religion & politics

Can theological discourse develop unhindered by the political and social context in which it evolves? Is there a contextual theology in the Western Balkans as an anamnestic critical interdisciplinary discourse that aims to examine the conflict’s causes and consequences, explaining them theologically, contributing to the efforts of overcoming similar conflicts in the future? How important is it for the memory to be represented within the theological discourse in the Western Balkans, burdened with history and violent clashes?

Armed conflicts have demonstrated the darkest side of human nature within their absurd and tragic vortex, leaving behind monuments of human suffering and graveyards of human dignity. Places like Srebrenica, Vukovar, Kravice, and Bratunac[1] stand as a symbol of the catastrophic consequences of human inability to overcome the ontological abyss and overpower evil. Therefore, there is a reason to re-pose the question of whether theology is, after such a human catastrophe, capable of discussing God and man. [2]

Contextual theology raises the crucial anthropological question: Where was the man at the scaffolds of the former Yugoslavia, and where has God in that man disappeared? Questions do not end there, as of no less importance is the remembrance of human suffering in Serbian contemporary theology. The post-conflict theological discourse should choose between amnesia and anamnesis. Shall we, as theologians, continue the path of forgetfulness or shall we walk the remembrance road? Following the matrix of Johann Baptist Metz, we could rephrase this question to: “Since Christian theology logos implies narrative-anamnestic structure, are we choosing between the anamnestic mind and cultural amnesia?”[3] It is the universality of man in which we find the answer to the question of dignity, unalienable from any human being, and representing its singularity, regardless of race, religion, or nationality. Just the same, human suffering does not know religious, national, or racial boundaries. Instead, it stands as a universal category and is related as such to all of us regardless of who suffers, because, at the end of the day, it is the human being that suffers and not some religious or national entity.

Return to the anamnestic spirit of Judaeo-Christian tradition

It is important to recall the words of Eliezer Wiesel: “The reflective Christian knows that it was not the Jewish people that died in Auschwitz, but Christianity.”[4] In a similar way, we can talk about the killing fields of the former Yugoslavia because that is where religions have experienced their downfall. Waging war in the name of religious beliefs, many have concealed their dark aspirations behind the deadly mixture of religious and nationalistic slogans, thus creating the “background cacophony of evil” and preparing the scene for the horror of war.[5] Recalling the terrible consequences of the holocaust, Metz stresses that this catastrophe has profoundly debased metaphysical and moral boundaries of shame between man and man, it has impinged the solidarity connection between everything that bears the human face.[6]

Metz therefore raises the following questions:

Can the mind [determined by memory] be the place of understanding, reconciliation, settlement, and peace? [...] Is it not the collective memory, contextually camouflaged, and historically-culturally established, that prevents mutual understanding over and over again, what brings about the painful conflicts and dramatic animosities reoccurrence, and what all open and concealed civil wars at the end of our enlightened age are feeding off?[7]

Is it not why the avoidance of any de-traumatization, moralization, aestheticization, or theologization of the past is required? Should not Christianity become polycentric, seeking freedom and justice for all, and promoting the culture of acknowledging others?[8] In other words, Metz emphasizes the need for a better comprehension of one’s suffering through an understanding of the suffering of others (in a conflict, an enemy), and he opens the possibility of forgiving others. What Metz considers a collective memory is a very common phenomenon grounded in the collective consciousness of conflicted parties that the memoria passionis relates exclusively to one’s victim,s with insufficient or absolute lack of empathy for the victims on the rival's side. This feeling often leads to a desire for victims' redemption by revenge, which, in turn, leads to further exacerbation of the conflict. Redemption is misinterpreted here since true redemption comes only through forgiveness and inclusiveness in the sense of acceptance of others’ suffering as one’s own.

