Christian Ministry as Communitarian:
Henri Nouwen is right in saying that the second temptation in doing Christian ministry is to be spectacular. If a priest-minister is after for fame and applause, he tends to work alone. This attitude in ministry is a no-no. No wonder, ministry ought to be in the context of the community.
Jesus was not alone in his ministry. He engages in healing, preaching, doing miracles and eating with sinners always with His chosen twelve. In fact I just realize now that Jesus’ public ministry does mean he did his ministry to people alone. Rather, he and his collaborator-apostles went public. And nowhere in the Gospels where you can find Jesus doing his ministry alone. Can you?
In addition to that, Jesus entrusted his continuing mission to the community (Matt. 28: 18-19; Jn. 20: 21-23). And the Holy Spirit came upon the community who went out from hiding and preached the Good News at Pentecost day (Acts 2). Earlier to that, the twelve (or the seventy two) had their ‘on-the-job’ training two by two. (Lk. 9: 1-6; 10: 1-16).
What do I mean by this? My point is, the more we become ‘irrelevant’ in the world, the more we, as Christian ministers, should strengthen our life in the community. For the effectivity and meaningfulness of our ministry come from our witness of love for one another. Before we minister to people outside, we must minister to one another. This is how Nouwen described ministry as a mutual experience (p. 42). Indeed, charity begins at home!
Our community gives relevance to the ministry we are doing. In human parlance, we support one another. And just I have stated that Christian ministry presupposes that Love which impels every priest-minister, love also presupposes community. When Nouwen observed that ‘priests and ministers are the least-confessing people in the Christian community’, it is because the old paradigm of ministry is still existing. Ministry before is one-way traffic. But I say, based on the author’s impression, Christian ministry today is a ‘two-way’ traffic.
What does this new paradigm imply? Henri did not develop well this particular idea. And I would like to continue from where he ended. Nouwen still perceived in his book that Christian minister and Christian faithful are still clearly distinct. The former ministers and the latter receives. However, for Nouwen, the mission is given to the community. And yet, outside the community are the recipients of the mission. For me I push on further. There is no such thing as outside the community. All of us belong to the community and in it, we minister to one another. The distinction is not real; it is only hypothetical.
The author’s proposition of confessing our sins to one another would not become a true sense of word, if there is still within us that real separation between the ‘clergy’ and the ‘laity’, between the ministering and those to be ministered. We are all ministers to one another and we all need to be ministered by each one. We are a community of Christian ministers. And outside this community, there is no one to minister to.
I don’t say remove the leaders of the Church. I don’t say the successors of the apostles are now irrelevant. What I mean is, leadership in the Church should be taken as a service. That is not new to us of course. But what is new is, the church leaders take the lead in living the Gospel ideals – to love as Christ the Good Shepherd did. Truly, Christian ministry is Communitarian.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
What is Christian Ministry (First Proposal)?
Christian Ministry as Incarnational
Nouwen’s book ‘In the Name of Jesus’ puts every priest and minister into his rightful place in the world of professionals. It tackles the root of every priest and minister’s identity. It sets the parameters and the sphere of influence of his role in society. In doing so, the Christian minister becomes more fruitful (not necessarily relevant) in his field. His identity is clarified and his role becomes meaningful.
The past centuries saw the multifaceted roles of the Church ministers especially the clerics. As a priest in those times means he has to be everything for the people. He has to know farming, to be engineers and church builders, to be skillful in crafts and means of livelihood, to take care of the sick in the town, to act as judge and peacemaker. He did these for the people.
Why was this so? It is because, most people in those times especially in the Middle Ages and specifically in Dark Age, were ignorant, illiterate and passive. They were very weak in many aspects and an average intelligent priest can suffice for all their needs. Life in those times were crude, so much so, people could have nowhere to go but to the Church. And so, the model of the church structure is parochial. The church is the center of the village, and all activities centered on the parish. The minister would just have to wait in his hallowed convent for people to come. And surely, they would come. Where else?
But in this modern time, other people are doing the things what the minister was doing before. In fact, they are more skillful, talented and professional than the priest. It seems that everything that the priest was doing before, has been snatched away from him and people were not coming to him anymore. People now prefer the ‘lay’ professionals to answer their needs.
To be a priest-minister today entails that we have to be professional lovers of the Lord and of His people. If everything today was done by professionals, then what is left for the priest-minister to do? There is only thing left. And that is, to be ‘signs and bearers’ of God’s love to other people. And he has got to be very professional in this. Or else, his identity is in question.
