Today is a most significant day in the life of the Christian community�Pentecost. And the mystery of Pentecost continues to challenge our hearts and intellect as to an unfolding as regards what "Holy Spirit" means for us. Those who were there, according to the account in Acts of the Apostles, were amazed as a particular message was communicated through a method that brought understanding, in spite of the religious and cultural barriers. It did not only bring understanding, but it created true unity in diversity. Thus, we could conclude that the Holy Spirit, fundamentally, is the power of the ultimate in the dispensation of clarity, transparency and truth, and in the bringing together of people of different races, religions and cultures. In this pre-election moment in our country, the work of the church, which is supposed to be a manifestation of this power for clarity, transparency, truth and oneness must stand as an independent organ in giving some kind of advice or guidance to all.
We have seen that some of the darkest hours in human history have come as a result of Church and State being one. And in becoming one with the State, the Church became a contradiction in itself. So today, we are happy that the point could be made, especially in our present political climate that the church is supposed to be independent. Thus, we are reminded that we all live in the human condition of inadequacy and imperfection. The perfect state, therefore, and the ideal method for governance are goals toward which we work, but may never be our human condition. We have, therefore, in Trinidad and Tobago at this time, two major political groups that are imperfect. None of these formations is the ideal; none of these political entities consists of members who are all good, this being a reflection of any community. And so, the real issue for us is which of these two imperfect political groups, at this time in our history, should really be our option. And, what should we consider as we make that choice?
And so, an imperfect society, striving toward perfection, has to choose between two political entities, both imperfect, both with faults and failures, both with men and women whose motives could easily be questioned. What, then, do we consider? Where are we and where do we hope to be as regards equity? Equity has to do with equal opportunity and a balanced distribution of resources. Equity necessarily ensures poverty eradication. It insists upon a better way of life for all. There has been much talk about a minimum wage. But how could we claim to be embracing equity when even the best promise of a minimum wage is insufficient, as the gap between rich and poor continues to increase? Shouldn't there also be a maximum limit? And so, this maximum limit should also call for a decrease, not only with members of the governing body, but in many other areas.
In our most recent past, calculations were made that one individual was being paid as much as $10, 000 per day. In a country where there is a "rainbow of religions" and a representation of many of the races of the world, support for a government must be determined by that government's position and behaviour as regards race and religion. Is there and will there be respect for all people, of different races and religions? Respect does not mean tolerance or a mere acknowledgement of our differences, but an acceptance of the "other" as having a valid claim to truth, whether we agree with the "other" or not. It is most unfortunate, therefore, that in a reality where people of different religions and races converge, for socio-political and other reasons, some are still entertaining, the unimaginable question of whether or not we should have a non-Christian Prime Minister. In addition, in a time when we continue to abuse the earth, the question remains: has there and will there be sufficient care for the environment?
We have no choice but to engage industrialisation, but there must be balance. What kind of relationship, therefore, are we going to establish by law and practice? Will it be a relationship that will ensure the sustained life of the earth? I make reference to words of the author Hans Kung in his book, "Theology for the Third Millennium," "The man-nature relationship must not, as has become usual in modern science, technology and industrialisation, be seen and put into practice as a master-slave relationship. "Rather, human history is to be synchronised with the history of nature, in order to arrive at a new viable symbiosis between human society and the natural environment." And so, we need to shift from the old way of dominance of the earth to that relationship where, only when we take care of the earth, will the earth take care of us. Further, what is our major concern in Trinidad and Tobago at this time, as regards human life? Will we continue to trivialise crime? Are we going to continue to accept the loss of life by violence as a norm, so that the loss of life would only be measured by statistics?
And, what about the issue of ownership? We have seen in the church, where some say this is my church; we have seen in the nation where some have said this is my country. But this ownership is synonymous with possession. Ownership in the context of a community or a nation could only mean accountability. And this accountability is more than saying that this is what I have done, or where I am. This accountability must prove itself as it positively impacts upon society. In addition to these issues, when we look at what is happening on the political front, there are serious concerns. We see what appears to be a genuine effort toward "unity." And this should be applauded. However, as indicated a number of times before, whereas it is relatively easy to establish community and achieve "visible unity" in the face of crisis, true unity is difficult to maintain. Thus, this united formation, as it engages this adventure, must consider what it will put in place to retain "true oneness." Will they embrace the principles of mutuality and reciprocity where there is a continuous enrichment of the other? Will one allow the idea of the other to complement his or her idea?
Rev Elvis Elahie