Our common search to make more visible our unity in Christ brought us together to scenic Cheung Chau in Hong Kong from March 12 to 16, 1996. Encouraged by our deep longing to express our oneness in Christ, we, the forty two participants representing the constituencies of the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) and the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences (FABC), gathered to deepen our understanding of each other, to share our insights as to what it means to be the followers of Christ in the present Asian society and to seek ways toward a full communion and partnership in mission. We experienced the presence of Christ in our conversation and our journeying together as we felt "our hearts burning within us" when we shared in worship, told our stories, offered our under-standings, and listened to our concerns and difficulties in building good ecumenical relationships. We are eager to invite all churches to join this pilgrimage toward a closer fellowship, mutual respect, and common action in love and solidarity with the peoples of Asia.
        Our presence in Cheung Chau is a continuation of the common commitment made by the CCA and the FABC in Hua Hin, Thailand in 1993.

Vision and understanding of ecumenism

        There are visions and understandings of ecumenism which continue to challenge and inspire us. We are reminded that our ecumenical endeavor is not merely a matter of activities and programmes; it is a way of being church. Unity is ours through Christ our Lord. In our worship, life and witness we seek to make visible the unity we have; we strive to remove those obstacles that stand in the way of manifesting and celebrating the unity that is ours in Christ. Thus, the unity of the church is both a gift and a goal.
        The ecumenical movement is a sign and a sacrament of the unity which God wills for all humanity and all creation. Here we reiterate the concluding statement of the Hua Hin document:

"Full and visible unity of the church is God's will for all. Particularly in Asia, a continent full of a variety of faiths, ethnicities and cultures, a visible expression of our unity in Christ will also provide a powerful symbol of hope for the emergence of the one new humanity. We affirm this faith wholeheart-edly and call upon all Christians of Asia to be firmly committed to this vision."

Some barriers to unity among Asian churches

        In our journey towards that visible unity in Christ, we have encoun-tered many obstacles engendered by the long history of mutual indifference, alienation and hostility. The sad condition of separation has built walls of prejudices biases that block the avenues of mutual understanding.
        Ecumenism is still inadequately understood by many. The very meaning of ecumenism ranges from mere accommodation, peaceful co-existence or collaboration to visible unity among the Christian churches. The church is the people, the pastors and the congregations, the leaders and the grass-roots. But we hear undiminished complaints that ecumenical endeavour fails to filter down to the grass-roots.
        Ecumenical initiatives are not lacking in statements and resolutions in workshops and meetings; but structures to support their implementation are sadly lacking. There is lack of contact and relationships among church leaders, and so many unresolved doctrinal, moral and disciplinary issues remain which dampen the enthusiasm for effort towards unity.

Signs of hope

        In spite of the above obstacles, we acknowledge many signs of hope in our midst. The very experience of ecumenical community in this meeting is affirmed by all to be a sign of hope. There are joint ecumenical activities that have taken place at national and local levels at the initiative of the churches, as well as grass-roots activities at the initiative of the people. We have been encouraged by listening to the concrete experiences of the churches in Australia, Aotearoa - New Zealand, Taiwan and Malaysia where churches have formed more inclusive national ecumenical bodies. We also acknowledge some common responses to social, political and economic issues which affect the life of the people (for example Dalit issues in India, the future of Hong Kong in 1997). It is also encouraging that there is a marked change in peoples' attitudes toward other denominations; overcoming their prejudices, they show their greater willingness to share their experiences. We celebrate men and women of many churches who have given their lives in fidelity to Christ.

Challenges for Asian churches

--  to foster ecumenical sensitivity, openness and vision, nationally and in each place;

--  to ensure that church leaders in each country gather regularly for prayer, study and fellowship, to  enhance mutual understanding;

--  to press the question of full participation by all churches in national ecumenical bodies;

--  to deepen their spirituality, grounded in Word and Sacrament, while continuing to seek ways towards visible unity;

--  to develop, together, a deeper openness to brothers and sisters of other faiths with whom we live,  and a more profound interaction with the cultures in which we live;

--  to enter, together, into a deeper commitment to those who struggle for justice, freedom and identity;

--  to prepare themselves so that Asian churches may again make a major contribution to the advance of global ecumenism.

        We consider it significant that the CCA and the FABC have committed themselves to form a new committee to foster cooperation and possible joint ventures and to promote and monitor the implementation of the recommendations regarding ecumenical relationships in Asia. We appeal to the churches to support this new committee as they begin to plan programmes such as ecumenical formation, conscientization, joint activities and common programmes at various levels.
        Finally we invite the churches to join in a prayer offered during our gathering:

0 Loving God, make us people of Hope.
Teach us to be united in the variety of the many gifts
with which you have blessed us,
a living rainbow, a sign in our world
of your universal and eternal Covenant with humankind
and with all creation.
We make our prayer, as always, in the name and
in the Spirit of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

        Asian Churches are today at the crossroads facing new problems and challenges. People of Asia are awakening to discover their freedom and the roots of their own cultural and religious traditions. Solidarity with the people, involvement in their struggles and aspirations, rootedness in the cultural and religious traditions and values of Asia, and the search for autonomy and identity are matters of life or death for the Asian Churches.
        Asian Churches are today called to take a common stand as they face common problems and challenges. But, unfortunately, the Churches are divided into hundreds of denominations, vying with each other and claiming to possess the absolute truth and casting aspersions on other Churches. Will Asian Christians listen to the call of the Lord for unity among themselves and with the whole of humanity? This question is all the more important, as Asia will have to play a unique role in the future of Christianity.
        This paper is meant to present the theology of ecumenism from the Catholic perspective. In the first part of this paper I shall mainly deal with the official teachings of the Catholic Church on ecumenism. In the second part I shall highlight the progress we have made in the ecumenical movement and the issues and obstacles that still remain on the way to unity. I shall conclude by suggesting certain areas of collaboration and a common ecumenical programme in the Asian context of today.

        With the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church fully entered into the modern ecumenical movement. Many documents and statements of the Council, especially the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the Decree on Ecumenism and the Decree on the Eastern Churches, are clear indications of a radical change in the attitude of the Catholic Church towards the other Churches. From polemics, triumphalism and condemnation, the Church entered into a new period of mutual understanding and acceptance. The Council clearly acknowledged that the situation of divisions among the Churches is against the will of Christ, who prayed for the unity of his disciples (Jn 17:21), that it is a scandal to the world and a stumbling block to the proclamation of the Gospel, and committed the Church unambiguously to the ecumenical movement.[1]

1. Ecclesiology of Vatican II

        Catholic theology of ecumenism today is built on the foundation of Second Vatican Council's ecclesiology. I do not dare to present here the ecclesiology of Vatican II. I would rather indicate the major ecclesiological shift made by the Council.

