Bringing Unity Down to Earth

By Beril Huliselan

The world around us and problems of unity

At the time of writing this essay, the world around me looks really strange. It seems weird because the world that I knew since I was a kid has turned into an inhuman world. In Indonesia, almost half of the population lives in poverty. At the same time, corruption spreads out like a cancer and has taken away the future of children in Indonesia. In the second half of 2007, the World Food Programme (WF) estimated that 13 million children in Indonesia lived in starvation.¹

In early 2008, the problem of starvation continued to haunt Indonesia. Several primary commodities reached their highest price ever, and this condition in turn drove up the poverty rate. Food availability was just one of the innumerable problems people in Indonesia faced every day. We also still had challenges in the areas of health conditions, education, law enforcement, electricity, poorly designed urban development and so on. The government has lost its sensitivity to protect its own people, and the nation has fallen into a state of high foreign debt. Describing the economic crisis that struck Indonesia in 1997, Adam Schwarz said:

Behind the macroeconomic success lay a number of worrisome trends. Protectionist measures remained widespread … The high costs resulting from corruption and market-distorting measures began to affect the competitiveness of some key non-oil exports … A sizeable portion of the new foreign investment went into unprofitable areas such as real estate, or into projects that depended on continued import protection. Private sector debt more than tripled from US$ 23 billion in 1992 to almost US$ 80 billion in 1997, most of it unhedged.²

In 2006, foreign debt in Indonesia had reached US$ 134 billion; for this reason, a considerable part of the general revenue and expenditure budget of Indonesia had to be used to pay the foreign debt. This, too, contributes to the high level of poverty in Indonesia.

In this situation, how are we to think about ecumenism? If I ask a young man - who has been without food for several days: "what is the meaning of ecumenism for you?" or "what is the meaning of unity among all Christians?" can we imagine what kind of an answer he will give?

Over these same years, shifts in notions of authority and self-focused inwardness have changed the ecclesial landscape. Lots of people attend the type of churches that have no rigid and strong boundaries between members and non-members. These churches often hold their worship in a commercial space, such as a restaurant, hotel or football stadium. In their worship, many of them propagate a prosperity theology which attracts many followers from among the Indonesian people. This reflects what Zygmunt Bauman called uncertainties focused on individual identity or identity-focused uncertainty, which is related to the crisis of confidence in the reliability of persons and things in the modern era. Uncertainty haunts the everyday life of the people, as Bauman said:

... the misery of life composed of risky choices, which always mean taking some changes while forfeiting others; of incurable uncertainty built into every choice; of unbearable ... responsibility for the unknown consequences of every choice; of constant fear of foreclosing future and yet unforeseen possibilities; the dread of personal inadequacy.³

People no longer seek out established institutional churches; on the contrary, they attach themselves to some kind of healer or even medicine man or shaman. Bauman gives a clear picture of this reality: "The uncertainty ... begets not the demand for religion - it gestates instead the ever rising demand for identity-experts." ⁴ This problem definitely has changed the church landscape, something that reminds us of what Wade Clark Roof said about religion and spirituality:

Church-going becomes less a ‘habit' or ‘custom' and more a personal ‘preference' related largely to one's tastes .... Religion thus loses its traditional Durkheimian role of expressing collective unity in ceremony, symbol and ritual.⁵

Prosperity theology has been expanding to fill the quasi-need of contemporary people for certainty. Who would imagine that prosperity theology would succeed in a land where the level of poverty is so high? Yet this type of church has spread almost everywhere and often comes into close contact with ethnic or local churches. The traditional sense of church "unity" loses its meaning as the church landscape changes.

Within these same conditions, on the other hand, we also find that the sense of ethnicity or locality becomes much stronger and has an impact on church, especially in how the church understands itself. But once again, the sense of unity is in jeopardy. The ethnic or local impulse takes on the appearance of church, and as cultural lines are drawn we have to face the reality that the search for grounds of peaceful and equitable co-existence between churches has become more difficult. If we can't find the basis for co-existence between churches, how can we establish the grounds of co-existence with people from different faiths or different fundamental commitments?

Walter Kasper asks this interesting question about ecumenism:

What do we understand by "visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and common life in Christ, through witness and service to the world", as the Constitution of the WCC states? Do the partners in the ecumenical movement have a shared understanding of ecumenism and its main goal?⁶

Even the Faith and Order process's attempt to confess "One Faith", as described by Kasper, did not find the echo and reception it deserved in the churches.

The theme of ecumenism is still meaningful at the level of church functionaries and professional theologians. But at ground level, "ecumenism" remains an alien concept for the people. If you don't believe me, go into the street and ask people what is the meaning for them of "unity" among all Christians. In practical reality, ecumenism seems to have broken loose and been cut off from its roots; on this course, it will finally die or be ideologically manipulated for the interest of elites (privileged minorities) in the churches.

