A Theological reflection on the Relationship between Science and Religion

Science and Technology of the third millennium has grown so fast and quick for the last thirteen years. Hand in hand together, both contribute abundantly to the development of society. They had change many people. They had changed what people will think. They had changed what people to do. They had influenced many lives in the world beginning from a new life of a child inside the womb until the last breath; from the poorest to the richest; from the dumb to the intelligent; from the sick to good health; from non-living things to living things. There are a variety of ways to describe the different works of science and technology in all strata of life.

While describing the beneficent outcomes of science and technology in the world, however, the other side of the coin of science and technology had also created tremendous impact. Science and technology had also created problems socially, morally and, to our field of study, spiritually. The rapid rise of modern science has created major social problems. Not only has science profoundly created and affected man’s material way of life but it also offered an equally profound mental upheaval.

            One astonishing treatment of science and technology in the life of people is to create a big distinction against faith, religion, ethics, and theology. The care for the soul and spiritual life has been set aside by some or unconsciously being driven toward it. It is very dangerous, so I agree with St. Paul, since the human being is a unity of body, soul and spirit. Every field of science agrees that the basic dualistic composition of man is body and soul. The great divide is also extended to social structure of a state. Likewise in socialist countries, faith and science are two distinct fields, wherein state and religion’s object of study are totally different from each other.

            Moreover, according to Barbour, the methods of science and religion are radically different. The two enterprises should be completely separate and independent. Not only do their content and subject matter have nothing in common, but their ways of knowing are so dissimilar that there are no points of fruitful comparison or analogy.[1]“What is of interest to theology is not of interest of science nor accessible to it, vice versa. They occupy, as it were, watertight compartments in human thought.”[2]

            But, before giving my personal reflection and response to the never ending conflict between faith and reason, theology and science, we might as well first give some different perspectives and viewpoints from various field of studies, like in the Bible, Social teaching of the Church and according to some scholars.

Faith and Reason in Scriptures:

 We don’t have definite distinction on the Bible about the difference between faith and reason. However, we can only define them separately. On the one hand, God tells us to reason in Isaiah 1:18 (ISV) “Please come, let’s reason together.” We are to have a good reason for what we believe, and we are to be always ready to share that reason with other people (1 Peter 3:15). So we attempt to show unbelievers that our belief in the Scriptures is reasonable, justified, and logically defensible. The Bible makes sense.

On the other hand, we are supposed to have faith. We are supposed to trust God and not lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5). The Bible tells us that the “just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11). It seems that we are supposed to trust God regardless of whether His words make sense to our understanding.

The meaning of faith and reason are insufficiently enough since we have taken it from the Bible. We don’t have clear distinction of each other however it is clear what their role is. Both should be at the service. Reason is at the service of faith and faith is at the service of reason.

The Parallelism of faith and reason:

            According to Barbour again, there are authors and scholars who do find points of comparison among methods of inquiry, and they hold that many of the rational and empirical attitudes of the scientist can be shared by the theologian. Liberal theology and Process Philosophy try to see both science and religion within unified view of the world. Liberal Theology claims that a man’s religious beliefs should be a reasonable interpretation of all areas of human experience, employing critical reflection not unlike that which the scientist applies to his work.[3]While, Process philosophy elaborates a metaphysical system applicable to all aspects of reality including God and events in the world.[4]

            An Oxford physicist, C.A. Coulson holds that the methods of science and religion have much in common. The scientist’s experience as a human being goes beyond his laboratory data and may include a sense of reverence and humility, an awareness of beauty and order and reflective contemplation of the world. The unity of nature and the harmony of its laws may take one as far as belief in cosmic mind, but man’s religious experience points to the personal character of ultimate reality.[5]

            The relationship being created is clear. As we ask about many inquiries, faith and reason can be used as methodologies to answer them. It is in methodologies that both agree with each other.

The Stand of the Church on Faith and Reason

            Pope Pius Xi enunciated what must be the first principle concerning relations between science and religion, when he stated that “science as a true understanding of reality can never contradicts the truths of the Christian faith.”[6] Pope Pius XII further delineated this relationship:

Science, which has encountered the Creator in its path, Philosophy, and, much more, revelation, in harmonious collaboration because all three are instruments of truth, like rays of the same sun, contemplate the substance, reveal the outlines, and portray the lineaments of the same Creator.[7]

Reason and faith in this sense should be used as instruments of truth. It is a kind of truth wherein it creates harmony among people, nature and animals and also technology. Otherwise, the primary object of faith and reason to serve the truth is vain.

