Renewing the Church and its ministries - Just a matter of balance!     
Rob Moore (July 1999)

I'd like to acknowledge fellow travellers on the journey, William Bausch, Paul Collins and John Heaps (see my  bibliography) whose thinking greatly influenced the writing of this paper.

Table of Contents

Summary
Introduction
Western culture loses its soul
Can God be real?
Recognising spiritual imbalance is the key
Restoring balance is the task of the Church in the new millennium
The need to balance the kingly or ‘organised religion’ function
Balance the kingly function through servant leadership
Balance the kingly function through shared and collaborative ministry
Balance the kingly function through small ecclesial communities
Balance the kingly function through a new understanding of the ministry of the ordained
Balance the priestly function
Reject the institutional Church at our peril
Ellyard's "Spaceship" culture of the future
Balance the prophetic function
Conclusion
References
Bibliography

Summary

Our times are characterised by individualism, autocracy, patriarchy, secularism and religious and cultural intolerance. The modern age has not lived up to its promises. These traits are symptomatic of the needs of the Church, the people of God. Spiritual writers Baron von Hugel and Cardinal Newman give us an insight into the cause of our predicament and our needs as Church as we enter the new millennium. Von Hugel and Newman independently wrote about the importance of balance in the spiritual life of the individual and that this need for balance is equally important in the life of the Church and society as a whole. William Bausch in his book The parish of the next millennium proposes the needs of the Church arise principally from imbalances in these same elements of the spiritual life. The restoration of this balance is the task of the Church in the next millennium. I will attempt to provide a framework from which I can identify the needs of the Church and how they might be met by new (or renewed) ministries. Meeting these needs requires hard decisions and new understandings (theologies) of ministry and what it means to be Church in the new millennium.

Introduction

New ministries must evolve to meet the needs of the Church in the new millennium. For the purposes of this exercise, I am defining Church as the whole people of God, Christian and non-Christian, ordained and unordained. Because the needs of the Church and the ministries required will depend very much on context, I am restricting my focus to the western Church in general and to my local Church in particular where appropriate. 

What are the needs of our Church in the new millennium? I’d like to begin by looking at "signs of the times" and by trying to see behind them to their cause. The needs of the Church, the people of God, then become apparent. In doing so I am mindful of the fact these needs are very much my needs as a member of this same Church.

Western culture loses its soul

As we enter the new millennium, western society is typified by: (1)

* individualism 
* independence
* humanity against nature
* unsustainable production and consumption
* autocracy
* patriarchy
* inter-religious & intercultural intolerance
* conflict resolution through confrontation
* reliance on defence
* pervasive secularism

There are many reasons why we have arrived at this point. While the current situation may seem negative, dissatisfaction with their situation is providing the impetus for people to seek something better. In the introduction to the book Nourishing the Soul - Discovering the Sacred in Everyday Life (2), we see our predicament defined and our great opportunity recognised:

"Until recently, the twentieth century might have been viewed as the century in which western culture lost its soul. Sacrificing attention to the inner life for the outer life, we have become obsessed with money, convenience and the illusion of immortality. But while the evidence of a shrinking sense of the spiritual is all around us - most apparent in the in the lack of respect for human life demonstrated by the rise in violent crime, the diminished concern for the poor and homeless, and the glamourisation of war - there remains a conscientious group of thinkers who have always kept their eyes on the less measurable though nonetheless real aspects of our existence. 

In recent years there has been a resurgence of attention to the inner life."

Can God be real?

Many people are consciously and unconsciously dissatisfied with their lives. People are looking for meaning. They are questioning. The words of Augustine are no less relevant today: "Our hearts are made for You and they are restless until they rest in Thee.” This seeking is apparent in the enormous range of spiritual literature currently available; you only have to visit a popular bookshop. People are seeking; people recognise the dissatisfaction they feel in themselves and in their lives. The modern age simply has not lived up to its promises! Sadly most people cannot for varied reasons accept this stirring in them as the activity of God that Augustine refers to. Why? An American writer, Michael Downey, in his book Understanding Christian Spirituality (3) suggests there are three major causes for the deep rooted suspicion of the spiritual in American society (and ours too); these causes are epitomised in historical events.

