Two items have recently crossed my computer screen.  The first was included in an article on the Thirteenth Ordinary General Assembly of bishops currently underway in Rome on the topic of evangelization. The second was forwarded to my by a very good friend with whom I shared an admiration for the work of the Native American author, Louise Erdrich.

Here is what a prince of the Church has to say:

“Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, warned that poorly-catechized Christians should not take part in interreligious dialogue.

“Christians, often ignorant of the content of their own faith and incapable because of this of living of and for it, are not capable of interreligious dialogue that always begins with the assertion of one’s own convictions. There is no room for syncretism or relativism! Faced with adepts from other religions with a strong religious identity, it is necessary to present motivated and doctrinally equipped Christians.””  (Reported by CWN)

This is Louise Erdrich’s statement:

“The Ojibwe peoples’ earliest contact with non-Natives was with the Jesuits, so there’s a long history of entwinement of the cultures. But it’s always up to the individual priest how much he’ll allow the traditionalists into his belief system. It’s anathema to the church itself to admit the truth or goodness of any other form of religion, especially a non-Christian religion. But priests are sometimes hit over the head by the fact that they’re trying to teach spirituality to an intensely spiritual people, and they’re trying to take their spirituality away from them in order to force another form of spirituality upon them.” (Published in “Book Page, American Book Review”)

I can’t help but wonder if these two comments lay bare the disjunctures between the different levels of Church leadership and many of the clergy/hierarchy and the laity.  If the starting point of one of the parties in a conversation is that the other party has absolutely nothing to offer by way of insight into our common human condition, why should we even have a conversation? If the party presumed to be in total and absolute ignorance is not simply overwhelmed by the self-ascribed richness and totality of the other’s message, there is clear justification to browbeat or simply beat the other into submission. Many folks, who find themselves at the interface of cultures, have the kind of “a ha” experience described by Ms. Erdrich. Some certainly resort to browbeating or violence or bribery. Others feel compelled and properly so to rethink some of their preconceived notions about differing views and conceptualizations of the shared human condition.

In an earlier blog, I made a similar criticism when reflecting on the ecumenical efforts of the Church. How is it that sectarian arrogance on the part of seemingly bright individuals results in the concretizing of these positions when faced with any challenge? Is not the clear evidence of multiple and divergent claims to “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” ample reason to rethink and refine one’s currently held position rather than to simply double down and become more strident?

Maybe it is true, that democracy is very much a subversive activity and is seen as a direct threat by any number of contemporary human organizations—religious sects, international corporations, and political leadership. We may have moved towards and into representative governing models in several spheres—political, economic, and social—but there are lots of things left over from the age of monarchy and empire, including some of the ways by which we exercise democracy in our contemporary world. (I am currently readying “The Great Turning” by David Korten, to whom I must give credit for this observation.) Top down leadership is only as effective as the violent means those in leadership positions are willing to employ to enforce and maintain their leadership positions.

Once again, I am faced with the question: how are we to bridge these divides?