Johann Baptist Metz;s Memoria Passionis - 2017

politicaltheology,Vol.18No.3,May,2017,233–248

JohannBaptistMetz’s Memoria Passionis andthePossibilityofPolitical Forgiveness

JoasAdiprasetya

ConstructiveTheology,JakartaTheologicalSeminary,Jakarta,Indonesia

Theideaof memoriapassionis promotedbyJohannBaptistMetzprovidesa strongbasisforcorrelatingtheChristiancreedofthedeathandresurrection ofJesusChristandourpoliticalengagementinatrocioussituations. However,Metz’sideaofmemoryandrememberingisnotsufficientaswe attempttoconstructajustandpeacefulsocietybasedontheChristian notionofforgiveness.ThisarticleattemptstomakeuseofMetz’s memoria passionis,whileatthesametimeproposingthenecessityofpoliticalforgivenessasanintrinsicaspectofsuchamemorativefaith.Insuchaproposal,forgivingandrememberingmustbetwounavoidableandintertwined dimensionsof memoriapassionisJesuChristi

KEYWORDS JohannBaptistMetz, memoriapassionis,forgiveness,remembering, dangerousmemory

Thestoryofacellist

Sarajevo,May27,1992.VedranSmailovic,acellistoftheSarajevoOperaOrchestra,stoodathiswindowandwatchedalonglineofhungrypeoplestandingina breadline.Unexpectedly,amortarshellscreameddownfromthesky.Twenty-two men,women,andchildrenwereimmediatelykilled.ItwasthedayafterthatbreadlinemassacrewhenSmailovic startedtoplayAlbinoni’smelancholy “Adagioin G.Minor.” Everydayatexactly4:00p.m.foratotaloftwenty-twodays one tohonoreachofthevictims heplayedthesamemusic,rememberingtheinnocent victims.Manywonderifhechosethismusicknowingitwasreconstructedfroma pieceofmusicfoundintheruinsofDresdenaftertheSecondWorldWar.Albinoni’s musicsurvivedthebombing,asifithadwaitedtobeusedasaremembranceof Sarajevo’stragedy.1

1 PaulR.Bartrop,Smailovic,Vedran.In:Abiographicalencyclopediaofcontemporarygenocideportraitsofeviland good(SantaBarbara,CA:ABC-CLIO;2012).

©2016InformaUKLimited,tradingasTaylor&FrancisGroup DOI10.1080/1462317X.2015.1131800

Thememoryofsufferingisundoubtedlybitter,butnoonecanescapeit.Theonly waytodealwiththatbittermemoryistoacceptandcreativelyallowittobecomea “dangerousmemory.” ThistermispopularizedbyJohannBaptistMetz,whoconstructshisowntheologythroughthememoryofhispersonalstory.

TowardstheendoftheSecondWorldWar,attheageofsixteen,Iwassnatchedoutof schoolandconscriptedintothearmy.AfterahastytraininginthebarracksatWüzburgI arrivedatthefront,whichbythattimehadalreadyadvancedovertheRhineinto Bavaria.Mycompanyconsistedsolelyofyoungpeople,welloverahundredofthem. Oneeveningthecompanycommandersentmewithamessagetobattalionheadquarters.Iwanderedduringthenightthroughshattered,burningvillagesandfarmsteads, andwhennextmorningIreturnedtomycompanyIfoundonlythedead:dead bodies,overwhelmedbyacombinedfighter-bomberandtankattack.Icouldonly lookintothestill,deadfacesofallthosewithwhomonthepreviousdaysIhad sharedtheanxietiesofchildhoodandthejoysofyouth. Icannotrememberanything butasilentcry.Icanstillseemyselftheretoday,andmychildhooddreamshavecollapsedbeforethatmemory. 2

Inthislight,IwillexploreMetz’s memoriapassionis asatheologicalstartingpointfortakingthesideofthevictims.However,itisevidentfromtheoutsetthat Metzdoesnotprovideasufficientbasefor “politicalforgiveness, ” ashefocuses histheologyontheliberatingpowerof memoriapassionis thatsimplydrawsa strictdemarcationbetweentheoppressedandtheoppressor.Giventhisfact,Iwill havetogobeyondMetzindiscussingthepossibilityofthepoliticalforgiveness forthevictimizers.

Politicaltheologyaspracticalfundamentaltheology

JohannBaptistMetzbeganhisearlyworkwithwritingtwodissertations(oneunder CorethonHeideggerandanotherunderRahneronThomasAquinas).3 Theseextensivestudiesledhimtostress “man’sabilitytomediatebetweenBeingandentities (betweenGodandworld)becausemansharesthecharacteristicsofboth[…]He viewsman’s apriori constitutionintermsofsharedbeinginasharedworld.”4 Thesepropositionsinfluencedhiswholetheologylater,especiallyashecoinedthe term “politicaltheology.”

Metz’sunderstandingof “asharedworld” iscentralinhisbook, Theologyofthe World (1971),andcharacterizesthefirststageofhiswork.Here,heevaluatessecularizationasapositivemanifestationofGod’sdominioninhistory.

Thesecularityoftheworld,asithasemergedinthemodernprocessofsecularizationand asweseeittodayinagloballyheightenedform,hasfundamentally,thoughnotinits individualhistoricalforms,arisennotagainstChristianitybutthroughit.Itisoriginally

2 JohannB.Metz,JohannBaptistMetz.In:JürgenMoltmann,editor.HowIhavechanged:reflectionsonthirtyyearsof theology,(Harrisburg,PA:TrinityPressInternational;1997),p.31;emphasismine.

3 RogerD.JohnsprovidesanexcellentanalysisoftheinfluenceofHeidegger,Coreth,Rahner,andThomasinMetz’s theology.SeeRogerD.Johns,editor,Manintheworld:thepoliticaltheologyofJohannesBaptistMetz(Missoula, MT:ScholarsPress;1976).pp.61–8.

4 Johns,Manintheworld,p.80.

aChristianeventandhencetestifiesinourworldsituationtothepowerofthe ‘hourof Christ’ atworkwithinhistory.5

Thepositiveappropriationofsecularizationisbuttressedwithatleastthreefundamentalconcepts.First,theincarnationofGodbecomestheframeworkofsecularization,astheincarnationappears “whollyas ‘flesh,’ asearth,assecular world,andGod[…]nowbecomesoperativeintheeconomyofthemovementof history.”6 Second,hecontinueshisincarnationalargumentwithacorrectionof theunderstandingoftheworld,movingfromcosmocentricGreekphilosophyto anthropocentricHebrewandChristiantheology.7 “Toseetheworldnotasa cosmos,notasnatureinterpretingitself,butashistory,toseeitinitsrelationto man,asmediatedbyhim,meanstointerprettheworldinitsformal anthropocentricity.”8 ThisanthropocentricityleadsMetztocomprehendtheworldasbeing hominized,meaningbothpluralisticanddehumanized.9 Third,Metzcharacterizes thesecularityoftheworld,withitsorientationtowardsthefuture,asbasedonthe biblicalbeliefinthepromisesofGod.RogerD.JohnsarguesthatinordertodifferentiatehiseschatologyfromBloch’sphilosophyofhope,Metzproposeswhathe callsGod’s “eschatologicalproviso,” whichprovidesthedialecticaltension betweenthefutureandpresentsituation,aswellasthebasisfortheexistencefor thechurch.10 Consequently,everypresentoccurrenceshouldbeseenaspartial untilitisfulfilledinthefuture.

