The Parallax Gap Between Faith and Ideology: Remembering M.M. Thomas

(Talk offered at UTC, Bangalore on 12th September 2016 on the theme Remembering M.M. Thomas, Re-imagining Christian Public Witness in India, in the National Seminar Organized by CISRS)

Introduction

‘Parallax’ is a concept developed by Slavoj Zizek, the Slovenian Psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. In his book The Parallax View, Zizek talks about ‘parallax’ as a “constantly shifting perspective between two points which no synthesis or mediation is possible.”[1] Unlike the Hegelian dialectics where there is a synthesis of perspectives, Zizekian parallactical perspective shifts from one perspective to another ‘but affords no synthesis or unity.’ ‘Parallactical terms’ always keep their ‘irreducible singularities’ and instead of synthesis they find multiple locations ‘in between.’ For Zizek, ‘parallax’ is a point of alteration and difference rather than ‘Oneness’ and homogeneity. Employing the Zizekian concept of ‘parallax,’ this essay tries to explain M.M. Thomas’ method of synchronizing ideology and theology while keeping their ‘irreducible singularities’ within. It is argued here that M.M. Thomas’ engagement with ideology and theology, theology and politics, sacred and secular, church and society as ‘parallactical terms’ in fact initiated a post- (western) Enlightenment theological method in Indian Christian Theology. It is argued here that Indian Christian Theology after M.M. Thomas cannot but allude to this ‘parallactical approach’ of M.M. Thomas as it overcomes the epistemological insufficiency of modernity that rendered faith-ideology, theology-politics, religion-secularism, church-state, salvation-humanization, eschatology-history, time-space as dichotomies and contradictions.

Faith as the ‘Parallax Gap’ between Ideology and Theology

As T.M. Philip rightly observes, M.M. Thomas’ theological thinking is founded on the encounter between ideology and theology.[2] Taking a post-western liberal theological tradition, Thomas interconnects Christian faith with ideology. However, the intercession between faith and ideology is not so simple; rather, it is alluric, enigmatic and kenotic. Denying the western Christian doctrinal theology which defines faith as absolute in itself, Thomas defines Christian faith as dependent on ideology for translating its vision for society. For Thomas, ideology is a pre-requisite for enacting faith in society. At the same time, Thomas is aware of the problem of the totalitarianism of ideologies as they claim themselves as the ‘total scheme of salvation.’[3] On the other side, he speaks about the possibility of crusades in history through which religions like Christianity become self-righteous and judgmental ideologies. Hence, Thomas sees a ‘parallax gap’ between ideology and faith. According to Thomas, it is in this ‘parallax gap’ theology becomes post-ideological and post-theological. Christian theology, for Thomas, is inherently secular where he envisions an open church and open society — a secularized faith and a theo-politics.

Thomas places cross at this point of intercession which is nothing but a kenotic point of dialogue, interrogation and transformation. For Thomas, cross is not just a message of Christian theology; rather it is the method of practicing Christian faith. Cross is the fulcrum of Christian faith which makes theology always political and politics always theological. Thomas explains this theo-political content of Christian faith clearly: “it is the spiritual opening of our hearts to the cries of the victims in response to the passion of God. [Political] theology translates it in terms of understanding the situation of the victims and formulating the ends and means to be pursued to effect a transformation of the situation. In that way faith needs ideology in the struggle for justice.”[4] For Thomas, Christian faith, both in its ideological and theological imaginations “compels us to decide a new way of being” — new humanity. For Thomas, faith is a “parallax” between ideology and theology in the process of becoming human or humanization.

Faith as the ‘parallax gap’ between ideology and theology is well-explained in Thomas’ definition of salvation as humanization.[5] For Thomas, there is a social logic of salvation embodied in the humanization process. Thomas writes: “Salvation is the spiritual inwardness of true humanization and that humanization is inherent in the message of salvation in Christ.”[6] The eschatological sense of this process of becoming human or new creation, positions Thomas in a post-humanist epistemological framework. While Western Humanism theorizes an essentialist/ fixed human being, Thomas talks about a process of becoming human or eschatological anthropology. Signifying Jesus Christ as the first born of all creation, Thomas envisages the process of humanization as the experience of salvation which is political in content. However, this eschatological reality of the new creation does not go on endlessly; rather it breaks into history as the messianic event as we see in the cross of Jesus Christ. The cross of Jesus Christ envisions messianic time in history when it encounters the forces of Empires of this world.[7] Whether it is salvation or eschatology, for M.M. Thomas, they are embodied in social practices of justice and freedom.

