|
Fr.
John Fuellenbach, SVD
The Kingdom of God in the Catholic Tradition achieved prominence in the documents of Vatican II. particularly in the documents regarding the Church. The Kingdom is a multifaceted reality. Neither Jesus nor the Council ever defined it. As so many treatise on the Kingdom testify: a definition of the phrase in precise terms is not possible. We have to expect different views among scholars regarding the central message of Jesus. As a principle for action individually as well as communally the kingdom theme was most vigorously taken up after the Council by the theologians of the developing countries like Latin America, Asia and Africa. They understood the phrase primarily not as a concept or a symbol but as a referent for historical liberation. Their concern was the world-transforming dimension of the Kingdom. A number of Catholic theologians in the West have exhibited a similar concern. Authors like J. B. Metz, E. Schillebeeckx , K. Rahner, G. Lohfink, John McBrien have born witness to the Kingdom from this aspect as well, most often however, without making it a direct object of their thinking. To understand the catholic position of these theologians a couple of presuppositions regarding the Kingdom of God have to be mentioned which determine the answer to the topic under discussion. Some of the more obvious are the following: (1) the Kingdom of God as belonging to this world as well as to the world to come; (2) the Kingdom concretely present in the midst of this world. (3) the Kingdom as a gift and a task to be accomplished through human cooperation and (4) the Kingdom of God as not identical with the Church. Any ethical implication of the Kingdom depends on these presuppositions. This implies that one’s view on the mission of the Church is conditioned by how one accepts of rejects these presuppositions. 1. Kingdom as belonging to this world Jesus did not envision the Kingdom that he preached as something that belongs totally and exclusively to the world to come. His Kingdom-vision leaves room for interpreting it as belonging to this world as well as for proclaiming a future that cannot be deduced from the circumstances of present history. The future, as the Bible understands it, is something qualitatively new. It lies beyond human planning and capability, something we can only allow to be given to us. While this symbol takes the world and human effort in history seriously, it does not surrender openness to a transcendent future in the fullness of God. Only God can ultimately guarantee the fulfilment of humankind's deepest aspirations.
The Kingdom of God is incarnated in history, in human society and in the world. Although it is not purely and simply identical with the world, it is "identifiable" in the world. We could also say: the Kingdom shows itself in society and is encountered in society, but this society is not the Kingdom.
The dream of God is a vision of Shalom, a rich Hebrew word often translated as "peace" but meaning much more than the absence of war. It means well-being in a comprehensive sense. It includes freedom from negatives such as oppression, anxiety, and fear, as well as the presence of positives such as health, prosperity and security. Shalom thus includes a social vision: the dream of a world in which such well-being belongs to everybody. 2. The Kingdom is present and future Jesus manifests the dynamic presence of the Kingdom in history not only in words, but particularly in his wonder-working activity. His demon-exorcisms, for example, demonstrate that God is penetrating the present and establishing his Kingdom here and now. One often quoted passage that clearly indicates that God is inaugurating a new era of history is Matthew 12:28: "If it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you." Other sayings of a similar tone include Luke 10:18, where Jesus sees Satan falling from heaven like lightning, or Matthew 11:12 which speaks about the Kingdom "that exercises its force" since the day of John the Baptist. These passages indicate that something is happening now. God is entering the present age in a totally new way to bring to fulfillment the promises made to the prophets. Against the often voiced objection that the Kingdom cannot be present in the world now because Jesus himself said "My Kingdom is not of this world," J. Moltmann has this to say:
Other Scripture passages place the accent on Jesus' common practice of table fellowship and interpret his festive "eating and drinking" as an already present celebration of the banquet of the Kingdom understood as an "active anticipation of banqueting in the fully consummated Kingdom of God." Jesus saw the actualization of this historically present Kingdom in the coming of the gentiles who will sit at table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (cf. Mt 8:11). The fact that the Kingdom of God is a present reality has never been denied in theological writings. But most of the time this "being present" has been so qualified that the future and not the present of the Kingdom seem to be the primary concern, as G. Lohfink puts it:
According to Lohfink it is not enough to say that the Kingdom is present in the person of Jesus, or in his signs, or proleptically, in an anticipatory way. He is afraid that such expressions push the Kingdom off into the future once again. As an "exegetical probe" for the presence of the Kingdom now, Lohfink discusses the parables of the costly pearl and treasure in the field (cf. Mt 13:44-46), or as he called them, "The time of the Kingdom present." He writes:
The presence of God’s Kingdom is so overwhelming that those who recognize it will drop any activity and will do everything to enter it. The presence of God’s Kingdom is to be seen and experienced not only on the personal, internal level but in the concrete situation of public life as well.
