Why is our preaching being rejected?

A New Evangelisation and Images of God

Silvano Cola

If the current crisis of faith and Christian life is linked to an incomplete understanding of Christianity, then collectively we must make an examination of conscience. The following article is the transcription of a talk given by Fr. Cola, who is responsible for the Priests' Branch of the Focolare Movement, at a recent assembly of priests near Naples, Italy. He discusses some indispensable prerequisites for developing a style of preaching that will be acceptable to modern men and women.

The question we want to examine is: "what image of God are we presenting to modern society in announcing the Christian message?" Particularly in the western world we can ask ourselves: "which images of God are being frequently rejected by both Christians and non-Christians alike? — what images of God are being preached and rejected? — what image of God is being presented in moral teaching and being rejected?" All of us are aware of the great influence that Greek thought had on the development of the image of God in Christian theology. A sentence from Karl Rahner would be sufficient to make us blush: if by chance we were to remove the dogma of the Trinity from theology, the German theologian hypothesised, a large part of theological and Christian literature would virtually remain unchanged. Karl Rahner was speaking of a type of "Islamic influence" in Christian thought.

This presentation could be used, therefore, as a type of collective examination of conscience, a type of intellectual examination as it were. We should consider whether we understand God on our own terms, according to our own notion of ministry, our own desires and needs; or, whether we need an understanding of God for ourselves and others which accords with the image given to us by Jesus, adapting our desires to this image.

The considerations we will make may sound like a criticism of the past. However, they should not be regarded as negative. Obviously with time a new consciousness emerges and with it a new type of behaviour which automatically seems to deprecate former ways. My intention in this article is not to criticize the past. All that was done in the past was perhaps the best for those times, for those people, in that situation and for the collective consciousness of that historic moment. At present the collective consciousness of humanity seems to have matured, resulting in a new step forward. This requires a change in the way we read the Gospel and in the way we live it out concretely. For us priests this has consequences for our ministry.

Another premise, I would like to set out before beginning, is that we cannot destroy old systems in order to begin with new ones. I remember that the newsletter of the minor seminary of Turin where I studied was entitled "Preserving in order to Renew" (Conservando renovare). Wisdom suggests that we preserve what is still useful to assist those who are unable to change their own ways of thinking and consequently unable to change their way of acting. At the same time we should allow for the possibility of something new, even if small, which is more adapted to the maturity of today's collective human consciousness.

The brief reflections I will offer are not intended to be complete, but rather, pointers for reflection.

The Paternalistic God

If we review our preaching and catechesis, I believe the image of God that we most often have presented is an image of God as Father. However, He has been presented as a father of infants, and not as a father of sons and daughters. Unless we are careful, we could continue to perpetuate this notion even today in our speech and behaviour. Unintentionally we have preached a kingdom of God where the paternalistic father says to his infant children: "be good, do what I tell you because I will reward you". This kind of language is alien to the human maturity intended by God when He created us in His own image and likeness. God created each person as an interlocutor, as a personal 'you', as a person. So when we say to the faithful: "do this" and "you will be rewarded", the words "do this" are not appropriate for fostering human maturity. They do not express God's desire that each person be restored to his image and likeness. Rather, the words "do this" express the means for receiving a reward and not the way leading towards full realisation as a person. This type of language is most commonly used when we present the evangelical counsels. An analysis of our language would disclose, for example, that obedience is presented as a good because "if you do what I tell you to do, I will reward you". Instead of presenting obedience as a form of communion among persons, as understood by St. Paul, it is often presented as a type of self-mortification to merit a reward. By speaking of obedience in this way, the God we present is absolutely unbelievable. God is not a sadist, who says: "Do penance, because if you obey me I will be pleased and will reward you." The result is that obedience does not come across as the path for being in communion with God or our neighbour. And yet we know that only in communion can we be persons as God is person. I am speaking of an obedience which has ascetic value only as a means of communion with God and with our neighbour. Our understanding of the term neighbour in the context of obedience should not be limited to thinking only of our Bishops, but also extends to each neighbour we encounter moment by moment. It includes also a husband's obedience to his wife, a wife's obedience to her husband; or the community for a religious, the parish for a priest. Understood in this way, doing the will of God is not self-destruction but is self-fulfillment, because by doing God's will one enters into communion. It is the same for the three divine Persons who receive their identity and distinction through their reciprocal relationships.

