In the effort to simplify complex realities, persons often resort to the phrase: "There are two kinds of people in the world ..." They may say something as philosophical as "There are two kinds of people in the world dreamers who give to the world, and schemers who take from the world." Or, through humor, the phrase might bespeak a sense of self- "There are two kinds of people in the world - those who think and act like me, and those who ought to think and act like me." Or it may be something as trivial as: "There are two kinds of people in the world - those who like anchovies on their pizza, and those who don't." One of my personal favorites is: "There are two kind of people in the world — those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't."
Whenever the term "Crossroads" is used, it can suggest that such a simplification is about to be presented. Immediately, the image arises of two roads, heading in different directions, representing the two alternatives before us. My use of "crossroads" in the title, however, is not intended to suggest that "faith", "culture", and "ecumenism" have only two options before them. Faith, culture, and ecumenism face a multitude of possible futures - each future with its distinctive roads.
To be clear about the terms, "ecumenism" refers to the commitment and movement that work to bring the diverse peoples of the earth together under a common identity as God's faithful people. This definition includes "Christian ecumenism" (bringing Christians together), but is not limited to Christians. "Faith" is the world's various religious communities and their traditions, And "culture" refers to the beliefs, values, traditions, structures, and practice; that characterize a particular population.
As people of faith and culture, we are at the crossroads. We know the world has a wonderful diversity that both blesses us and causes great conflict. We are on the threshold of an uncertain future which holds both the possibility of a global village in which ancient hostilities give way to a spirit of reconciliation, as well as a future in which unspeakable horrors become daily events as groups seek to secure themselves against their adversaries. Ecumenism is at the crossroads with faith and culture - with us as a force available to our commitment, and with us as a force to fashion our commitment.
Even though our pathways into the future are many, I want to focus on two of the commitments which exist at the crossroads. 'These commitments are two distinct ways of moving into the future. As you will see, I am not comparing a good commitment with an evil commitment. I do not believe that most of us are confounded by such extremes, Our challenge is to choose among the promising commitments that are most faithful to serving the desires of God's heart.
Poised before the future, we have the choice of either an ecumenical commitment that has as its work and goal our becoming a community of contact, or an ecumenical commitment whose work and goal is our becoming a community of care. As benign and promising as both commitments seem, they lead to vastly different outcomes. One of the most significant decisions for persons who embrace an ecumenical perspective for faith and culture is this choice of being committed to either a community of contact or a community of care.
Communities of Contact
The vision to establish a community of contact has much to commend it. in such a community, persons of different faiths, cultures, and races are brought together for dialogue, fellowship, and understanding. Even though we live in a time where vehicles of transportation enable us to quickly reach persons on the other side of town or those on the other side of the world, most persons continue to live their lives in cultural cocoons. I see this at the university where most students arrive without experiences of significant interaction with those of a different race, or socioeconomic status, or ethnic group. And I hear it from adults who make residential, worship, and social relationship decisions that continue the isolation and insulation of their youth. Pluralism is a reality through which persons move, but they secure themselves against any in-depth contact with the diversity of their surroundings. Rather than mobility being instrumental to bring diverse persons together, it often becomes- the means to reinforce isolation.
This isolation is a major factor behind the sensitivity of ethnic and racial minorities to their portrayal in the arts, humor, and news reports. These minorities know that in a society where others have limited contact with them, every image and characterization has the potential of becoming the stereotypical understanding that defines their identity and existence. Isolation breeds stereotypes. And stereotypes, whether positive or negative, strip persons of their humanness. Individuals become single dimension caricatures, and so does their culture.
Several years ago, I was leading a workshop on racism. In our discussion, a white man said to me: "I was fortunate to have parents that never tolerated any kind of prejudice in our home. I grew up in an atmosphere where we spoke of all different kinds of persons with compassion. And I can honestly tell you that I grew up loving everybody. Without an ounce of hatred in my heart, I loved all black people." The man paused, and continued: "Then I finally met a black person," This white man then told our group about the conflict that developed between himself and his first black acquaintance. Their problems became so intense that he decided that he did not like the black person. A crisis ensued. Where was the truth about the other culture? Was it in the abstract lessons of his youth? Or was it in his immediate experience of conflict?
