|
Fr
Gianni Colzani In order to understand the development of the theology of mission in recent decades, it is useful to take the Council teaching as a point of reference. The Council, as the title of the decree on mission recalls, had dealt with activitas missionalis Ecclesiae and in this way had established a close link between mission and the Church including the former within the perspective of conciliar ecclesiology. As a gift, mission is explained on the basis of the story of love of the three persons of the Blessed Trinity. Instead as munus ecclesiale, mission is the task of a community that, nourishing itself on the word and on the Eucharist, opens to its apostolic tasks among men and women. Thus there is a profound mutual relationship between Church and mission: the Church is by her very nature missionary. This result was the end of the long process, begun in the first decades of the century, which had tried to pass from a practice of mission to a theory of mission. Surpassing the limited approach that saw it only at the service of the missionary or understood it in fundamentally juridical terms aimed at exalting the missionary mandate — this theology had returned from the missionary mandate to the catholicity and apostolicity of the Church: mission was at their service. All these ideas meant that mission could be seen as a historical form, characteristic of the universal sacrament of salvation. Placing its activities within the perspective of the mystery context by which the Church lives, mission seems to be the event that — in the form of the community sent forth — gives reality its meaning and its fullness. This perspective had biblical and patristic renewal behind it. It made use of Cougar’s reflections on the Church and the world and on the role of the laity. It was situated within the concept of mission as the Church’s self-fulfilment, characteristic of Rahner’s Handbuch, but it did not even remotely represent the common perspective of the Christian world nor did it offer a sufficient picture for the historical action of Churches in that difficult situation. It was not by chance that there was a clear crisis in the post-conciliar period with regard to mission, its identity and its methods. The fundamental element of the Protestant missionary theology of the time was perhaps the rediscovery of the importance of eschatology. Its use in the missionary field had meant that it was possible to separate entirely from everything that remained of that sociological approach that, looking at mission as an aspect of the development of society, had come to indicate Christianity as a dimension of the expansion of Western society. Although missionaries had never deliberately interpreted mission in this way, this consciousness of a Western mission was fairly widespread in Asian and African countries. Against this background the eschatological turning-point in mission was precious. Before being a theological fact, it was almost a prophetic challenge for Churches too firm in their positions: mission had become the yeast of the dynamism of Churches. Mission as "Representation" of Christ To the extent that eschatology is not understood as the rediscovery of something but of someone, the figure of Christ becomes central. Christ is the "first missionary"; mission is the great work through which Christ carries out his mediation. Thus, in the strong sense, mission is actio Dei; it is God himself, it is the God of Jesus who carries out mission. This missio Dei, with Barthian ascendants, is the concept of G. F. Vicedom, W. Freytag and H. J. Margull. Its typical element is the ability to link its Trinitarian foundation to an ecclesial horizon through a strong theology of the apostolate. Understood in this way mission is not a human undertaking or an ecclesiastical work but it is the eschatological action of the God who gathers his people with a view to his kingdom. Mission depends on God and it belongs to him in every moment. If according to some Protestants such as H. Krämer and W. Holsten, the apostolate is centred on the obligation to proclaim the Word and on its capacity to interpellate people, according to some Catholics such as A. Rétif, J. Dournes and J. Massen the apostolate is linked — not only to the Word — but also to an ecclesial diaconia animated by the Spirit. Animated by the Word and by the Spirit of Christ, the Church addresses herself to the world in order to fulfil the plan of her Kyrios, that is, his sovereignty over the world. On the one hand the entry of salvation into history shakes the normal dynamics and on the other it takes it towards a deep, renewing and reconciling level, open to God’s action as to the root that brings it to fullness. It was J. C. Hoekendijk, a Dutch theologian for many years secretary for evangelization of the World Council of Churches, who radicalised this thought. The apostolate Hoekendijk speaks of is not the apostolate of the Twelve or of the Church but, radically, that of Christ. Here the Protestant thesis that the apostles do not have successors is brought to its climax. The subject of mission is Jesus "the apostle and High Priest of our confession" (Heb 3:1). Its content is always Christ, since Christians must be steadfast, "always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labour is not in vain" (1 Cor 15:58). Therefore there is a drastic reduction of the Church’s task; since she does not exist except in actu Christi, the Church is always in actu apostoli. Thus there was criticism of ecclesiocentrism: by virtue of mission, the