Changing The Church: Transformations of Christian Belief, Practice, and Life

PATHWAYS FOR
ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS

DIALOGUE
Changing the
Church
Transformations of
Christian Belief,
Practice, and Life
Edited by
Mark D. Chapman · Vladimir Latinovic
Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious
Dialogue
Series Editors
Gerard Mannion
Department of Theology
Georgetown University
Washington, DC, USA
Mark D. Chapman
Ripon College
University of Oxford
Cuddesdon, Oxford, UK
Building on the important work of the Ecclesiological Investigations
International Research Network to promote ecumenical and inter-faith
encounters and dialogue, the Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious
Dialogue series publishes scholarship on such engagement in relation to
the past, present, and future. It gathers together a richly diverse array of
voices in monographs and edited collections that speak to the challenges,
aspirations and elements of ecumenical and interfaith conversation.
Through its publications, the series allows for the exploration of new ways,
means, and methods of advancing the wider ecumenical cause with
renewed energy for the twenty-first century.
More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14561
Mark D. Chapman • Vladimir Latinovic
Editors
Changing the Church

Transformations of Christian Belief,
Practice, and Life
Editors
Mark D. Chapman Vladimir Latinovic
Ripon College, Cuddesdon University of Tübingen
University of Oxford Tübingen, Germany
Cuddesdon, Oxford, UK
ISSN 2634-6591 ISSN 2634-6605 (electronic)

Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue
ISBN 978-3-030-53424-0 ISBN 978-3-030-53425-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53425-7
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021, corrected publication 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
The original version of this book was revised to update the titles of the
section V and VI. Correction to this book can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53425-7_42
Volume in honor and remembrance of the late Prof. Gerard Mannion
(September 25, 1970–September 21, 2019)

Contents
1 Introduction 1
Vladimir Latinovic and Mark D. Chapman
Part I History and Theology 11
2 From Rigor to Reconciliation: Cyprian of Carthage on

Changing Penitential Practice 13
David G. Hunter
3 Who Do You Call a Heretic? Fluid Notions of Orthodoxy

and Heresy in Late Antiquity 21
Vladimir Latinovic
4 Towards a Theology of Dissent 29

Judith Gruber
5 Theology of Church Reform and Institutional Crisis:

Reading Yves Congar in the Twenty-First Century 37
Massimo Faggioli
ix
x Contents
Part II Society and Gender 45
6 Sisterhood of the Earth: An Emergence of an Ecological

Civilization and an Ecozoic Era 47
Elaine Padilla
7 Developing a Virtue of Eating Well: Laudato Sí and

Animal Economies 57
Matthew Eaton
8 Noli Me Tángere: A Church for the Oppressed—Putting

the Abused and Vulnerable at the Forefront of Ecclesial
Activity and Change 67
Cristina Lledo Gomez
9 The Essence of Faith: Prayer as Ritual and Struggle 77

Mary McClintock Fulkerson
10 The Holy Spirit Makes the Church: Changing the

Church as a Responsive Act 85
Scott MacDougall
11 Making the Spiritual World Accessible: Paul VI and

Modern Art at the Close of Vatican II 93
Susie Paulik Babka
12 Women Changing the Church: The Experience of the

Council for Australian Catholic Women 2000–2019101
Patricia Madigan O.P.
13 The Unity of the Church and Birth Control in

an Age of Polarization111
Dennis M. Doyle
Contents xi
Part III Mission and World Christianity 119
14 The World Mission of the Christian Church121

Roger Haight S.J.
15 Conversion and Change Through the Processes of

Mission and Christianization129
Paul M. Collins
16 Mission as Reception: Reframing Evangelism in the

Church of England139
Martyn Percy
17 The “Refugee Crisis” as an Opportunity for Missionary

and Pastoral Conversion147
Gioacchino Campese
18 Blessed Pierre Claverie: Holiness in a World Church155

Darren J. Dias
19 Changing the Church: An African Theological Reflection165

Stan Chu Ilo
20 The Revolutionary Power of the Church175

Debora Tonelli
21 The Implications of Transient Migration and Online

Communities for Changing the Church in Asia183
Jonathan Y. Tan
Part IV Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue 191
22 Liturgical Renewal and Ecumenical Progress193

John Borelli
xii Contents
23 Changing the Catholic Church’s Interreligious

Relationships: Irish American Pioneers at the 1893
World’s Parliament of Religions201
Leo D. Lefebure
24 Is Interreligious Dialogue Changing the Church? The

Significance of the Document on Human Fraternity209
Roberto Catalano
25 That’s Gonna Leave a Mark: A Saint, a Sultan, and How

Friendship Does (or Doesn’t) Change the Church217
Jason Welle O.F.M.
26 Three’s Company in Interfaith Dialogue: A Protestant

Modus for Engagement with Those from Other Faiths225
Nicolas G. Mumejian
27 Reforming Anti-Judaism in a Church Called to

Communion233
Mary Doak
Part V Ecclesiology 241
28 Overcoming “The Church as Counter-sign of the

Kingdom”243
Paul Avis
29 To Live According to the Form of the Holy Gospel:

Francis of Assisi’s Embodied Challenge to the
Institutional Church251
Craig A. Phillips
30 Authority and Change: The Role of Authority

in the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran World
Federation259
Miriam Haar
Contents xiii
31 “Stop, Stop and Listen”: Changing the Church by

Listening to Its Life269
Andrew Pierce
32 How Should the Church Teach? A Mode of Learning

and Teaching for Our Times279
Peter C. Phan
33 Towards a Re-reading of the Dogmas of Vatican I289

Peter Neuner
34 Ecclesial Reform and Human Cultures297

Sandra Mazzolini
35 Ecclesiology in Extremis305
Dale T. Irvin
Part VI Synodality and Participation 313
36 Ecclesial Extroversion: On the Reform in the Current

Pontificate315
Sandra Arenas
37 Synodality as a Key Component of the Pontificate

of Pope Francis: The Difficult Way from Theory
to Practice323
Peter De Mey
38 Changing the Church Through Synodality333

Brian P. Flanagan
39 Local Synodality: An Unnoticed Change341

Radu Bordeianu
xiv Contents
40 Problems at the Periphery: A Productive Confusion in

“The Speech That Got Pope Francis Elected.”351
Paul Lakeland
41 Milestones for the Next Council: Conciliar Experiences

and Global Synodality359
Luc Forestier
Correction to: Changing the ChurchC1
Index367
Notes on Contributors
Sandra Arenas gained her PhD in Systematic Theology from the Faculty
of Theology and Religious Studies of the KU Leuven. She served as a
professor in the Faculty of Theology of the Pontifical Catholic University
of Chile (2013–2020) and is currently dean of the Faculty of Religious
Sciences and Philosophy of the Universidad Católica de Temuco-Chile.
Her areas of research are the history and theology of Vatican II, especially
in ecclesiology and ecumenical theology. She has published a number of
studies on Vatican II, mostly focused on the Chilean and Latin American
contribution and reception of the council. She is currently writing a book
on the Church frontiers and membership for the BETL Series.
Paul Avis is Honorary Professor in the Department of Theology and
Religion, Durham University, UK, and Honorary Research Fellow in the
Department of Theology and Religion, University of Exeter, UK. He is a
priest in the Church of England and was in parish ministry for 23 years
before serving as general secretary of the Council for Christian Unity of
the Church of England from 1998 to 2011. Paul has been Sub-Dean and
Canon Theologian of Exeter Cathedral and a Chaplain to HM Queen
Elizabeth II. He is the author or editor of many books and articles and is
the editor of the journal Ecclesiology.
Susie Paulik Babka is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the
University of San Diego. She received a PhD in Systematic Theology from
the University of Notre Dame and has master’s degrees from Duke and
Notre Dame. She is the author of several articles on the relationship
xv
xvi NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
between theology and art, as well as on popular culture and Buddhist-

Christian dialogue. Her recent book is Through the Dark Field: the
Incarnation Through an Aesthetics of Vulnerability (2017).
Radu Bordeianu is an associate professor at Duquesne University in
Pittsburgh, PA, USA. His research focuses on ecumenical ecclesiologies.
He is the author of Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology (2011,
2013). He served as president of the Orthodox Theological Society of
America and is a member of the North American Orthodox-Catholic
Theological Consultation. He is a co-convener of the Christian–Jewish
Dialogue in Pittsburgh and is involved in local ecumenical dialogues.
John Borelli received a doctorate in the history of religions and theology
from Fordham University in 1976. After teaching for 12 years in New York,
he served, from 1987 to 2003, at the US Conference of Catholic
Bishops in ecumenical and interreligious affairs. In 2004, he began
serving as special assistant for Catholic Identity and Dialogue for the
President of Georgetown University. He has authored and coau-
thored 6 books and over 300 articles on ecumenism, interreligious
relations, dialogue, and theological topics.
Gioacchino Campese is a Scalabrinian missionary. He studied theology
in the Philippines, USA, and Italy and has ministered with migrants and
refugees at the US–Mexico border and in Italy. He teaches in the area of
pastoral theology and human mobility at the Pontificia Università
Urbaniana and is the general director of Casa Scalabrini 634 in Rome,
which promotes the culture of welcoming, encounter, and integration. He
has edited and authored a number of theological books and essays on
migration.
Roberto Catalano is Co-director of the Centre for Interreligious
Dialogue, Focolare Movement, Rome. Born in Turin, Italy, he holds a
doctorate in Missiology. He lived in India for 28 years where he was
involved in interreligious dialogue with Hindus. After his appointment in
Rome in 2008, he has organized events with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus,
and Jews. At present, he also teaches at the Sophia University Institute,
Loppiano-Firenze, Centre de Rencontre, Montet (Switzerland) and
Accademia di Scienze Umane e Sociali, Rome (Italy). He has authored
several articles for journals and magazines and published three books.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xvii
Mark D. Chapman is Professor of the History of Modern Theology at

the University of Oxford and vice-principal and academic dean at Ripon
College, Cuddesdon. He is vice-chair of the Ecclesiological Investigations
Research Network and a priest of the Church of England. He is a member
of General Synod and Co-Chair of the Meissen Theological Conference
which promotes dialogue with the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland.
He has written widely in modern theology and church history.
Paul M. Collins is a priest of the Church of England and has worked in
Theological Education in different contexts for most of his ministry. He
was Reader in Theology at the University of Chichester in the 2000s,
when he became involved in Ecclesiological Investigations. Later, he
served as Parish Priest on the Holy Island of Lindisfarne. His inter-
ests lie in Systematic Theology and Liturgy. He is researching the
conversion of the Anglo-Saxons.
Peter De Mey is Full Professor of Roman-Catholic ecclesiology and ecu-
menism at KU Leuven and vice-dean for international relations of the
Faculty for Theology and Religious Studies. He is involved in the Centre
for Ecumenical Research and the Louvain Center for Eastern and Oriental
Christianity (LOCEOC). Since 2005 he has been a member of the Board
of the National Commission for Ecumenism (and its president since 2010)
and co-president of the Dialogue Commission with the United Protestant
Church in Belgium.
Darren J. Dias is Associate Professor of Theology in the University of St.
Michael’s College, Toronto. He is the director of the Dominican Institute
of Toronto where Gerard Mannion spent a semester as Aquinas Visiting
Scholar in 2014. His research and teaching explore Trinitarian theol-
ogy, religious diversity, theological method, and the intersection of
lived experience and doctrine. He is an editor of The Church and
Migration: Global (In)Difference.
Mary Doak PhD, teaches courses in Christian theology. Her specializa-
tions include liberation and political theologies, theologies of democracy
and religious freedom, the goal of human life and history from a
Christian perspective, and theologies of the church. Her research
focus has been on the political and practical implications of Christian
faith, especially in the contemporary context of the United States.
Her research project explores the challenges to discipleship faced by the
church in the twenty-first century.
xviii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Dennis M. Doyle received his PhD in Religious Studies from the

Catholic University of America and has taught at the University of Dayton
for over 35 years. He is the coeditor of the volume from the 2011
Ecclesiological Investigations conference, Ecclesiology and Exclusion
(2012). He is the author of Communion Ecclesiology: Vision and Versions
(2000) as well as two textbooks, What Is Christianity? (2016) and The
Catholic Church in a Changing World (2019).
Matthew Eaton is an assistant professor in the Department of Theology
at King’s College, Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania where he teaches theological
ethics. He holds a PhD from the University of St. Michael’s College,
Toronto, with a specialization in ecotheology from the Elliot Allen
Institute for Theology and Ecology. His interests are largely tied to
ethics and non-humans, the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas, and
the possibility of reimagining Catholicism in ways that are friendlier
to more-than-human animals.
Massimo Faggioli is a full professor in the Department of Theology and
Religious Studies at Villanova University (Philadelphia). His most recent
publications include the following books: A Council for the Global Church.
Receiving Vatican II in History (2015); The Rising Laity. Ecclesial
Movements Since Vatican II (2016); Catholicism and Citizenship: Political
Cultures of the Church in the Twenty-First Century (2017).
Brian P. Flanagan is Associate Professor of Theology at Marymount
University in Arlington, Virginia. He completed his PhD in 2007, writing
a dissertation on the ecumenist and theologian Jean-Marie Tillard,
O.P. He continues his research in ecclesiology, ecumenism, and
Jewish-Christian dialogue, particularly through the Ecclesiological
Investigations Network and the Ecclesiological Investigations Group
of the American Academy of Religion. He draws upon the diversity
of his students’ experiences and his own study of Christian theology to
create a classroom focused on shared critical inquiry.
Luc Forestier is Associate Professor of ecclesiology at the Catholic
University of Paris. He teaches theology of ministries, hermeneutics of
Vatican II, and directs a seminar on Ecumenism and Jewish-Christian
Dialogue. He is involved in the Groupe des Dombes and in the French
Catholics-Evangelicals Conversation Groupe.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xix
Mary McClintock Fulkerson has taught practical and feminist theolo-

gies, and ecclesiology at Duke University Divinity School (emerita). Her
published books have been on feminist and non-feminist church groups,
racial diversity and the differently abled, and global feminism. Her recent
book co-authored with Marcia Mount Shoop is Body Broken, Body
Betrayed: Race, Memory, and Eucharist in White-Dominant Churches
(2015). An ordained PCUSA minister, Fulkerson is involved in the Pauli
Murray Project, a racial reconciliation project organized by Duke’s Human
Rights Center and is co-writing a book on the project.
Cristina Lledo Gomez is a Systematic Theologian and the Presentation
Sisters Lecturer at BBI-The Australian Institute of Theological Education.
Her role is directed at promoting women’s spiritualities, feminist theolo-
gies, and ecology. She completed her PhD at Charles Sturt University,
Australia, in 2015, and her first book, The Church as Woman and
Mother: Historical and Theological Foundations, was published in 2018.
Cristina has presented and published in the areas of maternal-feminist the-
ologies, ecclesiology, migration, ecology, domestic violence, and
child abuse.
Judith Gruber is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology and direc-
tor of the Centre for Liberation Theologies at KU Leuven, Belgium. She
received her PhD in Systematic Theology from Salzburg University,
Austria. Her research focuses on theology and critical theories, inter-
cultural theology, and postcolonial theology. Publications include
Intercultural Theology. Exploring World Christianity after the
Cultural Turn.
Miriam Haar is working at the Institute for Ecumenical Studies and
Research, Bensheim in Germany. Her focus is on Anglicanism and
Worldwide Ecumenism. Previously, she worked as theological assistant for
Ecumenical Relations at the Lutheran World Federation in Geneva. She
studied in Germany, Switzerland, and Lebanon, and received her PhD and
Master’s Degree in Ecumenics from Trinity College Dublin, having previ-
ously been awarded a Graduate Degree in Protestant Theology from the
University of Tübingen.
Roger Haight S.J. is Scholar in Residence at Union Theological
Seminary in New York City where he convenes the Theology Field and
teaches Systematic Theology. Haight’s attention to fundamental issues in
theology is reflected in his books on the nature of theology as a discipline,
xx NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Christology, ecclesiology, grace, liberation theology, spirituality, and the

dialogue of Christian theology with science and evolution. He was the
recipient of the Alumnus of the Year award from the Divinity School of the
University of Chicago in 2006. He is a past president of the Catholic
Theological Society of America. Haight is a member of the Society of
Jesus (Jesuits).
David G. Hunter is the Margaret O’Brien Flatley Chair of Catholic
Theology at Boston College. His research interests lie in the field of
Patristic studies, with special emphasis on the writings of Augustine,
Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Ambrose, and other Latin writers. He has written
extensively on issues pertaining to marriage, celibacy, and asceticism in
ancient Christianity. Current work includes a monograph on the origins of
priestly celibacy and translations of the Pauline commentaries of the
Ambrosiaster.
Stan Chu Ilo is an associate professor at the Center for World Catholicism
and Intercultural Theology at DePaul University, Chicago, where he coor-
dinates the African Catholicism Project. He is the author of A Poor and
Merciful Church: The Illuminative Ecclesiology of Pope Francis and editor of
Wealth, Health, and Hope in African Christian Religion. He is the 2017
winner of the AfroGlobal Excellence Award for Global Impact.
Dale T. Irvin is Professor of World Christianity at New School of Biblical
Theology and adjunct at Georgetown University in the department of
Theology and Religious Studies. He previously served as president of the
New York Theological Seminary (2006–2019) and vice president for
Academic Affairs and Academic Dean (2002–2006). A graduate of
Princeton Theological Seminary (MDiv, 1981) and Union Theological
Seminary in New York (PhD, 1989), he has been a member of the
Seminary’s faculty since 1989. An ordained minister in the American
Baptist Churches, USA, he is a member of The Riverside Church in
New York City.
Paul Lakeland is the Aloysius P. Kelley, S.J. Professor of Catholic Studies
and the founding director of Fairfield’s Center for Catholic Studies. His
10 books focus on ecclesiology, especially the role of a lay ecclesiology,
critical cultural theory and religion, and the imagination. In 2018–2019
he served as president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, the
largest association of theologians in the world.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxi
Vladimir Latinovic is Lecturer in Patristics at the University of Tübingen

and project manager of the project “Treasure of the East” at the Academy
DRS in Stuttgart. He holds an undergraduate degree from the Faculty of
Orthodox Theology of the University of Belgrade and a PhD from the
Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Tübingen. He serves as
director and vice-chair of the Ecclesiological Investigations International
Research Network and as co-chair of the Network’s American Academy of
Religion unit. His latest monograph is titled Christologie und Kommunion
(first volume 2018, second 2020).
Leo D. Lefebure is the inaugural holder of the Matteo Ricci, S.J., Chair
of Theology at Georgetown University. He is the author of Transforming
Interreligious Relations: Catholic Responses to Religious Pluralism in the
United States, and also True and Holy: Christian Scripture and Other
Religions and the co-author of The Path of Wisdom: A Christian
Commentary on the Dhammapada. He is the co-author of The Path of
Wisdom: A Christian Commentary on the Dhammapada, and he is presi-
dent of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies and research fellow of
the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Scott MacDougall (PhD, Fordham University) is Associate Professor of
Theology at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific and member of the
Core Doctoral Faculty of the Graduate Theological Union, both in
Berkeley, CA. He also serves as co-editor in chief of the Anglican
Theological Review. His book, More Than Communion: Imagining
an Eschatological Ecclesiology, was published in the Ecclesiological
Investigations series in 2015.
Patricia Madigan O.P. is the executive director of CIMER, the
Dominican Centre for Interfaith Ministry, Education and Research (www.
cimer.org.au) in Sydney, Australia. As a scholar and author, she partici-
pated in many of the international conferences of the Ecclesiological
Investigations network and contributed to a number of the EI publica-
tions. She was a member of the Council for Australian Catholic Women
from 2015 to 2019 and its chair from 2018 to 2019.
Sandra Mazzolini graduated from the History Department of the
Faculty of Modern Literature and Philosophy (University of Trieste, Italy).
In 1998, she completed her doctorate in Systematic Theology (Gregorian
University, Rome). Ordinary Professor at the Faculty of Missiology
xxii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
(Pontifical Urbanian University, Rome), she has collaborated with other

academic institutions and published various contributions to specialistic
journals, reviews, and collected works.
Nicolas G. Mumejian is the managing editor of The Muslim World jour-
nal housed in Hartford Seminary’s Macdonald Center for the Study of
Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations where he has served for over a
decade working for both the journal and teaching courses. Nicolas is a
Baptist minister, ordained within the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and
in affiliation with the Alliance of Baptists. Nicolas happily spends his time
outside of work with his wife, Virginia, and twin sons, Declan and George.
Peter Neuner is a Catholic priest and theologian. As a student of Heinrich
Fries, he received his PhD in 1976 in Theology. His Habilitation followed
in 1978. He was Professor of Fundamental Theology in Passau. In 1985
he received the call to the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich and
took up the chair for dogmatics at the Catholic Theological Faculty there.
The area of ecumenical theology was added in 2000. Until his retirement
in 2006, he was also director of the Ecumenical Research Institute at the
Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Munich.
Elaine Padilla is Associate Professor of Religion and Philosophy, College
of Arts and Sciences at the University of La Verne. Padilla constructively
interweaves current philosophical discourse with Christianity, Latin
American and Latino/a religious thought, ecology, gender, sexuality, and
race. She is the author of Divine Enjoyment: A Theology of Passion and
Exuberance (2015) and coeditor of a three-volume project with Peter
C. Phan, Theology and Migration in World Christianity published by
Palgrave Macmillan.
Martyn Percy is Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. From 2004 to 2014
Martyn was the Principal of Ripon College, Cuddesdon, one of the largest
Anglican ordination training centers in the world. Martyn writes on reli-
gion in contemporary culture and modern ecclesiology. He teaches for the
Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford and tutors
in the Social Sciences Division and at the Saïd Business School.
Peter C. Phan who has received three doctorates, is the inaugural holder
of the Ignacio Ellacuria Chair of Catholic Social Thought at Georgetown
University, USA. His research deals with the theology of icon in Orthodox
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxiii
theology, patristic theology, eschatology, the history of Christian missions

in Asia, and liberation, inculturation and interreligious dialogue. He is the
author and editor of over 30 books and author of over 300 essays that
have appeared in many publications. He is the first non-Anglo to be
elected president of Catholic Theological Society of America and President
of American Theological Society. In 2010 he received the John Courtney
Murray Award.
Craig A. Phillips PhD, is the Rector of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in
Arlington, Virginia. He serves as adjunct faculty at Virginia Theological
Seminary. Craig is a former assistant professor at Temple University.
He also has taught undergraduate courses at Georgetown University,
Duke University, UNC-Chapel Hill, and Rosemont College. He
holds a PhD in Theology and Ethics from Duke University, an MDiv
from Harvard Divinity School, and an AB in Religious Studies and
Classics from Brown University.
Andrew Pierce is former head of the Irish School of Ecumenics in Trinity
College Dublin. His principal interests are nineteenth-century theology
(especially Roman Catholic Modernism), appeals to the experience of
place in theology, and ecclesiology. He is a past president of the
Societas Oecumenica, the European Association for Ecumenical Research,
and serves as a consultant to and member of the Inter-Anglican Standing
Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO).
Jonathan Y. Tan is Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan Professor of Catholic
Studies at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, and
author of Introducing Asian American Theologies (2008) and Christian
Mission among the Peoples of Asia (2014), and co-edited World Christianity:
Perspectives and Insights (2016) and Theological Reflections on the Hong
Kong Umbrella Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
Debora Tonelli is permanent researcher at the Center for Religious
Studies (Bruno Kessler Foundation, Trento) and Georgetown University
Representative in Rome. She is Invited Lecturer in Political Philosophy
and Politics and Religion at Pontifical Athenaeum S. Anselmo and Invited
Lecturer in Religion and Violence at Pontifical Gregorian University
(Rome). She worked as visiting scholar at Institute for Religion, Culture
and Public Life, Columbia University, and at Berkley Center for Religion
Peace and World Affairs.
xxiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Jason Welle O.F.M. is a Franciscan friar of the Assumption B.V.M.

Province (USA) and Director of Studies at the Pontifical Institute for
Arabic and Islamic Studies (Rome, Italy). He holds a PhD in Theological
and Religious Studies from Georgetown University and has co-edited
two books on the impact of Vatican II, with Gerard Mannion and
Vladimir Latinovic. His teaching and research focus on interreligious
dialogue, Muslim-Christian relations, the Franciscan intellectual tradi-
tion, and Islamic mysticism, particularly in the medieval period.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Vladimir Latinovic and Mark D. Chapman
Change is life and life is change. Our bodies and souls move through time,
constantly developing from one state to the next. Even time itself can be
defined as change because through the present it transforms the unknown
future into the unchangeable past. Our cells mutate and die only so that
they are replaced by new ones, just as we through our deaths make way for
new generations. Our experience and wisdom also grow or degrade, but
they never stand still. Our relationships with our family and friends develop
and often take unexpected and sometimes unwanted turns. Change is
actually one of the rare constants in our existence; if there is not enough
of it, we become tired and bored and we feel the urge to change some-
thing so that our lives might become interesting and exciting again.
Nothing in this world stands still. Heraclitus grasped this changeability of
the world inside us and around us by stating that everything flows
(panta rhei).
V. Latinovic (*)
University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
M. D. Chapman (*)
Ripon College, Cuddesdon, University of Oxford, Cuddesdon, Oxford, UK
© The Author(s) 2021 1

M. D. Chapman, V. Latinovic (eds.), Changing the Church,
Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue,
2 V. LATINOVIC AND M. D. CHAPMAN
And yet, Christian churches as well as other religions often see change
as something essentially negative. They see themselves as based on teach-
ings which are “set in stone”. They call their books “sacred” in order
emphasize that nothing in them is allowed to be changed; and even if
those religions might have been founded by someone who was himself an
innovator and who changed the old teaching in order to create a the new
one, which is the case both with Christianity and Islam, they nevertheless
emphasize how important it is that people do not change this new teach-
ing.1 The worst word in their vocabulary is reserved for those who try to
change the official teachings of the church or religion but who fail to do
so. They are called heretics. For those who succeed in changing things,
however, another term is used—orthodox. This usually carries a positive
connotation, but even where they accept the changes that were brought
about, churches desperately try to show that they did not actually change
anything: instead, they claim, they have simply found new ways of express-
ing the old unchangeable truths.
There are many ways that modern psychology could offer an explana-
tion of this phenomenon of rejecting change. Some would connect it with
anxiety, because accepting new things requires a degree of courage. Some
would say that this rejection of change is unhealthy because it lacks an
openness for the new; and some would utter the truism that we need con-
stancy in our lives just as much as we need change.2 Unfortunately, due to
some or all of the above mentioned factors in religious circles, there are
often cases where change is rejected. There are some, especially in leader-
ship positions, who are simply too comfortable with the way things are to
have any great desire to bring about change. Such inertia is of course one
of the worst kinds of reasons not to change. Those who resist such tempta-
tions which come with power are in almost every case acknowledged by
future generations, when things that were considered as innovations
become normal and standard. Here we might simply mention Francis of
Assisi, Luther, and Pope John XXIII who, while very different
personalities, were all bold visionaries and reformers who were not afraid
of bringing change into the life of the church.
1
For Christianity, see Revelation 22:18. This is especially the case with Islam which, based
on the Quran’s Surah Al-Ahzab (33:40), claims to be the final revelation and final religion
given to the human beings.
2
Life would be extremely difficult if everything changed constantly. We might suggest that
we need a proper balance of continuity and change in order to be happy with our life.
1 INTRODUCTION 3
One of the people who was dedicated with his whole being to positive
change was the dedicatee of this volume: Gerard Mannion. Born into a
family of Irish immigrants to the UK and educated in a state comprehen-
sive school in all probability he might well have followed a quite different
career, perhaps working a normal job, after which he would relax by
watching rugby games with his friends and spending his free time in a pub.
But Gerard Mannion wanted something more: he was passionate about
changing this world and his own Catholic Church for the better. He did
his best to succeed academically to achieve these ambitions. He gained a
place at King’s College, Cambridge, and then moved to take his doctorate
at New College, Oxford, two of the most famous and prestigious aca-
demic institutions in the English-speaking world. He read (and later
wrote) countless books and articles, he spent his time in the company of
brightest theological minds of our time, he socialized with archbishops
and cardinals, and yet still he found the time to visit pubs, to talk to nor-
mal people, and to watch and play rugby.3 And he achieved all this because
he refused to stand still and he embraced change.
But change also played another role in Gerard Mannion’s life. Like
many of us he used it therapeutically to learn to live with and even to cure
his sense of frustration with the way the things were: Frustration that the
church to which he belonged—along with the other churches—is led by
those who do not feel the needs of the poor and the oppressed; frustration
that theology is not listening to the spirit of the age in a way that would
enable the church to survive in our modern world; frustration that the
church rejects people based on sexual orientation, gender, heritage, skin
color, and religious belonging along with many, many other exasperations.
To all of these Gerard saw only one cure: change. He used to say that we
cannot keep on doing things the way we have always done them if we want
to have a future. This is why he was so excited with the prospects that
Pope Francis would start changing the church.4 By praising him he was
actually praising change and he hoped that Francis would be able to intro-
duce more and more change.
This passion for change is the main reason why we decided to dedicate
this volume to our friend’s honor and memory. In this volume, we have
asked our distinguished contributors to ask and hopefully to offer some
Rugby was the constant in his life, which he said that we all needed.
3
See, for example, Gerard Mannion, Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism: Evangelii
4
Gaudium and the Papal Agenda (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017).
answers to questions such as: What needs to be changed in the universal

church and in the particular denominations? How does or did change
influence the life of the church? What are the dangers that change brings
with it? What awaits us if we refuse to change certain things? All the essays
in this book are in some way related to the topic of change. Many of them
focus on historical and living people and events that have made a signifi-
cant contribution to changing the church for the better or sometimes for
the worse. Some also present opportunities to imagine the changes that
might need to take place in particular Christian denominations, whether
over the ordination of women, different approaches to sexuality, reform of
the magisterium, and many other issues related to change.
The first section explores theological and historical topics related to
change. The authors explore questions such as how the early church
responded to situations such as the decline of large numbers of Christians,
changing penitential practices, and considering what these examples of
past change might teach us today. David G. Hunter discusses this in rela-
tion to our struggles to find adequate pastoral answers to the problem of
divorce and remarriage. Vladimir Latinovic shows how changes and devel-
opment in doctrine itself affected the position of some theologians who
had hitherto been considered Orthodox but who suddenly, because of
that change, found themselves in the opposite, heretical camp. Other
chapters explore the theological role of conflicts that accompany changes
in the church, asking whether internal church quarrels can be avoided at
any cost, or whether perhaps, as Judith Gruber shows, there can be theo-
logical significance to disagreement in the church. Massimo Faggioli
examines the fundamental steps that certain churches have had to take and
the reforms that have been necessary as they have sought to develop a new
relationship with history and modernity.
The second part deals with change in the Church in relation to the
wider social context particularly with regard to gender and social and eco-
nomic issues, including drastic climate change, biodiversity loss and scar-
city of natural resources. Elaine Padilla discusses, for example, the need for
the Church to uphold a mission that contributes to the preservation of our
planet. This section also deals with the changes in behavior that are
required to address the impact of modern food economies, which are cur-
rently completely unsustainable and cruel in terms of production meth-
ods. Matthew Eaton discusses the changes that are required to minimize
cruelty to animals through methods that already exist in Christian prac-
tice, such as fasting. Cristina Lledo Gomez deals with the question of how
the church can address those who have survived abuse, including those
1 INTRODUCTION 5
who have experienced it outside the church by placing the abused and
vulnerable at the forefront of church activity and change. Mary McClintock
Fulkerson goes on to explore the ways in which prayer, ritual, and the
global community can affect and change the lives of those who do not
have the security of their own home. Scott MacDougall looks in depth at
the question of the source of change, identifying it in the Holy Spirit in
which the human role in such changes is responsive, not causal. Other
important topics addressed in this question include Susie Paulik Babka’s
discussion of how the fraught incorporation of twentieth-century visual
art in the Roman Catholic Church analogizes its relationship to Modernity.
Drawing on the theme of synodality as the mode of introducing change in
the Church, Patricia Madigan O.P. explores the role of women in decision-
taking in the Church. Dennis M. Doyle addresses the issue of birth con-
trol from a centrist point of view through a comparison of the opposing
views of conservative and progressive groups.
The third part, which addresses issues of mission and world Christianity,
begins with a fascinating account by Roger Haight S.J. of how mission
theology has developed in the past 75 years due to such factors as ecumen-
ism, increased social freedoms, and interreligious dialogue. Mission is also
discussed in other chapters from a historical perspective. Paul M. Collins,
for example, addresses how mission changed in the early church, which
stands in stark contrast to the modern understanding: The ways in which
the concept of mission changes directly affect what kind of Church we are
building in the present day. Martyn Percy goes on to ask whether the goal
of mission should be the social transformation and renewal of society
rather than the recruitment of church members. From a different perspec-
tive Gioacchino Campese asks how the mission and role of the Church
need to respond to the circumstances of the refugee crisis, and how migra-
tion generally affects change. In turn, Darren J. Dias addresses the con-
tested question of how the Church might approach its colonial past and
what the role of the Church should be in the post-colonial paradigm. Stan
Chu Ilo discusses the challenges facing the Church in Africa and how the
Church might change to responds to the particular context of this region:
Change is identified as the revolutionary power of the Church to change
that derives from the biblical tradition. Indeed, if the Church is not able
to change, it will not be able to survive. Sometimes, as Debora Tonelli
shows, this change goes to the limits of revolution. The reasons for this
revolution, as well as for change itself, are sometimes invisible. Sometimes
it can even occur naturally, simply because our world is changing drasti-
cally: People have changed their way of life, they travel in search of work
and education, and often they leave their countries. How does this affect
our understanding of a Church which can still seem too Eurocentric?
What contribution, asks Jonathan Y. Tan, can Christians from Asia make
to this change in ecclesiology?
The fourth part of the book deals with some of the most drastic changes
that have taken place in the last century, which have emerged from increas-
ing ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Ecumenical dialogue has
taught Christians to live together in ways that were previously unthink-
able, and this change, according to John Borelli, continues to affect the
lives of Christians and calls for new ways of relating. Even the more con-
servative Christian churches eventually accepted the change. For many
years, for example, the Roman Catholic Church refused to participate in
any movements that emphasized religious freedom and diversity. Leo
D. Lefebure recalls that Irish American bishops cooperated with other
Christians and followers of other religions in the 1893 World Parliament
of Religions in Chicago; these pioneers expressed attitudes and actions of
ecumenical and interreligious openness that were suspect at that time but
would be endorsed by the Second Vatican Council many years later.
Changes in relations among Christians went hand in hand with greater
openness to dialogue with other religions. This is especially true for
Muslims with whom the dialogue has gone furthest and where there have
been signs of truly radical change, as Roberto Catalano describes. Of
course, according to Jason Welle O.F.M., there have been examples of
different approaches to members of other religions earlier on through the
course of Christian history, including the example of St. Francis and his
relationship to Ayyūbid Sultan al-Malik al-Kāmil. Interreligious dialogue,
however, also led Christians, as Nicolas G. Mumejian shows, to begin to
reconsider their concept of mission: How was it possible to reconcile
Christian mission with interreligious dialogue? On what would such a
mission be based? This part also addresses the Church’s complex relation-
ship to Judaism. Although the Church has changed significantly in this
area from late antiquity and the Middle Ages, it has still a long way to go,
particularly in addressing the issue that much anti-Judaism derives from
the New Testament. Mary Doak discusses the changes that are needed for
the church to be free from this intolerance.
The fifth part of the book deals with questions in ecclesiology. Paul Avis
discusses the relationship between the Church and the kingdom of God
and how common repentance, ongoing reform, and openness to develop-
ment might be identified as ways in which the church can contribute to the
1 INTRODUCTION 7
reaffirmation of society. At the same time, it is also clear that Church insti-
tutions can often complicate the process of change. Craig A. Phillips dis-
cusses how St. Francis of Assisi challenged the institutional church and
thus pushed its boundaries, while at the same time changing the Church
through personal example. In turn, those who exercise authority in the
Church frequently oppose change. As Miriam Haar shows, this raises sig-
nificant questions if certain parts of the Church change drastically and, for
example, begin to allow same-sex marriages and the ordination of homo-
sexuals as bishops, while others do not. The issue of the identity and main-
tenance of communion is one of the issues that the Anglican Communion
has been addressing for several decades. Andrew Pierce consequently asks:
What are the ‘instruments of communion’ that hold the Anglican
Communion together? In relation to the magisterium of the Roman
Catholic Church, Peter C. Phan discusses how the Church must learn to
fulfill its role in a multicultural and multireligious world. Who participates
in the magisterium of the church? Is it only bishops and popes or should
it be all Christians, lay people, the poor, and even members of other
religions?
In the Roman Catholic Church the question of who makes decisions in
the church is, of course, directly related to the question of papal primacy
and infallibility. Peter Neuner writes about how that teaching came about
and how it was at least partially replaced through the “aggiornamento” of
the Second Vatican Council. The questions of how church structures can
be reformed in general and especially how healthy decentralization might
be possible are addressed by Sandra Mazzolini, who argues that this is
necessary for a healthy church mission since the local church is always
deeply inculturated. Finally, Dale T. Irvin addresses the issue of commu-
nion in extreme situations, which can be broadly understood as the situa-
tion in which we find ourselves today.
The sixth and final part of the book discusses the issues of synodality
and participation through the question of how the Church can cope with
the loss of credibility while at the same time helping people rebuild trust
in the Church. Sandra Arenas shows how only a change that leads to the
strengthening of local structures can lead to real mechanisms of participa-
tion for all in the Church. Communion ecclesiology, which in this sense is
practiced by the Pope Francis, is certainly a good start for synodality. But
in order for it to be fully realized, change is needed, according to Peter De
Mey, at the local, regional, and universal level. Some progress has already
been made in this regard in some churches. In this sense, the document
“Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church,” published in 2018 by
the International Theological Commission of the Roman Catholic

Church, which is discussed by Brian P. Flanagan, offers a solid foundation
for further development. At the same time, the Orthodox Church, which
is proud of its long history of synodality, can significantly contribute to
that process: The parish, that is, the local assembly, as Radu Bordeianu
shows, experiences synodality in its liturgy, shared governance, and minis-
tries. According to Paul Lakeland, we should therefore look for the source
of change in the church at the “existential peripheries” and not in the
center, as was stated in the address of Pope Francis to the College of
Cardinals before his election. All these questions can of course be asked as
part of planning what synods should look like in the future. What will the
next Ecumenical Council look like? Finally, Luc Forestier asks: What do
councils look like seventeen centuries after the first Ecumenical Council
was convened?
As can be seen from this brief description of the topics, the book con-
tains a very wide range of topics, which address the issue of change in the
past and future. We have deliberately chosen not to use the more conven-
tional term “reform” to describe the processes that have taken place and
still need to take place in our churches. This has to do with the fact that
reform is often used to discuss attempts to keep some of the old while fix-
ing only what needs to be fixed. It is our firm belief that this is sometimes
simply not enough. A road can be patched only a certain number of times
after which it becomes unusable; it then needs to be completely resurfaced
or even replaced by a new road. This is undoubtedly the case with some of
the urgent things that need to be changed in the church, most importantly
the handling of clerical abuse, as well as many other ways in which we
exploit our fellow creatures and the wider environment, along with many
other urgent matters. The approach to such issues truly needs to change if
there is to be any future in this world. Of course, many smaller things can
be reformed but only up to a certain point and only to ensure that we do
not completely lose our way. How this can be done can be seen in many
of the contributions in the pages that follow.
This book is one of those books of which we are proud, but we wish we
did not have to collect it together at this time. As editors and close friends
of Gerard Mannion, we both wish we had had some other reason for
bringing together these excellent scholars to write about such a relevant
topic. But it was Gerard’s sudden death on September 21, 2019, at the
very young age of just 49 that was the occasion for this volume dedicated
to his memory and his passion for change. It was a change for which none
1 INTRODUCTION 9
of us was prepared and only the God of all mercies knows why he was
taken so prematurely at the height of his academic powers and his life. In
his relatively short existence Gerard wrote and edited almost two dozen
books. Although they were all of very high quality none of them can be
described as his magnum opus.5 We would like to believe that this volume
which we have edited represents his magnum opus because his greatest
achievement was drawing together a remarkable group of scholars and
people into a network that pushes the boundaries of ecclesiology and
ecumenism.6
Although at the beginning we stated that everything changes, there is
something that will never change, and that is our respect and love for him,
and our memories of all the times we shared with him. Αἰωνία ἡ μνήμη—
eternal memory! Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua
luceat ei. Requiescat in pace.
5
He was actually working on what he thought would be his magnum opus when he died.
This was a multi volume project “The Art of Magisterium: A Teaching Church That Learns”
which was have been published with Liturgical Press.
6
We are referring to the Ecclesiological Investigation International Research network. See
more at: http://ei-research.net/
PART I
History and Theology

CHAPTER 2
From Rigor to Reconciliation: Cyprian

of Carthage on Changing Penitential Practice
David G. Hunter
Cyprian of Carthage, the third-century North African bishop and martyr,

was a privileged witness to one of the most dramatic changes in the history
of Christianity: the emergence of a penitential system for the forgiveness
of previously “unforgiveable” sins. In response to the widespread failure of
Christians to remain faithful during the persecution of the Emperor
Decius, Cyprian and his fellow North African bishops gradually came to
acknowledge that reconciliation might be granted even to those who com-
mitted the ultimate sin of apostasy. In this essay, I will examine Cyprian’s
evolution on the question of penance. The various reasons he offered for
allowing changes in penitential practice may provide resources for the con-
temporary church, especially in its struggle to find adequate pastoral
responses to the problem of divorce and remarriage.1
1
For an excellent overview and analysis of Cyprian’s controversies, see J. Patout Burns,
Cyprian the Bishop (London and New York: Routledge, 2002). The introductions and com-
mentaries of G.W. Clarke to his multi-volume translation of Cyprian’s letters in the Ancient
Christian Writers series are an unparalleled resource for the study of Cyprian. See note
2 below.
D. G. Hunter (*)
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

14 D. G. HUNTER
Cyprian became bishop of Carthage as a relatively recent convert,

barely two years after his baptism.2 Within a year he had to confront a crisis
that was to define his entire episcopate. Late in 249 or early 250, the
Roman Emperor Decius issued an edict requiring that sacrifice to the tra-
ditional gods be offered throughout the empire.3 Motivated by a desire to
guarantee the continued divine protection of the empire, Decius included
the novel requirement that all who sacrificed should get a certificate (libel-
lus) signed by local authorities who had witnessed the sacrificial ritual.
Penalties for failure to comply varied according to rank and social status:
honestiores were subject to exile and confiscation of property; humiliores
were liable to imprisonment and torture. Unlike previous emperors,
Decius seemed more concerned to create apostates (and thereby to stimu-
late traditional worship) than to execute dissidents; as a result, there were
few judicial executions, but significant numbers of Christians who suffered
penalties of different kinds. The faithful who suffered but survived became
known as “confessors”; those who perished were “martyrs.” Much larger
numbers, however, lapsed in some way, either by actually sacrificing or by
obtaining fraudulent certificates.
The persecution of Decius did not last long; by June of 251, the
emperor had been killed in battle against the Goths. But an unprecedented
crisis remained for church leaders: how to handle the large numbers of
Christians—in some places the majority—who had failed to stand firm. In
North Africa, the situation was complicated by several factors. Unlike
Fabian, the bishop of Rome who suffered immediate martyrdom, Bishop
Cyprian believed that he was called to flee and continue to administer the
church of Carthage in exile; this decision led some to question the
Cyprian’s own authority. But a more pressing problem was that some pres-
byters in Carthage had begun to admit lapsed Christians to eucharistic
communion on the strength of letters of recommendation (libelli pacis)
from the confessors. Earlier Christian tradition had tended to treat apos-
tasy as an “unforgiveable” sin, for which ecclesiastical penance was not
available. The new, post-Decian situation, therefore, had raised a twofold
2
The date is unknown, but Cyprian was bishop by Easter of 249. See Graham W. Clarke,
The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage (ACW 43; New York: Newman Press, 1984), vol. 1,
16. Cyprian’s elevation provoked opposition from some of the more established presbyters,
who continued to question his authority and to resist his policies on the lapsed Christians.
3
According to Clarke (Letters, vol. 1, 27–28), the edict applied not only to citizens, but to
entire households, including freedmen and slaves.
2 FROM RIGOR TO RECONCILIATION: CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE… 15
question: could a baptized Christian be reconciled after denying the faith,

and who had the authority to administer that reconciliation?4
Cyprian’s Evolving Position on the Reconciliation

of the Lapsed
There is good reason to think that Cyprian may initially have held the
rigorist view that denied the possibility of penance for apostasy. One of his
earliest works, the three-book collection of biblical excerpts known as the
Testimonia ad Quirinum, contained the following topic: “It is not possi-
ble for the person who has sinned against God to be forgiven in the
church.”5 The topic was accompanied by the following biblical quota-
tions, all of which suggested that there were certain sins (or a certain sin)
that could not be forgiven: Matthew 12:32 (“And whoever says a word
against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the
Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”),
Mark 3:28–29 (“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of
men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal
sin”), and 1 Samuel 2:25 (“If a man sins against a man, God will mediate
for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?”).
The Testimonia were composed early in Cyprian’s episcopate, prior to
the persecution of Decius. By the year 250, much had changed, and large
numbers of lapsed Christians, encouraged by dissident presbyters, were
demanding readmittance to full communion on the basis of the libelli
pacis issued by the confessors. In a trio of letters from May of 250, Cyprian
argued that there should be no reconciliation given to apostates until
peace had come to the Church as a whole. At that time, he planned to
return to the city and hold a council of bishops to deliberate on the proper
course of action in regard to the lapsed. While Cyprian acknowledged that
confessors and martyrs had a role in reviewing cases of the lapsed, he
insisted that their recommendations much be conveyed to the bishop and
4
The foundational study of post-baptismal penance is Bernhard Poschmann, Paenitentia
secunda: Die kirchliche Busse im ältesten Christentum bis Cyprian und Origenes (Bonn:
P. Hanstein, 1940); see also the historical essays in Karl Rahner, Penance in the Early Church.
Vol. 15 in his Theological Investigations, trans. Lionel Swain (New York: Crossroads, 1982).
5
Test. 3.28 (CSEL 3.1, 142): “Non posse in ecclesia remitti ei qui in deum delinquerit.”
16 D. G. HUNTER
would be considered only after the persecution had ceased.6 While Cyprian
had especially harsh words for those presbyters who presumed to grant
reconciliation prematurely, at this point he indicated that some form of
penance and reconciliation might be possible, when properly administered
by the bishops.7
Within a few months another evolution is evident in Cyprian’s attitude
toward the lapsed. Perhaps under the influence of a policy set by presby-
ters in the church at Rome, Cyprian acknowledged that immediate recon-
ciliation might be granted to a lapsed Christian in the case of illness or
nearness of death. Writing to the Roman clergy in summer of 250, Cyprian
signaled the influence of a previous letter from Rome:
You counselled that comfort should be given to those who fell ill after their
lapse and, being penitent, were anxious to be admitted to communion. I
have, therefore, decided that I too should take my stand alongside your
opinion, thereby avoiding that our actions, which ought to be united and in
harmony on every issue, might differ in any respect.8
Again, however, Cyprian emphasized the importance of refraining from

any general judgement on the lapsed until peace had been restored and
church leaders had been able to consult on the appropriate policies.9
In the following year, the long-awaited council took place. Cyprian
returned to Carthage in the spring of that year and sometime after Easter
of 251 called a council to consider the situation of the lapsed.10 In Letter
55, written to Bishop Antonianus, who was being influenced by the
Roman rigorist Novatian, Cyprian outlined and defended the decisions of
the council.11 The basic provisions were fairly straightforward: First, if
someone who had sacrificed and received deathbed reconciliation should
6
Ep. 15.2.2 (addressed to the confessors); ep. 17.1.2 (addressed to the laity).
7
Ep. 16 was addressed to the wayward clergy and cited some of the same biblical passages
that appeared in Test. 3.28. In ep. 16.4.2 Cyprian threatened to suspend the liturgical privi-
leges of presbyters who continued to administer penance.
8
Ep. 20.3.2 (CSEL 3/2: 528–529); trans. Clarke, Letters, vol., 1, 102–103.
9
Ep. 20.3.3.
10
Even prior to the death of Decius in June of 251, the persecution had started to abate.
Cyprian delivered his famous treatise, De lapsis, upon returning to the city, but before the
council of 251 took place.
11
In this brief essay, I am not able to do justice to all of the complexities of the controversy.
Suffice it to say that Cyprian faced criticism both from those who opposed any reconciliation
for the lapsed (“rigorists,” such as Novatian) and those who favored immediate reconcilia-
tion for all (“laxists,” such as the rival Carthaginian presbyters).
recover, that person was considered a Christian in good standing. Second,

a sharp distinction was made between those who had actually sacrificed
and those who had obtained a fraudulent certificate without sacrificing;
the latter were restored immediately, upon examination.12 Third, those
who sacrificed were to be examined individually to determine the degree
of their guilt; those who agreed to undergo penance were to be reconciled
only on their deathbed, while those who refused to undergo penance were
to be denied reconciliation even on their deathbed.13
While the provisions of the council of 251 might not sound revolution-
ary, Cyprian’s letter 55 provided a different perspective. In his argument to
Antonianus, Cyprian showed clear awareness that his position and that of the
majority of the Roman and North African bishops was a development over
prior practice.14 Cyprian insisted that he had reached his conclusions “not
without careful deliberation and lengthy consideration.”15 Likewise, the
council’s decision had been reached only after carefully examining the scrip-
tural arguments on both sides.16 Contrary to his previous resistance to grant-
ing reconciliation to those who had sacrificed, Cyprian observed that at the
council he had “yielded to the urgent needs of the time” (necessitate tempo-
rum) and considered “provisions that would bring salvation to the many.”17
Especially noteworthy is Cyprian’s concern to differentiate among the
lapsed: he recognized that those who had sacrificed were not all equally
guilty, and insisted that each of the lapsed must be examined individually.18
Most significant of all, Cyprian insisted on the priority of mercy in deal-
ing with the lapsed. He argued that bishops “have no right to be over-
rigid or harsh or callous in caring for our brothers. Rather we ought to
12
The distinction was an innovation for Cyprian. As recently as De lapsis 27 he had argued
that simply obtaining a certificate was an act of apostasy.
13
For a closer look at the ritual dimensions of penance, see Joseph A. Favazza, “Chaos
Contained: The Construction of Religion in Cyprian of Carthage,” Questions Liturgiques 80
(1999): 81–90.
14
In ep. 55.6.2, Cyprian noted that Bishop Cornelius in Rome had also called a council of
bishops that reached the same conclusions as the council in Carthage.
15
Ep. 55.3.2 (CSEL 3.2, 625): “[…] non sine librata diu et ponderata ratione a me”; trans.
Clarke, Letters, vol. 3, 34, slightly altered.
16
Ep. 55.6.1.
17
Ep. 55.7.2 (CSEL 3.2, 628); trans. Clarke, Letters, vol. 3, 36.
18
See ep. 55.13.2 and 55.17.3. In ep. 55.16.1, Cyprian even accused the rigorists of hold-
ing a Stoic view of the parity of sins: “We ought, therefore, to shun any notions which do not
issue from the clemency of God but which are rather begotten of the arrogance and rigidity
of philosophy”; trans. Clarke, Letters, 3, 42.
18 D. G. HUNTER
mourn with those who mourn and weep with those who weep.”19 Like the
good Samaritan, bishops should “imitate Christ’s teaching and example,
snatch our wounded brother from the jaws of our foe, tend him, and keep
him safe for God’s judgment.”20 Against the rigorists who might argue
that extending reconciliation to apostates would create a “slippery slope”
and lead to a decline in martyrdom, Cyprian rejected such an equation.
Citing another innovation—the granting of penance to adulterers—he
argued that this practice had not led to any decline in Christian enthusiasm
for virginity, chastity, or continence: “the power of purity,” he insisted, “is
not crushed because penitence and pardon are conceded to the adulterer.”21
In short, Cyprian argued, the church’s bishops “have no right to deny the
fruits of repentance to those who grieve.”22
Before concluding, there is one more innovation to which Cyprian and
the North African episcopacy give witness. Two years after the council of
251, the bishops met again. This time, anticipating (mistakenly) the out-
break of a new persecution, the bishops decided that all of those who had
sacrificed during the time of Decius and who had steadfastly engaged in
penance, should be immediately restored to full communion. The rationale
for this dramatic change in policy, as presented by Cyprian in a letter to
Cornelius in Rome, was that the anticipated crisis required that penitents be
adequately fortified for the impending combat by the grace of the Eucharist:
But under the present circumstances reconciliation becomes a necessity not

for the sick but for the strong, communion we must grant not to the dying
but to the living. Those whom we stir and rouse to battle we must not leave
all naked and unarmed; we must fortify and protect them with the body and
blood of Christ. Since the Eucharist has been appointed for this purpose, to
be a safeguard to those who receive it, those whom we would have against
the Enemy we must now arm with the protection of the Lord’s banquet.23
While Cyprian acknowledged that not all of those who would be recon-
ciled were fully worthy, he argued that the bishops owed to the faithful all
the potential benefits of the sacrament. And if any bishop saw fit not to
grant reconciliation to the penitent lapsed, Cyprian warned, “he will have
19
Ep. 55.19.1; trans. Clarke, Letters, vol. 3, 44, slightly altered.
20
Ep. 55.19.2; trans. Clarke, Letters, vol. 3, 45.
21
Ep. 55.20.2; trans. Clarke, Letters, vol. 3, 45
22
23
to render on the day of judgment an account to the Lord for his unseason-
able severity and his inhuman harshness. But so far as we are concerned,
we have acted as faith and charity and brotherly love demanded.”24
Conclusion
Numerous lessons can be drawn from the evolution of Cyprian’s position
on the reconciliation of lapsed Christians. Perhaps the most fundamental
was his willingness to embrace change, especially in the light of changed
circumstances. As the heir of a rigorist North African tradition on the sin
of apostasy, Cyprian and the North African episcopacy as a whole gradu-
ally came to embrace the possibility of ecclesiastical forgiveness for what
was previously considered an “unforgiveable” sin. He recognized that to
deny the possibility of penance, even for the most serious sins, was effec-
tively to drive believers out of the Church, back into pagan practice, or
into the arms of heretics, and schismatics.25 Rejecting the arguments of
those who preferred an elitist conception of a “pure” Church, unsullied by
contact with sinners, Cyprian emphasized the Church as a “field hospital,”
whose sacraments provided healing and sustenance for those who had
failed to live up to the ideals of the Gospel.
While there are significant differences between the crises of the third
century and those of the present day, it is worth considering what these
examples of past change in Church practice might teach us. There appear
to be obvious parallels with current debates within the Roman Catholic
Church over the status of divorced and remarried Catholics. The evolu-
tion of Cyprian and the North African bishops on the question of penance
indicates an openness to consider the possibility of change, even in a long-
standing practice such as the denial of penance to apostates. Similarly, the
Catholic Church today faces the question of whether or not to relax or
modify traditional strictures on remarriage after divorce. As Cardinal
Walter Kasper noted in the lecture he delivered to the consistory of cardi-
nals prior to the 2014 Synod on the Family, the early church offered “a
pastoral practice of tolerance, clemency, and forbearance” that might be
24
Ep. 57.5.2; trans. Clarke, Letters, vol. 3, 59. Cf. Burns, Cyprian the Bishop, 41, who
stresses the importance of the councils of 251 and 253 in re-establishing church unity: “The
cohesion of the church, threatened by the desertion of the apostates and the authority of the
martyrs, had been effectively restored and maintained.”
25
Cyprian developed this argument explicitly in ep. 55.6.1.
20 D. G. HUNTER
applied to the divorced and remarried today.26 As the example of Cyprian

and the North African bishops suggests, such a model would acknowledge
the priority of mercy over severity; it would recognize the diversity of per-
sons and the complexity of human motivations and relationships; and it
would offer communion in the Eucharist as the source of strength and
healing rather than division and exclusion.
26
Walter Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, Translated by William Madges (Mahwah, NJ:
Paulist Press, 2014), 31. Cardinal Kasper cited canon 8 of the Council of Nicaea, which was
directed against the so-called “Pure Ones” (katharoi) who refused communion with those
who had entered into second marriages or lapsed in time of persecution, but who had under-
gone ritual penance.
CHAPTER 3
Who Do You Call a Heretic? Fluid Notions

of Orthodoxy and Heresy in Late Antiquity
Vladimir Latinovic
The Orthodox church, to which I belong, in the course of its long exis-
tence produced some of the most beautiful and innovative concepts of
Christian theology,1 and yet she somehow manages to uphold the notion
that she is a champion of unchangedness and that everything that she does
needs to be in total agreement with the tradition and the theology of the
“holy fathers”. This obsession with continuity and tradition goes so far
that in the era in which almost all other churches stepped on the path of
modernization,2 the Orthodox actually thought that they needed to take
a step back and remove all the layers of modernity acquired during
1
This is especially the case for the era of Late Antiquity, in which the East was dominant in
theology and which is often considered the golden age of Christian theology.
2
This in most cases did not help them increase the number of their faithful. The best
example is the Anglican Communion, which is always in tune with the spirit of the age, but
which has suffered a significant decrease in the number of its faithful in the past few decades.
There is a famous quote from the diary of William Ralph Inge, also known as “The Gloomy
Dean,” connected to his lecture at Sion College in 1911 titled “Co-operation of the Church
with the Spirit of the Age”. He writes: “[…] if you marry the Spirit of your own generation
you will be a widow in the next”. See: William Ralph Inge, Diary of a Dean: St. Paul’s
1911–1934 (London: Hutchinson, 1949), 12.
V. Latinovic (*)
University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

22 V. LATINOVIC
centuries, especially the accretions that occurred under the influence of

Western scholasticism,3 by returning to the “theology of the fathers”,
whatever that is supposed to mean.4
In this chapter, I seek to show that in many cases of the development of
Christian (and in particular Orthodox) theology there is no such thing as
continuity with the tradition and that church often used this continuity as
a façade which served only to hide the fact that things had significantly
changed.5 The best way to do this is to show how because of the change
of the official doctrine certain persons were condemned for heresy even
though they did not change anything in their positions. The only thing
that changed was official church theology. Since most condemnations of
this type occurred post-mortem even if they had wanted to change some-
thing they could not have done so.
As someone who comes from a church that has a rather black and white
notion of heresy and orthodoxy, I have always been fascinated with the
selection process of who is declared a heretic and who is considered to be
orthodox or even a saint, which are often equated. Putting aside all of
those considered by the modern Orthodox as heretics, in accordance with
Warburton’s principle “Orthodoxy is my doxy – heterodoxy is another
man’s doxy”,6 I would like to focus on some late antique theologians who
had the misfortune to be declared heretics, even though they were not,
and those who had the luck of remaining orthodox, even though there
were valid reasons to consider them heretical, if we were to follow equal
and just principles. Finally, as mentioned above, I will consider those who
3
Florovsky (borrowing from Luther) referred to this influence as to the “Babylonian” or
the “Latin Captivity” of Russian theology. See: Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology
(Belmont, MA: Nordland Pub. Co., 1979), 121, 181.
4
I am referring to the so-called neo-patristic movement of the twentieth century led by
Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, Nicholas Afanasiev, Alexander Schmemann, John
Meyendorff, and ultimately John Zizioulas. For the emergence and motives of this theology
see: Paul L. Gavrilyuk, Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance (Oxford:
University Press, 2014). Of course, this is not an isolated phenomenon: there were similar
movements in Western theology, such as “Nouvelle Théologie.”
5
The best example for this is the Council of Chalcedon (451), which introduced a political
(middle way) solution for the long-standing Alexandrian (miaphysite) and Antiochian (dyo-
physite) Christological disputes. While introducing this artificial theology the fathers of the
council felt need to state in the Creed of the council that they were only “following the holy
Fathers” (ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν), which of course was only partly true.
6
Joseph Priestley et al., Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley: To the Year 1795, Volume 1 (London:
J. Johnson, 1806), 372.
3 WHO DO YOU CALL A HERETIC? FLUID NOTIONS OF ORTHODOXY… 23
had the opportunity to play both roles at once: to be considered orthodox

in one phase of their lives or even until death, and heretics at some later
phase of their life or post mortem when there is obviously no right of reply.
Let us begin in chronological order, with Tertullian (c. 155–c. 240).
There is probably no need to mention all the achievements of this prolific
early Christian author from Carthage, who was not only the first impor-
tant theologian writing in Latin,7 “responsible for much of the theological
vocabulary of Western Christianity”8 but also a vicious polemicist against
heresy.9 Today his reputation is at best mixed. Shortly after his death, the
first negative reviews of his theology started to emerge. The first to criti-
cize Tertullian openly was probably Lactancius, who addressed not so
much his theology as his education and style.10 Jerome went a step further
and accused him of lapsing into Montanism,11 and finally Augustine
cemented his condemnation by openly calling him a heretic (although an
eloquent one) for his problematic teachings on the immortality of body
and soul and for his “contrary to Apostolic teaching, [condemnation of]
second marriage as debauchery”.12 There is also an official refutation of his
writings in the Decretum Gelasianum issued by Pope Gelasius I
(492–496 AD) in 494, although the authorship of this decree is disput-
ed.13 This means that the first theologian ever to use the word “Trinity”,
the theologian who was the father of the formula “tres personae, una
substantia”,14 which, mutatis mutandis pertains until today, and probably
one of the first persons who introduced homoousian theological concepts,
is apparently a heretic.
7
Tertullian was the first western author to produce an entire corpus of theological writings
in the Latin language.
8
Geoffrey D. Dunn, Tertullian (London & New York: Routledge, 2004), 10.
9
Besides his polemics against individual heretics such as Adversus Marcionem, Adversus
Praxean and Adversus Hermogenem, Tertullian was one of the first Christian authors to write
a kind of a manual on how to deal with heretics and heresies, the so-called “De praescriptione
haereticorum”. For a long time, the compendium Adversus omnes haereses was attributed to
him, but modern scholarship no longer considers this one of his writings. On Tertullian’s
notion of heresy, see P. I. Kaufman, “Tertullian on Heresy, History, and the Reappropriation
of Revelation.” Church History 60, no. 2 (1991): 167–79.
10
See: Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones 5,1 and 5,4.
11
See: Eusebius Hieronymus Stridonensis. De viris illustribus 53.
12
Augustinus Hipponensis, De haeresibus ad Quodvultdeus 86.
13
H. Leclerq, “Gelasien (Decret)”, in: Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie,
Vol. 6 (1924), 722–747.
14
See: Tertullianus, Adversus Praxean 2–3.
24 V. LATINOVIC
At approximately the same time in the East we have another giant,

Origen (c. 184–c. 253), who is today “widely considered one of the most
important theologians in the history of Christianity”15 and has been called
“undoubtedly the greatest genius the early church ever produced”.16
Origen held an even higher reputation than Tertullian. If we are to believe
Eusebius and his Church History,17 he was appointed Clement’s successor
as head of the famous Alexandrian catechetical school,18 which was an
honor only the absolutely best theologians of that time could achieve. An
entire book would not suffice to describe his influence on later generations
of theologians, including Didimus the Blind, Pamphilus and Eusebius of
Caesarea, the Cappadocian fathers, Rufinus, Jerome, Ambrose, Maximus
the Confessor and others. Origen’s orthodoxy was also undisputed during
his lifetime19 and, like Tertullian, he fought viciously against heresy.
Besides his writings against individual heretics and philosophers such as
Contra Celsum, we know through the report of Eusebius that he actually
participated in the trials of heretics as an expert witness, a sort of peritus.20
In addition to that, Origen’s final “achievement”—his death—could have
placed him on an equal pedestal with early Christian martyrs, or at least
confessors. Incarcerated on the order of Emperor Decius, “he endured for
the word of Christ, bonds and bodily tortures and torments under the
iron collar and in the dungeon”,21 and not long after his release he died.
Alas, this martyrdom was never acknowledged. In fact, it was quite the
opposite; fifty years after his death, the first attacks on him and his
15
Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform
(Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 99.
16
John A. McGuckin, ed., The Westminster Handbook to Origen (Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 25.
17
See: Eusebius Pamphilus, Historia Ecclesiastica 6, 3, 1 and 6, 7–8, 1.
18
The very existence of the Alexandrian and Antiochian catechetical schools is disputed.
For a good overview of this question see: Elizabeth A. Clark, Reading Renunciation:
Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1999), 72–78.
19
This is true with the exception of a few episodes which had mainly to do with jealousy
and which were not connected with his teachings but more with practical matters. There are
some authors though, who think that Origen also had problems for his teachings. See e.g.:
C. C. Richardson, “The Condemnation of Origen,” Church History 6, no. 1 (1937): 50–59.
20
See: Eusebius Pamphilus, Historia Ecclesiastica 6, 33; 6, 37. Dialogue with Heraclides is
actually an account of such an investigation.
21
See: ibid. 6, 39.
theology began.22 But, his reputation was so esteemed that it took three
separate series of attacks (often called the “Origenist crises”), concluding
with the fifth ecumenical council, the Second Council of Constantinople,
finally to condemn him.23 As a result of these actions, probably the bright-
est theological mind of all time, the first theologian to speak of three
hypostases in the Trinity and actually to use the term homoousios to describe
the relation between the Father and the Son,24 was made a heretic.
Let us now turn to the fourth century and look at one perhaps less well-
known theologian, Diodorus of Tarsus (died c. 392–394). Diodorus was
one of the strongest supporters of the Nicene theology,25 and his reputa-
tion during his lifetime was spotless. Chrysostom called him the second
John the Baptist,26 and Theodoret described him as “ποταμός διειδής τε
καὶ μέγας” [a clear and mighty river] against heresy.27 Rarely has anyone
enjoyed such reverence in his own time and been held up as a pillar of
Orthodoxy and true faith as Diodorus. And yet the depreciation of his
authority, which began with the activities of Cyril of Alexandria,28 ended
with his official condemnation by two synods (both held in Constantinople,
one in 499 and the other in 553). The reason for his condemnation
remains unclear,29 but it appears to have something to do with his asser-
tion of two hypostases in Christ, which was never far from Antiochian
Christological tradition, but which through the condemnation of
Nestorianism and the strengthening of Alexandrian (more miaphysite) tra-
dition was no longer acceptable as orthodox teaching.30 Therefore, the
22
See: C. C. Richardson, ibid. 59–64.
23
It is still not clear whether and to what extent this council has condemned Origen and
his writings. See: Richard Price, transl., The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553
(Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 51). (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2012)
17–23; E. M. Harding, “Origenist Crises”, in McGuckin, ibid. 166.
24
Admittedly in a subordinationist and not in a Nicean way.
25
See Theodor Mommsen, Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et
Leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes (Berolini: Weidmann, 1954), 834.
26
Iohannes Chrysostomos, Laus Diodori Episcopi 52, 3–4.
27
Theodoretus Cyrrhensis, Historia ecclesiastica 4, 25, 3.
28
He wrote numerous letters in which he tried to establish his heresy and he also wrote
Three Books against Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, which are today only avail-
able in fragments.
29
Diodor’s condemnation does not appear anywhere in the acts of the council of 553. We
know that there was one only from the report of Photius.
30
I explain this process more thoroughly in my book: Christologie und Kommunion:
Entstehung und Verbreitung der homoousianischen Christologie (Münster: Aschendorff,
2018), 73–117.
26 V. LATINOVIC
only fault of Diodorus was his inability to foresee how theology would
develop one century after his death [note the irony].
Similar things can be said of Diodorus’s opponent Apollinaris of
Laodicea, who in addition had the bad luck of being condemned as a her-
etic by a series of councils already during his lifetime. This condemnation
was sealed by the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople
(381). But before these condemnations, Apollinaris was considered to be
a perfectly good and orthodox theologian. Indeed, some of the most
respected theologians of his time, such as Basil of Caesarea, asked for his
advice,31 only later to be directly involved in his condemnation.32 As for his
theological positions, they can best be described as “radical homoousian-
ism”, meaning that he developed Athanasius’s Christological positions to
the extreme. Actually, his teachings were in most parts indistinguishable to
those of Athanasius, indeed so indistinguishable that one of his writings
was for a long time held to be Athanasius’s Fourth Oration against the
Arians. Same goes for the formula “μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου
σεσαρκωμένη”33 [one nature of the Word of God incarnate], which was for
long time attributed to Athanasius, and as such also entered the theology
of Cyril of Alexandria. Thus, we have two theologians, both of which used
the same (“heretical”) phrase, but in one case Apollinaris is considered a
heretic while in another case Cyril is not, simply because it was thought
that the phrase came from Athanasius? Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
Let me finish this brief analysis with one of my favored theologians
Pelagius. As opposed to those analyzed above, Pelagius never enjoyed the
authority of undisputed Orthodoxy nor was he considered to be a pillar of
faith.34 Nevertheless, he deserves to be mentioned here because of his high
moral standards and his ascetic life for which he without doubt deserves to
be considered a saint.35 Doctrinally, Pelagius should also not be deemed a
heretic. His notions about human freedom and God’s grace were actually
31
Basilius Caesariensis, Epistula 361: Apollinario.
32
See: Ekkehard Mühlenberg, Apollinaris von Laodicea (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1969), 48.
33
Apollinaris Laodicenus, Epistula ad Jovianum 1.
34
Unless perhaps in some aristocratic circles and small group of his supporters including
also some bishops (later called Pelagians).
35
See: Bryn R. Rees, Pelagius: A Reluctant Heretic (Woodbridge and Rochester:
Boydell, 1988).
traditional (original) teachings on these subjects in Rome of that time36

which suddenly became obsolete because Augustine developed a new the-
ology of grace.37 Pelagius ultimately became a victim of a powerful theo-
logian, who on his side had not only support of the ecclesiastical circles
but, through his fight against the Manicheans, also the resources of the
entire state machine. This is one wrongdoing that we today can still repair,
especially since our modern concepts of freedom and grace are much
closer to Pelagius than to Augustine.
It would be possible to continue in this vein for many pages (John
21:25) and show that Arius with his subordinationism was actually more
in tune with the tradition than Alexander and Athanasius with their new
teachings.38 I could argue that the pillars of Nicene Orthodoxy in the
West—Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrosius of Milan, both highly regarded
and respected as saints and church fathers in today’s Orthodox Church—
should be considered heretics by the Orthodox Church because they
thought up the first (although very primitive) version of filioque.39 Finally,
I could give some examples that are closer to our own time—such as that
of Luther—who back in in his own time was considered to be the devil
incarnate by the Catholic Church and who is today almost fully rehabili-
tated, so much so that his teachings are now considered as largely compat-
ible with the official teachings of the Catholic Church.40 But the examples
I have already given prove the point.
Instead of that, by way of conclusion, let us briefly consider what all
these examples show us. First, they reveal that orthodoxy and heresy were
and are fluid concepts. Those who were once heretics might one day be
rehabilitated (and many of them already are), perhaps not so much by the
church, but at least by theologians. Second, modern scholarship casts a
36
This is why Pelagius had a strong support base within the western Church and why
Rome for a long time refused to condemn him. For the good explanation of his teachings
see: Gisbert Greshake, Gnade als konkrete Freiheit. Eine Untersuchung zur Gnadenlehre des
Pelagius (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag 1972).
37
For an excellent study that shows that Pelagius did not propose any new teaching see: Ali
Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (Oxford: University Press, 2018).
38
I have discussed this in: V. Latinovic, “Arius Conservativus? The Question of Arius’
Theological Belonging,” Studia Patristica 95 (2017): 27–42.
39
See: Anthony Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy
(Oxford: University Press, 2010) 51–72.
40
I am referring here to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)
which was agreed to by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999.
This declaration is very much in sync with Luther’s theology of justification.
28 V. LATINOVIC
shadow of doubt on those who are univocally held as saints and tries to see
them in a more neutral way.41 These realizations bring more balance into
the picture. Reconsidering their positions on heresy, orthodoxy and sanc-
tity—and perhaps even separating the last from the first two—could also
bring a new era of openness and tolerance to the Orthodox Church,42 as
well as to some other churches.
41
Something that Orthodox patristics still needs to learn. For example, see: Khaled
Anatolios, Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (London-New York, Routledge, 1998),
which is an excellent book written by an extremely knowledgeable and talented scholar, but
lacks a single critical word about Athanasius!
42
In so doing, however, we need to be careful not to damage our ethos and to be at risk
of losing some other valuable concepts.
CHAPTER 4
Towards a Theology of Dissent
Judith Gruber
In this contribution, I look more closely into conflicts that accompany

change in the church. Are inner-ecclesial controversies to be avoided at all
costs, or could there perhaps be a theological significance to disagreement
in the church?1 The Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region that
took place in October 2019 was perceived by many as a gathering towards
change of current church practices, and was, as such, a controversial event.
It offers a rich case study to explore the role of conflict in ecclesial theolo-
gies and practices.
A Point of Departure: “Everything is connected”

(Laudato Si)
The Amazon Synod discussed its two major topics in ways that showed
their intimate connection. There was, first, a strong focus on the environ-
mental crisis that finds its roots predominantly in the ‘North/West’, but
1
This is one of the central questions that motivated one of Gerard Mannion’s major
research projects. The working title of his final book was The Art of Magisterium: A Teaching
Church That Learns.
J. Gruber (*)
Faculty of Theology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

30 J. GRUBER
whose devastating effects are chiefly felt at the peripheries, particularly in

the Amazon region. Here, it becomes visible that the looming climate
catastrophe is inseparable from questions of social justice. Reckless exploi-
tation poses an acute threat to the survival of Amazonia’s indigenous peo-
ples. Here, therefore, the church is massively challenged in its task to
realize the gospel message of buen vivir for all. Current ecclesial practices,
the synod participants agreed, are insufficient; the church has to find new
ways to serve the people of Amazonia, and it is also in need of ecological
conversion. The synod’s two major topics—the ecological-social and the
pastoral—thus interlock: “Everything is connected”. Evangelization and
church reform are not mutually exclusive; rather, only a change of ecclesial
practices and structures makes evangelization possible.
If everything is connected, we are confronted with great complexity
and cannot hope for simple solutions. Complex problems allow for mul-
tiple approaches and generate divergent interpretations. In short, they are
prone to trigger disagreement. The 2019 synod also gave rise to dispute
that, once again, intensified the conflicts surrounding Francis’ pontificate.
In response to these divergences, conservative circles have ventilated accu-
sations of heresy and seen the spectre of schism looming over the church.
With this interpretation of inner-ecclesial conflict, they argue within an
ecclesiological framework that presupposes pre-given unity and a stable
tradition of the church, warranted by hierarchical governance. In other
words, they discuss ecclesial conflict based on an ecclesiology that a priori
denies any legitimacy of conflict in the church. With synodality as a key
concept, Francis promotes a different ecclesiology. At stake is a broaden-
ing of participation in decision-making that is no longer drawn along cleri-
cal lines. Here, unity and consensus in the church are not envisioned as
pre-given, but as goals of a dialogical process of patient listening. Synodality
consequently makes space for differences and conflict in the church.
These different appraisals of ecclesial conflict call for scrutiny: Which
theological status can we attribute to conflict in the church? And is there
a way of understanding inner-ecclesial disagreements in ways that do not
subject them by harmonizing them into an ideal of unity? In this contribu-
tion, I aim to develop a theological understanding of conflict that resists
such pacification, in order to pave the way for an ecclesiological framework
that allows us to do justice to the complexity of the problems targeted by
the Amazon synod.
4 TOWARDS A THEOLOGY OF DISSENT 31
A Theory of Dissent
Jacques Rancière’s political philosophy offers resources for such an
endeavor. For him, politics and aesthetics interlock in the constitution of
the ‘world’ of a community: Communities constitute their social order
through a “distribution of the sensible”.2 This is the process of differentia-
tion through which it defines what it considers to be visible, sayable and
meaningful. For Rancière, ‘distribution’ has a double meaning, referring
“on the one hand to that which allows for participation, and, on the other
hand, to that which separates and excludes”.3 Accordingly, it is one of his
central points that in any community there are those who have no part and
no participation in the distribution of the sensible. Participation within a
community rests on the exclusion of those who have no share. Rancière
gives this share of the excluded a name—they are the “part of those who
have no part”.4 He further argues that there are two ways of performing
the distribution of the sensible and of counting those that have a share in
a community. The first kind recognizes only those groups that actually
have a part in it. It proceeds in a totalitarian way that reflects precisely the
particular arrangements of visibility that are operative in a given commu-
nity. Rancière calls this way of counting “consensus”.5 Dissensus in turn,
the second way of counting, additionally names a community’s part-of-
no-part and thus inserts a gap that marks the excluded in its established
order.6 By naming the part-of-no-part, dissensus thus does not simply add
a part that has hitherto been missing, but introduces a fundamentally dif-
ferent perception of reality that disrupts the totalitarian order of consensus
and questions the ‘normality’ of its arrangements of in/visibility. For
Rancière, accordingly, dissensus is not simply a confrontation of disparate
interests or opinions that could be resolved through negotiation.7 Such a
confrontation follows the logic of consensus, which only sees what is
‘there’ and aims to settle a conflict of interest within a community that
already shares in a distribution of the sensible. Dissensus, in contrast, goes
2
Jacques Rancière, The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible (New York:
Continuum, 2011), 36.
3
Rancière, Politics, 36.
4
Rancière, Politics, 33 et passim.
5
Cf. Rancière, Politics, 42.
6
7
32 J. GRUBER
much further: it is a controversy about “what can be seen and what can be
said about it” and “who is able to see something and qualified to speak”.8
A Theology of Dissent
Rancière thus proposes a framework for explicating mechanisms of exclu-
sion, based on which he develops definitions of consensus and dissensus
that differ sharply from their conceptualization in the Roman Catholic
Church. Here, consensus is indeed an orienting principle, while dissent
has only had a short career as a theological term. It emerged in the 1960s
controversies around Humanae Vitae that triggered an intense debate on
the status of dissent: The Magisterium promulgated documents that regu-
late the relation between magisterium and theologians in restrictive ways.
On the other hand, theological publications sought to offer the historical
and systematic clarification for those circumstances in which dissent might
play a legitimate ecclesial role. Thus, while both groups took very different
positions on the distribution of authority over ecclesial theology, they
shared a silent presupposition: both considered consensus in the Church
as norm(al), and accordingly viewed dissent as an ‘extraordinary’ phenom-
enon at the margins of ecclesiality, whose legitimacy has to be either denied
a priori, or carefully gauged. Rancière takes the opposite starting point: for
him, dissent negotiates what counts as sensible in a community and thus is
constitutive of community formation. Consensus, in contrast, is the main-
tenance of established participation arrangements that always also rest on
exclusion.
Offering instruments to reflect on mechanisms of exclusion in commu-
nity formation, Rancière’s political philosophy provides us with resources
to think in theologically new ways about participation, consensus and dis-
sent in the Roman Catholic Church. It first challenges us to approach
Roman Catholic discourses of consensus and unity carefully and perhaps
even with hermeneutical suspicion: Are there situations in which the
search for consensus does not lead to increased participation but repro-
duces established structures of ecclesial authority and remains limited to a
conflict over the distribution of what already counts as sensible in the
Roman Catholic Church? Beyond these ecclesiopolitical concerns,
Rancière’s definition of dissent is of highest theological relevance for an
understanding of revelation. In Christian theology, revelation, too,
8
Rancière, Politics, 149.
concerns arrangements of in/visibility that emerge from mechanisms of

exclusion: Those who are excluded from society are of indispensable sig-
nificance for the appearance of God (Mt 25, 31–46). This passage unmis-
takably links the ability to see God to a reversal of social exclusion. God
comes into view whenever there is a renegotiation of who can be seen and
what can be said about them. God appears, we could say with Rancière,
whenever the totalitarian ways of counting the parts of a community are
disrupted. God can be seen when Rancièrian dissent takes place. Rancière
thus opens intriguing trajectories to think of dissent as a principle of eccle-
siogenesis. With him, we would no longer assume ideals of unity and con-
sensus as warrants of ecclesial tradition. Instead, we could see conflict as
having a genuine theological function. Representing Christ, church takes
place when we point to the mechanisms of exclusion out of which com-
munity emerges.
Practicing Dissent
Reports from the Amazon Synod indicate that such dissent might actually
have happened during the synod, as Gudrun Sailer’s journalistic account
shows: Even if it is still shaped by the rhetoric of harmony typical of con-
sensus, it nevertheless speaks to the precarious inconclusiveness of a church
that constitutes itself through dissent:
Nobody presents ready-made answers, and even during debates on clerical

office, everybody remains inquisitive, sympathetic […]. Heresy, schism,
apostasy? I see, as so often during Francis’ pontificate, a discrepancy between
perceptions from outside the synod and how it sounds within. Its sound is
soft, not dissonant. At no point have I perceived polemics or even base
behaviour. Yes, there is reservation against certain themes, or weak applause,
once even a moment of embarrassed silence […]. There is struggle, but not
attempts to con. Only somebody who is not at the synod can assume that
the final document is already written.9
In the midst of a rhetoric of amicability, Sailer does make visible that

within the prescribed codex of consensual behaviour during the synod,
9
Gudrun Sailer, “Der vielfältige Klang der Amazonas-Synode,” katholisch.de, October 15,
2019: https://www.katholisch.de/artikel/23262-der-vielfaeltige-klang-der-amazonas-syn-
ode (accessed Feb 22, 2020).
34 J. GRUBER
there was an open-ended negotiation about what can be seen and who is
qualified to say something about it. Rancièrian dissent took place.
At the same time, by speaking so hesitantly about conflicts that remain
nearly inaudible as they irrupt within the established order of consensus,
Sailer’s report points to one further characteristic of dissent. Dissent,
Rancière says, takes place then when the ‘normal’ order of consensus is
disrupted. Dissent, therefore, cannot simply replace the order of consen-
sus, but is critically at work within it. It is thus not a permanent institution,
but an “accidental, local and precarious activity, that is always close to
disappearing. And therefore also always close to reappearing”.10 Dissent
takes place then when those excluded from an established order appear as
a gap, and lead to renegotiations of its distribution of the sensible.
Similarly, Mt 25 also shows that such revelations of the part-without-
part are everything but self-evident. Here, too, there are those who stick
to a community’s consensus and see only those who have a share. For
those who do not see the excluded, however, a vision of God is foreclosed.
God’s presence thus remains dependent on renegotiations of arrange-
ments of societal in/visibility. It is not a given good, but runs counter to
established orders of participation, both outside and within the church.
Such volatility, of course, makes dissent a dangerous principle for a church
that strives to be the sacrament of divine presence as it appears in the
excluded. It challenges the church to become sign and instrument of a
dissent that disrupts established regimes of in/visibility. As representation
of divine presence, church takes place when the part-without-part irrupts
as a gap within totalitarian regimes of participation. In such a search for
the anonymous presence of Christ in the blind spots of societal arrange-
ments, the church thus loses its self-evidence. Its locus has to be continu-
ously redefined. If we use dissent as a criterion of ecclesiality, we can no
longer consider the church—and representation within the church—as a
given good, whose (more or less) fair distribution can be fought over.
Instead, we have to think of the church as an event that becomes a repre-
sentation of God’s presence then when constellations of participation are
unsettled.
Therefore, while we cannot build a stable institution out of dissent, its
retrieval as an ecclesial principle will be concerned with practices of dis-
cernment that seek to expose the blind spots in ecclesial distributions of
10
Jacques Rancière, “Überlegungen zur Frage, was heute Politik heißt,” Dialektik.
Zeitschrift für Kulturphilosophie 1 (2003): 113–122, here 122. (my translation).
the sensible. Taking the Amazon synod as an example, questions such as

these have to be asked: Do the reforms envisioned by the synod follow a
logic of consensus or dissent? Do they consensually reproduce the estab-
lished ecclesial order and are solely concerned with a redistribution of
what already appears as a given in the church—or do they indeed facilitate
dissent: a renegotiation of what is visible, sayable and meaningful in the
Roman Catholic Church?
The synod’s controversial debates about the viri probati offer rich
material for such a critical practice of dissent.11 Discussed as a trajectory for
administering sacraments in Amazonian parishes despite the region’s low
numbers of priests, a possible (re-)introduction of this institution was also
interpreted as a sign that flexibility in the Roman Catholic Church’s
understanding of ordination is possible. The viri probati thus stand for a
reform that opens new possibilities of ecclesial participation. A closer
investigation of who is to be granted access to sacramental representation
through this institution, however, invites us to take a more nuanced posi-
tion. If men only can access the rank of personae probatae, this institution
re-inscribes the patriarchal patterns that distribute authority in the church,
and may solidify these also in indigenous communities, accompanied by
the heteronormative assumptions that are implied in the demand for elders
to live in stable family relations. In addition, as Charles Collins argues, the
institution of the viri probati is also prone to re-establishing colonial
power structures in the global church and can thus propel another pattern
of ecclesial exclusion that distributes sacramental authority along racial
lines: The elders would receive ordination like priests, but would “exercise
[…] different roles […]. Elders would most often represent indigenous
communities in a diocese led by a non-indigenous bishop assisted by
11
This focus on the personae probatae should by no means detract from the fact that the
priority of the synod was to devise an ecclesial response to the global ecological crisis; pastoral
reforms were discussed insofar as they contribute to ecological conversion. However, the
significance of the viri probati debate in this very context cannot be dismissed. Among oth-
ers, two points call for a critical appraisal. First, can the church believably call for buen vivir
for all, which includes just human relations, when patriarchal discourses continue to shape
inner-ecclesial structures? Second, in which ways can a focus on the church’s extra-ecclesial
mission towards global climate justice and its advocacy for the marginalized become a (per-
haps all too convenient) tool to detract from inner-ecclesial problems of injustice?
36 J. GRUBER
non-indigenous priests, meaning an uncomfortable racial element would

exist among the two classes of priests.”12
With Rancière’s analytical instruments, we can thus show that the insti-
tution of the viri probati runs the risk of reproducing, rather than chal-
lenging, the established boundaries of sexuality, race and clericalism along
which sacramental authority is distributed in the church. This diagnosis,
however, should by no means serve to discredit the synod’s reform efforts.
Rather, it challenges us to be mindful of the blind spots that inevitably
inscribe themselves into any arrangement of representation and participa-
tion. The critical perspective of dissent allows us to highlight that no
reform proposal can present us with a definite solution that is free from
exclusions. Yet, it does not deprive us of agency. Dissent does not translate
into a stable institution, but neither does it exempt us from the struggle
for arrangements of participation that are—perhaps—less exclusionary,
always knowing that we will not fully succeed in this endeavour. The per-
spective of dissent thus introduces a moment of provisionality into our
strivings for a just world, which might enable us to account precisely for
the complexities of the problems that the synod sought to address. When
everything is interconnected, we must not hope for unambivalent
solutions.
12
Charles Collins, “A married priesthood not the real revolution in ‘ordained elders’ pro-
posal,” Crux Now, October 9th, 2019.
CHAPTER 5
Theology of Church Reform

and Institutional Crisis: Reading Yves Congar
in the Twenty-First Century
Massimo Faggioli
Church Reform from Vatican II to Pope Francis