Systematically,thesethreereflectionsleadMetztopronouncehispoliticaltheology,whichhedefinesas,

[…]acriticalcorrectionofpresent-daytheologyinasmuchasthistheologyshowsan extremeprivatizingtendency(atendency,thatis,tocenterupontheprivateperson ratherthan “public,”“political” society).Atthesametime,Iunderstandthispolitical theologytobeapositiveattempttoformulatetheeschatologicalmessageundertheconditionofourpresentsociety.11

However,wecannotfindinhis TheologyoftheWorld anyfurtherexplanationor explorationofwhathemeansbythiskindoftheology.Inotherwords,thisbookis onlyapreliminaryintroductiontothediscussionofpoliticaltheology,foundinhis magnumopus, FaithinHistoryandSociety (1980),whichalsocharacterizesthe secondstageofhiswork.

Inthisbook,Metzbroadenshisearlierdefinitionofpoliticaltheologyasapracticalfundamentaltheology.Likeanellipse,thispracticalfundamentaltheologyhas twofixedfoci:theprimaryof praxis,andthestruggleforthe subject. “Itisa

5 JohannB.Metz,Theologyoftheworld(London:Burns&Oates/NewYork:HerderandHerder;1971).pp.19–20.

6 Metz,Theologyoftheworld,p.32.

7 ForMetz,ChristianityisnotthemixtureofHebrewfaithandGreeklogic.HisavoidanceoftheGreekinterpretationof Christiantheologyislargelyanantecedent,notaconsequence,ofhisattentiononAuschwitzandJudaism,especially withhis memoriapassionis.SeeGasparMartinez,Confrontingthemysteryofgod:political,liberation,andpublictheologies(NewYork:Continuum;2001).p.77.

8 Metz,Theologyoftheworld,p.54.

9 Ibid.,pp.70–7.

10 Johns,Manintheworld,107–08;cf.RebeccaS.Chopp.Thepraxisofsuffering:aninterpretationofliberationand politicaltheologies(Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks;1986).p.40.

11 Metz,Theologyoftheworld,p.107.

theologythatoperatessubjecttotheprimacyofpraxis.”12 Thepracticalfocusofthis politicaltheologyispreciselyusedtomovebeyondRahner’stranscendentaltheology andeventofleshoutRahner’sthesiswithconcretehistoricalandsocialevidence.13 NotonlydoesMetzunderstandpraxisasmorality,buthealsorelatesittosocial engagement.Inthislight,praxiscannotbe “sociallyneutralandpolitically innocent.”14

Theseconcernsrelatetothesecondfocusofhiswork,thestruggleforthesubject. Ashedoesin TheologyoftheWorld,Metzwarnsagainstthedangerofprivatized theologiessuchastheexistentialtheologyofdemythologization,personaltheology, andtranscendentaltheology.Althoughthosetheologiesarealsoconsidered “theologiesofthesubject,” theydonotplacethehumanpersonwithinasocialandpoliticalcontext.Humanpersons,inthosetheologies,areviewedabstractlyasisolated fromtheircommunityandfromhistory.Incontrast,thepoliticaltheologyofthe subjectlocateshumanpersonsinhumaninterrelationship notonlyco-existence aswellasinGod’spresence.15 Onlyuponthisbasiscanpoliticaltheologybea “practicalcriticismofacultureofhatredandacultureofapathy.”16 Theexperience oftheHebrewpeoplethroughtheExodus,accordingtoMetz,isanexample par excellence ofbecomingsubjects.

Incontrasttothefirststage,Metz’ssecondstageworkisnowcriticalofworld history.Secularization,whichwaspraisedinthefirststageofhiswork,isnow seenbyMetzashavinga “tragicflaw,” thevictimizationoftheweak,whichisto beconfrontedwithconcretepraxis.Hiscriticalstandofsecularizationtoagreat extentappearsashediscussestheconnectionbetweenthechurchand “bourgeois” society.Heseesthreeimagesofthechurch,whichareincompetitionwitheach other: “aprebourgeoispaternalisticchurch,abourgeoissupply orservices church,andapost-bourgeoisinitiative-takingchurch.”17 Thefirstimageofthe church,Metzargues,belongstothepast,withitsconcentrationontakingcareof thepeoplepaternalistically.Thismodelmanifestsitselfinclergyresignationtothe dangerposedbybourgeoissocietyanditsinfluenceonthechurch.Rather,the clergyreactstobourgeoissocietywithalegalisticattitudethat,ironically, “offers norealhelpforthegrassrootscommunitiesattheparishlevel.”18

Thesecondimageisthebourgeoischurch,whichtosomeextentreflectsthelarger bourgeoissociety.Thebourgeoischurchischaracterizedwithindividualismthatis farfromMetz’sproposalofthetheologyofthesubject;for “thebourgeoissubject […]isestablishedwithhisownself-interestandhisownfuture.”19 Insucha church,themessianiccharacterofatruechurchisweakenedanddistorted.Itproclaimshopewithoutexpectationandjoy,lovewithoutsolidarity,andspirituality withoutdiscipleship.Thishappens,accordingtoMetz,simplybecause “religion

12 JohannB.Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety:towardapracticalfundamentaltheology(NewYork:SeaburyPress; 1980).p.50.

13 Martinez,Confrontingthemysteryofgod,p.58;cf.Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.84.

14 Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.54.

15 Ibid.,p.61.

16 Ibid.,p.62.

17 JohannB.Metz,Theemergentchurch:thefutureofChristianityinapostbourgeoisworld(NewYork:Crossroad; 1981),p.86.

18 Metz,Emergentchurch,p.6.

19 Ibid.,p.5.

doesnotlayclaimtothebourgeois;instead,thebourgeoislaysclaimtoreligion. Religiondoesnottransformsociety;rather,bourgeoissocietydoesnotrestuntilreligionfitsinwithitselfandwithwhatitconsiderreasonable.”20

Inordertogobeyondthetwoimagesofchurch,Metzproposesthethirdimage, thatis,thepostbourgeoisinitiative-takingchurch,whichhefindmostcloselyinthe LatinAmericanbasecommunities.Thisnewchurchcanonlyberealizedifthe churchbecomesculturallypolycentric.Thisnewmodel,Metzbelieves,enablesthe churchtorecognizehermembersassubjectsthroughitsefforttobea “community ofmemory.”