The first is the Holocaust. This event in history and more recent events like the atrocities committed in the name of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo (by people from a Christian country) cast doubt on the very existence and nature of God. How could God allow these things to happen? The second cause is made visible in the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima; in this act we have "in our hands the godlike power of total annihilation." (4) Technology has replaced the sacred. The third cause is epitomised by the Vietnam War and the events that followed. The duplicity of governments and corporations and, closer to home, my Church, with its financial mismanagement and paedophilia scandals has "cast doubt on all authority and left a legacy of suspicion of all in authority, of hierarchies, of all and any ‘vertical’ power. The result of trying to live with these ingrained suspicions - that God is powerless if He exists, that the sacred has been lost and that all authority is corrupt - is the loss of the old explanatory systems that gave meaning to life’s ups and downs. We feel rudderless and adrift. With all these considerations, you can sense the search for the sacred, for 'something more', becomes problematic and lonely." (5)

For the faith community especially, a particular problem arises as a consequence. Individualism (which puts self before community) and distrust of authority "have caused many to make a very unfortunate but very sharp distinction between spirituality and religion." (5) The consequence has been that while spirituality continues to be increasingly seen as important, religion is generally not and may even be seen as an obstacle to spirituality.

So why has the western world arrived at this point? Recognising spiritual imbalance is the key.

Summing up and not meaning to be melodramatic, we seem to have hit a significant low point in our history. At the same time, however, there is a significant opportunity with the reawakening of the quest for the sacred. Why have we arrived at this point? William Bausch in his timely book The Parish of the next millennium argues our current situation is the result of an imbalance in the three essential elements of the spiritual life. His conclusions are based on the work of Baron von Hugel, a well known spiritual director and writer, and John Henry Cardinal Newman who wrote about this same subject at about the same time but using different terminology.

Baron von Hugel writing in the last century suggested the religious journey and the religious dimension - the search for a genuine spirituality - have three elements: (6)

* the institutional where our quest for the sacred is formalised, structured, made concrete, rendered visible and embodies the sacred texts, writings, tradition, rituals, rites, and the pattern of authority which preserve them and mediate and facilitate our communion with the sacred;

* the intellectual encompassing the formulation of cogent systems of thought, development, and reflection. This includes how to communicate the sacred to others and (very importantly) how to critique ourselves when we are untrue to it; and

* the mystical, the actual experience of the sacred.

Von Hugel says that true spirituality results from a balanced interaction of these three elements:

1. religion (organised to preserve the tradition)
2. the intellectual (to proclaim, communicate and critique)
3. the mystical (the actual experience of the sacred)

We are all spiritual people. If one of these elements dominates in isolation (eg. organised religion and authoritarianism), the results are an imbalance leading to individualism, secularism, consumerism - all traits we see as concerns in our times and in which we have become disillusioned. The challenge for Church then is to right this imbalance not by killing the dominating element (eg. by disposing of the organised, institutional church) but rather by curing the imbalance!

John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote something very similar to von Hugel. He spoke of the three complementary offices in the Church based on the biblical notion of Priest, Prophet and King. His offices equate exactly with von Hugel’s:

When referring to these offices (in which we all share), Newman also stressed that:

i. they must be in balance, and 
ii. there must be a healthy tension between them.

In our time, these offices do dominate (different offices in different contexts) at the expense of others and that there is often an unhealthy tension between them. This has contributed much to our current predicament. Bausch describes the consequences of the domination of one or more offices:

"If the priestly (mystical) dimension dominates and is dominant in isolation of the prophetic and kingly offices (this distinction is important), you get unbalanced superstition, individualism and eccentricity. The New Age and more importantly both extremes of Catholic fundamentalism are examples of this.

If the prophetic (intellectual) function is done in isolation, you get dryness and arid intellectualism. You get a story outline, not the story, a Catechism not life, an A+ in religion and C- in charity.

If the kingly (organised) function is done in isolation, you get ambition, tyranny and authoritarianism. The institution must be attentive to the intellectual and the mystical. When it isn’t, it becomes "authoritarian, self-serving, out of touch, insensitive to the mystical and intellectual elements - in a word bureaucratic." (7)

Restoring balance in the three elements of spirituality is the task of the Church in the new millennium

We have arrived at this point in our history because of the effects of imbalance in the three elements of spirituality, in particular the dominance of the kingly (institutional) and the priestly (mystical). The Church is now "polarised between the kingly or teaching Church and the priestly or believing Church and the logical conclusion of this polarisation must be either the loss of relevancy of the kingly Church or the loss of identity of the priestly (believing) Church." (8) Some would argue that we have already arrived at this conclusion. The restoration of the balance lost is the task therefore of the Church and its ministers (all believers) in the new millennium. 

