth of matter (biologism) and the fruit of evolution. It is up to us to
handle this to our own advantage.
Scientific materialism tends to study the human phenomenon together with all reality as the
fruit of the dynamism of nature. Our aim should be to understand this dynamism and enter
into this line of development.
Militant materialism rejects the religious domain as some kind of an ‘opium’. It is felt to be a
handicap encouraging attitudes (reactionary attitudes) that will hamper our effort towards real
progress (progressivism.)
The tendency to laicise society can be seen as a socio-political reaction against the abuses of
Christendom and the privileges ‘religion’ claimed for itself. Such reaction will be more or less
militant depending on the historical context.
Secularism marks the preference of the moderns to treat all problems of life and society
without making any reference to the religious field. This may sometimes provoke the attitude
of conflict called anti-clericalism.
Liberalism gives a central place to the effectiveness and independence of the economic laws.
The tendency to accumulate profit and to create capital contributes automatically to the
progress of society. Material well-being is the ultimate aim of all. As a consequence it is a
universal vocation and obligation to eliminate all evil and all suffering. Some will lead the
way and create the conditions for this ‘progress’ to be ultimately shared, through some kind of
osmosis, to the whole of society and the whole of humanity.
6. Modernism
The modernist tendency will tend to interpret all reference to God or to the divine as an
expression of human reality. What we term ‘supernatural’ is a human phenomenon to be
analysed and understood as such. It is human groaning and hope. The way we chose to
resolve this tension and the questions of our origin and ultimate end depicts our present state
of life and the way we want to cope with it.
When we talk of ‘revelation’, and when we see the claims and the respect attached to such
talk, we come to understand that it refers to our own sense of some infinite dimension, this
being but the reverse of our constant experience of finitude. It is important, therefore, to begin
to ‘demythologise’ and ‘demystify’ these revealed truths and learn to humanise the content of
what uses to be referred to as ‘revealed’ data.
In brief, we could say that the modernist position is to claim that humans themselves created
the notion of God after their own image. Speaking of God creating the world and the human
beings was, subsequently, a way of shifting away one’s own responsibility. Every mature
human being should come to acknowledge this procedure and resolutely claim ownership and
15
accept his own responsibility in the formulation and the development of the ‘divine’
dimension of his own nature.
In Modernism, human beings claim mastery over the divine.
7. Post-modernism
During the second half of the 20th Century we notice the unravelling of the confidence of the
Modern era. Two major steps in physics (Einstein’s theory of relativity, and the theory of
quanta) served as a trigger to develop the feeling that we have, in fact, no stable point of
reference.
The end of the Second World War with bombing of Hiroshima and the ensuing ‘cold war’
seemed to prove that human beings would never learn to live in peace.
Liberalism produced a unilateral economic growth, going together with an increasing poverty
of which it was itself a cause.
Ecology.
While humans had taken upon themselves a responsibility that was practically divine, they
now become aware of the fact that they are perhaps producing more evil than good. The
divine vocation they took on themselves becomes an unbearable burden.
Stewardship of our planet seems to be beyond our competence. We come to realise we have
been too ambitious. We are not even sure we’ll be able to correct our mistakes and avoid total
ecological disaster.
Complexity.
Scientific and technological progress through over-specialisation seems to create more
problems than it solves. Our knowledge has become so complex that we don’t seem to be able
to cope with it. We thought we would make our life more pleasant but we are rather
overwhelmed by anxiety.
Conviviality.
Tolerance was thought to be the basis of democracy, allowing each person to have a say. This
same attitude now appears to be an opening though which all kinds of destructive extremisms
find an expression. Democracy makes us vulnerable to terrorist actions: it contains within
itself the seeds of its own destruction.
Disillusionment.
We thought we would be able to entirely master our own environment. But we are now
overwhelmed with apprehension and even fear: we notice that our own activities towards selfbetterment have an apparently unavoidable negative dimension, creating disasters we don’t
seems able to control.
The economic laws that appeared to be the basis of an endless possibility for progress seem to
draw us into a vicious circle. The gap between rich and poor widens. The profit motive is
ultimately not profitable.
Doubt.
16
At the centre of the spirit of modernity, there was this unshakeable self-confidence. This is
now rapidly eroding and we don’t know where to turn, which God to find refuge in.
The norms we define for ourselves tend to produce their own contradiction. Respect for each
person seems to be forever incompatible with a search for the common good. The confidently
awaited consensus draws backward each time we think we are close to it. As we move along
the line of ‘progress’ we discover that we become more diverse and move further and further
away from each other.
