|
Fr.
John Fuellenbach, SVD Introduction To anser the question we pose for this conference it is best to start with the correct alignment of the following three basic concepts: Kingdom - Church - World. How are they related to each other? Theologically we maintain that the Kingdom of God is meant for the world and that the Church must see herself and her mission in the service of the Kingdom. For the Kingdom is not only the future of the Church but also the future of the world as well. In God's plan of salvation we cannot separate the Church from the world as Yves Congar says: In God's unitary design the Church and the world are both ordered to this Kingdom in the end, but by different ways and on different accounts. Church and world have the same end, but only the same ultimate end. That they should have the same end is due to God's unitary plan and the fact that the whole cosmos is united with man in a shared destiny. That they should have only the same ultimate end prevents a confusion that would be bad for the Church, as raising a risk of dissolving her own proper mission in that of history, and bad for the world, as raising the risk of misunderstanding and hindering its own proper development.(1) The Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World presents this new understanding of the relationship between the Church and the world. After recognizing the world's legitimate autonomy, the Council asserts that the Church must consider herself part of the total human family, sharing the same concerns as the rest of humankind. Articles 3 and 92 state that just as Christ came into the world not to be served but to serve, so the Church, carrying on the mission of Christ, seeks to serve the world by fostering unity among all people. The advantage of such a view of the Church in her relationship to the world lies in these points: (1) It helps the Church to turn away from an exaggerated concern about her own internal affairs and to look at the world for which the Kingdom is meant. The important thing for the Church is not to withdraw into herself and reduce herself to a small group that keeps distance from the world. She must take part in constructive action and liberation. (2) The Church, viewed in this way, can give hope to a world stricken by war, injustice, and hatred by pointing constantly to the coming Kingdom meant for the whole world and having appeared already in Jesus Christ. She gives meaning to the small services everyone can do for a better world, a world of justice, peace, and unity. For every good work done in this world means building up the Kingdom that is coming. (3) This view underlines the principle that diakonia, which includes the struggle for a new social order, is as essential to and even constitutive of the mission of the Church as are proclamation and sacramental celebration. The Kingdom demands the transformation of all human reality, and the Church must be an "agent" of this transformation. The Church is not identical with Kingdom of God now The Council starts off by describing the Church as the mystery of Christ. In her is realized the "eternal plan of the Father, manifested in Jesus Christ, to bring humanity to its eternal glory." Here the Church is seen in connection with the "bringing about of the secret hidden for ages in God" (1 Col 1:16; see Eph 3:3-9; 1 Co 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 Tm 2:4; Rm 8:22 ff). The most comprehensive symbol for God's plan with creation is the biblical phrase: KINGDOM OF GOD. The Kingdom aims at the transformation of the whole of creation into its eternal glory, and the Church must be seen and understood in the context of this divine intentionality. Her essence and mission make sense only in this setting. Her mission is to reveal through the ages the hidden plan of God to lead all humankind towards its final destiny. She must see herself entirely in the service of this divine plan meant for the salvation of all creation.(2) Nowhere in the Gospels is the group of the disciples around Jesus identified with the Kingdom of God. The text that is often used for such identification is the Parable of the Tares and the Wheat (Mt 13:24-30). But the "field" in this parable is not the Church but the world as the interpretation of the parable clearly states: "The field is the world" (Mt 13:38). The teaching of the parable is about the Kingdom that invades history without a visible interruption of the present structure of this world. Good and evil will exist side by side and only in the future, when the Kingdom will come in fullness, will there be a separation of both. For sure, Jesus' mission is addressed primarily to his disciples. To them it belongs, they will celebrate it, and be in it. But this special proximity of the group to the Kingdom does not turn them into a closed society. The Church has no monopoly on the Kingdom of God. Citizenship in the Kingdom never means a privilege but always a summons to solidarity with people, particularly with the excluded and discriminated against.