In the discussion that follows, I will focus on each of the three offices or functions of the Church and attempt to identify how they may be brought back into balance. It is at the ‘grass roots’ that change will be achieved and this is consistent with recent Church teaching (see Lumen Gentium and Christifidelius Laici). Under the heading of each of these functions, I will suggest how we might practically achieve the balance we seek through new ministries and new theologies of ministry particularly at the "grassroots" church community level.

The need to balance the kingly or ‘organised religion’ function

If the kingly (organised) function is done in isolation, you get ambition, tyranny and authoritarianism. This is very apparent in our Church today. The priestly church has reacted vocally; books like Fr Paul Collins Papal Power and Bishop John Heaps A love that dares to question say much about the manifestation of this imbalance. It is noteworthy that both these books are written by men that belong to the institutional Church by virtue of their ordination and dare to challenge it from within. Collins says early in his book:

"The task of the theologian is to contribute to the teaching mission of the church by scholarly competence... The context of all teaching authority is the sensus fidelium. This ‘sense of the faithful’ is difficult to define precisely, but it refers to the actual acceptance of beliefs by Christians down through the centuries. It is linked to the doctrine of reception which holds that if the Christian community accepts a teaching then the teaching is confirmed. If the teaching is not received then it can be said it is not the teaching of the Church. Yet in recent Church history - with the exception of the two most recent councils, Vatican I (1869-1870) and Vatican II (1962-1965) - the papal magesterium has seemingly tried to sublime both the roles of both bishops (the institutional element itself) and theologians (the intellectual element)." (9)

A case in point was the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Whether you accept Collins’ claims as to how the institutional Church arrived at its stance on contraception or not, the fact remains Humanae Vitae was not accepted by the majority of people and was hence "unconfirmed" by the Church as a whole making it invalid. This claim was never voiced at the time and "an untold number of Catholics left the church never to practice again. Others, bereft of sensible advice, limped along the years denying themselves communion. Most priests were as confused as lay people, but their pastoral sense guided them to a tolerant and helpful attitude. Tragically it lead to many good priests and one bishop leaving the ministry..... Many Catholics have come to see the church as incredible in the area of sexuality." (10)

More recently, we have John Paul II’s apostolic letter On reserving priestly ordination to men alone which concludes:

"in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful."

Without consultation or confirmation, the institutional Church has again taken a position not necessarily held by the Church’s faithful. If the teaching is accepted by the brethren, the teaching is only then confirmed. In the Pope's own words, however, the doctrine of reception is denied. As the novelist Morris West laments, authoritarian decisions like this by minorities in the institutional church have resulted in the "deep hurt and division within the post-Vatican II generation who see the fading of the hopes they invested in the updating and renewal of the church." (11) A new schism, "the schism of indifference," (12) has entered the Church.

Balance the kingly function through servant leadership

So how do we move to resolve the imbalance in the kingly function of the Church. The first issue to be addressed is to call the kingly Church, the Pope, the Curia, the cardinals, the bishops, priests and deacons, religious and all those who offer service (ie. ministers) to reconsider their perception of ministry in the Church. How? By "remembering" the spiritual values modern organisational gurus (eg. Covey, Drucker, Senge) now espouse and by returning to the model of leadership they borrowed from our theology, the model of servant leadership personified in Jesus. Stephen Covey, in an article entitled New Wine, Old Bottles, (13) (the title is not coincidental) summarises this leadership. His article is especially important because it talks about moving from authoritarian leadership to servant leadership. His three steps to transformation which our institutional Church (to which we all belong to and contribute to) needs to follow are:

1. Build a new relationship, a relationship that is horizontal not vertical, and is based on mutual respect and equality not on power and position. In this model of leadership, roles are equal but different! These new relationships must be built on trust and out of this trust can come meaningful accountability. Annual pastoral visits by our bishop and the gathering of the Australian bishops with the Pope every five years to discuss stewardship are appropriate and valuable when the relationship is built on trust and shared responsibility; this accountability is in deed necessary for the sake of the Church. The last meeting of the Australian bishops with the Pope and curial officials in Rome did not seem from my perspective to fit this understanding. Trust did not appear to be the basis of the relationship. This meeting has caused a lot of unwarranted hurt in the Australian Church and in our bishops in particular.

