Reflections on the Church - Br Benoit Ndayizeye

NDAYIZEYE  Benoit;    11126T

Reflection on some contemporary questions of Ecclesiology

            The authority in the church, ordination of women, sexual scandals and priestly celibacy are today's questions that many people both Catholics and non-catholics ask. In my opinion it is important to know why the church continue to consider them as  values while the rest of the world them in the same way. Starting with the authority in the church, this for me  do not raise so many questions as the rest do, perhaps because of the culture we are living in especially in Africa. Each society has people who make decisions, who correct others, who teach its values and traditions to the young, etc these are done by the ELDERS chosen from other member of the society. In most of the cases, what they say is considered to be true no question about it. This is what is reflected in the authority of the church only expressed in different terms.

            On ordination of women, not that this issue is mostly raised by some women within the church and perhaps influenced by the women activists who don't belong to the church. Truly speaking, I was impressed the way this question is handled in our class by giving answers which are in my opinion  very convincing. It also seems to be rooted in culture of Jesus. Why he decided not to include women among the twelve is not clear in the gospels but the church being faithful to him has to do as he did. The first apostle kept it and was handed on to others till today. This is the Conduct of Jesus and the weight of Tradition. In addition, representation of the Lord is also an answer, this for me, to be understood, it needs theological background therefore it can be used to support the first two. Finally, sexual distinction in the order of creation and redemption, male and female are equal for they are created in the image of God, thought is from the scripture, it cannot contradict others for the church follow Jesus in all his actions and words.

            Coming to the issue of sexual scandals and priestly celibacy paedophilia included, it always surprises me the way the media or other people put it. Why when is done in the schools, in families, in offices etc is not even sometimes mentioned? I am not defending this bad behavior of priests and religious but to show that in my opinion is not celibacy/chastity as many think that causes this, we would not find some married people in the schools, offices and even in families doing the same thing. This point to the fact that the church is Holy but its members are pruned to sin as others and needs God's grace and mercy. People need to remember that celibacy even if is not demanded of the priesthood  by its nature is a free gift from God lived in love of God and neighbors. It is also a free choice for those who feel are called to it no obligation. In my little experience of living it, one needs to accepted with joy and gratitude. It needs to be preserved and protected by the community in which one lives in and by good friends who understand the choice of my life, and above all by God who gives it and to be nurtured by prayer. All these lead to happiness and fulfillment in one in this life pointing to life in the kingdom of God. Thanks to ecclesiology that I m able to understand and give some convincing answers to the questions of contemporary ecclesiology, therefore being able to know and defend the church I belong in, my family and its members.

***

1.RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CHURCRH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

The NT present different images of the church among them are the image of the kingdom of God. In so called parables, a great number is used to illustrate the mystery of the kingdom of God (mustard seed, fishing net or boat, field of wheat, etc).  In Church’s exegetical and homiletical tradition, these images are all applied to the church itself. The question is how legitimate it is to identify the church with the kingdom of God? Surely speaking without qualification to say that the church is the kingdom of God and the kingdom is the church is indeed bad exegesis and bad theology especially when the church in this equation is taken to refer to denomination, Roman Catholic Church or any other denomination. Probably this is what Loisy criticized in the Bon Mot where he says that Jesus came proclaiming the kingdom of God and what came out is the Church. It is good to note that this is because of Easter events where Jesus resurrection became the good news. This is not the case for the church which represents inauguration of the kingdom of God, the sowing of the seed, the casting of the nets, the calling of the sheep, etc. This is the kingdom in process, it is ecclesia simper reformanda, this is the present aspect of the kingdom of God that Jesus preached, which is the change of mind and heart, to accept Jesus’ teaching and God as a Ruler of the world, that means that there will be new relationship between God and his people without forgetting the right relationship between peoples. This aspect of the kingdom is present in the church as germ that is growing and needs to be nurtured. The church is the herald of the kingdom and is at its service that is why there cannot be any separation between the two. The church remains the sign and the instrument of the kingdom of God, and the latter is the ultimate reason for the church. Nevertheless, the pilgrim church on earth cannot experience the completion of this kingdom, only the church of the ultimate future will be fully identified with the kingdom of God, that is the triumphant church of the first born who are enrolled in heaven (heb 12:23).

Reflection: My study of Christology gave me another picture of the kingdom of God which was for me the place where one go after death, and the class of Ecclesiology shed more light to this and its relationship with the church I believe in. These two go together for the church is herald and agent of the kingdom, though the church differs from the kingdom but the former has a task to make the latter seen in the world for the glory of God.

