Was Gregory of Nyssa a Heretic?

Recently I happened to read the work of someone who thinks that Gregory of Nyssa was a heretic. Also he blames Paulos Mar Gregorios for choosing Gregory of Nyssa rather than Mor Ephrem for his doctoral studies. Obviously this person is knowledgeable about the ancient Christian traditions and about the church fathers.  However, in spite of all my admiration for this scholarly person, I have to disagree with him when he goes to the extreme of labeling Gregory of Nyssa a heretic.  Let me briefly explain why I have to disagree with him. I prefer to keep him anonymous, for I am not sure if he would like me mention his name.

Both Gregory of Nyssa and Mor Ephrem lived in the fourth century. Mor Gregory was in Nyssa (Cappadocia), and Mor Ephrem was in Edessa. Both of them contributed immensely to shape the views and ways of Christianity, and both are honored by the church in the east and west as saints and fathers. Gregory used Greek, and Ephrem used Syriac, but we use none of those languages in our day-to-day life today. The shift of languages marks a shift of culture and world-view. Just because we accept someone from the ancient time as a father of the church, we are not supposed to blindly follow his thought and teachings disregarding the cultural context. Instead of adopting someone’s thought, we are supposed to adapt it to suit our own time, place, and context. Something that was good in the fourth century may not be good in this twenty-first century, and something that was good in ancient Turkey may not be good in the modern India. 

We can learn valuable lessons from all the fathers of the various ancient Christian traditions – Greek, Syriac, and Latin. We need to find out how they responded to the challenges of life in their times so that we may follow their example when we face the challenges of life today. We must have the freedom to use our common sense when we adapt their views. Paulos Mar Gregorios chose the thought of Gregory of Nyssa for his doctoral studies. Because of what he did, we have gained some understanding of this great father of the fourth century. Following his lead, we like to see many other scholars make similar studies of the other fathers. Fr. Dr. K. M. George chose the thought of Gregory of Naziansus for his doctoral study. Geevarghese Mar Osthathios seems to have had his studies on the thought of Basil the Great. We really like to see a similar study on the thought of Mor Ephrem by a scholarly person who understands the classical Syriac.

There might be significant differences in the world-view of Gregory of Nyssa and Mor Ephrem. However, I doubt if we have enough evidences to discard Gregory and the Greek tradition altogether in favor of Ephrem and the Syrian tradition. I request scholars to help us understand the thought of Ephrem better, so that we may understand clearly how he differs from Gregory of Nyssa.

When Christianity evolved beyond the first century Palestine, it developed diverse ways of looking at the mystery of existence through the lenses offered by the various cultures it came into contact with. That is how there developed the Syriac, Greek, and Latin tributaries of Christianity. This multiculturalism has always been seen as a threat to the unity and integrity of Christianity by many. Alarmed at the ongoing development of diversities, they call for a return to the original culture and world-view. However, a sensible approach would be to learn from all the diverse traditions of the past, and to develop our own way of life.

Let me use a story to clarify my point:
Once upon a time, a king got a rare sickness, and doctors were invited to come and treat his illness from different parts of the country. They were asked to get together to discuss the illness. Although they were treating the same illness, the variety of their medical language was perplexing. They were using different words for the illness, for the herbs to make medicines, and even for the procedures of the treatment. They all inherited their medical knowledge from the same person who lived a couple of centuries ago, but in two centuries, their language changed considerably. They began to wonder who has the right medicine.  Each doctor claimed to be in custody of the right medicine, and they began to argue with one another. The minister, listening to their arguments, said, "You are here to heal the sickness of the king. We don't care what medicine you use. Heal the king if you can!"

The doctors focused on the right medicine for the illness. By the right medicine they meant the medicine that fully conforms to the the ideal medicine that cured such illness in the past. There was nothing wrong in seeking the medicine that was used in the past successfully. But it was not easy, for they couldn't even communicate with one another, and they couldn't figure out the exact components of the original ideal medicine because of the change in language. But the minister asked them to shift the focus from finding the right medicine to curing the illness of the king. A solution is right if it can solve the problem in that situation. A solution that was right in one time and place may not be right in another time and place. The minister encouraged the doctors to find out the best medicine using the best of their knowledge and experience.

Our religious traditions are like doctors who try to heal a sick world. It is always easier and better to use the available knowledge instead of reinventing the wheel. We seek insights from our scriptures and our inherited tradition. The original language of the scriptures might be incomprehensible to us. Also the specific theological language we use might be incomprehensible to others. The scholarly friend I mentioned claims that the Syrian Christian tradition is the right one and the Greek Christian tradition is heresy because his focus is on finding the right solution rather than curing the sick world. However, according to the best of my knowledge, bishop Paulos Mar Gregorios had his focus on healing the sick world. It is true that he chose the thought of Gregory of Nyssa for his doctoral studies. Even if he had chosen the thought of Mor Aprem, his focus would have been the same-- on healing the sick world.  Although he admired Gregory of Nyssa very much, he was not willing to accept everything this ancient father believed. 

People of all religious traditions in the world need to come together and explore how to heal the sick world. Instead of claiming the custody of the right solution, let them adopt an attitude of openness willing to learn from each other and share their knowledge with each other. This can be done by focusing on the problem rather than focusing on their own knowledge of the solution. May all the religious traditions focus their attention on healing the sick world!

The Three Shining Qualities Of Paulos Mar Gregorios

Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios disappeared from our sight on Nov 24th 1996, and it has been 16 years since then. He has been enshrined at the Orthodox Theological Seminary in Kottayam. His memory has been celebrated since then every year on this day along with another great father of the church, the founder of the Theological Seminary -- Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysius. I have had the opportunity to attend this year's celebration.

