Category: WM Special

Mission is not just going to an alien world bereft of God’s presence. Even if today, in large parts of the world, the “God–question” itself seems to have disappeared from human consciousness while, on the other hand, dramatic situations make people cry “Where are You, God? The Spirit, who permeates all creation, enjoins the Church in mission: “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” (Ex. 3:5). Mission is not a crusade, but unfolds as a faith acknowledgment and an act of adoration for a God who is already there. The entry point of mission is the universal presence and activity of the Holy Spirit. This makes also, of today’s crisis, the favorable time.   The Spirit, who blows where She chooses and never ceases to amaze and surprise, confronts mission with the mystery of God. Rediscovering the mission of the Spirit in the world, whose role cannot be solely that of being a Garantor of the Church and her mission, means to let God be God, without locking Him in a cage. Mission is, first of all, God’s mission, and who can know all the ways of God? Mission starts by a constant waiting for God to manifest Himself, and an ongoing invocation of the Spirit who knows the depth of God (cf.1 Cor. 2:10). The paradox of the missionary proclamation is that God is ‘experienced’ rather than ‘spoken about,’ and the experience of God is a ‘gift’, a work of the Spirit. Rather than being the ‘God–object’ of knowledge and preaching, God is the Subject of the religious and missionary discourse, and always remains a “surprise” for the missionary Church herself. At the source of the word of a missionary proclamation is the grace of a glimpse into the unfathomable mystery, to be shared in humility and gratitude. Mission is not about possessing an all–embracing truth; neither can it provide a “grand story” that explains everything, everywhere, always. Certainly, a Christian community has come to know Jesus Christ as the One in whom there is fullness of “grace and truth” (Jn. 1:14), but the mystery of the “ineffable and hidden God” still remains, so much so that Jesus on the cross, the greatest moment of God’s encounter with the world, is also the moment of His deepest concealment – an event that confuses all human perception about God and gives rise to a holy restlessness. Here is where mutuality, between the Christ event and the action of the Spirit in the world, becomes relevant. Focusing primarily on Christology could lead the missional Church towards a ‘backward’–oriented vision, intent on imitating what Jesus Christ had done in the past, while the Spirit is, instead, bringing the newness of the Christ event to bear on the present and letting mission come face–to–face with God’s mystery again and again. Michael Amaladoss points out, “Today, mission without mystery is oppressive.”   With the Spirit as the Principal Agent of mission, mission is finding

Mission is, first of all, the mission of God, accomplished by the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in the world. But how should such presence and activity be understood? Should it be seen simply as the power at work in Jesus and His Church? In this case, we would speak of the Spirit of mission, who instructs and guides, enables and enlivens Christian missionary work in the world. Or should we rather speak of the mission of the Spirit, in the sense that the Holy Spirit has Her own mission in the world which, though related to Jesus Christ and the Church, extends further and has its own specificity? This question ushers the next: where is the Holy Spirit to be found: “in the human heart,” “in the Church” or “everywhere”?  The type of answer to these two questions will deeply affect both the understanding and practice of mission and the way today’s world is approached. The main focus of the New Testament is on the event of Jesus Christ: on what Jesus’ disciples had “seen and touched” and experienced. What is underlined is how full of the Spirit of God Jesus was, and how the same Spirit had come to transform Jesus’ followers and to guide the journey of their community, both in its way of life and in its witness to Christ. Typical in this regard is the testimony of Luke, both in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles. Luke’s work could easily be called the Book of the Holy Spirit. The other two synoptics – Matthew and Mark – make relatively few references to the action of the Spirit. By the power of the Spirit, Jesus is formed in the womb of Mary (Lk. 1:35; cf. Mt. 1:18–20), is confirmed as Son of God (3:22; cf. Mt. 3:16–17; Mk. 1:8–10), is led into the wilderness where He confronts the counter–kingdom by undergoing temptation (4:1–2; cf. Mt. 4:1; Mk. 1;12), returns to Galilee (4:14) and is anointed to preach the Good News to the poor (4:18; cf. Mt. 12:18; Acts 10:38) and to free people from the power of evil (Lk. 11:20; cf. Mt. 12:28). Raised from the dead, Jesus commands His disciples to wait for the promised “power from on high” through the coming of the Holy Spirit so as to be His witnesses in the whole world (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:8). At the Jewish feast of Pentecost, that promise is fulfilled: the Spirit comes on them with the force of wind and fire and fills them, as if with the inebriating power of wine, propelling them to mission (Acts 2:1–4, 15). A parallel is established between the anointing of Jesus by the Spirit at the Jordan and the coming of the Spirit on the disciples at Pentecost, with the death and resurrection of Jesus constituting the decisive turning point: being exalted at the right hand of God, Jesus Himself has become a Spirit–Giver (Acts 2:33). The prophetic messianic Spirit who had