The theological and ecclesial work of countless theologian provided our
generation with the most engaging examples of the contribution of sys-
tematic reflection to the attempt to reform the Catholic Church, its think-
ing and institutions. This is an ongoing attempt that finds itself in a
situation that is, in many respects, quite different from the twentieth-
century paradigms of “reform” in which Catholicism still operates both at
the intellectual and institutional level.
Catholicism embodies a strange paradox. Many people still see the
Catholic Church as the symbol of immutability, the inability to change
and attachment to the status quo. But at the same time, very few
Catholics—at least those with a voice in the public square—seem to have
been happy with the status quo. This paradox is particularly visible today,
M. Faggioli (*)
Department of Theology and Religious Studies, Villanova University,
Villanova, PA, USA

38 M. FAGGIOLI
as we do not have the two usual, competing narratives on the current state
of Catholicism; that is, a conservative narrative that supports the institu-
tional status quo versus a change-and-reform narrative. Instead, in the
context of the epoch-making sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church we
see both sides attacking the institutional status quo identified with the
clerical system, from which Pope Francis distanced himself at the begin-
ning of his pontificate.1
On one side, the liberal-progressive, Vatican II narrative calls for the
empowerment of the laity and women, decentralization, collegiality and
synodality, dialogue and ecumenism, and inclusiveness. On the other side,
the counter-reform or the “reform of the reform” narrative points to the
dramatic shortage of priests and of vocations in religious orders, to loss of
“identity” in Catholic schools, the rise of the “nones” and so forth—all
supposedly the fault of a so-called “Catholic lite” that was allegedly the
result of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar period. The
tensions that marked the preparation and the celebration of the Bishops’
Synod for the Amazon region of October 2019, but also the reception of
pope Francis’ post-synodal exhortation Querida Amazonia (published on
February 12, 2020), are one more evidence of this particular
Catholic moment.
One reason for this situation is the widening gap between the theology
of reform elaborated at the time of Vatican II and certain characteristics of
the post-conciliar Church—for the post-conciliar period of the twenty-
first century. There is no question that the notion of “Church reform” is
one of the key elements to understanding the pontificate of Pope Francis.
Antonio Spadaro SJ, and Carlos Maria Galli have edited a large volume of
essays that deal with this theme and provide a roadmap for reforms that
see in the Franciscan era a precious window of opportunity.2 But at the
same time the idea of “reform” is also one of the theological ideas that has
gone through significant transformations since Vatican II.
The most important theological contribution on Church reform in our
times came in the period immediately before and after the council from
1
See F. Ceragioli, “‘Il clericalismo è una peste nella Chiesa’. Riflessioni a partire dalla
Evangelii gaudium e dal magistero complessivo di papa Francesco”, Archivio Teologico
Torinese 24, no. 1 (2018): 147–162; J. Hanvey, “‘Sradicare la cultura dell’abuso’. La Lettera
di papa Francesco al Popolo di Dio”, Civiltà Cattolica (La) 169, no. 4 (2018): 271–278.
2
See For a Missionary Reform of the Church. The Civiltà Cattolica Seminar, eds. Antonio
Spadaro, SJ, and Carlos Maria Galli. Foreword by Massimo Faggioli (New York/Mahwah
NJ: Paulist Press, 2017).
5 THEOLOGY OF CHURCH REFORM AND INSTITUTIONAL CRISIS: READING… 39
the French Dominican Yves Congar (1905–1995), in his most important

book, True and False Reform in the Church. Originally published in 1950,
it was one of his writings that attracted the attention of the Holy Office
and cost Congar, beginning in 1952, years of investigations, silence, and
exile.3 A newer edition from 1968 was translated into English only a few
years ago.4
Congar’s Four Conditions for Reform

Congar specified four conditions for reforming the Church “without pro-
voking a schism”. The first condition is the primacy of charity and the
pastoral dimension of the Church. He says that the pastoral ministry is a
great school of truth and that prophetic reform takes place in the Church
that already exists. It is not about creating another Church, but one that
is different: “It should not result in an ecclesial novelty, but rather should
renew the church as an existing reality. The church pre-exists the reform
effort, and therefore it is not the object of discovery, retrieval, or creation”.5
The second condition is remaining in communion with the “all of it” of
the Church, the “total truth” of the Church. This is understood through
a dialectic of center-peripheries, institution and life of the Church. One
can break ranks on some issues without necessarily breaking away from the
Church. The fact that the Church has a center is the guarantee of this
freedom: “Only through communion with the whole body, which itself is
subject to the guidance of the magisterium, can someone grasp a truth in
its totality”.6
The third condition is the need to be patient. Church reform does not
work as an “all or nothing”. The Church does not like the fait accompli,
except when it is clearly about remaining faithful to a principle: “The
innovator, whose reform turns into a schism, lacks patience. He does not
respect the slowness either of God or of the church, or the delays that
come into everyone’s life”.7
3
See Yves Congar, Journal of a Theologian 1946–1956. Edited with notes by Étienne
Fouilloux. Translated by Denis Minns (Adelaide: ATF Press, 2015; Original French: Paris,
Cerf, 2000), 235–287.
4
See Yves Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, transl. Paul Philibert (Collegeville
MN: Liturgical Press, 2010. Original French: Paris, Cerf, 1950, 1968).
5
Congar, True and False Reform, 216.
6
7
40 M. FAGGIOLI
And the fourth condition is that true renewal and reform must be a
return to the principle of the tradition. In this sense, Congar says, the litur-
gical reform has been important for the totality of the Catholic Church
and not just its liturgy: “to tell the truth, all big problems facing contem-
porary Catholicism are such that solving them with quick and mechanical
adaptations would lead to catastrophe. Such problems require a lifelong
effort and the collaboration of all the people for a long time”.8
Confines of Congar’s Theology of Reform

in the Church of Today
These four conditions set a much higher bar for today’s Church than the
one that existed in 1950 or in 1968. For example, a theological critique of
Pope Francis’ emphasis on mercy does not accept “pastorality” as a crite-
rion for reforming ecclesial praxis (especially on the issues surrounding
divorced and remarried Catholics). Remaining within the “communion of
the Church” today is much more complicated given that it is a more com-
plex, fragmented and diverse communion geographically and culturally.
The call to be patient is also much harder to accept at a time when a
large number of believers have a strong impression that many promises
made by Vatican II have never been implemented these last fifty years. As
for “tradition”, today it is often like a no man’s land between the rock of
traditionalism and the hard place of a largely de-traditionalized intellectual
and social environment.
But there are three other features of the present ecclesial landscape that
reframe Congar’s theology of reform.
The first is related to the new, post-modern proclivity to imagine
Church reform (or counter-reform) in terms of sub-churches with idio-
syncratic “obediences” (to this or that pope, to this or that Church leader)
guided by a mentality that is shaped by the culture of branding. This is the
capitulation of both progressives and traditionalists to the “identities”,
which entails limits to the ability to imagine Church reform theologically
and ecclesially. The sense of fundamental unity in a Church that is able to
embrace all identities (ideological, ethnic-racial, gender) is not the same as
the Church of Congar’s time. This is also related to the virtualization of
ecclesial identities, where a given Catholic identity is shaped less by what
8
the People of God experience in the Church and more by what is heard or
seen distant from the lived experience with other Catholics.
The second feature is the disconnect between the institutions to be
reformed and academic theology and its ability to propose Church reform.
Congar advised all priest-theologians to remain in pastoral ministry. But
today academic theology is much more in the hands of lay people, for
whom it is difficult to be an integral part of the pastoral ministry in their
local Churches or communities. This is one of the factors in the compli-
cated relationship between Pope Francis’ Congarian theology of reform
and academic theologians, as he expressed in his speech to the 2015 inter-
national theological congress held at the Pontifical Catholic University of
Argentina:
Not infrequently a kind of opposition is constructed between theology and

pastoral care, as though they were two opposing, separate realities, which
have nothing to do with one another […]. We create a false opposition
between theology and pastoral care; between the believer’s reflection and
the believer’s life; life, then, has no space for reflection and reflection finds
no space in life. The great Fathers of the Church, Irenaeus, Augustine, Basil,
Ambrose, to name a few, were great theologians because they were
great pastors.9
Congar’s theology of reform finds an obstacle today in some aspects of the

professionalization of academic theology and in the re-clericalization of
the institutional Church. In some contexts where the Catholic Church is
politically and theologically polarized, some priests and bishops are
uncomfortable with having lay people who are academic theologians visi-
bly involved in the pastoral ministry of parishes and dioceses. Even Catholic
school administrators, and probably some of the colleagues in other
departments, are also nervous, but for different reasons. Most obvious is
the demands parishes would make on these lay theologians and the pres-
sure such involvement would put on their families. Thus the democratiza-
tion of professional theology in terms of more laity and fewer clerics has
deep implications on the idea and praxis of Church reform.
9
Francis, Video message to participants in the international theological congress held at the
Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1–3 September 2015) https://
w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/messages/pont-messages/2015/documents/papa-
francesco_20150903_videomessaggio-teologia-buenos-aires.html (accessed February
11, 2020).
42 M. FAGGIOLI
The third feature is probably the most difficult to deal with. At the
beginning of True and False Reform, Congar showed confidence that the
Catholic Church was able to begin reforming itself because the old prob-
lem of corruption and abuses had been solved. Congar wrote that during
the crisis triggered by the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century
the Church was lacking “a purity of spirit, resources and pastors” – assets
that, in fact, the Church restored at the Second Vatican Council. Congar
showed a fundamental optimism about Church reform in the twentieth
century, compared to the reform movements of the twelfth (St. Francis
and St. Dominic) and sixteenth centuries (Erasmus, Cardinal Ximenes):
“Some reforms were accomplished or at least advocated in the name of a
return to sources higher than church canons, canons whose holiness was
not in question but that needed to be transcended by the stimulus of
reform. […] This is also the case without any doubt with respect to the
current spirit of reform. It is not a question of reforming abuses – there are
hardly any to reform. It is rather a question of renewing structures”.10 The
stories of clerical sex abuse and financial misconduct in our “transparency
society”11 paint a different picture of the institutional church than the one
from Congar’s time and have an impact on a Catholic theology of reform.
Congar’s Theology of Reform and the Sexual Abuse

Crisis in the Catholic Church
The sexual abuse crisis has put into serious question the paradigms of
Church reform of the twentieth century and of the ecclesiology of Vatican
II: this also affects our reading of Congar today.
One key paradigm that was typical of the ecclesiology in the period
leading up to Vatican II, of Vatican II itself, and of the first post-conciliar
period was that Church reform now is about structure, not corruption. As
Yves Congar put it in his True and False Reform, reform is needed for two
areas: “the area of sins” (the Church as such does not sin; the individual
members do) and “the area of social-historical mistakes” (received ideas
and attitudes; need of purification from Christendom).12 If the need for
structural renewal is still there, certainly the sexual abuse crisis cast a
10
Congar, True and False Reform, 51–52.
11
See Byung-Chul Han, The Transparency Society (Stanford, California: Stanford University
Press, 2015).
12
different light on Congar’s assumption (and not only Congar’s) that the
problem of corruption in the Church had been solved during the Counter-
Reformation period. In light of the systemic pattern of cover-up of sexual
abuses committed by clergy, no less in need of re-examination is the eccle-
siological notion that the Church as such does not sin, only the individual
members do.
A second paradigm of Church reform now in crisis is the episcopalist
paradigm. There is not only an issue of the institutional culture of Church
structures dealing with abuse crisis (e.g. the Roman Curia and the papacy,
the national bishops’ conferences, the religious orders),13 but also and
more fundamentally a question about the theology of the episcopate and
the role of the episcopate in the government of the Church. The abuse
crisis pushes the Church to take a new look at great ecclesiological achieve-
ments of Vatican II such as the collegiality and sacramentality of the epis-
copacy. Congar’s major contribution to the preparation of the
ecclesiological debate on episcopacy at Vatican II must be re-read in the
present context of the failure of episcopal leadership in dealing with the
ecclesial crisis.14
Another paradigm of Church reform that is in crisis is reform as a process
in communion and in trust. The abuse crisis is also an ecclesiological crisis
that goes beyond the collapse of authority embodied by certain Church
leaders: it signals a collapse of the authority of the magisterium in a way
that is comparable to the effects of the encyclical Humanae Vitae in terms
of tension between the moral agency of the conscience of the individual
and the necessary ecclesial and ecclesiastical dimensions of Christian life.
Congar edited the second version of True and False Reform in the early
post-Vatican II years, taking into account in the new edition the students’
movements in the spring of 1968, but before the effects of Paul VI’s
encyclical Humanae Vitae (July 1968) for the relations between Church
and theology.
Finally, the paradigm of reform regarding more lay involvement is also in
crisis. It is impossible to rethink church governance and clericalism today
without considering a certain crisis of the paradigm of the “theology of
13
See Marie Keenan, “The Organizational and Institutional Culture of the Catholic
Church”, in Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2012), 24–53.
14
Especially L’ecclésiologie au XIXe siècle (Paris: Cerf, 1960 in the series “Unam Sanctam”
edited by Congar) and L’episcopat et l’Église universelle, eds. Yves Congar and Bernard
Dominique Dupuy (Paris, Cerf 1962 in the same series “Unam Sanctam”).
44 M. FAGGIOLI
the laity” that spans from the 1950s to the post-Vatican II period until a
few years ago. Congar’s theology of the laity in his 1953 Jalons already
looked old-aged at Vatican II.15
Conclusions
Congar’s theology of reform represents a fundamental step on the Catholic
Church’s path towards a new relationship with history and modernity.
There is no possible path forward that does not begin with that step,
denies that moment of development, or dreams to go back to a pre-Vatican
II Church. On other hand, in order to be faithful to Vatican II, at almost
sixty years from the beginning of the council, theology must acknowledge
the inevitable limits and the unintended consequences of an intellectual
tradition shaped by the first half of the twentieth century in a Europe-
dominated Catholic Church. The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic
Church represents the loudest call to Church reform in our times, and also
a call to re-examine the contribution of Vatican II and its theological
fathers, of whom the most important of all was probably Yves Congar.
15
See Yves Marie-Joseph Congar, Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat (Paris: Cerf, 1953.
English translation: Westminster MD: Newman Press, 1957). A detailed critique of Congar’s
theology of the laity today in Marco Vergottini, Il cristiano testimone. Congedo dalla teologia
del laicato (Bologna: EDB, 2017).
PART II
Society and Gender

CHAPTER 6
Sisterhood of the Earth: An Emergence

of an Ecological Civilization and an
Ecozoic Era
Elaine Padilla
The church is not only of the Spirit but also a church of dust. When speak-
ing of its dustiness, a commonly held theological understanding is the
church as sacrament in the world. This means that an aspect of the nature
of the church is to be a sign of the divine presence manifested, though not
exclusively, as an audible event of a new creation in the world that is
socially and historically palpable.1 The church as sacrament renders the
Logos-Sophia audibly present and the graces of the Spirit-Sophia effica-
cious through a dialog between word, breath, and world. This trinitarian
message can be compared to a tree.2 The sophianic voice as mother, sister,
1
See Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966), vol. 4,
253–281.
2
Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, ed. Alexander Roberts
and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 602–603. For a sophianic trinitar-
ian model, see also Elizabeth Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Religious
E. Padilla (*)
Religion and Philosophy, College of Arts and Sciences, University of La Verne,
La Verne, CA, USA

48 E. PADILLA
and friend prophetically calls out the church (ekklesia) through the roots,
the shoots, and the fruit of the earth. If so, what would be the trinitarian
cry at the street corners as deforestation, pollution, ecocide, and natural
scarcity increase?
So in order for the church to further embody its sacramentality, it
would need to change its theological orientation toward the world, par-
ticularly by adopting an organic mission. Transformation of the church
can start by uprooting itself from its androcentricism, reflected in esoteric
liturgies and anthropocentric orthopraxes. The church can then ground
itself in its earthen soil by listening to the wisdom of the Logos-Sophia
and the visceral groanings of the Spirit-Sophia that softly utter the unintel-
ligible words of the other-than-humans (Rom. 8: 22–27). Could their
strange tongues be signifying the need for a more universe-ally oriented
sacramentality?
This humble invitation, if accepted, can provoke a change toward a
mission in which liturgy and civil engagements can prophetically embody
an eschatological vision of planetary fruitfulness. This type of response is
exemplified through communities of Catholic sisters that, for a lack of a
better term, have been called “green sisters.”3 Through their eyes, one can
look at the church of the twenty-first century with hope for a new earth
flourishing in the now (Rev. 21). Upon briefly describing the sacramental-
ity of the church and a development toward an organic ecclesiology, this
chapter listens to the message of two green sisters: Sister Gail Worcelo of
the Green Mountain Monastery in Greensboro, Vermont, and Sister
Dolores Mitch of the Maryknoll Sisters in Monrovia, California.4 With
their wisdom-call in mind, this chapter argues for an ecological mission,
Discourse (New York: A Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001) and Sallie McFague, Models
of God: Theology for an Ecological and Nuclear Earth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).
3
See Sarah McFarland Taylor, Green Sisters: A Spiritual Ecology (Boston: Harvard
University Press, 2009) and John E. Carroll, Sustainability and Spirituality (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 2004).
4
For information on the Green Mountain Monastery and the community of the Maryknoll
Sisters, visit their websites at: http://www.greenmountainmonastery.org and https://www.
maryknollsisters.org (accessed February 23, 2020). I want to thank Eugene Shirley, presi-
dent and CEO of Pando Populus, for his support on making possible the interview with the
Maryknoll Sisters. Pando Populus is a nonprofit producer of initiatives and events in the Los
Angeles County that aims at fast-tracking the region toward a more ecologically balanced
way of life—what Pope Francis calls “integral ecology” and Pando’s founding chair John
Cobb describes as “ecological civilization.” To know more about Pando Populus, visit its
website at: https://pandopopulus.com (accessed February 23, 2020).
6 SISTERHOOD OF THE EARTH: AN EMERGENCE OF AN ECOLOGICAL… 49
specifically, in the areas of liturgy and practice, which if appropriated, the

church can help usher a new epoch—an ecological civilization and an
Ecozoic era.5
The church is dusty in its sacramental embodiments. Sacraments are
signs through which the church embodies the creative spark of divine
word and breath that sustains the world. They make efficacious the free
giftedness of divine presence as Logos-Sophia and Spirit-Sophia in the
whole of planetary existence. For thinkers like Karl Rahner, while divine
presence and world are irreducible to each other, the divine signification
can be perceived through an-other than the divine self.6 I would argue,
therefore, that God finds the divine self precisely as a Trinity via hover-
ing—like a bird-mother over its egg—and through comforting—as a hen
gathers its chicks under its wings.7 In this regard, the earth embodies
Sophia who was with God at the foundations of the earth and whose face
the earth continuously mirrors. Consequently, the church can find itself
precisely also through the other-than-human in the same manner as the
Logos-Sophia and the Spirit-Sophia signify their creative and vivifying
presence through the world.8
Several stages in the church demonstrate that this kind of sophianic
sacramentality has been fueling an impetus toward an organic mission in
the church. In our time, an embrace of ecofeminism has positively impacted
the prophetic work of the church in the world. Thinkers like Sallie
McFague developed an ecological theology that spoke of the end times as
hope for “a new creation” and as “living from a vision for a different pres-
ent based on a new future.”9 Ivone Gebara, furthermore, has advocated
for an eschatological vision that integrates the whole body of the cosmos,
of a human consciousness constituted by its interrelations, and of
5
McFarland Taylor explains that the term “Ecozoic” translates as “house of life” which
reflects a “viable dream of a mutually enhancing human presence within an ever-renewing
organic-based Earth community” (Green Sisters, 116, n. 3). Through their “green monasti-
cism,” the sisters are working on ushering an Ecozoic era (116–18).
6
Karl Rahner, S.J., Theological Investigations, vol. 4, 240.
7
See Hildgaard of Bingen, Mystical Writings (New York: Crossroads, 1990), 91–93 and
Anselm of Canterbury, The Prayers and Meditations of St. Anselm of Canterbury (New York
Penguin Books, 1973), 153–156.
8
See Origen, On First Principles and Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern
Church (Yonkers, Saint Vladimir’s Press, 1997), 80–81.
9
Sallie McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press,
1993), 198.
50 E. PADILLA
interpersonal societies that nurture diversification and interdependency.10

Other developments have laid the foundation for an organic ecclesiology.
Sarah McFarland Taylor, in her study of various communities and organi-
zations of green sisters, highlights movements like The Sister Formation
movement (1950s), the activism of the sisters (1960s and 1970s), the
formation of the Immaculate Heart Community in Los Angeles (1970s),
the resurgence of “contemplative life and monasticism” (1980s and
1990s), feminist theories (in particular, that have integrated a concern for
ecology with their critique against domination and oppression of women),
and earth-based North American spirituality.11
Priests and mentors like Thomas Berry have also paved the way for
continued development of beliefs and practices that promote the well-
being of the planet. For instance, Thomas Berry has been keenly influen-
tial in changing the lives of sisters like Gail Worcelo. She met Thomas
Berry in 1984 during her novitiate with the Passionist Nuns of Clarks
Summit, Pennsylvania. She explains that their joint novitiate program
“with the Passionist Priests of which Berry was a member,” taught them
life-transforming principles on the role that humans can play “in the great
story of the Universe.” She added, “Of immense significance was a paper
by Thomas Berry entitled, ‘Women Religious: The Voice of Earth.’ In this
paper, Berry pointed out that historically, religious communities have
been founded to meet the needs of the human community (hospitals,
schools, social services…). There has never been a community founded to
meet the needs of the Earth Community.”12 Sister Gail responded to this
call and enthusiastically agreed, “Yes, let’s found that community!”
Together with Thomas Berry and Sister Bernadette, the Sisters of the
Earth Community, known also as the Green Mountain Monastery and the
Thomas Berry Sanctuary, was co-founded “for the healing and protection
of Earth and its life systems.”
Undeniably, the encyclical Laudato Si’ of Pope Francis has also been a
major source of impetus and support. As Sister Gail shared when asked on
a source of inspiration, “Laudato Si’ of Pope Francis has made a huge
contribution to waking up consciousness in world and Church.” Yet much
remains to be done in order for the church to embody its organic mission.
10
Ivone Gebara, “Ecofeminism,” in Religion and the Environment: Critical Concepts in
Religious Studies, ed. Roger S. Gotlieb (New York: Routledge, 2010), 112–124.
11
McFarland Taylor, Green Sisters, 28–43.
12
Thomas Berry, “Women Religious as the Voice of the Earth,” unpublished.
As exemplified in this encyclical, the church can benefit from integrating a

cosmological and evolutionary lens that parallels the trinitarian relations.
For Sister Gail, the universe has direction, moving in three directions
simultaneously, toward greater differentiation, deeper interiority, and
more profound communion. These Trinitarian dynamics of the cosmos
can serve as cosmological roots for a theology grounded in foundational
principles of the universe over 13.7 billion years. Sister Gail reflects, “Our
symbol is designed to represent our community as Emergent within these
Trinitarian Dynamics, symbolized by the ancient Christian image of the
three fish reflecting a universe of mutual indwelling and intimate self shar-
ing.” If these principles are integrated into the institutional life and struc-
tural designs of the church, including the Catholic Church, a greater
alignment with the universe could result. Sister Gail courageously con-
cludes that the violation of the principle of Differentiation, for example,
has resulted in dishonoring “the full expression of women’s gifts within
the total life of the Church.”
Further still, an organic mission would remain incomplete unless cos-
mological views such as these can inspire an earth-grounded liturgical shift
in its sacramental life. To name a few liturgical practices, the divine word
and breath manifested sacramentally through icons and images that
embody the divine feminine can bring into sharper focus a vision of a trini-
tarian interconnectedness being manifested planetarily. For example, the
Sisters of the Earth Community situates itself within the larger cosmologi-
cal earth processes being represented through a sacramental life reminis-
cent of the prayers and praises of St. Francis “through Sister Moon and the
stars,” as Laudato Si’ indicates.13 And since for the sisters, liturgy can arise
from the natural world, some of the most common depictions of divine
immanence in creation are the icons “Mary of the Cosmos” and “Black
Madonna.” This type of sacramentality can be an expression of what
Christopher Pramuk has termed the “gaping wound” of the divine femi-
nine in our social unconscious, which iconographers like William Hart
McNichols depict in their representations of the moon, the figure of
women, and Mary in their icons.14
13
Pope Francis, Encyclical Laudato Si’: On Care of Our Common Home 87, at http://
w w w. v a t i c a n . v a / c o n t e n t / f r a n c e s c o / e n / e n c y c l i c a l s / d o c u m e n t s / p a p a - f r a n-
cesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html (accessed February 20, 2020).
14
Christophr Pramuk, The Artist Alive: Explorations in Music, Art, & Theology (Winona:
Anselm Academic, 2019), 230.
52 E. PADILLA
Sister Gail, when asked about their liturgical and sacramental life,
responded in the following manner. “The patroness and guide of our
community is Our Lady of Czestochowa under the tile of The Black
Madonna. My family roots are in Poland and Russia and this Black
Madonna has always held a significant place in Polish life. The Black
Madonna has to do with the re-sacralization of the planet and the holiness
of all matter in the Cosmos.” She added:
She is dark, of Earth, the sacred feminine grounded in the body. As an

archetype she comes at this time of planetary collapse to guide us through
our destructive patterns of separation consciousness and lovingly bring us
back to our essential nature of connection with the whole. There is a story
in Polish Lore that says this Mary is dark because she has come from the
fireball, the initial flaring forth, journeyed through 13.7 billion years of cos-
mic unfolding and fallen to Earth with the Christ Divinity in her matter. Her
presence is a true manifestation of the divinity animating all matter in
the universe.
Similarly, at the home of the Maryknoll Sisters in Monrovia, the Lady of

Guadalupe, patroness and protectress of the Americas, is a figure that is
central to the identity of the sisters. She stands under a shelter made out
of rafters and hanging plants that enclose her. Benches also partly encircle
her for people to meditate as they are surrounded by the low desert beauty
of their campus. For Sister Dolores, La Guadalapana makes visible and
reflects the deep spirituality and roots of Latin American Catholics. She
appeared in the form of a Native American, the unprivileged, the oppressed.
Likewise, she protects the earth and is a benefactor of all living things, in
particular, it’s most vulnerable among the species.
Because of earth-grounded sacramentalities such as these, many of
these communities of eco-sisters highly regard the earth as a significant
participant and wisdom-bearer. Sister Gail explains:
The Black Madonna demands embodiment, so sacramentals include the

visual (images and Icons), but also taste, (fruits of this land and honey from
bees), smell, (essential oils, flower essences, and fragrant herbs) hearing
(music and bird song) touch (soil, water, feathers, and stones). We also
break open the visual Icon to include the holy beings of the Earth
Community, among them, a portrait of a wolf.
For the Sisters of Earth, the entire mountain is their monastery (hence the
name of Green Mountain Monastery). So for them also the innumerable
living things in their property are members of their community. In listen-
ing to them, she adds, “we are continually shaken out of our complete
anthropocentric view point.” An example of this was Robert, a butterfly
with a torn wing that appeared in their space. She says, “He appeared and
called forth practices that we could have not designed ourselves! Practices
that deepened our sense of care, compassion, love for the lowliest.”
When thinking of changes needed for an organic ecclesiology which
sacramental mission embodies its dustiness of word and breath, another
element of transformation can be earth-grounded activisms with which to
make an impact in the world. The Maryknoll Sisters of Monrovia, for
example, have shaped their long-held vision of integral ecology through a
mission that responds to the local call for a more sustainable future.
Recently, upon attending the international conference “Seizing an
Alternative: Towards an Ecological Civilization” held in Claremont,
California in June 2015, several sisters invited Eugene Shirley, CEO of
Pando Populus, into their campus.
Since June 2018, together with Pando, the Maryknoll Sisters are rei-
magining their campus so that they can be a viable model of integral ecol-
ogy in the Los Angeles County. Their campus has welcomed several
college students from the Los Angeles basin to conceptualize urban farm-
ing, zero-emission architecture, and water containment specifically native
and suited for living in densely high populations and low desert areas.
Because most institutions of higher education have a secular mission,
Eugene Shirley explains that Pando serves as the partner that can connect
these institutions to the sacred. According to him, “the Maryknoll Sisters
of Monrovia are attempting to live out Laudato Si’ in order to address the
ecological challenges in the here and now.” In doing so, they are seizing a
historical opportunity to enhance their long history of being relevant in
society by becoming also an ecological religious community.
Education in partnership with those who in the community who can
better inform the church on best earth-practices can be essential to activ-
ism. Some of these partnerships already exist among religious communi-
ties. For instance, the Maryknoll Sisters of Monrovia have welcomed
members in its community who have resided in the past in other environ-
mental communities, have attended workshops offered at the Green
Mountain Monastery, and are members of international religious networks
devoted to ecological causes. The Maryknoll Sisters have also found ways
54 E. PADILLA
to utilize resources of neighboring organizations and collaborated with

efforts that promote the protection of the waterways and of seeds and
native plants. In addition, through talks offered by the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory of NASA in Pasadena, they have educated the public and dis-
tributed material on the effects of global warming on the ocean.15
In partnership with Pando, the Monrovia community is also becoming
a national learning center for the development of greater awareness of the
potential for an urban development that is sustainable. During February
2020, for example, they partnered with the California Interfaith Power
and Light in hosting 10 students from Middlebury College in Middlebury,
Vermont, for a week-long immersion program.16 With an emphasis on
religious institutions, students focused on the intersections between faith
traditions and the climate justice movement, as per Middlebury College.
They explored urban models that minimize the human footprint on the
low desert (and already fragile) conditions that characterize the densely
populated area.
Likewise, the Green Mountain Monastery has opened its monastery as
an educational campus to their neighboring communities and abroad. The
Sisters of Earth of Green Mountain “lead programs/retreats” at their
monastery and throughout the world and currently are founding an exten-
sion of their monastery and opening another Thomas Berry Sanctuary in
Indonesia. The vision is for the Green Mountain Monastery to become a
space for “deep listening, simplicity, healing and restoration through
direct experience with the community of life on this land.” For those who
cannot visit, they make it possible, via Zoom, for individuals and commu-
nities to engage in “ecological grief.” These virtual community gatherings
are called “Grieving All the Way Through.”
Despite this integral sacramentality, a lack of support for these green
communities shows evidence of ecclesiastical resistance for adopting a
dusty mission, which, as Sister Gail puts it, “is incomprehensible at this
time of planetary collapse!” A change in mission might result not only in
greater support for them but also as the church listens to their sophianic
words, it can become more universe-ally organic. Is the church failing to
promote a model of life that evokes in us an increased capacity to feel
15
For more information, visit its website at: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov (accessed February
23, 2020).
16
For more information, visit its website at: https://www.interfaithpower.org (accessed
February 23, 2020).
deeply the entrails of the planet, whose wounds the Logos-Sophia and the
Spirit-Sophia share? The ekklesia, the one being “called out” to be a sacra-
ment in the world, could listen to the knowledge and love embodied in
and through the other-than-humans and further participate in ushering a
new earth as much as a new heaven in our time. As the church groans
together with the trinity of life, it can adopt a mission of dust that inte-
grates planetary liturgies and that participates in public efforts that sup-
port an integral ecology. Perhaps then our planet further can emerge as an
ecological civilization that births an Ecozoic era. This is a change that we
all require quite urgently.
CHAPTER 7
Developing a Virtue of Eating Well: Laudato

Sí and Animal Economies
Matthew Eaton
In Laudato Sí, Pope Francis calls Catholics and all people of good-will “to
move forward in a bold cultural revolution,” embodying a “revolution of
tenderness” that rejects sovereign powers that perpetrate ecological vio-
lence and animal cruelty.1 The principal powers to resist in this context are
the rapacious capitalist industries that annihilate and consume the more-
than-human in order to maximize profit. Yet, while Francis recognizes the
sinfulness of capitalist greed and condemns anthropogenic ecological and
animal violence, the concrete nature of ecologically violent economies and
paths toward revolution receive little attention. Francis’ revolutionary
ethic concerning the more-than-human must be pushed further. Insofar as
modern food economies exist via unsustainable and unnecessarily cruel
production methods, I argue that responsibility exists to resist and with-
draw from such systems insofar as possible, re-imagining what it means to
1
Pope Francis, Laudato Si’ (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, May 24, 2015), 114
(hereafter LS); Evangelii Gaudium (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, November 24,
2013), 88.
M. Eaton (*)
King’s College, Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA

58 M. EATON
“eat well” as a path toward a revolution in global food economies.2 To eat

well necessarily entails a willingness to sacrifice animal sacrifice, which
begins to take shape—at least in a Catholic setting—through the re-
imagination and re-integration of ascetic, virtuous fasting driven by justice
for Earth and our more-than-human neighbors.
Laudato Sí and Animal Economies

Laudato Sí is clear that the more-than-human is inherently valuable,
though this assertion remains anthropocentric.3 In a discussion of animal
experimentation and genetic modification, Francis insists “that experi-
mentation on animals is morally acceptable only ‘if it remains within rea-
sonable limits [and] contributes to caring for or saving human lives’ [106].
The Catechism firmly states that human power has limits and that ‘it is
contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.’”4
The instrumentalization of animals is thus not condemned if it serves
human interests, but neither is it blindly embraced as this would violate
human dignity. While this passage ignores the will of the animal—human
dignity is at stake here—it does not ignore creaturely value absolutely.5
Other passages, however, assert the inherent value of non-humans beyond
a reductionist humanism. Inherent value is extended to creatures when
Frances demands that we not consider any “species merely as potential
‘resources’ to be exploited, while overlooking the fact that they have value
2
Jacques Derrida, “‘Eating Well,’ or the Calculation of the Subject: An interview with
Jacques Derrida,” in Who Comes After the Subject?, edited by E. Cadava, P. Connor and Jean-
Luc Nancy (New York: Routledge, 1991), 96–119.
3
The encyclical asserts—in a section decrying anthropocentrism no less—that “Christian
thought sees human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures.” LS,
115. A recognition that non-humans have value in the face of a human species that is funda-
mentally more dignified does not escape metaphysical anthropocentrism as the encyclical
would like to claim.
4
LS, 130.
5
The will of the animal as the basis for ethics is drawn from Arthur Schopenhauer. See
S. Puryear, “Schopenhauer on the Rights of Animals,” European Journal of Philosophy 25, no.
2 (2017): 250–269; R. Gunderson, “Animal Epistemology and Ethics in Schopenhauerian
Metaphysics,” Environmental Ethics 35, no. 3 (2013): 349–361. Gerard Mannion is one
Catholic theologian who recognized the possibility of making such a connection between
Schopenhauer and theology. See Gerard Mannion, Schopenhauer, Religion, and Morality: The
Humble Path to Ethics (London: Routledge, 2017).
7 DEVELOPING A VIRTUE OF EATING WELL: LAUDATO SÍ… 59
in themselves.”6 There is then hope for further development in Catholic

thinking based on this recognition of creatureliness, but humanity will
likely always retain its power within the Church’s moral value hierarchy.
Nevertheless, Laudato Sí is concerned with industries and economies that
exploit animal bodies. Yet, it provides little concrete guidance on how to
treat our fellow creatures.7 A concern for eating-well in the context of
ecological health and compassion toward animals is, of course, an obvious
area in which to extend Catholic thought and ethics.
While difficulties exist in sorting through an ethic of eating well, any a
priori assumption of the sovereignty of omnivorous diets must be ques-
tioned in Catholic ethics. We might begin by addressing the globally prob-
lematic contexts in which animals are reared and slaughtered. Firstly, there
are the abhorrent welfare standards within industrialized livestock agricul-
ture that kill billions of birds, pigs, cows, and others every year for human
consumption. The methods of industrialized animal agriculture that
reduce animal bodies to resources for consumption in a manner that maxi-
mizes efficiency and profit at the cost of well-being are widely known at
this point.8 Animals in such settings are typically reared in conditions that
restrict any sort of evolved needs for fulfillment—they live in cramped,
dirty, often crowded, and therefore, dangerous conditions; are heavily
restricted from participating in naturally inherited behaviors due to living
outside of appropriate biosystems; are frequently mutilated for the sake of
efficiency; are prevented from meaningful social relationships, and may be
subject to culling insofar as they do not meet the specified needs of the
industry they serve. Second, the wider impact of consuming animal bodies
on Earth’s ecosystems must also be acknowledged. The business of live-
stock agriculture accounts for a significant percentage of global
6
LS, 33.
7
I agree with John Berkman that inconsistencies and confusion over the ontological value
of creatures and how they are to be treated exist because Catholic social teaching “does not
have one clearly consistent view on the moral treatment of non-human animals.” J. Berkman,
“From Theological Speciesism to a Theological Ethology: Where Catholic Moral Theology
needs to God,” Journal of Moral Theology 3, no. 2 (2014): 11–34, at 25. Catholicism desires
to overcome anthropocentrism but does not yet know how to do so!
8
See David Clough, On Animals: Vol. II. Theological Ethics (London: T & T Clark/
Continuum, 2018) for a theological exploration of the wide array of ways the non-human
animal is consumed.
60 M. EATON
greenhouse-gas emissions.9 According to the Food and Agricultural

Organization of the United Nations:
Much of the estimated 35% of global greenhouse-gas emissions deriving

from agriculture and land use comes from livestock production. Livestock
production—including deforestation for grazing land and soy-feed produc-
tion, soil carbon loss in grazing lands, the energy used in growing feed-
grains and in processing and transporting grains and meat, nitrous oxide
releases from the use of nitrogenous fertilisers, and gases from animal
manure (especially methane) and enteric fermentation—accounts for about
18% of global greenhouse-gas emissions.10
This is a conservative estimate. Some argue that the actual impact of the
animal agriculture industry accounts for around 51% of global greenhouse-
gas emissions.11
The unnecessary degradation of animal life in industrialized agriculture
along with its unreasonable contribution to global greenhouse-gas emis-
sions clearly violate the moral directives against animal instrumentalization
and ecological irresponsibility in Laudato Sí and broader Catholic social
teachings. It is not necessary for human flourishing to practice agriculture
in such cruel and destructive ways even if there are a plurality of contexts
in which humans do necessarily rely on animal bodies as a means of sur-
vival. The “necessity” for industrialized farming exists only within the reli-
gious fervor of techno-capitalist logic wherein anything is permissible to
achieve the end goal of free-market sovereignty that maximizes profit for
the powerful.
The vulnerable have yet to see the realization of the myth that wealth
and well-being flow down from the top. Far from creating a more just
society, techno-capitalisms exacerbate exclusion and the gap between the
powerful and vulnerable leading to apathetic moral numbness – “a global-
ization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it,
9
See FAO, Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (Rome: FAO, 2006)
at: http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm (accessed February 11, 2020).
10
A. McMichael, J. Powles, C. Butler, R. Uauy, “Food, livestock production, energy, cli-
mate change, and health,” The Lancet 370, no. 9594 (2007): 1253–1263, https://www.
thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2807%2961256-2
11
R. Goodland and J. Anhang, “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in
climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?,” World Watch Magazine, 22, no.6 (Nov–Dec
2009): 10–19 at: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20
Change.pdf (accessed February 11, 2020).
we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor,

weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as
though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own.”12
While the focus here is human vulnerability, all creatures suffer from unre-
strained free-market ideologies, which “devour everything which stands in
the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is
defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only
rule.”13 The solution, Francis insists, is
to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that

problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or
individuals. […]. Where profits alone count, there can be no thinking about
the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complex-
ity of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention.14
Francis’ concern for creaturely exploitation covers “the fur of endangered

species” as well as “the desertification of the land, the harm done to bio-
diversity or the increased pollution,” but little is said concerning the harm
done in industrialized agricultural.15 Considering that industrialized live-
stock agriculture is arguably the grossest anthropogenic abuse of non-
human animal dignity on the planet and one of the leading contributors
to Earth’s current climate change, it is disconcerting that it is absent in
Francis’ thought. Laudato Sí nowhere discusses the massive suffering of
animals farmed for meat, dairy, and eggs, nor does it address ecological
issues arising from these systems, which disproportionally affects the
global poor.16 Francis comes closest to a serious discussion of industrial-
ized agriculture in paragraph 129: “There is a great variety of small-scale
food production systems which feed the greater part of the world’s peo-
ples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in
small agricultural parcels, in orchards and gardens, hunting and wild har-
vesting or local fishing.”17 In spite of a lament for bio-regional economies
of scale undermined by “regional and global markets, or because the infra-
structure for sales and transport is geared to larger businesses,” there is no
12
EG, 54. See also LS, 56.
13
EG, 56.
14
LS, 190.
15
LS, 123, 195.
16
LS, 4, 20–31.
17
LS, 29.
62 M. EATON
mention of industrialized livestock agriculture, its disruption of Earth’s

ecosystems, or its violence toward creatures who are supposedly “the
object of the Father’s tenderness.”18
The Virtue of Eating Well

Catholic ethics must grapple with the question of eating well if it wishes to
take responsibility for creatures and creation. While there are limitations
to the ethic I explore here, I suggest that Catholic thought is best suited
in developing a virtue of ascetic fasting, aimed at cultivating compassion
through decreasing consumption—a willingness to sacrifice animal sacri-
fice. This perspective embraces Francis’ insistence that our “awareness of
the gravity of today’s cultural and ecological crisis must be translated into
new habits.”19 Developing a renewed food ethos rooted in a re-imagining
of classical categories of virtue ethics represents one way to resist and per-
haps revolutionize violent techno-capitalist economies that are annihilat-
ing animal well-being and Earth’s ecosystems.
To follow what Timothy Harvie and I have suggested elsewhere, such
fasting could be described as “degree vegetarianism,” in recognition that
there is a plurality of degrees to which we can realistically expect people to
embrace a plant-focused diet.20 Any ethos aimed at lowering animal con-
sumption is necessarily a non-absolute virtue and must be negotiated by
individuals and communities. Limitations aside, considering the violence
of industrialized animal farming and the appetites of techno-capitalism,
there is ground for all to resist the most insidious practices of our food
cultures. As such, to the degree that they are able, Roman Catholics and
all people of goodwill ought to fast from eating animal bodies and begin
to mortify their desire to consume animal bodies.
Through much of patristic and medieval Church history and current
Orthodox praxis,21 fasting was an integral habit of the moral life. While I
am not suggesting a simple return to such ancient practices—indeed I am
re-imagining fasting with a plainly different rational than its historical
precedent—abstaining from consuming animals has a deep history in
18
LS, 77.
19
LS, 209.
20
M. Eaton and T. Harvie, “Laudato Sí and Animal Well-Being-Food Ethics in a
Throwaway Culture,” Journal of Catholic Social Ethics (Forthcoming, Summer 2020). Such
limits include geographical, economic, and physiological restrictions.
21
Fasting days in the Orthodox Church count together for more than 60% of the year.
Christianity.22 Fasting, for those who did not abstain from animals out of
concern to transcend corporeity, was meant to elevate the spirit without
rejecting the material world, shifting one’s focus from earthly to heavenly
concerns by not abusing bodily desire. “Catholics,” Augustine explains,
“in order to subdue the body that the soul may be more humbled in
prayer, abstain not only from animal food, but also from some vegetable
productions, without […] believing them to be unclean.”23 Thus, while
Augustine rejects the ideas of Manicheanism, which held that “matter is
evil, [and that] all flesh derives from the realm of darkness,” he was not
unconcerned with controlling carnal desire.24 His concern was to avoid
becoming ensnared in the abusive excess of carnal passion, with particular
concern for the trappings of gluttony.
My concern is not for Augustine’s desire to mortify one’s desire in
order to focus on the spiritual, nor the Manichean aspiration to transcend
materiality. My desire is to dignify creatures through sacrificing animal
sacrifice, manifest in disciplining my own lust for flesh. Thus, while “the
goal [of historic fasting] was never to spare animal lives or to alleviate
nonhuman suffering,” there is value in retaining the structure of ascetic
fasting while re-imagining the rationale for self-control; there is wisdom in
the idea of mortifying certain embodied desires for the sake of justice.25
Such wisdom lies not in a desire to punish the body in the service of value
dualisms, but in controlling the violent delights that devour others. Lust
for meat is seen in this light insofar as it is often compared to sexual lust,
both of which might be resisted not for any problem with the desire as
such, but for the violence inherent in objectifying another. We might,
then, consider what Carol Adams has called “the sexual politics of meat”
in linking a lust for meat with a lust for the sexual objectification, both of
which devour others.26 Thus, we mortify desire not out of a prioritization
of spirit over body, but out of a respect for the dignity of alterity.
22
On the development of vegetarianism, see C. Frayne, “On Imitating the Regimen of
Immortality or Facing the Diet of Mortal Reality: A Brief History of Abstinence from Flesh-
Eating in Christianity,” Journal of Animal Ethics 6, no. 2 (2016): 188–212; Colin Spencer,
The Heretic’s Feast: A History of Vegetarianism (Hanover: University Press of New
England, 1996).
23
Augustine, Contra Faustum, 30, 5.
24
Spencer, Heretic’s Feast, 144. See also Augustine, De Haeresibus, 46; Ad inquisitions
Januarii, 20.
25
Frayne, “Imitating,” 199.
26
Carol Adams, The Sexual Politics of Meat (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015).
64 M. EATON
This fits the spirit of Laudato Sí, in spite of its ambiguous concern for
animal well-being. The heart of Francis’ revolution of tenderness insists
that animal bodies are not simply “potential ‘resources’ to be exploited,”
and pushes us to question our indifference consuming the more-than-
human. As such, in critical dialogue with tradition, the structure of fasting
could be re-imagined and re-integrated into the moral life with a renewed
ground in not only prudence and temperance but also a desire for justice
rooted in the dignity of animals, who caused St. Francis to “burst into
song” and “care for all that exists.”27 A vegetarian ethic and ethos that
intentionally fasts from consuming animals to some degree would thus be
a meaningful development for life within the trajectory and spirit of
Catholic social teaching. Rooted in both historical practice and contempo-
rary developments in our understanding of animal well-being and the eco-
nomic systems responsible for destroying ecosystems, fasting from animals
affords humans some concrete power in resisting and revolutionizing irre-
sponsible systems of consumption.
How these fasts are practiced must be carefully developed by individu-
als or communities as appropriate for their experience. Some might con-
sider re-integrating historic, seasonal, or temporally oriented fasts modeled
on the church calendar or some other system. Lent, Advent, Wednesdays,
and Fridays were once, of course, common vegetarian periods of ascetic
discipline.28 Others might abstain from consuming animals for set, disci-
plined periods of time, from single meals, days, weeks, months, or longer.
Beyond fasts of time, others might abstain from certain animal bodies
altogether based on greater and lesser degrees of violence perpetrated in
the rearing and slaughter of the type of animal. One might eschew beef
due to its absurd ecological footprint, another might abstain from eggs
because of the mass culling of male chicks. Beyond these, others might
practice fasts of industry, rejecting intensified, industrialized meat in favor
of local, small scale livestock farmers, Community Supported Agriculture
(CSA’s), or hunting. If one insisted on consuming animals, these would
be better sources insofar as the consumer has the freedom or economic
power to access less harmful modes of farming. However vegetarian fasts
are practiced, each would share a common moral ground in concern for
the more-than-human and a willingness to resist economic systems that
reduce creatures and creation to mere resources for consumption and
27
LS, 11.
28
Frayne, “Imitating,” 195; Spencer, Heretic’s Feast, 177–179; 183–184.
objects to maximize capital for the powerful few at the expense of Earth’s
poor and vulnerable.
While this ethic needs development moving forward, its willingness to
sacrifice animal sacrifices made to the divinity of rapacious techo-capitalist
markets begins to push forward the spirit of Laudato Sí and the heart of
Francis’ revolutionary theology, which aims at radically changing the
church. This willingness characterizes the tender compassion that com-
petes against greed and violence for humanity’s ultimate telos. Without
such compassion, we place our own being and dignity, as well as the being
and dignity of Earth and our more-than-human neighbors, at risk of
annihilation.
CHAPTER 8
Noli Me Tángere: A Church for

the Oppressed—Putting the Abused
and Vulnerable at the Forefront of Ecclesial
Activity and Change
Cristina Lledo Gomez
After decades of silence, across the globe, the voices of generations of

people abused as children by Roman Catholic priests and religious are
finally being formally recognized at the highest level, through Royal
Commissions, grand jury investigations, and by Catholic institutions
themselves.1 While Catholic priests and religious are not the main
1
See, for example, Tom Jackman, Michelle Boorstein, and Julie Zauzmer, “The
Pennsylvania report on clergy sex abuse spawned a wave of probes nationwide. Now what?”,
Washington Post, November 22, 2018, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-
safety/the-pennsylvania-report-on-clergy-sex-abuse-spawned-investigations-nationwide-
now-what/2018/11/22/101dcce8-e467-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?utm_
term=.8d7a3cb7777f (accessed February 15, 2020).
C. L. Gomez (*)
BBI-The Australian Institute of Theological Education,
Pennant Hills, NSW, Australia
Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia

68 C. L. GOMEZ
perpetrators of child abuse (in fact, studies show perpetrators are often
anyone well-known to the child, particularly family and family friends),2
the Church’s participation in abuse and/or cover-ups continues to be of
high interest to the media and the public, especially in more recent times
with the revelations of abuse of nuns by priests and bishops, which Pope
Francis has admitted to be true.3
In response, the focus of churches has mainly been toward reparative
and preventive strategies against the abuse of children. Yet this chapter
suggests a broader and more effective approach, that is, an ecclesial focus
not only denouncing sexual and physical violence but all forms of violence:
psychological, emotional, financial, intellectual, and spiritual, in addition
to sexual and physical. Moreover, churches can show real commitment to
change by denouncing all forms of oppression, not only against violence
but also other forms of oppression, inside and outside of themselves.
According to Iris Marion Young’s classic five faces of oppression (first pub-
lished in 1990), the other main forms of oppression are exploitation,
marginalization, powerlessness, and cultural imperialism.4 With these dif-
fering ways in which people can be abused, intentional care by the church
could thus be extended beyond those abused by clergy and religious to all
survivors of violence, at-risk persons, and those experiencing multiple
forms of oppression.5 Persons who fall into these categories could include
children, domestic violence survivors, people from the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, or Questioning (LGBTIQ+) community,
2
“Offenders” in Clayton A. Hartjen and S. Priyadarsini, The Global Victimization of
Children: Problems and Solutions (New York: Springer, 2012), 198–201. At https://ebook-
central-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/lib/csuau/detail.action?docID=884379
(accessed February 15, 2020). See also, Darkness to Light nonprofit organization, Child
Sexual Abuse Statistics: Perpetrators, at d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/
Statistics_2_Perpetrators.pdf (accessed February 15, 2020).
3
BBC News, Pope admits clerical abuse of nuns including sexual slavery, February 6, 2019
at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47134033 (accessed February 15, 2020).
4
Iris Marion Young, “The Five Face of Oppression” in Justice and the Politics of Difference
(New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2011), 39–65.
5
For a definition of adults at risk, see for example Australian Law Reform Commission,
§14.3 Safeguarding Adults at Risk, at https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/risk-adults
(accessed February 15, 2020). For a list of indicators of adult abuse, see, for example, Social
Care Institute for Excellence, Protecting Adults at Risk: Good Practice Guide (2012), at
https://www.scie.org.uk/publications/adultsafeguardinglondon/files/sections/recogni-
tion-and-indicators-of-adult-abuse.pdf (accessed February 15, 2020).
8 NOLI ME TÁNGERE: A CHURCH FOR THE OPPRESSED—PUTTING… 69
Aboriginal persons, and migrants.6 For the reality in many communities is

that there exists a proportion either currently experiencing abuse, or are
vulnerable to abuse, or have experienced abuse and/or oppression and are
living with its after-effects.7 More significantly, oppression is often experi-
enced intersectionally—and this can be a forgotten aspect of the experi-
ence of the oppressed. That is, people can be dealing with domestic
violence, for example, at the same time as dealing with marginalization,
isolation, and discrimination, living in a rural community as migrants in
new countries.8
Given the prevalence of violence and oppression, and their types, across
a range of cultures and continents, real Church reforms will need to con-
sider best practices that empower the oppressed or at-risk persons, to
enable them to recognize and resist abuse and oppression. This brief chap-
ter will offer two examples of the effects of oppression upon persons and
ways in which churches can already play a role in response to their needs.
By responding to the needs of the oppressed, churches become
6
See ANROWS, Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence in Australia (AIHW), Impacts of
Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence, 2019, at https://d2rn9gno7zhxqg.cloudfront.net/
wp-content/uploads/2019/09/05032315/Impacts-of-FDSV-2019-AIHW-update.pdf
(accessed February 15, 2020).
7
As a base statistic, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) September 2016
report, at least one in four adults were physically abused as children. At https://www.who.
int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/child/en/ (accessed February 15, 2020).The
WHO also estimates that globally, “1 in 3 (35%) women worldwide have experienced either
physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their life-
time.” (November 2017) At https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/vio-
lence-against-women (accessed February 15, 2020). In regard to experiences of exploitation,
marginalization, racism, and the effects of colonialism: the WHO estimates 21 million people
are victims of forced labor (http://who.int (accessed February 15, 2020)) and this includes
people in first world countries. UNDP estimates one in three people worldwide continue to
live in low levels of human development (https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/
home/presscenter/pressreleases/2017/03/21/world-s-most-marginalized-still-left-
behind.html (accessed February 15, 2020).). In Australia, 46% of indigenous respondents to
a 2016 survey said they experienced racism (https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/89b96698-
1f50-449c-9260-7c0243b109be/aihw-australias-welfare-2017-chapter7-2.pdf.aspx
(accessed February 15, 2020)) and there is much research on the colonial mentality experi-
enced by Filipinos as will be shown later in this chapter.
8
See, for example, the Jesuit Refugee Australia 2018 Report on Free from Violence Against
Women and Girls, showing new migrants experiencing both the issues of settling in a new
land and domestic violence, at https://www.jrs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/
Free-from-Violence-Against-Women-and-Girls-VAWG-Report-8.pdf (accessed February
15, 2020).
70 C. L. GOMEZ
transformed from museums with closed doors into real places of welcome
where the principle of “preferential option for the poor” is evidenced con-
cretely. This is the desire of Pope Francis as well as the desire of many
Catholics from across the world who are tired of seeing irrelevant, con-
demnatory, closed, and divisive churches.9
In this light, I begin with a picture of the experience of adult sexual
abuse survivors who experience complex post-traumatic stress disorder
(CPTSD), a common consequence of surviving childhood sexual abuse.
Because of CPTSD, a survivor becomes vulnerable to further violence.
Here, communities have an opportunity to help survivors but also have an
opportunity to transform themselves. I then explore the experience of
migrants who carry colonial mentality (CM), affecting their ability to
resist violence because of internalized oppression (IO). Again, this pres-
ents an opportunity for churches to be agents of change, enabling migrants
to learn about their dignity and self-respect, in turn empowering them to
resist further oppression inside and outside of their churches, ultimately
resulting too in the transformation of their churches and society. I con-
clude with a call to a particular change and resistance within the church
exemplified in the powerful phrase used for the title of this chapter: “Noli
Me Tangere.” The phrase has highly significant connotations for both the
abused and oppressed and can be used not only as their catchcry but also
as the catchcry for a church in great need of reform from the violence and
oppression that continues to exist within its walls.
CPTSD in Survivors, and an Opportunity

for Faith Communities
The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases

eleventh version manual (ICD-11), published in 2018, added CPTSD to
its list of mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental disorders specifically
associated with stress.10 The ICD-11 states the symptoms of CPTSD
include the symptoms of core PTSD as well as:
9
Pope Francis, General Audience, September 9, 2015, at http://www.vatican.va/con-
tent/francesco/en/audiences/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150909_udienza-
generale.html (accessed February 15, 2020).
10
World Health Organization, 6B41“Complex post-traumatic stress disorder,” in ICD-11,
at https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/https%3a%2f%2ffanyv88.com%3a443%2fhttp%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f
585833559 (accessed February 15, 2020).
1. severe and pervasive problems in affect regulation;

2. persistent beliefs about oneself as diminished, defeated, or worth-
less, accompanied by deep and pervasive feelings of shame, guilt, or
failure related to the traumatic event; and
3. persistent difficulties in sustaining relationships and in feeling close
to others. The disturbance causes significant impairment in per-
sonal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important
areas of functioning.11
Of possible interest to churches in regard to CPTSD is the consequent

negative self-concept survivors carry alongside their experience of distur-
bance in their interpersonal functioning. Because of these effects, survi-
vors have difficulties distinguishing boundaries and limits in relationships
and can become vulnerable to ongoing abuse. On the other end of the
scale, survivors can have difficulties with intimacy and trust, therefore,
creating difficulties within relationships, in part because they cannot
believe they are deserving of sustained loving relationships. In theological
terms, overall, these behaviors present as hatred of the self, rejection of
others, and ultimately a rejection of God, or in the least, a rejection of the
power of God’s love to overcome self-hate.
For the communities of the abused an opportunity opens up to walk
with the abused and downtrodden. While a survivor cannot understand
what it feels like or looks like to be in a healthy relationship with good
boundaries, communities can find ways to provide community for the
abused which are far away from their place of abuse and are instead places
of safety and assurance where loving interactions can occur. In her foun-
dational studies on the role of grace and faith communities in connection
to the traumatized, Jennifer Beste called for “an adequate understanding
of human receptivity and responsiveness to God’s grace” which involves
the community and interpersonal relationships and their central role in the
11
Ibid. See also image comparing CPTSD to PTSD in “Complex Post-traumatic Stress
Disorder” in Trauma and Dissociative Disorders Explained. At http://traumadissociation.
com/complexptsd (accessed February 15, 2020). For more detail, cf. Marylène Cloitre,
Donn W. Garvert, Chris R. Brewin, Richard A. Bryant & Andreas Maercker, “Evidence for
proposed ICD-11 PTSD and complex PTSD: a latent profile analysis,” European Journal of
Psychotraumatology 4 (2013). doi: https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v4i0.20706
72 C. L. GOMEZ
mediation of God’s grace.12 Beste insisted the need for a revision of a the-
ology of grace in light of abuse survivors which took into consideration:
1. the practical realization that persons can severely debilitate and also
foster each other’s capacity to respond to God’s grace; and
2. the theological conviction that a primary way in which God medi-
ates grace is through interpersonal loving interactions.13
By making such considerations in the revision of a theology of grace, Beste

says “our sense of responsibility for one another” heightens and they help
us to “discern how to love in ways that foster each other’s ability to
respond positively to God and others.”14 In other words, the communities
can be a place of grace where the abused learn to truly receive and give
love. But more than that, they become places where joys and sorrows are
shared as one body of Christ. As Lumen Gentium (LG), the Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church says:
Giving the body unity through Himself and through His power and inner
joining of the members, this same Spirit produces and urges love among the
believers. From all this it follows that if one member endures anything, all
the members co-endure it, and if one member is honored, all the members
together rejoice. (LG 7)15
Constant exposure to a loving environment where a survivor learns to

listen to his or her voice and receives continuous messages of safety, assur-
ance, and unconditional love, even when he or she significantly differs in
opinion and feeling to other persons within the community communicates
the God of unconditional love Godself. Through this repeated communal
experience, it is possible over time to accept this divine unconditional love.
12
Jennifer Beste, “Receiving and Responding to God’s Grace: A Re-Examination in Light
of Trauma Theory,” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 23, no.1 (2003): 3–20.
13
Beste, “Receiving and Responding to God’s Grace,” 18.
14
Ibid.
15
Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, November 21,
1964, at https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/
vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html (accessed February 15, 2020). See also 1
Cor 12:26.
Colonial Mentality and a Role for Churches

Colonial mentality is described as “a product of colonialism […] a broad
multidimensional construct that refers to personal feelings or beliefs of
ethnic or cultural inferiority.”16 It can manifest in the following ways:
1. denigration of the self,

2. denigration of the culture or body,
3. discriminating against less Americanized in-group members, and
4. tolerating historical and contemporary oppression.17
It is believed the effects of this form of internalized oppression “range

from admiration of the colonial legacy and culture to feelings of shame
and embarrassment about the indigenous culture,”18 and it is “associated
with bullying, acculturative stress and maladaptive behaviours.”19
Internalized colonialism weakens not only individual self-identity but also
collective self-esteem.
For Filipinos, Colonial Mentality is an especially pointed issue. A
Filipino who carries the colonial mentality can express any of the following
manifestations:
(a) denigration of the Filipino self (that is, feelings of inferiority, shame,
embarrassment, resentment, or self-hate about being Filipino);
(b) denigration of the Filipino culture or body (that is, the perception
that anything Filipino is inferior to anything White, European, or
American, including culture, language, physical characteristics,
material products, and government);
(c) discriminating against less-Americanized Filipinos (that is, distanc-
ing oneself from characteristics related to being Filipino and
becoming as American as possible); and
16
E. J. R. David and S. Okazaki, “The Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS) for Filipino
Americans: Scale construction and psychological implications,” Journal of Counseling
Psychology 53, (2006): 241–252, cited in Shawn O. Utsey, Jasmine A. Abrams, Annabella
Opare-Henaku, Mark A. Bolden, Otis Williams III, “Assessing the Psychological
Consequences of Internalized Colonialism on the Psychological Well-Being of Young Adults
in Ghana,” Journal of Black Psychology 41 (2015): 195–220, at 198.
17
Ibid., 198.
18
Ibid., 199.
19
Ibid., 198.
74 C. L. GOMEZ
(d) tolerating historical and contemporary oppression of Filipinos

and Filipino Americans (i.e., the acceptance of oppression as an
appropriate cost of civilization, believing maltreatment is
well-intentioned).20
It seems obvious here that a simple way churches can resist the reinforce-
ment of colonial mentality and fight against the insidiousness of internal-
ized oppression is by introducing and normalizing diversity within their
communities, through symbol, language, ritual, and representation. Over
two decades ago, the Pontifical Council for Culture said itself that the
revelation of God is inseparable from the culture of its audience:
The message of the Revelation, inscribed in the sacred History, always pres-
ents itself in the guise of a cultural package from which it is inseparable, and
of which it is an integral part. The Bible, the Word of God expressed in the
words of men [and women], constitutes the archetype of the fruitful
encounter between the Word of God and culture.21
When Asians, Africans, Polynesians, and South American members of pre-

dominantly white congregations, for example, hear, see, sing, kneel, stand,
pray, and respond to a white male God in liturgies, what is reinforced in
themselves? The voice of their white colonizers or the true God revealed
in Jesus? Is this God more superior with his white image against their dark
or olive skins? Is He more superior in His white ways of behavior and
comportment against their own diverse ways of being and interaction?
A simple act that could be reintroduced in liturgies to affirm non-white
cultures is to mix the use of English songs with songs from various cultural
backgrounds, depending on the demographics of the congregation.
Another simple act is to present images of Mary, Jesus, and the Saints in
prayer spaces, as not necessarily again white-European in appearance. But
20
Victor E. Tuazon. Edith Gonzalez, Daniel Gutirrez, and Lotes Nelson, “Colonial
Mentality and Mental Health Help-Seeking of Filipino Americans,” Journal of Counselling
and Development 97 (October 2019): 352–363, here 355. See also E.J.R. David and Dinghy
Kristine B. Sharma, “Losing Kapwa: Colonial Legacies and the Filipino American Family,”
Asian American Journal of Psychology 8 (2017): 43–55; and Elizabeth Protacio Marcelino,
“Towards Understanding the psychology of the Filipino,” Women & Therapy 9 (Oct 2008):
105–128.
21
Pontifical Council for Culture, Towards a Pastoral Approach to Culture, May 23, 1999,
at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/documents/rc_pc_
pc-cultr_doc_03061999_pastoral_en.html
more than the statues and songs, and other culturally distinguishing décor,
churches need to engage in ongoing dialogue and the building of relation-
ships among their people of diverse backgrounds. Many churches already
celebrate multiculturalism by holding annual multicultural days filled with
dance, décor, food, song, and prayer, especially on World Day of Migrants
and Refugees, celebrated on the last Sunday of September.22 But to take
other cultures seriously, churches must go beyond this surface level and
grapple with both cultural disagreements and differences as well as com-
monalities. This could only be achieved through the building of relation-
ships over time and getting to know one another’s strengths, characteristics,
quirks, and limitations. If the church is meant to be a witness of God’s
kingdom, a sign, and instrument (LG1), then it must resist the colonial
imperialism which exists unquestioningly in its midst. Only when the
voices of the oppressed feel they have moved from the margins to the cen-
ter that churches can truly say they have transformed into communities
that take seriously the Catholic vision and mandate of the “preferential
option for the poor,” exemplified by the classic passage in Matthew
25:35–40: “When I was hungry, you gave me something to eat, when I
was thirsty, you gave me something to drink […].”
Conclusion
Noli me tángere is a phrase that can have much significance for the abused
and oppressed within churches. For Filipinos, who carry a colonial mental-
ity as a result of being colonized by Spaniards, Americans, and the Japanese,
it is the title of a book written by their national hero, José Rizal, in response
to their Spanish colonizers.23 Noli me tángere was also the name given by
the Filipinos to a type of cancer of the eyelids at the time. For Rizal, who
was an ophthalmologist himself, the description fitted perfectly as a title
for his book proposing to explore the “cancers” of Filipino society which
other Filipinos would not touch—namely the consequence of Spanish
colonization which included Spanish friars raping Filipino women and
fathering mestizo/mestiza (half-white) children. The book served to create
22
See https://migrants-refugees.va/resource-center/world-day-of-migrants-refu-
gees-2019/ as an example.
23
Jose Rizal and Leon Ma Guerrero, Noli me tángere (=Touch me not) (Mineola, New York:
2019). First published in Spanish in 1887 in the Philippines.
76 C. L. GOMEZ
a national identity and consciousness for Filipinos, indirectly contributing

to the overthrow of their Spanish oppressors.
For the abused, the phrase has great meaning in its bluntness and
directness in instruction—“Do not touch me.” It has allusions to the resis-
tance against the abuse of clergy when connected to the novel of the same
title. It shows agency on the part of the survivor who says: “No more, I
will no longer allow you or anyone to abuse me even with your power.”
For a Christian believer, the phrase has significance too for its reminder
to resist the distorted form of Christianity, a colonial white imperialism
type which was used by Christian missionaries onto indigenous peoples of
discovered lands. It also refers to the scene when Mary, the Apostle to the
Apostles, sees the risen Jesus and seeks to cling onto him, at which Jesus
responds: “Do not touch me for I have not yet risen to the Father” (John
20:17). Jesus tells Mary to no longer cling onto the earthly Jesus because
Jesus now calls Mary into a new relationship with him as the risen Christ.
Noli me tángere can thus speak on multiple levels to Christian commu-
nities—to resist the “cancers” of its culture and systems; to cling onto
transformation, as exemplified in the risen Jesus rather than clinging onto
dead systems which once served their purposes but are in desperate need
of reform for current contexts; and to cling onto the risen Jesus himself
who transforms the cancers of church and society, if believers are willing to
cooperate with the transformation.
CHAPTER 9
The Essence of Faith: Prayer as Ritual

and Struggle
Mary McClintock Fulkerson
If we were to define prayer, there would probably be a lot of versions. Of

course, the first example of prayer that might come to mind would be
“The Lord’s Prayer,” a prayer attributed to Jesus. But Jesus did not offer
a definition, just what became a classic example. A rather brief account of
prayer and one with deep potential comes from Greg Scheer, who attri-
butes this definition to his pastor: prayer is “the essence of our faith in
ritual form.”1 This is to say that Christian faith, the redemptive experience
that signifies human beings’ connection to God, is lived out in many ways,
but definitely through praying.
Prayer has been seen as relational—a fundamental connecting with
God—throughout history. Johann Arndt, an evangelical mystic, says
“without prayer we cannot find God; prayer is the means by which we seek
and find Him.” Nineteenth-century theologian, Friedrich Schleiermacher
wrote: “To be religious and to pray–that is really one and the same thing.”
1
These historic quotes are all from Greg Sheer, Essential Worship: A Handbook for Leaders
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2016) p. 24.
M. M. Fulkerson (*)
Duke University Divinity School, Hillsborough, NC, USA

78 M. M. FULKERSON
As one contemporary scholar puts it, “there can be no doubt at all that
prayer is the heart and centre of all religion.”2
Of course, prayer is not the only form of lived faith, so it helps to also
categorize it with the genre of “ritual,”3 as Sheer points out, namely, in
religious practices that are repeated. To be a “ritual form” of the “essence
of our faith” means that prayer is a repeated way to experience and display
faith. Thus prayer is not a random, made-up practice, but a somewhat
regularized one insofar as its origin and telos is the God of faith. While the
centrality of prayer in human life is clear in all these definitions, the poten-
tial for diversity is implicit in the definitions, as well. This essay will explore
an unusual site of prayer, a homeless shelter, to recognize realities of faith
that might help change the church.
These definitions of prayer suggest that there is an importance to prayer
that may not always be recognized. To get at its importance, let us first
consider some of its limits. Prayer can be significant, as we will discuss, but
it can also be limiting. When ritual prayer occurs in church, it can some-
times feel like repetition, as everyone is expected to repeat “The Lord’s
Prayer” at a particular time in the service, and to be quiet during a number
of events, and to sing the correct hymns at the proper time. The feeling
may simply be the need to say prayers “correctly” and keep up with the
voices of the rest of the congregation. The dominance of “traditional”
forms of worship may well restrict openness to new modes of experiencing
and communicating faith. The continued use of the image of God as
“Father” in the Lord’s Prayer, for example, can be problematic for some
because of its potential to reaffirm patriarchal religion. Sometimes
required, repetitive performances may have little to do with experiencing
some deep and disclosive new insights into God’s contemporary presence,
sometimes mediated by new images for God.4
Given the limitations of some of the practices of prayer in standard
worship, its intended significance is seen when we recognize, as indicated,
2
Friedrich Heiler offers a fascinating account of the many versions of “Prayer as the Central
Phenomenon of Religion,” as his Introduction puts it. Friedrich Heiler, Prayer: A Study in
the History and Psychology of Religion (1932) Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1997, xiii–
xxviii, xv.
3
Ritual is “a formal ceremony or series of acts that is always performed in the same way.”
Online Definition of Ritual by Merriam-Webster.
4
The obvious alternative would be God as Mother.
9 THE ESSENCE OF FAITH: PRAYER AS RITUAL AND STRUGGLE 79
that prayer is to enact connection with God. So let us think of some crucial
features of that connecting that open up the possibility of honoring human
diversity and change: prayer as a ritual, prayer as communal, and prayer as
honest revelation of needs, fears, and gratefulness. To explore an example
of prayer that fits these features, we will look at what would appear to be
a non-traditional setting for assessing the Christian practice of prayer,
namely, the Durham Homeless Shelter in Durham, North Carolina.
A Shelter is a place where people without homes in Durham, a medium-
sized city in the southeast, can find a place to sleep and get meals, among
other services. The regular prayer event at the Durham Shelter happens
three times a week—Monday, Wednesday, and Friday—and begins a little
after 9:00 am. It is comprised of a gathering of people from the Shelter,
from off the streets, some who have homes but come to the Shelter for
meals, and folks from other places, as well. In a room where folks sit
around several connected tables so that everyone can be face-to-face,
Shelter Chaplain Rev. Susan Dunlap, a white Presbyterian clergywoman
from the community, sits at the front of the tables to lead the event. In
front of her are two candles which she lights to begin the prayer service.
She places the lit candles in a large bowl filled with sand where more can-
dles will be inserted; extra candles lie in a bowl nearby that can be lit for
each additional prayer offered by participants.
Delivering her usual welcome to all, the Chaplain is about to fol-
low-up with her opening prayer when another man comes in the room
to join the gathering of folks around the tables. A very thin man in
shorts, an undershirt, reddish skin, and several missing front teeth, he
lays down on the floor in the center between all the tables. While this
is not the typical way people come to join the gathering, Chaplain
Dunlap welcomes him and tells him that we are beginning with an
opening prayer which will be followed up by asking folks to share their
prayer concerns. She then asks him what his name is and whether he
would be willing to lead us in the prayers. He responds, “I am David,”
and agrees to begin the prayer gathering. While remaining down on
the floor, David then says that we have to pray for other people or God
won’t bless us. Folks agree and we all proceed.
This story would seem to contradict the first criterion for prayer, at least
in the sense that it appears to be a disruption of ritual, defined as “a
80 M. M. FULKERSON
formal ceremony or series of acts that is always performed in the same

way.”5 That would likely be true in very different kinds of worship ser-
vices, that is, those in typical middle and upper-class churches where such
behavior would not be allowed. However, in this place, the prayer service
simply goes on—giving the ostensible disruptor the power to enhance the
praying.
The first feature of what counts as prayer, as noted, is its performance
as a ritual. And while the ritualization happening at the Shelter can cer-
tainly be a bit different from typical middle and upper-class church rituals,
it still fits the definition of ritual, that is, the “ceremony or series of acts
that is always performed in the same way.” What some outsiders to the
Shelter would see as problematically disruptive, for the insiders the so-
called “disruptive” behavior of David was not a sign of this not being a
ritual. Indeed, no one seemed bothered. He was participating in a creative
form of ritual behavior in this homeless setting by lying on the floor, thus
his participation was not a passive sitting around the table or in the pews.
The second feature of prayer is its communal character, and while there
are endless prayers spoken or imagined in life by individuals alone, the
sharing of prayers in groups—whether officially church or some other
form of community—offers opportunities to share with others one’s con-
cerns, fears, worries, as well as joys and celebrations, the third defining
feature of prayer. And sharing with other human beings can be a real
opportunity to gain and give support. Thus the communal character of
this form of prayer is crucial to its character. In such a community as this
small group, some are homeless, some have places to live but get their
meals at the Shelter, and some are just outsiders who regularly come for
the prayers. Such tellings are hopefully a helpful way to learn more about
one another and sometimes share advice and wisdom in response to oth-
ers’ concerns. Frequently, someone has gotten advice, however brief, for a
concern, such as who might give them help in the Shelter or where might
be a good place to go to church. Group gatherings are not automatic fixers
of anything, but can hopefully help humanize the faith relation to God.
Thirdly, prayer can be understood as an honest revelation of needs,
fears, and gratefulness. While such revelations may in fact be implicit in the
other two defining features of prayer, it is important to communicate in
5
Online Definition of Ritual by Merriam-Webster.
such prayer services that they are safe places where these realities can be
and should be revealed. As indicated in the feature of “communal,” such
sharing is supposed to happen. However, to call this “honest revelation”
of needs, fears, and gratefulness, implicitly suggests that people do not
always feel safe to tell the truth about what is happening in their lives that
makes them fearful. Indeed, unless they are desperate, some may be afraid
to share all of their needs. The Shelter is, at best, a place for such sharing.
Honest revelation, thus, contributes to a form of prayer that reveals the
real hurt, the damage, as well as occasional gratefulness shaping per-
sons’ lives.
Pastor Dunlap urges and supports participants to share their current
stories. This is in some contrast to regular church services, some of which
regularly have a rather short time when members are invited to “share
prayer concerns” by standing up in the service. However, those church
service sharings are not typically comparable with the depth, length, and
ostensible “desperation” of the Shelter sharings.6
There is a multitude of different experiences that have shaped the lives
of the participants who come to the Shelter’s prayer gatherings, but they
certainly have all experienced various forms of deep loss, poverty, and
physical insecurity. While there is no “fix” in the room, it is not insignifi-
cant that individuals engage in a form of agency as they sometimes come
to the front of the room to lift and light a candle and share their own
prayer concerns or simply share from where they are sitting. Sometimes it
will be a concern about the larger world, such as the activity of the current
U.S. president, but much of the time it is about a personal dilemma, such
as the need for a job, access to family, or housing, and the strength to “stay
clean.” Jim, a leading African American from outside, speaks alongside
Susan to express his own concerns and the larger concerns of the society.
So Shelter gathering as a ritual begins with Chaplain Dunlap calling
everyone to gather and sit around the table. Then we go around the room
for people to share their identities, which is followed by an opening prayer
by the Chaplain, and a sharing of concerns. It is always allowable when
people walk in late and interrupt the ritual in some way. After that sharing,
which goes on for typically 30 minutes, the group gathers in a circle to
hold hands and the Chaplain offers a closing prayer.
6
That is not to deny that middle and upper class church-goers experience horrendous
things in their lives—tragedies and injustices.
82 M. M. FULKERSON
While these happenings may not feel “ceremonial” or ritualistic to some

people, they appear to create performative regular acts for people off the
streets. As said, the so-called disruptive behavior of David is not a sign of
the prayer gathering not being a ritual. He was engaged in a creative form
of ritual behavior—not in the sense of a passive sitting at the table or in the
pews, but by participating in two other features of prayer as well, namely
communion, lying down in the middle of the group to get everyone’s
attention, and a sharing of his concerns with everybody. What some outsid-
ers to the Shelter would see as problematic, for the insiders the ostensibly
“disruptive” behavior of David appeared to bother no one.
Indeed, while there is no intention to romanticize the Shelter’s prayer
participants, there are contrasts that might illustrate some value enhance-
ment that is provided by the prayer gathering. A first contrast is between
prayer as a private silent or spoken request to God occasionally and prayer
at the Shelter as a spoken concern and request to God that is heard and
shared by a room full of people sort of like you three times a week. A sec-
ond contrast is between life lived with occasional church gatherings at
worship creating friendly social relationships and life lived as a struggling,
sometimes desperate individual seeking out and sometimes finding some
form of support—a group of people that might be considered “community.”
Refusal to romanticize homeless people suggests that competition with
and/or fear of other persons does exist in the Shelter. One would expect
this when humans experience desperation and struggle to survive. These
are most likely strongly contrasting experiences with those of the typical
folks who worship at middle and upper-class churches. For those who
come to the Shelter prayer gatherings, it is hoped that such attitudes are
countered by experiences that may well-humanize the other through hear-
ing of their tragic and awful experiences and sometimes sensing their
empathy and potential collegiality.
So contrasts and similarities between prayer as practiced in the Shelter
and what has been a generalized account of middle and upper-class church
practices does suggest a new way to think about the Shelter event. This is
to recognize the crucial role of prayer as a ritual, prayer as communal, and
prayer as an honest revelation of needs, fears, and gratefulness for persons
in situations of struggle.
So what, then, is useful from the comparison of these two kinds of
prayer situations? A first observation might be that homeless folks could
learn from middle and upper-class church practices that go longer than a
half-hour. They would be exposed to more kinds of “ritual.” As several of
them do, in fact, go to churches, there might be some value for the home-
less folks to participate in a very different social faith world and learn more
about Christian faith and doctrine through the extended prayers, liturgy,
and sermons in these churches. An obvious benefit for them might also be
opportunities to connect with communities with more resources and
potential information about opportunities for jobs or paid labor.
What might be useful for middle and upper-class persons of faith to
participate in the Shelter prayer gatherings? To some degree, connecting
to God is enhanced by more opportunities for prayer. But consider the
three features of prayer: the first—liturgy—is likely not to be perceived as
such in the Shelter event by folks who go to more “officially” sacred wor-
ship services. While it has been argued that the Shelter prayer event does
qualify as liturgy insofar as it constitutes a “ceremony or series of acts that
is always performed in the same way,” that is not likely to persuade typical
church-goers, given what they usually experience. As for the second fea-
ture—communal—the Shelter prayer event contributes in unique ways by
bringing a small group of people together in a face-to-face situation that
sometimes opens up significantly honest and moving forms of sharing.
While they do not “belong” to the Shelter as a community the way
Christians tend to “belong” to a church as their community, many of these
folks are consistently there at the gatherings, and some may well form sup-
portive relationships as a result.
The third feature of prayer, honest revelation of needs, fears, and grate-
fulness, is clearly a primary feature of the Shelter prayer gathering. A test
for honesty is not available, but that is the case in middle/upper-class
churches as well. The needs and fears expressed in the Shelter are hard to
disbelieve. Even the faking or exaggerating of these accounts would likely
be the communicating of deep struggles of some sort; prayers are some-
times for the very means of survival. Given that, the occasional revelation
of gratefulness is a wonderful thing to hear. The crucial value of this third
feature of prayer for persons from so-called regular churches is to hear
personal stories face-to-face from “the poor”—from those that Jesus called
“the least of these.” Such exposure could hopefully have the effect of
enhancing passion for humanity and social justice in a variety of ways.
In conclusion, the brief exploration of different contexts for ostensibly
“regular” prayer practice has suggested that there are clear differences in
the way prayer occurs. That, of course, is not a surprising observation at
all. It also suggests the importance of what sometimes can be deeply dif-
ferent functions for prayer. And while not explored in depth here, the
84 M. M. FULKERSON
contrast between the experience and content of prayer for the privileged as
more standard and “traditional,” and the way in which prayer for those at
the Shelter might be an act out of desperation—a plea for survival—is a
revelatory reality. The possibility for more connection between different
kinds of prayers and the people who share those prayers may seem to be a
small thing, but it is in fact an important reality for churches to explore.
Experiences of the homeless are, simply put, very different modes of living
and communicating faith. Prayer is, after all, “lived faith,” and exposure to
different lives can open us all up to the deeply serious challenges of exis-
tence as well as the potential gifts of faith.
CHAPTER 10
The Holy Spirit Makes the Church:

Changing the Church as a Responsive Act
Scott MacDougall
If it is true that church is semper reformanda, and surely it is beyond doubt

that it is, then the fact that church is a form of Christian community that
is always changing must be assumed as a given.1 What may be more
contentious, however, is identifying the agent to whom that change is
due. For numerous reasons, change in churches, even when rightly under-
stood as the result of historically contingent events and processes, has
often been ascribed to human agency, either implicitly or explicitly. This
has sometimes, for example, been on account of scriptural passages such as
the Great Commission to go and “make disciples of all the nations” that
1
I refer to church and churches rather than the church in order to mark what I take to be an
important theological distinction between church as a name for the analytical category denot-
ing Christian community, churches as the set of actual particular forms of Christian communi-
ties that exist or have existed, and the church, which denotes an abstraction, a universal
Christian body that has never existed. In addition, I do not follow the common convention
of capitalizing this last concept of church because capitalizing it imbues that non-existent and
idealized abstraction with an improper, often triumphalist, power that an eschatological out-
look on Christian community, as outlined here, helps to correct.
S. MacDougall (*)
Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkeley, CA, USA
Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA, USA

