Friends Bulletin
PACIFIC, NORTH PACIFIC AND INTERMOUNTAIN YEARLY MEETINGS OF THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS
Volume 53, Number 10
Golden Lupine
JULY, 1985
Call to Pacific Yearly Meeting,
July 28 -August 3, 1985 La Verne University,
La Verne, California
The 39th annual session of Pacific Yearly Meeting will convene at La Verne University in southern California, July 28 - August 3. This promises to be a week of spiritual refreshment and fellowship, as we seek once again for God’s guidance in those things that are eternal.
As the agenda takes form, we know we will be receiving and studying the new Faith and Practice , coming to grips with Marshall Massey’s challenge to Quakers as stewards of the earth, considering Pacific Yearly Meeting’s role in the wider family of Friends, meeting three Young Friends from East Germany, and struggling with our testimony on equality regarding race and sex. Other surprises which we do not now foresee will emerge.
As we meet once again, may we find “that principle which is pure and proceeds from God,” as John Woolman put it, and “where the heart stands in perfect sincerity.” As we find this inner peace, may we be more able to gird ourselves for our true vocation— applying the Light to the out- ward world.
Robert Vogel, Clerk
o
CD
<
CL
PAGE 154 — JULY, 1985
FRIENDS BULLETIN
FRIENDS BULLETIN (USPS 859-220)
11349 Hwy 116, Guerneville, CA 95446 Telephone: (707) 869-2693 Shirley Ruth, Editor Jeanne Lohmann, Associate Editor 722 10th Ave., San Francisco, CA 94118 Jason Brown, Corresponding Editor, NPYM 6325 Tralee Dr., N.W., Olympia, WA 98502 Mary Etter, Corresponding Editor, NPYM 3080 Potter, Eugene, OR 97405
The official organ of news and opinion of Pacific, North Pacific and Intermountain Yearly Meetings of the Religious Society of Friends.
Second class postage paid at San Francisco, California.
PUBLISHED monthly except February and August at 722 - 1 0th Ave., San Francisco, CA 94118. All corres- pondence, editorial and subscription, should be directed to the Guerneville address above. Deadline for copy is fifth of the month preceding month of issue.
SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $1 4.00 per year for individuals, $10.50 per year for group subscriptions through Meetings. First class postage $3.50. Foreign postage varies as to countries; write editor for costs. Single copies $1 .50 post- paid. Monthly Meetings are encouraged to subscribe for all their members, at the lower rate. Contributions beyond subscription price are welcomed to help meet actual costs.
All contributions are tax deductible; receipts sent on request.
NORTH PACIFIC YEARLY MEETING OFFICERS
Presiding Clerk: Barbara Janoe, Rt. 1 , Box 403, Terrebonne OR 97760
Steering Committee Clerk: Jane Uphoff, 2626 N.E. 22nd
Portland, OR 97212
Treasurers: Henry and Jackie Van Dyke, 3300 NW Van Buren Ave., Corvallis, OR 97330
PACIFIC YEARLY MEETING OFFICERS
Presiding Clerk: Robert Vogel, 1678 Casitas Ave.,
Pasadena, CA 91103
Assistant Clerk: Jeanette Norton, 53 Sparrowhawk,
Irvine, CA 92714
Treasurers: Virginia Croninger, 4509 Pavlov Ave.,
San Diego, CA 92122 Walter Klein, 4509 Pavlov Ave.,
San Diego, CA 92122 .
INTERMOUNTAIN YEARLY MEETING OFFICERS
Presiding Clerk: Frances McAllister,, 526 N. Bertrand, Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Continuing Committee Clerk: Marie Clark, 651 1 W.
Alice Ave., Apt. 98,
Glendale, AZ 95302
Treasurer: Maud Ward, 1668 W. Glendale Ave.,
Apt. 427, Phoenix, AZ 85021
“The Quaker stresses the guidance of the enlight- ened conscience. He relies upon illumined reason and authority as checks. His positions may appear, even to himself, to be contrary to reason and to respected authorities. But if the Light in his con- science gives him a clear leading, he must follow it as the primary organ for ascertaining religious and moral truth.”
—Friends for 300 Years,
Howard Brinton, p. 121
With this issue Friends Bulletin begins a dialogue concerning Liberation Theology and its world-wide historical role and significance. As Elizabeth Watson (in her recent address to IMYM) observed: “We are living at the time of the Second Reformation.” As Friends, we need to become better informed of this religious phenomenon which has made of the Catholic Church two churches and is empowering the global poor.
What are the implications of Liberation Theology for the United States, for Europe, for Africa? In what ways can we unite with the insights of Libera- tion Theology? In what ways are our insights at variance?
We invite responses from Friends, and have been assured by at least one Friend at IMYM, Kenneth Boulding, that such will be forthcoming. May we be guided by the Light in our conscience as we explore and test these issues.
In the fall we shall continue a forum on Sanctuary and Friends’ experiences of crises and change.
Pre-trial hearings in Phoenix, AZ, are presently determining the shape of the September 7 trial for the Sanctuary indictees. As I hold Friends Jim Corbett and Nina McDonald and the other indictees in loving respect and thanksgiving for their work and witness, I recall Daniel Berrigan’s Vietnam conversations (while he was living underground J with Robert Coles ( The Geography of Faith, pp. 81,82):
. . . they [Bonhoeffer, Martin King and many others] have dared accept the poli- tical consequences of being human beings at a time when the fate of people, of the
(Continued on page 166)
FRIENDS BULLETIN
JULY, 1985 -PAGE 155
SANDINISTA CHRISTIANS
by Barbara Graves, Strawberry Creek Meeting
Some of us North American Nicaragua-watchers see Sandinistas as “communists” and deduce from this that we should destroy their revolution. Others with a theological rather than a political perspective, see Sandinistas as practicing “liberation theologians” and deduce from this that we should either embrace or reject their revolution, depending on the observers’ theological commitments. As a Quaker Nicaragua- watcher, I see Sandinistas as predominantly Catholic leaders and people living out a unique national experiment designed to provide “a preferential option for the poor;”* and I deduce from this that we should protect, defend and seek to be spiritually challenged by their revolution.
