|
H. Em. Card. Francis George - Archbishop of Chicago, USA In this article, originally delivered as the keynote
address at an assembly of directors of Missiological Institutes under
the aegis of the International Association of Catholic Missiologists
(IACM), Francis Cardinal George of Chicago reflects on the importance
of missiology in the theological curriculum, particularly for those
studying for the Roman Catholic priesthood. After reviewing the advances
in the theology of mission in the Roman Magisterium over the last half
century, Cardinal George speaks about the missiological challenges of
today, both as a discipline and in terms of its content. A third section
lays out some of the possibilities for the inclusion of missiology in
the theological curriculum, and a final section emphasizes the continuing
need for missiology. It is for me
a great pleasure to be present with you here at this first meeting of
the International Association of Catholic Missiologists. Coming as you
do from so many parts of the world, hearing with you a wealth of experience,
you are yourselves a sign of the catholicity of the Church, and the
catholicity of Catholic missiology. In a world now connected through
so many networks, it is important that those who bear a special responsibility
to think and teach about the mission of the Church are themselves networked
so as to bring the fruit of their reflection to its fullest potential.
My hope is that this new organization will indeed contribute to an ever
more effective evangelization for a world so deeply in need of it. I have been
asked to address the question of promoting missiological studies in
seminaries. I am not a professional missiologist, of course, but bring
a lifetime of commitment to the Church’s mission, as an Oblate Missionary
and now as a bishop. The reflections which I offer here come from these
perspectives, as one who has long been concerned with mission in all
of its dimensions, especially the challenge of evangelization and the
relation of faith and culture. What I present
to you here is in four parts. The first part recalls to
mind the significant teaching on mission which has been so much
at the center of the Church’s Magisterium in the last half-century.
From the Encyclicals of Pius XII and John XXIII through the reflection
of the Second Vatican Council on the Church as mission, through the
work of Pope Paul VI on evangelization down to the work of Pope John
Paul II culminating in his great Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the
second half of the twentieth century has been unusually rich in a theology
of mission – unmatched in any previous century. It is upon this patrimony
that any Catholic missiology is built. The second
part of this presentation looks at missiological challenges today. There
is a twofold concern here. One is for the status of missiology as a
science or discipline, and the implications this has for its place in
the theological curriculum. The other is for more recent developments
in mission which missiology must address. These two things need to be
seen together if we are to present a coherent picture of mission to
the Church and to its seminary educators. The third part
addresses the heart of the matter; namely, missiology in the seminary
curriculum. I will suggest a two-part approach to the issue, and hope
that this proposal will stimulate some discussion here. The fourth
and final part looks to the future of mission as we come into the time
of the Great Jubilee. How shall we see mission as we enter the new millennium?
What particular challenges can we anticipate? Catholic Missiology at the turn of the Millennium
The twentieth
century has been a momentous one for the mission of the Church. An intensive
evangelization that had lasted several centuries came to a fruition
that was noted most graphically in the convening of the Second Vatican
Council. On the one hand, the presence of bishops from all over the
world attested to the fact (in Karl Rahner’s words) that the Church
for the first time had truly become a On the other
hand, the fruits of evangelization were present not only in faces and
numbers, but also in the Church’s self-understanding. There arose from
the Council a theology of mission which placed mission at the very heart
of the Church and of God’s own presence in the world. Both the Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium (LG), and the Decree on Missionary Activity Ad Gentes (AG) capture the
essence of this theology. The Church as the universal sacrament of salvation
offers salvation to all peoples. In order to make that offer the Church
must be missionary. It is missionary, first of all, in recognizing its
participation in the mission of the Son to bring light and truth to
all peoples. It is missionary, secondly, in its recognition of having
been gathered by the Holy Spirit into the Church as God’s own people.