        The Church is primarily a mystery, a spiritual reality, a sacramental event which assumes particular forms in history. It is basically the mystery of God's plan of salvation manifested in time, in history, in particular ecclesial communities, institutions and structures. Hence the Church cannot be strictly defined, but only described by various imageries and concepts as was done by the New Testament. The Church is primarily koinonia or a communion, which is our participation in the life of God through Christ in the Holy Spirit or our participation in the Trinitarian life which has a vertical and horizontal dimension.
        Our communion in the life of God makes us into one body. The communion model of ecclesiology is the heart of the Council's teaching.[2] This mystery aspect of the Church is explained in the first chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.[3] In medieval ecclesiology, the Church was reduced to a perfect society and visible institution with clear-cut definitions, rules, structures and boundaries to the extent that the mystery aspect of the Church was lost to a great extent. The Council recti-fied this institutional overemphasis and highlighted the mystery dimension of the Church. The Church can never be reduced to its visible institutions, structures, rituals and dogmas. The mystery of the Church transcends all these external manifestations and expressions to such an extent that it can exist even outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. This new vision has prompted the Council to accept the ecclesial reality in the other Churches.
        Moreover, the mystery of the Church and the mystery of the Kingdom of God are intimately related, but the Church and the Kingdom cannot be totally identified. The Church is only a humble servant, herald and sacrament of the Kingdom. Thus the shift from institution to mystery is also a call for a Kingdom-oriented ecclesiology which is more open and less triumphalistic.

        In the approved scheme of Lumen Gentium the chapter on the People of God came after the chapter on the Hierarchy. During the discussions in the Council, a suggestion was made to reverse this order and place the chapter on the People of God before that on the Hierarchy. The fact that this suggestion was accepted by the Council is a clear indication of a shift from hierarchy to people. The Church is primarily the People of God, and the functions of the hierarchy have to be situated within the whole People of God. The members of the hierarchy are first and foremost members of the People of God, and as such the hierarchy and laity have equal status and dignity (LG 9-17). No charism or function shall extol anyone.
        This rediscovery of the Church as the People of God has tremendous consequences for transforming the Church and its mission. The laity begin to take their rightful place and to realize that the Church is theirs, or rather that they are the Church. Under the inspiration of the Council, People's Churches and Basic Christian Communities began to emerge as new models of being Church.

        Another aspect of this radical change is the rediscovery of the synodal and conciliar structures and systems of the early Churches and a shift from the papal monarchical system. The earliest major controversy in the Church on the admission of the Gentiles and the question whether they be circumcised like the Jewish Christians was solved not from above by decree or decision of Peter, but by common discussion and deliberation in a Council where all the apostles and elders of the various Churches took part. The meeting of Provincial synods and councils of the neighboring Churches, whenever they faced common problems and issues, was a custom during the second and third centuries. The fourth and fifth centuries witnessed the great events of the Ecumenical Councils which met to deliberate on the Trinitarian and Christological controversies of the period. The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 AD) stipulated that Provincial synods should be held twice a year, and thus in the East the synodal system became a constitutive part of the functioning of the Church. It was the development of the centralization and the emergence of a monarchical papacy which eliminated the synodal and conciliar structures of the early Churches.
        The Council teaches that the College of Bishops has supreme, universal and immediate authority in the Church in teaching matters of faith and morals (LG, 22). The authority of the College of Bishops does not contradict the authority of the Pope, as the Pope is within the College, and is in fact the head of the College. It means that the Pope and the bishops should function in the Church in close collaboration and communion as members of one body.

        In the pre-Vatican II period, the emphasis was on the Universal Church and its unity and uniformity under the papacy at the expense of the diversity of the Churches and their autonomy. Vatican II shifted the emphasis to the local Churches, their rich diversity and legitimate autonomy. As successors of the Apostles, the bishops are not only coresponsible for all the Churches, but as heads of local Churches they have their own authority in the local Churches as "vicars and ambassadors of Christ" (LG 27). The authority of the bishops derives not from the Pope but from the Apostles by the act of episcopal consecration by which they become successors of the Apostles (LG 20-21). They are the principle of the unity of the local Church. No local Church can be under any other local Church, but is in communion with all others.
        Every local Church is the concrete manifestation and embodiment of the Universal Church, not merely a fraction of it or an administrative unit. The Universal Church exists in the local Churches; the local Church is the real Church in its original. The various local Churches have legitimate autonomy enjoying their own traditions, liturgies, disciplines, and their own theological and spiritual heritage (UR 14). The unity among these is their communion in the same faith and sacraments, a unity expressed in the communion of Churches and their bishops, who are members of one College along with its head, the Roman Pontiff. The Church becomes "Catholic" by this communion of many Churches. Separated from this communion, no Church can claim to be Catholic. The different Churches have equal dignity and equal responsibility for the whole Church. The one Church of Christ exists in the many Churches, and the emphasis today is on the many and "unity in diversity".
        I have pointed out that in the teachings of Vatican II there is a shift of emphasis from institution to the mystery, from hierarchy to people, from papal primacy to the collegiality of bishops, and from the Universal Church to the Local Churches. A shift of emphasis does not mean a denial of the aspects of institution, hierarchy, papacy and the universal which indeed are important dimensions of the Church.
        I will not spell out in detail the ecumenical implications of this shift of Vatican II. The rediscovery and humble acknowledgement of the mystery of the Church helped the Church to accept the limitations of the institutions, structures, dogmas and rituals, and to acknowledge the presence of the mystery of the Church in other Churches and Christian communities. The shift from hierarchy to people is a call to overcome the clericalism which was prevalent in the Catholic Church against which the Reformation Churches revolted.
        The shift from papal primacy to the collegiality of the bishops and the synodal structure and functioning of the Church is a timely ecumenical response to the Orthodox and other Eastern Churches who safeguarded and witnessed to the ancient ecclesial structures based on the biblical and patristic traditions. The shift of emphasis from the Universal to the Local corrects the overcentralisation of the Catholic Church and accepts the diversity of the Churches and their locality. The idea of the Church as a communion of local Churches has enormous ecumenical prospects. Based on this ecclesiology of Vatican II, I shall now spell out some main aspects or dimensions of the theology of ecumenism.

2. Fundamental Unity of All Christians

        Pope John XXIII rightly observed: "What unites us is much greater than what divides us".[4] The Catholic Church accepts and proclaims that there is real communion among all Christians, though this communion may be imperfect and exists in different grades among the different Churches. The solid basis for this communion is our faith in Jesus Christ and Baptism. We have One Lord and One Baptism.

The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and fraternal affection. All those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church ... all those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have a right to be honoured by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers and sisters in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church (UR 3, UUS 11).

After being lifted up on the cross and glorified, the Lord Jesus poured forth the Spirit whom He had promised, and through whom He called and gathered together the people of the New Covenant, who comprise the Church, into a unity of faith, hope and charity ... The Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe, pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that marvelous communion of the faithful and joins them so intimately in Christ that He is the principle of the Church's unity (UR, 2).