Unity movement or unity in movement?

Since the very beginning, ecumenism has been driven by an awareness of problems from the mission field that may be resolved in dialogue. The challenges in mission fields did not always avoid dogmatic war or even physical war, but all these problems were brought into the field of dialogue. So, the basis of ecumenism should be identified in the spirit of mission. What is the spirit of mission? David J. Bosch quoted an interesting statement from Thomas Kramm attributing mission to God's self-actualization in Christ; this is the theological foundation of mission, according to Kramm. The accentuation of the moment of God's incarnation, as reflected in David J. Bosch's reflections, brings him to stress that all theologians should be in contact with the real situation in their era.⁷ Only in this way will mission find its spirit and be responsive to the real struggle of the people.

Ecumenism should be understood within the context of God's incarnation in Christ. This revelation disclosed God's love towards all humankind. In this context, Kasper proposes an interesting thought in response to the challenge facing the ecumenical movement:

The unity of the Church is not a goal in itself. The unity of the Church is instrument, sign, anticipation of the unity of all humankind ... The universal context of the commitment for the unity of the Church has further implications for social and political diakonia, practical witness, and for the dignity of the human person and for human rights, for the sanctity of life, family values, education, justice and peace, health care, the preservation of creation and last but not least interreligious dialogue.⁸

In light of God's self-actualization in Christ, ecumenism should not be seen as a movement that tries to bring some established fixed forms or structures (the "unity movement"). On the contrary, ecumenism is a consciousness leading us to search for its contextual realization in different moments of history ("unity in movement"). There is no single established form of unity that has to be concretized in history. Every part of history, each place in each era, will have its own contextual unity, and every form of contextual unity should be criticized according to the spirit and purpose of unity itself: that is, with a sense of the unity of all humankind that includes concern for social and political diakonia, practical witness, the dignity of the human person and human rights, the sanctity of life, family values, education, justice and peace, health care, the preservation of creation and, last but not least, interreligious dialogue.

Thus we arrive at one of the crucial points in the problem of ecumenism. As I said before, we live in a weird world where ecumenism has turned out to be an alien thing for the people at the grassroots. How could this happen? There are two crucial areas that I want to address, following on from what I have said above.

First, ecumenism derives from real challenges in the mission field and has developed its visible forms from the period of western missionary expansion until the current era. Through the work of the Faith and Order commission, we have important ecumenical documents that reflect our spirit of unity as it has played out since the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh in 1910. Documents such as Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982) reflect the spirit and history of ecumenism in the 20th century. One crucial aspect of this spirit is the centrality of Christ who has prayed for our unity (John 17:21)⁹ and is still at work now to bring about unity among us.

Christ contains in himself God's love for the world, and that is central. That is why ecumenism itself should be an actualization of God's love for the world. When we decide to emphasize the centrality of Christ, ecumenism reaches the level of incarnation in a people; once it has come to suffuse spirituality, liturgy and ethics on a broad scale and has become incarnated in social action, it will have taken on a contextual form that directly addresses the current needs of the people. This is not an absolute form of unity, but a form that will always need to be criticized and renewed in the light of Jesus Christ.

This model of unity requires that ecumenism be more than discussion and presentation of ecumenical documents. Of course, in the history of ecumenism we will still need such ecumenical documents as a theological challenge in seeking to make our joint confession. But more than that we need to take actions that reflect the centrality of Christ; we need to witness to incarnation among the people. When ecumenism is a sign of incarnation in the people's midst, then ecumenism has realized its promise and its essence.

In all this, I do not mean to demean the place of church functionaries and professional theologians in the circle of ecumenism. What I want to do is to bring these three levels of ecumenism (church functionaries, professional theologians and other scholars, and the people) into unity. Ecumenism should be seen as a cultural and ecclesial phenomenon by no means restricted to a few professional theologians or church functionaries. These three levels of ecumenism should hold hands together, and work together to bring ecumenism down to earth. Otherwise ecumenism will remain in the position of being an alien thing for the people. Why? It is because ecumenism will have become an elitist movement with no contact with people's reality.

What is the most important thing that brings these three levels together? What unites them is one basic inspiration: a faith that transforms history or, as others would put it, history seen from the basis of the ferment of faith. So anyone can see ecumenism, which emerged from the challenge in the mission field and committed to the goodness of all humankind, as a progressively integrating factor among church functionaries, professional theologians and the people, all linked together around the same axis: their service in mission. Contemporary ecumenism is not just a bundle of ecumenical documents, sacraments or liturgy. On the contrary, contemporary ecumenism is ecumenism in action seeking to encourage the fullness of humankind. If ecumenism wants to be efficacious, in the same way as Christ's love, it must have its eyes open to the historical reality in which it seeks to work. This is what I call bringing ecumenism down to earth.