It is this teaching in LG, along with a renewed ecclesiology which
portrays mission as a sending from one local Church and a free receiving
by another, that lays the groundwork for the elaboration of the missionary
activity of the Church in AG. To cite here
AG: «The Church on earth is
by its very nature missionary since, according to the plan of the Father,
it has its origins in the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit»
(AG 2). The mission of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit is manifested in God’s creation of the world, and especially
in the creation of human beings who are called to share in God’s life
and glory. This call does not come to us singly, but collectively, so
as to form a people. The Church participates in the mission of the Trinity,
both as a sacrament or sign of the salvation God intends for the whole
world, and as a means of offering that salvation to the world in its
own activity under the power of the Holy Spirit. Put simply, the Church
does not have a mission; the Church itself is mission. The missionary
activity of the Church is not some peripheral activity carried out by
a small group of specialists. The Church understands itself as being
missionary in its very heart, in its participation of the action of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit in the world. As stated in AG, «Missionary activity is nothing else, and nothing less, than the
manifestation of God’s plan, its epiphany and realization in the world
and in history; that by which God, through mission, clearly brings to
its conclusion the history of salvation» (9). Mission is more than outreach
or self-extension; it is the source of the perfection of the Church
itself. Again, in the words of AG:
«It is clear, therefore, that missionary activity flows from the very
nature of the Church. Missionary activity extends the saving faith of
the Church, it expands and perfects its catholic unity, it is sustained
by its apostolicity, it activates the collegiate sense of its hierarchy,
and bears witness to its sanctity which it both extends and promotes»
(6). Pope Paul VI’s
apostolic exhortation Evangelii
Nuntiandi (EN) contributed
in a special way to our understanding of what evangelization itself
is. Both LG and AG had spoken eloquently of God’s activity in the world in the Son
and the Holy Spirit. But it was Paul VI who was to give greater texture
to what the Church’s evangelizing work entails. As he puts it, «the
Church evangelizes when she seeks to convert, solely through the divine
power of the Message she proclaims, both the personal and collective
consciences of people, the activities in which they engage, and the
lives and concrete miliux which are theirs» (EN
18). We find here the dimensions of an integral evangelization, involving
not only the individual but also the collective conscience of a people.
Moreover it is not only their hearts which are touched, but also their
lives and their cultures. EN addressed important developments in mission in the latter
part of the twentieth century which the Vatican Council could not have
entirely foreseen. The rapid development of particular Churches, especially
after political independence; the concern for working out more clearly
the relation of faith and culture; and a new and deepened solidarity
with the poor – all of this pressed the Church’s missiological agenda
forward. It has been Pope John Paul II who has given all these matters
special thought, culminating in his 1991 Encyclical Redemptoris
Missio (RM). Building
again on LG and AG, the Holy Father reasserted the Church’s missionary mandate as
constitutive of the Church itself, and not just one of its many tasks.
Moreover, he sought to clarify a number of points that had been obscured
in the quest for new understandings of mission to meet the challenges
of the day. He reaffirmed the importance of proclamation – a continuing
refrain throughout the Encyclical is «Open your doors to Christ!». While supporting
the importance of dialogue and other forms of witness, he did not wish
to have direct proclamation downplayed. The Church has confidence in
its message that Jesus is Lord and must proclaim that message boldly
to a world often wavering in doubt. Second, he reaffirmed the mission
ad gentes, «peoples, groups and socio-cultural contexts in which Christ
and his Gospel are not known, or which lack Christian communities sufficiently
mature to be able to incarnate the faith in their own environment and
proclaim it to other groups» (RM 33). The accusations against an unholy
alliance between evangelization and colonialism had struck deep at the
heart of the missionary enterprise. The Pope was aware of this, but
felt that a sometimes evangelically ambiguous past should not be a deterrent
to continuing to proclaim the gospel boldly. Third, the
Pope has called insistently over the past ten years for a «New Evangelization»,
a theme that figures prominently in RM.
