Towards a Transforming Togetherness

By  Rev. Dr Peniel Jesudasan Rufus Rajkumar

The very theme "making a difference together" holds in it as much challenge as promise for the future journey of ecumenism in the 21st century. Promise is apparent in the very prospect of working together. The strength of togetherness to both forge a sense of empathetic solidarity as well as to dispel any sense of isolation in our endeavours is sufficient reason to look forward to the future with hope. However, concomitant to this promise (or to be more precise, latent in this promise) is the challenge as to whether this aspired-for togetherness is possible at all, given both the myriad as well as the fundamental nature of our differences. An affirmative answer to this question would only entail a further barrage of questions: what level of togetherness is realistically possible? At what risk? At whose expense? In the light of all this it would make sense if we were to speak of the ecumenical endeavour of "making a difference together" as being a pregnant one in a very literal sense, because, involved in the whole process of making a difference together is not only the promise of the joys of creativity but also the challenge of the groans and travails of childbirth, not to mention the ever-looming risk of miscarriage.

Though this dialectical tension - between promise and challenge - is not unfamiliar terrain for the ecumenical movement,¹ the task of navigating through this tension takes on a fresh relevance for us in the 21st century. The events of the early years of the 21st century have testified to the effects of neo-tribalism on a global scale, along with all the ambivalent concomitants of rampant globalization, and have even evoked references to Samuel Huntington's prediction of the Clash of Civilizations.² Various tendencies symptomatic of postmodernity like fragmentation, moral relativism and a suspicion of universalizing theories have resurged with considerable influence resulting in a strong emphasis being laid on self-identity as a means of thwarting universalizing tendencies. It is in this postmodernist global context of conflictual plurality, inordinate emphasis on the particular, neo-colonial global capitalism and a positivistic approach to identity that we are called to make a difference together.

Given the recognition that, during the 20th century, there has been a growth in both experience of and perception that "the unity of the church is deeper and more resilient than its divisions",³ the real task of ecumenism in the 21st century is to make a difference together through building further upon what has already been achieved. This should not preclude critical self-reflection. At this juncture it is particularly important to be cautious about developing complacency. Concerns have already been raised that the ecumenical movement seems to have reached a watershed and is confronted by inertia and apathy.⁴ In such a context the challenge ahead is to become proactive to rediscover how ecumenism can reinvent itself to engage meaningfully and constructively with the challenges of the 21st century, some of which have been mentioned above.

In such a complex context this article particularly pays attention to two integral aspects of our theme "Making a Difference Together". The first section - Making a Difference Together: Togetherness and the problem of the translation of trinitarian unity - critically analyzes the nature and challenge of our unity (togetherness) by paying specific attention to the problem of translating the trinitarian analogy into contemporary practice. The second section - Making a Difference: transformation and the challenge of postmodernity - delves into the challenges of what it entails to engage in transformation in a postmodern context.

The choice of these categories of togetherness and transformation to explicate the prospects of ecumenism in the 21st century is in itself an acknowledgement of the constraints which discourage an exhaustive engagement with other pertinent aspects of ecumenism in an essay of this length. These categories serve a heuristic purpose only and help us to delve into the complexities associated with the themes of "identity" and "mission" in the global ecumenical context as well as understand the continuity between these two themes as we seek to articulate afresh ways in which ecumenism in the 21st century can bear fruitful witness to the triune God at work in the church for the renewal of all creation.

