Les conflits, oppositions, désaccords dans l’Eglise sont de
toujours. C’est normal. Dès lors que l’on est libre d’exprimer son avis, dès
lors que l’Eglise n’est pas une dictature qui exigerait qu’aucune tête ne
dépasse, alors on parle plusieurs langues ou théologies, alors la polyphonie
est parfois dissonante.
Le chapitre 15 du livre des Actes des Apôtres raconte l’assemblée
de Jérusalem et la résolution, sans doute quelque peu idéalisée, d’une forte
opposition dans la primitive Eglise. Faut-il d’abord être Juif pour devenir
chrétien ? Faut-il respecter la loi de Moïse et ses 613 commandements dont
la circoncision pour être disciples de Jésus ? Ou bien la suite de Jésus
dispense-t-elle de l’observance de la loi religieuse ?
Ce n’est pas une petite querelle menée par les pharisiens
disciples de Jésus. Oui, oui, il y a des pharisiens qui étaient disciples de
Jésus et qui, dans les premières décennies de l’Eglise ont vécu la foi juive
comme Jésus lui-même l’avait fait. Ils n’avaient aucune raison de penser que
Jésus était venu fonder une nouvelle religion. C’est une évidence, Jésus n’a
jamais pensé cela. Alors, très fidèlement, ils continuent à penser comme on a
toujours fait, ce traditionnellement.
De fait, si l’assemblée s’était rangée à leur avis, il n’y
aurait pas eu de rupture entre Juifs et chrétiens. Jésus était précisément venu
rassembler dans l’unité les enfants de Dieu dispersés. Or, après l’assemblée de
Jérusalem, il est cause d’une rupture qui dure encore, source de tant de morts
et de haines durant des siècles. Le décret conciliaire de 1965, Nostra Aetate, tente d’y mettre fin.
Vous me direz, si l’on avait imposé les 613 commandements du
judaïsme, pas sûr que le peuple de Dieu aurait été davantage rassemblé. C’est
du moins l’avis de Paul. « Oui, vous tous qui avez été baptisés en Christ,
vous avez revêtu Christ. Il n’y a plus ni Juif, ni Grec ; il n’y a plus ni
esclave, ni homme libre ; il n’y a plus l’homme et la femme; car tous,
vous n’êtes qu’un en Jésus Christ. » (Ga 3, 27-28) Ceci dit, la loi
nouvelle n’est pas un absolu, elle demeure au service de l’homme. Dès la fin de
l’histoire, on voit Paul circoncire un païen !
En abandonnant les règles religieuses juives, qui distinguent
et confèrent une identité, tous peuvent devenir disciples de Jésus. Les
conséquences sont vertigineuses, du moins en principe, parce qu’il faut bien
reconnaître que dans l’histoire, c’est moins réussi : on n’en a pas fini
des différences sources du racisme, des exclusions et discriminations. Mais
voilà, le fait est là ; en principe les chrétiens ne se distinguent pas
religieusement des autres hommes. (Les sociétés d’origine chrétienne ne
supportent pas que l’on se distingue par la religion, rejetant le particularisme
qui s’oppose à l’universalité et dénonçant le communautarisme.)
L’assemblée de Jérusalem a dépassé l’opposition entre Juifs
et païens pour que l’évangile soit annoncé à tous les peuples, parce que tout
homme, avec Jésus, ne peut désormais, qu’être un frère. L’universalité de l’évangile
n’est pas la domination d’une religion et d’une culture, juive, occidentale,
sur les autres, mais la civilisation nouvelle, celle de la fraternité
universelle. L’universalité de l’évangile n’est pas une chrétienté unanime,
mais la recherche de la concorde jamais acquise. Les chrétiens ont pour mission
d’être les serviteurs d’une fraternité toujours menacée.
Les
tensions ecclésiales trouvent dans l’assemblée de Jérusalem un modèle de
résolution. Comment ? On se rassemble et l’on s’écoute. On se rassemble d’abord.