3. Sister Churches and Other Ecclesial Communities

        Vatican II took a positive step when it called the ancient Eastern Orthodox Churches "Sister Churches" and the Reformation Churches "Ecclesial Communities" (UR 3, 14, 19). The distinction may not be obvious. In basic ecclesial structures the Orthodox Churches are very close to the Catholic Church which considers itself as the ideal, having the fullness of the visible sign and means of salvation. Hence the Orthodox Churches are called "Sister Churches" which means they are granted equal status. The Council pointed out the apostolic origin of the Eastern Churches and acknowledged that the West had drawn bounty from the treasury of the East for its liturgy, spiritual traditions and jurisprudence. Most important Trinitarian and Christological dogmas had been definitively taught by the Ecumenical Councils held in the East. In the doctrine of sacraments, apostolic succes-sion, ordained ministry and Eucharist, Orthodox and Catholic Churches are very close. Differences between them are only in the theological formulations or expressions of doctrines which are complementary rather than conflicting.[5] Hence Eastern and Western Churches were often characterized as two lungs of the Church and the Church is called to breathe with both lungs. In the light of this close relationship between the Catholic and the Eastern Churches, the Council also proposed mutual admission of their members to the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the sick when circumstances warrant and for genuine spiritual benefit (OE, 27-29).
        As already mentioned, the Council did not grant the same status to the Reformation Churches and other ecclesial communities, as the Reformation caused a substantial break with the traditions of the Catholic Church and there are very serious differences between them and the Catholic Church. But the Council acknowledged that many significant "ecclesial elements" are present in those Christian communities, such as the Word of God, life of grace, faith, hope and charity, and some sacraments (UR, 3, 19; LG, 15; UUS, 64). Therefore, the life of grace is available in these Churches and they are indeed means of salvation to their members due to the salvific efficacy of Christ and His One Church (UR, 3). The Council made a passionate call for removing the obstacles to perfect ecclesial communion among all Churches so that all Christians may be gathered into one visible body and fellowship with common celebration of the Eucharist.

4. Obstacles to Full Communion

        The One Church is today divided into hundreds of denominations who look at each other with suspicion, prejudice, rivalry and mutual condemna-tion. I take for granted the history of our divisions and the factors that led to it. We must go deeper into the root causes of divisions and uncover the layers of forces that separated the Churches. We can identify factors like heretical doctrines, theological differences, social, cultural and political factors, and those of human sinfulness.[6] Although doctrinal and theological differences played a role in the historical divisions among the Churches, the factors that divide humanity and those that divide the Churches are, in the final analysis, virtually the same. Doctrinal and theological issues have their ultimate roots in socio-cultural, political, psychological and other human factors. The Catholic Church acknowledges that in our historical divisions all sides are blameworthy and all responsible for historical events (UR, 3).
        The ancient Christological controversies and the definitive teachings of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon divided the Oriental Orthodox Churches (the so-called Nestorian and Monophysite groups) from the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Today we know that the confusion and misunderstanding were due to language and philosophical categories rather than differences in faith and dogma.[7] The separation between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church in 1054 was due not to the "filioque" question or other doctrinal issues, but primarily to political and socio-cultural factors and the conflict over papal jurisdiction. The Refortnation Churches had serious differences on doctrines of the Church, sacraments, ordained ministry, interpretation of Scripture, tradition, episco-pacy, papacy etc. (UR 3, 19-22; UUS, 67). But one has to keep in mind the background of medieval scholastic theology and the structures and corrupt practices of the medieval Church in contrast to the biblical and patristic teachings for a correct understanding and right response to the Reformers' teachings.
        On several occasions the Catholic Church publicly confessed sins she committed against the unity of the Church, acknowledging that she was equally responsible for historical divisions. At the end of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI in Rome and Patriarch Athenagoras in Istanbul simultaneously expressed repentance for the separation between Catholic and Orthodox Churches and asked pardon. The Decree on Ecumenism asked pardon of God and the separated brethren for sins of division:

St. John testifies: "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, his word is not in us" (1 Jn 1:10). This holds good for sins against unity. In humble prayer, we beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we forgive those who trespass against us (UR 7).

5. The Ecumenical Movement: a Divine Summons

        The modern ecumenical movement has its beginning among the Protestant Churches. The Evangelical Awakening of the 19th century cut across the various Protestant Churches which sent missionaries to all over the world. When the missionaries from the divided Churches met in foreign lands, they began to realize that they possess a fundamental unity and that the divisions among them are a scandal to the people of other religions and a serious obstacle to the proclamation of the Gospel. Moreover, native Christians in mission countries realized that the divisions in Christianity and the consequent various brands of Christianity imported by the missionaries had no meaning in their lands. They refused to be divided in the name of Christ. Thus the plea for one reunited Church and the search for the rediscovery of the visible unity of the Church came first from mission areas. The Churches thus formed an ecumenical forum for the common proclamation of the Gospel. It was the beginning of the modern ecumenical movement which in 1921 became the International Missionary Council.
        The common proclamation of the Gospel required the visible unity of the Churches which again called the Churches to face squarely their doctrinal and theological differences, settle disputes, heat divisions and reestablish mutual communion. For this specific objective another ecumenical movement was started called the Faith and Order Movement (with its preliminary conference in 1920). Others believed that the ecumenical need of the hour was to promote fellowship and peace in a world torn apart by the World War and to work for a just and free society on the basis of the Christian principles of truth, justice and love. To serve this purpose another ecumenical forum was created, the Life and Work Movement. The Roman Catholic Church was not a party to any of these for the obvious reason that its idea of unity was different: Heretics and schismatics had no right to exist. Unity meant to return to the fold of the Roman Catholic Church. Even when the above mentioned movements joined in 1948 to form the World Council of Churches, the attitude of the Catholic Church was negative. Things began to change only with Vatican II.
        The Council acknowledged that the ecumenical movement is a divine Summons and grace, fostered by the Holy Spirit for restoration of unity among all Christians.[9] All Catholics are exhorted to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the ecumenical movement. The Council called for mutual understanding, acceptance and communion by means of genuine dialogue, common social apostolate and common prayer. These should lead to our faithfulness to Christ's will for Church and renewal and reform which alone can pave the way to unity. The Council hopes that "little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into that unity of the one and only Church which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning" (UR 4).
        The Catholic Church's commitment to ecumenism is clearly stated both in the Latin and Oriental Codes: "It pertains to the entire College of Bishops and to the Apostolic See to foster and direct among Catholics the ecumenical movement, the purpose of which is the restoration of unity among Christians which, by the will of Christ, the Church is bound to promote."[10]
        Although many people speak about a stalemate or standstill in the ecumenical movement of the Catholic Church, in recent times Pope John Paul II has reiterated the commitment of the Catholic Church to ecumenism as "irrevocable" which, however, needs "new momentum".[11] In his recent encyclical, Ut Unum Sint, he writes as follows:

Jesus himself, at the hour of his passion, prayed "that they may be one" (Jn 17:21). This unity which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of his agape (UUS 9).

6. Renewal of the Church

        Pope John XXIII had the dream of unity of all Christians when he announced his plan of convoking Vatican II. He knew well that the unity of the Church could be achieved only by the renewal of all the Churches. As the Church exists in history, it needs constant renewal. The Church is continuously shaped by history. The world is changing very fast and the Church should not lag behind. Pope John realized that the Church needed renewal in all areas of the Church's life, teachings and activities, such as theology, doctrinal formulations, Church structures, ways of worship, spirituality, disciplines, mission, biblical hermeneutics, preaching the Word of God, catechetics, communications, social teachings of the Church, apostolate of the laity, religious life etc. (cf. UR, 6). The Council thus envisaged renewal as the most important ecumenical agenda:

        ... their (Catholics) primary duty is to make an honest and careful appraisal of whatever needs to be renewed and achieved in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more loyally and luminously to the teachings and ordinances which have been handed down from Christ through the apostles.
        For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, her members fail to live by them with all the fervor they should. As a result, the radiance of the Church's face shines less brightly in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's Kingdom is retarded. Every Catholic must aim at Christian perfection, and, each according to his station, play his part so that the Church, which bears in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus, may daily be more purified and renewed, against the day when Christ will present her to Himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27). (UR 4).

