EVALUACIÓN DEL RECTOR POR LOS MIEMBROS DEL CONSEJO DIRECTIVO O TÉCNICO

93 PART II

CHAPTER FOUR

THE PRACTICE OF COMMUNICATIVE THEOLOGY

94 mind. First, that the application, at least in qualified communicative forms, is already part of the content, and secondly, that the content itself cannot be constituted without a communicative act. This means a completely new and specific definition of the relationship between theory and practice, between theology and a life of faith.²²⁸

Born in Theological Discussions in the Diocese of Mainz, Germany in the 1990s, Communicative Theology was initially early interactions between Bernd Hilberath, a professor of Dogmatic Theology and Matthias Scharer, a professor of Pastoral Theology to draw the interconnections between dogmatic and pastoral theologies. Both Theologians collaborated in designing workshops that brought together Priests, Pastoral ministers and Theologians with the aim of addressing “themes of abiding theological relevance and pastoral urgency by integrating pedagogical methods and group processes…They work(ed) with them to discover what the diverse people in their groups desired and needed as they wrestled with theological issues in their everyday personal lives and in their pastoral, ecclesial and pedagogical ministries”²²⁹.

Hilberath and Scharer hold that theology should not just be about acquiring information but rather exploring the deeper connections of experiences and their deeper convictions as they bear on everyday life and practices.²³⁰

In other words, they focused on groups’ ability, in which the individual is able to express his or her identity while at the same time bringing the diversity of opinions to the surface culminating sometimes in fostering deeper relationships and the formation of group identity and collective pastoral mission. They further provoke discussions on deepest personal convictions and the pastoral implication of Christian beliefs, doctrinal traditions and liturgical practices, which may include themes such as Triune God, the human person, the community and the world as well as such issues as how to discern the traces of the Holy Spirit in life and community, investigating the reasons why people go to church and the place of the Eucharist in the life of the Christianity community.

228 Matthias Scharer/Bernd Hilberath, 2008, p.13.

229 Ibid, p.2.

230 Scharer und Hilberath later on made a distinction between three stages of theology, namely; mystical, philosophical and political. Philosophical stage of Theology is a discovery in the critic of mystical stage especially with the theme of God becoming man. And the political theology is a further elaboration of the philosophical in that it takes place within the context of a society or community. “Entscheidend ist nicht, was Theologie ist, sondern wo sie geschieht”. (The deciding factor is not what Theology is but where theology takes place). See Hilberath Bernd Jochen/Matthias Scharer, 2012, Kommunikative Theologie: Grundlagen, Erfahrungen, Klärungen, Ostfildern, p. 118-120.

95 Consequently, Hilberath and Scharer define Communicative Theology thus: “Kommunikative Theologie ist Theologie in und aus lebendigen Kommunikationsprozessen,”²³¹ that is, a theology that originates and is done in and from the living processes of Communication.

Questions are raised, for example, if the qualification of communication here means the genitive of communication as bearer of theology or the object in the sense of communication being an object of theology.

This kind of communication is not one-sided but takes the interests of all into consideration.

When communicative theology is directed only towards making theology better, then communion becomes missing. Communication must put the human person first before all else in order to be able to legitimately talk about God. Andreas Odenthal explains that communicative theology “bindet die Wissenschaftliche Rede von Gott in besonderer Weise an das Gespräch”²³², that is, communicative theology is the connection between the scientific analysis about God and the discursive dialogue. Andreas Odenthal understands communicative theology as the concretisation of the communion-theology of the Vatican II Council which tries to clarify in a new way the oneness of the believers.

As a way to further clarify the relevance of communicative theology to theology, Hilberath and Scharer identify 4 modes of communication: Dialogical, hermeneutical, contextual and technological. They see in the Dialogical personalism, the special attention that must be given to interpersonal dialogue in the internal communication in the church. They relate this to the views of personalist philosophers such as Martin Buber and Gabriel Marcel who placed great emphasis on the one-on-one dialogue in the formation of personal and social identity. In addition, in the second half of the twentieth century, theologians like Hans Urs of Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II undertook studies on the dialogues in the life of faith, in the scriptural witness, and in liturgical practices as having significant relevance in dialogues in catholic theology especially after the 2^nd Vatican council.