Last February, Pope Benedict XVI shocked the world when he suddenly resigned from the papacy. The announcement came in Latin – a language now spoken by no one and understood by a few – during an unrelated meeting. An Italian journalist, who heard the words ran a quick translation and, not believing her own work, retranslated it again. There was no doubt, Pope Benedict had said he would resign in a couple of weeks and leave the Vatican. He did so, mentioning his increasing inability to cope with the work and the speed of changes in the world. He was the first pope to resign after the famous “great refusal” – as Dante Alighieri wrote in the Divina Commedia – of Pope Celestino V in 1294. The Pope’s resignation opened many discussions about everything: from his right to do so to who the next pope would be. Most media focused on the Pope’s physical weakness or the difficulty of being the leader of a global religion in today’s world. A few, however, realized the real scope of the papacy today. The following dossier is an attempt to have an in–depth look at the most important challenges the Church is facing today. At the news of the resignation, many started asking if this was a signal for a renewed leadership in the Church. Pope Benedict said that he felt unable to face the speed of changes, the many challenges, the new areas where the Church is asked to intervene; this while his strength was diminishing due to age and ailments. What the Pope was saying is that leadership requires many skills, and the leadership of the Church is even more challenging. The Pope is not only a spiritual leader, but also an administrator and a political figure. To be able to adapt to all these roles is not easy. Besides, today, the world is highly specialized. Each area of knowledge requires competence and constant updating. The Church is also present all over the world, and new questions about Church life rise every day. No one is capable of handling all these instances alone.   Laypeople and bishops True, the Pope has many people working for him, preparing speeches and evaluating reports. Still, he remains in charge of the overall running of the Church. It was not always like that. Until the 19th. century, the Church was less centralized. Many decisions were delegated to local Churches. Distances and the difficulty of communication made it almost mandatory that the Vatican intervened only on major decisions. Today’s easiness of communication and the ever more centralized role of the Vatican make it harder to follow and resolve all questions. The problem is not new. Cardinal Martini, then Archbishop of Milan – the world’s largest diocese – realized it long ago and made some proposals. At the Synod of Bishops in 1999, he expressed his “dream” of a council and a form of government of the Catholic Church that would be an expression of collegiality. Regarding

In many ways, the present time is a period of difficulty for mission and Christianity at large. The long standing and cherished dream for an ever more extended “Christendom” is being shattered under the pressure of historical events. The process of decolonization, along with post–colonial studies, has made untenable the traditional paradigm of mission for global Christianization, as its impracticality and inherent ambiguity are being uncovered. The new self–consciousness of peoples throughout the world has found expression in the reclamation of cultural identities, revitalization of traditional religions, and the affirmation of the human subject as self–master. As an effect of globalization and the related mobility of people, the world is increasingly turning into a global village of many cultures, religions, ideologies and ways of life; traditional geographical borders have lost most of their significance and replaced by boundaries of an anthropological character that defy borders and are growing ever more intertwined everywhere. If, on the one hand, this global village has great potential for mutual exchange and enrichment at all levels, and could be the melting pot of a new world, on the other, it is also the place of conflicts, marginalization and violence as daily experience tells us. In the fluidity of such a diverse world, the market has stepped in and taken over as the dominant and self–regulating force, by establishing an overarching business–oriented and business–driven culture in which profit redefines all values; the human being in himself, more than as a person, is treated as an economic resource and a consumer. The inner logic of self–interest and the greed of the market–driven world has become evident in the growing dominance of finance over real economy and politics (financial capitalism) and in the current global crisis, both economic and humanly–ethical, that it has caused. The pursuit of personal gain at all costs and rampant consumerism are having a destructive effect on the lives of billions of people and on the ecosystem. The best standpoint to feel the contours of our time and evaluate the extent of the crisis it is going through, is the standpoint of the victims, from where it becomes clear that we are in the midst of chronic global suffering and violence. Any approach to mission needs to take this hard fact as a normative point of reference. Anything less begs for credibility. In such a historical context, mission cannot limit itself to making new Christians, perhaps, in view of an afterlife. What is at stake is an in–depth reading of our time, to understand what the Spirit of God is saying to the Churches and where she is leading the world. What is at stake is a change of direction that gives new meaning to our lives, regenerates a collective hope and enables a new way of living together in our differences, in responsibility for each other and in mutual solidarity. What is at stake is the Gospel itself as a world–transforming instrument for the “kingdom of God.” Confronted by such a missionary challenge,