            According to Paul Haffner, Vatican II has reaffirmed the fundamental link between faith and science in terms of the legitimate autonomy of earthly affairs:

Methodological research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.[8]

There is indeed a clear cause not to separate the two methods of inquiry. The common denominator of every human actionis God. Fear of man to offend God should always be the guiding principles. It is a fear created out of coercion, threat or force but rather a fear rooted in love.

            Finally, the most recent document that re-stated the relationship of faith and reason is described by Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter, Fides et Ratio. With this encyclical there is a development and strong urgency of the call of the church not to disregard the roles they portray in society. The relationship between faith and reason has been raised into a doctrinal teaching. It only implies that the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, makes definitive meaning to faith and reason.

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth- in a word, to know himself- so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”

The same emphasis has also been put into the relationship of faith and reason. They should serve the human spirit, the human life in its search for truth.

Personal reflection and application of principles:

            I was indirectly involved with the apostolate of the Order to the United Nations as an aid to an American Augustinian priest who was once a representative of the Augustinian Order to the United Nations. I’m helping him as a website editor of our website like posting social action reports he has done in the Philippines from time to time. In one of our informal sharing, he said that pharmaceutical companies are developing new medicines to treat diseases especially the newly acquired diseases. However, there are abuses and immoral acts done by some pharmaceutical companies. In the United Nations, one cannot just donate any medicine to needy people. It is being regulated, particularly sending medicines to Africa and Asia. There had been many instances that the medicines sent are used for testing. It is said that before products are proven or sold to the public, a test must be done in order to know its efficacy. Moreover, in Europe animal rights group staged different protests against beauty products developed by companies like Loreal. They used animals to test their products effectiveness. In the post I read from the internet, a woman protester volunteered to be caged in to let the public see what beauty companies like Loreal do to animals. It was awry and unimaginable to watch the pictures of the woman being tortured for the sake of experiment. As I can remember, a big thong was put into her mouth to open; her eyebrows were shaved and her hands were tied at the back and lied her body on a table. The protesters are calling the people to ban their products.

            Science and technology has helped many people particularly in the field of medicine. Scientists and Chemical engineers had already exceeded human limitations and expectations to develop vaccines and medicines for different illnesses. We might say that this is one of the effects of consumerism and relativism. Some people think of other human beings are just like objects for their medicines. We might also apply morality in this case. Ethics and Bioethics would judge them as immoral actions. However, there is a much deeper wound that needed to look and examined. We ask what has gone wrong. What made them do that? It is like something is missing. And, indeed there is a missing factor or principle that disregarding it makes the people responsible non-culpable.

            In the context of theological anthropology, it is faith and theology that are missing. Faith has been removed in their moral actions. The scientists above are really searching for truth. They search for their answers. They search for cure and they search for beauty and good. They had used science and technology for their search but they forgot faith and theology. Morality can serve as another means but it is not enough.

            “It seems that in a highly technological society, man’s soul has ever a need for the sacred, which, if it is not directed towards the only true Creator God, seeks fulfillment in futile approaches to the occult,”[9] according to Haffner. Science on its own cannot give humanity the progress it desires; it needs the aid of theology and Christian morality in order to avoid animal and human disaster.

            The principles of relations between Science and Religion should be noted as well. Why would they insist a total separation wherein, there is no intrinsic contradiction between Christian faith and natural science? Science is of itself insufficient for human growth in understanding and human development. And Science arrives at the truth, but not all of the truth, so that not even all that which is in the natural order is its proper object. Natural science will never be able to penetrate all the secrets of nature to the extent that the cosmos would fail to evoke in man a sense of mystery.

           

---

[1] Ian G. Barbour, “Issues in Science and Religion,” (New Jersey: Prentice – Hall, Inc., 1966), 115-116.

[2]Ibid., 116.

[3]Ibid., 125.

[4]Ibid., 125.

[5]Ibid., 127.

[6] Pius XI, MotuPropioIn multissolaciis, 1936.

[7] Pius XII, Discourse to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, November 22, 1951.

[8]Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 64.1

[9]Paul Haffner, “Mystery of Creation,” (Wiltshire: Cromwell Press, 1995), 175.

