Having just completed a credit on "Theology and Culture", I find it rather difficult to come up with anything that may not sound like a regurgitation of Fr. Paul Pace's lectures, or indeed, an essay in preparation for the credit test. Yet, after having volunteered to write about the nature of the dialogue between Theology and Culture, I shall attempt to present some reflections of mine on this subject.

Naturally, I start by way of definitions. What do we mean by culture? In popular parlance when we refer to 'a cultured person' we often mean a person who is well-read or well-versed in the arts. It is thought of as an ability to appreciate the likes of Shakespeare, Picasso, Bernini and Beethoven. Though strangely enough one would not normally consider Bon Jovi fans as 'cultured persons'! On the contrary, there is a rather elitist tendency to consider anyone outside the norm of 'classical' classification as being 'uncultured', or as we say in Maltese, bla kultura. Yet, in my opinion, nobody can be 'without a culture', because we are all immersed into a culture or into an environment that is culturally determined to a great extent. Even a hermit who lives in complete solitude and isolation, lives in a culture which is never completely self-determined since external factors always come into play be they the climatic conditions or whatever.

Therefore, what I understand 'culture' to mean is, by and large, the reality in which we exist and which we contribute to sustain by our implicit or explicit consent and assent, or to change, either gradually through our critical association, or by an outright rejection in favour of another model. Religious convictions contribute greatly towards the adoption of one or other stance by an individual believer and by the collectivity towards the prevailing culture of a particular society. Theology seeks to understand and interpret the truths underlying any system of religious conviction, and hence, it must, of its very nature, be done in dialogue with culture, or risk becoming totally incomprehensible and irrelevant to believers and non-believers alike.

The nature of this dialogue between Theology and culture has never been easy to understand. First of all, not all agree that it should be a dialogue. In the past, and even today, there have been numerous attempts to impose one on the other. One can think of religious fundamentalism or of right-wing or left-wing extremism. Fundamentalism normally arises as a reaction to change. Political extremism, on the other hand, tries to impose change on a culture, even when this change is alien to that particular culture. In both cases, there can be no dialogue between Theology and culture since there is no room for pluralism. Underlying any fruitful exchange between Theology and culture is the freedom for both to operate autonomously without seeking to impose on one another. Dialogue is a two-way traffic. Both sides give and both receive while remaining free to reject whatever goes against what is basic to either.

Theology can never become a culture. When we speak of such notions as inculturation, we are referring to the contextualisation of a particular system of religious beliefs and way of life in the various cultures of our world. Yet, though contributing to a transformation of that culture, Theology remains concerned with a reality which transcends our social, political and economic systems. "Mine is not a kingdom of this world" (Jn 18:36), Jesus tells Pilate. And "the kingdom of God is close at hand" (Mk 1:15). In the Gospels, there is never a complete identification between the Kingdom and the world. Jesus tells the disciples of the Pharisees to "pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar - and God what belongs to God" (Mt 22:21).

On the other hand, Culture can never replace Theology. Throughout the ages, various systems have tried to disguise themselves as a theology, complete with their divinity or divinities, scripture, and cults. One could mention the cults surrounding the Roman Emperors, or the "Cult of Reason" introduced in France after the Revolution of 1792, or the cults surrounding more recent leaders such as Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, or Adolf Hitler. However, an ideology can never become a theology, and no theology can truly be a theology if it becomes an ideology.

In my opinion, all this explains why, for Christians, the dialogue between Theology and Culture has not been an easy one. The dominant culture in Palestine rejected and violently opposed the person and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. When, as a result of this opposition, the disciples of Jesus sought to move beyond the confines of Palestine, they found great opposition from the Roman Empire. The Jews living at the time of Jesus, lived with the idea of a political Messiah and interpreted God's covenant with his chosen people in a formalistic, ritualistic and legalistic manner. Jesus was seen as a threat to their culture, traditions and expectations - "one man should die for the people, rather than ... the whole nation should perish" (Jn 11:50), Caiaphas tells the chief priests and the Pharisees. He totally equated Jewish culture with Jewish theology, and the religious leaders were the guardians of both! Rome too, saw in the little band of Christians, a threat to the religious foundation of the Roman State. Monotheism led to a refusal by Christians to acknowledge the many pagan gods and to participate in official worship. Moreover, the absolute Lordship of Christ weakened the absolute authority of the Emperor.

Ironically, later on, these same reasons would be used to justify the imposition of Christianity on other cultures. Kings and Emperors would rule "by divine right" and refusal to accept the Christian God would be met with harsh sanctions and penalties, even death. However, this only followed the shift from the attempt to make of culture a theology, to that of making of all cultures, one theology. After Christianity struck deep roots in Europe, it became practically identified with European culture. Theology sought to justify the transplantation of this culture elsewhere. To be European meant to be Christian, and to be Christian meant to be Europeanised. It is a far cry from the teachings of Vatican II that the Gospel does not make one culture normative but that it should be incarnated in every culture.

Vatican II accepted without reservations cultural pluralism. This consists of "different styles of living and different scales of values" which "originate in different ways of using things, of working and self-expression, of practising religion and of behaviour, of establishing laws and juridical institutions, of developing science and the arts and of cultivating beauty". These contribute to the creation of "a well-defined, historical milieu which envelopes the men of every nation and age, and from which they draw the values needed to foster humanity and civilisation" (Gaudium et spes 53). Exchanges between theses cultures ought to lead to genuine and fruitful dialogue between groups and nations and not to disturb "the life of communities, overthrowing traditional wisdom and endangering the character proper to each people" (GS 56). The Church itself "is not tied exclusively and indissolubly to any customary practices, ancient or modern. The Church is faithful to its traditions and is at the same time conscious of its universal mission; it can then, enter into communion with different forms of culture, thereby enriching both itself and the cultures themselves" (GS 58). Although the Gospel must continually seek to renew culture, the latter "has continual need of rightful freedom of development and a legitimate possibility of autonomy according to its own principles" (GS 59).

Therefore, while respecting the autonomy and freedom of development of both Theology and culture, a close collaboration between the two is essential. Pope Paul VI, in Evangelii nuntiandi (1975 post-synodal exhortation), calls the split between the Gospel and culture as, "without doubt the drama of our times, just as it was of other times". "The Gospel ... (is) certainly not identical with culture, and ... (is) independent in regard to all cultures. Nevertheless, the Kingdom which the Gospel proclaims is lived by men who are profoundly linked to a culture, and the building up of the Kingdom cannot avoid borrowing the elements of human culture or cultures. ... Therefore every effort must be made to ensure a full Evangelisation of culture, or more correctly of cultures. They have to be regenerated by an encounter with the Gospel" (EN 20).

This is no easy task, and the Theology still faces difficulties as to how it is to dialogue with culture and cultures. It is true that we speak today of "Black Theology" or of "Feminist Theology", or of "Liberation Theology". However, even the course of these different cultural expressions of Theology has not been without difficulty. What is important is that the dialogue continues - just as Jesus himself was ready to reach out and talk to each and every person, Jew, Samaritan or Roman, Pharisee, tax-collector or fisherman, man or woman, adult or child, sinner or not; and his disciples after him. Like Jesus, the Good News we proclaim in his name, must be spoken according to the cultures proper to our age. It is the task of Theology, in its understanding and interpretation of the basic truths revealed in Jesus Christ, to help to make this possible.