Michael Amaladoss

All of us aware that it is the challenge of witnessing together in mission that gave birth to ecumenism. The perspectives of both mission and evangelism have changed during the last 75 years. This means that our vision of ecumenism will depend on our views on mission. The question ‘Whither Ecumenism?’ will be answered in the context of the response to the other question ‘Whither Mission?’ The word ‘whither’ refers to the future rather than to the past or even the present. But we cannot think about the future without ascertaining our roots in the past and without being aware of our situation in the present. Since ecumenism itself is still in the making I shall try to explore these questions from a Catholic point of view. I must perhaps specify that though the term Catholic often goes with the term Roman, as Roman Catholic, I would like to reflect as an Indian Catholic, freeing myself from the responsibility of speaking for the Roman Catholic Church. As an Indian Catholic, I also feel that my thoughts of the future of ecumenism will be conditioned by my thoughts on interreligious dialogue, since I think that they are analogous and related.

The Situation Today
The World Council of Churches, which was established in 1948, can be considered a step towards ecumenism. It is described as “a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” It is considered as a community of churches on the way to the “goal of visible unity in one faith ad in one eucharistic fellowship expressed in worship and in common life in Christ, [seeking] to advance towards that unity in order that the world may believe.” But it said in a statement Common Understanding and Mission in 2006, nearly after 50 years, that “there are signs of a weakening of ecumenical commitment, of a growing distance between the WCC and its member churches, and of a widespread perception among the young generation that the ecumenical movement has lost its vitality and does not provide relevant answers to the pressing problems of today.”

The Roman Catholic Church, which is not formally a member of the World Council of Churches, spoke of Ecumenism at the Second Vatican Council almost 50 years ago. It established a special Pontifical Council to promote ecumenism. Observers from other Churches were invited to the sessions of the Council and the Synods of Bishops that follow. The Catholic Church participates in the work of the “Faith and Order” unit of the World Council of Churches and sends observers to other units like the Council for World Mission and Evangelism. Joint groups between the Catholic Church and the other Churches to discuss and evolve a consensus on doctrinal and theological issues have been convened. But their agreed statements on specific points of doctrine like Baptism and Eucharist, authority in the Church and justification, remain as study documents, not formally approved, at least by the Catholic Church. One of the problems may be that the Catholic Church holds on to its own brand of Scholastic theology as the only orthodox theology and does not accept other theological systems. Pope John Paul II asked that the role of Papal primacy in the Church be studied. But we do not hear of any progress in the matter at official levels. So, apart from periodic friendly encounters between the heads of different Churches and a certain easy fellowship among the people, no progress has been made.

1. World Council of Churches (WCC), Common Understanding and Mission, 3.1.
2. Ibid., 3.3.
3. Ibid., 1.3.

From the point of view of the Catholic Church, ecumenism, as understood by it, is probably a fruitless exercise. In the document on ecumenism at the Second Vatican Council, it is rather clear that that it considers itself as the one true Church of Christ and unity between the Churches is seen as the returning of the “Separated Brothers” to the mother Church, that is, itself. This is certainly not the vision of unity that the other churches have. Further, in a document titled Dominus Iesus (The Lord Jesus), it considers most of the members of the WCC as not churches at all, because they do not believe in episcopacy and the Eucharist as it does. The Catholic Church also has grave reservations about many practices that are becoming common in other churches like the exercise of ordained ministries by women. It has forbidden its members even to talk about it. In such a context the prospects for the unity of the Church looks bleak indeed. Since the Catholic Church is the largest among the Churches, unity among the Churches seems an unrealizable ideal.

What Kind of Unity?
What can be done in such a situation? Can we simply abandon the ideal of ecumenism, namely, the unity of all Christians and Churches and focus rather on some practical aspects of collaboration in mission, which concerns our relations with members of other religions, while putting aside the relations between the various Christian groups, perhaps seeing it as an eschatological ideal. It is true that Jesus prayed “That they may all be one!”. (Jn 17:21) But just the “gathering up of all things” (cf. Eph 1:10) and the “reconciliation of all things” (cf. Col 1:20) about which Paul speaks to the Ephesians and Colossians is more inclusive and eschatological, Church unity may also be eschatological. We have to keep on working at it without any hope of realizing it in historical time. Should we then refocus the goal of ecumenism so that we can answer the question “Whither ecumenism?” more meaningfully and realistically?

We often tend to think of unity as uniformity. Perhaps we should start imagining unity as ‘convergence in difference’. Should we accept that pluralism of cultures and of patterns of living and thinking would lead to a pluralism of theologies and pastoral practices. Should we encourage the reading of and reflection on the Bible in the living contexts of peoples rather than systematic theologies based on abstract philosophies? Should we discern the Spirit in the signs of the times and the lives of people in history rather than narrowly focus on tradition? The Second Vatican Council spoke of a hierarchy of truths: “When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.” The World Council of Churches has reduced to two the beliefs required from member Churches: Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour and in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The beliefs that we share with the different Churches may vary and therefore the level of unity also may vary, but it will never be completely absent on the one hand and on the other a basic minimum of Christian faith will unite the Churches in their missionary dialogue with other religions.