His Holiness Baselius Paulos, the Catholicos of the East, led the celebration accompanied by a host of metropolitans. His Holiness highlighted three shining qualities of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios which we need to emulate in our own life:

1. As he was growing up, Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios realized that he had been gifted with extraordinary powers of intelligence and memory, and when he realized this, he had several choices with his life before him. He could become anything he wanted. He could become a scientist with global reputation, or he could rise high up in the political field and become a prime minister or a president. However, he chose to surrender himself before the will of God, and serve the church. If he had chosen some other path, still God would have used him for His purpose. But by choosing to serve the church he made the best choice. The choice he made might have been less glamorous, but this choice helped him make a long-lasting and priceless contribution to the wellbeing of humanity.

2. Fr. Paul Varghese (his previous name) was included in a list of priests to be elevated to the position of metropolitans, but later his name was removed from the list.  The details of how this happened are not relevant here. Five years later, he was once again included in the list, and he was elevated to the position of a metropolitan. But when this unfortunate event of the removal of his name from the list happened, he did not fight for his right to be in the list, nor did he argue for justice. He simply surrendered his will to the decision of his church and to the will of God. How many of us can and will do so in a similar situation?

3. When Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios realized that he was elevated by God to great heights, instead of rising up by himself, he chose to raise his church along with him to global reputation. That was a time when the rest of the world did not even know that our church existed here. They didn't know that Christianity existed in India before the arrival of Vasco Da Gama. In 1961, there was a world conference of WCC in New Delhi, and Fr. Paul Vargese was a Bible Study leader of the conference. Fr. Paul Varghese invited the Christian leaders assembled in Delhi to visit our church and see for themselves the church that has been in existence here for two millennia. They came to Kottayam and visited our Catholicos, Geevarghese II. If our church is known in the world today, it has been made possible primarily through the efforts of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios.

The World is like a Moving Electric Train

What is our world like? If I address this question to ten different people, I will get ten different answers. Whenever I have asked this question to myself, my own answers have varied from time to time. When I searched for an answer to this question in the ancient scriptures and classics, I found that the answer to this question has varied from time to time and from place to place. When farming was the primary means of living for most of the people in the world, the world was seen as a huge farm. When there were kingdoms all over the world, the world was seen as a huge empire. In the industrial age, when people invented machines, the world was seen as a humongous machine. Later in the age of networked computers, the world has been seen as a huge network in which everything is connected to everything else. There is something in common with all these metaphors. They unanimously assert that the world is one system with all its parts working together.  

This morning I addressed this question to myself again, and the novelty of the answer that surfaced in my mind surprised me. It also challenged me to radically transform my own life. What is our world like? My answer this morning was this: It is like a moving electric train. I can see raised eyebrows. Let me briefly explain what I mean by this.

A train has several bogies, but they are connected together, and so it can move forward as one vehicle. The world consists of so many different component parts, but they all work together as one system. This idea is very well expressed in the above-mentioned metaphors. But this metaphor of the moving train goes beyond all those metaphors.

The word “moving” is significant here. I have related the world to a moving train, not to a stationary one. Our world is never stationary; it keeps moving. Its existence in space-time is what makes it move. Movement in space-time is expressed as changes in form. Nothing in the world is free from change, and this process seems endless. Did this process begin anytime? We just don’t know.  Human mind cannot conceptualize endlessness. We ourselves are within this moving train, and we cannot go out of this train and look at it objectively. Our mind is conditioned with this movement, and all our thoughts are relative to this movement.

But the movement of this train depends on two stationary things. One is the rails underneath and the other is the electric power line that goes above it. The world also depends on two stationary things. The world, which constantly changes according to space-time, depends upon a set of laws that do not change according to space-time. This set of laws is like the rails on which the train runs. The world cannot function without laws.  The power line above gives a constant supply of energy for the train to keep moving.  Without a constant supply of power, the train cannot move. The world keeps moving in time with all its changes because of a constant power supply. All the energies such as light, heat, electricity, magnetism, gravity, and life are the diverse forms of this power supply. The world cannot keep moving without these energies. Our sciences are our attempts to discover the various laws that govern the world and the various forms of energy that activate the world.

Now we come to the special role of humankind. Being a part of the world we share the same characteristics of the world. We are within space-time limit, and not free from change. So we have birth, growth, decay, and death. Our existence is also governed by laws. The laws applicable to the rest of the world are applicable to us too. We are also sustained by energies like the rest of the world, especially by life energy.

One may wonder if life can be called an energy like the rest of the energies. The truth is that we haven’t found the true nature of life yet. I read somewhere that life may be better called an energy-processing mechanism.  Here I am placing it along with energies because it shares certain characteristics of other energies.  It is the presence of life that makes one alive like the presence of electricity makes a bulb lit. Life appears in various forms of plants and animals like electricity appears in various forms through different kinds of machines.

We know that the continued existence of the world depends upon the laws that govern it and the energies that sustain it. The world that appears to our eyes seems to be the expression of the invisible energies limited and governed by laws. But what lies behind the laws and the energies? Where do the laws and the energies come from? We don’t know. It seems we can never know the answer to this question. Our ignorance does not mean that a Source doesn’t exist. A Source of laws and energies exists, but human mind doesn’t have the ability to conceptualize it. Whatever we think and verbalize can’t be true about this Super Source.  

However, without this piece, the puzzle won’t be complete. Although the Super Source behind the laws and energies remains unknown, we may create a symbol to represent it so that we can complete the puzzle, and have a view of all that exists.  It is like using an x for an unknown variable in an algebraic equation.

Humankind exists in a very special relationship with the Super Source and with the rest of the world. Humankind is similar to the rest of the world in most of the aspects, and it is also similar to the Super Source in certain aspects. This similarity to both the Super Source and to the world places humankind in between them in the role of a link or a mediator. Coming back to the metaphor of an electric train, humankind is like the driver of the train. The driver is a part of the moving train. However, unlike the remaining parts of the train, the driver has the freedom and the responsibility to run the train and make decisions about the train. Humankind is similar to the rest of the world in that it is subject to all the laws that govern the world, and it needs the energies that sustain the rest of the world. However, unlike the rest of the world, it can consciously choose its path. While the rest of the world automatically follows the laws, humankind can choose to obey them or disobey them. Whatever humankind chooses to do, its consequences will be shared by the rest of the world as well. Wise choices will lead to beneficial consequences, and unwise choices will lead to unfortunate consequences. 

