No, I will not write in Russian, noone reads in this case.
First, I want to agree with two inputs from my friends Benoit and Tobias. I wanted to write it myself but they were more rapid. One is about "checking" every morning - and it is visible that people are discriminated - for example I never seen any Orthodox priests being cheacked, but in the same time young lay people are checked really detailed.
Second is Greetings from Russia by Rabbi Zinoviy Kogan. It was something I couldn't really stand to hear. It was about Chechnya and its very good President Kadyrov and very new beautiful city of Grozny. It is new because it was ruined! I was really shocked! While question of human rights and religious freedom in Russia and Belarus are hidden in this Assembly, some "guests" are preaching such things! How is it possible? Do KEK and CCEE really concerned about human rights and religious freedom issues?
Sorry for a lot of emotions, people. But what can I say more? At the same moment while I spend very pleasent time at this safe and silent assembly my friends in Belarus are arrested, prosecuted by KGB, fined only for praying together, reading Bible together at their flats, my spiritual father is banned from serving because he raised his voice for religious freedom in Belarus. What can I say? Input from Rabbi Kogan sounds like a mockery.
Of course, Chechnya is not a problem any more. Of course, Belarus is not a problem.
You speak about Christian roots and European identity, but closing eyes while you brothers and sisters in the same continent suffer has nothing in common with Christian roots and European identity.
And I will return from this marvellous event and I can be checked at Belarusian customs much more detailed than it is here. Moreover, the laptop I write you from can be confiscated from me in the train at night 11.09. - it is very usual practice in the country. Here I presented myself as Syndesmos regional representative for Central Europe, but I can be arrested in Belarus because of that: acting on behalf of unregistered organization is an offence. When I want to share with my brothers and sisters in Belarus about the results of the Assembly and invite them at my place to drink some tea together, I can be fined for having unregistered religious event in private house. And then when I look from my window I will see "New Life" Full Gospel church building which is being withdrown from the community because it is former cattle-farm. You know, I can't sleep well at night, when view from my window shous me suffering of my brothers protestants. I am concerned. It is very near. I hear their voices.
European Christians, maybe you can look from your window and see your neighbour Belarus? Maybe you can tune your ears to hear voices of prosecuted Christians? Only then I will believe that Christ of light shines upon Europe and Christians Churches still are able to see this Light.
Showing posts with label criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criticism. Show all posts
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Strange greetings from Russia
Today we had a strange greeting of Rabbi Zinoviy Kogan, chairman of the Russian Congress of Jewish Congregations and Organisation.
He lauded the situation in Chechnya, especially it's president Ramzan Kadyrov. I couldn't believe it. One of the most martial persons is mentioned on this Assembly as a good guy, although there are such a lot of valid accusations of human rights abuses made by Kadyrovs personal guard, the Kadyrovcy. Sorry, it was really awful to sit there.
I don't understand, why this person was invited. Still more, I was told that he always says the same stuff on Chechnya. Why they didn't invite a Romanian rabbi, as there was a Romanian mufti representing the Islam? A lot of things on this Assembly remain mysterious.
He lauded the situation in Chechnya, especially it's president Ramzan Kadyrov. I couldn't believe it. One of the most martial persons is mentioned on this Assembly as a good guy, although there are such a lot of valid accusations of human rights abuses made by Kadyrovs personal guard, the Kadyrovcy. Sorry, it was really awful to sit there.
I don't understand, why this person was invited. Still more, I was told that he always says the same stuff on Chechnya. Why they didn't invite a Romanian rabbi, as there was a Romanian mufti representing the Islam? A lot of things on this Assembly remain mysterious.
Plenaries: second edition
What is your feeling when you enter the plenary and see the people on the stage? How do you feel when you see two female moderators at one table and venerable male elders on the other side? Doesn't it look like a gender segregation? Maybe it's just a morning impression...
