Oh Europe ! Oh Europe !

Christianity’s Contribution to Civil Society
in the European Project _
Ulrich Engel op
M.Dominique Chenu Institute – Espaces, Berlin

In 1987 the German writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger (*1929) published Observations from Seven Countries. Alongside “Italian Excesses” and “Portuguese Musings” the book dealt with “Polish Accidents” and “Spanish Fragments” – to quote only a few of the chapter headings. The complete collection bears the title “Oh Europe !” ; its intention was to pay homage to the diversity of the continent.

Today, a good twenty years later, Enzensberger’s praise remains barely more than a faint sigh, echoing Jürgen Habermas’s (*1929) preface to a slim volume entitled “Oh Europe”. The exclamation mark that pointed to optimism in Enzensberger’s text at that time is lacking in Habermas.

DEFICIENCIES IN CURRENT EUROPEAN POLICIES

It is evident that the climate of resignation has its origins principally in Realpolitik and is not just an irrational expression of anti-European feeling. • Progressively more serious failings of democracy have long since been lamented. “Ever more and more important political decisions are taken in Brussels and are subsequently only ‘transposed’ into domestic legislation at home.” (91) • In the context of enforced globalisation and its consequences, the European Union is lacking in basic political capacity in the domain of supranational foreign, economic, environmental and world domestic policy. “For without global players (…) there can be no equilibrium between the subjects of a just economic regime.” (92) • Finally this presents a significant challenge to the European community, not only in the domain of an immigration problem on the external borders of the EU, of which the integration of foreigners (especially of economic refugees) is part. Real cultural and religious pluralism exists within its frontiers and demands from European policies that those who belong to a foreign culture and other religious confessions be respected in their differentness and be immediately assimilated into civic solidarity. “The problem has for too long been dealt with from the point of view of immigration policy ; in times of terrorism the danger is that it will only be dealt with only in the context of internal security.” (92)

THE QUESTION OF THE “ULTIMATE GOAL” OF THE UNIFICATION PROCESS

According to Habermas, the three areas of problematic briefly outlined here find their common denominator as ground to be tilled by future European policy making with regard to “the central question concerning the ultimate goal of the unification process” (100). If a socio-political future for the European project should be pared down to the liberal economic notion of a European free trade area, after the wrecking of the draft constitution, the delicate problem of “the raison d’être of European unification” (85) should not be lost sight of. For nothing identifiable as a European identity will emerge without an answer (even if it is still in process and hence revisable) to the question of the relationship between the prospective goal of the unification process and loyalty to the nation states, which will still be relevant in the future).

In 1993 the Dutch writer, Cees Nooteboom, (*1933) published a small book, whose title asked : “How does one become a European ?” According to the thesis of the author, one becomes a European not by birth, but only after “hard work”. If excessive subjectivity is to be avoided in the task set out as the construction of a European identity, the “creation of a Europe-wide public awareness is necessary”. (106) But in Habermas’s view, such a phenomenon is not even on the drawing board.

Today’s Europe under construction needs to take up a threefold challenge against the background of what has just been outlined. This consists of : • The formulation of the ultimate goal of the European unification process, • The gestation of a plural European identity with cultural and religious dimensions. • And finally the development of a European public awareness implying coherent communication transcending national frontiers.

POST-CHRISTIAN EUROPE

What can the Christian churches and their theologies contribute to the construction of such a Europe ? Or formulated more pointedly : in the face of an evident multi-facetted tendency towards secularisation, and the inherent weakening of ecclesial institutions, are Christian practice and its theoretical reflection still in a position to make an effective contribution to the development of Europe ? A propos of the key concept “Post-Christian Europe” I would like just briefly to introduce some relevant convictions of the Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo (*1936). On the one hand, they make it possible to react positively to the threefold challenge outlined above, and on the other to face up to certain weaknesses of Christianity in its ecclesial dimension.

Vattimo is convinced that with the end of the modern period, faith in strong principles and solid structures has become obsolete. He identifies the proclamation of the death of God by Nietzsche’s “mad people” with the end of metaphysics, as Heidegger saw it. From a philosophical point of view, both aspects taken together form the kernel of postmodernism. According to Vattimo, in the place of a thought system orientated towards strong principles, the so called “weak thought” (pensiero debole) has emerged, giving free reign to interpretation. In order to counter the obvious charge of relativism, it must be remembered that the horizon, in which the humanity exists in the world and in history at any given time, is not a stable structure but rather a happening.

SECULARISATION AND KENOSIS

From a theological point of view it would appear significant that Vattimo gives objective expression to the feasibility of these philosophical tendencies by linking them to the Christian motif of the Incarnation. Vattimo reads the history of Christianity a-religiously, as a history of the progress of desacralisation. For him, the pouring out of God into the world and into history – kenosis – marks the beginning of the secularisation process. In this context Vattimo refers specifically to the New Testament hymn in Philippians. “Though he (Christ) was in the form of God, he did not count his likeness with God a thing to be grasped. He emptied himself taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” (Ph. 2, 5-8)

Central to Vattimo’s discourse are questions of truth and of subject. Consequently both - truth and subject - come within the scope of weak thought only in a “weakened” manner. “The subject of the interpretation can no longer conceive of himself as outside of the process in which he is actively involved (…) As a real part of the hermeneutic act, the subject of the interpretation defines the frontiers of his being, and also of reality, which is constantly renewed when confronted with his questioning.” However the pouring out of self implied in the logic of kenosis does not lead to impenetrable nothingness. Rather the process of kenotic secularisation flows into Christian caritas. “One should not forget that in the secularisation of Christian love (…) the reduction of power in all its forms is normative.”

EUROPE UNDER CONSTRUCTION

In conclusion, several answers to the questions formulated above can be outlined, from a formal point of view at least. • I am convinced that, disregarding the growing tendency towards religious fundamentalism, neo-liberal commercial religiosity and spiritual escapism and even after the end of Christian hegemony in many European countries, Christianity is capable of proving its worth in a secularised world. However, the churches can only grasp this chance in a meaningful way if they renounce all symbols of power and domination and recall their biblical origins. • Such a Christianity purged of civil society and grounded in politico-theological reflection can become part once more of the European reserve of values. Amongst these values Vattimo counts as essential pietas, caritas, hospitality and universality, which in my opinion can be presented at least as something resembling the sought after coordinating system in the ultimate objective of the European project. • The gestation of a European identity will succeed more readily as a limited identity, i.e. aware of its limits, if it is not obliged to set itself up as dominant and exclusive, replacing inherited national identities. The weakness of the subject will become its strength in the search for identity. • In his book Dopo la cristianita Vattimo presents a Christianity which, building on the ruins of the old institutional torpid religion, points the way to a sketched out new, quasi post-Christian, Christianity. Such a brand of Christianity would be open to a new social covenant ; on the other hand, in the kenotic form of a ‘weak religion’, Christianity would advance towards being recognised Europe-wide as a partner in dialogue with civil society, beyond the well-known religious and secular frontline-positions. And the churches could collaborate credibly in the building up of European public awareness

My hope is that that churches and theology might discover in a roundabout way, by means of Vattimo’s weak thought, that even after the end of (institutional) Christianity, the Christian norm of caritas can be part of a plural European identity, and that therefore it is worth participating optimistically in the construction of a European public awareness that will be fit for the future.