BCCs : Definition, Methodology, Prospects

Luis Femandes (3) suggests that there is no fixed prescription or formula for starting BCCs. Diverse situations require diverse types of BCCs. He sees as common a faith commitment in the context of a personal and collective commitment to life and action.. This commitment, moreover, does not come by instructions from the hierarchy : it emerges from the reflection of the people with one eye on the Bible and the other on their reality of poverty. Fernandes lists several cases of parish priests going about dividing their large parishes into areas and jobs, and believing that they have founded BCCs.

Despite the difficulty of having a consensus definition of BCCs, and consequently of giving any meaningful estimates of how many BCCs exist or of specifying some definitive programs and activities to which one could point with confidence and say: "This is what BCCs always do", I shall present a skeletal working definition for bringing some clarity into what is said hereafter regarding the theological assumptions and practical consequences of the new reality of BCCs. At a minimum, BCCs are small groups, usually homogeneous in social composition, which gather regularly to read and comment on the Bible. They all originate in some linkage with the institutional Church, and this linkage is maintained in some form. This bare-bone definition highlights three common elements that make up the name "Basic Christian Community" or "Basic Ecclesial Community": a striving for community (small, homogeneous); a stress on ecclesial linkage; they are at the base of both the Church and society. It is this "base" characteristic that makes them suspect and causes unease in the class groupings dominant in the traditional Church structure.

The BCCs are not anti-parish. They are to be seen as living Church cells linked to the parish. Tension often does result where parishes are too centralized, because such a centralization is opposed to the very nature of the BCCs, which believe in the human right to make their own decisions democratically and with wide participation of the lay members. Hence, one bishop suppressed his parishes with a view to giving his 1,600 BCCs great room for manoeuvre.

This does not rule out either the initiative of Church leaders or their constant encouragement and sustenance of the BCCs. "Pastoral agents" (Church leaders) are expected to "accompany" the BCCs, not rule them. Therefore, such pastoral agents should be formed within the BCCs, and their main concern should not be to maintain unity with Rome following the same discipline, the same rites, and the same canon law without exception. The centre of the Church is where the poor are, and the point of departure for theology is not Church doctrine but the grass-roots situation. Salvation is not to be separated from liberation, just as redemption makes no sense without creation. The God of Jesus first gave life, and then chose to give it more abundantly through the Son and the Spirit. Hence, for BCCs the Church has to be a sacrament of life for those who are being denied their God-given life and right to live. This theological approach of the BCCs represents a new Church that refuses to manipulated by the propertied and dominant classes, and to that extent it is bound to face resistance and opposition from the traditional Church and its traditional allies both within and outside.

The BCCs in practice have not been a great attraction for the middle classes, who tend to be individualistic and profit seekers. Apparently, some Europeans who sought to establish BCCs in Latin America often failed because of their life-style, which was more private and individualistic. There was a tendency among them to make their solitude a collective experience, a sort of loners seeking other loners. The BCCs have been popular with the marginalized sectors, and their vision of the world. As such, they have no problem with the official Church. Communists, just like the middle and upper classes influenced by positivist rationalism, fail to understand that there is no advantage in separating the people from the Church or from religion. The very source of people's motivation for political action in the BCCs is the link of faith with life, contrary to the traditional manipulation of religion to put people to sleep. Some surveys have even confirmed a positive link between BCCs membership and higher frequency of sacraments.

The BCCs and liberation theology have been suspected in official Church quarters and in the capitalist countries of making use of Marxist theories. Real Marxists fighting at the grass-roots frequently encourage the BCCs to see Marxism as a popular movement. They act as genuine friends and companions of BCCs, and BCC leaders have had often to share prison cells with Marxists. But the BCCs often speak of the satanic side of Marxism and hold in horror the suppression of the freedom of religion. The problem however remains of BCCs being manipulated by political parties, including left-wing parties, who share more the idealism of the BCCs in favour of the poor. The BCCs and MABs (Movimento dos Amigos de Bairros = Urban Neighbourhood Movements, since mid-70s) do not bind their members to a political party and the members are free to decide their partisan options. At that level, there have been internal tensions calling for more mature reflection and action. The hierarchy in Brazil has encountered such situations, recognized the political inability of its own structures to sustain further political involvement of the MABs and allowed the movements to proceed on their own. This recognition of autonomy with continued moral and even financial support has kept the popular movements close to the Church. The MABs have been strongest where the Church has promoted and supported the BCCs. Grass-roots leaders were thus prepared to enter into the larger arena of town politics and national politics.

When one talks of Basic Christian [Ecclesial] Communities in Latin America it is very important to remember that the BCC is neither a univocal concept nor a model of organization. Furthermore, historical development in Latin America is not a single continuum. Hence both the development and the nature of BCCs in Latin America vary according to the different regional historical developments. One can identify roughly three different models, namely Brazilian-Chilean, Mexican-Colombian, and Central American.

In the first model, the Brazilian-Chilean model, the military-authoritarian regimes allowed space for self-expression only in the Church, and as a result dynamic ties evolved between the Church and the popular movements through the BCCs.

In Brazil, the Church has never grown as a rival to the State, and as a result has had always to depend on popular support.

In Mexico and Colombia, the Church has always succeeded in maintaining its institutional strength despite sporadic challenges and attacks by the State. Against this background, the hierarchy has sought to exercise strict control over popular movements. Polarization within the Church has therefore been far greater and many are forced to function outside the Church.

Finally, in Central America the Church is divided in its support of the popular revolutionary thrust. In this situation, on the doorstep of the USA, no real State exists and the hierarchy has to confront the frustrated peasantry who have lost all hope of reform. Because of strong pressure from the Vatican through the USA, few in the hierarchy or clergy are openly supportive of the revolution.

3.Luis Fernandes, Como se faz uma comunidade eclesial de base (5th ed., Petropolis, 1986).