And what does it say about ecumenism in Europe when you try to guess the age of people on the stage? Where is the youth? Do they have nothing to say? I don't think so. I don't think that there are young people good only for "Morning Prayers and Bible Meditations". I believe, there are also young individuals able to contribute to the main plenary discussions. So, where are they?
I still wonder: Why do we have numerous speakers who just read their well prepared speeches without any attempt to interact, to dispute or to dialogue among themselves? How are we to be light shining on the way of life in dialogue with each other if we are able just to use monologue to express our ideas?
Well, at least, delegates without privilege to speak to the plenary learn to listen...
I'm looking for Round Tables to change my a bit skeptical point of view ;-)
And what does it say about ecumenism in Europe when you try to guess the age of people on the stage? Where is the youth? Do they have nothing to say? I don't think so. I don't think that there are young people good only for "Morning Prayers and Bible Meditations". I believe, there are also young individuals able to contribute to the main plenary discussions. So, where are they?
I still wonder: Why do we have numerous speakers who just read their well prepared speeches without any attempt to interact, to dispute or to dialogue among themselves? How are we to be light shining on the way of life in dialogue with each other if we are able just to use monologue to express our ideas?
Well, at least, delegates without privilege to speak to the plenary learn to listen...
I'm looking for Round Tables to change my a bit skeptical point of view ;-)
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Some more reflections on the Opening Plenary
I share Antti's disappointment with not having anyone of underrepresented youth delegates in the Drafting Committee. And I would add my disappointment with the process of presenting the whole Committee at the very end of the plenary when not so many delegates were there, nobody wanted to react and comment on the proposals. And judging the reaction of the delegates present, I would say that there was not anything like a consensus on the proposed candidates...
I understand that the Opening Plenary was too packed for caring about such issues, but dealing with them in such a rushy way doesn't make delegates feel respected. To the feeling that there are not so many people caring about what the delegates think contributed also the way of addressing the questions written on the papers during the speeches of the three venerable speakers: everyone could write whatever she/he wanted but there was no time and no speaker to be addressed with the question. Thus, it was quite hard not to have a feeling of not being heard...
And I would add one more thought about the content, not just the form, of the Opening Plenary. The majority of speakers mentioned current European problems and challenges we have been facing. I guess, vast majority of us can agree on them. However, when it came to proposing some ways of solving them, silence... Oh, that would be unfair: better to say - vague phrases about light of Christ shining upon all of us...
Anyway, after some criticism, I still feel optimistic about future continuation of the assembly and finding some concrete solutions for the problems and actions to take after our returns to local realities ;-)
I understand that the Opening Plenary was too packed for caring about such issues, but dealing with them in such a rushy way doesn't make delegates feel respected. To the feeling that there are not so many people caring about what the delegates think contributed also the way of addressing the questions written on the papers during the speeches of the three venerable speakers: everyone could write whatever she/he wanted but there was no time and no speaker to be addressed with the question. Thus, it was quite hard not to have a feeling of not being heard...
And I would add one more thought about the content, not just the form, of the Opening Plenary. The majority of speakers mentioned current European problems and challenges we have been facing. I guess, vast majority of us can agree on them. However, when it came to proposing some ways of solving them, silence... Oh, that would be unfair: better to say - vague phrases about light of Christ shining upon all of us...
Anyway, after some criticism, I still feel optimistic about future continuation of the assembly and finding some concrete solutions for the problems and actions to take after our returns to local realities ;-)
Assembly message?
