Building bridges in a subjunctive mood

(LWF´s Study Project: Communion, Community, Society; Madras, India, March 1998)

 

By Guillermo Hansen

 

As I stand before you this afternoon I wonder what would be the best way of moving toward the task that lies ahead of us whilst at the same time avoiding a condescending tone as I try to summarize some theological principles for our common reflection. Let me remind you what we are attempting to do: to build conceptual bridges between the situation of the Lutheran churches in Asia and the theological concept of communio. Perhaps the proper way of proceeding with this awfully large enterprise would be, for my part, to assume a sort of a "subjunctive mood," in other words, to put on hold for a moment my own identity and to assume an hypothetical Asian identity C more specifically, that of a Lutheran theologian rooted in India. In short, I would like to invite you to participate in a game of "make believe,@ and ask for your indulgence if, at times, I do not really sound Indian at all!
 

My subjunctive approach can be framed with the following questions: If I were an Indian theologian, what main topics could I identify as emerging from my church, society and culture, all of which seeking a more comprehensive integration with our Lutheran identity in general, and the ecclesiological concept of communio in particular? Further, what would these issues mean for our understanding of Lutheran identity, both locally and globally? Hopefully C and here I would like to remind you and myself C this subjunctive methodology will help us partially to supersede the "bridge" metaphor. How? By (pretentiously?) placing us on the other= s shore before attempting any "foundational" construction.
 

With this in mind, as I put on an Indian garb, I would like to consider three issues that I see recurring in the presentations we heard. These have to do with (a) the asymmetrical relationships within the church and the need for adapting the ecclesial structure to the vision derived from (a confessed) communio, (b) the understanding of the church=s place and action in the world as a sacramental reality, and (c) the need for certain socio-cultural mediation in our reading of the present times which, in turn, will guide us in a realistic assessment as to what our role might be in the midst of the different demands voiced by the "people´s movements". As we shall see, the manner in which we "order" the contextual data will certainly condition the profile of our confessional identity; nevertheless, the grammar of this identity will question and reassign the issues that spring from our life in this country.
 

Our vision of communio and the reality of an asymmetrical partaking
 

The presentations and group discussions gave evidence of the extent to which the Lutheran churches in India mirror this society and its deep divisions C class, caste and gender. More to the point, several voices signaled the abuse of power and hierarchical conception which determines the self-identity of church officials C bishops and pastors C at the cost of the dignity and status of the laity. Two sets of questions can be posed in this regard: how can church structures and their inner "division of labor" become more transparent to the communio of which we partake in Christ, and to what extent is this inner reality in fact mirroring a culture of power that the church reproduces (perhaps unwittingly C but nonetheless quite palpably) in its life and organization.
 

As to the first question a clear theological mediation is necessary in order to place the reality of the church within the larger horizon of a communio; history shows that it is no idle task to refer, once and again, to that which gives the church its legitimation.What is communio or koinonia? "To share with someone in something," or "to partake of something" are the most common definitions. These concepts implies three levels: the significance of the act of sharing, the subjects C those who share C, and the "something" which is shared. From a theological point of view the latter is the foundation of the other two dimensions, because it is the something or, in this case, the "who" in whom we share (Christ) that will give the character as to who may share (the many) and the significance of the act of sharing that which has been given to us (love). The church, therefore, is that community which is shaped when the Triune God lets God=s own self be partaken in Christ and, by the same token, invites the community to be partaken by God through the Spirit.
 

Members of the church at large, as well as its ministers and officials, are always engaged in a process whereby power must gain acceptance, especially by those who are "governed" by it. What kind of power must the church retain in order to be church? What symbolic horizon justifies and regulates our exchange of power? In our Lutheran tradition the concept of koinonia or communio is becoming a kind of rule or criterion for the understanding of the community which we call church. It certainly does not provide a blueprint for how churches should organize their lives but rather, defines the contours and colors of a landscape to which the church seeks to be transparent. Transparency, of course, also has to do with how we deal with power: the power to make certain things visible, and others invisible. Are the relationships that we establish among ourselves transparent to this eschatological vision of communion and love? Are the way in which we share goods and exchange power really a living tale of the gospel by which we have been called?
 

This leads us to our second question, namely, to the one pertaining to the mirroring effect of the church with regard to the patterns of power which regulate our life in society. According to the French philosopher Michael Foucault, people and communities are always the by-products of certain socio-cultural configurations of power. Furthermore, power should not be (naively) perceived as being a dominating action from above, but rather as a Adecentralized@ dynamic woven into the fabric of countless knots of power-practices which shape the larger power structure in which we interact. Accordingly, institutions and larger social configurations C such as the church C are cast in the previous mold of Adecentralized@ power-practices, in turn coloring, transforming and expanding the mechanisms existing at lower levels C notably, families and smaller cells and niches in society. This means that the mechanism of power that we may feel called through the image of koinonia would be completely inefficient for redressing the asymmetrical relationships within the church if, at the same time, there is missing a larger cultural action within the "smaller cells" that build up larger communities. If at this level, for example, a hierarchical criterion regulates the relationship between men and women, then it should not come as a surprise that these patterns are mirrored in the structure and life of our churches. Our image of koinonia is therefore not only an ecclesiological motif, but a cultural project as well.
 

