The Church Transformed

Bishop Luis Fernandes has been involved with base Christian communities in Brazil from their inception and has written a book on base community formation. He has both inspired and organized the Inter-ecclesian Encounter of Base Ecclesial Communities, the annual meeting of representatives from communities throughout Brazil. He was interviewed in Campina Grande, Paraida, Brazil, by MevPuleo, a free-lance photographer and photojournalism during a three-month visit she made there this summer. - The Editors

Mev Puleo: Do you think the base Christian communities (CEBs) have or will have an impact on the structure of the church in Brazil or of the global church?

Dom Luis Fernandes: I personally see that our base communities could go in three possible directions. The first possibility is that they could be absorbed back into the traditional parish structures. This would result in some parishes that are renewed and reformed, but it wouldn't cause a deeper transformation in the very structure of the local church.

The second possibility is that the CEBs could close in on themselves, becoming confined like little islands within the larger church body. The church structure would continue on unchanged, obeying the rules of the game and marching to the traditional rhythm.

The third - and very beautiful - possibility is that the CEBs could gradually infiltrate and alter the very structures of the larger church. That is, they could provoke the formation of a new ecclesial model within the churches, bringing them into the same dynamic as the CEB model.

In Brazil we already have some dioceses that seem to have arrived at this point. And yet, at the moment, I don't imagine that this will happen at a global level, with the entire church entering into this structural transformation.

Do you think that CEBs are possible in the First World?

So far - not just in Brazil but in all of Latin America - we find CEBs don't emerge from within the middle class; they develop in poor neighborhoods, whether urban or rural.

At present, the proposal of a community with strong solidarity, sincere sharing, and co-responsibility doesn't find much resonance or receptivity in the middle class, even among supposedly sincere Christians. For this to happen, a complete turnabout would be necessary - a deep transformation in the very mentality of this social class, which seems to be practically impossible.

A profound transformation in the First World might bring a deeper, more sincere concern for the Third World. Feeling itself to be called into question by the injustice inflicted on the Third World, the First World could possibly change its ways. But I sincerely don't believe this is likely.

Do you believe that the poor and rich countries "need" each other in some way?

Poor countries need wealthy countries to stop exploiting them - for example, in the usurpation of their raw materials for cheap prices and their redelivery as expensive industrial products. Poor nations also undoubtedly need aid from the First World for their own development.

On the other hand, rich nations really need poor nations in order to breathe in the human, Christian, and evangelical values that flourish much more naturally in poor countries. Rich people need poor people to call into question the false happiness that they cling to and that leaves only the bitter taste of frustration.

Also, I think it would be great if the poor would take a more critical look at the experience of the rich to see that it isn't so great to be rich, and that the best thing would be to overcome the destitution of poverty, meet fundamental needs, and arrive at a decent but frugal way of life. In my opinion, this is the best design for the flourishing of a healthy, human, and evangelical life.

The rich, in turn, should observe the difficulties of the poor, realize that wealth isn't happiness, and decide to share more with the poor. Then, rich and poor could walk together toward that dream of greater equality among sisters and brothers on God's earth.

Is there much violence today in Brazil?

In Brazil we have both the violence of the rich and the violence of the impoverished - after all, the poor aren't poor, they're impoverished. Throughout our world, the violation of the impoverished is very widespread. If you look at any one of the "violent" people in society, you'll see that they've already been "violated." So, the violence of the poor is the violence of the violated.

Now, we also have the violence of the rich, who are bored, weary, and frustrated in the void of a large society. This is the violence of a people who abandon faith and morals and take up drugs, drinking, and reckless adventurism because of a lack of ideals. People search for the absurd as a final, frustrated expression of self-affirmation. So, the violence of the rich is the violence of the frustrated.

I believe the root of violence is always in the lack of love. The violated are unloved, and the frustrated also feel that they're without love. The absence of love is the common denominator; it links the two.

Are the two types of violence you described linked to structural violence?

Most certainly! The violated are violated above all by the social structure that represses, excludes, and marginalizes them. Structural violence reaches down into the world of the poor. The poor are violated by other poor people, by individual rich people, but most of all by the system in general. These structures are exploitative and unjust - they lack love. Violence is a consequence. The only cure for violence is justice and love.

This appears in the December 1987 issue of Sojourners