Ce n’est pas chacun dans son coin, à se monter le bourrichon. On ne se retrouve
pas en clans, avec ceux seulement qui pensent comme nous. On accepte de se rencontrer
différents.
Puis
l’on écoute. C’est terrible, ou révélateur, mais on nous a supprimé ces
versets. On en vient directement à la décision sans dire comment on y est
parvenu. « La discussion était devenue vive », dit le verset 7.
Pierre fait un discours. « Il y eut alors un silence dans toute l’assemblée, puis
l’on écouta Barnabas et Paul raconter tous les signes et les prodiges que Dieu,
par leur intermédiaire, avait accomplis chez les païens. Quand ils eurent
achevé, Jacques à son tour prit la parole : "Frères, écoutez-moi". »
On n’arrête pas d’écouter.
Ecouter ne veut pas dire entendre. Ecouter veut dire
entendre la vérité qui est dans le propos de l’autre, écouter veut dire
chercher la vérité qui est dans le propos de l’autre, même mal formulé. Ecouter
non seulement des discours, mais la vie des uns et des autres. Ce que racontent
Paul et Barnabé. Ecouter ce qui vit le frère, pas seulement des théories.
Je n’en dis pas plus. On devrait encore développer les
différents rôles dans l’assemblée, mais il y a aussi pour aujourd’hui avec premièrement
le choix de l’assemblée de Jérusalem de supprimer ce qui nous distingue, nous
chrétiens, nous identifie, pour que nous soyons les serviteurs de la
fraternité, de l’universalité de la fraternité, sans distinction de race, de sexe,
de classe sociale, de religion. Cela interroge sur nos réactions identitaires. Il
y en a assez avec deuxièmement la méthode de l’assemblée de Jérusalem, se rassembler
et s’écouter, trouver la vérité du propos de l’autre.
Traduction de JF Garneau
Ecclesial disputes have always existed. It's normal, since the minute one is free to express one’s opinion, the minute the Church is not a dictatorship that requires no such differences, then one will have to hear different languages, different theologies, and often time that polyphony will not be harmonious but dissonant.
Chapter 15 of Acts tells us the story of that first assembly in Jerusalem where such dissonance occurred. It tells us this story in a most likely idealized way, where the conflict is presented in a much polite way than it probably occurred. But still, it reports the story. Must one be first a Jew to become a Christian? Should one follow the law of Moses and its 613 commandments (among which circumcision) to be followers of Jesus? Or shouldn’t Christian discipleship exempt one from observing a particular religious law?
This was not a small quarrel led by a minority Pharisee-followers of Jesus. Yes, there were Pharisees who were followers of Jesus and who, in the early decades of the Church, lived the Jewish faith as Jesus did himself. These people had no reason to believe that Jesus came to found a new religion. It should be obvious to all by now, that Jesus never thought of founding a new religion. So faithfully, these Pharisee-type Christians continued to think as they had always done, that is: “traditionally”.
In fact, had the Jerusalem Assembly sided with these people, there would have been no break between Jews and Christians. Jesus had specifically come to gather into one people the dispersed children of Israel. But after the meeting in Jerusalem, faithfulness to Jesus becomes the cause of a schism which still goes on today and was the source of so many deaths and hatreds. The 1965 Vatican II Decree Nostra Aetate, tries to put an end to this.
You might tell me that even if the 613 commandments of Judaism had remained in place, following that Jerusalem Assembly, it remains doubtful that the people of God would have been more united than it became because the Assembly decided otherwise. Paul seems to have thought this greater unity could be reached by abandoning identity practices. This, at least, is what he sounds like when he says, for instance: " As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3: 27-28) But then, even for Paul the new law is not absolute, it remains at the service of man. By the end of that very story, we see Paul circumcise a Pagan! So there you are!