I welcome this opportunity to sort out my experiential reflections and to invite -Friends’ criticisms. I will start with a quick description of the above two positions and then focus on my own.
The inflammatory rhetoric with which administration spokespeople describe Nicaraguan “communism” is generally recognized as untruth. Nicaragua has achieved a restructuring of society which includes a mixed economy, a democratically elected government, political pluralism, privately owned property along with government-directed agrarian reform, and perhaps most important, a freedom from economic or political alignment with either superpower. The data clearly show that most foreign help comes from Western rather than Eastern block countries. Nicaraguans loudly insist that after a century of domina- tion by United States economic and political interests they have no taste for anything but national sovereignty, and are willing to die for it. I have found Foreign Minister Miguel d’Escoto’s comments on Marxism and Christianity helpful. The March, 1983, issue of Sojourners Magazine, as well as the 1984 Sojourners study guide, Crucible of Hope, both contain d’Escoto’s article entitled “Nicaragua— An Un- finished Canvas.” It begins like this:
When a revolution takes place, people look for the ideology that guides the building of a new society. Sometimes revolutions can be embarked upon rather hastily, and people may think the essence of a revolution is to overthrow a government. That is not the revolution. That is some- thing that has to happen prior to the revolution. Thank God, in Nicaragua, in the varying trails of our mountains and valleys and in our cities there has been in gestation for more than half a century a true Nicaraguan ideology which we call Sandinismo.
D’Escoto then writes about the four fundamental pillars undergirding Sandinista thought. They are nationalism, democratic aspiration, Christianity and social justice. He confronts the issue of the co- existence of Marxism and Christianity as follows:
From a philosophical perspective, of course, Marx helps us understand the connection between liberal philosophy, capitalism, imperialism and racism. As a 20th century revolution, we are definitely influenced by Marxist thought, as many modern people are, whether they know it or not. So as Sandinistas we have been very much aided by Marxist thought to understand some great problems. But we have been equally or more influenced by Christian thought.
As for the perspective of liberation theology and its influence on the Nicaraguan revolution, I have
— (Continued on page 156)
*The doctrine of a preferential option for the poor emanated from the Conference of Latin American bishops in Puebla, Mexico, in January, 1979, seven months before the years of popular insurrection against Somoza's dictatorship ended in "the Triumph" on July 19, 1979, and began the revolutionary process of the FSLN government of reconstruction. "Revolution" is seen as ongoing experimentation with a goal of developing a better way of life for all Nicaraguans. There is a recognizable commitment to "learn as we go," and to open-ended process.
PAGE 156 — JULY, 1985
FRIENDS BULLETIN
(Sandinista Christians: Cont. from page 155)
concluded— and mounting evidence confirms this view— that the debates raging between the hierarchical Church represented by the Vatican, and the Nicaraguan government represented by its four eminent Catholic priests have more to do with what the Church feels are threats to Church authority from a grow- ing grassroots religious revolution than with religion itself.
But because liberation theology is under discussion in this issue of Friends Bulletin, I have searched out a bottom-line theological statement from perhaps the best known of the Latin American liberation theologists, Gustavo Gutierrez. Henry J. M. Nouwen, in his foreword to Gutierrez’ We Drink From Our Own Wells, quotes the author as follows:
Everyone has to drink from his own well. From what well can the poor of Latin America drink?
It is obviously that unique and renewing encounter with the living Christ in the struggle for free- dom. To drink from your own well is to live your own life in the Spirit of Jesus as you have en- countered him in your concrete historical reality. This has nothing to do with abstract opinions, convictions, or ideas, but it has everything to do with the tangible, audible and visible experience of God, an experience so real that it can become the foundation of a life project.
What Quaker could not endorse such a statement?
My experiences in Nicaragua and my readings before and since, say to me that this is the essence of liberation theology as one can find it in lengthier discourses, and is what one senses to be at the heart of these people’s religious experience generally.
There is just no room for doubt that multitudes of Nicaraguans are actively practicing Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, who pack their churches every Sunday and tend to translate their everyday living in terms of simple biblical insights.
Last summer I spent two intense weeks of fact-finding in Nicaragua as a member of a nationwide Fellowship of Reconciliation/Witness for Peace delegation. We spent one week in the war zones where anti-Sandinista contras ravage the peasants’ lives and property, and one week in Managua, the seat of the Sandinista government. (It is also the seat of the American Embassy.) The solid influence of personal religion in the lives of policy-makers I met and of the people who live the revolution throughout the coun- try was apparent. The noticeable stress of life under the daily toll of our North American economic and military siege made the impact of people’s Christianity the more compelling for me.
One of the tragedies of our propaganda version of Nicaraguan life as Marxist/Leninist, militaristic, communist-controlled, dictatorial tyranny over a resistive population, is what that version blots out. Even those of us who have seen and felt the opposite truths, tend to forget the powerful realities of a different witness. We have, by the hundreds, come back to tell of Nicaraguans as a gentle, generous, courageous, self-respecting, freedom-reflecting population. Even those who freely dissent, prefer their government and their way of life to anything they have previously experienced. Most will tell you, “We will never go back.”
Were such observations unique to me I would have to discount them as personal and perhaps biased experience. But since they are replicated in the experiences of many, many other North Americans I am forced to understand them as characteristics of a phenomenon belonging to these Nicaraguan people in these historical times, which includes the phenomenon of our own government’s sad misreading of Nicaragua’s realities.