Christ summons the Church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is an institution of men here on earth. Therefore, if influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit itself of faith), these should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment (UR, 6; UUS, 15-17.)

7. The Sacraments of Unity: Baptism and Eucharist

        The Churches' common search is for visible unity in the Church which is a sacramental unity. If Christ is the unique sacrament of God and of salvation, the Church is the fundamental sacrament of this salvation in Christ. Christ united himself with the Church and made it into his own body, just as in Jesus humanity and divinity are hypostatically united. The sacraments actualize the reality of the Church in the life of the people. They are salvific moments in the life of the Christian community. They symbolize as well as make present what they signify, building up the Church which is the body of Christ. Hence the ecclesial and communitarian aspect of the sacraments must be emphasized rather than their personal or individual significance. All the sacraments are meant for the unity and fellowship of the Church, expressing and enhancing the unity of the Church.
        By the sacrament of Baptism a person is incorporated into Christ and his Church which is his Body. Therefore all those who are baptized are united into the Body of Christ by a sacramental bond.[13] This unity is only the beginning of the ecclesial communion which is to be nourished and led to its climax by the Eucharistic communion which itself is only an anticipation of the heavenly banquet in the Kingdom of God. Every Eucharist should prepare and lead us to this eschatological communion. All Christian Baptisms conferred with water, either by immersion or pouring, along with the Trinitarian formula and the proper intention, are valid. Therefore, Churches must take appropriate steps for the mutual recognition of Baptism; indiscriminate rebaptism must be avoided.

It is strongly recommended that the dialogue concerning both the significance and the valid celebration of Baptism take place between Catholic authorities and those of other Churches and ecclesial communities at the diocesan and Episcopal Conference levels. Thus it should be possible to arrive at common statements through which they express mutual recognition of Baptisms as well as procedures for considering cases in which a doubt may arise as to the validity of a particular Baptism (RED, 94).

8. Hierarchy of Truths

        How do we measure our unity in faith? What is the relation of doc-trines to faith? Do all doctrines have same importance, or is there a central core of faith to which the various doctrines are related in a hierarchical order? Does our search for unity require unanimity in and acceptance of all doctrines? These questions are extremely significant in ecumenical dialogue.
        We have pointed out that the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church accepts and endorses pluralism in the Church. The various Churches have their own individualities and identities which is not against the unity of the Church; on the contrary this variety enhances the catholicity of the Church:

While preserving unity in essentials, let all members of the Church, according to the office entrusted to each, preserve a proper freedom in the various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in the variety of liturgical rites, and even in the theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity be exercised. If the faithful are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever richer expression to the authentic catholicity of the Church, and , at the same time, to her apostolicity (UR, 4).

9. Papal Ministry in the Service of Unity

        In 1967 Pope Paul VI in his address to the Roman Secretariat for Christian Unity said: "The Papacy constitutes the greatest obstacle to reunion." This statement of the Pope seems to be accurate both historically and theologically. Papal interference in the affairs of the Eastern Churches and the Papal claim of universal jurisdiction was the real cause for the separation of the Orthodox Churches in 1054. During the Reformation controversies also, the papacy was the bone of contention. Luther and the Reformers accused the papacy of having usurped the supreme place of Christ in the Church. In the Catholic view, the Bishop of Rome has a specific and unique role in the communion of Churches. As the successor of Peter, he is "the permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and fellowship."[15] He is the visible sign of unity and the bond of communion, the servant and instrument of unity. According to the Catholic view, communion with the see of Peter and his successors is necessary for the fullness of unity in the visible Church.
        Although this view may be embarrassing to many Churches, it is significant that in the ecumenical movement there has been a positive development towards an ecumenical papacy. The Petrine ministry of unity, reconciliation and "strengthening the Brethren" seems to be more and more accepted today as essential to the unity of conciliar fellowship. The Orthodox Churches had always given a prime place to the Bishop of Rome, a "Primacy of Honour," though they consistently rejected the "universal jurisdiction " of the Pope. In recent bilateral dialogues, the Anglicans and the Lutherans also spoke of a "Petrine function", "a universal primacy", "a renewed papacy" or "a reconstituted papacy" to preside over the communion of Churches and to be an instrument of reconciliation and unity.[16]
        On the part of the Catholic Church there are signs of a new style and functioning of the Popes, who speak today practically for all Churches. Popes Paul VI and Pope John Paul Il asked forgiveness from all Churches for the painful events of the past caused by the papacy and invited the other Churches and theologians to discuss the question of the ministry of the Pope to see how best it can serve the unity of the Church and move beyond past controversies (UUS, 95-96).

        In the first part of this paper we outlined some important aspects, ideas and principles of Catholic ecumenism drawn from the official teachings of the Catholic Church. It was mainly meant for brethren from the other Churches who may not be familiar with the teachings and statements of the Catholic Church. In this second part, I shall briefly deal with the original vision of Christianity, the types of Churches we have today, our present vision of unity, and the problems and challenges we face in the ecumenical movement today. I shall conclude by focusing on the Asian context and on possible and fruitful areas of collaboration among the Churches in view of our common task in Asia today.