Cross as the ‘Parallax Gap’ between Sovereignty and Anarchy

Thomas’ theology is not founded on a sovereign God who controls the whole system from outside; rather it is a crucified God or a weak God who is at the center of all political practices. According to Thomas, the cross is the self-manifestation of the self-forgetting and self-sacrificing God. Crucified one is the negation of the totalitarian exercise of power over humans. Differentiating ‘kingship’ with ‘servant hood’ Thomas defines the role of the state to serve the people, but not to rule over the people. Thomas cites St. Mathew to clarify his theology of state: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but however would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man come not to be served but to serve; and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt. 20: 25–28). Thomas re-defined sovereign democracy on the basis of his theology of cross. Thomas comments that the throne of David has been replaced by the kingdom community through the crucified and risen Jesus Christ.[8] For Thomas, Cross signifies a ‘new humanity’ where the sovereignty of the state is re-defined and an egalitarian social existence is affirmed. Thomas interrogated the totalitarianism and the authoritarianism of the sovereign state and demanded for the social democracy based on freedom and justice. Thomas exemplified this in his response to the declaration of emergency in India in 1975.[9]

Thomas argues that on the cross, Jesus Christ disarmed the rulers and the authorities of the world. Cross signifies the end of the totalitarian power. However, cross does not mean “a passive acceptance of suffering and hopelessness.” It is not a state of anarchy, chaos, and confusion. Rather it is the beginning of a ‘new humanity’ where there are no dichotomies. Alluding Paul, Thomas argues that in ‘new humanity’ “there is no longer any distinction between gentles and Jews, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarians, savages, slaves, and free men” (Col.3:11). The ‘new humanity’ is constituted as a single body — the political ontology of the tortured. The crucified body of God signifies a counter imperial/sovereign social democracy of the tortured bodies. This theology of the crucified ontology is founded on the theology of the crucified God who is undergoing the process of emptying out of sovereignty. One is invited to ‘de-imperialize’ or ‘empty out’ his or her juridical subjectivity in terms of caste, color and gender to become part of this cruciform ontology. This de-imperialization of self is extended to the formation of the de-imperialized social body. New humanity as the de-imperialized social democracy envisions a radical democracy of justice and peace; rather than anarchy, disorder and chaos. This anti-imperial political ontology of the tortured signifies church which bears the mark of crucifixion.

Thomas writes: “The church in India is called to proclaim the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ as the source of redemption of all spiritualties underlying religion as well as ideologies, and to demonstrate the Koinonia in Christ around the Eucharist as the nucleus of a movement of the larger Koinonia in Christ uniting peoples of diverse religions, ideologies and cultures — as well as the cosmos with its bio-diversity.”[10] Based on his theology of cross, M. M. Thomas explains the mission of the church to give up communal self-interest and self-identity for the sake of creating in India a secular national community in the midst of India’s religious and ideological pluralism through manifesting a fellowship in Christ, transcending class, caste, ethnic and religious communal divisions.[11]

Secular Koinonia as the ‘Parallax Gap’ between Church and Society

Thomas places the concept of secular Koinonia as the ‘parallax gap’ in between church and the society. It is to envisage a secular Koinonia which is founded on the Christ crucified is the task of the church. According to Thomas it is a reforming experience from within all religions and ideologies to attend to the question of transformation of humanity. Thomas overcomes the western enlightenment distinction between secular and sacred and finds a ‘parallax gap’ in between church and society, that is the formation of a new humanity — the secular Koinonia. Thomas explains the three levels of this Koinonia in Christ: “first, the Koinonia of the eucharist community of the church, itself a unity of diverse peoples acknowledging the Person of Jesus as the Messiah; second, a larger Koinonia of dialogue among people of different faiths inwardly being renewed by their acknowledgement of the ultimacy of the pattern of suffering servant hood as exemplified by the crucified Jesus; third, a still larger Koinonia of those involved in the power-political struggle for new societies and a world community based on secular or religious anthropologies informed by the agape of the cross.”[12] Thomas’ understanding of Koinonia exceeds the boundaries of secular and sacred and envisions a counter-political ‘oikoumene of solidarity.’ It is a bold step to de-doctrinate the western ‘enclosed ecclesiology’ in order to envision a ‘church without walls.’ Thomas was bold enough to define church as a fellowship of the baptized and the unbaptized.