Our fundamental optimism and confidence in the future is now replaced by uncertainty. Our
feeling of superiority gives way to eclectic behaviour and relativism. There is nothing that
gives meaning to our lives. We become unable to mobilise ourselves and project new ideals
that set us into motion.
Disorder.
Our claims to autonomy have given rise to a multitude of anomies. These appear senseless
and undermine our sense of security. In front of these, the few attempts to go back to former
certainties are no less reassuring. Apparently, there is no way individual freedom can be
trusted, while a return to ancient slaveries and depersonalising alienation is not attractive
either.
In conclusion: We could revisit any of these three well-known themes.
This should be done in groups originating from different traditions.
Literacy is usually thought of as unquestionably beneficial. It has now widened into
computer technology and spreads over ‘world wide web’. Is this technical progress
automatically ‘beneficial’ or should we begin to think again and to ask questions like “why?”
and “how?”
The expansion of Christianity through missionary activity has gone hand in hand with the
spread of Modernity and was sometimes used as a divine justification for the cultural
hegemony of Western Modernity. How can we conceive of a new evangelisation without
insidiously reintroducing the proselytising tendency and the ingrained sense of superiority
with its accompanying conquering attitude?
Many of us have initiated or supported various kinds of ‘development projects’. Can we
still honestly claim that these have been, on the whole, beneficial to the recipients? Could we
not say that the only acceptable development has to be integral and durable, entailing a
reduction of the excessive economic growth that creates this ever widening gap between the
poor and the rich?
17
C. TOWARDS AN OPEN AND HUMANISING INTERSUBJECTIVITY
1. The lessons of Modernity and Post-modernism: a new target
a. Integral progress
Working towards growth and human well-being remains a commendable project, a human
adventure both exhilarating and motivating. Although post-modernism now forces us to
envisage this more humbly and hesitantly, the fact remains that the very prospect is something
we would find very difficult to give up entirely.
But we’ll have to redefine what we really mean by ‘progress’. Gone are the times when it
simply meant economic, scientific and technological advance. We’ll have to reintroduce the
wide fields of ethical and symbolic exploration without which humans are now seen to be
maimed of their authentic contribution to the construction of a better world.
Integral progress can no more bypass the moral and spiritual issues. These will have to find
their place anew (with adequate adaptations) in the total vision of the future for humanity.
b. Liberated(*) and liberating freedom
The freedom gained by Modernity is non-negotiable. From now on, humans will never again
accept to be enslaved by any kind of ‘authority’, especially if it takes the form of an
undisputable imposition coming from above. This has become intolerable.
Post-modernism however has disclosed one important caveat. Our freedom cannot truly
blossom as long as it seeks its motivation and justification from within itself. Freedom for the
sake of freedom makes no sense! It is not enough to have become free FROM …, we must
also come to discover what we are free FOR. Liberty once conquered has to avoid the dangers
of solipsism, being wrapped on one-self, by discovering and setting for itself a worthwhile
project, some meaningful purpose.
As a consequence, we observe that we cannot be free on our own. Freedom is a must, lived
through personal but also through communal responsibility. Limits to our freedom are
unavoidable. The great illusion of believing that we would one day liberate ourselves from all
constraints has had its days. It now remains to learn how to cope with the major and minor
conditionings that are ours, and to insert into these as much of a valid purpose as we can, both
personally and for all of us together.
Such an understanding of freedom will not set us at loggerheads with each other. On the
contrary, it will teach us that, if we want to be truly free as an individual, then this freedom
must blossom in and through the respect of the other person’s freedom. Contrary to what
Sartre said: “L’enfer, c’est les autres”, now we know we can’t save ourselves alone. It is not
like “the limits of my freedom are the boundaries of the other person’s freedom”; rather, “our
shared limitations set the horizon of a common commitment to an increasing ability to
conceive freely together our future possibilities.
c. Committed autonomy
People who have experienced the mental liberation offered by the scientific discoveries and
by technical progress will no more accept to simply submit to the impositions of the obscure
designs of an impersonal or divinised universe. Whatever may be the obstacles, whatever
This expression is taken from an article of José Reding (Les résistances à l’évangélisation dans une société
sécularisée, 12/10/2003)
18
mistakes may need to be corrected, the future is ours to be imagined and to be constructed.
Granted, this task is notably more difficult and complex than we thought at first, when
modernity was at its beginnings. But that makes it an even more attractive and worthwhile
challenge for the whole of humanity.
At the heart of this universe, humans have a mission to fulfil, and they will not shun from it.
