Crossing the river - Wayne Tinsey

The term ‘preferential option for the poor’ is commonly used these days in mission statements and the like. It was coined by liberation theologians of Latin America. In Spanish, the verb optar implies making a significant decision according to one’s deepest values and priorities. The use of this verb was deliberate and implies much more than a simple choice between alternatives.

When liberation theologians used the term ‘preferential option for the poor’, they were inferring that God makes a decision to stand with and for the poor. For us, the use of the term should refer to a fundamental life orientation towards the plight of the poor—their needs and concerns. The key question for a genuine option for the poor is: How do I tell these people that God loves them and that the gospel is good news?

I have been very fortunate to have visited India on many occasions. In India, one is clearly able to observe the importance of water and rivers in the spiritual psyche of the people. In ancient times rivers not only held religious and ritual significance but they often served as boundaries between princely states and countries. To cross a river was often a movement into the unknown, into a new country.

I am always deeply moved by the story of the Buddha’s initial leaving of his father's kingdom and moving out into the unknown world, from which he had always been protected. One of the first things that he had to do in his journey to salvation was cross a river that separated his father’s kingdom of surety and comfort from the wider world which was full of uncertainty, lack of security and potentially much misery.

It can be argued that crossing the river was the most important moment in the Buddha’s life. It heralded the beginning of his new life alongside the poor majority in his world. Crossing the river marked the first significant moment in the Buddha's mission to free his world from greed, hate and delusion.

Allow me extend this image a little further. One of my favorite movies is The Motorcycle Diaries. This movie tells the true story of the revolutionary Ernesto (Che) Guevara’s early life. As the young man, recently finished his medical degree, Che and a friend travelled around Latin America on the old motorbike. During the course of his travels, Che grows into a deep appreciation of the plight of the poor of the continent of Latin America at that time who were victims of structural injustice. The movie is a study in change and conversion. It is the story of one man’s journey towards a real option for the poor.

My favorite scene in the movie is when Che is celebrating his birthday with priests and nuns in a leper colony on the banks of the Amazon in Peru. As a medical doctor, he specialised in the treatment of tropical diseases. The actual place where the lepers live is an island in the middle of the very wide river, separated from the world. At one point Che goes outside and looks towards the island. In a moment of decision, he dives into the river and swims towards the lepers on the distant island. On the river bank his friends call him back because it is dangerous and he suffered from chronic asthma. On the shore of the island, however, the lepers are encouraging Che to continue swimming towards them.

This is a wonderful image of conversion; of movement towards ‘the other’; of letting go of the self and baptism into solidarity with the poor. He reaches the other bank of the river and his life was never to be the same. He has made his option; he is with the poor; he has swum the river. I think that all Christians at some point in their life need to work out on what side of the river they are going to stand.

Archbishop Oscar Romero, another who underwent a personal conversion to the plight of the poor, constantly reminded his people that Christianity was never meant to be a comfortable option. He once said:

Religion needs prophets, and thank God we have them. It would be a sad church that felt itself owner of the truth and rejected everything else. A church that only condemns, a church that sees sin only in others and does not look at the beam in its own eye is not the authentic church of Christ…. A church that doesn’t provoke any crises, a gospel that doesn’t unsettle, a word of God that doesn’t get under anyone’s skin, a word of God that doesn’t touch the real sin of the society in which it is being proclaimed. What gospel is that? Very nice, pious considerations that don’t bother anyone!