A response to ‘One Christ—Many Witnesses: Vision of Mission and Unity,Edinburgh and Beyond’

This is a brief attempt to respond to some of the ideas Professor Dana Robert has put forward in her paper. In the first section where she has dealt with Edinburgh 1910, Robert has rightly captured the mood and ethos of the 1910 conference with the keyword ‘cooperation’, which is expressed in the ‘growing relationship between witness and unity’ of the period. However, her assertion that, ‘A collaborative vision of worldwide fellowship both motivated mission work and resulted from it’ and the highlighted quotation after that from the Edinburgh Conference 1910, Report of Commission VIII: Co-operation and the Promotion of Unity (see footnote 3), is a bit ambiguous and could lead to a lopsided interpretation. Let me explain further.

Firstly, the concept of the ‘collaborative vision of worldwide fellowship [that] both motivated mission work and resulted from it,’ by itself, is theoretically and theologically sound and correct. However, I would like to draw attention to the historical reality of the time in the ‘mission fields’ of the period where all these grand visions, actions and negotiations were played out. India is an illustrative example of this, which I believe will hold true for other contexts as well.

This leads me to ask the following questions:

Did the missionaries of that period undertake their missionary vocation with a collaborative vision of worldwide fellowship?

What were the implications for the then understanding of mission and evangelism as the winning of souls?

Secondly, the quotation taken from the Report of Commission VIII seems to suggest that the unity and cooperation that were sought was mainly between the ‘Church in the western lands’ and the ‘Church in the mission fields’, especially if one links it with Robert’s previous statement that ‘Cooperation as a fresh idea flowed from the experience of missionaries working together with first and second generation Christians’.

This raises further questions:

Were the cooperation and unity sought during the period mainly between the ‘Church in the western lands’ and the ‘Church in the mission fields’?

What about the problem of the great denominational divides and baggage that existed among the churches in the West and the missionaries which were detrimental to mission and resulted in the division of Christians in the mission fields who had nothing to do with the denominational and doctrinal divisions in the West? Was the vision for unity and the striving for cooperation also not meant to address this problem? The use of comity agreements certainly points towards this.

The limitations Robert points out in terms of denominational and doctrinal divides between Christians in the West and those in the mission fields, as well as those of the concept of the Kingdom of God because of its assumed colonial and western Christendom matrix, unfortunately still hold true today. The Church in the global South, grappling with denominationalism is essentially maintaining divisions begun in the global North and carried over by missionaries from these areas. Doctrines that have resulted in different denominations are rarely studied or even largely understood by a large section of members who increasingly accept the denomination they belong to more as an assertion of their socio-cultural identity than as a means of understanding Christ. In an us-versus-them scenario, there invariably comes a majority-minority divide which can result in subtle ways of discrimination, oppression and ridicule, making the ecumenical vision that much harder to realise.

One needs to be aware of similar yet subtle divides that have important implications for efforts towards witness and unity. One such area is the phenomenon and reality of global networking which also played a crucial role in the Edinburgh 2010 celebrations. Another is in the reality of the unequal relationship between churches of the global North and global South, with most economic resources in the hands of the churches in the global North.

Today while describing and reflecting on our ‘Common Witness’, the term ‘networking’ is mainly used to encapsulate the importance and significance of its relational aspects and dimensions. Robert rightly points out that the vision of ‘Common Witness gained momentum through the 2010 process, as a series of networked global conversations’.

Robert further reminds us how technology was a force multiplier during the Edinburgh 2010 celebrations such that people who were not physically present could still participate in the events and the conversations, and read and download various statements and documents from the internet, adding to the richness and variety of contributions from across the globe.

However, one must not forget the challenges posed by the digital divide. One cannot assume that everyone or all believers in different parts of the world can participate in this global networking towards a Common Witness in an equal manner. Such a divide then implies a situation where those who are privileged with access to good communication technologies lead the conversations, leaving out those who do not have any access to what is being discussed and reflected upon. If the means of conversations or networking is not accessible to all, then there really cannot be genuine and authentic global networking where the whole global or world church participates.

Robert’s reminder that the ‘Common Call’ resulting from Edinburgh 2010 to ‘recognise our need for mutuality, partnership, collaboration and networking in mission, so that the world might believe’, is a challenging one that compels us to examine the true nature of the mutuality, partnership and networking that has been achieved so far. While it is true that World Christianity today assumes multiculturalism, decentralisation and multi-directional personal relationships and the ecclesial landscape that we live in is characterised by the demographic shift of Christianity from the North to the South, what does all this mean when the resources are still concentrated in the North?