The laws of nature (and the Natural Law) should not be thought of as a set framework leaving
no place for our responsibility. On the contrary, they are the existential database available to
us, and for us to use to give meaning to our autonomy. Any attempt to seek excuses and to
return to an attitude of submissiveness and irresponsibility will be firmly reject because it
would deprive us of what is for us of utmost value: our existential and caring stewardship of
this universe that is ours.
We are aware of the weight of such commitment and the dangers with which it is fraught. We
take it up with more prudence and circumspection, but also with renewed courage.
d. Towards total responsibility
Modernity has enabled humans to circle the earth and explore all aspects of it. Postmodernism has revealed some weaknesses and dangers. It has also revealed that the universe
is one big whole. Ecologists give this picture: the flight of the butterfly in South Africa can
raise a storm in Peru. But this interconnectedness is also applicable at the social, political and
moral level. We have come to realise that we are inevitably inter-dependent. Not only are we
capable of taking care of our planet, this very stewardship is an obligation we cannot escape.
We must learn to take into account all the consequences and repercussions of any and all of
our activities in this world.
Each decision taken at the local level has global implications. Any position we would like to
support concerning any issue at the global level can only be realised in and through local
participation. To illustrate this interconnectedness, theorists have proposed the use of a new
term: everything is ‘glocal’.
2. Concretely: interpersonal encounters.
a. Crucial importance of interpersonal relationships
Let us take stock of what we have seen until now:
From tradition as a process emerge traditions as habits.
Traditions widen into cultural heritages.
Different streams of traditions meet. These encounters may lead to conflicts, exchanges,
conquests, fusions or even eliminations.
Modernity has been a major cultural trend that has overwhelmed the entire planet. Its
dynamism and self-confidence has brought about a marginalisation of less powerful cultural
trends.
A feeling of superiority sustained and justified a shameless expansionism.
This attitude was conscious, and clearly articulated and argued. It was defended, maintained
and theoretically founded.
Moderns were (and still are) convinced of being the bearers of a civilising mission.
BUT
In reality there is no such thing as an encounter between traditions or cultures.
19
It is people that meet.
People who are moulded by their traditions and cultures.
People who mould their traditions and cultures.
The cultural stream carries them … but they can modify the current.
Carried, people are guided and supported, conditioned or even compelled by the words, the
habits, and the writings they inherit from past generations.
But they also carry this tradition. They can innovate or maintain the status quo, they can
change and adapt according to circumstances and ensure the survival of the group, or they can
have a deadly influence on the group by adopting a traditionalist attitude that leads to
sclerosis.
We can imagine people travelling with their backpack. They receive it to carry from the onset.
They can make use of its content if it suits them. They can throw away what they consider to
be a useless burden. They can also add to the content if they deem it necessary.
b. Modalities of interpersonal encounters
People meet, sustained by their tradition and bearers of their tradition. When people of
different traditions meet, they each stand at the margin of their own group. They can be
considered as explorers or ambassadors.
 They are driven by some specific motivation bringing them on the fringe of their
group and to the fringe of another group: it may be curiosity (explorers), profit
(traders), charity (humanists), power (conquerors), proselytism (missionaries), etc…
 They will manifest certain attitudes that will enable to operate in this ‘marginal’
situation: they may be violent or tolerant, respectful or proud, patient or in a hurry,
candid or scheming, greedy or generous, active or passive, etc…
 The circumstances will put them in a position of power or weakness: political,
economic, intellectual, technical or religious mastery, or subservience. This will be a
major factor conditioning their encounter.
People are supported by the context of life that conditions their encounter. They can approve
of it or disapprove, agree or disagree. By their attitude and behaviour they may decide to reenforce it or to question it, to perpetuate it or to try to change it, according to their own vision.
 The economic context may create possibilities of mutually enriching exchanges, of
stubborn bargaining and clever negotiations, of shameless exploitation and crippling
dependence.
 The social context may encourage broad-mindedness or narrow-mindedness, openness
to the other or prejudice, mixing or apartheid, appreciation or discrimination.
 The intellectual context may promote dialogue or provoke separations and ghettoes,
help mutual understanding or create misunderstanding, mitigate or re-enforce a spirit
of superiority or inferiority.
 The ethical context may lead to rejection, condemnation and ostracism, it may also
provoke a self-questioning and help to reach a more universal stand. It may create
confusion or be a source of liberation.
 The symbolic or religious context will influence people greatly. They may be tempted
to condemn the other, to despise him and to regard him as ungodly. They may also be
tempted to try to convert the other for his own good and salvation. Of all contexts this
is often the deepest and most influential.
20
All these elements have a considerable impact on the way in which encounters between
people take place. At first sight these may seem but mere details. In the long term we can be
assured that the type of encounter between cultures and traditions will depend largely on the
way in which individuals deal with all these factors.