The commitment to establish a community of contact seeks to eliminate this tendency to understand other cultures and other religious traditions in the abstract. increased contact expands our awareness. We are capable of knowing the fuller range of convictions, doubts, fears, desires, and joys that are part of another culture and faith.
Our contact with people of other religious traditions has the potential of cultivating appreciation for their journey with God. This is needed because so much of our own religious education has occurred through contrasts with other ways of believing. For example, many Protestants are taught the meaning of Protestantism through contrasts with Roman Catholicism. Or Methodists will often explain their particularity by emphasizing their differences with Baptists. Taken to the level of world religions, Christians identify their uniqueness through contrasts with Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, and Islam. Too often, these contrasts focus on the perceived failings and theological flaws of other faiths. Ecumenical gatherings that establish a community of contact have a better chance to correct the distorted understandings which result from isolation and these types of unsympathetic contrast.
Communities of Care
Though increased contact can remedy so much of the breakdown in society and religious fellowship, it is not enough. Howard Thurman, who in 1944 co-founded The Church for the Fellowship of All Peoples in San Francisco (considered to be the first interracial church in membership and leadership in American Life), says: "hatred often begins in a situation in which there is contact without fellowship, contact that is devoid of any of the primary overtures of warmth and fellow-feeling and genuineness."1 I believe Thurman is right. A community of contact has limitations in fostering understanding and appreciation. Even ecumenism must be careful that its purpose is not driven by the song's refrain: "The more we get together, together, the more we get together the happier we'll be." Coming together is a beginning, but it must not be the end goal.
In many of the racially integrated high schools in the United States, the school cafeteria reveals much about the meaning of integration for the students. One sees tables of only black students, or only Hispanic students, or only Asian students, or only white students. Look long and hard. it is difficult to find a student or groups of students who have chosen to cat and have fellowship with peers of other racial and ethnic groups. This separation is not because of legal constraints, but because of social differences and pressures that influence students to choose separation. The students have contact in classes, on athletic teams, in band, and in extracurricular activities, but they continue to choose walls that divide and isolate.
Some years ago I read a sociological study on the effort to eliminate racial and religious prejudice by bringing people together in face to face relationships. The researchers discovered that when blacks and whites were led in a process of getting to know one another, they were more apt to see one another in their full humanity. Participants were able to recognize their racial biases and eventually grew closer to one another. However, when Christian liberals and conservatives were brought together, each group became even more convinced about their dislike of the other. Liberals felt that the experience had given them more reason to conclude that conservatives were narrow-minded, anti-intellectual fundamentalists. And conservatives were certain that the liberals were heretical and unable to make a statement about absolute truth. This study shows how we cannot oversimplify procedures for overcoming our cultural and religious divisions. Each instance of separation requires a careful analysis of problems and attention to the factors that cause animosity between groups. Communities of contact have the potential for reconciliation. They also have the potential for greater alienation.
Contact is a phase within a broader commitment to care for one another. Without the commitment to a caring relationship that pervades the very heart of ecumenism, groups may use contact to impose an agenda that violates the cultural and religious integrity of others. Such groups use ecumenical contact to convert others to their religious and cultural orientation; contact becomes a means to proselytize. Less aggressive, but still insulting, is contact to expand one's intellectual data base about other. I call this "ecumenical voyeurism." Only fascinated and stimulated by the unfamiliar cultural and religious practices of others, there is no intent to become involved in their life and death issues, no intent to be exposed to others in a caring relationship.
Ecumenism at its best cares about the well-being of body, mind, and spirit. Whether in a village where congregations respond to the needs of senior citizens or in a country where the World Council of Churches responds to the outbreak of civil war, ecumenical action that attends to the needs of culture is faithful to the mission of ecumenism.
In reviewing the literature on ecumenism, authors inevitably confront the question: How will the ecumenical commitment be a force of healing for a broken world?2 The question arises, not only because the world is so needy, but also from the recognition that ecumenism's calling is to represent God's intent for a reconciled creation. Care is at the very core of the ecumenical spirit. But the mission of ecumenism goes beyond providing resources to combat religious intolerance, poverty, disease, and injustice. As stated, the mission of ecumenism, through faith and culture, is to help us become a caring community. Demonstrations of care advance this purpose. But such demonstrations are not ecumenism's ultimate purpose; fostering the beloved community is.