Making a Difference Together: "Togetherness" and the problem of the translation of trinitarian unity

The Trinity has provided a strong theological grounding for the development of koinonia ecclesiologies with their emphasis on unity in diversity. The implications of the Trinity for the ecumenical context have been articulated with considerable focus on the notion of perichoresis. Meaning mutual interpenetration, the concept of perichoresis has aided the process of referring to the inter-relationship of the three persons of the Trinity. This idea is expressed through the image of a "community of being" which, while allowing the individuality of the three persons, insists that each shares in the life of the other two.⁵ The appropriation of the Trinity in an ecclesial sense in the context of ecumenism has cut across traditions - Roman Catholics (Joseph Ratzinger), Orthodox (John Zizioulas), Anglican (Virginia Report) - all making their distinctive contributions. There is no point in trawling through these writings or rehearsing here how the notion of perichoresis - as an operative dynamic of the Trinity - has the potential to aid the process of reconceptualizing the inter-relationality of churches as quintessentially involving interdependence and mutuality and the affirming and cherishing of diversity. Rather, my attempt here would be to revisit this concept critically in the light of the challenges which have been posed with regard to such trinitarian rhetoric where "‘Trinity' and ‘sociality' are often thought together in such a way that the immanent relational life of God, which is expressed ad extra in God's works, toward his creatures, is ‘imaged' in human relations."⁶ My contention is that such a re-visitation is appropriate if we are to approximate into contemporary ecclesial practice the challenges and the responsibility of re-embodying the Trinity. The primary challenge is to respond to the critical comment raised by Yale theologian Miroslav Volf in his After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity:

Today the thesis that ecclesial communion should correspond to Trinitarian communion enjoys the status of an almost self evident position. Yet it is surprising that no one has carefully examined just where such correspondences are to be found, nor expended much effort on determining where ecclesial communion reaches the limits of its capacity for such an analogy. The result is that reconstructions of these correspondences often say nothing more than the platitude that unity cannot exist without multiplicity nor multiplicity without unity, or they demand of human beings in the church the (allegedly) completely selfless love of God. The former is so vague that no one cares to dispute it, and the latter so divine that no one can live it. ⁷

Volf does indeed push those of us who sit comfortably in agreement with the trinitarian analogical argument - that the perichoretic dimension of the Trinity is useful as a heuristic tool to expound the dialectical relationship between diversity and unity in an ecclesiological context - to consider what it entails to translate the trinitarian analogy into contextually relevant practice. The challenge Volf poses concerns the translation of rhetoric into praxis, a concern which, in my opinion, necessitates creative and constructive thinking about the translation of motivation into method.

The problem that Volf raises can be reframed as "performative incompatibility". Performative incompatibility sets in when the way in which concepts are articulated routinize disengagement from practice either because of their abstractness or vagueness. Coming to the specific question regarding the trinitarian reframing of the unity/diversity dialectic of ecumenical relationships, what has been established clearly is that diversity is not opposed to unity. The opposite of unity is not diversity but division. The opposite of diversity is not unity but uniformity. But what that means for the practical life is left unanswered.

So what are the ways in which the trinitarian challenge can be translated into praxis? Firstly, in the light of this question it is crucial to note that the WCC's Final Statement from the Consultation "Ecumenism in the 21st Century", held at Chavannes-de-Bogis, Switzerland from 30 November to 3 December 2004, not only duly recognizes that Christian unity is ontologically derived from the unity of the Triune God as expressed in the prayer of Jesus in John 17:21. Rather it discerns a sense of urgency, to recognise the imperative "to transform our self-centred mentality into selfless love for the other and the society of which we are a part".⁸ This touches upon one concrete aspect of human actions - transformation of our self-centred mentality. In a (post)modern context, the Trinity has the capacity to transform our self-centred mentality by redefining our personhood in a highly interdependent and relational way, which can act as, "a powerful critique of the (post)modern tendency to understand personhood in individualistic and privatised terms."⁹

Secondly, in order for the trinitarian analogy to be approximated into ecumenical practice there is also the need for the translation of motivation into method. The motivation for visible unity is apparent and has been manifestly expressed at several points of the ecumenical journey. One can argue that there has been a critical continuity with the vision of "all in each place" articulated in the 1961 New Delhi assembly of the WCC. This motivation has been sustained through the developments in Uppsala (1968), Nairobi (1975), Vancouver (1982), Canberra (1992) and beyond. Whether sustaining this motivation has resulted in pragmatic results is a question that needs to be asked and a challenge to be confronted. We need to acknowledge that this has not yielded great opportunity for corporate euphoric optimism. But we cannot feign oblivion to, and gloss over the glaring incompatibility between motivation and method as we think about the prospects of ecumenism in the 21st century.