St. Paul admitted that the ‘episcopoi’ are God’s ambassadors and as one of the ministers, he urged the Corinthians to be reconciled with God (2 Cor. 5:20). I believe with conviction that this is the meaning of being a Christian minister. Why? Because this is who Jesus and what Jesus is. For God so loved so loved the world that He gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life (Jn 3:16).
Precisely, this is what Henri Nouwen mentioned in this book by way of a question: ‘Do you know the Incarnate God’? And he goes on saying: there is an enormous need for men and women to know the heart of God, a heart that forgives, that cares, that reaches out and wants to heal (p. 24). To be ministers today is to incarnate God’s love, to make it real, to bring it into people’s lives, through our very own lives. So, I affirmed what Nouwen wrote that to be a Christian minister today means to be ‘irrelevant’ in the eyes of the world. St. Paul’s language is more discouraging. He describes his ministry as folly to the elite people of his time – the Greeks. He writes to the Corinthians:
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1: 22-23).
In doing so, we participate in Christ’s very own ministry. A ministry which proclaims the most irrelevant message in the eyes of the modern time. But not for God. For this message is no other else than the message of God’s great love for us. Indeed, doing Christian ministry today is Incarnational.
Nouwen’s book ‘In the Name of Jesus’ puts every priest and minister into his rightful place in the world of professionals. It tackles the root of every priest and minister’s identity. It sets the parameters and the sphere of influence of his role in society. In doing so, the Christian minister becomes more fruitful (not necessarily relevant) in his field. His identity is clarified and his role becomes meaningful.
The past centuries saw the multifaceted roles of the Church ministers especially the clerics. As a priest in those times means he has to be everything for the people. He has to know farming, to be engineers and church builders, to be skillful in crafts and means of livelihood, to take care of the sick in the town, to act as judge and peacemaker. He did these for the people.
Why was this so? It is because, most people in those times especially in the Middle Ages and specifically in Dark Age, were ignorant, illiterate and passive. They were very weak in many aspects and an average intelligent priest can suffice for all their needs. Life in those times were crude, so much so, people could have nowhere to go but to the Church. And so, the model of the church structure is parochial. The church is the center of the village, and all activities centered on the parish. The minister would just have to wait in his hallowed convent for people to come. And surely, they would come. Where else?
But in this modern time, other people are doing the things what the minister was doing before. In fact, they are more skillful, talented and professional than the priest. It seems that everything that the priest was doing before, has been snatched away from him and people were not coming to him anymore. People now prefer the ‘lay’ professionals to answer their needs.
To be a priest-minister today entails that we have to be professional lovers of the Lord and of His people. If everything today was done by professionals, then what is left for the priest-minister to do? There is only thing left. And that is, to be ‘signs and bearers’ of God’s love to other people. And he has got to be very professional in this. Or else, his identity is in question.
St. Paul admitted that the ‘episcopoi’ are God’s ambassadors and as one of the ministers, he urged the Corinthians to be reconciled with God (2 Cor. 5:20). I believe with conviction that this is the meaning of being a Christian minister. Why? Because this is who Jesus and what Jesus is. For God so loved so loved the world that He gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life (Jn 3:16).
Precisely, this is what Henri Nouwen mentioned in this book by way of a question: ‘Do you know the Incarnate God’? And he goes on saying: there is an enormous need for men and women to know the heart of God, a heart that forgives, that cares, that reaches out and wants to heal (p. 24). To be ministers today is to incarnate God’s love, to make it real, to bring it into people’s lives, through our very own lives. So, I affirmed what Nouwen wrote that to be a Christian minister today means to be ‘irrelevant’ in the eyes of the world. St. Paul’s language is more discouraging. He describes his ministry as folly to the elite people of his time – the Greeks. He writes to the Corinthians:
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1: 22-23).
In doing so, we participate in Christ’s very own ministry. A ministry which proclaims the most irrelevant message in the eyes of the modern time. But not for God. For this message is no other else than the message of God’s great love for us. Indeed, doing Christian ministry today is Incarnational.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
INCULTURATION AND PREACHING GOD’S WORD
A reflection on the importance of Inculturation in homily making
n.b. I publish first my old reflections back then when I was a student of Theology in Parañaque. Hope you like it.
Preaching is basically a communication. And precisely, in preaching the preacher brings about the personal encounter between God and his hearers.
In that case, communication is a two-way process – the sender (minister of the Word) sends the Christian message to the recipient (the Christian congregation). Then the receivers, who are the hearers, send the feedback as their respond to the message. The feedback could be many: they are either troubled by the message, inspired to act, feeling good about it or simply experiencing God’s presence dwelling with them.