I’d like to cite Ellie Foster’s experience as one witness. At College Park winter Quarterly Meeting,
Ellie reported on her Nicaragua visit. She described the joyous comraderie at the end of a workday in a Nicaraguan village near the Honduran border. Toward evening she participated in a high-spirited celebra- tion of the mass in a packed church of villagers with many of whom she’d been working during the day. Ellie acted out for us how a peasant woman with whom she could have no exchange in words, came over
FRIENDS BULLETIN
JULY, 1985 -PAGE 157
to her at the end of the service, simply laid her hand on Elite’s shoulder and smiled affectionately. Another asked to take her arm to escort her out of the church and across the dark, muddy country road. The experience of cordial hospitality was heightened, so Ellie said, by her all too real reminders that there were U.S. empowered contra insurgents close by. Of course this is the everyday reality for those villagers. Peasants near the border seem to understand that “la bestia,” (“the Beast”) is not individual Americans but our present government. Ellie shared with us the gratitude she felt for what seemed like forgiveness. Her reflections ended with a sort of reverie: “I’m not sure how to say it, but I came away feeling that we are missing something.”
What is that quality which we are missing which seems to flourish in spite of hard, tedious daily work, poverty and suffering? I experienced it in the cooperative farming village of Escambray, also a border town, where all night we heard the exchange of gunfire with the contras. This is my diary entry for August 20, 1984:
We hoed hard earth today in blistering heat. We ‘gringas’ could tolerate only a few hours before noontime. The village women knew that before we did, and gently encouraged us to take siestas on their concrete porches amid the kids and puppies and chickens while they returned to the onion field. About four-thirty they returned, and we helped shell beans for supper. About sun- down three village men came in from their armed border patrol to talk with us. They had been selected to tell us about their cooperative. The first to speak, named Faustino, is a Delegate of the Word. This means that he has been selected and trained by the Jalapa parish priest to do liturgies here on Sundays when the priest can’t make it. Faustino spoke carefully, slowly, so Phil could readily translate:
‘A Christian greeting from us brothers who are struggling for peace. It gives us much joy when Christians from other countries come to learn about our situation. Feel at home here.’
[They go on to describe the history of intense fighting; the necessity to leave their hillside homes a year ago and unite as a community for mutual protection from the contras. The government has been influential, they said, in bringing this about.]
Tn a certain sense the aggressions from President Reagan have pushed us to become better people than we were before. We have become a true cooperative, and not just for growing coffee, which we always did, but for other things like health, education, water, and all these things we never had before. Before, the campesinos were practically abandoned and left alone. Now we feel like a real force within our own country. I want to tell you about our church, too. Before, it was like a church that was sleeping. During the insurrection there were already some elements of the church that were struggling along with the poor. A lot of young men understood that they had to take part in the liberation out of a deep Christian commitment. They gave their lives for their brothers. The same kind of learning to care for each other, even if you die, is what you see here now in our community as well. We believe that God is with us and that is the reason we are capable of developing this settlement.’
[Faustino’s companion Reynaldo, a burly fellow with his gun laid casually across his lap, took his turn:]
‘We know that the church isn’t something made of clay but something that each of us is building with our own lives. You maybe heard that there is no freedom of worship in Nicaragua, but that is twisted information. The truth is we have freedom like we never had it before. With Somoza, people like our Delegates of the Word were persecuted. Even
(Continued on page 158)
PAGE 158- JULY, 1985
FRIENDS BULLETIN
(Sandinista Christians: Cont. from page 157)
priests. Anybody who preached against injustice. But now the church is awake and has opened its eyes and is the kind of church that Christ came to leave for the world. This settlement right here is how God wants us Christians to act, and we are living out the church in a united way. We think Reagan would like us to have a sleeping church. Christ said thou shall not kill, and we feel very disturbed to have to carry these guns. But we have all suf- fered in our own flesh what the aggression means, and we have seen with our own eyes the blood of our brothers. When several of our leaders have been killed off one by one in the fields we came to understand that Christ also said true love is laying down your life for your friend.
‘We really believe that God has protected us up to this moment and 3 have faith that our community is going to continue to go forward. We just hope that your presence here will help you tell people what you have heard and seen.’
One of the kids grabbed a chick which had lighted on Reynaldo’s shoulder, at that point, and made us laugh.
My diary continues from the next morning:
I can’t leave the Escambray experience without recording the unexpected visit Dona Julia made to our overnight digs in the day care center as we were packing up to leave. Dona Julia may not be more than 50 but she looks worn, and being toothless, seems older. She is clearly the village matriarch, as one knows from her presence but also from the fact that she’s respected by the Dona title. She is also a Delegate of the Word, like Fernando and Reynaldo, and I had the distinct im- pression she wasn’t going to let the two men be the only ones to address us! Dona Julia clutched a little scrap of paper with notes on it as she spoke but never once referred to it as she talked to us, her eyes and her message incredibly expressive:
‘Before, we didn’t have opportunities to talk to our government. As poor people we didn’t have any part in things. We didn’t understand until we discovered our situation through the Scriptures. Then we found that Christ doesn’t want us to continue in our poverty. Ephesians 6:10 talks about the efforts we need. It talks about putting on the shield of faith in a spirit of service, unity, work, just authority and a popular government. Here in this settlement we are experiencing that community. We share in prayer, work, food, studies and service to other people. When the government comes to visit us, it’s no longer a king sitting somewhere. It’s a peasant government and this is a peasant people, like our Christ.
I want to thank you peaceful people for coming and I hope each of us will dedicate ourselves to take to the countries that have doubts, this message: That Christ who is King and Savior has begun to liberate this little country of Nicaragua and we believe that this liberation can reach to the smallest corners of the earth— to the people who are still poor and dominated, but also to the hearts of the oppressors that they may become softened someday. The heart of Christ was broken for us all.’
Today as I reread these lines I am once more moved to tears, as we all were then, except for the gracious Dona Julia who hugged us to her bosom with its rustic crucifix and then walked with us to our open trucks to say goodbye. And I ask myselt today, as I did then, “Why are we killing these good people and trying to destroy the government which they so feel a part of?”