The attitude of individuals in the encounter procedure is therefore of primary importance.
c. Solution = resolutions
It should be clear that the proposals that follow are immediately directed to the individual
people who participate in - and are the actors of intercultural encounters. The conditions of
mutually beneficial and harmonious encounters reside at the level of the persons. The aim of
research at this stage will be to try to transform an encounter between individuals (who claim
their separate status) into en encounters between persons (who try to create a genuine
relationship).
► Foster communication
When we are confronted with a misunderstanding or a conflict of opinions concerning
differing attitudes and traditions it is always importance to try to discern the motives that
explain certain types or behaviour rather than to remain limited to the externals. To achieve
this, communication is essential.
In order to ensure a genuine dialogue it will be important to learn to listen but also to speak, to
learn to read but also to write, to learn to discern within and beyond the words and modes of
expression, the inner attitudes that unveil the deep motivations. We learn to discover and
appreciate the value of different traditions and perhaps we will be brought to revisit the
foundations of our own traditions.
It will be good to recognise that any knowledge, any science, any doctrine can only present
one angle of vision. No one can pretend to have THEE complete vision, the complete truth,
the real knowledge. Once we admit this basic fact, we will see that any decision-making is
better when it combines different points of view; the greater the original difference, the more
reliable will be the conclusion reached!
Alternatively, we must become conscious of the crippling effect of a “single vision” (one
truth). The only way in which such position can be sustained will be by making use of
subversive disinformation. We should always denounce the narrowness of a “unique” view
and the way in which information can be manipulated to protect it. On our side, we should
always be ready to re-question our convictions and opinions, to go back to the sources of our
knowledge and to welcome alternative contributions.
► Favour collaboration
We must work towards integral growth. In every encounter we should try to discover the
“win-win” situation. No single growth should take place to the expense of another. The spirit
of competition that has been so highly praised is potentially and globally destructive. (See
new children games in which the aim is not to ‘beat’ the others, but to win all together.) This
is a very demanding task; it requires a major conversion. It means that people may sometimes
accept to forego an opportunity that is offered them in order to allow someone also to benefit
from it. It means we should sometimes accept a slower pace of growth, limiting ourselves, so
that space is left for others to catch up and grow. (See the Ethiopians’ victory at the Olympic
games of Athens.)
21
Solidarity reducing inequalities is not an option: it is a necessity of global survival. We must
exclude all exclusions, we cannot tolerate intolerance, we must integrate all marginalized
people and eliminate all forms of exploitation.
The aim will be to find a balance in everything we do. Each person must find its place within
a global partnership so that we can benefit fully from universal complementariness.
Every individual responsibility will have to be exercised at the heart of an active balance of
power. We must learn to use positive discrimination and to limit ourselves to create areas of
freedom for others.
► Create conviviality
More is not better. From now on we should be searching for a greater quality of life available
to all. The economic domain cannot leave aside political options. The political domain cannot
forget the moral options. The ethical field cannot be maimed by cutting it off from the
symbolic or religious. But the opposite is also true: religion or ethics cannot overlook
economic or political realities.
Through individual personal conversions, we will create a mentality that will make the
establishment of a new world order possible.
Democracy has no value in itself. It is a tool at the hands of the people who use it. It is an
ideal of power sharing that must be constantly revised. The objectives must always be
redefined. Nothing is ever ‘set’ forever. The contexts in which democracy is realised change
constantly: every democratic tradition will have to accept and to implement within itself the
hermeneutic value of constant re-questioning.
To make this possible, priority must be given to the respect given to others.
i.
Respect the values carried by all minorities (ethnic, linguistic,
cultural, religious, psychological, national, etc.)
ii.
Respect liberty of conscience and of belief.
At this stage it is crucial to reflect, alone or in groups, and to find examples of HOW
these resolutions can be implemented in practice.
22
3. Christendom or Christianity?
a. Our responsibility
Post-modernism entailed a partial and gradual deconstruction of our confidence. But this is
not unavoidable. We can still learn to construct our future together. Various traditions are not
doomed to clash and be in conflict. They can also be mutually enriching.
Our future is no pre-defined. But it doesn’t mean we have no way of knowing in which
direction we should turn. All alternatives are not equally good or equally bad. The dynamics
of intercultural encounters through interpersonal encounters have widened the hermeneutic
aspect in the transmission of our tradition(s). Hence, we will have to reflect and define
together which changes we should foster; which changes are more widely and more durably
beneficial. Progress remains desirable. But not any kind of progress and at any cost ...