The real issue is: Are we able to notice the Kingdom's presence? God does not need us so much to bring about the Kingdom as to notice its presence in our midst. If we are touched by the Kingdom, we will be able to discern its presence in our daily experiences, we will be able to see its presence and to point it out and to witness to its presence in the midst of people's lives As Christians we are called to "sniff out" God's Kingdom, to sense it and to celebrate its presence here and now. The presence of God's Kingdom will be missed if there are no people to notice it and witness to it. This is done in two ways: the festive way and the way of concrete actions. Without celebrating its presence in the liturgy, worship, prayer and songs, it is not possible to stay in touch with the reality of the Kingdom. But ultimately our actions and our behavior are the touchstone for our contact. We can only discover and discern the presence of God's Kingdom on earth if we in practice attune our actions to the great goal that God aims at with his Kingdom already present (Barry, Paying Attention to God, p. 77ff.). Sobrino raises a warning note that we should not forget: the world in which we live gives more witness to the all pervasive presence of the anti-kingdom than to the Kingdom already present. He distinguishes between the mediator of the Kingdom (Jesus Christ) and what is mediated: the Kingdom of God itself which he calls in this connection: mediation. For him the Kingdom of God has come on the level of the mediator and we do not need to wait for another one. But the Kingdom has not yet fully come on the level of the reality of mediation: the world as a whole is not yet conformed to the heart of God.
Sobrino does not want to kill our joy in the Kingdom but he wants to remind us that to proclaim and celebrate the Kingdom in hymns and songs is good but we should not take this as the ultimate test of its presence now. It is the concrete active struggle against the forces that contradict the Kingdom that we will experience that God’s Kingdom has already entered this world already. 3. The Kingdom as a Gift and Task There is no difficulty in seeing the Kingdom as a gracious gift from a God who comes with unconditional love to seek out humankind and to offer salvation to all. The Kingdom cannot be brought about by meticulous adherence to the Law as certain rabbis believed, nor can it be forced onto the present by armed violence as the Zealots thought. It is a gift from God which people can only receive in gratitude and awe. God is coming towards us with unconditional love. He seeks communion and intimacy. Since the Kingdom is a gift of love, only symbols and images can offer an appropriate description. Its final coming is totally up to God; it will come as and when he sees fit. It cannot be foretold nor calculated. No human initiative can bring about the coming of the Kingdom. It is God's own powerful and sovereign act. The sayings and parables of Jesus present the gift-character of the Kingdom in clear, unambiguous language. It is God who, by his power and grace, makes the seed grow (cf. Mk 4:26-29). This is the principal teaching of the "growth parables" (cf. Mk 4). It is God who invites us to the eschatological banquet. One may pray "Thy Kingdom come" (Mt 6:10), may cry out to God day and night (cf. Lk 18:7), may prepare oneself and hold oneself in readiness like the wise virgins (cf. Mt 25:1-13), may seek the Kingdom (cf. Mt 6:33), but it is God who "gives" it (Lk 12:31). He decides whose it shall be (cf. Mt 5). It does not come through our efforts only but through God's overflowing love for us. We can just accept it with gratitude and joy. To say that God is gracious means that our relationship with God is not linked to performance or merit. God is gracious to each one of us prior to, or independently of, any achievements on our part. Yet the Kingdom, once accepted, becomes one’s task and demands all of one’s abilities. We must avoid the danger of viewing the Kingdom as coming completely without human assistance. This is a perennial temptation in many treatises on the Kingdom of God. Lohfink astutely identifies the pitfall in this way:
What about human cooperation then? Must we not also say that the coming of the Kingdom is "totally, completely, and entirely" the work of human beings? The gratuitousness of the Kingdom should not lead us to regard ourselves as merely passive objects. Ultimately the Kingdom of God is a personal relationship between God and human beings. Any personal relationship is always mutual; it goes two ways. We are challenged to respond, and through this response the Kingdom becomes a reality in our midst. The Gospels repeatedly show that the Kingdom which Jesus offers becomes our task. We find the most vivid explanation in the Parable of the Talents (cf. Mt 25:14-30). God gives to each one he calls a concrete task for the salvation of all and he will ask for an account for what he has given us. The Parable