Some Moral Problems in the Order of Private Property in Organizations and Religious Groups

Some Moral Problems in the Order of Private Property

in Organizations and Religious Groups

Introduction:

The moral order of property is my chosen topic. Issues regarding property seem to be an interesting topic because of at least two personal encounters. First, our province has allowed a part of the seminary in Quezon City to be developed into a columbary business since 2000. However, the Augustinians have lost the right over the property because the project is not yet done even the contract to develop had already expired after five years or less. The company that were hired were only the developer but not as owner. Supposedly, an agreed percent of the income of the columbary should proceed to its owner yet not even a single centavo was given to the province. At this moment, the province finally filed a lawsuit against the company. My second encounter is about land grabbing. It is a land grabbing that is legal however its morality is being questioned. There are some lay people, either with good or bad intention, want to help religious congregations to acquire lands legally.  It is allowed in the Philippine law that unused or unprotected government lands can be given a land title to spiritual groups, like religious orders, or religious organization, to develop for non-profit purposes. However, there’s a twist with one condition, the land processor wants a part of the land to be named to a politician or government. Thus, the process of acquiring land is fast and easy. These case narrations lack particular details. However, the practicality of the cases have truly happened.

It is presumed that these two stories are not isolated cases in our province. I believe that these are all true to other congregations. Based from these two unsolicited anecdotes, there are quite a number of moral issues being addressed. Many questions are raised against moral norms of the order of property. How should property then be valued? What are the moral bases of private property? Do the acts fulfill the moral duties concerning property?

Sacred Scripture and Property

            There is a strong view of property in the bible. An article, “A Biblical view of Private Property,” published in www.americanvision.org gives us an overview. Private property is closely associated to ownership in biblical terms. The Old Testament shows us that “God’s sovereignty includes ownership of all His creation. Melchizedek, in blessing Abram, said, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth (Gen. 14:19; cf. v. 22).”[1] The Bible continues the relationship between sovereignty and ownership by declaring to Israel that all the earth is His (Ex. 19:5). God is the owner of all things. In other words, the Old Testament makes us aware of the social obligations that are incumbent upon property.[2]

Those who wish to deny private property, and thus, the biblical mandate of stewardship, fail to recognize God’s order for society. A person’s property is tied to the past and has meaning for the future because it is seen in the context of the family as God’s means of insuring future dominion. This is why Naboth was unwilling to sell his vineyard: “The Lord forbid that I should give you [Ahab] the inheritance of my fathers” (1 Kings 21:3). Property must be seen in the context of a man and his family’s calling under God. The commandments “You shall not steal” and “You shall not covet” (Exodus 20:15, 17) are meaningless unless there are prior owners responsible to God as faithful stewards of His property.

Nevertheless, phrases from the Bible explain to us the value of property as seen in the material goods possessed by the Israelites. Ownership of property is supported as long as it is for the good of the family and the community at large.

            On the other hand , the overall emphasis of the New Testament teaching is however not on the defence of the right to private property , but on the sins of avarice and not giving. The parable of the laborers in the vineyard shows us the right of the person to own property lawfully, and his right to dispose it freely (Mt. 20:10-16).

Social teaching of the Church on Private property

            With regards to the stand of the church on private properties, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, No. 176 discusses the stand of the church on private property.

176. By means of work and making use of the gift of intelligence, people are able to exercise dominion over the earth and make it a fitting home: “In this way, he makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property”. Private property and other forms of private ownership of goods “assure a person a highly necessary sphere for the exercise of his personal and family autonomy and ought to be considered as an extension of human freedom ... stimulating exercise of responsibility, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberty”. Private property is an essential element of an authentically social and democratic economic policy, and it is the guarantee of a correct social order. The Church's social doctrine requires that ownership of goods be equally accessible to all, so that all may become, at least in some measure, owners, and it excludes recourse to forms of “common and promiscuous dominion”[3]

            Mater et Magistra, No. 112 of John XXIII can b added about the right to private property. “It is strange that the innate character of a right which derives its force and validity from the fruitless of work should ever be called in question – a right which constitutes so efficacious means of asserting one’s personality and exercising responsibility in every field, and an element of solidity and security for family life and of greater peace and prosperity in the state.”

            In addition, Gaudium et Spes 71 gives us the reason to have this right. “Ownership and other forms of private control over material goods contribute to the expression of personality.”

            Also in Gaudium et Spes No., 69, it gives us the universal purpose of the goods of this world. “A man should regard his awful possessions not merely as his own but also as common property in the sense that they should accrue to the benefit of not only himself but of others.”

            Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2402 and 2013 further develops our understanding of private property. “The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race… The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons, and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in charge.” Thus, “the universal designation of goods remains primordial.”