Humankind has the responsibility to drive this world in such a way that the world will continue to move on smoothly. This responsibility is entrusted to humankind by the Super Source. In order to do this, humankind needs to know the laws that govern the world, and needs to be aware of the energies that make the world run. Humankind also needs to be very well aware of its own place in the world and the special role it has to play.

What does this picture of the world mean to us as individual human beings?  Each individual is a driver of his own world, and the way he drives it affects his world. The choices he makes can be beneficial or harmful to his world. He needs to drive according to the laws and he is given energies to move on. He is entrusted with the responsibility to drive his world at the best of his knowledge and ability.

The Role of Science and Religion

Science seems to be primarily an extension of our rationality, our left brain, and religion seems to be primarily an extension of our right brain. They are complementary, not contradictory. We need both, not one or the other. They help humankind perform its duty as the driver of the world.

Science explores the laws that govern the world. The Greek word Logos originally stood for the sum total of all the laws and principles that govern the world.  Accordingly the word Biology, made of bios+ logos, would mean the laws that govern the living beings. Science also explores the nature of the various energies that make the world run. However, science limits itself to the observable phenomena, and remains silent about whatever that cannot be observed. Science remains silent about the Super Source behind the laws and energies of the world.  Science can’t say anything about the role and responsibility of humankind as well.

This is where religion comes to our aid. Where science stops, religion begins. Religion does not claim to know what science doesn’t. It merely helps us to live our life meaningfully in spite of our ignorance.  By the word ‘religion’ I mean the true religion, how religion ought to be, not the corrupted forms of religion we see around. Religion helps us create a meaningful worldview and a view of life on which we can build up our life. It helps us create hypotheses, metaphors, and symbols where information is lacking, and facts and evidences are unavailable. Whereas science keeps silent about the Super Source, religion creates a symbol to represent it, so that we can have a picture of all that exists. This picture helps us answer the basic questions of existence, and build up a meaningful life.

Religion deals with beliefs, opinions, hypotheses, metaphors, and symbols unlike science, which deals with facts, theories, and observable phenomena. Therefore it is almost impossible to keep religion from getting corrupted. Whereas science universally stays as a coordinated movement, religious movements keep splitting, which seems unavoidable. It takes sustained, conscious effort to keep the true religious spirit alive and active without getting corrupted. Corrupted religion endangers the existence of humankind. The solution is to strengthen the true religious spirit and fight against the corruption, not to get rid of religion itself. Getting rid of religion is even more dangerous to the existence of humankind because without it we wouldn’t know what we are and why we live.

But how do we identify a corrupted form of religion from an uncorrupted form? A lot of people make a quick and naïve judgment: my own religion is the true and uncorrupted religion, and all the others are corrupted. This view makes a follower of a certain religion look down upon the followers of every other religion. Once we manage to transcend such naivety, we will look for a standard to distinguish between corrupted and uncorrupted forms of religion.  The only standard I can think of is this: a form of religion that stands for the well being of humankind is an uncorrupted form of religion. If anything less than that is the goal of a certain form of religion, it is a corrupted form. We need to ask ourselves if our own form of religion is corrupted or not. This is a call for self-examination.  Let us look for the beams in our own eyes instead of seeking the specks in the eyes of others.

Insights from my own religious tradition

One might wonder how I developed this worldview. Let me explain. I have got the insights to develop this worldview from my own form of religion—the Eastern Orthodox Christianity. This is not to claim that this particular form of religion is an uncorrupted form of religion. Far from it. There have been a lot of corruptions in this form as well. However, if one digs deep enough through the piles of corruption, one can discover an uncorrupted form of religion in the life and work of the fourth century church fathers. This writer lacks the necessary competence to make such an excavation by crossing the linguistic and cultural barriers of this ancient civilization.

Gregory of Nyssa

I heavily depend upon the work of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios, who excavated precious pearls of wisdom from the fourth century fathers.  His doctoral dissertation, later published as Cosmic Man, is an in-depth study of the thought of Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth century Christian philosopher. In the introduction he sates:

The theme of this book focuses on humanity’s two basic relationships—to the source and ground of its being on the one hand, and to the created world in which the humanity is placed on the other.  P. viii

Mar Gregorios asserts that it is fatal for humanity to ignore these two poles. Equally fatal are both an other-worldly mysticism, that ignores humanity’s existence in history, and a secular humanism, that ignores the ground and source of the cosmos.

Conclusion

Here I have made an attempt to present the worldview of Paulos Mar Gregorios and of Gregory of Nyssa as I understand it in a very simplified form. I have managed to avoid the technical/theological terms as much as possible to make it palatable for the ordinary readers. The purpose of writing this is to encourage others to join me in this study.

I have tried to present a picture of all that exists using the metaphor of a moving electric train. First I explained how the world is related to God. The world experiences this relationship in three different modes: the laws on which it exists (Logos), the energies that keep it alive and active (Spirit), and the Super Source of these two (the Father).   Then I explained how humankind is related to the world. Though it is a part of the world, it shares some characteristics of God. Humankind has the responsibility to stand as a link between God and world, and manage the smooth functioning of the world on behalf of God. 

The Life and Mission of Church

In the View of Paulos Mar Gregorios

What is church, and what is its mission? This question can be answered from the view of an outsider or an insider. An outsider view, a sociological one, would describe church as an institution or as a voluntary organization of Christian believers. This approach will certainly yield valuable information about the churches today, but not very helpful in  defining the mission of the church. The question of the mission of the church can be meaningfully answered only from an insider view, which is theological. Paulos Mar Gregorios approaches this question extensively as an insider in a number of his published papers and books.1

The role of the church is explained in the New Testament using a number of metaphors such as a family, a kingdom, a building, a body, an army, a flock of sheep, etc. The one metaphor Mar Gregorios uses the most meaningfully is that of a body. He is never tired of repeating over and over that the church is the body of Christ. Christ, who is invisible to us, continues his mission today through his visible body, the church. Before attempting an examination of the view of Mar Gregorios, we may trace the evolution of this metaphor in the New Testament.