By abandoning Jewish identity rules and practices, all may become disciples of Jesus at a cheaper cost than ever [contra Bonhoeffer, Peter Nguyen!]. The consequences are staggering, at least in principle, because in practice, the story proves far less successful: We are far from done yet with doing away with the root causes of racism, exclusion and discrimination. But now, the fact is there; in principle, Christians no longer think of themselves as religiously different from other men. (Modern societies with Christian roots are the ones who have the most problem reconciling themselves with the idea that one could set oneself apart from others through religious idiosyncrasies, they reject all those forms of special religious exceptions that sets themselves apart from universalitism and denounce communitarianism of all sorts.)
The Jerusalem Assembly attempted to overcome the opposition between Jews and Gentiles, so that the gospel could be preached to all nations, so that every man, within Christ, could become brothers. This asserted universality of the gospel is not the domination of one religion and culture, Jewish and Western, on others, but the new civilization arising, the civilization of universal brotherhood. The universality of that gospel does not rest on some search for unanimity, but on a search for never reached harmony, as the universal horizon of civilization. Christians see themselves as having the mission to be the servants of that always threatened fraternity.
The Jerusalem Assembly also present us with a model for ecclesial conflict resolutions. How so? We get together and we listen to each other. First, we get together. This means that people do not remain in their little chapel or corner, complaining against the other gang far away. Togetherness means breaking the chapels of like mindedness. We get together by agreeing to meet as different.
Then we listen. It's terrible (or revealing), but the authorities who selected the passage of Act to be read at mass today removed the verses where listening is mentioned. We thus get to the decision taken by the assembly without being told how it was achieved. "The discussion became lively," says verse 7. Peter made a speech and "Then there was silence in all the assembly, after which we listened to Barnabas and Paul telling all the signs and wonders which God had brought through them, when they were among the Gentiles. When Barnabas and Paul are finished, Jacques in turn speaks up: "Brothers, listen to me."
It seems as if people never tire of listening, at that Jerusalem meeting!
To listen does not merely mean to hear. To listen means to seek and pay attention to the portion of truth which lies in what the other says [even if, on the face of it and in our terms, we disagree with it]. To listen means to seek not only the truth in the words of the other but in their lives as well. This means that we have to listen not only to speeches, but to the lives of each other. The lives that Paul and Barnabas had in their mission to the Gentiles, not only their ideas about how costly or cheap baptismal grace should be!
I say no more for now. Had I had more time I might have further developed the different roles played within the Jerusalem Assembly, but it will be enough for today to keep in mind only those first two things. First the decision taken at the Jerusalem Assembly (i) to remove what could have distinguished us from others, as Christians, in order (ii) to identify us as servants of a universal brotherhood, without distinction of race, sex, social class, and religion. This first point is meant to question our obsessions with strengthening or protecting our Catholic identity. As for the second, point, it is the method for settling disputes in the new universalism seeking community [when we refuse to regress to legalism, traditionalism, and authoritarianism]. The key words here are getting together and listening to each other, in order to discover the truth of the other parties’ opinions.
Traduction de JF Garneau
Ecclesial disputes have always existed. It's normal, since the minute one is free to express one’s opinion, the minute the Church is not a dictatorship that requires no such differences, then one will have to hear different languages, different theologies, and often time that polyphony will not be harmonious but dissonant.
Chapter 15 of Acts tells us the story of that first assembly in Jerusalem where such dissonance occurred. It tells us this story in a most likely idealized way, where the conflict is presented in a much polite way than it probably occurred. But still, it reports the story. Must one be first a Jew to become a Christian? Should one follow the law of Moses and its 613 commandments (among which circumcision) to be followers of Jesus? Or shouldn’t Christian discipleship exempt one from observing a particular religious law?
This was not a small quarrel led by a minority Pharisee-followers of Jesus. Yes, there were Pharisees who were followers of Jesus and who, in the early decades of the Church, lived the Jewish faith as Jesus did himself. These people had no reason to believe that Jesus came to found a new religion. It should be obvious to all by now, that Jesus never thought of founding a new religion. So faithfully, these Pharisee-type Christians continued to think as they had always done, that is: “traditionally”.
