Filling gaps in our systems: the dynamics of growth. (Presenting the Issue).

Every social and theological system exists because it provides ways and means for addressing a wide spectrum of needs people share. Those who rely on a single system can be expected to find difficulty in recognizing the worth of another so long as basic needs are thought to be met by the conventional operational model. That doesn't mean that other systems or alternatives don't exist, or that they may not even be better given a different range of needs. So it is with the system within which the Bible was written as well as the modifications the synagogues and churches have made to that system over time and in different circumstances. The problem that begs to be addressed is when and how to recognize gaps in the conventional biblical and theological systems, given changing circumstances and needs that call for reasonable and legitimate growth.

The recent publication of Cardinal Koenig of Vienna, now in his mid-nineties, "How Vatican II Changed the Church," (THE TABLET [London], December 21, 2002), provides a helpful perspective on the question of how a church system can and did change to meet a new range of needs. Cardinal Koenig attended the Second Vatican Council (1961-1965), which made what many regarded as significant changes in Catholic Church polity. One such area was the move toward ecumenism that many Catholics regarded as necessary given the circumstances of the church in the modern world, viz., as one church among many in a world now acknowledged to be prodigiously religiously diverse. No longer could the Catholic Church lay claim to exclusive legitimacy, even though this notion would be relinquished only slowly and over time.

Cardinal Koenig recalls encountering Cardinal Ottaviani, the head of the Holy Office (formerly known as the Office of the Inquisition, subsequently the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), and informing him that Koenig would be bringing the controversial modernizing theologian, Karl Rahner, as his theological aide at the Council.

   "Rahner," he muttered, shaking his head, "how will
   that work?" He wasn't against it, just worried. Not
   long after the actual council had begun, however, I
   saw Cardinal Ottaviani and Rahner strutting up and
   down St. Peter's together, deeply absorbed in conversation.
   Ottaviani was against change, but he was far
   more flexible than his right hand, Fr. Tromp, SJ. Tromp
   was utterly convinced that the concept of the Church
   as the Mystical Body of Christ was the apogee of theology
   after which there could be nothing new.

The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ was a theological development that went well beyond biblical symbols, but Fr. Tromp had already accommodated to that level of filling in a theological gap within the biblical system, viz.: how a dynamically appreciated Christology could extend beyond time and place to include all believers in a new theological construct. He had not yet recognized further gaps, which even Cardinal Ottaviani, whose motto remained, Semper Idem (Always the Same), might have been willing to consider, given cogent arguments in favor of further advances in church teachings.

Cardinal Koenig further notes that the Second Vatican Council accomplished four "trail-blazing, creative and lasting stimuli" that he now recounts favorably nearly forty years after the deliberations. These were the recognition of global diversity within the church, religious ecumenism, an emphasis on lay apostolates, and the re-definition of the relation between the Church and non-Christian religions. Rumors concerning an impending declaration on Jews, Koenig notes, proved to raise "violent opposition" from Christian Arabs, the Eastern Churches, and from a "vociferous conservative group of council bishops." Koenig now expresses great admiration for Pope John, Cardinal Bea and Fr. John Oesterreicher "for persevering despite fierce opposition, intrigue and sometimes outright slander," realizing a breakthrough redefinition of the way the Catholic Church views non-Christians.

What the council effectively managed was a process of change that signaled responses to new realities, which could hardly have been conceived at an earlier time, largely at variance with the understanding of the various magisteria of the Church through the centuries--the belief and practice of lay Catholics, theologians, and the hierarchy. While Semper Idem served as a forceful motto opposing change, the Council came to recognize the reality of change and took bold steps to accommodate to its demands for the vitality of the Church's mission in the modern world.

This quest continues today. In the October 21, 2002 issue of AMERICA magazine, Cardinal Avery Dulles reacted forcefully against an August 12, 2002 document, Covenant and Mission, issued by a committee of theologians appointed by the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs in dialogue with the National Council of Synagogues, concerning the question whether it is appropriate or necessary to convert Jews to Christianity. Dulles argues that the teachings of the Second Testament as well as Popes Paul VI and John Paul II clearly indicate that Jews should in fact be sought out for inclusion in the Christian dispensation through their affirming faith in the salvific actions of God in Jesus.

