We need an ecumenical response to Covid-19

If anything, the Covid-19 crisis has pointed to us a change in the usual patterns that we are used to. Restricted and cancelled religious services, lock downs, social distancing, empty streets, isolation and quarantines have brought us to a strange feeling. There is a heightened anxiety among people and rightly so. We find a breakdown of the usual, of traditions as old as we can remember and beyond, and of not being able to go to church as usual. Everyone has taken the work from home option seriously and churches aren’t far away.

Political parties are trying their best to stand together but can’t help criticizing each other as well. Perhaps this is to maintain a political relevance. One has to say something different whether there is a need or whether it is right or wrong. Otherwise there is a fear that one political dispensation may run off with the laurels. It is another thing that we are no where close to even saying whether we can successfully deal with the crisis. Even if one political party is ideologically opposed to another, they still believe that the crisis will be averted by the other. So even though their arguments challenge the various governments, they also show an underlying trust in them. The point is that a virus and a crisis cannot be averted by a few people but only by many coming together. It would be nice to see the political parties in India coming together and standing closely for the period of this crisis.

The same applies to Christian denominations. The example of politicians is important because there seems to be a high level of politicisation of churches and denominations. There is a politics in everything. Unfortunately, one wonders whether that is being expressed in the spiritual response to Covid-19! Live streaming of services, letters from bishops, priests leading prayers, are all from within denominations to their ‘own’ people. Even as a pandemic, challenges the entire world population, services and ministry are being offered based on caste, race, region and denomination. Repentance and the kingdom of God are still not being talked of with force and rather church buildings, clergy attire, liturgical uniqueness, language and denominational faith, and not faith in Christ Jesus is taking prominence.

Priests can’t hold a service properly because people can’t congregate. They have no control of anything and yet they try to live stream denominational worships and nothing beyond that. Covid-19 has hit at the root of worship and yet denominations can’t come together to chart out an ecumenical expression and response. We would instead like to leave that to ecumenical bodies and continue our spirited denominational services!

 A pandemic cannot be handled alone. A single country cannot control it because we are connected to other countries in several ways. It is not about us and them but about all of us. A country cannot depend on a single political party and government to fight this virus. The limitations are visible for everyone to see. Similarly, one denomination cannot pray and hope for the wiping out of the virus. We must pray together, and our worship places, crosses, priests, pastors, lay leaders and people must be available to one another. It is a time to work ecumenically and preach the Christ that we all know and have experienced, in various ways, to all who want peace and strength. The virus is leading us through unknown routes. Our spiritual response should also chart different routes, and yet have an affirmation as one people of God.

The concept of a physical church building has already been challenged by the Covid-19 virus. So much that many church leaders are openly telling people to congregate at home and even pray individually. But somehow the attachment to the physical church and denomination continues just like political parties who want every bit of work that they do to translate as votes later. Similarly, the live streaming of denominational services also looks like calling for a certain denominational faithfulness and not a Christ centered approach.

This certainly has to change to the point that the churches everywhere must have a more universal approach to what they are doing. This must make them available to people beyond their geographical area and denomination. We can have our arguments and assertions later, to well beyond the wiping out of the virus completely. For now, we don’t even know how soon we can afford to have a normal and peaceful church service, like we used to. I hope priests and pastors from all churches and denominations will accept this call to minister to a wider public and people, beyond denomination and even religion. Perhaps we can also come together as priests and pastors of various denominations and pray to God, for a blessed intervention. Such unity from below may indeed bring about a great and worthy response from God. Ordinary people are looking for hope and peace and not just at the colour of our cassock and the style of our prayer.

(Picture from www.pcecumenism.ca)

Something about Mary: The sermon

Luke 1:26-38
26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”[a] 29 But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”[b] 35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[c] will be holy; he will be called Son of God. 36 And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.


Ecumenism has not died dear friends. Today’s worship is an effort to say that ecumenism still lives and we need it more than ever before. Misunderstanding of cultures, beliefs and systems are not inter-religious problems but inter-denominational, ecumenical problems. We need to sort out issues between ourselves inside the church before commenting on other aspects of religion and society.