Meaning and basis of private property

Our question on the full sense of property is generally described by Peschke. Ownership in a perfect sense includes 1.) The right to dispose of a thing freely, i.e. use, consume, sell, donate or bequeath it;  2.) the right to the fruit of a thing, be they natural of industrial; 3.) the right to exclude others from acting upon the thing and to restitution in the event unlawful deprivation.[4]

“When a man is secure in the possession of his property, he has an area of liberty and dominion that is beyond the reach of other men. If no man or no State can reach in to tax and confiscate property, man can enjoy true liberty and great security, whether he’s prosperous or poor. Every attack on private property is, therefore, an attack on man’s liberty. Man’s freedom and security in the possession of his property is not only basic to man’s independence, but it is also basic to his power. A man has power if he can act independently of other men and the state, if he can make his stand in the confidence of liberty. Every attack on private property therefore is also an attack on the powers of free men as well as their liberty.”[5] 

Whereas in the field of economic it explains that, “the right to private property is an indisputably valid, absolute principle of ethics and the basis for continuous “optimal” economic progress.”[6]

Whatever field of study, everyone should understand that material possessions, like private property, are not values in themselves. They are meant to serve man’s needs. And inasmuch as the ultimate destiny of man is the glory and praise of God through cooperation in his plan of creation and salvation, material possessions must likewise be ordained to his end.[7]

General appraisal and evaluation of the right to private property

            There are already enough and substantial foundations and implications regarding the right of human beings to private property. We have found out that private properties are not means towards an achievement of an end but it should also the end. It is an end according to the providential and natural definition of possessions of material goods, by which it includes private property. The Sacred Scriptures, Social teachings of the church and morals of some authors testify that at least private property is not something personal but communal in purpose. Private property should be at the service of the common good, which is the objective end. But the ultimate end of private property points us for the greater glory of God. I have to agree with Peschke that all property always has a social character with corresponding social obligations.[8] It only entails that the meaning of human’s life does not exhaust itself in material well-being and the accumulation of wealth. The person has demands of a social, intellectual, moral, spiritual and religious nature which transcend the goods of the material order and are to be served by them.

           

In the Philippines, the issues on private property are commonly addressed in the land grabbing of capitalistic companies and some government officials. There had been many reports and complains reported in news televisions and news papers about the displacement of indigenous people because of the abuse of power of some government officials and private companies. The project of the Enriles in the Cordillera region of an international port is being questioned particularly its moral implications. There might be development in that region; however, it would consequently displace many indigenous people.

Moreover, there are some corporate organizations who would properly compensate private owners in order to legally and accordingly morally pay the right person. The influence of capitalistic and relativistic thinking has pierced into the heart with greediness to the extent that private property losses its purpose. The accumulation of wealth and more materials goods is a sign of greediness and un-contentment.

Land grabbing is not private property. It is an abuse of private property. The process may be legal but its moral implications should always be considered. Land grabbing forfeits the objective and ultimate end of private property.

Finally, the same biblical, ecclesial and moral principles of private property are applicable to the two case narrations in the introduction. Our right as ownership should be justly compensated to the harm it caused to our community but importantly to the harm it caused in the eyes of God.

---

[1] Gary Demar, A Biblical View of Private Property, November 23, 2010, http://americanvision.org/3756/a-biblical-view-of-private-property/ (Date accessed: February 27, 2013) 

[2] Karl Peschke, Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican II,  Vol. 2, (England: C. Goodliffe Neale Ltd., 1997), 663.

[3] COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, http://www.vatican.va /roman_curia/pontifical_councils/ justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

[4] Peschke, Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican II,   Vol. 2, 661.

[5] Rousas John Rushdoony, Law and Liberty, (New Jersey: Craig Press, 1971), 83.

[6] Hanns-Hermann Hope, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy, (Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006), xi

[7] Peschke, 669.

[8] Peschke, 670.

spa � y e x�\ H�] ze:10.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[8] Peschke, 670.

The Missionary amidst Different Cultures and Religious Traditions: Re-imaging the Missionary Identity in Contemporary Times