of the Treasure in the Field offers a similar portrayal. In these parables Jesus not only tells us that the Kingdom is pure gift, but also affirms that it unfolds through our taking risks and giving everything. In the Gospel of John the coming of the basileia is totally and completely God's work, and totally and completely the work of human beings. Jon Sobrino offers a unique way of looking at the Kingdom as gift and task. He sees the Kingdom as establishing first and foremost a filial relationship with God. We are oriented vertically to God and thus we are his children. From this vertical orientation follows the horizontal relationship which makes us brothers and sisters. Both are essential and of equal and primary importance. For Sobrino divine sonship is a gift, while the creation of a profound human fellowship is a task. A dynamic unity exists between gift and task. The gift is accepted precisely by carrying out the task entailed in it. Creating a profound human fellowship means accepting the gift of divine sonship. The God of the Kingdom does not allow us to choose between the two aspects. He who lets the Kingdom into his life by becoming a child of God will have to show the presence of the Kingdom by trying to make all human beings his brothers and sisters. Here the gift of the Kingdom is sonship and the task of the Kingdom is the bringing about of this sonship in the horizontal dimension through brotherhood, the creation of a community of brothers and sisters (Christology..., pp. 45-46). Seen from such a perspective, history reveals two aspects. First it is a call to divine filiation by which human persons become God's children. Our vertical vocation, the deepest aspiration of all persons, is complete union with God. Secondly, history is a call to human fellowship by which persons become one another's sisters and brothers. This is our horizontal vocation, the call to attain complete union among ourselves. These two aspects make it possible to speak of the Kingdom as a GIFT as well as a TASK. In the call to divine filiation, the Kingdom of God is fundamentally God's true gift. But it is a gift that entails by necessity the task of creating an authentic community of brothers and sisters. It is the gift aspect of the Kingdom that demands of us the task as a response. The achievement of true human fellowship in history becomes an historical realization of the promise of total communion with God. But, as an historical verification of such a promise, it immediately reveals the partial and incomplete character of the Kingdom now and opens up history towards the complete and total communion of human persons with God (cf. Gutierrez, We Drink From our Own Wells, p.104). For Gutierrez the Kingdom of God is the background against which, on the one hand, the situation of oppression and domination is denounced as sinful and incompatible with its coming and, in the light of which, on the other hand, every achievement of brotherhood and justice among human persons is announced as a step towards total communion with God. Seen in the light of the Kingdom of God, the struggle for liberation is no longer solely a response to the economic, social and political situation of poverty and oppression. Neither is it simply an expression of the contemporary awareness of the human person's capacity to transform history. Rather it is fidelity to God's will and fidelity to the practice of Jesus, whose proclamation of the Kingdom reveals God as Father and human persons as one's brothers and sisters ("Finding Our Way", p. 232). Equally as important as working for the Kingdom is the "enjoyment of the Kingdom," i.e., its liturgical celebration. Jesus himself celebrated the Kingdom in the form of meals. He wanted these meals - shared particularly with the marginalized - to be understood and interpreted as the arrival of the Kingdom in the midst of human affairs. They were occasions for the participants to experience the new community God was bringing into the world, where there would be no discrimination any more but where all would be brothers and sisters under the one Fatherhood of God. In celebrating the presence of the Kingdom in the liturgical meal or in sharing God’s Word we are participating in the fullness of the Kingdom to come now. Praise, thanksgiving and adoration are the very expressions of the new life and the very means to make it effectively present. We possess the Kingdom when we celebrate it, and in celebrating it, we find the strength and the power for our mission to work for it. Rom 14:17 St. Paul’s definition of the Kingdom Jesus never defined the Kingdom of God. He described the Kingdom in parables, in similes (see Mt 13; Mk 4) and in concepts like life, glory, joy and light. Among theologians we still find a naive helplessness when it comes to defining the Kingdom of God. Special attention for making God’s Kingdom present through action deserves the following Pauline text in Romans: :