86 S. MACDOUGALL
the Jesus of Matthew’s gospel issues to his apostles (Matt. 28:19) or of the
long and (to say the least) ambivalent history of Christian missions stem-
ming from a deep-seated impulse to do precisely that. At other times, it
has been fostered by a general tendency to seek ecclesial influence on the
social, political, and economic structures of the societies where Christianity
has flourished. In each case, talk of the Christian requirement to “build”
or “grow” churches, rhetoric that is common at all ecclesial levels, rein-
forces an imagination of ecclesial change as driven by human action, even
if the underlying theology might seek to avoid leaving that
misimpression.
Certainly, human beings are actively involved in changing churches,
and massively so. To the extent that churches exist precisely as collectivi-
ties of human beings, churches change only when and as the people who
compose them undergo change of some kind. There is a real and impor-
tant sense in which we have to say that Christian discipleship requires
people to take responsibility for the work required to “build” churches
and to demonstrate the wisdom and care needed to “grow” them.
Nevertheless, uncareful language about ecclesial change and develop-
ment featuring ideas that implicitly or explicitly reflect or give rise to an
ecclesiological imagination with a starting point rooted in anthropology
rather than in pneumatology claims more human causal agency in that
sphere than is theologically warranted. People compose churches, but it
is the Holy Spirit who makes them.2 I argue in this brief essay that if,
during the course of participating in processes of ecclesial change, we
forget that it is ultimately God, not people, who builds, grows, and
changes churches, we inappropriately replace divine agency with human
agency, thereby profoundly misunderstanding the nature and character
of Christian community, which, in turn, impairs the formation and prac-
tice of church.
2
Here and in the title, I am obviously playing on Henri de Lubac’s famous dictum that
“the eucharist makes the church,” but I am also playing on Paul McPartlan’s The Eucharist
Makes the Church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue (Edinburgh, UK: T&T
Clark, 1993), for reasons that, I hope to show, Zizioulas himself might approve.
10 THE HOLY SPIRIT MAKES THE CHURCH: CHANGING THE CHURCH… 87
The Holy Spirit Makes the Church an Anticipation

of Eschatological Promise
Church is a trinitarian reality,3 being the body of Christ constituted pneu-

matically. Christian community’s origin in the action of the Holy Spirit
can be imagined in a number of ways. But the most salutary among them
provide humanity, not with a causal or proprietary role but a responsive
and receptive one. Willie James Jennings, for example, contends that
church is “a community born of the Holy Spirit”4 in an outpouring of
divine power matched only by “the gracious work of God in creation”
itself, the calling forth of a new reality at Pentecost in which “no one
helped, no one assisted, everyone only tarried.”5 Similarly, Jürgen
Moltmann holds that “church is the eschatological creation of the Spirit,”6
in which Christians become a community held accountable to being the
people of God, in service to humanity and the world, anticipating the
divinely promised future of reconciliation.7 John Zizioulas agrees, but on
different grounds: for him, church comes into being as the Spirit gathers
the many around the bishop, thereby constituting the one “corporate
person”—Christ—the unified body that enacts the eucharistic liturgy by
which the eschatological future enters and transforms the present into
what all creation is destined to become.8 Despite their important
differences, in each of these instances, the Spirit is held to cause, call, con-
stitute, and commission Christ’s church and the human role is responsive.
People do not build the church but assent to participate in the divine
3
See, among numerous possible examples, Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The
Trinity & Christian Life (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), 401–2, and Kathryn Tanner,
Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
2001), 83.
4
Willie James Jennings, Acts, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 2017), 64.
5
Jennings, Acts, 28.
6
Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic
Ecclesiology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 33.
7
Moltmann, Church, 2.
8
John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), esp. 110–14, 130–31; John
D. Zizioulas, The Eucharistic Communion and the World, ed. Luke Ben Tallon (London:
T&T Clark, 2011), 130–31; and John D. Zizioulas, “The Pneumatological Dimension of
the Church,” in The One and the Many: Studies on God, Man, the Church, and the World
Today, ed. Gregory Edwards (Alhambra, CA: Sebastian, 2010), 75–90.
88 S. MACDOUGALL
initiative that does. This is a distinction that, as will be seen, makes an

important practical difference.
As the three theologians just mentioned each attest, the Holy Spirit,
from whom churches receive their being, arrives as the presence of God’s
eschatological promise breaking into the present from the future. This is
not a marginal understanding of the Holy Spirit but a central tenet of
pneumatology,9 and it demonstrates the critical importance of thinking
ecclesiology and eschatology together within a pneumatological frame-
work.10 By doing so, we are able to perceive more clearly that church is
brought into being by the Holy Spirit to be a community that anticipates
by its corporate life and practices the eschatological future proclaimed,
enacted, and sealed in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus
Christ.11 The vocation of Christian community is to imitate, extend, and
manifest by words and actions (always imperfectly, this side of the escha-
ton) Jesus of Nazareth’s proclamation and embodiment of, and invitation
to, the ultimate fulfillment of perfect relational communion (koinonia)
between humanity and God, among and within human beings, and
between human beings and the rest of creation. Doing this is what makes
it an anticipation of the basileia tou Theou, the kingdom or reign of God,
the promised eschatological state of cosmic reconciliation in which God is
finally All in all (1 Cor. 15:28).
What church never is, of course, is that basileia itself. It may be true
that there is ancient precedent for praying “thy Spirit come” in place of
“thy kingdom come,” treating them as more or less synonymous
petitions,12 but neither of them can be heard as equivalent to praying “thy
church come.” Church is always and only a partial and sinful anticipation
9
See, for example, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Spirit and Salvation, A Constructive Christian
Theology for the Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), vol. 4, 59–60;
Eugene F. Rogers, Jr., After the Spirit: A Constructive Pneumatology from Resources outside
the Modern West (Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 2005), esp. 204–7; Anthony C. Thiselton,
The Holy Spirit—In Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2013), 81–84; and Michael Welker, God the Spirit (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992),
143–47, 339–41.
10
Wolfhart Pannenberg, for example, does this powerfully. See his Systematic Theology,
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), vol. 3, esp. Chapter 12, “The Outpouring of the
Spirit, the Kingdom of God, and the Church.”
11
Scott MacDougall, More Than Communion: Imagining an Eschatological Ecclesiology
(London: Bloomsbury–T&T Clark, 2015), 177–86.
12
John P. Manoussakis, “The Anarchic Principle of Christian Eschatology in the Eucharistic
Tradition of the Eastern Church,” Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007): 36–37.
of the reality for which it stands.13 This distinction bears directly upon the
question at hand. As New Testament scholar Ben Witherington writes “It
is one thing for believers to inherit/possess/enter the basileia; it is another
thing to be the basileia, and this latter language is not used anywhere in the
New Testament.”14 Wolfhart Pannenberg, a theologian for whom “antici-
pation” is a core ecclesiological concept, specifies further that church is
not to be imagined as being the basileia in even an incomplete, partial, or
preliminary sense.15 As a provisional and anticipatory “institution of the
interim” with no “eschatological ultimacy” of its own,16 church points not
toward itself but toward the eschatological promise revealed in Christ, the
ultimate realization of which is the work of the same Holy Spirit who now
moves into the present from that future precisely in order to constitute a
proleptic and shadowy indication of the relational character of the basileia
in the form of Christian community.17 Church is a creature of the same
life-giving power that moved across the face of the deep at creation’s
beginning and that will move as the power of the New Creation at its
perfection. Church is no more changed, built, or grown by its members
than is the ultimate state of cosmic reconciliation that it exists to proclaim.
Specifying the Human Role in the Eschatological–

Ecclesial Work of the Holy Spirit
Yet, a theological imagination in which human effort is the causal agent of
“building” or “growing” the “kingdom of God” is as prevalent as one that
imagines the same where “building” and “growing” churches are con-
cerned. Indeed, these tend to appear together. In both instances, however,
the result is a negative impact on ecclesial practice. For example, the admi-
rable efforts of those associated with the Social Gospel movement of the
13
See, for example, Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the
Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 235.
14
Ben Witherington, III, Jesus, Paul, and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in
New Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 78; emphasis in
original.
15
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 32.
16
Christoph Schwöbel, “The Church as a Cultural Space,” in The End of the World and the
Ends of God: Science and Theology on Eschatology, ed. John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker
(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 114.
17
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Kingdom of God (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1969), 50–101.
90 S. MACDOUGALL
early twentieth century were motivated by a version of postmillennialism

that explicitly understood itself to be building the kingdom of God on
Earth by construing the coming of that kingdom as being both inevitable
and driven by human work and ingenuity, carried forward by a Hegelian
unfolding of God’s plan in the inexorable upward movement of techno-
logical and social “progress.” When the barbarities of World War I and its
aftermath destroyed this movement and the faith in human hands that
enabled it,18 the result was an attenuation of eschatological imagination
that, despite some happy streams of recovery, largely persists and a wide-
spread withdrawal of Christians from organized progressive social and
political action until (at least in the USA) the Civil Rights Movement.
The mistake the Social Gospellers made was not connecting being
Christian with serving the world’s needs or understanding such service as
Christian eschatological–ecclesial practice. The mistake was in thinking
that they, not God, were responsible for building the basileia. When it
became apparent to them that they were doing no such thing, many of
them were bitterly disillusioned and gave up all together on maintaining a
healthy theological hope in the future, on the one hand, and on organized
social action as a manifestation of that hope, on the other.19
This, though, was unnecessary. Had those in the movement imagined
their hope to be in God’s promise rather than in their own efforts, had
they understood their work to be responsive to and a participation in the
prior movement of the Holy Spirit to manifest now something of the rela-
tional quality of reconciled and fully flourishing life to be perfected here-
after, and had they grasped that this does not happen as a process along a
linear and unwavering upward trendline of “progress,” the theological
imagination of what they were doing might have been robust enough to
allow them to keep doing it through and beyond the cataclysmic blood-
bath of the Great War. Examples of such an imagination of Christian cor-
porate life do exist. One need only think of how, say, Johann Baptist
Metz20 and William Stringfellow21 passionately advocated for theologies
18
Gary Dorrien tells this story in magisterial and tragic detail in The Making of American
Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, & Modernity, 1900–1950 (Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox, 2003).
19
Dorrien, Making of American Liberal Theology, 542.
20
See especially Johann Baptist Metz, Faith in History and Society: Toward a Practical
Fundamental Theology (New York: Crossroad, 2007).
21
Excellent primers to his work include A Keeper of the Word: Selected Writings of William
Stringfellow, ed. Bill Wylie-Kellermann (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994) and William
Stringfellow: Essential Writings, ed. Bill Wylie-Kellermann (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2013).
along just these lines. At no point did either take human effort to be the
decisive causal agent in building, growing, or even simply changing church
or kingdom, though both understood well and articulated with sensitivity,
faithfulness, and care the responsibility for Christian disciples to partici-
pate fully and actively in the divine project of achieving precisely the same
ends that, say, Walter Rauschenbusch did.
Sketching a Practical Pneumatology

of Ecclesial Change
Church is the communal shape of Christian witness to Jesus’ resurrection,22

and it is established, built, grown, and changed by the always-creative, life-
giving, and liberative power of the Holy Spirit.23 Acknowledging that it is
not human beings but rather the Holy Spirit who, when speaking of and
theologically imagining church properly, is the causal agent in ecclesial
change in no way means that the set of activities one might have in mind
when referring to efforts to “change the church” are inappropriate. Quite
the opposite! By not allowing ourselves to erroneously imagine that trans-
formations in church form or practice are ultimately due to our own initia-
tive, even when they might be proximately, we are able to engage in those
same transformational processes from a humble posture, a posture of
responsiveness to the Holy Spirit’s prior, effectively causal movement
within the body, which allows us to engage in those very activities better,
more effectively, and with greater resilience.
When we construe the processes of ecclesial change to be driven by the
Holy Spirit who establishes and maintains Christian community, and our
role in that process to be one of response to the Spirit’s prior action and
leading, we also throw off the self-imposed burden to “get church right,”
an anxiety that easily results in enforcing a “blueprint ecclesiology”24 that
unduly constrains churches rather than allowing them to make appropriate
answer to their pneumatically given vocations in the time and place where
22
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 29–30.
23
Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 1992), see esp. Chaps. 4–11.
24
See Nicholas M. Healy, Church, World and the Christian Life: Practical–prophetic
Ecclesiology (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000) for a thorough detailing
and critique of this phenomenon.
92 S. MACDOUGALL
they are called into being as proleptic and provisional anticipations of the
world’s future.
Church is a creation of the Holy Spirit, who is the dynamism of the
New Creation itself, arriving from the basileia not to confirm pre-
established conceptions but instead seeking, in John Manoussakis’ words,
“the disarmament of our predictability, that is, our prejudice.” He contin-
ues, “The [eschaton] is like the new wine that cannot be contained in the
old wineskins. The old wineskins are none other than the concepts and
categories of this world, the thinking process that we are used to and
familiar with—let’s call it our perspective.” The “epiphanies” that subvert
and transform that pre-existing perspective are moments, he writes, of
“anticipation of God’s kingdom.”25 In the ecclesial sphere, what this
means is that anticipating the basileia under the power of the Holy Spirit
might sometimes reveal that what we think we know is true about church
is not actually so.
If this is how the Holy Spirit operates, and if church is a creature of the
Holy Spirit, it becomes obvious that human beings can in no legitimate
way be said to control or cause ecclesial change, and that the faithful way
to imagine and practice our actual role in it is by maintaining and acting
out of a responsive and receptive posture. Doing so requires a high degree
of discernment, the patience, and skill required to maximize the chances
of distinguishing rightly projection, wish-fulfillment, fear, or anxiety from
true pneumatic openings, what Elizabeth Johnson calls the Holy Spirit’s
“igniting [of] what is unexpected, interruptive, genuinely uncontrolled,
and unimaginably possible.”26 Such discernment is a corporate Christian
practice of the utmost importance when seeking to move from an imagi-
nation of our having a causal role in ecclesial change to one in which we
have a responsive role. Fortunately, as Moltmann points out, part of the
Holy Spirit’s work is to graciously pour out on churches the charismata
required to perceive and practice that which is oriented to the basileia that
the Spirit constitutes churches to show forth.27 These gifts, like the gift of
church itself, simply need to be received.
25
Manoussakis, “Anarchic Principle,” 43; emphasis in original.
26
Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love (London: Bloomsbury,
2014), 173.
27
Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 293–300.
CHAPTER 11
Making the Spiritual World Accessible: Paul

VI and Modern Art at the Close of Vatican II
Susie Paulik Babka
In 1932, on the occasion of opening the Vatican Picture Gallery, Pope

Pius XI condemned modern art as “unfitting for service in the church
because it reverts to the crude forms of the darkest ages.”1 Such a state-
ment reflected the authority of the sixteenth-century Counter-Reformation
that tried to secure control over a visually “correct” performance of
Catholic teaching in the art objects in church buildings. By the nineteenth
century, in what is called “Academicism,” religious images had degener-
ated into a naïve institutionalism and sanitized illustrations for devotional
purposes. Academicism meant “art” under clerical control, much like the
Neo-Scholastic textbook-style theology that defined the era. Meanwhile,
the Impressionist movement in painting sought the regard of nature as
sacred in its wildness, pressing these Catholic boundaries, especially in
France. But the more widespread modernist movements in art became,
the more the clerical Church remained obdurate.
We all are aware of the magnitude of significance regarding Vatican II’s
engagement with the modern world. But few of us are aware of the
1
Pius XI, Address, October 27, 1932, Acta Apostolica Sedis 24 (1932): 335.
S. P. Babka (*)
University of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

94 S. P. BABKA
aesthetic and artistic dimensions of these reforms. Pope Paul VI was that
rare cleric who declared the modern artist “a prophet and a poet of today’s
man, his mentality and modern society [… modern art] shows us that
religious values were freely and suitably expressed, we are happy and full
of hope.”2 This hope, from one known for his pessimism, reveals a side of
Paul VI rarely seen. This chapter explores the significance of modern art as
a challenge to authoritarianism, in that hope that art in the Catholic
Church will one day no longer be a mere reflection of clerical authority,
but rather an expression that serves the incomprehensible God.
What Is “Modern Art”?

In order to understand why the encounter between the Church and
Modernism can be framed through its relationship with modern art, it is
important to have a sense of what is meant by “modern art.” Modern art
in popular discourse is largely misunderstood, usually treated as what “my
kid could do”—requiring no artistic skill because the appeal to abstraction
avoids “reality” and perhaps anything pleasing on the canvas—as well as
political messages or disturbing sexuality and an apparent hostility to
beauty and technique. The lack of easily accessible interpretation and the
disconcerting appearance of much of modern art contribute to this popu-
lar sense that “art” of the twentieth century and beyond is an elitist enter-
prise, perhaps even a fraud.3
The term “modern” itself comes from the Latin modo, meaning “just
now.” In 1127, Abbot Suger began reconstruction on the abbey basilica
of St-Denis near Paris. His architectural ideas resulted in something never
seen before, a “new look” neither classically Greek, nor Roman, and so he
termed it an opus modernum, “a modern work.” Italian theorists in the late
Renaissance called it “Gothic,” initially as an insult, referring to anything
after the fall of Rome, anything that resisted classical style, as crude and
“barbaric.” The term “modernity,” on the other hand, refers to the
2
L’Osservatore Romano (June 24, 1973): 1–2.
3
Cynthia Freeman, in: But is it Art? An Introduction to Art Theory, writes, “Art’s language
isn’t literal […]. You understand its meaning because of your knowledge, and art requires
knowledge of context and culture […]. A good interpretation must be grounded in reasons
and evidence, and should provide a rich, complex, and illuminating way to comprehend a
work of art. Sometimes an interpretation can transform an experience of art from repugnance
to appreciation and understanding,” (Oxford University Press, 2001): 150.
11 MAKING THE SPIRITUAL WORLD ACCESSIBLE: PAUL VI AND MODERN… 95
overwhelming cultural, social, scientific, economic, and political changes

in the Western world particularly experienced since the scientific revolu-
tion. “Modernity” refers to the way new forms of transportation necessi-
tated the designation of time zones, the way photography altered the
depiction of reality, the way materials such as steel and reinforced concrete
resulted in buildings that could rise over three stories. Such advancements
created enormous confidence in the notion of historical progress and sci-
entific discovery, but often at a human cost. The assembly line alienated
persons from craft while also providing desperately needed jobs; labor
became capital. The industrial age’s consequent urbanization alienated
humans from life within the rhythms of the earth. Foucault in his study
Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason,
argues that the establishment of reason as modernity’s engine creates
“madness” as an opposing category: we know we are “sane” when we can
scapegoat what is misunderstood in the Other as “insane.”4 Zygmunt
Bauman writes that the Shoah was the intersection of scientific advance-
ment and what was ignored by modernity, namely the weakness and fragil-
ity of human beings; Nazism emerged from “the desire for a fully designed,
fully controlled world.”5 The extermination of millions was carried out
with assembly-line efficiency.
Reacting to all this is the “modernist” era in art, literature, and music,
in which the arts are characterized by an open-ended self-questioning
beyond concepts or categories. While there are many modernisms, or
schools of modernism, modernism in art is generally characterized by an
interest to deviate from linear and rational thinking, to seek reality in new
dimensions and forms. Jean-François Lyotard writes, “modern art pres-
ents the fact that the unpresentable exists. To make visible that there is
something which can be conceived, and which can neither be seen nor
made visible: this is what is at stake in modern painting.”6 How does one
4
Michel Foucault’s extensive historical work argues that after the “age of reason,” the
creation of binary opposition between “sane” and “insane” translated into the creation of the
asylum in “The Great Confinement”: “We must describe, from the start of its trajectory, that
‘other form’ which relegates Reason and Madness to one side or the other of its action as
things henceforth external, deaf to all exchange, and as though dead to one another,”
Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, trans. Richard Howard
(New York: Vintage Books, 1988), ix.
5
Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1989), 93.
6
Jean-François Lyotard, “What is Postmodernism?” in The Postmodern Condition, trans.
Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1979), 79.
96 S. P. BABKA
imagine the unpresentable? In an embrace of innovative modes of

abstraction.
What is abstraction? Western cultures tend to see images as direct reflec-
tions of the world rather than as constructs, or interpretations, of seeing
the world. This is because images in Western art have tended to confirm a
correspondence model of language and thing or image and thing: an
image, like a word, must directly correspond to a thing to be intelligible.
This is why realism has been the dominant direction of artistic method in
the construction of images in the West, reaching an apex in the discovery
of mathematical one-point perspective in 1415, and also why contempo-
rary people who are not accustomed to questioning the veracity of the
correspondence model of language or image find any abstraction so con-
fusing. But realism—even photographic realism—is also an abstraction; if
we think that such “realism” intends to portray reality, and that detailed
portrayal of reality is “proof” of the artist’s skill, which therefore makes
the painting “good,” we then assume that there is no artifice in the con-
struction of realistic images. We may assume that we witness an objective
reality, when we always witness an artist’s interpretation of reality. Today,
postmodern thought acknowledges that no work has a single meaning to
be discovered, but rather a multiplicity of meanings that can be followed
in many different directions. Because art interprets the experience of real-
ity, it shapes our way of seeing and understanding reality. In this sense,
visual art is a collaborative effort between the artist and the viewer.
Modern art is characterized by a willingness to experiment with new
visual languages, especially those dissociated from strict realism. Modernist
art wants the viewer to recognize the deliberate artifice of representation.
Impressionism undermined the idea of a fixed or absolute experience of
reality by revealing dimensions of emotional perception by the artist.
Cubism went further by claiming that an object does not have an unquali-
fied shape or surface, rejecting the rules of perspective, embracing the two
dimensions of the canvas. Surrealism challenged linear and rational
thought, attempting to unlock the insight of the subconscious mind.
Abstract Expressionism relied on large canvases meant to encompass the
viewer, creating a contemplative experience where symbol or representa-
tion was disdained for fields, drips, or zips of color. As Barnett Newman
observed, “After the monstrosity of the war, what do we do? What is there
to paint? We have to start all over again.”7 The immensity of suffering in

the twentieth century was anxious for new forms of expression and lament.
The “signs of the times” addressed by the Catholic Church during Vatican
II would need to consider that art assumes fluidity of expression, especially
in the wake of catastrophe.
The Catholic Church and the Arts Before

Vatican II
The Catholic Church was once the world’s most powerful patron of the
arts, but this changed in the mid-nineteenth century, after the dissolution
of Papal States in 1870 led to a decline in the Vatican’s power. Despite
this, the clerical church clung to the former standard of patronage in
which authority dictates the subject matter, but they were only able to find
mediocre talents willing to paint to their requests, the sentimental and
gaudy forms of academicism designed to placate the faithful. Pope Pius
XII in Mediator Dei (1947) condemned the avant garde: “those works of
art, recently introduced by some which seem to be a distortion and per-
version of true art and which at times openly shock Christian taste.”8
In L’Osservatore Romano of June 1951, Cardinal Celso Constantini,
secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, attacked
the modernist iconography in the Dominican church at Assy, Notre Dame
de Toute Grace, and the Sacred Art Movement led by Fr. Marie-Alain
Couturier, O.P. (1897–1954) and the French Dominicans; that same
month, Henri Matisse’s chapel in Vence, France was consecrated. A year
later, in April 1952, Pius XII gave a speech to Italian artists designed to
affirm “the promoters of the figurative arts”; in June, the Sacred
Congregation of the Holy Office issued an instruction on sacred art meant
to be an official condemnation of the French Dominican movement. In
1953, restrictions on the Dominicans meant silencing the periodical L’Art
Sacré edited by Couturier, an artist whose stained glass and frescoes can be
found in Assy, alongside the work of Matisse, Marc Chagall, and a crucifix
designed by Germaine Richier, which was deemed “insufficient.” Couturier
was criticized for commissioning non-Catholics to create religious art in
7
See William Eaton, “Guston, Shapiro, Rosenberg … Dialogue,” Zeteo July 2016
at: https://zeteojournal.com/2016/07/13/dialogue-guston-schapiro-rosenberg-schim-
mel-eaton/#_ftnref29 (accessed September 9, 2020).
8
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (1947), article 195.
98 S. P. BABKA
church buildings; his response: “This fact may be irritating, but at the
present time it is undeniable. The Spirit breathes where the Spirit will.”9
On October 11, 1953, Celso appealed for the “expulsion” and “barring”
of all modernist works as they are a “true profanation” of the sacred.10 In
1954, Yves Congar wrote, “it is essentially by the celebration of the mys-
tery of the body of Christ that a place becomes a church,” praising
Couturier as an example of work produced through a simplicity and trans-
parency “that asserts the Glory of God in the poverty of man.”11
Toward Modernism in Art and the Catholic Church

The shift toward modernism in the Catholic Church thus had begun in
more ways than one when John XXIII became pope. After calling for an
ecumenical council to be convened in Rome in 1959, John issued Princeps
Pastorum, which affirmed the direction of art related to the modernist
tendencies that had been attacked by Celso:
The Church […] so full of youthful vigor, constantly renewed by the breath
of the Holy Spirit, is willing, at all times, to recognize, welcome, and even
assimilate anything that redounds to the honor of the human mind and
heart, whether or not it originates in parts of the world washed by the
Mediterranean Sea.12
Congar was appointed theological consultant to the preparatory commis-

sion that helped write Message to the World given at the opening of Vatican
II. Couturier died in 1954, but his influence on the Council continued
when copies of his writings were distributed to members of the committee
that formulated Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on Sacred
Liturgy.13 Pope Paul VI opened the Collection of Modern Religious Art at
the Vatican Museums in 1973. The collection is remarkable, consisting of
over 800 works occupying 55 rooms, the majority of which were donated
9
Marie-Alain Couturier, O.P., Sacred Art (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press and the
de Menil Foundation, 1989), 154.
10
L’Osservatore Romano, October 11, 1953, p. 5.
11
Yves Congar, Priest and Layman (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1967), 237.
12
Pope John XXIII, Princeps Pastorum (November 1959), §36.
13
See Grete Refsum, “The French Dominican Fathers as Precursors to the Directives on
Art of the Second Vatican Council,” (Dissertation, Kunsthogskolen Oslo, National College
of Art and Design, 2001), 25.
by artists and collectors to the Holy See; but finding the collection on a
visit can take some doing. There are few signs indicating its existence.
There is no published catalog of the works and little has been done to
promote the collection’s existence. So Paul VI opened the door (or the
basement, so to speak, since part of collection is housed below the Sistine
Chapel), and the relationship between the Catholic Church and modern
art continues in its awkward way.
Paul VI regarded the artist as a person called to render visible that
which is transcendent, inexpressible, “ineffable” in the fullness of his
expressive freedom and therefore in the exercise of his “creative” sponta-
neity. At the beginning of his pontificate in May 1964, he invited artists to
mass at the Sistine Chapel, trying to repair the strained relationship:
[…] in all sincerity and boldness we admit we have caused you pain, impos-
ing imitation on you who are creators, giving life to a thousand new ideas
and innovations. We said you must adapt to our style, you must be faithful
to this tradition […]. Forgive us for having placed on you a cloak of lead!
And then we abandoned you.14
Similarly, in his address to artists at the close of Vatican II on 8 December

1965 he said:
To all of you, the Church of the council declares to you through our voice:
if you are friends of genuine art, you are our friends […]. You have aided her
in translating her divine message in the language of forms and figures, mak-
ing the invisible world palpable […]. This world in which we live needs
beauty in order not to sink into despair […]. Remember that you are the
guardians of beauty in the world.15
In his encyclical Le nobili espressioni, Paul VI apologized to artists for

the way the Church had imposed imitation and style on them through the
centuries. The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy does this as well; its chapter
on sacred art affirms a new relationship with artists, encouraging bishops
and others in authority to seek out the best religious art that reflects the
14
Paul VI, “The Friendship of Artists and the Church,” The Pope Speaks (Huntington, IN:
Our Sunday Visitor, 1964), vol. 9, No. 4, 392–93.
15
Paul VI, Address to Artists at the Closing of the Second Vatican Council at: http://www.
vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651208_epi-
logo-concilio-artisti.html (accessed February 23, 2020).
100 S. P. BABKA
times. But the Constitution also advises bishops to educate artists on

appropriate artistic content and iconographical schemes. This is problem-
atic, to say the least, and actually commits the same authoritative over-
reach for which it had previously apologized. Recall Augustine’s famous
line, “Make me chaste, O Lord, but not yet”: clerical authority admits to
overstepping their expertise and then creates a loophole by which they
continue to do just that.
If abstract and challenging forms of expression were allowed in sacred
spaces, the art through which the raw energy of human creativity can
freely roam will nurture new ways of approaching the depths of the divine.
Paul VI understood this: “Our common ministry, artist and priest, con-
sists in rendering the world of the spirit accessible. Artists are masters, not
in the manner of professors of logic or mathematics, but in the manner of
preserving the ineffability of the spiritual world, its halo of mystery.”16
Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council in an interest to bring
the Church into the modern era; Pope Paul VI closed the council in the
belief that art, historically critical to the life and work of the Church,
would in the modern era provide “a new epiphany of beauty in this time
and apt responses to the particular needs of the Christian community.”17
16
Paul VI, “The Friendship of Artists and the Church,” 393.
17
Paul VI, “Address to Artists,” op. cit.
CHAPTER 12
Women Changing the Church:

The Experience of the Council for Australian
Catholic Women 2000–2019
Patricia Madigan O.P.
It is no accident, but one of the “signs of the times,” that two important
ecclesial events which occurred at the end of 2019—a three-week Special
Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazonian Region which
concluded in Rome on the 27 October, and a two-year dialogue on
Church life in Germany begun on 1 December by the president of the
German Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the vice-president of the
Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK)—listed the presence and
participation of women in the Church high on their agenda. The Australian
church too has experienced its own ecclesial process of listening to women
and attempting to strengthen the participation of women through a series
of decisions and events which began in the 1970s and will feed into the
Plenary Council planned for 2020–2021.
P. Madigan O.P. (*)

Dominican Sisters, Centre for Interfaith Ministry, Education and Research,
Sydney, NSW, Australia

102 P. MADIGAN O.P.
Women in the Church: The Australian Experience

After the publication of the annual Social Justice Sunday Statement,
Towards a More Whole Church, by the Catholic Commission for Justice
and Peace in 1977 which addressed a range of gender issues in the Church,
the Bishops received many responses from which it was clear that issues
concerning the role and status of women were a high priority community
social justice concern.1
Discussion continued for many years until, in 1993, the bishops agreed
to look at the possibility of a national survey on the participation of women
in the Catholic Church in Australia to be conducted at diocesan level and
coordinated nationally. These discussions eventually became fruitful
through the hard work and persistence of women such as Sr Anne Lane
PBVM, Ms Bernice Moore, and Sr Margaret Hinchey RSM from the Sub-
Committee on Women’s Issues, Catholic Coalition for Justice and Peace
(CCJP), and Ms. Sandie Cornish from the Secretariat of the Bishops’
Commission for Justice, Peace, and Development (BCJDP). Some key
men at this stage were Bishop William Brennan, Chair of the Australian
Catholic Social Justice Council (ASCJC), and Dr Michael Costigan from
the BCJDP Secretariat who was also instrumental in enlisting the research
expertise of Professor Peter Drake, the first vice-chancellor of the newly
formed Australian Catholic University (ACU).2
At the same time as a deluge of pronouncements, letters, and state-
ments attempting to reinforce the limitations placed on women in the
Church issued from Vatican in the 1990s,3 the BCJDP wanted to respond
to the call by women to be taken more seriously in the Church and to be
more fully involved in a variety of aspects of its life, although it recognized
that any response would need to be set squarely in the context of the
recent church teaching on the Ordination of Women and its disciplinary
consequences.
1
Research Management Group (RMG), Woman and Man: One in Christ Jesus: Report on
the Participation of Women in the Catholic Church in Australia (Sydney:
HarperCollinsReligious, 1999), 1–2 https://women.catholic.org.au/treasures/woman-
and-man (accessed February 17, 2020).
2
Ibid., 2–3.
3
These included Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter on priestly ordination and women,
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), his 1995 Holy Thursday letter to priests, his Letter to Women
(29 June 1995), his remarks on women in the Church on 3 September 1995, and a response
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concerning the Inadmissibility of Women
to Ministerial Priesthood (30 November 1995). Ibid., xi, 5.
12 WOMEN CHANGING THE CHURCH: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE COUNCIL… 103
The end result was that, after an involved process of bringing together
various personnel, church agencies, institutions and sources of finance, a
Research Management Group (RMG) was appointed to oversee the con-
duct of the research project on The Participation of Women in the Catholic
Church in Australia which would report its findings to the Australian
Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC) through the BCJDP.
The Research Project on “The Participation

of Women in the Catholic Church in Australia”
The Australian Church launched its ecclesial process of listening to women

and attempting to strengthen the participation of women in the Church,
with a four-year research project (1996–1999), an initiative which eventu-
ally led to two decades of innovative projects and activities which empow-
ered women and expanded their contribution in the Australian church.
At the launch of the Research Project, Cardinal Edward Clancy,
President of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference on 21 August
1996, said:
We know that the Church as a whole has much to learn from and about
women, who constitute more than half its membership […]. We know that
their contribution over the centuries and today has been (and is) enormous,
even if not fully recognised and valued.
We are also aware, as Pope John Paul II has acknowledged, that the
Church’s history has often been characterised by mistaken attitudes and
actions in this as in other areas; and that the brief period between now and
the Church’s Year of Jubilee (AD 2000) is an appropriate time for us to
acknowledge, repent for, and begin to remedy those mistakes of the past.4
The research was carried out in two main ways: hearings would be con-
ducted across Australia in all State and Territory capital cities and in a
range of provincial cities, and through written submissions by groups and
individuals who were asked to respond to one or more key research ques-
tions. The intention was to provide an opportunity for anyone who wished
to express their views on women’s participation in the Catholic Church.5
4
Ibid., 17.
5
Ibid., 15, 53–55.
104 P. MADIGAN O.P.
The response was beyond what anyone had imagined. More than 2500
written submissions were made which was more than double the number
expected. They came from leadership teams of religious orders, Catholic
organizations at both state and national levels, and leadership teams of
dioceses and parishes. Many came from leading individuals in the Catholic
community, both laity and clergy, and from some outstanding scholars.6
The final report on the outcomes of the survey, Woman and Man: One
in Christ Jesus, was launched on 18 August 1999 at the National Press
Club in Canberra. Sonia Wagner SGS, who had been a member of the
RMG, commented: “The fact that the bishops of Australia agreed to pub-
lish the report in its entirety, with no censoring of the findings, makes the
document highly significant and extremely important.”7
The research revealed a strong sense of pain and alienation resulting
from the Church’s stance on women.8 The dominant issue arising from
the research was gender equality—recognizing the equal dignity of women
and men created in the image and likeness of God.9 The report recognized
that the lack of women’s participation “arises not because the demands of
serving the Gospel and the Church are too great” or because Catholic
women lack the skill or willingness to contribute, but rather because there
“are too few and limited ways to be of service in the decision-making,
leadership and ministerial roles of the Church.”10 The Church was seen to
be lagging behind the wider Australian society in recognizing the chang-
ing role of women as one of the ‘signs of the times’ and affirming the
equality of women. The very limited participation of women in decision-
making at present and the need to increase women’s involvement in
decision-making at all levels were constant and major themes.11
The Social Justice Sunday Statement of September 2000 published the
bishops’ response to the report, including its nine Decisions of national
6
Ibid., 56.
7
Sonia Wagner SGS, “Woman and Man: One in Christ Jesus: A Retrospective.” Paper
given at the conference “Women: Gathering, Affirming, Celebrating” in Canberra, 26–28
August 2009 https://plenarycouncil.catholic.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/
Sonia-Wagner-Woman-and-Man-article-2009.pdf (accessed February 17, 2020).
8
RMG, Woman, 375.
9
Ibid., 394.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid., Executive Summary, vii–viii.
significance and 31 Proposals for possible implementation at dioce-

san level.12
The nine Decisions to which the ACBC committed itself included: (a)
to achieve a better balance of men and women in existing leadership bod-
ies and professional roles within the church at a national level; (b) to
develop employment policies to promote the equality and dignity of
women; (c) to foster research in the areas of theology and pastoral minis-
try which would promote lay ministry and, in particular, women in eccle-
sial ministry, as well as in the area of theology of the human person,
sexuality, marriage and family life, especially as it relates to the contempo-
rary life of Catholic women; (d) to provide at the national level, through
the Bishops Committee for Liturgy, guidelines and resources, including
the application of inclusive language, for use in the church’s liturgy, prayer,
and pastoral and social life; (e) to draw up policies of care to respond to
the pain of those who are struggling with the implications of church teach-
ing, e.g. those suffering the pain of failed marriage or divorce, and to
provide support at times of pastoral need; (f) to enter into dialogue with
Australian Indigenous peoples regarding their priorities and respond to
requests received from Indigenous Australians and others for married
clergy and women deacons.13
The 31 Proposals which bishops might consider taking up in their dio-
ceses included (a) a better balance of men and women, clergy, religious,
and laity be included on existing councils, organizations, and advisory
bodies; (b) establishment of diocesan pastoral councils where they do not
already exist, with a balance of men and women so that women’s participa-
tion may be increased; (c) clergy, religious, and lay people be encouraged
and trained to exercise their ministries in a more collaborative manner; (d)
the role of parish Pastoral Associate be actively developed and promoted
by Bishops where appropriate; (e) more women be appointed to marriage
tribunals and, where necessary, undertake specialist training; (f) recogni-
tion and promotion of equality and inclusivity for Australia’s Indigenous
peoples by all Church bodies, and inclusion of Aboriginal women as part
12
Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, “Woman and Man: The Bishops Respond—
Social Justice Sunday Statement 2000,” in Building Bridges: Social Justice Statements from
Australia’s Catholic Bishops, 1988–2013 (2014).
13
Ibid., 7–10.
106 P. MADIGAN O.P.
of decision-making in matters which affect them; (g) greater attention be

given to the education of clergy, religious, and laity toward attitudinal
change in recognizing equal value, equal rights of women and men within
the lay faithful of the church; (h) qualified women be encouraged to act as
Church spokespersons and as guest speakers at Church conferences, cere-
monies, and functions.14
Undoubtedly, the most significant decision of all was that the ACBC
would establish a Commission for Australian Catholic Women which
would play a key role in guiding and implementing the entire action plan.
The Commission had a mandate to (1) act as a focal point for ongoing
dialogue and integration of ideas pertaining to women and their participa-
tion in the Catholic Church in Australia; and (2) assist in the implementa-
tion of the decisions and recommendations.15
The Commission for Australian Catholic Women

The Commission for Australian Catholic Women (CACW) was established
by the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference in the year 2000 as a
response to the RMG report. Members would be appointed by the ACBC
and would consist of a Chair and eight members from around Australia,
“indicative of the multicultural nature of Australia,” as well as an Executive
Officer. All would be appointed for 3 years, with the possibility of reap-
pointment. The Commission was formally commissioned on June 15,
2001, in the crypt of St Mary’s Cathedral and was charged by the bishops
with monitoring the development of strategic planning and evaluation of
the outcomes of the ACBC recommendations. It was to report directly to
the Bishops’ Conference.
The CACW began its life with a burst of energy and activity. Its inau-
gural Chair, Geraldine Hawkes (2001–2006), and Executive Officer,
Therese Vassarotti (2001–2005), visited many, if not all, of the Australian
dioceses, met with women to discern their needs, and a number of initia-
tives were begun.
14
Ibid., 14–15.
15
Ibid., 10–13.
However, by the year 2006, when the bishops undertook a review of

the structures of the Bishops’ Conference, the status of the women’s
Commission was changed to that of a Council, with an advisory role only
as well as a change in mandate. One serious consequence was that it now
had no direct input into the Bishops’ Conference and its level of authority
was reduced. In 2009 Sonia Wagner SGS asked “Has the project been
forgotten? Perhaps. Is the project finished? Definitely not. Is the project a
work in progress? I think so.”16
She believed that the change in status from a Commission to a Council
can be seen as a diminution of the importance of the matter of women in
the Church and a failure to follow through on the Woman and Man
Report. She notes that the Council now merely advises the bishops and
the lines of communication and accountability are somewhat unclear. She
asks: “Who is responsible for ensuring that the participation of women
remains on the agenda? What accountability is there for the decisions and
proposals contained in Woman and Man? What happens if a particular
diocese does not see the participation of women is an issue? When a new
bishop is appointed, in addition to pledging loyalty to the Pope in regard
to the ordination of women question, is he also required to promise to
engage the wisdom, gifts and talents of women in his diocese?”17
The years since 2009 have seen further diminishment of the Council
with reduction in members and staffing as Church finances tightened
largely due to declining Mass attendance and financial demands associated
with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual
Abuse established in 2013 by the Australian Government, and also the
establishment of a National Redress Scheme created in June 2018 in
response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It was noted
at the triennial Catholic Women’s Colloquium held in 201918 that very
few of the nine Decisions of national significance and the 31 Proposals for
implementation at diocesan level outlined in the Woman and Man report
have been effectively implemented.
16
Wagner, “Woman and Man”.
17
Ibid.
18
Organised by the now Council for Australian Catholic Women with the theme “Stirring
the Waters,” it took place in Adelaide in February 2019 and was attended by 160 women.
108 P. MADIGAN O.P.
Over the years of its existence, the Commission/Council for Australian

Catholic Women built up a proud record of achievement, despite being
constrained by so many restrictions on women in the Church. Some
examples were:
The Leadership for Mission Program19 This is a specialised leadership

program for young Catholic women aged 25–35, a joint initiative of the
Council for Australian Catholic Women, the Australian Catholic Bishops’
Conference, Catholic Mission and the Australian Catholic University. This
course was selected for inclusion on a Vatican website promoting best
practices in lay formation, and was featured at the first Plenary Assembly
of the Vatican Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, November 24–28, 2019.
The Triennial Catholic Women’s Colloquium The next Colloquium is

scheduled for 2022.
An Anthology “Still Listening to the Spirit: Woman and Man Twenty

Years Later” This was published in 2019 to mark another important
anniversary of the 1999 Report. Many of the chapters in the Anthology
were first presented at the Adelaide Colloquium and the booklet is
expected to be a significant resource for the discernment processes leading
into the Plenary Council in 2020.20
Supporting Women’s Input to the Plenary Council 2020–2021 CACW

organised a number of interactive forums—in Sydney (June, 2018), Perth
(October, 2018), Adelaide (February, 2019), and Melbourne
(October, 2019).
Guidelines for Non-Discriminatory Language This led to the drafting

of Guidelines for use in the Catholic Church in Australia.
19
See https://www.opw.catholic.org.au/projects/leadership-for-mission (accessed
February 17, 2020).
20
Sandie Cornish and Andrea Dean, eds., Still Listening to the Spirit: Woman and Man
Twenty Years Later (Sydney: Office for Social Justice Australian Catholic Bishops’
Conference, 2019).
Catholic Women’s Mentoring21 This was a national initiative aimed at

building the skills, confidence and networks of Australian Catholic women
and encouraging them in their faith.
Media This has led to the dissemination of Statements at times of national

significance for women, e.g., International Day for the Elimination of
Violence Against Women. Frequent media requests for interviews and
information have been made, for example, by ABC radio and TV.
In November 2019 the ACBC, with its Budget under severe strain,
underwent another restructuring process which led to the disbanding of
many of the Councils of the Bishops’ Conference, including the Council
for Australian Catholic Women. There is a huge irony in this: At the same
time as there continues to be a growing awareness of the need for an inci-
sive presence of women at all levels of Church life, the absence of any
structures to enable this is more apparent than ever.
Conclusion
The most striking aspect of the story of the Commission/Council for
Australian Catholic Women is the lack of agency which continues for
women in the Church. Apart from the early initiatives of women in the
creation and functioning of the Research Management Group, all deci-
sions from that time—appointments, allocation of funds, and even the
continuance of the Commission/Council itself—were the prerogative of
an all-male episcopacy.
Another factor that needs to be addressed is the intimidating role that
the Vatican Curia and its culture play in keeping national and regional
Bishops’ Conferences quiescent about many issues, including those affect-
ing women.
A real question persists about whether the best way of incorporating
the contribution of women into the Church is to create a separate “fief-
dom” for women within the patriarchal structures of the Church rather
than promoting women as equals across the board.22 Would it not be more
21
See https://www.opw.catholic.org.au/projects/mentoring (accessed February
17, 2020).
22
Rita Ferrone, “Don’t Blame the Patriarchy,” Commonweal, March 28, 2019 at: https://
www.commonwealmagazine.org/dont-blame-patriarchy (accessed February 17, 2020).
110 P. MADIGAN O.P.
productive to have women’s concerns, expertise, and thoughtfulness

wholly integrated into the life and mission of the Church? In both the
Jesus movement and in the earliest years of the Church there was neither
“male nor female; for all were one in Christ” (Gal. 3:28). How long will
it take for the Church community to understand that patriarchy is incom-
patible with the Christian life and antithetical to the Gospel?23
In line with some recent Catholic Church assemblies in other parts of
the world, these issues will be very much to the fore in the Australian
Plenary Council 2020–2021.
23
R. Petrus, “Patriarchy to Blame in Scaraffia’s Resignation from Women Church World,”
Future Church, 7 November 2019 at: https://www.futurechurchnews.org/article/patriar-
chy-to-blame-in-scaraffias-resignation-from-women-church-world (accessed September
9, 2020).
CHAPTER 13
The Unity of the Church and Birth Control

in an Age of Polarization
Dennis M. Doyle
Catholics have historically maintained a special concern for church unity.

Unity is not uniformity, but it does call for people to be bonded together
amid differences. Yet we live now in an age of polarization. Polarization
has changed the ways in which people relate with each other. I will argue
that the present situation calls for all of us to prioritize making changes
within ourselves and in how we relate to each other.
In a recent book, Ezra Klein draws upon a wealth of social scientific
studies to document the significantly increased polarization in contempo-
rary US society and politics.1 He shows how in the 1950s strong differ-
ences regarding political policy were spread out within the two major
political parties. Very gradually over many decades even stronger differ-
ences have emerged between the parties as American voters have sorted
themselves out into two distinct political groups. Ideological differences
have given way to identitarian differences.2 For many people in the US
today, being a Republican or a Democrat forms not just one element
1
Ezra Klein, Why We’re Polarized (New York: Avid Reader Press, 2020).
2
Ibid., 232.
D. M. Doyle (*)
University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA

112 D. M. DOYLE
among others of their identity but rather functions as the very basis of it.
Klein demonstrates how polarization, in contrast with a healthy diversity,
fosters hatred of the other as a core motivation, at times deeper than the
ideals one champions. An individual’s vote is determined in many cases
more by what one is voting against than by what one is voting for. The
highest value is placed upon the victory of your side.
Klein draws upon many studies to explain that all human beings are
significantly influenced by psychological, social, and other demographic
factors in what they accept as knowledge and truth. We are all susceptible
to “confirmation bias” and “identity-protection cognition.”3 That such
influence exists is nothing new. Klein writes: “What is changing is not our
psychologies. What is changing is how closely our psychologies map onto
our politics and onto a host of other life choices.”4
A striking example of the polarization that currently plagues the
Catholic Church can be found in two opposing statements, both issued in
September 2016, concerning artificial contraception, one by the progres-
sive Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research, an international group
based in the UK, and the other by an ad hoc conservative, international
group of Catholic scholars based in Washington, D.C. The Wijngaards
Statement was issued at a conference held at the United Nations.5 The
conservative response (hereinafter Response) was released at a news con-
ference at the Catholic University of America.6
The authors of the Wijngaards Statement lay out nineteen major points
including several sub-points. They claim the main argument underlying
the official Catholic ban on artificial contraception is anchored in the
belief that every act of intercourse includes procreation as a dimension of
3
Ibid., 96.
4
Ibid., 46.
5
“Academic Report on the Ethical Use of Contraceptives,” (previously issued as drafts
with various titles). Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research, posted October 2016,
https://www.wijngaardsinstitute.com/statement-on-contraceptives/ (accessed February
11, 2020); see also Jamie Manson, “Catholic Church’s Total Ban on Contraception
Challenged by Scholars,” National Catholic Reporter, 21 September 2016, https://www.
ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/catholic-churchs-total-ban-contraception-challenged-
scholars (accessed February 11, 2020).
6
“Affirmation of the Church’s Teaching on the Gift of Sexuality,” signed by many Catholic
scholars, 21 September 2016, https://trs.catholic.edu/humanae-vitae/index.html (accessed
February 11, 2020). See also Carol Zimmermann, “Scholars Reaffirm Catholic Teaching
against Artificial Birth Control,” Catholic News Service, 21 September 2016.
13 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AND BIRTH CONTROL IN AN AGE… 113
its finality and meaning. In reality, they argue, the vast majority of such
acts do not have a biological capacity for procreation. They find no
grounds, either in the Bible or in nature, to justify the Catholic teaching.
They assert that artificial contraception and natural family planning are
morally equivalent in that both allow for sexual intercourse with the inten-
tion of preventing conception. They point to practical advantages of con-
traceptive practices both in family planning and in life-saving disease
prevention. In some cases, they say, the use of prophylactics constitutes an
ethical imperative. Finally, the statement recommends that the Catholic
magisterium consult experts in many relevant fields and that the results of
such consultation be taken seriously.
The conservative Response affirmed Humane vitae’s claim that all con-
traceptive acts are against the natural law and therefore contrary to Divine
Law. After an introduction that criticized the Wijngaards Statement for
misrepresenting Catholic teaching, it offered eleven points that draw upon
John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to place Catholic teaching on contra-
ception within a biblical vision of creation and the human person.7 In
addition, the response makes several positive claims about the spiritual and
practical benefits of natural family planning (hereinafter NFP).8
Going back and forth from one statement to the other, the reader
moves between two different world-shaping narratives based on a host of
conflicting presuppositions. There exists a chasm between the two
perspectives.
There have been some attempts to mediate between the two world-
views. Julie Hanlon Rubio, for example, finds the polar opposition to be
characteristic of the post-Vatican II generation. She takes an approach she
considers to be more amenable to a younger generation of Catholics as she
brackets questions about the rightness or wrongness of moral norms and
instead focuses on fostering dialogue about the values associated with
7
John Paul II’s writings on this subject can be found in Man and Woman He Created
Them: A Theology of the Body, translated by Michael Waldstein (Pauline Books and Media,
2006 [1986]). Scholarship supporting the authors of the Response can be found in Why
Humanae Vitae Is Still Right, edited by Janet E. Smith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2018).
8
These methods are now often referred to collectively as “fertility awareness based meth-
ods of family planning.” For an explanation of the variety of such methods including their
effectiveness, costs, advantages, and difficulties, see Simcha Fisher, “Moving Beyond the
Rhythm Method,” America, 3 February 2020, 18–25.
114 D. M. DOYLE
different practices.9 The courtroom atmosphere created by the Wijngaards

Statement and the conservative Response might in this perspective repre-
sent something of the final anguished cries of a breed that is taking its last
breaths. The current state of polarization in the Catholic Church and in
society, however, indicates that this process of dying may be a long one.10
I sympathize with the goals of the Wijngaards Statement insofar as it
de-stigmatizes the use of artificial birth control (hereinafter ABC) by mar-
ried couples and includes the use of prophylactics in the fight against the
spread of HIV/AIDS. By many measures, the abstinence-only approach
to sex education and health care taken by Catholic institutions on a global
scale is problematic.11 I have friends who signed the Wijngaards Statement,
and I agree with their main point, that there should not be a total ban on
the use of ABC. I could not, however, bring myself to sign the statement.
I felt deeply that, in this age of polarization, both its content and tone
were unnecessarily one-sided and righteous.
Contemporary polarization is so bad that it is not enough, in my judg-
ment, simply to be secure in one’s own rightness and either ignore or go
to battle with those wrong people on the other side. We all need to change
the ways in which we engage each other in debate, focusing more on try-
ing to understand and communicate with one another. I do not deny that
there are occasions when one side is completely right and the other side is
completely wrong. I am not interested, for example, in finding the middle
ground between environmental activists and climate change deniers. In
the clashing of tectonic plates represented by Catholic battles over ABC
9
Julie Hanlon Rubio, “Beyond the Liberal/Conservative Divide on Contraception: The
Wisdom of Practitioners of Natural Family Planning and Artificial Birth Control,” Horizons
32 (2005): 270–294. See also Mary Ellen Konieczny, Charles C. Camosy, and Tricia
C. Bruce, eds., Polarization in the U.S. Catholic Church: Naming the Wounds, Beginning to
Heal (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2016).
10
In a 2005 dissertation, sociologist Brian Starks found that, when compared with mem-
bers of other traditions, a significantly higher percentage of Catholics tend to see differences
between liberal and traditional views as healthy. See “Contemporary Catholic Identities:
Ideology and Politics among American Catholics” (Ph.D. Dissertation for Indiana University,
2005). In a recent conversation, Starks told me that he does not know of any more recent
studies that follow-up on this question. In our age of polarization, I fear this fact of 2005
may no longer be the case.
11
Lauren Clark and Sarah M. Stitzlein, “Neoliberal Narratives and the Logic of Abstinence
Only Education: Why Are We Still Having This Conversation?” Gender and Education 30
(2018): 322–340. Note: I have no objection to highlighting abstinence within a more com-
prehensive approach to sex education and health care.
versus NFP, however, I find a situation with sufficient depth and complex-
ity to merit ongoing analysis and dialogue.
My complaint about the Wijngaards Statement is that it fails to recog-
nize anything positive whatsoever in the phenomenon of the NFP move-
ment. It relies heavily upon the refutation of the natural law argument
made in Humane vitae supplemented by claims about the current prob-
lematic effects of the total ban on ABC. In the view of the Statement,
Humanae vitae was wrong in 1968 and it is wrong now, with dire
consequences.
Is there anything positive and true that needs to be said about the con-
servative response? Yes. For one thing, it makes the historically conscious
claim that the NFP movement has emerged as a phenomenon in a way
that it did not exist in 1968. Much of its support comes from the testi-
mony of those who receive spiritual sustenance from its practice. Borrowing
from Klein’s work on polarization, I would go so far as to say that NFP
forms not just a part of their ideology but even more deeply a part of their
Catholic identity. These people experience NFP as fostering their relation-
ship and even daily interaction with God. For them, NFP represents a
spiritually superior experience in comparison with ABC.
What is the status of the constructed narrative world in which the pro-
moters of NFP dwell? Is their experience merely an illusion that supports
a dangerous ideology that has negative global effects? I have many Catholic
intellectual friends who think so.
In my judgment, the answer is more complex, and I want to begin by
affirming that I think in general the claims of people who give such testi-
mony about their spiritual experience are very real and need to be
approached respectfully and even reverently. It has become problematic in
today’s world for the Wijngaards Statement to claim that NFP and ABC
are ethically equivalent. In 1968 ethical equivalence was a good argument
made to make the point that ABC should not be considered sinful. Fifty
years later, that claim functions as a dismissal of the positive experiences of
NFP users. Claiming an ethical equivalence between NFP and ABC has
become a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Both are methods of
birth control, true, but NFP has developed into something more like a
devotional practice. It can be compared to Friday abstinence in that it is a
periodic practice of sacrifice.
Humanae vitae was issued less than two years after the US bishops
pared back the rules concerning Friday abstinence. The Vatican II thrust
was toward more trust in the laity, fewer requirements, less focus on
116 D. M. DOYLE
sacrifice, and more assimilation through relaxation of distinctive Catholic

identity markers.12 The laity were being empowered to live lives of holiness
in the realms of family, work, and society. The thrust of Humanae vitae
was toward sacrifice, Catholic distinctiveness, and obeying a pope whose
authority transcended that of worldly rulers. The majority of the Catholic
laity were not going to have it. I would suggest, now more than fifty years
later, and speaking from a bird’s eye view, that there is a legitimate dialec-
tic to be lived out between these two thrusts. I am not suggesting some
kind of equivalence between the two poles, but both sides need to find
ways to break out of the polar opposition.
The Wijngaards Statement does little to engage various components of
their opponents’ worldview. Of course, they were not addressing their
opponents in the statement; they were demanding change in the face of a
global audience. The statement reads, however, as though its composers
believe that the entire matter can be solved by a series of deductions using
the rules of logical inference. In this age of polarization, however, we need
to recognize that all reasoning takes place within complex and subtly con-
structed narrative worlds.
The signers of the Wijngaards Statement could argue that none of the
points I have made about the NFP movement justify a position that all use
of ABC is morally wrong. And they could also point out that the rigidity
of the opposition contributes greatly to the polarized atmosphere, as well
as that, for many, NFP ideology takes its place amid a range of problematic
ideological positions. They could even say that I am barking up the wrong
tree. Perhaps they would have a point. In this age of polarization, how-
ever, efforts like the Wijngaards Statement might be more effective if they
tried to engage in respectful dialogue by striving harder to understand the
point of view of the other. The authors might even try to cultivate a hum-
ble awareness that there might be something that they could learn from
the other. We all need to realize that, even though we may live in different
bubbles, there are yet larger worlds as well as transcendent callings in
which we all share. In the best of worlds, both sides would be less
Manichean in their approaches. The NFP movement would back away
12
Stephen R. Schloesser documents how the negative lay reception of Humane Vitae was
shaped by fifty years of lay movements that stressed internalizing authority, personal mysti-
cism, and social action. See “1918–1968–2018: A Tissue of Laws and Choices and Chance,”
Theological Studies 79 (2018): 487–519. See also Leslie Woodcock Tentler, Catholics, and
Contraception: An American History (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004).
from its dire warnings about the evils of ABC, and the promoters of com-
prehensive sex education and health care would be open to the legitimacy
of claims about the spiritual benefits of NFP for those who practice it.
Catholic unity is a precious and fragile commodity in our age of polar-
ization. Ezra Klein concludes that polarization in and of itself is not so
much a problem as it is simply a description of the way things currently
are. US citizens must to some extent accept the fact that they live in an age
of polarization and develop coping strategies, one of which is to depolar-
ize ourselves.13 In my judgment, Klein might be right about the United
States in general, but I believe that, for Catholics, polarization in the
Catholic Church and in the larger society is a problem. Polarization is
distinct from simple diversity insofar as it involves the formation of sectar-
ian identities that thrive on despising the other. Catholic communities
should consist of people who love each other through Christ and the Holy
Spirit. Insofar as polarization fosters disrespect and even hatred of the
other, acts that cause or maintain polarization must be named as sin. It
belongs to the mission of the Catholic Church to overcome polarization
within itself and in the society at large.
13
Klein, Polarized, 249–268.
PART III
Mission and World Christianity

CHAPTER 14
The World Mission of the Christian Church
Roger Haight S.J.
This chapter proposes a theological conception of the mission of the

church in the world as we know it today. Important factors have arisen
since the mid-twentieth century and changed our thinking. One can list
factors in a revolution in Christian consciousness: a new historical and
pluralist consciousness that gave rise to the World Council of Churches; a
new awareness and positive appreciation of other religions brought on by
human mobility, urbanization, and development; a new planetary con-
sciousness of common human solidarity in responsibility for the world; a
new evolutionary consciousness and sense of need for a definition of the
purpose of the church within history.
These developments have given rise to a new context of our thinking
about the world mission of the Christian church and the churches in their
contexts. I will turn to the concept of reconciliation as a possible symbol
for gathering new thoughts about the mission of the church in history. I
do not examine the eschatological role of the church and I leave to the
reader to contrast this theology with earlier views. In the mode of an
R. Haight S.J. (*)

Union Theological Seminary, New York, NY, USA

122 R. HAIGHT S.J.
outline, what follows will display a bare logic as a stimulus for reconceiving
the mission of the church in our contemporary world.
The Origin of the Church

The church gradually emerged out of a Jewish “sectarian” Jesus move-
ment and eventually won its identity as an autonomous religious entity
distinct from Judaism.1 The appropriation of this protracted historical
development has been uneasy on both sides: Jews have dropped Jesus as
one of their prophets; Christians have neglected Jesus’ Judaism and made
him a Christian. One thing that all Christians share in common is Jesus of
Nazareth interpreted as the Christ. The most basic institution of the
church is the Bible because it keeps present to the whole church the clos-
est historical witness to the origin and source of the church.
Ecclesiology as Primarily a Historical Discipline

Systematic treatments of the church must be rooted in historical circum-
stances. Every institutional form has to be understood in a historical con-
text; evolutionary principles and historical study show that absolute
unchanging ecclesiological polities are not possible; if they do not change,
they do not last. An evolutionary and historical consciousness prevents a
conception of God planning or designing a socio-political form of the
church. Historical institutions always emerge out of previous history and
are always shifting under the impact of historical forces. Therefore, church
institutions are not meant to remain materially identical across history but
to preserve the continuity of Christian faith.2 This idea functions like a
meta-principle that calls for elements in the church that provide it with the
flexibility to change in order to keep itself in existence and true to its
sources.
1
Is it imaginable that what came to be called Christianity could have remained within the
boundaries of Judaism as other movements had? Such purely hypothetical questions often
generate discussion that leads to deeper understanding of the historicity of the church.
2
The word “materially” is inserted in this sentence to note that a formal office may retain
the same function (for example, each congregation has a “leader”) while the concrete mode
of choosing and exercising such a ministry may vary considerably over time or among
churches.
14 THE WORLD MISSION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 123
Historical and Evolutionary Consciousness

Relative to theology, the idea of evolution nuances creation as an ongoing
process; time is constitutive of being, so that everything continually moves
and being is really becoming. This framework easily translates into princi-
ples that serve as guidelines for a historical organization like the church.
The point of this discussion consists of drawing operative principles from
physical and life sciences and adapting them to history and cultural evolu-
tion. Four basic principles condition reflection at a basic level.
Historical Entities Are Always Evolving This principle draws the con-
sequence of time being an intrinsic dimension of being. It follows that the
church also evolves. The church cannot remain a static entity. The whole
history of the church illustrates this: the church changes most when it tries
to remain the same by insisting on unchanging structures and formulas.
Evolutionary consciousness fundamentally alters something often taken
for granted, namely, that unchanging stability is good whereas change is
bad. Unchanging structures in an evolutionary world frequently display
detachment from reality. This principle has to be balanced with the fact
that a historical institution can so change that its essential character is
altered or lost. There has to be conscious balance between change and
maintaining the identity of a tradition.
Survival Dependent on Adaptation In the natural evolution of the

forms of life, survival depends on the ability of an organism to adapt to
changing environmental conditions. Analogously, in order to preserve its
identity, the church paradoxically has to intend to continually adjust its
structure to its environment. In fact, the church continually adapts to its
social, historical, and cultural environment, but not always in salutary
ways. Sometimes failure to meet the new conditions of existence means
that culture leaves it behind. Flexible structures allow the church continu-
ally and consistently to adapt to new situations.
Reciprocal Altruistic Alliances Evolutionary history has witnessed the

development of reciprocal altruistic alliances that break open a destructive
competition and capitalize on new resources to meet new contingencies.
This principle may be useful in considering how to address the problem of
124 R. HAIGHT S.J.
fragmentation in the expanding Christian movement today. We need ways

of thinking about “intentional” pluralism or recognized differences within
a deeper desire to maintain unity. It seems absurd to break communion
with God and each other in Christ because of, for example, attitudes
toward gay marriage.
New Perspectives on the Purpose of the Church An evolutionary cast

of thinking generates a new interest in the purpose of the church. The idea
of “purpose” in evolution has various nuances, but the distinction of two
different senses can set up a new question for the church today. The most
common sense of purpose arises from human consciousness where a per-
son conceives a goal and designs methods or paths to accomplish it.
Another sense of purpose in line with evolution has a more restricted
sense. Since evolution on an empirical level consists of random process
within the constraints of nature’s laws, another less personal sense of pur-
pose refers to how parts fit into wholes. When paleontologists find tools in
burial grounds, they can formulate certain assumptions about the species
in question on the basis of integrity and fit. This second sense of purpose
carries more pressing urgency for our conception of the relation of the
church to the world today and I will appeal to it further on.
An Ecclesiology of Dialogue with the World

Church mission has to be linked with christology. The imperative for
interreligious dialogue and interfaith cooperation seized attention after
the creation of the World Council of Churches and with the growth of
Christianity outside the West. How are Christians to relate to other reli-
gions in the same national and world communities? Does the growing
Christian consciousness that other religions have their own God-given his-
torical integrity mean that classical Christian missionary activity (looking
for converts) is over? How are we to understand Christian missionary
activity in an age that combines religious respect for other religions and
suspicion of colonialism? Joining creation theology and the theology of
grace that represents God as a constant loving Presence to all of created
reality goes a long way toward providing a Christian rationale for the
autonomous authenticity of other religions.3 God offers grace and salva-

tion to all; and the most likely place where consciousness of God’s tran-
scendent Presence would emerge is the religion at hand. A crucial insight
at this precise point consists in recognizing that Jesus’ real mediation of
God’s transcendent Presence should not enter into competition with
God’s self-revelation through other media, but that Jesus’ universal rele-
vance lies precisely in affirming it.
In the next two considerations I turn explicitly to evolutionary con-
cepts for help in understanding how the church, by actively participating
in the evolutionary drift of the universe, can follow this christological lead
and nurture positive and reconciling relationships with other religions.
Evolutionary consciousness explicitly adds structural dimensions to his-
torical consciousness. The narrative of the emergence of our universe,
planet, and world of conscious life adds a new dimension to historicism.
By drawing out certain cosmic dimensions of our being in the world, we
can clarify how the church fits into this structure.
The Unity and Diversity of Reality We live in a diversified world. If

anything distinguishes present-day life from the Western period of
Enlightenment, it is our sense of particularity. We can still generalize, insist
on the laws of nature, and notice patterns of psychic behavior and regular
dynamics of human societies marked by freedom. But we also know that
each individual is unique and that a realistic appreciation of reality acknowl-
edges the individuality of persons and the groups they form. But at the
same time and in delicate balance with particularity, the continuity of the
creative emergence of the universe and the intimate organicity of the inter-
connectedness of being mean that finite being as whole bears no concrete
oneness that matches the abstract concepts. Yet we, including all physical
reality, are related to each other. This evolutionary principle of intercon-
nectedness forms a basis for morality far deeper than political expedience
or conventions for mutual protection.
3
I make the case for the convergence of the ideas of God’s primary causality, the term
Thomas Aquinas used for God’s creating, and God’s universal love, which comes to humans
as grace, in Faith and Evolution: A Grace-Filled Naturalism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,
2019), 85–112.
126 R. HAIGHT S.J.
Church in Service of the World A natural tendency dictates that the self
and one’s group prescribe an interpretation of the rest of the world. The
self is spontaneously self-centered. Human beings used to look out at a
world other than the self and saw it in service of themselves; the sky and
the universe circled around our world. Today we can imagine that God’s
revelation is for the world and the church can look out on the world as the
instrument of God’s Presence and address to all humanity. In the middle
of the twentieth century Johannes Hoekendijk said plainly that the
church’s mission was to serve the world and not draw the world into
itself.4 This notion announces a comprehensive ecclesial conviction that
influences everything. The local congregation’s unity and community
should revolve around its commitment to what it is for, the larger com-
munity; the great church should conceive of its mission as an extension of
God’s love for the whole human race and our planet.
Church in Relation to Other Faith Traditions A theological principle

flows from considering these three premises: God’s self-revelation as
Presence in love to the world in Jesus Christ, the bond of unity that con-
nects all things and all persons, and the conviction that the Christian
church should be positively and constructively oriented toward the world.
When we plant our self-understanding in the context of a dynamic evolu-
tionary risingup within matter and recognize that God is present to and
accompanying that process, we can accept the possibility of a certain “we”
consciousness which all human beings could share. We all stand in awe of
creation itself and the absolute sacred mystery that encompasses the whole
of it. In this mental space, we as Christians cannot stand over against other
faith traditions; we must appreciate ourselves in solidarity with them. This
image reasserts the non-competitiveness of Christian revelation in relation
to other religions despite all the disagreements about the content of God’s
revealing Presence. This conviction, at least as contrasted with a conquer-
ing world mission, represents a revolution that transforms how a Christian
relates to those of other faiths. Once internalized, it should affect the
relationships of local congregations to their fellow religionists as well as
the universal policies of the churches and the whole church.
4
Johannes Christiaan Hoekendijk, The Church Inside Out (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1966).
The Mission of the Church in Terms

of Reconciliation
A way of characterizing the new relationship of the church to the world

and to other religions that present-day cultural consciousness pushes us
towards might be “reconciliation.” The symbol entails more than a passive
being reconciled to the world as we find it; “reconciliation” actively por-
trays the nature of the mission of the church relative to the world. There
are evolutionary precedents for such a far-reaching development. At vari-
ous stages in cultural evolution, groups or tribes of homo sapiens gave up
their warfare and built agricultural alliances that led to villages, towns, and
an expanded cultural flourishing. Competition gradually evolved into
mutually beneficial altruism.
How can we envision the possibility of Christianity being a reconciling
influence in history rather than the divisive force it represents to other
religions? Of course, it is one thing to imagine things like distributing
food worldwide so that no people suffer from starvation or malnutrition
and another to actually effect a successful self-sustaining program. But it is
not unimportant to conceive possibilities. The point here, therefore, is
theological, and theological reasoning can imagine a non-aggressive and
reconciling missionary activity around these four principles:
Creation Christianity has grounds for an embracive interreligious spiritu-

ality in the conception of a personal creator God. God is the creator of all,
and God is present to and accompanies all as the ground and goal of their
being. One cannot separate this Presence from God’s love; therefore,
God’s effective grace accompanies all human beings.
Jesus as Revealer as Distinct from Christology A distinction between

Jesus of Nazareth and later Christian interpretations of him can support a
non-divisive dialogical Christian mission spirituality. One can distinguish
between Jesus of Nazareth revealing a relationship with God from the
many Christologies and soteriologies found in the New Testament and the
tradition. Introducing the Jesus of history and his ministry differs from
defending a particular Christology. The missionary project may explicitly
formulate its strategy as an entering into dialogue with other religions by
presenting the person of Jesus of Nazareth and his basic teachings of the
rule of God. It does not have to begin that dialogue with classic doctrinal
128 R. HAIGHT S.J.
interpretations of Jesus. And it may explicitly renounce the church’s goal

of conversion on the basis of the doctrine of God’s saving presence to all.5
Jesus as Reconciler Missionary dialogue with other religious communi-

ties can represent Jesus as a proponent of religious reconciliation. There is
of course more to be said of Jesus, but introduction to Christianity and
interreligious dialogue itself will be enhanced if the Christians who repre-
sent Jesus stay close to his public ministry and the spirituality it engenders.
The critical prophetic dimension of Jesus’ ministry was not based on him-
self, but on the value of the human person in the light of the love of the
creator: the rule of God.
Compassion as a Religious Bond Many basic responses to the God

whom Jesus represented resonate in other religious traditions. But one
stands out as especially needed in our shared world: all authentic religions
should feel united by compassion for people who suffer. This is something
that can be actively addressed in concert.
Finally, sum up, we have a sense of the unity of the species today that
we have never had before; and historical consciousness has been aug-
mented by social and cultural evolution. Human existence itself calls out
for reconciliation. The mission of the church is called to represent and
become the agent of God’s ongoing creativity that underlies world his-
tory. The immediate goal of this strategy for a Christian world mission
may be envisaged as all parties passing from mutual “I-Thou conscious-
ness” to a “We-consciousness” that may be shared by all seekers in an
evolutionary world.6
5
See the program of missionary activity described by Vincent Donovan in Christianity
Rediscovered: An Epistle from the Masai (Notre Dame, IN: Fides Claretian Press, 1978).
6
Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Faith of Other Men (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1972),
129. “Any position that antagonizes and alienates rather than reconciles, that is arrogant
rather than humble, that promotes segregation rather than brotherhood, that is unlovely, is
ipso facto un-Christian.” (Ibid., 131).
CHAPTER 15
Conversion and Change Through

the Processes of Mission and Christianization
Paul M. Collins
Change has been part of the reality of the Church since its beginning.
Major changes happened as a result of activities which are usually referred
to as evangelization or Christianization. Evangelization on the whole is
seen as an activity intended by the institution of the Church, while
Christianization may be seen as a more piecemeal incorporation of new
members within the fold of the Church.1 Either produces change in prac-
tice and belief. Sometimes the institution has actively initiated such change;
often change has been recognized reluctantly; and on occasion change
happens despite the institution. When change occurs, it begs the question
of how far the reality of the Church after change continues to resemble the
Church before it happened.
I have chosen three instances which illustrate these processes and the
changes which they bring. The first example concerns the admission of the
Gentiles into the Church during the first century. The second example
1
See: Ian Wood, The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe 400–1050
(Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2001), 3–5, 25.
P. M. Collins (*)
Church of England, Bournemouth, UK

130 P. M. COLLINS
concerns the results of the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons in sev-

enth century England. The final example concerns the outcomes of inten-
tional mission in the present-day Church of England.
Conversion of the Gentiles

It is generally agreed that Jewish expectations for the last days at the time
of Jesus and the Apostolic Church included the potential inclusion of the
Gentiles in a general salvation which the Jews would bestow upon the
world at its end.2 Such inclusion was premised on Gentile acceptance of
the Torah.3 It seems that the Apostolic Church shared this expectation
and understood its mission in the light of this calling to include the
Gentiles in God’s salvation.4 However, it is clear from the Acts of the
Apostles and the letters of St Paul that the process of including the Gentiles
was far from straightforward.5 The incorporation of non-Jews into the
Church as a result of both Apostolic mission and broader processes of
Christianization raised questions about the character of the body of peo-
ple who sought to be disciples of Jesus of Nazareth following his death
and resurrection. Was that character to be faithful to Jewish customs and
laws? Or would it deviate from that inheritance? The Letters of St Paul
indicate that despite Apostolic sanction of abandoning the rituals of the
Torah, many remained convinced that the character of the disciples of
Jesus should remain thoroughly rooted in a Jewish heritage.6 Divergent
beliefs and practices seem to have persisted well into the first century.7
Gradually Paul’s practice became the norm for the Church. This produced
theological as well as practical change. The Church embraced Gentile con-
verts by abandoning the practices of the Jews such as male circumcision
and the food laws. This meant that it was much easier for Gentiles to
become adherents of the new faith.8 But a potentially dire consequence
was that abandoning the ritual law might also mean abandoning the
2
E.g., Isaiah 2.2–3; Isaiah 11.9–12; Micah 4.1–2.
3
E.g., Isaiah 56.2–8; and E.P. Sanders, Paul: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991), 48, 52, 137–149.
4
E.g., Galatians 3.8, 14; Romans 15.7–12.
5
E.g., Acts 15. 1–5; Galatians 2.12; Ephesians 2.11; Colossians 4.11.
6
Galatians 2.11–14; 1 Thessalonians 2.14–16.
7
E.g., Titus 1.10.
8
The practice of circumcision was abhorrent to Greeks and Romans.
15 CONVERSION AND CHANGE THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF MISSION... 131
morality inherent in the Jewish Tradition, something which was seen as a

strength by many Gentiles.9 In his Letters, Paul constructs an understand-
ing which compensates for this loss. He replaces conformity to Jewish Law
with an appeal to the role of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.10 Such faith
would allow the Gentiles (and believing Jews) to be saved on the Last Day
of Judgement.11 However, not all Jewish Christians were as easily con-
vinced as St Paul that Gentiles could be included without keeping the
Torah.12 Others were afraid of where abandoning the Torah and its moral
values might lead.
In response to these concerns, St Paul tentatively constructs a theology
of making righteous by faith. In this way, he sought to enable the inclusion
of the Gentiles within the promised salvation and maintain a high moral
stance. He also construed an understanding of the death and resurrection
of Christ in such a way that believers share in the mystery of dying and
rising, which is a death to sin, and a being alive in righteousness.13 Paul’s
construal of faith and righteousness against the background of the Second
Coming and Day of Judgement created a character for the Church entirely
independent of the Torah and its rules.14
The inclusion of the Gentiles on the basis of the rejection of the Jewish
Torah radically changed the Jesus movement of the Gospels.15 The Church
was no longer rooted in Jewish Law but it became an experience led dis-
cipleship movement which in turn generated its own appeal to Tradition
and religious commitments.16 As the expectation of an imminent return of
Christ receded Paul’s constructs became a basis for the survival of the new
movement and profoundly shaped its character. Did this new character
resemble that of the Gospels? Does Paul’s re-construal of following Jesus
produce a paradigm for radical change to the Church?
9
E.g. Acts 10.2; Acts 18.7.
10
Romans 1.17; 3. 21–22, 25–26, 28; Galatians 2.16; and Sanders, Paul, 52–90.
11
Romans 1.16; 10.5; 11.11,25.
12
E.g. Acts 15.1; Galatians 2.12.
13
E.g. Romans 6.3–11; 2 Corinthians 5.17.
14
The Pauline construct would be re-worked within their own contexts and create further
change by Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther.
15
Matthew 5. 17–19.
16
See 1 Corinthians 11.23 and 15.3.
132 P. M. COLLINS
Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons

Anglo-Saxon kingdoms emerged in a context where some of the indige-
nous population was Christian. However both Gildas17 and Bede18 are
clear that the Romano-British Church failed to Christianize the incomers.
Whether this is entirely true, or that the Anglo-Saxons were impervious to
any attempts at conversion, we can only speculate. But we can be clear that
Bede recounts a history of evangelization, which was initiated by Pope
Gregory the Great.19 Gregory’s default approach to mission and conver-
sion was aggressive and even violent.20 However Bede is at pains to record
that as a result of the work of Augustine in the kingdom of Kent, Gregory
changed his mind, and produced what has become a model for Christian
adaptation or inculturation. Rather than demanding the destruction of
pagan places of worship, Gregory allows that they can be sanctified to
Christian use.21 We should not underestimate this change. When
Constantine and Helena began building places of public worship, the
model of the basilica was chosen deliberately because basilicas were not
places of pagan worship.22 Gregory’s change of heart and policy allows
pre-Christian culture and practice to be valued in a way which officially
had not been the case. This acceptance of pagan identity, even partially,
permits those who turn to Christ to do so without having wholly to reject
their culture. The change which Gregory allows also honors personal free-
dom to choose Christ over against a much more coercive and collective
approach.
17
Michael Winterbottom, ed., Gildas, The Ruin of Britain and Other Works (London:
Phillimore, 1978).
18
Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors, eds, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English
People (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 68–69.
19
Colgrave and Mynors, Bede, 68–77 and Bertram Colgrave, ed., The Earliest Life of
Gregory the Great, By an Anonymous Monk of Whitby (Lawrence: The University of Kansas
Press, 1968), 92–97.
20
R.A. Markus, “Gregory the Great and a Papal Missionary Strategy,” in Studies in Church
History: The Mission of the Church and the Propagation of the Faith, edited by G.J. Cuming,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 29–37.
21
Colgrave and Mynors, Bede, 104–115.See also: Markus, Gregory, 29–30, 33–36;
Margaret Deansley and Paul Grosjean, “The Canterbury Edition of the Answers of Pope
Gregory I to St Augustine,” Ecclesiastical History 10 (1959): 1–49.
22
Peter G. Cobb, “The Architectural Setting of the Liturgy” in C.M.P. Jones et al., The
Study of Liturgy, (London and New York: SPCK, 1978, 1992), 529. Eusebius, The History
of the Church, 10.4.37–45.
However, we should note that those invited to become converts do not

necessarily wish to embrace adaptation and inculturation. Bede recounts
the missionary activity of Paulinus, one of the monks of the Augustinian
mission, in Northumbria.23 A process of conversion was endorsed and
encouraged by King Edwin, which may be described as consultative, non-
coercive, but collective. The process resulted in mass baptisms. Despite
this relatively gentle approach to conversion, the chief pagan priest Coifi is
content with nothing less than the destruction of the old places of wor-
ship. It seems that for him a policy of adaptation was not radical enough,
since it did not reflect the kind of change which he felt that the Gospel
required. In describing Coifi’s behavior Bede suggests a kind of shamanis-
tic frenzy.24 Coifi’s reaction reminds us that top-down policies do not
always connect with people at the grass roots.
Gregory’s permission to adapt and accept local pre-Christian culture
emerges in the processes of the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons in
other ways. In the achievements of the ‘Golden Age’ of Northumbria, in
artefacts such as the Franks Casket,25 the standing cross at Bewcastle26, and
the Lindisfarne Gospels,27 it is possible to witness how the Anglo-Saxons
brought pre-Christian cultural forms into the service of the Gospel. The
evidence of the treasures of Sutton Hoo demonstrates that the creativity
and ambition of the Anglo-Saxons instantiated Gregory’s change of heart.28
Another kind of adaptation is to be seen in an outcome of the murder
of king of Oswine of Deira. Oswine was killed in 651 at the instigation of
Oswiu, king of Bernicia.29 Oswiu’s wife, Eanflaed was a close relative of
Oswine. Eanflaed was also the child of Edwin and his Kentish Christian
wife Aethelburg. Her Christian tradition was rooted in the mission of
Augustine and Gregory. Somehow, Bede does not record the details, she
managed to prevent all out warfare between Deira and Bernicia, and it
23
Colgrave and Mynors, Bede, 180–189.
24
25
Lesley Webster, The Franks Casket (London: The British Museum Press, 2012).
26
David M. Wilson, Anglo-Saxon Art from the Seventh Century to the Norman Conquest
(London: Thames and Hudson, 1984), 72–79.
27
Richard Gameson, From Holy Island to Durham: the contexts and meanings of the
Lindisfarne Gospels (London: Third Millennium Publishing, 2013).
28
A scholarly consensus suggests that the Sutton Hoo burials may be associated with King
Raewald who died c. 625. The burials conform mainly to pagan practices, but some artefacts
bear Christian symbolism.
29
134 P. M. COLLINS
seems there was no blood feud. Rather she persuaded her husband Oswiu
that a monastery should be founded at Gilling near the border between
Deira and Bernicia.30 There the monks made amends. By ascetic lives and
frequent masses, the monks would do penance for the murder and save
the Northumbrian kingdoms from self-destruction. Gregory’s espousal of
adaptation may be seen to come to fruition through the courageous vision
of Eanflaed. Gregory’s understanding of masses for the departed and pen-
ance is also to be seen in this outcome.31 When Oswiu died in 670 Eanflaed
entered the monastery at Whitby and succeeded Hild as abbess in 680.32
It is possible that the first life of Gregory the Great, written at Whitby, was
produced in her time as abbess.33
The adaptation of Christian practice and belief which occurred as a
result of the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons was rooted in seeking to
hold together political reality with the Gospel. This process mirrors what
had been happening to the Church since the conversion of the Emperor
Constantine. Specifically, Anglo-Saxon warrior culture and its expression
in the blood feud placed a profound pressure on the Gospel requirements
of forgiveness and repentance. This was resolved through the founding of
monastic houses to fulfil the requirements of both the Gospel and Saxon
culture. Monasteries became a locus for moral responsibility and forgive-
ness for society and its political realities.34 Such a radical re-construal of
Christian practice and belief once again raises the question of resemblance.
30
Colgrave and Mynors, Bede, 292–293. See also Christopher M. Scargill, “A Token of
Repentance and Reconciliation: Oswiu and the Murder of King Oswine,” in Retribution,
Repentance, and Reconciliation: Studies in Church History 40, edited by Kate Cooper, and
Jeremy Gregory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 39–41.
31
E.g. Odo John Zimmerman, ed., Saint Gregory the Great: Dialogues on the Miracles of the
Italian Fathers (No place: Ex Fontibus Company, 2016), 266.
32
33
Colgrave, Earliest, 48. He suggests the Life was written after Eanflaed’s death in the
years between 704 and 714.
34
Scargill, Token, 42–46.
Conversion Strategies in the Present-Day Church

of England
The imperative behind current practices of intentional mission and evan-

gelization in the Church of England arises from the report Mission-Shaped
Church,35 which proposed a number of changes. It envisaged a ‘mixed
economy’ of traditional and informal styles of worship. Such new practices
were deemed to be necessary due to the perceived decline of church atten-
dance and membership. Around the time of millennium a spate of publica-
tions described and analyzed the predicament of the churches and
suggested the inevitable demise of some churches.36 Such a bleak progno-
sis challenged the churches to find ways of stemming and if possible turn-
ing around expected decline. One of the practices which has emerged as a
result of seeking to enable enquirers and the lapsed to participate in wor-
ship, is the creation of an informal atmosphere for worship crafted around
an opportunity for drinking and eating. These practices are popularly
described as “Café Church” and “Breakfast Church”.37 They mirror cur-
rent expectations of taking at least drinks into most auditoria in order to
have a relaxed experience of performances of many kinds. Such informal
styles are an adaptation to current secular expectations and practice. They
may also relate to historic practice. Breakfast meetings in churches have
been encouraged as a means of fellowship and outreach since 1920s. A
more ancient precedent may be seen in the Agape Meal.38
The Church of England has widely embraced the practice of “Breakfast
Church” and diocesan websites give encouragement and guidance for the
establishing and continuing such practice.39 However in searching for an
explicit rationale of these practices, I have found very little which might be
35
Mission-Shaped Church: Church Planting and Fresh Expressions of Church in a Changing
Context (London: Church House Publishing, 2004).
36
E.g., Cullum G. Brown, The Death of Christian Britain (London and New York:
Routledge, 2001); Grace Davie et al., eds, Predicting Religion: Christian, Secular and
Alternative Futures (Aldershot and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2003).
37
E.g., Margaret Withers, Mission-Shaped Children: Moving Towards a Child-Centred
Church (London: Church House Publishing, 2006), see chapter 4.
38
E.g., Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, (London: A & C Black, 1945), 82–102.
39
Diocese of Bristol, https://www.bristol.anglican.org/news/2018/05/04/breakfast-
church/ (accessed 25 January 2020).
Diocese of Salisbury, https://www.salisbury.anglican.org/learning/courses/breakfast-
church-5653 (accessed 25 January 2020).
136 P. M. COLLINS
deemed to be theological reflection or underpinning.40 The Church seems

content that such practices produce congregations without giving explicit
guidance as to whether or how such congregations are enabled to grow in
discipleship. The provision of an informal context for worship which pro-
vides children and families with a more accessible and comfortable possi-
bility to encounter Christian faith and worship is clearly an intrinsically
good opportunity. Prescribed processes of enabling these worshippers to
grow in discipleship remain to be identified. The assessment of the
“Breakfast Church” movement in relation to understandings of a
Catechumenate process might situate it within a process of discipling,
either in terms of preparation for baptism, or as a pre-Catechumenate
process.41 However in the absence of such explicit reflection and inten-
tion, Breakfast Church may be perceived as a change in worship style and
ethos. Or we may see Breakfast Church as a change to the Church’s under-
standing of making disciples altogether.
Processes of adaptation, as we have seen, have intended and unintended
consequences. The desire and intention to create opportunities for an
informal style of worship in the Church of England in order to facilitate
the possibility of those who are un-churched or de-churched of (re)dis-
covering worship is to be welcomed. The question remains as to how such
actual changes are received and understood in the life of the Church. In
comparison with expectations and practices in the mid twentieth century,42
examples of adaptation pursued in the twenty-first challenge those expec-
tations in regard to conversion and discipleship, albeit unintentionally.
The creation of informal practices of worship reflect the culture in which
the Church is situated. But such informality may be changing discipleship.
Fresh Expressions such as Breakfast Church have changed the character
and practice of the Church of England, and at least implicitly its beliefs. It
is too soon to evaluate definitively the changes which these Fresh
Expressions have brought about. Clearly a new generation of worshippers
has an entirely different experience of Church and worship from those of
40
E.g., Stephen Burns et al., eds., The Edge of God: New Liturgical Texts and Contexts in
Conversation (London: Epworth, 2008).
41
E.g., House of Bishops, On the Way: Towards an Integrated Approach to Christian
Initiation (London: Church House Publishing, 1995).
42
E.g., Grace Davie, Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing without Belonging (Oxford
UK and Cambridge USA: Blackwell, 1994), 10–44.
the recent past.43 Breakfast Church may come to be understood to have

wrought as profound a change on the Church as abandoning the Torah,
and mitigating the Blood Feud.
The realities of evangelization and Christianization have consistently
produced changes in the life and beliefs of the Christian community. An
ongoing appeal to Scripture and Tradition give an appearance of continu-
ity. The question which emerges for me is whether textual and institu-
tional continuities produce concrete resemblance, or if the changes
wrought by Christianization over the last 2000 years have produced prac-
tices and beliefs which ultimately create a succession of dissimilarities.
43
Andrew Brown and Linda Woodhead, That was the Church that was: How the Church of
England Lost the English People, (London and New York: Bloomsbury, 2016), 205–222.
CHAPTER 16
Mission as Reception: Reframing Evangelism

in the Church of England
Martyn Percy
A few years ago, developmental life of the Church of England crossed an

unmarked line. Until recently, the best-selling Report ever produced by
the Church of England had been Faith in the City.1 Published in 1985, it
engaged seriously with the decay and despair of our inner-city communi-
ties. It changed, amongst other things, how the church shaped the train-
ing of clergy. It shone a very public spotlight on our Urban Priority Areas
(UPA’s). It championed the poor. And for focusing on UPA’s, the Report
earned the opprobrium and scorn of the Tory right-wing press. However,
the more serious edge to the Report, and often missed, was that it marked
out a particularly distinctive mode of theological reflection. Faith in the
City represented a kind of theology rooted in the Kingdom of God. One
that put the people and the places they lived in before the needs and con-
cerns of the church.
Faith in the City: The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Report on Urban Priority Areas (London:
1
Church House Publishing, 1985).
M. Percy (*)
Christ Church, Oxford, UK