(3) 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 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. God has 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 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. There are two questions to be asked. First, did the Council identify the Kingdom of God in history with the pilgrim Church, or did it consider the Kingdom of God in history a reality that is broader than the Church extending beyond her boundaries? Second, is the Kingdom of God in its final fulfillment identical with the Church in her eschatological fullness, or does it again extend beyond her while at the same time embracing her? A number of theologians still hold that a close analysis of the relevant texts of Lumen Gentium (3,5,9,48) would show that in Vatican II the Kingdom of God remains identical with the Church, be it with the historical reality of the Kingdom now or with the eschatological fulfillment where she will find its fulfillment as well. (4) This view can be found in the Final Document of the International Theological Commission in 1985. Once again the distinction between the pilgrim Church in history and the heavenly Church in her eschatological fullness is made, but the document continues to identify, on the one hand, the Kingdom of God in history with the pilgrim Church; and, on the other hand, the eschatological fullness of the Kingdom with the heavenly Church. To the first aspect the document has this to say: It is clear that in the Council's teaching there is no difference so far as the eschatological reality is concerned between the final realization of the Church (as consummata) and of the Kingdom (as consummatum)(5) To the second aspect the documents comments: Belonging to the Kingdom cannot not be belonging - at least implicitly - to the Church.(6) The commission however does adopt the theological phrase, "the Church, sacrament of the Kingdom," although the Council did not use this expression. Dupuis holds that only in the encyclical, Redemptoris Missio, can we find a clear distinction between the Church and the Kingdom of God in their pilgrimage through history. An analysis of the recent document of the central teaching authority would show that the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio is the first to distinguish clearly— while uniting them—the Church and the Reign of God in their pilgrimage through history: the Kingdom present in history is a broader reality than the Church; it extends beyond her boundaries to embrace the members of the other religious traditions.(7) Did Jesus identify the Kingdom with the group of disciples or did he see the Kingdom as being broader than the group that became the Church after his resurrection? Jesus saw his mission limited to the "house of Israel". Yet there are instances in the Gospel where Jesus oversteps the boundaries of Israel. Jesus made the Kingdom present through his miracles like healing and exorcism (see Mt 12:25-28; Lk 4:16-22). The Gospel tells us that he healed those who did not belong to the people of Israel (see Mk 7:24-30; Mt 15:21-28). These miracles signify therefore that the Kingdom is operative and present among the pagans as well. Thus Jesus did not identify the Kingdom with the "movement" created by him destined to become the Church.(8) 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 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). Church and world should be seen as two concentric circles, whose common center is Christ. The Kingship of Christ as the presence of the Kingdom in history extends to the whole world, visible and invisible. Kingdom of Christ is .. a more comprehensive term than "Church". In the Christian's present existence on earth his share in Christ's Kingdom and his claim to the eschatological Kingdom. . . . find their fulfillment in the Church, the domain in which grace of the heavenly Christ are operative. . . . But Christ's rule extends beyond the Church. . . . and one day the Church will have completed her earthly task and will be absorbed in the eschatological Kingdom of Christ or of God. (9) A considerable number of theologians hold that the Catholic Church in Vatican II did separate 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 " Sign (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: The nature and mission of the Church are always to be understood in relationship and in subordination to the Kingdom of God. This principle is expressed in article 5 of Lumen Gentium and again in article 45 of Gaudium and Spes. It replaces what was perhaps the most serious pre-Vatican II ecclesiological misunderstanding, namely, that the Church is identical with the Kingdom of God here on earth. If it is, then it is beyond all need for institutional reform, and its mission is to bring everyone inside lest salvation elude them.(10) Karl Rahner says something similar: The Church is not identified with the Kingdom of God. It is the sacrament of the Kingdom of God in the eschatological phase of sacred history which began with Christ, the phase which brings about the Kingdom of God. As long as history lasts, the Church will not be identical with the Kingdom of God, for the latter is only definitely present when history ends with the coming of Christ and the last judgment. Yet the Kingdom of God is not simply something due to come later, which later will replace the world, its history and the outcome of history. The Kingdom of God itself is coming to be in the history of the world (not only in that of the Church) whenever obedience to God occurs in grace as the acceptance of God's self-communication . . . . For the Kingdom of God in the world, which of course can never simply be identified with any particular objective secular phenomenon, the Church is a part, because of course the Church itself is in the world and in its members makes world history. Above all, however, the Church is precisely its special fundamental sacrament, i.e., the eschatological and efficacious manifestation, etc., of the world, the Kingdom of God at hand. Even here, therefore, as in the various individual sacraments, sign and thing signified can never be separated or identified (cf. LG 9).