The Hermeneutical mode of communication espoused by theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, Karl Rahner, Bernard Lonergan and Edward Schillebeeckx emphasizes the importance of conversation in open, public discussion and debates amongst various sectors of

231 Paul Weiss, 2010, „Wann wird Kommunikation zur Communio, wie hängt diese mit dem Glauben zusammen, und was sagt sie uns von Gott und über die Kirche? Bemerkungen zur Kommunikativen Theologie,“, in: Matthias Scharer/Bernd Hilberath, 2010, Kommunikative Theologie: Zugänge, Auseinandersetzungen, Ausdifferenzierungen, Wien, p.59.

232 Andreas Odenthal, 2010, „Thesen zu einer praktisch-theologischen Liturgiewissenschaft im Kontext der Kommunikativen Theologie“, in: Matthias Scharer/Bernd Hilberath, 2010, Kommunikative Theologie:

Zugänge, Auseinandersetzungen, Ausdifferenzierungen, Wien, p.108.

96 the church, the academy and the society at large.²³³ The aim is to promote a deeper understanding of the complex, critical and creative interaction of texts and traditions by individuals and historical communities. Lonergan, for instance, underscored the hermeneutical character of all efforts to gather data, to interpret data, and to judge the meaning and truth of texts and traditions, as well as the decisions and actions elicited by these carriers of tradition. He emphasized further the importance of discussion and debate in theology and the church in order to foster deeper intellectual, moral, and religious conversions and the expansion of horizons in the process of reaching sound judgements and decisions about the matters of belief and action.

At the Contextual level, Robert Schreiter, reflecting on the achievements of liberation theologians in Latin America and Inculturation theologians in Africa, developed a pioneering analysis in the concrete practice of communication in the development of local theologies.

This has to do with his attention to contextual issues of local evangelisation and the promotion of justice and reconciliation in situations of conflict employing a semiotic approach to culture.

In other words, Schreiter “promoted a fuller understanding of the interactive communicative role of the entire believing community, small groups and individual theologians, prophets and poets in the construction of local theologies.”²³⁴ His Semiotic approach to culture included the various interrelated levels of communication, which would include syntactics (the grammar-like rules that function in the relation of signs); semantics (the content or meaning of the message); pragmatics (rules that govern communication in the range of meanings). Relatedly, Stephen Bevan emphasizes culture, personal and collective experiences, social location and social change in his analysis of the contextual character of theology. For example, black Catholics have called for remedial communication with the descendants of Africa in response to the aftermath of the slave trade and on-going practices of racism in the society, and Latin America immigrants have raised basics questions about the power of language and local cultures and traditions of popular religiosity as a source of memory and identity and as ingredients in an unfolding living traditions.

Speaking about the technological model, emphasis is directed at the newer mediums of communication. These John Paul II calls the new Areopagus of the modern age. As a consequence, Paul Soukup is concerned about the church’s practice of using new communication technologies (radio, television, film, Internet) without a theory or theology to

233 Matthias Scharer/Bernd Hilberath, 2008, p.4.

234 Ibid, p.6.

97 evaluate the use of such means. With particular attention to the internet for instance, questions could be raised if a website or blog presents itself as the official or authoritative interpretation of a church teaching when it is not, or why a poorly-maintained parish website can repel young people while many others are attracting them at the same time. The question can be put forward: What does theology have to contribute to ongoing reflection on communication?

Soukup lays down three goals;²³⁵

(a) There is the need to establish some theological touchstones for churches to use in judging their use of the means of communication.

(b) There is the need for guidelines to evaluate the means and the content of the communication from a Christian ethical perspective.

(c) There is the need to cultivate a more advanced understanding of the process of communication, the myriad facets in the world of communication, and the various technological modalities.