2. Create a new psychological contract (or performance agreement). These agreements give the person the total freedom within the agreed guidelines to accomplish objectives. The role of leadership changes from benevolent authoritarianism to servant leadership where the leader becomes a source of help to those working with the them. Accountability is based on self-evaluation. Covey calls this "stewardship delegation"; his words again are biblical. These contracts (however formal) should be put in place for all in ministry because they create opportunities for self esteem through achievement and the acknowledgement of success. Pepole should feel valued in what they do in their ministry; it can only happen if there is an objective against which their achievements can be measured.

3. With the transfer of power and responsibility for results, the leader becomes the servant and a source of help. People (ministers) can now do what is necessary within the guidelines to achieve results. The leader now becomes a servant, a coach, a resource the individual or team can use when they hit a brick wall.

In any mutual accountability session conducted by the individual or team, the leader asks:

How's it going? What's happening?
What are you learning from this?
What are your goals now?
How can I help you?

These questions keep the person or team responsible and accountable for their results. This is a new image of ministry both from the perception of the kingly (servant leadership) and priestly (ministering) Churches. It requires change on the part of both elements for this change to be possible.

Balance the kingly function through shared and collaborative ministry

I am not saying the kingly (institutional) Church needs to change in this way at all levels. There are many examples of servant leaders in our Church. The need for affirmation and accountability is often lacking however. As well, the face of the institutional Church and many of its leaders do need to adopt these principles, especially at the top and the bottom (grassroots) levels. The parish of the new millennium will be lay-oriented and one of shared and collaborative ministry. Lay-oriented in the immediate future is a forgone conclusion given the shortage of priests and for many the loss of relevance of the institutional (kingly) Church. Covey's model of servant leadership can and indeed must lead to the practice of shared and collaborative ministry by both the priestly and the kingly Church. Lay Catholics no longer see their role as "helping Father" but genuinely feel "called" to the ministries they take on. Not so long ago "lay ministry" was seen as a contradiction in terms. The words of Pius X (1903-14) left no room to doubt what the lay person's role was:

In the hierarchy alone resides the power and the authority necessary to move and direct all members of the society to its end. As for the many, they have no right than to let themselves be guided and follow their pastors in docility. (14)

Vatican II saw a very significant shift in this extreme attitude when it said the laity has a special vocation to "make the Church present and fruitful in those places and circumstances where it is only through them that it can become the salt of the earth." (15) In a later teaching (1988), John Paul II in Christifidelius Laici finally referred to "the ministries of the lay faithful that find their foundations in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation" even if it was qualified by ‘where there is no ambiguity between the roles of laity and clergy.'

The Church at Vatican II and in subsequent teaching has acknowledged the role of all people to share by virtue of their baptism in the mission of the Church. The communities in which we live have changed though. The Church community (parish) is no longer a person's first or even second community. The parish must become a place where people come to be revived and renewed in their vocation and in their charisms. Where do we respond to Jesus's call to "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in jail?" ‘In the world' has to be our answer. The Church needs to call, teach, empower and renew the laity so they might fulfil their vocation in the world. Lay people (ministers) need:

* to discover their charisms (gifts) and their call
* to be signed and sealed in their ministry
* to be acknowledged by
    - recognition
    - support
    - stability
    - vocation (not a job)
    - distinctiveness (not clericalisation of laity)
* to be refreshed and renewed
* to be supported by servant leaders

The institutional Church must therefore call, affirm and support all who share in the ministry of the Church. This is something we do not do well at present. At the same time, however, we must get away from the notion of "good parishes are parishes where lots of people are involved". The risk we run is that this becomes the standard against we measure ourselves. Before long, people will rightly ask "if I am only valued for my involvement then why get involved?" Lots of people involved is an outcome not a pastoral goal!

