trust and conviv~ncia

TRUSTA N D C O N V I V ~ N C I A Contributions to a Hermeneutics of Trust in Communal Interaction RuJolf von S i n n e r

We are in Spain, in the most vicious period of the Inquisition. Frequently, one sees the stakes burning with the “heretics”, supposedly the enemies of the true faith. In this hell of flames, Jesus returns to earth and walks amidst the people. Everyone recognizes him. While he begins to take care of the people, heal the sick and resurrect the dead, the Grand Inquisitor arrives, He immediately orders that Jesus be imprisoned. At night, he visits Jesus in his narrow cell. “Why did you come to bother us?” asks the Grand Inquisitor, and announces that on the next day Jesus will die at the stake as “the worst of heretics”. In a comprehensive sermon, the Inquisitor explains, in essence, the failure of the gospel message. Jesus proclaimed freedom, but the people did not know how to deal with it. It was necessary that the church guide the people. The people wanied peace, security, happiness, albeit submissive to the authority of the church. They did not want nor could they support freedom, because freedom brings insecurity and risk. “WhJi,therefore, did you come to bother us?“ Jesus, however, says nothing. He stays silent to the end. He perceives that it was no longer God who was dwelling in the heart of the Inquisitor, even though he represented the church. In the end, Jesus kisses the Inquisitor’s lips. The Inquisitor, with his heart burning, lets him go. “Go and never return, never again!”’

‘ See Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Tht Grmd

Iiiyitwitiv

with rrlntcd chapter., from the Brothem Km-amamt: Hackett, 1993.

and the full editions of the Brothers Karamazov.

322

TRUST AND CONVIVPNCIA

This story is told by the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-81). It is a very rich story, touching on the deepest aspects of human life and faith, as does the whole book, The Brodxhel:i K(zrrlmnizuw, from which this story is taken. I wish to highlight only one of its many facets: freedom, the deepest characteristic of the human being, implies risk, taking responsibility for oneself and not merely following authority. Jesus shows his trust in the human capacity for freedom, he even makes it a central aspect of his proclamation of God’s kingdom.* However, the church of the Grand Inquisitor, supposedly Jesus’ follower and representative on earth, treats human beings as if they were infants who need motherly care. The church gives the people what they want: bread and games. But it does not trust in their capacity for using freedom. Jesus, on the contrary, as Dostoyevsky’s story clearly shows, trusts human beings and their freedom. And I join this attitude of trust. We will see further on how difficult it is to construct ~~umzi~iv~micLz3 and how trust is needed not only in freedom but in the good use of freedom. But we are free beings because of the gospel, both capable and worthy of it. We do not need to be guided by the absolute authority of the church or any other power, but by Christ, the living Word of God. On this basis, the church is indeed the community of free humans in Christ. At the heart of this text lies the thesis that trust is the basis of any cumiivihzciz, within the family, the church or society, indeed in any human fellowship. The fundamental importance of trust has come clearly to the fore during my current research on the contribution of Brazilian churches to citizen~hip.~ The need for trust presented itself to me as a central element of human mnoii,?mzcLz and, thereby, as central to democracy and to citizenship. Trust is the indispensable foundation of any communal interaction, be it in the circle of family, church or society or in any other grouping of human beings. This is the affirmation that I intend to explore in this reflection, trying to offer some thoughts on what I shall call, following reflections from the ecumenical movement and Dietrich Ritschl’s seminal proposal, a “hermeneutics of trust”.5

2

Cf. Hans-Werner Dartsch. “Freiheit. IV. I‘reiheit und Betreiung im Neuen Testament”, in Thto/oqirc.hr ~ ~ z / r i i ~ . y k / ~Vol. ~ ~ , ~1 I[ , i Berlin, i~,