Prudently, we have taken some distance from excessive modernism; consequently, we can
now avoid the anxiety of post-modernism and overcome its doubts.
We have courageously accepted what modernity offers us as a non-negotiable heritage. We
have examined the contexts of interpersonal encounters. We are now in a position to envisage
something positive in the future. Some analysts believe we could be moving towards a period
of high modernity ().
This is the perspective we could whish to instil in our Christian commitment in this world, the
global purpose that could enliven our daily activity and our apostolate. Indeed, if Christianity
was a major incentive for the emergence and growth of the modern tradition, then it is not
impossible to conceive that this same Christianity would be able to offer new insights to avoid
the despair of post-modernism and to reconstruct optimism and hope.
b. The foundation: another type of relationship between humans and God
i. God rejoices in our autonomy.
Deep at the heart of modern thinking we have been able to discern a shift in the way in which
humans conceived their relation with the divine. We could say it was like a coming of age,
reaching maturity. The key notion was very simple: we do not need God, or gods. This
awareness and this claim provoked anxiety and resistance among people who were utilising
divine power to prop up their own power. Such was the case not only in religious circles, but
also among some sectors of the social and political structure. On the other hand, it is this
insight, this feeling of independence from any ‘superior’ power, which made possible the
emergence of the notion of democracy and its operation in social and political practice. (The
original Greek experience existed in similar circumstances but did not last.)
Christian theology is only now, very slowly and reluctantly, beginning to recognise that
modernity marks, in the history of humanity, an irreversible turning point. And yet, we must
admit that this human attitude is in no way in contradiction with Christian experience
throughout the ages. Granted, there are instances in which we see the picture of an omnipotent
God getting worried whenever his ‘people’ (stiff-necked) would show some desire for
independence and autonomy. But there is no dearth of instances that show the contrary: a God
offering us freedom and rejoicing in our growing autonomy; a God taking the risk of trusting

José Reding, Ibid.
23
his people and hoping (sometimes against hope) that this would incite and invite us to
establish with Him a more loving and enriching relationship. Moreover, this is perfectly in
line with the image of God disclosed to us by Jesus Christ. We could say that, thanks to
modernity, this image of God is now re-emerging after having been buried for centuries under
an authoritarian practice that was not really evangelical.
ii. Our freedom is enriched through the divine dimension.
For centuries people have been compelled to submission through blind obedience to a power
they could not contest. It should not come as a surprise that it would be difficult to channel
such freedom conquered through great effort and risks. There have not been many occasions
of learning how to practice responsible and mature autonomy in our Church.
But the dangerous and difficult experience was not without positive results. Through trials
and errors humans have learned. One of the lessons that concern us particularly is that humans
have discovered how the complete absence of the symbolic dimension, a lack of reference to
some kind of transcendence, could be humanly impoverishing. We do not need God. We can
do without the divine. But the divine dimension can be an asset all the same.
Consequently, and that is the challenge religious people are facing today, the symbolic, divine
universe remains fascinatingly attractive. A new period of growth in the spirit of modernity
(high modernity) could be imagined and explored. Our contemporaries would recognise the
validity of such exploration. Far from bringing us back to some kind of religious
institutionalism, the spiritual search can be meaningful. It responds to some of our deepest
longings. It makes us blossom in our humanity. And as we go deep within ourselves in this
spiritual adventure, we find we are also brought closer to each other and closer to the divine.
iii. God as a partner rather then a competitor.
In front of a God who in no ways wishes to impose himself, we can now situate ourselves as
autonomous human beings, without any wish to rebel. Freed of the need of God, we could
construct a completely gratuitous relationship in which love can truly flourish. We would no
more stand in front of each other as competitors, keen to assert our authority and our power
independently from each other or against each other, jealous of the place claimed by the other.
We could encounter each other as friends, rejoicing in the richness we gain from this
relationship in which we enter entirely freely.
An attitude of trust and mutual confidence could blossom (I believe in you = I trust you), in
which each partner would grow in respect for the other. Would that not be the ultimate aim of
this ongoing ‘creation’ in which humans, at the image of God, become not only pro-creators
but also co-creators.
c. The context: another vision of the ‘Church’
This dialogue between humans and the divine deploys itself through history. The modalities
of this ‘encounter’ have changed along the ages. This ‘history’ (think of the History of
Salvation) echoes throughout the universal dimension of humanity itself through the ages.
‘Christendom’ as the Church as known it since the Constantinian era and until some decades
ago, has only been one particular mode of realising historically this limitless dialogue.
But the Word of God (communication, hence dialogue) has been with us from the beginning
and its light spreads far beyond what we can imagine or try to define.