So what is a Syrian Orthodox priest doing in UTC? Can the CSI and CNI come to a common understanding with the Pentecostal, Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist and Presbyterian churches? Is there something more than Jesus that we can look up to for a common ground? This Sunday, these are some questions we can try to answer.


Luke 1:26-38 explains the announcement of angel Gabriel to Mary that she is going to give birth to Jesus. Mary is quite astounded and taken aback by the announcement but Gabriel reassures her. The skit that we saw took a different look at the passage and shows how Mary fears domestication as that which cannot fulfill what Gabriel announces to her. Mary’s status of a virgin is also her curse and she tries to make sense of what is happening.

“Something about Mary” is an effort to make sense of Gabriel’s announcement to Mary and how she responds to it. It is also an effort to see how Mother Mary offers a chance for unity between churches which can in turn keep the ecumenical flame burning.

Some of the traditional ways of looking at the passage is to point out the obedience of Mary, her virginity and thereby holiness and her special place in the church. While the churches belonging to the Orthodox and Catholic families have given St. Mary the status of ‘Theotokos’, the mother of God, others have questioned her virginity and her status as mother of God and also her status as someone who has to be venerated.

Our present struggles involve looking at other religions and our acceptance of them. My concern is to look within Christianity and identify common grounding through inspired reading of the Bible. Our readings are inspired and led by the Holy Spirit and one should not doubt that.

The read passage offers us hope that there is something about Mary that could bring us together. It’s not just the procession or the chanting but the inspiration of Mary’s self that offers us life in its fullness.

1. Jo dhar ghaya samjo mar gaya- This is a dialogue in the iconic Hindi movie “Sholay” in which Amjad Khan playing Gabbar Singh delivers the eternally famous dialogue to his accomplices after shooting three of them. It just means that those who get scared or have fear in them will die then and there. Mary is scared of all that could happen by this visit of Gabriel. She is perplexed. One cannot blame her. She must have thought of the stories of spirits visiting people and what came about from these visits. She must have also thought of what was this character Gabriel hanging around for and trying to do by calling her the ‘favoured one’?

What was indeed going to happen? Was her freedom going to end? Would she be cornered into submission? The relationship between churches also borders around fear. Will I become less holy or pure if I mingle with other churches, will my people flock to other churches if I appear cozy with them, are others and their practises non-Christian and non-spiritual? Fear plays an important spoiler in ecumenical relations. Mary was also bordering around fear. The fear of losing familiar ground must have weighed heavily on her mind. Gabriel was telling things strange and unheard of. Would Mary be a victim to non-religious things? Mary being a Jew was doing something sacrilegious. She did what no other person would have the courage to do. She was becoming anti-religious from within the religion she stood in and anti-societal inside the society she was part of. She was scared but she overcame fear.

Mary’s reaction which overcomes the understanding “Jo dhar gaya, samjo mar gaya” not only defeats death for her but ensures life and salvation for all people as well. Mother Mary then becomes the symbolism of life by overcoming fear and death. She becomes the bearer of the son of God not by submission but by overcoming fear. This is a good model to follow for ecumenism as well. We don’t just submit to each other but we overcome the fear of one another and favour life through the birth of Christ in each of us.

2. Aathi kya Khandala? Virginity is not conformity.
Luke 1: 26-38 is misunderstood in several respects and Mother Mary is made out into a subservient, submissive, conformist by many. Elizabeth Johnson in her book “Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints” makes the observation that several women writers have said that Mary has let down women by being a conformist and allowing Christian writers to make her the correct woman figure over and against Eve, because Mary reflects obedience over Eve’s disobedience. But this is far from the truth. Mary, as pointed out in the skit is not submissive but instead tries to prevent Gabriel from having his say. The biblical writer must have written it in a way to suggest that Mary is showcasing and questioning domestication and using virginity as an anti thesis to submission. It is not submission but questioning. It is not the oppression of women but the expression of women.