4. Cf. Dominus Iesus, 17.

In that same decree on Ecumenism it is said: “While preserving unity in essentials, let everyone in the Church, according to the office entrusted to him, preserve a proper freedom in the various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in the variety of liturgical rites and even in the theological elaborations of revealed truth.” This phenomenon of diversity, even if it is not very much actual, can be further expanded with reference to other ecclesiological principles. The Council’s document on the Church will speak of the Church as a communion of local Churches, of the body of bishops as a college with the Pope at its head, but with collective responsibility for the universal and local Churches and of the ‘sense of the faithful (people)’ that is in constant dialectic with the teachers, namely the Bishops, in the Church. All these are obviously sources of pluralism. Another source of pluralism is the ongoing dialogue between the Gospel and the many cultures of the world because of which the ‘good news’ can take a variety of cultural incarnations. Such cultural variety can not only be spatial but also temporal, since cultures can change and develop in the course of history. The present Pope Francis is reported to have told a group of bishops from Holland recently that the Second Vatican Council has been only half implemented. In his recent apostolic letter with the title The Joy of the Gospel, he speaks, not only of the need and importance of inculturation, but also of the teaching authority and responsibility of national conferences of bishops. If we take these principles seriously then theological and pastoral pluralism seem inevitable. I often wonder whether some of the differences between the Churches are not culture-based like Greek and Roman, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon and Latin, and today African, Asian and Latin American. So I think that we have to develop a theology of pluralism at all levels that will certainly help ecumenical convergences. We can then envisage unity in pluralism and not uniformity.

The Goal of Ecumenism
What then is the goal of ecumenism? We often take for granted that it is one Church. Should we take a second look at this? We can wonder whether the vision of unity that Jesus and Paul had, which I evoked above, refers only to the Christians or to all people. Jesus, of course, addressed the disciples, though we can wonder whether he had in mind only the Christians or also other ‘disciples’ known to him, but not recognized by us and even by themselves, since all are saved by him. We can meditate on the vision of the final judgment that Jesus speaks of in the gospel of Matthew. (cf. Mt 25:31-45) Paul’s vision is certainly more cosmic including every one – not only the Christians. He writes to the Corinthians about God being “all in all”. (1 Cor 15:28)

5. Second Vatican Council, Decree on Ecumenism, 11.
6. Ibid., 4.

In this context we can look at the theology of religions that has developed in Asia and is now universally accepted, thanks to people like S.J. Samartha, who worked for many years in the World Council of Churches in the subunit on Dialogue with Other Faiths and Ideologies. Theologians believe now-a-days that the salvation in Christ through the Spirit reaches out also to the believers of other religions. From this point of view the locus of salvation is not merely the Church, but the Kingdom of God, including the other religions. The Indian bishops responding to a document preparing for a special synod on Asia said:
As God’s Spirit called the Churches of the East to conversion and mission witness (see Rev 2-3), we too hear this same Spirit bidding us to be truly catholic, open and collaborating with the Word who is actively present in the great religious traditions of Asia today. Confident trust and discernment, not anxiety and over-caution, must regulate our relations with these many brothers and sisters. For together with them we form one community, stemming from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth. We share with them a common destiny and providence. Walking together we are called to travel the same paschal pilgrimage with Christ to the one Father of us all (see Lk 24:13ff, NA 1, and GS 22)

The Indonesian bishops, speaking in the same context, evoke the Reign of God. They view the people of other faiths as “bearers of the ‘seeds of the Word’ (who) try to live up to authentic religious values which lead them to God’s Reign. They are our fellow wayfarers to the same Reign of God, to whom we all have access in the Spirit through Jesus Christ.”
I do not have either the space or the time to elaborate this perspective here. To put it very shortly, the goal of mission used to be the ‘planting of the Church’. Now the theologians say that it is rather the building of the Kingdom of God and of the Church as its symbol and servant. John Paul II has accepted this vision in his encyclical on mission. He says: “The Church, then, serves the Kingdom by establishing communities and founding new particular Churches… The Church serves the Kingdom by spreading throughout the world the “Gospel values” which are an expression of the Kingdom and which help people to accept God’s plan.”

What is the relevance of this vision of the Kingdom of God to ecumenism? If the goal of mission can be broadened to focus on the Kingdom as a sort of communion of all the religions rather than on the Church, can the goal of ecumenism be, not narrowly one institutional Church, but a communion of Churches whose unifying and animating force will be the Spirit of God? Our focus then will be less Christ-centered and institutional and more Spirit-centered. The Spirit is also the principle of pluralism and freedom, according to Paul writing to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor 12) and the Romans (cf. Rom 8). This perspective is not something totally new to the ecumenical movement. The WCC’s document on Common Understanding and Mission says “More recent descriptions of the goal of ecumenical movement have sought to take seriously the conviction that the object of God’s reconciling purpose is not only the church but the whole of humanity – indeed, the whole of creation.”

