It is common knowledge that the word ‘ecumenical’ comes from the Greek word oikoumene, which meant, ‘the whole inhabited earth.’ In fact, the word was used by the Roman Empire to denote the geographical extent of its rule, and in the context of its power and might it was able to declare the area it controlled as the ‘whole inhabited earth’; whatever that was not under its control did not exist!

The relationship between the word ‘ecumenical’ and ‘unity’ is also a Roman heritage. The emperors were keen to maintain the ‘unity’ of their territory and prevent any dissention or fragmentation, but the church, which wielded much influence among the people at that time, was the one that threatened the unity of the Empire. The Emperors feared that the doctrinal controversies within the church would lead to divisions and fragmentation. Therefore, they themselves organized the early ‘Ecumenical Councils’ and insisted that the Bishops of the oikoumene get their act together to maintain the unity of the church. Those who continued to rebel against the decisions of the Council were condemned as ‘heretics’ and were either executed or expelled from the Empire. The Ecumenical Council of Nicea, for instance, was convened by the Emperor Constantine; he gave the opening address and attended the whole meeting of the Council to ensure the outcome. The concern for ‘Christian Unity’ in the Modern Ecumenical Movement is part of this long heritage.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith, commenting on this reality, says that it is unfortunate that the word ‘ecumenical’ has “been appropriated lately to designate rather an internal development within the on-going church.” He argues that if the word ‘ecumenical’ is about the “whole inhabited earth,” it should indeed deal with the plurality of the world as such, including its religious plurality. Today many share his view that the word ecumenical should include the movement that seeks to bring together the religious traditions of the world so that they might foster the unity and well-being of the whole human family. In order not to rule out the Christian Ecumenism we have begun to speak of this larger search as ‘Wider Ecumenism.’ Some refer to the same concern by the use of the phrases like ‘New Ecumenism,’ ‘Mega Ecumenism,’ or the ‘Ecumenism of Religious Traditions.’ Whatever the phrase, the sense conveyed is that Christian Ecumenism needs to be re-thought and placed within the wider search for the unity of humankind.

A Promise or a Threat?

Some Christians experience this development as a threat, and resist the use of the word ‘ecumenical’ to referrer to the interfaith movement. The resistance arises from three distinctive concerns, and what I hope to do is to name them and to show that some of the fears expressed are not based on a fuller understanding of what is intended by the phrase ‘Wider Ecumenism.’

The first concern comes from those who fear that an emphasis on wider ecumenism would undercut, and eventually replace, the need for Christian ecumenism. They see Christian ecumenism already in need of new energy, renewal, and fresh impetus. To bring in the wider concern at this moment in history would water down the search for unity within the Christian tradition.

It is indeed true that Christian ecumenism is in need of fresh and innovative new beginnings. It is partly due to the lack of substantial progress in the search for Christian unity. The Faith and Order movement, which seeks to promote the unity of the church, has been in existence since the 1920s. It is indeed true that because of the ecumenical movement and the work of Faith and Order, churches have moved away from the enmities, deep rivalries, and mutual anathemas that characterized early periods of the church. There have also been many expressions of unity and collaboration and many united churches have emerged from the work of Faith and Order. However, after over seventy years, the major divisions of the church into large confessional families and the doctrinal divisions still persist. And in view of the many agreements that have not been followed up, some have begun to even doubt the sincerity of the search for unity within the church, seeing church divisions mainly as ‘cultural’ rather than ‘doctrinal.’

Yet, the search for Christian unity needs to be pursued in the interest of the church itself and the society it seeks to serve. In fact it is becoming increasingly clear that the other religious traditions like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism also need their own inner ecumenism to prevent the emergence of deep divisions that might lead to conflict. The concern for wider ecumenism, therefore, is not an alternative to the inner ecumenical dynamics within religious traditions. I see the two levels of ecumenical engagement as two concentric circles both having unity as the center and serving two overlapping constituencies. In other words, wider ecumenism does not replace Christian ecumenism but gives to Christian ecumenism a new and vibrant context. Many Christians are able to participate in ecumenism at both levels without feeling that loyalty to the one means betrayal of the other.