2. THE CHURCH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The term church sometimes is used to refer to a building in which Christians meet to worship but it is never used in this kind of reference in the NT. No doubt because Christians that time didn’t have any special building for worship, building is only a symbol of community of worshippers. The term church or ecclesia comes from Greek word ekkaleo or Latin word convocatio which means to summon or to call out, convocation. In NT it is controlled by its employment in OT and in XXL which means convoked assembly of the people of God. Therefore, in NT, the term church is used in reference to the community of the faithful at large. All writers of the NT, each one has his own picture of the church but all based on the events of Jesus, his incarnation, ministry, and above all his death and resurrection. They all have strength and weaknesses, therefore taking all together gives us a clear picture of how the church God wants on earth should be. The four evangelists have their strength and weakness, the same with the letters of St Paul and Peter’s and others. They all give several theologies of the church in NT. The more significant are church as community of disciples, church of God, body of Christ, bride of Christ, pilgrim people of God, led by the Holy Spirit. All these taken together, surely reflect the splendor of the church. Among them, the fourth Gospel seems to be more attractive to me because its life is centered on Christ without whom we can do nothing, and its equality among its members which shows the kingdom of God is present, and its service but it also needs to be completed by other theologies so that we can get the as a community of disciples that Jesus calls into being, into service of one another. The church, that is eschatological community of those who awaits the return of Jesus, a church which is missionary in nature where disciples play a role of leadership and service in the community. This would be a perfect community which is not easy to get here on earth. The writers of the NT though do not mention disputes and differences among the church members, but reading through NT one can one can feel that they were not a perfect community, example of this is Mt 18, Acts 15, etc. Despite disputes and differences, none of the churches broke completely the sense of communion among its members for this is was the time to break the bread together and listen to the word of God. Communion or koinonia, I think is what we need to learn from churches of the NT in our families, in our religious communities and in the church at large because the Koinonia is often broken and sometimes completely.

3. SUMMARY OF AFRICAE MUNUS

Background: The synod assembly met in Rome October 2009, Bishops discussed two important things on African continent that is the suffering of Africa and her hope for reconciliation, justice, peace among her people, the role the Gospel of Christ can play in this process. Therefore Africae Munus (pledge of Africa) by Pope Benedict XVI, November 2011. Africae Munus has three main parts, part one (1-13), it opens with a very positive image of Africa describing it as the spiritual lung of humanity (AM 13). Part two (14-96) discusses the fundamental structures of ecclesiastical mission on the continent. The objective of the entire process of the Synod, was to bridge the gap between the teaching the gospel of Christ and life of the church in Africa, to transform theology into pastoral actions, into a concrete pastoral ministry in which the great perspective is found in scriptures and Tradition. Therefore all are called to be authentic witness, service, and true ambassadors of Christ in order to accomplish this mission of reconciliation, justice and peace are necessary through the Word of God, conversion and authenticity of life. This needs formation in depth, communion, creativity and solidarity.  It is not easy for African church accomplishing this mission of truth in the interest of justice, peace and human dignity if she abstains from involving herself in any way in political of the states (22).

 In the last part of AM (97-177) all baptized (Clergy, religious men and women, and lay faithful) are invited to support this evangelization in different areas of apostolate such as: the Church as the presence of Christ, the world of education, health care and the communications media. Africae Munus offers the church in Africa practical guidance for pastoral activities especially in evangelization of those who do not know Christ and of course to re-evangelize all Christians. In brief this part discusses the fundamental structures of ecclesial mission on the continent, a mission which aspires to reconciliation, justice and peace that has its origin in Jesus Christ who is at the heart of life of Africa. Finally, the document gives suggestions of what the church in Africa need to do to attend to her dream, such as to have a deep appreciation of the mystery of the Eucharist and increases of Eucharistic devotion AM 153, a continent wide year of reconciliation to beg God forgiveness for all evils and injuries, and reconciliation of persons and groups who have been hurt in the church and in whole society AM 157among others. Briefly, the intention of Africae Munus is to maintain a living connection between memorized catechism and lived catechism which leads to profound and permanent conversion of one’s life.

4. WHO FOUND THE CHURCH?

This question seems to be a simple one because even those who are studying catechism for baptism can answer it saying Jesus found the church. This is what I knew and would have been the same answer I would give to someone who asks me this question. Studying Ecclesiology has shown me that this answer is not sufficient. This is because the NT especially the gospels where we find direct sayings of Jesus there is nowhere is stated clearly that Jesus found the Church. But the CCC 763-766 states that Jesus inaugurated his church by preaching the good news that is the coming of the reign of God. All his actions and words, Christ prepares and builds his church, which was born when in his pierced heart while dying on the cross in John’s Gospel, and in Luke Acts the church was born on Pentecost, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on his disciples, a gift from the Father that Jesus had promised to his disciples. Yes the church was born in the events of Jesus. Though it is clear that Jesus limited his preaching to Israel, very little to the gentles (who came to him), for he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. This attitude was adopted by his closest followers except Peter in Acts in the house of Cornelius. Hellenist Christians took the Gospel out of Israel, but is mainly Paul who took the gospel to the gentles that is why is referred to as apostle to the gentles. In his ministry, Jesus did not want to find a church separated from Judaism but to reform it from within to keep link with Jewish tradition and his teaching. But in his statements, he saw salvation was not only for the Jews but also to all nations without distinction between Jews and gentiles MT 25:31-46. Note that the finding of this community was guided by the Holy Spirit and is intended for all, this is only possible when is lifted up from earth and glorified, means after his death and resurrection. Jesus started with the Jews because they were the ones whom the Savior was promised; therefore they had to enjoy priority. From all mentioned above, we can conclude that, to say Jesus found the Church directly has no strong foundation, but we can say that initially Jesus did not have intention of founding the church but to reform Israel from within. Because the church is new people of Israel, by bringing the whole humanity together, this can allow us to say that Jesus is a founder of the church indirectly theologically speaking, but not directly.