According to Thomas, the church’s recognition of secular Koinonia is necessary for the church to redefine itself in its mission and ministry. For Thomas, “it will save the church from the kind of spiritual egoism which arrogates to itself the right to decide who belongs to the messianic people, and it can bring to the church an awareness of hitherto unexplored insights and facets of life in the Holy Spirit. On the other, through the encounter with the person of Jesus Christ, commitments to the universal Christian principle and the way of the cross could escape the danger of being perverted into legalism and used as instruments of self-justification.”[13] It is a sharp criticism against the ‘enclosed ontology’ of the church as it claims the custodian of salvation of the entire creation while it retains the juridical ontology of the Empire. As Giorgio Agamben contends, the contemporary church has ended up as kataikein (dwells like an Empire) by denying its call (klesis) to be paroikousa (sojourner in this world).[14]

Thomas reiterates the imperative of the open church and open secularism. For Thomas, church needs to uphold the vision of new humanity which is capable enough to enhance the quality of human life and empowering human for social justice within a limited natural environment and an interdependent world. It is here Thomas finds a polydoxical space where scientists, historians, social activists and theologians come together and work for humanization. Thomas writes: “technology and politics do have their positive roles to play in bringing human wholeness, but where the sense of mastery and transcendence of the personal being is lacking; they themselves become forces of dehumanization. It is significant that many scientists and historians as well as theologians are today becoming increasingly conscious of the need to redefine the categories of Creation, Fall and Redemption in order to understand and grapple with the modern human situation.”[15] When Thomas considers secular Koinonia as the ‘parallax gap’ between church and society, he envisages a theological methodology of ‘transdsciplinarity’ — the ‘polydoxical ground’ as Catherine Keller calls it.

Conclusion

The Enlightenment baggage of the western Christian theology that locates theology and ideology, religion and secularism as dualistic is denied and the ‘irreducible singularity’ of those ‘parallactical terms’ is affirmed in Thomas’ theological engagement which in fact envisaged a post-western theological method in Indian Christian Theology. Faith as the ‘parallax gap’ between ideology and theology unveils a ‘materialist base’ in between and re-defines theology as theo-political. Cross as the ‘parallax gap’ offers a theological ‘ground’ to deny the imperial/ sovereign democracy and envision a radical democracy of the tortured. Secular Koinonia as the ‘parallax gap’ legitimizes an open church and an open secularism. Defining theology as the politics of the tortured people in the postcolonial world necessitates M.M. Thomas for a contemporary anti-imperial polydoxical, secular, materialist theological method in India.

Y.T. Vinayaraj

[1] Slavoj Zizek, The Parallax View (Cambridge: MIIT Press, 2006), 4.

[2]T.M. Philip, The Encounter Between Theology and Ideology: An Exploration into the Communicative Theology of M.M. Thomas (Madras: The Christian Literature Society, 1986), 110.

[3] M.M. Thomas, Secular Ideologies and the Secular Meaning of Christ (Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1976), 200.

[4] M. M. Thomas, Faith and Ideology in the Struggle for Justice (Bombay: BUILD, 1984), 30.

[5]T.M. Philip, The Encounter Between Theology and Ideology, 114.

[6]T.M. Philip, The Encounter Between Theology and Ideology,115.

[7]T.M. Philip, The Encounter Between Theology and Ideology, 117.

[8] M.M. Thomas, The Throne of David (Tiruvalla: CSS, 2006), 41.

[9] M. M. Thomas, Responses to Tyranny (Tiruvalla: CSS, 2000), 17.

[10] M.M. Thomas, A Diaconal Approach to Indian Ecclesiology (Rome & Tiruvalla: CIIS & CSS, 1995), 82.

[11] M.M. Thomas, “The Church in India — Witness to the Meaning of the Cross Today,” in Future of the Church in India, ed., Aruna Gnanadason (Nagpur: NCCI, 1990), 11.

[12] M.M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake: Towards an Ecumenical Theology of Pluralism (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1987), 119.

[13] T. Jacob Thomas, ed. M.M. Thomas Reader: Selected Texts on Theology, Religion and Society (Tiruvalla: CSS, 2002), 176.

[14]Giorgio Agamben, The Kingdom and Glory: For a Theological Genealogy of Economy and Government (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 37.

[15] T. Jacob Thomas, ed. M.M. Thomas Reader, 179.