In the previous chapter, we have argued for the importance of a relational-distinctive dialectics or in other words, permeability in ecclesiology working together with the dynamics of the Spirit and Christ. Here, we proceed to explore ecclesiological paradigms in Western theology that might contribute to the understanding of an ecclesiology influenced by pneumatology with its christological dynamics operative. In the following pages we will move forward, determining what constitutes the notion of “permeability” or porous borders in terms of this relational-distinctive dialectics. Following this, various models of ecclesiology will be explored in order to search for a suitable basis for a permeable Spirit ecclesiology. In our discussions of various models, we would look forward to dealing with representative models that are relational and those which are distinctive. Yet, ecclesiological thinking which contains the relational-distinctive dialectics will be emphasised. Both relational and distinctive models of ecclesiology would be evaluated in terms of the basic understanding of permeability that will be established in the following pages.
The character of permeability
The notion of permeability refers to the phenomenon of the passage of things through porous borders or boundaries. This means that it recognises the presence of a border while determining what type of border it is, i.e., porous. When applied in the context of the church, it would mean that it ought to have borders or boundaries, but those are porous, allowing selective passage of, say, perspectives and people. The recognition of porosity in the church’s borders can be broadly conceived through the concept of relationality, while borders can be conceived in terms of providing the character of distinctiveness to the church. However, as porosity and borders cannot be conceived separately, the concept of relationality and distinctiveness cannot operate separately. In other words, borders need porosity to be permeable, while porosity cannot be conceived without borders. This calls for a dialectical understanding of relational-distinctiveness. The permeability of the church would depend on these relational-distinctive dialectics. What this would mean for the church is that relationality of the church cannot be conceived without its counterpart, i.e., distinctiveness, and the distinctiveness of the church cannot be expressed without being relational. Relationality and distinctiveness would work together to complete the cycle of permeability of the church. Relationality would seem to qualify distinctiveness and, in turn, is qualified by the latter.
Relationality, as a counterpart of the relational-distinctive dialectics, will have two characteristics: dialogical mutuality and critical particularity. This is a nuanced understanding of relationality. This is a relationality which can be termed as distinctively relational. In this kind of nuanced understanding of relationality, the criterion of dialogical mutuality would require the partners to be in an egalitarian relationship where exchange occurs mutually and not from one side only. This posits that the relationality of the church with other communities or the world would be nonhierarchical or egalitarian, allowing exchange or passage of perspectives and people both ways. While being thus relational, permeability demands that this relationality is also critically particular. What this means is that this relationality is not simply unqualified without a selective or critical edge; nor is it a bland universality without concreteness and particularity. This distinctively relational character would be clearer when we discuss it in relation to the particular context of India.
When we refer to the status of the Indian ecclesial relationship with other communities, we do find a form of relationality, but it differs from the one that we are arguing the churches should have. The church in India has always been a relational church in terms of being a missionary church—a church that reaches out to the world, to other communities, seeking to transform and bring people to the saving knowledge of Christ. It has reached out to the poor, the suffering, and the uneducated through spiritual, medical, and educational missions. However, this relationality has not been mutual in the sense that the church has always considered itself as the giver and not the receiver, the teacher and not the learner, the repository of truth and salvation vis-à-vis communities that supposedly sat in darkness and ignorance. In other words, the relationality between the church and other communities has been one-sided and not mutual. In addition, the church’s link with the colonial powers resulted in a supremacist, imperialist, and patronising tendency in its ministry and mission. It was a hierarchical and not a dialogical relationship. A dialogical relationship would always consider the equal status of partners, however different and diverse; otherwise, it ceases to be a dialogical encounter. The Christian church in India has prided itself on bringing a superior religion and superior culture to a “heathen people” who did not seem to know God and whose culture is devilish at best. It has assumed that the Spirit of God was not at work before Christianity came to India. A seemingly proselytising tendency even lurked behind the church’s education and medical missions. We have shown earlier that this created religious, social, and cultural tensions and alienation between Christians and other communities. The attitude of colonial Christianity still remains in these postcolonial times, resulting in continued alienation of the Christian community with respect to others. We have also shown that this alienation has created a false understanding of Christianity as a foreign religion; the religion of the West. People of other faiths often admire and appreciate Jesus and some even seek to follow him, but the foreign nature of the church and Christianity and their claims of supremacy have made it unattractive to Indians. Therefore, it is argued that relationality as explained in terms of dialogical mutuality is an absolute requirement for the churches in India. In the Indian situation, the passage of perspectives and people between the church, other comm...