Church is only the work of the Risen Lord. These theses will combine with the awareness that the purpose of Christianity involves abandoning any separation between the Church and the world; the whole world thus becomes the content of that apostolate that wants to achieve shalom, the sovereignty of that Risen Lord who embraces the Church and the world. Apostolate is the sum total of those activities that aim to establish the messianic shalom: kerygma presents it and proclaims it, koinonia lives it by participating in it and diaconia serves it. Though by a different way — that of political theology, which reacts to the privatisation of faith and proclaims again its public character — also the Catholic L. Rütti, a disciple of Metz, will come to the same conclusions. Rütti will criticise both ecclesiocentrism and the dual natural and supernatural purpose that have so much characterised the Church’s activity. The critical prophetic tendency for "eschatological reserve", which must always be nourished with regard to historical realities, impels us at one and the same time to recognise in history the signs of the presence of the kingdom. Since she is within history, and with it, travelling towards the future promise, the Church discovers she is entirely eccentric as regards the kingdom; therefore the mission agenda must be established starting from the world and not from the Church. Consequently the nature of mission can no longer be based on biblical and dogmatic facts. As responsibility for hope in the concrete historical situation of the world, mission seems to be marked by an accentuated experimentation that to all practical purposes omits the Church entirely. The Church, God’s tent in the midst of mankind, is almost annulled by this radical exodus towards the world. In herself she is of no interest. Here the eschatological assertion seems to have forgotten its Christological origin, its link with the historical Jesus; Metz himself will integrate better this theology of the world with the memoria Christi, a subversive and liberating memory. Under the profile of the theology of mission, one cannot but disagree with this total lack of ecclesiology; here the criticism of ecclesiocentrism has destroyed all ecclesiology. Beyond this criticism of institutionalism, is such a mission without the Church really concrete? M. Spindler and L. Newbigin tried to advance the Christological origin of this theory surpassing its non-subjective perspective through the work of the Spirit of Christ. Uniting believers to Christ’s mission, the Spirit precedes the Church and guarantees the Christological nature of her mission. In this way the bases were laid above all for an advancement of ecclesial charisms: a missionary Church cannot but be a ministerial Church. Furthermore this identification of the ecclesial Spirit with the Spirit of creation will be destined to give rise to other, subsequent problems. Mission as the growth of the Church The concept of missio Dei has undoubtedly clarified the reality of mission: on the one hand it has purified it from every sociological connection and on the other it has given it a first theological basis. However these positive results cannot hide the need to pass to a new level which, by using history to greater advantage, needs to formulate the relationship between the Church and the world more rigorously. Briefly, it can be said that an appreciation of history reveals almost a return from the missio Dei to the missio Ecclesiae. The reference is not so much to the plantatio formula, criticised of ecclesiocentrism, but to the Church-growth movement begun in 1961 in Pasadena with the foundation of the Institute of Church Growth. This group, on the basis of the fundamental works of D. A. McGravan — who would be joined later by A. F. Glasser, C. P. Wagner and A. Tippet — proposes to increase the number of Churches, which are seen as fundamental elements of God’s redemptive plan. Theologians and Churches would agree with these theses to the extent of portraying mission as interchurch assistance and as co-operation among Churches. The notion of Church-growth differs from plantatio ecclesiae for the notion of Church to which it refers. The Catholic concept of visibility and hierarchy differs from the vitality and spontaneity of a Church that, growing for what it is and for the strength it has, cannot but legitimise mission and recognise its necessity. Briefly, the notion of Church-growth is a controversial notion: not only towards the Catholic conception of Church but also towards all other explanations of mission. Mission is based on the reality of Christian life; there is no need for any other foundation. Particularly widespread in the evangelical world, this perspective gained ground because it was feared there would be a fundamentalist use of Scriptures to explain better what is meant by mission: emphasis on a sending based on Christ, recourse to "make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:19) and insistence on witness in conformity with Acts 1:8 are the main responses that have come from this current. This attention to the Scriptures is important but it creates many problems. If, for example, W. Klaiber and J. Wallis insist on conversion, D. Bosch tries to find in Scripture the foundation of a new paradigm for mission that changes. Behind these diverse opinions there emerges the hermeneutic question: a single Bible but many different interpretative contexts that demand — each according to their own modalities — a clarification of