The second fear arises from the feeling that wider ecumenism is a tacit admission that “all religions are the same,” and that “it does not matter whether one is a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or a Muslim.” Many see in the call for wider ecumenism an implicit Universalism that makes no distinctions between religions. Similar concern is expressed by those who see such an ecumenism as leading to syncretism. This misunderstanding was also expressed when interfaith dialogue was introduced into the ecumenical movement as a way of relating to peoples of other religious traditions. Those concerned with dialogue had to argue that mutual respect, building of mutual relationships, and promoting an informed understanding of each other does not amount to uncritically accepting all religions as the same. Rather, dialogue and collaboration is needed precisely because religious traditions are alternate visions of reality and are distinct from one another. In dialogue, meeting of religions is seen as an “encounter of commitments,” and the goal of dialogue is expressed as the creation of a “community of communities.” Wider ecumenism is not a search for a universal religion; nor is it an attempt to undermine the specificity of religions. Rather it is an attempt to see unity in diversity, collaboration in the context of differences, and togetherness in a world that is torn apart by divisions and dissentions.

The third experience of threat comes from those concerned with the mission of the church. A classical notion of Christian Mission is based on dividing the world into those who are ‘saved’ and those who are ‘in need of salvation.’ Implied in this vision is the belief that other religious traditions are not adequate paths to salvation, and that all are in the need to hear the Gospel, and respond to the challenge to become part of the ‘saved’ community. Wider ecumenism is experienced as a threat to this missionary imperative.

If one were to hold such a vision of the world wider ecumenism would indeed be a threat to them. Happily most of the churches have gradually moved away from this understanding of mission. Within the ecumenical movement dissenting voices to this classical view already surfaced in the first World Missionary Conference in 1910 at Edinburgh, Scotland, and was reaffirmed at the second conference in Jerusalem in 1928. The discussions that began here led eventually to the concept of the “Mission of God” (Missio Dei) at the World Mission Conference in Mexico City in 1968.

This concept moved away from dividing the world into the ‘saved’ and the ‘unsaved’ with the need to drag peoples from one community into another for their salvation. Instead it affirmed that God was at work in the whole world and the church is only a servant in this mission of God. It further affirmed that God uses not only the church but also many other forces in the world to bring about what God intends for the world.

Today we also see mission primarily as healing the brokenness of the world, announcing God’s forgiving love for all irrespective of their labels, and standing in solidarity with those who are poor, oppressed, marginalized, and made vulnerable by the powerful economic and political forces of our day. Our affirmation that God creates all life, preserves it, and seeks to bring it to its fulfillment demands that we collaborate with God and with all who are seeking to build up the values of God’s Rule in a fragmented world. Wider ecumenism is part of this process.

An option or a necessity?

In fact, anyone who has a realistic assessment of the world we live in would see the urgency of a wider ecumenism of religious traditions. Historically religious traditions have contributed to the fragmentation of the world. Often their history with each other has been marked by rivalry, mutual exclusion, conflict and outright wars. Although the complexity of what is called ‘religion’ and the constant abuse of religious sentiment and fervor by political forces should sober our judgment, many feel that even today religions play a contributing role in violence and conflicts in the world. In any case, a number of religions do continue to make exclusive claims that, in effect, invalidate other ways of believing and being. It is in this context that Hans Kung proposed the thesis that “there can be no peace in the world until there is peace among religions,” and that “there can be no peace among religions until there is dialogue among them.”

Further, we are more and more aware that the problems we face in the world cannot be resolved by any one religious tradition. As Stanley Samartha says, most of the problems of the world are not “Christian problems needing Christian answers,” but human problems requiring the collaboration of many. We are also increasingly aware that in their diversity religious traditions have much to contribute to the enrichment of each other. More and more people are looking for a spirituality that is not sectarian but holistic, a spirituality that opens their hearts and minds to others rather than separate them from others.

In other words, we are longing for a world in which all religious communities would contribute to the well-being of all, a world where religions become not yet another force of fragmentation but a source of healing, a world were religions, in all their diversity, would work towards creating a human family that has at last learned to live in peace and harmony. This is the goal of wider ecumenism, and it is no longer an option but a necessity. And it is already in the making. The sooner we recognize the reality and work within it, the more relevant we would become in a multi-faith world, which, as Cantwell Smith has said, “Is the only world there is.”

Rev. Dr S. Wesley Ariarajah is Professor of Ecumenical Theology at Drew University School of Theology, Madison, N.J., USA.

Next article
Table of contents