The 1998 Hindi movie “Ghulam” starring Aamir Khan and Rani Mukherjee was a runaway hit and had a very popular song “Aathi kya Khandala”. Khandala is a hill station and a place which is popular among the youth. The song has a young man telling the girl that they will go to Khandala and have fun.
Aey, Kya Bolti Tu
Aey, Kya Mein Bolun
Sun, Suna,
Aati Kya Khandala
Kya,Karoon, Aake Mein Khandala,
Arey Ghoomenge Phirenge Nachenge Gaaenge
Aish Karenge Aur Kya
Aey, Kya Bolti Tu
Aey, Kya Mein Bolun
But just because a girl goes there does not mean that she is morally worse than the boy who accompanied her. This pick up line “Aathi kya Khandala” was used and is still used by eve teasers and molestors on the road. An sms which went around much after the release of the movie was about a girl who had covered her face while entering the bus. An elderly man asks her “Aathi kya Khandala?” She replies “Papa, ye mein hoo” meaning father this is me your daughter.
Angel Gabriel is of course not asking Mary to go to Khandala with him. But Mary must have been petrified of having someone like him next to her, suggesting she is going to give birth to a child. Her reply that she is a virgin or that she is domesticated should be seen in two ways. One is to suggest that the angel should leave her alone and that she has nothing to do with men but is rather independent. Two is to suggest that how can a domesticated woman like her give birth to the son of the most high when she is domesticated by a patriarchal, male centric society? How can such good come out of her when she is part of the corrupt structure?

The church sees both in bits and pieces- Mary’s independence more than her virginity was at one point of time looked at as independence from the system. So the church identified with such independence. Many women in academic discourse call Mary as a domesticated saint. This means that she has been accepted, elevated and used by a patriarchal church leadership and this essentially means that she is of no use to women. But on the other hand Mary is also questioning domestication and the skewed connotation of virginity. Mary refuses to get into the patriarchal “Aathi kya Khandala” enquiry and instead deals with the angel, writer and the church on her own terms. Joseph’s role even though small is very significant. He acts as the perfect decoy in the story, making people look at him and in the process Mary gets her space and freedom.

Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox churches need not write off Mother Mary as a domesticated saint. The church may have domesticated Mary to an extent but Mary has not allowed herself to be domesticated. Taking Mariology seriously can bring churches closer to tackle the problems posed by patriarchy and kierarchy, which is power centred. Having various church festivals in an ecumenical setting helps us to realize that we are not domesticated virgins but rather children of God, inspired by the life of saints like Mother Mary.

In my church the eight day lent from Sep 1-8 is commemorated to celebrate the nativity of St. Mary. But this is not an official church lent. Yet hundreds of thousands of people, especially women observe this lent and identify with Mother Mary and intercede to her. They talk, cry, spent time with and completely immerse themselves with Mother Mary. This is not church induced but people induced. Understanding such traditions and observances gives a much needed fillip and energy for sagging ecumenical relations between churches.

3. Mere Paas Maa hai- The MOM mission
The assurance of angel Gabriel to Mary is that she will be filled with the Holy Spirit and bear a child who will be holy. It also suggests that the child bearer will be holy. In the 1975 Hindi movie Deewar, the character Vijay played by Amitabh Bachan tells his brother Ravi played by Shashi Kapoor, “Aaj mere paas paisa hai, bangla hai, gaadi hai, naukar hai, bank balance hai. Aur tumhare paas kya hai?” His brother replies “Mere paas Maa hai.” To the statement that one brother has money, a house, a car, a domestic help and a bank balance the other says that he has his mother with him!

The importance of a mother is well said and it reflects popular culture as well. The church believes that Mother Mary has the freedom and the proximity to intercede to her son Jesus. This is the special freedom of a mother. Ecumenical relations between churches are partly suffering because of an Americanised, homogenized, media style spirituality which leaves no space for the expression of local culture in our prayer and relationship with God. The neglect of the East and its spirituality is a cause of concern and a thorn in the flesh of ecumenical understanding between churches.
A New York Times cartoon reflects this refusal to accept India’s growth.