We had been told that the hierarchical church has never taken a stand against the brutal contra war, and in Managua we went to visit Archbishop Vega, the head of the Nicaraguan Council of Bishops which maintains a 5/4 voting record against the Sandinista government. First we asked him about “the preferen-
FRIENDS BULLETIN
JULY, 1985 — PAGE 159
tial option for the poor” as a matter of church dogma. Bishop Vega repeated what we’ve known as the Pope’s position, that the church is concerned with the redemption of souls, whether people are rich or poor, although the Pope is also concerned for conditions of poverty and social injustice. But the Sandi- nista government, he explained, and those priests who practice a theology of liberation, have used a Marxist analysis to manipulate and control gullible peasants through materialistic rather than spiritual ideology. He instructed us, from his own experience, that peasants believe whatever they are told. We described the sense we had of vital Christian living among the peasants at Escambray and elsewhere.
Bishop Vega felt we could not possibly understand from one visit as foreigners in his country. When we asked him why the church has never come out against the brutal killings and torture by the contras, his answer was that if the Sandinistas would give up their Marxist leanings there would be no need for a counter-revolution. “The Sandinistas have to take the initiative toward peace.”
Practicing priests, several of whom we talked with at length, differ sharply from these positions.
Father Ramon Gonzales is one such priest. In the town of Jalapa we went to a lively, heavily atten- ded evening mass in his parish church. (A placid white horse grazed away at the grass by the doorsill at arm’s length from my pew.) Father Gonzales walked up and down the aisles, informally discussing the gospel for the day as anyone in the congregation asked questions or gave personal stories interpreting how they related their lives to the gospel. Later they all sang lustily from the Campesino Mass, which by now was delightfully familiar to us in its lively rhythm and its worker/peasant refrains. (We could not help contrasting the atmosphere of this Christian celebration with that of the Archbishop’s mass in the Cathedral of Managua. Archbishop Obando y Bravo is the very symbol of anti-Sandinista hierarchical power. I was filled with a kind of terrible anxiety over the implications of power one experienced, as his congregation sang a song of praise to him as “Miguel, our Bishop.”)
The next day in Jalapa, Father Gonzales, in his everyday blue jeans, came to visit us to respond to our questions about the church. We asked about these conflicts between some priests and some bishops. He stated his strong belief that the people’s church and the church hierarchy must be in responsible, if critical, dialogue with each other. But he also believes that it is distance from the rural peasant populations during these times of revolutionary process which strongly influences the bishops’ stance. For Father Gonzales, “the people are closer to the meaning of Jesus. They understand what the gospel says about everyday life. The work of the priest is to learn from the people and to provide them with opportunities to express it all. That is the real church. The poor have evangelized us.”
Another priest, Father Peter Marchetti, is an American highly placed in the Nicaraguan Ministry of Agrarian Reform. Agrarian reform is one of the substantial successes of the new Nicaragua. I asked him whether he felt it possible for the church to co-exist with what some Americans see as Marxism. His reply was “How does the church co-exist with Marxism? That is not the right question for Nicaragua.
This revolution is a Christian message, and I ask myself, rather, how have we as a church co-existed with capitalism?”
For a Protestant pastor’s perspective, we had an interview with Dr. Gustavo Parajon, who is a physi- cian as well as a minister. He is the founder and director of CEPAD, the coalition of evangelical (non- Catholic) churches and church agencies in Nicaragua. (He is not a member of the Sandinista party, by the way. But we came to think of any Nicaraguans actively supportive of the government as “Sandinistas.”)
Dr. Parajon’s response to my question about Christianity and Marxism had the slightest tinge of im- patience, and I sensed that perhaps he had had to answer it often when it seemed to him self-evident.
My short-hand notes quote him as follows:
Is it Marxism to feed the hungry? Is it Marxism to be Christian? The democracy emerging in Nicaragua is a Christian effort to create a world which is just, egalitarian and on an equal, self-
(Continued on page 160)
PAGE 160- JULY, 1985
FRIENDS BULLETIN
(Sandinista Christians: Cont. from page 159) respecting footing with the rest of the world.
Ever since the devastating earthquake which demolished Managua in 1972, Dr. Parajon has been the country’s most significant figure in co-ordinating emergency relief, and since The Triumph his role has been consolidated within CEP AD. CEP AD is widely respected and supported by churches in the United States. Dr. Parajon spoke about working relationships with the FSLN (Sandinista) government as open and friendly:
I have been working closely with the FSLN since the first day of the revolution and have never found anything but an open door, with support for the work of our churches and our church agencies all around the country.
Dr. Parajon spoke also about the significant role of religion in the FSLN cabinet (junta) from its first days. The foreign minister of Nicaragua is a Maryknoll priest whom I have already quoted, Father Miguel d’Escoto. Three other members of the junta are priests: Father Ernesto Cardenal, a renowned poet, is Minister of Culture. His brother, Father Fernando Cardenal, is Minister of Education and earlier was co- ordinator of the enormously successful Literacy Campaign in the first days of the revolution. A fourth priest, Father Edgar Parrales, is Ambassador to the Organization of American States. All four were mem- bers of the original junta. The man who urged them into government was Daniel Ortega, who was elected President of Nicaragua last November 3. Father d’Escoto has said that Daniel Ortega, whose youthful dream was to be a priest, was led by conscience to leave home and join the insurrection against Somoza. He quotes Ortega as saying, “I had to follow my Christ.”