“Memoria passionis et resurectionis is both dangerous and liberating”, as stated by Jürgen Moltmann: it frees the politically and religiously adapted Church and brings it in communion with those who are suffering[9], hic et nunc, following Metz’s theological matrix – thus updating the social role of the Church. Metz’s memoria passionis discourse, as Anglican theologian John Milbank noted, stems from Walter Benjamin’s understanding of historical experience, thereby, an eternal remembrance of the marginalized, innocent, and the oppressed.[10] Following such a thought momentum, Metz develops discourse in which history is viewed as a memorial of the suffering of innocent victims of the past and every kind of oppression.[11] Looking at the history of humanity through the theological lens, we can see the history of salvation. This is the history of the world “sealed with permanently jeopardized and disputed yet indestructible hope of universal justice, justice for the dead and their past suffering: the history of the world where there is hope even for the sufferings of the past”[12]. It is a remembrance of the historical experience that reminds us of the past horrors and past hopes, but also provides hope for the future. It protests against unsolved suppressed conflicts and unfulfilled hopes, argues Metz.[13]

Christianity itself should be developed as a dangerous and liberating memory of Jesus Christ before the eyes of contemporary society and its systems, because in its very nature, Christianity is the religion of the marginalized and oppressed.[14] It can also be understood as a hermeneutics of the agonal situation of human freedom as well as a powerful remembrance of the contradictions of the linearly and one-sidedly understood history of human freedom, which conceives that it can just walk over the past sufferings, hopes, and the dead without losing its very freedom along the way[15] The manner Christians look upon the ultimate meaning of history, enables historical insight into the abyss and, therefore, not only the remembrance of the success but also of the loses, not just of the achieved, but also of the lost.[16] “Man is born free, and yet he is everywhere in chains” is the well-known thought of Rousseau.[17] Humanity is created free and in the spirit of catholicity, yet it suffocates in discord, divisions, and armed conflicts. Humanity is left to complete that dialectical downfall into its’ own abyss of destruction - into frenzied momentum of self-destruction and masochistic fixation, or to look deep into the darkest depths of its nature and remain silent before the eternal truth and the greatness of its Creator. Only then, when humanity gets on its knees before this cognition, the remembrance of the sufferings will bring a “new moral imagination into the political and social life.”[18]

For Metz, going back to the anamnetic nature of Christianity represents the return to the Judaic roots of Christian tradition, where remembrance is one of the most important contributions of Judaism to Christian epistemology and rationality.[19] It represents the specific crossroad between Jerusalem and Athens. Jürgen Habermas points out Metz’s observation that the indolence and apathy of Christianity in relation to human suffering is the product of Hellenization and its straying away from the Jewish spirit where the anamnetic character is emphasized[20] and which cannot be identified with the Platonic perception of anamnesis. By Hellenization of Christianity, Metz assumes a process within which Christianity has accepted Late Greek philosophical concept,s which later resulted in the dogmatic character of Christianity. Eurocentric Church, derived from the basis of such Hellenization[21], simply has to transcend its’ monocultural character and become a culturally polycentric global Church.[22]

As McClure states, Metz wants to highlight the fact that the reason without remembrance influences the oblivion of suffering and is subdued to the process of historicization, but also the mere memory without a critical mind leads to a conservative and equally dangerous form of traditionalism and myth, opposing every impulse of postmodernism.[23] The eschatological memory of Jesus Christ developing, within the discourse of political theology, as sense and subject of the overall history, is remembrance directed towards the future, the anticipation of a certain future of humankind as the future for those without hope, oppressed and marginalized in society.[24] The historical consciousness of Christianity is radically opposed to the pure historical connection with the past that not only presumes that the past is past but is actively seeking to reinforce the fact that what makes the past is not part of the present. On the contrary, the historical consciousness of Christianity, in possession of an anamnetic dimension, has the capacity for change, altering not only itself but also the society surrounding it. Such a historical experience alters our reality and opens the way to direct our present toward eschatological hope. This is the way the Christian vision of dangerous memory breaks our concept of the present , providing it with an alternative historical perspective. Our context is being significantly altered by way of a different and exculpatory narrative grounded in the Christian tradition, which not only speaks of our identity but forms it as well, thus making us the entrepreneurs of the Christian praxis in society.[25] It could be said that this is the way to release the active power of the narrative of the Christian Tradition discussed by George Lindbeck. Only then can Christianity become verbum externum, which has the potential to shape itself and the world.[26]