mission. H. W. Gensichen, professor emeritus at Heidelberg, sees in this the basis for starting a long three-directional discourse: in relation to the Scriptures, to the historical situation and to witness or to the witness it offers. On the other hand it is obvious that different situations have a profound influence on the interpretation of the Scriptures: the study on the mysticism of the fourth Gospel in the light of Hindu Bhakti literature done by A. J. Appasamyh is not very different from the Latin-American one of J. Mesters which starts from the point of view of people. This unity in difference introduces a space of creativity and experimentation that must be regarded with sympathy as well as with discernment. In this direction a particular space must be acknowledged for the Word: it is not only a question of looking for indications for a missionary methodology, as D. Senior and C. Stuhlmüller did, but it is necessary rather — with D. Bosch — to look for the foundation of the way in which mission is understood. This is the meaning of the attempts made by E. Testa, L. Legrand, F. Hahn and the experts co-ordinated by Kertelge. The theoretical problems underlying the relationship between cultures and inspired scriptures are studied in depth by several authors. Together with L. Sannech, it is worth remembering the group that gathered around E. A. Nida who, in the area of inculturation, stressed not only the translation of the Word but, more properly, the communication of faith. Secretary for translation in the American Bible Society, Nida would go back to linguistic and anthropological problems and encourage the birth of missionary magazines with these particular interests. This perspective is important, if for nothing else because — overcoming the theology of the presence of the theology of the apostolate recalled above — it recalls how mission can never do without a critical reflection on the work of inculturation of the faith. Seeking a new paradigm for mission With D. Bosch we are convinced that mission is a moment of profound change; beyond the way in which he rebuilds the paradigm that should be left behind, the certainty of travelling towards a different age is widespread and undisputed. The search for new paradigms, for new models able to interpret and orient the missionary path, has advanced the historical-salvific aspect by theologically going beyond Barthism. In this regard reflection on salvation, above all in its Christological foundation and in its ecclesiological dimension, has become fundamental. Already in 1972, J. Amstutz had introduced a distinction between explicit salvation and implicit salvation: summarising the former in God’s relationship with Israel and in God’s work with Churches and through them, he did however come to recognise an implicit form of salvation even outside the Church. On this perspective, which further developed the thesis of the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation, both Protestant and Catholic theologians would converge for different reasons, from Hoekendijk to Rütti, from Rahner to Schlette, from Küng to Van Engelen, from Hick to Knitter. One of these forms, perhaps the most important one, which accounts for this presence of salvation beyond the Church is the one that is centred on God’s kingdom. Distinguishing between the kingdom and its values, also the Magisterium — Redemptoris Missio, n. 20, Dialogue and Proclamation, n. 35 — would acknowledge an "inchoate" presence of the kingdom beyond the Church but would be careful to maintain it in relation to the Church. Above all those who are deeply concerned with a new liberating presence of the Church in societies agree on these theses but so do others; Glasser of the Church-growth movement, for example, would maintain that the kingdom is the unifying principle of the whole missionary discourse. To develop these theses with a minimum of coherence, we must above all maintain a close relationship between Jesus and the kingdom: the Messianism of the kingdom is a Christological Messianism. But the Incarnation of Jesus Christ according to the classical patristic expression quod non est assumptum non est sanatum, is not placed at the centre, but rather preaching and practice. His pre-resurrection life thus becomes the guiding principle of mission; in this way the notion of the kingdom does not evoke a formal and symbolic scheme but a concrete and free way of being in history, that of pro-existence. The Gospel of the kingdom is not a sum total of good intentions but the power able to transform history. Certainly the impossibility of separating Jesus’ work from his person means that only an adequate explanation of his person can give an unquestionable foundation to his work. For this reason every attempt to return to a theocentrism or a soteriocentrism, as in P. Knitter, is destined to fail. Linked to Jesus, the Gospel of the kingdom does not end its course when he, arisen, returns to the Father (Jn 16:28), on the contrary, it will be entrusted to his disciples until all things are brought together in Christ. This Gospel of the kingdom lies before the world both as an alternative to its power and as an offering of salvation for its expectations. Since the kingdom is but the fulfilment of the sovereignty of the divine king all over the world, one can understand missiology’s interest in this subject. The proclamation of the Gospel of the kingdom and the power of transformation that it possesses have represented an important missiological chapter. Thus one can understand better the role that