The Evolution of a Metaphor

At the very beginning of the Church, it understood itself as the new Israel. The church claimed that the old Israel proved irresponsible to God, so it was replaced with the Christian church, the new Israel. Jesus was seen as a new Moses, saving people from the captivity of Satan. Thus the Christian community saw itself as the New Israel, traveling to the Promised Land. Salvation begins for an individual when he/she joins the church. One has to stay with the church growing in holiness. Finally, he/she enters the Promised Land (heaven) when he/she dies. But one cannot be certain whether he/she will reach heaven.  Under the leadership of Jesus, the new Moses, the church has claimed freedom from sin and death. However, as long as they are in the world, of sin and death, they are like the Israelites who were in the desert on their way to the land of Canaan. Their salvation began when they joined the church, they are being saved while traveling as a part of the church, and they will be fully saved when they reach the heavenly Canaan.

But how did the world happen to be enslaved to sin and death? The story of Adam and Eve, seen as a historical incident, answered this question to their satisfaction. It was believed that the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden marked the fall of humanity.

However, there has never been a consensus about what salvation involves. If humanity had a fall in the Garden of Eden, salvation must be a restoration to the original state. For some others salvation is from the captivity of Satan, like from the Pharaoh for Israel. For some others it is from the capital punishment of God.

As a development to this thought, Jesus was seen as a new Adam in contrast to the first Adam. Adam was the beginning of a human race that disobeys God; in Jesus starts a new human race that obeys God. Just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (Rom 5.19).  “And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph 4:24). “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Gal 6:15). Someone becomes a new creation when Christ lives in him and he lives in Christ. Thus this model of new creation, which evolved naturally from the previous one, was found much more meaningful.

How are those who have become new creation related to each other? If Christ lives in them, and if they all live in Christ, obviously they are related to each other as the organs of the same body. Thus there evolved the concept of church as the body of Christ. “Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it” (I Cor. 12: 27). As the members of a body, the members of the church are supposed to live and work together in perfect unity. Thus this metaphor, which naturally evolved from the previous ones, seems to be even more meaningful.

Paulos Mar Gregorios claims that the Eastern Orthodox Churches, with their central emphasis on the Eucharist, have always seen church as the body of Christ.2 The Roman Catholic Church has been willing to accept it as its official view in the Second Vatican Council.3 The Protestant Churches, however, haven’t yet understood the significance of this model; they still seem to be operating with the previous models.4

Church as the Body of Christ

Mar Gregorios has elaborated on this topic primarily in a series of Bible studies given to the staff of the World Council of Churches in Geneva, which was later published in a book namely, the Meaning and Nature of Diakonia 5. Mar Gregorios argues that being the body of Christ, the mission of church is to continue the mission of Christ, and the role of WCC is to assist the church to perform this mission. He quotes a few passages from the New Testament to assert that the mission of the church is the continuation of Christ’s mission.

Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” Jh 20: 21- 23

Christ sends the church to the world just as he was sent to the world by the Father.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Mat. 16:15-19.

The mission of Christ was to attack the kingdom of hades, the world of disobedience and death, save people from there, and let them enter the kingdom of heaven, the world of obedience and life. Christ handed over the same mission to his church.

After briefly elaborating upon the three-fold ministry of Christ as priest, prophet, and king, Mar Gregorios asserts that the church has the same three-fold ministry. As a priest, Jesus Christ gave himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and he rose again, victor over sin and death. We celebrate this sacrifice and victory in the Eucharist, in which, we get united with Christ, and we sacrifice ourselves to the father.6

Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Ex. 15:5-6

Israel was called to serve as a priestly nation in a community of nations-- a nation that stands before God on behalf of the community of nations interceding for them.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. I pet 2: 9

Peter reminds the Christian church that it has the same calling to be a priestly nation. Whenever the church stands before God, it does so on behalf of the whole world.

If as a priest, Christ turns to God on behalf of the world, as a prophet, Christ turns to the world on behalf of God. Church continues the same mission of speaking on behalf of God. The protestant churches give this ministry more importance than the others. But we need to remember that only by facing God in silence, we will be empowered to face the world to speak on behalf of God. The prophetic ministry has to happen as a natural outgrowth of the priestly ministry.

As a king, Christ rules and guides his people on behalf of God. Christ preferred to call himself a good shepherd rather than a king. He lays his life for the sheep. It is on his cross that we see the inscription, the king of Jews. Cross is the throne of this king. Church is called to be a good shepherd to the world. Christ lists three qualities of the good shepherd: knows the sheep by name, leads the sheep out to find pasture, and lays his life to protect them.

The church has to care for the people in the world as a shepherd cares for his sheep. “When the church hates any group of people, be they people of other religions or other ideologies, the church loses its credentials as good shepherd”7. Like a good shepherd, the church has to “open doors that confine people in oppression, injustice and exploitation, to lead the nations to where they can find the just societies of green pastures and the still waters of peaceful and secure national and international situations”8. The church does not hand out peace and justice to the nations. From a relationship of trust, church should be able to lead the nations away from injustice, war, oppression, exploitation, terrorism, and environmental decay. As the sheep move toward freedom and justice, the wolves come. As the church oppose them, the wolves, the oppressive structures of the world, advance on us to tear us apart. If the church takes up a fight with the wolves, it will lose much of its privilege and power. Therefore, most of the time, the church, like a hireling, flees for life, hypocritically leaving it to God to bring justice and peace in the world.

Humanity as a Mediator

This picture of the church having the same mission of Christ needs to be seen in the context of a wider framework which spells out how church is related to the humanity, and how the humanity is related to God and creation.