Involvement of the laity in key ministerial responsibility equally implies involvement in key decision making. Lay people now run traditional Catholic organisations like hospitals and schools. They are no longer indirectly involved in Church decision making. Involvement at the parish level is less obvious and in Canon Law decisions and accountability remain the sole responsibility of the Parish Priest. At the diocesan level, Diocesan Pastoral Councils and other bodies provide advice to the local Bishop. At the international level, lay people serve on various commissions. Unfortunately, this represents little more than "lip service" given the shared responsibility we proclaim as baptised followers of Jesus. As for the decisions made in choosing priests and bishops for parishes and dioceses, these decisions seem to the lay faithful one of mystery as the laity never hear how or why decisions were made. Furthermore, some of the decisions made in this country regarding the choice of bishops would also imply God had no say in their choice either. A new structure perhaps similar to the two house system of clergy and laity in use in the Anglican Church would be worth considering. At the same time, we must learn from the other Christian Churches about how far lay decision making can extend. The alternative of lay people alone deciding who should serve as their pastor is equally problematic. In this situation a poor pastor is easily dismissed; so too is a prophetic (challenging) one! Balanced input in decision making is essential.

Also, if ministry in the new millennium is to be shared and collaborative, it must be inclusive. In the 19,000 parishes in the USA, 65% of ministers are lay people and of these 85% are women. Yet we have a hierarchy in which they are unrepresented and a Canon Law that says they cannot be accountable. Women cannot preach. Women take the principal role in caring for the sick and dying yet they cannot anoint those in their care. Women generally make better leaders than men but they cannot serve in this role. As Rosemary Houghton, a Catholic theologian, entitled her book, First Among the Faithful, so they are. Yet they are not mandated or commissioned (as are men through Orders) and the work women do is often not celebrated. New theologies, attitudes and a heart that acknowledge women as different but complementary and as equal partners in the Church's mission are urgently required. We can no longer afford to deny the talents and charisms of the female members of our Church communities simply because of their gender. Church leadership will be asked to account for this poor stewardship and be found wanting.

Balance the kingly function through small ecclesial communities

In 1978, I had my first and most powerful experience of church. It was a time when I was searching for something more in my life. This Church community of St Anthony's parish was small, six months old and met in the library of the local primary school. It was a community that welcomed me back to the Church after many years of absence and it was a community that gave me hope to go out and be a better husband, father and neighbour at home and a better colleague at work. It's greatest asset was it was welcoming spirit and its caring. It was a community that offered liturgies that were personal, homilies that challenged and encouraged you. Most who gathered were known to each other by name. This is the community I would like to belong to again and which I know many seek. We need to jettison the "bigger is better" mentality. The concept of Parish needs to become a community of communities and the focus become relationship with God and one another. If parishes are going to become bigger and bigger as the number of ordained ministers declines, smaller groupings must eventuate if we wish to be welcoming and meaningful. For this to happen in a coordinated and visionary way, decisions should be made at the diocesan level. Such a direction should be a part of the local Church's vision and not just an optional extra. 

In the Adelaide diocese, Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs) have begun supported at the Diocesan level by the bishop and a diocesan coordinator. These communities are based on both geographical and ethnic groupings within parishes; their aim is to reduce the size of faith communities to a level that can be personal and meaningful. They consist of smaller numbers of parishioners who gather together for the Sunday liturgy but who meet at other times for prayer and fellowship. Their name is significant; by definition they are small groups but they are ecclesial as they are a part of a bigger Church community, the Parish. The Parish is in turn an ecclesial community which with the other Parishes is part of the Adelaide diocese gathered under the leadership of their Bishop. This distinction is important as independent small groups can become divisive and self interested. Under the BEC model small groups are the basis for rather than an alternative to Parish as we know it today.

As the number of priests continues to decline and weekly Eucharist becomes unavailable, we need to look at more fundamental alternatives. The BEC model will not sustain the local Church if we have no ordained ministers. I think we can assume God isn't punishing us with a shortage of priests; why then is there a shortage? Surely God's asking us to consider alternatives. As Bishop John Heaps says in his book A love that dares to question:

"The ideal is that when a community of catholic people gathers to worship on Sunday, they gather around the table of the Lord to offer his sacrifice and to receive him in the Eucharist.