7. See Peter C. Phan (ed), The Asian Synod. Texts and Commentaries. Mayknoll: Orbis, 2002, p.21.
8. Ibid., p.24.
9. See his Mission of the Redeemer, 20. See the whole section 16-20.

What I would like to add are the religions as facilitating divine-human salvific encounter. Actually this is called ‘wider ecumenism’ “which would open the ecumenical movement to other religious and cultural traditions beyond the Christian community.” The recent Mission Statement Together Towards Life of the WCC says:
In the plurality and complexity of today’s world, we encounter people of many different faiths, ideologies and convictions. We believe that the Spirit of life brings joy and fullness of life. God’s Spirit, therefore, can be found in all cultures that affirm life. The Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways, and we do not fully understand the working of the Spirit in other faith traditions. We acknowledge that there is inherent value and wisdom in diverse life-giving spiritualities. Therefore authentic mission make the “other” a partner in, not the “object” of, mission.

Therefore, maybe we should stop dreaming about achieving an institutional unity based on uniformity in theology, organizational structures and rituals of worship. The ‘wider ecumenism’ can bring about a broader perspective and set ecumenical discussions in a realistic context. For example, intercommunion has been one of the questions discussed as an ecumenical problem. Much of the discussion gets stuck with the term ‘transubstantiation’ from the Catholic Church which is more a philosophical than a theological category. An alternative term ‘transignification’ suggested by Dutch theologians did not receive official support. In 1987 the Indian theologians had a seminar on Sharing Worship. Asking the question whether we can participate in each other’s worship in an interreligious context, their answer was positive. Their argument was that rituals are symbols and, in a sacred context, they point to God. In such a context, there is no reason why one could not transcend the symbols, even while using them, to reach out to the one God to whom all the symbols point, even if they do not belong to one’s own religious tradition. The importance here is given to intention and experience and not to mere ritual and abstract philosophical reflection. Such participation does lead to a certain communion at a spiritual level in the assembled community.

10. CUM, 2.4.
11. Ibid., 2.6.
12. No. 93.
13. Cf. Paul Puthanangady (ed), Sharing Worship. (Bangalore: NBCLC, 1988)

Focus on Praxis
The document Common Understanding and Mission suggests “that the term ‘ecumenical’ embraces the quest for Christian unity, common witness in the worldwide task of mission and evangelism, and commitment to diakonia and to the promotion of justice and peace.” I have tried to broaden the ideal of unity that we should aim at concretely and historically. But the practical goals of common witness to the gospel and collaboration in the promotion of justice, peace and the integrity of creation still remain challenges. Common witness would be easier if what we witness to is primarily Jesus Christ and his good news, placing less emphasis on one’s own interpretation and embodiment of it in a Church. The idea of the ‘hierarchy of truths’ will be helpful here. We can be a little more apophatic concerning the mystery that we seek to explore theologically through our historically and culturally conditioned languages and more affirmative of the ethical consequences as our response to the good news. As the document referred to above says: “On the threshold of the 21st century, all existing ecumenical structures must reassess themselves in the light of the challenge to manifest a form and quality of global community characterized by inclusiveness and reconciliation.”

The ecumenical movement can certainly promote mutual accountability, empowerment, support and collaboration between the Churches. At the level of common witness the ecumenical movement, as represented by the WCC, can reach out to the Roman Catholic Church and some of the Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches that are not yet integral parts of the movement, though collaboration at practical levels is not absent. While, at the level of witnessing, social identities of the Churches may still occasionally clash, there can be no obstacle to ecumenical collaboration in the promotion of justice, peace and the integrity of creation. The globalizing world seems to lead to the globalization of poverty and inequality. Caste and racial discrimination, the oppression of various marginalized groups, the patriarchal domination of women, the exploitation and destruction of creation, the secularization of society and the privatization of religions and, sometimes, the persecution of believers by communalist and fundamentalist forces remain challenges to all people of good will. Here is an opportunity to practice ‘wider ecumenism’. At the same time, the Christians have a responsibility to witness in word and action to the way of Jesus, which was one of humility and sharing, self-sacrificing and non-violent love in the process of building up a human and cosmic community of freedom, fellowship and justice. As a matter of fact the Churches can show a model of a community-in-pluralism.

Conclusion
My final thought is that the Churches in Asia and Africa should make an earnest effort to free themselves of the historical memories and burdens of their mother-Churches that are not relevant to them. Sincere and open efforts at the inculturation of the faith, theology and worship can lead to a converging movement, without totally abandoning differences in traditions and sensibilities.

14. CUM, 2.2.
15. CUV, 2.9.

I think that the regional Councils of Churches must play a more proactive role. We should also open ourselves to wider ecumenism. While we celebrate the past of the ecumenical movement in relation to mission, we should look towards the future as we seek to realize God’s vision and plan for us to gather and reconcile all things in Christ so that God will be ‘all in all’ (cf. 1 Cor 15:28).

Michael Amaladoss, S.J.
Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions, Chennai.