However, in the dynamics of communication, there could be what we call ‘communication gap’, wherein the message of the sender was not properly received. Why? As the principle of Inculturation would describe it: there is a cultural miscommunication due to the sender’s and receiver’s respective cultural screen. This means that the Christian message passes through communication screen of the sender. And from the sender, it passes through the cultural screen of the receiver. In the end, the Christian message could possibly be adulterated in this perspective.
Since preaching the Word of God is communication in the form of the homily, I should not undermine the ‘communication gap’ or the ‘cultural miscommunication’ that possibly exists between me and the people listening to me. And to do this, I must speak the language of the people. As language is part and parcel of culture, preparing a homily entails inculturation. A good homilist is a lover of inculturation. In other words, to be a good homilist is to be rooted in the spirit of inculturation!
Culture for me is people’s lifestyle. On the other hand, a certain lifestyle represents a culture. That is why, to start with a ‘human experience’ in preaching is precisely to be rooted in the lifestyle of the people - in the way they act, they work, they rear a family, they celebrate, etc.
And using the human experience of the people:
a) does not only mean telling stories, either fiction or non-fiction; though it could be part of human experience. Human experience is that which the community values, that which is relevant for them at the present moment, that which reflect their inner struggles and triumphs. In other words, ‘human experience’ represents the community holistically.
b) does not just stop in the first part of the homily. No, it must pervade in the whole of the homily. It does not only become a stepping stone, but the foundation of the whole homily.
And why all these two? It is because, to preach the Word of God, the homilist must use the language of the people. It is God’s Word delivered in people’s language. There can be no clearer evidence of the people’s language than their human experience, both personal and communitarian.
There are two reasons for a boring homily. First, when all you do in preaching the Word is by theological exposition. Exactly because, theology is not the language of my hearers. The Christian message takes on a ‘cultural screen’ so to say, which is alien to the ‘cultural screen’ of the people. In the process, I was not speaking the language of the people. I was speaking in my language – and obviously only me can understand it.
Second, when what I am talking has no relevance to my hearers. As for example, if I talk about the beauty of daily contemplation, I might ask myself first who my hearers are. Wait for a while! My audience is the ordinary people who have no luxury of ‘doing nothing’ the whole day just to attain perfect contemplation in prayer. The prayer I must introduce is not that kind of monastic prayer. Or else, my topic is irrelevant. It does not touch their present longings, dreams, preoccupations…
Here’s a sample story I delivered last summer when SARS was still the headline in all newspapers:
Mrs. Cruz was too happy to wait for the coming home of her three children from abroad. They would be taking their vacation this summer. Besides, she was also very excited on the ‘pasalubong’ for her. Overjoyed, she gathered all her grandchildren in time for the coming of their uncles and auntie.
First, there came Eugene who came from California. She happily received the gift from him. But much to her surprise, he gave her a ‘two-piece’. ‘Why on earth did you give this gift?”, she demanded. ‘Mom, I gave that to you because I would construct for you an Olympic-size swimming pool’, Eugene countered back. Upon hearing this, Mrs. Cruz was overjoyed that she told her grandchildren, ‘ok, bless and kiss kayo kay uncle ninyo’.
Then there was Mariz, who was working in England. Mrs. Cruz again receives the gift from her; but much perplexed. ‘Why on earth you gave me an air freshner?, she asked. ‘Mom, that is good for your brand new Mercedez’, Mariz retorted. Again, overjoyed, she told the kids, ‘kiss and bless kayo kay auntie Mariz ninyo’.
And lastly, there was Mario, coming all the way from Toronto, Canada. He handed her the gift. The gift was wrapped in a very glossy paper. And when she opened it, it was a surgical mask. So she asked him, ‘but why this gift, are you going to construct me a hospital for my old age?, she asked excitedly. But Mario answered categorically: No Mom, I bought this because I have SARS’. Mrs. Cruz immediately said to her grandchildren, ‘if you kiss and bless sa uncle ninyo, walang sakay sa bagong Mercedez at walang gamit sa bagong swimming pool.’
My message is:
Dear friends, if you mention SARS nowadays, all will tremble with fear. No one likes to go near the infected ones. Solution: quarantine. That’s for the common good; but not good for the one affected it.
When Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, they were terrified. As if, Jesus has got SARS for them. But come to think of it, Jesus did not bring SARS… Jesus brought them SCARS.
It means that his wounds are now healed; only SCARS are left He brought with him his healing power.
