Friday 25 August 2017

M.M. Thomas’ Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake



M.M. Thomas’ Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake

September 2016                                                                              Presenter: Laldanmawia
__________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
M. M. Thomas’ book Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake: Towards an Ecumenical Theology of Pluralism is published by WCC Publications in Geneva in 1987. The contents of the book are divided into four points, compiled in 122 pages. Today, the churches have a great challenge to counter the pluralism with redefining the meaning of Christ, the church and the Christian mission. In this situation, M. M. Thomas wrote this book bringing two Indian theologians Raymond Panikkar and Paul Devanandan who represent Ecumenical theology of Catholic and Protestant respectively. This paper highlights important points from each chapter.
1. The Challenge of Pluralism
1.1. The Pluralistic Situation: The isolated religions and cultures in the past have now moved to the situation of plurality due to many forces in modern world. Those are technological revolution, western colonialism, Secularization, Christian missionary movements, non-Christian religious movements, migration of ethnic and religious group across national and international boundaries and the emergence of nation states and notion of religious liberty.[1] These make the plurality context of religion, culture and ideology, and further make a situation of dialogical existence.
1.2. The Confessional Standpoint: The task of our faith is to understand and interpret the pluralistic situation we encounter globally and locally from the standpoint of our ultimate commitment to Jesus Christ as the revelation of God. However the confessional standpoint must be theologized in relations to other faiths, allowing an examination. In this process Thomas said we are risking Christ for Christ’s sake. [2]
1.3. Living Faiths and their Interaction: The author brings a short survey of religion, religious pluralism and the history of inter-religious relations in modern history. Human beings evolved from sub-human nature towards self commitment, self determination, and infinite freedom into ultimate purpose. In this process, there is a sense of the world and Being or Infinite or Holy, that is religious consciousness.[3] From this religious consciousness, the visualization of Universal Divine varies and then pluralism of religious traditions came into existence. These religious traditions have interaction through integration of religion and culture by Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment and Secularization, represented by the word Modernization.[4]
1.4. Towards a New Theology of Interfaith Dialogue: The historical situation of religious and ideological pluralism is recognized by the Ecumenical Movement as a new stage in human history, and that new stage calls for a new Christology with secular and religious dimensions. Vatican II’s documents also point out that modernity brought unity of humankind and interdependence of people. The destiny of human community became more dynamic reality rather than static concept.[5] Today, the traditional approaches in terms of relation between Creation and Redemption need to be reformulated and developed in order to achieve wider human community.
2. Towards an Ecumenical Ecumenism
Thomas brings out how Ecumenical thoughts has been developing in the Catholic thought, starting from development in Catholic thought, and then he uses Raymond Panikkar in response to it.
2.1. Developments in Catholic Thought
2.1.1. Vatican II and Post-Vatican II Discussion: Vatican II contributed a thought towards a theology of pluralism that human beings are not just individuals but persons in relations to the communities in which they live, and that the salvific work of God is universal embracing all humanity.[6] Some documents of Vatican II are: The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church explains the church as a kind of sacrament or sign of human’s intimate union with God and of the unity of humankind.  The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World brings out the universality of the mystery of Christ and the possibility of participation in it irrespective of their religious faiths. The Document on Mission asserts that the universal design of God for the salvation of the human race is not carried out exclusively in the soul of human, but includes the world of concrete historical religions which is realm of humanity’s search for God. The Declaration on Non-Christian Religions states that whatever is true and holy in non- Christian religions can enlightened all human beings, and is revealed in Christ.[7] Vatican II seeks to arrange a circle in which the Catholic Church at the centre and it embraces all religious traditions of human kind.
In Post-Vatican II discussion, Thomas brings three theologians who worked out their theology of the salvific value of non-Christian religions. Firstly, Karl Rahner recognizes that inter-religious relations are entering a new phase in the modern world, and it is therefore necessary to re-examine the Catholic relation to non-Christian religions from the dogmatic understanding of Catholic Christianity as the absolute religion. He argues that God must provide means for salvation of all people at all time. Pre-Christian history is not to be understood chronologically as before Jesus Christ’s coming, but existentially as before Jesus Christ’s coming to a particular person or people. Then non-Christian religions can be means of salvation if persons of those faiths have not been existentially challenged by the gospel of Christ.[8]
Secondly, H.R. Schlette provides two histories of divine salvation: general sacred history and a special sacred history. He further says that in the way of salvation, non-Christian religions are the ordinary ways and Church is the extraordinary way. Thirdly, Hans Kung, in line with Schlette, states that Non-Christian religions are “pre Christian” directed towards Christ. And Jesus Christ is the one who can liberate them from their entanglement in error and sin.[9]
2.1.2. A New Stage in Mission Theology: The history of missions where the church preach the gospel of salvation to Non-Christian peoples to plant new church, must be discerned with different stage in the evolving theology of religions. Stages of Catholic Theology of mission have been discussed as: The first stage is represented by Francis Xavier when Mission was marked by the “Conquest Theory.” In that stage other religions were displaced and contrasted, even encouraged use of state power to save souls. The second stage emphasized the “Theory of Adaption” in which the church started to adopt and adapt some of cultural elements of non-Christian religions with a view to communicating the gospel. The Third stage developed from Vatican II, namely the “Fulfillment Theory,” in which other religions are seen as pre-Christian search for salvation fulfilled in Christianity.[10]
2.2. Raymond Panikkar: The Universal Ontic Christ:
     2.2.1. The Framework of Trinity: One of Panikkar’s approaches to religious pluralism is Trinitarian approach. He tries to interpret the universe of religious and secular faiths within the framework of Trinity of God. He emphasizes on spiritual experience. To him, three forms of spirituality present in the various religious traditions- action, love and knowledge; which of them corresponds to the Trinity of God. Thus he visualizes the Divine Trinity as a junction where the authentic spiritual dimensions of all religions meet.[11]
     2.2.2. The Universal Christ: Panikkar assumes that Christ is the universal redeemer. The universal salvific will of God is present and active in all religions and that Christ is at work in all religions through their sacraments. In the nature of universal Christ relating Christianity and other religions, he has some theses: Firstly, Christ is not only the historical Jesus: He is more than Jesus both in form and meaning. Secondly, every authentic religion has in it the awareness of a mediating link between God the Absolute and the relative world. Thirdly, the different names and forms of the Mediator in other religions can represent the same saving faith commitment to Jesus Christ as in Christianity.[12]
     2.2.3. Church of Jesus Christ- a Sacrament: Panikkar tries to answer to what the nature and function of Christianity in relation to other living religions and secular faiths. He sees all the religious traditions move towards secularization. That is why the church also must go in a path of radical renewal so as to provide the gospel to the transformation of the world community.[13] To him, the church is centred upon the authentic and living person of Jesus Christ.