However, the fact that the motivations of the councils and assemblies have not reached congregations does not mean that expressions of visible unity have stopped. The situation of the relationship between motivation and method can be a complex one. This is because in the contemporary life of the churches, on the one hand we have the motivations which emerge from ecumenical councils and assemblies which seldom trickle down to the ordinary congregation members who on the other hand seem to be extraordinary practitioners of ecumenical fellowship, worship and service. Does this mean that while one group of the church has motivation another group has method, and growth can happen in parallel along those two lines and in the deliberations of the two groups in divergent ways? The real challenge would be to see whether these two can be brought into real conversation and a pedagogical reversal can take place where motivations will be informed by method, and vice versa. This can be a deeply disturbing territory for our ecumenical journey. But the fact that there are several visible, active and united Christian witnesses to ecumenism at the local level means that the churches need to listen and learn from their experiences, and not confer the monopoly of ecumenism only to an elite minority of deliberators. A helpful way of thinking about it is as reconfiguration of the reciprocity within the Trinity!

Thirdly, the translation of the trinitarian analogy into practice in my opinion should take the form of change in attitude rather than a mere strategic change of stance. Attitude is permanent while a stance is temporal. In line with this my own contention would be that in the wider ecumenical context, as well as in the global context, the translation of the trinitarian analogy should be concretized through an epistemological shift from the epistemology of division to the epistemology of difference. The need of the moment is a re-conceptualization of divisions into the syntax of differences. There is need for a shift where epistemological primacy is given to difference. Conscious cultivation of this epistemological primacy of difference offers rich possibilities for our ecumenical journey because it requires that we understand difference through our own particularity. To use a human analogy, "Because we know what it is to be a parent, loving our children and not children in general, we understand what it is for someone else, somewhere else, to be a parent, loving his or her children not ours."¹⁰ In the ecumenical context, because we understand the depth to which our very being is shaped by our own notions of identity, the economy of salvation, the nature and calling of the church, the "per-formative" relevance of the sacraments and the primacy of our integrity to divine revelation, we will be enabled to think about what it may mean for others.

This re-conceptualization enables us to understand how certain issues are linked to (and in some instances even constitute) the identity of the other. Thus the epistemology of difference offers respectful space for the otherness of others and confers on the other the difference that matters without subsuming it. The dispiriting consequences of the epistemology of division to the enterprise of ecumenism lie in the fact that our understanding of the other is never freed from the grip of perceptions of being wronged-against and misunderstood. The epistemology of difference on the other hand helps us to honestly and humbly seek to see why the other has done this. The default option of division is hostility and antagonism. The alternative path of difference is counterintuitive in the sense that it introduces the unpredictability of grace and generosity into potentially antagonistic situations. It is only through cultivating the epistemology of difference that Christians can revisit original causes for divisions and assess the issues that perpetuate division today, which "in turn opens up the possibility for re-evaluating disagreements and misunderstandings, and for considering the extent to which they require or justify continued separation."¹¹ A good example of transition from division to difference within the ecumenical movement is the way in which the disagreement between Lutherans and Catholics regarding justification was handled.¹² What is crucial for this transition is the willingness to allow for monolithic perceptions of the other to be corrected upon understanding.

Arguing that the Hebrew Bible's single greatest and most counterintuitive contribution to ethics is the affirmation that "we encounter God in the face of a stranger", Britain's Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his book The Dignity of Difference argues that because God creates difference, "it is in one-who-is-different that we meet God".¹³ The supreme religious challenge is "to see God's image in one who is not in our image". Taking difference seriously is counterintuitive and is a powerful antidote both to neo-tribalism as well as universalism.¹⁴ The ecumenical movement has constantly affirmed the importance of conversation, which implies "speaking our fears, listening to others, and in that sharing of vulnerabilities discovering a genesis of hope".¹⁵ Today as we think about the epistemological primacy of difference, the challenge that Sacks proposes in the wider global context also seems to be pertinent for us. Emphasizing the need to listen and be prepared to be surprised by others Sacks writes:

We must make ourselves open to their stories, which may profoundly conflict with ours. We must even at times, be ready to hear of their pain, humiliation and resentment and discover that their image of us is anything but our image of ourselves. We must learn the art of conversation, from which truth emerges not, as in Socratic dialogues, by the refutation of falsehood but from the quite different process of letting our world be enlarged by the presence of others who think, act, and interpret reality in ways radically different from our own.¹⁶

This has powerful and concrete implications in the context of ecumenism when it becomes difficult. However, cultivating the epistemology of difference is a hard process requiring the grace of both patience and resilience. It becomes all the more difficult in our ecumenical quest. Nevertheless it needs a framework which comes from cultivating habits and discipline which involve being intimately linked with others. This intimate interaction should take place in the local contexts through conscious practice accompanied by study and reflection on what distinguishes us from the other and what binds us to the other. Therefore if we are to use metaphorical language, re-appropriating the translation of trinitarian unity in our practical lives entails the challenge of what David Ford considers as "being guests and hosts". To use the words of Ford:

It has the host's responsibility for home making, the hard work of preparation, and the vulnerability of courteously offering something while having little control over its reception. It also has the different responsibility of being a guest, trying to be sensitive to strange households, learning complex codes and risking new food and drink. Ideally, habitual hospitality gives rise to trust and friendship in which exchanges can plumb the depths of similarity, difference and suffering.¹⁷

The challenge of translation of trinitarian unity involves creatively handling the dialectic tensions, between disconcertedness and enrichment, that genuine encounters with others bring and constructively translating them into the language of gifts. What the other brings is what I do not have. Translating the differences that others bring into the language of gifts, enabled by God's grace and peace grants them a new and "charismatic" meaning which acknowledges that the Spirit blows where it wills. The response to this offer of gifts even when it conflicts with our own understandings and constructions is one of grateful and humble acceptance acknowledging that in that gift lies the potential for my edification, the edification which will go on to build the body of Christ to the extent that we will grow towards attaining the fullness of the stature of Christ. According to Michael Root, ecumenical theology is a "practical and ecclesial theology of communal Christian identity."¹⁸ The theological framework of ecumenism is quintessentially ecclesial-oriented. This makes it incumbent upon us to prioritize the creativity "which can articulate the common faith in a reconciling way so that divergent traditions can recognize their oneness and be enriched by it."¹⁹ It is primarily through the translation of the trinitarian concept of unity that our ecumenical theology becomes both a practical as well as an ecclesial theology of our communal Christian identity. Though latent with their own limitations, and to an extent inter-twined, the ways mentioned above can be concrete ways in which we can respond to the challenge which Volf poses.

Making a Difference: Transformation and the challenge of postmodernity

What is the purpose of our togetherness? This is a pertinent question which needs to be attended to carefully as it is the one question which has the capacity to persistently transform (change) or trans-form (help transcend present formations) the mission and identity of the church. "Making a difference" captures one possible answer to this question quite succinctly. The purpose is to make a difference. In other terms, the challenge for the church is to become the "alternative community that gives the world reason to hope."²⁰