The article deeply looks into the role of globalization as the primary factor in the need to ‘re-image’ the missionary identity in the new world. He presents the contextual analysis of the contemporary world based from the experiences and realities happening in the various fields of society. Because of globalization, science, technology, industry or economy had also been affected by the phenomenon and even religion. As the author implies all throughout the article, side-effects of this new world are a reality that can never be denied.At the same time, there is a change. Change in thinking and living of the people. Consequent to this change is a ‘crisis’, which is a combination of danger and opportunity. As the world is open to unity because of globalization but its differences create fragmentations because it favors identity and diversity. The world’s multicultural and interreligious context has transformed the nature of Christian witness today. Human achievements which changed people’s lives, like science but not wisdom, technology but not spiritual energy, industry but not ecology and democracy but no morality. The coming of the new world seems to be the mark of the end of what is ethical and moral as reason in enthroned while faith or religion is dethroned. Thus, there is a need to re-image missionary identity. Then, a paradigm shift in our thinking of mission and our identity has to take place. Old models of mission need to be set aside. The author used Asia as the basis and fitting example in doing the paradigm shift since it is the proper milieu because ofits cultural diversity and religious pluralism. There must also be a shift of mindset that is – from “either/or” (exclusivist) mentality to “both/and” (inclusivist/pluralist) mentality.The author then suggests points to consider in what mission today should be. Mission today is described crossing boundaries. Mission today is “going to the Other.” Today’s missionary must be a learner, a listener, a healer, a home-builder, and a man of silence.

The abovementioned synthesis seems to be the good and strong points of the article. The mission of saving souls is the mission of God, the church is only an instrument exerting her effort to proclaim the kingdom of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Missionaries are all participants in God’s mission.This new doing-mission as the re-imaging of missionary identity is a move from being ecclesiocentric to Christocentric to theocentric.

However, side-effects of this paradigm shift should be expected. Since the center of this missionary identity is like being immersed to a goal not only for the salvation of souls but for the salvation of the whole human person addressing the problems of poverty, oppression, ecological abuses, conflict and interreligious violence. The missionary might be turned into a mere social worker and not anymore as a servant of God. Secularization of their mission as servants of God is one of its dangers. However, just like the Chinese concept of ‘crisis’ that means danger and opportunity, we can hope of the positive things that could be brought for the future. Though uncertain of the future yet the tension aids us to expect a positive outcome.

The uncertainty of using new models of mission as a re-imaging missionary identity amidst the pluralistic culture and tradition has not been addressed deeply. There might be a side-effect of this re-imaging, which was not explored deeply in the article. The dangers of doing mission in the contemporary world should have been elaborated. Thus, I think these are the weak points of the article.

Spirituality for Mission Nostra Aetate (In Our Time): Challenges and Prospects

The article of Fr. Edgar Javier, SVD answers the questions, “What is the spirituality for mission in our time? What are its challenges and prospects or even opportunities?” Asia is the focus and addressee of the inquiry. Asia being the biggest continent in the world is home to many traditions, races, languages, religions and cultures. In other words, it is a religiously pluralist continent and also home of many schools of spirituality. Asians, who are believers in God, expressed their strong faith in God in also different and various ways. In their ways of expressing their spirituality, it has become a way of life and ultimately a pursuit of the ultimate source of meaning in life. It is also a reality that the spiritualities of religions create religious identities that are efficiently leading others to bordered and separate traditions, particularity and difference. However, Asia in the twenty first century is changing. Entering into a digital age, the people of Asia is inevitably becoming citizens of the global village. Globalization in this sense is the main factor that is challenging Asia in its richness of cultures and religions. It creates a dichotomy depending how it is accepted and developed by different religious traditions, because it can promote chaos or community, particularity or diversity, difference or plurality. Globalization which is a phenomenon that promotes and celebrates interconnectivity, may make it impossible for separate religions to remain bordered from each other. Thus, this is the new global order of the third millennium. Then, there is also a need of a new spirituality in Asia. With the help of interreligious or interfaith dialogues, this new spirituality that is living the God of life is brought to become interfaith spirituality. It is a spirituality grounded on the following features 1.) the economic-imperialistic stance of Asia vis-à-vis the wider world economy; 2.) the impending ecological questions and the implications of eco-justice; 3.) interfaith dialogue with the great Eastern religions. Moreover, in building an interfaith spirituality, one urgent concern that must be attended to by world religions is the environment. Finally, the author concludes that the acceptance of pluralism generates an interfaith spirituality that is fit for the twenty-first century world. It is a step farther from mere devotional and sacramental practices to interfaith relationships among humans and sincere concerns and deep commitments for ecological flourishing.

            Generally, the article aids the readers the need to answer the current issues of the twenty-first centuries particularly in the environment. The most probable opportunity to do it is developing a new spirituality, which is interfaith spirituality. There can be different interpretations from different religions in addressing the challenge as long us with one goal. Spirituality of each religious tradition is never compromised because a true spirituality finds its strength by making it as a way of life and ultimately in pursuing the ultimate meaning of life. The deep ecology and concern for environment can be the grounds of a new interfaith spirituality. Moreover, dialogue plays an essential role in this new spirituality. The value of acceptance and openness of each difference should be the foundations of interfaith dialogue. So as in dong mission in other cultures and religions, this is new interfaith spirituality should serve as guide in our spirituality of God of life by which Asians are great believers in God. These are the strong points of the article.