3. Common Quest for New Humanism: Towards Dialogical Participation
In this chapter, Thomas describes the development in protestant missionary ecumenical thought towards a quest for a new Humanism and brings out Paul Devanandan and his thought to encounter Protestant missionary ecumenical thought.
3.1. Developments in Protestant Missionary Ecumenical Thought
3.1.1. Partnership against Secularism- Jerusalem 1928: The International Missionary Council in Jerusalem in 1928 dealt with the Christian approach to other religions and secularism. Refus Jones in his presentation in the meeting said the need for Christian missions to look upon non- Christian religions as allies in their encounter against secularism and their endeavor to preserve spiritual values. However the Jerusalem recognized several values of non-Christian religions as well as of secular civilization as part of the truth.[14]
3.1.2. Revelation against Religion- Tambaram 1938: European theologians raised questions against Jerusalem’s reading of historical crisis and its theological view point. Barth opposes the partnership of religions that he wants Christian message to be proclaimed in all its purity, not confused with the voices of other religions.[15] He attempts theological interpretation of religion proposing revelation of God as the abolition of religion. That revelation negates religion as unbelief but it can also justify and sanctify it.[16] Barth, Brunner and Kraemer emphasize the biblical understanding of reality, the understanding that God is wholly other than humanity which is both creature and sinner, and that God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ cannot correspond to the concept of natural human.[17]
3.1.3. A Dialectical Theology of Secularism: Barth-Brunner-Kraemer interpretation of Revelation over against religion has two lines of development in ecumenical circles. It sees Christianity as the only true divinely chosen religion, and it also interprets the movement of secularization of cultures and explores the possibility of divine grace taking historical form in a radical secular Christianity.[18] Dietrich Bonhoeffer suggests the possibility of religionless Christianity for the world come of age. Arend van Leeuwen’s central theme, however, is secularization as the fruit of the gospel and secularism as an ally of Christianity in the struggle against religion.[19]
3.1.4. Christ of the Movements of Renaissance: S.J. Samartha stands in the acknowledgement of the presence of Christ in the movements of innovation, in the movements within various religions and new development in certain ideologies. He further points that the gospel itself directly or indirectly has been one of the factors in generating new movements.[20] The Asian church leaders meeting in Bangkok in 1949 had observed the universality of the demand for cultural and social renewal in Asian society. They assert that the Christian church must welcome the demand of the peoples for a fuller participation in the life of the society where power is exercised. The 1966 East Asian Christian Conference confessed that they believe in God’s work of His purpose to the Asian renaissance and revolution.[21]
3.2. Paul Devanandan-the Historical Universality of the New Creation in Christ:
     3.2.1. Christian Witness- New Delhi 1961: In the WCC Assembly in New Delhi 1961, he spoke of the gospel to which the church is called to witness. The gospel is that God acted in Jesus to renew the whole creation and that activity is continuing today in the Spirit of the Risen Jesus, recreating humanity and that in the end will establish his kingdom on earth.[22] He mentions three concrete worlds in which the church is to witness: the traditional village world, modern secular world and the world of other faiths.[23]
     3.2.2. The Gospel of New Creation in Jesus: He always presented the gospel as the good news of new creation in Jesus. The New Creation in Jesus has personal, social and economic dimensions. It also means newness in the present, regarding the risen Christ as the contemporary Christ. The New Creation is universal, mediated through the unique revelatory act of God in the person and work of Jesus.[24]