Some authors regard this text as the only definition of the Kingdom ever attempted in the entire New Testament. The constant danger has been to interpret these words exclusively in a spiritual sense and overlook the fact that its basic concepts like "justice, peace and joy" are equally meant to refer to the life of the Christian in the here and now. They are regarded as containing the basic principle of action for any Christian individually as well as for the Christian community as a whole.
Albert Schweitzer called Paul’s definition "a Creed for all times." Elsewhere in his writings, Paul tends to reserve the phrase Kingdom of God for reference to the Kingdom in its future aspect. Only here in Romans 14:17 and 1 Corinthians 4:20 does it refer to the present moment. The three qualities (justice, peace, and joy) he lists are all important concepts for him. The concluding words, "in the Holy Spirit," are to be attached to all three words. With justice, peace and joy, Paul
describes the content of the Kingdom of God, which he sees as already concretely present in the eschatological community. We might call these three characteristics the fundamental values of the Kingdom. The phrase could be seen as a rule of faith or of Christian conduct. The Kingdom, defined in this brief formula, is therefore nothing other than justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. These are not just feelings or sentiments but realities to be implemented in this world. We might rightly call these three characteristics the fundamental values of the Kingdom. How these three fundamental characteristics should determine any theological description of the Kingdom can be seen in the following definitions of the Kingdom by E. Schillebeeckx:
For A. Nolan solidarity and compassion are the central ethical values of the Jesus tradition, as well as the central quality of God. Solidarity with humankind is the basic attitude that Jesus demands. It must take precedence over every kind of love and every other kind of solidarity. The ultimate test for such an attitude is the solidarity one shows with the "nobodies" of this world, the ‘discarded people’. This is exactly the attitude Jesus showed, his special but non-exclusive solidarity with such people became a clear demonstration of his solidarity with every person as person. (A. Nolan, Jesus before Christianity, pp 59-68). 4. Church and Kingdom are not identical Vatican II starts off by describing the Church as the mystery of Christ. In her the "eternal plan of the Father is realized and manifested in Jesus Christ: to bring humanity to its eternal glory." Here the Church is seen in connection with the "bringing about the secret hidden for ages in God" (Col 1:16; see Eph 3:3-9; 1 Cor 2:6-10). Therefore, the Church has to be seen in this broad perspective of God's plan of salvation, which includes all human beings and creation as a whole (see 1 Tim 2:4; Rom 8:22 ff). Jesus' message of the Kingdom is indeed addressed primarily to his disciples. To them the Kingdom belongs: they will celebrate it and be in it. But this group’s special proximity to the Kingdom does not turn them into a closed society. In the same way, the Church has no monopoly on the Kingdom of God. Citizenship in the Kingdom is not so much a privilege, but rather a summons to solidarity with people, particularly with the excluded and discriminated against. One of the chief temptations for the Church in history is to claim the Kingdom for herself, to take over the management of the Kingdom, and even to go so far as to present herself as the realized Kingdom of God vis-a-vis the world. The Kingdom of God is not the Kingdom of the Christians (cf. Lochman, Church and World, p. 69). When God inaugurated the Kingdom in the world and in history, he did so in two stages. First, the Kingdom was inaugurated through the earthly life of Jesus, his words and works; yet it was only fully inaugurated through the Paschal Mystery of his death and resurrection. This Kingdom, present in history, must now grow through history to reach its eschatological fullness at the end of time. The Council clearly accepted this distinction between the Kingdom present in history now and the eschatological fullness still to come (see LG 5,9). But the question not clearly answered is whether the Council also made a clear distinction between Kingdom and Church. Did the Council identify the Kingdom of God in history with the pilgrim Church? or did it consider the Kingdom of God in history to be a reality that is broader than the Church? The majority of theologians (although not all) today hold that the Catholic Church in Vatican II did distance herself from any identification with the Kingdom in history now. The theological basis for doing so is seen in the Council's definition of the Church as a "Sacrament of the Kingdom" (LG 9). Since God's saving grace can never be bound exclusively to a sacrament, one has to accept that the Kingdom is still broader than the Church. Such a separation is indirectly expressed in article 5 of Lumen Gentium and in article 45 of Gaudium et Spes. McBrien sees in this separation of Kingdom and Church a major achievement of Vatican II. He comments:
Schnackenburg affirms McBrien’s view regarding the ecclesiological misunderstanding that resulted from the identification of the Kingdom now present in history with the Church when he writes:
While one can still argue as to whether or not Vatican II really made this distinction, it is clear that in Redemptoris Missio (RM) and in the Document Dialogue and Proclamation (DP), a joint statement of the Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for the Evangelization of People, this distinction is clearly made. Both documents confess that the Kingdom of God is a broader reality than the Church.
Equally significant is the fact that these documents not only clearly distinguish Church and Kingdom, recognizing that the one larger reality of the Kingdom cannot be encompassed by and contained within the Church, but the documents also unambiguously subordinate the Church to the Kingdom by affirming that the Church is meant to be a servant of the broader and more important Kingdom of God.
With these statements the official Church has passed another milestone. In Vatican II the Christian Church was no longer identified with the Catholic Church. The Church was seen as embracing other Churches as well. Now it is stated that the Kingdom of God is not to be identified with the Christian Church. The Kingdom present in the Church Although the Kingdom may not be identified with the Church, that does not mean that the Kingdom is not present in her. The word Church may not appear often in Jesus' teaching but the very concept of the messianic community, intrinsically bound up with the Kingdom, implies the same thing as the concept of Church. It is the Kingdom now that creates the Church and keeps her constantly in existence. Therefore, we can say that the Kingdom makes itself present in the Church in a particular way. The Church is an "initial realization" or a "proleptic anticipation" of the plan of God for humankind; or in words of Vatican II, "She becomes on earth the initial budding forth of the Kingdom" (LG 5). Secondly, the Church is a means or sacrament through which the plan of God for the world realizes itself in history (LG 8 and 48). The identity of the Church depends ultimately on her Kingdom consciousness which includes the following beliefs: (1) that the leaven of the Kingdom is already at work in the dough of creation, to use Jesus' own parable. (2) that the line between "sacred" and "secular" does not exist in concrete reality. God's Kingdom means that all things are in the sphere of God's sovereignty and, therefore, are God's concern. All spheres of life are Kingdom foci. (3) that ministry is much broader than Church work. Christians who understand the meaning of God's reign know they are in the Kingdom business, not just Church business. They see all activity as ultimately having Kingdom significance. (4) that concern of justice and concrete commitment to the Word of God are necessarily conjoined. An awareness of God's Kingdom, biblically understood, resolves the tension between these two vital concerns. Those committed to the Kingdom want to win people to personal faith in Jesus Christ, since the Kingdom is the ultimate longing of every human heart. They are also committed to peace, justice, and righteousness at every level of society because the Kingdom includes "all things in heaven and on earth" (Eph 1:10) and the welfare of every person and everything God has made. Having admitted the distinction, both RM and DP are worried that this view easily leads to two pitfalls. The Kingdom-centered approach seems to stress the Kingdom to such a degree as to leave out the Church almost entirely. Additionally, in so doing it forgets to bind the Kingdom to Jesus Christ. These are clearly the worries the Pope voices in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio:
The same concern is also echoed in the document Dialogue and Proclamation:
Some theologians worry that, with such strong statements, the magisterium actually annuls what it clearly stated in the beginning, namely, that the Kingdom is broader than the Church. By stating strongly that the Kingdom is intrinsically bound up with Christ, and that the Church is his chosen instrument for the Kingdom, the whole argument seems to go so far as to say that you cannot promote the Kingdom unless you are promoting the Church. If the Kingdom can be found only in Jesus and if the Church is the continuation of Jesus’ presence through the ages, then - so the argument goes - the Kingdom can be found only in the Church. They see here a subtle return to an ecclesiocentric approach to the Kingdom which makes it impossible to develop a Kingdom-centered understanding of the Church. The danger is that the universality of the Kingdom is continually reduced to the particularity of the Church once again.