1. The Original Vision of Unity

        It would be a gross mistake to think that the earliest Church in the New Testament was a highly centralized institution headed by Peter and supervised by his assistants. The early Christian communities were not homogeneous in character, but diverse with different forms of ministries, patterns of organizations and having a variety of articulations of faith and ways of worship which were spontaneously shaped by their different historical, cultural and religious contexts. They were only very loosely connected to each other, and naturally, conflicts and tensions were not entirely absent among them. At the same time, the early Christian communities were fully conscious that they all belonged to the One Church of Jesus Christ, which was a fellowship of different Churches, that they all shared the same faith in Jesus Christ by which they were incorporated into One Body.
        The first Christian community was that of Jerusalem, consisting of the Apostles, disciples and the first followers of Jesus, almost all of them drawn from Judaism. It was typically a Jewish Church in beliefs, rituals, prayers, life-style and community organization headed by a "Council of Elders," the administrative system of the Jewish society of the time. They naturally continued many Old Testament traditions, attended temple and synagogue, even when they accepted Jesus as Messiah and their only saviour. The separation between Judaism and Christianity was a gradual one.
        From Jerusalem and its surroundings Christianity gradually spread to Antioch, and from there to the Gentile world of Asia Minor, Greece and Rome. Some of the first Christians were Hellenists (Stephen and others) who were influenced by the Greek language and culture. These Hellenists, who might be said to be forerunners of a liberal Christianity, played a major role in bringing Christianity to Samaria, Antioch and the so-called "Gentile world." The unique leadership of Peter and Paul in taking the Gospel to the Roman world cannot be ignored. The emergence of a Hellenistic and Gentile Christianity vis-a-vis Jewish Christianity triggered a host of tensions and conflicts among the early Churches. The Acts of the Apostles presents the story of the struggles of these new "missionary Churches" to break away from Jewish traditions and patterns of the Mother Church in Jerusalem. This mother Church could not envisage another Church, Hellenistic or Gentile, quite different from its own patterns and life-style. Perhaps they thought that Christianity, as a new movement within Judaism, was meant only for the Jews and those converted to Judaism. For Jewish Christians, to be a Christian meant accepting the whole of the Old Testament and all Jewish traditions and practices, including the rite of circumcision. This narrow view held by many Jewish Christians was challenged by Hellenistic and Gentile Christians. The Council of Jerusalem supported the latter and ruled that the Jewish Law and traditions should not be imposed on "Gentile Christians" (AA, ch. 15). It is worth noting that the Jewish Christian practice of circumcision and other prescriptions of the Mosaic Law were not condemned, but neither were they made universal law. The first Ecumenical Council thus held a pluralistic approach to ecclesial traditions.
        Diversity of the local Churches was thus an essential part of the original vision of Christianity. Although we do not know details of the early Christian communities, the New Testament books witness to different types of Christianity existing side by side with mutual acceptance, though not without conflicts, tensions and controversies.[17] We have already indicated two different types in the earliest Christianity, Jewish and Hellenistic, based on their different cultural and religious backgrounds. Various groups of early Christian Gnostics could be located within the Hellenistic type, though some Gnostic groups later became heretical and broke away from the Church. In early Christianity other types of Churches could be also identified, such as, apocalyptic, charismatic, and more institutional, similar to the Catholic model with the episcopal system.
        In the history of Israel, the New Testament period is known as the Apocalyptic period, characterized by the belief that they stood at the close of history, in the last days when Yahweh would establish the final Messianic Kingdom. Some of the Christian communities shared this apocalyptic hope and fervently waited for the immediate Second Coming (parousia) of Christ (Thessalonians I & II; Mark, ch. 13 etc.). At the same time, some of the early Pauline Communities were predominantly charismatic led and guided by those who manifested the gifts of the Spirit. We also see later Pauline communities of the Pastoral Letters that were typically "Catholic," highly structured and organized with definite patterns of episcopal ministry.
        However, all these types of communities had a fundamental unity as they believed in Jesus Christ as God and Saviour. This central Christological faith was the test of orthodoxy, however different were the formulations of this confession, such as, Messiah, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man etc. But the moment this central Christological faith was diluted or denied, they became heretical, as in the case of the Ebionites (Jewish Christians who denied the full divinity of Christ and held an "adoptionist" Christology) and the Gnostics (Hellenistic Christians who denied the full humanity of Christ and held a "docetist" Christology).

2. Divisions in the Church and Types of Churches Today

        The original vision of Church unity was almost lost in the Course of the Church's history and development. In fact, many historical divisions in the Church were due to the insistence on uniformity and the tendency to condemn all diversity in doctrinal and theological formulations. Ever since the identification of the Church with the Roman empire in the 4th century, uniformity among the local and national Churches in the empire in matters related to doctrine, structures and organization was insisted upon for the political stability of the empire. New ideas and innovations were frowned upon, and the tragic consequence was the divisions in Christianity.[18]
        All religions often break into new denominations when they encounter new situations, cultures and peoples. A religion originating in a particular context and culture may not be able to fit into other contexts and cultures. This means all religions have to adapt and reform and diversify themselves to fit into other cultures. When a religion, in order to make itself meaningful to other peoples, branches out into new traditions and systems, new denominations are born. Inevitably, there arise tensions and conflicts between the original tradition and the new traditions. The original tradition often fails to recognize the same faith in the new traditions with the tragic consequence of condemnation, excommunication and subsequent division. The historical divisions that occurred in Christianity are not an exception to this religious and cultural dynamic.
        Ever since the origin of Christianity, its unity was threatened time and again by various heresies and schisms, many of which gradually disappeared, while some still continue. The 4th-5th centuries are well known for the Trinitarian and Christological Controversies which rocked the Churches in the East. The divinity of Christ and His Lordship had to be explained in the context of the staunch monotheism of the Jewish religion. The Christian answer was the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity in Jesus Christ. But the question how Jesus could be God and Man at the same time remained a perennial problem.
        On this question the two rival theological schools of Alexandria and Antioch had opposing views due to different cultural, linguistic and philosophical backgrounds. The Alexandrians stressed the divinity of Christ, the Antiocheans his humanity. Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople (428), represented the Antiochean school, and Cyril was leader of the Alexandrians. Cyril accused Nestorius of heresy, claiming that he taught that two natures and two persons, divine and human, in Christ, which would disrupt the unity in the person of Christ. Condemned by the Council of Ephesus (431), the so-called Nestorian Churches had to separate them-selves from the others.
        The second major division is closely related to this controversy. Alexandrian thinking took an apparently extreme form in the teaching of the monk Eutyches who spoke of one nature (monophysis) of Christ. The human nature was swallowed up by the divine nature, as a drop of honey failing into the sea dissolves in it. The Council of Chalcedon (451) condemned this view and defined: "in Christ two natures without confusion and division are united in one person or hypostasis". The Chalcedonian formula was rejected by the so-called Monophysite groups of Churches, such as, the Egyptian or Coptic Church, the Ethiopean Church, the Armenian Church, and the West Syrian Jacobite Church or the Antiochean Church. This second major division was once again in the East.
        In the tragic division between the ancient Eastern Orthodox Churches and the western Catholic Church, the factors that divided the two Churches were more political than doctrinal. Ever since the foundation of the city of Constantinople as the "New Rome" and the division of the Roman empire into Eastern and Western, political rivalry between the two was always in ferment. Differences in language, culture, liturgy and theology gradually widened the gulf. The appointment of Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople, not confirmed by the Pope, led to mutual excommunications. The filioque (procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son) controversy added fuel to the conflict. The final break occurred in 1054 on the occasion of the visit of a Papal delegation and led to mutual excommunications. As already indicated, the real issue was the question of the universal papal jurisdiction, i.e. the question of the right of the Pope to intervene in the affairs of the Eastern Churches.
        The fourth major division was the 16th century Reformation and the subsequent formation of a number of independent Protestant Churches. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other reformers challenged many doctrines and practices of the medieval western Catholic Church, such as the doctrines of indulgence, corrupted practices of the sacraments, authoritarianism of Popes and Bishops, primacy of traditions over against the Word of God etc. They called for a reform in the whole Church, from top to bottom. As the Church authorities of the time totally rejected their views and demands for reform, the Reformers had to separate themselves from the Catholic Church, and gradually different Protestant Churches or denominations came into existence, at different periods and in various contexts.
        Today we have, therefore, on the ecclesial scene, a number of types of Churches, not exactly a continuation of the New Testament types, but those which emerged in history in interaction with new situations, peoples and their differing needs, temperaments, cultures, and socioeconomic and political structures. Among the three major types - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant - we have sub-types and divisions. How do we envisage unity or communion among these numerous types of Individual Churches?