(11) Dulles, who seems to favor a distinction between the glorious Kingdom of God and the Church, however admits that: If one looks on both the kingdom and the Church as existing proleptically within history and definitively at the close of history, it becomes more difficult to see how they differ. With regard to the final phase it must be asked - is the consummation of the Church something different from the definitive arrival of the kingdom of God? The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World makes the point in article 39 that "all the good fruits of our nature and enterprise produced on earth in the Spirit of the Lord and in accord with his command" will be found again, in a purified and transfigured form, in the final kingdom. This text seems to imply that the world itself, in all its secularity will be transformed in Christ. It then becomes very difficult to distinguish between the glorified Church and the transformed cosmos. Perhaps one should say that the heavenly Church, as the place where Christ rules in the assembly of the saints, will be at the heart of the center of the ultimate kingdom. The new heavens and the new earth, while they may include more than the transfigured Church, will serve to mediate and express the blessed life of the redeemed.(12) The distinction between the Kingdom and the Church bore immediate fruits in the development of 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 for two theological problems. First, in the context of liberation theology, it supplies the bridge that connects the historical liberation of the oppressed in this world with the eschatological Kingdom still to come in fullness at the end. It shows how the 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 the theologian with a broader perspective to enter into dialogue with other religious traditions. If the Kingdom is the ultimate goal of God's intentionality with all of humanity, then the question is no longer 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 Church herself, while accepting the distinction between the Church and the Kingdom in principle, has been very eager lately to assure that both are not to be pulled apart, be it in the liberation theology or in the inter-religious dialogue. Some theologians, particularly in India, are at the moment afraid that we are heading towards a crypto-identification of Church and Kingdom once again. In the words of F. Wilfred: Since certain trends in liberation theology and in the theology of religions seemed to highlight the reality of the Kingdom at the expense of the Church and to distance themselves from the Church, the reaction (of the official Church) has taken the form of barring any access to the Kingdom except through the Church. Or to put it in another way, instead of understanding the Church in relation to the mystery of the Kingdom, this trend wants to understand the Kingdom of God in terms of the Church, and indeed turn the Church itself into the Kingdom. (13) If such a trend would 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 if we maintain the distinction between Church and Kingdom clearly and uncompromisingly, can such a symbol once again become THE religious symbol of our time. It 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. Therefore, we have to be on our guard not to allow such an identification once again as subtle as it may be. The Church is not the Kingdom now since the Kingdom makes itself felt outside the Church as well. Her mission is to serve the Kingdom and not to take its place. There are three dangers which we have to be aware of:
The correct alignment of these terms is highly important: Kingdom - WORLD - Church. How can we say that the Kingdom of God, which Jesus brought irrevocably into this world through his life, death and resurrection, is now also found outside the Church? The theological reasoning for this view is based on the incarnation and ultimately on the resurrection. In the resurrection, the limitations of Jesus' earthly existence are gone. In him matter has been transformed into the state of the New Creation. Christ is, in his risen body, 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. (15) As the future of the present world, Christ relates to creation in a new way. The whole world belongs to him not only on the basis of creation (Col 1:1-15; Jn 1:1-14) but now on the basis of its transformation in the resurrection of his body into the New Creation. We cannot limit the presence of the New Creation to the Church only. This all-pervasive presence of the Kingdom of Christ in the world makes itself visible not only in the Church but also in historical movements outside of the Church. This was expressed by the International Ecumenical Congress of Theology in Sao Paulo (Brazil 1980) in these words: The coming Kingdom as God's final design for his creation is experienced in the historical process of human liberation. On the one hand, the Kingdom has a utopian character, for it can never be completely achieved in history; on the other hand, it is foreshadowed and given concrete expression in historical liberations. The Kingdom pervades human liberations; it manifests itself in them, but it is not identical with them. Historical liberations, by the very fact that they are historical, are limited, but are open to something greater. The Kingdom transforms them. Therefore, it is the object of our hope and thus we can pray to the Father: "Thy Kingdom come". Historical liberations incarnate the Kingdom to the degree that they humanize life and generate social relationships of greater fraternity, participation and justice. The Encyclical Redemptoris Missio acknowledges the working of the Kingdom outside the Church by seeing there the "values of the Kingdom of God" concretely lived. It is true that the inchoative reality of the Kingdom can also be found beyond the confines of the Church among people everywhere, to the extent that they live "Gospel values" and are open to the working of the Spirit who breathes when and where he will.