missiologists such as M. Arias and E. Castro, C. L. Mitton and J. Scherer, and among ourselves, J. Dupuis, have attributed to it. As for the connection between the kingdom and the Church, recalled by Redemptoris Missio, it must be said that it would be seen in many different ways. What we must stress here is that the radiation of the saving force of the kingdom in the socio-historical context would give rise to different ways of perceiving mission. If M. Spindler would perceive mission as a fight for the salvation of the world and L. Newbigen as an expedition to the extreme ends of the earth, liberation theology would use other accents. Th. Sundermeier, who signs the headword Mission in Lexikon Missions-Theologischer Grundbergriffe, gathers these ideas around a convivial image: the Christ who welcomes the poor and the needy at the table of his kingdom is the real icon of mission. In short, mission proclaims and accomplishes in the world that divine justice that is not and cannot but be eschatological. Mission as interreligious dialogue Starting as an expression of attention to other cultures and of real solidarity with people who belong to that culture, the theme of dialogue has changed radically in the multireligious and multicultural pluralism of our time. J. Hick would define it as a kind of "theological Rubicon", which one must have the courage to cross. Here I do not intend to remember its beginnings, which in Catholicism, go back to the Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, to the theological Symposium of Bombay (25-28 November 1964) in which the concept of Heilswege would be adopted for non-Christian religions and to the conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate (28.10.1965). Nor do I intend to present its different forms which, with a classification going back to J. Schineller but now common, are indicated as Christocentric exclusivism, Christocentric inclusivism and theocentric pluralism in its turn subdivided into various currents. The theological crux of the question, whether it is indicated as the absoluteness of Christianity or as the uniqueness and universality of Christ the Saviour, is clear and it concerns the full and reciprocal coincidence between God’s revelation and the story of Jesus. Where this coincidence is full and total, one should conclude that the missionary proclamation must include as fundamental and necessary at least a minimum of historical theses, those theses that link revelation to Jesus’ rejection by the Jewish people and to justification for the faith in his name. Where this is not necessary, different roads open to configuring the proclamation of the Gospel. Since the debate is too vast to be reduced to a few ideas and a few names, I will confine myself to repeating that the uniqueness and singularity of the Jesus-event mean that there must be a serious distinction between the Lord, crucified and risen, and his Church. In particular the universality and finality of the Jesus-event do not coincide entirely with the Church’s catholicity; they are, if anything, its root and foundation. It follows that the identity and activity of the Church is at the service of the work of her Lord. Likewise we should remember that, while de facto pluralism is necessary of itself, pluralism of principle cannot be supported by cultural reasons but only by theological reasons. In this way various attempts have been made to overcome the normativeness of Christ and his Church: J. Hick reduces Christology to a myth in the sense that Christological dogma not only must not be taken literally but it has its own value in mediating the religious experience of disciples. From this point of view, according to P. Knitter, Jesus’ normativeness is resolved in a kind of emotional and enamoured language: it is to himself that the Christian speaks when he speaks of Christ as the only Saviour, as the Son of God. By this the Christian means that, for him, Christ is unique and that no one else has any value. Also for H. Küng the missionary proclamation implies serving the faith of others and it is on a programme of world ethics — Weltethos — that one must converge for the good of humanity. This same problem also exists among Catholics. Many authors, including J. Dupuis and M. Amaladoss, want to recognise a salvific role also for other religions, although each one follows its own path. However what I feel is important is that we must recognise on the one hand that dialogue is a real form of evangelization and on the other that the challenge it poses is that we must think of salvation together, in the Lord Jesus, in the fullness of revelation. And we must consider the sacramental means that the Risen Lord has entrusted to the Church’s ministry of reconciliation as well as his real saving presence already at work in the positive values of other religions. To do this through the distinction between the Word asarkos and the Word ensarkos, keeping for the former its capacity to "enlighten everyone" (Jn 1:9) with the light of divine truth or through the Spirit of the Risen Lord who is the same who works in creation and leads it along the way of life, of truth and holiness or by other means, is the task that still awaits us today. Bibliography: I am listing here the main works on the theology of mission of the most important theologians cited and not cited. I felt it was better not to interrupt the discourse with bibliographical indications. 1.
AA.VV., Chiesa a missione, Urbaniana University Press, Roma 1990.
Ref.: Omnis Terra, n. 313, January 2001.
|