The Mangalyan Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM) has been hailed as a success for a country like India. It has been cost effective and speedy and has used local elements in its research and design. Yet the cartoon shows a person with a cow knocking at the door of the Elite Space Club. It also reflects this coat and tie spirituality from the U.S., exported and marketed by a section of people there. This uni-directional, anti-culture spirituality which is against local cultures and traditions poses a grave danger to Christian traditions in India and their relationship with each other.

The Mary Orbiter Mission can give us the opportunity to taste success in relationships between churches. This is a mutually respecting, learning and growing experience which has to be encouraged more in our context. To sum up, we must overcome fear, be non-conformists to wrong approaches and try to widen our belief system so that our prayers and spirituality become more effective. UTC becomes an apt space for us. It is a place to love, embrace and learn from each other. It is a vibrant ground of acceptance and respect. May God through the intercession of Mother Mary give us the opportunity to be good and better followers of Christ. Amen.



(Excerpts from a sermon preached in UTC for the Sunday evening worship on October 5, 2014.)
Picture credits: Calvin Sushit Ambler, Sr. Shruti,indiatimes.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

An Ecumenical view on Churches view of Eucharist: A critical discussion .

Introduction
This paper is an attempt at looking at the Eucharist, its meaning and relevance for the church today. How relevant is the Eucharist when seen from the view of various churches? Is the Eucharist which is supposed to unite Christians also the divisive element among churches and people? What then is the future of the Eucharist in the context of the changing needs of the church in India? How should churches change in their view of the Eucharist and what changes should be made in the Eucharist so that both churches and the Eucharist complement each other?

Definition
“The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received.”1 Furthermore “The Sacrament of Communion is a Holy Sacrament by which the believer eats the Holy Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, presented by the Bread and Wine. This Sacrament has the greatest importance among the Seven Church Sacraments. It is sometimes called the ‘Mystery of Mysteries’ or the ‘Crown of Sacraments’; for all the Sacraments are crowned by the Eucharist.”2

How the Eucharist is interpreted
Eucharist is the Lord’s table or the coming together of people around the Lord’s table commemorating the event of the sharing of bread and wine by Jesus Christ with his disciples. The event is also given importance because it is about the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The commemoration present in the verse “Do this in remembrance of me” suggests that we have to come together and partake of the elements (the body and blood) to be one in Christ. In the early church there was an understanding that “Thus the bread and wine in the celebration actually united the participant to Christ and to all true Christians. In this way, the eucharist not only symbolized but actually effected the unity of Christians in Christ. Participation in the eucharist, therefore, was the appropriate ritual of adherence to the unity of the church. Those who refused to accept the behavioral obligations which accompanied eucharistic fellowship were outside the church and would be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.”3

Eucharist also suggests a faith proclamation or expression whereby the church declares what it believes and how it believes. The dogma or teaching of the church is expressed clearly and the eucharist forms a clear form of this expression. In this sense the eucharist is a clarity of where one stands (which side of the fence) and what one is prepared to do. The eucharist has become limiting because it is now institutionalized in and therefore only available within gated communities or denominations. What was earlier available in open, free spaces (as in the feeding of the four thousand and five thousand) is now available in limited spaces which are not fit for such eucharist events. Philip Sheldrake explains this phenomenon and says “The trouble is that some versions of a theology of spirituality of the Eucharist concentrate on building up the community of the Church in and for itself. In this case the Eucharist ends up as the celebration of the spiritual equivalent of the well secured “gated communities”…”4 He further says “To live eucharistically beyond the church doors commits us to cross the boundaries of fear and prejudice in an embrace of strangers in the public square in whom we are challenged to recognize the Real Presence of God.”5 In a positive way Eucharist is also a celebration or coming together whereby the people who belong to a particular group or community commune together to celebrate the oneness they possess and the one they believe in. This is a celebration of their history, tradition, story, and growth.