Rethinking Catholic[27] identity as a possibility for reconciliation

In a world facing different conflicts and jeopardized and polarized identities, there is a need for alternatives, for a new type of inclusive, multiethnic identity and solidarity as possibilities for overcoming conflicts and the path to reconciliation. Miroslav Volf, one of the leading contemporary Protestant theologians, whose contribution in the field of contextual theology is unquestionable, considers reflections about identity to be one of the key elements when it comes to reconciliation. For Volf, the space for reconciliation and communion with others can be created in the contemplation of our own identity, that is, the identity of otherness, because it is precisely in there that we find the causes of ethnic and religious conflicts.[28] Following Zizioulas’ dialectic of catholic identity and personality, Volf stresses the importance of Eucharistic unity as a distinctive paradigm of reflection about the relationship with others. Christian identity is the identity of otherness because human beings get to know themselves in relation to others. To be reconciled with God, we have to make space for others and accept them inside our own identity which refers to our foes as well. That is what we are celebrating in the Eucharist because by accepting Christ through his body and blood[29], we accept all those whom Christ accepted through his suffering as well.[30] “The manner in which the catholic character of the Church reveals itself within the Eucharistic community shows us that the essence of Catholicity lies in transcending all kinds of divisions in Christ [...] This covers all existential dimensions, be they human or cosmic, historical or eschatological, spiritual or material, social or individual.”[31]

Such an economy of unity, argues Volf, goes beyond the Church boundaries, transcends dogmatic and religious frameworks, and communicates such an identity within the world. This kind of theological momentum is also followed by John Milbank reflecting upon the social implications of the Eucharistic unity as the eschatological outdoing and elimination of social and ethnical separations: “In the Eucharist, we receive the gift of Christ not as mere and passive receivers, but as those incorporated in the gift itself – the Body of Christ. Being members of the Body, we become a boon for the others, including those who are not part of the visible Church through the eternal Trinitarian economy of grace and joy.”[32] The Eucharist is not only the promise of future bliss beyond the temporality of space and time. Scriptural and patristic sources tell us about the Eucharist as the earthly practice of peacemaking and reconciliation. Where peace is missing, Eucharistic unity appears as an eschatological sign of judgment requiring communicants to reconcile before they join the table of the Lord.[33] Authentic Christian character is above all inclusive. It does not alienate but draws closer. It does not have national bias and transcends all ethnical divisions.

Following Marx’s dialectic of human emancipation of man, Protestant theologian Jürgen Moltmann sees liberation from religious, ethnic, or any other alienation in the creation of the “new human identity” where one builds his identity in community with others that is, in finding and creating the identity of acceptance, so-called “personalization in socialization”.[34] As he states, “The human emancipation of men from self-alienation and mutually alienating relationships becomes possible when different people meet without fear, arrogance, and the repressed feelings of guilt, when they see their differences as strengths and adopt them productively.”[35] Moltmann considered the basis for reconciliation between men is situated right in the act of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice of atonement, where reconciliation of humanity as the object of reconciliation with the Creator, who stands as a subject of reconciliation, is enacted. “God has reconciled with us [humanity] therefore we could and should be one” [36]. Hope that derives from such relationships anticipates a bright future. A future that does not proceed from the consequences of the past and the actualities of the present, but from the opportunities situated in the future. Thereby, beyond the hit et nunc framework, a perspective of hope is offered, a horizon of possibilities, a novum of God’s promise that encourages mankind to enter into a particular dialectical process of struggle with the given life circumstances and overcome conflicts.[37]

“Remembering in the right way”

In one of his books[38] Miroslav Volf describes the horrible experience of a Muslim woman abused by Serbian soldiers. Consumed by bitterness and hatred, she named her child Jihad (i.e., Holy War) to ensure he would never forget the horrors inflicted on her by villains. That was the only way to cope with the burden in the depths of her soul. Nevertheless, argues Volf, a possibility of forgiveness could be seen even in that testimony. The hatred contains the seed of forgiveness because it remains the only option when one realizes that the only way is the wrong way. “To be righteous means to condemn someone’s sin and thereby condemn the one who committed it. Forgiveness, on the other hand, means to condemn someone’s sin but spare the one who committed the sin.”[39] To forgive does not mean to forget, because how could we forget what has drastically affected our lives? To forgive, therefore, is to start remembering differently.[40] The way to forgiveness leads through remembrance.