At times the same misunderstanding is noticed in our preaching regarding the other evangelical counsels and the virtues. The idea that the more you fast, the better you are because you will end up receiving a reward (in the next life), is a concept completely foreign to the Fathers of the Church, to the early Christian community and therefore to the faith itself, because fasting has absolutely no merit in itself. If, however, I fast intending to detach myself from whatever causes me to turn in on myself or for the purpose of sharing what I have with the poor, recognizing that God is Father and therefore everyone is a brother or sister, then, by fasting, I enter into communion with God and with my neighbour.

The same motivation justifies poverty. In itself poverty is not a virtue but a misfortune. Should I see someone who is in need, however, and refuse to help him because I don't want to give from my personal resources since they give me financial and psychological security, then, in effect I am renouncing God as Father and not only refusing communion with my rejected neighbour, but also denying myself communion with God. In other words, I am living "outside" of the Trinity because I have refused mutual love. By rejecting this communion, it is important to emphasise, I am not fulfilled as a Christian or as a human person. On the other hand, if I impoverish myself to enter into communion, in reality I am living Jesus who emptied himself of everything and, therefore, I am living in the image and likeness of God.

The same is true for virginity and chastity. To emphasize them as values in themselves, as virtues, when at times they can be egotistical, a denial of communion, means that we still place the emphasis on non-being (self-negation) rather than on being which is communion. The virgin who remains closed as a defence of self already lives, de facto, in hell (in non-communion) both psychologically and spiritually. In fact one can be chaste in body and still hate his or her neighbour. Chastity and virginity are values if and inasmuch as they express a capacity for greater communion with God and with one's neighbour. Understood as such, chastity affects all relationships, between men and women, between religious and community and between priests and the local Church. Either these relationships are lived AS Trinity, that is, incarnating the commandment of mutual love, or they are signs of both psychological and spiritual immaturity. But we will return to this point later.

Deus ex Machina"

We must keep in mind that Jesus did not speak of removing people from the human experience. When we speak in our ministry, however, we often insinuate that he did. We speak as though we have to forget that we are human, mortify ourselves, die to being human and eventually arrive at a more "supernatural" form of life. This creates a meaningless dualism. A dualism that ceased to exist the moment God the Word became human.

It is not necessary to reject what is human to enter another dimension of life. God himself created us in his image and likeness. He wants nothing more than to bring us back to be in his image and likeness with the body and soul he created. Therefore, what Jesus told us, revealing the mind of the Father, was not to change our nature, but to realise ourselves, through the gift of ourselves, as a redeemed nature through which we can return to the image and likeness of God. If God in heaven is Trinity, it means that human beings on earth are who they are only in a trinitarian communion with others.

Should one change from the old man to the new man, using St. Paul's terminology, it is not because one has matured from the state of nature to a state of super-nature. Human development is from a state of fallen nature to a state of redeemed and risen nature. If as humans we must develop from the old man to the new man, it is because the old man is non-being, non-love, non-communion. God is, because He is love, because He is communion. Consequently the passage (the result of loving) from the old man to the new man is the passage from non-being to being. Only being love is one in the image and likeness of God.

It is necessary to eliminate the image of a God of infants and come to believe in the Father of sons and daughters. This means believing as sons and daughters who are the personal you of the Father as was Jesus himself. God desires us to be persons, not slaves. He freed us from slavery. Our faith, is also rationabile obsequium: if the collective human consciousness today does not accept certain images of God, it is because the images have been distorted and as long as we continue to perpetuate them and not rectify them, the world will continue not to believe.

Another image of God often found in our preaching is the image of Deus ex machina. Let's look at an example. We read in the Gospel: "Seek first the kingdom of God and all else will be given to you." The kingdom of God obviously is the life of God and as such, trinitarian life. "Seek the kingdom of God", means to act in our relationships as the Father and the Son act in the Trinity. It is not a question of an extrapolation of the Gospel; they are Jesus' precise words: "Be one among yourselves as the Father and I are one". "To seek the kingdom of God" means inter agite: in our relationships with one another we should love one another with the disposition of even giving our life for one another. By so doing, Jesus will be among us which makes of us an icon of the Trinity, the kingdom of God, or to put it another way, we return to being men and women in the image and likeness of God.