Mar Gregorios would define church as a human community that performs the role of a mediator between the creator and the creation. Following Gregory of Nyssa, Mar Gregorios thinks that God is all that exists viewed from God’s side, but viewed from the side of the creation, it exists apart from the creator. The creator is infinite, but the creation exists within the limits of time and place. “The creation is multiple in form, and the capacity of each form to respond to God varies. Inorganic matter responds less freely than the plants and the trees; the animals are more conscious, and mankind even more than the animals, but the church is more aware of the creator than mankind in general.”9 Being a part of mankind, church is a part of the creation, but the most conscious part. Being the most conscious part of the creation is a position of privilege indeed; it is a position of great responsibility as well. Although the privilege of being aware of God is open to all mankind, only a part of them actually rise to the level of such awareness. Those few people do not feel superior to the rest of the people who do not rise to such awareness. Instead they would humbly serve them, and would represent them before God.

The church has the privilege to be aware of the goodness of God. God’s wisdom gives the knowledge of the good, God’s freedom chooses the good, and God has the power to perform it, which is expressed as love or as self-giving. This awareness of God’s love makes the church respond by similar self-giving love to God. This response takes the form of adoration and unconditional surrender and obedience. As a result, the church becomes the visible image of the invisible God for the rest of the creation. Actually the whole of mankind is called to be the visible image of God; those few who respond become the church. The church does this in union with Christ, and following his lead. Thus the mission of church is nothing but the mission of Christ-- uniting with God in unconditional surrender representing the creation, and manifesting God’s goodness to the rest of the creation.

The church can perform such a mediator role between the creator and creation only by constantly engaging in self-disciplinary practices and exercises. The mysteries (called sacraments in the west) are effective ways of self-discipline. The Eucharist is the supreme mystery of the church symbolizing church’s uniting with Christ. The Eucharist dramatizes the events in Christ’s life, and by taking part in this periodically, the church internalizes Christ at the subconscious level, and becomes one with Christ. Baptism makes one a member of Christ’s body. Chrismation or Anointment lets one share the anointment of Christ as king, priest, and prophet. The liturgical year lets the church participate in the saving events in Christ’s life.

The living church, performing such a role, will be a community united by love to each other. It will appear as the visible image of God’s unconditional love to the world. The members of this community will always be driven by the motivation to serve, and not to be served by others.

The State of the Church Today

What we have already seen is how the church is supposed to be, not how it really is. The reality is far from the ideal. In the first few centuries of its origin the church spread to the Roman Empire in the west, and to Persia, India, and China in the east. In spite of its global growth, the church has failed in its role as a mediator between the creator and the creation because it has lost its vision of its true mission, and its focus has been upon preserving the church and its tradition. “A false understanding of mission as the assimilation of other people into a culture dominated by a special race of Christians distorted the proclamation of the gospel in the world.”10 Without a vision that keeps us united for our mission, the church has broken into so many pieces.

As early as the fourth century, there arose a controversy about the Holy Trinity. Some Christians who relied on a literal interpretation could not give the Son and the Holy Spirit the same status as the Father, and they expressed this belief in their doxology, “Glory be to the father through the son by the Holy Spirit”. A doxology is a verse or sentence that glorifies God. This was rejected as a heresy, and the church accepted the doxology, “Glory be to the father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit”. Thus the church called itself orthodox to mean those who glorify God in the right way, combining orthos (right) and doxadzein (glorifying God).11

Soon there arose another controversy regarding the Holy Trinity. The western Christendom, headed by the Pope of Rome, claimed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also in addition to the Father, and modified the Nicene Creed accordingly, but the eastern Christian world continued with the earlier belief. Moreover, the Pope’s claim of superiority over all the other patriarchs and bishops elsewhere added fuel to the division between the west and east. The churches in the East, headed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and others refused to accept the superiority claim of Rome, and came to be known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, whereas the Roman church became known as the Catholic Church. The corruption in the Catholic Church led to the Reformation movement in the 16th century, which led to the formation of numerous Protestant Churches.

A controversy regarding the divine-human nature of Christ led to a split among the Eastern Churches in the fifth century. The church of Constantinople (Byzantine) claimed it to be two, whereas the others claimed it to be one. The two sides called each other Diophysites and Monophysites. The Byzantine cultural domination over the others fueled the split.

The primary reason for these controversies and splits in the church is the claim of the custody of truth. Addressing the parliament of world’s religion in Chicago in 1993, Mar Gregorios said,

“In each religion there are two levels. One level is exclusivist, and expansionist. That is to say, each religion says, we have the truth and if you want to have the truth, join us. That is the exclusivist, expansionist, lower type of religion. All religions have that lower type. But in religions there is also a higher type, a type which is universal in its orientation, which is all-embracing in its love, which is non-discriminating between members of its own community and those outside.”12 

Ma Gregorios asserts that claiming the custody of truth is lower type religion. It makes people closed-minded, unwilling to listen to and learn from others. Although he made the above statement about religions, it can be applied to religious groups as well. How could these churches claim the custody of the truth about the incomprehensible God? If the churches are honest and open-minded to admit that God alone is in custody of the absolute truth, they will forfeit all claims of the custody of truth, willing to learn from each other and even from other religions.

When the church was slowly emerging, St. Paul proclaimed, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Ethnicity, class, and gender have been the three primary criteria that erected walls of separation among humans, and Paul claimed that because Christ has broken all walls of separation, perfect unity has to be the goal of the church. The first major conflict in the church was caused by ethnicity – there were Jews and Greeks in the church. Having two separate churches for them might have been an easy way out, but Paul fought fiercely to keep the church united overcoming the wall of ethnicity.

Unlike the western churches, the eastern churches are very much bound by ethnicity. Mar Gregorios cites an interesting example from the situation in the US.