3. The Vision of Unity Today

        The unity of the Church is not the reduction of all these types of Churches into one type, whether Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant. We had mentioned above that even in New Testament times there existed a variety of types of Churches. This diversity is part and parcel of the catholicity of the Church. Hence unity shall not be conceived as a return of all Churches to the Catholic model; nor to the Orthodox or Protestant model, as if only one model were right. Any movement for the uniformity of Churches has to be dismissed as a distorted vision of unity.
        The vision of One Reunited Church calls for a "Copernican Revolution" among the Churches.[19] We shall not regard the other Churches as planets rotating around our own Church as if we were the centre. Every Church must be ready to abandon the concept of unity centred on it. No one Church is at the centre. Jesus Christ is the centre of all Churches. The way to unity is the movement towards the centre who is Christ. When all Churches move towards the centre, they come closer to one another.
        Some ecumenists argue that all historical identities and ecclesial individualities have to be abandoned, giving way to a common identity or one reunited Church similar to the Church of South India model. It is an amalgamation model which views the historical ecclesial identities as obstacles and problems. But this view cannot be accepted. The existing individual Churches and their identities are our precious heritage that must be maintained and safeguarded, though these identities shall not be conceived as static and closed. No one historical Church or ecclesial tradition is a finished product, but it is always in the making by a giving and taking process of growth.
        In the history of the ecumenical movement several models of unity have been proposed, such as the Federation, Intercommunion, Organic Unity, and Conciliar Fellowship or Communion models.[20] A federation like that of the World Council of Churches is an inadequate model. What should unite us must not be merely a forum for study and action, but a form in which our communion in faith and sacraments which must be discovered, expressed and celebrated. The Intercommunion model, i.e. unity around the Eucharist, is not enough. We must go beyond it to common structures of consultation and decision making. The Organic Unity model, where there is one head and different members, is today suspect of being a centralizing model with much uniformity at the expense of diversity and autonomy. Hence the Communion model or Conciliar Fellowship model is proposed today in the ecumenical movement.
        The One Reunited Church has to be a Fellowship or Communion of different Churches, united in one common faith and sacraments. All Churches will be united in the same Apostolic faith, same Baptism and same Eucharist. But it will be a "unity in diversity," with each Church different and unique, autocephalous or self-governing and autonomous (with its own norms, structures, theology, way of worship and traditions). No Church will be under any other Church, but all Churches will be intimately related to one another in the communion of Churches. All Churches will accept each other's members and ministries. This communion will be maintained, supported and fostered by conciliar relationship and conciliar gatherings. To be more precise, all Churches will be able to sit together as equals in an Ecumenical Council which will be a visible sign and instrument of the ecclesial communion.[21]
        What is the way to realize this vision of unity? What are the obstacles on the way? What are the problems and challenges today? Where are we today on the road to unity?

4. Problems and Challenges

        I do not want to take up here all the doctrinal and theological issues that had divided the Churches in history, but rather indicate that many of the old issues are no longer reasons for keeping the Churches separated. Dialogues between the Oriental Orthodox Churches (the so-called Nestorian and Monophysite Churches) and the Catholic Church reached the conclusion that on the central Christological faith, that Jesus Christ is "fully God and fully Man", there remains absolutely no difference. The central issue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was the understanding and functioning of the papacy of the time. The Orthodox concept of the "Primacy of Honour", and "Primus inter Pares" can make a positive contribution in present discussions and rethinking of the papacy, especially in the context of Vatican II's teaching on the collegiality of bishops, and the Protestant suggestion of an "Ecumenical Papacy" in view of the "Petrine function" today. The central doctrine of the Reformers, "justification by faith," is practically accepted by Catholic theology today. There are other issues, such as, Scripture and Tradition, interpretation of the Word of God, doctrine of the Eucharist, sacraments, especially ordained ministry of bishops and priests, teaching authority of the Church or Magisterium etc. (UUS, 79). Many of the recent Catholic documents have pointed out that the differences among the Churches have to be taken seriously. Commitment to ecumenism and commitment to truth must go hand in hand. False irenicism and indifference to the Church's ordinances have to be avoided (UUS, 79; UR, 4, 11).
        Along with ongoing multilateral and bilateral dialogues among the Churches, what is required is renewal and radical conversion on the part of all Churches. Divisions among the Churches and their isolated existence for centuries have, in fact, caused fragmentation among all the Churches, hence the need for healing and rediscovery of wholeness on the part of all. Healing of wounds and rediscovery of wholeness or catholicity takes time, hard work and, above all, God's blessing. We cannot fabricate Church unity in a day or two. In our hopelessness and helplessness, God utters the healing and saving Word which alone can unite and save us.
        Unity today requires mutual recognition. Of course, the Churches cannot simply recognize each other irrespective of what they believe and practice. It has to be a responsible act. Every Church has a right and responsibility to challenge other Churches and show that they are in continuity with the original faith and vision of New Testament Christianity. Could we spell out some of the essential signs or marks of Church of Christ, so that we could identify the Church of Christ in the many Churches of today? The central Christological faith that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, the acceptance of the Sacred Scriptures of both the Old and New Testament as the sacred and precious heritage of the Church which contain the Word of God, the two dominical sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist by which the memory of Christ is celebrated and the Christian community is built up, the commitment to the proclamation of the Gospel as the sacred mission of the Church, the continuation of the Apostolic ministry and the "episcopal function", and the acceptance of a "Petrine ministry" are some of the basic ecclesial elements by which we can identify the Church of ChriSt.[22] I am not suggesting a "reductionism" or "minimalism" detrimental to the unique-ness and individuality of the Churches, but am pointing out some of the essential and visible elements of the Church of Christ which are found in many Churches today.
        Mutual recognition of the Churches and intercommunion among them practically mean the recognition of each other's Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. From this point of view, the recent document of the Faith and Order Commission on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (The Lima Document, 1982) is of great significance. This document is the product of a long ecumenical process involving the work of more than 50 years and of hundreds of theologians, scholars and Church leaders, with the collaboration of practically all the Churches, including the Catholic Church. The document has articulated doctrinal convergence on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry in the light of the studies, common worship and experience of the whole ecumenical movement during the last 70 years. The draft document was first published in 1975 and later revised in the light of 140 responses from over 90 Churches, and finally approved at the Faith and Order Commission Meeting in Lima, Peru, in 1982. Since then, the document was circulated among all the Churches "to receive and respond" and to spell out its practical consequences for each Church and for the ecumenical movement. Until now, already six volumes of official responses to the "BEM” document have been published.[23]
        The document tried to articulate the common faith of all the Churches in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. It is a common proclamation of our faith of the One Church received from Apostolic times. On Baptism and Eucharist there emerged practically a full doctrinal convergence, but in theology and sacramental practice a healthy pluralism was endorsed. Ministry is indeed the crucial issue. The document made a significant recommendation to all Churches to accept the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons as an ecumenical pattern which indeed was normative for all Churches until the time of the Reformation. The doctrines of apostolic succession, sacramental nature of ordination, nature of episcopal ministry and papacy are still to be clarified and settled. The emerging doctrinal consensus and the proclamation of our common faith in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry has immense ecumenical prospects in view of the mutual recognition of the Churches and restoration of our communion.
        Even if we succeed in solving all the old doctrinal issues among the Churches, other problems may still arise and new divisions may still occur. Emergence of Christian fundamentalism, racism, feminist movements, including the question of the ordination of women, different approaches to the liberation movements, Christian approaches to other religions, inculturation of the Gospel etc. are serious new issues threatening the unity of the Churches. These issues cut across denominational boundaries. Moreover, our search for unity must not be a narrow Church-centred concern. The Church must become an effective sign of the unity of the whole humankind. The Church has to be committed to heal all sorts of divisions both in the Church and in the world, divisions in the name of race, caste, class, culture, language, economy, power, ideologies and religion. This is the greatest challenge before the Churches today.