This evangelization is not only a new effort to preach the gospel in
regions where it has not been preached before; it also seeks to bring
the gospel again to those parts of the world where the message has been
muted by cultural movements contrary to the gospel and people have turned
away from faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, the New Evangelization moves
beyond re-evangelization, understood as the return to gospel discipline
of a basically faithful but wayward people, to a new apologetics among
those who have now rejected the gospel personally and socially. In many
ways, the strong christological focus of the Synods for different regions
of the world has emphasized the importance of a new or continuing evangelization
in the world. Fourth and
finally, a focus on the relation of faith and culture has been a hallmark
of this pontificate. As a philosopher and as a pastor, Pope John Paul
has been keenly aware of the ways culture forms the human subject. He
was the first pontiff to introduce the term «inculturation» into official
ecclesiastical use. He founded the Pontifical Council for Culture in
1982. Building upon the discussion of culture in Gaudium
et Spes (GS), his many
allocutions on this topic during his pastoral visits around the world
have built up a formidable teaching on faith and culture – a subject
to which I have devoted some study and thought both because of his teaching
and because of my own visits to Oblate and other missionaries around
the world (see George 1990). The understanding
of mission with which we approach the new millennium, then, has a number
of striking features. It is, first of all, deeply trinitarian and ecclesial
in its theology, and thus not instrumentalist in its approach to mission.
It is a theology located at the very heart of the Church, and proceeds
from that center to propose a compelling and all-embracing vision of
God’s action in history. Second, this understanding of mission carries
with it a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of evangelization
as the work of God in which the Church is called to participate. Captured
especially in the concept of the New Evangelization, it tries to look
carefully at the different groups and contexts where evangelization
is needed, and provide a clear way of proceeding with evangelization
itself. Third, this understanding of mission has grown in its sensitivity
to the phenomenon of culture, with its emphasis both on the particularity
of cultures and on the sources for a genuine unity of humankind. All
in all, the Church’s theology of mission provides a solid foundation
upon which a missiology might be built. With this in mind, we can now
turn to the second part of this presentation, which focuses upon the
challenges ahead. Missiological Challenges Today Having reviewed
the teaching on mission that the Church has presented in the second
half of this century, we are poised to look ahead: what are the challenges
before us, and how shall they be met? I would like to divide my remarks
here into two sections: one on missiology as a discipline or science;
and one on some of the concrete challenges that missiology will need
to address. Missiology
is relatively young as a distinct discipline or science. The origins
of Catholic missiology are usually dated from the inauguration of the
chair of missiology at the In the post-Conciliar
period, mission itself came under scrutiny. It was charged with having
co-existed too comfortably with imperialism and colonialism. Because
of this armbivalent status of mission, missiology found itself questioned
as to whether it should hold a place in the theological curriculum. The problem
for missiology was twofold. First of all, the object of its study –
mission – had undergone rapid change throughout the twentieth century.
Kaiser Wilhelm, in setting up the Protestant chair of missiology at
The rise of
Pentecostal and fundamentalist Protestant missions, especially in The second
problem for missiology was its own self-undertanding as a discipline
or science. Should it be considered a discipline in its own right, with
its own proper method, criteria, and manner of proceeding? Or was missiology
more a field of study where various disciplines – scriptural, theological,
historical, social scientific – were brought together to examine from
a variety of perspectives the mission of the Church? The continued differentiation
(or even fragmentation) of traditional disciplines by the explosion
of knowledge and the pressures of postmodernity heighten the question
as to whether missiology is a distinct discipline. It has rarely been
able to work its way into the center of the theological curriculum,
and has had to be content with a place on the periphery. The decline
in interest in mission has led some universities to discontinue chairs
in missiology (as, for example, in the Catholic faculty in Würzburg),
perhaps saying that the days of missiology may soon be over. It has
prompted some scholars, especially in Northern European universities,
to try to develop a case for missiology as a theological science that
has its proper place in the university, sensing that without such an
articulation of missiology as a science, missiology will disappear from
the universities altogether.1 On the other
hand, missiology is being viewed as a zone where different disciplines
are brought to bear upon the phenomenon of mission. Whether or
not missiology is a distinct discipline is not a matter for me to decide;
it is best left to missiologists themselves. But it is important to
note the problem, since it has an impact upon how missiology is viewed
and how, therefore, it might fit into a curriculum.
