The fourth day of the forum took as its theme Religion for Another Possible World. This was introduced the evening previous when the Sri Lankan theologian and priest, Tissa Balasuriya, gave probably the most challenging talk of the entire forum. He also made a number of interventions throughout the forum all of which were well received and always provocative and thoughtful. His thesis started from the premise that the greatest terrorist act in history was not committed by Osama Bin Laden and his followers, but was perpetrated by Europeans from 1492 until the last century. They murdered millions, pillaged entire nations for centuries, took over land which they have never returned (almost 60% of the earth’s surface), commenced the greatest migration history has ever seen, and then in the 20th century legitimated this expansion in international law and consolidated their plundering through the United Nations Security Council, declaring that they would keep the peace of the entire world. By ‘peace’ they meant maintain the foundational disorder and injustice that Europe has created in the world.

Pope Pius XII, after World War II, seeing the enormous poverty of the Italian peasants asked Nuncios around the world to beg their governments to allow an unprecedented migration of poor Italians to Canada, Australia, USA etc., declaring, ‘People without land have a right to land without people’. This principle has not been extended to the great numbers of Asian or African poor who are prohibited from emigrating from their impoverished countries. Now we have a system in which 80% of the world’s people get 20% of the world’s bread/food while only 20% of the world’s people get 80% of the world’s bread. And it is roughly the same statistics for health, education, technology, land, wealth etc.

In the face of this disturbing reality what is the role of religion? In reality they often legitimate the prevailing order and are afraid to critique the dominant system, given the history of European Christianity in supporting the greatest genocide in human history during the long decades of European colonial expansion. On Monday morning Claude Geffre, French priest and former Director of the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem, gave an exhaustive assessment of pluralism and fundamentalism in religions today. He asked if religions could humanise globalisation, but then went on to look at the origins of violence and inter-religious conflict, noting how the sacralisation of the truth has led to the rise of fundamentalism, religious intolerance and the legitimation of violence. Big questions surround the nature and status of truth, and especially so-called revealed truth, in each of the monotheistic religions. Truth as an abstract concept does not have rights, only persons have rights. The Catholic Church finally accepted this during the II Vatican Council.

Claude Geffre went on to explain that we are now entering into a world civilisation for the first time in history and a new world ethic and new world religious understanding are essential if we are to negotiate this moment well. He finished his discourse by saying that no religion can justify its claim to universalism if it is not concerned with the universal aspirations of the whole of humanity and of the earth. The panel that followed brought in the theme of the market. Sung Mo Jung, a Korean living in Brazil, and Rogate Mshana, an economist from Tanzania, exposed the iniquities of the free market system, which has never been followed by any developed country but is imposed by them on the poor. We live in a world of outrageous inequality. At the heart of the market are not the needs of the poorest but the interests of the rich.

Sturla Stalset from Oslo, Norway, who in impeccable Spanish introduced the idea of ‘vulnerability’ as the real key to political power, began the afternoon panel. Any theology of politics and power that does not take account of the weakness of the human person, their innate vulnerability, cannot be based upon the ‘kenosis’ of Jesus, his self-emptying, his becoming vulnerable to the entire human process and condition. He said that only the truly vulnerable know how to love and within that vulnerable loving lies a surprising strength that the world does not know or recognise. The second panellist was Dr K. C. Abraham from India, who told us that in Asia religion and politics are inextricably linked. They are not separated out like in western societies. Religion has a very important role to play in humanising the political process, as everywhere today there is the need of a new political culture that is responsive to the needs of the majority poor.

On the final day of Theology for Another Possible World, the women theologians made a dramatic intervention strongly critiquing aspects of the forum. It was well received by the majority who had laboured under a number of difficulties and tensions from the first day. They offered concrete suggestions so that the same mistakes are not replicated in the next forum. The day opened with a talk by Indian Jesuit Michael Amaladoss. It has to be said that he didn’t add a great deal to the ideas already gathered about inter-religious dialogue. I liked it when he said that acceptance of pluralism is the key, and it is not chaotic! We are searching for harmony and communion not unity or worse still uniformity.