Recently I attended the Board Meeting of NICA here in Berkeley. (Nicaraguan Interfaith Committee for Action is a project of the Northern California Ecumenical Council.) I heard my board colleagues tel- ling about their Eastertide experiences in Nicaragua, just a few weeks ago. They described the choking impact of Good Friday services in a packed Managua parish church. The arrest and trial of the revolu- tionary Jesus was the gospel for the day: the man who was crucified for insisting on one’s duty to work for the coming of God’s kingdom— toward a society of love, justice and a clear preferential option for the poor and oppressed. A man whose country was under the dictatorial control of a contemporary imperi- alist superpower. The following day my colleagues visited the American embassy and listened to a career- weary young man justify our United States policies of aggression against Nicaragua. The leader of our NICA delegation found herself stunned. “My God, I have just lived this: We are hiding from the gospel.” In their last interview of the tour, our NICA delegation spent over an hour with Father d’Escoto, an hour which they describe with a tenderness which made it hard to listen without tears. After they had talked and prayed together, they asked Father d’Escoto how his government colleagues treat him, now that the Vatican has relieved him of his priestly functions because of his refusal to give up his Sandinista Ministry. He profoundly believes his government service to be a ministry to the people. “They still con- sider me their padre,” he said quite simply.
I would like to end by sharing these opening lines from the public statement of the four priests in government, on the occasion of the first ultimatum from the Council of Bishops that they must give up either their posts in the junta or their priestly functions. The priests’ statement is dated June 8, 1981, and it deserves to be heard again:
We believe in God the Father, Creator of the world and human beings.
We believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our Brother and our Savior.
We believe in the church, the visible Body of Christ, to which we belong.
FRIENDS BULLETIN
JULY, 1985 - PAGE 161
We believe in justice, the basis of human community and communion.
We believe in love, the first and principal commandment of Jesus.
We believe in our priesthood, which is our vocation to serve our brothers and sisters.
We believe in our country, that great family to which we belong and to which we owe our being.
We believe in the Nicaraguan people’s revolution, fashioned by the people in order to overthrow tyranny and sow justice and love.
We believe in the poor, who will be the ones to build a more just homeland, and who will help us to be saved ourselves.
(Rev.) Miguel d’Escoto, (Rev.) Ernesto Cardenal (Rev.) Edgar Parrales, (Rev.) Fernando Cardenal.
What leaps back into focus for me, as I have tried to share my reflections on Sandinista Christianity, is the shattering understanding of our growing numbness to the lies we hear (and tend to believe after they are repeated often enough) to justify our ideological “war against communism.”
I do not believe that Nicaragua is a communist, dictatorial, oppressive, Russian-controlled nation which tyrannizes its people. I am painfully coming to believe, instead, that our government’s hostility is really caused by the political implications of Nicaragua’s “preferential option for the poor.” The prefer- ential option for the poor was not first invented at the Conference of Puebla. It belongs distinctly to the gospels and to the teachings of Jesus. And if our own government and many in our society reflect such fear of Christian revolution, is it going to be safe to be an active North American Christian seeking to move our own society closer to that of a caring, just community?
Perhaps it never was. When Christians have dared to act prophetically, as Jesus did, and as early Quakers did, daring to challenge the institutions which perpetuate injustice, they, too, suffered.
Returning from the NIC A board meeting, I picked up for my bedtime reading the Church is All of You, a collection of quotations from Archbishop Romero’s homilies. Archbishop Romero was assas- sinated at the altar in San Salvador on March 24, 1980, having just completed this homily:
We know that every effort to better society,
especially when injustice and sin are so ingrained,
is an effort that God blesses,
that God wants,
that God demands of us.
Father Miguel d’Escoto
David Hartsough
PAGE 162- JULY, 1985
FRIENDS BULLETIN
Theology of Liberation or a New Theology for the Liberation
by Nelson Salinas,
former FWCC Executive Secretary of COAL
I was 18 years old back in 1965. Already I had devoted several years of work at the high school level in my native country to bring the Christian message to my peers. I travelled a lot as leader of the powerful Catholic Students Organization called JEC (Juventud Estudiantil Catolica).
The JEC had at that time the strength to have representation in public schools in Chile. Those schools which were basically controlled at the ad- ministrative level by anti-Catholics became a ground for development of a new concept in which commu- nist students along with Catholics, Christian demo- crats, and independents, were united behind the flags of school reforms. Our platform was based upon the concept of dialogue among teachers, ad- ministrators, and students in order to improve the school system for us, the “jesistas.” Our call for service and mission was rooted in the Bible. Justice and a more humane relationship between the partic- ipants of the school system was based upon the message of Jesus: “Love one another. .
Later I was a member of the Latin American Secretariat, located at Montevideo, Uruguay. At the age of 18 and 19 I visited with our Latin American counterparts. I met underground with the leaders of the Catholic Student Movement of Nicaragua, Brasil, Argentina, El Salvador, etc. For them at that time life was— as it is nowadays— in constant danger. To be a Christian Catholic pro- fessing in real terms the teachings of Jesus in those countries meant for us to be as the early Christians threatened by Romans, meat for lions in a circus.
In those days I met Gustavo Gutierrez from Peru, Mons. Romero, and many others. In those days also I experienced the two churches experience: the one of many bishops and priests and lay people aligned with the rich and the other one working for the needy, the oppressed, the poor.
Twenty years later all that early work is sur- facing. To understand it today we must read the sources of the Theological Movement, or be more
familiar with the experiences of Teilhard of Char- din, the Emmaus in France; the French worker- priests; Mons. Helder Camera in Brasil; the impact of Camilo Torres on the youth of those days; the Che Guevara diary; the Medellin Conference of Bishops; the II Vatican Council and Juan XXIII; etc. It seems to me that the schism in the Catholic church continues between the church of the vast majority of Latin Americans— the poor— and the church of the secret elites as such, aligned to fight all forms of rebellion against injustice— economic and social injustice. Their pretext is to fight com- munism, while in fact they are defending their material wealth. So Gustavo Gutierrez’s ideas, and those of others, makes Liberation Theology a com- plex societal process in which many actors are in- volved. Theology of Liberation is a sign of the times in which even non— Catholics are experiencing the call of the Spirit to out-reach for a better world. And finally, it is a call to all religions from the Spirit to understand their role in bringing Peace and Justice to people.