How would the rediscovery of the Spirit, as Protagonist of Mission, regenerate the missionary imagination, and so rekindle missionary fire and transform missionary praxis? How would the face of Christian mission in the world change? Here, we highlight a few aspects of a Spirit–shaped missionary imagination, as an invitation for further exploration.

“Come, Holy Spirit, renew the face of the earth.” Mission is a continual invocation of the Spirit, whose presence and action has to do with the creation of the world according to God’s plan. Mission is an ongoing Pentecost.

Iran is over 99% Muslim and Islam is the state religion. The Church’s roots in Iran are very old going back to the 2nd century. Is Christianity the oldest religion in Iran?  No, we have two older communities, older than Christianity. First, we have the Zoroastrian community which goes back centuries before the arrival of Christianity and Islam. Second, we have the Jewish community. The Zoroastrian community consists of about 20,000 people and the Jewish, between 20,000 and 35,000. These two communities are older than the Christian community.    Today, Iran is over 99% Muslim. How does Islam permeate daily life?  If you are on the streets of Tehran, or any part of the country, you will notice the portrait of the martyrs, the Ayatollah, the late Khomeini, the current Ayatollah Khamenei. If you use a phone in public telephone booths, you will hear the voice of Imam Hussein telling you what to do.    So, if you pick up a phone, immediately you will hear a (recorded) voice of the Imam?  Right. And in schools, the Disciplines are permitted but through a perspective based on the Koran and Hadith and other Islamic sciences.    In fact, if I understand correctly, the picture of the Ayatollah is even on the cover of the catechism books?  Right, and maybe it is a way to show that Christians are under the protection of the regime and are considered dhimmis (protected people) in the Islamic Sharia. It is a way to say that you [Christians] are under our [Islamic] regime. Then, you have the religious police.    What about the modesty patrols that make sure that women are properly garbed?  Sometimes they are hard liners and sometimes not depending on the regime. Under Khatami, for instance, they were a little bit liberal so girls could show a little bit of their heads. Under Ahmadinejad, it is stricter.   It is very strict now and back to the complete covering?  Yes, only the face is seen. But there are women who cover their hands and faces, too.    Christians number about 100,000 in a population of 71 million. How are Christians viewed in Iran?  Christians are viewed as an ethnic minority because the Christians are predominantly Armenians, and Syro-Chaldeans. We have 80,000 Orthodox Armenians who are also called Gregorian or Apostolic Armenian, 5,000 Catholic Armenians, and around 20,000 Assyro-Chaldeans plus other communities such as Latin, Protestants Churches which, all together, make up between 100,000 to 110,000. So, they are seen as an ethnic minority and as such, they are not allowed to celebrate their rites in Farsi, the official language of Iran. They can’t celebrate the Holy Mass in Farsi but in Armenian or Chaldean only.    To distinguish them as foreigners?  Not only that but to prevent them from being attractive and understood by the local Iranians.    To prevent the Iranians from being attracted to the faith?  Right, and to prevent them [Iranians] from understanding what they [Christians] are saying. There was