“The Yugoslavians and the Russians have the same faith, the same liturgy, and the same liturgical language. But in the same town you find a Serbian Orthodox Church and a Russian Orthodox Church. Why is it not possible for them to merge into one church? Simply because the communal loyalty is stronger than the loyalty to the church as the Body of Christ.”13

This is a shameful situation for the orthodox churches. Mar Gregorios further asserts, “We became closed communities rather than churches open to all men. Our concern is less with Jesus Christ and his righteousness than with the glory and honor of our community.”14 Mar Gregorios advises the orthodox churches to make a conscious attempt to break the wall of ethnicity following the example of the western churches. “Orthodoxy holds the pure tradition of the ancient undivided church. But because of its ethnic group egoism, it remains incapable either of enjoying their rich spiritual heritage or of sharing it with others… There may be Eucharistic communion between the Greeks and the Russians, for example, but very little love.”15

In a Bible study conducted at the headquarters of the World Council of Churches in Geneva based on the Gospel passage in which the sons of Zebedee send their mother to Jesus to request a special privilege, Mar Gregorios asserts, “Nothing has been so divisive of the churches as the ambitions, the jealousies, the power struggles among the Christian workers and leaders. Quite unconsciously we fall a prey to that perennial temptation—for power and position, for worldly glory and honor. So long as that is our basic orientation, the church cannot be united.” 16 Mar Gregorios asserts that disunity is a violation of the true nature of the church. It is the failure of love that leads to disunity. God is love, and the church has to reflect that nature. “Where there is no love, the spirit of God is not at work. The Church may work all day and night, and yet it may catch nothing (Jh 21:3). Sociologically the church may be growing in numbers, wealth, and institutions; but it is all hay and stubble, that the fire will destroy.”17

Conclusion

Mar Gregorios paints a clear picture of how the church must ideally be by using the metaphor of the body of Christ, and shows us how it really is. The churches all over the world may heed to the wisdom of this sage, and strive for the ideal.

****************

Works Cited

1. The Meaning and Nature of Diakonia. Geneva: WCC, 1988. P.33
2. Introducing The Orthodox Churches. Kottayam: MGF / NewDelhi: ISPCK, 1999. P. 7-8
3. "Vatican II: Gains, Hopes and Hurdles." Address delivered at Third Hammersmith Christian Unity Conference, May 1966
4. Introducing The Orthodox Churches. Kottayam: MGF / NewDelhi: ISPCK, 1999. P. 3
5. The Meaning and Nature of Diakonia. Geneva: WCC, 1988
6. The Meaning and Nature of Diakonia. Geneva: WCC, 1988 p. 37
7. The Meaning and Nature of Diakonia. Geneva: WCC, 1988 p. 42
8. The Meaning and Nature of Diakonia. Geneva: WCC, 1988 p. 43
9. Introducing The Orthodox Churches. Kottayam: MGF / NewDelhi: ISPCK, 1999 p.49
10. Cosmic Man. The Divine Presence. NewDelhi/Kottayam: Sophia Publications, 1982. P. 233
11. Introducing The Orthodox Churches. Kottayam: MGF / NewDelhi: ISPCK, 1999 p.5
12. http://paulosmargregorios.info/English%20Articles/Vision%20Beckons.htm
13. Introducing The Orthodox Churches. Kottayam: MGF / NewDelhi: ISPCK, 1999 p.59
14. Introducing The Orthodox Churches. Kottayam: MGF / NewDelhi: ISPCK, 1999 p. 61
15. Introducing The Orthodox Churches. Kottayam: MGF / NewDelhi: ISPCK, 1999 p.54
16. The Meaning and Nature of Diakonia. Geneva: WCC, 1988 p. 3
17. The Meaning and Nature of Diakonia. Geneva: WCC, 1988 p. 36

Paulos Mar Gregorios as a Pioneer in Interreligious Dialog

Paulos Mar Gregorios

Paulos Mar Gregorios (1922–96) was a pioneer in Interreligious Dialog. He was one of the prominent leaders of interreligious movement at global level for a quarter of a century till he passed away in 1996. What follows is a brief examination of his vision of religion and interreligious movement in the light of today’s view and understanding of interreligious dialog and learning.

What is religion?

Mar Gregorios is not comfortable with the word religion because it acquired a very different meaning from its original one in the 19th century. The original meaning is found in the Latin word “religio” which meant a life bound by a rule of life or regula. It is something that serves as the very foundation of human existence. But the cultural movement known as the European Enlightenment cast away this corner stone of life as a worthless stone. It placed man on the throne of God, and treated human rational power as the only reliable means of knowledge. It declared that man has attained adulthood, and so he does not need religion any more. Thus in human growth or evolution to adulthood, religion, which was useful once, became a useless appendix that occasionally gives us trouble, and can be surgically removed. Thus religion, which was once seen as the head of a community or culture or human life, was demoted to the status of a useless and trouble-making appendix.

If the word religion is used, the listener or reader will understand it as a useless appendix of human life rather than as the head of human life. Therefore, Mar Gregorios prefers the Sanskrit word Dharma, which retains the original meaning of religion.1 Dharma involves four aspects: understanding, self-discipline, worship, and compassionate service.

1. Understanding: This is the awareness of the truth of existence. Dharma means that which holds or sustains the reality. The awareness of the unmanifest reality that holds the manifest reality is fundamental. Based on a Dharmic understanding, a life-style will be developed in relation to oneself, to the Ultimate, and to the fellow beings.
2. Self-discipline: We practice Dharma in relation to ourselves mainly in the form of self-discipline. We have to learn to control our senses, passions, drives and desires.
3. Worship: We practice Dharma in relation to the Ultimate as unconditional surrender and obedience to the ultimate. The highest honor will always be given to the Ultimate. 
4. Compassionate Service: We practice Dharma in relation to our fellow beings by unconditional love and service to our fellow beings. We will honor every human being as a dwelling place of the ultimate.

It seems that this view of Paulos Mar Gregorios was influenced by contemporary scholarship in various disciplines. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926–2006) saw religion as a cultural system. In his seminal work The Interpretation of Cultures, Geertz described culture as "a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life". He defined religion as “a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic”2

The idea of Mar Gregorios that today’s limited sense of the word “religion” is a product of Enlightenment is reflected in the present-day scholars such as Timothy Fitzgerald and Daniel Dubuisson. Fitzgerald explains how with the Enlightenment religion became a personal feeling or emotion rather than a universal social attitude.3 Dubuisson explains how religion emerged as a category separate from culture and society in the 19th century.4

What is Interreligious Dialog for?