The power of testimony, as has been pointed out in the paper, has increased in importance especially since in an era of increased globalisation, urbanisation and modernisation, Christians are beginning to feel the need to proclaim and claim their Christian identity. Perhaps this could, on a certain level, be considered a positive attitude or outcome. After all, a public proclamation of one’s Christian identity encourages a person or even a community to reach out to others irrespective of denominational differences. However, sadly this feels idealistic especially when on the ground the reality of feuding denominations and churches paints a picture of a worldwide Church struggling to understand what real unity is.

What is the power of our testimony and what do we do to testify, when there is still a divide between Christians on certain issues all in the name of what they believe to be Christian-like and scriptural, labelling the other as un-Christian and unscriptural? When the Church is torn apart with differing claims of identities in Christ it hinders the growth of a shared experiential framework among all believers for unity in Christ. Can we respect the personal testimony to reveal the inculturated Jesus Christ, as the one Lord and Saviour of all?

In such a scenario of different inequalities, where ground realities are all too often not reflected in various statements and resolutions from conferences around the world and at various times, Robert suggests that the ‘Common Call’ will only be effective if we move beyond words to acts of solidarity that will transcend denominational and doctrinal divides. It is only then that the true potential of global networking can be realised because it is only then that all Christians can act and witness together to the one Christ.

The Emmaus Road experience that Robert uses as a signpost to a future multiplicity of witnesses to the one Christ holds valuable lessons for a Church struggling to act in solidarity, struggling to find a balance denominationally, doctrinally, resource-wise and indeed in all aspects that influence inter-cultural and inter-denominational relationships. Allow me to add my observations to those of Robert.

The Emmaus Road experience involves not just the walk, but also table fellowship. This is the second part of the experience and is inseparable from the journey so far. In many ways it is a logical conclusion to what has been happening – both the recounting of recent events by the disciples and Jesus’ exposition of the scriptures concerning himself. Any vision for mission and unity must find expression in concrete terms, and the table fellowship and hospitality shown by the disciples serve as a strong reminder and an example of how we can show our solidarity with fellow Christians around the world. In a world increasingly fragmented on the basis of religion, gender, class and race, indeed in a worldwide church deeply entrenched in denominationalism, the Emmaus Road experience calls on us to reach out to all people regardless of who they are and to break down the barriers we ourselves create.

It is true that our common witness must involve forming relationships as ‘we walk together’ across cultural, linguistic and ethnic boundaries voluntarily, without the threat of disapproval and with the assurance of being respected and appreciated.

If we reflect further on the Emmaus Road event, we see Jesus patiently listening to the stories that the two disciples were narrating with a heavy heart. He did not reveal himself to them and declare himself but took time to hear them, journeying with them as they tried to understand and reflect on the meaning of what had happened in Jerusalem. Jesus’ respect for them was evident here. He responded to the agenda of the inquirers, their struggles and uncertainty, rather than dictate the terms. He waited for them to discover for themselves who he was. On the other hand, the followers’ acts of hospitality and friendship that they extended to the stranger also led to their experience of the resurrected Christ. The failure to listen with respect always stifles genuine conversation and learning.

The Emmaus Road experience echoes the hospitality Abraham shows to the three strangers in Genesis 18: 1-16. We must remember that in biblical times, not only was it unsafe to travel, but travellers themselves were often looked upon with suspicion – it was important to know their intentions, where they were from and where they were going. Robbers would often disguise themselves as travellers to prey on unsuspecting victims.

Difficult as it may sound, Abraham’s actions serve as a role model for us today. His hospitality and table fellowship were not exclusive, limited to friends and acquaintances, but embraced even strangers. I do not advocate throwing open our homes or churches in a way that would put us at risk or in harm’s way. Instead, can Abraham’s attitude help us look beyond our comfortable circle of friends to reach out to those outside our comfort zones to better understand our oneness in Christ? Could we deliberately become vulnerable to get to know the other better? And if we can, how best can this be done?

May we continue to be challenged to transgress again and again the barriers and frontiers we have set up or defined for ourselves so that our unity in Christ will affirm and celebrate our diversity.