By way of response, theologians Mary C. Boys, Philip A. Cunningham, and John T. Pawlikowski explain their position that "Jews are in an eternal covenant with God" and that the Church should "renounce missionary efforts directed at Jews," based on "theological developments since the Second Vatican Council promulgated its `Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions' (Nostra aetate) in 1965." In other words, the gap in recognizing other salvific paths that existed within the system of Catholic Christians before the Second Vatican Council, and seminally addressed at the Council, has in effect advanced further in the spirit of the Council, issuing in the statement in 2002 that God's covenant with Israel remains in force and thus precludes efforts to convert Jews to Christianity. Instead, the committee of theologians opted to distinguish a broad understanding of evangelization in the sense of "the church's mission in its totality (presence and witness; commitment to social development and human liberation; liturgical life, prayer and contemplation; interreligious dialogue; and proclamation and catechesis)" over against proclamation, "the invitation to a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ and to entry through baptism into the community of believers which is the church" (13, 14).

Whether or not this discussion will result in a favorable outcome for Cardinal Dulles' position or for that of the theologians in question, the point at issue is how believing Christians come to take steps based upon perceiving gaps in the biblical and theological systems in the light of growth in pluaralism and the concomitant recognition of diversity within the divine plan of salvation. This dynamic process is essential for understanding and practicing biblical theology today.

The current issue of BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN contributes toward this process in two ways: by identifying how the biblical system worked with its own self-correcting dynamic, and by pointing out where in the biblical system there are gaps that can and should be identified and addressed for the ongoing practice of those within the biblical tradition today. In terms of the first contribution, Walter Brueggemann explores the acquisition and maintenance of power as a key lens through which to view the written record of biblical narrative. By focusing on power, Brueggemann shows exactly how the biblical corpus of Joshua-Judges-Samuel-Kings is "not primarily `history' but is a theological interpretation" most commonly termed "Deuterontnnic history." This theological interpretation, which arose well into the period of the monarchy, steers away from monarchy in favor of obedience to the Deuteronomic definition of Torah, which is a revision of the monarchical developments within the biblical canon. Brueggemann notes, not unexpectedly, that the Deuteronomic history and Jeremiah "were formed in the heat of urgent, high-stakes public dispute," a likely context for any gap identification and filling process within a traditional biblical system even within the Bible itself.

By distinguishing biblical usages of "space," author Victor H. Matthews helps readers today come to grips with the elusive meanings that surround this critical factor in Israelite belief and practice. Matthews offers a key for present-day readers: "One means of deciphering the spatial understanding of the ancient Israelites as they viewed or live in particular places, is to examine the ways in which space is both defined and manipulated by persons and events." Since "space" can be manipulated, "such terms as `all the land' (Josh 11:16; Deut 19:8) may be used for `the possession of Yahweh,' and thus is to be considered `sacred space,' but it also is a geographic reality with specific dimensions ... with political and economic implications." Readers today are well advised to make such distinctions in order to better grasp the dynamic realities of the biblical text within a living and changing social system.

As a final contribution for readers of BTB, Roland E. Murphy, now deceased, provides a scoresheet of sorts for "gauging the flow" of biblical theology in this study that helps readers today identify the gaps that need present-day consideration. Specifically, Murphy asks the question, "What is the relationship of the revelation of God in Christ to other religions? In what sense do they reveal God, and how necessary is Christ to all this?" Surveying the responses of Jacques Dupuis, Karl Rahner, and Gerhard Lohfink, Murphy offers his own formula for relating dogmatic theology to the biblical message. He addresses the issue of "the expansion of certain leads afforded by the decrees and documents of the Church, and by the creative insights into revelation by individual theologians," for "dogma develops on its own turf as it is confronted with new questions, but there is often a retrospective glance back to the Bible as a norm."

To complete the issue, Santiago Guijarro asks anew why Mark's Gospel does not follow the rules of Hellenistic "lives." Guijarro understands Mark's message in terms appropriate to the gospel's social system in contrast to the larger system of Hellenistic literary culture. Mark's transformative interpretation of Jesus thus, with its own dynamic, fills the gap within the Hellenistic system by expounding a remembered Jesus who fills a hitherto unrealized societal need for his followers.

Filling the gaps is a normal process within the biblical tradition as well as in biblical theology. Those for whom this process is needed can be assured that they are not treading upon an unknown path. The path, however, is strenuously guarded, and forward movement generally is gained only through vigorous determination. We can expect to see fierce opposition to redressing similar gaps today. Earlier perceptions and practices, which urgently require growth today, were once claimed to be based on foundations within a biblical-theological system thought to be forever static, despite all evidence to the contrary. Filling gaps in the system today will require recognizing the rightful place of women in official ministry, modifying dysfunctional norms for clerical celibacy as well as antiquated beliefs about human sexuality and sexual orientation, implementing the inclusion of the laity in church administration, and introducing democratic practices in church governance. We can be assured that just as in the past, the emergence of gaps in the system is normal and ongoing. Modifications to fill these gaps is a sign of vitality and growth in the prolific synergy of Bible and Theology.