140 M. PERCY
The moment of Faith in the City, being the Church of England’s best-
selling Report, has, however, passed. The biggest-selling Church of
England Report is now Mission-Shaped Church.2 For the uninitiated, this
showcases forms of congregational life that appeal to homogenous groups
and that are largely Evangelical and evangelistic in character, appealing as
they do to specific, identifiable, and narrow interest groups (e.g., certain
kinds of youth culture, etc.). These new emerging genres of church are
usually apolitical in outlook and often tend to be socially, politically, and
theologically conservative, as Robert Bellah has observed.3
Thus, new forms of “Fresh Expression” promoted by the Church of
England are normally careful to avoid anything that could be construed as
theologically, politically, or socially divisive. At the same time, these groups
inhabit a social and theological construction of reality in which they believe
themselves to be risk-takers and edgy. But they are usually anything but
this. So, for example, we rarely learn of “Fresh Expressions” for the
LGBTQ+ constituency. We rarely find any “Fresh Expressions” that focus
on disabilities. Or, for that matter, on serious forms of exclusion from the
mainstream of our society. (That “Fresh Expression” for Asylum Seekers
would be an interesting kind of ecclesial gathering).
Much of this direction in mission is driven by a reactive response to
what appears to be a crisis in evangelism, and it has produced a more
intense form of ecclesial polity focused on recruitment and membership as
a means of stemming declines in attendance and encouraging numerical
growth. The impetus for this began in earnest with Decade of Evangelism.
There was little discontent and much optimism when the 1988 Conference
passed a resolution approving a Decade of Evangelism. Each Province of
the Communion was to develop plans for evangelism that led up the mil-
lennium. Most did, including the Church of England.4
But the question this poses is profound: is Anglicanism, at least in its
English form, a support-based institution, or a member-based organiza-
tion? Any investment in an overly narrow specifications of membership
will have profound consequences for the identity and organizational shape
of Anglican ecclesiology, including performative-liturgical arenas such as
2
G. Cray et al., Mission-Shaped Church (London: Church House Publishing, 2004).
3
R. Bellah, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996 – New Edition).
4
For a critique, see M. Percy, ‘Being Honest in the Church’ in Being Honest to God edited
by Adrian Alker (Sheffield: St. Mark’s CRC Press, 2013), 41–51.
16 MISSION AS RECEPTION: REFRAMING EVANGELISM IN THE CHURCH… 141
baptism, for example. The socio-cultural expectations that are invested by

those outside the worshipping congregation in baptism require constant
local, pastoral negotiation between churches, clergy, and the communities
they serve. The socio-theological vision of Anglican polity therefore needs
to understand its purpose and roots more deeply. Anglican polity cannot
afford for its ethos, identity and practice to be replaced with what I term
“consecrated pragmatism”.5
The current turn toward ecclesial organization and management
focuses particular attention on how people become part of the church.6
Specifically, it presses the question as to whether the global expressions of
Anglican polity are distinctive, bounded, and overtly member-based orga-
nizations in character, seeking clarity of identity, or whether they are
broader social and sacramental institutions to which a much wider public
relates in a variety of ways. I am mindful that most ecclesial ecologies will
contain both of these elements and will be a blend of those who feel a
sense of strong attachment (often expressed as “membership”), and those
whose basically affirmative relationship to the church involves a more var-
iegated form of commitment. But my concern is with the concept of
membership in Anglican polity as a whole.7 If the church is consumed with
its own managerial and organizational goals, including increasing its own
numerical growth and intensifying the commitment of its members, it may
lose its ethos and purpose. In contrast, I hold, that the spirit-essence of
Anglican polity posits a rather more incorporative model of church; a non-
member-based institution that seeks to serve society as a whole, rather
5
For my earliest discussion of this, see Martyn Percy, ‘Consecrated Pragmatism’, Anvil 14,
no. 1 (1997): 18–28.
6
The background to the distinction between organization and institution lies in the writ-
ings of Philip Selznick. For a discussion of his work in this field, see Martin Krygier, Philip
Selznick: Ideals in the World, (Stanford: Stanford University Law Books, 2012).
7
On this, see Paul Avis (ed.), The Journey of Christian Initiation: Theological and Pastoral
Perspectives (London: Church House Publishing, 2011). See also M. Percy, Shaping the
Church: The Promise of Implicit Theology (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), for a detailed discussion
of baptism as a broader cultural practice, which enables the child (i.e., having been “blessed”
and “christened”) to be received back into a local community as a recognized and publicly
affirmed member of that society. For a closer ethnographic study of this phenomenon,
rooted in the fishing village of Staithes on the NE coast of England, see David Clark, Between
Pulpit and Pew, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
142 M. PERCY
than a member-based organization that primarily exists for its committed

subscribers.8
In her prescient book, The Precarious Organisation,9 the Dutch sociol-
ogist and ecclesiologist Mady Thung suggests that national churches in
Northern Europe have come under increasing pressure in the post-war
years to become self-consciously “organizations”, marked by nervous
activity and hectic programmes constantly try[ing] to engage their mem-
bers in an attempt to reach “non-members”. She contrasts the “organiza-
tional” model and its frenetic activism with the “institutional” model of
the church—the latter offering, instead, contemplative, aesthetic, and
liturgical models that take longer to grow and are often latent for signifi-
cant periods of time, but which may be more culturally resilient and con-
ducive than those of the activist-organizational model. Thung concluded
her book by suggesting that the model being adopted by many national
churches—a kind of missional “organization-activist” approach—is what
drives the population away. It leads, logically, to sectarianism.
What is needed here is a braver theology, one where the church does
not begin with itself, and its perceived deficiencies—be they membership
or numerical decline—but rather looks to God as the source of mission.
Understanding the nature of God requires us to see that God is ahead of
mission, and both inside and outside the church. So, we need a theology
that links the person and work of the Holy Spirit (pneumatology) to our
missiology and ecclesiology. The result of this should be that the church is
more adaptive: open to being in “reception mode”, and not merely mired
in “broadcast mode”.
John V. Taylor’s classic The Go-Between God,10 describes true mission as
finding out what God is doing, and then trying to co-operate. Evangelism,
said Taylor, is first and foremost God’s work; not a sacrificial effort on the
part of the churches to appease God. This missio Dei is our traditional way,
as a church, of understanding how God acts in the world, to reconcile all
things to God through Christ. This recognizes that God is omnipresent,
and so can and does act in all creation—so not just within the recognized
boundaries of ecclesial life (which are, in any case, like all borders,
8
On this, see M. Percy, ‘Growth and Management in the Church of England: Some
Comments’, Modern Believing, 55, no. 3 (2014): 257–70.
9
Mady Thung, The Precarious Organisation: Sociological Explorations of the Church’s
Mission and Structure (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1976).
10
John V. Taylor, The Go-Between God (London: SCM, 1974).
inherently contestable and marginal). There is ample scriptural warrant for

thinking about the work of the Holy Spirit in just this way. The Jewish
disciples, for example, “discovering” that God is at work amongst the
gentiles—and that God had started something in those communities
before any proactive mission—had got underway.
The missio Dei recognizes something crucial in God’s ecology of mis-
sion, namely that God might choose to speak from the world to the church.
The church, in other words, is not always God’s starting point for
conversion- related initiatives. Sometimes, God needs to convert the
church and cannot do it from within. So, God works from without. The
Holy Spirit is omnipresent, and at work ahead of the church, and outside
it. The question, always, is can the church recognize this? And can the
church receive what the Spirit is doing beyond its boundaries; and in the
act of reception, be prepared to be reformed and renewed?
The answer from the churches to such questions—say on issues of gen-
der, sexuality, and equality—is frequently, “no”. The church will not
receive the progressive truth, justice, and change that the world has under-
taken and adopted. The church resists the change. It resists contemporary
culture. It does not believe that the Holy Spirit could be at work, indepen-
dent of church leaders, in our contemporary culture; and could use that
cultural change to reform and renew the church. Yet any decent missiol-
ogy would always critique the notion that the church or congregation is in
possession of God’s power, and then simply has a range of choices on how
it reifies and dispenses such power. Any proper Kingdom Theology would
try and reverse this perception. Can God not bring the gospel to the
church from outside—and through agents and channels the church would
not normally regard as pure, licensed or proper? This is essentially what we
should concern ourselves with. It is a simple question. What does God
want to say to the church from the world? How can the church be open
to and receive from what God is doing outside the church?
Here I am reminded of two very contrasting approaches to mission that
I witnessed 30 ago, while I was training for ordination. Both were in a
UPA in the North-East. The first project was evangelical, intense and
focused on converting local people. This evangelical mission lasted just a
few years—and then left. It reasoned that the lack of “results” meant the
neighborhood was stony ground. There were few conversions of note, and
little interest from the community, who gave the mission a wide berth.
The second mission was Franciscan, and consisted of two brothers, who
arrived in the community empty-handed. They drew in the community by
144 M. PERCY
asking them if they could help furnish the Brother’s bare flat. The locals
obliged. The first item to arrive was a chair for the unfurnished sitting
room—a passenger seat taken from a written-off Ford Capri. More bits of
odd furniture arrived. A kettle was found. A toaster was rustled up. The
Brothers rejoiced at every gift. The Franciscans came to a community usu-
ally written off as a place of poverty and lack. Yet as the Brothers brought
nothing, they affirmed their neighbors and their goodness and integrity.
They were able to encounter and encourage a community that was gener-
ous and resourceful, but were frequently written off as “spongers” and
“needy”. In fact, the community liked to give, and they took pleasure and
pride in looking after those less fortunate then themselves. That included
the Brothers. The Franciscans still work there in the community.
In return, the Brothers simply offered a ministry that listened, and only
then helped. The Brothers made no assumptions about what the commu-
nity lacked. They went in, expecting to find God’s provision in what many
would have described as a moral and economic desert. They lived joyfully
with their people, and did not presume any lack on the part of the com-
munity that they served. For the Franciscans, God was dwelling there—
long before they arrived.11
Another illustration of receptive evangelism comes from an Anglican
Rector in Australia, who practiced a rather progressive pastoral ministry in
his outreach. Like many clergy, the Rector of this parish was more than
used to being asked by new parents who had little or no relation to the
church, if they would nonetheless baptise their new-born child. Most
clergy would respond to this request with encouragement and catechesis.
The clergy would normally insist on stipulating a course of Christian
instruction for the parents—sometimes lasting months. Many clergy
would also insist that the baptism took place in the context of a normal act
of worship, in order to enculturate the parents, godparents, wider family,
and friends into the ways of faith, say with exposure to the Eucharist.
But this Rector took a different view, and let the parents choose the
time for the baptism to begin with—a Saturday, or even a Sunday after-
noon, and a (so-called) “private” ceremony was countenanced. Frequently,
this was the preferred option, as it suited families with their dispersed
range of relatives. Then the Rector, in seeing the parents, would go fur-
ther. To begin with, he handed over a copy of the Bible and a hymn book,
11
For fuller discussion of this dynamic and its implications for evangelism, see Darrell
L. Guder, Called to Witness: Doing Missional Theology (Grand Rapids, IL: Eerdmans, 2015).
and invited the couple to keep these copies, but choose a hymn and a Bible
reading for their service. He made it clear too that they could also use
other songs and readings as supplements—but they were to choose a
hymn and a Bible reading that spoke to the couple about what God meant
to them in the birth of this child.
Then he added this. The couple were to choose between themselves, or
nominate someone else from the wider family, a person to give the short
homily that accompanies the baptism. Yes, the family were going to pro-
vide the preacher. But the sermon was a simple thing, explained the Rector,
and need cover only three things. First, what were their family values?
What did this family stand for, and what mattered to them as virtues?
Second, how were the family and friends attending the baptism proposing
to raise this child in accordance with those values? And third, as they had
chosen the hymn and a bible reading, how did the rookie preacher think
God was going to be involved in this family now, and helping with the
raising of this child? How would they collectively respond to God’s com-
mitment to this child in baptism? As the Rector reported, no family ever
failed to produce a riveting, rich sermon testifying to God’s blessing and
providence. They became conduits of God’s grace; unwitting ambassadors
of the gospel message.
What is the lesson here? Instead of the church preaching at the family,
hoping a few seeds would take root—somehow—the Rector got the fam-
ily to preach for themselves. The result was that most of the seeds germi-
nated. And many took root. As an exercise in evangelism this was clearly
far more effective. And, of course, it proceeds from a far more trusting,
generous-orthodox pneumatology and missiology. In this example, the
church places itself in a humble position where it receives the gospel from
the world. It is a risk, to be sure. But it does not fatally fall for the flaw that
always assumes the church possesses the truth, and needs to pester the
world with this; or that it is permanently casting itself in the role of broad-
caster to a largely indifferent audience, who are not keen on reception.
This theology of evangelism strikes an entirely different note. Most clergy
would feel obliged to preach at the baptism and to the gathering. The
Rector’s initiative, however, ensured that the family remembered the
homily for a very long time. They had preached it.
Starting with a theology of evangelism rooted in the values of the
Kingdom of God and Missio Dei would mean the churches spending more
146 M. PERCY
time listening, and less time talking12; more time receiving from the world,
and less time pumping out propaganda. But I wonder, sometimes, if
church leaders really do trust God, and genuinely believe in the omnipres-
ent power of the Holy Spirit abroad in mission. They often don’t talk and
behave as though they believe this. They sound, all too often, like sacred
custodians of a tribal deity in a remote village. Their God is small and
tame; but it is their god. So transcendence becomes privatized and
domesticated.
So, how does our church grow and develop? It grows like a person—
through dialogue—dialogue with ourselves, and dialogue with the world
around us. If we are not engaged in dialogue, we are not able to grow. The
church will standstill. It will remain small. If our church really wants to
recover some theological vision for national mission, and something of the
urgency of evangelism, then there is only one thing to do to begin with:
to be still. And then learn to listen to the world around. Then we might
hear what are the actual cares and concerns of our communities. Then we
might discern where God is already at work. Then we might receive from
these very communities what God would have the church become. In so
doing, the Church of England should move away from “broadcast mode”
and learn to receive. God is abroad; already ahead of our mission.
12
A key text here is Vincent Donovan, Christianity Rediscovered: An Epistle from the
Masai, (London: SCM Press, 1978). The author, a missionary sent to evangelize the Masai,
rediscovers his Christian faith when he learns to receive the beliefs, insights and faith imparted
by the Masai.
CHAPTER 17
The “Refugee Crisis” as an Opportunity

for Missionary and Pastoral Conversion
Gioacchino Campese
The pastoral constitution of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965)

Gaudium et spes assigned to the Roman Catholic church an essential,
urgent and ongoing task: “the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times
and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel”.1 There is no doubt
today that human mobility is one of those signs that begs and needs to be
read from a truly Gospel perspective by all Christian churches. While the
regularly mutating phenomena of migration have been a constant of
human history since its beginning, it is also clear that, especially in the last
decades, they have acquired for different reasons a global political
preeminence.2 The “refugee crisis” in Europe is a significant example of
1
Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes 4 (December 7, 1965), http://www.vatican.va/archive/
hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_
en.html (accessed February 11, 2020).
2
The contemporary classic of migration studies, Stephen Castles et al., The Age of
Migration. International Population Movements in the Modern World, 6th ed. (London: Red
Globe Press, 2020), 10, states that since World War II the “politicization and securitization
of migration” is one of the main trends and patterns of global migration.
G. Campese (*)
Scalabrini International Migration Institute, Pontificia Università Urbaniana,
Rome, Italy

148 G. CAMPESE
how most recent flows of people have influenced the social, cultural and
political climate of the continent, often creating controversy and division,
but also movements of solidarity and inclusion both within societies and
religious communities.
This chapter will claim that, despite its ambiguity and messiness, the
“refugee crisis”, as a sign of the present times, represents a providential
opportunity to become aware of and to further that “pastoral and mission-
ary conversion” called for by Pope Francis in his programmatic document,
the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel),3
which is so sorely needed by all Christian churches. The Argentine pope
will be the main conversation partner in this reflection for, among others,
two main reasons: firstly, because through his evangelical and straightfor-
ward understanding of the meaning of the church’s mission he is becom-
ing the catalyst of what has been rightly defined by Gerard Mannion as an
“ecclesiological revolution” in the making4; secondly, one of the conse-
quences of his missiological and ecclesiological vision is, unsurprisingly, his
special attention and sensitivity toward the vulnerable people living in the
“peripheries” (EG 20), among whom migrants and refugees stand out. It
is only appropriate to underline that Pope Francis’ ministry with migrants
and refugees does not consist only of numerous public remarks and teach-
ings on this issue,5 but also includes his passionate personal involvement
comprising countless personal visits, meetings and concrete acts of accom-
paniment and material support toward vulnerable people on the move.6
3
Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (November 24, 2013), http://w2.vatican.va/con-
tent/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-
ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html. (accessed February 11, 2020). Hereafter EG.
4
Gerard Mannion, “Francis’ Ecclesiological Revolution. A New Way of Being Church a
New Way of Being Pope,” in Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism. Evangelii Gaudium
and the Papal Agenda, edited by Gerard Mannion (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2017), 93–122.
5
The texts by Pope Francis on this subject since the beginning of his papacy in 2013 to the
end of 2019 have been collected, made available online and are constantly updated by the
Migrants and Refugees Section of the Vatican under the title Lights on the Ways of Hope. See
https://migrants-refugees.va/resource-center/collection/ (accessed February 11, 2020).
6
Here we will simply mention Francis’ visits to some highly symbolic peripheries of the
world indissolubly connected to migrants and refugees such as Lampedusa, Italy (July 8,
2013); Ciudad Juárez, Messico (February 18, 2016); Lesvos, Greece (April 16, 2016) with
the Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I and the Orthodox Archbishop of Athens Ieronymos.
17 THE “REFUGEE CRISIS” AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MISSIONARY… 149
The Refugee Crisis and Missionary Conversion

Much has been written about the recent “refugee crisis” in Europe from
different perspectives and it is not within the scope of this article to discuss
the contours and the variety of meanings that this complex phenomenon
has been taking on.7 For our purpose it is essential to understand that this
is not a crisis of material resources and spaces; or simply a question of
emergency and humanitarian relief; or the only critical refugee predica-
ment happening in the world today.8 This is first of all about the plight of
millions of people who have the courage and hope to flee from situations
of war, violence, injustice, inequality, exploitation of people and resources,
ecological degradation, and political and social instability. The causes of
these problems are to be found in a flawed world system in which European
countries that are receiving migrants and refugees are fully complicit.
Hence, from a European viewpoint, it is more a crisis of human and politi-
cal solidarity toward millions of people on the move, many of whom are
blocked in or returned to some transit countries such as Turkey, Libya and
Niger that are acting as a European border patrol thanks to agreements,
which include substantial financial support, that have been struck with the
European Union.9
Christian communities have not escaped the ethical and political dilem-
mas that the arrival of less than three millions refugees since 2014 has
posed to the European societies.10 It is not shocking to realize that on this
issue European Christianity has split between what Ulrich Schmiedel and
7
For examples of interpretation of this event from a religious and theological viewpoints,
see Ulrich Schmiedel and Graeme Smith, eds., Religion in the European Refugee Crisis (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018); Gioacchino Campese, “‘Why Are You Afraid? Have You
Still No Faith?’(Mk 4:40). Becoming a Pilgrim People of God,” in Challenged by Ecumenism.
Documentation of the Global Ecumenical Theological Institute – Berlin 2017, edited by Uta
Andrée et al. (Hamburg: Missionshilfe Verlag, 2018), 39–48; Gioacchino Campese, “A
People of God Who Remembers. Theological Reflections on a ‘Refugee Crisis’,” in Migration
and Public Discourse in World Christianity, edited by Afe Adogame et al. (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 2019), 215–27.
8
The United Nation Refugee Agency (UNHCR) website lists at least 11 other situations
of refugee emergency around the world, see https://www.unhcr.org/ (accessed February
11, 2020).
9
See Maurizio Ambrosini, “Siamo Tutti un Po’ Trump. Come la Gestione dell’Immigrazione
Accomuna le Due Sponde dell’Atlantico,” Regno Attualità 62, no. 4 (2017): 103–105.
10
The UNHCR provides a regularly updated summary of the data about the refugee crisis
in Europe; see https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean#_ga=2.123836426.
1497874057.1580400452-382241407.1579284215 (accessed February 11, 2020).
150 G. CAMPESE
Graeme Smith have depicted as two opposite ideal types: the “belongers”,
who use their faith to protect their churches and the Christian identity of
their lands from the invasion of strangers, in particular from Muslims; and
the “believers”, who maintain that the Christian faith motivates them to
be open and welcoming. As an example of this struggle, Schmiedel and
Smith have indicated the case of Pope Francis whose well-known concern
toward the refugees is not shared by many Roman Catholics in Europe,
among them some church leaders including bishops.11 While it would be
interesting to pursue the perceptive theological insights that these two
authors bring to this debate, the objective here is to show that the refugee
crisis is also a missionary and ecclesial crisis insofar as it raises the issue of
the missionary conversion of Christian churches whose main concern is
the defense of their spaces and identities, and not of the centrality of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ that has been entrusted to them to be announced
and witnessed to the ends of the earth. Mannion points out that this
“Gospel-centric vision” is at the heart of Francis’ understanding of the
church which does not exist for its own sake, but to live out the Gospel at
the service of the world and the whole of humankind.12 This is the crucial
insight that different scholars who are insisting on a missionary transfor-
mation of ecclesiology have emphasized and that the controversial and
challenging presence of refugees is bringing to the fore. Stephen Bevans
and Robert Schroeder in what has become a classic study in the field of
mission theology have put it in this way: “One of the most important
things Christians need to know about the church is that the church is not
of ultimate importance. […] The point of the church is rather to point
beyond itself, to be a community that preaches, serves and witnesses to the
reign of God.”13 This is also the stated goal of Francis’ papacy, an objective
11
U. Schmiedel and G. Smith, “Conclusion: The Theological Takeover,” Religion, 2018:
300–303. As an example of researches conducted to understand the impact of migration, and
in particular of the refugee crisis, on the Christian communities in Europe, see F.-V. Anthony,
“Italian Christian community vis-à-vis Immigrants. The Challenge of Evangelical
Hospitality,” Salesianum 81 (2019): 233–247.
12
Mannion, “Francis’ Ecclesiological Revolution,” 99.
13
Stephen B. Bevans – Roger P. Schroeder, Constants in Context. A Theology of Mission for
Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2004), 7. These two authors have begun to develop a mission-
ary ecclesiology in Stephen B. Bevans – Roger P. Schroeder, “Missionary Ecclesiology:
Evangelica, Ecumenical, and Catholic Developments in ‘Engaging the Nations’,” in
Contemporary Mission Theology: Engaging the Nations. Essays in Honor of Charles E. Van
Engen, edited by Robert L. Gallagher – Paul Hertig (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 2017), 57–67;
Stephen B. Bevans, “Beyond the New Evangelization: Toward a Missionary Ecclesiology for
that has been repeatedly highlighted in his discourses and homilies, and
which has been beautifully expressed in Evangelii Gaudium: “I dream of
a ‘missionary option’, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transform-
ing everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times
and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the
evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation” (EG
27). The complex reality of the refugees becomes a powerful reminder to
the Christian churches in Europe that their task is not to worry about
maintaining a pastoral and structural status quo, but to let themselves be
challenged by a world on the move in which they are called to announce
and practice the Gospel. In a very apt metaphor for migrants and refugees
who have to cross borders and go through gates at which they are required
to exhibit their documents, Pope Francis says that the church is true to
this mission only if acts as facilitator, and not referee of God’s grace: “But
the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is
a place for everyone, with all their problems” (EG 47).
The Refugee Crisis and Pastoral Conversion

A church that is going through a process of missionary conversion is a
church that cannot be satisfied with “mere administration” (EG 25); a
church which “seeks to abandon the complacent attitude that says: ‘We
have always done it this way’” in order to find bold and creative ways to
evangelize (EG 33); a merciful church, disciple of a merciful God, that is
committed to continue the “revolution of tenderness” started by Jesus
(EG 88)14; a church “bruised, hurting and dirty” (EG 49) that is not
afraid to take to the streets because it wants to be present in the peripher-
ies of history (EG 20); there are people such as migrants and refugees who
are struggling for survival, for equality and recognition. Cardinal Blase
the Twenty-First Century,” in A Church with Open Doors. Catholic Ecclesiology for the Third
Millennium, edited by Richard R. Gaillardetz and Edward P. Hahnenberg (Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press, 2015), 3–22. In this context, see the thoughtful comparison between
Bevans and Johannes Hoekendijk offered by D. T. Irvin, “For the Sake of the World: Stephen
B. Bevans and Johannes C. Hoekendijk in Dialogue,” International Bulletin of Mission
Research 44, no. 1 (2020): 20–32.
14
On mercy and tenderness as key theological terms of Pope Francis’ understanding of
God, mission and church, see Kurt Appel and Jakob Helmut Deibl, eds., Misericordia e
Tenerezza. Il Programma Teologico di Papa Francesco (Cinisello Balsamo: Edizioni San
Paolo, 2019).
152 G. CAMPESE
Cupich of Chicago, following Pope Francis’ lead, particularly in his

Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate,15 says that the baptismal call
to holiness is inseparable from the promotion of human dignity and justice
especially for the poor because it is there that Christians can meet Jesus
already at work.16 Missionary and pastoral conversion in this “age of
migration” is a journey of transformation of the Christian churches that
embark on a pilgrimage for justice and peace, as General Secretary of the
World Council of Churches Olav Fyske Tveit has often stated.17
The commitment to conversion has brought the Roman Catholic
Church to elaborate a pastoral strategy that has been inspired by the min-
istry with migrants and refugees. This strategy consists of four verbs: wel-
coming, protecting, promoting and integrating.18 These fundamental
guidelines are inseparable moments of one process that begins with the
essential attitude of being open and welcoming to those we consider
strangers, but also with the courage of putting oneself in the position of
being welcomed by a stranger; it continues with the protection of the
inviolable dignity and rights of any and all human beings; it strengthens
with the promotion of the integral development of the person in all his/
her dimensions; and it finally leads to integration, that is, the full and
active participation of that person in the life of the community. Here it is
necessary to remember that integration is not a unilateral approach such as
the usual term ‘assimilation’ suggests, but a bidirectional process in which
a reciprocal recognition and learning among migrants, refugees and
citizens happens, facilitating in this way the creation of a cohesive

15
Pope Francis, Gaudete et Exsultate (March 19, 2018), http://w2.vatican.va/content/
francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20180319_
gaudete-et-exsultate.html (accessed February 11, 2020).
16
Cardinal Blase Cupich, “Promoting Human Dignity Is Our Baptismal Call,” National
Catholic Reporter, January 25, 2020, https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/
cardinal-cupich-promoting-human-dignity-our-baptismal-call
17
O. F. Tveit, “Walking Together, Serving Justice and Peace,” Ecumenical Review 70, 1
(2018): 3–15.
18
The four verbs have been mentioned and explained for the first time by Pope Francis in
his address during the Forum “Migration and Peace” (February 21, 2017), http://w2.vati-
can.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2017/februar y/documents/papa-fran-
cesco_20170221_forum-migrazioni-pace.html (accessed February 11, 2020). They have
been reiterated by Pope Francis, Message World Day of Migrants and Refugees 2018
(January 14, 2018), http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/migration/
documents/papa-francesco_20170815_world-migrants-day-2018.html (accessed February
11, 2020).
community that appreciates and values diversity. In this way migrants and
refugees are not just on the receiving end of the charity and good deeds of
Christian churches, but they become the subjects of this ongoing spiral of
welcoming, protecting, promoting and integrating human beings in soci-
eties and Christian communities. The primary implication here is that the
“refugee crisis”, despite its ambiguity and complexity, does not only chal-
lenge and inspire Christian churches to missionary and pastoral conver-
sion, but could become the providential locus of the transformation of
societies and faith communities. A transformation that is possible only if
the gifts and insights that migrants and refugees bring to the table are
acknowledged and included. Following Pope Francis’ recognition of the
poor’s sensus fidei, that instinct of faith given by God to all believers to
discern God’s presence and will (EG 119, 198), it becomes imperative to
stress that a missionary and pastoral conversion of Christianity in this glo-
balized world requires the sensus fidei migrantium, that is, the faith, the
vision, the experience, the hope and the resilience of migrants and refu-
gees. In this sense, the refugee crisis cannot just be interpreted as a threat
to Christian identity, but as a providential opportunity for European
Christianity to rediscover the Gospel core of its mission.
CHAPTER 18
Blessed Pierre Claverie: Holiness in a World

Church
Darren J. Dias
On December 8, 2018, Pierre Claverie and 18 martyred companions were

beatified in an open-air liturgy in the brilliant afternoon sun in the coastal
city of Oran, Algeria. Claverie was the last of 19 Christians murdered
between 1994 and 1996. The declaration of beatification called the mar-
tyrs “faithful messengers of the Gospel, humble artisans of peace, remark-
able witnesses of Christian charity.”1 Indeed they were. Additionally,
however, the beatification has novel significance that reflects a specific his-
torical and cultural situation; namely the postcolonial reality of Algeria.
Claverie’s life and beatification are emblematic of the emergence of a
“world Church,” the shift from a colonial to postcolonial paradigm. The
appropriation of the postcolonial paradigm by Claverie represents a
significant change from a previous era in the Roman Catholic Church’s
relationship to Muslims, power, truth, and history and as a result its under-
standing of its mission. Further, in his beatification the Roman Catholic
1
The beatification is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr4dATWxQrk
D. J. Dias (*)
University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, ON, Canada

156 D. J. DIAS
Church sanctions these changed relationships holding up Claverie as an

authentic witness to Christian living.
“World Church”
Karl Rahner identifies three epochs in the history of the church.2 The first,
brief epoch was the proclamation of the kerygma in its original Jewish and
Semitic context. It ended with the Council of Jerusalem that began the
expansion of the church into the Gentile world. This long epoch lasted
until the mid-twentieth century. It encompassed the global extension of
European mercantile and political interests across the continents through
conquest, imperialism, and colonization. During this epoch a single nor-
mative culture (western) and religion (Christianity) was “exported” and
imposed on colonized peoples.3
The third, and current, epoch is the “world Church.” The Second
Vatican Council (1962–65) marks the Roman Catholic Church’s first
attempt to understand and actualize itself into a world Church. The
Council was global, but not monolithic. It was multi-national, multi-
cultural, and multi-linguistic. An awareness of the pluri-centrality of the
church in its localities is evidenced in the displacement of Latin by ver-
nacular languages for liturgy. The actualization of the world Church can-
not be attributed to genetic development, but to history and context. For
example, the rise of self-determination movements and the end of official
colonialism witnessed the emergence of more than 50 independent nations
between 1950 and 1980. In this postcolonial context, the world Church
was compelled to rethink church-state relationships, its relations with the
world’s religions, and its mission.
The Algerian Context

Pierre Claverie’s life spans the transition from a Western-European church
to the emerging world Church, specifically from the Algerian colonial to
postcolonial context. The French conquest of Algeria began in 1830 and
2
Karl Rahner, “Towards A Fundamental Interpretation of Vatican II,” Theological Studies
40 (1979): 716–27.
3
Rahner, Towards, 717.
18 BLESSED PIERRE CLAVERIE: HOLINESS IN A WORLD CHURCH 157
was complete by 1875 at the cost of nearly 900,000 Algerian lives.4

Political and economic colonialism was coupled with a civilizing and reli-
gious mission. One colonial official of the time wrote: “the Christian con-
version of Algerian Muslims [was] a duty that providence has bestowed
upon France.”5 The sentiment was echoed by Archbishop Allemand-
Lavigerie of Algiers, founder of the Missionaries of Africa, who in 1867
wrote to the governor of Algeria regarding their common enterprise:
“Algeria is only the door opened by Providence on a barbaric continent of
200 million souls. It is especially there that we must bring the Catholic
apostolate.”6
Mystic-hermit Charles de Foucauld who lived in Algeria from 1901
until his bungled assassination by bandits in 1916, lamented a lack of sup-
port from colonial authorities “who support and encourage the Moslem
religion! By doing this, they are committing a sort of suicide, for, I must
say it, Islam is our enemy.”7 Foucauld opposed the systematic exploitation
of Algerians for material gain because this hampered the civilizing mission
and conversions.8 With good reason, Christianity became “conjoined with
French colonialism” in the Muslim imaginary.9 This image of Christianity
was liberated only with Algerian independence and nationalism.
By 1954 the Front liberation nationale (FLN) called for an indepen-
dent Algerian state. Colonial intransigents allied with conservative
Catholics in opposing Algerian independence and called for the defense of
Christian civilization from the forces of Islam and communism. The dis-
course of defending the “Christian civilization” of Algérie francaise
became “one of the major ideological justifications for violent French
tactics.”10 In spite of the violent discourse and actions of minority groups
such as Organisation Armée secrete, Archbishop Duval of Algiers received
a friendly note from the leadership of the FLN affirming that Algerians
4
Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta
to Darfur (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 374.
5
Phillip C. Naylor, “Bishop Pierre Claverie and the Risks of Religious Reconciliation,” The
Catholic Historical Review, 96, no. 4 (2010): 720–42, here 723.
6
Ibid. 725.
7
Ibid. 726.
8
Robert Ellsberg, A Living Gospel: Reading God’s Story in Holy Lives (Maryknoll: Orbis
Books, 2019), 118–119.
9
Naylor, “Bishop Pierre Claverie”, 723.
10
Darcie Fontaine, “After the Exodus: Catholics and the Formation of Postcolonial
Identity in Algeria,” French Politics, Culture & Society 33, no. 2 (2015): 97–118, here 97.
158 D. J. DIAS
saw European settlers as “creatures of God” and condemned only the

actions of the intransigent settler minority.
The Algerian Church intentionally distanced itself from the French
state, opting instead to negotiate with the new Algerian authorities inde-
pendently. Duval’s claim “that the true ‘Christian’ attitude toward politi-
cal changes taking place in France and Algeria was peaceful and non-violent”
was met with hostility and violence by intransigent settlers, who named
him “Mohammed Duval.”11 The challenge for the church in independent
Algeria was to “reimagine how both the institutions and the practices of
Catholicism could function without the settler population at the core of
the church and without colonial state power.”12
The Association d’études was established in June 1962 to assist in the
de-colonization of the church. According to Denise Fontaine the first step
was “a recognition of their complicity in the colonial system, and an aware-
ness of how they were perceived by the Muslim population they lived
among.”13 Bernard Picinbono articulated the new mode of presence of the
church in Algeria: to announce the Gospel in a new language while trying
to understand Islam; to become a community of service; and to contribute
to the building of the new state. Before becoming an agent of reconcilia-
tion, the church of Algeria worked out its redemption as a “witness of love
through concrete actions.”14
Pierre Claverie of Algeria

Claverie was born into a pieds noirs family on May 8, 1938, in Algiers. He
lived in what he would later call a “colonial bubble” that separated Algerian
Muslims from European Christian settlers. In reflecting on growing up in
colonial Algeria Claverie writes:
I spent my childhood in a ‘colonial bubble,’ not that there were no relations

between the two worlds, far from that; but, in my social milieu, I lived in a
bubble, ignorant of the other, not encountering the other except as part of
the paysage or of the décor that was implanted in my collective existence.15
11
Ibid. 102.
12
Ibid. 100.
13
Ibid. 108.
14
Ibid. 110.
15
Pierre Claverie, Humanité plurielle (Paris: Cerf, 2008), 137, my translation.
The indigenous Algerian was an absent-present, rendered an object with

no existential value in the colonial bubble imposed by settlers. In his child-
hood Claverie says he was taught by the church to love his neighbor, but
never that the Arab was his neighbor.16
On December 7, 1958, Calverie entered the Order of Preachers in
France. He spent the conciliar era (1959–1967) at the Saulchoir where he
was introduced to new historical perspectives and pastoral studies by the
likes of M-D Chenu, Y. Congar and P-A. Liegé. Claverie completed his
military service in Algeria as a chaplain from 1962 to 1963.
The Algerian War of Independence occasioned an existential crisis that
began Claverie’s conversation from youthful settler to anti-colonial. The
“colonial bubble” was shattered by the violence of colonization.17
Claverie writes:
I came to my religious faith in the midst of the Algerian War […]. How
could I have lived in ignorance of this world, which demanded recognition
of its identity and dignity? […]. How could I so often have heard the words
of Christ about loving the Other like myself, like him, and never have met
that Other who was popping out like a bogeyman in our little universe?18
The world of the other––Algerian, Arab, Muslim––demanded recognition

of its existence, identity, and dignity after over a century of its denial. In
the wake of the self-affirmation of the other, Claverie writes:
Maybe because of my ignorance of the other or that I denied his existence,

one day, he jumped in front of my face. He exposed my closed universe, that
was devolving into violence – but how could it have been otherwise – and
he affirmed his existence.19
Upon his assignation to Algeria in 1967 Claverie began an intensive study

of Arabic. Arabic had been classified as a foreign language in 1930, and
along with other local languages, had been displaced by French in the
16
Ibid. 138.
17
Pierre Claverie, “Humanity in the Plural,” in Jean-Jacques Pérennès, A Life Poured Out,
trans. Phyllis Jestice and Matthew Sherry (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2007), 258.
18
Pierre Claverie, Ut Unum Sint, Bulletin de la province dominicaine de France (1981),
cited in Pérennès, A Life, 36.
19
Claverie, Humanité plurielle, 137.
160 D. J. DIAS
process of colonial ideological domination.20 In 1954, 90 percent of

Muslims were illiterate.21 Learning Arabic opened a world of meaning to
Claverie. In his address to his Arab friends on the occasion of his episcopal
ordination in 1981, Claverie declared:
I owe to you what I am … I lived as a stranger in my youth. With you, study-

ing Arabic, I have above all learned to speak and understand the language of
the heart, that of brotherly friendship, where all races and religions com-
mune together … this friendship is deeper than our differences … this
friendship comes from God and leads to God.22
Paradoxically, he realized that in learning the language of the other to

communicate he became acutely aware of “the abyss that separates”23
them––language, experiences, cultures, and religions. The other had
power to question the validity of one’s own world and to bestow blessing.24
Acknowledging the Muslim and Arab context in which he lived,
Claverie discovered that there were hundreds of millions of people who
lived differently than he, who experienced reality differently. Claverie
affirmed that each person is “a source that permits one to transgress obsta-
cles, burst bubbles, go toward the other.”25 The stranger-other can become
friend, but never the same. The history of colonialism taught Claverie that
reality cannot be conceived of singly, but only in the plural. There is a
danger in conceiving language, culture, history, religion, and even human-
ity in the singular:
to possess the truth or to speak in the name of humanity, we fall into a totali-
tarianism and exclusion. No one possesses the truth, each one searches for
it. Certainly there are objective truths, but they exceed everyone, and we
cannot access them except in a long journey and in reconstructing, little by
little, a component truth here and there, gleaning from other cultures, other
20
Malika Rebai Maamri, The State of Algeria, The Politics of a Post-Colonial Legacy (New
York: I. B. Tauris, 2016), 33.
21
Naylor, “Bishop Pierre Claverie”, 727.
22
Pierre Claverie, La semaine religieuse d’Alger (1981) in Pérennès, A Life, 101.
23
Pérennès, A Life, 66.
24
James L. Fredericks, “Interreligious Friendship: A New Theological Virtue,” Journal of
Ecumenical Studies, 35 (1998): 159.
25
Pierre Claverie, Petit Traité de la rencontre et du dialogue (Paris: Cerf, 2008), 47.
types of humanity, that which others have acquired, and discovered in their
own journey toward the truth.26
Claverie recognized the church’s entanglement in the colonial complex in

imposing a singular vision of truth for humanity. Furthermore, he acknowl-
edged that “the church helped to sustain a form of power in which it is
difficult even today to distinguish political from religious motives” and so
“has good reason to remain modest.”27
In spite of the earnest attempts of the Algerian church to repudiate its
colonial past and build a new nation in solidarity with indigenous peoples,
the violence that plagued the nation infiltrated the small Christian com-
munity beginning with the murders of the Marist Henri Vergès and
Assumptionist Paul-Helen St-Raymond on May 8, 1994. Claverie did not
hide his disappointment:
We know very well that there are some who consider us dangerous and
harmful influences of a colonial past and incorrigible enemies of Islam … We
continued nonetheless to believe that the trust and friendship of so many
Algerians would protect us.28
As the violence escalated, Claverie became increasingly vocal against radi-

cal Islam and its singularity of religious, political, and linguistic expression
that had infected Algeria. Claverie publicly witnessed to the value of
friendship, diversity, and dialogue and sharply condemned the brutal vio-
lence that would eventually take anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 lives
between 1991 and 2002. On August 1, 1996, Pierre Claverie and his
friend and driver Mohamed Bouchiki were assassinated when a bomb was
detonated in the episcopal residence. The blood of a Roman Catholic
bishop intermingled with that of his Muslim friend in a violent death
together.
26
Claverie, Humanité plurielle, 141, my translation.
27
Pierre Claverie in Pérennès, A Life, 151.
28
Pierre Claverie, Le Lien in Pérennès, A Life, 192.
162 D. J. DIAS
Saint Making in a World Church

Beatification and/or canonization is an authoritative statement of what
the church believes to be holy. It is the result of an in-depth process of
investigation and study at the local and universal levels. In beatification or
canonization the church imposes upon the faithful the memory of a per-
son, regionally or universally respectively.
The heroism of the martyr is remembered not only in the fact of his or
her death, but also for the integrity of the life she or he led in the face of
the possibility of death.29 On the significance of saints Karl Rahner says:
They [saints] are the initiators and the creative models of the holiness which
happens to be right for, and is the task of, their particular age. They create a
new style; they prove that a certain form of life and activity is a really genuine
possibility; they show experimentally that one can be Christian even in ‘this’
way; they make a certain type of person believable as a Christian type. Their
significance begins therefore not merely after they are dead. Their death is
rather the seal put on their task of being creative models, a task which they
had in the church during their lifetime, and their living on means that the
example they have given remains in the Church as a permanent form.30
Lawrence Cunningham claims that saints often “break” with current

understandings and practices of the faith because the “modes of doing
things do not seem to be sufficient for the cultural conditions.”31 The
blessed “testify to the possibility of sanctity […] germane to their time and
an example that stands historically as an enriching paradigm for the
future.”32
Claverie stood in the anti-colonial paradigm necessary for an authentic
world Church. Brazilian theologian Eduardo Hoornaert argues that in the
postcolonial paradigm of Latin America holiness includes “a protest
against Europe, the motherland of Catholicism, the type of Catholicism
29
Robert J Sarno, “Theological Reflection on Canonization,” in Canonization, Theology,
History, Process, edited by William H. Woestman, OMI (Ottawa: St Paul University,
2002), 12.
30
Karl Rahner, “The Church of the Saints,” in The Theology of the Spiritual Life, Theological
Investigations III (London: Longman & Todd, 1967), 100.
31
Lawrence Cunningham, The Meaning of Saints (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
Publishers, 1980), 78.
32
Ibid. 77.
that was transplanted into Latin American soil.”33 He goes on to say,

“Africa and Latin America reveal Europe to itself. It is difficult for
Europeans to recognise the seamy side of history without the help of this
revelation and this seamy side of history shows us […] a continuing form”
of colonialism.34 Unlike previous conceptions of holiness that grew out of
the context of Christendom, colonial holiness does not escape from nature
and history, but is a profound presence and attentiveness to culture and
commitment to history.35
Claverie’s beatification signals the emergence of a more authentic world
Church. His witness to holiness in a postcolonial context began with his
recognition of the sinfulness of colonialism that erased and alienated the
other. Further, Claverie was converted to the other and the world of the
other as is evidenced in his long engagement in the study of Arabic. He
eschewed the singular/normative understanding of culture, society, and
religion. His critique of Christian forms of colonialism was echoed in his
rejection of the imperialism of radical Islam. Claverie led a church that
embraced its lack of state power, on the “fault-lines” of humanity, in soli-
darity with the victims of history. His belief in human plurality and the
integrity of the other offered numerous authentic ways of being human.
Conclusion
The beatification liturgy, like Pierre Claverie himself, embodied the emerg-
ing world Church. Jean-Francois Bour notes several features.36 First, there
was the noticeable presence of Muslims, religious and civic leaders, who
occupied at least one-third of the space. Has there ever been a beatifica-
tion liturgy with such an impressive presence of Muslims? Second, Jean-
Paul Vesco, OP, Bishop of Oran, opened the liturgy with the voice of the
other by reading from Mohamed Bouchiki’s last testament. This testa-
ment, clearly written by someone facing the possibility of death, is a
33
Eduardo Hoornaert, “Models of Holiness Among People,” in Models of Holiness, edited
by Christian Duquoc and Casiano Floristan (New York: Seabury, 1979), 42.
34
Ibid. 42.
35
Claudio Leonardi, “From ‘Monastic’ Holiness to ‘Political’ Holiness,” in Models of
Holiness, 53–54.
36
Jean-Francois Bour, Essai de relecture théologique du geste inclusif dans les celebrations des
beatifications à Oran le 8 décembre 2018, conference given at Institut de pastorale, Montreal,
7 December 2019.
164 D. J. DIAS
witness to mercy and forgiveness.37 Last, after the papal declaration of

beatification, the traditional banner containing the portraits and names of
the newly beatified was unfurled. Amongst a sea of traditional Algerian
names written in blue in Arab and Latin script, representing the countless
victims of the civil war, were 20 names written in blood red, those of the
19 Christian martyrs and their Muslim companion, Mohamed. While
rooted in the depth of the Christian tradition, this postcolonial liturgy was
emblematic of new moment of encounter, dialogue, solidarity, and friend-
ship with the other.
The transition from the second epoch of the Church to a world Church
brings with it significant change. In the postcolonial paradigm, this change
is beyond the ambit of the church as it extends to the history and culture
in which the church is situated. Blessed Pierre Claverie offers a model,
officially recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, of how a settler
community, previously engaged in the project of colonization, can respond
to this change, to reimagine and reconfigure itself and to authentically
witness to the Christian faith.
37
Mohamed Bouchicki, “Testament spirituel de Mohamed Bouchicki,” Le Lien 391
(2014) 2, https://eglise-catholique-algerie.org/images/publications/le-lien/lien_201405_
06.pdf
CHAPTER 19
Changing the Church: An African

Theological Reflection
Stan Chu Ilo
The African Church and the Contestations

for Tradition and Innovation in the Church Today
Cardinal Sarah’s influence in the World Church and in Africa offers a good
starting point for exploring the meaning of change in the church and what
this means for Africa. In 2015, at a workshop organized by the Symposium
of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM), to articu-
late Africa’s position on the synod on the family, Cardinal Sarah was insis-
tent that Africans should speak with one clear and credible voice at that
synod. The Synod on the family brought out all the divisive doctrinal and
moral fault lines in contemporary Catholicism.1 Sarah’s desire for the
Catholic Church to be a strong and unshakeable bastion of truth in a
changing ecclesial, cultural, and historical landscape has drawn a lot of
1
“Ghana: Speak with One Voice, Cardinal Sarah Tells African Bishops”, June 12, 2015
previously at: http://cisanewsafrica.com/ghana-speak-with-one-voice-cardinal-sarah-
tells-african-bishops-on-synod/
S. C. Ilo (*)
DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA

166 S. C. ILO
admiration and criticism in Africa.2 His book, From the Depths of our
Hearts: Priesthood, Celibacy and the Crisis of the Catholic Church, like some
of his writings and interviews, has been received with mixed reactions.
Many traditionalists, particularly in the West, see Sarah perhaps as the
most visible torchbearer and defender of tradition and orthodoxy against
what they fear are the false reforms and changes being made in the Church
by Pope Francis. This fear was captured somewhat cryptically by New York
Times essayist, Ross Douthat, when he wondered: “How does one change
an officially unchanging church? How does one alter what is not supposed
to be in your power to remake?”3 What is of concern for many African
theologians is that people erroneously identify Sarah’s views and writings
as representative of a presumed traditionalism of contemporary African
Catholicism, as if the conservative views of German Cardinal Müller are
representative of the position of the European church on the contested
issues in the church today. This so-called African conservatism is often
presented as an attachment to a purist notion of doctrines and morality on
one hand, and an ahistorical appropriation of images and structures of the
church on the other. African Catholics, the thinking goes, wish to preserve
the notion of an unchanging church with an unchanging truth. However,
this is a very simplistic over-generalization.
Writing in Presence-Information Religieus, under the title, “What
Interests does Cardinal Sarah Serve?” French theologian, Jocelyn Girard
makes some important points about the wider implications of Sarah’s the-
ology. These points will be employed to clarify the huge difference between
the theological opinion of an influential African Cardinal on the funda-
mental teachings of the Church on faith, morals, and church traditions;
and the faith, morality and theologies of African Catholics and their
dynamic actual faith in their response to the demands of the Gospel.
According to Girard, when one studies the writings of Cardinal Sarah one
would be right in regarding him more as “the most European of all the
Cardinals” than as an African theologian. Girard also suggests that Sarah’s
2
Lucie Sarr, “The Image Cardinal Sarah Cuts in Africa”, January 29, 2020 at: https://
international.la-croix.com/news/the-image-cardinal-rober t-sarah-cuts-in-
africa/11709?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_
content=30-01-2020&utm_campaign=newsletter_crx_lci&PMID=ddbec16e7171a2ec54
1cb21608196675 (accessed February 17, 2020).
3
Ross Douthat, To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism (New
York: Simon & Schuster, 2018), 101.
19 CHANGING THE CHURCH: AN AFRICAN THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION 167
views show the success of a ‘dogmatic colonialism’ which was imposed on

the young churches of Africa.4
This ‘dogmatic colonialism’ undermines the work of inculturation in non-
Western churches and forces some many African prelates and scholars to
become restorationist in their thinking. Some of these African prelates base
their theologies and pastoral practices on the wrong assumption that there
was once an ideal church in Europe, which had no internal differentiation and
doctrinal contestations or cultural mediation. Dogmatic colonialism gives
birth to opposition to the decentralization of the church and contextualiza-
tion. In doing this, it negates the contextual nature of the Gospel and the
church in preference for a centralized and authoritarian church that controls
what happens in local churches from Rome. In addition, it promotes a nor-
mative ecclesiology, a highly structured and hierarchical church and a baroque
and manualist theology. This kind of closed system approach to doctrine, the-
ology and pastoral life effectively undermines the ability of local churches to
respond to the challenges and opportunities, which confront God’s people in
a particular faith context using their own cultural resources.
Change in the Church in Africa: Resistance

Versus Enthusiasm
Given the fact that modern European missionary work in Africa was born
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the heat of anti-
modernist currents in the Catholic Church, one must pay greater atten-
tion to the internal struggle today among African clerics and theologians.5
This struggle is about fidelity and orthodoxy with regard to responding to
the needs of African Christian communities and societies on one hand,
while on the other hand maintaining the unity of beliefs, practices and
morality within the Roman Catholic Communion.
Like other parts of the world today, Africa is caught up in the contesta-
tion about modernity and history. She is caught in the throes of ideologi-
cal, economic and political processes which are not for the most part of
her own making. The greater convergence to the global community and
4
Jocely Girard, “Quels Intérêt sert le Cardinal Sarah”, Présence: Information Religieuse,
January 21, 2020 at: http://presence-info.ca/article/opinion/quels-interets-sert-le-cardi-
nal-sarah- (accessed February 17, 2020).
5
See Joseph A. Komonchak, “Modernity and the Construction of Roman Catholicism”,
Christianismo nella Storia 18 (1987): 353–365.
168 S. C. ILO
integration into World Catholicism which was promised her in both the
colonial and post-colonial phases of her history in politics and in the mis-
sionary and post-missionary phase of her history in Christianity appears to
be a will-o’-the-wisp. This has generated different forms of fragmentation
in Africa and social tension and unease. Many Africans are looking for ‘a
sacred canopy’ where they can find some stability in a sea of change and
uncertainty. This is why one could see a movement away from this present
history in Africa by many younger African scholars and a retrogression by
the older generation to the past in search of traces from it which could
give some stability both in the church and in the state.
The resistance to change by some prelates and theologians in Africa
harks back to the unfortunate notion of occidentalization of the church
rejected by most African theologians and scholars before and after Vatican
II. The notions of normative Eurocenric thinking built on an anti-modern
homogenous Christianity were promoted in Africa by Archbishop Lefebvre
(who later led the resistance to the changes and reforms of Vatican II). As
papal Prefect for the whole of Francophone Africa before the Second Vatican
Council, his influence shaped the understanding of doctrine, church, and
theology in the Catholic Church and particularly in Africa among a few cler-
ics who insist on a ‘closed system’ and rigid understanding of doctrine and
of history. However, this understanding of orthodoxy in the Catholic
Church goes back to the early times in which, to use the words of Vincent
of Lérins (d. before 450), the teaching of the church was believed always
(semper), everywhere (ubique) and by everyone (ab ominibus).
The truth is that most African Catholics wish to see a changed church
in Africa because they are unsatisfied with the status quo in their local
churches and in the social and political situation in the continent. African
bishops in the early 1970s already publicly challenging the narrow under-
standing of orthodoxy as a total package and an ecclesiological prototype
neatly packaged in Europe and unquestionably accepted by African
churches. In a very prophetic statement by the Symposium of the Episcopal
Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) in their 1974 document,
“Co-Responsibility in the Church”, African bishops committed them-
selves to promoting theological pluralism and contextual pastoral minis-
tries in Africa. Some of these bishops advocated for married clergy, for a
greater role for the laity and women, for Africa’s own criteria and norms
for religious life, and for self-reliant churches in Africa, which did not
depend on Rome for doctrinal guidance and supervision and for financial
sustenance.
Unfortunately, this ferment of renewal, contextualization, and pro-

phetic engagement with the ambiguity of the African political and social
context was quenched through a strong enforcement of orthodoxy and
the deliberate design by John Paul II to purge the African hierarchy of
progressive bishops in the 1970s and 1980s. In spite of this, African
Catholics continue today to hunger for a servant church whose structures,
priorities, and practices reflect the everyday faith and social condition of
God’s people. Many African theologians are quietly working in the mar-
gins and through theological and social networks to develop new ecclesio-
logical images, social praxis, and new theological grammar from the actual
faith and resilience of ordinary Africans.
Most African Christians are concerned today with how to get their daily
bread, and how they can gain access to healthcare services and how they
can find the money to send their children to school. Many African Christians
are concerned about how the church could be inculturated in Africa and
become a truly African church that is close to the people, immersed in the
daily lives of the people and capable of speaking from the dumps of history.
African Christians are concerned about sickness, diseases, epidemics, and
pandemics; they face the challenges of religious competition within the
Christian churches and religious persecution in those countries and regions
with a Muslim majority. African Christians worry that some religious
authorities in some African dioceses and religious communities still have
the ‘mentality of princes’ condemned by Pope Francis which has created
the widening social distance in many parts of Africa between church leaders
and the ordinary Christians. African Christians want to see how their faith
can strengthen their agency in their desire for human and cosmic flourish-
ing and how to eliminate the use and abuse of religious authority, pseudo-
religious practices, and fragmentation in their societies. Most religious
people in Africa will love to see a greater collaboration and partnership
between different religions and closer ecumenical relations among church
denominations in Africa so that they can work together to solve the daily
problems and challenges facing millions of Africans today.
How Does Change Occur in the Church?

John O’Malley argues for an understanding of changes in the church in
two ways: sometimes changes occur from above, for instance, through a
conciliar act or the acts of a pope or a prominent church leader. On the
other hand, changes can occur from below through the lives of the saints
170 S. C. ILO
and everyday Christians, which could bring about a spiritual movement, a

tradition of holiness, a radical Gospel-driven social movement or evangeli-
cal poverty to serve the least of the brothers and sisters. Changes from
below could also happen through the birth of a religious community,
which radically changes the face of the church in her structures, sense of
mission and overall identity.6 In all instances, changes occur when the
church and her members embrace an open narrative of the faith, culture,
conversion and the infinite capacity of the Gospel to bring treasures both
new and old rather than a closed narrative (Matthew 13: 52).
Viewed in this light, changes in the church should not be understood
in our times simply as the act of one pope or a cardinal. Rather, change in
the Church must be seen as an organic process, which is occurring in the
Church through the surprises of the Holy Spirit working in the whole
people of God through the planting of many mustard seeds in the soil of
faith in the rich harvest of the Lord. Those who have eyes can see these
signs of changes even in these uncertain times. This demands a greater
sensitivity to the footprints of God in history and to those new sites of
hope particularly in our parishes and our streets, cities and hamlets.
Change is taking place in the simple faith and prophetic witness of many
ordinary faithful in their response to God in their faith commitments bear-
ing the wounds and weight of sin and evil in the world. Pope Francis has
been insistent in his teaching that the faith of ordinary people is the great-
est source of renewal for the Church––the faith of everyday Christians is
like the Church’s ‘immune system.’7
Whereas the battles over celibacy, same-sex marriage, clerical abuse, and
the role of women are contested issues in the World Church, they are less
divisive and contentious in Africa. These divisive arguments in the West have
also effectively eliminated confronting other concerns from the margins in
Africa and the Global South such as poverty, immigration, religious persecu-
tion, global health, violence against women, abuse of religious authorities,
racism, ethnocentrism among other challenges. The preoccupation with the
culture wars of the West by non-Westerners reflects the drama of our times
where the cultural battles of the West have become the template through
which many people view the challenges facing the Catholic Church. This
6
John O’Malley, “The Hermeneutic of Reform: A Historical Analysis”, David
G. Schultenover, ed. 50 Years on: Probing the Riches of Vatican II (Collegeville, Minnesota:
Liturgical Press, 2015), 8.
7
Austen Ivereigh, Wounded Shepherd: Pope Francis and his Struggle to Convert the Catholic
Church (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2019), 331.
makes it difficult for the World Church to listen to what the Spirit is saying
through the spirituality and moral traditions of non-Western societies and
the emergence of new Catholic spirituality and traditions of healing among
others––which might help the church in her mission of bringing about a
new heaven and a new earth.
Changing the Church by Embracing

the Humility of God
My first proposal is that change in the church is inevitable. Cardinal

Suenens noted that the church is always in transition and recalled that
Pope John XXIII used to say: ‘They call me a transition Pope […]. It is
true, but the continuity of the Church is made up of transition after
transition.’8 However, such changes will not occur through our human
achievement or the conquest of one theological party over the other.
Change in the Church will not be the result of theological and regional
alliances and compromises. Changes, which emerge from such alliances,
do not have deep roots and enduring value. Changes in the church also
will not come about simply because one is for Pope Francis or for Pope
Benedict. In the past, changes occurred in the church from above; in the
future changes will occur more from the base, in a diffused manner, and
away from the heartland of Christianity through the surprises of the Holy
Spirit and the gift of conversion of worldviews, attitudes, resistance, which
will pull down our enslavement to cultures, traditions, and settled struc-
tures of power and privilege of one’s race, nation, tribe, creed, gender, or
social class.
The fundamental questions are: what kinds of changes does the church
need in order to be faithful to her mission and reflect the will of her
founder and in order that the Gospel will be proclaimed fruitfully in the
world? What criteria should be used in judging any changes which emerge
in the life of the church which can give the faith community a common
meaning, a distinctive form? What kinds of changes are capable of reflect-
ing some of the family traits of apostolicity, catholicity, holiness, and unity
which can bring about some shared sense of Christian identity and
experience?
8
Leon-Joseph Suenens, “Co-Responsibility: Dominating Idea of the Council and Its
Pastoral Consequences” in Theology of Renewal Vol II: Renewal of Religious Structures, edited
by L. K. Shook (Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1968), 9.
172 S. C. ILO
What is obvious is that change in the church is not something that can
be brought about simply through the current tone and divisiveness in the
World Church whether by the conservative defenders of orthodoxy or
progressives who are uncomfortable with what they see as a tired and old
church which needs to change or die. Change in the Church will come
through the humility of God. As Gerard Mannion rightly proposed:
Not only Rahner, but Aquinas and so many before him, helped remind
Christians that they need both existential and epistemological humility and
therefore ecclesial humility when faced with the absolute mystery of the lov-
ing being of God that has brought us into being and charges our being with
so much grandeur in each and every moment of its continuation.9
Ilia Delio similarly asked the important question: “What would the
world be like if Christians actually believed in a humble God? If following
a God of poverty and humility led them to abandon their opinions, preju-
dices and judgements so they could be more open to love others where
they are, like God.”10
I would like to rephrase this question: What would the Catholic Church
look like if we believed in a humble God? What would our doctrines,
structures, hierarchy, mission and teaching look like if we believe and
embrace the humility of God? Some important aspects of the humility of
God come to mind. The first is the aspect of God’s total availability and
gratuity because of God’s humility. In his prayer at the consecration of the
temple in Jerusalem, King Solomon wonders in words, which reflect
deeply the divine condescension (synkatabasis): “But will God really dwell
on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How
much less this temple I have built!” (1 Kings 8: 27). Second is that God
bends down to creation out of humility. God empties God’s self in order to
become totally and fully available to humanity and the entire creation.
God does not hold anything to God’s self, but gives everything away to us
and in Jesus Christ God becomes broken and empty in order to bring human-
ity and all creation into the family of God. Humility is the means and goal
9
Gerard Mannion, “Response: Ecclesiology and the Humility of God: Embracing the Risk
of Loving the World”, in Ecclesiology and Exclusion: Boundaries of Being and Belonging in
Postmodern Times, edited by Dennis Doyle, Timothy Furry and Pascal Bazzell (Marynoll,
NY: Orbis Books, 2012), 33.
10
Ilia Delio, The Humility of God: A Franciscan Perspective (Cincinnati: Franciscan Media,
2005), 31.
of God’s mission in creation and God’s humility means that God the
changeless one, does change by becoming one like us in order to make
humanity become like God.
The humility of God is also the means through which God becomes
more loving and merciful because God is able to understand our human
frailty. The beauty of God’s humility is the lack of rigidity and stubborn-
ness; and the creative and renewing force, which issues from this manner
of divine action. Pope Francis invites the Church to embrace the humility
of God. He teaches in Evangelii Gaudium that a church, which goes forth
(24), cannot leave things the way they are (25), but must commit herself
to ‘a pastoral and missionary conversion.’ Missionary conversion today
can be facilitated through a humble Church which is not a prisoner to her
past or afraid of the future or obsessed with her self-preservation (27) or
with the “transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently
imposed” (35).
Embracing the humility of God will lead church leaders and theolo-
gians to embrace their own vulnerability and abandon the excessive attach-
ment to power and the pride of self, which closes the doors to further
insight, and refinement of one’s position. Humility will help church lead-
ers and theologians abandon the rigid defense of timeworn images and
teachings and time-encrusted theological battles, which have turned every
issue in our church today into a minefield of attacks and counter-attacks.
Only humble and broken Christians can see the beauty and truth of God
in everything especially in unusual sites and the wounded face of a world
that is constantly in need of redemption. Only humble and vulnerable
church leaders can connect to a wounded humanity today in our common
search for something beautiful.
Conclusion
Human communities are not fossilized in time. Communities of faith are
like the Word of God in its encounter with life. The biblical readers grow
in the Word and the Word grows in them. In the same vein, communities
of faith grow through theological reflection, and theological reflections
receive sources for newness by being grounded in the communities of
faith. If this is true, then it means that every theology can grow and every
community of faith grows beyond the restrictions of cultures and histori-
cally conditioned factors as it moves unrelentingly into the infinite horizon
of the God of love, light, and hope. The possibility of change is rooted in
174 S. C. ILO
the Christian logic of the perfectibility of humans who are called by God
into a life, which stretches beyond the human horizon. Believing in the
possibility of change in the church is an act of faith that opens the hearts
of all Christians, scholars and leaders in the church to the gift of conver-
sion, which the Spirit of Truth stimulates, in a willing heart. God always
offers us more. Thus, being patient in the face of the things that we cannot
change now is an act of humility in the God who can offer us more than
we can ever imagine if we hold on in unfailing faith to the rich truths of
the Gospel, while working with courage and hope for a better church and
a better world.
CHAPTER 20
The Revolutionary Power of the Church
Debora Tonelli
Change helps the Church stay young and vital. Sometimes the Church
adapts to change initiated by others, sometimes she leads the change, trig-
gering a real revolution. The Vatican II is one fundamental stage of the
contemporary Church, showing that she contains in herself the seed of its
own regenerations. Theologians must allow the seeds to sprout, welcom-
ing the challenges of the contemporary world, turning them in
opportunities.
Sometimes the change is a way to adapt to the contemporary world,
and at other times the change requires a true revolution, within and out-
side the Church. In this last case, she realizes her prophetic vocation, in
continuity with her Biblical roots. But what does it mean to talk of “revo-
lution”? The first section will deal with this keyword as a political interpre-
tation of both the Biblical tradition and the Church: biblical hermeneutics,
ecclesiology and politics, in fact, converge in many respects. The revolu-
tionary power of the Biblical tradition, the prophetic vocation of the
Church in the world, the need to implement the Vatican Council, and the
need to put human beings at the center of economic and political choices
D. Tonelli (*)
Bruno Kessler Foundation, Trento, Italy

176 D. TONELLI
are themes of the contemporary Church and of theology in continuity

with their tradition.
My thesis is that the revolutionary power of both is essential to the
Biblical tradition and the Church. To remain faithful to it, the Church
must take charge of this revolutionary power. Both, Biblical tradition and
the Church are alive if they maintain a dialogue with the different cultures
of the world and its contemporary challenges, and do not yield to the
temptation to fix themselves in a static doctrine or institutional structure.
To explain the meaning of “revolution”, I will refer to a recent event:
the Ratzinger Prize of 2019. Awarding this prize to Paul Béré expresses
the need and desire to overcome historical barriers (of colonialism) to
make the Church “universal” in order to realize the Gospel message. To
be “universal”, the Church and theology cannot be the extension of
Europe or of the Roman tradition; they need to be open to living human
experience and cultures. The close dialogue between Christian tradition
and cultures will enable the revolutionary power of the Church to be put
into practice.
Following this path, I will focus on the contribution of African theol-
ogy and on the need for an inclusive and enculturated theology, that is, the
incorporation of elements of African religious reality into the process of
interpreting the biblical text. The conclusion will be focused on the change
of perspective needed to put human beings at the center of the Church’s
message, beyond a specific cultural background. A decolonized theology
can suggest a good answer to this issue: the human being must again be
the common goal rather than any political and economic interests and
without the fear of losing the “Christianity’s” monopoly.
Changing the Church: Revolutionary Power

of the Biblical Tradition
The word “revolution” comes from the Latin revolutio meaning “a turn
around” and it belongs properly to the political sphere. Discussing this
idea, Aristotle refers to the changing of a constitution (1) to another and
(2) to a modification of an existing constitution.1 In the Western tradition,
“revolution” belongs to the political context, but by the late fourteenth
century, the word was used to refer to the revolving motion of celestial
1
Aristotle, Politics, Book V.
20 THE REVOLUTIONARY POWER OF THE CHURCH 177
bodies. In general, the word is historically used for social, political, legal
and/or economical radical changing.
In the context of the Christian tradition, “revolution” is sometimes
used to emphasize the power of the Biblical tradition or of the Church to
change the social and political status. In Exodus and Revolution,2 Michael
Walzer has shown the part where the Exodus served as a model for later
sociopolitical revolutions. The theological tradition sustained the capacity
for criticism of the Biblical tradition—the capacity to say that things could
be different from the way they are, and to formulate new criteria for elabo-
rating alternatives.3 The biblical God is a liberator and a conqueror, both
political and military.4 His actions are absolutely earthly (14:15–15:21;
Josh. 1:1–5; Judges 4–5; etc.). Besides this, the failure, on the part of the
Jews, to recognize Jesus as Messiah was caused by the fact that he was not
the military and political leader that many expected. However, he exer-
cised a role of profound renewal of traditional religion (Matt. 12:1–14;
Mark 11:15–19; Luke 19:45–48; John 2:13–22). Jesus criticized Jews,
which had become a list of precepts. His purpose was to rediscover the
deep meaning of that ancient faith. We know the consequence of his
preaching.
In one way, the consequence of revolution is the innovation in the
social–political–legal and/or economic space. We cannot be revolutionary
without being innovative or prophetic. However, we know that the
Church and believers have also acted in the other way, interpreting sacred
texts in order to maintain the status quo or to exploit them or even prevent
social changes.5 The fact that the Biblical tradition has been used to legiti-
mize and to delegitimize social practices and beliefs says something about
its influence in social and political contexts.
2
Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolution (New York: Basic Books, 1985). See also Bruce
Lincoln (ed.) Religion Rebellion and Revolution. An Interdisciplinary and Cross-Cultural
Collection of Essays (New York: St Martin Press, 1985).
3
Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018).
4
Jean-Daniel Causse, Élian Culliver and André Wénin, eds, Divine Violence: Approche
exégétique et anthropolique (Paris: CERF 2011); Debora Tonelli, Immagini di violenza
divina nell’ Antico Testamento (Bologna: Dehoniane, 2014). See also Giles Constable et al.,
eds., Il secolo XII: la “renovatio” dell’Europa cristiana (Annali dell’Istituto storico Italo-
Germanico in Trento, Quaderni, 62) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2003).
5
Leo Lefebure and Debora Tonelli, “African American and Dalit Interpretations of the
Bible: A Way of Socio-Political Innovation,” Annali di studi religiosi 19, (2018): 73–93, doi:
https://doi.org/10.14598/Annali_studi_relig_19201806
178 D. TONELLI
When the Church has acted consistently with the Biblical tradition, it
has been revolutionary, innovative, prophetic, triggering processes of pro-
found change. Among the numerous examples, I recall the legal revolu-
tion led by Pope Gregory VII.6 He created a new system of canon law,
which was the first European legal system. In so doing, the Pope triggered
a real social revolution, unifying society by canon law, by the establishment
of the rule of law as a firm principle and by making the Catholic Church
the central juridical organization in all of Europe. As Berman underlines,
this revolution was the first in a series of six Western revolutions—the later
ones being the Reformation and the English, American, French and
Russian revolutions. This ability to implement profound changes is per-
haps one of the reasons for the Catholic Church’s longevity. To push the
point further, it is by its understanding of social needs, with the capacity
to respond to them, that the Church expresses the revolutionary essence
of the Biblical tradition. The truth of the Good News must be continually
updated in response to social needs. This means that if the Church becomes
an immutable institution and the Biblical tradition a sterile doctrine, they
are both betraying their mission.
In the light of this consideration of the essentially revolutionary power
of the Sacred Texts and the Church in history, I will now reflect on African
theology. It represents, in fact, one of the most significant challenges to
the renewal of the contemporary Church.
African Theology
In November 2019, the prestigious Ratzinger Prize was awarded to
Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor and to the African biblical scholar
Paul Béré. In his speech of thanks, Béré underlined the prophetic value of
the prize for African biblical studies (ABS). On the occasion of the prize,
Pope Francis pointed out that contemporary African theology is still
young but dynamic and full of promise.7 The importance of the African
interpretation of the biblical tradition is twofold: on the one hand, it con-
sists in fully realizing African culture, in continuity and in dialogue with its
oral traditions. On the other hand, it urges the Church to remain alive by
6
Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition
(Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1983).
7
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-11/pope-francis-ratzinger-prize-
taylor-bere.html (accessed March 1, 2020).
trying to answer the urgent questions of our time. The dialogue and the
inclusion of ABS and African theology are among the challenges of the
contemporary Church, but also the source for her changing.
The African Continent is composed of 54 countries, characterized by a
strong spirituality and by a variety of religions: several Christian denomi-
nations, Islam, animist religions, and traditional religions live together,
which makes it difficult to map their memberships. However, this does
allow us to focus on the spiritual vivacity of the African continent.
Alongside this fact, we must take into account the social, political and
economic challenges, to which European Christianity has no way of
responding. Against this horizon, the contribution of ABS is indispensable
in order to make the Bible able to speak in that specific cultural context.
This means that
ABS can be characterized both as innovative and reactionary: Innovative,

because it refuses to be confined by the methodologies, ancient concerns,
and principles that govern biblical studies in the “west”. […] Reactionary,
because its driving force is partly a critique of the inadequacy of western
biblical studies in providing meaningful responses to concerns that are per-
tinent to African communities. A genuine ABS is therefore an amalgamation
of multiple interpretive methods, approaches and foci that reflect a creative
engagement of the Africa cosmological reality and the Bible.8
African biblical hermeneutics engages in a dialogue with the daily life of

African people, with their traditions and their traditional beliefs. Christian
tradition and enculturated theology are proceeding together: the chal-
lenge is to combine African culture and Christian tradition. On one side,
there is the need for appropriation9; on the other side, there is the need to
overcome the prejudice about the contribution of African culture to
Christianity.10 This means recognizing “the African reality as an authentic
beginning point in the Bible’s interpretative process”.11
8
Andrew M. Mbuvi “African Biblical Studies: An Introduction to an Emerging Discipline”,
Currents in Biblical Research 15, no. 2 (2017): 149–178, 149.
9
Musa W. Dube et al., eds., Postcolonial Perspectives in African Biblical Interpretations
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 1–28.
10
Ukachukwu Chris, Intercultural Hermeneutics in Africa: Methods and Approaches
(Nairobi: Acton, 2003), iii–iv.
11
Mbuvi, “African Biblical Studies,” 161.
180 D. TONELLI
Although there is no space to discuss this any further, I am interested

in directing our attention to the importance of a lively theological reflec-
tion starting with real life and insisting on adequate theological answers.
To do this, we need to look at the world not as an extension of Europe and
her tradition, but as an interlocutor able to contribute to the understand-
ing and implementation of the revolutionary and prophetic vocation of
the Biblical tradition.
Decolonized Theology
The implementation of Vatican II is necessary for the Church to change
and, from my point of view, such implementation is possible when we
rediscover the revolutionary power of the Biblical tradition and of the
Church. I briefly explained the meaning of “revolution” which, with refer-
ence to the Church, can mean its “prophetic vocation”. The example of
the ABS is a way of turning our attention to one of the most important
contemporary challenges, but also one of the sources of the process of
change itself which is the dialogue with African culture.
The need for an enculturated theology highlights another important
point: a pure Christianity does not exist and never existed.12 This means
that European Christianity is as enculturated as is Christianity elsewhere.
Its “duration” does not imply its purity, but simply evokes other historical
contingencies, such as the possibility of imposing her own culture on oth-
ers. With the end of the official colonialism—even if it is in many respects
still active—African culture needs a process of deep de-colonialization of
her traditions, her culture and her beliefs. The issue at stake is not only
religious, but also political, cultural and a matter of identity.13 How is it
possible for African culture to be part of the Church without making its
own contribution? How is it possible to be a part of the Church if it does
12
As Peter Phan explains: “The conventional narrative of Christianity as a Western religion,
that is, one that originated in Palestine but soon moved westward, with Rome as its final
destination, and from Rome as its epicenter, spread worldwide, belies the fact that in the first
four centuries of Christianity, the most active and successful centers of mission were not
Europe but Asia and Africa, with Syria as the center of gravity. But even Asian Christians
outside West Asia can rightly boast an ancient and glorious heritage, one that is likely as old
as the apostolic age.” P. Phan, “Reception of and Trajectories for Vatican II in Asia,”
Theological Studies 74, no. 2 (2013): 306.
13
Kwame Bediako, Christianity in Africa: The Renewal of Non-Western Religion
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996).
not recognize my “language”, my world of meanings? The translation of

the Bible into African languages makes it possible to link sacred texts to
social realities, arriving at an authentic African interpretation.14 This is the
first step to overcoming the colonial past: the spread of Christianity in the
modern age, in fact, is strongly linked to the arrival of missionaries and
therefore to the European imperialism and colonialism.15 The African
translations and hermeneutics are a means for making an interaction
between reality and theology, rediscovering the revolutionary and pro-
phetic vocation of both biblical tradition and Church, and of putting the
human being in the center, beyond cultural appurtenances:
Mothers Superior (of religious orders) are already Asian or African or Latin
American. As Europeans, it is left to us to hand on the baton in life’s relay
race. Christianity does not need to be a powerful majority. God has not
founded any nation, any factory, that must always be best, prevail, annex
other factories, but it has planted seeds, minorities, which suddenly can
sprout and grow […] to be minorities, but without backing away, without
turning ourselves into a sect, but in all this to be a Church with a world-
wide breath.16
Responding to this challenge does not mean losing something as

Westerners. There is nothing to be afraid of what we have to let go of our
Western inheritance and rise to the challenge fully to realize our Christian
vocation.
14
Gosnell L. O. R. Yorke, “Bible Translation in Africa: An Afrocentric Interrogation of the
Task” in Postcolonial Perspectives, edited by Dube et al., eds., 152–170.
15
Lamin Sanneh, Translating the message: The Missionary Impact on Culture (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 1989).
16
Elmar Salman, Il respiro della benedizione. Spiragli per un ministero vivibile (Assisi:
Cittadella Editrice, 2010), 47.
CHAPTER 21
The Implications of Transient Migration

and Online Communities for Changing
the Church in Asia
Jonathan Y. Tan
Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, sociologists are differenti-

ating between “transient migration” as distinct from “permanent migra-
tion.” Transient migration results from transnational forces that shape
recurrent migrations rather than a singular, linear, and unidirectional
migration. In a seminal essay entitled “From International Migration to
Transnational Diaspora,”1 John Lie asserts that the classic immigration
narrative of a “singular, break from the old country to the new nation” is
no longer tenable or viable in view of a world that is becoming increas-
ingly global and transnational.2 As he explains:
1
J. Lie, “From International Migration to Transnational Diaspora,” Contemporary
Sociology 24 no. 4 (1995): 303–306.
2
Lie, “International Migration,” 303.
J. Y. Tan (*)
Religious Studies Department, Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, OH, USA

184 J. Y. TAN
It is no longer assumed that immigrants make a sharp break from their

homelands. Rather pre-immigration networks, cultures, and capital remain
salient. The sojourn itself is neither unidirectional nor final. Multiple, circu-
lar and return migrations, rather than a single great journey from one sed-
entary space to another, occur across transnational spaces. People’s
movements, in other words, follow multifarious trajectories and sustain
diverse networks.3
More importantly, Lie suggests that transnational and global forces sub-
vert the “unidirectionality of migrant passage; circles, returns, and multi-
ple movements follow the waxing and waning structures of opportunities
and networks.”4
It is in this context of recurrent transnational migrations that Catherine
Gomes has coined the terms “transient migration” and “transient mobil-
ity” to focus attention on those “transient migrants” who are constantly
on the move and not looking to stay in a particular location permanently
or for the long term. In an essay that Gomes co-authored with me, she
uses the terms “transient migrants,” “transient migration,” and “transient
mobility” to refer to the global and transnational movements of people for
work, study, and lifestyle including skilled professionals and students in
pursuit of international education.5
On the one hand, the concept of transient migrants is not new. Indeed,
existing theological scholarship has rightfully focused attention on
unskilled transient migrants, especially foreign domestic workers, discuss-
ing important theological implications and pastoral responses to their lack
of agency, ill treatment, and poor working conditions.6 On the other hand,
3
4
5
Catherine Gomes and Jonathan Y. Tan, “Christianity as a Culture of Mobility: A Case
Study of Asian Transient Migrants in Singapore,” Kritika Kultura 25 (2015): 215–244,
which has been revised and expanded as Catherine Gomes and Jonathan Tan, “Christianity:
A Culture of Mobility,” in Catherine Gomes, Transient Mobility and Middle Class Identity:
Media and Migration in Australia and Singapore (Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017),
185–208. The discussion that follows in this section summarizes and discusses the key ideas
and conclusions that are taken from our co-authored 2015 and 2017 essays.
6
See Gemma Tulud Cruz, An Intercultural Theology of Migration: Pilgrims in the
Wilderness (Leiden: Brill, 2010) and Toward a Theology of Migration: Social Justice and
Religious Experience (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), as and Rhacel Salazar Parreñas,
Servants of Globalization: Women, Migration, and Domestic Work (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2001).
21 THE IMPLICATIONS OF TRANSIENT MIGRATION AND ONLINE… 185
theologians have paid comparatively little attention to the growing tran-

sient migration and mobility of educated skilled professionals and interna-
tional students. In global financial hubs like Singapore and Hong Kong,
transient migrants comprise a significant proportion of the population.
For example, 1.6 million of the 5.4 million in Singapore, which is close to
30 percent of Singapore’s population, are non-resident migrants.7
Increasingly, transient migrant Christians are overshadowing local
Christians in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan, judging from the growing
number of English, Tagalog, and Bahasa Indonesia services in these places,
compared to services in local languages such as Cantonese, Mandarin, or
Japanese. More significantly, these educated transient migrants, whether
skilled professionals or international students, comprise one of the prime
drivers of the growth of World Christianity without borders as they move
across cities, countries, and continents in search of the next professional
job assignment or higher education prospects.
Transient Migrants in the Gulf Region of West Asia