As these theologians see it, if such a trend were to gain the upper hand in Catholic theology today, one of the most powerful sources for the renewal of the Church and its theology could be seriously stifled. Only the distinction between Church and Kingdom provides us, on the one hand, with a way to relate to this world and its destiny productively and, on the other hand, with a way to enter into a more open and creative dialogue with other religious traditions and ideologies. However, RM an DP insist emphatically that there cannot exist any "Kingdom revelation" in the world that is not related to or independent of Christ.
There remains the unsolved theological problem: How to relate a Kingdom outside the Church to the Kingdom that Christ proclaimed and gave to the Church. Should one assume that there are other revelations of the Kingdom not related to Christ? While such views are voiced today by a number of theologians, the official Church has so far steadfastly refused to allow any such propositions to be even considered. The official response of the Catholic Church to this question of how the Kingdom of God, which Jesus brought irrevocably into this world through his life, death and resurrection, is now also to be found outside the Church is this: God’s Kingdom entered this world finally and definitely with the incarnation of Jesus but took on a more comprehensive presence in the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. In the resurrection the limitations of Jesus' earthly existence are gone. The Kingdom was definitely present in the Jesus who walked this earth but its presence was - so to speak - restricted to the physical body of Jesus. This is to be concluded from the fact that John could speak about the Spirit who "was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified" (Jn 7:39). But in his death and resurrection the Kingdom he had proclaimed as having arrived with him took on a new dimension: it now embraced the whole of creation. In the risen Christ matter has been transformed into the state of the New Creation. Christ is, in his risen body, the cosmic Christ, the world to come. He, therefore, assumes a new global relationship with reality as a whole: he is present in creation in a new way. The Latin American theologians see the resurrection as an "implosion’ of the Kingdom into the present. The Kingdom is present in history now. The resurrection confirms Jesus’ message of the Kingdom in a way that the risen Christ marks the anticipation (Gutierrez) of the personal realization (Boff), or the arrival in power (Segundo) of the Kingdom in history. The resurrection is the ultimate guarantee of the definite and complete realization of the Kingdom at the end of history. Those who maintain a distinction between Kingdom and Church argue as follows: Pope John Paul in Redemptoris Missio (RM 10) asserts that "for those people (non-Christians), salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ." This text is seen as a clear rejection of ecclesiocentrism. The necessity of the Church for salvation does not mean that access to the Kingdom is possible only through the Church. One can partake in the Kingdom of God without being a member of the Church and without passing through her mediation (cf. Dupuis, Jesus Christ and the Encounter of World Religions, p. 6). Theologians who take this stand in no way deny that the salvation of any human being is based on Christ’s death and resurrection. For them all grace is christo-centric. In the letters of St. Paul the Kingdom of God is seen present under a new form, that of the Kingship of the Risen Christ in which it is realized. But this kingship is not seen as extending only to the Church but rather to the whole world. In Colossians 2:10 and Ephesians 1:10 the Kingship of Christ extends not only to the Church but to the entire world: Christ is the head of the world and of the Church; but only the Church is his body (Col 1:18; Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23). The Kingship of Christ as the presence of the Kingdom in history extends to the whole world, visible and invisible. Christ is the fountain of all salvation but his saving grace is seen as reaching people differently. He reaches non-Christians not directly through the Church, but his saving grace is mediated to them directly through the Holy Spirit and not through the Church "in ways only known to God."