Soukup further posits that at each of the levels above, there is also the need for theological rigour and an honest appraisal of the process and instruments of communication. For him, what is ultimately required are the methods of studying communication and theology.²³⁶ 4.1.1 THEOLOGY AS COMMUNICATIVE

The one God is the source and centre of Christian belief but at the same time God is a relationship, who communicates God’s self. God is the source of human communication. God reveals Himself to man. Man experiences God in the experiences with others and one cannot conceal this experience from others. The Christian God is a God who wills to become human, who wants to come among the human race. Thus, “the Christian theology exists because a believing community exists.”²³⁷ So, ‘speaking of God’ is in a sense also speaking of human beings, it is speaking of human communicative actions in relation to God who revealed himself in many ways and finally in Jesus Christ. In other words, the subject matter of theology is the activity of communication that derives from belief in the one and Triune God.

Thus, Lóránt Bencze writes

One may state that communication is a key concept in Christianity. I might even risk stating that Christianity differs from other religions in that its essential starting point is the question of communication, and its whole theology is permeated by the question of communication. Furthermore, if communication is removed from Christian theology,

235 Matthias Scharer/Bernd Hilberath, 2008, p.8.

236 Ibid.

237 Ibid, p.15.

98 not even one dogma remains, quite simply nothing remains. There is no Holy Trinity, no inner life and communication of the true one God, no incarnation, no opening of God towards the world, no personal communication of God with man in logos, no Church, no

“teach all peoples…”, no assignments, no sacraments....²³⁸

In this sense, Sharer and Hilberath define theology as “as a way of understanding and explaining what is worthy or unworthy of God and humankind by means of human communication.”²³⁹ Thus, the object of theology is about the God who became human in Jesus Christ, who reveals his divine self to humanity and who dwells amongst them as the source of life and enables them for comprehensive acts of communication. This is even clearly biblically:

In his goodness and wisdom, God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of his will(see Eph.1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit, have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph.2:18; 2Pet 1:4). Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col.1:15, 1 Tim.1:17) out of the abundance of his love speaks to men as friends (see Ex.33:11; Jn.15:14-15) and lives among them (see Bar.3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself.²⁴⁰

So the decisive foundation of theology is revelation-God’s self-disclosing ‘communication’

with the human race, and as the endowment of humans with the capacity for comprehensive communication and this communication between God and man reveals “truth in relationship”

and it is this that characterises theological inquiry as a communicative event, in which the contemporary contexts and experiences of people’s lives are explored for those traces of God’s Spirit that allow an impression of God’s absolute devotion to humankind to become transparent.²⁴¹ Indeed, Lóránt Bencze considers the development of dogmas and the history of heresies and schisms as mere communication disturbances.

4.1.2 COMMUNICATION AS THEOLOGY

When one speaks of communication as a term today, the immediate natural tendency is to understand it in the light of technological possibilities. But for Communication theologians, it has a different, though related understanding. In this sense, the principle applied in communication theology is clearly spelt out by Norbert Mette thus: “Gott ist es, der sich selbst in seiner Bedingungslosen Liebe den Menschen mitteilt und sich leidenschaftlich für ihr

238 Lóránt Bencze, 1996, “On the Church as Communication“, working paper in preparation for the L.A.U.D.

(Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg) Symposium, Duisburg, p.3.

239 Matthias Scharer/Bernd Hilberath, 2008, p.19.

240 Ibid.

241 Ibid.

99 Heil einsetzt”²⁴², that is, God is the one who shares his unconditional love with humanity and passionately brought mankind healing. This revelation of love was found in the person of Jesus Christ. And in the coming of the Holy Spirit, this love communication was sealed. This communication of love is oriented towards life and community. The human communication within itself is already a model or image of God’s communication with man and at the same time its yardstick for assessment. Without any reference to God’s communication, communication in the real sense will be impossible or at the least unsuccessful. The Theme-centred Interaction (TCI) model of communication, which shall be discussed in detail later, is therefore derived from this principle but must be further developed.