Eucharist is a food for the way whereby church members are given strength to do good and profess their mission statement to the world. The eucharist becomes a great opportunity whereby the people are called forth to do this good by being part of a community of faith. “Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day. He who eats this Bread will live forever”6 As food develops the body and keeps it healthy, so too the spiritual food, which is the Holy Body and Blood of Christ, strengthens the soul so that it may grow continually in grace. “It provides remedy to the soul, body and spirit, as we say in the Offertory Mystery: “That they (Holy Body and Precious Blood) may become to us all for participation and healing and salvation for our souls, bodies and our spirits”.7

Eucharist is a memory. Memory can be selective but it is still memory. It is a memory of what has happened. This memory is kept alive so that no one forgets what happened and how we are linked to that. It is a memory that Jesus Christ lived, died and resurrected for us. This has been initiated into our collective memory and the eucharist keeps this memory fresh and alive by making us repeat what we have learnt as children. It is also a memory of the sacrifice through protest of Christ and the similar protests that are present in our own society. The Eucharist becomes a time when we then link the past, present and future through this memory.8

The eucharist is also associated with food and with the great commission of sharing food. Limited means are not the problem but the mind to share what we have makes the eucharist a beautiful act which teaches us that poverty and hunger are human made and not natural. It also teaches us that Christians are called to do away with poverty and hunger and not accentuate it and increase it. Those of us who think that poverty and hunger are not the concern of the church have got the commitment and call of the church totally wrong. One has to therefore know that the act of the eucharist strengthens us to do good and this meal for the way keeps us in the path of goodness. It gives us the promise of eternal life : It provides growth in the Spirit and spiritual perfection and life in Jesus Christ, for He said: “For My Flesh is food indeed and My Blood is drink indeed .... As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me”.9 Jesus was quite explicit with this attitude to share. “When people do come together for a meal, it’s not just to nourish their bodies but to enjoy each other’s company, to build up their relationships, to share what’s been happening in their lives. Food gives life, so the sharing of food is the sharing of life. Jesus invites us to share in his divine life when we accept the sacred food he provides for us. Jesus ate meals with people of all levels of society though he showed a preference for eating with the lowest classes. Not only was this most unusual it was breaking one of the strict taboos of Jewish culture.”10 Monika Hellwig says that “The simple, central action of the Eucharist is the sharing of food- not only eating but sharing.”11

Church and churches in India
The church is a gathering of people who belong to a subscribed faith proclamation. The gathering will be a part of what the group stands for and is a visible union of people. The church also suggests that there is but one church and therefore divisions are not part of this. It also means that there is an attempt to make the church as part of a visible union and all people are brought under this union with or without their permission. The usage of church also suggests that there is a union of different people and communities who are in different places and under different cultures. The usage then could be misleading and will cause a misunderstanding as to what the church actually means. It could also be that several denominations will use it very loosely but actually only mean the existence of their own denominational church.

Churches on the other hand suggest and explicitly state that there are not one but several churches. This could also mean that every church has truth present but will also have things which may not be accepted by other churches. This means that there are several representations of one truth. Just like we try to get an inter-religious understanding of life, we then try to get an inter-denomination, ecumenical view of life. It is also argued whether the churches come under the church.12

Churches in India are divided into the mainline, traditional, ritualistic, free, protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, Pentecostal, free and various other groupings.13 Some accept others unconditionally, conditionally and in and for certain things. In many cases a total coming together and working with each other happens in the time of some sort of persecution from other religions or from the government in the form of any legislation or special measure being followed. Each church then has its own set of beliefs, traditions, liturgy and Eucharistic model. Each church has its own understanding of the nature of the bread and wine during the eucharist and its transformation and the extent of the transformation. Every church also then has the case of acceptance in which some condition is put forth to be a part of the eucharist undertaking whereby the body and blood of Christ is given and shared on the completion of a particular clause. The belief in the nature of the bread and wine and its transformation into the body and blood of Christ itself forms a basis of division instead of unity between churches. This division is played out very strongly in the case of different churches where this becomes a very emotive and strong case of how people understand the very concept of unity.