The second point that I want to address is related to the problems of shifts in notions of authority, self-focused inwardness and the sense of ethnicity or locality. These problems can produce clashes between churches. Of course, we need a joint confession and commitment to this confession. But this is not enough. We need to go down below the surface of this problem. This is why ecumenism is also a field where lots of scholars of diverse expertise need to hold hands and offer contributions according to their sphere of expertise.

In the problems of shifts in notions of authority, self-focused inwardness and the sense of ethnicity or locality, we require a contribution from the field of anthropological and sociological studies. The source of this problem is not located at the surface, but in the depths of identity. So basically, we are dealing with the problem of spirituality.

When Cliver Erricker and Jane Erricker tried to examine the problem of spirituality in the contemporary era, they located spirituality in the context of identity's tension. They said that: "Individual and community identities are located in tension between belonging and difference, historically, culturally, and religiously."¹⁰ The term "belonging" is related to the need to find one's place in the universe. Every individual needs to find its place in society, where solidarity, trust, and obligation are developed. As Clive and Jane Erricker said: "to speak of belonging is to evoke a sense of the spiritual".¹¹ On the other side, the term "difference" is related to clashes with the accepted traditional understandings. This argumentation brings them to the conviction that what is called spirituality always has some connection with socio-cultural particularity. Thus, for them: "Spirituality does not lie in some nether region of transcendental deliverance but must be grappled with in the politics of this world."¹²

The problems of shifts in notions of authority, self-focused inwardness and the sense of ethnicity or locality have connected with a new kind of spirituality in the modern era. These problems remind us of the urgency of actualizing ecumenism as incarnation in the people. If we fail in this struggle, contemporary people still will not understand what ecumenism is all about.

The need for differences among individuals, something that frequently produces clashes with tradition, is connected with fluctuations influenced by expansions in the economy and in technology. In Indonesia, the churches and the Council of the Churches in Indonesia seldom respond much to problems in economic and technological areas, even in the case of the severe economic crisis that struck Indonesia in 1997. For the most part, problems such as the economy, corruption, political crime, the ecology, human rights do not get much attention from the churches and the council.

If we are facing conditions like these, how can we talk about unity in movement? We need a new form of religious experience as a contextual answer to current conditions; an answer that reflects Christians' desire to listen to the people in their current situation. At this point, the ecumenical movement needs conversion. Kasper has said: "There is no ecumenism without conversion, and there is no future at all without conversion."¹³ We need conversion to bring back ecumenism to its root which is incarnation in the people, the kind of conversion that will bring ecumenism down to earth. In relation to the problem of conversion, Kasper's remarks need to be considered:

Renewal and conversion of heart include both personal and institutional aspects. Personal conversion and renewal entail a change of attitude towards each other, leading to the purification of memories from bitter experiences of the past and to the avoidance of unfair polemical statements, thus preparing the way for reconciliation. Personal conversion and sanctification imply a spirituality of communio, which means to make room for the other and to withstand the egoistic temptations of competition, careerism, distrust and jealousy…. At the same time institutional reform - the Council speaks even of "continual reformation" (perennis reformatio) - is an essential presupposition and condition for ecumenical progress.¹⁴

Ecumenism in the 21st century

When we have commitment to bring ecumenism down to earth, then what kind of steps are required of us? In my opinion, there is no perfect sequence of steps. Every step that we have in mind should be accompanied by awareness that this step still needs to be criticized and renewed every time. The first step in actualizing ecumenism is pre-theological. It is a matter of trying to live the commitment of faith: in our case, to participate in some way in the everyday experience of the people, and to be committed to them. Anyone who wants to elaborate relevant ecumenism must be prepared to go into the "examination hall" of the people's reality (economy, social relations, culture, politics and so on).

After we have a strong commitment for the people and readiness to go into the "examination hall" of the people's reality, then we have to look carefully at just what is going on in the people's world. This first process is called the socio-analytical (or historico-analytical) process. We have to know what kind of people we are involved with, and details of their socio-cultural world. This process tries to understand why people become as they are.

The second process is related to reflection about God, from the people's standpoint or condition. I call this a hermeneutical process. In this process, we would like to establish dialogue between the people's reality and the biblical text. This dialogue can enrich what Kasper calls spiritual ecumenism. Kasper defines spiritual ecumenism as follows:

Spiritual ecumenism means therefore the teaching of Scripture, of the living tradition of the Church, and of the outcomes of ecumenical dialogues that have been personally and totally assimilated, filled with life, and becoming light and strength in our everyday life.¹⁵

After these two processes, we have to go into the sphere of action. The range of this sphere is from attending ecumenical meetings or discussions to participating in ecumenical social actions based on the interaction of contextual conditions and the people's encounter with the Bible. In the end, these three processes interact and relate to each other, bringing the three levels of ecumenism (church functionaries, professional theologians and other scholars, and the people) to hold hands together as they bring ecumenism down to earth.