This even applies to Christian ecumenism's concern for Faith and Order matters (i.e., working toward a common understanding of sacraments, rituals, ministry, worship, and doctrines).3 All the years of tedious research and passionate discussion, all the money expended for Faith and Order meetings around the world, all the exhilaration and disappointment that occurs in doing Faith and Order work may not result in a single document that receives the endorsement of all churches. But the spirit of the process by which participants interact with one another in this work manifests how respect and love can characterize a people with differing beliefs. The greatest contribution from this work may not be the paper documents, but the human documents who declare to us that our disagreements do not preclude our becoming a caring community.
Habits of Separation
A central text for many in Christian ecumenism is Jesus' prayer in John 17:20-21a: "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one.,,4 This text has inspired many Christians to seek union among their diverse fellowships as the fulfilment of Jesus' prayer. Some go further in believing that the prayer is -.I clarion call to make the whole world Christian.
But for me, a central Christian text for ecumenism is from Luke10:25-28: Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. 'Teacher," he said, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? What do you read there?" He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself," And he said to him, "You have given the right answer, do this, and you will live."
Christians are to love God and neighbor. I do not hear any exclusionary clauses in this admonition. The text does not say that I am only to love my Christian neighbor. Neither does it advocate only loving those who share my cultural heritage. in fact, earlier in Luke, Jesus indicates that this love ethic is not even restricted to our friendly neighbors. He says: "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you." (Luke 6:27-28) Whatever the goals of Christians involved in ecumenism, this ethic of love must be at the very heart of our ecumenical work.
This defines who we are as a people of faith. And it describes our work in the world and for the world. in this sense, ecumenism is not optional for Christians. Clearly, participation in particular structures of ecumenism remains a choice of Christian churches. But the ecumenical commitment to sustain faith and culture in becoming a caring community is a requirement for all Christians.
Still, ecumenism will be resisted by many Christians. A substantial number of Christians embrace a "remnant theology" that stresses the righteousness of a chosen few. They see interaction with others, who do not believe exactly as they do, as a polluting experience. Association with "lost" believers leads to contamination.
Most who fail to join the ecumenical commitment do so for non-theological reasons. Discussing just three of these reasons is revealing. First, some denominations do not feel that their tradition has the respect of those involved in ecumenical organizations. Their historical roots are not deep enough, their clergy are not sufficiently educated, their liturgy is not high enough, their bureaucracy is not complex enough, and the dollars they bring to fund ecumenical work just are not enough. These feelings of second-class partnership can even exist with denominations that are committed participants in ecumenical organizations. Representatives from these denominations often suspect that their voices are not heard by others as having the ecclesiastical authority of those more affluent and tenured in the ecumenical movement. The continual justification of their presence in the ecumenical partnership is emotionally and spiritually exhausting.
Second, ecumenism is a low priority for churches that are struggling to survive. These churches feel pressures of disintegration that put them in a state of crisis. They may be engaged in brutal struggles over the ordination of women, statements al:)out homosexuality, the restructuring of their denominations, or being involved in controversial social issues. The internal conflict, or panic over declining membership and decreasing finances, dominates their agenda and consumes their energy. In light of such pressing matters, ecumenism only merits a token amount of time and resources, if any at all.
And third, ecumenism's spirit of cooperation is a casualty of conflict and competitiveness. For example, recently I drove to a major church conference that was held in a local church. As I drove into the church's driveway, I saw that the parking lot was full and that cars were parked two and three deep on the church's lawn, A member of the church, who was directing the traffic, approached my car, surveyed the area, and then pointed to the far end of the property where I could double park. I then inquired about the possibility of parking in the empty parking lot of the church next door. After all, this was a Tuesday morning with little possibility of taking space they needed for parking. The church member then responded, "Oh no! We can't use their space. We've had some problems with them about cars and parking, so we just have to fit in here somewhere."
This was amazing to me. Two churches where the hymns, Sunday school lessons, and preaching were probably stressing love and reconciliation. Two churches where there was probably affirmation about the power of the Gospel to overcome differences. Two churches where both were probably dismayed and befuddled that nations get stuck in animosity and are unable to negotiate peace. Yet these two churches could not resolve their conflict over parking spaces! That Tuesday morning, with one church's parking lot completely empty and the cars from the other church's lot overflowing on the lawn, I saw a vivid testimony to their feeble spirit of cooperation.
Ecumenism's spirit of cooperation also suffers when churches fear that by working on projects with other churches, they may either lose members or have difficulty in gaining new members. Their potential partners may have dynamic worship or an array of Christian education programs that are attractive to their members; so they resist interaction. Membership competition prevails over cooperation. Churches will also compete to receive credit for community involvement. They view cooperative efforts with other congregations as obscuring the significance of their contributions.
H. Richard Niebuhr, in his classic book, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, decries how the formation and ongoing life of many denominations is determined more by social prejudices and institutional maintenance than by the tenets of their faith.
Niebuhr writes: The evil of denominationalism lies in the conditions which makes the rise of sects desirable and necessary: in the failure of the churches to transcend the social conditions which fashion them into caste-organizations, to sublimate their loyalties to standards and institutions only remotely relevant if not contrary to the Christian ideal, to resist the temptation of making their own self-preservation and extension the primary object of their endeavor.
The domination of class and self-preservative church ethics over the ethics of the gospel must be held responsible for much of the moral ineffectiveness of Christianity in the West. 5 The tendency to be motivated primarily by institutional maintenance concerns undermines ecumenism and betrays the Gospel.
Living the Lessons
Ecumenism must not despair over such examples of resistance. Its mission is too great to languish from being rejected by many. There is work to be done among the committed and the cynics. There are lessons to be learned and practised at the crossroads-lessons that will enable ecumenism to better prepare persons and groups to be active in establishing communities of care.
First among the lessons, we need to be reminded that our faith and cultural identities are the result of many diverse faith and cultural influences. The identities of faith and culture in which individuals take pride are ecumenical creations. As a member of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, I am the result of American Methodism, the Church of England, Roman Catholicism, and religious traditions that -,ire not recited as part of my heritage though they have influenced the beliefs and practices that have influenced me. Ecumenism is already part of us, and we are part of it. The question is: Will we honor our identity by seeking its fulfilment in the ecumenical movement?
A second lesson of ecumenism is to know that conflict is the context of our blessing as well as our frustrations. It causes us to rally our physical and spiritual powers. In the process we come to know ourselves, we come to know our sisters and brothers (who are with us and against us), and we come to know the sustaining power of God as never before. The ecumenical agenda requires a people who are not intimidated by conflict. It is a big world of neighbor—some allies, some enemies. Our love must not cower in the face of struggle, for "it's what we turn our backs on that finally comes and stares us down."6
Third ecumenism is the celebration of our particularities in community. Particularities of faith and particularities of culture must not be diminished or ignored. Particularity does not, in itself, contradict unity, but is the very element of unity. We must celebrate God's gifts of faith, race, and culture. For example, it insults a black person to hear that she or he is not seen as black, but only as a human being, Personally, this suggests to me that my blackness is not a significant factor to my being the human I am. This kind of good-intentioned comment fails to appreciate the suffering my ancestors and I have experienced because we are black. Absent is the meaning of my struggle to assert dignity and freedom when I am not seen as a black man. The joy I feel in the demise of racial oppression and the anxiety I feel when racism resurfaces are more likely to be known by you if you have not discarded my blackness. In wanting you to know me, and wanting you to take me seriously, I look for us to take our racial particularities seriously.
This respect for particularity also refers to religion, nationality, gender, and culture. How do you invite others to know your particularity? Do you try to make them defensive and estranged, or do you welcome them? And how do you honor the particularity that others bring before you?
Fourth, ecumenism's capacity\ to foster communities of care depends upon the practice of humility. Through humility we are who God intended us to be-no more and no less. And through humility we respect others as God intended for them to be respected. Humility makes us aware that caring community is not the consequence of our resources and efficiency. It is the outcome of our hospitality—a hospitality where we are host, inviting others to be in fellowship with us, and a hospitality where we are guest, accepting invitations to know and be known.
Although not a matter of choice for many persons, at times we have the opportunity to practice humility by being a minority. We can be in the minority by choosing to be among those who are not of our faith. race, or culture. In doing this, we discover how to be part of a process of forming caring community when we are not dominant or in control. Our sensitivities and skills for dialogue are enhanced. We are likely to realize how each of us speaks with a particular faith and cultural voice. Such a realization spurs us to speak and listen with ecumenical sensitivities. In faith matters we are challenged to profess our convictions without belittling our companions. it helps to acknowledge that although each of us has a truth to which we witness, none of us has captured the mind and meaning of. God. Carlyle Marney vividly images this insight in his statement: "All of our theological buckets leak."
And finally, the very learning of these lessons (the loss of a false sense of uniqueness, abandoning the sheltered existence that occurred in avoiding conflict, the realization of particularity, and the humility to see oneself as one is) leads to grief. Yes, these lessons enable us to experience the reconciling community. And yes, reconciliation is a joyous process and reality. But the transformations required of us are also painful. in such transformations, something precious is always lost. The loss may be our veneration of certain persons of our cultural experience, or the loss may be a theological conviction that secured and sustained us through the most difficult times of our lives. And even though the wisdom and revelation from our ecumenical experiences required such transformations, they are still losses and must be properly grieved. Whether the grief is that of others or our own, in honoring the feelings of loss we are more likely to claim the new vision and resources for moving into the future. To be ecumenical at the crossroads is to experience the grief of loss as well as the anticipation of the new which God is doing with us and through us.
Ready or Not
The mission and work of ecumenism involve all of us ... and now! I have not discussed ecumenism as the possession of religious councils. I do not believe that communities, congregations, and individuals are only able to participate in ecumenical mission after the religious councils have completed their work. I never believed in trickle down economics, so you might deduce that I am not a believer in trickle down ecumenism. No. God's call (a call which is always a privilege, opportunity, and responsibility) to work ecumenically to create communities of care is upon all of us. And the need for a full-hearted response is urgent. This urgency is expressed by William Sloan Coffin, Jr.: "It is not whether or not the churches could make a difference; it's whether or not they will. I hope the churches will lead. 'The world is now too dangerous for anything but truth, too small for anything but love."'
We face an urgency for ecumenism that is literally a matter of life or death in many areas of the world. Listen to the news and you know there are places in the world where cultural and religious differences ignite hostilities of terrorism, genocide, and oppression. Ecumenism is not just displays of polite fellowship, but is an essential commitment to establishing the kind of inhabited earth that enables life to be experienced as blessing, the kind of inhabited earth intended by God, the kind of inhabited earth that pleases God.
The crossroads at which we find ourselves is not only a place, but also a place in time. The Bible speaks of a day of reckonings time when the time to do more is no more. This, too, must be part of our awareness at the crossroads. The commitment to caring community must be taken quickly. The scriptures are not precise about such a time of reckoning. We are told to prepare, to be faithful, to be ready. A man once said to me, after asking me to check my watch for the time: "You know Smith, it's never been this late before." This is not cause for panic or frenzy, but for preparation, faithful living, and love. Something is coming to an end so that fulfilment pervades. Whether or not we are eager to experience it, or whether or not we are ready, God does come ... ready or not. I pray that we take this opportunity at the crossroads to go beyond seeking to be a community of contact, and choose to seek caring community-for ourselves, for our children, and most of all, for God.
Notes.
1. Jesus and the Disinherited (Nashville: Abingdon, 1949), p, 75.
2. See Mark Ellingsen's The Cutting Edge.- How Churches Speak on Social Issues (WCC and Eerdmans, 1993), Robert S. Bilheimer's Breakti.7rougb: Ybe Emergence of the menical Tradition (WCC and Eerdmans,1989), 'Thomas Wieser's (editor) Whitber Ecumenis-m? Dialogiie on the Transit Lounge of t]3e EcumenicalMor,eme@itWCC,1986), and Marc Reuver, Friedhelm Solms, and Gerrit Huizer (editors) 7be Ecumenical ,Vot.vme@it Tomorrow.- sz4ggestions for Approacbes ityid A lttrizatii!es (WCC and Kok, 1993). SLicii texts convey flow issues of culture are integral to the identity and agenda of ecumenism.
3. The primacy of caring relationship is evident in the Hebrew Scriptures where God expresses impatience with energy given to rituals of worship while the community remains broken. God says: I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (Amos 5:21-24, NRSV)
4. All scripture references in the text are from the New Revised Standard Version.
5. (Meridian: New York, 1957), p. 21.
6. A line from Mariel Kinsev's poem; cited in Carter Heyward's Staying Power.- Reflections on Gender, justice and Compassion (Pilgrim Press: Cleveland, 1995), p, 55.
Dr. Lutber E. Smitb, Jr. is presently
the Professor of Church & Community
at The Candler School of Theology at
Emory University, Atlanta, GA.)