Churches are also divided on the lines of caste and colour whereby this becomes a basis for exclusive churches which then do not accept people who they feel do not fulfill certain conditions for membership and communion during eucharist. The concept of church brings everyone under one umbrella but the challenge is that it is a concept which is hollow and not true. Unless everyone is brought under the one umbrella, it cannot be one church. The other way of looking at it would be to say that everyone is different in their own way and the struggle is to bring about unity in this diversity. Church, ecclesia and communion becomes a way of understanding the possibilities offered by the church/churches but it also brings out challenges which ask for a critical view of the church as well. This is the case in India as well where there are so many different churches. Each church is unique in its own way and people of one church do not necessarily have much idea of people of other churches and their eucharist service. This short coming many a time prevents any actual ground unity.

Challenges facing the church and possibilities for the future
Can the eucharist lead to unity rather than being a divisive element? Should we thus broaden the very horizon of the eucharist as an official act in the church or should it be seen as much more expansive and elaborate? Has the eucharist from being an act to instil the habit of sharing in people become an act which is a part of institutionalized religion? This is now further and farther from sharing and does not truly and fully make people understand the concept of sharing as part of Christian witness.

As part of the commission of Jesus to his disciples to do this in remembrance of him, the passage in the bible is referred to as the last supper. One critical part of this was the feet washing which Jesus performed. In it he tells Peter that unless Peter allows him to do this, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. This then suggests that feet washing becomes the epitome of humbling oneself and therefore without this humbling and humility one cannot hope to be a part of the true Eucharist experience. Even when we do feet washing it is limited to men and to certain men only. The true spirit of the feet washing goes much beyond this and is suggestive of washing the feet of a representation of people belonging to all genders, communities, regions, and caste.

Eucharist today also has some problems with the concept of purity and untouchability. Purity and untouchability form the basis of caste and race divisions. Anyone who comes to the Lord’s table should be given the body and blood. It is not our decision and prerogative as to who should be given and who should not. We are not supposed to decide the fashion of distribution too. The problem of purity existed in the early church as well. “When Christian rituals of baptism and eucharist were performed outside and in opposition to the unity of the church, however, they not only failed to sanctify but polluted their participants in the same way as the idolatrous ceremonies of Roman polytheism.”14

Different denominations are comfortable within their own comfortable spaces and do not want to risk any sort of problem by thinking outside the box. This forms a problem as it only brings about name sake ecumenism without really taking any risks as far as property, churches and wealth is concerned. The challenge of full unity and the fear of failure prevents small attempts at church unity. “Sykes suggests that Christianity is an 'essentially contested concept' and that what Christian unity amounts to is 'contained diversity'. He characterises Christian identity in dynamic terms: 'Christian identity is … not a state but a process; a process, moreover, which entails the restlessness of a dialectic, impelled by criticism. ' For Sykes, it is imperative that the community in which this process is worked out is a community held in unity by common worship.”15 On the other hand “for Chretian Duquoc, the churches are 'provisional societies', whose provisionality consists in 'the condition of innovation, of continual creation, of presence in changing situations'. He finds that it is 'in the positive acceptance of plurality that the churches, by their capacity for communion, bear witness to the ultimate.”16

Eucharist does bring about the possibility of commonness and unity among churches when common causes are taken seriously. “One of the major concerns of the early Church was for the Eucharist to be a sign of unity, especially when persecution threatened to divide the assembly. Eating from the same loaf, drinking from the same cup, gathered around the same table – these were symbols of a united people. This sense of belonging is still very important today.”17 Communities have to work together for this. “The liturgy is an act of the community. This is even indicated in the etymology of the term "liturgy" - leitourgia - service of the people. It is not a clerical solo performance but a concert of the whole Christian community, in which certain of its members play a special part, in accordance with their different charisms and mandates.”18