In the case of missiology as a distinct science, missiology may want
to claim its place alongside the other disciplines which make up the
theological curriculum. In that case it may have to compete for space
in an often already overcrowded curriculum. If missiology is defined
by the object of its study rather than the methods by which it studies,
then it must take a different tack in order to find its place within
the curriculum. In either instance, it is beset with significant challenges. Further complicating
the question of missiology’s place in the curriculum today are three
developments in mission itself that have taken shape especially since
the time of the Second Vatican Council. They are implied and sometimes
even mentioned in the Conciliar documents by
one or other name. But the outworkings of each have largely come about
since the Council. I am referring here to interreligious dialogue, to
inculturation, and to working for justice as a constitutive element
of mission, of preaching the gospel. Interreligious
dialogue was affirmed and promoted by the Council, especially in LG and Nostra Aetate (NA). The
Council certainly envisioned and hoped that what was then a nascent
movement would grow and flourish, as this has indeed taken place. But
as the century ends, we are still faced with seeking a deeper understanding
of the forms of dialogue, and especially their implications for a theology
of religions. The question of the theology of religions continues to
be one of the most neuralgic that Catholic missiology faces: just how
do we assess the meaning of other religions vis-à-vis
Christianity? What role do they play in God’s plan for human salvation?
As the world grows smaller, and interaction between
the religions is not always peaceful (think of the recent church burnings
in Inculturation,
as has already been mentioned, builds upon the understanding of culture
elaborated in GS. While not
as neuralgic as the theology of religions, the relation of faith and
culture draws us deeply into questions about how to express the identity
of Christian faith and, more importantly, how to evaluate and critique
different cultural formations of Christianity. We also still need a
theology of culture commensurate with the modem understandings of culture
that undergird the discussions of inculturation. Thirdly, working
for justice or for the transformation of society in the light of God’s
kingdom is not just a practical means for reaching and serving people;
it is integral to the missionary project. Engaging the world on its
own terms, however, has sometimes entailed secularizing the mission;
and the presence of social works and services without explicit reference
to Jesus Christ or the gathering of believers into his body has often
gutted missionary motivation and negated the public nature of the faith
which forms the Church. It seerms to
me that, however missiology is construed, it needs to grapple more directly
and forthrightly with these questions. For these reasons missiology-whether
a distinct discipline or an interdisciplinary field of study – stands
at the center of theological exploration of some of the most critical
theological questions facing us today. A final question
that has arisen in the latter part of this century is the meaning of
direct proclamation. As we have seen Pope John Paul II has addressed
this question directly in RM.
But the question lingers in some quarters. The continuing concern is
prompted by an increasing awareness of the difficulties in intercultural
communication, especially how the reception process occurs across cultural
boundaries. Perhaps postmodernity’s insistence on difference heightens
this predicament. This is less a theological problem than one of communication;
hence, it does not go to the heart of the debate about missiology as
do the previous three. Yet it is very much in the discussion and needs
to be acknowledged as one of the issues facing missiology today. As missiology stands at the end of the century,
it is beset by methodological challenges regarding its status as a discipline,
as well as material challenges in working out the implications of interreligious
dialogue, inculturation, and proclamation. It is my hope that your new
organization will take leadership in addressing both the methodological
and the material questions. Missiology in the Seminary Curriculum This brings
me to the third section of this presentation, which deals with the central
question of the place of missiology in the seminary curriculum. Having
reviewed the Church’s teaching on mission, and having looked at challenges
today to missiology as a discipline and distinctive theological challenges
related to missiology, it is now possible to turn to the question of
the curriculurm itself. As I tried
to say in the previous section, missiology is being construed both as
a discipline with its own proper methods, and as an interdisciplinary
field of study. Either approach has implications for its place in the
curriculum. If missiology is a distinctive discipline, then it should
claim its place within the curriculum. The problem is that it will likely
have to compete for a place alongside the other topics that should be
part of priestly formation. In that competition, it may or may not win
out. In small seminaries, it may not be possible to have someone dedicated
totally to this task, and it may in that way end up not being properly
represented. The other alternative