5. Ecumenical Collaboration in the Asian Context

        This ecumenical consultation between FABC and CCA is meant to be contextual with a pastoral thrust. Hence I would like to conclude by suggesting a pastoral and practical ecumenical programme in the Asian context. It will be unnecessary here to describe or even mention the Asian context. There had been several FABC and CCA Conferences, papers and statements on the Asian reality of today, highlighting various aspects of the Asian context.[24] In the socioeconomic realm, the gulf between rich and poor is ever widening due to the Western development model, globalization, market economy, the misuse of science and technology for profit, neo-colonialism and the exploitation of Asia's resources by the West. In the Asian political scenario, democracy is only a facade for dominant groups, and state authoritarianism, repression of minorities, communalism, and fundamentalism are rampant. The situation of workers, women, and children, especially girl children, is pathetic. On the religiocultural scene, the situation is still worse. Asia's age-old religious and cultural traditions are being overtaken by Western secularism and consumerism. What is the responsibility of the Asian Churches in this context?

Task of the Asian Churches

        It has been repeatedly pointed out at FABC conferences that the Asian Churches require today a threefold dialogue - dialogue with Asia's poor, with the Asian cultures, and with Asia's ancient religious traditions. The Churches must unambiguously declare their solidarity with the poor and join in their struggles for socioeconomic and political justice and freedom. Asian Churches must become Churches of the poor, not just Churches for the poor. Most of the Asian Churches have a Western face in their theology, ways of worship and ecclesial structures and discipline, and they are alienated from their own cultural roots. Dialogue with Asia's cultural traditions is a matter of life and death for the Asian Churches. Closely related is the task of dialogue with the living religions of Asia. In a religiously pluralistic society dialogue must be the life-style. Asian Churches need today a new Baptism of immersion, immersion into the life of the poor and the oppressed, immersion into Asia's rich cultural traditions, and immersion into the living and pluriform religious traditions and values of Asia. For this urgent task ecumenical collaboration is a must.

Local Ecumenism Oriented to Asian Problems

        The Local Church is the only Church. The Universal Church is simply the communion of the local Churches. It is in the local Church that the mystery of the Church becomes truly and really present. The local Churches in Asia are enormously diversified with their own specific situations, needs, and resources. Ecumenical initiatives must come from the local Churches, and not simply wait for orders to implement world-wide ecumenical directives. Taking into consideration the overall Asian situation, it may be suggested that priority should be given in the local Churches for forming ecumenical groups including people of all Churches, religions and ideologies to solve the urgent problems of Asia, groups for specific objectives, such as human rights and social justice, women's rights, dialogue with other religions and ideologies, and ecological concerns.

Inter-Ecclesial Dialogues

        I do not mean to say that Asian Churches should relegate dialogue among the Churches for Christian unity. Indeed the Churches must witness to their unity and work for full communion. In Asia, Church unity has more prospects as most of the Asian Churches, both Catholic and Protestant, except the ancient Eastern Churches, have come from outside during the Colonial period, and divisions have no historical, theological and cultural roots. The urgent common task of the Churches in Asia also compels for unity. Divided Churches are a scandal to the people and ineffective for the common mission.
        In addition to ongoing ecumenical activities - dialogues on doctrinal and theological issues, common Bible studies, and prayer groups in order to promote unity among the different Churches, I would like to propose three things:

        a) Asian Churches need new ways of theologizing which should be inspired by the specific context and needs of Asia. Common work-shops should be organized for theologizing in Asia.

        b) Collaboration among the seminaries, theological colleges, faculties and institutes is absolutely necessary for the ecumenical education of future pastors and ministers. Joint programmes, exchange of teachers and resources have to be encouraged.[25] In teaching theological subjects, their ecumenical aspects and implications must be highlighted (RED, 70ff).

        c) A course on Ecumenism should be compulsory in seminaries and theological faculties and should cover the history and traditions of all the Churches, the history of the ecumenical movement, contemporary ecumenical discussions and the emerging doctrinal convergence among the Churches. The BEM document must be an essential part of the curriculum.

        The Ecumenical Directory of the Catholic Church has already suggested the formation of Ecumenical Commissions in all the Churches and dioceses to inspire and guide the ecumenical movement and the relationship among the Churches. Joint meetings of these commissions are to be encouraged. Ecumenical associations of pastors, theologiang, teachers and students can also promote mutual understanding and appreciation, joint studies and research. In many Asian countries National Councils of Churches have been already formed and function effectively as instruments of collaboration and co-ordination. But in many countries the Catholic Church has not yet joined these Councils, despite encouraging directives from Rome.[26] It is time for the Catholic Church to join these Councils to coordinate the activities of the Churches in each country.

Common Celebration of the Year 2000

        The Catholic Church has already taken initiatives for the celebration of the year 2000. The Pope has already spoken on this subject on several occasions, especially through his 1994 Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente. He proposed a Synod of the Catholic Churches of Asia to prepare for the celebration of the year 2000. How might the other Churches in Asia participate in this Synod? An ecumenical celebration of the year 2000 by all the Christian Churches of Asia is of utmost importance for Asia. How shall we plan and organize this event? What should be the theme of this common celebration? "The Message of Christ for Asia in the Third Millennium" would seem to be an important topic.

        These Biblical passages point to two realities about the Church and Christian life that have inspired ecumenical theological reflection. Firstly, God wills the unity of the Church; it is something we need to strive to achieve. Secondly, that unity is something that we already possess because "there is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one God and Father of us all".
        The first and perhaps the central theological assumption of the ecumenical movement is that the unity of the church is both a "gift" and a "goal". We do not seek to bring about the unity of the church, but we seek to make visible the unity we already have; we strive to remove those obstacles, disagreements and the consequent divisions that stand in the way of manifesting and celebrating the unity that is ours in Christ.
        Paradoxically, the very theological assumption that the church by definition is "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" has been the main contributor to the deep divisions within the church. In the course of history, each part of the divided church had to regard itself as the true manifestation of the "one holy, catholic and apostolic church" and thus had to deny the ecclesial reality of the other. For a long time ecclesial realities other than one's own were considered "heretical", "separated" or as needing to "return to the fold" in order to be in full communion with the Church. Thus the divisions within the church created traditions that were mutually exclusive, signified by denying to each other participation in the central symbol of the church and its unity, the Eucharist.