Our last day’s panellists included Lise Baroni from Quebec, Canada, who told us that sadly the Church is now more preoccupied with repairing it’s own house than with facing the grave problems that the world’s poor and marginalised are suffering. She felt that the Catholic Church in particular was rapidly moving to the inverse of the gospel. Enrique Dussel, an Argentinean living now in Mexico and one of the founders of Liberation Theology gave an impassioned address that roused an already tired, overworked and exhausted audience. He inspired where others had left the participants unmoved.

He described the dramatic world situation in which almost the entire globe since 1989 has been subjected to a Christian Fundamentalist Military Empire. The death toll has been phenomenal. In only one parish in El Salvador, where Rutillo Grande SJ was parish priest, over 200 people were martyred because they belonged to the Base Ecclesial Communities, as well as Rutillo and eventually the Archbishop, Oscar Romero. In Iraq, over 250,000 have died in the two Gulf Wars promoted by the Bush presidencies, which wouldn’t have happened if there had been no oil in the country. But the good news is that the empire has lost its legitimacy. There is no longer any consensus. America is virtually alone.

Enrique Dussel went on to give an excellent overview of power, democracy and the state from the perspective of liberation theology. He quoted Bartolome de las Casas who in 1546 referred to power as the ‘consensus populi’, the agreement of the people, the unified voice of the masses. Only a united people have power, a divided and disunited people have no power at all. The Spirit uses the power of the people to construct the kingdom of God in history. He told his audience, that were hanging on his every word, that in today’s world there was no longer any discussion about forms of government, only democracy was an option, but the big question remains, what type of democracy do we want?

There was a new democratic principle that was being lived mostly outside of the political process within the new social movements. Dialogue, consensus, public discussion, transparency, accountability, all were being put into practice and were dramatically changing the way NGOs and social movements were operating. When he discussed the state, he said that no state was sovereign, only the people are sovereign. There was an urgent requirement to deconstruct state power, dominating power, and to reconstruct a new concept of political power as mediation in the building of the kingdom of God. The role of theology is clear, it is to aid this process and provide the critique and reflection that will permit the state to engage all its citizens in the common task of creating a society that cares for the neediest and most vulnerable and ensures for all a participation in the shared wealth of the nation.

Juan Jose Tamayo, another famous theologian this time from Spain, addressed the final panel of the forum. Frankly, I’m sure his talk was worthwhile but by this stage I was in need of psychiatric treatment for mental exhaustion! I didn’t discover much that hadn’t already been said which is actually what he said himself as he began his paper! Regional groupings then met to debate issues around a next possible forum and there was considerable consensus.

This was indeed an historic occasion. Liberation Theology, far from being dead or defensive, had indeed shown itself to have come of age and to have become worldwide. But the new generation of theologians are very different from the original thinkers who were grounded in the struggle of the people. While there is now a real divergence of liberation issues that theologians are addressing there is not the same commitment to accompanying the process from alongside those who are the subjects of their own liberation, rather there is a retreating into an academic study of those marginal groups and persons. This is where Enrique Dussel had the edge on most of the other speakers at the forum, he spoke with authority, with the voice of experience, of one who had got his hands dirty in the long journey of walking with the poor and sharing their hopes and dreams that another world is possible.

There will be another forum on theology and liberation. It will be better organised, more representative, and with the presence not only of theologians but also activists and others involved in the praxis of liberation. It will be connected somehow to the World Social Forum, and might be held in Cairo in 2007. In which case it will attempt to include inter-religious dialogue with Muslims as a constituent element in the programme. And there will be more time to relax, celebrate and just be together. It is not enough to discuss liberation; the actual experience of a forum such as this has also to be liberating and not oppressive. A certain internal coherence is called for.

Watch this space for reports from the WSF, which opens tomorrow.

Thanks for getting to the bottom of this page. Hope it was useful!

Gerry.