Classic Christian theology has identified that the potential for the church to give the world reason to hope lies in its identity to serve both as a sign and as an instrument of the kingdom of God. In order to comprehend the entire latitude of the challenge of serving as a sign of the kingdom of God one needs to delve further into the nature of this kingdom of God, which the church is called to embody. The idea of the church as a sign of the kingdom of God has to be understood vis-à-vis the open commensality of Jesus manifested in his table fellowship. Catholic theologian John Dominic Crossan identifies the table fellowship of Jesus as the embodied ethical correlate of the present or the sapiential reign of God.²¹ In a context where the table was "a miniature map of society's vertical discriminations and lateral separations, Jesus reveals the kingdom of God as the process of such open commensality characterised by non-discrimination and radical egalitarianism".²² Jesus brings deprivation and marginalization into a systematic focus through his aphoristic conjunction of marginalization, poverty and the reign of God. Methodist theologian Stanley Haeurwas understands the trans-spatiality of Jesus' meals as "spontaneous occasions of fellowship denoting the hospitality of God's kingdom."²³ The concept of the kingdom of God is the hospitality and sharing of bread with the marginalized and the poor. This is what the church is called to point towards in its task as being a sign of the kingdom of God. It is the task of establishing God's reign on this earth through a subversion of the politics of identity itself. It is the kerygmatic task of proclaiming, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven." In the contemporary global situation it is engagement in the struggle against injustice and oppression, taking a stance against all those who block righteousness and justice.

As an aside let me untangle what I consider to be two dimensions of making a difference together, which are dexterously interwoven in the theme. One is the making of a difference through what we do and the other is making a difference through our very being - what we are. Together we work towards making a difference. The challenge of making a difference is part of the very identity of the church, which is called to be a sign, instrument and first-fruits of the kingdom of God. But we also make a difference through our togetherness. In a context where diversity has the capacity to evoke a sense of threat and fragmentation, the togetherness to which the church is called can be a powerful antidote. We become in the process of our togetherness a sacramental sign of the body broken in costly and loving service, but not the body divided.

Ecumenism recognizes its call to make a difference in the sense of "transformation". The nature of this transformation, as "radical renewal into full humanity", was made clear in the Report of the 4th Assembly of the WCC held in Uppsala (1968). What Uppsala also affirmed was the need for the church(es) to enter into an "open and humble partnership" with all - (even those who did not share the same assumptions as ourselves) - who work for the goals of "greater justice, freedom and dignity" and recognize these goals "as a part of the restoration of the true (personhood) in Christ".²⁴ This approach to transformation, as involving partnership with others, has been characteristic of the ecumenical movement and has been epitomized in the cherished slogan of the ecumenical movement - "Doctrine divides: service unites". However, such an approach also raises important issues. For instance a 1967 forerunner of Uppsala, The Church for Others and the Church for the World: A Quest for Structures for Missionary Congregations, raises the pertinent problem of christus extra muros ecclesiae - of "Christ outside the walls of the church". The challenge that this document offers for the church is to grow into an awareness of the presence and activity of God outside the church and thus cultivate the vigilance to discern signs of divine activity in the world.

Therefore the issue of transformation in the ecumenical movement should be viewed as being inextricably interlinked with both inter-religious dialogue and the global nature of the responsibility for transformation of humankind. This could be a sharp challenge to those of us who are reluctant to believe that God can and does work "outside" of us.

How then do we respond to this? Responses to the challenge at the heart of these two documents necessitate a re-conceptualization of the identity of the church as a partner in dialogue and service ready to both listen and learn from others. Therefore we need to understand that in a world in which the greatest incentive for good works is derived from religion, the quest for holistic transformation with its underlying issues of injustice and liberation have the potential not only to forge partnerships within ecumenical relationships but also in the wider context of religious plurality. As Hans Küng helpfully reminds us, the renewal of humankind is without doubt a global responsibility and requires the joint contribution of all religions.²⁵ But it is at this juncture that the 21st century poses challenging questions to the accepted understanding of the task of making a difference together as necessarily implying "partnership for transformation". This needs to be analyzed in greater depth.

The global culture we inhabit today exhibits various symptoms of a condition which can be identified as postmodernity. The very concept of postmodernity is "as essentially contested a concept as it is an indispensable one," and may best be construed as "(a)n ‘exodus' from the constraints of modernity, as a plea to release the other, as a demand to let particulars be themselves rather than having to conform to the structures and strictures of the prevailing ideological or political system."²⁶ The challenge of ecumenism in the 21st century is the call to make a difference in this culture which is characterized by fragmentation, emphasis on identity and suspicion of meta-narratives.

