An Anthropologist on Mars

I’m not sure that Roman Catholics would appreciate me comparing their theological ground to Mars, but Oliver Sacks‘ phrase pretty much describes how I felt last Friday when I went to Regis College to listen as Professor John Dadosky presented a paper: “Towards a Fundamental RE-Interpretation of Vatican II.” He is proposing a new model which the Roman Catholic church can use in its dealings with the Other. As a member of the Other, I thought I should listen in, find out what was being said about me. Suddenly, I found myself thrust into a different culture with a different set of “code words” to indicate what really counts for members of that culture. For example, I know next to nothing about Vatican II, and I know even less about what Vatican II means to the average catholic. I have no measuring stick to gauge how large a shadow the Other casts in the catholic world. In fact, during the discussion that followed, it became apparent that Catholics do not all agree on the matter of who belongs to the Other. Some do not think of protestant denominations as Other at all.

I believe I was witness to something quite heartening. I believe I was witness to a group of serious believers who take seriously the challenge of living in a distinctly 21st century state of tension: trying to work out how to be more than simply tolerant while retaining a sense of their own identity and their own way of being. Dadosky began with the idea of a communion ecclesiology, which Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedictus XVI) helped to shape. This is the “orthodox” view which the RC church holds of itself. In its orientation to the rest of the world, Dadosky describes communion ecclesiology as functioning in accordance with a self-mediating model. In other words, in its encounters with the rest of the world, the RC church looks to itself for clues about how it should relate. But Dadosky proposes a second (and complementary) ecclesiology of friendship whose model of relationship he describes as mutually self-mediating. In other words, in an ecclesiology of friendship, the RC church would enter relationship with the expectation of reciprocity. It could, and would, acknowledge the possibility that the world has things to teach it.

It occurs to me that Dadosky’s proposal works. I have a few thoughts about why and about what this might mean:

1) I read the paper and decided to attend the discussion notwithstanding the fact that I do not belong to this faith tradition. I could enter into dialogue without feeling threatened. As a result, I learned new things and left the encounter feeling enriched. In doing so, my identity was not threatened, nor was I ever entreated to compromise my integrity. And so, my own encounter is evidence enough that the model of mutual self-mediation works.

2) Although Dadosky placed little emphasis upon evangelization, nevertheless this issue emerged as important in later discussion. I belong to a faith community in which evangelization is all but dead. Hard-core efforts to “convert the heathen” have done more harm than good. Most recently, Canada’s three largest Christian organizations, Roman Catholic, United Church of Canada, & Anglican, have found themselves embroiled in controversy (& litigation) arising from both cultural and personal abuses inflicted upon first nations peoples who, as children, were forced to leave their families and to live in residential schools. Traditional evangelization does not work because it forces the church to judge. The act of judgment is singularly unholy. It is a kind of hubris. It cannot be done without aspiring to a godlike perspective. In the case of residential schools, the church judged that first nations peoples were somehow needy. It was mistaken.

3) The desire to evangelize comes from a deeply felt anxiety that the truth will go unheard if we do not speak it. But this is a false supposition. Dadosky is a quiet pupil of Lonergan and, it would seem, has adopted Lonergan’s view of position/counter-position: the counter-position invites its own correction. God does not need our help to bring truth to light; it is only in our anxiety and in our arrogance that we believe we are necessary to the process which facilitates the emergence of truth.

4) Perhaps evangelization is valid when it uses a model of mutual self-mediation if, and only if, its content is discarded. No more preaching Jesus to the mobs of godless folk. Instead, preach the good news of mutual self-mediation. Teach the world a technique to engage in meaningful and affirming conversation. In other words, focus on the method, not the message. Or, to warp Marshall McLuhan: the method is the message.