Therefore, Communication as a concept helps man in the first place to understand God and his self-revelation to man. In this context, Norbert Mette lists five elements that must be present before one says conclusively that communication has taken place:

1. Communication is an inter-subjective process, in that it takes place between subjects.

2. It must have a subject matter or content.

3. It takes place within a given situation, a given place or a particular context (such as Epoch, culture or Ethnicity).

4. It is carried out within a specific medium. And the most basic medium of communication is the language.

5. It is directed towards a specific intention, goal or purpose.

A very important aspect of communication is the question of what purpose communication serves. Edmund Arens gives the major reasons as follows which are again bi-polar;

1. Communication is needed in order to bring people together but at the same time separate others.

2. Communication is useful in other to integrate people but at the same time stigmatises others.

3. It can connect people as well as blindfold others.

4. It can break barriers and at the same time lead to self-alienation.

5. It can bequeath and at the same time distort reality.

6. It can free and the same time imprison.

242 Norbert Mette, 2010, „Zur Rede von Kommunikation in der Theologie“, in: Matthias Scharer/Bernd Hilberath, Kommunikative Theologie: Zugänge, Auseinandersetzungen, Ausdifferenzierungen, Wien, p.46.

100 Juergen Habermas communicative theory addresses this ambivalence.

4.1.3 HABERMAS COMMUNICATIVE THEORY

From the above, therefore, communication can appear as an ambivalent process, giving contradictory signals at the same time and sometimes leading to confusion rather than clarification. Jürgen Habermas offers a way out by his introduction of two formulas: The expressive communication, which determines the purpose of communication in the light of logic and rationality, explains the movement “from inside to outside” and an understanding-oriented Communication, which seeks to establish an accord or agreement in the community life of humans.

Norbert explains that these two proposals by Habermas have theological meanings and relevance. In the expressive communication is understood that communication is not just a rational/logical endeavour but also carries with it emotions. Here, one finds the value of such emotions to aesthetics and Arts. This is why there are so many meanings that are easily communicated by Arts that would otherwise be difficult to communicate. Even for the ordinary day to day living, elements of expressive communication are found in church rituals for example in the use of signs and symbols.

In the case of understanding-oriented Communication, Habermas believes communication must relate to something in the objective or social world.²⁴³ Consequently, Habermas believes that communication cannot take place when the Partners are not operating from the same level and when human solidarity and human worth is absent or denied; that communication cannot take place when the communication is not based on the obligation of truth and truthfulness and where openness and straightforwardness on the part of both parties is lacking.

The implication of these postulations according to Habermas can be summed up as follows;

i. Communication must see all the parties as equals, each having an equal claim to the communicative process.

ii. Genuine Communication anticipates an unclosed community of communication in which no one is put under unnecessary pressure or discriminated against and in which the solidarity is just and everyone has the worthiness of a human person.

243 Jürgen Habermas, 1984, The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Vol.1 (translated by Thomas McCarthy), Boston, p.278.

101 iii. Real Communication must see that the other person anticipates self-determination.

These conditions, according to Habermas, can in actual sense be distorted, more so because they are normative. And in the same vein, the tendency is that, in reality communication has actually in many instances not fulfilled these required purposes. Thus, (1) instead of serving the truth, communication can often lead to lies and calumny, (2) instead of promotion of justice, it can even cement injustice, (3) instead of having an authentic encounter, it can lead to hidden agendas and concealed and often times deceptive intentions.

Whether within the framework of individuals as individuals or as humans in the society, communication has the same meaning: Communication “is the foundation or basis of human life and community living. There is no human existence without communication. No society can survive without the communication in the form of exchanges, discursive analysis and understanding.”²⁴⁴

In this light, therefore, communication in the church would aim at the following:

A communicative church and the arising communicative theology would mean breaking or overcoming barriers of boundaries, bringing people together, and inviting everyone to participate in the collective efforts for truth, justice and solidarity. Consequently, the church must seek ways to break political, economic, ethnic and cultural barriers, to bring cultures together and to unify people of different countries and nationalities. Such a church communicates and relates with the intention of the understanding-oriented Communication in mind.²⁴⁵