One region that has witnessed rapid growth in transient migrant Christians
is West Asia, where transient migrant professionals in the petroleum, engi-
neering, and construction industries, as well as hospitality sectors, are con-
tributing to the rapid growth of Christianity in a region dominated by
Islam. In his March 8, 2014 article in the Boston Globe, columnist John
L. Allen, Jr. notes that the Arab peninsula is witnessing dramatic Catholic
growth rates driven, not by Arab converts, but by transient migrants who
are foreign expatriates with no rights to permanent residency or citizen-
ship: “The result is a Catholic population on the peninsula estimated at
around 2.5 million. Kuwait and Qatar are home to between 350,000 and
400,000 Catholics, Bahrain has about 140,000 and Saudi Arabia itself has
1.5 million.”8 The bulk of these Catholic transient migrants are Filipino
Catholics.9 John Allen also reported that King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifah
7
Gomes and Tan, “Christianity as a Culture of Mobility,” 219.
8
John L. Allen, Jr., “Catholicism growing in heart of Muslim World,” Boston Globe (March
8, 2014) at: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/03/08/catholicism-grow-
ing-heart-muslim-world/LxIiUYwSlro7Zl6ugvVQJM/story.html (accessed February
17, 2020).
9
See Agnes M. Brazal and Randy Odchigue, “Cyberchurch and Filipin@ Migrants in the
Middle East,” in Susanna Snyder, Joshua Ralston, and Agnes M. Brazal, eds., Church in an
Age of Global Migration: A Moving Body (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 187–200.
186 J. Y. TAN
of Bahrain agreed to donate land for the construction of a Catholic church

to be called “Our Lady of Arabia” for use by the Catholic transient
migrants in Bahrain. Up to this point, there is no church, and Catholic
transient migrants needed to go to one of the European embassies or
gather in a private homes or on the grounds of foreign-owned oil compa-
nies for masses.10 In this vein, it is interesting to note that the largest
Catholic parish church worldwide is not in Europe or North America, but
in Dubai––Saint Mary’s Church has over 300,000 parishioners, all of
whom are transient migrants working there, with 35–40 weekend masses
in 12 languages and over 80,000 hosts distributed weekly. In 2014, the
nightly Simbang Gabi services at Saint Mary’s, leading up to Christmas
drew crowds of more than 15,000 Filipino Catholics each night, resulting
in the services being held in the church’s parking lot.11
Transient Migrants and the Catholic Charismatic

Renewal Movement
Unlike Dubai and Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, with the largest concentration of
Catholic transient migrants, many of whom are Filipino Catholics, has not
granted permission for the building of churches, whether Catholic or
Protestant. In this ecclesial vacuum, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal
Movement (CCRM) generally, and the Gulf Catholic Charismatic Renewal
Services (GCCRS) in particular, as well as individual Catholic charismatic
groups such as the Filipino El Shaddai12 Catholic Charismatic movement
play a very important role for the maintenance and nourishment of the
faith life of these Catholic transient migrants. The CCRM’s empowerment
of lay leadership and participation has kindled the fire that has led to its
explosive growth across the globe generally, and in Asia in particular.
According to the latest statistics compiled by the Vatican-backed
10
Allen, “Catholicism growing in heart of Muslim World.”
11
The information on Saint Mary’s Church in Dubai come from personal communication
with Filipino American theologian, Ricky Manalo, who visited this church in December
2014 and observed the weekend liturgies and Simbang Gabi celebrations.
12
Established in 1981 by Mike Velarde, El Shaddai has experienced significant growth
among Filipino Catholics in the Philippines as well as in the global Filipino diaspora, garner-
ing a following of about 11 million within 15 years, with chapters in nearly province in the
Philippines and more than 35 countries around the world. For an in-depth assessment of El
Shaddai, see Katharine L. Wiegele, Investing in Miracles: El Shaddai and the Transformation
of Popular Catholicism in the Philippines (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2005).
International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services (ICCRS), there are

nearly 14,000 charismatic prayer groups in the Asian Church, with an
estimated 15 percent of Asian Catholics involved in the CCRM. Indeed,
Asia comes second after Latin America, which has an estimated 16 percent
of Catholics involved in the CCRM.13
In the context of the Gulf States, CCRM prayer groups not only
empower transient migrant lay Catholics as prophets, exorcists, healers,
and lay leaders, but also enable them to transcend political borders and
circumvent legal restrictions on churches and clergy presence. This has
enabled transient migrant Christian lay leaders to assume leadership and
responsibility for keeping the Christian faith alive and strong among their
fellow transient migrant Christians in Saudi Arabia and across the Gulf
region. The establishment of the GCCRS and an inaugural conference
from December 7 to 9, 2008, drew 1800 leaders from Bahrain, Kuwait,
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates under the ban-
ner “Let the Fire Fall Again.” The sizeable numbers of leaders from the
West Asia/Gulf Region is testimony to how lay Catholic Charismatic lead-
ers have organized and nourished the faith of their Catholic transient
migrants in the absence of churches and clergy to maintain the traditional
Catholic sacramental life.
Transient Migrants and Online Communities: A New

Way of Being Church?
In response to the restrictions on churches and clergy, transient migrant
Christians in the Gulf Region of West Asia are also breaking boundaries
when they create online communities and form “cyberchurch” to circum-
vent legal restrictions on churches and clergy. Digital presence and online
communities that are shaped by social media and mediated by livestream-
ing and messaging apps are redefining the traditional boundaries of
Christianity and paving way for a global and transnational World
Christianity that is also being realized in virtual and online communities.
13
The statistics are taken from the Vice President of ICCRS, Cyril John’s paper, “Lay
Movements and New Communities in the life and Mission of the Church in Asia: Experiences
from the Catholic Charismatic Renewal,” which he presented at the Congress of Asian
Catholic Laity, which met from August 31 to September 5, 2010 in Seoul, South Korea.
188 J. Y. TAN
Agnes M. Brazal and Randy Odchigue’s exploratory essay, “Cyberchurch

and Filipin@ Migrants in the Middle East”14 describes how Filipino tran-
sient migrants15 create online faith communities and utilize Facebook,
Youtube, livestreaming of the Sunday Eucharist and other liturgies, email
lists and discussion groups, and other online resources to stay in touch
with fellow Christians and practice their Christian faith in the absence of
churches and clergy.16 In other words, the transient Christian identity of
these Filipino transient migrants in the Gulf Region that Brazal and
Odchigue surveyed are making use of social media and other online tools
to create online communities of faith that transcend geographical borders
and political restrictions of churches operating in those regions. This para-
digm shift toward online or virtual communities of faith is redefining what
it means to be Christian, as well as demonstrating a new of being church
that breaks the traditional geographical parochial boundaries and clerical
leadership of such churches.
This turn by transient migrants towards online communities that define
and nourish their transient migrant and Christian faith identities is not
limited to transient migrants in the Gulf Region of West Asia We see the
same developments in the transient migrants in Singapore and Melbourne
that Catherine Gomes surveyed. For example, an Indonesian information
technology in Singapore speaks of nourishing his Christian faith through
online downloads and Christian Youtube channels featuring pastors and
preachers.17 Other examples illustrate how the transient Christian identity
is often nourished and maintained by social media platforms such as
Facebook and Instagram, as well as messaging apps such Weibo, QQ,
Renren and WeChat, all of which are popular with transient migrants from
mainland China, as well as WhatsApp and Line for transient migrants
generally.18
14
Agnes M. Brazal and Randy Odchigue, “Cyberchurch and Filipin@ Migrants in the
Middle East,” in Susanna Snyder, Joshua Ralston, and Agnes M. Brazal, eds., Church in an
Age of Global Migration: A Moving Body (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 187–200.
15
Brazal and Odchigue surveyed eight Filipino transient migrants in the Gulf Region: four
in Saudi Arabia who are a graphic artist, caregiver, mechanic, and engineer, and four in the
United Arab Emirates who are an electrical engineer, company administrator, teacher, and
machine operator respectively. See Brazal and Odchigue, “Cyberchurch,” 187–188.
16
Brazal and Odchigue, “Cyberchurch,” 190–191.
17
Gomes and Tan, “Christianity as a Culture of Mobility,” 226.
18
Gomes and Tan, “Christianity: A Culture of Mobility,” 190.
Conclusion
Transient migrant Christians have profound implications for missiology
and ecclesiology in the context of a rapidly changing world that is buffeted
by the forces of postcolonialism, transnationalism, and globalization. The
complexities of multiple belongings and hybridized identities are chang-
ing the face of World Christianity by crossing multiple boundaries and
creating new convergences of multifaceted identities––personal and com-
munal faith identities in the context of transnational networks. Historically,
as a universal religion that spread throughout the world because of trans-
national movements, Christianity plays an important role in helping tran-
sient migrants make sense of themselves and their faith experiences in
unfamiliar settings.19
How would a contemporary Asian ecclesiology consider the implica-
tions of the rapid growth of migration across Asia generally, and transient
migration in particular, as well as the rise online communities across Asia
for rethinking the shifting ecclesial landscapes in Asia today? How do we
map the social and virtual geographies of Asian Christianity, especially
when we look to go beyond the shape, structures, and boundaries that are
established by Eurocentric ecclesiologies? When we pay attention to the
daily lived experiences of Christians across Asia, what implications can we
draw to help us rethink the ambits of catholicity and construct the con-
tours of an emergent Asia ecclesiology that consider seriously the impact
of Asians who are on the move, and who gather in online communities?
In the past, the grounded geography of Christianity meant that ecclesi-
ologies have been constructed, debated, and shaped by the needs and
aspirations of local faith communities who gather for worship, fellowship,
and communal life in specific geographical locations. The growth of tran-
sient migrant Christian communities and online communities across Asia
poses new challenges and opportunities for ecclesiologists. These transient
migrants who are educated professionals and international students who
move to new cities in search of jobs and educational prospects often turn
to Christianity and online communities as a means of finding meaning,
networking, and constructing their own faith and social identities. In addi-
tion, online communities and digital resources nourish the resilience of
these transient migrants in the face of the many challenges of living in
transience.
19
Gomes and Tan, “Christianity as a Culture of Mobility,” 233–234.
190 J. Y. TAN
The 1.5 million Asian Catholics in Saudi Arabia cannot legally build a
church or gather for Sunday Eucharist that is presided by an ordained
priest. On the other hand, they can and do turn to social media and online
communities to create online communities beyond the reach of Saudi law.
Without social media and online communities, there is no church in Saudi
Arabia. Hence, social media and online communities are redefining the
boundaries of World Christianity, reimagining ecclesiology and pastoral
ministry, and posing new questions for theology on the issues of faith and
identity formation in transience.
PART IV
Ecumenical and Interreligious

Dialogue
CHAPTER 22
Liturgical Renewal and Ecumenical Progress
John Borelli
We speak of “The Ecumenical Movement” as though we have consensus

for its beginning, boundaries, major achievements, and agreed-upon goals
and strategies. The Ecumenical Movement is definitely not over, like “The
Crusades,” nor generally finished through its effects remain significantly
for us today, like “The French Revolution.” The Ecumenical Movement
not only continues; it undergoes transformations. While “restoration,” as
in recovery of the simplicity of the apostolic church, and “unity,” as in
organic unity, emerged among nineteenth-century Christian communities
as common-sense goals for ending division, from the mid-twentieth cen-
tury a developing consensus embraced “the restoration of unity,” “full
ecclesial communion,” “reconciled diversity,” and “differentiated consen-
sus” as more nuanced realizations for key concepts in the ongoing course
of ecumenical progress. One Catholic architect for organized ecumenical
efforts, Thomas F. Stransky, CSP, often cited Robert Penn Warren’s words
in “Wind and Gibbon”: “History is not truth. Truth is in the telling.” As
a ground floor participant in the Second Vatican Council, Stransky lived a
J. Borelli (*)
Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

194 J. BORELLI
full life of service to unity while telling ecumenical and interreligious tales
from his involvement from 1960 onwards.1
Pope St. John XXIII wanted his council to be an outreach to other
Christians among its aims, as was evident in his public announcement in
January 1959: “a means of spiritual renewal, reconciliation of the Church
to the modern world, and service to the unity of Christians.”2 These few
words provided sufficient motivation for Augustin Bea SJ to organize
behind the scenes and persuade Pope John to establish the Secretariat for
Promoting Christian Unity. Pope John announced the Secretariat and
other conciliar preparatory commissions on Pentecost Sunday 1960, but
just before that, Cardinal Bea had instructed Msgr. Johannes Willebrands
to pay a backchannel visit to Dr. Willem A. Visser ’t Hooft, the first General
Secretary of the World Council of Churches.3
The WCC, established in 1948, represented in 1960 the greatest ecu-
menical achievement to date, and Bea worked quickly to connect Catholic
ecumenical efforts with those of the WCC. Visser ’t Hooft and Bea met in
Milan the following September.4 A partnership between the WCC and the
Secretariat was born; the Catholic narrative was joined to the dominant
ecumenical story; and a Joint Working Group continues to the present.
There are other narratives than this North Atlantic one. Church divi-
sion long preceded the Reformation. Accounts of the separation of
churches in the first millennium developed into our present era with sce-
narios of attempted efforts at reconciliation in Eastern Europe, the Middle
1
John Borelli, “Thomas F. Stransky, CSP: A Scriptural Reflection in Memoriam,”
Ecumenical Trends 48, no. 10 (November 2019): 11–15. A sample of histories include: A
History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517–1948, edited by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles
Neill (Philadelphia, the Westminster Press, 2nd ed. 1968); A History of the Ecumenical
Movement, Volume 2, 1948–1968, edited by Harold E. Fey (Philadelphia, the Westminster
Press, 1970); William G. Rusch, Ecumenism – A Movement Toward Church Unity
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985); Frederick M. Bliss, S.M., Catholic and Ecumenical:
History and Hope (Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, 2nd ed., 2007); and The
Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices, edited by Michael Kinnamon
and Brian E. Cope (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1997).
2
“Sollemnis Allocutio,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 51 (1959): 68–69; commented on by
Thomas F. Stransky, CSP, “The Foundation of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian
Unity,” in Vatican II Revisited by Those Who Were There, ed. Alberic Stacpoole (Minneapolis,
MN: Winston Press, 1986), 62.
3
Willebrands reviewed these developments in his Introduction to Peace among Christians
(New York: Herder and Herder, 1967), co-authored by Visser ’t Hooft and Bea.
4
Willem Adolf Visser ’t Hooft, Memoirs (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1973; 2nd
edition, Geneva: WCC Publications, 1987), 328.
22 LITURGICAL RENEWAL AND ECUMENICAL PROGRESS 195
East, and elsewhere for Christians living separately yet fully aware of
Christ’s urgent prayer on the night before he died, “That they all may be
one.” (John 17:21). Beginning in the sixteenth century, conditions in
Europe and later in the Middle East allowed for the emergence of Eastern
Catholic Churches, although these more often than not created hostility
rather than reconciliation. New hopes emerged after Vatican II. In 1996,
Catholic and Orthodox churches in Lebanon and Syria, faced with serious
pastoral needs, avidly considered steps toward reconciliation and inter-
communion that would break them away from the slower pace of the
North Atlantic ecumenical course. Vatican officials strongly discouraged
Patriarch Maximos V Hakim of the Melkite Catholic Church from making
“premature unilateral decisions” with regard to sacramental sharing on
the local level in the Middle East and expressed concern for unintended
negative consequences.5 Similar discouragement came from Orthodox
Churches, and the initiative halted. Somewhat similar conditions in
Ukraine led Pope Francis to invite the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy to
Rome in July 2019 for discussion and meetings with officials of the Roman
Curia. Pope Francis emphasized that “unity in the Church will be far more
fruitful, the more the understanding and cohesion between the Holy See
and the particular Churches is real.”6 Progress toward full communion
following the North Atlantic course may be sure and steady, but its agreed-
upon constraints have frustrated one generation after the next seeking to
live across ecumenical fault lines.
As the North Atlantic orientated Ecumenical Movement unfolded,
even those communities of Protestants who refused to participate have
benefitted from ecumenical progress. The highly individualized Catholic
outreach to Evangelicals and Pentecostals has itself benefitted from a
growing enthusiasm for closer working relations between churches seek-
ing to restore institutional unity and those seeking spiritually enlivened
5
For example, see “A Call for Unity-The Melkite Synod,” https://melkite.org/faith/
faith-worship/a-call-for-unity-the-melkite-synod (accessed February 7, 2020). See also the
June 11, 1997, letter in French to the Melkite Patriarch from three heads of Vatican offices
laying out the lack of doctrinal agreement. An English translation is available here: https://
orthodoxyindialogue.com/2017/12/12/romes-response-to-the-zoghby-initiative-by-
david-brown/ (accessed February 9, 2020).
6
“To the Member of the Permanent Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.”
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/july/documents/papa-fran-
cesco_20190705_sinodo-chiesaucraina.html (accessed February 12, 2020).
196 J. BORELLI
forms of fellowship.7 Pope Francis, the first “global south pope,” brought
relationships with Pentecostals with him to Rome and expanded his per-
sonal outreach to Christian communities in Italy not visited previously by
his predecessors, notably communities of Pentecostals and Waldensians.
Pope Francis urges accompaniment in growth through faith-sharing and
common action.8 For Christians who value liturgical celebrations as a
means of nourishing the common search for unity, Pope Francis’ call for
greater accompaniment creates not only opportunities for prayer together
but also a desire for sacramental sharing. More importantly, Pope Francis
has drawn attention to “world Christianity” and the need for ecumenists
to bridge the gaps among ecumenical narratives.9
The first of the “sixteen documents” of Vatican II, the Constitution on
the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum concilium), opened by listing the desire “to fos-
ter whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ” among
several aims of the council. Gerard Austin, whose career in liturgical theol-
ogy spanned the first 50 years of conciliar implementation, once observed:
“In my opinion, the greatest gain of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
of Vatican II was the relationship that it set up between liturgy and
ecclesiology.”10 The third document promulgated by Vatican II, Lumen
Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, affirmed that all the
baptized “are honored with the name of Christian” (15). Thus, a theology
of communion allowed those working on the renewal of the liturgy of the
Catholic Church to underscore the fully conscious and active participation
of all the faithful in the liturgical life of the church (Sacrosanctum
Concilium, 14) and those restoring an ecumenical ecclesiology emphasize
the universal priesthood of the faithful manifest “in receiving the sacra-
ments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by
self-denial and active charity” (Lumen Gentium, 10).
7
Dale T. Irvin, “Specters of a New Ecumenism: In Search of a Church ‘Out of Joint,’” in
Religion, Authority, and the State: From Constantine to the Contemporary World, edited by
Leo D. Lefebure (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 3–32.
8
John Borelli, “The Dialogue of Fraternity: Evangelii Gaudium and the Renewal of
Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue,” Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism, edited
by Gerard Mannion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 225–228.
9
See, for example, World Christianity: Perspectives and Insights, Essays in Honor of Peter
C. Phan, edited by Jonathan Y. Tan and Anh Q. Tran SJ (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2016).
10
G. Austin OP, “Is an Ecumenical Understanding of Eucharist Possible Today?” The
Jurist 48 (1988): 683.
Promulgated with Lumen Gentium, the Decree on Ecumenism

(Redintegratio Unitatis) addressed current separation among Christians
through the lens of a theology of communion: “For those who believe in
Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into certain, though
imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” Hence the Decree
encouraged prayer in common as “allowable, indeed desirable that
Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brothers and sisters”
(8). Over 50 years later, the language sounds reserved, and even conde-
scending, although prayer in common was something the Holy See had
strongly discouraged in the past.11 A cautionary spirit prevailed when the
Decree advised that worship in common should not occur indiscriminately
and that two leading principles always be held in tension: common wor-
ship proclaims a unity already achieved but the grace of the sacraments
nourishes Christians on the way toward that unity. The Secretariat for
Promoting Christian Unity reiterated this tension in an ecumenical direc-
tory in 1967 and 1970 and in supplemental advisories.12 The recommen-
dations for occasional sacramental sharing of anointing, reconciliation and
the Eucharist were codified in the 1983 Code of Canon Law and in the
1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. In 1993, the re-named
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity presented these princi-
ples with extraordinary pastoral care in a revised Directory for the
Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism.13
Viewed from the past, these were generously designed norms. This
statement of Pope St. John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical on ecumenism,
That All May Be One (Ut Unum Sint), illustrates this generosity: “In this
context, it is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in
certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of eucharist, penance
and anointing of the sick to Christians who are not in full communion
11
In an 1895 letter, with long-lasting effect, to the Apostolic Delegate in the United
States, Pope Leo XII advised American Catholics no longer to hold “assemblies to which
both Catholics and those who dissent from the Catholic Church come promiscuously to
discuss together religion and morals.” Letter to Archbishop Satolli, 18 September 1895,
Leonis XIII Acta 14, 323–324.
12
Between 1968 and 1972, the Secretariat issued four separate notes and instructions with
regard to sacramental sharing. See: Doing the Truth in Charity: Statements of Pope Paul VI,
Popes John Paul I, John Paul II, and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity 1964–1980,
edited by Thomas F. Stransky CSP and John B. Sheerin, CSP (New York: Paulist Press,
1982), 115–130.
13
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of
Principles and Norms of Ecumenism (Vatican City, March 25, 1993), §§ 116–136.
198 J. BORELLI
with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacra-
ments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic
church professors with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific
cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same
sacraments from ministers of churches in which these sacraments are
valid” (45).
Pope John Paul had pointed out how Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry,
the 1982 convergence text of the WCC’s Faith and Order Commission,
with Catholic participation, represented a visible sign of “the remarkable
progress already made.” (17)14 He further observed how the liturgical
renewals in many churches in the Ecumenical Movements were “signs of
convergence which regard various aspects of sacramental life.” (45)15
Though a consensus for liturgical worship was growing among the
churches, theological consensus regarding ordained ministry and related
questions remained elusive.
After the signing of the monumental Joint Declaration on the Doctrine
of Justification by representatives of the Holy See and the Lutheran World
Federation in 1999, Lutherans and Catholics, particularly in Germany,
wanted to move forward with joint celebrations of the Eucharist and with
intercommunion, that is, with regular and reciprocal eucharistic sharing.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, by then the President of the Pontifical Council,
told a representative of Lutheran World International 2003 that “indi-
vidual pastoral solutions can be found, but unlike for Lutherans, a general
invitation does not seem possible yet for the Roman Catholic Church.”16
In November 2015, when Pope Francis visited the Lutheran parish
church in Rome, Anke de Bernardinis, the wife of a Roman Catholic,
asked what must happen for her to receive communion with her husband
regularly. Pope Francis confirmed that they share one baptism and the
belief that Christ is truly present in the eucharist. He finally observed that
14
Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Faith and Order Paper no. 111 (Geneva: World
Council of Churches, 1982).
15
One should point out that eight years later in 2003, Pope John Paul released his final
encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, giving a more juridical approach than the pastoral approach
of Ut Unum Sint. In Ecclesia de Eucharistia, the pope adds a canonical judgment: “these
conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even
though they deal with specific cases.” (46)
16
http://www.lutheranworld.org/lwf/index.php/cardinal-kasper-the-division-of-
churches-increasingly-turning-into-a-scandal-before-the-world.html (accessed March
4, 2011).
“life is greater than explanations and interpretations” and concluded:

“Speak with the Lord and go forward. I do not dare say more.”17
Should we not, in light of the enormous progress in ecumenical rela-
tions, find more pastoral space for sacramental sharing on a regular basis
and, in fact, intercommunion? A hand-picked, joint commission of
Lutheran and Catholic theologians, well-experienced ecumenically,
reviewed 32 ecumenical agreements between their churches on the topics
of church, eucharist and ministry, in light of the Joint Declaration. Their
report, entitled Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry and Eucharist
(2015), recommended that “the expansion of opportunities for Catholics
and Lutherans to receive Holy Communion would be a significant sign of
the path toward unity already traveled and a pledge to continue together
on the journey toward full communion.”18
Clearly Catholic practice for sacramental sharing has developed with
ecumenical progress in the decades subsequent to Vatican II. Even in his
argument that intercommunion is not possible, Cardinal Kasper encour-
aged “individual pastoral solutions” for sacramental sharing. As ecumeni-
cal progress has grown, so has the number of inter-church families and
occasions when Christians attend one another’s services. On the topic of
intercommunion, Thomas O’Loughlin has written recently: “We are able
to stand at the table because we have a relationship with Jesus the Christ
through baptism – and our standing there is not a measure of our adher-
ence to any particular doctrine, much less our willingness to be identified
with a religious party, but because giving thanks to the Father is a basic
17
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/november/documents/
papa-francesco_20151115_chiesa-evangelica-luterana.html (accessed February 13, 2020).
One should point out that Pope Francis began his reply noting with humor that he was
expected to answer the question with Cardinal Kasper sitting in the front row.
18
While the U.S. Catholic Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
and the Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America unanimously endorsed the
text, the U. S. Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine had not approved the text when it
was submitted to both the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the
Lutheran World Federation. Nevertheless, on October 31, 2017, at ceremonies for the con-
clusion of a year of common commemoration of the Reformation, the Pontifical Council for
and LWF announced that the next task of their formal dialogue commission would be “to
discern in a prayerful manner our understanding on church, Eucharist and ministry, seeking
a substantial consensus so as to overcome remaining differences between us.” https://
cnstopstories.com/2017/10/31/vatican-lutheran-federation-announce-study-on-church-
eucharist-ministry/ (accessed February 13, 2020).
200 J. BORELLI
need recognized in our discipleship, and because we need to be resourced

from the Lord for the daily taking up of our cross in following him (Mark
8:34).”19
As both a source of hope and a faith-filled confirmation of ecumenical
progress and liturgical renewal among the churches on the varied courses
of the Ecumenical Movement, intercommunion for Christians in those
historically ecumenically committed communities at this late date in 2020
would greatly nourish the growth of charity among them and through
them in service to the gospel. Concelebration by ministerial representa-
tives of churches should remain a sign of full ecclesial communion or of a
mutually agreed-upon interim and advanced stage toward full commu-
nion. The Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and
the WCC defined full ecclesial communion as the communion in the full-
ness of the apostolic faith, in sacramental life, in a truly one and mutually
recognized ministry, in structures of conciliar relations and decision-mak-
ing and in common witness and service in the world.20 Intercommunion
will nourish Christians fully committed to proclaiming the word of God,
celebrating the sacraments, and exercising the ministry of charity together,
on the way to full communion, just as the church is already anticipating
the kingdom of God but is not yet in its full visible realization.21 For those
who agree that they are personally and socially transformed through the
effects of sacramental grace as they celebrate the sacraments, let them
receive when they are together at liturgy and be encouraged to strengthen
the bonds of unity, to witness the gospel, and to give wholehearted service
to those in need.22
19
Thomas O’Loughlin, Eating Together Becoming One (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press
Academic, 2019), 130.
20
The Church: Local and Universal (1990), § 25 at: https://www.oikoumene.org/en/
resources/documents/commissions/jwg-rcc-wcc/sixth-report-of-the-joint-working-group
(accessed September 2, 2020).
21
The Church: Towards a Common Vision, Faith and Order Paper No. 214 (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 2013), 33ff.
22
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, The Church: Towards a Common
Vision, Faith and Order Paper No. 214, A Catholic Response (2019), “Conclusion.”
CHAPTER 23
Changing the Catholic Church’s

Interreligious Relationships: Irish American
Pioneers at the 1893 World’s Parliament
of Religions
Leo D. Lefebure
Planning the Parliament

Because nineteenth-century Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX warned
Catholics against the danger of religious indifferentism and condemned
religious liberty and freedom of the press, there was no obvious reason to
expect Catholics to accept an invitation to a Parliament of the World’s
Religions. Nonetheless, in spring 1890 the Presbyterian leader John
Henry Barrows, one of the organizers of the World’s Parliament of
Religions, asked Archbishop Patrick A. Feehan of Chicago, who had been
born in County Tipperary, Ireland, in 1829, for support. Barrows wrote
to James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore who had been raised
in county Mayo, Ireland, inviting Catholic participation, and Gibbons
responded cautiously at first. Barrows also wrote to the Secretary of State
L. D. Lefebure (*)
Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

202 L. D. LEFEBURE
of the Holy See, Mariano Cardinal Rampolla, seeking papal approval of

the Parliament, but he did not receive a reply from the Vatican.
The American archbishops met in Baltimore in November 1892 to
consider whether the Catholic Church in the United States should sup-
port the Parliament. Michael Corrigan, the conservative Archbishop of
New York City who was the son of immigrants from Ireland, strongly
opposed participation; and a number of archbishops objected that this was
not wise or prudent. Just when it seemed that the leaders were on the
verge of declining the invitation, one elderly archbishop reportedly spoke
up with biting irony: “St. Paul must have been a big fool! Why didn’t he
act like a respectable Catholic? Where did he get off going into the midst
of the pagans? Why didn’t he stay among his own?”1 Meanwhile, the arch-
bishops also considered a letter from Bishop John J. Keane, the first rector
of the Catholic University of America, who had been born in County
Donegal. Even though Keane was not present at the meeting, his letter
strongly supported participation and addressed most of the archbishops’
concerns:
The Parliament of Religions is not meant for discussion, but for exposition
[…]. Again it is not in our power to hinder the Parliament from taking
place. It is already certain that all the other forms of religion will be ably
represented. Can the Catholic Church afford not to be there?2
In the end, the archbishops approved Catholic participation, directing

Cardinal Gibbons to request Keane to organize a delegation of about 20
Catholic speakers; as the plans developed, almost all of these would turn
out to have been born or raised in Ireland. The Catholic Church was the
only church to approve participation in the Parliament, and it sent the
second-largest delegation after the Protestants. Keane and a Catholic
Irish-born layman, William J. Onahan, were the key figures shaping the
Catholic delegation. They worked closely with Barrows, and Keane later
commented that the organizers sought Catholic advice on the topics to be
1
John J. Keane, Speech to the Third International Scientific Congress of Catholics,
Brussels, September, 1894, as given in Victor Charbonnel, Congrés Universel des Religions en
1900 (Paris: Armand, 1897), 11; James F. Cleary, “Catholic Participation in the World’s
Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893,” Catholic Historical Review 55, no. 4 (1970):
585–609, here 591.
2
Archives of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, Keane to the Most Reverend Board of
Archbishops. Washington, November 12, 1892.
23 CHANGING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S INTERRELIGIOUS… 203
discussed and accepted all of the Catholic recommendations. In particular,

Barrows accepted Keane’s proposal that polemics be banned from the
Parliament.3
Opening of the Parliament

On September 11, 1893, Cardinal Gibbons opened the World’s Parliament
of Religions with the Lord’s Prayer. Together with him on the stage were
Hindu Swami Vivekananda from India, Zen monk Shaku Soyen from
Japan, Theravada Buddhist leader Anagarika Dharmapala from Ceylon
(Sri Lanka), as well as Jewish, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Hindu,
Buddhist, Muslim, Jain, Zoroastrian, Parsee, Daoist, Shinto, and
Confucian leaders from around the world. From September 11 to 27,
1893, the World’s Parliament of Religions met in the building that is
today the Art Institute of Chicago, as part of The World’s Columbian
Exposition celebrating the four hundredth anniversary of Columbus’s
voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. While there had been countless inter-
religious conversations in earlier periods, in recorded history there had
never been an interreligious gathering exactly like it on the same scale;
thus this assembly is commonly taken as the starting point of the modern
interreligious movement.4
As the local host, Archbishop Patrick Feehan offered a warm welcome
to the assembly. Because Cardinal Gibbons was not feeling well, Bishop
Keane read his address, in which Gibbons asserted that he was not involved
in a search for religious truth because he was confident he had already
found it in the Catholic Church. But he went on to reframe interreligious
relations: “Though we differ in faith, thank God there is one platform on
which we stand united, and that is the platform of charity and benevo-
lence. [… N]ever do we approach nearer to our Heavenly Father than
when we alleviate the sorrows of others.” And he concluded his remarks
in a similar vein by quoting “the pagan Cicero”: “There is no way by
which men can approach nearer to the gods than by contributing to the
3
Archives of the Catholic University of America, Keane papers, Barrows to Keane, Chicago,
January 4, 1893; Cleary, “Catholic Participation,” 592.
4
Diana L. Eck, “Foreword,” in The Dawn of Religious Pluralism: Voices from the World’s
Parliament of Religions, 1893, edited by Richard Hughes Seager with the assistance of
Ronald R. Kidd (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1993), xv.
204 L. D. LEFEBURE
welfare of their fellow-creatures.”5 Cardinal Gibbons offered a dramatic

rethinking of Catholic relations to followers of other religions. Instead of
condemning the errors of other religions, he emphasized the bond of
charity and benevolence at a platform for common cooperation. This
anticipates the call of the Second Vatican Council to cooperate with fol-
lowers of other religious traditions in prudence and charity. Gibbons con-
tinued this theme on the fourth day of the Parliament in his paper on the
“Needs of Humanity Supplied by the Catholic Religion,” which was again
read by Keane. The Cardinal described the Catholic orphanages, hospitals,
and homes for the elderly as examples of practical charity inspired by
Catholic faith.
One of the most remarkable and surprising interreligious developments
occurred by chance one day when Archbishop Ireland and Bishop Keane
were unable to attend the main session in the Hall of Columbus because
the crowds were so great that they could not gain entrance. They went to
the Hall of Washington instead, where the Jewish Conference was being
held. The Jewish leaders spontaneously invited the Irish-born bishops to
preside, and they did so!6
Reception of the Parliament

Many reports about the Parliament in the general press both in the United
States and beyond were enthusiastic. Others, however, were more critical;
Barrows records hostile reactions to the parliament: “It has been stigma-
tized as ‘Bedlam,’ ‘Babel,’ and ‘a booth in Vanity Fair’; and its promoters
have been likened to Balaam and Judas Iscariot! All this shows that the
parliament has important work yet to do in the world.”7 Soon there was a
fierce backlash in some of the conservative Catholic press as well. The
Catholic leaders were concerned about how their participation in the
Parliament would be viewed by others. By appearing in public alongside a
Hindu Swami, Buddhist monks, and leaders of many other religions,
Catholic bishops were implicitly endorsing religious freedom in the plural-
istic context of the United States. They were also opening the Catholic
5
James Cardinal Gibbons, “The Needs of Humanity Supplied by the Catholic Religion,”
in Dawn of Religious Pluralism, 164.
6
Cleary, “Catholic Participation,” 597.
7
John Henry Barrows, “Results of the Parliament of Religions,” in A Museum of Faiths:
Histories and Legacies of the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions, edited by Eric J. Ziolkowski
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993), 137.
Church to public scrutiny on a world stage and demonstrating a degree of

autonomy from the Holy See and its condemnations of religious liberty.
Even though Barrows and others assumed the Vatican had approved the
archbishops’ decision, the American leaders had neither sought nor
received approval from Roman authorities. Moreover, by collaborating in
the planning of the Parliament, Keane and Onahan and the other Catholics
were tacitly treating other religious leaders as equals in a collaborative
venture with no missionary intent.
Observers took note. Congregational clergyman Theodore Thomas
Munger thought that the most important aspect of the entire Parliament
was the participation of Catholics. When describing the opening cere-
mony, Barrows thought that the Catholic Cardinal was “chiefly conscious
of his catholicity”––spelled with a small “c.”8 A Methodist clergyman John
Lee drew the logical conclusion that Catholics now endorsed religious
liberty, and so he wrote to Pope Leo XIII requesting that Protestant mis-
sionaries in Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia be granted the same religious lib-
erty.9 In reply, Archbishop Francesco Satolli, the first Apostolic Legate of
the Pope to the United States, sent Lee a copy of Pope Leo’s new encycli-
cal, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (“On the Reunion of Christendom”),
which forcefully reasserted the claims of the Papacy to hold on earth the
place of God Almighty.
Satolli, who came from strongly Catholic Italy, where nothing had pre-
pared him for an event like the Parliament, became concerned that the
Catholic presence gave the impression that the one true Church appeared
to be simply one among many religions. He wrote a negative report to
Pope Leo XIII. In France, a number of Catholic and Protestant leaders
who were very enthusiastic about the Chicago Parliament began to discuss
convening a similar Parliament at the Paris Exhibition being planned for
the year 1900. Plans for a Parisian Parliament of Religions aroused con-
cern in Rome.
In a letter of September 18, 1895, Pope Leo advised Satolli that if there
should be another such event that was not organized by the Catholic
Church, it would be better that Catholics did not participate. Pope Leo
did allow that Catholics could hold their own assemblies and invite
8
C. H. Parra-Pirela, “Babel or Pentecost? Language-Related Issues in Catholic Involvement
in the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions,” U.S. Catholic Historian 33/3 (2015): 69–98,
here 74, 80–81.
9
Parra-Parela, “Babel or Pentecost?”: 88–89.
206 L. D. LEFEBURE
“dissenters” to attend.10 While conservative critics rejoiced, John Ireland

insisted that this was in no way a condemnation of parliaments of religion,
but most did not accept this benign interpretation of the pope’s directive.
Nonetheless, Catholic participation in the Parliament was a harbinger of
further changes to come. When the Parliament of the World’s Religions
met in Chicago in 1993, Pope Leo’s advice was quietly ignored, the Holy
See sent Archbishop Francesco Gioia as its representative, and Joseph
Cardinal Bernardin, Archbishop of Chicago, participated in the opening
and closing assemblies and delivered an address.
The historian of religions Joseph Kitagawa argued that the 1893
Parliament marked a turning point in interreligious relations in that reli-
gious leaders began to present their own perspectives with an awareness of
how they would be heard and responded to by members of other religious
traditions: “In retrospect, it becomes evident that it was a new experience
for many of the Parliament’s planners to be self-conscious about the dis-
tinction between the ‘inner meaning’ and ‘outer meaning’ of religions.”11
Kitagawa also noted appreciatively the strong impetus that the Parliament
gave to the study of comparative religion in America.12
Broader Horizon of History

The first Parliament was like a meteor in the sky, brilliantly illuminating
the sky for a moment but then fading from sight. While the Parliament has
been hailed as “The Dawn of Religious Pluralism” and the beginning of
the modern interreligious movement, there was no organizational follow-
up at the time. The hoped-for Parisian Parliament never took place. In the
early twentieth century, American attitudes to other nations hardened,
and by the 1920s tight immigration restrictions were established, limiting
the number of immigrants from Asian countries with Muslim, Buddhist or
Hindu backgrounds. Theologically, many Christians became more conser-
vative and less interested in interreligious explorations. Nonetheless, in
major American universities the Parliament provided an important stimu-
lus to the academic study of comparative religious history.
10
Cleary, “Catholic Participation,” 605.
11
Joseph Mitsuo Kitagawa, The Quest for Human Unity: A Religious History (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1990), 208.
12
Joseph Mitsuo Kitagawa, “The 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions and Its Legacy,” in
A Museum of Faiths: Histories and Legacies of the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions, edited
by Eric J. Ziolkowski (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993), 185–87.
The impulses released by these Irish American Catholic leaders would

find resonance in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal
Gibbons’ proclamation of love of neighbor as the platform on which we
come near to God anticipates themes of Gaudium et Spes: The Pastoral
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, and finds an echo today
in the call of Pope Francis to work with interreligious partners to relieve
suffering wherever we can.
CHAPTER 24
Is Interreligious Dialogue Changing

the Church? The Significance
of the Document on Human Fraternity
Roberto Catalano
On February 4, 2019, Pope Francis signed a document destined to mark

the history of the Catholic Church and probably of Christianity and, even
more, of humanity at large. This document titled “Human Fraternity for
World Peace and Living Together” represents an absolute novelty in the
two-millennia-long history of the Church and this for several reasons.
First of all, the papal signature was placed on a document far different
from the usual papal official declarations—encyclical letters, apostolic con-
stitutions, exhortations, and letters, motu-proprio. Moreover, Abu Dhabi,
the venue of this act, is not only far from Vatican City (Rome), but, above
all, is part of the Arabian Peninsula, which is identified as home to Islam.
Second, the official act was implemented in the course of an International
Interreligious Symposium on Peace, organized at the Founder’s Memorial
of the capital city of the United Arab Emirates. There were hundreds of
participants representing not only Christianity and Islam but also other
R. Catalano (*)
Centre for Interreligious Dialogue, Focolare Movement, Rome, Italy

210 R. CATALANO
religious traditions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Judaism. But the

most stunning element of the event has to be found in the fact that, for the
first time in the history of the Church, a successor of Peter co-signed an
official document with a leader of another religion.
The declaration was, in fact, conceived and prepared by the Holy See
and al-Azhar, the famous University and Mosque in Cairo (Egypt), which
to an extent represents a reference point for Sunni Islam. The Grand
Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyib and Pope Francis, by placing their signatures,
marked a truly unprecedented event. There is something more to add.
The co-signed document was published by the Libreria Vaticana in the
series, which comprises the official documents of the Holy See considered
as the “magisterium” of the Catholic Church. In the course of 2019, Pope
Francis and other representatives of Roman Curia quoted the document
of Abu Dhabi as a text, which has become part of the Church legacy.
All these elements seem to point to the fact that dialogue with other
religions is strongly influencing the present and, consequently, the future
of the Catholic Church, paving the way to a new age of cooperation and
common engagement in issues involving men and women of our times:
economic balance and justice, peace, and relationship with nature.
Moreover, the Church seems to be committed to seek the alliance of other
religions in order to form new generations with these ideals and values.
Pope Francis appears fully engaged in increasingly opening up the Church
toward all men and women, irrespective of their cultures and religions,
faithful to the fact that we all belong to the same human family, as Nostra
Aetate declared in 1965.
In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and
the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church exam-
ines more closely her relationship with nonChristian religions. … One is the
community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human
race to live over the face of the earth. One also is their final goal, God. His
providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all
men, until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city
ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.1
1
“Nostra Aetate”, at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html (accessed on 31st
December 2019).
24 IS INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE CHANGING THE CHURCH… 211
What happened last February—in the year of the 800th anniversary of

the encounter of Francis of Assisi with the Great Sultan Al-Malik at
Damietta (Egypt)—is evidence that, notwithstanding difficulties and
stumbling blocks, major changes have happened in the Catholic Church,
under the heading of “dialogue.”
The relationship between Christians and followers of other religions
has provoked internal debates within the Church ever since the beginning
of the Christian community. The early tensions, which surfaced in
Jerusalem and led to the first Council were, ultimately, provoked by Peter’s
and Paul’s different approaches toward people who professed a religion
different from the Jewish tradition. This original tension continued
through the centuries, passing from the openness of the Fathers of the
Church toward the Greek philosophy—considered to be a necessary way
to reach justice, useful to attain religion2 and capable of educating the
Greek world to Christ as the Law did to the Jews—to the rigid formula
“outside the Church there is no salvation.”3 This principle, which with a
certain degree of modification and adjustment remained the reference
paradigm for centuries, was still strong before the Second Vatican Council.
The evidence for this is given, for example, by the fact that, prior to the
Council, among the replies received in the Vatican to the questionnaire
sent to the bishops to ask for the priorities to be discussed, only a handful
mentioned the relationship of the Catholic Church with other faiths and
cultures.
Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-
Christian Religions came as a great change of direction at the end of the
Council, after a long and often controversial debate on the issue of the
relationship between the Catholic Church and the other religions. The
great value of the document is not so much its theological content—which
in fact is rather limited and unpretentious—but its invitation to Catholic
believers “that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of
2
See Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI, 6 (67, 1), Early Christian Writings (http://
www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book6.html) (Accessed on 30
January 2020). Ploux, 232.
3
This formula can be found in several Fathers of the Church starting from Origen who was
the first one who formulated it in the third of his Homilies on Joshua. The sentence in its
formulation, which has been handed over through the centuries can be found in Cyprian of
Carthago, Epistulae, [CSEL 3/2] (edited by W. Hartel), apud C. Giroldi Filium Bibliopolam
Academiae, Wien 1871, 465–842 quoted in Sandra Mazzolini, Chiesa e salvezza. L’extra
Ecclesiam nulla salus in epoca patristica, (Rome: Urbaniana University Press, 2008), 294.
212 R. CATALANO
other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the
Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good
things, spiritual, and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found
among these men.”4 These words already speak of a new attitude toward
other religious traditions since “the Catholic Church rejects nothing that
is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those
ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though
differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonethe-
less often reflect a ray of that Truth, which enlightens all men.”5 It is the
first strong and clear positive answer to a widespread demand, which had
found, as early in 1942, in a thought-provoking formulation in Simone
Weil’s proposal: to believe that men and women may be saved outside the
visible Church calls for a revision of all the elements of our faith. Failing
this, Weil argued, the Church may not be able to accomplish its mission.6
It can be argued that the Document of Abu Dhabi somehow represents
evidence of what has been accomplished in the last almost six decades after
Nostra Aetate was published. In fact, the Document represents something
completely innovative, something, which can be compared only to the
initiative of John Paul II when, in 1986, he called for representatives of
different religions to assemble in Assisi in order to pray for peace. What
happened on that day could not be framed under any existing theology of
religion, as it was a gesture destined to remain unique, something which
was absolutely different from everything that had happened before in the
relationship between the Catholic Church and people of other religions.7
Likewise, the drafting and signing of a common document, showing the
same commitment to work for peace, is something which goes far beyond
expectations and even if it raises questions, it also serves to defeat stereo-
types and prejudices, which are deeply rooted in people’s minds, from the
religious and cultural point of view.8 The document is not a diplomatic
protocol, which has been drafted and signed for a specific event. Rather, it
4
See “Nostra Aetate”, § 2.
5
Ibid.
6
Simone Weil, Letter to a priest (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 28. First pub-
lished by Routledge & Kegan, 1953. Original title: Lettre à un religieux (Paris:
Gallimard, 1951).
7
See Giuseppe Ruggieri, Ritrovare il Concilio (Torino: Giulio Einaudi, 2012), 108–112.
8
See Giuseppe Costa, “Le religioni ed. il coraggio dell’alterità: la Dichiarazione congiunta
di Abu Dhabi,” Aggiornamenti Sociali, 70, no. 3 (2019): 181–188, 182.
carries a strategic value and a significance projected toward the future.9

Pope Francis himself has underlined that the document offers a strong and
clear witness that it is possible for Christians and Muslims to meet and
work together also in our historical context when religions—and Islam in
a very special way—are considered to be causes for conflicts rather than
solutions.
In an epoch such as our own, in which there is a strong temptation to see an

ongoing conflict between the Christian and Islamic civilizations, and also to
consider religions as a source of conflict, we wished to give an ulterior, clear
and decisive sign, that it is indeed possible to come together; it is possible to
respect one another and to dialogue; and that, even in the diversity of cul-
tures and traditions, the Christian and Islamic worlds appreciate and uphold
common values: life, family, religious sense, honor for the elderly, the educa-
tion of young people, and still others.10
What has to be avoided is the misleading temptation to consider the

document only from a social point of view. The key to its correct interpre-
tation is given by the fact that Christians and Muslims believe in God and,
if they are convinced that God is the creator of everything and everyone,
the natural consequence is that we are all part of the same human family.
That is why it is very significant that, though the two ideas of God—the
one of Islam and the one of Christianity—are not the same, still the docu-
ment starts by invoking God’s name.
In the name of God who has created all human beings equal in rights, duties
and dignity, and who has called them to live together as brothers and sisters,
to fill the earth and make known the values of goodness, love and peace.11
9
See “Documento sulla fratellanza. Mons. Coda (teologo): ‘Peso spirituale e politico che
può rivestire’” interview by Maria Chiara Biagioni, SIR (Servizio Informazione Religiosa), 8
February 2019 at (https://agensir.it/chiesa/2019/02/08/documento-sulla-fratellanza-
mons-coda-teologo-peso-spirituale-e-politico-che-in-prospettiva-puo-rivestire/). (Accessed
31 December 2029).
10
Pope Francis, Audience in St. Peter’s Square, 6 February 2019 at (http://www.vatican.
va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2019/documents/papa-francesco_20190206_udi-
enza-generale.html) (accessed on 31 December 2019).
11
Document on Human Fraternity and World Peace, 4 February 2019 at (http://www.
vatican.va/content/francesco/en/travels/2019/outside/documents/papa-fran-
cesco_20190204_documento-fratellanza-umana.html) (accessed on 31 December 2019).
214 R. CATALANO
It is well known that this initiative and, especially, the fact that the pope
co-signed a common memorandum with a Muslim leader have provoked
strong criticism from many corners, along with great appreciation from
others. In this context, Pope Francis clearly and strongly stated that “from
the Catholic point of view the Document does not move one millimeter
away from the Second Vatican Council […] was crafted in the spirit of the
Second Vatican Council.”12 Criticism was voiced by people who could not
see that, as already foreseen by Benedict XVI, Nostra Aetate, Gaudium et
Spes, and Dignitatis Humanae were probably the Council documents
which, slowly and silently but consistently, provided the greatest and most
unexpected contribution to the modern Catholic Church.13
In the context of the historical Document co-signed by Pope Francis
and al-Tayiib at Abu Dhabi, one must acknowledge and appreciate the
prophetic role of Paul VI who truly grasped the signs of times and effec-
tively expressed his conviction that “the Church must enter into dialogue
with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give,
a communication to make.”14 He also disclosed the very nature of “dia-
logue,” which he defined as an “internal drive of charity which seeks
expression in the external gift of charity.”15 Above all Paul VI had the
courage to show the way with concrete gestures destined to pave the way
toward a new season of the relationship between the Christianity and
other faiths. He established the Secretariat for Non-Christians16 and
started meeting the faithful from other religious traditions. In Mumbai,
during his first overseas trip, while meeting representatives of different
religions present in India, apart from appreciating the religions born on
the Indian soil, he became the first pope to quote a Holy Book of another
religion.
12
Pope Francis, Press Conference on the return flight from Abu Dhabi to Rome, 5 February
2019 at http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/february/docu-
ments/papa-francesco_20190205_emiratiarabi-voloritorno.html (accessed 31
December 2019).
13
See Benedict XVI, Address to Parish Priest and Clergy of Rome, Vatican City, 14 February
2013 at: http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/doc-
uments/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130214_clero-roma.html (accessed on 31 December 2019).
14
Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam, § 65. (http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encycli-
cals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html) (accessed 31 December 2019).
15
Ibid., § 64.
16
Established on Pentecost Sunday, 1964 by Pope Paul VI in 1988 it was renamed
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID).
Yours is a land of ancient culture, the cradle of great religions, the home of
a nation that has sought God with a relentless desire, in deep meditation and
silence, and in hymns of fervent prayer. Rarely has this longing for God been
expressed with words so full of the spirit of Advent as in the words written
in your sacred books many centuries before Christ: “From the unreal lead
me to the real; from darkness lead me to light; from death lead me to
immortality.” (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1, 3, 28)17
Furthermore, Paul VI drew a road-map for the decades to come setting

out Nostra Aetate into a constructive agenda open to the collaboration of
everyone. He invited, in fact, people of different faiths to “come closer
together, not only through the modern means of communication,” but by
“coming together with our hearts, in mutual understanding, esteem and
love.” His invitation was for meeting each other not “not merely as tour-
ists, but as pilgrims who set out to find God—not in buildings of stone but
in human hearts.” Religions do not meet religions, rather “man must
meet man, nation meet nation, as brothers and sisters, as children of God.”
The road was clear: “in this mutual understanding and friendship, in this
sacred communion, we must also begin to work together to build the
common future of the human race.”18
What happened in Abu Dhabi this year has to be seen in continuity with
the great intuitions that had appeared in Ecclesiam Suam, a document
which for decades seemed to be almost forgotten but which, instead, con-
tinues giving life to new openings of the Church toward humanity. The
courage of Pope Francis’ choices in dialogue can be read and understood
only in this line of continuity and constant development where “dialogue”
is not an option but the very essence of the Church and a duty for all those
who believe, and for all women and men of goodwill.
17
Paul VI, Address to the Members of Non-Christian Religions, Bombay 3rd December
1964. (http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1964/documents/hf_p-vi_
spe_19641203_other-religions.html), (accessed on 31 December 2019).
18
Ibid.
CHAPTER 25
That’s Gonna Leave a Mark: A Saint,

a Sultan, and How Friendship Does (or
Doesn’t) Change the Church
Jason Welle O.F.M.
Given the Gospel dictum, “I no longer call you slaves … I call you friends”
(Jn 15:15), the relative absence of friendship as a central ecclesiological
category in modern theology must be considered surprising. In one of the
most-discussed surveys of approaches to ecclesiology, Avery Dulles’s
Models of the Church, friendship barely enters.1 More recently, theologians
have begun to probe friendship as an ecclesiological theme. In addition to
some recent graduate theses,2 theologians like Steve Summers have
1
The concept emerges as a foil in one model: the tension between considering the Church
primarily as a network of friendly fellowship or as a Mystical Communion with a basis in God.
Avery Dulles, Models of the Church (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974); rev. and exp. ed.
(Garden City: Image, 1987).
2
Richmond Dzekoe, “The Church in Friendship: A Touchstone for Theological Reflection
on Ecclesial Communication in a Digital Age” (Ph.D., St. Thomas University, 2017); Anne-
Marie Ellithorpe, “Towards a Practical Theology of Friendship” (Ph.D., The University of
Queensland, 2018); Jonathan Sammut, Love of Friendship in the Christian Life (Eugene:
Wipf and Stock, 2019), a revised version of a thesis at the University of Malta.
J. Welle O.F.M. (*)

The Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies, Rome, Italy

218 J. WELLE O.F.M.
prompted new consideration of the importance of friendship for the

Church’s self-understanding. Summers understands friendship as “a par-
ticular love that can be expressed in a hospitable community,”3 and argues
that a hospitable Church can heal a wounded society through friendship.
True friendship is rare, so a Church infused with friendship offers a
counter-cultural opportunity as a social good. “Friendship offers the best
in human relationality […] a relationship capable of engendering wider
social capital.”4
The assumption that friendship can help heal society is not distinctively
Christian; one may note parallels with classical Muslim philosophers on
the point.5 The forthcoming reflections, however, do not concentrate on
how the Church affects the world, but on how friendships between
Christians and non-Christians change the Church.6 Much theological
work remains to be done regarding interreligious friendship. Some
Muslims have recently contested whether a Muslim can befriend a
Christian,7 and the Christian who searches for justification to reject the
possibility of interreligious friendship has little trouble finding sources.8
3
Steve Summers, Friendship: Exploring its Implications for the Church in Postmodernity
(London and New York: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2009), 156.
4
Summers, Friendship, 193.
5
Both Miskawayh (d. 1030) and al-Tawḥıd̄ ı̄ (d. 1023) see the public good that results
from stable, reciprocal friendships; this esteem for friendship leads Marc Bergé to describe
al-Tawḥıd̄ ı̄ as a humanist. Marc Bergé, Pour un humanisme vécu: Abū Ḥ ayyān al-Tawḥıd̄ ı̄
(Damascus: Institut français de Damas, 1979), 318; cf. Nuha A. Alshaar, Ethics in Islam:
Friendship in the Political Thought of al-Tawḥıd̄ ı̄ and his Contemporaries (New York:
Routledge, 2015), esp. 47, 159–60, 207, 225.
6
In this discussion of changing the Church, I intend no engagement with ecclesiological
debates about continuity or discontinuity; my point of departure is simply that insofar as
individual Christians are members of the body of Christ, the moral and spiritual evolution of
those individuals constitutes a change to the Church.
7
The 2017 controversy in Indonesia surrounding the former governor of Jakarta, a
Christian, revolved around this point. More broadly, the Salafi trend of al-walā’ wa al-barā’
likewise seems to pre-empt any friendship between Muslims and Christians. For discussion,
see Uriya Shavit, “Can Muslims Befriend Non-Muslims? Debating al-walāʾ wa-al-barāʾ
(Loyalty and Disavowal) in Theory and Practice,” Islam and Muslim-Christian Relations 25,
no. 1 (2014): 67–88.
8
A quotation from the young Joseph Ratzinger illustrates the tension, though through the
language of brotherhood rather than friendship. “In contrast to the Stoics and the
Enlightenment, Christianity affirms the existence of the two different zones [of ethical behav-
iour] and calls only fellow believers ‘brothers’.” Christian Brotherhood (London: Sheed &
Ward, 1966), 81.
25 THAT’S GONNA LEAVE A MARK: A SAINT, A SULTAN, AND HOW… 219
Such arguments notwithstanding, facts remain stubborn: the history of

Muslim-Christian relations offers no shortage of close friendships between
followers of these two paths. The surge in interest in interreligious dia-
logue today renders the question of interreligious friendship prescient.
“Friendship” typically denotes a stable relationship marked by mutual
concern for each other’s welfare and an intimacy that shapes the character
of each individual involved.9 Interreligious dialogue does not necessarily
foresee the establishment of such a bond. Even a brief glance at some of
the literature treating the nature, purpose, and types of interreligious dia-
logue shows that the mutual desire to learn typically emerges as a constitu-
tive element, but whether or not the exchanges that enable this learning
result in lasting bonds can pass by nearly unaddressed.10 While such works
do not reduce dialogue to an activity that is primarily cognitive or didactic,
one notices nonetheless that the importance of an enduring relationship
between participants can take a backseat to the learning that takes place in
the encounter itself.11
Against this backdrop, one may recall a flurry of activity in 2019 com-
memorating the 800th anniversary of a famous interreligious encounter:
the meeting between Francis of Assisi (d. 1226) and al-Malik al-Kāmil (d.
1238).12 Many look back to this moment as a flicker of light in a dark
epoch, when two men transcended the mutual enmity that then character-
ized Muslim-Christian relations. Pope Francis has repeatedly invoked the
9
Bennett Helm, “Friendship,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at: https://plato.stan-
ford.edu/entries/friendship. (accessed February 17, 2020).
10
For one example—containing a bibliography with many similar examples—see Catherine
Cornille, “Conditions for Interreligious Dialogue,” in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to
Interreligious Dialogue, edited by Cornille (Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 20–33; two
essays in that same volume—the pieces authored by Marianne Moyaert and Jeannine Hill
Fletcher—do, however, emphasize growth in friendship.
11
One recent collection, in which theologians reflect on how interfaith friendships have
shaped their own thinking, is refreshing in this light: James L. Fredericks and Tracy Sayuki
Tiemeier, eds., Interreligious Friendship after Nostra Aetate (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2015).
12
Michael A. Perry, the Franciscan Minister General, penned a letter for the anniversary
(Quae placuerint Domino, Rome, 7 January 2019), and the order produced a commemora-
tive book in three languages (available for download at ofm.org) containing selected writ-
ings, passages from Church documents on interreligious dialogue and Islam, and an interfaith
prayer service. I note in sadness that the anniversary fell 1 month before the untimely passing
of Gerard Mannion, a devotee of St. Francis, to whom the present collection of essays is
dedicated.
220 J. WELLE O.F.M.
encounter in connection with his own outreach to Muslims.13 In thanking

the Franciscans for their work to commemorate it, Pope Francis observes
that the friars’ presence among Muslims is rooted in “bonds of friendship”
with Muslims.14
The path to these bonds of friendship began in a way that, to observers
at the time, must have looked like ordinary events in the course of a cru-
sade. After the friars’ General Chapter in 1219, Francis of Assisi announced
his intention to travel to Egypt. He accompanied a contingent of crusad-
ers through the Nile Delta, where he stayed in the Christian camp outside
Damietta.15 Shortly thereafter, the crusaders undertook an aggressive
assault that resulted in many crusader losses, and Francis seized the ensu-
ing period of truce as a window of opportunity. He then convinced
Cardinal Pelagius to permit him and one of his companions to cross the
battle lines and engage the sultan at his court. The specifics of what hap-
pened next belong to hagiography, but Latin sources agree that Francis
was taken into the Muslim camp and was granted an audience with the
sultan, who respectfully listened to him. The sources report Francis’s
desire to preach conversion to the sultan and Francis’s desire for martyr-
dom, meaning that the result of the encounter must be reckoned as a
double failure. No Muslims became Christian and Francis’s efforts to win
the martyr’s palm bore no fruit. To appreciate the sting of these unfulfilled
expectations, one may recall the playful words of the apologist
G. K. Chesterton, who described the episode as part of an ironic tragedy
and comedy called “The Man Who Could Not Get Killed.”16 His martyr-
dom prevented, Francis emerged with a bill of safe passage and returned
to Italy shortly thereafter.
As already suggested, historically reliable details about the encounter
escape us. We know neither whether the two met on one occasion or
13
Pope Francis, Address at the Meeting with Priests, Religious, Consecrated Persons, and
the Ecumenical Council of Churches (Rabat, 31 March 2019); Address at the Meeting with
the Moroccan People, the Authorities, with Civil Society, and with the Diplomatic Corps
(Rabat, 30 March 2019); Homily at Holy Mass (Abu Dhabi, 5 February 2019); Address at
the Interreligious Meeting at the Founder’s Memorial (Abu Dhabi, 4 February 2019);
Address to Participants in the International Peace Conference (Cairo, 28 April 2017).
14
Pope Francis, Letter to Father Michael Anthony Perry, O.F.M. (9 February 2019).
15
For a frequently cited account of the siege of Damietta, see Joseph P. Donovan, Pelagius
and the Fifth Crusade (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950), 38–68; for a
revisionist account, especially regarding Francis, see James M. Powell, The Anatomy of a
Crusade 1213–1221 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), 157–173.
16
Gilbert K. Chesterton, St. Francis of Assisi (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923), 148.
several, nor who else was present, nor how they handled translation, nor
exactly how long Francis stayed in the Muslim camp. We can point to the
effects of the journey on Francis: he became capable of imagining a non-
proselytizing mission among Muslims. The Regula non bullata, which
failed to garner papal approval, describes two ways that the friars could go
on mission:
One way is not to engage in arguments or disputes but to be subject to every

human creature for God’s sake and to acknowledge that they are Christians.
The other way is to announce the Word of God, when they see it pleases the
Lord, in order that [unbelievers] may believe in almighty God […] and be
baptized and become Christians […].17
This first way of mission, being subject to Muslims, was a major shift in the
notion of mission not just for Francis, but for the Latin Church.18 The
prevalent options were proselytism, militancy, or a combination thereof19;
Francis’s suggestion transformed what Christian presence among Muslims
could look like. How can one account for such a radical shift in Francis’s
thinking?
One simple solution presents itself: Francis was transformed by friend-
ship. In the short time he enjoyed the sultan’s hospitality, their personal
connection left a mark on him. Some scholars suggest that Francis and
al-Kāmil immediately developed a strong bond and that Francis carried
back to Italy a particular affection for his friend, praying for al-Kāmil until
the end of his days.20
17
Francis of Assisi, Earlier Rule (Regula non bullata), in Francis of Assisi: Early Documents,
ed. R.J. Armstrong et al. (Hyde Park: New City, 1999), 1:74 (ch. 16). Italics indicate an
allusion to 1 Pt 2:13.
18
The seminal study remains Jan Hoeberrichts, Francis and Islam (Quincy: Franciscan
Press, 1997).
19
Edoardo Scognamiglio’s poignant expression captures a frequent dynamic in mission
among Muslims in the period: “Spesso, capitava che la conversione delle popolazioni scon-
fitte fosse posta fra i termini della pace e, già prima del confronto violento tra cristiani e
musulmani, la missione ad gentes s’intrecciò tragicamente con la missione contra gentes.”
Francesco e il Sultano: Lo «Spirito d’Assisi» e la profezia della pace (Padua: EMP, 2011), 36.
20
The strongest formulation of this hypothesis is that of Michael F. Cusato, “The
Loneliness of Francis of Assisi: The Reception by the Franciscan Order of the Encounter of
Francis with the Sultan in the First Half of the 13th Century,” The Muslim World 109, no.
1–2 (2019): 14–68; for others, see Scognamiglio, Francesco e il Sultano, 67; Giulio Basetti-
Sani, “Chi era il vecchio famoso che incontrò San Francesco a Damietta?,” Studi Francescani
82 (1985): 209–244.
222 J. WELLE O.F.M.
This hypothesis accords with some conceptions of interreligious dia-

logue. Pope John Paul II told the bishops of North Africa that Muslim-
Christian dialogue is in the first place a question of friendship and he
frequently returned to the theme of friendship in meetings with Muslims.
We have already noted comments by Pope Francis along the same line.
This modern interest in interreligious friendship thus adds another reason
to consider Francis of Assisi a man ahead of his time, a precursor of an
emerging age, someone radically new. I must, however, sound a note of
caution. I cannot claim that Francis and al-Kāmil were friends, unless we
surrender to Facebook’s crusade to dilute the meaning of a once-beautiful
word. Without entering into an excursus on Aristotelian categories of
philia, the true challenge to the putative friendship between them is the
element of mutual transformation. Friends shape each other. Friendship
leaves a mark.21 Historically, we have no doubt that Francis’s voyage to
Egypt shaped him and transformed his understanding of the mission of
the friars,22 but we lack evidence that Francis shaped the sultan.23 If their
relationship was not mutual—if meeting Francis meant little to al-Kāmil—
then one could not argue that friendship effected the change in Francis.
Francis’s trip to Egypt—Francis’s encounter with Muslims—changed the
Church, but a friendship in Francis’s life did not change the Church.
21
Acknowledging debates about the nature of friendship, Bennett Helm nonetheless
includes mutuality and intimacy involving transformation as constitutive elements. Some
authors consider this so obvious that it need not be argued; Alexander Nehamas’s philo-
sophical analysis of friendship is a case in point. Nehamas mentions in passing several times
that friendship shapes the character of each person, but his first serious discussion of this
occurs in his book’s final chapter, addressing the negative capacity of friends to form each
other for evil and vice. Helm, “Friendship”; Nehamas, On Friendship (New York: Basic
Books, 2016).
22
Note that one need not attribute the change in Francis solely to encountering al-Kāmil.
Francis’s time in the Muslim camp was his first exposure to Muslims; for a hypothesis regard-
ing the shift in Francis’s attitude due to contact with Muslims, see Cusato, “The
Democratization of Prayer: What Francis of Assisi Learned at Damietta (1219),” Collectanea
franciscana 85 (2015): 59–82.
23
To be clear, the problem is evidentiary: without evidence demonstrating that meeting
Francis somehow affected al-Kāmil’s religiosity, governance, or behavior, I cannot claim that
they were friends. Absence of evidence, however, is not evidence of absence; they may have
formed an immediate mutual bond that escaped the interest of Arab chroniclers. For discus-
sion, see Jason Welle, “Arabic Sources for the Encounter between the Saint and the Sultan:
Fakhr al-Fārisı̄’s Famous Adventure with Francis, or Lack Thereof,” Collectanea (The
Franciscan Center of Oriental Studies, Musky, Cairo) 48–49 (2015–2016): 7–75.
A reader might now assume that the choice of the historical moment at
the core of this essay was ill-advised. I contend that the opposite is true. If
an encounter lacking the full dynamics of friendship can yield the positive
change for the Church that Damietta 1219 yielded for Francis of Assisi,24
then encounters marked by friendship—that bond without which no one
would want to live25—could have even stronger and more beneficial
effects. Ecclesiologists highlighting friendship rightfully think first about
friendships among Christians, the community of Christ’s disciples.26 The
time has come to consider also the next step, the importance of interreli-
gious friendship as an element of Christian life that promotes a fuller
understanding of the nature and mission of the Church in the world.27
The call for interreligious friendship is not a call for coffee talk. It is a call
to do what a person of virtue does: seek out other persons of virtue as
friends, act for their welfare, and walk with them in mutual support,
mutual critique, and mutual encouragement toward religious and ethical
growth. The Church benefits from disciples whose friends have spurred
them to evangelize joyfully and practice mission by attraction; the Church
likewise benefits—and increases her relevance to today’s pluralistic world—
when friendships with Muslims spur Christian disciples to give faithful and
peaceful witness.
24
Limited space forecloses the argument that Francis’s new notion of mission constitutes
positive ecclesial change; suffice it to note that it grants additional freedom without preclud-
ing other missionary options, enjoys papal and widespread episcopal approval today, and is
cited favorably by many promoters of dialogue.
25
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155a.
26
One sees this in Summers’ focus on the Eucharist; recall as well Dulles’s model of the
Church as “community of believers” (in the expanded edition), which Dulles frames as a
“bridge model” that incorporates the strengths of the others and must be understood in light
of them.
27
James L. Fredericks rightly notes the importance of interreligious friendships among the
drafters of Nostra Aetate. “Introduction,” in Interreligious Friendship after Nostra Aetate, 1.
CHAPTER 26
Three’s Company in Interfaith Dialogue:

A Protestant Modus for Engagement
with Those from Other Faiths
Nicolas G. Mumejian
Missionary, ecumenist, theologian, and social ethicist are but a few of the
many hats Lesslie Newbigin wore throughout his life. Born in Britain in
1909, Newbigin spent 40 years in South India as a missionary.1 It is during
this time that he would establish himself as a preeminent ecumenist.2
Newbigin views dialogue as an exchange of livelihood which entails
personal interaction. In The Open Secret he discusses the manner in
which dialogue becomes more than words; dialogue, he suggests, is the
development of relationships that necessitates both conversations about
each other’s faith convictions and opportunities to work together for a
1
Geoffrey Wainwright, Lesslie Newbigin: a Theological Life (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000), v.
2
For further and more detailed biographical information I recommend Geoffrey
Wainwright’s book that is cited above. Due to the constraints of this paper I will not expound
upon the details of his life that are not immediately pertinent this paper.
N. G. Mumejian (*)
Hartford Seminary, Hartford, CT, USA

226 N. G. MUMEJIAN
variety of common causes.3 In such an encounter with one another, trust

is developed in ways that mere conversation lacks. Dialogue then is not
evangelism but the pre-text to evangelism. I will endeavor to flush out the
unique qualities of dialogue that makes it different from evangelism in the
proselytizing sense.
The first question is this: why should Christians engage interreligious
dialogue with the religious other? Is the witness of the Church through
individuals and the corporate body not enough? Newbigin claims:
Anyone who knows Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior must desire ardently
that others should share that knowledge and must rejoice when the number
of those who do is multiplied. Where this desire and this rejoicing are absent,
we must ask whether something is not wrong at the very center of the
church’s life.4
Part of the Church’s witness that declares Jesus as Lord and Savior entails
the necessary role of dialogue. Lack of dialogue then inflates suspicion of
the Church’s focus and calls into question the individual’s integrity as a
follower of Christ.5 Dialogue is action and, Newbigin writes, discipleship
in practice is
[…] a matter of action, and not only thought. Therefore, I think that the
most fruitful kind of interfaith dialogue is one in which people of different
faiths or ideologies who share a common situation and are seeking to meet
ordinary human needs, are enabled to share the insights which their differ-
ent beliefs give them for contemporary action. It is in this situation of active
discipleship, where we cannot take refuge in established formulations of
doctrine but have to probe new and unexplored territory, that we learn what
it means to trust Jesus as the way, the truth and the life and as one who can
lead us into truth in its fullness.6
3
Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: an Introduction to the Theory of Mission (Grand Rapids,
MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), chapter 10, part 1.
4
Newbigin, The Open Secret, 127.
5
In his book Household of God Newbigin relates the sin of the individuals as being then the
sin of the Church. For Newbigin the dichotomy between individual Christian and commu-
nity of Christians is blurred to the point that to refer to one is to refer to both.
6
Lesslie Newbigin (ed. Geoffrey Wainwright), Signs Amid the Rubble: The Purposes of God
in Human History (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 77. See also Wainwright,
Lesslie Newbigin: A theological Life, 232.
26 THREE’S COMPANY IN INTERFAITH DIALOGUE: A PROTESTANT MODUS… 227
So then how are Christians to engage in dialogue? There are three

important components which Newbigin implores the Christian to incor-
porate in the process dialogue. The first of these three involves the art of
honestly listening to what the “other side” has to say: “The Christian
partner in the dialogue of the religions will certainly put his or her
‘Christianity’ at risk.”7 Those who are genuinely participating in dialogue
must be willing to reject their own belief system in response to the belief
system with which they are engaging. A primary portion of listening
entails a compliance to share in the culture and customs of the dialogue
partner.
According to Newbigin, “The Christian must be ready to face the pos-
sibility of radical reconsideration of long-accepted formulations.”8 Thus
the second variable is (re)consideration of faiths being exchanged. Putting
one’s own faith at risk may seem illogical or even dangerous; however,
there is no other way to maintain integrity in dialogue if neither side is
willing to accept what the other has to communicate. If the Christian’s
hope for the “other” dialogue partner is that they accept the message of
the Cross, then the Christian too must be willing to accept as ultimate
truth the differing beliefs and views received. One cannot expect someone
to offer more than they are themselves willing to offer in return. There is
a sense of vulnerability that requires faith that God will continue to sustain
the faith that God has begun.
This leads to the third component in dialogue, namely faith. Newbigin
writes: “he or she [listens and reconsiders] within the ultimate commit-
ment to Jesus Christ as finally determinative of his or her way of under-
standing and responding to the experience.”9 There must be faith that
God will enlighten the heart and mind toward ultimate truth. Whether
that ultimate truth is found in the path of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism,
Christianity, and so on, faith is present in the hope that this ultimate truth
will prevail.
One last facet in the processes of dialogue pertains to the caution of
evangelizing before dialogue has taken place. As discussed previously, dia-
logue is the precursor of evangelism; dialogue is not evangelism itself. As
I mentioned with regard to receptiveness on both sides, there is a risk of
losing integrity in the dialogue when the premise solely becomes an
7
8
Ibid., 186.
9
Ibid., 186.
228 N. G. MUMEJIAN
evangelistic endeavor. This type of evangelism that proselytizes entails a

lack of reception toward the beliefs and truths brought forth by others.
Newbigin further justified the act of dialogue in Trinitarian terms.10 In
his book Sin and Salvation, Newbigin examines what is meant by “created
in God’s image”. Newbigin’s view is similar to Karl Barth’s11 in that the
principal way in which humanity bears God’s image is found in relation-
ships and relational needs: “When God created man He did not create an
individual: He created man-and-woman. For God is not an individual;
God is personal, but He is not a person. He is Trinity, Father, Son and
Holy Spirit, one God; one personal being in whom love is perfect and
complete because love is both given and received.”12 Genesis 1:26a says:
“Let Us create man in Our image, after Our likeness.” This use of “us”
and “our” is granted by biblical scholars as Trinitarian language13; perhaps
therefore an aspect of Imago Dei means that humanity is “Trinitarian”
pertaining to her image of God. As Newbigin writes: “God has placed in
the very constitution of man the need for and possibility of love.”14
There is consequently a common goal between people of differing
faiths. The fact that humanity has instilled in her the capacity and desire
for relationships, implores on those who have found Christianity to share
and build relationships in order that this common need is met. Not only is
this common need relational, it is also inclusive of the longing for purpose,
which is “inescapable to human life.”15 Thus in offering relationship, pur-
pose is defined to the extent that the relationship encompasses purpose
within it.
Therefore, this need is first met in the act of relationships between
people; sequentially and ultimately it is met through relationship with the
10
This mode of justification is adapted from Newbigin’s Trinitarian Faith and Today’s
Mission in which he details a Trinitarian approach to missions. See also Wainwright’s explana-
tion, Lesslie Newbigin, 178–179.
11
Though Newbigin did not develop his theology from Karl Barth or Emil Brunner
(another theologian who shared this teaching based on Genesis 5:1–2), Newbigin was famil-
iar with his contemporary Karl Barth and shared the unique notion of Imago Dei which was
contrary to some of their contemporaries who believed that humanity’s image of God is
found in the ability to create (i.e., Paul Tillich amongst others).
12
Lesslie Newbigin, Sin and Salvation (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Publishers,
2009), 17–18.
13
This argument is expounded upon in greater detail by Miroslav Volf in After Our
Likeness: Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998).
14
Newbigin, Sin and Salvation, 18.
15
Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: the Gospel and Western Culture (London:
SPCK, 1990), 35.
triune God. Christians are to love; to love both neighbor and enemy.
When the Church engages in Newbigin’s form of dialogue, it is initiating
the love and relationship that is commanded from the Father through the
Son. From the initial relationship between individuals the subsequent pro-
cess of meeting this need is catalyzed. Through relationships built by
interfaith dialogue, Christians can bear witness to the relationship of
Christ to the church, thus demonstrating to and then enabling the conver-
sion of the dialogue partner.
The love of the Father is most visible in the act of and through the Son;
the act of the death, burial, and resurrection. Here Newbigin adamantly
emphasizes the historical event of the cross: “We are talking about a fac-
tual statement. Namely, that at a certain point in history, the history of this
world, God is who is the author, the sustainer, the goal of all that exists, of
all being and all meaning and all truth, has become present in our human
history as the man Jesus, whom we can know and whom we can love and
serve: and that by His incarnation, His ministry, His death and
resurrection.”16 This event is the life force that moves the Church to act in
the world. Since Christ has died for all, and salvation for all comes through
His death, the good news of this cataclysmic event must be shared with all
of the creation, a creation for whom the Son was atoned for.17
Newbigin writes: “Whatever else we do for people – to come to know
Jesus, to love Him, to serve Him, to honor Him, to obey Him – that is the
greatest thing that we can do for anyone and it is the specific thing
entrusted to us. It must be the center of our missions”18 and thus it is the
center of our dialogue. Through the Son dialogue is not merely justified
or warranted, but dialogue becomes a necessary means by which the
Church can share and incorporate the enduring truth, the enduring story
of Jesus the Son acting in and through history.
The third aspect of trinitarian dialogue, according to Newbigin, is the
working of the Holy Spirit: “The Holy Spirit who convicts the world of
sin, of righteousness, and of judgment may use the non-Christian partner
in dialogue to convict the church. Dialogue means exposure to the earth
16
Lesslie Newbigin, Signs Amid the Rubble, 113.
17
Newbigin recognizes, in Foolishness to the Greeks, 127, the event of the resurrection as
not being a “reversal of a defeat but the proclamation of a victory.” This event of resurrection
is greatly emphasized by Newbigin and his contemporary Karl Barth. Barth uses the same
language of “event” and further states that it is what all other histories are measured against.
18
Newbigin, Signs Amid the Rubble, 115.
230 N. G. MUMEJIAN
shattering and upbuilding power of the God the Spirit.”19 For Newbigin
it is the Spirit of God who converts the dialogue partner, not any persua-
sive arguments of the interlocutor. Newbigin states that an
obedient witness to Christ means that whenever we come with another

person (Christian or not) into the presence of the cross, we are prepared
to receive judgment and correction, to find that our Christianity hides
within its appearance of obedience the reality of disobedience. Each meet-
ing with a non-Christian partner in dialogue therefore puts my own
Christianity at risk.20
He uses the example of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10 to demonstrate the

power and effectiveness of dialogue and how the Spirit uses interfaith con-
versation for the glory of God both in and out of the life of the Church.
Conversion, as Newbigin articulates it, not only occurs with Cornelius,
but conversion also occurs within Peter. Newbigin says that the “Holy
Spirit shattered Peter’s own deeply cherished image of himself as an obedi-
ent member of the household of God.” Through this dialogue between
Peter and Cornelius, the Holy Spirit converted Cornelius and also changed
“Christianity”.
The culmination of Trinitarian dialogue is that the real labor of mission
is the work of Triune God. Newbigin writes:
We are invited to participate in an activity of God which is the central mean-

ing of creation itself. We are invited to become, through the presence of the
Holy Spirit, participants in the Son’s loving obedience to the Father. All
things have been created that they may be summed up in Christ the Son. All
history is directed towards that end. All creation has this as its goal. The
Spirit of God, who is also the Spirit of the Son, is given as the foretaste of
that consummation, as the witness to it, and as the guide of the Church on
the road towards it. The Church is not promised success: it is promised the
peace of Christ in the midst of tribulation, and the witness of the Spirit given
out of the church’s weakness and ignorance.21
19
20
21
Lesslie Newbigin, Trinitarian Faith and Todays Mission (Richmond, VA: John Knox
Press, 1963), 78.
The question of whether all shall be saved is a subject that could fill a
book on its own (and has indeed done so),22 but I think by briefly examin-
ing Newbigin’s inclusivity of other religions, the context of interfaith dia-
logue can be appreciated on a new level and through it we are able to
understand Newbigin’s whole endeavor of interfaith dialogue.
In his book The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, Newbigin specifically
addressed this issue with “other” faiths. He draws on themes of how one
can reconcile Christ as the one true way while allowing for faithfulness in
other (non-Christian) religions. One approach that Newbigin holds in
tension is Karl Rahner’s concept of Anonymous Christianity.23 He deals
with this concept along with other forms of inclusive pluralism in a formi-
dable fashion. He again places great emphasis on the centrality of Christ:
Christ as savior, Christ as creator, and Christ as the resurrected.24
Newbigin’s answer to the tension held with other faiths comes in the
form of “story telling”.25 He implores the reader to share the story of
Jesus and subsequently the story of the Bible. He offers suggestions as
how this might be done. When there is an opportunity for Christians and
another non-Christian faith to cooperate, it must be done with the pur-
pose of accomplishing biblical injunctions such as feeding the poor, help-
ing the sick, and caring for the refugee, etc. When in cooperation with
other faiths, Christians should be an example and witness through the
ascertaining of this mutual goal. This notion of cooperation will present
opportunities for the Christian to share the story of Christ and incorporate
the dialogue partner into that very story.
Newbigin attempts to deconstruct the idea that there are only three
options in relation to Christianity: inclusivism, pluralism, and exclusiv-
ism.26 The foundation of his own claim is “exclusivist in the sense that it
affirms the unique truth of the revelation in Jesus Christ, but not exclusiv-
ist in the sense of denying the possibility of salvation of the non-
Christian.”27 Instead of trying to reveal the mysteries of God’s saving
22
See for instance Hans Urs von Balthasar, Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved”? (San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014).
23
Karl Rahner, Paul Imhof, Hubert Biallowons, and Harvey D. Egan, Karl Rahner in
Dialogue: Conversations and Interviews, 1965–1982 (New York: Crossroad, 1986), 207.
24
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000), 180–83.
25
Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, 182.
26
Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, 182–3.
27
232 N. G. MUMEJIAN
grace, Newbigin offers a refined assessment and allows for the Divine to
complete its work.28
His Trinitarian justification for interfaith dialogue employs Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit as catalysts for interacting with those of other faiths. His
work as both an ecumenist and missionary helped to ushered in a new
generation of Protestant theologians engaged in interfaith work. I wish to
end with these final remarks from Lesslie Newbigin which summarize his
understanding of the significance of interfaith dialogue for the Church:
“The human story is one which we share with all other human beings –
past, present, and to come. We cannot opt out of the story. We cannot take
control of the story. It is under the control of the infinitely patient God
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”29 May we as the Church faithfully
engage the religious other, confident in the patience of the Triune God.
28
Newbigin’s idea closely resembles Michael Barnes’s notion of Christological inclusivism
seen in Theology and the Dialogue of Religions (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2009).
29
CHAPTER 27
Reforming Anti-Judaism in a Church Called

to Communion
Mary Doak
Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda—the church reformed, always

reforming: This phrase aptly expresses a task but also a hope, especially for
those of us who have been nurtured and inspired, but also frustrated and
even bitterly disappointed by our church. Much internal reform is obvi-
ously necessary if the church is to be the sign and instrument of unity-in-
diversity that it is called to be. Ecclesial reform is urgently needed for the
sake of a church that seems to have nothing to offer the disaffected
younger generation but yet more of the same rancorous divisions so preva-
lent in society. Ecclesial reform is also crucial for the sake of the frag-
mented world to which the church is sent. We can only imagine what a
healing force the church might be if it really lived the sacramental, loving,
communion that embraces rather than rejects difference. Perhaps what
Howard Thurman argued in the midst of the racial segregation of
twentieth-century America remains true today: if the church truly
M. Doak (*)
University of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