Memoriapassionis asadangerousmemory

AsapracticalhermeneuticofChristianity,politicaltheologymustbea “narrative theology.” Inregardtonarrativeasatheologicalcategory,Metzmaintains, “the beginningandtheendcanonlybediscussedinnarrativeform.”21 Iassumethat Metzemploysthiscategorytoemphasizethetemporalaspectofhistheology,as wellastointroducethelinkagebetween memoriapassionis andtheeschatological hopethatliesbetweenthe arche andthe telos.WhileheshareswithMoltmann thepoliticaldimensionofChristianhopeandeschatology,hedevelopshisown “turningtothepast” usinganarrativebridge.Here,wefindthesecondcategory inMetz’stheology,memory.

Therelationshipbetweennarrativeandmemoryiscentralinhis FaithinHistory andSociety.Yet,thesecategorieshavetobelinkedwithChristianredemptionand emancipation.HisthesisisthatChristiansoteriologyis “afundamentallymemorativeandnarrativesoteriology.IttriestokeeptheChristianmemoryofredemption aliveinnarrativeformasadangerousandliberatingmemoryofredeemed freedomandtodefenditbyargumentinthesystemsofourso-calledemancipative world.”22

Becauseofthenotionofemancipation,then,politicaltheologianscannotunderstandChristianredemptionasmerelyanabstractsoteriologicalconcept.Herethe historyofredemptionisalsoahistoryoffreedomfromsufferinginitsmostconcrete sense.

Fromthisperspective,MetzreinterpretstheclassiccredoofChristianfaith: memoriapassionis, mortisetresurrectionisJesuChristi. 23 Forhim,this memoria JesusChristi isdouble-sidedintermsofitstemporality.Ontheonehand, “itanticipatesthefutureasafutureofthosewhoareoppressed,withouthopeand doomed.”24 Ontheother,itintroducestherememberedfreedomofJesusintocontemporarysociety.Onlybymaintainingthisdouble-sidednessofChristianremembrancecanthechurchdrawitsstrengthtocriticizealloppressiveideologiesand

20 Ibid.,p.83.

21 Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.206.

22 Ibid.,p.133.

23 Therearefourphrasesthatheemploysalongwiththeterm “dangerousmemory”;allofthesearealmostinterchangeablealthoughtheyhavetheirownspecificemphasis:memoryofthedeadandvanquished;concretememoryofsuffering andfreedom;memoryaseschatologicalhope;memoryofthesuffering,deathandresurrectionofJesusChristor memoriapassionis, mortisetresurrectionisJesusChristi

24 Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.90.

systems.Therefore,this memoriapassionis isadangerousmemory,becauseitunites Jesus’ narrative mortisetresurrectionisJesuChristi withinthenarrativeofthe victims’ sufferinginhistoryanddrawsfromitliberatingstrength.Itisalsoasubversivememory,inthatitacknowledges “anactivepresenceinhistoryofGod’sinterruptiveactofsalvationattheendofhistory,whenGodwillrescuethosewhom historyhasdestroyedandforgotten.”25 TheEucharist,whichtraditionallyhas hadonlyritualmeaning,nowhasitssocio-politicalmeaningthroughthememory ofthevictimsinhistory.26

Moreover, passionisetresurrectionisJesuChristi mustbemaintainedinbalance. Martinezrightlywarnsthedangersofseparatingbothmemorialevents.

If memoriaresurrectionis canbecomeadangerouslyvictoriousideologywithout memoriapassionis,thelattercanbecomecompletelydefeatistandhopelesswithout theformer.Thosetwobelongintrinsicallytogether.27

Memoriapassionis alsogivesChristianpraxisaspecialpathos,sinceitisgrounded inpassionaswellaspracticalaction.ItisthepassionthatleadsMetztocompletehis politicaltheologywithhisthirdcategory,thatis,solidarity.Hemaintains,

Itisinthissolidaritythatmemoryandnarrative(ofsalvation)acquiretheirspecificmysticalandpoliticalpraxis.Withoutsolidarity,memoryandnarrativecannotbecomepracticalcategoriesoftheology.Inthesameway,withoutmemoryandnarrative,solidarity cannotexpressitspracticalhumanizingform.Itisonlywhentheyco-existthatmemory, narrativeandsolidaritycaneffectivelybecategoriesofapracticalfundamental theology.28

Thereisanotherissuetodiscusshere,thatis,theologyastheodicy.If memoria passionis expressesGod’sinterruptioninhistorytorescuethosewhosuffer,then whyaresufferingandinjusticesooverwhelming?ForMetz,thistheodicyquestion, Theodizeefrage ,isthecentralprobleminChristiantheology afterAuschwitz. Notuntil1973didMetzbeginhisseriouslyreflectiveworkonAuschwitzand Holocaust,whenheworkedonthefirstdraftoftheGermansynodaldocument, “OurHope” (UnsereHoffnung).29 Heconfesseshonestlyhishesitation, “Slowly,muchtooslowly,Ibecameaware andtherealizationofhowlongI hadhesitatedmademeevenmoreuncomfortable! thatthesituationinwhich Iamatheologian,thatis,trytotalkaboutGod,isthesituation after Auschwitz. ”30

AccordingtoMetz,thetheodicyproblembringstherelationshipbetweenChristianityandJudaismintoanewform.Auschwitz,inthislight,isbothanendanda

25 Martinez,Confrontingthemysteryofgod,p.66.

26 Ononehand,MetzcriticizesthesacramentalismandritualismintheCatholicchurchthatdistorttheimportanceof graceasfreedom;ontheotherhand,hearguesthatthe anamnesis ofChristianEucharististobeincorporatedwithinthe frameworkofanarrativeactionsothatwecan “relatethesacramentalactionmorecloselytostoriesoflifeandsuffering and[ ]revealitasasavingnarrative.” SeeMetz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.208;cf.Metz,Emergentchurch,p.56.

27 Martinez,Confrontingthemysteryofgod,p.67.

28 Metz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.230.

29 EkkehardSchuster etal.,Hopeagainsthope:JohannBaptistMetzandElieWieselspeakoutontheholocaust (NewYork:PaulistPress;1999),p.15.

30 JohannB.Metz,Apassionforgod:themystical-politicaldimensionofChristianity(NewYork:PaulistPress;1998), p.54.

turningpointforChristiantheology.MetzagreeswithElieWieselwhosays, “The reflectiveChristianknowsthatitwasnottheJewishpeoplethatdiedinAuschwitz, butChristianity.”31 AuschwitzwasanendforChristianity.Inthesametime,itcan beaturningpointforChristiantheology,onlyifChristiansafterAuschwitz “understandtheiridentity[ ]inthefaceoftheJews” (notinthefaceofJudaism).32 Thisis tosaythatpoliticaltheologycannolongerbesituationlessandsubjectless.After Auschwitz,everytheologythatisunrelatedtorememberingconcretesubjects mustceasetoexist,becauseAuschwitzdoesnotonlypresentaquestionoftheodicy butalsoofanthropodicy.33 Here,again,hedeniestheahistoricalandsubjectlessPlatonicorGreekmodelofanamnesis.TheremembranceofthevictimsofAuschwitz shouldbereconstructedfrommysticalHebrew-Christiantradition,thatis, “amysticismofsufferingunto not ‘in’— God” (leidenanGott),asdemonstratedbyJob andJesus.34 Hismovetomystical(andnegative)radicalizessomewhathis “turnto thesubject” intowhatIwouldcalla “turndeepintotheinnercoreofthesubject.” If thisisso,hislackof “theologicallywarrantedpracticalsteps,” ascriticizedby Ashley,isstillmoreserious.35