Friends House Celebration
Friends House will celebrate its first full year of successful service with a “Day on the Green” on July 13. Among other events, there will be a silent art auction featuring the work of some impressive artists, including several known and loved in the Quaker community.
With this event, we kick off a permanent fund- raising program which will help continue and ex- tend our services. Friends are welcome to contri- bute.
FASE is again accepting applications for resi- dence at Friends House. For more information or to join the party on the 13th at this Quaker housing and health care center for older people, find Friends House at 684 Benicia Drive, Santa Rosa 95405; (707) 538-0152.
FRIENDS BULLETIN
JULY, 1985 - PAGE 163
Some of My Best Friends Are Rocks by Earle Reynolds, Santa Cruz Meeting
In Japan, I spent many hours in the country, watching the farmers build stone walls to enlarge their hillside rice fields. The farmers seemed satisfied, the walls seemed content, and I wondered if there were any secrets involved in building a wall. Perhaps there are. My teachers are the rocks at Quaker Center.
I have been working on the stone walls which make up the seven-tiered garden behind the house. I began these walls several years ago, and come back to them from time to time. Since my only companions during this work have been stones, I learned a bit about them— the hard way, one might say.
First, I must confess that I like rocks. I talk to them (only when we’re alone, of course, outsiders might not understand). In general, we get along rather well, as long as I keep my place, and observe the proper courtesies.
Rocks (unlike, for example, bricks) are individuals. No two are alike— they differ in size, shape, color, degree of hardness, personality. When you work with rocks, you must merge your spirit with them. A rock will do what you want, if you do what the rock wants.
Each rock wants to be used to its fullest capacity, and individual rocks want to feel their abilities have been carefully considered. Some rocks are outstanding— they make a perfect corner, or an ideal surface layer, or have a beautiful texture. Naturally, they should be used accordingly. But what of the “blobs” (never use that word in their presence!) that are shapeless and heavy, with no virtues that one can perceive? Tell them that these qualities are virtues. “You are the heart of the wall, the base, the strength. Without you there is no wall!” Usually, that will do it.
Getting along with the rocks is not just politeness, it’s good sense. If you don’t work well with them, they will certainly punish you: they will drop on your toe, pinch your fingers, strain your back, and, under extreme provocation, sacrifice a sliver of themselves to fly into your eye. But if you work with rocks, they will reward you with a beautiful wall.
Another thing to remember. Rocks are in no hurry. They hadn’t planned to go anywhere, and have to be convinced that moving is in their best interest. Share your dream with them. Appeal to their egos. Remind them that they are, as walls, links to the past, carriers of lost civilizations; that when all else is gone, when the jungles reclaim the temple grounds, the rocks persevere, and future human generations reconstruct the past from them.
So I suggest that (in an unobtrusive way) you talk to your rocks, explain carefully what you have in mind, ask their help, consult with their leaders, have a word of praise for those who seem to need it, and at the end of each day, thank them. If, in spite of all your efforts, some hard-core recalcitrant has had a shot at you, forgive it, and ask its friendship. Rocks don’t bear grudges long.
When you finish your job and the rocks are all arranged, and your dream has become a solid reality, have a final brief but sincere ceremony. Thank them as a wall, and wish them well in their new life. After you are gone, they will still be there, thinking of you.
[This is an excerpt from a forth-coming book on Ben Lomond Quaker Center by Earle Reynolds which will be sold to benefit the Center.]
PAGE 164 — JULY, 1985
FRIENDS BULLETIN
Two Reviews
by Madge Seaver, San Francisco Meeting
The Friends World Committee for Consul- tation published in 1984 two pamphlets which will be of particular interest to members of Pacific, North Pacific, and Intermountain Yearly Meetings, for the authors are well known among us. Van Ernst and Ferner Nuhn have given devoted and valuable service to Pacific and North Pacific Yearly Meetings. Although these two pamphlets are both about the same length, their content and tone are quite different.
The Shape of Quakerism in North America by
Ferner Nuhn, 1984. 19 pp.
Ferner Nuhn’s pamphlet will be familiar to readers of the Friends Bulletin, for a version was printed in the July, 1983, issue. We must be grate- ful, however, to the FWCC for making this com- pact little history and analysis of Quakerism in North America available in this form at what is now considered to be a nominal price ($1.50). Perhaps Monthly Meetings will recommend it to inquirers and give it to new members as a way of welcoming them into membership. Our Quaker scholar Ferner Nuhn has an amazing ability to put much in little.
The first page is literally the shape of Quakerism in North America, for it is a chart called “North American Quakerism: 1800-1980,” showing both separations and associations of Friends on this con- tinent in that span of time.
Separations and associations account for the bulk of Ferner Nuhn’s text; the last third has such happy titles as A Quaker Renaissance, Cross Fer- tilization, and Ecumenical Quakerism. Two of Ferner’s last paragraphs should be considered seriously:
It is this last, which may be called the ecumenical way, that I believe can be most productive in our relationships both with- in the Religious Society of Friends and, beyond Friends, with other Christians and with people of other religious faiths.
Our differences, whether of theology or practice, are important, so we must try to understand them in the light of our mutual experience and continue to articu- late and examine our convictions. If we are troubled by such terms as Christian or Jesus Christ, is it because of the actual figure or spirit of Christ or because of claims made by others— other churches or individ- uals—concerning these terms? If we are troubled by the term the Inward Light used to signify divine Truth in a universal sense, is it because of doubt of the existence of such Truth or because it is not always stated in certain Christian terms?
Many of us will respond to some of Ferner’s more personal reflections: “As a word defining the Christian faith, the modern term ‘Christo- centric’ is not one which Fox or early Friends used. ‘Christolucent’ or ‘Christoluminous’ would,
I believe, be more descriptive of the Christian character of the faith of Fox and early Friends.” Two phrases linger in the reviewer’s mind: “the richness of the Quaker heritage” and “the latent power in Quakerism.”
Intervisitation: Travel under Religious Concern. Quaker Heritage and Present Need by Van Ernst.