24
All those who receive this light (St. John) can begin the conversation; they become partners,
children of God. This ‘people of God’ could be a ‘multitude’ that no one can count.
(Apocalypse)
The message of Jesus was to disclose and help us discover this reality. The “kingdom – reign”
of God is amongst you! My Father and I are one. Whatsoever you do to the least of your
brothers and sisters, you do unto me. Jesus is Emmanuel: God with us.
The members of the “kingdom – reign” of God form the ‘body’ of the risen and living Christ.
Christianity is a reality that extends far beyond the boundaries of Christendom. The dialogue
with God has gone on throughout history and will go on until the end of times: the Parousia.
The Christian Scriptures and Christian Tradition are an echo of this message. This echo is the
cultural heritage of those who call themselves Christians. For them it is a personal challenge
and a universal mission. They carry this ‘Good News’ with them and it is a crucial element in
all their ‘encounters’. They are living witnesses of Christianity. Encountering them could be a
moment of grace for those concerned … and for the whole of humanity.
And so, the challenge is present, and ours: behold, do you not see it!
Will we be able to take up the “resolutions” that make such encounters beneficial? Will we be
able to bring about, (even if it seems merely the fluttering of a butterfly’s wing) the solutions
that can contribute to the construction of a better world? Will we be able to make our
Christian tradition, our Christian heritage relevant for our contemporaries?
d. In practice: another mode of transmission of the Christian tradition
It seems clear that this new relationship between humans and the divine, as we have been
brought to discover through the lessons of modernity, will inevitably have an impact on the
interpersonal relationships that mould our encounters as we witness of the Good News that
makes us live.
i. Respect for other religious ‘traditions’
Scriptures and Christian doctrine are methods of transmission, techniques that help us to make
our heritage travel through time and space. The faith of our forefathers comes close to us and
their religious experience can inspire us. But this traditional heritage must be made real and
relevant in our world, today. We have to continuously adapt its formulation and let it’s
content be enriched. Failing to do so would lead to sclerosis and eventually make the message
obsolete.
Today’s challenge is that, as our religious tradition meets with other religious traditions, our
task is to make this encounter beneficial to all. (Win-win situations).
God has spoken to all our ancestors (letter to the Hebrews) and is still in dialogue with all
human beings in this world. In an interpersonal religious encounter, we are intruding in a
conversation that has been going on for a long time and is still active, and the other does the
same to us. We are treading ‘holy ground’. We must take off our shoes! (Exodus)
If we want our traditional heritage to remain alive, we must imperatively allow it to be
vivified through the hermeneutic procedure that the encounter brings about. Consequently, if
we wish to be witnesses of the Good News that is ours, this can only take place through
respectful dialogue. There is ‘practically’ no difference between evangelisation and interreligious dialogue. ()

See the writings of the Indian theologian Michael Amaladoss
25
ii. Authority and tradition.
At its best, tradition should make us more responsible and responsive. We acknowledge we
are carried by a tradition and at the same time become aware that we are bearers of this
tradition.
Religious education, catechesis, homiletics, all should have a similar objective: help our
fellow human beings to make Christ’s message their own if they so wish; present wisdom so
that our listeners can become wiser and grow in their own religious experience.
The only truly valid religious attitude is the one taken freely by people who do so responsibly.
At such depth people will come close to each other as they recognise the full value of their
shared humanity. That is how we are enriched by the spirit of modernity while offering
genuine Christian insights for an integral growth.
It is this convergence, issuing from different and diverse people and traditions, which will be
a sign of universal goodness and truth. It is from within that we will meet more effectively
and that is where we will find the means of building a better humanity and a better world.
Human beings fully humanised will be human beings in living contact with the divine.
Hence, it becomes clear that the role of any ‘authority’ will be to lead human beings to
authentic freedom. True authority is liberating, at the image of divine authority.
e. By way of conclusion: some examples
It will not be easy to put all this into practice. Hence, it may be useful to explore the
practicability of what we have talked about in some specific fields, remaining fully aware of
the fact that the challenge is first and foremost on of ‘personal’ conversion. (how can I act
differently!)
I propose that this reflection be done in groups according to the participant's specific
personal interests.
As guidelines, I would propose some fields we can explore.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Violence and confusion amongst the youth
Progress, selfishness, competition and corruption in modern society
Personal religious experience, religious life, and faith within the Church
Evangelisation and / or inter-religious dialogue
Religious education, catechesis, and liberating freedom
Self-ministering and self-propagating Christian communities
As further reading I propose two books:
Michael Amaladoss: Beyond Inculturation
Raimundo Panikkar: The cosmotheandric experience
26
Notes en rapport avec les trois premiers sujets de discussion en groupes
1. Violence et confusion parmi les jeunes
Nous constatons tout autour de nous que les jeunes d’aujourd’hui ne semblent pas se sentir
bien dans leur peau. Ils semblent avoir plus difficile qu’avant d’inscrire leur projet de vie dans
la réalité humaine qui les entourent. Cela se manifeste par une recrudescence de violence dans
les écoles, d’un manque de civisme gratuit dans les zones urbaines, par un passage à l’âge
adulte qui se fait de plus en plus tard et de plus en plus difficilement. De toute évidence il y a
un problème de socialisation.
C’est que la scolarisation, qui a presque totalement remplacé la socialisation, transmet
des connaissances mais n’est pas habilitée à favoriser une insertion plus large et plus profonde
dans la société. Voici donc un domaine dans lequel nous, Chrétiens, pourrions être invités à
agir. En effet, notre engagement religieux nous invite à partager avec nos sœurs et frères une
vision de la réalité qui soit ouverte aux valeurs éthiques et symboliques.
Notre apport spécifique serait donc, au-delà d’un enseignement pratique, de
développer parmi les jeunes une prise de conscience de leur responsabilité, de les aider à voir
l’utilité, la nécessité même de leur participation à la vie humaine, sociale dans laquelle ils
seront nécessairement insérés. Les sociétés traditionnelles avaient leurs rites d’initiation. Les
Eglises protestantes aux Etats-Unis ont leurs ‘Sunday schools’. Dans les familles modernes,
ce sont parfois aux grands-parents à qui revient cette tâche : responsabiliser les jeunes. Dans
certaines zones urbaines des essais ont été faits pour impliquer les jeunes dans la société
civile. En tant que chrétiens nous pouvons encourager et soutenir de tels efforts en apportant
une sagesse au niveau méthode et au niveau motivation.
2. Progrès, égoïsme et compétition dans la société moderne
Il est de plus en plus évident que la croissance économique à elle seule ne peut pas nous offrir
du mieux-être. Bien au contraire, nous constatons que la richesse va bien souvent de pair avec
la mésentente, l’exploitation, l’exclusion et l’appauvrissement d’une part de l’humanité. Mais
le système économique en tant que tel n’est pas à même de remédier à ce problème. De plus,
les Etats ont de moins en moins à dire face à l’attrait et l’arrogance de l’argent.
Il y a une question cruciale qui semble avoir été laissée de côté : où allons-nous ? Et
c’est ici que la tradition chrétienne peut offrir une suggestion. Au-delà du « comment ? » de la
croissance, il faudra bien envisager le « pourquoi ? » Notre vision des humains et des sociétés,
une vision de fraternité et de partage, nous permettra de suggérer que le progrès n’est réel que
s’il est progrès de et pour tous. Il deviendra alors tout à fait raisonnable d’accepter des limites
de croissance partielles de façon à favoriser une croissance totale.
Tant que le seul est but est de s’enrichir, toutes les méthodes sont bonnes. « Business
is business! » Il n’y a pas de place pour la compassion ni pour la solidarité. Mais dès que nous
favorisons une vision plus large de l’humain (frères et sœurs en Jésus Christ, enfants d’un
même Dieu) nous offrons une motivation plus valable au projet de croissance qui a dynamisé
le monde moderne et nous offrons un travail herméneutique sur nos traditions qui est
bénéfiques à tous.
27
3. Expérience religieuse personnelle, vie religieuse et foi au cœur de l’Église
Une autre problématique qui a été soulevée dans les échanges est celle de la liberté religieuse.
Reconnue théoriquement aujourd’hui dans la plupart des contextes religieux, elle ne porte pas
encore les fruits de collaboration que l’on pourrait espérer. On la revendique volontiers pour
soi-même, mais il est bien plus difficile de l’offrir à l’autre.
Dans ce domaine, il me semble qu’une conversion personnelle est d’abord nécessaire.
Chaque personne devrait d’abord se sentir profondément libre devant Dieu avant de souhaiter
offrir la liberté à d’autres. Dans l’Église aujourd’hui nous constatons une tension entre deux
pôles. Les uns revendiquent une liberté religieuse qui n’est encore que « liberté de … » Les
autres estiment que seule la liberté « sacrifiée » peut trouver son orientation valable. Rares
sont les personnes qui manifestent une maturité telle qu’elles recherchent librement à
s’engager dans les chemins du bien. Effectivement, c’est un chemin précaire et incertain que
chacun est appelé à tracer personnellement et solidairement. Mais ce n’est que dans la mesure
ou l’on accepte la fragilité d’une telle recherche qu’on peut s’associer à d’autres qui
cheminent pareillement en respectant totalement nos libertés mutuelles.