     3.2.3. Interpretation of the Modern Religious Situation: Devanandan takes a path which explores the possibility of revelation, which will judge, justify and renew other religions, so as to make them true religious partners in witnessing and participating in the recreation of the modern world in Christ.[25] He surveyed modern religious situation, and found that there are problems of relating the classical theology to the new anthropology. He wishes to affirm that all faiths are brought in to the circle of theological anthropological concerns in creating common situation of modern history. In that process he put the New Humanity in Jesus Christ at the central part.
     3.2.4. Christian Ecumenism: His main contribution to Christian ecumenism lies in his stimulation of interfaith dialogue as an ongoing concern of the church in the common search for human community. The emphasis here is the common humanity within which people of all religions and no religions can work together to enrich the common life.[26]
4. Issues in the Debate: a Concluding Comment
In this section, Thomas briefly looks at some of criticisms against the understanding of Christ and the church of Panikkar and Devanandan.
4.1. The Historical and the Universal: The emphasis on the universal Christ is made in order to find a common ground for particular historical religions to meet and enter into dialogue with one another. To that point, Pannikar’s universal Christ is questioned. Anto Karokaran argues his negative aspects of historical dimension of religion. Hans Kung criticizes Panikkar for making the Cosmic Christ for his starting point for interfaith dialogue, because it de-emphasizes the historical dimension of the Christ-event.[27]
Nirmal Minz makes criticisms to Devanandan’s emphasis on the historical particularity of Jesus. First, he is prevented by his missionary motivation to the elemental openness for understanding the other as an equal partner in the dialogue. Second, He is also preoccupied by personal and historical categories, which made his theology inadequate to meet Hindu partner in real dialogue. Third, his neo-orthodox stance also makes his theology of religious pluralism weak.[28]
4.2. Salvation and Humanization: Devanandan emphasizes the awakening of non-Christian religions to the new anthropology of personal values, social justice in community and purposive history under the impact of Christianity and Western culture.[29] Pannenberg says about anthropology as the medium of fundamental theological discourse and the clarification of salvation in Christ. Thus the relation between salvation and humanization needs deeper ecumenical exploration because an eschatological humanization is the ultimate salvation where sin, principalities and powers will be removed and humanity will find divine fulfillment in the kingdom.[30]
4.3. Church and the Wider Koinonia-in-Christ: Both Panikkar and Devanandan try to present Christianity as the sign of the kingdom and the fermenting leaven in the universe of faiths, bringing to them the transforming knowledge of the universal presence of Christ. Panikkar’s Unknown Christ and Devanandan’s Acknowledge Christ point to a reality which calls for a redefinition of the church of Jesus Christ in relation to a wider people of the Christ. Then an important Ecumenical task for our generation is to discern the need for Christians to be in dialogical partnership with others in the witness to the kingdom to come, which call for a redefinition of the different levels and forms of koinonia-in-Christ.[31]
4.4. An Ecumenical Problem: Panikkar and Devanandan’s Christology stands on the Catholic and Protestant church traditions. The conflict between them is not merely personal, but the traditional Catholic-Protestant theological conflict. Therefore an ecumenical problem lies in the reconciliation of the two theological traditions. These two traditions dominate Western theology during and after the Reformation. In this situation, Christian ecumenism must take the theology of religious pluralism as an important theme of interchurch dialogues.[32]
Concluding Remark
The plurality of religion, culture and ideology comes with the ferment of modernity, and that becomes the point where Christian theology tries to interfere in order to build wider community with human reaching new stage. Intrafaith and Interfaith dialogue become the new theological options in order to meet cooperative struggles against dehumanization. M.M. Thomas looks for an Ecumenical ecumenism, in which unity in the Christ has to be understood as resulting from inner reform and must accommodate diversity. Christians risk Christ for Christ's sake by allowing their faith to be reinterpreted in the categories of others.