(20) These "values of the Kingdom" are spelled out as "peace, justice freedom, brotherhood etc." (RM 17). THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS PRESENT IN THE CHURCH In the New Testament we find two sets of ideas connected with the Kingdom of God. These might be helpful to understand better the tension that exists between the Kingdom and the Church. They are the following. First, in the Old as well as in the New Testament, the Kingdom is mostly understood as God's sovereignty or kingly rule. It is perceived as a dynamic concept and means God's active rule over all reality but particularly at the end of time. It is all-embracing but still provisional, still to come in all its fullness. This strand is the most dominant one and can be found in all the writings of the Bible. It expresses clearly God's intention to save all human beings and the whole of creation. Secondly, there is however also a strand in the message of Jesus that understands and portrays the Kingdom in spatial terms, as a territorial reality. This is expressed in sayings like these: one can enter the Kingdom (Mt 5:20; 7:21; 18:3); and one can be thrown out of it (Mt 8:120). There are keys of the Kingdom (Mt 16:18-19). The Kingdom is compared with a house into which people are invited etc.. This strand of the message of Jesus is largely new but pervasively present in his Kingdom message. Theses two strands create a tension that is fundamental in the New Testament. (16) While they help us to better understand the world in relation to the Kingdom, they certainly could help us also to clarify the tension between Church and Kingdom. They indicate that while the Kingdom is a reality that embraces all of creation, God still has bound it in a particular way to a particular group in space and time now. Dulles makes a similar observation: the symbol Kingdom in the New Testament refers to reign and realm, The term basileia in the Greek New Testament frequently means kingship (reign) but it sometimes must be translated as kingdom (realm). The two concepts are inseparable. Christ's kingship or lordship implies a community over which he reigns - in other words, a kingdom. Conversely, the concept of the kingdom always implies a king. Several different expressions such as "kingdom of God," "kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of the Son," and "kingdom of Christ" are used almost interchangeably in the New Testament, and the differences of nuance among them need not concern us here.(17) It is the Kingdom present now that creates the Church and keeps her constantly in existence. The Church is therefore the result of the Spirit, who makes God's final saving intentionality effectively present as the true source of the community called Church. Although the Kingdom cannot be identified with the Church, that does not mean the Kingdom is not present in her. The Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, while acknowledging the difference between the Kingdom and the Church, is very much concerned that the Church should not be seen and treated as separated from the Kingdom. One may not separate the Kingdom from the Church. It is true that the Church is not an end unto herself, since she is ordered towards the Kingdom of God of which she is the seed, sign and instrument. Yet while remaining distinct from Christ and the Kingdom, the Church is indissolubly united with both. (18) The Kingdom makes itself present in the Church in a particular way. We can say that 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" (Lumen Gentium 5). Secondly, the Church is a MEANS OR SACRAMENT through which this plan of God with the world realizes itself in history (LG 8; 48). As G.E. Ladd puts it, The Kingdom creates the Church, works through the Church, and is proclaimed in the world by the Church. There can be no Kingdom without the Church - those who have acknowledged God's rule and there can be no Church without the Kingdom; but they remain two distinguishable concepts: the Rule of God and the fellowship of men. (18) We should never separate the Kingdom from the Church, since after all, she is God's chosen instrument for his Kingdom here on earth. The following quotation might sound strong but it is certainly correct: The Kingdom is, of course, far broader than the Church alone. God's Kingdom is all-embracing in respect to both, point of view and purpose; it signifies the consummation of the whole history; it has cosmic proportion and fulfills time and eternity. Meanwhile, the Church, the believing and active community of Christ, is raised up by God among all nations to share in the salvation and suffering service of the Kingdom. The Church consists of those whom God has called to stand at His side to act out with Him the drama of the revelation of the Kingdom come and coming. The Church constitutes the firstling, the early harvest of the Kingdom. Thus, though not limited to the Church, the Kingdom is unthinkable without the Church. Conversely, growth and expansion of the Church should not be viewed as ends but rather as means to be used in the service of the Kingdom. The Church, in other words, is not a goal in and of itself; but neither is it—as some at present would seem to imply—a contemptible entity that should feel ashamed of its calling and seek its redemption in self-destruction. The keys of the Kingdom have been given to the Church. It does not fulfill its mandate by relinquishing those keys but rather by using them to open up the avenues of approach to the Kingdom for all peoples and all population groups at every level of human society. It makes no biblical sense whatever to deny, as many do, that the upbuilding of the Church everywhere in the world is a proper concern of the proclamation of the good news of the Gospel; and it is high time for a forthright repudiation of such nonsense.