BeyondMetz:thelimitof memoriapassionis

Metz’stheology,especially “afterAuschwitz,” belongstothetraditionofnegative theology,inthesensethatitholdsthataspeculativegraspofGodisnotpossible. Nevertheless,histheologyisnotcompletelynegative.Rather,itspathoscomes fromaneschatologicalhopethatGodwillcomeandinterrupthistory,forthe livingandthedead.Myintentioninthissectionistorevealandexplorethe crucialomissionofMetz’stheology,thatis,forgiveness.RarelydoesMetzspeak aboutforgivenessasaninherentdimensionofChristianfaithrelatedtothecategoryofmemory.Onlyoncedoeshespeakofthechurch’sworkofreconciliation, whenhediscussestheecumenicalrelationshipbetween “thepoorchurch” and “therichchurch.”36 Despitehisinvitationto “aradicalprocessofrepentance,” histoneinthisarticleismuchsofterthaninwritingswherehespeaksaboutpoliticalatrocities.Forinstance,hesoftenstheradicaldisparitybetweenthe oppressedandtheoppressorsbysayingthattherichchurchescanbe “oppressed oppressors.”

ThislackofforgivenesslanguageisalsoobviouswhenMetzspeaksabout memoriapassionisJesuChristi,whichtraditionallyincludestheforgivingaspect ofGod’sgrace.Iamnotsuggestingthatwespiritualizethistheme;noramI arguingthatMetzhasover-politicizedthesuffering,deathandresurrectionof JesusChrist.Onthecontrary,thetruemeaningofGod’sactioninhumanhistory

31 Schuster etal.,Hopeagainsthope,p.17.

32 JohannB.Metz,FacingtheJews:ChristiantheologyafterAuschwitz.In:ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenzaandDavid Tracy,editors.TheHolocaustasinterruption(Edinburgh:T&TClark;1984),p.26.

33 Metz,Emergentchurch,pp.22,31.

34 Metz,Passionforgod,p.66.J.MatthewAshleyprovidesanextensiveanddeepanalysisontherelationshipbetween Metz’smysticalspiritualityandhispoliticaltheology;JamesMatthewAshley.Interruptions:Mysticism,politics,and theologyintheworkofJohannBaptistMetz(NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress;1998).

35 Cf.Ashley,Interruptions,p.195.

36 JohannB.Metz,Messianicor “Bourgeois” religion?OnthecrisisofthechurchinWestGermany.Concilium.1979;5 (125):68–70.

throughJesusChrististobelivedoutholistically:personallyandsocially;spiritually andpolitically;temporallyandtimelessly.Forgiveness,whichwasdeliberately omittedbyMetz,isasimportantanaspectofGod’sactinChristasGod’scritical judgmenttowardstheoppressor.Thereisalwaysthepossibilityofforgivingthe oppressor.Oneofthemostbeautifulimagesofthisdouble-sidedmeaningof soteria intheBibleisthatofferedbythePsalmist:

LetmehearwhatGodtheLordwillspeak, forhewillspeakpeacetohispeople, tohisfaithful,tothosewhoturntohimintheirhearts. Surelyhissalvationisathandforthosewhofearhim, thathisglorymaydwellinourland. Steadfastloveandfaithfulnesswillmeet; righteousnessandpeacewillkisseachother. (Ps.5:8–10,NRSV)

Wehear truth and righteousness ascentralthemesinMetz’swritings,butwe rarelyhearhimspeakof mercy and peace.Again,inhiswritingontheBeatitudes (Matt.5.3–11),Metzonlyreflectsonselectsentencesthatfithispoliticalagenda.37 Metz’sselectivity,ontheonehand,isreasonablewithregardtoavoidingthe dangerof “politicalamnesia” andimpunity;justiceshouldbeupheld!Perhapshe feltthatthesufferingoftheJewsatAuschwitzwassooverwhelmingthatmercy andforgivenessforthevictimizerswereimpossible;theywerejustunforgivable! Nonetheless,hedoesinjusticenotonlytotheoppressors “assubjects” butalsoto thewholenessoftheChristianmessage.Inthissense, memoriapassionis canbe dangerousifitisusedselectively.ThesituationinthemodernBalkansprovides anexampleofthedangerofselectivememory.

In1989theSerbianleaderSlobodanMilosevicheadedthecelebrationscommemorating the600th anniversaryoftheBattleoftheKosovoin1389,whenSerbshadfoughtagainst thetroopsoftheemergingOttomanEmpireandlost.Theirdefeatsealedhundredsofthe yearsofsubordinationtothesultansofConstantinople.Rememberingthisbattle becametheinterpretativekeyfortheformationoftheidentityoftheSerbianpeople. TheyhadfoughttodefendthevaluesofChristianEuropeagainsttheTurkishinfidels. Yetsincethissacrificehadneverbeenappreciated,Serbscametoseethemselvesasthe heroicvictims[ ]Itbecamethekeytoreadingtheirhistory,enablingthemnotonly tocreateandnurturetheirownself-imagebutalsotoidentifytheirenemiesandtogeneratepatternsofsuspicionandhatred.38

PerhapsMetz’smostimportantarticlediscussingtheplaceofthevictimizersas subjectsintheprocessofrememberingis “InthePluralismofReligiousandCultural Worlds.”39 Here,hefollowsPaulF.Knitter,suggestingthattheinterfaithencounter

37 Metz,Passionforgod,pp.157–63.

38 GeikoMüller-Fahrenholz,Theartofforgiveness:theologicalreflectionsonhealingandreconciliation(Geneva:WCC Publications;1997),p.46.Thetechniqueof “chosentrauma” wasalsoemployedbySoeharto’sregimeagainsttheCommunistsinthe1960s.Theoppressedcouldbemoreoppressivethantheirpreviousoppressorscould.Inthiscase,memory istheobstaclefortruepeaceandreconciliation.

39 JohannB.Metz,Inthepluralismofreligiousandculturalworlds:notestowardatheologicalandpoliticalprogram. CrossCurrents.1999;49(2).

TABLE1

RELATIONSHIPBETWEENREMEMBERANDSANCTION.

hasitscommonalitynotina “subjectless” and “situationless” (Metz’sterm) commongroundbutincommonsuffering.40 Relatedtothisissue,Metzalso arguesthat “thestruggleforjusticecangenerateauniversalhorizononlybyits ‘negativemediation,’ onlybyresistingunjustsuffering.”41

MetzusestheformerYugoslaviaasacasetoshowthattheir “purelyselfregarding memoriapassionis, ” ortheirselectiveremembrance, “becamenotan organofunderstandingandpeace,butasourceofhostility,hatred,andviolence.”42 Onthecontrary,hepraisestheencounterbetweenRabinandArafatas “theywant tolooknotonlyattheirownsuffering,butalsotorememberthesufferingofothers, thesufferingoftheir formerenemies. ”43 Whatdoeshemeanby “formerenemies”?