The opening plenary is now over and all the delegates are recovering from a heavy Romanian three-course lunch. We heard interesting opening speeches from church leaders and many important aspects on the assembly themes. One of the most interesting imho was Cardinal Walter Kaspers' speech in which he dealt with the issue of the recent statement of the Roman Catholic Church:
(a brief quote, see eea3-assembly page for the full version)
In a recent document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith my Church, the Catholic Church, set out differences that unfortunately exist and, in doing so, reminded us of the task that lies before us. I know that many, especially many of my evangelical brothers and sisters, felt hurt by this. I am not unaffected by it, either; I, too, had problems with it. For the hurt and pain of my friends is my hurt and pain as well. It was not our intention to hurt or belittle anyone. We wanted to bear witness to the truth, just as we expect other churches to, and just as other churches already do. The declarations other churches make are not all to our liking, and nor does what they sometimes say about us. But what are we to expect? Cosy ecumenism and fake ecumenism, which are all about being nice to each other, do not get us very far; the only way forward is dialogue in truth and clarity.
So, we are not dealing with easy issues here. But hope and unity were called for in almost every speech held.
At the end of the plenary the Assembly final message draft group was introduced. Supposedly the final message has already been sketched to some extent forehand, but this group has a great influence on it trying to extract the important matters discussed in the fora. Anyway, for the big disappointment, none of the appointed members were of the youth delegates. Though the moderator told that youth delegates should contact these people for their message to be heard, I think a far more better solution would have been to select at least one young member on board. After all, this is supposed to be an "youth assembly" and we lack 350 youth delegates of the quota of 500 that was called for from the member churches.
Now back to the rainy Sibiu and the assembly tent where the Forum on Unity is just starting.
(a brief quote, see eea3-assembly page for the full version)
In a recent document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith my Church, the Catholic Church, set out differences that unfortunately exist and, in doing so, reminded us of the task that lies before us. I know that many, especially many of my evangelical brothers and sisters, felt hurt by this. I am not unaffected by it, either; I, too, had problems with it. For the hurt and pain of my friends is my hurt and pain as well. It was not our intention to hurt or belittle anyone. We wanted to bear witness to the truth, just as we expect other churches to, and just as other churches already do. The declarations other churches make are not all to our liking, and nor does what they sometimes say about us. But what are we to expect? Cosy ecumenism and fake ecumenism, which are all about being nice to each other, do not get us very far; the only way forward is dialogue in truth and clarity.
So, we are not dealing with easy issues here. But hope and unity were called for in almost every speech held.
At the end of the plenary the Assembly final message draft group was introduced. Supposedly the final message has already been sketched to some extent forehand, but this group has a great influence on it trying to extract the important matters discussed in the fora. Anyway, for the big disappointment, none of the appointed members were of the youth delegates. Though the moderator told that youth delegates should contact these people for their message to be heard, I think a far more better solution would have been to select at least one young member on board. After all, this is supposed to be an "youth assembly" and we lack 350 youth delegates of the quota of 500 that was called for from the member churches.
Now back to the rainy Sibiu and the assembly tent where the Forum on Unity is just starting.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Is participation something active or something passive?
Looking into the detailed programme of the Assembly, written in the delegates’ handbook, you can find that at the end of the week there shall be an Assembly message with the general outcomes, with objectives the European churches want to achieve in the next years and with plans for some concrete action. Naturally, such a message should be developed in a democratic way. According to Colin Williams, the General Secretary of CEC, this will happen: The process leading to the message will be “as democratic as possible”.
The handbook where all necessary information is written down (unfortunately not available on the internet) gives another picture:
1. The Assembly has no rules of procedure. Written rules are already common in commissions with 10 members to guarantee an outcome. But how to manage an Assembly with more than 2.000 members? How is it possible to agree on a Assembly message, if nobody knows, in which way? It’s a mystery. OK, it’s not that easy. It’s impossible that every delegate can express his position on the stage. It’s impossible to satisfy every delegate and to consider every individual argument. But: If there is the aim to incorporate delegates contributions, we should know, in which way.
2. The only thing we know is that there will be a message committee. That’s all. All other important information are unknown: Who are the members of the committee? Are there some delegates within? May we elect the members, or may we at least elect some additional members? If we had this information, we could prepare some committee candidates, or we could address to the members some contributions. But we cannot.