The threefold mission of the Church Once the Church is no longer seen as the sole holder of the Kingdom, the Church does not have to define herself anymore as "the Kingdom of God under siege" by the powers of this world. Since Vatican II she sees herself more as leaven of the Kingdom or in the service of the Kingdom that is broader than herself. In other words, a theology of transcendence gives way to a theology of transformation. Out of such a view of Church and Kingdom the mission of the Church has been outlined as follows:
Vatican II, being fully aware of the mystery of the Church, shunned definitions and fixed concepts. The Council Fathers, however, were very concerned with correcting a Church image that was generally conceived as being too rigid and in many ways out of touch with the reality of the present world. They wanted to present a vision of the Church that could once again inspire and stir up people’s imagination.
This threefold mission found its expression in the document Redemptoris Missio.
RM regards interreligious dialogue as a constitutive element of the Church’s evangelizing task as well. It is "part of the Church’s evangelizing mission" (RM 55); it is one of its expressions and, moreover, "a path toward the Kingdom" (RM 57). The document Dialogue and Proclamation adds:
Church - world - other religious traditions The distinction made by the Council between the Kingdom and the Church bore immediate fruits in the development of a post-conciliar theology, at least in two theological fields: in the theology of Liberation and in the theology of Religions. The symbol Kingdom of God provides the horizon for a solution of two theological problems. First, in the context of work for justice, liberation and peace, it provides the bridge between the historical achievement of justice and liberation of the oppressed in this world and the eschatological Kingdom still to come in fullness at the end of time. It shows how work for justice and liberation inside and outside the Church is intrinsically linked with the Kingdom present now, since the ultimate goal of the Kingdom of God is the transformation of all reality. Secondly, in inter-religious dialogue, the Kingdom symbol furnishes theologians with a broader perspective for entering into dialogue with other religious traditions. If the Kingdom is the ultimate goal of God's intentionality with all of humanity, then the question no longer is how these other religious traditions are linked to the Church but rather how the Kingdom of God was and is concretely present in these religions. The distinction between Kingdom and Church can help us relate to this world and its destiny more fruitfully and enter into a more open and creative dialogue with other religious traditions and ideologies. The Kingdom that Jesus brought has cosmic dimensions that go beyond the confines of the Church. It demands the transformation of all religious and socio-political structures and institutions. Consequently, the Christian community has no other choice than to engage in dialogue with the world and other religious traditions for the sake of the Kingdom present. The teaching office of the Church in "Dialogue and Proclamation" takes up this challenge by stating that dialogue constitutes an integral and essential part of the Church’s mission. The Church must dialogue with others religions in order to carry out her mission and realize her identity (DP 2). Some theologians regard this as another milestone in the Catholic Church’s view of other religious traditions. One may say that it is in getting actively involved in promoting God's transformative action in the world that the Church-community will build itself up as an authentic symbol of, and witness to, that action (cf. Amaladoss, "New Faces of Mission"). As the community of those chosen to carry on the vision of Jesus, the Church must define itself in relation to the Kingdom, which is meant for humankind and the whole of creation. Her mission is to reveal through the ages the hidden plan of God (Eph 3:3-11; Col 1:26) and to lead humankind towards its final destiny. She must be seen to be entirely at the service of this divine salvific plan for all human beings and all of creation which is operative and present wherever people live, no matter what religion or faith they may confess.
Selected Bibliography
|