Postmodernity raises disconcerting but pertinent objections relating to how we can make a difference in this world through partnerships by bringing into question the very foundations for those partnerships. With its own cautiousness towards any quest to articulate meta-narratives which could be applicable simultaneously to diverse communities, postmodernity questions whether it would be possible to evolve a vision common enough to encompass various traditions to work towards transformation? This question also helps us to rethink the nature and adequacy of the common grounding of such partnerships, and their relative potential to act as catalysts in enabling people who come from diverse traditions to come together and work on equal terms. Therefore, postmodernity reminds us that in a religiously pluralistic world the crucial question which needs to be handled is "whether issues of global responsibility are something which can be endorsed by different religions?"²⁷

As a response to this predicament Paul F. Knitter argues that there are strands of thought within each religion which have a strong impetus towards working for justice. In a context where we do not have common answers to common problems of injustice and oppression, Knitter argues that justice can serve as a universal criterion for truth without becoming a new foundational or absolute norm for truth, and speaks of the challenge of radical reinterpretation and reorientation to the goal of liberation. Knitter argues that "a response which both affirms and yet goes beyond the postmodern argument of the cultural construction and limitation of all truth and ethical proposition" would be one which involves different religions responding to the challenge of "interpreting themselves and listening to and learning from others on the common ground of global responsibility."²⁸ The challenge is then one of re-formation. Where "given the anguished needs of our species and our earth, all of us are offered both the necessity and the possibility of belonging to both our particular ethical communities and to the global ethical community", as well as willingly letting our truth claims and our ethical decisions to be formed not exclusively in our individual communities but also in our global community. This challenge of radical re-interpretation and reorientation requires that these traditions address the future more than as retrievals of their past. Others, like Peter Donovan, too are optimistic that, in spite of the different answers to global problems, religions have the ability to offer compatible rather than contradictory answers to common questions.²⁹ The challenge then for ecumenism in the 21st century when it comes to its calling to make a difference is to take up Knitter's own challenge of creating a "global community of dialogical ethical discourse", which :

will be a "community of communities," a paradoxical but actual community in which we belong both to our own religion and culture and yet genuinely participate in the global community struggling for eco-human justice and well-being. It will be a community in which we are both particularists and universalists, making strong claims on the basis of our particular religious convictions but knowing that such claims might be relativized in the wider conversation with other strong claims and with the even stronger demand to remove human and ecological suffering.³⁰

Conclusion

We have looked specifically at the concepts of togetherness and transformation which are crucial to the mission of ecumenism. Having analyzed what it entails for these concepts to be concretized into praxis in the ecumenical context, we realized that such efforts at concretization gave rise to a wider network of partnership, which could fit in well with the very word oikoumene which communicates the idea of a single inhabited world. In conclusion, it would be fair to say that the prospects for ecumenism in the 21st century lie in developing a transforming togetherness based on altruism and interconnectedness for effectively engaging with a future which does not promise utopia. As such, the missiological task of ecumenism in the 21st century can neither be considered to be an "ersatz" - an outcome of lazy and insensitive privilege - nor merely "cynical apotheosis". It involves articulating a definite and immediate response to the existing reality not only of humanity but the entire creation in all its fragility. This implies responding to the shifting centres of social value and ethos which the globalized societies of postmodernity embody, as well as the ragged peripheries that define the vicious nature of neo-colonial global capitalism. It also involves responding to the predicament of conflict over resources and opportunities and above all about transforming deeply divisive patterns of living to become more enabling and facilitating.

In order to accomplish this, the challenge is to concretize the Christian gospel of life in all its fullness through alternative performances of the gospel of Christ. The quest is for a shape of life "that repeats differently the life of Jesus, a being-toward-resurrection where one's thoughts feelings and doings are conditioned not by the ephemeral processes of this world, where rust and moth corrupt, but by the narrative of the triune God, a story that plumbs the heights and the depths and which inserts us into the dramatic flow of evangelical reality".³¹ Only then can we attain the fullness of our togetherness which will enable us to make all the difference that matters!