(19) We know that God's Kingdom is present. Even if the hoped-for future drags on and seems not to come, the choice of living from it is not wrong. The Kingdom releases energies that affect the course of history deeply and in often unintended ways. To live from the future means to have a vision of a world and to stop trying to succeed and to establish our security in the present socio-economic order.(20) Part Two: The threefold mission of the Church Once the Church is no longer seen as the sole holder of the Kingdom she 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: 1. To proclaim in Word and Sacrament that the Kingdom of God has come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Sacrament means that in her symbolic order the Church opens up the everyday world to the ultimate, the Kingdom of God. But in doing so the Church is also forced to accept her provisional character. In the words of Schillebeeckx: The Church is not the Kingdom of God, but bears symbolic witness to the Kingdom through word and sacrament, and her praxis effectively anticipates that Kingdom. She does so by doing for men and women here and now, in new situations (different from those in Jesus' time), what Jesus did in his time: raising them up for the coming Kingdom of God; opening up communication among them; caring for the poor and outcast; establishing communal ties within the household of faith and serving all men and women in solidarity.(21) 2. To create Church communities anywhere and to offer its own life as a test-case which demonstrates that the Kingdom is present and operative in the world today. This should reveal itself in the Church's own life where justice, peace, freedom and respect for human rights are concretized. The Church should offer herself as a "contrast society" to society at large. 3. To dialogue with the world and with other religious traditions: To challenge society as a whole to transform itself along the basic principles of the Kingdom now present: justice, peace, brotherhood and human rights. This is a "constitutive element of proclaiming the Gospel" since the ultimate goal of the Kingdom is the transformation of the whole of creation, and the Church must understand her mission in the service of the imminent Kingdom.(22) Secondly, since God’s Kingdom is present the Church must enter into a dialogue with these religions if she wants to remain faithful to her mission to promote the Kingdom on earth. This threefold mission of the Church—also called evangelization—found its expression in the Document Redemptoris Missio in the following way: The Church is effectively and concretely at the service of the Kingdom. This is seen especially in her preaching, which is a call to conversion. Preaching constitutes the Church's first and fundamental way of serving the coming of the Kingdom in individuals and in human society... The Church, then, serves the Kingdom by establishing communities and founding new particular Churches and by guiding them to mature faith and charity in openness towards others, in service to individuals and society, and in understanding and esteem for human institutions. The Church serves the Kingdom by spreading throughout the world the "Gospel values" which are an expression of the Kingdom and which help people to accept God's plan. It is true that the inchoate reality of the Kingdom can also be found beyond the confines of the Church among peoples everywhere to the extent that they live "Gospel values" and are open to the working of the Spirit, who breathes when and where he wills. (Cf Jn 3:8). (20) 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: Interreligious dialogue and proclamation, though not on the same level, are both authentic elements of the Church’s evangelizing mission. Both are legitimate and necessary. They are related but not interchangeable (DP 77). Since the coming Kingdom of God in the present world always remains a "preliminary" or "proleptic" anticipation of the Kingdom, there will never emerge an "ideal community". Human societies and the Church herself need structures, which will always reveal the preliminary aspect and most often the 'sinfulness' of all human endeavors. Only when the fullness of the Kingdom comes, will all structures of the community be done away with, because the Kingdom in glory is "anarchy", i.e., a community or society that needs no structures anymore, because perfect love has become the guiding rule. As Pannenberg puts it: The Kingdom is not yet the way among men; it is not the present reality. Our present world, with its injustices, brutalities, and wars, demonstrates the gap between itself and the Kingdom . . . . But the future of the Kingdom releases a dynamic factor into the present that kindles again and again the vision of man and gives meaning to his fervent quest for the political forms of justice and love . . . The function of the Church is a preliminary function. By this we mean that the existence of the Church is justified only in view of the fact that the present political forms of society do not provide the ultimate human satisfaction for individual or corporate life. If the present social structures were adequate, there would be no need for the Church. For then the Kingdom of God would be present in its completeness.