It is well-known Eliazar Wiesel’s thesis is that “salvation, like redemption, is found within memories.” [41] Among psychologists and other competent scholars in this field, an indisputable consensus exists that remembering is one of the most important steps for overcoming traumatic experiences. In this context, Volf rightfully raises the following questions: “How can redemption be found in the memory of pain and suffering that has been inflicted?”[42] Is remembrance always a good thing? Are not the traumatic memories full of suffering and pain what can draw the victim into the tragic vortex, where it could start projecting the pain on others?[43] How can memory be life-saving and healing?[44] In other words, Volf asks the key question: “How to remember in the right way?”[45]

Undoubtedly, memory is the way out of the labyrinth of trauma, pain, and suffering that interweaves past and present and whose circumstances influence the future. Frequent tendency to suppress traumatic experiences/memories, may, individually, like flashbacks, take the victim in an instant back to the traumatic experience epicenter, compelling it to re-experience the horror.[46] While these memories disappear from conscious memory, they remain operative inside the domain of the unconscious.[47] It is common knowledge, extensively elaborated by academia, that suppression of the traumatic experience into the state of unconscious, as well as occasional expression of suppressed feelings, can lead to a state of neurosis.[48] On the other hand, collectively, amnesia ends in history repeating itself, that is, the recurrence of the past and the endless spiral of crimes. “Within such a diabolic momentum, yesterday’s victims become perpetrators of today, and today’s perpetrators future victims.”[49] It is necessary to remember, therefore, to face the spirits of the past. It is in this context that Volf observes Wiesel’s statement, adding that the psychological consequences resulting from the trauma can be cured if the victim passes through the “narrow gate of painful memories”. “Not only is it necessary to remember painful experiences, but what is needed is to integrate these experiences into the broader frame of our life’s narrative, to interpret them and give them a wider meaning.”[50] This is what Paul Ricoeur calls the pursuit of truth.[51] It is precisely the kind of personal experience Robert Schreiter and John de Gruchy called narrative truth or narrative fit[52].

Within the process of remembering as an instrument, John de Gruchy differentiates four types or dimensions of truth: (1) an “objective or forensic truth”, (2) “personal or narrative truth”, (3) “dialogical or social truth” and (4) “healing, that is, restorative truth”. Forensic truth is what the one Commissions for Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are trying to establish, to determine the facts, lay the sequence of events, and list the perpetrators and consequences suffered by the victims of the crime.[53] As Schrieter states: “Dialogical truth as the result of experience exchange of conflicting parties, comes as the product of their narratives.” The key question arising from this level of dialogue is: Is there a way to tell the story where both sides would be able to recognize themselves? Finally, restorative (moral) truth is the most significant step towards reconciling conflicting parties because it comes from the lessons drawn in the social truth. It generates work on prevention, to avoid the recurrence of the past, that is, to avoid history repeating.[54] In other words, it is necessary to free space for collective memory through which the components of personal experience and memories can be possible to be collected, consolidated, and reconstructed. [55] The whole process is quite complex and nonlinear.[56] Horrendous war crimes experiences in the former Yugoslavia must not be forgotten. They are too gruesome to be placed within the “ordinary” historical narrative and let go into the winds of oblivion.

Gerd Baumann suggests that one of the elements that infringe on multiculturalism, as a way of affirmation of peace and coexistence, is the interpretation of cultural and ethnic conflicts as religious. This kind of conflict definition, according to Baumann, always raises the stakes and therewith the potential to deepen the conflicts further.[57] With this in mind, it is important to emphasize that the relationship between conflicted parties is not the relationship of two opposing Gods, a clash of civilizations, or different cultural and religious identities. It is a relationship where it is often insisted that the differences alienate and eventually collide with us, instead of upon the common ground that unites us. The conflict is therefore in the interpretation of those relationships and objectification, and not in the realm containing enormous potential for coexistence and peace. Certainly, some particularities are setting us apart. For example, Islam rejects the theology of the first ecumenical councils; therefore, it rejects certain fundamentals of the Christian faith. On the other hand, it is important to note that both are successors of the Judaic faith. We share Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the monotheistic concept of God (although not the same God), and to some extent, we share even the New Testament message of the Gospel. The similarities can be sought beyond the religious context, but a conflict occurs primarily in the political-religious interpretation of these relationships, so it is within these relationships that we can seek the possibilities for dialogue. This does not imply a syncretic form of ecumenism, but solely a modality where the emphasis is on what brings us closer with mutual respect and preservation of religious identity and integrity. Following the momentum, it is obvious that we can find messages of peace[58] as the basis for developing a constructive dialogue[59] within every religion. Reconciliation in the theological sense, therefore, presupposes both “the divine grace and human responsibility”.[60] It is the synergy of the two joint realities, spiritual and physical, that opens the possibilities of settling on redemption and forgiveness. It is not only the essence of the gospel message for the Church but the question of commission and praxis as well.

