Interview with Tissa Balasuriya Reader
Astronomy
teaches us that there is order in this universe and it is sustained. In the
nature around we perceive a miniscule resemblance of this order and harmony. Nature
works on itself to maintain this harmony. We see it resisting activities that
disturb this harmony. At times it appears as if there is an unseen hand guiding
them towards equilibrium. Human beings are not exempt from this dynamics. The
hint is our natural inclination towards peace, happiness, unity, love, and mutual
respect. Despite our failures small and big, retrievable and irretrievable,
genocides and ecocides, history teaches that humanity is limping in the right
direction promoting peace, harmony and well being of everyone. We resist, often
condemn, ideologies, theories, sciences, institutions, persons, and activities anything
that disturbs the realization of this harmony. We fight against them. We learn.
We relearn. We correct our mistakes and develop new theories. Though the degree
of our growth and development varies from country to country, culture to
culture, community to community, person to person, our gradual growth towards
its realization is an undeniable. For example, one can never win majority’s
approval for discrimination on the basis of color, creed or caste, exploitation
on the basis of class or gender, militant autocracy, capitalist’s greed, ecological
negligence or insensitivity in this modern world. Our dream is to realize that harmony
which the universe yearns, thus form a society where we experience equanimity,
happiness, peace, equality, justice, love, mutual respect, pluralism, good
will, care, equilibrium and generosity.
Different
religions, ideologies and philosophies call that state of harmony by different
names. Christian theology would describe it as the kingdom of god. It believes
that the kingdom is already and not yet. In and through our efforts to
actualize (live) it, we progress towards it along with the whole cosmos guided
by the divine (spirit). The irony is that
as we grow more human, more spiritual (journey forward towards the kingdom) we
are doing away with things like religion, rituals, creeds and cults that were
once regarded as spiritual. Here we discuss Christianity, to be precise
Catholicism. We experience a shrinking church, and observe churches stand
almost empty during its rituals and worship. Though this is true only as far as
first world countries are concerned, it does not stand farfetched for India. Our
fear is whether this change/transformation forms part of our growth and our
development in spirituality, in this journey towards the kingdom. Tissa
Balasuriya in his book Eucharist and
Human Liberation (1977) works on
this issue, situated in Sri Lanka yet conscious of the global scenario, to
point to us the right direction for future. Here we discuss it with the
Balasuriya reader to present Balasuriya’s views on the present-day-eucharist
and its relevance for the contemporary society.
 |
| courtesy: ncronline.org |
Eucharist
is the highest form of worship for Catholics in general. Quite surprisingly we
find a gradual decline in our enthusiasm or need for it. People turn up often
for some special occasions. Apart from the increasing number of absentees, one
can effortlessly gather mounting criticisms against it like the meaningless
rituals, the hypocrite priest, the long duration, and the unprepared sermons from
those who participate in it. Most of those who frequent these celebrations are
present for reasons not close to those shared by Christian doctrines (to
commemorate, re-enact and be nourished from the economy of salvation). What is
the value/meaning of eucharist in contemporary society? Where does it stand? Is
it relevant?
Catholics are no
homogenous group. We can be divided on the basis of class, caste, gender,
colour, literacy/education, and culture. We are therefore compelled to conceive
the present day eucharist, its meaning and relevance from the multiple contexts
of its participants. So we find some who turn to church, some seldom and others
never. It varies according to countries, the socio-economic conditions and
education. Hence Balasuriya chooses to evaluate and discuss the meaning and
relevance of eucharist in as much as it contributes to the kingdom which was
proclaimed by Jesus Christ. The point then about reducing participation and
general dislike for eucharist is just one of the problems, however not less
important. In the book, he affirms that the present-day-eucharist in its form
and content does not contribute to the kingdom; it is irrelevant and at times
anti-kingdom.