(23) Or in the words of Jürgen Moltmann: The Church in the power of the Spirit is not yet the Kingdom of God, but it is its anticipation in history. Christianity is not yet the new creation, but it is the working of the Spirit of the new creation. Christianity is not yet the new humankind but it is its vanguard, in resistance to deadly introversion and in self-giving and representation for man's future. (24) The two ways of mission The Church’s ultimate goal is to serve the Kingdom and to lead humankind to its final destiny. Wherever the Kingdom shows itself in the world the Church must help to promote and to bring it to its fulness. The mission of the Church in the service of the Kingdom is therefore basically a twofold one. First, we are called to make God’s Kingdom present by proclaiming its presence in word and sacrament. This happens through the creation of Christian communities in which God’s Kingdom shines forth like a symbol, a sign or a parable, where its presence can clearly be discerned and its final goal appears like a foretaste of what is to come in fullness in God’s own time. The disciples in such communities are to celebrate the presence of God’s Kingdom in their midst and let themselves be set on fire again and again. Especially when they remember the Lord in the table fellowship of the Eucharist, the disciples should make present once again that compassion of God which Jesus showed in such feasts to be the heart of his own God-experience. The Kingdom can therefore never be separated from the Church, which, after all, is God's chosen instrument for his Kingdom here on earth. The following quotation might sound strong but it is certainly correct: The Kingdom is, of course, far broader than the Church alone. God's Kingdom is all-embracing in respect of both points of view and purpose; it signifies the consummation of the whole history; it has cosmic proportions and fulfills time and eternity. Meanwhile, the Church, the believing and active community of Christ, is raised up by God among all nations to share in the salvation and suffering service of the Kingdom. The Church consists of those whom God has called to stand at His side to act out with Him the drama of the revelation of the Kingdom come and coming. The Church constitutes the firstling, the early harvest of the Kingdom. Thus, though not limited to the Church, the Kingdom is unthinkable without the Church. Conversely, growth and expansion of the Church should not be viewed as ends but rather as means to be used in the service of the Kingdom. The Church, in other words, is not a goal in and of itself; but neither is it—as some at present would seem to imply—a contemptible entity that should feel ashamed of its calling and seek its redemption in self-destruction. The keys of the Kingdom have been given to the Church. It does not fulfill its mandate by relinquishing those keys but rather by using them to open up the avenues of approach to the Kingdom for all peoples and all population groups at every level of human society. It makes no biblical sense whatever to deny, as many do, that the up building of the Church everywhere in the world is a proper concern of the proclamation of the good news of the Gospel; and it is high time for a forthright repudiation of such nonsense.(25) Second, we can see that neither Jesus nor his Spirit have abandoned the world; they continue to be present and active among people. In us, the community of believers and followers of Jesus, his action which is present everywhere, acquires a visibility and symbolic reality. Because of this, we are called and sent into the world to serve and to promote the ongoing action of Jesus and the Spirit. From here follows the second dimension of our mission: to be at the service of, and to promote in a collaborative way, God's own continuing action in the world and among people. If the Church community "feasts" on the presence of God’s Kingdom in its midst most intensely in the Eucharistic meal celebration, then there must also be a "feast" aspect in the Church’s second missionary task. We are, therefore, called to promote "feasts" where people of all races and cultures are sitting together, and to enjoy each other’s company in life-giving relationships and genuine compassion. It is precisely here that God’s Kingdom makes itself felt and can be experienced as present in the midst of human affairs. The two "feast" aspects are two interrelated ways of pursuing the one goal of mission which is the realization of the 'New Heaven and the New Earth' that is God's promise to all peoples. One could 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.(26) Here we face a problem: - which is the most important one at the moment? The building up of Church communities or our witness to God’s Kingdom anywhere in the world? Michael Amallados thinks the second is more important. The fact is that most of our missionaries, particularly in situations where the Church is a minority, are primarily involved in building up Church communities and feel lost when they are expected to engage in dialogue with other religious traditions. They are just not trained and therefore often unable to even see mission work in the second way as the one most necessary today. If the Kingdom of God is operative anywhere in the world and not just in the Church then our mission is to witness to this present and to ‘sniff it out’, raise people’s awareness of it and celebrate it there were it makes itself present. If our mission is that of Jesus, to proclaim and to bring God’s Kingdom into the world then that very Kingdom demands of us these two ways. The Church, the "Universal Sacrament of Salvation" as Mediator of the Kingdom With regard to the salvation of non Christians the following question still arises: if the Kingdom as God’s universal will to save all people is active outside of the Church, is this activity still mediated through the Church or in a way that is independent of her? The answer varies according to whether one identifies the Kingdom now with the pilgrim Church or not. Those who maintain a distinction between Kingdom and Church argue as follows: Pope John Paul in Redemptoris Missio (RM10) assert 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 the salvation is not such that access to the Kingdom is only possible through the Church. One can partake in the Kingdom of God without being a member of the church and without passing through her mediation of it.