Eucharist also shows Jesus breaking himself and showing his brokenness for the sake of people. Unless we break bread we are not the true followers of Jesus. Breaking bread and ourselves is possible when we stand for the right causes. This can be done through liberative ecumenism. Such ecumenism looks at various challenges like caste, gender and ecological violence that face us today. We then come together in a unified expression against such violence.19

Conclusion
One can look at the future from the perspective of what can be done. Stanley Harakas suggests “that the main aim of ecumenism should be to bring about unity and not anything else. It does not involve human knowledge, ground realities but the unity which exists in God.”20 He suggests a moving beyond a dogmatic rigid model for ecumenism through the Eucharist. Gideon Goose on the other hand suggests using emancipatory theory for disassembling structures of dominance, dependence and inequality.21 Erin Michelle Brigham uses the communicative action theory of Jurgen Habermas to suggest how change can be brought about. “Habermas suggests that communicative rationality avoids the pitfalls of relativism and positivism, providing a helpful framework for addressing our post-metaphysical age. On one hand, the framework of communicative rationality acknowledges that truth is historically located and open to critique. On the other hand, it affirms the rational character of knowledge, opening the possibility for reaching a shared truth through inter-subjective understanding.”22 The concept of a people’s Eucharist may also suggest a future course of action. This may come about by a movement from below which has the blessings of the church hierarchy as well.23

1. http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha1a.htm

2. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/4_eucharist.html

3. J. Patout Burns Jr., Cyprian the Bishop, Routledge: London, 2002, p. 172.

4. Philip F. Sheldrake, Explorations in Spirituality. History, Theology and Social Practice, Paulist Press: New Jersey, 2010, p. 176.

5. Ibid.

6. John 6: 54, 58.

7. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/4_eucharist.html

8. Margaret Scott, The Eucharist and Social Justice, Paulist Press: New Jersey, 2009, p. 76.

9. John 6:55,57

10. http://theeucharist.wordpress.com/index/chapter-11-eucharist-as-nourishment/

11. Monika K. Hellwig, The Eucharist and the Hunger of the World, Sheed and Ward: Lanham, 1992, p. 2.

12. G.R. Evans, The Church and The Churches, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1994, p. 29.

13. M. Thomas Thankaraj, Indian Christian Tradition in Religions of South Asia, An Introduction, Sushil Mittal and Gene Thursby (eds), Routledge: New York, 2006, p. 195.

14. J. Patout Burns Jr., Cyprian the Bishop, Routledge: London, 2002, p. 132.

15. Nicholas Sagosvy, Ecumenism, Christian Origins, and the Practice of Communion, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2000, p. 201.

16. Ibid., p. 202.

17. http://theeucharist.wordpress.com/index/chapter-1/

18. http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/unity-mission-evangelism-and-spirituality/spirituality-and-worship/the-eucharistic-liturgy-of-lima

19. Martin L. Daneel, Liberative Ecumenism at the African Grassroots, in Fullness of Life for All: Challenges for Mission in Early 21st Century, Inus Daneel, Charles Van Engen and Hendrik Vroom (eds), Rodopi: Amsterdam, 2003, pp. 324, 325.

20. Stanley Harakas, What Orthodox Christian Ethics Can Offer Ecumenism, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Volume: 45. Issue: 3, 2010, p. 376.

21. Gideon Goose, Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue Seen through an Emancipatory Theory, Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Volume: 42. Issue: 2, Spring 2007, p.280.

22. Erin Michelle Brigham, Communicative Action as an Approach to Ecumenical Dialogue, The Ecumenical Review. Volume: 60. Issue: 3, July 2008, p. 288.

23. A point in case is how the NCCI meeting in April, 2012 experimented with an unconventional method of the Eucharist which resulted in everyone partaking of it.



(This paper was presented in the Ecumenical Christian Centre (ECC), Whitefield, Bangalore to a group of theological students on 15-5-2013)

Picture courtesy http://resurrectionde.org/new/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/PrayBelieveLivetheEucharist-001.jpg