234 M. DOAK
exemplified a love in which everyone was accepted as a precious brother or

sister, would not people flock to the church to learn its secret of how to
live together in love and peace?1
Fearful of losing a distinct ecclesial identity, advocates of ecclesial neo-
exclusivism seek a church that preserves its difference by criticizing rather
than engaging with the world.2 Apparently unaware of the irony of their
approach, they would have the church emulate the tribal polarization of
the world rather than the loving communion of the Holy Trinity that the
church is called to embody in history.
This neo-exclusivism has fostered acrimonious divisions within churches
battling over how to strengthen their distinct identity, while also impeding
the ecumenism that seeks to heal divisions between Christian churches. An
evident lack of Christian unity is such a serious obstacle to the church’s
mission to be a sign of unity-in-diversity that overcoming the divisiveness
of neo-exclusivism must be a major focus of the church’s reforming ener-
gy.3 However, neo-exclusivism is also distracting the church from its
responsibility to seek communion with non-Christians and, of particular
concern here, from the project of overcoming the anti-Judaism deeply
embedded in the Christian tradition. A church preoccupied with defend-
ing its own identity and traditions is not disposed to continue critiquing
and revising those traditions, especially when that process requires dia-
logue with Jews or others outside the church. Yet communion with non-
Christians is integral to the church’s mission: if the church is to be a sign
and instrument of unity-in-diversity, then the church must not only mani-
fest unity within the church but also demonstrate a capacity for harmony
with those outside of the church, and especially with the church’s primary
other—the Jews.
It is tempting to believe that the official church statements that have
repudiated supersessionism and have revoked the deicide charge have
brought an end to the long and tragic history of Christian contempt for
1
Howard Thurman, Walter Earl Fluker, and Catherine Tumbler, A Strange Freedom: The
Best of Howard Thurman on Religious Experience and Public Life (Boston: Beacon Press,
1998), esp. 254–55.
2
Gerard Mannion, Ecclesiology and Postmodernity: Questions for the Church in Our Time
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), esp. 43–74.
3
I further explore this common view of the church’s mission in my article, “The Unity and
Disunity of Our Hope,” in Hope in the Ecumenical Future, edited by Mark D. Chapman
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 13–26.
27 REFORMING ANTI-JUDAISM IN A CHURCH CALLED TO COMMUNION 235
Jews.4 The claims that the Jews killed Jesus and now have no further divine
covenant or role in salvation history are, of course, bad theology as well as
the cause of much suffering and violence inflicted on Jews. Those of us
whose ecclesial communities have officially rejected these anti-Jewish
claims may conclude that we have adequately dealt with this painful aspect
of Christian history. If Christian anti-Judaism is safely in the past, then
surely the resurgence of violent antisemitism around the world and espe-
cially in the contemporary white supremacist movements in Europe and
the United States is no fault of the church.
Unfortunately, as important as the official repudiation of Christianity’s
most lethal anti-Jewish claims is, it is not by itself enough to heal Christian
anti-Judaism. After all, most Christians (including Catholics) do not regu-
larly read and review the many official church documents. While such
statements may get some brief attention in the press and perhaps in the
pews, and they are significant resources for theologians debating the rele-
vant issues, simply adding official statements to the archives does little in
itself to transform Christian views.
Moreover, a distorted presentation of Jews as the enemies of Jesus and
of the church remains explicit in Scriptures and implicit in the structures
of Christian thought and practice.5Nostra Aetate’s rejection of the deicide
charge may ensure that punitive supersessionism is not included in the
current Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, but it does not
prevent the formation of negative views of Jews and of Judaism through
the reading and proclamation of the gospels and other New Testament
texts. To note just a few of the most problematic texts, the Gospel of
Matthew describes a presumably Jewish crowd willingly accepting the
guilt of Jesus’ death for themselves and for their offspring; 1 Thessalonians
declares that the Jews killed Jesus and the prophets and continue to oppose
4
See especially Vatican II, “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian
Religions (Nostra Aetate), 28 October 1965 at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun-
cils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html (accessed
March 1, 2020). See also Franklin Sherman, ed., Bridges:Documents of the Christian-Jewish
Dialogue, 2 vols. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2011–2014).
5
Among the numerous excellent studies on this topic, see especially Rosemary Radford
Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York: Seabury,
1974); William Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, NJ: Jason
Aronson, 1993); Edward Kessler, An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2010); and David Nirenberg, Anti-Judaism: The Western
Tradition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2013).
236 M. DOAK
everyone, and the Gospel of John refers to Jews as sons of Satan and
depicts them as conspiring to kill Jesus.6
Furthermore, reading gospel passages with little knowledge of the
diversity of first-century Judaism, as most Christians do, contributes to a
Jesus-against-Judaism construction in which Jesus’ views are understood
as repudiations of Jewish thought and practice rather than as the positions
within intra-Jewish debates that they were. Judaism is frequently assumed
to be a religion of harsh legalism, condemned by Jesus who (alone) recog-
nized the need to temper law with mercy and love.7
Despite official ecclesial statements that Jews are not guilty of Jesus’
death and their covenant is not superseded, the much more frequently
read and revered New Testament thus continues to reinforce the five “Ds”
of the teaching of contempt identified by Jules Isaac. Taken together,
these texts lend considerable support to the view of Jews as demonic fol-
lowers of a degenerate religion whose crime of deicide leads them to be
dismissed from the covenant and (as early church leaders later concluded)
to be dispersed from the land.8 Is it any surprise that Jews continue to be
obvious targets of those who seek to defend their western cultural identity
against an “other” who is construed as an internal threat to western
civilization?
Some of the anti-Jewish sentiments of the New Testament can be miti-
gated through better translations, such as replacing “the Jews” with “some
Jewish leaders” in the Gospel of John. Education about Jesus’ place within
the diversity of first-century Judaism would also do much to interrupt
naïve Christian assumptions about Jewish legalism. Nevertheless, many of
these passages express an anti-Judaism that cannot be translated or
explained away. If Christians are to preach or teach their faith responsibly,
they must explicitly address the contempt for Judaism that is present in
these New Testament texts as well as throughout the Christian tradition.
This is an unending task: each generation must be taught anew to
6
Matt. 27:25; 1 Thes. 2:14–15; John 8:44 and especially John 18–19, along with the
discussion in Kessler, Introduction, 25–44.
7
See especially the discussion in John T. Pawlikowski, Christ in the Light of the Christian-
Jewish Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 76–107.
8
Jules Isaac, The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism, trans. Helen
Weave (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964). See also the discussion of these “five
Ds” as summarized in Elena Procario-Foley, “Liberating Jesus: Christian Feminism and Anti-
Judaism” in Frontiers in Catholic Feminist Theology: Shoulder to Shoulder, edited by Susan
Abraham and Elena Procario-Foley (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 97–118.
recognize and to reject the construction of Jews as Christians’ abjected

other, in contrast with whom the superior goodness of Christianity is
defined. Especially with regard to Christian antisemitism, the church must
indeed be a church reformed, always reforming.
Yet along with confronting this anti-Judaism, a further—and more dif-
ficult—theological challenge remains. It is not enough merely to refrain
from negative depictions of Jews and of Judaism. Unless Christians are
able to articulate a positive role for Judaism in the ongoing divine plan of
salvation, Judaism remains implicitly superseded, regardless of ecclesial
affirmations that God’s covenant with the Jews is irrevocable. Given the
Christian claim that Jesus is the definitive savior of the world, what, if any,
purpose does Judaism (or any other religion) have after his coming?
This is not a question only for the theological elite. With Jewish
Scriptures as part of the Christian Bible, Christians have no choice but to
think about the Jews. As R. Kendall Soulen has rightly argued, Christians
must develop some (at least implicit) overarching narrative that integrates
the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible as the two parts of the
Christian Bible.9
The common solution that proclaims Jesus to be the completion of the
hopes of ancient Judaism is obviously supersessionist, leaving no further
need for Judaism in the economy of salvation.10 (The Jews are beloved, it
would seem, for the sake of their ancestors, as stated in Nostra Aetate—
but not for any ongoing role in the salvation of the world).11 Moreover,
declaring Jesus to be the fulfillment of the hopes of Israel is inadequate to
the Hebrew Bible and distorts Christianity as well. As Soulen notes, when
the revelation of God’s history with the people of Israel is reduced to pre-
paring for the coming of Jesus, Christians undermine their own hope for
history along with theological concerns for the “middle values” of politics,
9
R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1996), 114. See also the theological debates about the relation of the Jewish covenant to the
Christian covenant in John T. Pawlikowski, Jesus and the Theology of Israel (Wilmington DE:
Michael Glazier, 1989) and Mary C. Boys, Has God Only One Blessing? Judaism as a Source
of Christian Self-Understanding (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000).
10
An unresolved tension between refusing explicit supersessionism and retaining implicit
supersessionism is clearly evident in the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews,
“The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable,” 10 December 2015 at: http://www.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_
doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html (accessed March 1, 2020).
11
Vatican II, Nostra Aetate 4.
238 M. DOAK
economics, and society that figure so prominently in the Hebrew Bible.12

The result is an otherworldly and privatized faith, in which social ethics is,
at best, of secondary importance to the Christian community.
The doctrine of the Second Coming should, of course, interrupt this
claim that the hopes of Israel are fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrec-
tion of Jesus of Nazareth. This doctrine stands as a reminder that Jesus has
not in fact completely fulfilled biblical hopes, at least not yet. Christians
share with Jews an outstanding hope for history, as such different thinkers
as Rosemary Radford Ruether and, more recently, Joseph Ratzinger have
both insisted.13
Perhaps the most promising suggestion for integrating the revelation of
God’s history with the Jews with the revelation in Jesus Christ is Soulen’s
view of the Bible as revealing God’s plan for a diverse creation of mutual
blessing. The universal covenant offered in Jesus of Nazareth is under-
stood to be a new and (I would add) unforeseen divine act that adds to the
opportunities for mutual blessing begun in the diversity of creation and
furthered through the Abrahamic covenant intended as a blessing to the
world.14 Instead of the Christian covenant leading to the sin of seeking
blessing apart from and at the expense of others, Soulen suggests that the
distinctness of the Christian covenant ought to be an opportunity for
greater mutual enrichment through sharing the diverse experiences and
insights of the Christian and Jewish communities. In Jesus, gentiles are
offered a covenant with God that is explicitly related to, but not a replace-
ment of, God’s covenant with Jews, which remains the “permanent and
enduring medium of God’s work as the Consummator of human creation,
and therefore it is also the permanent and enduring context of the gospel
about Jesus.”15
Thus envisioning an ongoing and positive role for Jews and Judaism in
the continuing history of salvation is necessary but not yet sufficient
reform. As Mannion argued, true ecclesial reform requires an energizing
vision, but it must be one that is not divorced from the “day-to-day reality
of life in the church.”16 The goal here is not simply more adequate thought,
12
Soulen, God of Israel, 50.
13
See especially Ruether, Faith and Fratricide 248–250, and the Pontifical Biblical
Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Bible (Vatican City: Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, 2002), 21.
14
Soulen, God of Israel, 114–140.
15
Ibid. 110.
16
Mannion, Ecclesiology, xii.
but rather a church that more fully embodies the communion with all that
the church is called to witness and to work for in the world. True reform
of Christian anti-Judaism requires that our churches not only imagine, but
also live, a mutual blessing between Christians and Jews at the congrega-
tional and parish level.
A fairly easy first step toward the practice of mutual blessing is for
Christian preachers and teachers regularly to consult and to include con-
temporary Jewish wisdom about the meaning of our common sacred texts
in congregational worship and study. Seeking the insights of our elder
brothers and sisters in faith could deeply enrich Christian understanding
of the revelation received first through the Jews. Such consultation might
also disrupt mistaken stereotypes of Judaism, while clearly witnessing to
the belief that God continues to work in and through the people of the
Abrahamic covenant for the good of the world.
Another and perhaps more far-reaching reform would be for congrega-
tions to work together with Jewish groups to bring the world closer to the
just and peaceful harmony of our shared hopes. Given that Christians and
Jews both await the harmonious consummation of history, this “dialogue
of action” seems particularly appropriate as a common witness to the
hopes of these two communities.17 The pressing challenge of climate
change, which threatens life as we know it and demands immediate and
concerted action, is an important issue especially for those who believe in
the divine blessing of creation. Working together, Christians and Jews
might be more effective in their response to the climate crisis; they would
also have opportunities to strengthen the bonds of friendship that are the
basis for and best evidence of unity-in-diversity.
The church, called to embrace diversity in loving communion, has
much to offer our deeply fractured world. But it must first learn to over-
come the repudiation of the Jewish difference that has distorted Christianity
from its beginning.
17
See especially the discussion of dialogue of action in Peter C. Phan, “Evangelization and
Interreligious Dialogue: Compatible Parts of Christian Mission? – 2010” (2010). Santa
Clara Lectures, 7 at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/sc_lectures/7 (accessed March
1, 2020).
PART V
Ecclesiology
CHAPTER 28
Overcoming “The Church as Counter-sign

of the Kingdom”
Paul Avis
It is almost universally agreed by New Testament scholars that the coming

of the kingdom or reign of God was the very core of Jesus’ proclamation.1
“After John [the Baptist] had been handed over, Jesus came into Galilee
proclaiming the gospel of God and saying, ‘The time has been fulfilled and
the reign (basileia) of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel’”
(Mark. 1.14–15). The imminence of the kingdom was the “good news”
(“gospel”). The theme of the nearness of the reign of God is pivotal for
Jesus’ destiny from beginning to end.
As early Christian theology evolved, Jesus came to be seen as the
personal embodiment of the kingdom, the kingdom itself (autobasileia, as
Origen put it). The one who proclaimed the kingdom was proclaimed by
the church as the content of the kingdom. As Bultmann puts it, “The
1
“‘The centrality of the kingdom of God (basileiatoutheou) in Jesus’ preaching is one of
the least disputable, or disputed, facts about Jesus”: James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered,
Christianity in the Making, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 383.
P. Avis (*)
Durham University, Durham, UK
University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

244 P. AVIS
proclaimer became the proclaimed.”2 From then onward the church could
speak of the kingdom of Christ, as well as of God (1 Cor. 15. 24–25; 2
Peter 1.11; Rev. 20.6). The relationship or connection between the king-
dom of God and the church has been argued about in the history of theol-
ogy. Augustine of Hippo identified the two, while Protestant theology has
tended to oppose them. In modern ecumenical theology the church is
seen as the sign, instrument, and foretaste of the kingdom—serving the
kingdom but staying in dialectical tension with it. The church spearheads
the kingdom in the world, but is not identical with it. The church is judged
against the kingdom. But what happens when the church obscures the
kingdom of God and of Christ, the reign of love, justice and freedom, and
becomes a counter-sign of the kingdom?
With regard to the failings of the church, we should distinguish between
ordinary human moral frailty and intentional, premeditated human wick-
edness. To be a Christian is to know weakness as well as strength. The sign
of a sanctified life is an overpowering sense of how far we still have to travel
into the holiness of God. Perhaps the first sign of sainthood is self-
abasement; the saints are moved by an overpowering sense of unworthi-
ness. That is the condition for receiving grace. God’s power is made
perfect in human weakness (2 Cor. 12.9–10). Christian moral weakness,
Christian sinfulness or “falling short”, are unavoidable (Rom. 3.23;
7.14–25). We are steeped in sinfulness even as we are being transformed
by the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3.18). However, the
serious misdemeanours and crimes of the church corporately, such as those
being uncovered in the current global sexual abuse scandal, are in another
league altogether. Not only do they harm and ruin countless human lives,
but they can also obliterate the kingdom of God and of Christ in the per-
ception of many who are not directly affected. Where does that leave our
doctrine of the church?
Because the church is identified with the body of Christ, crucified and
risen, its weakness as well as its strength is apparent. Just as Christ’s risen
body bore the marks of crucifixion (John 20.20, etc.), so the church bears
all the marks of human imperfection and fallibility, even of sin (which
2
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols (London,
SCM Press, 1952), vol. 1, 33; italics original. Further on the theme of Jesus’ proclamation
of the kingdom, the eschatological background and the implications for ecclesiology, see
Paul Avis, Jesus and the Church: The Foundation of the Church in the New Testament and
Modern Theology (London and New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2020).
28 OVERCOMING “THE CHURCH AS COUNTER-SIGN OF THE KINGDOM” 245
cannot be predicated of Christ). As Martin Luther reminds us, Christ is

veiled and hidden in the church. It is not easy to perceive him there. In the
eyes of the world, Luther writes, “the church is like its bridegroom Christ:
hacked to pieces, marked with scratches, despised, crucified, mocked”, but
in the eyes of God she is a holy, spotless dove.3 Luther notoriously called
the church ‘the greatest sinner’. He said that, just as there is no-one who
is a greater sinner than the Christian, so “there is no greater sinner than
the Christian church”, and that is why, he added, the church prays daily,
“Forgive us our trespasses”.4 Unlike some modern theologians, including
Pope John Paul II, Luther refuses to make a qualitative difference between
the Christian and the church. For Luther, the church is at the same time
sinful and justified, ecclesia simul iusta et peccatrix, just like the individual
Christian.
But is it right to use that sort of language about the body of Christ?
Some Christian traditions cannot accept it. The Orthodox would con-
demn it as blasphemous. Some Anglicans are certainly uncomfortable with
it. Roman Catholics also struggle to admit that the church is sinful. But let
Luther’s statement stand alongside St Paul’s confession (or one attributed
to him) that he was ‘the chief, or foremost of sinners’ (1 Tim. 1.15). Paul
is not being merely rhetorical. He is the number one sinner because he was
‘formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence’(1 Tim. 1.13).
He tried to strangle the infant church at birth (Acts 8.1–3; 26.10; Gal.
1.13). But is that the kind of language that should ever be used of an
apostle of Jesus Christ and a saint of the church? I think it is basically the
same issue in both cases: holy church and holy apostle; sinful apostle, sin-
ful church.
There is an unavoidable ambiguity about the church. It is at once sign
and countersign of Christ and of the kingdom of God. Like John the
Baptist in Grünewald’s Eisenheim altarpiece, the church points people to
Christ crucified and that is a vivid depiction of its true role. But the church
often seems to point people away from Christ and in the opposite direc-
tion. It deters people from coming to him in faith and gives them an aver-
sion to Christianity. Today many people of integrity and goodwill
experience a sense of revulsion at the church and are deeply suspicious of
3
Luther’s Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 54, Table Talk, trans. Theodore G. Tappert
(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1967), 262.
4
D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar 1883–), vol. 34/1, 276:
Non est tam magna peccatrix ut Christiana ecclesia.
246 P. AVIS
the clergy. How many people are today outside the church because of the
church? How many who once were regular worshippers and communi-
cants are now alienated? In our own small worlds, we are all aware of
numerous friends who once went to church and no longer do so.
Paul’s expression “the mystery of iniquity” (2 Thess. 2.7, KJB) can
stand for the fact that the church, the vehicle of Christ’s mission in the
world and the privileged instrument of his kingdom, can be the means of
turning people away from him. We struggle to understand how God could
permit that reality to stand within God’s good purposes for the world and
the church. It is part of the great unanswerable question of theodicy. Sin
in the church is the question of ecclesial theodicy. We do not know why
God allows such depths of depravity in God’s church, any more than we
understand why God allows such depths of depravity in the world at large.
The church and its ministers sometimes obscure Christ’s presence in
the world. The public face of the church can become a counter-sign of
Christ, averting people from him. In our own time, because of serious
abuses committed by clergy and culpable acts of cover-up by the episcopal
hierarchy, the church itself has become—and here is the tragic irony—a
major instrument of the de-christianization of Christendom. It is as though
the church has been digging its own grave. The church as a human institu-
tion is capable of great evil and can perpetrate enormous wrong. As Paul
says, ‘Antichrist makes his throne in the temple of God’ (2 Thess. 2.4).
How difficult it is at such times to say with the Ceylonese Methodist
bishop and evangelist D. T. Niles: “The answer to the problems of the
world is the answer that Jesus Christ provided, which is the church.”5 It
carries so little credibility that today even many Christians would hesitate
to affirm this without qualification.
The church is, by definition, a community of sinners and no others,
though sinners who are being sanctified through word and sacrament.
When their sins get the upper hand and lead the church as an institution
to commit great wrong, we have no alternative but to say that the church
itself is sinful. Karl Rahner, S.J., who calls the question of the sinfulness of
the church “one of the most agonising questions of ecclesiology”, is pre-
pared to assert without equivocation that “the church is sinful”. For
Rahner, it is dissembling and self-deceiving to say that flagrant sinners and
wrong-doers are “in” the church but not “of” it, that their actions do not
5
D. T. Niles [1908–1970], The Message and Its Messengers (Nashville, TS: Abingdon,
1966), 50.
touch the character of the church, that the church remains spotless while
its representatives commit appalling crimes. As Rahner puts it, “The
church is a sinful church: this is a truth of faith […] and it is a shattering
truth.”6 Vatican II acknowledged that the church is always in need of peni-
tence, purification and renewal, even of reformation.7
When the glory of God is eclipsed in the church by its sins, we have to
say with Luther, “The face of the church is the face of one who is a sinner,
troubled, forsaken, dying and full of distress.”8 Henri de Lubac puts it
similarly: “On the one hand we see an assembly of sinners, a mixed herd,
wheat gathered with the straw, a field with tares growing in it: Corpus
Christi mixtum, the ark which shelters clean and unclean animals; on the
other [hand] we have an unspotted virgin, mother of saints, born on
Calvary from the pierced side of Jesus […] the very assembly she has made
holy […] known only to God.”9
Having touched on some Roman Catholic voices, I now want to men-
tion a powerful Anglican contribution. Ephraim Radner’s A Brutal Unity:
The Spiritual Politics of the Christian Church10 is a plea for rethinking
ecclesiology in a way that takes the history of division in the church—and
the tragic and sometimes criminal consequences of division—with greater
seriousness. Radner argues for a “realistic” ecclesiology, rather than an
idealistic one that does not reflect the state of the church as it is. Radner’s
realism means looking at the church without our customary rose-tinted
spectacles. The church that goes wrong, commits sins and crimes, is not
other than Christ’s church. It is not merely the earthly shadow of the real
heavenly church, nor is it simply the visible tip of an invisible iceberg.
Neither is it the ecclesial mirror-image of the social Trinity, as in some
6
Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 6 (Baltimore, ML: Helicon Press; London:
Darton, Longman & Todd, 1969), 253, 256–260 (‘The church of Sinners’). See now also
Brian P. Flanagan, Stumbling in Holiness: Sin and Sanctity in the Church (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press Academic, 2018).
7
Lumen Gentium 8; Unitatis Redintegratio 6. See also Karl Rahner, ‘The Sinful church in
the Decrees of Vatican II’, Theological Investigations, vol. 6, chapter 18; Paul Avis, Beyond the
Reformation? Authority, Primacy and Unity in the Conciliar Tradition (London and
New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 200–203.
8
Cited Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism (St Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing
House, 1962), 262.
9
Henri de Lubac, Catholicism: A Study of Dogma in Relation to the Corporate Destiny of
Mankind, trans. L. C. Sheppard (London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1950), 26.
10
Ephraim Radner, A Brutal Unity: The Spiritual Politics of the Christian Church (Waco:
TX: Baylor University Press, 2012).
248 P. AVIS
communio ecclesiology. The church is not a politically uncontaminated

mystical body, but is political through and through, inescapably involved
with issues of power and justice or injustice. The sinful church that we see
is the church. The only church that there is, is a sinful church. In Radner’s
view, such ecclesiological realism does not eradicate the church’s potential
to be an instrument of the mission of God. The two aspects exist in ten-
sion. As Radner puts it, the fact that “disordered failure and redemptive
capacity” coincide in the church’s life is “one of the most anguished cen-
ters” of Christian experience.
Christian disunity and division is not only an appalling evil in itself but
it gives birth to even worse evils. Through an analysis of the late medieval
and post-Reformation religious wars in Europe, the church in Hitler’s
Germany, massacres in Burundi and genocide in Rwanda, Radner shows
that the failure of the churches to stand together, to speak and act as one
against a common foe, proved to be their undoing and led in some cases
to direct involvement in killing, or at least complicity in it. He rejects the
recent Roman Catholic apologetic which protests that, while individual
members have sinned grievously, “the church as such” or “the church in
itself” (John Paul II) remains immaculate. Radner’s approach is not anti-
institutional; no body of humans can suppose that it lacks form. He dis-
putes what he takes to be William Cavanaugh’s thesis that religion is
usually employed as a pretext for violent action by other powers.11 No, it
is religion itself that is sometimes lethal. The unpalatable fact is that “reli-
gious violence has a horrendous character peculiar to itself”. It finds
opportunity when a distorted version of religious identity “empowers
evil”. The religious wars in Europe have been characterized as “killing
people for God’s sake”.12 Even in modern times, Christians have prepared
themselves by prayer or even by receiving Holy Communion to slaughter
the innocent. Radner draws on the Rwanda genocide to argue that there
is a kind of Christianity, one that is not at all uncommon, that lends itself
to this kind of perversion. It stresses obedience to religious authority;
11
William Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009). See also now Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence
(London: The Bodley Head, 2014); Richard A. Burridge and Jonathan Sacks, eds.,Confronting
Religious Violence: A Counternarrative (London: SCM Press; Waco, TX: Baylor University
Press, 2018).
12
Norman Housley, Religious Warfare in Europe, 1400–1536 (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002).
plays up religious differences, stereotyping and ultimately demonizing the

other; revels in power play and political jockeying; and manipulates pow-
erful indigenous sacral forces for its own purposes. That toxic cocktail
makes forgiveness, reconciliation and sacrifice between separated Christians
impossible. Certain recognizable types of Christian mindset are congeni-
tally receptive to being taken over for evil purposes.13 Religious division
and violence are not so much cause and effect as “consanguineous”. The
church as a “killer” is an almost unbearable thought, a prime cause of
theological vertigo, but a wholesale catalogue of horrors would probably
make the third article of the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in … the holy
catholic church”, stick in the throat.
So we have an institution fraught with ambiguity and our response to
that ambiguity is one of acute ambivalence. We are in two minds about the
church. We know that if we love Christ, we should love his church. If we
love his church we should spend ourselves for its unity and devote our-
selves to its mission. But we also sense that Christ grieves over the church.
Pascal says, “Christ will be in agony until the end of the world.”14 We
would defend her to the death; but we are heartbroken with grief at her
failings. Only God is perfect; only God never fails. Nevertheless, there is
much that we can and should do. First, for corporate sin there should be
corporate penitence and it should be expressed liturgically at every level of
the church, led by the episcopate. Second, there should be structural and
practical reform, setting right what has gone wrong and extirpating abuses.
Like love in 1 Corinthians 13, reform “never ends”, hence the watchword
ecclesia reformata semper reformanda. Third, there should be develop-
ment, adapting doctrine and practice to meet fresh challenges. Development
is a proper function of the church; it is part of its business and not some-
thing to be defensive about. Chastened by penitence and checked by
reform, development is the way out of the present quagmire.
13
Radner draws on Timothy Paul Longman, Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
14
Blaise Pascal, Pensées, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966), 313.
CHAPTER 29
To Live According to the Form of the Holy

Gospel: Francis of Assisi’s Embodied
Challenge to the Institutional Church
Craig A. Phillips
It is common in contemporary North American society to hear explicit

rejection of the “institutional church,” or “organized religion.” Sexual
misconduct scandals involving clergy and lay staff, accompanied in some
places by the continuing shelter and protection of known sexual abusers
across denominations, along with occasional financial fraud and misuse of
church funds, have led many to conclude that the institutional church can-
not be trusted to govern itself in a manner that fosters public trust, and in
a manner consistent with the Gospel message the church seeks to proclaim.
In addition, the organized juridical structure of the church is often
seen to be at odds with the personal needs of people formed by the values
of a highly individualistic culture. As a result, the church often does not
offer sufficient resources to help individuals find coherence between their
daily life and their religious practices. This essay will explore what the con-
temporary church can learn from Francis of Assisi and the ancient
C. A. Phillips (*)
Virginia Theological Seminary, Arlington, VA, USA

252 C. A. PHILLIPS
monastic traditions of the church so that by focusing less on itself as an

institution, it might offer concrete resources to help contemporary
Christians find continuity between who they are and what they do.
The first part of the essay examines how Francis of Assisi
(1181/1182–1226) challenged the juridical structures of the institutional
church of his day in two ways: by his decision “to live according to the
form of the Holy Gospel,” thus deferring the establishment of a monastic
rule to govern his life, and by his decision to live without property. In his
political theory, Giorgio Agamben sheds light on these two decisions of
Francis. Agamben’s unique interpretation of Francis allows for the identi-
fication of resources to change the church that might otherwise remain
hidden were we to focus solely on a critique of the juridical structures of
monastic communities or of the larger church itself.
The concluding section of the essay examines what the Most Rev.
Michael Curry, the Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church,
is doing to re-brand the church as the “Episcopal branch of the Jesus
Movement” and how the “Way of Love, Rule of Life” that he and other
leaders of the church have developed and propagated, resonates with
Francis’s way of changing the church through the example of Francis’ life
lived according to the pattern of Jesus Christ.
In 1206, as Francis of Assisi was praying before the Byzantine crucifix
that hung in the dilapidated church of St. Damiano, he heard the divine
voice say to him, “Francis, rebuild my church, which as you can see is
going to ruins.” At first, Francis took this call literally, focusing on gather-
ing stones and mortar to repair the physical church. As time went on, he
realized that the reform of the church involved more than material repairs.
Hearing a reading from the Gospel of Matthew in which Jesus tells his
followers to “take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for
your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff [….]” (Mt 10:9), Francis,
a layperson, resolved to live henceforth without property, as a beggar,
wearing a simple cloak and cord.
In his study of Christian monastic traditions, Giorgio Agamben identi-
fies two distinct ways that Francis sought to live outside the juridical struc-
tures of the church: the first was his attempt to pattern his life in accordance
with the example of Jesus without formalized monastic rules and the sec-
ond was his explicit refusal to own property. Agamben turns to Christian
monasticism for his contemporary political philosophy so that he begins to
“construct a form-of-life” […] that is, a life, “linked so closely to its form
29 TO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE FORM OF THE HOLY GOSPEL… 253
that it proves to be inseparable from it.”1 In monasticism, Agamben sees

an attempt, even if not fully realized, to bridge the gap between life (being)
and form of life (practice), that is, between being and doing.
The uniqueness of Francis’ challenge to the institutional church of his
day is that it did not begin as an intentional social or political movement
of reform but rather was found in the inward and outward form of his own
personal life.2 “Unlike earlier founders — Benedict, Augustine, Bernard —
Francis presented his followers not with a coherent rule, but with himself.”3
As more and more people joined Francis in his movement, which at first
was solely an individual endeavor on Francis’s part, authorities of the
established church felt it necessary to establish juridical principles to rein
in the threat that Francis’ radical form of life posed to the church. In the
midst of a church deeply suspicious of wandering mendicants (and with a
history of suppressing such movements), these authorities sought to put
the monastic community that grew up organically around Francis under
some sort of juridical structure.
The earliest rule of Francis from 1209 to 1210 has not survived. It was
most likely composed of the two formulas, vivere secundum formam sancti
Evangelii (to live according to the form of the Holy Gospel) and vivere
sine proprio (to live without property), along with some supporting cita-
tions from Holy Scripture. Elements of the earliest rule, no doubt, survive
in “The Rule without the Papal Seal” (Regula non bullata) of 1221. This
document affirmed that the form of Francis’s life, the outward manifesta-
tion of his unique vocation inseparably entwined with that of Jesus, itself
comprises Francis’ rule of life: “This is the life of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
that Brother Francis petitioned the Lord Pope to grant and confirm for
him […] and his brothers present and to come.”4 In his Testament written
1
Giorgio Agamben, The Highest Poverty: Monastic Rules and Forms-of-Life, trans. Adam
Kotsko (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2013), xi. See also Giorgio Agamben,
“The Inappropriable,” in Creation and Anarchy: The Word of Art and the Religion of
Capitalism, trans. Adam Kotsko (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2019), 29–50.
See 29–31.
2
Gert Melville, The World of Medieval Monasticism: Its History and Forms of Life, trans.
James D. Mixson, Cistercian Studies Series, Number 263. (Collegeville, Minn.: The
Liturgical Press, 2016), 211.
3
Augustine Thompson, Francis of Assisi: The Life (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
2013), 40.
4
Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellman, and William J. Short, eds, Francis of Assisi:
Early Documents, vol. 1, The Saint.(New York: New City Press, 1999), 63.
254 C. A. PHILLIPS
near the end of his life, Francis described his simple vocation in the fol-
lowing way:
And after the Lord gave me some brothers, no one showed me what I had
to do (quid deberemfacere), but the Most High Himself revealed to me that
I should live (quod deberem vivere) according to the pattern of the Holy
Gospel (vivere secundum formam sancti Evangelii). And I had this written
down simply and in a few words and the Lord Pope confirmed it for me.5
Giorgio Agamben argues that the distinction between the quid and the
quod demonstrates that Francis’ rule cannot be understood in anyway as a
normative (legal) code:
The technical opposition between the substantial and content-oriented quid

(what I must do) and the existential and factual quod (that I must live)
shows that Francis cannot be concerned with a rule in the proper sense,
which establishes precepts and duties (quid deberem facere). And the opposi-
tion is not only between “what” and “that,” but also between “doing” and
“living,” the observation of precepts and norms and the simple fact of living
according to a form […]. As opponents and followers immediately under-
stood, the “form of the holy Gospel” is not in any way reducible to a norma-
tive code.6
The Rule of 1221 states that “The rule and life (regula vel vita) of these
brothers is this: namely: to live in obedience, in chastity, and without any-
thing of their own, and to follow the teachings and footprints of our Lord
Jesus Christ.”7 The fact the “rule” and “life” are separated by the Latin
word vel, and not aut, shows that the terms are used interchangeably and
not in opposition to each other. Here rule and life coincide, each enrich-
ing the other.8
The basis of Agamben’s analysis of Francis can be found in his investi-
gations into the origins of the structure and function of political
5
Armstrong, Hellman, and Short, Francis, vol. 1, 125.
6
Agamben, The Highest Poverty, 97.
7
Armstrong, Hellman, and Short, Francis, vol. 1, 63–64.
8
In the Testament, Francis makes a distinction between “priests who live according to the
form of the holy Roman Church” (qui vivunt secundum formam sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae)
and his own call “to live according to the pattern (formam) of the Holy Gospel.” Agamben
notes that “the syntagma form of life … does not appear as such in the writings attributed to
Francis.”. See Agamben, The Highest Poverty, 96.
sovereignty in Western societies. Because the will of the sovereign is indis-

tinguishable from the law, in the sovereign, law and life coincide. In the
figure of the monastic, however, the form of life (shaped by monastic rule
(regula) as opposed to law (lex)), and life itself coincide, in an “inverse
parallel” to the sovereign. Thus, the figure of the monastic offers Agamben
resources for thinking a life lived outside of law.9
By insisting that his life was at the same time the example of the rule
and the rule itself, Francis resisted the need for a separate legal framework
to bind the monastic community together. As a result, his form of life
“rendered juridical authority inoperative.”10
The Franciscan abdication of every right (abdicatio omnis juris) to own
property, similarly, was a rejection not only of the ownership of material
things but also of what might otherwise have been invoked to protect or
stabilize the Franciscan form of life by means of external juridical struc-
tures. Agamben argues that the meaning of Francis’s formula vivere sine
proprio is not to be found merely in the “the act of renouncing juridical
ownership” alone but rather is found in constituting a “form of life” that
is “always already constitutively outside the law” and therefore “can never
appropriate anything to itself.”11
Francis’ desire to bring together life and form of life into a coherent
whole, without reliance on juridical structures to bind them together,
offers the church a new way to embody what it means to be a disciple of
Jesus today.
In 2018, The Most Rev. Michael Curry called the Episcopal Church to
adopt a rule of life centered around Jesus:
I believe our vocation is to live as the Episcopal branch of the Jesus

Movement. But how can we together grow more deeply with Jesus Christ at
the center of our lives, so we can bear witness to his way of love in and for
the world? The deep roots of our Christian tradition may offer … a path.
9
DeCarli, “What is a Form-of-Life?: Giorgio Agamben and the Practice of Poverty,” in
Daniel McLoughlin, ed., Agamben and Radical Politics (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2016), 207–233. See 213.
10
DeCarli, “What is a Form-of-Life?” 214.
11
Agamben, Creation and Anarchy, 37. For a discussion of Agamben’s critique of the
juridical structures of the contemporary church, see Craig A. Phillips, “The Reign of God
and the Church: Giorgio Agamben’s Messianic Critique of the Church,” in Mark Chapman,
ed., Hope in the Ecumenical Future. Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue
(Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 63–81.
256 C. A. PHILLIPS
For centuries, monastic communities have shaped their lives around rhythms
and disciplines for following Jesus together. Such a pattern is known as a
“Rule of Life.” [… T]he Way of Love: Practices for Jesus-Centered Life –
outlines a Rule for the Episcopal branch of the Jesus Movement.12
“The Way of Love,” is a “way of life.” It is “an intentional commitment

to a set of practices. It’s a commitment to follow Jesus” centered on the
following practices: “Turn, Learn, Pray, Worship, Bless, Go, Rest.”13 The
accompanying text provides a brief explanation of each of the practices:
TURN: Pause, listen, and choose to follow Jesus.

LEARN: Reflect on Scripture each day, especially on Jesus’ life and
teachings.
PRAY: Dwell intentionally with God each day.
WORSHIP: Gather in community weekly to thank, praise, and dwell
with God.
BLESS: Share faith and unselfishly give and serve.
GO: Cross boundaries, listen deeply and live like Jesus.
REST: Receive the gift of God’s grace, peace, and restoration.
Rather than calling the Episcopal Church to a particular social or politi-

cal program, Curry calls the church simply to follow the example of Jesus
and to live that out in the world in which the church now finds itself.
While the organizational structure of the church remains unchanged,
attention is drawn away from it so that renewed attention can be focused
on a set of embodied practices directly connected to the person and exam-
ple of Jesus, practices that can change the church and the world. This
deemphasizes the institutional church as it focuses instead on concrete
practices that relate directly to Christian discipleship.
While Agamben is looking for philosophical and not theological solu-
tions to the separation of doing and being and form of life from life itself,
he employs theological texts and resources to carry out this task. In
Francis, Agamben finds resources to address these philosophical issues.14
12
“The Way of Love: Practices for a Jesus-Centered Life”, at: https://episcopalchurch.
org/way-of-love/invitation (accessed February 17, 2020). Bishop Curry first announced
“The Way of Love” at the opening Eucharist of the 79th General Convention of the
Episcopal Church on July 5, 2018.
13
“The Way of Love”.
14
Agamben writes, “[…T]he most precious legacy of Franciscanism, to which the West
must return ever anew to contend with it as its undeferrable task: how to think a form-of-life,
The life of Francis of Assisi and the “Way of Love,” each provide rich
resources to change the church today. Each reminds the church of the
centrality of Jesus Christ, who is revealed in the witness of Holy Gospels
and encountered through the worship in the sacraments of the church.
Agamben’s philosophical interpretation of Francis highlights not only
how Francis changed the church by the example of a life directly modeled
on that of Jesus, but how, by refusing to develop, at least at the beginning,
a monastic rule in line with the established juridical structures of the day,
he changed the church of his day by reconnecting it to the life and minis-
try of Jesus. Francis was firmly rooted in Holy Scripture as he desired
solely to live “according to the form of the Holy Gospel” and “in the
footprints of Jesus Christ whom we must follow.”15 Bishop Curry, simi-
larly, is implementing change within the Episcopal Church by drawing on
rich monastic traditions, of which Francis of Assisi is an integral part, by
calling the people in the church to adopt a rule of life integrally connected
to Jesus and the Scriptures that bear witness to him. May we in the church
once again learn from the example of blessed Francis and commit our-
selves to walk in the footprints of Jesus Christ, who is “the pioneer and
perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). This practice will change
the church.
a human life entirely removed from the grasp of the law and a use of bodies and of the world
that would never be substantiated into an appropriation. That is to say again: to think life as
that which is never given as property but only as a common use.” See Agamben, The Highest
Poverty, xiii.
15
Regula non bullata, Chapter 22:2. See Armstrong, Hellman, and Short, Francis,
vol. 1, 79.
CHAPTER 30
Authority and Change: The Role

of Authority in the Anglican Communion
and the Lutheran World Federation
Miriam Haar
This article explores the relationship between change and authority and
discusses the role of authority when churches and global ecclesial com-
munions experience change. Recent developments regarding human sexu-
ality in two Christian World Communions, the Anglican Communion
(AC) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), serve as case studies.
Although similar challenges have occurred in other global ecclesial com-
munions such as the World Methodist Council, the AC and the LWF have
been selected because in both communions these challenges have stirred
debates about the understanding and practice of authority when trying to
hold together the global communion. In both communions, the member
churches are autonomous and there is no “magisterium”. Both commu-
nions have member churches that have implemented decisions and intro-
duced legislation that have brought about change: change regarding
same-sex partnerships and regarding the ordination of homosexual pastors
M. Haar (*)
Institute for Ecumenical Studies and Research, Bensheim, Mannheim, Germany

260 M. HAAR
and priests and the consecration of bishops.1 Thus, both have member
churches which ordain homosexual people and conduct blessings or mar-
riages for people living in same-sex unions and, at the same time, both
communions have member churches opposed to this.
When churches and global ecclesial communions are faced with changes
including over complex and divisive issues, questions related to authority
arise: Who has the authority to allow change or to hinder these develop-
ments? How do churches which are members of one global communion
react when change happens in churches which are members of the same
communion?
Recent Developments in the Anglican Communion

The AC is a global communion with about 85 million members in 46 dif-
ferent churches in more than 165 countries. All are in communion, or in
a reciprocal relationship, with the See of Canterbury and recognize the
Archbishop of Canterbury as the Communion’s spiritual head. There is no
central authority in the AC. All the provinces are autonomous and free to
make their own decisions in their own ways guided by recommendations
from the four “Instruments of Communion” which are the Archbishop of
Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the
Anglican Consultative Council (ACC).
In the wake of the 13th Lambeth Conference in 1998, there was heated
disagreement between churches of the AC over the issue of biblical war-
rant for ordaining homosexual clergy and blessing same-sex unions. In its
resolution on “Human Sexuality”,2 the Lambeth Conference states that
“in view of the teaching of Scripture, [it] upholds faithfulness in marriage
between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that absti-
nence is right for those who are not called to marriage”.3 Although the
bishops at Lambeth recognize that there are members of the Church who
“experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation”4 and “assure
them that they are loved by God and that all baptized, believing and
1
I have chosen to speak of “homosexuality”, and not to use the more inclusive “LGBTQ+”
terminology, because the two world communions still use the former terminology and very
few member churches use the LGBTQ+ terminology.
2
Resolution I.10 “Human Sexuality” at: https://www.anglicancommunion.org/
media/76650/1998.pdf (accessed January 8, 2020).
3
Ibid., I.10 b.
4
Ibid., I.10 c.
30 AUTHORITY AND CHANGE: THE ROLE OF AUTHORITY… 261
faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the

Body of Christ”,5 they reject “homosexual practice as incompatible with
Scripture”,6 and “call […] on all […] [their] people to minister pastorally
and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation”.7 Therefore, the
Conference “cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same sex unions
nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions”.8 The Conference
passed this resolution with overwhelming majority (526 to 70).
Despite this resolution, both practices were subsequently promoted by
some congregations of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal
Church in the United States (ECUSA, now TEC) which consecrated the
AC’s first openly gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003. More recently also
the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) implemented similar decisions
regarding the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ Anglicans. This drew strenuous
objections from other parts of the AC. In protest, some American congre-
gations withdrew from the TEC in 2007 and affiliated with the Church of
Nigeria, whose primate appointed an American bishop without the con-
sent of the See of Canterbury.
In June 2008 more than 300 bishops from North America and the
United Kingdom joined Anglican leaders from the “Global South” (mainly
Africa but also Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America), where the
majority of contemporary Anglicans live, to attend the Global Anglican
Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem.9 About 230 of these bish-
ops boycotted the following month’s 2008 Lambeth Conference.
The then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams had ruled out
reopening resolution 1.10 from Lambeth 1998 at the 14th Lambeth
Conference in 2008 which was attended by about 650 Anglican bishops.
He emphasized the “listening process” in which diverse views and experi-
ences of human sexuality were collected and collated in accordance with
that resolution. The bishops did not vote on any resolutions, but instead
held a series of small group discussions about the many issues that divide
them. Rowan Williams suggested a “covenant” regarding core Anglican
identity to help overcome differences between liberals and
traditionalists.
5
Ibid., I.10 c.
6
Ibid., I.10 d.
7
Ibid., I.10 d.
8
Ibid., I.10 e.
9
Cf. https://www.gafcon.org/ (accessed January 8, 2020).
262 M. HAAR
The ten-year cycle followed since 1948 set a precedent which suggested
that a Lambeth Conference would be held in 2018, but the Archbishop of
Canterbury Justin Welby wanted to visit all primates in their own coun-
tries before calling the next Conference. At their meeting in Canterbury in
October 2017, the primates decided that the same terms which the TEC
accepted in 2016 for its decision to adopt inclusive marriage policies with-
out AC consultation should be applied to the SEC as a result of its own
support for same-sex marriage. The result was that until 2020 the SEC
agreed that it would “no longer represent the Communion on ecumenical
and interfaith bodies; should not be appointed or elected to internal stand-
ing committees and that, while participating in the internal bodies of the
Anglican Communion, […] would not take part in decision making on
any issues of doctrine or polity”.10
In the months leading to the 2020 Lambeth Conference under the
theme “God’s Church for God’s world: walking, listening and witnessing
together”,11 there have already been fierce debates about the Archbishop
of Canterbury’s decision not to invite same-sex spouses.12 This affects four
bishops from the USA and Canada.13 Several bishops, including Bishop
Michael Curry, the Presiding Bishop of TEC, have already expressed their
concern over this decision.
GAFCON demands that the Anglican Church in North America is rec-
ognized as new province in the AC and that this province shall be invited
to Lambeth 2020. Yet, it is the Archbishop of Canterbury’s authority to
grant this status, and there is currently no sign that he would take this
juridical step. These different developments illustrate that differences in
the understanding of human sexuality challenge the exercise of authority
in the AC.
10
Cf. Communiqué from the Primates’ Meeting, Canterbury Cathedral, England, October
2017 at: https://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/311326/communiqu%C3%A9-
primates-meeting-2017.pdf (accessed January 8, 2020).
11
Cf. https://www.lambethconference.org/ (accessed January 9, 2020).
12
Cf. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/22-february/news/uk/same-sex-
spouses-not-invited-to-lambeth-2020 (accessed October 24, 2019).
13
Cf. https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2019/09/17/house-of-bishop-opens-fall-
meeting-with-discussions-of-same-sex-spouse-exclusion-from-lambeth-2020/ (accessed
October 24, 2019).
Recent Developments in the Lutheran

World Federation
Controversies over human sexuality have also arisen within the worldwide
Lutheran Communion, yet the picture looks very different. Founded in
1947, the LWF today is a global communion of 77 million Lutheran
Christians in 148 member churches in 99 countries. The LWF member
churches have diverse forms of worship, structures, ministry, and socio-
ethical approaches. Doctrinally speaking, their unity is based on what is
expressed in Confessio Augustana VII.14
Since 2007 the Church of Sweden (CoS) has offered a religious bless-
ing for same-sex unions. Based on a proposal from the CoS’s governing
board, the synod of the CoS, its highest decision-making authority, voted
to conduct wedding ceremonies for both heterosexual and homosexual
couples in 2009. This was approved by 176 of 249 voting members. In
2009, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) held a
national church-wide assembly in Minneapolis which passed “Human
Sexuality, Gift and Trust”,15 and voted to allow congregations to ordain
homosexuals in monogamous relationships as clergy to the church. A sep-
arate motion recommended that a rite of blessing for same-sex unions be
provided.
In response to these decisions, the Evangelical-Lutheran Mekane Yesus
Church in Ethiopia announced that it would sever its ties with ELCA and
CoS. This decision was originally introduced in a July 2012 initiative
implemented by the Mekane Yesus Church Council and was ratified after
a general convocation meeting in Addis Ababa in early 2013. The Mekane
Yesus Church declared that it would not be affiliated with any churches
“who have openly accepted same-sex marriage”, and from this point
onward may not accept Holy Communion from their pastors, nor are they
allowed to distribute Holy Communion to their members.16 The question
emerged how the LWF as a communion could deal with this wound in the
body of Christ.
14
“The Augsburg Confession [1530],” in Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (eds.),
The Book of Concord. The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2000), 43.
15
https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/SexualitySS.pdf
(accessed January 10, 2020).
16
https://www.christianpost.com/news/ethiopian-church-severs-ties-with-lutherans-
over-homosexuality-89745/ (accessed January 10, 2020).
264 M. HAAR
As the issues of family, marriage, and sexuality had been a matter of

debate between LWF member churches before, the Council decided in
1995 to start a consultation process on human sexuality. At its meeting at
Lund in 2007, the Council adopted guidelines for respectful dialogue over
five years as recommended by the task force report.17 At the same Council
meeting the issue of blessings for people living in same-sex relationships
triggered heated debates, as shortly beforehand, the CoS had announced
that it would give blessings to same-sex couples in committed, faithful
relationships. No action was taken by the Council and the LWF did not
take a position on these issues. A shortage of time meant that proposed
guidelines for discussing human sexuality did not succeed in gaining full
acceptance. The then LWF General Secretary Ishmael Noko stressed at
the next Council meeting in Arusha (2008) that: “This is a pastoral issue
that each church individually must deal with”.
Following the message of the General Assembly in Winnipeg (2003) to
re-affirm dialogue processes and to advocate for the dignity of all people,
at the next Assembly in Stuttgart (2010) tensions simmered regarding the
issue, despite pleas for patience and unity from Noko and the out-going
president Bishop Mark S. Hansen.
As the five-year period of consultation on human sexuality between
member churches came to completion in 2012, the Council in Bogotá
(2012) reconnected the conversation at the global level.18 The Council
decided that the issue would not divide the communion and that the
communion as a whole should not take action on issues of family, mar-
riage, and sexuality.19 The “Emmaus Conversation” as the Council decided
to call this dialogue process continued after the meeting. Looking to the
biblical account of the encounter between Jesus and the disciples on the
road to Emmaus, LWF member churches embraced mutual accompani-
ment as the model for communion relationships. When reflecting on the
relationship of “Autonomy and Accountability” at the Council meeting in
Geneva in 2013, General Secretary Martin Junge pointed out that
17
Cf. https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/Exhibit%2010%20Report%20
Task%20Force%20English.pdf (accessed January 10, 2020).
18
Cf. A Chronological Compilation of Key Official LWF Discussions and Decisions on Family,
Marriage and Sexuality 1995–2013 at: https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/
LWF-Emmaus_chronological_compilation1995-2013.pdf (accessed January 10, 2020).
19
Cf. https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/120620Joint%20PRes-GS%20
letter_ENG.pdf (accessed January 8, 2020).
[a]s a Communion we have not been able to dig deeper into the interrela-
tionship between the constitutional reference to the autonomy of each of
the LWF’s member churches to take its own decisions, on the one side, and
their mutual accountability as these same autonomous member churches
respond together to the call to live and work together in communion, on
the other side.20
This illustrates that ecclesiologically, the LWF understands itself as a

communio sanctorum, not a communion of the likeminded.
As these disagreements on human sexuality are not just ethical issues or
issues of justice, but related to underlying differences in biblical herme-
neutics and to the self-understanding of the Lutheran Communion, two
study processes were started, one on biblical hermeneutics and one on the
self-understanding of the Lutheran Communion. Because of the realiza-
tion that “there are tensions on how … [the Holy Scriptures] should be
read and their meaning appropriated in different contexts”,21 the study
process on biblical hermeneutics “sought to revisit [the Lutheran
Communion’s] … own theological roots and identity”.22 As for Lutherans
the Scripture, as norma normans, has the highest authority, Lutheran and
ecumenical theologians came together to read selected biblical texts in
light of the interpretive traditions of the Reformation and in response to
local and global issues. The lessons gleaned from this process are
synthesized in The Bible in the Life of the Lutheran Communion. A Study
Document on Lutheran Hermeneutics (2016). Although such a document
cannot solve the disagreements, it stresses shared Lutheran convictions
and recommends “ongoing dialogue about points of biblical interpreta-
tion on which members of the LWF disagree”.23
As the recent controversies regarding the understanding of human sex-
uality also relate to the self-understanding of the Lutheran Communion
and the underlying questions of authority, a working group dealt with
these issues and developed the study document The Self-Understanding of
20
Cf. “Claiming the Gift of Communion in a Fragmented World” at: https://www.luther-
anworld.org/sites/default/files/EXHIBIT%209.0.1%20Claiming%20the%20gift%20of%20
communion%20in%20a%20fragmented%20world.pdf (accessed January 10, 2020).
21
The Bible in the Life of the Lutheran Communion. A Study Document on Lutheran
Hermeneutics (Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2016), 5.
22
Ibid., 5.
23
Ibid., 29.
266 M. HAAR
the Lutheran Communion (2015).24 When describing the relationships of

member churches within the communion, this document introduces the
notion of “accountability” and stresses that “[a]s a communion of
churches, we are called to mutual accountability”.25 From these elucida-
tions, one could develop what I propose to call “communion accountabil-
ity”. This term captures LWF’s task of balancing autonomy, authority, and
mutual accountability that comes with the gift of global unity. “Communion
accountability” points to the recent emphasis on LWF’s ecclesiology as a
global and local communion of churches. This reality is a huge challenge
regarding the reception of decisions of LWF governing bodies and the
documents they commend to the member churches.
Change and Authority

Both examples illustrate that change in the church is related to the under-
standing and practice of authority in the church. In the AC where the
provinces are autonomous and regulate doctrinal questions and ecumeni-
cal relations independently, the debate is about the “moral” authority of
the Archbishop of Canterbury and the authority of primates and bishops
in times of change. As a conference of bishops, the Lambeth Conference
holds a certain moral and spiritual authority and its resolutions are influ-
ential, but they do not carry legislative authority.
The situation is different in the LWF and its member churches. Unlike
the Archbishop of Canterbury, neither the LWF General Secretary nor the
President hold “moral authority”. There is no conference of bishops in the
LWF. It is the General Assembly that has the highest decision-making
authority.26 At the Assembly, the delegates of the member churches elect
the members of Council which decides on finances, staff, and programs. It
further appoints commissions, receives theological reports and ecumenical
dialogues and commends them to the member churches for study and
reception. The Executive Committee oversees the proper functioning of
24
The Self-Understanding of the Lutheran Communion. A Study Document (Geneva: The
Lutheran World Federation, 2015).
25
Ibid., 25.
26
As the principal authority of the LWF, the Assembly is responsible e.g. for the
Constitution, gives general direction to the work of the Federation, and elects the President
(cf. https://www.lutheranworld.org/content/assembly (accessed January 10, 2020)).
the LWF between Council meetings.27 Yet, neither the Council nor the
Executive Committee has legislative authority. The authority lies with the
member churches and their leadership structures such as synods and bish-
ops. One could call it the tremendum et fascinosum of the Lutheran
Communion that the decisions of the Assembly and the Council are de
facto not binding for member churches and that their implementation de
facto depends on the good will of member churches.
In its composition the LWF Council is more comparable to the ACC
which is composed of lay and ordained members from all over the AC. The
decision to allocate responsibility for ecumenical dialogues to the ACC
(rather than the Lambeth Conference) implies a change in the practice of
the teaching office in the AC. Before the ACC takes decisions, relevant
documents are discussed by IASCUFO (Inter-Anglican Standing
Commission on Unity, Faith and Order).28
Change challenges authority structures. Although the challenges for
the AC and the LWF are similar, different developments have occurred in
both communions. This is not only due to different structures of author-
ity, but also due to non-doctrinal factors such as colonial history. As change
will continue to challenge churches and global communions, questions
emerge regarding what kind of understanding of authority would be help-
ful for encountering change. In times of globalization and fragmentation,
when global communions struggle to hold churches and communities
together, Ellen K. Wondra’s understanding of authority in the Anglican
tradition is helpful, as she proposes a theology of authority that allows and
facilitates change.29 Wondra argues for an understanding of authority in
the church which is, at its base, fundamentally communal, relational and
dispersed rather than juridical and focused.30 For her, authority in the
church “belongs to the whole people of God”31 as it is the “baptismal call
[that] authorizes participation in mission, ministry, and the councils of the
27
Cf. https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/2018/documents/lwf_consti-
tution_en.pdf; https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/2019/documents/
lwf_bylaws_en.pdf (accessed January 10, 2020).
28
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ecumenism/iascufo.aspx (accessed January
10, 2020).
29
Cf. Ellen K. Wondra, Questioning Authority. The Theology and Practice of Authority in the
Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2018).
30
Ibid., 11.
31
Ibid., 280.
268 M. HAAR
church”.32 Authority must be claimed and received and every exercise of

authority must take place “within a communal framework of shared under-
standing, commitment, and aspiration”.33 Wondra emphasizes that author-
ity “is conferred to serve communion, and it must be configured in line
with what it serves.”34 Her theology of authority invites communions to
deal with change in a way that does not divide them, but encourages them
to embrace diversity, recognize and respect others’ perspectives, and to
work together to discover and create common ground.
32
Ibid., 280.
33
Ibid., 11.
34
Ibid., 11.
CHAPTER 31
“Stop, Stop and Listen”: Changing

the Church by Listening to Its Life
Andrew Pierce
Irish poet Austin Clarke deposits a bucket of ice-cold nature over the
ecclesial grace of the monk, Patric, as the blackbird of Derrycairn sings:
Stop, stop and listen for the bough top

Is whistling and the sun is brighter
Than God’s own shadow in the cup now!1
How might the official ecclesiological self-understanding of the

Anglican Communion benefit from heeding a call to stop and listen?
Recently, Anglicans have begun to use a distinctive language to describe
themselves—both to themselves and to their ecumenical partners. The
Anglican Communion, it is claimed, is one communion with four instru-
ments of communion. But, no matter how often some Anglicans repeat
this mantra, its persuasive power seems limited: It is a very new way in
which to express “Anglicanity”, and its connection to what went before is
1
“The Blackbird of Derrycairn”, in Austin Clarke: Selected Poems, edited by Hugh Maxton
(Dublin: The Lilliput Press, 1991), 40.
A. Pierce (*)
Irish School of Ecumenics, School of Religion, Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin, Ireland

270 A. PIERCE
unclear; theologically it is remarkably underdressed; and, despite its

appearances in Anglican Communion publications, it seems to have gar-
nered little traction across the churches of the Communion. Since recep-
tion is a live ecumenical issue, Anglicans might benefit from the blackbird’s
edict to shut up and listen to what is actually going on, and not continue
to prescribe what some think ought to be happening. Changing the
Church should mean something other than enforcing a fiction.
The Thematizing of Dispersed Authority

Anglicanism has undergone—to use the terminology of William
L. Sachs—a dramatic “transformation” in its self-understanding from
“state church to global communion.”2 The current characteristic usage of
“Anglican Communion” dates only from the nineteenth century. Before
that, anachronistic Anglicans would have claimed a unity in their heritage
of the state-sponsored reforms of the English church under Tudors and
Stuarts, and on the expanding role played by that church during the devel-
opment of British colonies overseas. Connections and confusions between
catholicity and colonialism are not unique to Anglicanism. The decou-
pling of the colonizer and colonized has been, and remains, a deeply
fraught process with many aspects—including the theological. The expan-
sion of a distinctive and developing theological identity, from the Church
of England to at least some of the ends of the earth, leaves in its wake a
need to make ecclesiological sense of the resulting “transformation.”
Attempts to curtail the risk of ecclesiological anarchy are nicely symbol-
ized by the first Lambeth Conference in 1867. Prodded into action by the
church overseas, a reluctant Archbishop of Canterbury invited “all” 144
bishops of the Communion. Not all bishops saw this as wise—only half of
those invited attended, the Archbishop of York famously opted out, and
the Dean of Westminster refused to host the final service of the Conference
in Westminster Abbey. The Conference tried to balance the evident need
of Canadian Anglicans to take counsel more widely, with the extreme cau-
tion on the part of Anglican leadership in naming what—ecclesiologically
speaking—was actually happening.
Despite initial nervousness, Anglicans have grown more comfortable
with having their bishops meet every 10 years or so, and with these
2
William L. Sachs, The Transformation of Anglicanism: From State Church to Global
Communion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
31 “STOP, STOP AND LISTEN”: CHANGING THE CHURCH BY LISTENING… 271
deliberations claiming nothing other than a moral authority in the churches

of the Anglican Communion. Some Lambeth actions have been momen-
tous and full of consequences for the churches—for example, the appeal
for Christian unity in 1920 and the acceptance of artificial methods of
contraception in 1958.3 Other concerns of bishops, by their very recur-
rence, suggest an imbalance between vision and reality—for instance, fre-
quently expressed episcopal angst—over the need for better biblical study
in the churches of the Communion.4
There is something intrinsically vulnerable in the character of this gath-
ering: it incarnates a certain practice of authority, and part of that practice
entails a subtle dialectic of affirmation and denial concerning its ability to
speak to and for the church, both locally and globally. At an experiential
level, other factors shaped the common life of the churches of the Anglican
Communion; prior to its contextual revisions, the Book of Common
Prayer, most obviously, embodied a widely dispersed distillation of liturgy
and doctrine. The Lambeth Conference, however, provided an opportu-
nity for a living, focused and deliberative encounter in the life of the
Communion.
The notion of “dispersal” is a key term in the understanding of author-
ity commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1948, in a report concern-
ing “The Anglican Communion”:
Authority, as inherited by the Anglican Communion from the undivided

Church of the early centuries of the Christian era, is single in that it is derived
from a single Divine source, and reflects within itself the richness and histo-
ricity of the divine Revelation, the authority of the Eternal Father, the incar-
nate Son, and the life-giving Spirit. It is distributed among Scriptures,
Tradition, Creeds, the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, the witness of
saints, and the consensus fidelium, which is the continuing experience of the
Holy Spirit through His faithful people in the Church. It is thus a dispersed
rather than a centralized authority having many elements which combine,
interact with, and check each other; these elements together constituting a
process of mutual support, mutual checking and redressing of errors or
3
‘An Appeal to All Christian People: From the Bishops Assembled in the Lambeth
Conference of 1920’, in Lambeth Conferences (1867–1930): The Reports of the 1920 and 1930
Conferences, with selected resolutions from the Conferences of 1867, 1878, 1888, 1897 and 1908,
London: S.P.C.K., 1948, 119–24; ‘The Family in Contemporary Society,’ in The Lambeth
Conference 1958: The Encyclical Letter from the Bishops together with the Resolutions and
Reports, London: S.P.C.K., 1958, 141–71.
4
For example, see Lambeth 1930, Resolutions 3, 5–7; Lambeth 1958, Resolutions 1–12.
272 A. PIERCE
exaggerations to the many-sided fullness of the authority which Christ com-

mitted to His Church. Where this authority of Christ is to be found medi-
ated not in one mode but in several we recognize in this multiplicity God’s
loving provision against the temptations to tyranny and the dangers of
unchecked power.5
This statement reappears regularly in reflections on the kind of author-

ity that the Anglican Communion hopes both to detect and to re-inscribe
within its life. It enjoins patient discernment of the theological significance
of the checks and balances administered through historical experience.
“Listening” to this experience of ecclesial life provides the materials out of
which the distinctiveness of Anglicanism is given theological shape.
Concerning such an Anglican theology, Rowan Williams remarks that “the
discovery of it may require some patience in reading and attending to a
number of historical strands, in order to watch the way in which distinc-
tiveness shows itself.”6 Whether one’s metaphorical preference is to watch
or to listen, disciplined observation of the church and its practice of
authority is woven into the diachronic emphasis of Anglican
self-understanding.
Dispersed Authority in Search of Global Coherence

The Lambeth Conference of 1968 marks the beginning of a period of
accelerating developments in the Anglican Communion’s attempts to
order its common life. In his opening sermon to the bishops, Archbishop
Michael Ramsey presented a strikingly simple account of how they were
held together by the providential accidents of history:
Today we have all come to Canterbury with hearts full of thankfulness for a
place, a man, and a history. This place means very much to us as we think of
St Augustine and his monks coming here from Thanet with the cross borne
before them, preaching the Gospel to King and people, and inaugurating a
history which includes not only the English Church in its continuity through
5
The Lambeth Conference 1948: The Encyclical Letter from the Bishops; together with
Resolutions and Reports (London: SPCK, 1948), Part II, 84–85.
6
Rowan Williams, Anglican Identities (London: SPCK, 2004), 1. Williams’ treatment of
these “identities” focuses on the Church of England; it ranges diachronically from William
Tyndale to John A. T. Robinson.
the centuries, but a family of Churches of many countries and races which
still see in Canterbury a symbol and a bond.7
The Anglican narration of identity, à la Ramsey, is irreducibly dia-

chronic, weaving together the scandalous particularities of sustained inter-
connection between people, places, and histories. And people, places, and
histories, together with their mutual interactions, are suffused with theo-
logical significance since they embody the tradition of the gospel.
With increasing numbers of Anglican Christians around the globe,
from the 1960s onwards, attempts to ensure greater connectivity among
the churches gathered apace. The Anglican Consultative Council—or
ACC—came into being after Lambeth 1968, and since then has gathered
a more representative body (bishops, priests, and laypeople) to meet every
2 or 3 years. Ten years later, the Primates of the various autonomous prov-
inces began meeting every 2 years. A permanent secretariat, based in
London, was established to support the ACC—a later revision of these
arrangements produced a Secretary General to the Anglican Communion,
based at an Anglican Communion Office.
More recently, an important body known as the Standing Committee
has emerged, which meets annually and which includes representatives of
both the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC. Had the plans for a communion-
wide “covenant” not collapsed during its implementation, this body was
intended to exercise significant power in the future interpretation of the
proposed Anglican Covenant.
Historically, therefore, the dramatis personae of inter-Anglican relations
include an Archbishop of Canterbury, a Lambeth Conference since 1867,
together with a raft of post-1960s structures—an Anglican Consultative
Council since 1968, a secretariat with a Secretary General, a Primates’
Meeting since 1978, and a Standing Committee since 2010. Despite the
rhapsodizing of Lambeth 1948, eliciting order out of complexity favors
some degree of centralizing. And that raises a question—or at least it
should—about how Anglicans might honor the demands of their alleged
preference for dispersal over centralization. Instead, however, Anglicans
have moved in a different direction.
7
Cited in James B. Simpson and Edward M. Story, The Long Shadows of Lambeth X: A
Critical, Eye-Witness account of the tenth Decennial Conference of 462 Bishops of the Anglican
Communion (New York, Toronto, London and Sydney: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1969), 1–2.
274 A. PIERCE
From Diachronic to Synchronic

Self-Understandings
Much of this centralizing thrust arises circumstantially. The current chal-
lenge to Anglican unity and diversity is often dated to 1998 when the
Lambeth Conference passed its remarkably incoherent Resolution 1.10
on human sexuality. This resolution sets the scene for recent developments
in the Anglican Communion and has both built on and massaged the ten-
sions within the Communion that had been generated—and that contin-
ues to be generated—by the ordination of women priests and bishops.
And it is in the attempts to prepare itself for the challenge of receiving
women bishops and priests into its wider practices of authority—particu-
larly at Lambeth 1988—that the Communion underwent developments
pregnant with consequences.
With an eye to events the following year, ACC 7, meeting in Singapore
in 1987 received a report, which is commended to the bishops due to
meet at the Lambeth Conference 1988. Entitled “Unity in Diversity
Within the Anglican Communion: A Way Forward,” the report opens
with two (seemingly unselfconsciously) ironic paragraphs:
1. This is a discussion paper. It does not explore the theological impli-

cations of authority, but rather focuses on the way authority is expe-
rienced in the Anglican Communion.
2. By tradition there are four instruments for maintaining the unity in
diversity of the Anglican Communion:
The Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Lambeth Conference.
The Anglican Consultative Council.
The Meeting of Primates.8
Paragraph 1 claims to leave aside theological accounts of authority

(and, with it, ergo, history). Paragraph 2 invokes both history and
8
Many Gifts, One Spirit: Report of ACC-7: Singapore 1987 (London: Anglican Consultative
Council, 1987), 129–134, 129. Theologians may detect a worrying contrast between “theo-
logical implications of authority” on the one hand, and “the way authority is experienced
within the Anglican Communion” on the other.
theology—on stilts—to state that the following claim has been acknowledged
to be the case “By tradition.”
Here is a dramatic shifting of the grounds on which Anglicanism claims
to understand itself. A single sentence dispatches the diachronic narrative
of Anglican ecclesiological self-understanding, replacing it with what is
essentially a structuralist reading of how the thing called Anglicanism is
apparently held together. The hitherto traditional attempt to grasp com-
plex relationships between places, persons, and histories is thus replaced
by the newly traditional charting of inter-instrumental dynamics. Not sur-
prisingly, therefore, inter-Anglican debate and discussion about what is
and what is not Anglican have focused on power relations within and
between these instruments.
When the ACC Report reached the Lambeth Conference in 1988, its
connection to significant issues of concerning the exercise of power as well
as the practice of authority was clear (despite its earlier claim to prescind
from such theological matters); it now bore the amended title “Instruments
of Communion and Decision-Making: The Development of the
Consultative Process in the Anglican Communion.”9
Significantly, the document now also included a proposal that individ-
ual churches of the communion consider the adoption of a common
“Declaration.” The proposed declaration highlighted the relationship
among the churches of the Anglican Communion, and it was suggested
that it might profitably be declared on occasions when the inter-connection
between churches was most visible, at, for example, the consecration of a
bishop or archbishop. The point of the declaration was to make explicit in
the life of a diocese and of a church that it belonged within a wider context
of mutual responsibility. The wording of the proposed declaration appealed
specifically to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, thus retaining the
balance exhibited in that text for Anglican ecumenism ad intra et ad extra.
The declaration did not include the possibility of disciplinary consequences
for those who, having declared, now acted inconsistently with that earlier
declaration. It was also acknowledged, at Lambeth, that this proposed
Declaration might in time come to function as a fifth instrument of unity.
Within the space of a single year, the Anglican tradition had thus “offi-
cially” sped from having one “focus” of unity to four “instruments” of
9
The Truth Shall Make You Free: The Lambeth Conference 1988: The Reports, Resolutions &
Pastoral Letters from the Bishops (London: Anglican Consultative Council, 1988), Appendix
5, 293–298.
276 A. PIERCE
communion—with the prospect of a fifth warming-up at the side of

the pitch.
The Problem of Reception—Is Anyone Listening?

The failure of the declaration—a suggested template was included in the
report presented to the bishops in 1988—to mature into a binding
Anglican Covenant, following the Windsor Report in 2004, merits careful
scrutiny. A trawl of key documentation (through Singapore in 1987,
Lambeth 1988, Lambeth 1998, the Windsor Commission and on to the
Covenant Design Group), would suggest that readers are in the presence
of a relatively logical set of developments, characterized by remarkable
consensus regarding both the nature of the task and the appropriate mate-
rials available for its completion. Yet the thing would not take-off. The
problem faced by the Covenant was its failure to generate an assenting
echo across the whole Communion. Something is seriously awry when
vast energies are expended on a prototype that excites only the manufac-
turer’s design team.
It is also significant that serious Communion-wide reflections on theol-
ogy came unstuck at the very time that churches became explicitly aware
of their participation in an instrumentally synchronized Communion. An
Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Communion had been estab-
lished, issuing its first report in 1986, in which there was a serious attempt
to engage in an explicitly contextual theology for a multi-contextual
Communion.10 Its next report, however, produced at Virginia in prepara-
tion for the 1998 Lambeth Conference, moved away from the difficulties
of addressing context and attempted to provide the post-Singapore
account of one Communion plus four Instruments of Communion with
some kind of recognizable theology of the church.
Out of all the churches of the Anglican Communion, only two
responded to the Virginia Report—both negatively. And yet, despite this
reception and the failure of the Covenant, the direction of ecclesiological
travel continues, undaunted, to follow the map drawn at Singapore. There
is, evidently, an ecclesiological elephant in the room: officially, Anglicans
are calling themselves one thing, but the evidence suggests that they do
not believe what is said. Following his experience of the Lambeth
Conference in 1998, David F. Ford noted how “the failure to articulate a
10
For the Sake of the Kingdom (London: Anglican Consultative Council, 1986).
complex, historically realistic identity left the field open to more neatly
packaged notions.”11 Bad ecclesiology is a costly business for all con-
cerned, and Ford’s wording points clearly to what remains lacking.
Austin Clarke’s blackbird chastised “Patric” for his restricted vision of
the church of God, and directed him towards unexpected sources of wis-
dom: “But knowledge is found among the branches.”12 Heeding the mes-
sage to stop and listen, Anglicans might learn to attend more accurately to
the life of their Communion and, perhaps, learn something from the
silence that so many endeavors have called forth.
11
David F. Ford, “Preface,” in Stephen R. White, ed., A Time to Build: Essays for Tomorrow’s
Church (Dublin: APCK, 1999), 7–8, here 8.
12
“The Blackbird of Derrycairn”, in Austin Clarke, Selected Poems, 40.
CHAPTER 32
How Should the Church Teach? A Mode

of Learning and Teaching for Our Times
Peter C. Phan
The purpose of this chapter is to develop further my own understanding

of the magisterium.1 Given limited space, there is no need to provide an
overview of the Catholic Church’s teaching on the nature of episcopal
magisterium (the prophetic function of the Church), its subjects (who can
teach), its proper subject matter (what can be taught), and its modes
1
For my past reflections on the magisterium, see Peter C. Phan, “From Magisterium to
Magisteria: Recent Theologies of the Learning and Teaching Functions of the Church,”
Theological Studies, 80, no. 2 (2019): 393–413; The Joy of Religious Pluralism: A Personal
Journey (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2017), 21–49; “Teaching as Learning: An Asian
View,” Concilium, no. 2 (2012): 75–87; “The Church in Asian Perspective,” in The
Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, edited by Gerard Mannion and Lewis
S. Mudge (New York and London: Routledge, 2008), 275–290; “A New Way of Being
Church in Asia: Lessons for the American Catholic Church,” in Inculturation and the Church
in North America, edited by Frank Kennedy (New York: Crossroad, 2006), 145–62; “A
New Way of Being Church: Perspectives from Asia,” in Governance, Accountability, and the
Future of the Catholic Church, edited by Francis Oakley and Bruce Russett (New York:
Continuum, 2004), 178–90.
P. C. Phan (*)
Department of Theology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

280 P. C. PHAN
(infallible and authoritative but non-infallible).2 Instead, I will highlight

certain aspects of the traditional theology of the magisterium that in my
judgment should be reconsidered and modified so that the Church’s
teaching function can be exercised in a fruitful and credible way. I will
conclude by showing how Pope Francis has inaugurated a new way of
papal teaching.
Teaching Function of the Hierarchy or

the Prophetic Role of the Whole Church?
The first widespread ambiguity to be dispelled is the notion of “magiste-

rium” itself. Etymologically, it means the teaching role or the act of teach-
ing itself of a teacher (magister). That one of the most important parts of
Jesus’ ministry is teaching and that he was called a “teacher” or “rabbi” by
his contemporaries is beyond doubt. Furthermore, there is also no doubt
that after his resurrection Jesus commissioned his disciples to “teach” all
nations to obey and observe everything he had commanded them
(Matt. 28:20).
What is theologically problematic is the process whereby this teaching
function, which the whole Church, symbolized in Matthew as the “eleven
disciples,” and not just the apostles, is commissioned to perform, is gradu-
ally restricted to mean exclusively the teaching role and the teachings
themselves of the apostles and of their presumed successors, that is, the
bishops, or the episcopal or hierarchical magisterium. Eventually a distinction
was made between the “teaching Church” (ecclesia docens) and the “learn-
ing Church” (ecclesia discens), the former composed of the pope and bish-
ops, and the latter of the laity, who are reduced to being “students” or
learners of their “teachers,” namely the pope and bishops. As a result,
magisterium comes to refer exclusively to the teaching function of the
pope and the bishops. To underscore this point, English usage retains the
Latin term “magisterium” untranslated and adds the definite article the to
“Magisterium,” with M capitalized. Thus, the phrase “the Magisterium of
2
For a comprehensive exposition on the magisterium, see Francis Sullivan, Magisterium:
Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), Michael A. Fahey,
“Magisterium,” in The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, edited by Gerard
Mannion and Lewis S. Mudge (New York and London: Routledge, 2008), 524–535; and
the many works by Richard Gaillardetz, especially Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the
Magisterium in the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997).
32 HOW SHOULD THE CHURCH TEACH? A MODE OF LEARNING… 281
the Church” is commonly understood to mean the teaching function of

the pope and bishops, the only kind of teaching existing in the Church.
Furthermore, adjectives such as “sacred” and “solemn” are often attached
to the term to highlight the divine source of this episcopal or hierarchical
magisterium.
Even Vatican II’s much-vaunted Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
Revelation (Dei Verbum), though discarding the distinction between eccle-
sia docens and ecclesia discens, in speaking of the transmission of divine
revelation (Chap. II), still repeatedly attributes the teaching role in the
Church exclusively to the apostles and their successors, with no recogni-
tion whatsoever of the teaching role of the laity on matters of faith and
morals.3 In its most authoritative document on the Church (Lumen
Gentium) the council does affirm that “to the extent of their knowledge,
competence or authority the laity are entitled, and indeed sometimes
duty-bound, to express their opinion on matters which concern the good
of the Church” (no. 37). However, this affirmation of the duty of the laity
to “express their opinion” is immediately followed by an insistence on
their obedience to the hierarchy: “Like all the faithful, the laity should
promptly accept in Christian obedience what is decided by the pastors
who, as teachers and rulers of the Church, represent Christ” (no. 37).
Clearly, “express their opinion” while being urged to promptly obey their
pastors does not imply a genuine exercise on the part of the laity of the
teaching magisterium which Christ enjoins upon them in matters of faith
and morals, and not just in secular matters, in which they possess a much
higher expertise than the hierarchy.
Perhaps this exclusive reservation of the magisterium to bishops might
be justified in the past when theological learning was the preserve of
3
For example, no. 7: “Christ the Lord […] commanded the apostles to preach it [the
Gospel] to everyone as the source of all saving truth and moral law […]. In order that the
full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the church the apostles left bishops as
their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’” Again, no. 10:
“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written
form or in the form of tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the
church alone.” It may be argued that Dei Verbum specifies “interpretation of the word of
God” with “authentic”—the Latin authenticum is better translated as “authoritative”—and
reserves it to the episcopal magisterium and as such does not deny other types of interpreta-
tion. Even granted this qualification, there is no doubt that “teaching office of the church”
refers to that of the bishops. The English translation of Vatican II’s documents is taken from
Vatican II: The Basic Sixteen Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (Northport, NY: Costello
Publishing Co., 2007).
282 P. C. PHAN
bishops and theologians who were almost all male members of the clergy
and religious orders. When heresies arose, bishops met in ecumenical
councils to deliberate, condemn errors, and formulate orthodox doctrines,
almost always without collaboration with and contribution of the laity.
Even Thomas Aquinas’s celebrated distinction between magisterium
cathedrae pastoralis (the teaching function of bishops) and magisterium
cathedrae magistralis (the teaching function of theologians), while helpful
in acknowledging the two different kinds of the teaching office in the
church and distinguishing their distinctive areas of competence, does not
recognize the possibility of the laity as teachers of the faith.4
Today, the scientific, cultural, social, and intellectual contexts no longer
permit ignoring the magisterium of the laity. For one thing, the fields in
which the teaching role of the Church in matters of faith and morals is
exercised, for instance, economics, medicine, technology, artificial intelli-
gence, and ecology, to name a few, have become so complex that there is
no way bishops, and even professional theologians, can understand them
fully and on this knowledge formulate an adequate, let alone infallible,
teaching. Furthermore, there exists today no commonly accepted philoso-
phy, such as Platonism and Aristotelianism, that offers a system of thought
and a lingua franca in which to express Christian beliefs. At best, with the
contribution of the laity, they can provide guidelines and provisional
answers, born out of prudential judgment rather than certain and defini-
tive knowledge.
Furthermore, today the laity not only have become highly competent
experts of international reputation in secular fields of knowledge but have
also distinguished themselves in disciplines hitherto reserved for the clergy
and religious such as Biblical studies, church history, systematic theology,
and ethics, and are recognized as credentialed experts by their peers. In
virtue of their scholarly training and competence, these laypersons do not
simply “express their opinions” to bishops in matters of faith and morals
and must be ready to “obey” their teachings. Rather, as theologians
occupy the magisterium cathedrae magistralis, the laity are qualified to
propose credible and well-supported answers to problems of faith and
morals. It is true that being a theologian as such does not require the
4
Thomas Aquinas’s distinction of the two kinds of the magisterium is predicated upon his
distinction between two functions: praelatio (governance by bishops) and magisterium
(teaching by theologians). For Thomas, praelatio does not exclude teaching; hence, magis-
terium cathedrae pastoralis.
clerical or religious status. However, de facto, theologians of ages past, as

mentioned above, were by and large priests and religious. Thus, the laity,
especially lay theologians, must be regarded as constituting a different
category of teachers of faith and morals. They must be said to possess what
may be called the magisterium cathedrae laicalis. In this way, the magiste-
rium truly belongs to the whole Church, and not just an exclusive caste
whose members are exbishops and priestly or religious male theologians.
Teaching or Witnessing? Knowledge and Life

The second ambiguity in the current Catholic theology of the magiste-
rium lies in its conception of the modes of teaching. Because the magiste-
rium is commonly understood in terms of formulating a doctrine,
proclaiming it verbally, and commanding assent, there has been a veritable
cottage industry dedicated to distinguishing the various objects of teach-
ing (“faith and morals,” revealed truths, and truths of reason that are con-
nected with and necessary for defined dogmas), various degrees of teaching
(e.g., infallible versus non-infallible, and a more recent invention of
“definitive” teaching), modes of teaching (extraordinary, ordinary univer-
sal, and ordinary and authoritative), and various kinds of assent appropri-
ate to different kinds of teaching (assent of faith to revealed truths and
infallibly defined dogmas, firm and irrevocable assent to “definitive”
teachings, and religious obsequium of will and intellect to ordinary and
authoritative teachings). Truth be told, these distinctions, necessary as
they are, do appear to non-specialists as needles on which angels dance.
This model of teaching is heavily legalistic and consists mainly of verbal
declarations, the most well-known genre of which is papal encyclicals.
There is, however, another model of teaching which is made up not of
words but personal example. Teaching in this way is personal witnessing.
Personal witnessing is born of first learning the truths and then appropri-
ating them in one’s life. Witnessing is teaching by one’s life, by means of
words if necessary, and always with deeds. The authority of teaching by
witnessing does not depend on the canonical power of the teacher (pope,
bishops, and theologians with the mandatum) but on the willingness to
suffer martyrdom (martyria, which means witnessing) for the sake of
the truth.
Today, in the wake of the sex-abuse scandals and the way church
authorities have dealt with them, the laity and the public at large may be
forgiven for being highly suspicious of any claim on the part of the
284 P. C. PHAN
episcopal magisterium to teach authoritatively, let alone infallibly, in moral

matters. The reason is not that they deny bishops the right to teach. Rather
they do not put faith in their teachings because the teachers do not and
seemingly refuse to learn—from experience, the sufferings of the victims,
the voice of the faithful, the advice of the experts they themselves
appointed, the courts, the police, and the press. They teach but do not
learn. They do not teach as learners. Their voice is not their own, coming,
as it should, from continual and assiduous learning, but functions merely
as a voice-over of their ecclesiastical superiors. This is also true—mutatis
mutandis—of theologians. These teachers tend to speak from bookish
knowledge—the proverbial ivory tower—and are not immune from the
danger of seeing themselves mainly as teachers (or better, “professors” and
“doctors”), especially since their professional identity is canonically defined
by the license to teach “in the name of the church” (the mandatum
granted by the local bishop, who ironically may not possess theological
competence), and not by the constantly cultivated desire to learn.
Above all, the lack of credibility on the part of episcopal magisterium is
due to the lack of witnessing by bishops who in their personal lives do not
reflect the values of the reign of God. Stories of luxurious living, expensive
tastes in travels and foods and drinks, and even of sexual abuses keep seep-
ing out in the media, destroying the bits of teaching authority that remain.
Here, to the episcopal magisterium and the magisterium of the theolo-
gians (ordained and lay), we must add the magisterium of the poor, whose
lives proclaim God’s preferential option for the poor as demonstrated in
the life and ministry of Jesus. Theirs is the magisterium cathedrae vitae,
which teaches not by words but by witnessing, perhaps the only kind of
teaching that carries weight and authority.
Christian and Non-Christian Magisteria?