One weak point may be of the article is on the under-emphasis of the alternative response to religious pluralism aside from ecological concerns. The Old Testament can be seen as indicators to such an alternative or paradigm. (Notes on Missiology, p. 27)

HISTORICAL AND MISSIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE “EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS”

Historical and Missiological Development of the “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”

The ecclesiology of the contemporary Roman Catholic Church seems to be silent anymore from the catechetical, doctrinal and papal teaching of “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (There is no salvation outside the Church). Its distinctive prominence has gone into a natural death that nobody would seem to discuss it anymore especially in the context of a multi-faceted society with multi-religion and multi-culture.

The church as instituted by Christ (CCC 763) carries within her the characteristic of a sacrament. As a sacrament, the Church is Christ's instrument. "She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all," "the universal sacrament of salvation," by which Christ is "at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God's love for men" (CCC 776). The purpose of the church, then, is to carry on the work of Christ in proclaiming the gospel and being a light to the world (John 14:13-14; Acts 1:8; Acts 13:47). She is to proclaim that salvation of the church has already been fulfilled through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Thus, salvation of souls is the objective end and purpose of the institution of the Church. Moreover, Francis Sullivan, SJ’s assertion of the substance of faith is existent in the church that God has assigned to the Church a necessary role in the accomplishment of his plan for the salvation of humanity.[1]

This is the distinctive identity of the church pertaining to her mission as the instrument for the proclamation of the salvation of humanity. Now let us take a short historical survey of how this mission was taken responsibly by our forefathers. However, only selected scholars would be discussed to present their views on the axiom. A historical survey is needed in order to aid us in understanding how this axiom had been developed through the centuries and even until now. And, the next discussion would focus on the implication of this development into the present missionary model of the church.

Historical development of “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”

            The book of Francis Sullivan, SJ entitled “Salvation outside the Church: Tracing the History of the Catholic Response” is very much helpful in our historical survey for it made a substantial and detailed study about the doctrine from the apostolic fathers until the Papal teachings after Vatican II.

            The fathers of the Church are greatly consistent with the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” either implicitly or explicitly implied on their writings. This is not mere personal assertions invented by them but rather it has a scriptural foundation both from the Old and New Testaments. Perhaps an example is Origen, who is the pioneer of Christian allegorical exegesis of the Scriptures, introduced the warning that there is no salvation outside the church, in a homily on Joshua, chapter 2, which tells in the house of Rahab the prostitute. Origen saw in this house a type of church, since it was the one place of safety in the city that was about to be destroyed. “All those who are found in your house will be saved. But as regards those who go out of your house, we shall be free of this oath we have made to you.”[2]

Another father of the church in the 2^nd century is Cyprian, by which the axiom is very much associated to him because of its frequent occurrence and urgency in his writings. Despite this frequency, however, there is no instance of his addressing this warning to non-Christians who were still the majority of the people in the Roman empire of his day. In his writings Cyprian usually quotes 1 Corinthians 13:3 and Ephesians 5:32. In a letter dealing with schismatics, Cyprian invokes St. Paul’s description of the church as the bride of Christ (Eph 5:32), and asks, “How can a man who is not with the bride of Christ and his church be with Christ?” Similarly, in a letter dealing with heretics, Cyprian  based his argument on the text where Paul says: “And I deliver my body to be burned and have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor 13:3). For Cyprian, the unity of the church was essentially a unity of love, and hence anyone who violated this unity by heresy or schism was sinning against the virtue of charity. Then, he concludes: “Neither baptism of public confession [of the faith under torture], nor of [blood for the faith], can avail the heretic anything toward salvation, because there is no salvation outside the church.”[3]

Augustine seems to have included the Jews and pagans which others didn’t. Augustine applied Mark 16:15-16, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemened.” Augustine was convinced that those who had heard the message of the gospel and had not become Christians must be guilty of sinful rejection of the faith, and of the church which alone salvation could be found. Augustine then numbered unconverted Jews among those guilty of contemning the mercy of God by their refusal to accept Christian faith.[4] This thinking occurred because at this time, Christian has gained freedom from persecution from the Romans after the edict of Constantine in 313. The context in Origen and Cyprian’s time was during the persecution, wherein their mission is basically for the unity of the church.