(27) 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. They hold that God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ reaches the non-Christian not directly through the Church but by circumventing the Church "in ways only known to God." Schnackenburg seems to indicate this indirectly by saying: The Kingdom of Christ is . . . a more comprehensive term than "Church." In the Christian's present existence on earth his share in Christ's Kingdom and his claim to the eschatological Kingdom . . . find their fulfillment in the Church, the domain in which the grace of the heavenly Christ are operative . . . But Christ's rule extends beyond the Church . . . and one day the Church will have completed her earthly task and will be absorbed in the eschatological Kingdom of Christ or of God.(28) Theologians who hold to the identification of the Kingdom on earth now with the Pilgrim Church cannot accept this position. For them all saving grace passes through the Church other wise the Church could not be called "the universal sacrament of salvation". They base their view on a careful reading of the main Documents of Vatican II maintaining that one cannot deduce from these documents that the Church in Vatican II made a distinction between the Kingdom present now in history and the Pilgrim Church here on earth. Their arguments are the following: The Church is described by the Council as being by its very essence the universal sign of salvation. The description, which holds a prominent place in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church ( LG 48), is quoted both in the Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity (AG 1) and in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (GS 45). When saying sacrament the Council means a symbolic reality established by Christ, a sign that contains and confers the grace it signifies. The Church, therefore is not merely a cognitive sign, making known something that already exist, but an efficacious sign that brings about the redemption to which it points. Since the Church is seen as a universal sacrament, i.e., as "an instrument for the redemption of all" (LG 9) we must assume that the salvation of all human beings does in some way depend on the Church. The Church is involved in the salvation of all who are saved (LG 16). Whatever faith or belief people may confess we must assume that the grace which saves them is in a mysterious way linked to the Church. They are, in the words of the Council, through this grace ordered to the Church. That means the saving grace they receive outside the Church gives the recipients a positive inclination towards the Church, so that all who live by God’s grace are in a certain sense affiliated with the Church.(29) The Question that arises now is: does the Church simply save by being the reality towards which people are oriented or does she act deliberately to bring about the salvation of such persons? The perception of the Church as "a universal instrument" of salvation (LG1) suggests that the Church is actively at work in the salvific process, however, it does not explain by what activities the Church accomplishes this result. Francis Sullivan puts the question this way: "In what way can the Church be said to exercise an instrumental role in the salvation of all those people who apparently have no contact with the Church?" Referring to the encyclical Mystici corporis of Pius XII, the teaching of the Council (Constitution on the Liturgy (SC, 83) and the eucharistic prayers Sullivan sees the Church mediating salvation to non-Christians through prayer and intercession. It can therefore be said that the Church, at least by means of intercessions, especially during the Eucharist prays and offers Christ’s sacrifice for the salvation of all people. Thus her intercessory mediation extends to all who are being saved. In his own words: On the basis of the teaching of the council, and the eucharistic prayers which reflect this teaching, we have sound reason for affirming that because of the church’s role as priestly people, offering to the Father with Christ the High Priest the sacrifice from which grace of salvation flows to the whole world, the church is rightly termed the universal sacrament of salvation in the sense that it plays an instrumental role in the salvation of every person who is saved.(30) The orientation of the Church towards the Kingdom is most beautifully revealed in the central act of worship, the celebration of the Eucharist. Mark’s account of the Last Supper closes with Jesus’ words: "Truly, I say to you I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God" (Mk 14:25). Thus the Eucharist is situated within the context of the eschatological Kingdom. In his handing on of the story of the origins of the Lord’s supper, Paul also clearly sees its celebration within an eschatological context: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor 11:26). But the link between Church and Kingdom in the Eucharist is still more profound. It is with his blood that Jesus establishes the new covenant (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25), the divine order of eschatological grace for the whole humanity. Only by virtue of the universal efficacy of the blood of this covenant (Mk 14:24) is it possible for human beings to be saved. In the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the Church is clearly presented as belonging to his Kingdom; she celebrates this covenant, established by the blood which, according to the Lucan account, is poured out "for us" (22:20). The eschatological benefits of salvation are intended "for us" - which must be understood as including those believers in Christ who are actually celebrating the Eucharist. But these benefits do not extend to Christians alone, they reach out to all human beings whose salvation is ultimately guaranteed through the death and resurrection of Christ(31). Notes
|