Dans un monde ou les religions se rencontrent, il me semble que voilà bien un appel
que les Chrétiens pourraient entendre et un témoignage qu’ils pourraient donner : encourager
une liberté responsable pour un monde meilleur.
28
Tradition et Modernité : Bibliographie
AMALADOSS Michael S.J.:
Les nouveaux visages de la mission, L’Epiphanie, 1996 (LV)
À la Rencontre des Cultures – Comment conjuguer unité et pluralité dans les Églises ? Éditions
Ouvrières, 1997 (LV)
BLATTCHEN Edmond (Numéro conçu par – et alia) : Où va Dieu ?, Revue de l’Université de
Bruxelles, Éditions Complexe, 1999 (XP)
BONÉ Édouard: Dieu Hypothèse inutile ? Racine, 1999 (XP)
CHOURAQUI André: Les dix commandements aujourd’hui – Dix paroles pour réconcilier l’Homme
avec l’humain, Robert Laffont, 2000 (XP)
COMTE-SPONVILLE André & FERRY Luc : La sagesse des Modernes – Dix questions pour
notre temps, Robert Laffont, 1998 (XP)
COQ Guy : La démocratie rend-elle l’éducation impossible, Parole et Silence, 1999 (LV)
DAVID Catherine & DE TONNAC Jean-Philippe (eds.) : L’Occident en quête de sens – L’Orient
des illusions – Le destin des monothéismes – L’expérience libératrice, Maisonneuve & Larose, 1996
(XP)
DEBELLE Jean et alia : Morale sexuelle et autorité dans l’Église Catholique, Feuilles familiales,
EVO, 1998 (XP)
DELHEZ Charles : Les derniers des Mohicans ? – Les Catholiques en Belgique, Labor, 1998 (XP)
de LOCHT Pierre : La foi décantée, Desclée de Brouwer, 1998 (XP)
ENGELHARD Philippe : L’homme mondial – Les sociétés humaines peuvent-elles survivre ? Arléa,
1996 (XP)
FERRY Luc : L’homme-Dieu ou le sens de la vie, Livre de Poche, Grasset, 1996 (XP)
GLUCKSMANN André: La troisième mort de Dieu, NiL Editions, Paris, 2000 (XP)
Jean-Paul II
Dialogue entre les Cultures pour une Civilisation de l’Amour et de la Paix, Journée Mondiale de la
Paix, 1er janvier 2001, Notes et Documents, sept. déc. 2000 (XP)
Exhortation apostolique post-synodale- Ecclesia in Asia, La Documentation Catholique, 1999, p.978ss
(LV & XP)
“Le Supplément” Dialogue inter-religieux – Une provocation à la réflexion éthique et théologique ?
Revue d’éthique et de théologie morale, N°217, 2001 (LV)
MAURIER Henri m.afr.: Les missions – Religions et civilisations confrontées à l’universalisme,
Cerf, 1993 (LV)
Panoramiques N° 23, Dirigé par Guy Hennebelle : Dépassées, les valeurs catholiques ? Arléa –
Corlet, 1995 (XP)
Conseil Pontifical “Justice et Paix”
Agenda Social – Une collection de textes du Magistère,
Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 2000 (XP)
Présence Africaine: New Bilingual Series, Dossier, L’eau / Water, N° 161/162, 2000 (LV)
RINGLET Gabriel: L’Évangile d’un libre penseur – Dieu serait-il laïque ? Albin Michel, 1998 (XP)
ROLIN Cécile: Frères humains, mes semblables, mes frères, Espace et Libertés, Juin 2001 (XP)
THICH Nhat Hanh: Bouddha vivant, Christ vivant – Les enseignements, les pratiques spirituelles et
les correspondances entre les deux traditions, Marabout, 1996 (XP)
THILS Gustave : Les laïcs et l’enjeu des « temps post-modernes » - Sécularité, Modernité, Postmodernité, Une intra-ecclésialité « multiforme », Relation clercs-laïcs « équilibrée », La sainteté
« dans et par » le siècle, Cahiers de le Revue Théologique de Louvain, 20, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988
(XP)
VELLUT Jean-Luc (sous la direction de -) : Itinéraires croisés de la modernité – Congo Belge
(1920-1950), Cahiers Africains, N° 43-44, 2000 (LV)
World Faiths Development Dialogue:
Pauvreté et Développement – Une Perspective Inter-religieuse, 1999 (XP)
29