In the
contemporary society the educated seek to go beyond rituals (worships),
irrational testimonies on life and its dynamics (scriptures) to experience the
core of one’s being, the depth dimension of reality. Though it doesn’t get such
clear articulations, we can grasp this spirit in their search for
meaning/fulfillment in life, their thirst to go beyond the routine. Eucharist with
its external celebrations is unprepared to quench such thirst for inner meaning,
equanimity and fulfillment in our life. Speaking about this, he would note “It
[eucharist] is hardly a school of spirituality” (30). It would be foolish on
our part to think that the absentees have fallen apart to lead a chaotic
immoral living. Actually we see them practicing/into methods and spiritualities
that assist this thirst. Any such depth awareness transforms one into a
selfless person committed to the kingdom. The fact is given the present form we
wonder whether eucharist seeks our transformation at all amidst its crowded
preoccupations.
Much less does
eucharist promote peace, justice and equality. It is hierarchical, dualistic
and often form part of the oppressive,
anti-kingdom minority. We find in our eucharists discriminations founded on
caste, colour, creed, class and gender. Take for example the bias towards
women. Despite prolonged explanations and justifications, it succeeded to
defend its standpoint on women through its autocratic ruling for no more
discussions. Consider casteism and racism subtly present in the clerics. It
would be a difficult task to list eagalitarian eucharistic (parish) communities
and those that are committed to building an egalitarian society. Balasuriya
would comment, “much of the concern of the central [and local] church
authorities is […] conformity to the rubrics and a quantitative fulfillment of
the Sunday obligation. [...] There is much less emphasis, if at all, on the
qualitative and deeper personal and social dimensions of the Eucharist.” (31).
You
make point, when you say that Eucharist is non-relevant to the deeper quest of
modern men and women. Is there a way out? On the other hand, it is alarming to
call it anti-kingdom? How can the holy eucharist founded on and by Jesus Christ
perpetuate disunity, inequality and conformity/indifference to the present
injustices? Given the possibilities of vernacular celebrations the
present-day-eucharist is close to the socio-economic and cultural context of
the faithful and humanity at large. The sermons work on the themes of kingdom
values. Practically we see every eucharistic (parish) community involved in
aid-work for the welfare of the poor.
To make it
relevant, we should enrich the eucharist with wealth of the
mystical-contemplative tradition of the christian middle ages and monasteries.
Often our irrelevance is due to our failure to renew or update the liturgy and
theology of prayer along the lines of the rising contemporary theology. Our
efforts to incorporate and integrate yoga, meditation and other eastern
spiritual methods in our private chapels and religious orders as wished also by
Balasuriya is yet to be adapted for the faithful. It is interesting to note the
mushrooming of adoration chapels in most of the church premises. They quite
approving the call of Balasuriya about the urgency of attention to the need for
reflective prayer and contemplation of the contemporary society. But, we have a
long way to go to evolve a method of worship that helps the faithful to
experience the divine, the non-duality of reality, and transform themselves into
selfless persons.
The concept –
present-day-eucharist is anti-kingdom - summarizes Balasuriya’s views on eucharist.
But, the formulation is mine. He would note, “the history of the eucharist is
one of very close associate with oppression” (37). The question therefore is not “does present-day-eucharist serve the
kingdom instead whether can it (if at
all possible) serve the kingdom?” Stained with power, wealth, authourity and
lordship as the state religion of the Roman Empire, medieval feudalism,
colonialism and capitalism the present day eucharist is far-off from the ideals
of the last supper and worship of first christians under persecution. Balasuriya
would even highlight the intimate connection between feudalism, colonial
expansion of Europe and capitalism and
eucharist to remind how christian europe has plundered its poor neighbours but
for an insignificant voices of protests. He asks, “how and why it was possible
for the christian conscience to be so conditioned that the celebration of the
mass could go hand in hand with history’s worst plunder and genocide? [...] The
‘christians’ were the robbers and plunderers.” (38). In the book noted above, we
are often reminded that eucharist is a worship of the powerful; it is deaf and
blind to the cries of the poor and the plight of the oppressed masses.