In the medieval period formidable papal and conciliar statements were declared all affirming to the necessity of being in the Catholic Church and professing the Catholic faith for salvation… and that anyone who taught that non-catholics could be saved must be a heretic.[5] Here is the list of some of the documents, which made explicit quotation and emphasis on the axiom. Unam Sanctam (Boniface VIII – 14^th century[6]; Profession of faith against the Waldensians (Innocent III) – 1208[7]; For Albigensians in Lateran IV (Innocent III) – 1215[8]; Decree for Jacobites (Council of Florence) - 1442[9]; Inuictum nobis in Trent (Pius IV) - 1564[10]; Singulari quadam (Pius IX) – 1854[11]; Quanto conficiamur moerore (Pius IX) – 1863[12]. From this context the mission of the salvation of souls changed. It is the time when of the discovery of the New World and expansion of European rulers to the world. Now, association to non-Catholics include those not only who have separated from the church – like the Waldensians and Jacobites - but the ‘pagans’ of the conquered as heretics. According to Sullivan, the medieval Christians expressed the doctrine of the necessity of the church in so negative sense. First of all, it is because of the limits of geographical horizon and second lack of theological speculation that there is a world outside the Christendom of Europe. Almost all of the documents were addressed to those who have heard the gospel but had not accepted it must be guilty of sin in rejecting the salvation that was offered to them. Thus, they failed to recognize that there is a world outside Christendom that some of them might be in good faith.[13]

In the modern times, particularly the Vatican II, a new positive attitude concerning the salvation of those outside the church is formed. Vatican II called “remembering that in Catholic teaching there exists an order or ‘hierarchy of truths’[14] This involves recognizing the primary importance of the truith that God wills the salvation of every human being. To attribute to the universal salvific will of God the first place in a hierarchy of truths meaning giving a subordinate place to the necessity of such means of salvation as baptism and membership in the church. Such, secondary truths, then have to be understood and formulated in such a way as to confirm, rather than conflict with, the primary truth. Lumen Gentium made a positive approach with regard to the significance of other Christian churches and communities. It is in these churches and communities that people are brought to Christian faith and receive sacraments of salvation. That’s why the church had also opened to be ecumenical with other churches.

Missiological development:

            As we have discussed the historical development of the doctrine “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, so also we have seen how the historical context factored the mission of the church. Although, anachronistic, yet this is the old theology of mission of the church, wherein the mission is defined by church. Because of this kind of missionary thinking, the church had suffered a negative connotation among former Christians and other religions. Saving souls and planting churches seem to be the only course of missionaries as the goals of mission by which salvation is both individualized and ecclesiasticized.[15] Moreover, according to Avery Dulles, this is an institutional ecclesiology because it raises obstacles to a creative and fruitful theology. The church is like the school that instructs them (members) regarding the truths they need to know for the sake of their eternal salvation.[16] And exaggerated institutionalization leads to many serious theological problems, this is out of phase with the demands of the times. In an age of dialogue, ecumenism and interest in world religions, the monopolistic tendencies of this model are unacceptable.[17]

            But on the other hand, if the church is defined by mission, a different theology of mission is seen. According to Peter Phan, the element of the ‘reign of God’ must increase since it is the light that shines on all missionaries activities of the church which is not to be missionary by its nature.[18] Mission should be exclusively for the Reign of God, or simply God. Anything else that is made into the goal of mission, even as noble as church growth or salvation of souls, smack idolatry.

Thus, in the perspective of the theology of mission, the “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” has been misinterpreted by the medieval period. It is a contextual appropriation only fitting for the time of the fathers of the church on how they wanted the reign of God be proclaimed in that way. What remains in the past should remain in the past. We have a new goal in mission. However, if the church is in the service to the Kingdom of God, “saving souls” and “church planting” still remain, but their meaning and scope have been fundamentally changed.  

---

[1] Francis A. Sullivan, SJ, “Salvation Outside the Church?: Tracing the History of the Catholic Response,” (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1992), 12.

[2] Ibid., 19.

[3]  Cyprian, Epist. 73:21; The Fathers of the Church, Washington, Catholic University of America Press, The  51:282.

[4] Sullivan, 35.

[5] Sullivan, 6.

[6]  The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, ed. J. Neuner, SJ and J. Dupuis, SJ, Revised edition, (India: Theological Publications, 1982), 804. The preceding citations from this opus shall be quoted as ND referring to the editors of the book. 

[7] ND, 640.

[8] ND, 802.

[9] ND, 810.

[10] ND, 38.

[11] ND, 813.

[12] ND, 814.

[13] Sullivan, 200 – 203.

[14] Unitas de Redintegratio, 11.