Conclusion

In light of such an anamnetic-theological principle, it is clear that its contextualization must lead to the creation of the necessary multidisciplinary theoretical platform. This platform would provide a crucial contribution to Christian theology in transcending regional conflicts as well as making the Church a “memory institution” and “public bearer of dangerous memories”[61], socially and politically more aware and responsible. Theology must part with the subjectless historical universalism, “without the specific situations and people, thus, without historical idealism characterized by apathy towards the troubles of others and the historical catastrophes.”[62] To paraphrase Metz, the crisis in which Christianity is today is not a crisis of Christian doctrine but of its subjects and their practice. It is not only required to reflect on the Christian doctrinal truths, but it is necessary to adequately apply and interpret them in the contemporary context.[63]

In a world of suffering, injustice, and pain, in a world running out of hope, the relevance of God who suffers with his creation is evident. Every cry that pleads for relief echoes the voice of Golgotha, the voice of the Crucified One who does not leave anyone out of the reach of his mercy, love, and hope. Accordingly, the Church must always actualize and adapt her social-political role to the context and spirit of the time, remaining faithful to her commission and leaving no one outside the reach of her caritative, social, and social-political responsibility. Only in such an equilibrium of relationships, the true soteriological role of the Church is revealed as well as the capacity that can change the world and make it the Cosmic liturgy.

Theological discourse that illustrates a broad plethora of dialogues with social sciences and humanities of today cannot and should not develop independently of the context and the time of its creation. It must be, rather, the result of the criticism of social processes and circumstances. It must re-contextualize and re-admonish, and it must be the immanent factor of concrete and pragmatic solutions. Theological discourse must become a catalyst for social-political criticism whenever an ordinary man becomes the victim of expropriation, demagoguery, and bargaining of the privileged political elite, whenever human dignity is jeopardized or made senseless. Right, then should theology become a reactive force that inspires and leads to change? The issue of contextualization of theology as a form of political theology is not a matter of choice but of necessity and possibility, prevailing the apathy and the transcendental dialectic of subjectless universalism, which speaks about God while postulating the thesis etsi Deus non daretur with its social indolence. This is the only way theology can create proper thinking space for deciphering the “spiritual situation of our time” and releasing the contents of God’s Logos into the active process of societal transformation.

By using Jasper’s terminological matrix addressing the issue of guilt, we can freely say that contemporary theologians, in a sense, have a moral and metaphysical responsibility to deal with these questions, as it is a necessity arising from their vocation.[64] “Overcoming the past is not final but an ongoing process and a constant reminder.”[65] There is no alternative since the alternative leaves us with that deafening silence that places the Church and her theoretical contribution beyond social responsibility and relevance. “The eschatological promises of biblical tradition – freedom, peace, justice, reconciliation cannot be privatized. They always and again call for social responsibility,” as Metz rightly stresses.[66] If we, as theologians, remain silent about the sufferings, oppression, and innocent victims, do not we, that way, forget and diminish Christ’s sacrifice that in its narrative structure reveals to us the promise and redemption for all victims in human history? The whole tragedy of human suffering is seeking its deepest refuge in the silence of oblivion. We must not succumb to such a type of apathy in Christian theology. Let us remember those who have been forgotten.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Benjamin, Walter, Theses on the Philosophy of History, London: Fontana, 1970.

2. Bauer, J. B, Entwüfe de Teologie, Graz: 1985.

3. Baumann, Gerd, The Multicultural Riddle: Rethinking National, Ethnic,

and Religious Identities, New York and London: Routledge, 1999.

4. Gort, Jerald D., Jansen, Henry, and Vroom, H. M. Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation, Rodopi, 2002.