Interreligious dialog is basically communication among people. It happens globally as well as locally. Its purpose is to enhance understanding among people so that they can live together peacefully. Unity in diversity is the primary condition of a dialog. If the parties of a dialog have the same view of life, there is 100% unity, and there is no need of any dialog. If there is 100% diversity between two parties, there cannot be any dialog between them because there has to be some kind of unity in something between them to begin a dialog. This is usually referred to as a common ground. Various common grounds have been suggested such as the ultimate truth of life behind what appears true to us, the mystical experiences common to all religions, and the healthy and meaningful existence of humankind.

This situation can be understood better if we use the analogy of medical systems. Let us imagine that someone is severely ill, and physicians belonging to various medical systems such as Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Naturopathy, Acupuncture, and English medicine arrive to treat the sick person. They use diverse ways to diagnose and treat the sickness, and they do not even understand each other. What if they make an attempt to communicate with each other? Where do they begin? What is common for them? They are all healers and they are trying to heal the same sick person. If they are open to each other, they can learn from each other, and create new knowledge by integrating the insights from diverse medical systems. Religions are healing systems. In spite of their diversity, they are trying to heal the same sick humanity. If they can communicate and learn from each other, very valuable knowledge and information that will contribute to the well being of mankind can be generated.

Inaugurating the centenary celebrations of the Parliament of the World’s religions in Chicago in 1993, Paulos Mar Gregorios made his view of the goal of interreligious dialog crystal clear.5 The unity of humanity with cultural diversity without any domination by any one part of humanity is the ultimate goal of interreligious dialog. Absolute loyalty to the parts of humanity such as tribes, races, religions, and nations is antihuman, and so we need to rise above and beyond such loyalties in pledging allegiance to the humanity. Each religion is like a healing system with centuries of rich experience behind it. It has to develop in its own way without merging with others. However the existence of a religion should not be more important than the existence of humankind. Religions exist for the wellbeing of humankind. Nothing short of the unity and wellbeing of humankind can be the goal of interreligious dialogs. Religions will be able to do this only if they regain their original status which was lost due to the European Enlightenment.

How is Interreligious Dialog Done?

Once the unity of humanity is set as the goal of interreligious dialog, Mar Gregorios asserts that what we need is a global concourse of religions in which various religions flow together supporting and learning from each other and working together for the good of humanity. He suggests the name “A Global Concourse of Religions” instead of “A parliament of World Religions” because he thinks that religions need to flow together keeping their identity rather than occasionally meet to talk with each other. Religious people need to cooperate with nonreligious people in creating a just and peaceful world with a life-supporting environment. The problems of injustice, war, and environmental deterioration were caused by our immaturity and greedy handling of the earth and in our relationship with the human beings in it. The religions have to work together to redeem humanity. “We do not abandon our particular religious loyalties; but we shall deepen them in dialog and concourse with other religions in order to find those deeper roots in each religion which affirm the unity of global humanity and which affirm the transcendent love in which we all live and move and have our being.”6

Paul F. Knitter

Interreligious dialog is to enhance understanding among religions. The quality of understanding depends upon the willingness to understand. Paul F. Knitter gives an excellent introduction to interreligious learning in his book, Theologies of Religions.7 In the four parts of his book, he presents four models of the Christian attitudes toward interreligious dialog: replacement, fulfillment, mutuality, and acceptance. In the first one, the Christian willingness is 0%. The willingness increases in the next models, and finally, it becomes 100% in the acceptance model.

When one party is not willing to listen and understand from the other, there cannot be a dialog, but only a monolog. Thus the willingness to listen and understand from each other has to be seen as the primary condition of an interreligious dialog. If we want to seek a solution to this problem, we need to find out why someone or a group of people is unwilling to listen to and understand from the others. Religions deal with how we view life. Our views of life vary from culture to culture. The phenomenon of existence is so mysterious that we are like the blind men who examined an elephant. If we identify our view to be the absolute truth, we will be unwilling to listen to the others. However, if we realize that ours is just one view of the reality, we will be willing to listen to the others as well.

Those Christians with 0% willingness to listen and understand others believe that they have the absolute truth in their custody, and they seek to convert others to Christian religion. The Christians who are partially willing to listen to others are willing to admit that the others may have a part of truth in their custody too. These Christians are like a physician who claims that only he is in custody of the cure of a certain sickness while other physicians may have the diagnosis of the sickness. Those with 100% willingness to listen to others believe that no religion is in custody of the absolute truth. All are like the blind men who tried to understand an elephant.

Mar Gregorios narrates in his autobiography the attempts he made in the WCC for an interreligious dialog. He speaks about a Christian bishop with 0% willingness to listen to others.

At the Nairobi Assembly of 1975, we invited a select number of observers from the great religions of the world and devoted a whole section of the Assembly to interreligious dialogue, in the hope that along with the environmental issue being highlighted at Nairobi, the issue of cultural pluralism and interreligious dialogue would move from the margins of the WCC agenda to its centre. I was asked to chair that section on dialogue, with our distinguished non- Christian friends present.

Our hopes were soon to be dashed on the hard rocks of European cultural parochialism. In response to my presidential remarks, a friend of mine, a Norwegian Lutheran bishop, asked me, “In what sense does the Chairman find the revelation in Jesus Christ so insufficient that he has to go the non-Christians to learn the truth?”

