Balanced apostolate

 Among the Priests and religious there is an allergy towards the paper and desk.  So anything to do with studies, documentation, forms, surveys, reflection is always the last thing to be attempted - if at all one does.  The contemporary religious are light years away from the priests and monks of the medieval ages who excelled in diverse fields. 

Today our morning discussion as part of the Mission Poverty Eradication review, I realised another dimension of the same 'desk-fatigue'.  But this dimension has more to do with a lack of organisation and repetition that leads one to slump everytime one hears or is told to fill out a form.  

There is a tussle between engaging oneself in/with charismatic services or apostolate on the one hand, and keeping tab on the impact or effect, on the other.  Called to be apostles, the Gospel does not tell us to keep track of all the good one does: let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing. One is called to love and do good. End of story.  But unless one does an assessment or review of what one has done and if that has actually done some benefit, one does not know if he or she has to continue the service, the style and the procedure or rework it all.  Furthermore there is the fear of the inability to answer the question: 'What are you doing?' or 'What did you do?'

While the value of accountability can never be undermined, on the one hand is the accountability to God and to one's own conscience. For this no log book or account abstract need to be prepared.  On the other hand, one is also called to be accountable to our benefactors, the government, the religious community, the society at large. 

One has to have a BALANCED approach.  If lobsided, one might as well live in a cloistered monastery (but even there one will have to be accountable in the latter sense!) or in a cave, all by oneself. And if leaning on the other side, one might not be charismatic.  

Documentation: Ayodhya issue as case

The article appearing on The Times of India online edition about the historical record of Ayodhya as a place of worship offers a reading which should be the basis on which any rational decision should be arrived at, with regard to issues whenever in dispute.  However, we often resort to every means other than checking records.  Primarily because we don't have records!! 

The article also makes interesting reading... how we come to know of Indian history from people who were not from India!  The article does well to explicitly state:

The British officials of the period demonstrated the opposite of the well-known Indian disregard for documentation. 

The article spells out how worship at Ayodhya was a joint-worship of Hindus and Muslims... peacefully and in perfect harmony... till 1857!  Besides the religious - or call it politicized religious - issue what makes interesting reading is the historical data provided.  And who recorded that data!

I think we Indians have a sort of allergy to put pen to paper!  We prefer the verbal testimony and that is how we think history should be recorded!  We really didn't learn very well from Valmiki, the first author, poet of the Ramayana.  If only we inherited his keen sense of recording history, in black and white, we would have had a better chance at being more 'educated'.  The same Valmiki is also credited with teaching the children of Rama and Sita the verbal song of the Ramayana.  Thus blessing us with both the verbal and written history record.  So later if there is any discrepancy between the two, the point of departure can well be traced and reasons for the same known - if people after Valmiki did what Valmiki did!  Even if they did not, at least we have the original document for further and future reference.