Modernization, Democratization, Participation

"Basic Christian Communities" [BCCs](1) are a phenomenon of the early 60s, and they inaugurated a return to the grass-roots communities of the early Christian era. The Brazilian liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff, has even entitled one of his books Ecclesio-genesis: Base communities reinvent the Church. The rapid development of these communities in the Third World is causing large-scale social upheaval and rootlessness. In such a context, a Church at the grass-roots can give to the marginalized poor a hope of life against the developmental trend that exploits the poor and makes them poorer for the benefit of the dominant class or classes, leaving them with no say in shaping their future. Uniformity of mass production and massive political and economic structures that supervise and control the process have brought about a reaction in the form of small communities in which persons recognize one another, assert their individuality, and "have their say".

I see this as a part of the process of "democratization" generated unwittingly by the very system of exploitation. The modern high level of technology demands increasingly higher levels of information on the part of workers. At the same time, the high levels of media exposure have created greater longings and demands for participation in the decision-making process. The capitalist tendency to maximize profits does not concede such demands without hard bargaining, and even without resorting to violent repressive measures, unless they prove too expensive.

It was in such situations, under the military repressive bourgeois regimes of Latin America, that BCCs provided space for resistance and survival. Participants in BCCs could find in the Bible faith and hope in God, Giver of Life. This led them to sociological reflection on the man-created sinful structures that are depriving masses of people of dignity and the means of living. They discovered in the Bible a power for political action, contrary to the traditional Church reading of it that did not allow the Church leaders to feel at home with the poor. As Gutierrez writes: "the Church goes to work in the world of the poor, but it is not really living there. The Church has its home in other social and cultural sectors, where it is at home. The emergence of BCCs is seen as a challenge to the traditional structures of "authority" within the Church, because it cannot promote "democratization" by retaining its "theocratic, divine-sanctioned, top-down" model of authority that has been discarded in most modern societies and is in the process of being discarded wherever it still survives. However, just as the process has been painful in the secular world, it is not going to be otherwise within the Church world. But the rate and intensity of change will be conditioned by the national histories and world developments, as well as by the history of the institutional Church at the centre and in different parts of the world.

What is discernible is a tendency to "control" the BCCs and bring them under "official" Church teachings and clerical supervision. Some conclude that the outcome－the Catholic Church being what it is－can only be "recuperation" or separation. Even though Vatican II opted for "co-responsibility" of all, the switching of models is proving difficult and the process is being sabotaged because of the centuries-old predominance of the authoritarian model and the bringing into operation of the new model is in the hands of people opposed to it. The very nature of the new model does not allow its supporters to use constraint or threats to remove obstacles and to ensure the success of their cause, for they cannot adopt the very methods they object to. The "communitarian-charismatic-prophetic aspect" of the BCCs seems more relevant for promoting a better response to the needs of the masses of the marginalized poor in the modern world. It still needs the institutional expression as a function of the communitarian-utopian aspect, and to that extent the institutional and hierarchical Church is challenged to re-examine its functions in service of the community, and to cease acting as producer and consumer of sacraments.

BCCs have a critique of the ministries in the Church on the basis of a different ecclesiology (not parochiology): if all are one in Christ (not halves, quarters, etc.), then all bear equal responsibility. All need not do everything, but there cannot be some services more important than others. Then, instead of a hierarchy of bishops, priests and laity, with one-sided accountability, all are accountable to each other. Hence, BCCs call for a new social structuring of the Church and to indicate this the term "ecclesiogenesis" was coined on the occasion of the 4th inter-Church meeting of the BCCs of Brazil in 1981. At this meeting it was realized that the new Church cannot be guided only by wise mentors who deny the people the right to meet and work out their own reflections. In the history of the Church, it has been seen that deviations are possible both among people and guides. A mutual apprenticeship is seen as the best means to avoid deviations.

1."Basic Ecclesial Communities" are better known as "Basic Christian Communities" [BCCs] in Hong Kong. Hence, BCC is used throughout the edited version of this paper, except at one point where the name "Basic Ecclesial Communities" is necessary to the discussion. [Ed.]