And in his coming back, he wished to say to them: ‘forget everything. Forget that you abandoned me. They are all gone, those hurts are healed. I got healing power in my resurrection. So be glad, don’t be afraid. Because I bring SCARS not SARS.
What does SCARS mean?
S – self; C – care; A – assurance; R – reconciliation; S – security.
Are our words to our loved ones, SCARS or SARS? Did we hurt others or give comforting words to them?
And so on and so fort…
How would I speak the language of the people in conveying the Gospel message of the Lord for them? Ah, I immerse myself into the daily life of the people. I must know their present joys and pains. I must be in touch with their values. I must know them! How? By being with them, be present with them all the time, listening to their opinions and hurts, celebrating with them, living their own lifestyles. I must immerse myself with them.
When Jesus wishes to proclaim his great love to his dear people, he uses a language which is both experiential and relevant to them. He calls himself the ‘Goodly Shepherd’ (Jn. 10). Shepherding is the daily experience of the people. And they know very well how much sacrifice and love they have to give in order to protect their flock. And so, when the Lord uses that language, his disciples understood him clearly and well. It does not end there. He is aware that his message, though not completely alien to the people, is something too hard for them to understand. In this regard, he uses many parables, various experiences of the people, in order to proclaim to them the Kingdom of God. Indeed, the Lord Jesus is the first promoter of inculturation. Jesus spoke the language of his people.
As Christ’s disciple, I am his minister sent to proclaim the Gospel. If a good homily is speaking the people’s language, then, I must not remain in my hallowed convent. I must meet where the people are – in their neighborhood, in their pasugalan, in their working places and in their homes. I must learn to live with them. In doing so, I can assimilate their culture and values.
Preparing a good homily is for me a good discipline to exercise the missionary aspect of ministry. There can only be a good homily if I know the people’s situation; thus speak in their language and my preaching becomes relevant to them.
A good homily is preaching God’s language in the language of the people. A good homily moves people. Why? Because a good homily is an inculturated homily.
Fr. Wilbert S. Dianon, SDB
A reflection on the importance of Inculturation in homily making
n.b. I publish first my old reflections back then when I was a student of Theology in Parañaque. Hope you like it.
Preaching is basically a communication. And precisely, in preaching the preacher brings about the personal encounter between God and his hearers.
In that case, communication is a two-way process – the sender (minister of the Word) sends the Christian message to the recipient (the Christian congregation). Then the receivers, who are the hearers, send the feedback as their respond to the message. The feedback could be many: they are either troubled by the message, inspired to act, feeling good about it or simply experiencing God’s presence dwelling with them.
However, in the dynamics of communication, there could be what we call ‘communication gap’, wherein the message of the sender was not properly received. Why? As the principle of Inculturation would describe it: there is a cultural miscommunication due to the sender’s and receiver’s respective cultural screen. This means that the Christian message passes through communication screen of the sender. And from the sender, it passes through the cultural screen of the receiver. In the end, the Christian message could possibly be adulterated in this perspective.
Since preaching the Word of God is communication in the form of the homily, I should not undermine the ‘communication gap’ or the ‘cultural miscommunication’ that possibly exists between me and the people listening to me. And to do this, I must speak the language of the people. As language is part and parcel of culture, preparing a homily entails inculturation. A good homilist is a lover of inculturation. In other words, to be a good homilist is to be rooted in the spirit of inculturation!
Culture for me is people’s lifestyle. On the other hand, a certain lifestyle represents a culture. That is why, to start with a ‘human experience’ in preaching is precisely to be rooted in the lifestyle of the people - in the way they act, they work, they rear a family, they celebrate, etc.
And using the human experience of the people:
a) does not only mean telling stories, either fiction or non-fiction; though it could be part of human experience. Human experience is that which the community values, that which is relevant for them at the present moment, that which reflect their inner struggles and triumphs. In other words, ‘human experience’ represents the community holistically.
b) does not just stop in the first part of the homily. No, it must pervade in the whole of the homily. It does not only become a stepping stone, but the foundation of the whole homily.
And why all these two? It is because, to preach the Word of God, the homilist must use the language of the people. It is God’s Word delivered in people’s language. There can be no clearer evidence of the people’s language than their human experience, both personal and communitarian.
There are two reasons for a boring homily. First, when all you do in preaching the Word is by theological exposition. Exactly because, theology is not the language of my hearers. The Christian message takes on a ‘cultural screen’ so to say, which is alien to the ‘cultural screen’ of the people. In the process, I was not speaking the language of the people. I was speaking in my language – and obviously only me can understand it.