My conclusion: The whole process is behind a veil of ignorance. Intransparency rules, and not transparency as one of the main conditions for participation.
3. On Saturday evening one part of the programme (approximately 15 minutes) will be the “Presentation of the Assembly Message”. No decision, no voting, no affirmation. In combination with missing rules of procedure, there is only one possible conclusion. The delegates will not be asked about the final version of the message. This prognosis is even strengthened by the information, we got at the Assembly office: “There’s no voting, because there will be no decision.” But if we cannot vote – who are the decision makers? A small circle of people will decide on the contents of the message. Nevertheless, the message will be presented as a position of the whole assembly.
What is then participation? Is it about sitting there and listening speeches, lectures, greetings, addresses, and in the end they present you the result? Or is it far more? That was my main question when I saw the detailed programme.
In the foreword of the Assembly’s handbook, Metropolitan Gennadios of Sassima and Bishop Vincenzo Paglia describe participation as “sharing, experiencing and enjoying the Assembly ecumenically”. Contributions of delegates or open discussions don’t find their place in this definition. Is the EEA3 then only a show which was already scripted before?
No, it won't, because this depends on the efforts of the delegates with an interest in higher partipation. I think that there are a couple of possibilities:
- Asking for more time of open discussion
- Asking for an election of the members of the message committee
- Asking for a voting on the Assembly message
- If there is no way to express the position within the programme, finding other places for opinion making and discussion (as for example this blog)
- Not waiting, but starting now to act
- ...
I’m sure, this will be a very interesting and spirited assembly.
The handbook where all necessary information is written down (unfortunately not available on the internet) gives another picture:
1. The Assembly has no rules of procedure. Written rules are already common in commissions with 10 members to guarantee an outcome. But how to manage an Assembly with more than 2.000 members? How is it possible to agree on a Assembly message, if nobody knows, in which way? It’s a mystery. OK, it’s not that easy. It’s impossible that every delegate can express his position on the stage. It’s impossible to satisfy every delegate and to consider every individual argument. But: If there is the aim to incorporate delegates contributions, we should know, in which way.
2. The only thing we know is that there will be a message committee. That’s all. All other important information are unknown: Who are the members of the committee? Are there some delegates within? May we elect the members, or may we at least elect some additional members? If we had this information, we could prepare some committee candidates, or we could address to the members some contributions. But we cannot.
My conclusion: The whole process is behind a veil of ignorance. Intransparency rules, and not transparency as one of the main conditions for participation.
3. On Saturday evening one part of the programme (approximately 15 minutes) will be the “Presentation of the Assembly Message”. No decision, no voting, no affirmation. In combination with missing rules of procedure, there is only one possible conclusion. The delegates will not be asked about the final version of the message. This prognosis is even strengthened by the information, we got at the Assembly office: “There’s no voting, because there will be no decision.” But if we cannot vote – who are the decision makers? A small circle of people will decide on the contents of the message. Nevertheless, the message will be presented as a position of the whole assembly.
What is then participation? Is it about sitting there and listening speeches, lectures, greetings, addresses, and in the end they present you the result? Or is it far more? That was my main question when I saw the detailed programme.
In the foreword of the Assembly’s handbook, Metropolitan Gennadios of Sassima and Bishop Vincenzo Paglia describe participation as “sharing, experiencing and enjoying the Assembly ecumenically”. Contributions of delegates or open discussions don’t find their place in this definition. Is the EEA3 then only a show which was already scripted before?
No, it won't, because this depends on the efforts of the delegates with an interest in higher partipation. I think that there are a couple of possibilities:
- Asking for more time of open discussion
- Asking for an election of the members of the message committee
- Asking for a voting on the Assembly message
- If there is no way to express the position within the programme, finding other places for opinion making and discussion (as for example this blog)
- Not waiting, but starting now to act
- ...
I’m sure, this will be a very interesting and spirited assembly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)