Aretheynowreconciled?Isreconciliation,therefore,thepreconditionoftreating enemiesassubjects?Ifitisso,then,westillhaveaproblemwithMetz’sunderstandingofforgiveness.Isitpossibletoforgivetheenemieswhiletheystillremainour enemies?

Thefollowingsectionswilldiscussthepossibilityofforgivinginrelationto remembering.Onlybyemployingbothcreativelyarereconciliationandtrue peaceattainable.Morethanthat,forgivenessalsoopensthepossibilityofmaintainingourfaithinGod,whohasbeen Deusabsconditus (theabsentGod)duringand afterAuschwitz.Inshort,forgivenessinthelightofremembranceistheonlywayto acceptGodas Deusabsconditus and Deusrevelatus.

Forgivingmemoryandmemorativeforgiveness

Inhis “ThePhilosophyandPracticeofDealingwiththePast,” TuomasForsberg providesausefultabletoshowtherelationshipbetweenrememberingandgiving politicalsanction44 (Table 1).

However,IwillreviseForsberg’stabletomakeitfitthethemeofthisessay.The issueofreconciliationisnotonlydealingwiththequestionofwhethertogivesanctionornot,butalso,andprimarily,withthechoicetoforgiveornot.Forthis purpose,Isuggestforgivenessasthefourthcategoryofa “new” politicaltheology, alongwiththethreeothercategoriesMetzprovides(memory,narrative,and

40 PaulF.Knitter,Oneearth,manyreligions:multifaithdialogueandglobalresponsibility(Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks; 1995),pp.56–7.

41 Metz,Pluralismofreligiousandculturalworlds,p.233.

42 Ibid.,p.233.

43 Ibid.,p. 233;emphasismine.

44 TuomasForsberg,Thephilosophyandpracticeofdealingwiththepast:someconceptualandnormativeissues.In: NigelBiggar,editor.Buryingthepast:makingpeaceanddoingjusticeaftercivilconflict.(Washington,DC:Georgetown UniversityPress;2001),p.61.

TABLE2

RELATIONSHIPBETWEENREMEMBERANDFORGIVENESS.

solidarity). 45 IhereuseDesmondTutu’sdefinitionofforgivenessas “abandoning yourrighttopaybacktheperpetratorinhisowncoin,butitisalossthatliberates thevictim.”46 Tutu’sdefinitionofforgivenessobviouslyreflectshispersonalexperienceandinvolvementinthereconciliationprocessinSouthAfrica.Itisalsovery importanttoemphasizeTutu’sdistinctionbetweenforgivingandforgettingasit willalsobeusedinthispaper.Tutuisoftheopinion, “Inforgiving,peopleare notbeingaskedtoforget.Onthecontrary,itisimportanttoremember,sothat weshouldnotletsuchatrocitieshappenagain”47 (Table 2).

Thelimitof memoriapassionis wehavediscussedabovedoesnotmakeitinsignificantasaconditionforapeacefulreconciliation.Onthecontrary,itprovides thefirststepofanyreconciliatoryprocess.Rememberingisanecessarycondition, butnotasufficientcondition,ofreconciliation.Wecannothavereconciliation withoutremembrance,norwithremembrancealone.Thevalueofrememberingis alsoevident,sinceitpreventsusfromanyefforttoassociatereconciliationandpoliticalforgivenesswithpoliticalimpunity(remember-yes/forgive-no).

Wehaveamnesty(remember-no/forgive-yes)insofarasthecrimesofthevictimizersinthepastareforgivennotbythevictims,butbythethird-partyagent(government,forinstance).Novictimsareinvolvedwithintheprocess,eitherbecausethey aredeadorbecausetheyavoidforgivingtheiroppressors.Yet,theworstamnesty happenswhenforgivenessisgivenwithoutprimarilyrememberingthesufferingof theoppressed.Inthiscase,amnestyistheformalexpressionofamnesia.

Anothersolutionisrevenge(remember-no /forgive-no),whenthereisnowillingnessonthepartofthevictimseithertoremembertheirownsufferingorto forgivetheirvictimizers.Theonlywaythatmakessensetothemistodototheir oppressorswhatwasdonetothem.48

Bothamnestyandrevengeareformsofforgettingthe memoriapassionis.Forgetting,therefore,isthefirstoppositeofremembering(ana-mnesis).Forgetting (a-mnesia)isanactofcuttingoneselfofffromone’sownhistory,anerasingof memory.However,forgettinggetsitsexistentialemphasisthroughthesecond

45 Metz,infact,mentionsmanyothercategoriesthatareincludedinhisthreecategories,suchaslove,interaction,work, suffering,struggle,sorrow,reason,language,timeandsoon.SeeMetz,Faithinhistoryandsociety,p.183.J.Matthew Ashley,oneofthemostprominentinterpretersofMetz’swork,inourpersonalcorrespondence,expresseshisdisagreementwithmysuggestiontomake “forgiveness” afundamentalanthropologicalcategoryinthesamewayastheother three.However,Iwouldarguethatthisispossible,becausethiscategoryhasbeendiscussedwidelyinmanydisciplines: theologically,psychologically,philosophicallyaswellasanthropologically.

46 DesmondM.Tutu,Nofuturewithoutforgiveness(NewYork:Doubleday;1999),p.272.

47 Ibid.,p.271.

48 DonaldShriverhaslistedsevenformsofrevengethatcanpossiblybechosen,fromterrortopassivity:terror,vindictiveness,retaliation,punishment,restitution,protest,andpassivity.DonaldW.Shriver,Anethicforenemies:forgiveness inpolitics(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress;1995),pp.30–1.

oppositeofremembering:dismemberingaction.Dismemberingseparatesone’sidentityfromone’scommunity,removesone’ssufferingfromthatofothers,inshort,alienatesthem.

Wehavediscussedthreeoptionsofhowwecandealwithrememberingandforgiving.Noneoftheseoptions,Ibelieve,isadequateforfacilitatingreconciliation.A trueandpeacefulreconciliationhappensonlyifrememberingandforgivingcome together;theyareliketwosidesofthesamecoinofreconciliation.Insum,anew politicaltheology,beyondMetz,shouldbebasedona “forgivingmemory” and “memorativeforgiveness.” Inthissense,asPaulRicoeurargues, “forgiveness givesmemoryafuture.”49

Thethemeofpoliticalforgivenessnowiswidespreadaroundtheworld,especially sincethelateof1980s,whenoppressiveregimesinmanycountriesfell.Ithasdrawn attentionfromthinkersandpractitionersfrommanyfields;theologytoanthropology,philosophytopsychology.50 Theresultisthatthediscussionofthisthemehas evolvedinverycomplicatedways.Giventhissituation,Iexplorethreefundamental issuesrelevanttoChristianethicsofrememberingandforgiving.Yet,becauseofthe complexityofeachissue,myexplorationandreflectionwillbebriefanddeservingof furtherstudy.Forthispurpose,IemployMetz’svaluablecontributionsaswellas explorepossibilitiestogobeyondhim.