19 pp.
Van Ernst’s pamphlet was written as the fruit of her service on the Visitation Committee of FWCC, Section of the Americas, after a term of eight years. She gives the origin of this modern American concern for the traveling ministry, which the Visitation Committee was intended to imple- ment, in both the 1976 Hamilton Triennial and the 1979 Gwatt Triennial of the FWCC. In spite of enthusiastic endorsement at these triennial meet- ings and in the responses to a questionnaire sent to all members of FWCC, Section of the Americas, when the Visitation Committee queried all twenty- nine Yearly Meetings in the Section about how they were carrying out this concern, only two responses were received. One was from Baltimore Yearly Meeting and the other. Pacific Yearly
FRIENDS BULLETIN
JULY, 1985 -PAGE 165
Meeting which has its by-now mature Brinton Visitation Program shared with Intermountain and North Pacific Yearly Meetings.
We should read Van’s seven alternative reasons for this disconcerting lack of response. We will hear her tone of humorous irony and skepticism as well as her fervent appeal.
Van Ernst then develops a history of the role of the traveling ministry in both the period of foundation and also in the later “period of greater mystical inwardness” from 1700-1800. In this latter period the object of this strenuous travel was no longer the “Publishing of Truth,” as the first Friends called it, but the maintenance of order and uniformity of dress and behavior. After the separations, Van tells us, travelling under reli- gious concern was either evangelical or anti- evangelical. An institution grown from good roots is still subject to the corruption of religious con- troversy. Yet there were still inspired spirits among the travelers, such as Hannah and Joel Bean, dis- owned by Iowa Yearly Meeting and founders of College Park Meeting, who went to the Sandwich Islands with a religious concern.
In the last part of her pamphlet, Van Ernst asks again and again: where are we today? In other words, what are we doing in travel in the ministry or in other ways to accomplish its ancient purpose of inspiring and bonding? She suggests that we are no longer devoted to that purpose with the same energy and persistence, for our spiritual temperature is depressed. We may be exhausted with so many committees and concerns that we have no time, even “for the care and love of our children, husbands, wives,” to say nothing of the itinerant ministry. At the same time, we give little room for the prayer and contemplation (both individual and corporate) which sustained earlier generations of travelers.
Van suggests a number of promising new ways of filling the gap: (1) FWCC representatives might become better communicators in their own areas, visiting Monthly and Quarterly Meetings to share their experiences as representatives; (2) Meeting libraries might make available in a prominent way new pamphlets and handbooks.
A third suggestion which the reviewer hopes to see come to fruition is a kind of day-long retreat (in the traditional sense of a spiritual exercise, not a jolly get-together) sharing: a day of silence and speaking such concerns as Pruning, the Guidance of Love, the Courage to Be, Healing Relationships, or whatever the group agrees on. Van calls this kind of gathering a presence to the Presence.
Van Ernst is writing: first, for the FWCC and its large constituency, but also for many among us who long for the nurturing, counseling, inspiring and bonding and— yes!— the disciplining which the old travelers in the ministry provided. I believe she hopes that she is writing to some mute, in- glorious Fothergills or Woolmans or some village Mary Fisher.
However, it took more than these travelers under religious concern. The other element was the Meeting which deliberated and liberated and even on occasion provided material support.
Letter
Dear Friends:
Jack Powelson writes on “sanctuary” in the May Friends Bulletin. I am inspired to add my comments, though somewhat different, to his. To me, “sanctuary” has two purposes: (1) To aid refugees, now especially those from Central America; (2) To bring public policy, as expressed by the United States administration, to accord with U.S. law and the Law of Nations. I have reason to believe that both sets of law encourage aid to refugees, but that the U.S. administration ignores one and interprets the other in a contrary manner. My belief is strengthened by two facts:
(1) The administration acts in a similar manner on other problems; (2) As far as I know, a case has been mounted against “sanctuary” workers and refugees in one jurisdiction where conviction in District Court was certain, but elsewhere the ad- ministration has denounced the movement while it attempts to avoid court action.
It seems to me that under present conditions,
(Continued on page 166)
PAGE 166- JULY, 1985
FRIENDS BULLETIN
(Letter: Con t. from page 165)
“sanctuary” is forced at some points to be secre- tive to protect its beneficiaries while at others it must be public in order to influence the opinions and actions of others. This is not an ideal environ- ment for Friends’ testimony, but few situations are. We would like to bear witness quietly but effectively, but we can seldom do that where wit- ness is needed. I have learned that some refugees are glad to share the burden of testimony, and daily risk exposure that could bring prosecution (or is persecution the better word?). For them, it is fine that “sanctuary” will help them in every way possible, including what material and legal support can be found.
However, I am quite certain that the average refugee seeks freedom from danger together with the chance to earn a living (either indefinitely or just until he can return “home”). I have been ex- posed to the statement that the U.S.A. is the only country that will not permit that. Even if that extreme statement is untrue, even if there are other countries of refuge that refuse admission to genuine refugees, I do know that Canada will enter- tain an application for temporary or permanent residence at its consulates in Mexico and that its action will not be the automatic “no” the U.S. normally utters. In fact, Canada has been known to admit refugees who arrive at its port(s) of entry, subject to a hearing, though under its procedures this is not the preferred way.
It seems to me that North American and Mexican Friends should inform themselves and provide infor- mation to refugees, while they are still en route in Mexico, so that they can choose among real options.* If they are willing, when necessary, to play “cat and mouse” in the U.S.A. , “sanctuary” as we know it will help them. If they prefer to apply to a fairer administration, that is also their right and we should aid them before they cross another border. I hope we would have at least minimum resources to give life to this position. Nothing I say should be understood to mean that resources in Mexico exist, except for temporary sojourn. They do not.