Second, when what I am talking has no relevance to my hearers. As for example, if I talk about the beauty of daily contemplation, I might ask myself first who my hearers are. Wait for a while! My audience is the ordinary people who have no luxury of ‘doing nothing’ the whole day just to attain perfect contemplation in prayer. The prayer I must introduce is not that kind of monastic prayer. Or else, my topic is irrelevant. It does not touch their present longings, dreams, preoccupations…
Here’s a sample story I delivered last summer when SARS was still the headline in all newspapers:
Mrs. Cruz was too happy to wait for the coming home of her three children from abroad. They would be taking their vacation this summer. Besides, she was also very excited on the ‘pasalubong’ for her. Overjoyed, she gathered all her grandchildren in time for the coming of their uncles and auntie.
First, there came Eugene who came from California. She happily received the gift from him. But much to her surprise, he gave her a ‘two-piece’. ‘Why on earth did you give this gift?”, she demanded. ‘Mom, I gave that to you because I would construct for you an Olympic-size swimming pool’, Eugene countered back. Upon hearing this, Mrs. Cruz was overjoyed that she told her grandchildren, ‘ok, bless and kiss kayo kay uncle ninyo’.
Then there was Mariz, who was working in England. Mrs. Cruz again receives the gift from her; but much perplexed. ‘Why on earth you gave me an air freshner?, she asked. ‘Mom, that is good for your brand new Mercedez’, Mariz retorted. Again, overjoyed, she told the kids, ‘kiss and bless kayo kay auntie Mariz ninyo’.
And lastly, there was Mario, coming all the way from Toronto, Canada. He handed her the gift. The gift was wrapped in a very glossy paper. And when she opened it, it was a surgical mask. So she asked him, ‘but why this gift, are you going to construct me a hospital for my old age?, she asked excitedly. But Mario answered categorically: No Mom, I bought this because I have SARS’. Mrs. Cruz immediately said to her grandchildren, ‘if you kiss and bless sa uncle ninyo, walang sakay sa bagong Mercedez at walang gamit sa bagong swimming pool.’
My message is:
Dear friends, if you mention SARS nowadays, all will tremble with fear. No one likes to go near the infected ones. Solution: quarantine. That’s for the common good; but not good for the one affected it.
When Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, they were terrified. As if, Jesus has got SARS for them. But come to think of it, Jesus did not bring SARS… Jesus brought them SCARS.
It means that his wounds are now healed; only SCARS are left He brought with him his healing power.
And in his coming back, he wished to say to them: ‘forget everything. Forget that you abandoned me. They are all gone, those hurts are healed. I got healing power in my resurrection. So be glad, don’t be afraid. Because I bring SCARS not SARS.
What does SCARS mean?
S – self; C – care; A – assurance; R – reconciliation; S – security.
Are our words to our loved ones, SCARS or SARS? Did we hurt others or give comforting words to them?
And so on and so fort…
How would I speak the language of the people in conveying the Gospel message of the Lord for them? Ah, I immerse myself into the daily life of the people. I must know their present joys and pains. I must be in touch with their values. I must know them! How? By being with them, be present with them all the time, listening to their opinions and hurts, celebrating with them, living their own lifestyles. I must immerse myself with them.
When Jesus wishes to proclaim his great love to his dear people, he uses a language which is both experiential and relevant to them. He calls himself the ‘Goodly Shepherd’ (Jn. 10). Shepherding is the daily experience of the people. And they know very well how much sacrifice and love they have to give in order to protect their flock. And so, when the Lord uses that language, his disciples understood him clearly and well. It does not end there. He is aware that his message, though not completely alien to the people, is something too hard for them to understand. In this regard, he uses many parables, various experiences of the people, in order to proclaim to them the Kingdom of God. Indeed, the Lord Jesus is the first promoter of inculturation. Jesus spoke the language of his people.
As Christ’s disciple, I am his minister sent to proclaim the Gospel. If a good homily is speaking the people’s language, then, I must not remain in my hallowed convent. I must meet where the people are – in their neighborhood, in their pasugalan, in their working places and in their homes. I must learn to live with them. In doing so, I can assimilate their culture and values.
Preparing a good homily is for me a good discipline to exercise the missionary aspect of ministry. There can only be a good homily if I know the people’s situation; thus speak in their language and my preaching becomes relevant to them.
A good homily is preaching God’s language in the language of the people. A good homily moves people. Why? Because a good homily is an inculturated homily.
Fr. Wilbert S. Dianon, SDB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
newly ordained Salesian priest
It is not I, but Christ who lives in me (Gal 2:20)