5. Gutierrez, Gustav, Teologija oslobođenja, Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1989.

6. Holland, Scott, How do stories save us?, Peeters Publishers, 2006.

7. Jaspers, Karl, Pitanje krivice, Beograd, Konrad Adeaner Stiftung, 2009.

8. Kuljić, Todor, Kultura sećanja: Teorijska objašnjenja upotrebe prošlosti, Beograd: Čigoja, 2006.

9. Lindbeck, George A, The nature of doctrine: religion and theology in a postliberal age, Westminster John Knox Press, 1984.

10. Rüsen, Jörn, Trauma and Mourning in Historical Thinking, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Archaeology, 1 (1), 2004: 10-21.

11. Ruso, Žan-Žak, Društveni ugovor, translated by Tihomir Marković, Beograd: Filip Višnjić, 1993.

12. Ricoeur, Paul, Memory, history, forgetting, Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

13. Metz, J.B, Kroh, Werner, Politiche theologie, Gottingen: Evangelisches Kirchenlexicon III, 1992 .

14. Metz, Johann Baptist, Faith in History and Society: Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology, London: Burns and Oates, 1980.

15. Metz, Johhan Baptist, Grond en functie van de politike theologie, Tijdshrift vooor Theologie, 12, 1972

16. Metz, Johann Baptist, Politička teologija, Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 2004.

17. Metz, Johann Baptist, Diskussion zur „Politishen Theologie“, München, 1969.

18. Metz, Johann, Baptist, “Anamnestic Reason, A theologian’s Remarks on the Crisis in the Geisteswissenschaften.” In Cultural-political interventions in the unfinished project of enlightenment, edited by Axel Honneth, MIT Press, 1992.

19. Metz, Johann Baptist, Između pamćenja i zaborava, Reč - časopis za književnost i kulturu, i društvena pitanja (55), 1999.

20. Metz, Johann Baptist and Matthew Ashey, James, A passion for God: the mystical-political dimension of Christianity, Paulist Press, 1998

21. Moltmann, Jürgen, Wie ich mich geändert habe, Gütersloh: Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1997.

22. Moltmann, Jürgen, Raspeti Bog, Rijeka: Ex Libris, 2005.

23. Moltmann, Jürgen, Teologija Nade, Ex Libris, Rijeka.2008.

24. Mohan, Joy, Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Reformed World (58), World Alliance of Reformed Churches, 2008.

25. Milbank, John, Theology and social theory: beyond secular reason, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.

26. Milbank, John, Pickstock, Catherine, Ward, Graham, Radical orthodoxy: a new theology, Routledge, 1999.

27. Morill, Bruce T, Anamnesis as dangerous memory: political and liturgical theology in dialogue, Liturgical Press, 2000.

28. McNally Richard J, Remembering Trauma, Harvard University Press, 2005.

29. Misztal, Barbara A., Theories of social remembering, Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003.

30. Mollon, Phil, Remembering Trauma: A Psychotherapist's Guide to Memory and Illusion, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1998.

31. Volf, Miroslav, Isključenje i zagrljaj, Zagreb: Verbum, 1997.

32. Volf, Miroslav, Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005

33. Volf, Miroslav, The End of Memory: Remembering rightly in a violent world, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006.

34. McClure, John S, Other-Wise Preaching: A Postmodern Ethic for Homiletics, Chalice Press, 2001.

35. Habermas, Jürgen, The Liberating power of Symbols, Massachusets: MIT Press, 2001.

36. Habermas, Jürgen. “Israel, and Athens, or to Whom Does Anamnestic Reason Belong?” In The Frankfurt School on Religion, edited by Mendieta Eduardo, London and New York, Routledge: 2005.

37. Zizioulas, John, Being as Communion: Studies in the Personhood and the Church, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985.

38. Schreiter, Robert, “Establishing a Shared Identity: The Role of the Healing Memories end of Narrative.” In Peace and Reconciliation: in search of shared identity, edited by Sebastian C. H. Kim, Pauline Kollontai, Greg Hoyland, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008.

39. Schreiter, Robert, Više od žrtve, Časopis Svijetlo Riječi (332), Sarajevo.

40. Wiesel, Elie, From the Kingdom of Memory: Reminiscences, New York: Summit Books, 1990.

________________

[1] The worst atrocities in Armed conflicts in former Yugoslavia occurred in the aforementioned places.