Here I must refer to one of the most profound intuitions of Chiara Lubich who sees in the three persons of the house of Nazareth not only a model of the life of the focolare, but the universal model of interpersonal relations for those who want to be "in the image and likeness", that is to say, men and women who are living according to the plan of God: "The focolare must resemble the house of Nazareth, where Jesus was physically present with Mary and Joseph... It is the life of the Most Holy Trinity that we, with God's grace, seek to imitate by loving one another, just as the Persons of the Trinity love one another ... It is the mystery of the new commandment, the mystery of the Church ... It is the mystery of Jesus, of the complete Jesus, of Humanity, not of one man ... therefore, it is the mystery of those who love one another as He has loved us; of a unity of souls which reflect on earth the Trinity above." 1

Therefore, "seek the kingdom of God" means "live on earth as the Trinity", that is "be in communion", "be Church" (icon of the trinitarian communion), "and the rest will be given to you". In our preaching, instead, we normally say that if we participate in Mass, if we give alms ... God is pleased with our obedience to Him and will send us all that we need. This is a Deus ex machina. This artificial god is not credible especially to the modern consciousness.

Jesus has taught us that if we love we are like God. If I love, therefore, if I am in relationship with another, ready to die for the other, to live the other, I live God. This is the technique of unity. And in this mutual love I find the hundredfold. Living this type of divine sociality on earth through the practice of the communion of goods, for example, I will discover all the material and spiritual goods necessary for life.

This type of trinitarian sociality brought on earth by Jesus, must also be the paradigm for every pastoral activity in the ministry. To live "as the Trinity" is the basis for the apostolate, the basis for the missionary activity of all Christians. To understand this we must remember that Jesus said: "By this they will know that you are my disciples - if you love one another." Why? Because this is the new socialisation Jesus brought on earth to reveal the Trinity.

Jesus offered no other techniques for the apostolate other than this witness. The same was echoed by the apostles: "We communicate to you only what we have seen with our eyes, heard with our ears, touched with our hands..." They spoke of an experience of God, of Jesus among them, an experience of trinitarian life, of the new sociality (cf. 1 Jn 1:1-3).

The life of the Trinity is the model for every spiritual life, because if we live "as the Trinity" we are in God.

It is the model for our physical life. Living in mutual trinitarian relationship not only provides psychological health, but we also find the optimal conditions for physical health. We achieve health because we find a way to mould ourselves according to the plan of God. Only in communion can one truthfully say: "I am". And we know how important it is for physical and psychological health to be able to say this.

The trinitarian model is also a paradigm for harmony in the field of art. Three who are one, one who is three. The multiplicity, whose components are all in relationship, is the order of the universe. The mystics are those who cast their eyes' gaze on God, and they see everything in trinitarian terms. It is impressive to note that Chiara Lubich, a modern mystic, insists on saying that everything in the world is in a trinitarian relationship.

The Word of God is wisdom personified. Why not search for the wisdom of God in human relationships created through mutual love, knowing that where two or three are united in my name, I, the Word, the Truth, Wisdom, am in your midst? Wisdom is the Word. Perhaps we can find seeds of the Word in all the world, in all reality, but wisdom is that living presence of Jesus in the midst of the disciples who live "as the Trinity".

God, therefore, is the model, the champion of communication. Everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son, and everything that belongs to the Son belongs to the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is Communication, it is Love that binds them. The definitive communication to the world comes from God through Jesus, who has said that all the Father has revealed to him He has communicated. Thus even the model for the internal communication of the Church cannot be anything but this.

An elitist God or Emmanuel

Is this not the witness we are called to give? Are we not called to live as risen persons, as Church according to the trinitarian social dynamic (as a segment of redeemed and risen humanity), so that the other five billion people who do not know the light of Revelation can say: "yes, the life of Christians is more beautiful, more satisfying, more gratifying, more creative than ours..."? Or should we consider Luke in the Acts of the Apostles and the Author of the Letter to Diognetus as dreamers when they write that the life of Christians, although living on earth, "reveals the extraordinary and truly paradoxical laws of their spiritual republic"?

