Part I – Change in Life, in our Church
Since the topic of change occupied a significant part of our group’s discussion last Sunday, I thought it best to create two posts, the first of which will deal only with our discussing change. The second on Chapter Ten of Genesis, The Table of Nations.
To start with I want to offer a few remarks about the very nature of change. It is always concrete, it is inevitable, it happens at the individual level and at the social level, and we don’t often have much control over its occurrence. Some change is development and some change is decline. Some change that is actually good can feel good but it also can feel bad; some change that is actually bad can feel bad but it also can feel good. In other words, our emotional reactions to change are not the final determinative for evaluating change even though they are clues to what change means to us. Obviously change is not the only thing in life, but what we do with change matters a great deal. If you have a different opinion on any of these statements about change, your opinion is welcomed.
Since the Catholic Church is a human reality [but not only human] it has experienced change. Some of the change in the Catholic Church has been development and some has been decline. Every member of the Catholic Church, no matter their position in the church, also changes and some of their change has been development and some has been decline.
The real issue cannot be change since change is inevitable and much of it we have little or no control over. The real issue is discerning the direction of the change so as to affirm the change that is development and to reverse the change that is decline. And that is the source of our differences, we don’t agree on the evaluation of the change.
Although the above is extremely general, in themselves the statements are about the concrete. I have chosen three exchanges in our group discussion to exemplify these notions of change in the concrete.
My presentation on the Trinity as an example of both continuity and change in the Roman Catholic Church meant something to Rosemarie. She remarked, “… we will never, ever, ever know the mystery of the Trinity. The Pope all the way down, you will never understand it. There is no answer that is the mystery. The magisterium of the church teaches us that there is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three Persons, One God. How do you explain it, no way and that’s one of the mysteries of our faith. That’s the core of the Catholic Church, the Eucharist. You can’t compromise. …”
It is clear to me that the notion of change in the Trinity mattered to Rosemarie, as it should. It is also a fact that the Trinity is a mystery. It is equally clear because it is a historical fact that our church in its history has said all kinds of things about the Trinity. I would like to say focused on what Rosemarie said, though. “… we will never, ever, ever know the mystery of the Trinity.”
To determine direction in change and that is the issue, we have to ask, does Rosemarie’s sentence mean we can know nothing about the Trinity or everything about the Trinity. Once it is posed in that way, perhaps the whole conversation could change. The Catholic Church actually teaches that we cannot know everything about the Trinity. It also teaches that we can know some things about the Trinity and that what we know can be very fruitful. Although a conversation about the Trinity may seem to mean very little in the concrete living of our lives in the 21st century, it affords an example of the flow of conversation that is necessary if we are to evaluate, not what we feel, but what actually is the case. It is from knowing the actual case that we can position ourselves to respond authentically to that concrete specific change.
A second example occurred just as we began to discuss chapter 10 of Genesis, the Table of Nations. Heber interrupted, “Can I ask a question. [I respond] Sure. No place in here does it mention any of the wives names that I can see. Am I right or wrong? [I respond] Oh, you’re right. Now they had to marry in the context of their family, right? [I respond] No. Well everybody was wiped out but Noah and his family. You understand where I’m coming from. …”
In Heber’s question there is a basic assumption; namely that the account of Noah and the Flood is an account of actual historical events. Now that assumption is part of the very person that Heber is. It’s not some abstract comment. “You understand where I’m coming from.” When I write the next sentence, I am confronting Heber with change and with change that matters to him. I think, however, the correct understanding of the Biblical account of the Noah and the Flood is in the context of it being a story told by people who believed, to people who believed, to help them in their belief. It is not written to provide us with an account of actual historical events even if there are contained in its writings some actual historical events.
At this point Tim offered his thoughts. “First of all this is really tough because all of us growing up with these stories were taught to believe that they were true, that they were historically accurate. This is what actually happened. And that’s the whole thing that everyone is having a hard time getting their mind around … it’s very tough …”
Confronting change is not easy and it is quite personal. Each of us lives in our world but “our” world and “the” world may not fit together comfortably. The real challenge seems to me to be twofold. First we much come to grips with “the” world as it actually exists. But secondly, we must evaluate the world as it actually exists to affirm what is good in it and to reverse what is wrong, evil, etc. in it. To do that is to rise to the level of our times. The challenge is person to each of us but it is also common to all of us. What I have written doesn’t tell you concretely what you are to do, but it does lay out the frame work for your figuring out what you are to do. Keep in mind that you are not alone.
As always your thoughts, comments, observations are welcomed.