[2] Metz paraphrases Theodor Adorno’s thought: “to write a poem after Auschwitz is barbaric, and that corrodes also the knowledge which expresses why it has become impossible to write poetry today?” (Theodor Adorno, "An Essay on Cultural Criticism and Society", Prisms, 1955): 34.

[3] Johan B. Metz, Politička teologija, (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 2004), 44.

[4] Johann B. Metz, „Anamnestic Reason, A theologian’s Remarks on the Crisis in the Geisteswissenschaften” in Cultural-political interventions in the unfinished project of enlightenment, ed. Axel Honneth, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992), 1261-1265.

[5] Miroslav Volf, Isključenje i zagrljaj, Zagreb: Verbum, 1997

[6] Johan B. Metz, Politička teologija, (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 2004), 229.

[7] Ibid.,179.

[8] Rüsen, Jörn, “Trauma and Mourning in Historical Thinking”, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Archaeology, 1 (1), 2004: 13.

[9] Jürgen, Moltmann, Raspeti Bog, (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2005), 365.

[10] John, Milbank, Theology and social theory: beyond secular reason, (Wiley-Blackwell, 2006), 242-243. See also: Walter, Benjamin, Theses on the Philosophy of History, (London: Fontana, 1970), 255-66

[11] Johann B. Metz, Faith in History and Society: Toward a practical Fundamental Theology, (London: Burns and Oates, 1980), 121. See also: Bruce T. Morill, Anamnesis as dangerous memory: political and liturgical theology in dialogue, (Liturgical Press, 2000), 140.

[12] J. B Bauer, Entwüfe de Teologie, (Graz: 1985), 209-233. See also: Johan B. Metz, Politička teologija, (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 2004), 163.

[13] Johann B. Metz, Diskussion zur „Politishen Theologie“, (München, 1969), 269-301.

[14] Johann B. Metz and James M. Ashey, A passion for God: the mystical-political dimension of Christianity, (Paulist Press, 1998), 52.

[15] Johan B. Metz, Politička teologija, (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 2004), 74-75.

[16] J. B Bauer, Entwüfe de Teologie, (Graz: 1985), 209-233, See also: Johan B. Metz, Politička teologija, (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 2004), 167.

[17] Ruso, Žan-Žak, Društveni ugovor, (Beograd: Filip Višnjić, 1993), 27.

[18] Johann B. Metz, Faith in History and Society: Toward a practical Fundamental Theology, (London: Burns and Oates, 1980), 117.

[19] John S. McClure, Other-Wise Preaching: A Postmodern Ethic for Homiletics, (Chalice Press, 2001), 106.

[20] Jürgen Habermas,The Liberating power of Symbols, (Massachusets: MIT Press, 2001), 79.

[21] Excessive Hellenization of Christianity along with its conceptual tools has led to the Old Testament’s concept of God Creator which can be separated from God Savior and thus has set God free of responsibility for the Creature, that is, for mankind capable of commiting the most serious crimes. (Ibid., 83.)

[22] Ibid., 79., See also: Habermas, Jürgen, “Israel and Athens, or to Whom Does Anamnestic Reason Belong?” in The Frankfurt School on Religion, ed. Mendieta Eduardo, (London and New York, Routledge: 2005), 297.

[23] John S. McClure, Other-Wise Preaching: A Postmodern Ethic for Homiletics, (Chalice Press, 2001), 107.

[24] Johhan B. Metz, „Grond en functie van de politike theologie, Tijdshrift vooor Theologie, 12, (1972), 152-170.

[25] Johann B. Metz, Faith in History and Society: Toward a practical Fundamental Theology, (London: Burns and Oates, 1980)

[26] George A. Lindbeck, The nature of doctrine: religion and theology in a postliberal age, (Westminster John Knox Press, 1984), 34. “Just as an individual becomes human by learning the language, so he or she becomes a new creature by hearing and interiorizing the language spoken of Christ. To become Christian involves mastering the narrative of Israel and Jesus Christ, well enough to enable interpreting and experiencing oneself and one’s world as a part of the narrative.“ Ibid., 64.

[27]Gr: καθολικοί

[28] Miroslav Volf, Isključenje i zagrljaj, (Zagreb: Verbum, 1997), 7-17., See also: Miroslav, Volf, The End of Memory: Remembering rightly in a violent world, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 80.

