I just read a fascinatingly challenging article about church reform. In some ways this is funny, because churches have been reforming since New Testament days. There is even a major period in Christian history we call the Reformation period. No doubt, some kind of reform is needed, since the church is now two thousand years old. There is no way it could still be the same thing as it was in the time of Jesus (assuming there might have been a Christian Church at that point).
So we stand still at the early years of the twenty-first century. Not only Catholics, but most Christian groups need reformation. It is not easy to reform or to be innovative, because most institutions---religious and secular---are conservative by nature. Typically, institutions are organized to preserve what is. Change often is a threat. And sometimes those who call for change are threatening.
Thomas Reese is a Jesuit and he writes a column about the impending attempt by the Vatican to reform. To be precise, the Vatican wants to reform the Curia, which for Catholics are the administrative offices. Reese suggests that this intended reform may be headed for disaster. I don’t know enough to make that judgment and, secondly, the official document has yet to be released. What does intrigue me, however, is the kind of evidence Reese marshals to offer his critique.
A couple points can be made at the outset. Reese claims that “Evangelization is at the heart of what the church is about under Francis.” I think this is a fair claim. Pope Francis does see the spreading of the good news to be central to the work of the faithful. The real question is who becomes responsible for this evangelization? Reese seems to think the reform movement wants to make the Curia in charge. Mistake, thinks the Jesuit.
His argument is administrative types are not the kind of folks to be out there spreading the word and servicing the world with the good news. In other words, bureaucrats are not inspirational. Again that makes sense to me. What intrigues me even more is the way Reese goes to the business world to assess how organizations who are innovative work well. As one who has now done a fair amount of work in the business world, this attracts me.
So when Reese talks about innovative work and who does it in the church, he makes this initial point. “Central offices do not sell products; they manage people in the field, who sell the products.” I agree with this analysis. People in central offices are too far removed from the action in sales (in the case of the church, from the action of the parish). Like me, you may blink when you think about the church selling products. Or if you are a non-Catholic, you may think of the sixteenth century indulgence phenomenon, which helped spark Luther and the Reformation. But let’s stay in the twenty-first century!
I wondered what Reese thinks are the church’s products to be sold? Again, he uses corporate management practices to assess what’s going on in church reform and I think that is intriguing. Late in his essay, he comes to my question. He asks, “What are the products lines of the church? Word, sacraments and charity.” Even as a Quaker, I find this a fascinating way to put it. Indeed, what is the church selling? The Word for one thing. This can mean the Bible. In addition, it can mean the way contemporary folks interpret the Word---sometimes we call this tradition. And even more, it is attempts to make the faith relevant and inviting. This is the work of evangelization, as I see it.
In addition to the Word, one of our products is sacraments. Once more, this feels like a reach for Quakers---sometimes wrongly seen as having no sacraments. But I have written in this field and want to argue that Quakers see the Christian call to all people to live sacramentally. We are all to learn and to live as sacraments of God. So I personally am good with sacraments being a product we have to sell. Our secular world needs some living sacraments!
And the third thing we are selling is charity. Clearly, many folks would argue this is not a Christian thing. Charity---or love---is a human enterprise and I would agree. But the Christian call is to love God and the neighbor. And neighbor is defined as every other living creature. That is a tall order. I think it is possible only from a transcendent, spiritual base. It is not easy to get to the place where you have charity or compassion for every other living being. I am still in process!
Reese’s essay makes me think. What is the purpose of the church---the church as the body of Christ and the institution? If faith is a matter of a living experience of God, rather than membership in an institution, how does the organization support the work of faith? Surely there is a function for bureaucrats, but theirs is not the work of inspiration and encouragement. We need leaders and communities of inspiration.
It is time to get creative. I am eager to see how God leads this new work in all of our traditions.
So we stand still at the early years of the twenty-first century. Not only Catholics, but most Christian groups need reformation. It is not easy to reform or to be innovative, because most institutions---religious and secular---are conservative by nature. Typically, institutions are organized to preserve what is. Change often is a threat. And sometimes those who call for change are threatening.
Thomas Reese is a Jesuit and he writes a column about the impending attempt by the Vatican to reform. To be precise, the Vatican wants to reform the Curia, which for Catholics are the administrative offices. Reese suggests that this intended reform may be headed for disaster. I don’t know enough to make that judgment and, secondly, the official document has yet to be released. What does intrigue me, however, is the kind of evidence Reese marshals to offer his critique.
A couple points can be made at the outset. Reese claims that “Evangelization is at the heart of what the church is about under Francis.” I think this is a fair claim. Pope Francis does see the spreading of the good news to be central to the work of the faithful. The real question is who becomes responsible for this evangelization? Reese seems to think the reform movement wants to make the Curia in charge. Mistake, thinks the Jesuit.
His argument is administrative types are not the kind of folks to be out there spreading the word and servicing the world with the good news. In other words, bureaucrats are not inspirational. Again that makes sense to me. What intrigues me even more is the way Reese goes to the business world to assess how organizations who are innovative work well. As one who has now done a fair amount of work in the business world, this attracts me.
So when Reese talks about innovative work and who does it in the church, he makes this initial point. “Central offices do not sell products; they manage people in the field, who sell the products.” I agree with this analysis. People in central offices are too far removed from the action in sales (in the case of the church, from the action of the parish). Like me, you may blink when you think about the church selling products. Or if you are a non-Catholic, you may think of the sixteenth century indulgence phenomenon, which helped spark Luther and the Reformation. But let’s stay in the twenty-first century!
I wondered what Reese thinks are the church’s products to be sold? Again, he uses corporate management practices to assess what’s going on in church reform and I think that is intriguing. Late in his essay, he comes to my question. He asks, “What are the products lines of the church? Word, sacraments and charity.” Even as a Quaker, I find this a fascinating way to put it. Indeed, what is the church selling? The Word for one thing. This can mean the Bible. In addition, it can mean the way contemporary folks interpret the Word---sometimes we call this tradition. And even more, it is attempts to make the faith relevant and inviting. This is the work of evangelization, as I see it.
In addition to the Word, one of our products is sacraments. Once more, this feels like a reach for Quakers---sometimes wrongly seen as having no sacraments. But I have written in this field and want to argue that Quakers see the Christian call to all people to live sacramentally. We are all to learn and to live as sacraments of God. So I personally am good with sacraments being a product we have to sell. Our secular world needs some living sacraments!
And the third thing we are selling is charity. Clearly, many folks would argue this is not a Christian thing. Charity---or love---is a human enterprise and I would agree. But the Christian call is to love God and the neighbor. And neighbor is defined as every other living creature. That is a tall order. I think it is possible only from a transcendent, spiritual base. It is not easy to get to the place where you have charity or compassion for every other living being. I am still in process!
Reese’s essay makes me think. What is the purpose of the church---the church as the body of Christ and the institution? If faith is a matter of a living experience of God, rather than membership in an institution, how does the organization support the work of faith? Surely there is a function for bureaucrats, but theirs is not the work of inspiration and encouragement. We need leaders and communities of inspiration.
It is time to get creative. I am eager to see how God leads this new work in all of our traditions.
Comments
Post a Comment