Treatingtheoppressedandtheoppressorsassubjects

Metziscorrectwhenheproposeshispoliticaltheologyofthe subject.Opposedto anysubjectlesstheology,hejoinshimselfwiththepostmodernspiritof “turning tothesubject.” Moreover,healsoarguesthatunlesswetreatenemiesassubjects, politicaltheologywilltendtobeoppressiveaswell.AlthoughMetzdoesnot speakmuchofforgiveness,hisemphasisonthe subject isstillusefulforourdiscussion.Ifrememberingshouldbecentralizedon thevictimsandthevictimizersasthe subjects,thenitisalsothecasewithforgiving.Weforgivesomeone(thedoer)instead ofsomething(thedeed).51 Thecentralityofsubjects boththevictimsandthevictimizers shouldalsofreeusfromtreatingeachsubjectaspurelyinnocentor purelyevil.Inmanycases,thevictimsbecomethevictimizersinanotheroccasion, andvice-versa.Evenmore,itisonlyinextremelyrarecasesthatthevictimsdo notcontributeinthesufferingthattheyhaveexperienced.Inthesametime,it wouldalsobeproblematic,boththeologicallyandmorally,tostigmatizethevictimizersasthepureevil,withoutrecognizingsomemoralgoodnessontheirpart.52

AJewishpoliticalphilosopher,HannahArendtradicalizesthenecessitytoview theoppressorsassubjectsinhernarrativereportonthetrialofNaziofficial AdolfEichmanninJerusalem.53 WithoutdiminishingEichmann’sresponsibility forcrimesagainsthumanity(hostisgenerishumani),shelocates “thelessonthat

49 QuotedinDavidM.Kaplan,ReadingRicoeur(Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress;2008),p.81.

50 Anextensivereviewofliteratureonforgivenessfrom1901to2001iswrittenbyNigelBiggar.Hisreviewincludes booksfromtheology,philosophy,politicalethics,aswellasempiricalstudies.NigelBiggar,Forgivenessinthetwentieth century:areviewofliterature,1901–2001.In:AlistairMcFadyenandMarcelSarot,editors,Forgivenessandtruth: explorationsincontemporarytheology(Edinburgh/NewYork:T&TClark;2001).

51 Cf.JacquesDerrida.Oncosmopolitanismandforgiveness(London/NewYork:Routledge;2002),p.38.

52 Inthiscontext,RoyBaumeister’srejectionof “themythofpureevil” isofimportancehere.Cf.RoyF.Baumeister.Evil: insidehumancrueltyandviolence(NewYork:W.H.Freeman;1997).

53 HannahArendt,EichmanninJerusalem:areportonthebanalityofevil(NewYork:VikingPress;1963).

thislongcourseinhumanwickednesshadtaughtus” as “thelessonofthefearsome, word-and-thought-defyingbanalityofevil.”54 WhileothersdepictEichmannasevil personified,Arendtexpresseshersurprisethat “thismanwasnota ‘monster,’ butit wasdifficultindeednottosuspectthathewasaclown.”55

ThedistinctionbetweendoeranddeedechoestheChristiandistinctionbetween thesinnerandthesin.Thisisnottosaythatthedoeris beyondthereachof justice,sinceasapersons/healsohasthemoralcapacitytoberesponsiblefor whats/hehasdone.Rather,thisistosaythatnoperpetratoris beyondthereach offorgiveness. 56 Yet,onemayarguethatthedoerandthedeed,whilefundamentally distinctive,cannotpracticallybeseparated.Werelatetoothersonlythroughtheir exteriorityanddeeds.Ifthisistrue,onemayalsoargue,therecouldbeacondition wherethedeedandthedoerareinexpiableandirreparable;inshort:unforgivable!

Tothis,JacquesDerridaagreesthatthepresenceoftheunforgivable(theinexpiableandtheirreparable)maybeverypossible,yetherejectsthenotionthatthatwe cannotforgiveanyoneanymore,since “forgivenessforgivesonlythe unforgivable.”57

Ifoneisonlypreparedtoforgivewhatappearsforgivable,whatthechurchcall ‘the venialsin’ thentheveryideaofforgivenesswoulddisappear.Ifthereissomethingto forgive,itwouldbewhatinreligiouslanguageiscalledmortalsin,theworst,theunforgivablecrimeorharm.Fromwhichcomestheaporia,whichcanbedescribedinitsdry andimplacableformality,withoutmercy[…]thereisonlyforgivenessifthereisany, wherethereistheunforgivable.Thatistosaythatforgivenessmustannounceitselfas impossibilityitself.Itcanonlybepossibleindoingtheimpossible.58

Derrida’sargumentundoubtedlydepictsaChristianspiritofforgiveness.Weare calledtoimitateGod’sactofforgivingthroughJesusChrist.Itisthecentralthemeof ChristiansoteriologythatGodforgivesusevenforour “unforgivable” sins.Therefore,despiteitsawfulnessandugliness,GodhasdemonstratedGod’swillingnessto getintoJesus’ crucifixioninordertosolvetheparadoxoftruthandmercy,justice andforgiveness.Yet,theproblemremains:howweasthefollowersofChrist bridgethegapbetweenjusticeandpoliticalforgivenessinourownmoralsituations.

Justiceandpoliticalforgiveness

Digesermaintainsthat “theideaofpoliticalforgivenesswillbestillbornifjusticeand forgivenessstandinoppositiontooneanotherandifthedemandofjusticetrumps allotherconcerns.”59 Heisabsolutelyright.However,wefaceacomplexproblem, sincejusticeistraditionallyassociatedwithrevenge(retributivejustice),orwitha neutraldistributionofrightsorresources(distributivejustice).Inthesecases, justicecertainlycannotbereconciledwithforgiveness;eitherbecausetheycontradict tooneanotherorbecausejusticedepreciatesthevalueofhumanlife.Inshort,both conceptsignoretheimportanceofthevictims.

54 Arendt,EichmanninJerusalem,p.231.

55 Ibid.,p.49.

56 Cf.PeterDigeser,Politicalforgiveness(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress;2001),p.63.

57 Derrida,Oncosmopolitanismandforgiveness,p.32.

58 Ibid.,pp.32–3.

59 Digeser,Politicalforgiveness,p.36.

Themostpromisingconceptofjustice,atleastuptonow,thatcanserveforthe reconciliatoryprocessisoneofrestorativejustice.Byrestorativejustice,Digeser meansaconceptthatseeks “toremedythesedefectsbyrestoringtothevictim andtothecommunitythelossesthatresultfromcrime,byreconcilingthetransgressor,tothevictimandthecommunity,andbyachievingthesegoalsthroughtheactive participationofallpartiesinvolved.”60 Thefocusofrestorativejustice,therefore,is onrehabilitatingandhealingthedignityofthevictimandthevictimizer.61 Inthis light,thepossibilitiesofreconciliationandtheemergenceofanewcommunityis opened.