is to have it integrated into the curriculum; that is, made a dimension
of biblical, theological, historical, and pastoral study. This would
follow upon its interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary construal. The
advantage is holding up mission so that it might be seen from many different
facets, thus allowing a unifyinig theological focus of the Church as
mission, rather than the Church as having missions. The disadvantage
is not so much a theological as a pedagogical one: if everyone is responsible
for mission, then no one is responsible. One thing is
made clear in both AG and
RM: the study of missiology is not something
only for Missionary Institutes who specialize in the mission ad gentes
as their apostolate. In terms of seminary formation, the study of mission
is intended for all seminarians, diocesan and religious alike (AG 16; RM 63-68). If indeed mission is the unfolding and completion of God’s
plan for the world, then the drama of salvation history can only be
properly understood from the perspective of mission. But to return
to the two possibilities: missiology as distinctive discipline and missiology
as an interdisciplinary field. What would each mean in terms of a place
in the curriculum? To be sure, these two possibilities are not mutually
exclusive. Ideally, most faculties would want to have a combination
of both in their curriculum. But implementing either entails a focus
and a direction. If the focus
is upon missiology as a discipline, then one must think of what courses
of study need to be introduced into the curriculum. Certainly a sound
theology of mission, based upon a study of salvation history from the
Bible through the eschatological realization of the divine plan, would
be in order here. If missiology
is taken to be an interdisciplinary study, then attention must be given
to how the missiological dimension appears and is addressed in all of
the courses of the curriculum. In the area of fundamental theology,
the relation of faith and culture should receive special treatment alongside
other more traditional themes surrounding the relation of faith and
reason. Theology of religions might also be taken up here, although
it can also be treated in christology. In the areas
of dogmatic theology, christology, ecclesiology,
and theological anthropology all should have a missiological focus.
In christology, the mission of the Son as Jesus the Christ should
hold pride of place. The eschatological reconciliation of all things
in Christ (Eph Ecclesiology
is the heartland of missiology. Following the Council’s teaching on
the Church in LG and GS offers a ready way of seeing the Church as mission, although it
can be developed in more detail. Reflecting on the
unity and the catholicity of the Church in light of mission helps knit
together the particular Churches and the universal Church. Theological
anthropology, narrating the story of creation, fall, redemption, and
fulfillment, again requires missiological reflection. Indeed, mission
provides a clarifying frame for addressing these issues. At a time when
globalization of the economy threatens the survival of the very poor,
theological anthropology is a necessary antidote to the poison of commodifying
human life. The mission of the Church to protect life and to struggle
against cultures of death, as the Holy Father has so eloquently spoken
about in Evangelium Vitae, gives new stimulus to theological anthropology. Finally, the
Council documents addressing the formation of priests are quick to point
out that spiritual formation must accompany any academic formation.
In this spiritual formation, looking for a missionary spirituality that
can inform the life of the candidate so that the elements of mission
studied in various parts of the curriculum might come together is necessary
here. Becoming ever more conformed to Christ, becoming ever more faithful
in discipleship means following Christ in mission into the world. This
union with Christ requires a missionary spirituality. One could go
into other parts of the curriculum, but this brief look at fundamental
and dogmatic theology, and at spiritual formation
indicates how such an integrative approach might be shaped. This brings
us to the question of the promotion of missiological studies in the
curriculum. I would hope that this meeting provides the opportunity
for further discussion of the advantages of both approaches – missiology
as discipline and missiology as interdisciplinary field. However one
comes out on this matter – one or the other, or some combination of
the two – there will be challenges on all sides for missiologists. If
one goes the route of the distinctive discipline, then accessible and
comprehensive textbooks must be written to support the teaching of missiology
within the theological curriculum. If one goes the route of the interdisciplinary
field, then a whole range of scholary work needs to be produced that
integrates missiology into fundamental theology, into dogmatic theology,
into Church history, and into the practical-pastoral fields. To my mind,
the latter seems truer to the vision of mission found in the Conciliar
and subsequent documents, but it is also a far more formidable challenge
to missiological scholars to penetrate and integrate a wider range of
the theological curriculum than has been the case in the past.3 This discussion also raises questions about how
advanced studies in missiology should be organized. Many of the first
generation of missiologists were Church historians.