Lastly, in our contemporary world of religious pluralism, there is another
important magisterium. A number of theologians, especially those work-
ing on religious pluralism, have proposed the “magisterium of believers of
other religions” (magisterium cathedrae non-christianae if you will) since
in their view the Spirit of God is actively present as the agent of salvation
in their sacred books, religious beliefs, moral teachings, spiritual practices,

monastic traditions, and so forth, from which Christians must learn.5
Pope Francis and the New Teaching Style

The intention of this concluding section is not to offer a full-fledged expo-
sition of how Pope Francis understands the teaching function of the
church, including papal magisterium, and how he has exercised it, much
less a report card on his six-year-old pontificate. Rather it seeks to show
how Pope Francis has inaugurated change by adopting a new style of
teaching.
Perhaps the first and most striking feature in the history of papal mag-
isterium is Pope Francis’s frequent and extensive use of free-wheeling
interviews to convey his thoughts on important theological issues.6 He is
not afraid of letting the questioners, mostly secular journalists, to set the
agenda of the conversation instead of controlling or managing it; in this
way, he gives answers to the real questions that actually concern people
instead of offering well-worn answers to questions that are not even asked.
In these wide-ranging question-and-answer conversations Francis is not
averse to speaking his mind on controversial subjects of the day on which
the magisterium does not yet or cannot have a well-defined teaching.
There is of course the risk of misunderstanding, being taken out of con-
text, being reduced to soundbites, or incomplete answers, given the con-
straints of time, but it is a risk worth taking if the Gospel is to reach people
5
See, for instance, Paul Knitter, Without Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian (London:
Oneworld Publications, 2013); Paul Knitter and Roger Haight, Jesus & Buddha: Friends in
Conversation (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2015); Peter C. Phan, Being Religious
Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books,
2014); idem, “Sensus Fidelium, Dissensius Infidelium, Consensus Omnium,” in “Learning
from All the Faithful,” edited by Bradford Hinze and Peter C. Phan, 213–25; Aloysius Pieris,
Love Meets Wisdom: A Christian Experience of Buddhism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books,
1989); and Ruben Habito, Zen and the Spiritual Exercises (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis
Books, 2013).
6
Perhaps the most celebrated interview was that conducted by Antonio Spadaro, SJ, edi-
tor-in-chief of La Civiltá Cattolica, on August 19, 2013. The English text is available in
America, September 30, 2013 at https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2013/09/30/
big-heart-open-god-interview-pope-francis (accessed February 17, 2020) Another impor-
tant interview is Francis’s conversation with reporters aboard the papal plane on his flight
back from Brazil to Rome on July 29, 2013 reported at: https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/
ncr-today/pope-homosexuals-who-am-i-judge (accessed February 17, 2020)
286 P. C. PHAN
in their real lives. There is an added benefit to this style of teaching as the
Pope’s answers and explanations inevitably provoke the listeners to think
further and more about the issues and will hopefully come to a deeper
understanding on their own. With wry irony, Francis notes: “I am aware
that nowadays documents do not arouse the same interest as in the past
and that they are quickly forgotten” (Laudato Si,’ no. 25).7
Open and honest conversation through question-and-answer exchanges
with the audience may be seen as a new style of exercising the magisterium
that is appropriate for our postmodern times when claims of anyone or any
institution to possess certain and exclusive knowledge on everything are
immediately suspect. In this pedagogic method, the teacher, not unlike
Socrates, humbly acknowledges his or her ignorance, and instead of spout-
ing forth hallowed but irrelevant formulas, attempts to midwife the shared
wisdom of the community.
Writing on the duty to save our common home from ecological destruc-
tion, Pope Francis notes that he explores many issues “which call for fur-
ther reflection and study” and then adds: “Nor do I believe that the papal
magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on
every question which affects the Church and the world” (Laudato Si,’ no. 16).
Further on, he stresses the need for doctrinal pluralism and flexibility:
Differing currents of thought in philosophy, theology and pastoral practice,

if open to being reconciled by the Spirit in respect and love, can enable the
Church to grow, since all of them help to express more clearly the immense
riches of God’s word. For those who long for a monolithic body of doctrine
guarded by all and having no room for nuance, this might appear as undesir-
able and leading to confusion. (Laudato Si’, no. 40)
As for the church itself, Francis says that he prefers “a Church which is
bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather
than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging
to its own security” (Laudato Si’ 49). In this “bruised, hurting and dirty”
church, a different mode of teaching is called for. Teachers of the faith
must remember that
7
For an English translation of Laudato Si’ (May 24, 2015), see the Vatican translation at
the Libreria Editrice Vaticana at: http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encycli-
cals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html (accessed February
17, 2020).
there are times when the faithful, in listening to completely orthodox lan-
guage, take away something alien to the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ,
because that language is alien to their own way of speaking to and under-
standing each other. With the holy intent of communicating the truth about
God and humanity, we sometimes give them a false god or a human ideal
which is not really Christian. In this way, we hold fast to a formulation while
failing to convey its substance. (Laudato Si’, no. 41)
Lastly, there is a matter of language. Francis teaches in simple, clear, acces-

sible, and even homey language. Expressions such as bishops, priests, and
other church leaders “with the smell of the sheep,” the church as “field
hospital,” and “Who am I to judge?” have percolated through church
speak to express a radical change in the understanding of ministry, church,
and moral attitude.
CHAPTER 33
Towards a Re-reading of the Dogmas

of Vatican I
Peter Neuner
The Philosophical and Spiritual Climate

It was 150 years ago that the Catholic Church was moved by the First
Vatican Council (1869–1870).1 Its documents and especially the papal
dogmas can be understood only in the context of the history of the nine-
teenth century. This century began with the French revolution, whose
ideals of liberté, egalité, and fraternité were rapidly suppressed by the
blood frenzy of the mob. The September massacres of 1792, when 1200
captives, among them 300 priests, were murdered in the dungeons of
Paris, along with the parliament’s decision to abolish Christianity (1793),
were heavy challenges for the church. The French military occupied the
Papal States; in 1799 the mortally ill Pope Pius VI was dragged across the
1
On this, see some recent historical investigations: Manfred Weitlauff, Das Erste Vatikanum
(1869/70) wurde ihnen zum Schicksal (2 vols.) (München: Bayerische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 2018); Bernward Schmidt, Kleine Geschichte des Ersten Vatikanischen Konzils
(Freiburg: Herder, 2019). See also: Peter Neuner, Der lange Schatten des I. Vatikanums
(Freiburg: Herder, 2019).
P. Neuner (*)
Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany

290 P. NEUNER
Alpes to Grenoble and Valence, where his death ended this macabre spec-
tacle. Moreover, the philosophical climate changed. In the second part of
the nineteenth century, tendencies prevailed which were critical of reli-
gion, and history unsettled the trust in miracles and divinely ordained
authorities.
It is not surprising that the Popes condemned these events. However,
they also rejected the theoretical concepts that, according to their view of
history, made them possible. They were convinced that the ideas of mod-
ern times were the root of all these catastrophes. They supported a neo-
scholastic approach, which seemed to be untouched by the changes of
history.2 They regarded Martin Luther as responsible for all the catastro-
phes of modernity.3 His rebellion against the God-ordained authorities,
the Pope, and the Emperor caused the breakdown of society and unity of
the Church. The false ideas of the fatal monk of Wittenberg, according to
the official catholic view of history, had the consequence that everybody
became their own teacher, priest, and pope. Luther’s principles of freedom
and autonomy led to destruction and chaos. Catholic authorities were
convinced that there was only one remedy for religion and even for soci-
ety: the return to the medieval order of authority and obedience.4
The individual character of the popes brought an additional step. Thus,
Pope Gregory XVI condemned everything that was in contact with
modernity and liberalism, especially what he denounced as indifferentism:
“From this most rotten source of indifferentism flows that absurd and
erroneous opinion, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience must be
claimed and defended for anyone”.5 His successor, Pope Pius IX declared
in his encyclical letter Quanta cura (1864) the conviction that the liberty
of conscience is the right of everybody and that civil law has to protect it
as sheer foolishness. The Syllabus of Errors, an attachment to this encycli-
cal, condemned the statement: “The Roman Pontiff can and should rec-
oncile and adapt himself to progress, liberalism and the modern
civilization”.6
2
See Heinrich M. Schmidinger, “Neuscholastik”, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie
edited by Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Gründer (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1984), volume 6, 769.
3
See Neuner, Der lange Schatten, 18.
4
Hermann Josef Pottmeyer, Der Glaube vor dem Anspruch der Wissenschaft (Freiburg
Herder, 1968).
5
Encyclical, Mirari vos, Denzinger, no 2730.
6
Syllabus Errorum, Denzinger, no 2980.
33 TOWARDS A RE-READING OF THE DOGMAS OF VATICAN I 291
The Syllabus produced a bombshell effect. Liberal newspapers regarded

it as a declaration of war against modern society and democracy. They
questioned whether Catholics, especially bishops, could be loyal citizens in
democratic societies.7 Catholicism and Modernity seemed to be incompat-
ible. Ernst Troeltsch wrote that the Catholic Church intruded into the
modern world like a huge foreign body.8 This was the atmosphere in
which Pope Pius IX convoked the Vatican Council (1869–1870).
Authority and Obedience as Leitmotifs

Recent investigations could demonstrate that from the beginning, Pius IX
had the intention that the council should declare papal infallibility, not-
withstanding the fact that about 140 of the 700 bishops of the council
objected to this idea. The critical minority consisted of the majority of the
bishops from Germany, a very great number from France and America,
and some from Italy. They were afraid of the consequences of such a
dogma for the relation of the Church to society. Thus, they regarded it as
“inopportune.”9 Others opposed for historical reasons: The early Church
did neither teach nor practice papal infallibility. Since the Christian mes-
sage is “quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum est” (what was believed
always, everywhere and by everybody) papal infallibility would be a “new
dogma,” and that is equivalent to heresy. In particular, it was Ignaz von
Döllinger, the Munich Church historian, who polemicized against the
dogma, which he regarded as a break with the fundamentals of the
Christian Church. In the statement by Pope Pius that “I am the tradition”
he saw a break with the regula fidei, the foundation of the Church.10 In
future, Catholics would no longer believe what had been the Christian
message throughout the centuries, but what the Pope was proposing.
Nevertheless, the majority of the bishops were convinced that only the
strongest insistence on authority and obedience would be an appropriate
7
Especially during Bismarck’s “Kulturkampf” Catholics were treated as second-class
citizens.
8
Ernst Troeltsch, Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religionsgeschichte, cited in:
Neuner, Der lange Schatten, 18.
9
This was the view of the German bishops in a pastoral letter: Cuthbert Butler and Hugo
Lang, Das I. Vatikanische Konzil (München: Kösel 1961), 99.
10
Ignaz von Döllinger, Briefe und Erklärungen über die Vatikanischen Dekrete 1869–1887
(München 1890, Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1968), 30.
292 P. NEUNER
remedy to the maladies of the time. Both documents of the council tried
to give an answer to the challenges of modern times. The dogmatic con-
stitution Dei Filius regards faith as obedience to the divine revelation, as
the Church presents it.11 There was not a single word about how the act
of faith helps Christians to live and that the Christian message presents an
answer to human hopes and aspirations. Faith appears predominantly as a
burden one has to endure because of the authority of the revelation and
the hierarchy of the Church.
This concept of authority is even more dominant in the second docu-
ment of the council: the constitution Pastor aeternus. Initially, it was
intended to embrace the whole concept of the Church, but because of
political circumstances, only the question of the papacy was discussed. The
text consists of four chapters: The conferment of the primacy to St Peter
by Jesus himself; the continuation of this primacy in the Roman bishops;
the nature of this primacy
which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors
and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and
all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true
obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in
those, which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church [which
is] spread over the whole world.12
Whilst these parts were not so controversial, chapter four on papal infal-
libility was intensively discussed, not only within the Council but also
inside and outside the Church. The critical minority had some success.
They could avoid the declaration of an unlimited infallibility by acclama-
tion. The final text13 contains a large number of qualifications for infallible
declarations and one might seriously ask whether these conditions can ever
be fulfilled. Furthermore, infallibility is limited to questions of faith and
moral; it is not applicable to the moral status of the Pope or to the admin-
istration of the Church. It is not a personal privilege of the Pope, but a
promise to the Church as a whole that it will not abandon the message of
its Lord.
Döllinger expected that infallible declarations would occur very often.
In practice, however, it was only in 1950 that Pope Pius XII made use of
11
Denzinger, no 3012.
12
Pastor aeternus, Denzinger, no. 3060.
13
Pastor aeternus, Denzinger, no. 3074.
the dogma in the dogmatization of Mary’s assumption into heaven.14

Today, nobody expects that such declarations ex cathedra will occur again.
Was the dogma of papal infallibility intended as a protection of the apos-
tolic faith, or only as an enhancement of authority? It is, after all, difficult
to imagine a more absolute authority than an infallible one. The dogma
was the climax of anti-modern tendencies within the Catholic Church in
the nineteenth century.
The Change of Paradigm in Vatican II

In the light of the dogmas of Vatican I, the approach of Vatican II must be
regarded as a change of paradigm. Pope John XXIII characterized it as
aggiornamento, that is, to express the Christian faith in the context of
today’s way of thinking. In particular, Gaudium et Spes followed this con-
cept.15 Today, this constitution is sometimes criticized for being too closely
related to the situation of the years of the council. Since this time our
world has changed dramatically. I personally regard this relation to the
challenges of the time as a special contribution of the Council. The church
dared to proclaim its essence in relation to the world and this world is in
permanent change. It was not the idealistic world of the philosophers that
the fathers had in focus, but the real existing world with its “joy and hope,
grief and anguish.”16 It became a matter of controversy as to what sort of
character this document meant to express. German theologians regarded
it as a declaration within a limited historical setting. Nevertheless, the
bishops declared it as a “pastoral constitution” and thus gave it the highest
value. They declared that the Church is “pastoral” and in its very essence
it is related to the world, to history, and to the signs of the time.17
It is not surprising that this approach was controversial. Many of the
bishops received their formation within an anti-modernistic theology and
they saw the church first of all as a societas perfecta, perfect in itself and
independent from the world, the society and the changes of history. Pope
14
Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, Denzinger, nos, 3900–3903.
15
See Hans-Joachim Sander’s contribution in Peter Hünermann and Jochen Hilberath,
eds., Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanum Vol. 4, (Freiburg: Herder
2005), especially the contribution of Marie-Dominique Chenu, 689.
16
Gaudium et Spes, no. 1.
17
An example of this theological approach was the title of Gerard Mannion’s role as Senior
Research Fellow of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs and co-director
of its Church and World Program.
294 P. NEUNER
Paul VI in particular sought to integrate this conservative minority too.18

Councils decide not by the majority but they seek unanimity. To make
unanimity possible the documents of Vatican II sometimes include a jux-
taposition of controversial concepts. Thus, the central decisions of Vatican
I were to reappear in the documents of Vatican II. Therefore, everybody
was able to find his own conviction and he trusted that it would prevail in
the following process of reception. In practice, many members of the hier-
archy acted afterward as if Vatican II had never happened and they drew
on those phrases the council had taken from Vatican I.
It is obvious that the Church underwent many changes after Vatican II,
not only in its liturgy. Laypeople became actors in the Church; bishops
and priests were regarded as ministers for the sake of the people. Following
the Council, the popes have been very different from the Pius-Popes of
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Nevertheless, the Code of Canon
Law of 1983 adopted the dogma of papal primacy unmodified.19 While
canon law emphasizes that the Pope rules the Church together with the
bishops, he is free whether he acts personally or together with the college
of the bishops.20 Immediately after Vatican II, we find papal decisions
made in sharp contrast to a broad consensus of the bishops, for example,
in the encyclicals on priestly celibacy (1967) and Humanae vitae on birth
control (1968). The pope is free in the nomination of bishops; Pope John
Paul II, in particular, in several cases imposed on dioceses bishops who did
not find the trust of the people. A great deal of confidence was lost.
Chances for a Re-reading of Vatican I

There is in fact an urgent need for a re-reading and a re-evaluation of the
dogmas of Vatican I in the light of Vatican II. The dogma of papal primacy
is to be understood within the concept of political absolutism. Bishops,
clergy, and especially laypeople are restricted to listen and to obey. That
the Church is not a democracy in the political understanding of the term,
however, does not mean that it might be an absolutist monarchy or even
a dictatorial regime.
18
Especially in the Nota explicativa praevia to Lumen Gentium the Pope tried to integrate
the conservative group around Cardinal Ottaviani.
19
CIC (1983), can. 333 § 1.
20
Can. 333 § 2.
The question remains, however, as to how to re-evaluate the dogma of

papal primacy. Within Catholic theology, it has become obsolete to repeat
the biblical and historical argumentation used in Vatican I. Nevertheless,
there is a connecting point in the dogma of 1870 in its insistence on the
unity of the Church. The ministry of St Peter and of the Roman bishops
is to promote the unity and community of all the Christian faithful. This
may present a starting point to a re-evaluation of the dogma. In times of
strong centrifugal tendencies, it is important to maintain an office whose
duty is especially the communion of all Christians. This approach to papacy
today is predominant in Catholic theology and is also accepted by many
protestant and by some orthodox theologians who are confronted with
the fact that their respective models of a universal unity are not very con-
vincing. The ministry of global communion is a starting point to a re-
evaluation of primacy. Of course, this ministry has to be described in a
different way from what was used by Vatican I and even by the Codex
of 1983.
At first sight, the dogma of papal infallibility seems to be the biggest
stumbling block and obstacle, especially to ecumenism. However, there
are possibilities of interpretation, which allow for ecumenical progress.
First, the primary subject of infallibility is the Church. Within very narrow
presuppositions, the pope may represent the infallibility which the Lord
has promised to the Church. The Church is thus not protected against
heresy because it has an infallible pope, but the pope may speak in an infal-
lible manner, insofar as he formulates the faith of the Church. The final
term of the dogma (“ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae”) is only the
rejection of the demand of Gallicanism, that papal decrees demand a sub-
sequent ratification by the bishops. Such a ratification was what was meant
by the term “consensus ecclesiae”. It was only the concept of Gallicanism
that was rejected,21 not the integration of papal decisions within the faith
of the Church as the people of God.
One further observation: Vatican I defines the traditional term “ex
cathedra” as “carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all
Christians”. In the light of Vatican II, it is no longer possible to under-
stand “all Christians” as all Catholics. The decree on ecumenism in par-
ticular declares the members of the different Churches and Church
21
The famous declaration of Bishop Vinzenz Gasser, speaker of the Glaubensdeputation, is
documented in Roger Aubert, Vaticanum I (Mainz Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag
1965), 332–9.
296 P. NEUNER
communities, which are not in full communion with the pope, as

Christians: “They have a right to be called Christians, and with good rea-
son are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church”.22
Thus, we might ask: is it in contrast to Vatican I, re-read in the light of
Vatican II, to argue, that the pope may be infallible when he represents the
faith of all Christians?
In consequence, the papal ministry appears as an ecumenical office:
unity is its duty. The pope has the ministry of global unity. This ministry is
to be fulfilled by integration, not by separation. It would be an ecumenical
opportunity to have a person, with whom all Christians are in contact and
in unanimous agreement and who has to be in unanimous agreement with
all Christian Churches. I am optimistic that the future of the papacy is an
ecumenical one. The harsh formulations of Vatican I do not prevent such
an interpretation. A new approach to the papacy is possible and necessary,
both for Catholics and not-Roman-Catholic Churches and faithful.
22
Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3.
CHAPTER 34
Ecclesial Reform and Human Cultures
Sandra Mazzolini
In the Western tradition, “few ideas have enjoyed a longer, more complex,
and, in many instances, more disruptive history than reform. Expressed by
a number of terms, of which the most direct and obvious is the Latin ref-
ormatio, it has traditionally been defined as mutatio in melius.”1
Etymologically speaking, reform is not a creation ex nihilo (in fact, it pre-
supposes a previous original form). It is not a generic change and develop-
ment, “that come about in a gradual fashion without deliberate decision
making to effect the final result,”2 because it “entails a self-consciously
undertaken effort within an institution to effect change. It is thus different
from changes that come about because of decisions taken by others.”3 The
1
John O’Malley, “‘The Hermeneutic of Reform.’ A Historical Analysis,” Theological
Studies 73 (2012): 517–546, 518. Even if the idea of mutatio in melius can be expressed by
other terms, nonetheless reform “remains the most basic and most frequently invoked in
almost every sphere of human activity to improve the status quo” (517).
2
Ibid., 517. See also John O’Malley, “Developments, Reforms, and Two Great Reformations:
Towards a Historical Assessment of Vatican II,” Theological Studies 44 (1983): 374–378.
3
O’Malley, “The Hermeneutic of Reform:’” 517.
S. Mazzolini (*)
Pontifical Urbanian University, Rome, Italy

298 S. MAZZOLINI
concept of reform refers, firstly, to the relationship between the past and
the present, opening up to the future; secondly, to the historical and cul-
tural context4; and thirdly, to specific criteria which determine forms and
results, as well as the reasons and purposes of reform.
Originally directed towards each individual Christian, the concept of
reform “early began to be applied also to the church as an organized social
body and was thus launched on its impressive ecclesiastical trajectory.”5 In
the course of time, the theme of ecclesial reform has been crucial but, at
the same time, it has been a very thorny one. Today, this theme of reform
also recurs in the magisterium of Pope Francis, who refers it to the eccle-
siological model of the church which goes forth,6 simultaneously stressing
the very nature of ecclesial renewal, the missionary identity of the church,
and the principle of pastoral conversion.7 Within this framework, the rela-
tionship between ecclesial reform and human cultures is extremely
relevant.
The Second Vatican Council set about discussing the issue of the rela-
tionship of the church to human cultures, recognizing, on the one hand,
cultural plurality8 and, on the other, that this multifaceted dialogical rela-
tionship enriches both the church and human cultures.9 After the Council,
there have been very many different discussions of this issue and its related
questions, such as those of inculturation, evangelization of cultures, and
4
Without a precise reference to the historical context, reform could be explained only by
further abstractions, degenerating “into a platitude or even a mask for an ideology” (O’Malley,
“‘The Hermeneutic of Reform’,” 521). See also John O’Malley, “Reform, Historical
Consciousness, and Vatican II’s Aggiornamento,” Theological Studies 32 (1971): 589–601;
O’Malley, “Developments, Reforms,” 404.
5
O’Malley, “‘The Hermeneutic of Reform’,” 518.
6
See EG 20. 24. This ecclesiological figure summarizes some main perspective of Council
Vatican II, as well as aspects of Latin-American and Argentinian theology. See, for example,
Juan Carlos Scannone, La teologia del popolo. Radici teologiche di papa Francesco (Brescia:
Queriniana 2019).
7
See Sandra Mazzolini, “‘An ecclesial renewal which cannot be deferred’ (EG 27–33).
Ecclesial Renewal and the Renewal of Ecclesial Structures,” in Pope Francis and the Future of
Catholicism. Evangelii Gaudium and the Papal Agenda, ed. Gerard Mannion (New York:
Cambridge University Press 2017), 77–83.
8
This acknowledgment firstly entails the clarification of the concept of culture (see GS 53),
and, secondly, the understanding of cultural diversity from the viewpoint of the divine plan
of creation and salvation.
9
See, for example, LG 13; GS 44–45. 58; AG 22.
34 ECCLESIAL REFORM AND HUMAN CULTURES 299
so on.10 Pope Francis has drawn attention to these themes,11 for example
in the framework of ecclesial reform in general, as well as of the reform of
the ecclesial structures from the perspective of a healthy decentralization,
which is necessary in order to accomplish the evangelizing mission of the
church.12 From this second viewpoint, the question of the local church as
the primary subject of evangelization is very relevant, “since it is the con-
crete manifestation of the one Church in one specific place.”13
Reviewing some of the principal data emerging from Council Vatican
II,14 Pope Francis has succinctly described the identity of the local church,
10
See Robert A. Hunt, The Gospel among the Nations. A Documentary History on
Inculturation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010); Vangelo e culture. Per nuovi incontri, ed.
Sandra Mazzolini (UUP: Città del Vaticano, 2017); Pontificia Università Urbaniana –
Facoltà di Missiologia, Enchiridion sull’inculturazione della fede, eds. Carmelo Dotolo,
Sandra Mazzolini, and Gaetano Sabetta (Città del Vaticano: LEV-UUP, 2019).
11
In EG 122–126, for example, Pope Francis has dealt with popular piety, which is a fruit
of the inculturated gospel. He has also underlined the evangelizing power of popular piety.
In the Aparecida Document, the bishops refer to it as “popular spirituality” or “the people’s
mysticism” (see DA 262). See Scannone, La teologia del popolo, 51–130, 153–163, 175–189.
See also Maria Clara Lucchetti Bingemer, “Mística nel sur de América: Entre la profecía, lo
cotidiano y la práctica,” in Nuevos signos de los tiempos. Diálogo teológico íberico-latino-amer-
icano (Madrid: San Pablo, 2018), 371–388.
12
See EG 16. In EG 32, Pope Francis has affirmed that “[e]xcessive centralization, rather
than providing helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her mission outreach.” From the
perspective of EG, decentralization refers not only to ecclesial institutions, but also to the
evangelizing mission of the Church. Barreda affirms that “se trata del reconoscimiento de las
Iglesias locales come sujetos de la misíon de la Iglesia, es decir, come sujetos que desarollan
la naturaleza misma de la Iglesia, que el Vaticano II definió ‘misionera’,” in Jesús Ángel
Barreda, Evangelii Gaudium. Proyecto misionero del papa Francisco para la Iglesia de hoy
(México: Ompe, 2014), 76. Other concepts, such as collegiality, peripheries, are correlated
to the idea of decentralization: see ibid., 76–82.
13
EG 30.
14
Even though the ecclesiological teachings of Vatican II refer to the universal church,
there are nonetheless some elements concerning the local church that can be found in the
conciliar documents that were promulgated. In fact, the Council has pointed out such things
as the relationship of the local church with the universal church (see LG 23), the essential
constitutive elements of the local church (see CD 11), the intrinsic relationship of the local
church with a concrete space, which is not only territorial, but also anthropological and
cultural. AG 22 has remarked the responsibility of each and every church in order to adapt
its life and mission with reference to its own specific context. See Sandra Mazzolini, “Chiese
particolari: profili ecclesiologici,” in Pontificio Istituto Orientale and Pontificia Università
Urbaniana, Circoscrizioni ecclesiastiche erette nella forma dell’Ordinariato. Atti delle giornata
di studio, Roma, 4 dicembre 2018, ed. G. Ruyssen (Roma: Faculty Publications-Valore
Italiano, 2020), 19–55.
300 S. MAZZOLINI
which is a portion of the Catholic Church under the leadership of its

bishop, as follows: “It is the Church incarnate in a certain place, equipped
with all means of salvation bestowed by Christ, but with local features.”15
In it “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ is truly pres-
ent and operative.” According to this description, the identity of each and
every church also refers to a specific cultural context, which contributes to
the shape of the ecclesial institutions and structures, as well as theological
approaches and pastoral and missionary activity. In other words, each and
every local church is essentially an inculturated church, which is commit-
ted both to proclaiming the evangelical good news, and to organizing its
life, including its institutional life, by referring both of them to specific
anthropological and cultural contexts.
From this point of view, the idea of the church which goes forth is
complex. In fact, it is what might be called people of many faces, because
the people of God is incarnate in peoples, each of which has its own cul-
ture. It follows that “[i]n the diversity of peoples who experience the gift
of God, each in accordance with its own culture, the Church expresses her
genuine catholicity and shows forth the ‘beauty of her varied faces’.”16
This cultural diversity, if properly understood,
[…] is not a threat to Church unity. The Holy Spirit […] builds up the com-
munion and harmony of the people of God. The same Spirit is that har-
mony, just as he is the bond of love between the Father and the Son. It is he
who brings forth a rich variety of gifts, while at the same time creating a
unity which is never uniformity but a multifaceted and inviting harmony.17
From the point of view of the local church, which is the church incar-
nate in a certain place, there are many questions, both theoretical and
practical, which also concern ecclesial reform. Some of them need to be
developed further.18 To understand this remark better, it is sufficient to
15
EG 30.
16
EG 116.
17
EG 117.
18
Some of these questions concern the very identity of the local church, the relationships
between the universal and local church, the ecclesiological relevance of human cultures with
reference to the identity of the local church, and so on. In addition, some of these issues also
have ecumenical implications and are on the table of many Christian traditions. They need to
be further clarified, also in the perspective of the ecclesial unity. See, for example, WCC, The
Church: Towards a Common Vision (2013), ns. 31–32.
introduce here three implications for ecclesiology, which depend on the

relevance attributed to the local church and are connected with Pope
Francis’s ecclesial vision. In addition, these implications introduce the key
elements of the reform that needs to be put into practice by the Roman
Catholic Church today.19
The first implication concerns the understanding of ecclesial catholicity
in wider terms, which build on the conciliar teaching of LG 13. Here, “the
council provides a brief theology of catholicity, of which the principal
headings are: (1) the trinitarian source of catholicity, (2) catholicity as uni-
versality of races, nations and cultures, (3) catholicity as unity is rich diver-
sity, and (4) catholicity as relationship with all of humanity.”20 Briefly,
catholicity implies the recognition and integration of differences, which
are also cultural, within a communal framework. If it is true—and it is—it
means that a single uniform model of the church should no longer be
reproduced or imposed everywhere. Without denying or weakening the
constitutive elements of the local church, it should pay more attention to
other elements, which derive from the context in which each and every
local church is rooted. According to AG 22, from the cultures of their
people, local churches “borrow all those things which can contribute to
the glory of their Creator, the revelation of the Savior’s grace, or the
proper arrangement of Christian life.”21 From this viewpoint, ecclesial
reform implies developing processes of discernment, because, on the one
hand, not all cultural elements are consistent with the evangelical values,
and, on the other, it is necessary to evaluate if and how positive cultural
elements can be useful to ecclesial inculturation.
The second implication entails the relationships between the churches
within the frame of the communio Ecclesiarum. Council Vatican II has also
19
See Mannion (ed.), Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism. See also La riforma e le
riforme nella Chiesa, eds. Antonio Spadaro and Carlos María Galli (Queriniana: Brescia, 2016).
20
Francis A. Sullivan, The Church We Believe In. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic (New
York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1988), 87. “The following three articles spell out the ways
that various categories of people are related to the church; art. 14 speaks of Catholics, 15 of
other Christians, 16 of those who are not Christian. The last article, n. 17, treats the church’s
mandate to actualize its gift of catholicity by evangelization” (87–88; see also 88–108).
21
“Since the Church has a visible structure as a sign of her unity in Christ, she can and
ought to be enriched by the development of human social life, not that there is any lack in
the constitution given her by Christ, but that she can understand it more penetratingly,
express it better, and adjust it more successfully to our time” (GS 44).
302 S. MAZZOLINI
introduced this issue,22 paying more attention to the communio

Episcoporum. Although without solving all the related questions, the
Council has dealt, on the one hand, with the relationships between the
college of bishops and its head, namely the bishop of Rome, and, on the
other, with the mutual relations of individual bishops with particular
churches and with the universal church.23 It has also introduced the issue
of the episcopal conferences,24 which has been debated at various times
since the Council.25 Nevertheless, the question of the status of episcopal
conferences remains unresolved.26 Pope Francis has also mentioned this
issue in the framework of the conversion of the central structures of the
universal church, but has also recognized that the conciliar desire of
improving episcopal conferences still has “not been fully realized, since a
juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects
of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet
been sufficiently elaborated.”27 The elaboration of the status of episcopal
conferences, in order to promote an effective “sound decentralization”,
implies the recognition of the particularity of each and every local church
in the framework of the communio Ecclesiarum. It is a significant part of
today’s ecclesial reform, which, due to the complexity of our time, also
entails the search for the creation and/or implementation of other eccle-
sial structures that favor the communio Ecclesiarum at various levels and
paying attention to the different contexts.
The third implication concerns the understanding of ecclesial synodal-
ity, which needs to be put into practice today in areas and spaces which are
also characterized in different ways. In the Roman Catholic tradition,
synodality is still understood mainly with reference to the synod of
22
See Hervé Legrand, “Communio Ecclesiae, Communio Ecclesiarum, Collegium
Episcoporum,” in La riforma e le riforme, 159–188.
23
See LG 22–23.
24
See LG 23; CD 37–38.
25
See Umberto Casale, “Conferenza Episcopale,” in Dizionario di Ecclesiologia, eds.
Gianfranco Calabrese, Philup Goyret, and Orazio Francesco Piazza (Roma: Città Nuova,
2010), 345–54.
26
Many authors have tackled this topic, which they have explained in different ways. Some
of them have developed it in the frame of a dynamic understanding of episcopal collegiality,
referring it to the communio Ecclesiarum and in the frame of the interaction between the
effective collegiality and the affective collegiality. Other scholars have understood episcopal
conferences as a juridical structure, whose authority derives from positive rules.
27
EG 32.
bishops, although other synodal forms already exist.28 Synodality implies

communication between the churches, the active participation of various
ecclesial subjects, recognizing their common dignity and their charisms
and ministries, the implementation of discernment processes in view of the
joint resolution of common problems, as well as of the development of
new practices, and so on. Specifying the role of the various ecclesial sub-
jects in the synodal processes is a highly relevant issue, which entails har-
monizing the theological and juridical lexicon, as well as tackling thorny
issues that still remain open. All of this is still insufficient for implementing
synodal processes, which are an integral part of today’s ecclesial reform,
without the addition of a correlated and contextual formation of the eccle-
sial subjects, who are called upon to take part, directly or indirectly so to
speak, in the synodal processes. This formation cannot refer solely to the
baptized faithful, but also to ordained ministers, because each of them
needs to be aware of their own role in the abovementioned processes,
which imply “a mutual listening in which everyone has something to learn.
The faithful people, the college of bishops, the Bishop of Rome: all listen-
ing to each other, and all listening to the Holy Spirit, the ‘Spirit of truth’
(Jn 14:17), in order to know what he ‘says to the Churches’ (Rev. 2:7).”29
The encounter between the Church and human cultures can properly
favor ecclesial reform both in general and also with reference to the eccle-
sial structures. The path of ecclesial reform is not easy, and yet it is open
and requires the ecclesial subjects to commit themselves to it, each of
them according to their own vocation, charisms, and ministries.
28
See Dario Vitali, “La circolarità tra sensus fidei e magistero come criterio per l’esercizio
della sinodalità della Chiesa;” Alphonse Borras, “Sinodalità ecclesiale, processi partecipativi e
modalità decisionali. Il punto di vista di un canonista;” Gilles Routhier, “Il rinnovamento
della vita sinodale nelle chiese locali,” in La riforma e le riforme, 189–206; 207–232;
233–247.
29
Cerimony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the institution of the Synod of Bishops,
Address of his holiness pope Francis (17 October 2015).
CHAPTER 35
Ecclesiology in Extremis
Dale T. Irvin
Johannes Christiaan “Hans” Hoekendijk was a mid-twentieth century

Dutch Reformed leader of the ecumenical movement who was passionate
about the need for changes in our ecclesiological thinking.1 Hoekendijk
identified his primary area of work as being in mission studies. Mission for
him meant change, which came about through the church’s encounter
with the world beyond itself. The church had become too settled in its
own time and place. But the church as he understood it from the perspec-
tive of the New Testament and the message of Jesus had no fixed place as
either the beginning or end of what God is doing in the world:
“Consequently it cannot be firmly established but will always remain the
paroikia [sojourner], a temporary settlement which can never become a
1
For a fuller introduction to Hoekendijk and his background, see D. T. Irvin, “For the
Sake of the World: Stephen B. Bevans and Johannes C. Hoekendijk in Dialogue,”
International Bulletin of Missionary Research 44, no. 1 (January 2020): 20–32, first pub-
lished online April 9, 2019, at https://doi.org/10.1177/2396939319839291
D. T. Irvin (*)
New School of Biblical Theology, Orlando, FL, USA

306 D. T. IRVIN
permanent home”.2 This was for him the heart of being apostolic: being
sent into the world both to transform and to be transformed.3 Hoekendijk
is most often remembered along these lines for his participation in the
project carried out by the Department on Studies in Evangelism of the
World Council of Churches that culminated in the 1967 publication of
The Church for Others and the Church for the World, and in a collection of
his own essays titled The Church Inside Out that was first published the
previous year in 1966.4
Toward the end of the latter volume, Hoekendijk noted that various
churches allow intercommunion in what are considered abnormal situa-
tions. The traditional language for such practices was for situations consid-
ered to be “in extreme” (in extremis). Such abnormal situations,
Hoekendijk argued, include a “missionary situation,” an “emergency situ-
ation,” and situations where “we have passed the point of no return in our
lives and have arrived on the threshold of death” (the traditional under-
standing of in extremis in Roman Catholic theology).5 In such situations
otherwise immutable ecclesiastical rules such as those that govern who can
2
J. C. Hoekendijk, “The Church in Missionary Thinking,” International Review of
Missions 41, no. 3 (1952): 334.
3
See a fuller discussion of Hoekendijk’s concept of apostolicity and mission in John
G. Flett, Apostolicity: The Ecumenical Question in World Christian Perspective (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2016), 187–210.
4
The Church for Others and the Church for the World: A Quest for Structures for Missionary
Congregations: Final Report of the Western European Working Group and North America
Working Group of the Depeartment on Studies in Evangelism (Geneva: World Council of
Churches, 1967); and Johannes C. Hoekendijk, The Church Inside Out (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1966).
5
Among the more recent official documents in Roman Catholic theology guiding pastoral
practices regarding in extremis are the instructions “On Admitting Other Christians to
Eucharistic Communion” (In Quibus Rerum Circumstantiis) published by the Secretariat
for Promoting Christian Unity on June 1, 1972 (Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council
II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 1975], 554–559; the 1983 Code of Canon Law, paragraph 844, (online at
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM, (accessed December 1,
2019); the “Ecumenical Directory” of 1993 (online at http://www.vatican.va/roman_
curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-
and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html); and the “Guidelines for the Reception of Communion”
issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1996 (online at http://www.usccb.org/
prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/guidelines-for-the-
reception-of-communion.cfm (accessed December 1, 2019)). See also Jeffrey T. Vanderwilt,
Communion with Non-Catholic Christians: Risks, Challenges, and Opportunities (Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), esp. 39–48.
35 ECCLESIOLOGY IN EXTREMIS 307
administer or receive communion are capable of being suspended, modi-

fied, or outright changed, noted Hoekendijk. He pressed his analysis to
argue that these three situations are not abnormal at all for Christian faith.
They have been deemed “abnormal” by churches, but in fact they are the
norm of the gospel.
When we look a bit more closely, we discover that in all three cases a situa-
tion that ought to be normal for the Christian church is abnormalized in our
thinking; the normal and the daily are mentally put in the corner of the
extraordinary.6
It was not historically uncommon for rules forbidding intercommunion

to be relaxed in missionary situations over the past century, Hoekendijk
noted. The logic of unity being “manifested for the sake of the salvation
of the nations” reasserted itself in missions in a forceful way, causing the
divisions among “well-established and ‘historic’ (whatever that may mean)
churches” to disappear on their own. But this happened far from Europe,
where “the denominational apartheid at the Lord’s Table is defended
tooth and nail”, he noted.7 It was now time to bring this logic to bear
upon the entire church in a forceful way.
Where the gospel comes, missionary situations originate, everywhere and

always. It is impossible to designate a part as “missionary” somewhere in
space or somewhere in time, which apparently can be distinguished (accord-
ing to any criteria available) from the other “nonmissionary” parts [...]. One
who wants to speak authentically about a “missionary” situation has to
know that he [or she] speaks about the whole world and the whole of his-
tory, qualified as they both are by the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ
[...]. That which cannot serve as “order of missions” has no right to exist as
order of the church.8
Mission does not start outside the church, in other words, but starts at
the very heart of the church, in the preaching of the gospel. “In certain
special circumstances” (In quibusdam peculiaribus rerum adiunctis)
Catholics can join with other Christians from whom they are separated to
6
Hoekendijk, The Church Inside Out, 157.
7
8
308 D. T. IRVIN
pray, states Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism.9 Hoekendijk did not say so,
but the same argument could be applied to the sacrament of communion,
the Eucharist. Hoekendijk would have said that the presence of Christ in
or under or around the bread and wine makes every celebration of the
Eucharist certain and special, or peculiar. What is regarded as the excep-
tional ought instead to be regarded as the norm in light of the gospel.
From an eschatological perspective, Hoekendijk argued, the distinction
between rules and exceptions is “quite dubious.”10 It was Christendom,
he said, that had suppressed the extraordinary character of the gospel, just
as it had separated mission from church. The world had changed, how-
ever. Ecumenical life is now diasporic, he said. The wilderness of post-
modernity is both our new home and the way to the promised land.11 We
must leave behind the fleshpots of Egypt that were Christendom and
modern denominationalism to embrace this new world into which God is
calling us and sending as followers of Christ. In this contemporary post-
Christendom context, the exceptional circumstances are now the norm,
and everything can be seen as an emergency situation, allowing the rules
against intercommunion to be broken.
Hoekendijk’s basic insight is compelling for me: the message of Jesus
Christ makes any circumstance extraordinary. Yet I still want to press him.
Hoekendijk still seems at times to make an unqualified assertion that there
is something about the nature of the particular time in which he was liv-
ing, as opposed to other periods of history that made it exceptional. The
tendency is to relegate the manner of living and theologizing in extremis
to times of personal and collective endings. This is not to belittle or ignore
the importance of such theological work in situations of extreme violence
and oppression when death is all around. Nicola Slee’s autoethnographic
theological reflections on the conflict in Bosnia after a 2018 visit there is a
9
“Decree on Ecumenism / Unitatis Redintegratio,” para. 8, accessed online at http://
www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_
decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html (accessed December 1, 2019). “The
Decree” tiptoes around whether to call these prayers in special circumstances “worship in
common (communicatio in sacris).” That is because worship as such is not, according to
“The Decree,” to be a means for restoring unity. But common worship even across doctrinal
divides can be “the sharing in the means of grace.” In such a case, “the grace to be had from
it sometimes commends this practice.”
10
11
case in point.12 But if Hoekendijk had stayed true to his own theological
argument, he would have said that no age is more exceptional than any
other simply because it is not the circumstances of the world in and of
themselves, whatever we may judge them to be on a continuum from rou-
tine to unusual, that is the source of the dynamic that brings us to the edge
or limit, in extremis. Rather it is the nature of the gospel itself that makes
them extraordinary. This is a point that James Carroll has made more
recently. He writes:
The Gospel writers had an intuition, and it was shared by their readers, that
only within the context of meaning provided by Jesus Christ could the
extreme disruptive experiences they were undergoing make sense, or be sur-
vived. Jesus – as first made available in the drama of his usurping a rival, or
mentor, named John the Baptist; and then in the other dramas that brought
him to Jerusalem and the “place of the skull,” Golgotha – was the key to the
meaning of God’s covenant in the new context of violent strife. Jesus, that
is, was the figure in whom the in extremis fulfillment of God’s promise could
be seen. God was faithful to Jesus, up to and through death.13
The notion that there are exceptional circumstances that would allow
doctrinal considerations regarding the sacraments or anything else of
theological significance to be suspended or overruled implicitly asserts
precisely what some of Hoekendijk’s critics over the past several decades
have charged him with perpetrating: the notion that the world apart
from the gospel sets the agenda.14 But the same charge can be made
against the argument that doctrinal concerns about the nature of the
Eucharist can be set aside in times of extreme or exceptional circumstances
as they warrant such. If extreme or exceptional circumstances that occur
within the world either call for or allow for suspension of theological rules
regarding communion, then the world in its most extreme or exceptional
form can and has indeed set the agenda. But this is not precisely what
Hoekendijk said. The Church for Others and the Church for the World, in
the North American section of the report on which Hoekendijk exercised
a major influence, noted the popularity at the time in certain theological
12
N. Slee, “Theological Reflection in Extremis: Remembering Srebrenica,” Practical
Theology, 12, no. 1 (2019), 30–43.
13
James Carroll, Christ Actually: Reimaging Faith in the Modern Age (New York: Penguin
Books, 2014), 22.
14
I identify and address some of these criticisms in: Irvin, “For the Sake of the World.”
310 D. T. IRVIN
circles of the phrase, “Let the world write the agenda for the church.” The
report went on:
This phrase is easily misunderstood. It has meaning only when the ‘world’
of which it speaks is seen in relation to the redemptive work of Christ. The
world that writes the agenda is not, therefore, the “fallen” world, the world
as the place of rebellion, but rather the world where Christ is carrying out
his saving work.15
It is still the world in which we live and work, the world in which suf-
fering is found, the world of broken bodies and broken spirits. Jesus’ min-
istry did not take place in “another sphere than that of ordinary life.”16
The church does not live in “another sphere than that of ordinary life.”
This sphere of real life is one in which death is experienced. Jesus is not the
only one who experienced death. The church has through the ages faced
numerous instances of its own death as well. Gerard Mannion has noted
that it is part of the theological and ecclesiological task to “confront the
challenges of the age in an open and positive fashion.” The task in no small
part is called for “now that old concepts of authority have died.”17 But
death is never the last word. Change is the result, in the form of resurrec-
tion. As Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy wrote in 1946, “The story of
Christianity, both in the lives of individual Christians and in the life of
humanity, is a perpetual reenactment of the death and resurrection of its
Founder.”18
It is the dynamic of the gospel, which is the dynamic of change brought
about by resurrection in the Spirit, whether it is encountered in the church
or in the world, that makes for extraordinary circumstances. Breaks in the
world do not take place only along the edges or at the margins, in the
extremes of experience. As Hoekendijk argued regarding ecclesiology,
breaks in the rules do not just happen on the mission field, far from the
centers of Christendom. If Hoekendijk is right, we do not have to wait
until extraordinary or extreme circumstances arise to have permission to
break the sacramental rules and bring about changes in ecclesiology. The
15
WCC, The Church for Others, 70.
16
WCC, The Church for Others, 71.
17
Gerard Mannion, Ecclesiology and Postmodernity: Questions for the Church in Our Time
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 27.
18
Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, The Christian Future: Or the Modern Mind Outrun (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1946), 90.
good news of Jesus Christ ought to compel us on its own to break the
rules, change the structures, reach across the divides, and join together in
common ministry and mission in the world. Let me say this in a slightly
different way: it is the gospel that is exceptional, brought about by the
dynamic of the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead. Every moment in
which it is proclaimed and lived out, be it in the church or the world, is an
exceptional moment calling anew for a theology in extremis.
PART VI
Synodality and Participation

CHAPTER 36
Ecclesial Extroversion: On the Reform

in the Current Pontificate
Sandra Arenas
Slowly and gradually the Roman Catholic Church is taking responsibility

for what is appropriately called an institutional failure,1 a failure that urges
it to move from its own axis outward, in a process of significant extrover-
sion; a failure that has pushed to the edge the trust and credibility of its
internal structures, especially of its ministries and, thus, touches not only
the legal, but also the sacramental, liturgical, and more genuinely spiritual.
Taking responsibility for it places the church in a broad plan of necessary
reforms.
To undertake this plan, it is essential to look at the reasons that make
reform necessary. Our emphasis will be on the progressive loss of trust and
credibility, which, although is due to several causes—analyzable from mul-
tiple angles—all seem to converge. For the purpose of this work, the angle
of analysis will be the vital context of its author, namely a Roman Catholic
and Chilean lay theologian. This peculiar place will provide local
1
C. Schickendantz, “Fracaso institucional de un modelo teológico-cultural de Iglesia
Factores sistémicos en la crisis de los abusos,” Teología y Vida 60, no. 1 (2019): 9–39.
S. Arenas (*)
Universidad Católica de Temuco, Temuco, Chile

316 S. ARENAS
indicators, with key theological reflections in the context of ecclesial

reform. The epistemological assumption is that local churches inform the
global church in institutional design as well as in its charismatic vitality.
Initially, data will be provided (1) on the degree of engagement and
institutional trust of the Latin American and Chilean Catholic parishioners
in recent years; (2) then we will succinctly examine Pope Francis’ responses
relating to the reasonableness of the loss of credibility in the church,
within the margins of his ecclesial reform plan and finally (3), I will make
a theological evaluation.
The Data
The Roman Catholic Church has been progressively losing credibility in
Chile. This has been reflected in various measurements of public opinion
for several years now. According to the National Bicentennial Survey of
the Pontifical Catholic University (UC)/GfK Adimark (2016), social trust
in the church dropped from 44% in 2006 to 24% in 2016.2 A recent study
confirms this perception: CADEM, in mid-August 2018, indicated that
80% of its respondents acknowledged having little/no trust in the institu-
tion; 70% of them declared themselves Catholics.3 Thus, the aforemen-
tioned deterioration does not correspond only to persons outside the
institution, but also to a significant group within it. What is this crisis? The
CADEM survey assesses certain attributes of the church, the results
questioned the church’s solidarity (53%), adaptation to new times (66%),
knowledge and concern for human needs (58%), fieldwork (60%), close-
ness (67%), humility (73%), and honesty and transparency (83%).4
This last survey, in August 2018, showed that, among the elite groups,
the bishops have lost the most trust between 1988 and 2018, down from
58% to 18%. That value was measured with respect to presbyters only in
2
Use the following link to access the surveys conducted by the Pontifical Catholic
University of Chile and Adimark, https://encuestabicentenario.uc.cl/resultados/. To con-
sult the result of the measurements of religious behavior in Chile in 2015–2016 see
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Desktop/Encuesta-bicentenario-2016-Religio%CC%81n.pdf
[accessed January 15, 2020].
3
To view the CADEM website, see https://www.cadem.cl/sobre-cadem/. To access the
complete CADEM August 2018, Study N° 238 survey, see https://www.cadem.cl/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Track-PP-Jul-Sem1-N238-VF.pdf [accessed January
15, 2020].
4
Ibidem.
36 ECCLESIAL EXTROVERSION: ON THE REFORM IN THE CURRENT… 317
March 2019, standing at 21%.5 The same survey argues that interpersonal
trust has historically been low in Chile and that this reflects social inequality.
Trust indicators have not risen, instead only further declined. According
to the study of the UC and GfK Adimark, respondent’s trust in the church
fell from 18% to 9%, since 2017 and among Catholics it dropped from
27% to 15%.6 It is the worst record of trust that the Chilean Church has
had in these surveys, which are more than 12-years-old. Comparing Chile
to wider Latin America, one notes that the decline in trust toward the
church has also occurred in other countries.7
Francis and the Lack of Credibility in the Church

From an intentional reading of the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaud-
ium (EG), one observes how the Roman pontiff himself considers that,
under certain respects, the church can, and should even, be subject to a
lack of credibility. EG is a programmatic document that conveys a dream,
namely, the pastoral and missionary conversion of the church through
tenderness and mercy. Laity, ministers, theologians, the episcopal college,
religious, and the bishop of Rome himself are called to convert themselves
to these attitudes in the transmission of faith. Prevalent throughout the
document is the call to renew and rethink the structures of the church that
tend toward self-preservation, so that “the freshness of the Gospel” flows.
We note that the document establishes a correlation between the “noncir-
culation of the freshness of the Gospel,” the tendency toward “self-
preservation,” and the “loss of credibility” in the church, an issue that
particularly interests us in this work. The methodological question would
be the following: When, in the opinion of Francis, would the freshness of
the Gospel not circulate in the church? Examining the document from this
5
This is the latest measurement of Chilean views regarding religious and religious institu-
tions in March 2019, see https://encuestabicentenario.uc.cl/resultados/ [accessed January
15, 2020].
6
To access the complete survey, see https://encuestabicentenario.uc.cl/resultados/
[accessed January 15, 2020].
7
Not only has trust declined, but religious identities as a whole are experiencing transfor-
mation processes in LA. Catholics decrease, evangelicals stabilize, and agnostics, atheists and
other religions grow. The cultural and political consequences of this progressive transition
have been analyzed from various disciplines for a little over a decade. See, for example,
C. Parker, “Pluralismo religioso, educación y ciudadanía,” Sociedade e Estado 23, no. 2
(2008): 281–353.
318 S. ARENAS
question connects, without being forced, with the tone of the current
questions regarding structural ecclesial reforms: Francis in the document
deems certain motives reasonable for leading to the loss of credibility in
the church. Subsequently, the document argues that it is/would be rea-
sonable to believe in the church when, it allows the freshness of the Gospel
to circulate/flow in matters of doctrine, morality, or worship and is not set
in tendencies toward the self-preservation of its structures.
Reviewing some additional points, the Exhortation maintains that the
“freshness” of the Gospel does not spring up and, therefore, the church
loses credibility: when it becomes a tollhouse and not a house where there
is room for everyone (Cf. 47); when the confessional becomes a torture
chamber (Cf. 44); when the parish is transformed into a useless structure
out of touch with the people […] a self-absorbed group made up of a
chosen few (Cf. 28); when theologians stay at their desks (Cf. 133); when
the laity are not trained and those trained are not considered in areas of
ecclesial decision-making (Cf. 102); when the bishop does not encourage
or seek the maturation of participation mechanisms in his diocese and only
hears those who “tell him what he would like to hear” (Cf. 31); when the
papacy and the central structures of the universal church do not listen to
the call for pastoral conversion (Cf. 32); when there is an obsession with
the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines (Cf. 35); when
language is not updated in the transmission of the truths of the faith and
a monolithic doctrine is defended without nuances (Cf. 40); when it is not
recognized that there is a hierarchy of truths in doctrinal and even moral
issues (Cf. 36); when Catholicism and preaching are reduced to a catalog
of sins and errors (Cf. 39); when the church seals itself off, retreats into its
own security, and opts rigidity and defensiveness (Cf. 45); when the
church does not opt for the poor, when it is located at the center and not
at the margins (Cf. 197); when it does not know to read cultural diversity
or popular piety as a theological space (Cf. 126); when there is no com-
munity discernment to rethink ecclesial norms or precepts that are irrele-
vant today (Cf. 16, 33, 166).
When this occurs, contends Francis, the loss of credibility in the church
becomes at least reasonable, the questions and criticisms of our people
become relevant and an opportunity to make the church’s borders more
flexible.
Theological Evaluation
In the face of this general weakening of institutional trust, some questions
arise: What supported this trust? When did its decline begin? What
caused it?
It is at least hypothetically sustainable that trust collapsed because it was
poorly supported. The authorities were blindly trusted, as a consequence of
the culture in which we live. Institutions were not publicly challenged,
however, now a bishop’s resignation can be requested, the appointment of
another can be paralyzed, or authorities can be publicly challenged to
account for the fulfillment of the obligations related to their ministry.
Clericalism is counted as the baseline, transversal, and radiating cause of
the weakening of ecclesiastical trust and credibility; origin of the abuses
committed in an ecclesiastical context. In the current crisis of the Roman
Catholic Church in Chile, the abuse of conscience that follows the mental-
ity of the clergy as a privileged class has promoted an insane asymmetrical
relationship of power and this is seen throughout the Latin American
continent.8
This analysis runs throughout Francis’ position in EG and his interven-
tions in local churches where abuse of power has been highly visible. The
pope reiterated his criticism of the danger of authoritarianism and clerical-
ism in the church during his visit to Chile. In Chile, he reminded the
Bishops that “the laity are not our pawns, nor our employees […]. The
lack of awareness of belonging to the faithful People of God as servants,
and not as owners, can lead us to one of the temptations that does the
most damage to the missionary dynamism that we are called to promote:
clericalism.”9 In the Letter regarding the Pennsylvania Report (August 20,
2018), Francis writes:
This is clearly seen in a peculiar way of understanding the Church’s author-

ity, one common in many communities where sexual abuse and the abuse of
power and conscience have occurred. Such is the case with clericalism, an
approach that […] tends to diminish and undervalue the baptismal grace
that the Holy Spirit has placed in the heart of our people. […]. Clericalism
[…] leads to an excision in the ecclesial body that supports and helps to
8
Cf. A recent work by M. C. Bingemer, “Concerning Victims, Sexuality, and Power: A
Reflection on Sexual Abuse from Latin America,” Theological Studies 80, no. 4 (2019): 916–30.
9
Cf. http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/letters/2018/documents/papa-
francesco_20180408_lettera-vescovi-cile.html [accessed January 15, 2020].
320 S. ARENAS
perpetuate many of the evils that we are condemning today. To say “no” to
abuse is to say an emphatic “no” to all forms of clericalism.10
Clericalism rejects the theological-doctrinal apparatus of fundamental

equality. This includes assessing internal dissent as a condition creating the
possibility for reform. The widespread practices of curbing changes, con-
demning and blaming dissidents, and even presenting as untouchable,
issues that are actually debatable, generate withdrawal11 and fear. In the list
of Evangelii gaudium discussed in the previous section, one observes that
Francis is in tune with essential conciliar premises in matters of the trans-
mission of the faith, such as the development of doctrine and the hierarchy
of truths.12 The most authentic reform still is distinguishing the untouch-
able matters (a few) from the debatable (the majority); “Releasing” what
is not binding can move one from the tendency for self-preservation
toward ecclesial extroversion. When the people become a purely passive
element; the participation of the laity in matters that they are responsible
for weakens; the Synod of the Pan-Amazonian region is a good recent
example. Ecclesial praxis has been the counterpoint to doctrinal fixation in
debatable matters, such as the design and discipline of ministries or the
appointment of bishops.13
The ecclesial abuse crisis triggers structural changes but also addresses
the necessary theological foundation about the consistency of the local
churches and their regional Episcopal Conferences, and other intermedi-
ate synodal instances, human rights within the church, the teachings on
the doctrine of sexuality and sexual ethics and bioethics, the process for
the appointment of bishops, the articulation of laity-teaching with the
shared teaching role.
Engagement will not be achieved by the mere occupation of spaces by
new types of individuals, or by the transfer of power to other ecclesial
10
The full text at https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-08/pope-francis-
letter-people-of-god-sexual-abuse.html [accessed January 10th 2020].
11
The withdrawal has been called ecclesial involution, the ecclesial winter (Rahner), a
return to the great discipline (Libanio), the dark night (González Faus).
12
Vatican II states that in many matters, even serious ones, the faithful should not expect
answers from their pastors (GS 43).
13
Cf. P. Suess, “Sínodo para a Amazônia e o mundo: vade mecum para uma agenda min-
ima,” Convergência 53, no. 515 (October 2018): 34–45 and R. Guridi, “Sínodo pan-
amazónico y COP25: la escucha y el diálogo como método,” La Revista Católica 119, no.
1203 (July–September 2019): 308–316.
subjectivities, nor by assuming parliamentarism as a way of making eccle-

sial decisions through the construction of majorities. It is achieved, first
and foremost, by recognizing and normalizing the subjectivity of each
individual within the framework of the totality of the individuals that make
up the people of God, since excluding any type of ecclesial subjectivity
would harm the mission of the entire church. Hence, no one can be
excluded from the call to participate; this causes the idea of synodality to
lead into an ecclesiogenesis that affects the whole way of being and operat-
ing in the church. The recognition of the normative nature of subjectivi-
ties and ministries and their incorporation into decision-making processes
under a binding condition would have avoided many of the current crises
and restore credibility. The interaction among the different subjectivities,
from the bottom up, sets in motion an ecclesiogenesis between the center
and the periphery, which achieves the principle: what affects everyone
must be dealt with and approved by all.
In the process of reform, Pope Francis is clear that ecclesial extroversion
is indispensable, and it is an identifying trait of his pontificate. This is a
trait that is at risk of fading away if local churches do not strengthen and
seek the maturation of participation mechanisms or appropriate forms of
transmitting the faith. Local churches must give relevant answers to real
questions, without operating from a tendency toward institutional self-
preservation and formalize other ministerial (unordered) forms that oper-
ate de facto.14 This ecclesial extroversion makes real reform possible. This
is a type of reform where, paraphrasing Francis, the “freshness” of the
Gospel springs up and there the Church eventually recovers its relevance
and credibility.
14
The church Prosecutors of Chiloé (Fiscales de Chiloé) or the Caciques of Andacollo are
good examples of this where there is a high level of popular religiosity, both in the southern
and northern of Chile, respectively. These are ecclesiastical leaders, who have a long-standing
collective recognition and exercise functions that, if allowed by the current legal order of the
Catholic church, fall within the ministerial themselves. Cf. Luis Nahuelanca, Los apóstoles del
archipiélago: el aporte evangelizador de los fiscales en la iglesia local de Chiloé—Chile (Santiago:
Ediciones Provincia Franciscana de la Santísima Trinidad, 1999) and Juan Uribe-Echevarría,
La Virgen de Andacollo y el Niño Dios de Sotaquí (Valparaíso: Ediciones Universitarias de
Valparaíso, 1974). Another example is the community leadership of consecrated women,
especially in rural sectors.
CHAPTER 37
Synodality as a Key Component

of the Pontificate of Pope Francis:
The Difficult Way from Theory to Practice
Peter De Mey
From his very first exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (2013) Pope Francis
was convinced that all levels of ecclesial life should be involved in the mis-
sionary endeavor (EG 27–33). It was especially needed to pay more atten-
tion to “the identity and mission of the laity in the Church” since they
constitute “the vast majority of the people of God” (EG 102). In the
speech he gave on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the institution
of the Synod of Bishops, on November 18, 2015, Pope Francis used the
term “synodality” to refer to the common responsibility of all the mem-
bers of the people of God for the life of the Church.1 On March 2, 2018,
the International Theological Commission (ITC) published an extensive
study on Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church.2 As with all
1
This ceremony was one of the highlights of the second synod on the family. See http://
www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/october/documents/papa-
francesco_20151017_50-anniversario-sinodo.html (accessed February 27, 2020).
2
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_
cti_20180302_sinodalita_en.html (accessed February 27, 2020).
P. De Mey (*)
KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

324 P. DE MEY
documents from Rome its theoretical and practical values have to be criti-
cally investigated. First, however, it will be argued that synodality is deeply
rooted in the ecclesiology of Vatican II.
The ITC and Pope Francis on the Conciliar Basis

of Synodality
Right from its beginning, the ITC document situates synodality “in the
teaching of Vatican II” (§ 6). In his recent Letter to the Pilgrim People of
God in Germany, Pope Francis explains that synodality forms part of the
“reception and further development” of Vatican II.3 The ITC takes the
conciliar basis of synodality to be “the ecclesiology of the People of God”
for it “stresses the common dignity and mission of all the baptized, in
exercising the variety and ordered richness of their charisms, their voca-
tions and their ministries” (§ 6). In my view, the theology of synodality
can better even be linked with the pattern, which the Council fathers used
to describe the mission of the people of God as a whole and of the differ-
ent categories within the people of God, that is, their taking part in the
threefold office of Christ. Indeed, if one takes the mention of the messi-
anic people in LG 9 as a brief hint to their sharing in the kingly office, then
one can argue that LG 9–12 characterizes the Church as a whole as a
priestly, prophetic and royal people. This is followed by descriptions of the
specific way bishops (LG 25–27), priests (LG 28), and laity (LG 34–36)
have their share in the tria munera Christi.
A key line in the attempt of the document to present the new theology
of synodality as a faithful act of reception of Vatican II is found in § 9:
In conformity with the teaching of Lumen Gentium Pope Francis remarks in

particular that synodality “offers us the most appropriate framework for
understanding the hierarchical ministry itself” and that, based on the
3
Schreiben von Papst Franziskus an das pilgernde Volk Gottes in Deutschland, § 9. This letter
was published on the symbolic date of June 29, 2019 in response to the joint plan of the
German bishops’ conference and the Central Committee of German Catholics to engage in
a synodal process. See http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/letters/2019/docu-
ments/papa-francesco_20190629_lettera-fedeligermania.html (accessed February
27, 2020).
37 SYNODALITY AS A KEY COMPONENT OF THE PONTIFICATE… 325
octrine of the sensus fidei fidelium, all members of the Church are agents of
d
evangelization.4
According to the Pope, chapter 2 of Lumen Gentium understands the

sensus fidei not only as a characteristic of the laity but of the fidelium, of
laity and ordained, and chapter 3 never treats the hierarchy independently
of the other members of God’s people whom they serve. By briefly look-
ing at the redaction history of LG 12 and LG 25 I hope to unpack this line
further and prove that Pope Francis is a very precise reader of the docu-
ments of Vatican II.5
The draft prepared by the preconciliar commission had already intro-
duced the notion of sensus fidei in its chapter on authority and obedience
in the Church, in order to distinguish between sensus fidei and public
opinion.6 According to the revised version prepared by the Leuven theo-
logian Philips, the sense of the faith was to be valued as something posi-
tive. At that point, a quote from Augustine was added to argue, as is
explained in footnote, that “the sensus fidei is not only found among the
laity, but in the whole community, including the hierarchy.”7 After the
discussion of the revised De Ecclesia in the second session, the Theological
Commission even added the idea that the Church always seeks to arrive at
a “universal consensus.”8 Since only specialists of Vatican II study the
footnotes and relationes, as of the same intersession, LG 12 explicitly
4
The quote within the quote is one of 10 references in Synodality in the Life and Mission
of the Church to the speech Pope Francis gave on the occasion of the Fiftieth anniversary of
the Synod of Bishops. It was not for the first time that the International Theological
Commission paid attention to the notion of sensus fidelium. See also the 2014 document on
Sensus fidei in the Life of the Church and the critical review by Gerard Mannion, “Sensus
Fidelium and the International Theological Commission: Has Anything Changed between
2012 and 2014?,” in Learning from All the Faithful: A Contemporary Theology of the Sensus
Fidei, ed. Bradford E. Hinze and Peter C. Phan (Eugene, OR, Pickwick Publications,
2016), 69–88.
5
In this section I borrow some ideas from my larger study, “The Actors involved in the
Exercise of the Prophetic Office in the Church: The Common Message of Lumen Gentium
12 and 25 and Dei Verbum 7–10,” Studia Canonica 53 (2019): 127–164.
6
AS I/4, 64 (§ 39).
7
AS II/1, 265 n. 12: “Sensus fidei igitur non tantum apud laicos, sed in tota communitate
invenitur, cointellecta hierarchia.”
8
The Relatio explains why the words “universalis consensus” have been chosen: “Agitur
enim hic de toto Populo Dei, inclusa Hierarchia.” Cf. AS III/1198.
326 P. DE MEY
mentioned that the sensus fidelium takes place “under the guidance of the
sacred magisterium to which it is faithfully obedient” (LG 12).
With the help of a recent study by John Joy, I have been able to dem-
onstrate an implicit reference to the role of the entire people of God in the
lines of LG 25, which discuss the possibility that bishops “dispersed
throughout the world” are also able to “infallibly proclaim the teaching of
Christ.” A footnote refers to the Relatio by Joseph Kleutgen on the revised
schema for a constitution on the Church, which belongs to the materials
of the First Vatican Council. The teaching of the bishops includes “what-
ever in matters of faith and morals is held or handed down as undoubted
in every place under the bishops adhering to the Apostolic See.”9 This
process taking place “under the bishops”—which is not the same as “by
the bishops”—seems to allow for processes of consultation involving theo-
logians and laity. Joy comments:
Read in isolation, the final text of Lumen Gentium can easily give the impres-
sion that the exercise of the ordinary and universal magisterium is restricted
to the direct activity of the bishops. Certainly the notes allow that it can also
be exercised by the whole people of God under the supervision of the bish-
ops. This intimate connection between the infallibility of the people of God
and the ordinary and universal magisterium opens up space for an under-
standing of the latter that is not narrowly focused only on the explicit state-
ments of the hierarchy.10
The teaching in Lumen Gentium that the hierarchy takes part in the sensus
fidelium and the laity in the teaching office of the magisterium is con-
firmed in the beautiful lines about transmitting tradition as a collaborative
task in DV 10:
Tradition and scripture together form a single sacred deposit of the word of
God, entrusted to the Church. Holding fast to this, the entire holy people,
9
AS II/1, pp. 249–250, n. 48, with a reference to MANSI 53, 313 AB: “Quaecumque
igitur in rebus fidei et morum ubique locorum sub Episcopis Apostolicae Sedi adhaerentibus
tamquam indubitata tenentur vel traduntur, necnon quae sive ab iisdem Episcopis, accedente
Romani Pontificis confirmatione, sive ab ipso Romano Pontifice ex cathedra loquente ab
omnibus tenenda et tradenda defiuntur, ea. pro infallibiliter veris habenda sunt.” I borrow
the English translation from John Joy, On the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium
from Joseph Kleutgen to the Second Vatican Council (Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia, 84)
(Münster, Aschendorff Verlag, 2017), 148.
10
Ibid., 149.
united with its pastors, perseveres always faithful to the apostles’ teaching
and shared life, to the breaking of bread and prayer. Thus, as they hold,
practice and witness to the heritage of the faith, bishops and faithful display
a unique harmony.11
The ‘Old Style’ Communion Ecclesiology

of the ITC and Pope Francis
At first sight, it is hard to find weak spots in the theory of synodality devel-
oped by the ITC document. The involvement of the different actors in a
synodal Church has been articulated with the help of three concepts that
are widely used in Catholic ecclesiology and that are applicable to all levels
of ecclesiastical life: “all,” “some,” and “one”:
On different levels and in different forms, as local Churches, regional group-

ings of local Churches and the universal Church, synodality involves the
exercise of the sensus fidei of the universitas fidelium (all), the ministry of
leadership of the college of Bishops, each one with his presbyterium (some),
and the ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome (one). The dynamic of
synodality thus joins the communitarian aspect, which includes the whole
People of God, the collegial dimension that is part of the exercise of episco-
pal ministry, and the primatial ministry of the Bishop of Rome.12
At all levels of ecclesial life this collaborative process involves a “dynamic

circularity”:
The circularity of the sensus fidei with which all the faithful are endowed, the
discernment carried out at the various levels on which synodality works and
the authority of those who exercise the pastoral ministry of unity and gover-
nance shows the dynamic of synodality.13
11
The Relatio underlines the involvement of “the whole Church, which involves simple
believers as well as the hierarchy.” See AS III/3, 87. Cf. Synodality in the Life and Mission of
the Church, § 64: “This correlation promotes that singularis conspiratio between the faithful
and their Pastors, which is an icon of the eternal conspiratio that is lived within the Trinity.”
12
Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, § 64.
13
Ibid., § 72. See also § 94: “Synodality as an essential dimension of the Church is
expressed on the level of the universal Church in the dynamic circularity of the consensus
fidelium, episcopal collegiality and the primacy of the bishop of Rome.” Since the Argentinian
theologian Carlos María Galli, one of the members of the commission, was also one of the
conveners of the 2015 Civiltà Cattolica Seminar I deem it not impossible that the terminol-
328 P. DE MEY
My critique pertains to the fact that the reference to the ecclesiology of the
people of God in the introduction is quickly abandoned in favor of an
ecclesiology of communion, which even defends the notion of a “hierar-
chical communion” without reservations:
The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium sets out a vision of the nature
and mission of the Church as communion, with the theological presupposi-
tions of a suitable relaunch of synodality: the mystical and sacramental con-
ception of the Church; her nature as People of God on pilgrimage through
history towards the heavenly homeland, in which all her members are by
virtue of baptism honored with the same dignity as children of God and
appointed to the same mission; the doctrine of sacramentality of the episco-
pate and collegiality in hierarchical communion with the Bishop of Rome.14
One wonders whether Pope Francis is aware that the appraisal of the eccle-
siology of communion as “the central and fundamental idea of the
Council’s documents” in the Final Report of the 1985 Synod of Bishops
went hand in hand with a critique of the notion of people of God as easily
leading to a “sociological conception of the Church.”15 In Evangelii
Gaudium Pope Francis seemed well aware that Lumen Gentium only had
made a beginning with reflecting on episcopal collegiality and that the
Church should not be afraid of granting episcopal conferences “genuine
doctrinal authority,” since “excessive centralization, rather than proving
helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach” (EG
32). Are not Pope Francis and the International Theological Commission
in recent years not emphasizing the “cum Petro et sub Petro” rather
ogy of circularity has been borrowed from Dario Vitali, “The Circularity between Sensus fidei
and Magisterium as a Criterion for the Exercise of Synodality in the Church,” in For a
Missionary Reform of the Church, edited by Antonio Spadaro, SJ and Carlos María Galli
(NewYork/Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 2017), 196–172, 210: “To presume that God speaks
to the Church always and only through the voice of her pastors is an assertion that could rely
on a logic of defending the truths of faith, entrusted to the custody of the ecclesia docens, to
which the ecclesia discens is bound to obey. But on this path, we have lost the fruitful circular-
ity between the pastors and the people of God.”
14
15
See https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/final-report-of-the-1985-extraordi-
nary-synod-2561, partim (accessed February 28, 2020).
excessively?16 The German Catholic theologian Christian Bauer formu-

lates an important warning in this regard:
If the ordained ministry would again like to gain authority with the remain-
der of the people of God, then a deliberate abstinence of the power of a
monarchically conceived office will be necessary through freely accepting
the checks and balances of democratically conceived synodal structures.17
The Pope and the ITC, however, rightly insist on the indispensability of a
well-developed sensus ecclesiae as criterion for a healthy synodality.18
Recommendations and Difficulties for a Strong

Synodal Practice at Local, Regional,
and Universal Level
Both the ITC document and the 2015 address of the Pope discuss the
different “organs of communion” at local, regional, and universal levels. If
these organs would function better, this would make the Catholic Church
change for the better. I will, however, also mention some difficulties as to
their implementation from my context.
Under the previous pontificates bishops were often discouraged from
organizing a diocesan synod. When reading the publicity Pope Francis
makes for this “noble institution” one almost feels ashamed to belong to
a diocese which has not yet taken the initiative to organize a diocesan
16
Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, § 60: “The communion of Churches
with each other in the one universal Church illuminates the ecclesiological meaning of the
collegial ‘we’ of the episcopate gathered in unity cum Petro et sub Petro.” See also the follow-
ing quotation from the discourse on the fiftieth anniversary of the synod: “The fact that the
Synod always acts cum Petro et sub Petro—indeed, not only cum Petro, but also sub Petro—is
not a limitation of freedom, but a guarantee of unity.”
17
C. Bauer, “Macht in der Kirche: Für einen postklerikalen, synodalen Aufbruch”, in
Stimmen der Zeit 144 (2019): 531–543, at 537: “Wenn die pastorale Amtsgewalt im übrigen
Volk Gottes je wieder Autorität gewinnen will, dann bedarf es einer entschlossenen
Selbstdepotenzierung des monarchisch verfassten Kirchenamtes durch freiwillige Einbindung
in die Checks and Balances von demokratisch verfassten Synodalstrukturen.”
18
Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, § 108: “It is about attitudes summed up
in the formula sentire cum Ecclesia.” See also the long reflection on the sensus Ecclesiae in
Schreiben an das pilgernde Volk in Deutschland, § 9.
330 P. DE MEY
synod.19 An interesting alternative seems to be the organization of a pro-

vincial council. A recent example—the first one in France since the Second
Vatican Council—has taken place in three neighboring dioceses in the
North of France from 2013–2015. The positive account given by a col-
league from Louvain-la-Neuve makes me think that it could perhaps be an
option for the four dioceses of Flanders as well. They have received a dis-
pensation from Rome to nominate more lay members than is allowed for
by canon law and they deliberately chose for a majority of members who
were mostly professionally engaged in these dioceses, which was beneficial
for the quality of the discussions.20 They also did not have to wait long to
receive permission from Rome to promulgate the decisions of the council.
By organizing this synod for three dioceses the participants better under-
stood that the Church is bigger than their own diocese and thus got a
better sense of the significance of the universal Church as well. The enthu-
siasm of bishops to organize a diocesan synod or provincial council in the
future will depend a great deal on what happens in the future with the
synodal process in Germany.21
With regard to the Synod of Bishops, the Apostolic Constitution
Episcopalis Communio (2018) includes in its regulations the necessity of
engaging in an intensive and obligatory process of consultation and allows
for the Pope to adopt the synod’s final document instead of writing a
postsynodal exhortation.22 The document of the International Theological
Commission asks us not to minimize the importance of the process of
consultation: “In the synodal Church the whole community, in the free
and rich diversity of its members, is called together to pray, listen, analyze,
dialogue, discern, and offer advice on taking pastoral decisions, which
19
Nevertheless A. Borras, “La synodalité ecclésiale: Diversité de lieux et interactions mutu-
elles,” Recherches de science religieuse 107 (2019): 275–299, at 298 observed: “On risquerait
de la sorte de perpétuer un déficit de protagonisme des évêques diocésains ainsi que des
Églises particulières et de leurs regroupements, en particulier les Conférences épiscopales.”
20
A. Join-Lambert, “Le concile provincial, une chance pour la synodalité de l’Église,” in
Recherches de science religieuse 107 (2019): 301–320, at 313: “Ce qui pourrait passer pour un
détail est particulièrement significatif d’un déploiement de la synodalité au-delà du cadre
canonique encore pensé en partie selon la tradition en fait cléricale. En effet, les membres de
droit sont liés à des fonctions remplies pour la plupart par des prêtres. La clause restrictive du
canon 443 entrave en quelque sorte la réalisation concrète du passage à un fondement sur le
baptême et non plus sur l’ordination presbytérale.”
21
Cf. www.synodalerweg.de
22
Cf. http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_constitutions/documents/
papa-francesco_costituzione-ap_20180915_episcopalis-communio.html
correspond as closely as possible to God’s will.”23 The document also

explains the difference “between the process of decision-making through
a joint exercise of discernment, consultation, and co-operation and
decision-taking, which is within the competence of the Bishop, the guar-
antor of apostolicity and catholicity. Working things out is a synodal task;
decision is a ministerial responsibility.”24 In my country consultative pas-
toral bodies often have the impression, however, that the critical remarks
they had been raised during the process of consultation of such synods
have often been filtered out in the report that the episcopal conference
had to send to Rome.
Conclusion
Pope Francis and his counselors have offered us an ecclesiological theory,
which potentially may bear many fruits in the Catholic Church, at local,
regional, and universal levels. Synodality is a new term, which is, however,
firmly rooted in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Pleading for
a strong participation of the entire people of God in the three-fold office
of Christ is difficult to combine, however, with a strong emphasis on the
Church as a “hierarchical communion.”
23
24
Ibid., § 69.
CHAPTER 38
Changing the Church Through Synodality
Brian P. Flanagan
One of the main aspects of Pope Francis’s “radical ecclesiology of open-

ness, inclusivity, and dialogue”1 that is beginning to take shape in the
Catholic Church, is the revival of the Second Vatican Council’s hopes for
a synodal church. Most prominently in the frequency and the new atmo-
sphere of the meetings of the synod of bishops, Pope has set the church on
a course to re-embrace synodality as the foundational principle of collec-
tive discernment and decision-making. This chapter surveys a particular
contribution to that renewed, radical ecclesiology, a document from the
International Theological Commission (ITC) that outlines the theology
and practice of synodality in a way that reflects the priorities of Francis’s
ecclesiology.2 Francis has pushed the Catholic Church towards “the path
of synodality which God expects of the Church of the third millennium,”3
1
Gerard Mannion, “Francis’s Ecclesiological Revolution: A New Way of Being Church, a
New Way of Being Pope.” In Gerard Mannion, ed. Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism:
Evangelii Gaudium and the Papal Agenda (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2017), 94.
2
International Theological Commission, “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the
Church,” March 2, 2018.
3
Pope Francis, “Address,” Ceremony Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the
Institution of the Synod of Bishops, 17 October 2015.
B. P. Flanagan (*)
Marymount University, Arlington, VA, USA

334 B. P. FLANAGAN
and while the ITC document is only one step forward in that path, an
appropriation of the gift of synodality at all levels of the church will allow
it to share the good news more authentically in the face of a democratic
world, more ecumenically in relation to churches with longer histories of
synodal structures, and more faithfully in expression of the vocation of all
of the baptized. The further embrace of synodality, on the basis of this
document, has the potential to lead to a wide renewal of synodal practices
throughout the Catholic Church.
While the practices of synodality go back to the earliest days the church,
the word itself is a more recent neologism.4 In many ways, to be “syn-
odal,” that is, to involve Christians’ call to “walk a path together” (from
the Greek words “σύν”, “with”, and “ὁδός”, “path”), is characteristic of
the history of the pilgrim church. Since modern studies of synodality go
back decades,5 the ITC document harvests the fruits of that research as
well as Pope Francis’s recent priorities. It outlines the sources of synodality
in scripture and tradition, a theology of synodality for today’s church, its
structures and institutions as they currently exist, and the need for a con-
version to a spirituality and fuller practice of synodality for the life of the
church since, as it repeats at least three times, synodality is the “modus
vivendi et operandi of the Church.”6
Like many other treatments of synodality, the ITC document roots its
idea of synodality in both scriptural warrants and the continuing history of
the church, particularly the shared forms of decision-making of the first
millennium of Christianity. While drawing upon multiple biblical
4
ITC, “Synodality,” § 6.
5
Among many sources, see especially Giordano Frosini, Una Chiesa di Tutti: Sinodalità,
partecipazione, e corresponsabilità (Bologna: Edizione Dehoniane Bologna, 2014);
International Congress of Canon Law, La synodalité: la participation au gouvernement dans
l’Église: actes du VIIe Congrès international de droit canonique, Paris, Unesco, 21–28 septem-
bre 1990, 2 vol. (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1992); Joint International Commission for
Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church,
“Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Toward a Common Understanding in
Service to the Unity of the Church,” Origins 46/21 (Oct. 20, 2016) 328–31; Alberto
Melloni and Silvia Scatena, eds., Synod and Synodality: Theology, History, Canon Law and
Ecumenism in New Contact (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005); Gilles Routhier, “La synodalité
dans l’Église locale,” Scripta theologica 48 (2016): 687–706; Ormond Rush, “Inverting the
Pyramid: The Sensus Fidelium in a Synodal Church,” Theological Studies 78 (2017) 299–325;
Antonio Spadaro and Carlos Galli, “La sinodalità nella vita e nella missione della Chiesa,” La
Civiltà Cattolica 169/II, no. 4039 (2018) 55–70.
6
ITC, “Synodality,” § 6, § 43, and § 70.
38 CHANGING THE CHURCH THROUGH SYNODALITY 335
references, the so-called Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15 and