HowarewetoevaluateMetz’sunderstandingofthesubjectfromthisperspective? Obviously,thecentralityofhumanbeingsinrestorativejusticecanbereconciled withMetz’spoliticaltheologyofthesubject.However,suchaconceptofjusticeis stillproblematicifweconfrontitwith memoriapassionis thathasbeenforgotten foralongtime.Therealvictimsmayhavediedorthereconciliationprocessmay haveinvolvedathirdparty thedescendantsofthevictim,governmentorother parties onbehalfofthevictims.Inthiscase,restorativejusticecanonlybe employedsymbolically.62

Isforgivenessasubstituteforjustice?Onlyanamnesicforgiveness Iusethis oxymoronically cansubstituteforjustice,asitisnotatrueforgiveness.As MiroslavVolfputsit,

Forgivenessisnomeredischargeofavictim’sangryresentmentandnomereassuagingof aperpetrator’sremorsefulanguish,onethatdemandsnochangeoftheperpetratorand norightingofwrongs.Onthecontrary:everyactofforgivenessenthronesjustice;it drawsattentiontoitsviolationpreciselybyofferingtoforegoitsclaims[…]Only thosewhoareforgivenandwhoarewillingtoforgivewillbecapableofrelentlesslypursuingjusticewithoutfallingintothetemptationtopervertitintoinjustice,wecould add.63

Historyandtheriskofforgiveness

TimeandhistoryarecentralinMetz’sunderstandingofpoliticaleschatology. However,wehaveseenthatAuschwitzmakestheconfidenceinGod’sactionin historymoreproblematic.Itdepictsthe “interruptionofevil,” incontrastto God’sinterruptioninMetz’searliertheology.Inthislight,HannahArendt’sexplorationofforgivenessisuseful.Shemaintainsthattheconsequencesaswellasthe “frustration” ofhumanactionaremarkedbyirreversibility,unpredictability,and anonymity.64 Thosethreeconsequencesarefrustratingpredicamentsforhuman life,buttheyarestillremediablethrough “thepotentialitiesofactionitself.” Whiletheonlywayoutofthepredicamentofirreversibilityistheactofforgiving,

60 Digeser.Politicalforgiveness,Ibid.,reconciliation(Geneva:WCCPublications;2000),p.44.

61 Tutu,Nofuturewithoutforgiveness,p.55.

62 Irealizethecomplexproblemofpoliticalforgivenessinrelationtoresponsibilityofthegovernmenttopunishcriminalsthatisextremelydifficulttosolve.However,theissueisnotmyfocusinthispaperandIsuggestaspecificresearch onthismatterinthefuture.

63 MiroslavVolf,Exclusionandembrace:atheologicalexplorationofidentity,otherness,andreconciliation(Nashville, TN:AbingdonPress;1996),p.123.

64 HannahArendt,Thehumancondition(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress;1958),p.220.

thepossiblesolutionofunpredictabilityiscontainedinthehumancapabilityto makeandkeeppromises.65

Sinceanactionissimplyirreversibleandimmediatelybelongstothepast,one cannotundowhatonehasdone.Whatremainsisthefactthatwearethevictims ofconsequencesforever.Forgivenessisanactionthatinterruptssucharecurrence ofconsequences.Incontrastwithrevengethatis “thenatural,automaticreaction totransgressionandwhich[…]canbeexpectedandevencalculated,” theactofforgivenessisunexpectedandunconditioned “bytheactwhichprovokedit.”66 BelievingthatforgivenessisrediscoveredbyJesusofNazareth,Arendtmaintainsthat “only love canforgivebecauseonlylove[is] willing toforgivehimwhateverhe mayhavedone.”67 Inher TheLifeoftheMind:Willing,Arendtalsoregardslove asthetransformationofwill;even, “theWill[…]canalsobedefinedasLove.”68 However,followingAugustine,Arendtarguesthatwillcannotbeseparatedfrom memoryandintellect,sincetheyareonemindandmutuallyrefertoeachother. “MemoryandIntellectarebothcontemplativeand,assuch,passive;itistheWill thatmakesthemfunction.”69 Inshort,accordingtoArendt,loveistheactivation ofwill,memory,andintellect;andoneoftheresultsofsuchmentalactivityisforgiveness.Herewefindagaintheconnectionbetweenmemoryandforgiveness. UsingArendt’sperspective,wecansaythatwithouttheforgivenessthatcomes fromthehumanwill,memorycannotbefruitfulandconstructive.

Asforgivenessisaremedyforirreversibility,theabilitytomakeandkeeppromisescanbearemedyfortheunpredictabilityofthefuture.Onceweforgivesomeone, thereisnocertaintythats/hewillnotrepeatthewrongthathasbeendonebefore. Theonlyreasonableactionistobelievethepromiseofthevictimizer.Inthislight, promiseis “isolatedislandsofcertaintyinanoceanofuncertainty,”70 thatcanbe misusedeasilybythosewhohavebeenforgiven.Althoughpromise-makingisa risk,theactofmakingandkeepingpromisescanacttoinstillasenseofhopeof reconciliationforthevictims.

Conclusion

IhavediscussedatlengthMetz’spoliticaltheologyofthesubjectandhisnotionof memoriapassionis asatheologicalcategory,throughwhichwecantakethesideof thevictims.Ialsohavedemonstratedthelimitofsucha memoriapassionis inthe lightofpoliticalforgiveness.Inthefinalsections,Ihaveexploredthreeimportant themesthatariseinMetzbutneedtobewidenedifweseepeaceandreconciliation asourultimategoals.

65 Ibid.,pp.236–7.

66 Ibid.,p.241.ItisalsoMiroslavVolf ’smainthesisthatforgivenessshouldbeunconditional(1996).Tendaysafter9/ 11,Volfsaysinhisinterviewfor ChristianityToday, “[ ]awilltoembraceandbereconciledwithourenemy[ ]is absolutelyunconditional.Thereisnoimaginabledeedthatshouldtakeapersonoutsideourwilltoembracehim, becausethereisnoimaginabledeedthatcantakeapersonoutofGod’swilltoembracehumanity.” TonyCarnes.To embracetheenemy:isreconciliationpossibleinthewakeofsuchevil?Aninterviewwithmiroslavvolf,Christianity today,September1,2001, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/septemberweb-only/9-17-53.0.html.

67 Arendt,Humancondition,pp.242–3;emphasismine.

68 HannahArendt,Thelifeofthemind:vol.II:willing(NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich;1978),p.102.

69 Arendt,Willing,p.99.

70 Ibid.,p.244.

Toconclude,Metzhasprovidedanecessaryandfundamentalbasisforlong journeytowardsreconciliation.However,Metz’sproposalisnotsufficienttobe theonlyanswerforourultimategoal.BytranscendingMetz’s memoriapassionis, wehaveprovedthathisproposalisreallyvaluable.Ialsohavepointedoutthat withoutwillingnesstomoveforwardbyemployingforgiveness,remembering couldbedangerousinitsnegativesense.