We are thus
skeptical about the belief that present-day-eucharist is founded on Jesus and
works to build his kingdom. If at all it builds, it would be a kingdom anything
but what was intended Jesus. Our concern for the kingdom at the most may end up
in charity. The call is for radical transformation among us and then in the
society where we live. Eucharist is supposed to facilitate this transformation
always reminding us of our model in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
and the assistance in the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, we are contended with
little charity “out of our wealth” (Mk 12.44) and social services. He writes,
Christians when they meet in and around the parish
liturgies are usually interested in their own parochial concerns and charitable
activities. It is surprizing to see how much of parish life is geared towards
charity, church buildings and educational activities and fund raising for them.
[...] The church utilizes the Eucharistic gatherings to conscientize people
about floods, earthquakes and other emergencies. Such social services carried
out with much good will, but in a merely charitative manner, do not basically
change the relationships between the exploiter and exploited. [...] Some social
services are dangerous. For they tranquilise the people of good will within an
oppressive situation. The victims are placed on the dole and the exploiters are
made benefactors, philanthropists, and ‘donors’ countries. (53)
Therefore, given
the structure, theology, socio-economic and cultural position of eucharist, it
would perpetuate poverty, injustice and inequality despite our noble intentions.
Because the eucharist is on the side of the powerful and the exploiters. The
rest are tolerated in as much as they follow like a lamb. So, if ever we
consider to build the kingdom, an egalitarian society open to the divine in and
around us, we need new directions for our eucharists.
What
are the proposals for renewal from Tissa Balasuriya? Even if they make sense
can they be actualized? The present-day-eucharist is a fruit of 20 centuries of
tradition and has a direct impact on at least a quarter of humanity.
Balasuriya’s
contention is not that all is not well with the present-day-eucharist. He mines
to discover the disorientations and anti-kingdom influences which have dislocated
it from its true foundation – the kingdom of God. The lack radical sensitivity
to the unjust structures that perpetuates inhuman poverty, the discriminations
and injustices; the failure to transform the faithful into people (citizens) of
the kingdom; and the inability to create an atmosphere of prayer, communion and
contemplation in our eucharists are his concerns. In the mean time he acknowledges
our efforts towards renewal of liturgy like, growing emphasis on qualitative
participation than (mindless) frequency, the possibilities for meaningful
celebration eucharist in small groups divided on the basis age, areas of
interest (actions groups, charismatics etc.), the decreasing gap between the
clergy and the faithful, and the increasing sensitivity to the cultural and
local traditions all these already at the time of writing this book (1977). This
is also our experience. We live these changes in our eucharists. But, it does
not suffice. It does not commit us to the kingdom. He finds it impotent for the
kingdom of God. Hence, he seeks a radical renewal.
First, he
strongly recommends a shift from Eucharist founded on an abstract theology to
one that incarnates in the socio-economic, cultural and political (history)
conditions of the people especially the oppressed, discriminated and poor
masses. We will thus be able to liberate eucharist from its self-contradictions
claiming to re-enact life, death and resurrection of Jesus but built on pride, power
and wealth. Second, he asks priests and clergy to be Christ-like presiding the
eucharist through word and life. They are therefore, well dispossessed to
demand the faithful to imitate Christ who is enacted in every eucharist.
Third, he wants everyone
to know and understand that a eucharistic community is called to live as
disciples of christ in their respective times and places. We cannot participate
in eucharist and remian insensitive to the ‘evil’ in and around us. We cannot
but become selfless persons, generous and loveing. Hence the duty of the
priests is to be enlightened and in turn enlighten the faithful about the
meaning of eucharist. This however, would not be a simple task. Four, he
insists on the need for eucharist to incarnate in the cultural traditions of
the people. Jesus incarnated into Palestinian Jewish culture. When the faith
travelled to Rome it incarnated into Greco-Roman culture. It is then unjust and
uncorrect to transplant it in other cultures. The right thing would have been
to incarnate it in our culture, in the socio-economic and political condition
of the locale. It becomes all the more necessary in India where Christianity
(clergy and faithful) still is indentified as foreign aid. In the context of
Sri Lanka he would point it as an important reason for conceiving Christianity
as opposed to other religions and culture of the place. Further, he would
suggest ‘in-culturation (incarnating gospel in the culture) as the best
antidote to heal harm we have done to them and overcome the temptations of
uniformity (in our thought and worship) in Roman Catholicism.