Galatians 2:1–107 forms a major source for the document’s overall theol-
ogy of synodality.8 This is particularly true in its sense of synodality’s
authority, synodality’s differentiated structure of roles (the ITC returns
regularly to the formula of “all,” “some,” and “one,” distinguishing forms
of overall involvement, synodal participation, and primacy), and the ori-
gins of the history of synods and councils that they document in the undi-
vided churches of the first millennium, medieval western Christian practice,
and post-Reformation practices in both the Protestant ecclesial communi-
ties and the post-Tridentine Catholic Church.9
The heart of the ITC’s treatment is its second chapter, entitled
“Towards a Theology of Synodality,” that roots its treatment of a synodal
church in four distinctive ecclesiological elements that are the fruits of the
Second Vatican Council: the image of the church as the People of God,
the pilgrim and missionary nature of that People, an ecclesiology of com-
munion that emphasizes the shared mission of the entire church in its local
and universal forms, and the hierarchical communion and distinctions in
role that structure and serve the church’s communion. First, the ITC
emphasizes the Trinitarian origins of the church, its Christological and
pneumatological foundations, and its Eucharistic and liturgical enactment
as the assembly of the faithful.10 Looking back to the organizing structure
of Lumen Gentium, the document teachings that the deep theological
identity of the church as the People of God “stresses that the ecclesiastical
hierarchy is at the service of the People of God in order that the Church
may carry out her mission in conformity with God’s plan of salvation, in
the logic of the priority of the whole over its parts and of the end over the
means.”11 Such an idea roots the differentiating structures of synodality
on a foundational principle that “everyone in the Church is a subject. The
faithful are σύνοδοι, companions on the journey. They are called to play an
active role inasmuch as they share in the one priesthood of Christ, and are
meant to receive the various charisms given by the Holy Spirit in view of
the common good.”12
7
See also Justin Taylor, “The “Council” of Jerusalem in Acts 15,” in Melloni and Scatena,
Synod and Synodality, 107–113.
8
ITC, “Synodality,” § 20–22.
9
See ITC, “Synodality,” § 24–41.
10
ITC, “Synodality,” § 43–48.
11
12
336 B. P. FLANAGAN
Second, this People of God is also a pilgrim people, which emphasizes

synodality’s relation to the church’s “social, historical, and missionary
character, which corresponds to the condition and vocation of each human
person as homo viator,”13 and draws directly upon the etymological roots
of the concept. “The grace-filled event whereby [Jesus] made Himself a
pilgrim by pitching His tent among us (John 1:14) goes on in the synodal
path of the Church.”14 This conception of the church as a people in
motion points to synodality’s function in collective discernment particu-
larly in response to historical development, to new challenges and threats,
and to new knowledge and insights that would strengthen the church’s
mission.
Third, the document roots its theology of synodality in an ecclesiology
of communion. Given the variety of “visions and versions” of communion
ecclesiology that have arisen in the past 30 years,15 and the predominance,
particularly since the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops and the 1992
letter Communionis notio of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, of a version of communion ecclesiology focused upon the language
of “hierarchical communion,” this document’s embrace of a wider under-
standing of communion ecclesiology is theologically and ecclesially signifi-
cant.16 In various places, the document underlines synodality as an exercise
of communion between God and humanity and between Christians within
their local churches, between local churches, and across the other provin-
cial, regional, and national groupings of ecclesial life in relation to the
universal church. The document states that “synodal life reveals a Church
consisting of free and different subjects, united in communion,”17 and
particularly in balancing the local and universal church, rather than assert-
ing the priority of the universal over the local, asserts that “In the Church
as Catholic, variety is not mere co-existence but bonding in mutual
correlation and dependence: an ecclesiological perichoresis in which trini-
tarian communion sees its ecclesial reflection.”18 Such a vision corresponds
13
14
Ibid.
15
Cf. Dennis Doyle, Communion Ecclesiology: Visions and Versions (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 2000).
16
By contrast, see Gerard Mannion, “From the ‘Open Church’ to Neo-Exclusivism?” in
Mannion, Ecclesiology and Postmodernity: Questions for the Church in Our Time (Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press), 43–74.
17
18
to Pope Francis’s vision of a “polyhedral” church that maintains commu-

nion in diversity without the reduction of unity to uniformity, of the
many-sided reality of the church to the homogeneity of a sphere.19
Fourth and finally, the document addresses the need for distinctions
within synodal practice that reflect the hierarchical constitution of the
church, and the differing roles that “all,” “some,” and “one” play in vari-
ous forms of synodal practice. Even here, however, the document suggests
the need for a renewed, more robust inclusion of a variety of voices in the
church’s synodal discernment. The document states that “the renewal of
the Church’s synodal life demands that we initiate processes for consulting
the entire People of God,”20 and that “in the synodal Church the whole
community, in the free and rich diversity of its members, is called together
to pray, listen, analyze, dialogue, discern, and offer advice on taking pas-
toral decisions which correspond as closely as possible to God’s will.”21
Further, the text underlines the participation of lay people: “They are the
immense majority of the People of God and there is much to be learnt
from their participation in the various forms of the life and mission of
ecclesial communities […]. Consulting them is thus indispensable for ini-
tiating processes of discernment in the framework of synodal structures.”22
Summing up this entire vision of the theology of the synodal church,
the document teaches that “synodality denotes the particular style that
qualifies the life and mission of the Church, expressing her nature as the
People of God journeying together and gathering in assembly, summoned
by the Lord Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Gospel.”23
It is an admirable, well-grounded understanding of the centrality of syn-
odal life and practice in the church, and arguably provides a counter-
weight to some of the forms of clericalism dominant in Catholic
ecclesiology particularly in the past few centuries. And, by rooting
discussion of particular synodal structures and events in a broader theo-
logical and ecclesiological framework, it shows how some of the structures
and practices of synodality, despite superficial resemblances, are rooted in
19
See Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, On the Proclamation of Gospel in Today’s World,
November 24, 2013, § 236. See also Victor Manuel Fernández, “Encounter,” in Cindy
Wooden and Joshua McElwee, eds., A Pope Francis Lexicon (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 2018), 61–64.
20
21
22
23
338 B. P. FLANAGAN
a different worldview, anthropology, and social theory than the structures

of modern liberal democratic polities.
But it is precisely at the level of “implementing synodality,” the title of
the third chapter of the document, that this vision is at its most vulnerable,
and where the most work needs to be done, in practice and scholarship, to
better reflect the synodal foundations of ecclesial life, to truly make it the
church’s modus vivendi et operandi. The document’s treatment of the cur-
rent canonical structures by which synodality is exercised in the Catholic
Church, including diocesan synods, diocesan and parochial councils, epis-
copal conferences, Eastern Catholic patriarchates, and universal exercises
of synodality through the Synod of Bishops and ecumenical councils.24
There are places for hope for further canonical and institutional develop-
ment. As in Evangelii Gaudium § 33, the document’s call for further
reflection on “the ecclesiological nature of Episcopal Conferences”25
seems to break with the more limited assessment of the authority of epis-
copal conferences in Apostolos Suos26; it, quite tentatively, suggests that
parish pastoral councils ought to be made canonically obligatory, rather
than only suggested.27
While the document calls for increased participation of the “all” in the
deliberations of the “some” and the “one” in various contexts, however, it
does not provide more definite guidance or new canonical structures by
which to do so. This may be prudential: the churches and the universal
church may need more experience in developing structures and practices
by which to hear the voices of the People of God, as the uneven prepara-
tory surveys and consultations before the 2018 Ordinary General Assembly
of Bishops on Young People suggested. And perhaps the more recent
consultative processes utilized for the 2019 Synod of Bishops for the
Pan-Amazon Region, and more local models being used in recent or
upcoming synodal processes, such as in St. Paul-Minneapolis, San Diego,
and Germany, may provide examples––and counter-examples––for how to
exercise synodality at all of the levels of the church.
24
Significantly, the College of Cardinals receives only one paragraph! ITC,
“Synodality,” § 101.
25
26
John Paul II, Apostolos Suos, “On the Theological and Juridical Nature of Episcopal
Conferences,” May 21, 1998. See also Mannion, “Francis’s Ecclesiological Revolution,”
106–108.
27
But if synodality is going to involve more than formal structures, espe-

cially structures that are canonically optional or only used infrequently, the
church requires both spiritual renewal, the conversion to “an ecclesial men-
tality shaped by synodal thinking,”28 and canonical renewal, the conversion
of structures in such a way that they serve this vision of the church. Outlining
this theological vision of the synodal church, rooted in the teaching and
practice of Pope Francis, is an important and necessary first step. But as evi-
denced by the transition from some of the synodal vision of the Second
Vatican Council to the implementation of that vision in the 1983 Code of
Canon Law, the renewal of synodality as the modus operandi et vivendi of the
church is the task of a generation, not a document. It will require courageous
action on the part of local pastors, collective patience with the initial suc-
cesses and failures of particular strategies, sustained reflection by theologians
and canonists, and continued conversion of habits, led by example from the
top, of consultation, dialogue, and discernment. If the church is to change
and to embrace this “radical ecclesiology of openness, inclusivity, and
dialogue,”29 we have work to do to make real Pope Francis’s teaching that
“to walk together is the constitutive way of the Church.”30 This document
provides an excellent first step in that renewal of synodality, the church’s
most ancient form of collective discernment and decision-making.
28
29
Mannion, “Francis’s Ecclesiological Revolution,” 94.
30
Pope Francis, “Address at the Opening of the 70th General Assembly of the Italian Episcopal
Conference,” May 22, 2017. Cited in ITC, “Synodality,” § 120.
CHAPTER 39
Local Synodality: An Unnoticed Change
Radu Bordeianu
A significant change occurred in the first three centuries of the Church:

the unique eucharistic assembly led by the bishop in the diocese transi-
tioned into the Liturgy presided over by the priest in the parish. And yet,
modern Orthodox ecclesiology tends to attribute no ecclesiological sig-
nificance to the parish and continues to speak about synodality exclusively
in episcopal terms. As Schmemann contends, “the process which trans-
formed the original ‘episcopal’ structure of the local church into what we
know today as parish […] although it represents one of the most radical
changes that ever took place in the Church, remained, strange as it may
seem, virtually unnoticed by ecclesiologists and canonists.”1 Based on this
change in the life of the Church, I propose a theological change, namely
shifting away from universal episcopal synodality2 and focusing on
1
Alexander Schmemann, “Towards a Theology of Councils,” St Vladimir’s Seminary
Quarterly 6, no. 4 (1962): 177.
2
While the 2016 Synod of Crete should have been an impetus for universal synodality, it
in fact moderated Orthodox claims that synodality is its ecumenical charism, or even that it
exists at all at the universal level, four Patriarchates having withdrawn shortly before the
Council. Crete also radically challenged the Orthodox vision of Christian unity. Orthodox
representatives to ecumenical dialogues claim that the ideal model of unity involves gathering
R. Bordeianu (*)
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

342 R. BORDEIANU
synodality in the parish, diocese, and autocephalous Orthodox Church

with emphasis on lay involvement.
The term “synod” refers primarily to a gathering of bishops who exer-
cise their ministry together. It comes from the Greek words syn (with) and
odos (way), and so suggests “walking together along the same path.” Its
etymology implies both that the Church remains pilgrim as it advances
towards the Kingdom of God and that one cannot travel along this path
in isolation. In a larger sense, “synodality” and its synonym, “conciliarity”
refer not only to the episcopate, but to all the baptized members of the
Church, as they exercise their responsibilities together.
Synodality is rooted in the communal character of the earlier ministry
of Jesus Christ, who called the twelve to symbolize the entirety of Israel,
and not just a select group to the exclusion of Jesus’ other followers. These
roots bore fruit most notably at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem
described in Acts 15: “Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were
appointed [by the community in Antioch] to go up to Jerusalem to the
apostles and the elders.”3 These delegates consulted along the way with
other communities (Acts 15:3), and when they arrived in Jerusalem, “the
apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.”4
After Peter, Paul, and Barnabas spoke, James took the role of mouthpiece
for the Council. Moreover, “the apostles and the elders, with the whole
church”5 chose omothumadon––“with one accord” (NKJV) or “unani-
mously” (NRSV)6––representatives to disseminate the decision of the
Council, which was inspired by the Holy Spirit (“it has seemed good to
the Holy Spirit and to us”).7 This Apostolic Council became the (perhaps
idealized) template for future councils, with emphasis on churches desig-
nating representatives, a process of consultation, plurality of voices repre-
sented at the council, inspiration by the Holy Spirit, unanimity (or maybe
consensus), a conciliar decision, and its dissemination. Clearly, the
in the same synod and receiving Communion together. Unfortunately, this ideal of unity is
often imposed as a condition for Orthodox-Catholic unity, when in fact its practical realiza-
tion in world-wide Orthodox life is lacking.
3
Acts 15:2.
4
Acts 15:6.
5
Acts 15:22.
6
Acts 15:25. The distinction between unanimity and consensus will have to be discussed
on a different occasion.
7
Acts 15:28.
39 LOCAL SYNODALITY: AN UNNOTICED CHANGE 343
Apostolic Church was synodal––a shared responsibility that included the

Apostles, the elders, and all the faithful.
By the second century local churches combined the conciliar model
characteristic of the Jewish synagogue led by a council of elders with the
Roman model in which the pater familias led the household. These church
structures included the one bishop (mono-episcopate), surrounded by a
council of elders or presbyterium, whose role was consultation and admin-
istration, assisted by deacons entrusted with social-charitable responsibili-
ties, and all the faithful with various charisms. The church remained
synodal even in times of persecution. For example, when Cyprian of
Carthage was unable to consult with his church because of the persecu-
tions, he assured his faithful of the exceptional character of his actions: “I
made this a rule, from the beginning of my episcopate, not to decide any-
thing without your [that is, presbyters’] counsel and without the approval
of the people.”8 Thus synodality remained at the heart of the local
church’s life.
The same was true at a regional level. Local churches supported each
other financially, exchanged letters, strengthened each other in times of
martyrdom, prayed for one another, and appealed to one another regard-
ing doctrinal and disciplinary issues. Regional synods increased in number,
gathering the bishops of a certain region together, thus showing that epis-
copacy is a ministry that cannot be exercised in isolation. Bishops were
held responsible to both their local communities and their brother bishops.
As local churches from larger regions (such as around Alexandria,
Rome, and Antioch), and then throughout the entire Christian world
faced similar challenges, synods expanded to include representatives of
more metropolitan areas.9 Based on the ideals of the Apostolic Council,
Orthodoxy recognizes seven councils as ecumenical. But these ideals are
not objective and undisputed criteria for the recognition of councils as
ecumenical, since other councils (later not recognized by Orthodoxy) did
claim to fulfill these criteria; such are the cases of Lyons (1274) and
Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439), for example. And yet, the seven ecumeni-
cal councils have been received as authoritative instances of the Tradition
due to the importance of their proclamations of faith, the consultation
with the faithful and theologians, the large representation of various local
churches, the consensus achieved during their works, and the reception of
8
Epistle 5/14:4.
9
See Nicaea I, Canon 6.
344 R. BORDEIANU
their decisions especially in liturgical life. Thus, throughout history, the

Church remained synodal at local, regional, and universal levels.
The Parish and the Diocese

Numerous discussions about synodality are based on the study of history,
a theology centered on the role of the bishop, and a canonical perspective.
These discussions tend to backslide into considerations about structures of
power, giving insufficient attention to the faithful and to parish clergy.
Orthodox theology is still unable to speak about the parish as anything
other than a sub-unit of the diocese or as a satellite of the episcopal
Eucharist.10 Such theology is remote from the concrete experience of the
Church. However, it need not be so. A change is needed that takes into
consideration the parish and the involvement of the laity.
Considering the continuous presence of the Holy Spirit throughout the
history of the Church, we need to embrace the fact that, early on, the
eucharistic assembly led by the bishop in the diocese transitioned to the
Liturgy presided over by the priest in the parish. Schmemann recommends
that Orthodox theology addresses this reality that emerged from the
Church’s need to remain eucharistic, rather than bemoan it:
all attempts simply to return to the “episcopal” experience of the Church in

its second or third century forms […] will remain the domain of academic
wishful thinking as long as we ignore the reality of the parish and the posi-
tion of the priest in it. We must admit that many of the characteristics of the
early “episcopal” community have been assumed by the parish, just as the
priest has been given many of the bishop’s functions.11
Today, the most common experience of the Church is the parish com-
munity gathered together around the Eucharist, the active participation of
all the faithful together with the priest. This image is intrinsically synodal
when considering the multitude of ministries involved, for example, chant-
ers, choir, parish council, or priesthood. Moreover, in the Orthodox
10
Zizioulas insists that the emergence of the parish was an anomaly or, in his words, a
“rupture in its own eucharistic ecclesiology. For it was no longer possible to equate every
eucharistic celebration with the local Church.” The same was the case with the bishop’s
absence from most eucharistic celebrations. John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies
in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 251.
11
Schmemann, “Towards a Theology of Councils,” 179.
tradition of “Liturgy after the Liturgy,”12 this eucharistic gathering repre-

sents the basis for other charitable and missionary ministries. In parish life,
all ministries act together, in coordination with one another, and this com-
mon exercise of their responsibilities lies at the heart of synodality.
Even more potent is the liturgical image of the bishop celebrating the
Liturgy in a local parish. Although a rare occurrence, it is a powerful image
of the church gathered together around its bishop, surrounded by a coun-
cil of presbyters, deacons, and all the faithful in the celebration of the
Eucharist. True, the bishop is never the celebrant of a unique Eucharist
that gathers his entire diocese. The parish, not the diocese, is the only
place that is suited for Eucharistic celebration. In North America, episco-
pal cathedrals are in fact parishes with their own priests and communities,
so episcopal celebrations always happen in parishes. Today, the entire local
diocese gathered in an all-encompassing Eucharist is a historical abstraction.
The parish is not an independent unit. It commemorates the local
bishop and cannot celebrate a Liturgy without the antimesion, which bears
the signature of the local bishop.13 The parish is part of a larger commu-
nion of parishes under the leadership of the bishop, namely the diocese. A
diocese is not independent of other dioceses, either, since their bishops
belong to the same synod of a national church. A national church is not
totally independent from other national churches, either. And the entire
Church is dependent on Christ, its head, on the Holy Spirit for continu-
ous inspiration, and the Father as his chosen people.
Furthermore, a mission-oriented parish cannot be an independent unit
of the Church. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, said that the
world was his parish,14 which contrasts to those pastors for whom the
parish is their world. There are some parishes that are so enclosed within
12
The expression “Liturgy after the Liturgy” refers to the Church’s service to those who
are vulnerable, a service that results from participation in the Eucharist. For more, see Ion
Bria, The Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective (Geneva:
WCC Publications, 1996). Moreover, John Chrysostom speaks about two altars: one is in
the church, and we rightly revere it. The second altar is the poor, the suffering, those in need,
the homeless, all who are in distress, and this one we wrongly ignore (“Homily 50, 3–4 on
Matthew,” in PG 58, 508–509).
13
The antimesion is a rectangular cloth that portrays Jesus’ laying in the tomb and without
which a Liturgy cannot take place. In the Greek tradition, the emphasis falls on the signature
of the bishop on the antimesion, while in the Slavonic tradition, it falls on the presence of
relics sown into it.
14
John Wesley said: “seeing I have now no parish …, I look upon all the world as my par-
ish” (Journal 3).
346 R. BORDEIANU
themselves that their own community is their whole world, and the pre-
rogative of the bishop is to ensure that the whole world is their
responsibility.
Parishes also experience synodality in their common decision-making.
The parish council is elected by the community to oversee its day-to-day
activity, together with the priest. If in antiquity the bishop was the head of
the local church and the presbyterium was the college whose functions
were counseling and administration,15 today it is virtually impossible to
encounter such practices. However, this structure has shifted to the parish
level, where the priest is the spiritual leader while the staff and parish
council are involved with counseling and coordinating ministries. It is a
misconception that the priest is responsible for spiritual issues and the
council is in charge of administrative issues. Although such division of
responsibilities has created considerable tensions in the past, as Schmemann
points out, he also suggests the solution:
If indeed the “power of decision,” the final responsibility, belongs to the

priest, in the process of reaching that decision as truly ecclesial, he needs the
help of all, for his power is to express the “mind of the Church”. … [T]he
parish council properly understood is not a committee of practical and
business-minded men elected to “manage” the “material interests” of the
parish, but the council of the priest in all aspects of church life. There should
exist indeed a special rite of appointing the parish elders to the council,
which would express and emphasize the spiritual dimensions of their minis-
try […]. The conciliar principle which has been “forced” on the parish need
not be either rejected or “limited” by reinforcement of “clericalism”. It
must be churched. This means, on the one hand, the acceptance by the clergy
of the true hierarchical principle, which is not naked “power” but a deeply
spiritual and pastoral concern for the Church as family, as oneness of life and
manifestation of the spiritual gifts. … this will take place only when the laity
understand that the priest really needs them, that he needs, not their “votes”,
but their talents, their advice, their real “council” or, in other terms, their
real participation in the life of the Church.16
However, many parishes today have a healthy pastoral life that regards all
matters pertaining to the parish as the common task of the entire com-
munity. Parishes also hold general assemblies, in which all members of the
15
Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 196.
16
Schmemann, “Towards a Theology of Councils,” 178, 80.
parish come together to deliberate on the major aspects of parish life,

including the mission of the community, the well-being of its ministries,
the approval of the yearly budget, and so on. This is a synodal practice that
Orthodox Christians in North America––more than in other parts of the
Orthodox world––experience on a regular basis. These considerations
about parish synodality are necessary ingredients of a future theology of
the parish, but presently non-existent in Orthodoxy theology.
The diocese, too, has a council constituted from among both lay and
ordained. It organizes regular clergy-laity assemblies that coordinate the
ministries of the diocese, especially youth ministries, charity, and educa-
tion. While diocesan councils and clergy-laity assemblies are less involved
in ministries than their corresponding parish structures, the organization
of the local diocese retains an unmistakably synodal character.
Regional Synodality
As our discussion of synodality transitioned from the parish to the diocese,
the role of the laity gradually decreased. This same trend is exhibited at
regional level, where synodality is manifested primarily through the minis-
tries of the bishops. This transition is somewhat justified, since the bishop
is responsible for the interaction with other local churches. And yet,
regional synodality in North America involves the laity, deacons and
priests, as for example in International Orthodox Christian Charities
(IOCC), Orthodox Christian Missions Center (OCMC), Orthodox
Christian Fellowship (OCF), all of which transcend ethnic jurisdictional
boundaries.
The communion between the clergy and the laity is also manifested
synodally in clergy-laity conferences (or sobors) that Orthodox churches
of various ethnicities organize in North America. Their authorities vary
significantly, some of them entrusting the delegates––laity and parish
clergy––with the election of bishops, even though the ultimate decision
rests with the synod of bishops.17 Moreover, in North America there is an
Episcopal Assembly that gathers the bishops of different ethnic jurisdic-
tions. Even though it is not a synod in a technical sense, the Episcopal
Assembly is a partial (and new) manifestation of synodality, practically dic-
tated by the existence of parallel jurisdictions.
17
See 2015 Statute of the OCA V. 6.
348 R. BORDEIANU
Episcopal synodality is most efficient at the level of national, autocepha-

lous churches because it is sustained by primacy. At ecumenical encoun-
ters, the Orthodox have insisted on primacy as primus inter pares (first
among equals), emphasizing the equality of all bishops and being hesitant
to recognize more than a primacy of honor rather devoid of authority––
unlike the early church, in which the primate had authority with conse-
quences.18 Internally, however, the Orthodox are not hesitant about
primacy. Primates of national churches have a significant degree of author-
ity, including calling the council, setting the agenda, ensuring the partici-
pation of the bishops in the council and speaking on behalf of the council
once a decision is made––a decision that the entire synod supports pub-
licly. Moreover, the primate represents the national church in its relations
with secular authorities and other churches.
This synodal structure is particularly evident when several bishops con-
celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the order of processions and commemora-
tions, based on their canonical order. When the primate visits another
diocese, he is the leader of the eucharistic service, even when the local
bishop––who is the head of that specific local church––is present. And yet,
other bishops––including the primate––can visit a diocese only at the invi-
tation of the local bishop. Synodality is also manifested in the ancient tra-
dition that ordinations of bishops must involve three (or in special
circumstances two) neighboring bishops, in exchange of letters, mutual
material assistance, and collaboration on pastoral issues.19
Future Directions
As Orthodox theology articulates its view of synodality, several important
topics remain and more change is needed. As alluded to above, we need to
further define the identity of the parish and to speak theologically about
its synodality. This theology in turn requires a balance of baptismal conse-
cration with ordained authority.
History remembers synodality primarily for its doctrinal decisions and
it is understandable that in the first centuries we developed the theology
of charisma veritates certum.20 But today synodality is primarily about
18
See Brian E. Daley, “Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning
of ‘Primacy of Honour’,” Journal of Theological Studies 44, no. 2 (1993): 529–53.
19
Cf. Nicaea I, Canon 4
20
St. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 4, 26, 2.
issues of discipline. How do we need to reimagine charisma veritates cer-

tum, given that canonical decisions are not regarded as inspired teaching?
And in a time when the most creative theologians are not necessarily bish-
ops, as was generally the case in the early Church and when the laity have
greater abilities in practical matters than the clergy, a greater participation
of theologians and laity in the synodality is necessary.
Moreover, we might ask: how can we include in the entire synodal pro-
cess––from large-scale consultation to implementation––all the members
of our churches, in all their diversity of gender, race, geography, socio-
economic background, and pastoral contexts? We have the opportunity to
answer these remaining questions about synodality together, clergy and
laity, bishops and theologians, East and West. We are pilgrims towards the
Kingdom together, walking along the same path (syn – odos).
CHAPTER 40
Problems at the Periphery: A Productive

Confusion in “The Speech That Got Pope
Francis Elected.”
Paul Lakeland
Evangelizing presupposes a desire in the Church to come out of herself. The

Church is called to come out of herself and to go to the peripheries, not only geo-
graphically, but also the existential peripheries: the mystery of sin, of pain, of
injustice, of ignorance and indifference to religion, of intellectual currents,
and of all misery. [Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, Address to the College of
Cardinals, 2013]
Among the many slogans with which Pope Francis has promoted his
vision for the church, none is more likely to be quoted than his call for
Christians, whom he has designated “missionary disciples,” to go to the
periphery. This phrase is to his plan to remake evangelization, what “the
smell of the sheep” is to rethinking episcopacy, or “the field hospital”
image is for ecclesiology. Indeed, so striking is the image of the periphery
that it has already occasioned a number of appreciative studies of its
P. Lakeland (*)
Fairfield’s Center for Catholic Studies, Fairfield, CT, USA

352 P. LAKELAND
impact.1 All of them are careful to indicate that the notion of the periphery
may be understood geographically, socioeconomically, psychologically,
and existentially. Those at the margins may be so because they are in
remote areas of the world, because they are poor and so rarely come to the
attention of the centers of global Catholicism, because they are culturally
or socially alienated from all things Catholic or Christian, or because they
meet one or more of these criteria. The primary role of the church is to
proclaim the good news, reaching out beyond the comfort zone of the
local community of faith to those who are at one or other periphery, some-
how on the margins, even perhaps marginalized.
Caroline Woo has pointed out that Pope Francis’s first public use of the
term “periphery” occurred in his address to the College of Cardinals in
the days leading up to the conclave which chose him.2 Many have sug-
gested that it was this speech that in fact led to his election. Though its
text has never been officially published, it was eventually released with his
approval, using the handwritten notes he had given to Cardinal Jaime
Ortega of Havana, Cuba. The four points that Bergoglio made recur
throughout the subsequent years. Beginning by arguing that the Church
should “take leave of itself and go to the peripheries,” he added that he
meant this in not only the geographical sense “but also the existential
sense, manifested in the mystery of sin, pain, injustice and ignorance,
among others,” reported Cardinal Ortega. Bergoglio then went on to
warn against a “self-referential” church whose thinking is a kind of “theo-
logical narcissism,” and that such a “worldly” church ends up “living in
itself, of itself, for itself.” Finally, the cardinal soon to be elected pope said
he expected the new pontiff to be “a man who, from the contemplation of
1
Andrea Riccardi, To the Margins: Pope Francis and the Mission of the Church (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 2018); Pasquale Ferrara, “The Concept of Periphery in Pope Francis’ Discourse:
A Religious Alternative to Globalization?” Movement Politics and Policy for Unity at: http://
www.mppu.org/en/archive/point-of-view/910-the-concept-of-periphery-in-pope-francis-
discourse-a-religious-alternative-to-globalization.html (accessed February 17, 2020)
Richard R. Gaillardetz, “The Francis Moment: A New Kairos for Catholic Ecclesiology.”
Presidential address, Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, 69 (2014) at:
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/5509 (accessed February 17,
2020); T. Bilocura, “Pope Francis, Christian Mission, and the Church of St. Francis,”
International Bulletin of Missionary Research 37, no. 3, (2013) at https://doi.org/10.117
7%2F239693931303700309 (accessed February 17, 2020).
2
“Periphery,” in A Pope Francis Lexicon, edited by Joshua J. McElwee and Cindy Wooden
(Collegeville, Minn., Liturgical, 2018), 142.
40 PROBLEMS AT THE PERIPHERY: A PRODUCTIVE CONFUSION… 353
Jesus Christ […] helps the Church to emerge from itself to arrive at the
existential limits”.3
While Francis’s notion of the periphery has all the values for the work
of the church that he imagines and that the scholars listed in footnote one
have identified and expanded upon, this does not mean that the image is
entirely transparent. For one thing, this kind of evangelical focus can come
into conflict with the more generous visions of a theology of grace which,
since the Second Vatican Council at least, have clearly imagined grace
present and active in all human beings. Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution
on the Church, Lumen gentium, is explicit on this point (LG 13–17), even
if it continues to use the language of “raising up” or “perfecting” the inti-
mations of divine grace present in all the great world religions and avail-
able even to atheists and agnostics. So while this does not disqualify
missionary outreach, it suggests chastening the enthusiasm that too easily
imagines itself enlightening the darkness of pagan sinfulness or the not-so-
blissful ignorance of the noble savage.
If the pope’s insistence on reaching out to the periphery and overcom-
ing the sterility of self-referentiality represents a long-overdue return to a
focus on evangelization rather than doctrine, the way in which evangelical
outreach occurs will vary depending on its target audience.4 The poor of
Latin America need the outreach of accompaniment, in which the church
shares their burdens and insists on overcoming their marginality. Those of
any socioeconomic class who have abandoned their religious practice out
of anger at the sins of the church or secularized indifference need to be
confronted with a church that is penitent and open to hear their concerns.
The great mass of the nones who proclaim that they are spiritual but not
religious need to be affirmed in their genuine embrace of the holy. But the
most nimble and perhaps most challenging of outreach must surely be to
3
https://cathcon.blogspot.com/2013/03/full-text-papacy-winning-speech-of.html
4
The forthcoming Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium on reform of the Roman
Curia promises to institutionalize this new set of priorities, in all probability by placing the
dicastery for evangelization above that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The document will be promulgated once the Pope’s team of cardinals are satisfied with final
text, probably some time in 2020. See Austin Ivereigh’s account in Commonweal (https://
www.commonwealmagazine.org/evangelization-first) and a short explanation of the delay in
promulgation from Hannah Brockhaus at the Catholic News Agency at: https://www.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/release-of-new-curial-constitution-delayed-again-54888
(both accessed February 17, 2020).
354 P. LAKELAND
those whom Pope Francis slips into the quote at the head of this paper,
almost unnoticed. Who are those whose difference lies in “intellectual cur-
rents,” and how should they be approached? If your distinction from the
Catholic Church is not predicated on a reaction against, but on a positive
choice for something other, what is happening when you are reached by a
church that is talking the language of center and periphery, and classifying
you as the latter?
The theological language in which the question of outreach to those
intellectually committed elsewhere has to be framed is that of the dialectic
of grace and evangelization. Lumen gentium 13–17, mentioned above, is
clear that all human beings are called to the “catholic unity” of the new
people of God, and “in different ways to it belong, or are related: the
Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind,
called by God’s grace to salvation” (LG 13). While behind this statement
we can see Karl Rahner’s vision of the universal offer of salvation,5 the
same theological challenge goes back to the beginnings of the church. The
call to Christians is to proclaim the good news of the gospel, but the grace
of God is ubiquitous, present everywhere in all human beings, and in play
in their various religious perspectives. So, for example, in Acts 10:34 we
see that Peter knows that Christ has commissioned us “to preach to the
people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the liv-
ing and the dead.” He is the carrier and perhaps the embodiment of “the
word [God] sent to the Israelites.” But Peter precedes all of this with the
proclamation that “God shows no partiality,” and thus that “in every
nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.” The
Christian tradition stretching from the first century to the present, then,
has to ask a complex question about the role of evangelization, and in a
particular way when we confront “intellectual currents” at the existential
periphery. How must our evangelical posture be conditioned by the rec-
ognition that what we have to offer is not being presented to a tabula
rasa? The grace of God has been at work from the beginning of time in
human aspirations to all that is good and holy, and the good news of the
gospel has to respect that historical and theological reality.
When scrutinizing the wording of Bergoglio’s address more closely,
then, it is clear that the phrase “intellectual currents” stands out as opaque,
5
See for example “Church, Churches and Religions,” in Karl Rahner, Theological
Investigations, Volume X, “Writings of 1965-67, 2” (New York: Seabury, 1977), 30–49.
even a little troubling. Francis is listing the characteristics of existential

peripheries, to which the church needs to respond with evangelical zeal.
The other items on his list of existential peripheries are “mysteries” in
need of the healing power of the good news: sin, pain, injustice, igno-
rance, indifference to religion (perhaps), and “all misery.” Intellectual cur-
rents, to the contrary, are ideas or sets of ideas whose proponents have
arrived at them in the search for truth that human reason drives towards,
and which in Catholic teaching cannot be in conflict with the gospel.
Evangelization, the proclamation of the good news that God is love,
reaches out to heal all those in need, whether material or spiritual. But
when the existential periphery is populated by people or cultures whose
values and principles differ from those of the Christian church, a wholly
different kind of approach is called for, one which goes by the name of
dialogue. And dialogue, of course, is only true dialogue when the perspec-
tive each brings to the encounter is in some sense at least provisional. If we
are not open to a truth from the other that might cause us to revise our
own position, then there is no true dialogue.
Francis’ reference to intellectual currents provides no specifics, but it is
not unreasonable to speculate that he has mind some contemporary modes
of thought which trouble him. Some of them are central to the predica-
ment of the contemporary world, among them his concerns with the many
aspects of neoliberalism that are his particular target in Laudato Si′ and the
attendant forms of nationalism or racism that have both caused the refu-
gee crisis and singularly failed to address it. Others, however, are more
problematic, especially his frontal attack on gender theory, which demon-
strates both serious ignorance of its particulars and the abandonment of
the posture of dialogue which has to attend encounter with the other, at
whatever existential periphery. In an interview published in a 2014 book
the pope offers two examples of movements defying the order of creation:
“Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few
instants a very high number of human beings,” he begins, and then adds,
“Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of
the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.” So
while he has a record of pastoral sensitivity to the LGBTQ community, his
sensitivity seems not to extend to movements that challenge gender iden-
tity.6 One could see here either the limits of Francis’s exposure to those
6
Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi, This Economy Kills: Pope Francis on Capitalism
and Social Justice (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2015), 150.
356 P. LAKELAND
who further this particular intellectual current, or perhaps simply the total
failure of the church through several papacies to dialogue with those who
cannot accept the consequences of the church’s “natural law” bioethics.
Either way, Francis must surely know that dialogue cannot be foreclosed
without abandoning the outreach to the existential periphery.
One way to move forward to resolve the question of how to dialogue
with those whose intellectual convictions do not clearly harmonize with
the Christian gospel might be to recognize that “center” and “periphery”
are relative and not absolute terms. The only absolute center is God, who
shows no partiality. When we go out from our Christian center to pro-
claim the good news to those whose intellectual position is different, per-
haps dramatically so, we encounter another reality which to itself is the
center, and for whom we are visitors from the periphery. And the center
from which we go is itself not the center, but provisional to the absolute
center of God, just as all the peripheries which we reach out to, which
consider themselves centers, are provisional too. In other words, aside
from God, there is only provisionality. Pope emeritus Benedict addressed
this challenge directly in his remarks on the special relationship between
Jews and Christians,7 arguing that dialogue and not mission is the correct
word to use, following the argument made in a 2015 document of the
Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.8 But
7
In a written clarification to an article in Herder Korrespondenz implying the opposite. See
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2018-11/pope-emeritus-benedict-dia-
logue-with-the-jews-not-mission.html. (accessed February 17, 2020).
8
Entitled, “The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable” at: http://www.vatican.va/
roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_
doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html#6._The_Church%E2%80%99s_mandate_
to_evangelize_in_relation_to_Judaism (accessed February 17, 2020). The actual words of
the Commission’s explication are worth quoting at length: “It is easy to understand that the
so–called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for Jews because, in their
eyes, it involves the very existence of the Jewish people. This question also proves to be awk-
ward for Christians, because for them the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and
consequently the universal mission of the Church are of fundamental importance. The
Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a
different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms
this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional
mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional
Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ
also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging
that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the
Shoah” (section 40).
erhaps it is necessary to ask whether in light of the universal availability

p
of divine grace it is appropriate to make such a special case of the Jews.
Their story is surely closest to that of the Christian tradition, but we might
do well to reflect on a remark in section 42 of this Vatican document, that
states that “Christians must put their trust in God, who will carry out his
universal plan of salvation in ways that only he knows, for they are wit-
nesses to Christ, but they do not themselves have to implement the salva-
tion of humankind.” Or, in other words, evangelization of the existential
periphery may need to be salted quite heavily with humility. Whatever it is
that we bring to the existential periphery, it cannot be old-fashioned
apologetics.
A second way to look beyond old-style evangelization is actually offered
in the Bergoglio speech. The notion of the church “coming out of her-
self,” of abandoning self-referentiality, is one that Francis has subsequently
stressed time and again. At one level this is a simple call to abandon eccle-
sial navel-gazing in order to focus on the church as missionary. But the
implications are much greater when we focus on his call for the church “to
take leave of itself.” This suggests a more kenotic posture in which the
church will carry its message to a periphery at which it will not appear as
“church” but as simply the active presence of the revelation of the love of
God. In other words, the centripetal tendency to be self-involved as a
church must be all but obliterated by a centrifugal act of self-abandonment.
The age-old stress on the church as the place of salvation needs to disap-
pear, to be replaced perhaps by the biblical image of the community of
faith as the leaven in the mass. Hidden in the whole of creation in humble
service to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, recognizing that God’s
self-emptying in the Incarnation mandates the self-emptying of the church
in service of its mission. The missionary disciple, then, preaches in the
mode of transparency. When the fact that God is love is seen in or, better,
through the encounter with the Christian, then the gospel is proclaimed.
Christ is present, even namelessly so, when the transparency of Christian
mission allows the love of God to shine through. As Pope Francis said in
Mozambique in September, 2019, “St. Francis of Assisi told his friars: ‘Go
out to the world, evangelize. And, if necessary, use words too.’
Evangelization is essentially witness.”9 But far from Tertullian’s “see how
9
La Civiltà Cattolica, 26 September 2019, available on-line at: https://www.laciviltacat-
tolica.com/the-sovereignty-of-the-people-of-god-the-pontiff-meets-the-jesuits-of-mozam-
bique-and-madagascar/ (accessed February 17, 2020).
358 P. LAKELAND
they love one another,” Pope Francis offers “see how they love the whole
created world!”
This radical re-ordering of theological priorities from doctrine to a
kenotic evangelization implies major ecclesial changes which cannot be
explored in detail here. In light of Laudato Si′ in particular, the face of the
church must become one of witness to the will of God for the harmony of
the created order, manifested to Christians in the gift of love that is the
meaning of Christ. Humble reflection of the love of God for creation has
to be the face of the missionary disciple. The role of Rome as the symbol
of the unity of the global church can only be to support the grassroots
mission of loving engagement with all God’s creatures in defense of the
world which is our common home. This is the one way to proclaim the
good news. Everything else is there to support this ecclesial vision. The
church is perhaps being called to die to its old self, to be the grain of wheat
whose death will bring forth new life. Perhaps we could call this a paschal
ecclesiology.
CHAPTER 41
Milestones for the Next Council: Conciliar

Experiences and Global Synodality
Luc Forestier
Before formulating his conclusion, in the last sentences of his forceful little
book about the last three councils of the Roman Catholic Church, John
O’Malley proffered a caveat and a prediction: “Will there be another ecu-
menical council? If tradition has any force in the Catholic church, the
answer has to be a resounding affirmative. But, as the above consider-
ations make clear, serious questions about its location, its membership,
about how it might handle the large number of bishops and other poten-
tial participants, and about the precise form it might take hang in the air.
Stay tuned.”1 While the exact meaning of the word “ecumenical” may of
course be ambiguous, O’Malley’s main assertion challenges ecclesiolo-
gists. How can we imagine the future “ecumenical” council, that is, the
next worldwide meeting of church leaders in order to outline changes in
the life of the churches, both on pastoral and doctrinal levels?
1
John O’Malley, When Bishops Meet. An Essay Comparing Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II
(Cambridge, Mass.; London: Belknap Press, 2019), 209.
L. Forestier (*)
Catholic University of Paris, Paris, France

360 L. FORESTIER
In 2005, under Benedict XVI’s pontificate, the principal conviction of

Gilles Routhier about this issue was a historical one: “To put it bluntly,
thinking about the holding of a council in the present situation puts us in
such a situation of invention that recourse to history, which John XXIII,
who had studied the history of councils, liked to call ‘mistress of wisdom’,
seems necessary today to make our imaginations more fruitful.”2 In his
contribution, Routhier went back to the first centuries of Christianity,
looking for criteria that would enable us to imagine new forms of concili-
arity for different families of churches.
Yet the history of the 1925 anniversary of the first ecumenical council
of Nicaea (325) may help us to discover a concrete step toward this imagi-
nation of new conciliar institutions which the churches need today, in
order to go further in the mission they receive from God.
1925, A Separated Anniversary

In the history of the Ecumenical Movement, the first meeting of Life and
Work in Stockholm (1925) is always praised as a decisive step toward the
constitution of the World Council of Churches in 1949. For example, the
prominent French Protestant leader Wilfrid Monod (1867–1943) spoke
about his participation in this meeting as the “the holiest and most victori-
ous joy” of his whole life.3 Yet, from the Catholic side, the impressions
were mixed as is revealed in the long article in Les Études, a journal edited
by the Jesuits since 1856. The absence of doctrinal agreement was severely
denounced: despite a vague religiosity, “it is untrue that the 600 members
of the Conference were united by the same faith in the same Christ”4
since, sixteen centuries after the Council of Nicaea, they wanted to remain
completely silent about any doctrinal issues concerning the divinity of
Christ.5
2
Gilles Routhier, “Le rêve d’un nouveau concile,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 93, no.
2 (2005): 247–65, here 265.
3
Laurent Gagnebin, “Wilfred Monod et l’œcuménisme,” Autres Temps. Les cahiers du
christianisme social 23 (1989): 50–53, here 51.
4
Paul Dudon, “La conférence chrétienne de Stockholm (19–30 août 1925),” Études, 185
(1925): 652.
5
In a book written when he was young, Charles Journet (1891–1975) stated that
Protestants only promoted “a humanism coloured by evangelism”. Quoted by Daniel
Moulinet, “Réactions catholiques face aux tentatives d’union des Églises au début du xxe
siècle,” Histoire et missions chrétiennes 13 (2010): 137–54, here 151.
41 MILESTONES FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL: CONCILIAR EXPERIENCES… 361
Indeed, faced with these ecumenical initiatives which brought together

not only Protestant but also Orthodox delegates, Pius XI (reigned
1922–1939) reinforced the “unionist” politics of the Catholic Church.
Historians have studied this broad movement, born in the nineteenth cen-
tury, whose purpose was to facilitate the incorporation of non-Catholics
into the Catholic Church, both of individuals and communities, begin-
ning with Eastern churches and Anglicans.6 In 1928, Pius XI denounced
any attempt to create federations of churches from these “pan-Christians”
without any doctrinal unity. His conclusion was incisive: “it is clear why
this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assem-
blies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted
by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who
are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.”7
Yet, far from the strong Latinization which characterized the different
attempts of the preceding centuries, this Catholic insistence on “union”
with Rome sought to respect the liturgical and disciplinary traditions,
especially of Eastern churches. Thus, the anniversary of Nicaea was cele-
brated in November 1925 with a solemn week of liturgies in the
Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran.8 Catholic representatives of each
Oriental rite celebrated the profession of the Nicene faith, and eventually
Pius XI presided at a Byzantine liturgy in Saint Peter’s Basilica on 15
November 1925. Even if the Creed was recited in Latin,9 this first Oriental
liturgy at the main altar of the Vatican basilica was acclaimed as a concrete
sign of the equality of all rites in the Catholic church: “now as before the
disastrous separation which must cease, there are no more superior nor
inferior rites. All are equal.”10
6
Laura Pettinaroli, “Pontifical Unionism from Pius IX to Pius X,” in A History of the Desire
for Christian Unity. Ecumenism in the Churches (19th-21st century), edited by Alberto
Melloni (Leiden, Brill, forthcoming 2020).
7
Pius XI, Mortalium animos (6 January 1928), n. 10.
8
An important historical source is a journal edited for the occasion by the Congregation
for the Oriental Churches: Bollettino per la Commemorazione del XVI° Centenario del
Concilio di Nicea, with 6 issues in 1925–1926.
9
However, concerning the solemn liturgy of Pentecost (31 May 1925), another “union-
ist” journal reported that Greeks also prayed the Nicene Creed in Greek without the
“Filioque”. Cf. Stoudion, 2 (1925): 83–84.
10
See the unsigned article in this Byzantine Catholic journal: “La commémoraison solen-
nelle du premier concile œcuménique de Nicée le 15 novembre 1925 dans la basilique de
Saint-Pierre à Rome,” Stoudion, 2 (1925): 206–207.
362 L. FORESTIER
Not only was 1925 an extraordinary year for the Catholic church in
Rome with the first Jubilee of the twentieth century, the Vatican Missionary
Exhibition, the encyclical Quas primas (December 11, 1925) establishing
the Feast of Christ the King, and, after some hesitation, Pius XI’s renun-
ciation of completing Vatican I, the sixteenth anniversary of the first “ecu-
menical” Council of Nicaea was also the occasion for different initiatives
in the dioceses, even if the main emphasis was always placed on visible
communion with the Pope.
This unionist tendency is clearly perceptible in the Catholic journals
when they describe the celebration of the Nicene anniversary in other
churches, especially when discussing Anglican initiatives. Indeed, relation-
ships between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism were closer in the nineteenth
century thanks to the Oxford Movement, and strengthened in the twenti-
eth century, not only in the Middle East where the British influence was
pivotal, but also in the Russian diaspora after 1917.11 These cultural and
theological contacts were scrutinized by Catholics since they feared a
mutual recognition of ordinations.12
Hence the Catholic accounts of the solemn liturgy on June 29, 1925,
in London sought to disqualify rapprochements between Anglican and
Orthodox prelates. During the Latin mass of Saint Peter and Saint Paul,
presided by the Archbishop of Canterbury, even if the Anglican liturgy
preserves the Western version, the Orthodox prelates prayed the Nicene
Creed in Greek without the “Filioque”. A columnist concluded that this
“meeting of representatives from churches so multifarious and so divided
showed how artificial was this summit.”13
11
N. Lossky, “L’Église d’Angleterre et l’orthodoxie russe: quelques exemples de rela-
tions,” Revue des études slaves, 70, no. 2 (1998): 469–476.
12
In the journal of the Protestant faculty of theology in Strasbourg, Edouard Platzhoff-
Lejeune described the situation of Anglicanism after the Lambeth Conference of 1920: “It
is not impossible that within a couple of decades, thanks to Lambeth [conferences], we will
reach an anti-Roman block which will include the majority of Christian churches in the
world” (E. Platzhoff-Lejeune, “Chronique. L’Anglicanisme d’aujourd’hui,” Revue d’Histoire
et de Philosophie Religieuses 1, no. 3 (1921): 291–294, here 291). This idea was also asserted
in a polemical brochure of Sidney Herbert Scott, Anglo-Catholicism and reunion (London,
R. Scott, 1923) quoted by Joseph Wadoux in Documentation Catholique, 14 (1925): 1023:
“Union will probably come through the participation of Eastern prelates (whose Orders are
not discussed in Rome) in Anglican ordinations, with the result that the entire Anglican
clergy will eventually receive orders that Rome cannot discuss.”
13
J. Lacombe, “Chronique des Églises orientales. 1. Les Églises orientales à Londres et à
Stockholm,” Échos d’Orient, 24, no. 4 (1925): 492.
On a more theological level, even if rapprochements between Anglicanism

and Orthodoxy were not ultimately conclusive, the sixteenth centenary of
Nicaea has been a clear demonstration of disunion. Catholic presentations
of the Council of Nicaea insisted on the Roman influence: some scholars
asserted that the Nicene Creed was directly influenced by Roman liturgical
life whereas others sought to prove the influence of the Pope.14
To conclude about this centenary, in order to prepare for the next one
in 2025, separation and confrontation were the main characteristics of the
different initiatives, both on pastoral and theological levels. In the Catholic
Church, the main feature was Roman centralization, especially with the
Missionary Exhibition and the celebrations for the sixteenth centenary of
Nicaea. In the Orthodox churches, the emphasis was much more ecu-
menical, especially thanks to the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
(January 1920) which issued an invitation to establish a koinonia of
churches.15 It can be noted that the Encyclical used the same Greek word
to designate also the League of Nations which had been founded after
World War I. As centralization in the Catholic Church, this ambivalence in
the use of koinonia is a sign of the weight of geopolitical factors in the
celebration of this centenary. The consequences of aggressive nationalism
had been different. On the one side, the part of the Roman See had been
reinforced with a Pope above nations and liturgical rites. On the other
side, both Protestant and Orthodox, ecumenism had been understood as
the only way to fight again the temptations of isolationism. Yet, despite
the importance of geopolitical factors today, the 2025 centenary raises
other critical questions.
14
V. Grumel, “Le siège de Rome et le concile de Nicée. Convocation et présidence,” Échos
d’Orient, 24, no. 4 (1925): 411–423. Yet Grumel’s conclusion was more modest than the
title seemed to imply: “Only the confirmation of the council belongs to the Apostolic See,
and this is sufficient to make our council ecumenical and to protect the essential prerogatives
of the Bishop of Rome.” (423)
15
Text and presentation in Gennadios Limouris (ed.), Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism.
Statements, Messages and reports of the Ecumenical Movement, 1902–1992 (Geneva, WCC
Publications, 1994), 9–11.
364 L. FORESTIER
2025, a Decisive Step Toward the Next

Ecumenical Council?
In 2025 we will celebrate the seventeenth centenary of the first ecumenical
council of Nicaea: on what conditions might it be an effective step toward
a new ecumenical council? While such a question raises significant issues
which go beyond this ecclesiological contribution, the historical testimo-
nies of the sixteenth centenary can help us to discern some of the main
problems with which a theology of the councils must deal.
Considering our globalized world, political factors in the life of the
churches seem weightier in 2020 than in the 1920s. And the chief ques-
tion is the relationship between politics and ecclesiology since it is always
possible to deny to political questions any theological relevance. This was
for long the case in Catholic theology when, for example, the doctrinal
growth of the papacy in the nineteenth century was attributed only to the
hermeneutics of Matthew 16 or John 21 without any regard for the politi-
cal question of the Risorgimento which led ultimately to the disappearance
of the Papal States.
Using the method of the “signs of the times”, Vatican II’s pastoral
Constitution Gaudium et Spes proposed another direction for the relation-
ship between political context and ecclesiological elaboration. Far from a
naive confusion between progress and signs of the times, Gaudium et Spes
sect. 4 states that “the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the
signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.”
This discernment of events leads the church to “decipher authentic signs
of God’s presence and purpose” (sect. 11) which implies discerning
between authentic and inauthentic signs. In the Roman Catholic Church,
Francis’ encyclical Laudato si’ is an example of discernment which a theol-
ogy of the councils would have to universalize. This political analysis of
our world could help churches become more conscious of the influences
that governments, state agencies, lobbies, global companies, media, social
networks, etc., may exert on the next ecumenical council.
Political factors are not the only ones which explain the divisive nature
of the anniversary of 1925. Theological issues such as the question of the
divinity of Christ were also at stake. For example, during the solemn cel-
ebration in London a difference was made between prelates from the
Orthodox and pre-Chalcedonian churches. This raises two different ques-
tions: about the churches and about their ministers. Any celebration of
Nicaea must indeed consider the situation of the churches which do not
recognize the authority of some of the early councils, especially for doctri-
nal reasons. For example, ecumenical discussions with Orthodox Oriental
churches have been fruitful, which has led to the recognition that the divi-
sions could also have political and cultural causes. The official dialogue
between Orthodox and pre-Chalcedonian churches has concluded that
“both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox
Christological faith.”16 From this point of view, it is important to note that
some of the more recent churches, even if their main emphasis is biblical,
are looking to understand what the conciliar tradition means for
themselves.17
Hence the next centenary of Nicaea could be a good opportunity to
stimulate ecumenical questions regarding the diverse receptions of the
Council. More fundamentally, it becomes necessary to consider the status
of the participants at such an ecumenical council. Even if in the Catholic,
Orthodox, and other Oriental churches, the answer seems to be clear,
many questions still present: what might be the participation of titular
bishops, that is, bishops who rule no church but are auxiliary or emeritus
bishops? Moreover, what might the effective participation of the laity be?
How is it possible to go beyond a male-only participation?
And the question becomes more acute considering other churches
whose conceptions of ministry are diverse, even if similar issues are at
stake, about male or female participation, about relationships between
ministers and laity, and about supranational forms of synodality.18
16
Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to the Churches (Chambésy,
Switzerland, 1990), no. 9 in Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer and William G. Rusch (eds.),
Growth in agreement II. Reports and agreed statements of ecumenical conversations on a world
level, 1982–1998 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans; Geneva: World Council of Churches,
2000), 196. See Job Getcha, “L’Église orthodoxe en dialogue. Rétrospective des cinquante
dernières années, in Nouveaux territoires de l’œcuménisme. Déplacements depuis 50 ans et
appels pour l’avenir, edited by Luc Forestier (Paris, Cerf, 2019), 27.
17
An illustration is to be found in some communities of messianic Jews, who have primarily
a Protestant background. See Mark S. Kinzer, Searching Her Own Mystery: Nostra Aetate, the
Jewish People, and the Identity of the Church (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015). In the
Appendix 4, “Finding our way through Nicaea,” Kesher 24 (2010): 29–52 and translated
into Italian in Rassegna di Teologia 53, no. 4 (2012): 601–624, Kinzer explains the reasons
for Messianic Jews’ refusal of Nicaea, and proposes a way for his community to understand
the Nicene Creed.
18
See the example of the governance (Presbyterian and synodal) of the United Protestant
Church of France: Jean-Daniel Roque, La grâce et l’ordre. Le régime presbytérien synodal
(Lyon, Olivétan, 2018). Within the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE),
one of the questions is the “conciliarity”, that is, the invention of a synodality at the European
366 L. FORESTIER
Whatever the answers to such questions might be, it is obvious that the
next ecumenical council will gather thousands of people from all over the
world. This raises tricky questions of organization. Even if the Roman
centralization of the Catholic Church is moderated by other churches, the
question of the place for such a meeting remains complex, especially on
the ecological level. Certainly, it would be possible to organize simultane-
ous conciliar assemblies on different continents, but the dependence on
technical solutions does not completely obviate the risks of political
interference.
It is not yet possible to figure out a representation for the next ecu-
menical council: some ecclesiological questions must first become clearer.
The seventeenth centenary of the first ecumenical council of Nicaea is an
occasion for pastoral initiatives. Meanwhile, ecclesiology must prepare the
way by offering new interpretations of the conciliar existence of the church
in the various Christian confessions. For the Roman Catholic Church, an
extensive movement has been launched by Pope Francis toward a more
synodal church.19 This movement will have unpredictable consequences
for the Catholic conceptions of councils. From parish life to the global
church, synodality is the keystone for changes.
level which is not yet realized. See the document “Church communion”, adopted by the
Eighth General Assembly of the CPCE: https://cpce-assembly.eu/dokumente/?lang=en
(accessed February 13, 2020). See sect. 80: “There has certainly never been a council of the
CPCE. However, through the resolutions of the synods (or the corresponding bodies) to
declare and realize church communion, the CPCE churches are no longer in a pre-conciliar
situation, as is the case in most other ecumenical dialogues between churches. The situation
of the CPCE is conciliar, but without a common synod.”
19
A. C. Osheim, “Stepping toward a Synodal Church,” Theological Studies 80, no. 2
(2019): 370–392.
Correction to: Changing the Church
Mark D. Chapman and Vladimir Latinovic
Correction to:
This book was inadvertently published with the titles of the section V and
section VI swapped. This has now been amended in the book.
The updated version of the book can be found at

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C1

Index1
A Amazon synod, 29, 30, 33, 35

Aboriginal, 69, 105 Ambrosius of Milan, 27
ABS, see African biblical studies Anglo-Saxons, 130, 132–134
Abused, 5, 67–76 Animal, 4, 57–65, 247
Academic theology, 41 Animal cruelty, 57
Adaptation, 40, 123, 132–136 Animal economies, 57–65
Africa, 5, 157, 163, 165–170, 179, Anonymous Christianity, 231
180, 261 Anti-Judaism, 6, 233–239
African, 74, 165–174, 176, 178–181 Anti-modernistic, 293
African American, 81 Apollinaris of Laodicea, 26
African biblical studies Apostasy, 14, 15, 17, 19, 33
(ABS), 178–180 Apostolic Church, 130, 193, 300, 343
African Catholicism, 166 Apostolos Suos, 338
African Continent, 179 Aquinas, Thomas, 125n3, 172, 282
African culture, 178–180 Arab, 159, 160, 164, 185, 222n23
Agamben, Giorgio, 252–257 Arius, 27
Age of polarization, 111–117 Asia, 6, 180, 183–190, 261
Aggiornamento, 7, 293 Athanasius, 26–28
al-Malik al-Kāmil, 219 Augustine, 23, 27, 41, 63, 100, 132,
Algeria, 155–161 133, 253, 272, 325
Algerian War of Independence, 159 Augustine of Hippo, 131, 244
1
Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

368 INDEX
Authority, 7, 14, 15, 19, 25, 26, 32, Catholic Church, 3, 19, 27, 37, 38,
35, 36, 43, 93, 94, 97, 99, 100, 41–44, 51, 94, 97–100, 102–106,
107, 116, 158, 169, 170, 205, 108, 110, 112, 114, 117, 165,
248, 253, 255, 260, 262, 263, 167, 168, 170, 172, 178, 186,
265–268, 270–275, 281, 283, 195–198, 201–207, 209–212,
284, 290–293, 302, 310, 319, 214, 235, 249, 279, 289, 291,
325, 327–329, 335, 338, 347, 293, 296, 300, 321n14, 329,
348, 365 331, 333, 334, 338, 354, 356,
Autocephalous churches, 348 359, 361–363, 366
Catholicism and Modernity, 291
Catholic women, 101–110
B Change, 1, 18, 22, 29, 37, 48, 61,
Barrows, John Henry, 201–205 67–76, 78, 85, 91–92, 95, 106,
Bea, Augustin, 194 111, 122, 129–137, 143, 155,
Bede, 132, 133 165, 167–171, 175, 206, 211,
Benedict XVI, 214, 360 217–223, 239, 252, 260–268,
Béré, Paul, 176, 178 285, 290, 293–294, 297, 305,
Bevans, Stephen, 150 329, 339, 341–349, 358, 359
Bible, 74, 113, 122, 144, 145, 179, Charismatic, 186–187, 316
181, 231, 238 Charismatic prayer groups, 187
Biblical hermeneutics, 175, 179, 265 Chenu, M-D., 159, 293
Biblical tradition, 5, 175–178, Child abuse, 68
180, 181 Childhood sexual abuse, 70
Biodiversity, 4, 61 Child Sexual Abuse, 107
Bishops, 7, 14–20, 26, 35, 41, 43, 68, Chile, 316, 316n2, 317, 319, 321n14
87, 99, 100, 102, 104–107, 115, Christ, 18, 24, 25, 33, 34, 72, 76, 87,
150, 161, 168, 169, 204, 211, 89, 110, 117, 122, 124, 131,
222, 246, 260–262, 266, 267, 132, 159, 195–199, 211, 215,
270–276, 280–284, 287, 218n6, 226, 229–231, 244–246,
291–295, 299, 300, 302, 303, 249, 263, 272, 281, 300, 301,
320, 324, 324n3, 326, 327, 308, 310, 324, 326, 331, 335,
327n13, 329–331, 333, 345, 354, 357, 358, 360,
341–349, 359, 365 361, 364
Body of Christ, 72, 87, 98, 218n6, Christian community, 76, 85–87, 89,
244, 245, 261, 263 91, 100, 137, 149, 150, 153,
161, 167, 189, 193, 196,
211, 238
C Christianity, 5, 24, 63, 76, 86, 122n1,
Cardinal Kasper, Walter, 19, 20, 124, 127, 128, 153, 156, 157,
198, 199 168, 171, 176, 179–181, 185,
Cardinal Sarah, 165, 166, 168 187, 189, 209, 213, 214, 227,
Carthage, 14–20, 23, 343 228, 230, 231, 235, 237, 239,
Catechism, 58, 235 245, 248, 289, 310, 334, 360
INDEX 369
Christianity and Islam, 2, 209 164, 167, 170, 171, 173, 179,
Christianization, 129–137 183–190, 193, 195, 196, 200,
Christian mission, 6, 86, 127, 357 210, 211, 218, 223, 223n26,
Christian missionary activity, 124 226n5, 235, 238, 239, 246, 252,
Christian sinfulness, 244 253, 255, 256, 267, 286, 295,
Christological, 22, 25, 26, 125, 296, 319, 321n14, 325, 330,
232n28, 335 335, 337, 342–347, 352, 355,
Chrysostom, 25 357, 361, 365
Church of England, 130, 135–137, Community of sinners, 246
139–146, 270, 272 Conciliar experiences, 359–366
Church service, 81 Condemned, 22, 25, 26, 58, 93, 97,
Civil Rights Movement, 90 158, 161, 169, 201, 236, 290
Claverie, Pierre, 155–164 Conflicts, 4, 29–34, 213, 308,
Clergywoman, 79 353, 355
Clerical, 8, 30, 33, 38, 93, 94, 97, Congar, Yves, 37–44, 98, 159
100, 170, 188, 283 Congregational life, 140
Clerical sex abuse, 42 Consensus, 30–35, 133, 193, 198,
Code of Canon Law, 197, 294, 199, 276, 294, 342, 343
306, 339 Conservative, 5, 6, 30, 38, 60,
Collectivities, 86 112–115, 140, 157, 166, 172,
Collegiality, 38, 43, 82, 299, 302, 202, 204, 206, 294
327n13, 328 Constantine and Helena, 132
College of Bishops, 302, 303, 327 Content of the kingdom, 243
Colonial, 5, 35, 73, 75, 76, 155–161, Continuity, 2, 21, 22, 122, 125, 137,
163, 168, 181, 267 171, 175, 176, 178, 215, 218n6,
Colonial authorities, 157 252, 272
Colonial mentality (CM), 69, Contraceptive acts, 113
70, 73–75 Controversies, 16, 29, 32, 148,
Colonial white imperialism, 76 218n7, 263, 265, 293
Colonization, 75, 156, 159, 164 Council of bishops, 15, 17
Communal framework, 268, 301 Counter-Reformation, 43, 93
Communion, 7, 14–16, 18, 20, 39, Creative model, 162
40, 51, 82, 88, 124, 195–200, Credibility, 7, 246, 284, 315–318
215, 233–239, 260–271, Culturally, 40, 75, 142, 352
274–277, 295, 296, 300, Cultures, 40, 43, 62, 69, 73–76,
307–309, 327–329, 335–337, 94, 96, 109, 123, 132–134,
342, 345, 347, 362, 366 136, 140, 143, 156, 160,
Community, 5, 31–35, 41, 48, 48n4, 163, 164, 170, 171, 173,
49n5, 50–54, 62, 64, 68–72, 176, 180, 184, 210, 211,
74–76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85–89, 213, 215, 227, 251,
91, 102, 104, 110, 117, 124, 297–303, 355
126, 128, 139, 141, 143, 144, Cyprian, 14–20, 211n3, 343
146, 148, 150, 152, 153, 158, Cyril of Alexandria, 25, 26
370 INDEX
D 301, 305–311, 324, 327–329,

de Foucauld, Charles, 157 333, 335–337, 339, 341, 344,
Decentralization, 7, 38, 167, 299 351, 358, 364, 366
De-christianization, 246 Ecofeminism, 49
Dei Filius, 292 Ecological, 30, 35, 47–55, 57, 59–62,
Democratization, 41, 222n22 64, 149, 286, 366
Denominationalism, 308 Ecological theology, 49
Dialogue, 5, 6, 38, 64, 75, 101, 105, Economic space, 177
106, 113, 115, 116, 124–128, Economic structures, 86
146, 161, 164, 176, 178–180, Ecosystems, 59, 61, 62, 64
199, 209–215, 219, 219n12, Ecozoic, 47–55, 49n5
222, 223n24, 225–232, 234, Ecumenical council, 8, 25, 26, 98,
239, 264–267, 330, 333, 337, 220n13, 282, 338, 343,
339, 341, 355, 356, 365, 366 359, 364–366
Differentiating consensus, 31, 51, Ecumenical council of Nicaea, 360,
183, 193, 335 362, 364–366
Diodorus of Tarsus, 25 Ecumenical movement, 193, 195,
Dissensus, 31, 32 198, 200, 305, 360
Dissent, 29–36, 197, 320 Ecumenical Patriarchate, 363
Diversified, 125 Ecumenical relations, 169, 199, 266
Diversity, 6, 20, 74, 78, 79, 112, 117, Ecumenism, 5, 9, 38, 197, 234, 275,
125, 153, 161, 213, 233, 234, 295, 363
236, 238, 239, 268, 274, 298, Embodied challenge, 251–257
300, 301, 330, 337, 349 Emperor Constantine, 134
Divorced and remarried, 19, 20, 40 Enlightenment, 125, 218n8
Environmental, 29, 53, 114, 123
Episcopal Church, 252, 255–257
E Episcopal conferences, 302, 328,
Earth, 47–55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 90, 331, 338
95, 150, 171, 172, 205, 210, Episcopal Conferences of Africa and
213, 229, 270 Madagascar, 165
Ecclesial practices, 30, 89, 90 Equal dignity, 104
Ecclesial reflection, 336 Eschatological, 48, 49, 85, 87–91,
Ecclesial synodality, 302 121, 244, 308
Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda, Eucharist, 18, 20, 86, 144, 188, 190,
233, 249 197–199, 223n26, 256, 308,
Ecclesiologists, 142, 189, 223, 309, 344, 345
341, 359 Europe, 142, 147, 149–151, 162,
Ecclesiology, 6, 7, 9, 30, 42, 48, 50, 163, 167, 168, 176, 178, 180,
53, 88, 122, 124–126, 140, 142, 186, 194, 195, 235, 248, 307
150, 167, 175, 189, 190, 196, European church, 166
217, 244, 246–248, 266, 277, Eusebius, 24
INDEX 371
Evangelical, 77, 140, 143, 148, 170, G

195, 199, 300, 301, Gaudete et Exsultate, 152
317n7, 353–355 Gaudium et Spes, 147, 207, 214,
Evangelistic, 140 293, 364
Evangelistic endeavor, 228 Gender equality, 104
Evangelization, 30, 129, 132, 135, Gentiles, 129–131, 143, 156, 238
137, 151, 298, 299, 301, 325, Gibbons, James Cardinal,
351, 353–355, 357, 358 201–204, 207
Evolutionary, 5, 51, 57, 65, 122–128 Gildas, 132
Evolutionary consciousness, Global synodality, 359–366
121, 123–126 Greenhouse-gas emissions, 60
Exceptional circumstances, 308, 309 Gregory XVI, 201, 290
Existential peripheries, 8, Gulf Region, 185–188
351, 354–357
Exploitation, 30, 61, 68, 69, 149, 157
Expressionism, 96 H
Heresy, 21–28, 30, 33, 282,
291, 295
F Heretic, 2, 19, 21–28
Faith and Order, 198, 267 Hierarchy, 59, 169, 172, 195, 246,
Family planning, 113 280–283, 292, 294, 325, 326,
Filioque, 27, 361, 362 327n11, 335
Filipinos, 69, 73–76, 185, 186, 188 Hilary of Poitiers, 27
Financial misconduct, 42 History of salvation, 238
Food economies, 4, 57, 58 Hoekendijk, J. C., 126, 305–310
Francis, 3, 6–8, 30, 33, 37–42, 48n4, Holiness, 42, 52, 116, 152, 155–164,
50, 51, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 170, 171, 244, 303
68, 70, 148, 150–153, 166, Holy Spirit, 5, 15, 85–92, 98,
169–171, 173, 178, 195, 196, 117, 142, 143, 146, 170,
198, 199, 207, 209–211, 171, 228–230, 232, 271,
213–215, 219–223, 221n20, 300, 303, 319, 335, 337,
222n22, 222n23, 223n24, 342, 344, 345
251–257, 280, 285–287, 298, Homeless shelter, 78, 79
299, 301, 302, 316–321, Homoousios, 25
323–331, 333, 334, 337, 339, Humanae vitae, 32, 43, 115,
351–358, 364, 366 116, 294
Franciscan, 38, 143, 144, 219n12, Human cultures, 297–303
220, 221n20, 255 Human dignity, 58, 152
Freedom and autonomy, 290 Human diversity, 79
Friendship, 160, 161, 164, 215, Human role, 5, 87, 89–91
217–223, 239 Human sexuality, 260–265, 274
Fundamental teachings, 166 Human solidarity, 121
372 INDEX
I John Paul II, 102n3, 103, 113, 169,

Immigrants, 3, 150, 184, 202, 206 197, 212, 222, 245, 248, 294
Inculturation, 132, 133, 167, John XXIII, 2, 98, 100, 171, 194,
298, 301 293, 360
Indigenous peoples, 30, 76, 105, 161 Judaism, 122, 122n1, 210, 235–239
Innovation, 2, 17, 18, 99, Juridical structures, 251–253, 255,
165–167, 177 257, 302
Institutional church, 7, 41,
42, 251–257
Instrumentalization of animals, 58, 60 K
Integration, 106, 152, 168, 295, Kingdom, 75, 88, 90–92, 132, 134,
296, 301 243–249, 349
Intellectual difference, 351, 354 Kingdom of God, 6, 89, 90, 139, 145,
Intercommunion, 195, 200, 243–245, 342
198–200, 306–308 Klein, Ezra, 111, 112, 115, 117, 289
Interfaith dialogue, 225–232 Koinonia, 88, 363
International Theological Commission
(ITC), 8, 323–330, 325n4,
333–335, 338 L
Interreligious, 5, 6, 124, 127, 128, Lambeth Conference, 260–262, 266,
194, 199, 201–207, 209–215, 267, 270–276, 362
218, 219, 219n10, 219n12, 222, Late antiquity, 6, 21–28
223, 223n27, 226 Laudato Sí, 29–30, 50, 53, 57–65,
Interreligious friendship, 218, 219, 286, 287, 355, 358, 364
222, 223, 223n27 Lay people, 7, 41, 105, 337
Irish, 3, 201–207, 269 LGBTQ, 355
Islam, 2, 157, 158, 161, 163, 179, Liegé, P-A., 159
185, 209, 210, 213, 219n12, 227 Listening, 3, 30, 48, 53, 54, 101, 103,
108, 146, 227, 262, 269–277,
287, 303
J Liturgical renewal, 193–200
Jerome, 23, 24 Liturgy, 40, 48, 49, 51, 55, 74, 83,
Jesus/Jesus of Nazareth, 74, 76, 77, 87, 105, 155, 156, 163, 164,
83, 86, 88, 91, 110, 122, 186, 188, 196, 200, 271, 294,
125–128, 130, 131, 150–152, 341, 344, 345, 348, 361, 362
172, 177, 199, 226, 227, 229, Lumen Gentium (LG), 72, 196, 197,
231, 232, 235–238, 243–247, 281, 294, 324–326, 328, 335,
252–257, 264, 280, 284, 287, 353, 354
292, 305, 307–311, 336, 337, Luther, Martin, 2, 22, 27, 131, 245,
342, 345, 353, 356, 357 247, 290
Jewish, 122, 130, 131, 143, 156, 203, Lutherans, 27, 198, 199, 260–268
204, 211, 235–239, 343, 356 Lyotard, Jean-François, 95
INDEX 373
M Modernization, 21
Magisterium, 4, 7, 32, 39, 43, 113, Modern Religious Art, 98
210, 279–286, 298, 326 Modern society, 94, 291
Manicheans, 27, 63, 116 Modes of teaching, 283
Mannion, Gerard, 3, 8, 29, 58, 148, Moltmann, Jürgen, 87, 92
150, 172, 219n12, 238, 279, Monastic community, 252, 253,
280, 293, 325n4 255, 256
Married clergy, 105, 168 Montanism, 23
Maryknoll Sisters, 48, 48n4, 52, 53 Multi-cultural, 7, 75, 106, 156
Matisse, Henri, 97 Multi-linguistic, 156
Membership, 103, 135, 140–142, Muslims, 6, 150, 155, 157–161, 163,
179, 359 164, 169, 203, 206, 213, 214,
Metz, Johann Baptist, 90 218, 218n7, 220–223,
Migrants, 69, 70, 148, 149, 221n19, 222n22
151–153, 184–189 Mutual correlation, 336
Ministry of leadership, 327
Mission, 4–7, 35, 48, 49, 51, 53–55,
108, 117, 121–137, 139–146, N
148, 150, 151, 153, 155–157, Neo-exclusivism, 234
170–173, 178, 180, 212, Neo-Scholastic, 93, 290
221–223, 221n19, 223n24, 230, Nestorianism, 25
234, 246, 248, 249, 267, 299, Newbigin, Lesslie, 225–232, 226n5,
305, 307, 308, 310, 311, 321, 228n10, 228n11,
323, 324, 328, 335–337, 347, 229n17, 232n28
356–358, 360 New Creation, 47, 49, 89, 92
Missionaries, 76, 124, 127, 128, 133, Non-Christians, 218, 229–231,
146n12, 147–153, 167, 168, 234, 284–285
173, 181, 205, 223n24, 225, North American, 50, 309
232, 298, 300, 305, 307, 317, North American society, 251
319, 323, 328, 335, 336, 345, North Atlantic, 194, 195
351, 353, 357, 358 Novelty, 39, 209
Missionary endeavor, 323
Missionary situations, 306, 307
Missionary work, 167 O
Mission of the church, 7, 110, 121, Official doctrine, 22
122, 127–128, 223, 299, 328, Old Testament, 177n4
337, 356 O’Malley, John, 169, 359
Modern art, 93–100 Online communities, 183–190
Modernism, 94, 95, 98–100 Openness, 2, 6, 19, 28, 78, 211,
Modernist movements, 93 333, 339
Modernity, 4, 21, 44, 94, 95, 167, Oppressed, 3, 52, 67–76
290, 291 Oppression, 50, 68–70, 73, 74, 308
374 INDEX
Ordination, 7, 35, 143, 160, 348, 362 Pope Gregory the Great, 132
Ordination of women, 4, 102, 102n3, Pope Gregory VII, 178
107, 274 Pope John XXIII, 2, 171, 293
Organized religion, 251 Pope Paul VI, 94, 98, 100, 294
Origen, 24, 25, 211n3, 243 Pope Pius XI, 93, 97, 292
Orthodox, 2, 4, 21–23, 25, 26, 28, Postcolonial, 155, 156, 162–164, 168
62, 245, 282, 287, 295, 341, Post-traumatic stress disorder, 70
342, 344, 347, 348, 361–365 Prayer, 5, 51, 63, 74, 75, 77–84, 105,
Orthodox churches, 8, 21, 27, 28, 62, 172, 187, 195–197, 215,
195, 342, 347, 363 219n12, 248, 308, 327
Orthodoxy, 21–28, 166–169, 172, Prayer practice, 83
343, 347, 362, 363 Presbyterium, 327, 343, 346
Primacy, 7, 39, 292, 294, 295,
327n13, 335, 348
P Priority of mercy, 17, 20
Pan-Amazon, 29, 338 Procreation, 112, 113
Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 89 Protestant theology, 244
Parish, 8, 35, 41, 104, 105, 144, 170, Public opinion, 325
186, 338, 341, 342, 344–348, 366
Participation, 7, 30–32, 34–36, 68,
80, 90, 101–107, 152, 186, 196, Q
198, 201, 202, 204–206, 267, Querida Amazonia, 38
276, 303, 306, 331, 335, 337,
338, 344–346, 348, 349, 360,
362, 365 R
Pastor aeternus, 292 Radner, Ephraim, 247–249
Pastoral Conversion, 147–153, 298 Rahner, Karl, 49, 156, 162, 172, 231,
Pastoral ministry, 39, 41, 105, 144, 246, 247, 354
168, 190, 327 Rancière, Jacques, 31–34, 36
Patriarchal religion, 78 Reconciliation, 14–20, 87–89, 121,
Pelagius, 26, 27, 220 127–128, 158, 194, 195,
Penalties, 14 197, 249
Penance, 14–20, 134, 197 Refugee/refugees, 75, 148–153, 231
Periphery, 8, 30, 148, 151, Refugee crisis, 5, 147–153, 355
299, 351–358 Regional synodality, 347–348
Pius XI, 361, 362 Rehabilitated, 27
Pneumatological, 88, 335 Religious and lay people, 105
Polarization, 111–117, 234 Religious liberty, 201, 205
Political solidarity, 149 Religious pluralism, 284
Politics, 31, 111, 112, 168, 175, 237, Responsibility for the world, 121
361, 364 Revolution, 5, 57, 58, 64, 95, 121,
Pontifical Council for Culture, 74 126, 148, 175–178, 180, 289
INDEX 375
Revolutionary, 17, 57, 65, 177, 178, Sexual misconduct scandals, 251
180, 181 Sexual orientation, 3, 260, 261
Revolutionary power, 5, 175–181 Shortage of priests, 38
Ritual, 5, 14, 74, 77–84, 130 Signs of the times, 97, 101, 104, 147,
Rizal, José, 75 293, 364
Role for the laity, 168 Sinfulness, 57, 163, 244, 246, 353
Roman Catholic Church, 5–8, 19, 32, Sisters of Earth of Green Mountain
35, 147, 152, 155, 156, 164, Monastery, 54
198, 200, 296, 301, 315, 316, Situations near death, 306
319, 334, 359, 364, 366 Social and political action, 90
Social order, 31
Social revolution, 178
S Socio-political, 122
Sacraments, 18, 19, 34, 35, 47, 49, Spirituality, 50, 52, 127, 128, 171,
55, 196–198, 200, 246, 257, 179, 299, 334
271, 308, 309 Stance on women, 104
St. Francis, 2, 6, 7, 42, 51, 64, 219, Stringfellow, William, 90
219n12, 220, 222, 223, Suffering of animals, 61
251–257, 357 Supranational forms of synodality, 365
Same gender unions, 261 Surrealism, 96
Same-sex partnerships, 7, 60, Symposium of Episcopal Conferences
170, 262–264 of Africa and Madagascar
Same sex unions, 260, 261, 263 (SECAM), 165, 168
Sanctity, 28, 162 Synodality, 5, 7, 8, 30, 38, 302, 303,
Saudi Arabia, 185–188, 190 321, 323–331, 333–339,
Schism, 30, 33, 39, 40 341–349, 359–366
Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 77 Synod of Bishops, 29, 101, 303, 323,
Schroeder, Robert, 150 325n4, 328, 330, 333, 336,
Scripture and tradition, 137, 271, 334 338, 347
SECAM, see Symposium of Episcopal
Conferences of Africa and
Madagascar T
Second Vatican Council, 6, 7, 38, 42, Taylor, Charles, 178
100, 147, 156, 168, 193, 204, Taylor, John V., 142
207, 211, 214, 298, 330, 331, Teaching, 2, 7, 18, 23–27, 59, 60, 64,
333, 335, 339, 353 93, 102, 105, 113, 127, 148,
Secretariat for Promoting Christian 168, 170, 172, 173, 212,
Unity, 194, 197, 306 228n11, 236, 254, 260, 267,
Semper reformanda, 85, 233, 249 279–287, 299, 301, 320, 324,
Sensus fidei, 153, 325, 327 326, 327, 331, 335, 339,
Sexual abuse crisis, 42–44 349, 355
Sexual abuse scandal, 244 Tertullian, 23, 24, 357
376 INDEX
Theodoret, 25 Violence and oppression,

Theology of synodality, 324, 334–336 69, 70, 308
Thung, Mady, 142 Virginia Report, 276
Torah, 130, 131, 137 Viri probati, 35, 36
Totalitarian regimes, 34 Visser ’t Hooft, Willem A., 194
Transformation, 5, 38, 48, 53, 70, 76, Vulnerable, 5, 52, 60, 65, 67–76, 148,
91, 150, 152, 153, 193, 222, 173, 271, 338, 345
222n21, 270, 317n7
Trinitarian, 47, 48, 51, 87, 228–230,
232, 335, 336 W
Trinity, 23, 25, 49, 55, 228, 234, WCC, see World Council of Churches
247, 327n11 Welby, Justin, 262
Tveit, Olav Fyske, 152 Wesley, John, 345
Wijngaards Statement, 112–116
Willebrands, Johannes, 194
U Williams, Rowan, 261, 272
Uniformity, 111, 300, 337 Woman minister, 190, 303
Unity, 30, 32, 33, 40, 72, 111–117, Women’s participation, 101–107
124–126, 128, 167, 171, World Christianity, 5, 185, 187, 189,
193–197, 199, 200, 234, 249, 190, 196
263, 264, 266, 274, 275, 290, World Council of Churches
295, 296, 300, 301, 307, 308, (WCC), 121, 124, 152, 194,
327, 329n16, 337, 341, 342, 198, 200, 300, 306, 345,
358, 361 360, 365
Upper class, 80–83 World’s Parliament of
Religions, 201–207
World War I, 90, 363
V Worship, 14, 78, 80, 82, 83, 132,
Vatican I, 289–296, 362 133, 135, 136, 144, 189, 197,
Vatican I Council, 289, 326 198, 239, 257, 263, 308
Vatican II, 37–40, 42–44, 93–100,
115, 168, 175, 180, 195, 196,
199, 247, 281, 293–296, 299, Z
308, 324, 325, 353, 364 Zizioulas, John, 22, 87, 344

Changing The Church: Transformations of Christian Belief, Practice, and Life

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Changing The Church: Transformations of Christian Belief, Practice, and Life

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Changing The Church: Transformations of Christian Belief, Practice, and Life

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PATHWAYS FOR

ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS

More information about this series at

Changing the Church

ISSN 2634-6591 ISSN 2634-6605 (electronic)

(September 25, 1970–September 21, 2019)

Part I History and Theology 11

2 From Rigor to Reconciliation: Cyprian of Carthage on

3 Who Do You Call a Heretic? Fluid Notions of Orthodoxy

4 Towards a Theology of Dissent 29

5 Theology of Church Reform and Institutional Crisis:

Part II Society and Gender 45

6 Sisterhood of the Earth: An Emergence of an Ecological

7 Developing a Virtue of Eating Well: Laudato Sí and

8 Noli Me Tángere: A Church for the Oppressed—Putting

9 The Essence of Faith: Prayer as Ritual and Struggle 77

10 The Holy Spirit Makes the Church: Changing the

11 Making the Spiritual World Accessible: Paul VI and

12 Women Changing the Church: The Experience of the

13 The Unity of the Church and Birth Control in

Part III Mission and World Christianity 119

14 The World Mission of the Christian Church121

15 Conversion and Change Through the Processes of

16 Mission as Reception: Reframing Evangelism in the

17 The “Refugee Crisis” as an Opportunity for Missionary

18 Blessed Pierre Claverie: Holiness in a World Church155

19 Changing the Church: An African Theological Reflection165

20 The Revolutionary Power of the Church175

21 The Implications of Transient Migration and Online

Part IV Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue 191

22 Liturgical Renewal and Ecumenical Progress193

23 Changing the Catholic Church’s Interreligious

24 Is Interreligious Dialogue Changing the Church? The

25 That’s Gonna Leave a Mark: A Saint, a Sultan, and How

26 Three’s Company in Interfaith Dialogue: A Protestant

27 Reforming Anti-Judaism in a Church Called to

28 Overcoming “The Church as Counter-sign of the

29 To Live According to the Form of the Holy Gospel:

30 Authority and Change: The Role of Authority

31 “Stop, Stop and Listen”: Changing the Church by

32 How Should the Church Teach? A Mode of Learning

33 Towards a Re-reading of the Dogmas of Vatican I289

34 Ecclesial Reform and Human Cultures297

Part VI Synodality and Participation 313

36 Ecclesial Extroversion: On the Reform in the Current

37 Synodality as a Key Component of the Pontificate

38 Changing the Church Through Synodality333

39 Local Synodality: An Unnoticed Change341

40 Problems at the Periphery: A Productive Confusion in

41 Milestones for the Next Council: Conciliar Experiences

Correction to: Changing the ChurchC1

between theology and art, as well as on popular culture and Buddhist-­

Mark D. Chapman is Professor of the History of Modern Theology at

Dennis M. Doyle received his PhD in Religious Studies from the

Mary McClintock Fulkerson has taught practical and feminist theolo-

Christology, ecclesiology, grace, liberation theology, spirituality, and the

Vladimir Latinovic is Lecturer in Patristics at the University of Tübingen

(Pontifical Urbanian University, Rome), she has collaborated with other

theology, patristic theology, eschatology, the history of Christian missions

Part I History and Theology 11

2 From Rigor to Reconciliation: Cyprian of Carthage on

3 Who Do You Call a Heretic? Fluid Notions of Orthodoxy

4 Towards a Theology of Dissent 29

5 Theology of Church Reform and Institutional Crisis:

Part II Society and Gender 45

6 Sisterhood of the Earth: An Emergence of an Ecological

7 Developing a Virtue of Eating Well: Laudato Sí and

8 Noli Me Tángere: A Church for the Oppressed—Putting

9 The Essence of Faith: Prayer as Ritual and Struggle 77

10 The Holy Spirit Makes the Church: Changing the

11 Making the Spiritual World Accessible: Paul VI and

12 Women Changing the Church: The Experience of the

13 The Unity of the Church and Birth Control in

Part III Mission and World Christianity 119

14 The World Mission of the Christian Church121

15 Conversion and Change Through the Processes of

16 Mission as Reception: Reframing Evangelism in the

17 The “Refugee Crisis” as an Opportunity for Missionary

18 Blessed Pierre Claverie: Holiness in a World Church155

19 Changing the Church: An African Theological Reflection165

20 The Revolutionary Power of the Church175

21 The Implications of Transient Migration and Online

Part IV Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue 191

22 Liturgical Renewal and Ecumenical Progress193

23 Changing the Catholic Church’s Interreligious

24 Is Interreligious Dialogue Changing the Church? The

25 That’s Gonna Leave a Mark: A Saint, a Sultan, and How

26 Three’s Company in Interfaith Dialogue: A Protestant

27 Reforming Anti-Judaism in a Church Called to

28 Overcoming “The Church as Counter-sign of the

29 To Live According to the Form of the Holy Gospel:

30 Authority and Change: The Role of Authority

31 “Stop, Stop and Listen”: Changing the Church by

32 How Should the Church Teach? A Mode of Learning

33 Towards a Re-reading of the Dogmas of Vatican I289

34 Ecclesial Reform and Human Cultures297

Part VI Synodality and Participation 313

36 Ecclesial Extroversion: On the Reform in the Current

37 Synodality as a Key Component of the Pontificate

38 Changing the Church Through Synodality333

39 Local Synodality: An Unnoticed Change341

40 Problems at the Periphery: A Productive Confusion in

41 Milestones for the Next Council: Conciliar Experiences

Correction to: Changing the ChurchC1

between theology and art, as well as on popular culture and Buddhist-

interpersonal societies that nurture diversification and interdependency.10