Some of the chapter wise remarks are given in the following:
Firstly, the first chapter deals with the challenge of Pluralism that introduces the plurality of the society that comes with forces of modernization. That pluralism has to be interacted with new theology of interfaith dialogue, in which the writer sees a necessity of new Christology with secular and religious dimensions. The new Christology is Universality of Christ that transcends Christianity, other religions and ideologies. But today, in the context of pluralism, we need Christology that is Christ-in-relation that will be more accommodate with diversity.
Secondly, chapter two is the analysis of the ecumenical developments in the Catholic thoughts along with Panikkar’s contributions. Catholic reaches new stage in Mission theology. The stage develops from Vatican II which sees other religions as pre-Christian search for salvation fulfilled in Christianity. It is widely accepted that all religions search for salvation in different ways. But Vatican II’s Fulfillment Theory can be questioned; does this mean non Christian religions come to Christianity one day to fulfill their search for salvation? Salvation is fulfilled in Christ, not in Christianity.
Thirdly, the next chapter explores ecumenism in the Protestant thoughts with Devanandan’s contribution towards it. In which the writer talks about Christ of the movements of Renaissance, emphasizing the presence of Christ’s nature in every movement. But it is difficult to accept and believe in God’s work of his purpose to every renaissance and movements today, where dehumanizing movements are encountered in the present world.
Fourthly, in his concluding comment, the writer mentions the need of deeper ecumenical exploration in the relation between salvation and humanization. For him the ultimate salvation is the eschatological humanization. But there has been lack of full humanization in our salvation particularly in our pluralistic society. If humanity does not find enough divine fulfillments in the kingdom; and sin, principalities, powers, etc. are still the problems, then we need to explore more about salvation and humanization in our plurality context.




[1] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake: Towards an Ecumenical Theology of Pluralism (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1987), 1-2.
[2] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 3.
[3] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 8.
[4] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 12.
[5] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 14.
[6] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 19.
[7] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 20-22.
[8] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 23.
[9] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 25-26.
[10] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 27-28.
[11] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 31-33.
[12] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 34-35.
[13] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 38.
[14] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 45.
[15] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 49.
[16] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 53.
[17] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 55.
[18] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 69.
[19] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 70-73.
[20] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 78.
[21] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 83.
[22] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 87.
[23] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 88-89.
[24] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 91.
[25] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 95.
[26] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 101.
[27] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 106-107.
[28] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 109.
[29] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 110.
[30] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 113.
[31] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 114.
[32] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 116.

No comments:

Post a Comment