Ihavetriednottoeaseorromanticizeforgivenessandreconciliation,asiftheycan beeasilyreached.Onthecontrary,itismorepainfulforthevictimstostepoutfrom theirplaceandembracetheirtrespassers.Likememory,Ibelieve,forgivenessisalso dangerous.Byforgiving,thevictimsopenthemselvestoavulnerable,unpredictable, openfuture.Theyareinvitedtowalktowardthefuture,eitherwithorwithouttheir forgivenoppressors,howeverpainfulitmightbetothevictims,suppliedonlywith tenuouspromise.However,bydoingthis,thevictimsbecomethepriestsof “civic sacrament, ”71 presenting thecovenantalGodinChrist.Insuchnewsacrament, Godinterruptshistoryoncemore,afterhehasbeen absent inAuschwitz,Papua,Sarajevo,andmanyotheratrociousplaces.Reconciliationisnota utopia.Rather,itisa eutopia afterall!72

ORCID

JoasAdiprasetya http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2208-4407

References

Arendt,Hannah.Thehumancondition,CharlesR.Walgreenfoundationlectures.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress; 1958

Arendt,Hannah.EichmanninJerusalem:areportonthebanalityofevil.NewYork:VikingPress; 1963

Arendt,Hannah.Thelifeofthemind:Vol.II.Willing.1sted.NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich; 1978

Ashley,JamesM.Interruptions:mysticism,politics,andtheologyintheworkofJohannBaptistMetz,studiesin spiritualityandtheology.NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress; 1998

Bartrop,PaulR.Smailovic,Vedran.In:Abiographicalencyclopediaofcontemporarygenocideportraitsofevil andgood.SantaBarbara,CA:ABC-CLIO; 2012.pp.300–01.

Baumeister,RoyF.Evil:insidehumancrueltyandviolence.NewYork:W.H.Freeman; 1997.

Biggar,Nigel.Forgivenessinthetwentiethcentury:areviewofliterature,1901–2001.In:AlistairMcFadyenand MarcelSaroteditors.Forgivenessandtruth:explorationsincontemporarytheology.Edinburgh/NewYork: T&TClark; 2001.pp.181–217.

Booth,W.James.Theunforgotten:memoriesofjustice.AmPolitSciRev. 2001;95(4):777–91.

Carnes,Tony.Toembracetheenemy:isreconciliationpossibleinthewakeofsuchevil?Aninterviewwith MiroslavVolf.ChristianityToday,September1,2001, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/ septemberweb-only/9–17–53.0.html

Chopp,RebeccaS.Thepraxisofsuffering:aninterpretationofliberationandpoliticaltheologies.Maryknoll, NY:OrbisBooks; 1986

Derrida,Jacques.Oncosmopolitanismandforgiveness.London/NewYork:Routledge; 2002

Digeser,Peter.Politicalforgiveness.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress; 2001

Forsberg,Tuomas.Thephilosophyandpracticeofdealingwiththepast:someconceptualandnormativeissues. In:NigelBiggareditor.Buryingthepast:makingpeaceanddoingjusticeaftercivilconflict.Washington,DC: GeorgetownUniversityPress; 2001.pp.57–72.

71 W.JamesBooth,Theunforgotten:memoriesofjustice.AmericanPoliticalScienceReview.2001;95(4):783.

72 While utopia means “noplace,” eutopia means “goodplace.”

Jacques,Geneviève.Beyondimpunity:anecumenicalapproachtotruth,justice,andreconcilation.Geneva: WCCPublications; 2000.

Johns,RogerDick.Manintheworld:thepoliticaltheologyofJohannesBaptistMetz.Missoula,MT:Published byScholarsPressfortheAmericanAcademyofReligion; 1976.

Kaplan,DavidM.ReadingRicoeur.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress; 2008.

Knitter,PaulF.Oneearth,manyreligions:multifaithdialogueandglobalresponsibility.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis Books; 1995.

Martinez,Gaspar.ConfrontingthemysteryofGod:political,liberation,andpublictheologies.NewYork: Continuum; 2001

Metz,JohannB.Theologyoftheworld.London/NewYork:Burns&Oates&HerderandHerder; 1971

Metz,JohannB.Messianicor ‘bourgeois’ religion?OnthecrisisofthechurchinwestGermany.Concilium. 1979;5(125):68–70.

Metz,JohannB.Faithinhistoryandsociety:towardapracticalfundamentaltheology.NewYork:Seabury Press; 1980

Metz,JohannB.Theemergentchurch:thefutureofChristianityinapostbourgeoisworld.NewYork: Crossroad; 1981.

Metz,JohannB.Facingthejews:Christiantheologyafterauschwitz.In:ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenzaandDavid Tracyeditors.Theholocaustasinterruption.Edinburgh:T&TClark; 1984.pp.26–33.

Metz,JohannB.JohannBaptistMetz.In:JürgenMoltmanneditor.HowIhavechanged:reflectionsonthirty yearsoftheology.Harrisburg,PA:TrinityPressInternational; 1997.pp.31–36.

Metz,JohannB.Apassionforgod:themystical-politicaldimensionofChristianity.TranslatedbyJames MatthewAshley.NewYork:PaulistPress; 1998.

Metz,JohannB.Inthepluralismofreligiousandculturalworlds:notestowardatheologicalandpolitical program.CrossCurr. 1999;49(2):227–36.

Müller-Fahrenholz,Geiko.Theartofforgiveness:theologicalreflectionsonhealingandreconciliation.Geneva: WCCPublications; 1997

Schuster,Ekkehard,JohannesBaptistMetz,ElieWiesel,andReinholdBoschert-Kimmig.Hopeagainsthope: JohannBaptistMetzandElieWieselspeakoutontheholocaust,studiesinJudaismandChristianity. NewYork:PaulistPress; 1999

Shriver,DonaldW.Anethicforenemies:forgivenessinpolitics.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress; 1995 Tutu,Desmond.Nofuturewithoutforgiveness.1sted.NewYork:Doubleday; 1999

VandenBroek,TheoP.A.andDarpanAriawinangun. MemoriaPassionisdiPapua:KondisiSosialPolitikdan HakAsasiManusia:Gambaran2000.Jayapura:SekretariatKeadilandanPerdamaian,KeuskupanJayapura, &LembagaStudiPersdanPembangunan; 2001.

Volf,Miroslav.ExclusionandEmbrace:atheologicalexplorationofidentity,otherness,andreconciliation. Nashville,TN:AbingdonPress; 1996.

Notesoncontributor

JoasAdiprasetyaistheDeanofPublicRelationatJakartaTheologicalSeminaryin Jakarta,Indonesia,wherehealsoteachesconstructivetheologyandtheologyofreligions.HislatestbookisAnImaginativeGlimpse:TheTrinityandMultipleReligious Participations(2013).

Correspondenceto:JoasAdiprasetya,JakartaTheologicalSeminary,Indonesia. Email:j.adiprasetya@sttjakarta.ac.id

Copyright Political Theology the property Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not copied emailed multiple sites posted a listserv without the copyright express written permission. However, users may print, download, email articles for individual