STUDY DAYS ON THE SALESIAN MISSION AND THE INITIAL PROCLAMATION OF CHRIST IN OCEANIA.
I have enjoyed reading the article of Fr. Franco. It is not just an informative material but for a missionary it is thought-provoking. Personally, I have nothing to contend with his presentation as well as considering the limitation of its scope. However, I kept on asking myself as I read (and re-read) what could be an underlying question that can possibly trigger an attempt for deeper reflection on the melanesian/Polynesian culture. I started to synthesize by asking the question: “What is fullness of life for Melanesians?”… what is the meaning of life for a typical Melanesian? Or what could give the best meaning in life for a Melanesian?
This question remained in me and I wish to suggest that it could serve as a trigger question in our reflections.
It would be good to reflect on human aspect of a culture before introducing or building up our faith dimension (Christianity), to see the human side of the missionary work. I guess the early missionaries gave their share of going deep into the human relations with its struggles and pains.
For us missionaries (and religious), our fullness of life is in Christ. Though stated in few words, it gives meaning and purpose for our human existence. Meanwhile, for Melanesians, what or who can give fullness of life? What or who can give meaning and purpose for their human existence? I guess the article of Fr. Franco gives a lot of insights. But, what could be that one word or one principle that can define or express “fullness of life” for Melanesians?
For us missionaries, we have our own meaning and purpose in life (in Christ). Hopefully, it is clear and well-defined in us personally. Definitely, Melanesians have their own meaning and purpose for their existence. In our mission work, it becomes now an encounter between two meanings and two definitions of fullness of life. Hopefully it becomes an intersection (meaning AND meaning) not a comparison (meaning VS. meaning). I believe this is the reality in our missionary work and surely the context for any initial proclamation.
From this perspective, we can truly reflect on our present missionary work and activity:
Melanesians surely has their worldview. As missionaries with our own cultural background encounter them with their own culture. As a first stage of any mission work, observation is very vital. We get involved WITH them and participate IN them with honesty and discrete attitude. We treat them as people not objects for study. All these because we mean to be WITH THEM. When we come as missionaries, do we really mean to stay (long) with them? Do we respect the “observation stage” of any missionary work? What strategies did we do in order to facilitate a purposeful “observation stage”? In our ministry (of education), how do we assist each other as co-missionaries in our realizations as results from our observations?
Melanesian culture is so diverse as evidenced by their numerous languages (dialects). This poses a big challenge. If we mean to stay with them, then we have to enter into them. Learning the language is very crucial but not the end. It is an entry into their world where we can begin to appreciate and be interested in them. With this at hand, we can better enter into the MEANING’s of their culture. Up to what extent have we entered into the MEANING’s of our people? Do we respect their meaning(s) in life? What steps do we take in order to show that we are serious in entering into the Melanesian world?
Culture is learned not inherited. At the same time, it is enriched by its traditional religions. All the formation happen initially in a family (in a bigger sense, a clan). Our proclamation (mission work) must always be within the context of the family. Though ordinarily our mission work comes in the form of education (service) which is a very strategic way of being acceptable, it would be deepened if ministry with the family accompanies it. Within the family we can see more imminently the dynamics of a culture in a particular way. How far have we gone in family ministry as a complementary approach in our educative/pastoral work?
Initial proclamation entails a lot of interplay between culture, identity, traditions and worldview. It is an encounter of two “meanings” or “purposes” of life. This implies a lot of integration on the part of missionaries both in human and Christian values. Once taken seriously, Christian proclamation becomes tedious and may become detrimental to the disposition of the proclaimer. Inasmuch as our mission work is a process with undefined time framework, the missionary enters into this process also with undefined results (or even fulfillment). It is of high importance that the missionary must also be taken cared of. On-going formation can truly satisfy and assist the missionaries involved in this process. In our own plan of missionary work, do we always consider the on-going formation of our missionaries as important as the results we want to achieve?