ARMENIANS. Armenia, part of modern Turkey, was under Soviet rule until 1991, when Communism fell. At various stages of its history, it was under Arab, Byzantine, and Turkish rule. The monk Mechitan sought safety in Venice. His followers formed the congregation of the Mechitists, which started the development of Armenian culture. Only 4% of the population are Roman Catholics, while the majority (94%) are “Armenian Apostolic Catholics.” A “Katholikos” heads the Roman Catholics. They were banned from attending the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which condemned the heresy of monophysitism, that is, Christ has only one divine nature, despite His earthly birth, life, death, and resurrection. Later, they accepted conciliar decrees of the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1453, and confirmed the union with the Roman Catholic Church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II and Katholikos Karekin I (+1999) signed a joint declaration to bridge the gap between the two Churches. The Armenian Apostolic Catholics (or Oriental Orthodox) had also accepted the decrees of Chalcedon. For political reasons, the Byzantine Emperor, influenced by the monphysites, opposed them. They reunited with Rome for more than two centuries (1198-1375), but internal conflicts prevented total union among themselves.   CHALDEANS. They form a minority group today in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. Already mentioned in ancient writings, the Old Testament considered them people with magical powers. They are either Nestorians, who admit a divine and human nature in Christ, but which are merely accidentally united in Him, or Oriental Rite Roman Catholics. The Chaldean Catholics trace their roots to the Latin Crusaders, and they had always sought reunion with the Roman Catholic Church. But centuries of conflict due to circumstances of time, place, and persons, have always blocked their efforts. In 1552, their patriarch, Simon III Baida, journeyed to see Pope Julius III. Refusing election to the Patriarchate twice, they forced him physically to accept the position. The following year, the Pope proclaimed Sulaqa as the Patriarch of the Chaldeans, an event which marks the official establishment of the Chaldean Catholic Church.   COPTS. The name is Arabic for “Egyptian.” St. Mark brought the Christian Gospel from Alexandria to Egypt and Abyssinia. Wrongly thinking that monophysitism was the orthodox doctrine, for it was supposedly taught by St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Alexandria accepted the heretical teaching. The Byzantines, too, had accepted the decrees of Chalcedon, and their followers are known as “Melkites,” or the “King’s men.” But the traditionalists in Egypt resented the “upstart” Byzantines, and so, to promote peace, Emperor Justin II created a Melkite Patriarchate and a non-Chalcedonian Patriarch. The majority went with the non-Chalcedonian Patriarch, and observed a modified Alexandrian liturgy, while the Melkites followed the Byzantine. Their Arab conquerors subjected them to taxes, tributes, or Islam – or death. Many embraced Islam. The first attempt of reunion with Rome occurred during the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1439). Pertinent documents were issued, but their Church leaders refused to sign them. In 1600, a Franciscan friar was named their Vicar and, in

In 1054, the mid-Eastern Christian churches split from the Roman Catholic Church, and all efforts in the last 10 centuries to reconcile them have failed. Differences in culture, language, social traditions, politics, and even human ambition have been the factors of this continued alienation and suspicion. And yet, both sides believe in the same God and receive the same sacraments. A number of them have rejoined the Roman Catholic Church, but one remains aloof and refuses to accept the primacy of the Pope in Rome. St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, was martyred in Rome, the Eternal City and capital of the ancient Roman Empire. The bishops who succeeded him there inherited his primacy and supreme authority over all Christian churches, and Rome is now the head and center of Christianity. The other mid-Eastern churches can also claim apostolic origins, but do not enjoy the same privilege. Antioch traces its beginnings to St. Peter, but he did not die there. Alexandria in Egypt, a Jewish center of culture and learning, was the second imperial city as big as Rome. Tradition says that St. Mark, St. Peter’s close disciple, was the founder of its Christian Church. St. James the Apostle headed Jerusalem, the cradle of Christianity, where he was martyred. Constantinople, founded in 324 by Constantine the Great as the seat of his new empire, could not claim the same apostolic origin. Christianity was persecuted until Emperor Constantine the Great granted it legal existence in 313 A. D. For strategic reasons, he abandoned Rome and, in 324, built a new seat of his empire in Byzantium, renamed Constantinople (“Constantini polis,” or Constantine’s City). The new imperial capital soon eclipsed Rome in importance, grandeur, and culture. Because Christianity flourished under imperial protection, it seemed a matter of course that the Emperor would be considered head of the Christian community, and he was expected to promote the well-being of both the Empire and the Church. And Constantine himself believed that religious unity and uniformity of belief would consolidate imperial unity, and he banned everything that threatened to disrupt it.   The first councils Sincere Christian leaders were perplexed over many Christian mysteries, especially the Trinity. Arius (+336), a priest in Alexandria, could not rationally explain how Jesus could also be divine. If He was, how could there be only one God? He concluded that Jesus could not be divine, but only a mere creature, lower than the Father. To worship Jesus was idolatry. More importantly, His death on the cross was useless and could not save the world. In this way, Arius believed he was preserving the doctrine of only one supreme God intact. To settle the dispute, Constantine convoked the first ecumenical council in Nicaea in 325, which unequivocally condemned Arius and his teachings. It drew up a succinct summary of the articles of Christian faith, we now know as the Nicene Creed. Not all accepted the condemnation, and Constantine imposed his imperial authority to force everyone to accept the Nicene