[15] Peter C. Phan, Proclamation of the Reign of God as Mission of the Church: What for, to whom, by whom, with whom, and how?, 2.

[16] Avery Dulles, Models of Ecclesiology, (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1974), 38.

[17] Ibid., 41.

[18] Phan, 4. 

The Proclamation of the of the Reign of God as Mission of the Church: What for, To whom, By whom, With whom, and How?

The Proclamation of the of the Reign of God as Mission of the Church: What for, To whom, By whom, With whom, and How? 

by Peter Phan

The article of Peter Phan generally centers his essay on the meanings of mission according to the Pre-Vatican II missiology and post-Vatican II missiology. He particularly made a comparative and contrast study on the two missiologies of mission. To situate his definitions he answered the five basic questions of what for, to whom, by whom, with whom and how of mission. Moreover, in the context of the four theological realities – proclamation, reign of God, church and mission – by way of rearranging them guide him in finding answers to his questions. But, what then is the end point of his article. What is he trying to tell us? May be Phan wants us to understand mission both as a gift and a task. He even indirectly ask us on the last part of his article that if the mission of the church is to flourish in this new millennium, it must trod the path that a new theology of mission. If he is presenting us a new theology of mission, why then should we consider it? Then, let us take a look of the strong and weak points of this new missiology and at the same time what the article says about it.

Strong points of the article:

·         “Phan made a total reconfiguration of the relations among the four basic elemtns of the theology of mission: Now, the central pillar sustaining the missionary edifice is the reign of God. It is the light that shines on all missionaries activities of the church, which is now seen to be missionary by its very nature.” This then entails us that the paradigm used by Phan is the Theocentric theology of mission, wherein God is the center. It is good since it has broke away with the pre-Vatican II mindset of mission, wherein the reign of God is subordinated to the Church – that is from ecclesiocentric theology of mission to Theocentric theology of mission.

·         A noticeable theology of the church needs to be acknowledge by which the author integrated in his article that is simply unexpected. It is the eschatological events of Jesus’ message about God’s power over sin, corruption, injustice and violence. He said that the present reality is the Kingdom of God prophesized and fulfilled by Jesus. And at the same time the kingdom of God is still to come. It is the ‘already and not yet’ of the kingdom of God. This theological concept is salient in the teaching of the reign of God for Jesus himself taught it to us. 

·         The object of mission defined by Phan is ‘missio ad gentes’ that is literally addressed to the pagans and other Christian denominations. For him missio ad gentes  as exclusively  to “foreign mission” is primarily a wrong conception and that only an elite few are called to this mission, which unlike the old theology of mission, it is done only by priests, religious orders and the like. Missio ad gentes must really address it to peoples, groups and social 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 won environment and proclaim it to other groups. (RM 33).

·         The article also introduced ‘contextualization model’ or what he prefers ‘interculturation’, which is the ‘process whereby the gospel message encounters a particular culture, calling forth faith and leading to the formation of a faith community, which is culturally authentic and authentically Christian.

·         Culture also is given importance in the complexity and the reality of multi-cultures.

·         Foreign mission does not constitute the entire mission of the church but is only a part, albeit necessary, of it. Furthermore, its principal goal is no longer “saving souls” and “church planting” but bearing witness to the kingdom of God.

·         At the beginning, the author may have recognized that mission ad gentes is only for the pagans or foreign mission but Phan includes another group of people that also needs to be in the object of mission. They are the pagans, who are not really pagans, and to Christians, who are not really Christians. He is aware that many had remained nominal Christians than being active living Christians of faith.

Weak points of the article:

·         While inculturation can be a strong point for mission at the same time it can also be a weak point. It is a question how far culture can interact with the faith and beliefs of the Christians. It sometimes may affect the traditions of the faith. By which in this sense can also a source of division if not properly guided.

·         The theocentrism of Phan’s essay raises a question of the church as Christocentric. We can’t deny that all the teachings of the church are basically founded by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Theocentrism is weak since we can’t really let go of the person and reality of Jesus Christ as God. Our God is human and most likely other cultures and religions would not agree on that.

·         Phan as a catholic theologian can’t really exclude church doctrines in his article, which sometimes other non-Christians disagree.

·         Emphasizing God in a theocentric theology of mission may sometimes create further divisions. People may think that to be affiliated to any religion is not necessary anymore. This might be the danger of the ‘reign of God’ as the primary end of mission. However, as the author writes, he simply didn’t put God alone. There’s a modifier – reign. Reign of God is simply associated to Jesus Christ. It then can be a weak point.