The sacramental dimension of the church
 

The second level of this subjunctive exercise addresses the place and role that the church should seek in society. At this conference it was stated in various ways that the church in India is either seeking too much to do or, in actual fact, doing too little. Activism and quietism, messianism and spiritualism, social relevance and evangelism are some of the categories we heard. In brief what can a relatively small church, belonging to a minority religion within a country so vast, so diverse, and so plagued by social injustice, cris-crossed by different claims, expectations and struggles, actually accomplish? We know that evangelism is one dimension within the larger horizon of the church=s mission, and that the church=s mission participates in God=s mission in the world C who will call everything unto Godself. We know that our mission and presence must be integral, "holistic" as we say now. But how do we keep our integrity in focus, as we recreate our identity, within such an overwhelming and sometimes bewildering situation?
 

I believe that understanding the church as a sacramental community may help us locate and pace ourselves in this turmoil. Sacramental does not signify here liturgical or "high-church" but is employed as a synonym of symbolic, that which renders another reality present (as it is held in the sacramental practice of our tradition). In this fashion the symbolic or sacramental is not something external to the signifier and the signified, but the means by which the hidden becomes visible. The church derives its symbolic character from the fact that its foundation is the inner life of God who has called together all things in Christ. Hence the Christian community stands for another, larger community, namely, the kingdom of God which is identical to the full communion and unity between the three persons of the Trinity. In the liturgy and doxology of our church, therefore, we represent that which all true social and political claims and struggles are about, namely, the integrity and right of the creatures who are put aright in Christ.

How does this sacramental dimension affect the church=s place and role in society? Two main points emerge within the scope of sacramental ethics. First, the "places" where the church seeks to live out its sacramental dimension may vary from context to context and from time to time. In any case it always seeks to render, in a "happy exchange,@ the one who is invisible visible, and the one who is excluded included. The church, as a community of saints and sinners, is this gift of God that gives a place to the Aplaceless,@ elevating sacramentally in and for the world the dignity and freedom of those who seem out of this world. Secondly, it is not possible for the church C especially for a church in a minority situationC to completely live out that which she constantly signifies. A sort of "messianic inflation" is not uncommon when the church heeds God=s call to be responsible for the welfare of the world. The church=s action cannot be measured merely in terms of quantity or quality since the nature of its actions C but not its effects C are neither political nor social. Through its symbolic actions the church can in part anticipate, but not replace, what must be the action of multiple agents and organizations seeking limited goals in a limited space. The church will have to choose where and with whom it must be, knowing full well that this very choosing is destined to be superseded, even canceled out as history may move in a different direction.
 
 

Socio-cultural mediation and our realistic assessment
 

The last point leads us directly to another topic frequently touched upon during our consultation. It has to do with the hopes and expectations of community and the institutional possibilities to channel these. You may have noticed that several of our Indian colleagues= presentations and lectures were plagued by a litany signifying the effects of what is called "globalization," and the lack of an adequate response on the part of the churches against the onslaught of the free market forces, consumerism, and so on. We have pointed out that the church is not the only party responsible for the improvement and transformation of society; so, too, are all citizens and their different organizations C political or otherwise. We need to highlight that this sense of dislocation, of being overwhelmed by forces out of our control and comprehension, may be partially redressed by exploring more carefully the analytic tools that we employ at the moment of judging what is going on. The crucial point is not the analysis per se, but the orientation that it furnishes for our praxis.

A mere theological approach to this new phenomenon may provide inspiring values and a new horizon against which to assess this new direction that the history of our nations and peoples is taking C or compelled to take. Yet, inspiring as this may be, it would be rather ineffective if were devoid of a crucial step, that is, a methodical effort to study and disclose all the layers and ramifications of this complex matter. Through this we may discover that what we call globalization is neither paradise nor hell, but more likely a multi-faceted process that is not simply imposed from above C or from outsideC but is also longed for from below C and from within. Some of its faces seem so promising, so seductive, while others seem so destructive and repelling. What are the different faces that make up the process of globalization? Can we identify different , overlapping spheres contained within this phenomenon, some of them --for example, the economical one-- seeking to dominate over the others? Are not some of the spheres quite promising and not devoid of a religious aura (such as communications, global travel, cultural exchange, international networking, etc.) while others are quite menacing and troublesome (transnational companies, downsizing of states, ecological damage, etc.)? What could the "points of entry" into this process be and what would the different strategies to Acome out@ of it be? And, finally, how can the different identities that make up the Indian nation be strengthened C rather than weakened C in this process?

I believe that we must approach these questions not only because of the sober belief that our churches could greatly contribute to Indian culture and social processes but also because the inroads of globalizations are sustained by claims that are only too familiar in terms of the Christian ethos, namely, universality, catholicity, unity. In what sense can we speak of a "family resemblance"? Can we relate to it positively and critically at one and the same time? This is a perfect opportunity to test again the boundaries of our theology of the cross, that is, to name things as they really are without falling, for that reason, into a destructive despair. As we freely uncover the negative dimensions of globalization at the same time we seek to discern the loving, and for that matter, hidden presence of God in the midst of this process. Let us hope that at this point the subjunctive mode of our voice becomes an indicative one!