[29] John Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in the Personhood and the Church, (New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985), 145.

[30] Miroslav, Volf, Isključenje i zagrljaj, (Zagreb: Verbum, 1997), 97.

[31] John Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in the Personhood and the Church, (New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985), 162.

[32] John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward, Radical orthodoxy: a new theology, (Routledge, 1999), 195.

[33] Ibid., 197.

[34] Jerald D. Gort, Henry Jansen, H. M. Vroom, Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation, (Rodopi, 2002), 304.

[35] Jürgen Moltmann, Raspeti Bog, (Rijeka: Ex Libris, 2005), 373.

[36] “God is the subject and humanity is an object of reconciliation”, Moltmann in Jerald D. Gort, Henry Jansen, H. M. Vroom, Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation, (Rodopi, 2002), 306.

[37] Jürgen Moltmann, Teologija Nade, (Rijeka: Ex-Libris, 2008).

[38] “Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace”, 2005.

[39] Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 141.

[40] Robert Schreiter, “Establishing a Shared Identity: The Role of the Healing Memories end of Narrative” in Peace and Reconciliation: in search of shared identity, ed. Sebastian C. H. Kim, Pauline Kollontai, Greg Hoyland (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008), 10.

[41] "We remember Auschwitz and all that it symbolizes because we believe that the world, despite the past and its horrors, is worthy of salvation. Salvation, like redemption, can only be found within memory." Elie Wiesel, From the Kingdom of Memory: Reminiscences (New York: Summit Books, 1990), 201.

[42] Miroslav, Volf, The End of Memory: Remembering rightly in a violent world, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 33.

[43] Ibid., 31.

[44] Ibid., 20.

[45] Ibid., 10.

[46] Richard J McNally, Remembering Trauma (Harvard University Press, 2005), 115., See also: Barbara A Misztal, Theories of Social Remembering (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003), 139.

[47] Miroslav Volf, The End of Memory: Remembering rightly in a violent world, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 143.

[48] Barbara A. Misztal, Theories of social remembering (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003), 140.

[49] Miroslav Volf, The End of Memory: Remembering rightly in a violent world, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 90.

[50] Ibid., 27.

[51] “When we feel and realize that something has happened that made us the perpetrator, victim or witness... let’s call this quest for truth–faithfulness.”, Paul Ricoeur, Memory, history, forgetting (Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 55.

[52] Since there is a difference between narrative and historical truth, some scholars argue that the term narrative fit is a better one. Narrative truth, apart from the facts, contains metaphorical interpretations of objective or historical truth, Phil Mollon, Remembering Trauma: A Psychotherapist's Guide to Memory and Illusion, (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1998), 156.

[53] Robert Schreiter, “Establishing a Shared Identity: The Role of the Healing Memories end of Narrative” in Peace and Reconciliation: in search of shared identity, ed. Sebastian C. H. Kim, Pauline Kollontai, Greg Hoyland (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008)

[54] Ibid., 16.

[55] Barbara A. Misztal, Theories of social remembering, (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003), 142.

[56] Robert Schreiter, “Više od žrtve”, Časopis Svijetlo Riječi (332), Sarajevo.

[57] Gerd Baumann, The Multicultural Riddle: Rethinking National, Ethnic, and Religious Identities (New York and London: Routledge, 1999), 24.

[58] “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth” (Isaiah 52:7, NIV), says the Bible. “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower.” (Surah 8, Ayet 61), testifies the Koran.

[59] It is important to mention the initiative of the Islamic theologians and intellectuals called the “Common Word, “ which emphasizes the common historical and religious tradition, and which has met with positive response from eminent Christian theological circles.

[60] Joy Mohan, “Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”, Reformed World 58 (2008): 121.

[61] Johan B. Metz, Politička teologija, (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 2004), 147.

[62] Gustav Gutierrez, Teologija oslobođenja, (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1989), 11-16.

[63] Johan B. Metz, Politička teologija, (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 2004), 145.

[64] Karl Jaspers, Pitanje krivice, (Beograd, Konrad Adeaner Stiftung, 2009), 28.

[65] Todor Kuljić, Kultura sećanja: Teorijska objašnjenja upotrebe prošlosti, (Beograd: Čigoja, 2006 )

[66] Johan B. Metz, Politička teologija, (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 2004), 16.