Therefore, when we say in the language of our spirituality (Focolare) that everyone is "a candidate for unity", we mean that all are candidates to live God and this should be taken seriously. For example, with the same love shown by the father of the prodigal son, a pastor should care also for those in his parish who claim to have no faith, or for those who seem to be anti-clericals. Since Jesus accepted our human nature, he has assumed all that is human, everything that can be called human. Through Jesus, the Son of God, we are all called to be sons and daughters in the Son. And this should prompt us to have a sacred and lofty respect for every living person.

Ex opera operato but also ex opere operantis

The interpersonal relationships between husbands and wives should effectively build a small domestic church mirroring and reflecting to others an icon of the Trinity. In this way the Pauline parallel of the relationship between Christ and the Church will not be regarded as just a beautiful image, but will express "how" husbands and wives should live the trinitarian relationship. From this perspective, how many marriages are truly Christian marriages? The matrimonial "contract" can be valid and sacramental; but how often is it "Christian life"?

The same can be said for those who choose the priesthood or a religious vocation. If, as often happens today, one becomes a priest consciously thinking that if it does not work out he still has the option to leave (and this is part of the general consciousness that no longer accepts definitive commitments), then it is clear that he has not understood the meaning of his consecration, even though, ex opere operato, the ordination has had effect. Certainly one's vocation is a mysterious call from God, but it is also a personal decision that one makes, a decision made as a response to the love of God. If one's decision is to serve humanity and that portion of humanity that will be entrusted to him, desiring to live this trinitarian aspect as a willingness to give his life for the others, then it is clear that when things are difficult, it is no longer possible to leave.

And the same for religious. The personal "you" for a religious is the community. In effect he has chosen to die for the community to which he belongs, to serve the community, to give his life for the community. It is his decision, while still being a mysterious call from God. It is a choice, not a way of taking refuge, or of being dependent or even a way for seeking holiness on one's own. Religious life is a way to live the trinitarian relationships in community, to make of the community an icon of the Trinity, a small kingdom of God on earth. Therefore, in spite of everything, even when life in the community is difficult, one cannot leave, just as a wife cannot leave when her husband becomes paralysed or a priest leave if he is assigned to a parish where the majority are non-practising. Jesus, having committed himself to humanity, did not leave when he was crucified by the very ones he came to redeem.

Let us look at the Eucharist. Our way of approaching the Eucharist and our celebration of the Eucharist are often an existential lie. We receive communion because it is Jesus. Then we often leave the celebration and do not recognize that the same Jesus that was in the Eucharist is also in our parish priest, the curate, the Bishop, the lay person, the wife or husband, in short, in each neighbour who passes. Have we in our ministry at times fostered this contradiction? While the Eucharist is the sign of unity, the unity of the Body of Christ, the Church, too often our experience in the Church is one of disjointed social relationships which sheds light on what St. Paul means when he says that we eat our own condemnation.

Conclusion

Ignazio Sanna said: "How is it that this Christian vision of the human person has remained in anthropology books, in homilies at Mass, in the secret of the confessional and has not served to create cultural models of behavior, or had an impact on building a society which can accomplish the ideals of solidarity, the ideals of reciprocity? Evidently something has not worked and still is not working to communicate this anthropology. Perhaps, instead of creating friendship and concern for others, systems have been created, elaborated by ideologies, ideologies of opposition, ideologies of alternatives. They have placed God in opposition to humanity. This became evident when a well-known philosopher such as Nietzsche, said that to save the human race it is necessary to destroy God. Unfortunately, we have created this dualism in the mentality of people and not the idea that the glory of God is humanity fully alive."

And Marcello Bordoni said: "We must understand that humanity, and therefore the collective human consciousness, is a theological locus; humanity and culture are the loci that cannot be disregarded in an authentic discussion of faith in the context of the historical situation in which one lives. The Church will be able to prepare the soil for evangelisation through a language that humanity can more easily understand."

I would add that evangelisation can be advanced by new images of God that are more authentic, more evangelical, ones that are supported by personal witness.

During the discussion, Bordoni referred to Rahner: "Rahner has written that humanity is the grammer of a possible expression of God's communication in history. In every fragment of humanity there is a seal of God one and three. And God, one and three, means relationship, means dialogue, means communion".