de Griyter, 1983, pp.506-508; on the theological continuation of this theme in the Reformation and in liberation theologies see Christoph Dahling-Sander, Ziti ,q(II;iche Ver,~t;iii&t i’on I.kihd r r i r d &fieuiiiq i i w h ilfiirtiii Luther; Hirlr)ryc.h Ziivii.q/i, Jmitv H. Conr niiJ Gri.i/iiiw Giitikrrc-z, Frankfurt, I ~ v n b e c k 2003. , 3 Literally. “conviviality”. However, the connotations of its use in Portuguese are very particular and will be explained below; I therefore opted to maintain the Portuguese word, always i n italics. Cf‘. RudolF von Sinner,” Healing Relationships in Society - The Struggle for Citizenship in Brazil”, /i~/rrit~iti~n Rrivriv id qfdi’i.~.wn,vol. 93, no. 390, 2004, pp.238-54. The research project on “CiJdaniir [citizenship] as a Key Concept for 0emocrac.y in Brazil and the Contribution of the Churches. Reflections on Political Ethics in an Ecumenical Perspective’’ is being sponsored by a fellowship from the Swiss National Science Foundation (www.snl’.ch). (I Cf’. Commission on Faith and Order, A Trrmrrrr iiz fiirlhen W . i d i . A n /iz.driitnrn/,hr mi Eniinenicd R $ d i i i i on Hrriiitiic-u/ilv,Geneva. W C C , 1998 (Faith and Order Paper no. 182). pp.lOf.; Dietrich Ritschl, Tbrorie iind f h i k i k ’ l h i i iii rhr lhinr.iii.whrii TheoLyie: Kiiiin e., tiiw Mrriireiien/ik &.I Wrtraiirn.f ininittrn AfkrirreiiJer mviii>1iicher

323

THE E C U M E N I C ARLE V I E W

My paper is divided into four sections: after showing the need for and the lack of trust, as identified in various surveys (1) I shall identify different aspects of trust (2). Further (3), I intend to develop contributions for a hermeneutics of trust relying on biblical witness. Finally (4),I seek to point out the possible consequences of this hermeneutic in three areas: ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and cotivivitzch in society. I.

Need for and lack of trust

It may seem just too obvious to affirm that we need to trust each other even in the most basic procedures. Even so, it makes sense to remember this fact to realize the absolute necessity of trust. Thus, on a daily basis, we trust many people, appliances, products, procedures, agreements and many other items, often without being aware of this. Whenever you rise in the morning and buy your bread for breakfast at the bakery, it is rather unlikely that you would waste time thinking about the possibility of eating bread containing poison. You trust in the inspections of the health ministry as well as in the baker’s professional ethics. You take toor granted that this baker would not want to damage his business and therefore would work at maintaining his clients’ satisfaction. When you travel to work by train, you usually trust in the driver, as well as in the company who constructed the train. You would enter the carriage calmly trusting to arrive at the right place in plenty of time.6As you cross the road, you would expect cars to stop at the red traffic light. And reaching your work-place, you would normally find it as you left it -with the usual procedures, instruments, colleagues and so on. Other items could easily be added to this list. Were it not possible for us to trust so many people and things, our life would be seriously restricted. It would not be possible to live our lives if we could not trust without always being preoccupied specifically with every aspect of our life. Without trust there is no life.? However, opinion polls seem to suggest that trust is virtually absent in Brazil. Among 17 countries of Latin America, periodically surveyed by the organization Latiainobnnimtro,Brazil is lowest in this regard. Questioned on “speaking in general, would you say that you can LS.v.hviug r h n ? . Miinster. LIT, 2003, esp. pp. 179-92: Rudolf von Sinner, Rrdeii iwn drricit+ri? Go// in f i r d i t i r i u i 0 liidicn: 6‘rrindzi?,qeeiner~kriiiimiic.beii Hnriinirirtik iiii Dh11i.qinit i‘ainado Bidfrod Rnitiioii Pmikkar, Tiibingen, “

Mohr Siebeck, 2003, esp. pp.23, 339f. The bomb attacks on suburban trains in Madrid on 1 1 March I 1 2004 confirm this common attitude, as they timed the explosion precisely for the period when thousands of‘people would be on their daily wa.y to work, not thinking a second ofthe possibility of such a thing to happen. I t is particularly perfidious to break a most common trust. Conversely, the impressive signs of solidarity on local, national and international levels show that the population is not ready to tolerate such questioning of their routine and trust. Niklas Luhmann differentiates between “confidence” and “trust”. where the daily, normal would Fall under ”confidence”,while “trust”would presuppose a “previous engagement” and a “situation of risk” which one can enter or avoid, see: Vertrautheit, “Zuversicht. Vertrauen, Probleme und Alternativen”, in M. Hartmann, C. Offe eds, Vertruen. Dip CrrrndhigtmzicLii Zii.ininmrnbalt,i, Frankfurt, Campus, 2001, pp. 143-60, here p. 148; also his Vrrtrarrrii. Eui Mro5iziiiiinii.i do. Rrdirktuii? .imiizkr KrimpLmtat [1968]. 4th ed., Stuttgart. Lucius & Lucius, 2000.