In fact, had the Jerusalem Assembly sided with these people, there would have been no break between Jews and Christians. Jesus had specifically come to gather into one people the dispersed children of Israel. But after the meeting in Jerusalem, faithfulness to Jesus becomes the cause of a schism which still goes on today and was the source of so many deaths and hatreds. The 1965 Vatican II Decree Nostra Aetate, tries to put an end to this.
You might tell me that even if the 613 commandments of Judaism had remained in place, following that Jerusalem Assembly, it remains doubtful that the people of God would have been more united than it became because the Assembly decided otherwise. Paul seems to have thought this greater unity could be reached by abandoning identity practices. This, at least, is what he sounds like when he says, for instance: " As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3: 27-28) But then, even for Paul the new law is not absolute, it remains at the service of man. By the end of that very story, we see Paul circumcise a Pagan! So there you are!
By abandoning Jewish identity rules and practices, all may become disciples of Jesus at a cheaper cost than ever [contra Bonhoeffer, Peter Nguyen!]. The consequences are staggering, at least in principle, because in practice, the story proves far less successful: We are far from done yet with doing away with the root causes of racism, exclusion and discrimination. But now, the fact is there; in principle, Christians no longer think of themselves as religiously different from other men. (Modern societies with Christian roots are the ones who have the most problem reconciling themselves with the idea that one could set oneself apart from others through religious idiosyncrasies, they reject all those forms of special religious exceptions that sets themselves apart from universalitism and denounce communitarianism of all sorts.)
The Jerusalem Assembly attempted to overcome the opposition between Jews and Gentiles, so that the gospel could be preached to all nations, so that every man, within Christ, could become brothers. This asserted universality of the gospel is not the domination of one religion and culture, Jewish and Western, on others, but the new civilization arising, the civilization of universal brotherhood. The universality of that gospel does not rest on some search for unanimity, but on a search for never reached harmony, as the universal horizon of civilization. Christians see themselves as having the mission to be the servants of that always threatened fraternity.
The Jerusalem Assembly also present us with a model for ecclesial conflict resolutions. How so? We get together and we listen to each other. First, we get together. This means that people do not remain in their little chapel or corner, complaining against the other gang far away. Togetherness means breaking the chapels of like mindedness. We get together by agreeing to meet as different.
Then we listen. It's terrible (or revealing), but the authorities who selected the passage of Act to be read at mass today removed the verses where listening is mentioned. We thus get to the decision taken by the assembly without being told how it was achieved. "The discussion became lively," says verse 7. Peter made a speech and "Then there was silence in all the assembly, after which we listened to Barnabas and Paul telling all the signs and wonders which God had brought through them, when they were among the Gentiles. When Barnabas and Paul are finished, Jacques in turn speaks up: "Brothers, listen to me."
It seems as if people never tire of listening, at that Jerusalem meeting!
To listen does not merely mean to hear. To listen means to seek and pay attention to the portion of truth which lies in what the other says [even if, on the face of it and in our terms, we disagree with it]. To listen means to seek not only the truth in the words of the other but in their lives as well. This means that we have to listen not only to speeches, but to the lives of each other. The lives that Paul and Barnabas had in their mission to the Gentiles, not only their ideas about how costly or cheap baptismal grace should be!
I say no more for now. Had I had more time I might have further developed the different roles played within the Jerusalem Assembly, but it will be enough for today to keep in mind only those first two things. First the decision taken at the Jerusalem Assembly (i) to remove what could have distinguished us from others, as Christians, in order (ii) to identify us as servants of a universal brotherhood, without distinction of race, sex, social class, and religion. This first point is meant to question our obsessions with strengthening or protecting our Catholic identity. As for the second, point, it is the method for settling disputes in the new universalism seeking community [when we refuse to regress to legalism, traditionalism, and authoritarianism]. The key words here are getting together and listening to each other, in order to discover the truth of the other parties’ opinions.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire