Feliciano V. Cariño, General Secretary CCA

I. Background on the Colloquium

The Colloquium on “The Church in Asia in the 21st Century,” which was organized by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) at the Redemptorist Centre in Pattaya, Thailand, in August, 1997, was in fact not one event but part of a series of events, indeed a comprehensive process of reflection, by which the FABC is attempting to project, articulate and share “A Vision of the Church in Asia” towards the 21st century. The preparatory documents of the Colloquium indicate that while the process goes all the way back to the original inspirations of the Second Vatican Council, it has taken on more concrete considerations over the past six years when at its Fifth Plenary Assembly in 1990, the FABC drew up the “Asian Vision” through what it called “A New Way of Being Church” in Asia and called the churches in Asia to consider what “Journeying Together Toward the Third Millennium” might mean for them. It gained further momentum and direction as the Church in Asia began to prepare for the celebration of the “Great Jubilee Year” and to respond to the new challenges of the new millennium, specially as this has been articulated by Pope John Paul II in “Towards the Coming of the Third Millennium.”

The Colloquium therefore has had the character of both looking back and looking forward, of consolidating and reviewing past work and affirmations and examining new realities and challenges that are emerging ahead or along the way. Thus, the process includes a critical examination of “where we are as the Church in Asia,” and an effort at “understanding the reasons for our failures to concretize our Vision of Church in Asia.” More importantly, it seeks to give expression and recognition to a growing sense that as we approach the new millennium, as we move to the turn of the century, “new challenges are awaiting us” that require fresh approaches and even more serious attention, both in the pastoral action of the Church and in the further reshaping of its vision of “being Church.” Thus, the theme of the Colloquium followed after the previous theme of “A New Way of Being Church” but focused more sharply around the concern of “The Church in the 21st Century,” looking at this broad theme in terms of a “Vision of Communion and Solidarity in the Context of Globalization.”

The preparatory and follow up process, is impressive. It involves various consultations and study days on the local, national and subregional levels in which various “sectors” of the Church are involved, leading towards a consolidation of results and feedback that would constitute “a stream of input” towards the celebration of the “Great Jubilee Year” and beyond into a Church presumably better equipped and grounded in “communion and solidarity” to move on to the 21st century.
The importance of the Colloquium is underscored by its participants. 124 participants were listed in the official “list of participants.” There seemed more. I understand that more were expected but some in the end could not attend. By my count, there were some 40 bishops from all parts of Asia who attended. Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and of the Central Committee for the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, not only attended but read a paper. The Secretary for the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace, Msgr. Diarmuid Martin, also attended and read a paper. The other participants included representatives of Episcopal Conferences and their respective Jubilee Year 2000 Committees; Episcopal Commissions involved in human development, inculturation, social communication and other sociopastoral ministries; collaborators of the Bishops at the national, regional and Asian levels (clergy, religious and laity); Officials of the FABC, International Catholic Organizations, chosen experts and resource persons in the areas of concern of the FABC.

II. Themes and Issues

The central theme of the Colloquium was being “Church in Asia in the 21st Century.” I underscore “being” Church. As Cardinal Etchegaray noted strongly in his presentation, a Colloquium such as this, embodying the possible contribution of the Asian Churches in the Church’s journey towards the new millennium, must focus on what it means to be Church in a confident manner, expressing as it were a “confident faith” so that even when we are concerned about changing social conditions, we do so as an expression and a “test” of faith. Church and world, faith and society, are first and foremost a theological issue, and while this can not be dealt with in abstract terms or without understanding the “changing language” with which the “world” understands itself, it is nevertheless a matter that involves a dialogue of and within faith.

Being Church, however, was understood in terms of two interrelated and inseparable dimensions. As the explanatory note on the theme put it, being Church involves “communion” which is “our way of life as Church,” and “solidarity” which is our commitment to the common good of the whole human family.” The preparatory process and the themes and issues with which it was to deal embodied in very concrete ways these two dimensions of “being Church.” Thus, the preparatory documents called for reflection and discussion on remembering our redemption in Jesus Christ; incarnating the Spirituality of Jesus in Asia; evangelization through the Church as communion; a life of dialogue, discovery and discernment; rejoicing as a repentant people; reminding ourselves of the life, mission and the need for unity among all Christians: the expression of repentance in terms of reconciliation, retribution, and redistribution (charity, justice and solidarity); and the “refounding” the Church of Christ in Asia today. They also drew attention however to “our experience of the world and Church in Asia” and pointed to the emerging challenges of the 21st century as an invitation to a new consciousness and co-responsibility; to an understanding of the world of secularism, modernity and materialism, to the reality of dehumanizing poverty, and to discerning the signs of hope in the world and in the Church.

The same rhythm of “communion” and “solidarity” was embodied in the program of the Colloquium. Here the context of solidarity became more focused as were the issues. Four clusters of issues formed the core of the presentations and discussions:

A. “Globalization” and economics took center stage in the understanding of “megatrends” in Asia. Several papers were devoted to the discussion of this issue and how the Church might respond or relate to it. Recent developments in the area of trade liberalization policies, the setting up of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the role of the international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), and the role and impact of regional economic organizations were given analytical attention.

B. The “culture of modernism” was noted in a problematic way in terms of the impact of the world of communications and media, in terms of the “homogenization” of tastes, needs and lifestyles, in temnjs of value transformation and the impact of technology on persons and communities, especially children, youth and the family.

C. The problematic issues related to the transnational mobility of people that have become a primary feature of modern life were discussed in terms of the predicament of migrant workers, and refugees and other displaced peoples in Asia. Attention was also given to the uncontrolled rise of tourism and its moral, social, and economic consequences.

D. The rise of “ethnic and religious fundamentalism” was given special attention in the understanding of the religious situation. This, it was pointed out, has gained special consideration and importance as the search for ethnic and religious identities takes place in the light of the overpowering impact of the force of the globalization of economic and political life.

III. An Ecumenical Perspective on the Colloquium: Some Comments and Reflections

Obviously, it would be presumptuous for me to pretend to be able to give a full assessment of the Colloquium or to be able, in a brief presentation to respond fully to its many facets and suggestions. I venture a few general comments and reflections only in terms of underscoring its ecumenical significance and noting some of the ecumenical possibilities it opens up.

A. I was one of the 124 listed participants of the Colloquium. I was the only one from the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA), although there were quite a few in the meeting who have had CCA contacts and involvement in the past. For this I am very glad and felt very honored. But for this, I was also sad. It would have been very good, indeed vitally important, if some more of our own leaders in the CCA could have attended. It was for me important to get a sense of where the FABC and its various constituencies are in regard to concerns about the Church in Asia, where and what it is and where and what it should be in the crucial years ahead in Asian life. Deepening mutual
involvement in each other’s life and work is one of the primary intentions of the Asian Movement for Christian Unity (AMCU), and in this particular context, two things are important to bear in mind in terms of the future:

1. I felt hampered in my participation by the fact that I had little background of the thinking and the events that have gone before the Colloquium. Presumably as we move towards the future, and as we take more seriously our hope of “journeying together towards the new millennium,” greater involvement at various levels and phases of programs can be strengthened in order to deeper mutual participation and involvement.

2. Of even greater importance is the fact that there is a great similarity, indeed a lot of overlap and even commonality, of concerns and issues. “On being Church,” the theme of the Colloquium, is at the center of ecumenical discussion and concern from the beginning of the ecumenical movement, but most critically at the present time when the various ecumenical organizations are thinking about a “common understanding and vision” of ecumenical life. The issues of faith and economic life in the context of globalization, the transnational mobility of people in the increasingly borderless world in which we now live, the question of modernity and post-modernity, the issues of global communication and information technology, and of ethnic and religious fundamentalism are all lively issues of ecumenical concern and debate. As we journey towards the new millennium, it is not only our faith, but also the world’s life that will demand and put pressure upon us that either we journey together, think and act together, or become irrelevant together.

B. “On being Church,” as I noted above, is at the center of ecumenical discussion most specially at this time of ecumenical transition into the new millennium; so is the issue of “jubilee.” “Let the Church be the Church” is a cry that has been at the heart of the ecumenical movement from its beginnings; it has become in recent time the critical fulcrum around which ecumenical life and work is being thought and lived out in the present. It is interesting to note, for example, that as I prepared to go to Pattaya, I received a copy of Konrad Raiser’s book, To Be the Church: Challenges and Hopes for a New Millennium. Raiser, who as most of you here must know, is General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, wrote the book as part of his reflections on a common understanding and vision of the ecumenical movement.

The point is also clearly made in a very recent note I received from the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches in Australia. He puts it succinctly: what ecumenicity is about is not about being part of “ecumenical programs” or “agendas.” It is about “being Church” and about churches being ecumenical in their life together and in their relationship and action in the world in which they live. It is also noteworthy that as the FABC is drawn towards the celebration of the “Great Jubilee Year,” the World Council of Churches prepares also for “A Jubilee Assembly” around the theme “Turn to God, Rejoice in Hope.” I should note that as I prepared to come to Denpasar during the last few days, one of the books that just arrived on my desk is Hans Ucko’s The Jubilee Challenge, Utopia or Possibility? Jewish and Christian Insights. The book is one of the preparatory materials for the “Jubilee Assembly” of the World Council. It covers very similar and common Biblical and theological themes to those noted in Pope John Paul II’s call for the celebration of the “Great Jubilee Year,” and Cardinal Etchegaray’s paper in Pattaya on “Millennium Jubilee: Church Event-Challenge to Society.”

C. One of the issues raised by Raiser in his discussion of challenges and hopes for the new millennium is the challenge of “inclusivity.” It is the same challenge that a Roman Catholic theologian at an ecumenical consultation in Princeton referred to as the “challenge of comprehensiveness.” It is a challenge that we need constantly and intentionally to deal with and which is one of the key concerns of AMCU. This challenge has two broad components:

1. It is the challenge first of all of including within the direct purview and life of the ecumenical fellowship the broadest range of Christian traditions and confessions, and within the life of the Churches and ecumenical bodies the widest range of involvement and participation in terms of clergy and laity, men and women, youth and the elderly, the disabled, indigenous peoples and other such “sectors” or groups in society. In Asian ecumenical circles, the issue of “inclusivity” involves even the issue of our relationship with the “other faiths” and religions of Asia, within a concept of a wider and more comprehensive ecumenism. In the increasingly borderless world of economic and political life in which we are being drawn, and which will intensify in the coming new century, the issue of “common ground” and “common fellowship” not only of the whole Christian family but also of religious faiths will become a critical point in the relationship between Church and world, and of religion and society.

2. It is also however the challenge of “inclusivity” and “advocacy,” or as the paper on the Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches has referred to it, of “relationships” and “prophecy.” Much has been written on this subject recently in ecumenical circles. A recent ecumenical publication, Ecclesiology and Ethics tries to put together as common and complementary elements of ecumenical life “ethical engagement, moral formation and the nature of the Church” or, as others would put it more simply, between the concerns of unity and faith and order, and demands of prophetic witness in society. The study puts together the results of three previous studies on “Costly Unity,” “Costly Commitment,” and “Costly Obedience,” all of which tackle at various phases the integrality of the call for a “wider unity” and the demands of advocacy, of the need and the demand to build relations within the Christian family and the demands of “taking options.”

I do not think it is possible for me to adjudicate these issues in this paper. I wish only to point out that it was an issue, at times erupting on the floor, but often subdued as a strong undercurrent of concern, I noted rather palpably in the discussion at Pattaya. It is a significant issue as well of wider ecumenical discussion and concern.

D. Finally, a few notes on the issue of globalization, which was a central concern of the Colloquium.

1. Globalization has become one of the “in-words” of ecumenical discussion and concern in recent times. There are not many ecumenical events that take place nowadays that do not touch on this issue. It is obviously the dominant reality of the collective life of people and nations in our time, so potent and full of issues for or against human development, so that it presses upon everyone who wants to make sense of the times in which we live, or who wants to be concerned about “keeping or making life more human.” I am tempted to refer to it as the “great new fact of our time,” the words, you recall that William Temple used to refer to the birth of the World Council of Churches; but I demur in doing so mainly because I really do not think it is new even when I think that it is indeed the dominant fact of our lives.

Globalization is a process that has been going for centuries. It is a process that has been involved in the expansion of the West, of which the Christian missionary enterprise and the expansion of the Church was a part, and of which Robert Heilbroner has referred to as the emergence of “world history.” It strikes us so strongly as we come to the end of the century and the millennium because of the astounding and dramatic form and pace in which it has accelerated and come upon us in the last decades, and because the manner in which it has taken place under other auspices than our own and outside of religious and ecclesiastical control. It has startled us and many others in so many ways, and while some of us are quick at times to make moral and other judgments, it is in my view something that is above all frustrating and overwhelming to us because of the overpowering force, the seeming inexorable way it is sweeping over all parts of our lives as the “great fact of our time” as we move to the next century.

Thus, as I noted earlier, the FABC statement on “A New Way Being Church: Our Vision of Communion and Solidarity in the Context of Asia” that was drawn up in 1990, shifts in 1997 to “The Church in Asia in the 21st Century: Towards Communion and Solidarity in the Context of Globalization.” Asia has become “global.” This is part of our reality; it is part of the common context in which we journey together towards the new century and millennium. It is important therefore that an ecumenical approach to this reality must be developed and encouraged.

Thus, I was glad to be in Pattaya and get a sense of how various FABC constituencies are reflecting on the issue. I should note that in Asia, three events that are being planned by the CCA to take place this year and possibly up to early next year that will be dealing with this issue as well. In late February this year in Bangalore, a Consultation on “Globalization and Human Rights” will be held under the auspices of our Cluster Program on Faith, Witness and Service. Later in September, in conjunction with a Jubilee Celebration of the founding of the World Council of Churches (WCC) which is planned to take place in New Delhi under the joint auspices of the WCC, the CCA, and the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI), a Consultation on “Faith, Economic Life and Globalization” is to be held as part of the Jubilee events. Finally, an Asian Conference on Church and Society is in process of preparation, to be held also in the last quarter of this year, where the issue of economic life and globalization will be one of the subjects of discussion. We will be hoping for FABC participation in these events.

2. I appreciate the inclination and effort on the part of many at the Colloquium to avoid either “demonizing” or “sacralizing” globalization, either, in other words, looking at it as the epitome of evil or the paragon of economic development and the sure way to human progress. I also appreciate the position expressed by one of the bishops that we should resist any tendency, either on the positive or negative side, to be deterministic in the way in which we look at this new reality. It is not, and should not be looked upon as a “closed” and predetermined reality. I appreciate, and to a great extent agree with, the perspective that was expressed by Msgr. Diarmuid Martin in his paper that the starting point of our consideration is and should be the universality of the human family, how it is important that in the new global context we should bring “the light of the Gospel message to the detailed concrete processes of globalization,” and how it is equally important to see the Church as a natural actor on the global scene because “it is the fundamental sign and sacrament of the unity of humankind.” I appreciate finally Msgr. Martin’s sober and sobering assessment that globalization is historical reality and process; that it is a fact, and as fact and historical reality is irreversible. It is in this sense the new historical context in wlkich we need to express our vision of “being Church,” and to continue to witness and work towards the values we have always espoused, namely, the human character of development, the dignity of the human, the unity of the human family, and the common responsibility for all people and for all of creation.

IV. Postscript

I close with a brief postscript. A century, 100 years, is a long time, a lot of time to contemplate and certainly to envision. Specially, in the light of the acceleration of human development in various fields of endeavor, it is shuddering to even assume that it is possible for us to “foresee” what may happen in the next century. What would we have said about the Church and about the prospects or predicament of the Christian enterprise and of the life of society if we were sitting here in 1898 and looking at the 20th century instead of the 21st? Looking back at the 20th century which is about to pass, would what we have said been correct? What if they were wrong?

In my ecumenical history, I know of one who made such bold predictions and interpretations of the coming 20th century at the end of the 19th. John R. Mott, considered one of the fathers of the modern ecumenical movement, looked at the coming century at the end of the 19th and boldly forecast “the evangelization of the world in the present generation.” He was wrong in this forecast. He was also wrong in his assessments of the prospects of Western civilization and of the possibilities of technological society as a preparatio evangelica, a preparation for the Gospel. The decline of the West, the rise of peoples of other faiths and religions and of other civilizations and many other factors he could not have foreseen blew down his optimism about “evangelization.” His perceptions of technological civilization had no way of envisaging the new technologies of communication, of information, or of the instruments of war and mass destruction that have emerged in the 20th century. What were in fact projections in the world of imagination and fantasy at the end of the 19th century have become reality at the end of the 20th. I assume that many others who also tried to “forecast” the contours of the 20th century would have to admit that they could not have seen, even only a glimpse, of what transpired over this span of time.

The fact of the matter is that history in not in our hands, certainly not entirely in our hands. It is made elsewhere often by forces and agents that may be hostile to us, alien to our concerns, or even contrary to the directions in which we want history to move. What does it mean for us to witness to the realities of our faith, to the universality of our fellowship and of the human family in such a context of historical ambiguity? It is important to note these because, contrary to earlier expectations, in Asia we enter the new millennium not with the confidence and sense of progress of earlier decades but with the experience of great volatility and uncertainty. In this context, we will be facing great challenges and new questions we have not faced before.

Sensing the incredible explosion of knowledge and of human innovation and monumental changes in human lif~, specially as we entered the last quarter of the 20th century, we can only, to use the words of David Ford of Cambridge, feel “overwhelmed by the overwhelming” and should therefore be more humble and less pretentious in what we try to say or do, “overwhelmed by the inexorable” and critical demands which these put upon us, and overwhelmed by our discoveries of “Divine presence in forms and guises we have not expected, and in places we have not anticipated or foreseen. This is why I echo again the words of Bishop Francisco Claver in Pattaya for us to eschew determinism, and embody a new sense of openness, freedom and flexibility to welcome the “dawning of the new.”