324

TRUST AND

CONVIV~NCIA

trust in the majority of the people or that one is never careful enough in dealing with others?,’’only 4 percent of Brazilian respondents affirmed that they would trust in others. The average on the continent is 17 percent, with Uruguay presenting the highest percentage of trust (36 percent).8 This does not mean that there is no trust whatsoever in Brazil, but people seem to be convinced that they cannot trust people they do not know. The same research shows that people trust in persons around them or persons with known capacities -the firemen (64 percent in all of Latin America), one’s work or study colleagues (59 percent), one’s neighbours (50 percent), however not unknown person^.^ As to institutions, research done by the World Economic Forum in 2002 (under Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s government) shows that the list of trust is headed by the churches:1° Religious groups and churches Non-governmental organizations Armed forces Press and media Educational system Trade unions Big national companies United Nations Multinationals in Brazil World Trade Organization Judicial system Health system World Bank Police Government Congress International Monetary Fund

65% 6 1O/o 59%

58% 56% 53%

53O/o 49% 47%

45Yo 44%

44% 41% 40% 38% 33O/o 30%

The survey of the Lhzobmimetro shows a similar picture. It is important to add, however, that trust in the churches has gone down considerably in the last years. It fell from 76 percent in 1996 to 62 percent in 2003, with the greatest fall between 2002 to 2003.1’

L(

Latinobar6metro 2003, p.26. Document accessible at http://www.latinobaromeLro.org.Accessed o n 10 Feb.

2004. ‘’ [hi),,p.27. On p.23, the report sa.ys that there is trust irrihirr groups and segments ofsociety, however, there is no trust L r t i i w ~groups, segments and networks. ‘II1002 persons in nine metropolitan regions were interviewed ( S o Paulo,

Salvador, Recife, Fortaleza. Belkm, Curitiba and Port0 Alegre), OEitoOo I‘ IbiO.,. pp.25-26.

Rio de Janeiro. Belo Horizonte, SJo P m h , 8 Nov. 2002, p.AI7.

325

T H E E C U M E N I C ARLE V I E W

Such lack of trust in people outside one’s own group is, in my view, one of the most important factors that impedes communion among people, churches, religions and institutions of society, In Brazil, one of the roots of the problem seems to me well identified in the reflections of Brazilian anthropologist Roberto DaMatta.I* Thus, a woman or a man is a per,m inasmuch as one belongs to a “family” headed by a “boss” (patrio), be this the father, an entrepreneur, a large landowner, a politician, a colonel or some other person who holds a considerable degree of power. This situation has given birth to the famous phrase “doyou know whom you’re talking to?” This phrase intends to identify the person as a member of that “family”and demand privileges, such as breaking into a queue at the bank or not being given a traffic fine. The law, a basic instrument of any transparent society, presupposes, however, that all are equal. In this context, it is significant that, in the aforementioned survey, a clear majority opted for the affirmation that claims, as a necessary presupposition for trust in the state institutions, equal treatment for all.’3 For DaMatta, the subjects ofthe law are not “persons” but “individuals”, defined not by their relationships with a “boss” and other members of the “family”,but by their rights and duties before the law -therefore as citizens. The “persons” are going to say: “For friends everything; for enemies the law!” Applying this distinction made by DaMatta to our theme, we can conclude that trust would exist only within the “familyof persons” and not outside it, where the human being is abandoned to the cold letter of the law. The “boss”is head of a hierarchy, he gives orders and can give or withdraw privileges as he wishes. But - for the members of the “family”- he is also the father who cares for and protects; and this is precisely the reason why he deserves to be trusted. Where there is no trust, the thread that binds society together and gives it the necessary cohesion is missing. This is recognized even in the area where competition, on principle an enemy of trust, prevails in the economy. Francis Fukuyama, author of a controversial book about the “end of history”,14in which he announced the victory of the democratic and cap“One italist system of Western society due to the fall of socialism, affirms in his book Tnrcft: of the most important lessons that one learns upon examining economic life is that the wellbeing of a nation, as well as its capacity to compete, is conditioned by a single, wide-rangHe goes on to cite a ing cultural characteristic: the level of trust inherent i n the ~ociety.”’~ number of examples where solidarity among the people has lead to the preservation of wel-

Roberto DaMatta, C n r n i i d ~R. i y e ~ inndHerotrg, , Notre Dame IN, Notre Dame UP, 1991, esp. ch. IV: A t m r n ruz: espaqo, cidadania, mulher e mode no B r a d 5th ed., KOde Janeiro, Rocco, 1997, esp. pp.65-95.

i

~ ~ z ~ i i i i J ~ ‘ r r i j r2003, ~ r e f r p.27. i,

’‘Francis Fukuyama. Tbe End