       The major theological breakthrough in interchurch relations came with the "softening" of this attitude and self- understanding within the different traditions of the divided church, seen both in the birth of the Faith and Order Movement and the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
        I use the word "softening" rather than "changing" of the attitude because it is no secret that several churches, if pushed to the theological comer, would still maintain that they are the one true manifestation of the Church Universal, giving historical and theological reasons why this is the case. It is often presented as an essential part of their ecclesial self-under-standings and it would be difficult for anyone else to question or deny it.
        With the "softening" came the churches' willingness to hold in creative tension the Pauline affirmation in Ephesians 4 and the prayer of our Lord in John 17.22, namely that the unity of the church is both a "gift" (of the esse of the church) and a "goal" (and a vocation of the church).
        Once this became the ground rule, it was possible to begin to consider the conditions under which the unity of the church might be restored so that it might again become "the one eucharistic fellowship". Churches were willing to engage in theological conversations to seek convergences on some of the doctrinal matters such as baptism, Eucharist, ministry and the understanding of being the body of Christ, or the Church.
        The Faith and Order Movement adopted a multilateral approach where a number of churches came together seeking to arrive at a common consensus on these matters based on a common understanding of the Biblical teaching on the matter, the contribution each of their traditions brought to it and on the basis of what they might, under the guidance of the Spirit, say today together.
        These multilateral conversations were augmented in more recent decades by the more focused bi-lateral conversations between churches that separated at a given moment in history, to examine whether those factors that contributed to the division of the church at that time were still valid, and if agreements could be reached which would make re-establishment of communion possible.
        I do not intend here to trace the ups and downs of the Faith and Order Movement, the hopes and disappointments of bilateral dialogues or of the changing views on the nature of the unity we seek. There is a sense in which confidence that agreements on doctrinal matters would lead to the unity of the church has begun to erode. In recent years the crucial role played by non-theological factors both in bringing about and maintaining divisions within the church has also been more fully recognized. Moreover, the radical changes taking place in the world, developments in the internal life of the churches, the place and role of religion in society and the rapid changes in the religious consciousness of human beings have all raised searching questions for our understanding of unity and the ways to achieve it. This, however, is beyond the scope of this discussion.

       What is important is that the ecumenical movement can never move away from it's primary commitment to serve the cause of making visible the unity we have in Christ. It is a unity that must be made manifest "so that the world may believe". In other words, a divided church (despite our convictions of the oneness of the church in essence) is a scandal and a counter-witness to Christ.
        It would, therefore, perhaps be more useful, within the search for the expression of the unity of the church in Asia, to put the question in a different form: "Knowing that our churches are indeed divided over doctrine and church order (which still needs to be addressed), what can we as Christian peoples and churches in Asia do that would not compromise the integrity of our churches and yet help to make more visible the unity we have in Christ, so that the world may believe?"
        There are several avenues of collaboration that have already been identified and are indeed already in practice in many situations around the world:

-- Praying for one another, and together,
-- Studying together the issues that divide us with the view to grow in mutual understanding,
-- Facing together common issues that confront the churches in their life in the wider community,
-- Common engagement in service to the community,
-- Common witness,
-- Common pastoral care, etc.

        The reason John 17.22 has played a central role in ecumenical theological thinking also has to do with the fact that it keeps the search for the unity of the church within the perspective of the world. The church's unity is not for its own benefit but "that the world may believe that You, Father, have sent me". Therefore the second most important theological conviction of the ecumenical movement is that both the church and its unity are for the purpose that God's will might be fulfilled for and in the world.
        It has been rightly observed that the ecumenical movement was born at the intersection between the church and the world. The very description of the movement as "ecumenical", from the word oikoumene, meaning the "whole inhabited earth", is indicative of the scope it seeks to encompass. The movement is based on the theological assumption that "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof', that "God so loved the world", that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself', that "Creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay", so that there would be a "new heaven and a new earth".
        In other words, ecurnenism is at its best when it is about bringing healing, reconciliation, justice, peace and wholeness into the lives of all peoples and communities. Therefore the search for peace with justice, the struggle to uphold the rights and dignity of peoples, the concern for the oppressed, marginalized and rejected as well as the search for a just and righteous ordering of the social, economic and political life of communities and nations has also been at the centre of the theological understanding of what ecumenism is all about. So has also been the ministry of compassion, bringing relief and rehabilitation to refugees, migrants and peoples uprooted from their lands.
        It is very important to recognize that these are not understood as the "good works" that are done when churches come together, or that these .'good works" can be instrumental in achieving the unity of the church. Rather, the concern for justice and peace, the solidarity with the oppressed and the marginalized, the sharing of resources with the needy and the poor, and advocacy for economic and political ordering of life that respects the dignity of the peoples have all been understood theologically as essential to the meaning of being the church in the world. These are the concerns of the Kingdom; they constitute the way Christians and churches exercise their discipleship to Christ; Alongside the proclamation of the Good News of forgiveness and new life in Christ, they make up our witnesses "that the world may believe". They are ways of participating in the mission of God in the world in anticipation of the fulfilment of our daily prayer: "Your kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as in heaven". In this sense, the ecumenical movement is rooted in the Bible and stands within the prophetic movement of the Old Testament and of Jesus' own ministry.

        You are only too aware that this has also been the most controversial aspect of the theological understanding of the ecumenical movement. The difficulties have to do with different ways of understanding the relationship between the unity of the church and the unity and renewal of the human community. At the heart of the issue is one's understanding of the relation-ship between the church and the world. Some would want to see the ecumenical movement primarily as the movement for the unity of the churches and see the call for the involvement in the world as unwelcome engagement in political realities. Others are so committed to justice and peace in the world that they have lost patience with the churches which, after decades of conversation, are still unable to agree to come together. They tend to see the ecumenism that seeks church unity as a diversion from the primary calling of the church to be a healing community in the world.
        There is yet another issue. There was a time when the much quoted statement "Doctrine divides, but service unites" was taken as self-evident. But the actual experience of attempting to come together as churches to engage in common issues of the world has shown that we can at times be as hopelessly divided on these matters as on doctrinal issues. While every one would agree on the importance of the social upliftment of the poor, there is no agreement among Christians and churches on the kind of political and economic system that would bring about the desired change. We do not agree on the nature of church-state relationships, of war as a means of correcting injustice, of the ways to limit population growth, of the levels and kinds of development that is appropriate in specific situations, of the place and role of women in church and society, and so on.
        The churches can be and indeed are at times as deeply divided on socio-economic, ethical and moral issues as they are on doctrinal matters. But perhaps the lines of division that exist on these matters do not necessarily correspond to the lines of confessional divisions that separate the churches. Therefore one of the basic ministries of the ecumenical movement has been to encourage the churches to enter into creative theological dialogues on social, economic, political and moral issues so that together they may seek to discern the will of God in each situation and on different issues.
        It is important to recognize that the issues that we face, the context in which they are faced and the nature of the response they demand are different in different parts of the world. While the Church is one, our life and experiences as churches in different parts of the world can indeed be vastly different, calling for different ways of understanding our life together.
        Thus, those of us from Asia, irrespective of the church traditions from which we come, have the common experience of living in societies that (with very few exceptions) are shaped by other faith traditions. We share the common experience of being minorities, of inheriting theological tradi-tions that were shaped by the cultural norms and historical controversies of Europe and of living in societies where masses of people are dep