Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil

Life is full of challenges and contradictions. While we believe that truth shall triumph ultimately and goodness find acceptance in the long-term, those who aim at proximate gains and on-the-spot success fail to see it. Historians admit many battles could have had another outcome. What if the Persians had won, not the Greeks? What if the Carthagenians had won, not the Romans? What if the winners at Panipat and Plassey had lost?
Many questions have no answers. The Persian mystic-poet, Rumi, occasionally makes a naughty suggestion, “Ask a difficult question, and the marvellous answer appears”. For example, did the better people always win these battles? No, it is not always the better people who won, but the winners projected themselves as the better people in their writing of history. Another naughty question: could these battles have been avoided? For example, could traders have taken over those countries, exchanged goods and prospered? Could intellectuals have taken over, exchanged good ideas and enriched the two countries in diverse ways? Sad, it did not happen.
Quarrels aggravate due to the pride of a few and the pettiness of many. Solutions can come from perceptive individuals on either side and sensitive groups in between, who are concerned about the long-term good of the two communities in tension. Secular historians that tell us that heresies and schisms could have been avoided if leaders on either side were sensitive to ethnic differences and cultural sensitivities. There was an era when the guardians of the faith were more concerned about the formulation of doctrines with Hellenic precision than with their deeper understanding and pastorally inspiring explanations. Such a situation led to the heresy of Nestorianism. Nestorius pleaded till the end of his life that the stance attributed to him by his opponents was not his real stance.
Words and expressions in different languages and cultural backgrounds have different connotations. The real trouble was the eagerness of the Byzantine ruling class (Hellenic) to dominate the Syrians (Semitic) which was taken to the religious field. Play on words ignored shades of meanings and connotations, insistence on authority ignored respect due to regional and cultural identities and hurt emotions. The Syrians asserted their identity even more strongly, rather than yield to Byzantine pressure. Monophysite self-assertion can also be seen from the same point of view.
The Byzantine leadership continued to impose orthodoxy and imperial authority simultaneously over all of West Asia and North Africa, so that anyone who resented Byzantine domination would be tempted to reject orthodoxy. Many cultural historians see in the easy victory of the Arab forces and quick spread of Islam as the rejection of the Byzantine order by the affected regions. Islamic forces were welcomed by those regions even up to Spain, as though Carthage had come alive to resist Rome, with their new base in Arabia. Cultural and regional sensitivities matter. Winners can lose!

“There was an era when the guardians of the faith were more concerned about the formulation of doctrines with Hellenic precision than with their deeper understanding and pastorally inspiring explanations.”

Similarly, there are scholars who see Protestantism as the religious self-assertion of Germanic people after remaining under Italian (South European) tutelage for centuries. If Luther’s Germany opted for another version of Christianity to emphasize their identity, Voltaire’s France opted for the outright rejection of Christianity. Arnold Toynbee sees a relationship between the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes that took away religious freedom and the rise of Voltaire, leading to the French Revolution and the birth of a secular society. If there were persons attentive to regional, ethnic and cultural sensitivities, many disasters could have been avoided. But they are rare. Amidst tragedies, at least, are winners capable of self-criticism?
Historians trace the rise of secularism to the “Wars of Religion” between various Christian nations. Fighting made religion itself unwanted. Though the Treaty of Westphalia had addressed the problem, squabbles continued between religious groups among themselves and others. A contentious and rigid stance always undermines its own position. Self-importance of leadership undermines its credibility and authority. Imposed ideas only recoil. Lack of sensitivity remains the greatest obstacle. An accumulation of assets and arrogance serves as the ‘tipping point’. Whenever the Church was too comfortable, anti-clerical voices always won wider attention. Today we are in such a position.
Referring to inter-religions tensions, Pope Francis once said we need to study more deeply the very nature of religion itself: its spiritual quality, its social relevance. Referring to past inter-church struggles, ecumenists have emphasized the importance of having a profounder understanding of the core content of the Gospel-message and the obligations it imposes.
Referring to inter-ritual contentions, sober-minded intellectuals have invited a research into the origins of culturally and historically conditioned rites in order to be able to give them the right sort of recognition. Jesus announced the Good News, he did not define ritual identities. If the Gospel of Love is forgotten, the Priest and the Levite can pass by, leaving a wounded humanity on the roadside (Lk 10:31-32).
Referring to difficulties within a ritual community itself, one needs to fall on one’s knees and meditate over the fragility of human nature and draw lessons from our mistakes of the past. Personalities can clash, regionalisms can take over, decision-makers can remain unbending. Solutions suggest themselves only when one looks at the long-term good of one’s own community and general benefit all people concerned. Putin cannot look at things that way in his neighbourhood, nor can we in ours. But the moment we say, “We can”, the world changes.
The following passage from Charles Peguy has always touched me profoundly: “What is formidable in the reality of life is not the juxtaposition of good and evil; rather, it is their interpenetration, their mutual incorporation, their mutual sustenance, and sometimes their strange and mysterious kinship” (Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, pg. 750). When I read this, I find myself wiping my eyes. What happened? Did I weep?