A later generation found greater support for their missiological work
in the social sciences, especially cultural anthropology. Both of those
dimensions remain important. But what seems to be called for in a special
way are missiologists who are trained fundamental and dogmatic theologians,
who can bring the mission focus to bear on the articulation of the issues
in fundamental and dogmatic theology. As long as that does not happen,
missiology will always run the risk of being pushed to the margins of
the curriculum. The continuing need for Missiology
Alongside these
urgent curricular concerns, missiology has a number of ongoing tasks.
As the world continues to change, the way the world needs to hear the
call of Christ will also change. The changes are not
absolute or unconnected to one another, since the story of human failing
and of injustice, sadly, continues often along the same lines.
But I would like to suggest three things to you, as scholars of the
Church’s mission, to consider as part of your task as we move into the
new millennium. First of all,
we the Church’s pastors need continued help in imagining the Church’s
mission. By that I mean finding the compelling symbols that express
the deepest meaning of mission of Christ for our time and place. There
was a time when the mission ad gentes found its clearest expression
in the Great Commission of Matt 28:19-20, and I suspect it continues
to do so for many missionaries today. For others who went into mission
inspired by Pope Pius XII’s call for missionaries in Fidei
Donum, the Emmaus story in Lk 24 provided a model of solidarity
and walking with the poor along the road. What is the biblical image
that captures the essence of mission today? Might it be the breaking
down of the walls of division found in Eph 2: 14ff? Or the coming together
of all things under the headship of Christ, as in the Colossians hymn?
We need theologians with imagination to help us think about mission
as it moves into the new millennium. Second, we
need a deeper engagement of the faith and culture relation. This goes
to the heart of the engaged, incarnated, inculturated identity of Christian
faith today. As I have already indicated, much of this has to be done
in fundamental theology. The fact that faith so engages the culture,
rather than ignoring or obliterating it, says much about how Christians
see the world. I think that there is a truly Catholic theology of culture
to be developed here, one that finds its cue in the sacramenital nature
of reality, and the analogical character of being. And finally,
we need missiologists to help us hear more clearly the world’s need
for Christ. The world’s need is often not so clearly focused in its
cry. But the need to turn things around, the need to seek reconciliation
are all big parts of what the world seeks. To put it in the words of
the Holy Father: «The coming
of the third millennium prompts the Christian community to lift its
eyes of faith to embrace new horizons in proclaiming the Surely as we
enter the Great Jubilee and the new millennium, missiology should be
taken up with new vigor and sense of purpose. For doing that now in
the International Association of Catholic Missiologists, I thank you. Notes
1 An
example would be the work of Jan Jongeneel, at the Protestant faculty
in 2 An
example of this would be the collaborative effort of Dutch Catholic
and Protestant missiologists. See Verstraelen et al., eds. 1995. 3 Bosch
1991 has an exemplary section on an integrated view of biblical theology
and Church history. References Cited
AG 1965, Vatican
Council II. Decree on the Missionary
Activity of the Church, Ad Gentes. Bosch David
J. 1991, Transforming EN 1975, Pope
Paul VI. Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi. George Francis
1990, Inculturation and Ecclesial Communion: Culture and Church in the
Teaching of Pope John Paul II, GS 1965, Vatican
Council II. Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes. IM 1998, Pope John Paul II. Bull of Indiction of the Great
Jubilee of the Year 2000, Incarnationis
Mysterium. Jongeneel
Jan A. B. 1995/1997, Philosophy, Science, and Theology of LG 1964, Vatican
Council II. Dogmatic Constitution
on the Church, Lumen Gentium. NA 1965, Vatican
Council II. Declaration on the
Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate. RM 1991, Pope John Paul II. Encyclical Letter, Redemptoris Missio. Verstraelen, F.J.,
A. Camps, L. A. Hoedemaker, and M. R. Spindler, eds. 1995, Missiology:
An Ecumenical Introduction. Ref.: Translation from Italian
language. In TEOLOGIA DELL’ANNUNCIO
(Per una teologia missionaria), PUM Publication, pp. 5-20. |