I was offended, but being in the chair, could not retort in my usual rude manner. So I responded, “In this sense that the Chairman is not as fortunate as his friend the bishop from Norway, who seems to have so mastered the revelation in Jesus Christ, that he is so totally self-satisfied and does not feel any need to learn from others.” I doubt that the barb got through. But my non-Christian friends saw for themselves the shameful narrow mindedness of European Christianity. They were hurt, but kept their cool and continued to be polite.8

Mar Gregorios proposes three ways of interreligious dialog to match with the three ways of dealing with reality: Practical handling of reality, verbal conceptualization and communication, and various ritual expressions of meaning though dance, music, gestures, and liturgical actions. These three ways may be summarized using the Sanskrit words that denote the three ways of yoga: karma, jnaana, and Bhakti. In the words of Mar Gregorios, they are practical level, theoretical level, and symbolic and ritual level.9 He further elaborates these levels as follows:

1. Dialog on common social or economic problems and about common projects and practical collaboration
2. Dialog on the theoretical or theological aspects of religion
3. Dialog in which a and b are transcended into the realm of entering into each other’s spiritual experience and group worship.10

The first way is to talk about or work together in a common existential problem such as poverty, violation of human rights, etc. The second one is to talk about how they are similar and different in their views of life. For example, in a dialog between Christians and Muslims, Christians will have to explain what they mean when they say “the son of God”, and how the belief in trinity does not violate monotheism. The third one is to try to establish a bond at the level of the unconscious by common worship.

These are three different ways to do dialogs, and whichever appropriate is to be chosen according to the context.

1. The first one is the most appropriate for the common people, who lack theological training. People need to collaborate everywhere to tackle common existential issues. This is a level at which religious people can collaborate with nonreligious people. 
2. The second way is appropriate only for those few people who are sufficiently trained in theology. Theologians who are well-versed in their own religion and scriptures may come together willing to explain and to learn from others how they view life. Religious people may enter into dialog with nonreligious people as well at this level.
3. The third way is appropriate only in very few situations when an interreligious community is made ready for it through the first two ways.

Interreligious Learning

Francis X. Clooney

Interreligious dialog leads to interreligious learning, which takes various approaches. Francis X. Clooney, a Jesuit priest and a professor at Harvard, lists the various approaches in his book, Comparative Theology.11 The approaches may be simplified and illustrated as follows:

1. Comparative Religion --The learner takes an outsider view of the religions compared.

2. Theology of Religions – The learner takes an insider view of one’s own religion, but takes an outsider view of other religions.

3. Comparative Theology – The learner takes an insider view of one’s own religion as well as of the religion that is compared.

It seems that Mar Gregoios used the approach of Comparative Theology when he learned the other religions. He tried to learn various religions not from the perspective of a Christian but from the perspective of someone inside those religions.

Here is what Kabir Saxena, a Buddhist, says about him: Father once gave a talk on Dharmakirti and Dignaga at our Tushita Meditation Centre in Delhi. It was stimulating to say the best. Here was an ostensibly Christian Father, discoursing on the intricacies of Buddhist madhyamaka philosophy with flowing gusto.

Here is what Dr. Mohinder Singh, a Sikh scholar, says: I once accompanied him to the Gurdwara Bangla Sahib in New Delhi. While taking him around I told him about the Gurdwara and the history connected with it. While coming out there is a tradition that we all take Prasad and the holy water. Whenever I take non-Sikh guests with me I explain the significance of the two but do not insist that they partake the same. What surprised me was the fact that even before I could explain to him about these he had already partaken the Prasad and the holy water like a devout Sikh.

What Mar Gregorios says in his autobiography also illustrates this: I need to learn from all, and have indeed learned from many. My major liberation in life has been from thinking that the Western way of thinking, with its specific categories and modalities, is the only way to think and to know. Now that I know a little bit about the Yin-Yang polarity-complementarity way of thinking and knowing in the Chinese Tao, I do not have to be a slave of the Western subject-object mode of thinking, and the logic of the excluded middle. From my own Indian tradition I have learned the principle of Ekam advitiyam or One without a Second; I know now that all diversity and difference ultimately find their unity in the One without a Second; that One is more ultimate than the many. My own Eastern Orthodox tradition has confirmed that there is no creation other than God or outside God, because the Infinite Ultimate has neither outside nor other.

I have learned from the Jains the great Anekanthavada, which holds that all statements are conditional and qualified truth, which have to be supplemented and completed by other truths; that our Ahimsa or non-violence should extend to other ways of thinking, and not just to other beings.

I have learned from Buddhists that all epistemology is finally without basis; that our perceptions of all things, including the world, are but mental events that happen when our kind of mind -sense and whatever is out there come into contact with each other; that this world which the secular mindset takes to be some kind of ultimate reality is neither real nor unreal, and should be taken seriously, but not so absolutely.

And I have learned much from Jews and Arabs, from Sikhs and Zoroastrians, from Adivasis and Aborigines, from Africans and from the indigenous peoples of America. And I hope I am still learning and will continue to do so until the end.12

Conclusion

Being an extraordinary genius who could see clearly what most of the others could not see, Mar Gregorios had a very clear vision of religion and interreligious dialog. By organizing and participating in global interreligious forums, he devoted his time and energy to create a united humanity and a peaceful world. The world will greatly benefit if his vision becomes a reality.

************

Works Cited

1. Gregorios, Paulos (2000). Religion and Dialogue. New Delhi: ISPCK. P.81
2. Geertz, Clifford (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
3. Fitzgerald, Timothy (2007). Discourse on Civility and Barbarity. Oxford University Press. pp. 45–46.
4. Daniel Dubuisson. "Exporting the Local: Recent Perspectives on 'Religion' as a Cultural Category", Religion Compass, 1.6 (2007), p.792.
5. Gregorios, Paulos (2000). Religion and Dialogue. New Delhi: ISPCK. P.116 
6. Gregorios, Paulos (2000). Religion and Dialogue. New Delhi: ISPCK. P.124 
7. Knitter, Paul F. (2002) Introducing Theologies of Religions. NY: Orbis Books.
8. Gregorios, Paulos. (1997). Love's Freedom: The Grand Mystery. Kottayam: MGF. 
9. Gregorios, Paulos (2000). Religion and Dialogue. New Delhi: ISPCK. P.171
10. Gregorios, Paulos (2000). Religion and Dialogue. New Delhi: ISPCK. P.164
11. Clooney, Francis X. (2010) Comparative Theology: Deep Learning Across Religious Borders. Wiley-Blackwell.
12. Gregorios, Paulos. (1997). Love's Freedom: The Grand Mystery. Kottayam: MGF.