Abram B. Goldstein
Eugene Meeting (OR)
*[Casa de Los Amigos, Friends Meeting in Mexico City, is endeavoring to aid Central American refugees and is greatly in need of financial contributions to continue their work. Thus far, 722 refugees have been helped. Send checks to Casa de los Amigos, Igancio Mariscal 132, 06030 Mexico, D.F., Mexico.
If you wish a tax deduction in the U.S.A., make your check payable to Orange Grove Meeting, earmarked Central American Refugee Program,
Casa de los Amigos and mail to them at 526 E. Orange Grove Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91104.]
Santa Fe Meeting Resident Sought
A mature, hospitable Friend is sought for a one to two year term as Resident for the Santa Fe Friends Meeting, beginning in the summer or early fall of 1985. For an information packet, please send a letter of interest to the Search Committee,
630 Canyon Rd., Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 .
The Time is Short! Entertainers, Where Are You?
PYM Community Nighters please send informa- tion regarding intent to appear and proposed talent contribution as soon as possible to Walter Klein, 4509 Pavlov Avenue, San Diego, CA 92122. We
want to encourage and give preference to those who have never before participated. Also we want to provide entertainment/amusement during food lines and eating periods. Friends with such talents— musical, mime, clowns, etc.— contact Walter at 619-457-4489.
(Editorial: Cont. from page 154)
world, demanded that one be not merely a listener, or a good friend, but yes, be in trouble. . . we must each of us explore and prod the world, and enter into some kind of jeopardy.
Shirley Ruth
FRIENDS BULLETIN
JULY, 1985 — PAGE 167
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE PACIFIC YEARLY MEETING 1985 Sessions: July 29 - August 3 — La Verne University, CA
SUNDAY: JULY 28 MONDAY: JULY 29
TUESDAY: JULY 30
COMMITTEE MEETINGS AS ARRANGED BY CLERKS 10:00 AM
|
BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM |
BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM |
|
REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE 8:30-10:30 AM |
WF GRPS A MTG FOR WORSHIP 8:15-9:30 AM |
|
ORIENTATION A INTROS FOR EVERYONE HAM-NOON |
STUDY GRPS ON NEW FAITH A PRACTICE 9:45-11:45 AM |
|
LUNCH 12:15 PM |
LUNCH 11:45AM - 1:15PM |
|
PARENT ORIENT. 1:15PM PLENARY 1 ROLL CALL 2PM REFRESHMENTS 3PM |
PLENARY 3 1:30-3:30PM INTEREST GRPS 3:45-5PM |
WORSHIP 4-5 PM
DINNER 5-6:30 PM
DINNER 5-6:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COMM. SINGING 6:15-6:45 PM MTG 7 - 9 PM PLENARY 2 7 - 9 PM
MAO A DISCIPLINE COMMS. : NEW FAITH A PRACTICE
COMMUNITY NIGHT 1 6:15 - 7:30 PM PLENARY 4 7:45 PM
STEWARDSHIP OF THE EARTH MARSHALL MASSEY
SHARING GRPS 9:15 PM
WEDNESDAY: JULY 31 THURSDAY: AUGUST 1 FRIDAY: AUGUST 2 SATURDAY: AUGUST 3
|
BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM |
BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM |
BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM |
BREAKFAST 7AM-8AM |
|
WF GRPS A MTG FOR WORSHIP 8:15-9:30 AM |
WF GRPS A MTG FOR WORSHIP 8:15-9:30 AM |
WF GRPS A MTG FOR WORSHIP 8:15-9:30 AM |
WF GRPS 8:15-9:30 AM |
|
PLENARY 5 9:45-11:45 AM |
WORKING GRPS SESSION 2 9:45-11:45 AM |
PLENARY 9 9:45-11:45 AM MINISTRY A OVRSGT |
PLENARY 11 9:15-10:30 AM EPISTLES PLENARY 12 WORSHIP 11AM |
|
LUNCH 11:45AM - 1:15PM |
qUIET PICNIC OFF CAMPUS 12 NOON |
LUNCH 11:45AM - 1:15PM |
LUNCH 12 NOON-1 : 30PM |
|
WORKING GRPS SESSION 1 1:30-3:30 PM WORSHIP 4-5 PM |
PLENARY 7 3:30-5 PM WORSHIP MEMORIALS |
PLENARY 10 1:30-3:30 PM YOUNG FRIENDS 4-5 PM WORSHIP |
EVALUATION 2 - 3:30 PM PYM OFFICERS A CLERKS OF STANDING COMMITTEES OTHERS WELCOME |
|
DINNER 5-6:30 PM |
DINNER 5-6:30 PM |
DINNER 5-6:30 PM |
|
|
SINGING 6:15 PM PLENARY 6 6:45-8:45 PM DANCING 9 PM |
SINGING 6:15 PM PLENARY 8 6:45-8:45 PM MTG OF COMMITTEES 9PM |
COMMUNITY NIGHT 2 6:45 - 8:45 PM |
PAGE 168- JULY, 1985
FRIENDS BULLETIN
POSTMASTERS: SEND FORM 3579
Jalapa is Brown
by Miranda Collet, Witness for Peace
FRIENDS BULLETIN
722 Tenth Avenue, San Francisco, CA 941 18
Second-Class Postage Paid at San Francisco, CA
Jalapa is tender dust brown, grey brown, dark brown;
yellowy brown dogs, buckskin horses, burnt sienna cattle, fawn-colored pigs, brown hens.
Once I saw a very bright pure yellow flower in a brown wall, and photographed it.
Where did the masses of flowers in church come from? There were always clear reds and pinks at the burials. We saw them on the olive green flatbed trucks which took the boys to their graves in the brown earth
outside of Jalapa Heroica.
The crosses they stuck in the cement over the young bodies
were dull pink,
while the red of flowers left behind wilted and shriveled to brown.
The setting sun made every brown hue richer, richer, richer, until it went out.
Then the browns turned grey and quickly slipped into the watchful blackness in the vigilant Jalapa night of snappy stars and tense silence.
i
-q
>
03
Q
Jalapan Graves