Here are some
concrete suggestions from Balasuriya. He envisions eucharists that would effect
commitment to God in and through our commitment to each other and society among
the faithful. Such eucharists are then built on the communion of people in the
name of God for the kingdom. It would require a conscious, reflected
(self-examination, social analysis) and action-oriented formation of
communities and eucharistic celebrations. This cannot happen with the current
style of parish administration. We need to divide our parish communities to
smaller groups or evolve methods to form eucharistic communities within the
large fold. If we want our eucharists to contribute to the welfare of fellow
human beings, the society and the nature, the content then should also address these
issues. Balasuriya here goes in detail to suggest eighteen varied themes and a
couple of sub themes under each them at random to integrate in eucharist for
prayer and action-oriented reflection. I quote
food: eating, fasting,
famine; clothing: needs, cold, uses,
fashions; shelter: needs, slums and
shanties, inequalities, remedies; family:
parents’ days, father’s days, mother’s day, women, children, youth, teenagers,
the aged, the child, divorce, abortion, family planning; sex and marriage; family life, women’s rights; environment: pollution,
waste, care of nature; health:
disease, medicine, social services, doctors, nurses, world health (Good
Samaritan); education: ignorance,
needs, schools, universities, mass media, radio, TV, newspapers, books (Press
Sunday); work: employment, unemployment,
wages, conditions of work; leisure:
availability, use, orientation of cinema, sports, music, arts; freedom: human personality development,
independence day, love and service, church of service, disinterested charity; transport: needs, public, private,
accidents, tourism; public life: government,
political parties, companies, corporations; truth:
honesty and sincerity in public and private life, respect for truth from
whatever source it comes; justice: social
justice within the nation, capitalism, socialism, racial harmony, human rights;
religious harmony: wider ecumenism ,
tolerance, cooperation among religions, Christian unity, ecumenism (Unity Week),
mission of the church; groups: worker’s
day (May 1st ), farmers; industrialists, teachers, Pope’s day,
bishops, thanksgiving day; world justice:
United Nations, UNCTAD, seas, action groups.
We can treat
them as models. He has just grouped number of possible themes that can be taken
up for reflection in eucharist. Today for sure, we can develop these themes. He
would explain that he does not intend liturgy to stop with these problems but
to understand them and work on them from christian revelation. His intention is
to break the dualist indifference to the daily struggles of life with their
eyes set on things of the above. Quoting the teachings of Jesus as present in
Gospel of Matthew Balasuriya would say that authentic spirituality is
god-centered and man-oriented. He would affirm that the measure of our
orientation to God is our involvement in the struggles of the world and the
nature. Hence he boldly recommends our eucharists to integrate and actively
work for the society. This would certainly be our participation in the most
holy will of God to create new heaven and the new earth – the kingdom. His deconstruction
revisits everything that is relevant to eucharist. On the whole he desires
eucharist to become a transformative force in the society. It is achieved
through self-transformation of the individual and then community as a family. They
would in turn effect social transformation in the local, national and
international arena by their service and love. “Thus eucharist gatherings would
then be”, in the words of Balasuriya, “among the vanguard of the build of a new
world (new world order) in hard work, real sharing and justice”.
-----
Our fear then is
true, that the declining enthusiasm about eucharists in contemporary society, is
a call for an eucharistic renewal in the church. But it wouldn’t mean that the
world works contra kingdom. Probably the world is moving towards kingdom in its
pace; our eucharists fail to catch up with it.