The faithful throughout the world have been forced to accept less than Jesus promised. In this book suggestions have been made as to how we could make the Eucharist more accessible to the Church at large. No law should stand in the way of our access to this sublime gift." (16)

No man-made law should stand in the way of access to the Eucharist, the source and summit of our lives. Ordination regardless of gender, marital status or sexual preference must be considered. Bishop Heaps draws an important conclusion for our consideration when he says "there is nothing intrinsic to the ministry of priest that requires one to be celibate or a full time person financially supported by the community." (17) He strongly advocates the model of ecclesial communities and goes on to say:

"To make this truly Church, the bishop would approve these communities, accept their leaders and ordain their priests. All this would be done in consultation with the community. Leaders would emerge, candidates for ordination and the non-ordained ministries would present themselves for acceptance by the community and ordination or induction by the bishop." (18)

He also questions the permanency of ordained ministry:

"When one can no longer serve with the full commitment, enthusiasm and energy required for a particular ministry, that person should be free to move on to something else." (19)

If ordained ministries were not permanent, it would be possible to train a person for a more specific ministry in less time and at less expense. It would hence be practical to have more such ministers working in a part-time and complementary capacity meeting the needs of the Parish but within the context of small ecclesial communities. Suitability and charism would serve as the basis for these ministries.

Balance the kingly function through a new understanding of the ministry of the ordained

The new image of Church developed above is based on a communion of ministry, the entire people of God called by God in concert with its leaders seeking to fulfill the mission entrusted to it by Jesus. I have spoken of the need for a new model of leaders who are no longer bureaucrats chosen because of orthodoxy but servant leaders chosen with charism and power. Because we have until now an ecclesial theology based on the Eucharist and the act of "consecration" we have isolated our priests and bishops and put them on a pedestal. But because apostolicity is a shared responsibility, the role of priests and bishops should be seen as complementary to that of all the faithful and their role seen more as links between ecclesial communities. The model of leadership described above needs to be manifest in the leadership at the parish level, one that functions within and not above the community.

Our priests need to be rescued from the post-Trent pedestal upon which they find themselves and be re-immersed into the community. If we are to experience God in the everyday, the community needs leadership that also participates in the everyday, someone who shares the same journey and is accessible. With the advent of amalgamation of parishes as the number of priests declines, we risk reducing the ordained clergy to the role of "boundary riders" enforcing even more their separation and splitting their Eucharistic function from their daily pastoral role which would be very much diminished. Ordination would simply mean a transfer of power and be unrelated to the ecclesial communities they serve. 

This new model of ordained ministry should include their being called to:

1. Service as servant leader enabling and empowering the baptised in their ministry;
2. Communicating tradition through teaching and challenging attitudes that contradict this tradition, and
3. Be the link between the parish and the wider Church community.

In fulfilling these roles, the ordained minister will 1) connect his people and build community and 2) keep the Gospel vision in tact. Such action of course presupposes significantly more ordained ministers.

Ordained ministers themselves are also looking for the institutional Church to act. Priests are tired and angry. They are tired because so much is expected of them; the retirement age of priests is continually being raised. With the amalgamation of parishes they are becoming more detached from a community that might otherwise support and minister to them. They are angry because there is no meaningful dialogue on this issue. They largely accept options like married clergy, reinstatement of those who left the priesthood to marry and the concept of ordination not being forever, but these options are not being discussed. No dialogue could easily be interpreted as nobody cares. The whole Church, ordained and unordained alike, is suffering because the institutional Church refuses to share power through widening ordination. William Perri (20) sees this as an opportunity for the ordained ministry to undergo its own metamorphosis and he encourages priests to actually rejoice in the demise of the model of priesthood as we know it. Hopefully our priests will still be around to see the new model of priesthood evolve. The institutional Church is faced with two options: a lay Church without ordained ministers or a new model of ordained ministry that develops in the context of a truly shared and collaborative ministry.

Balance the priestly function

As stated earlier, the Church is now polarised between the kingly or teaching Church and the priestly or believing Church. I have attempted to address how the imbalance in the kingly Church might be resolved. Some would argue this is all that it is needed but the intellectual and mystical elements need the institutional because that is where the texts, traditions, stories and communities also are. In my parish, 33% of the population claimed they were Catholic in the 1996 Census yet only ~8% gather on Sundays at least once a month for the Eucharist. Many have rejected ‘religion’ at their peril; Bausch sums it up:

"We publicly or privately disdain or dismiss the Neanderthal, corrupt institutional church not only because of its past sins but because it is an institution and all institutions are not to be trusted. And what really counts is spirituality. This leaves us no where to go but private experience; hence the enormous popularity of the New Age and individualism. And we have gone a step further - not trusting authority, we have subverted the prophetic or critical intellectual function, the bottom line being that what is true is what is true for me.... When the institutional is rejected, you get individualism, eccentricity and value placed on personal experience only." (21)

Reject the institutional Church at our peril

I have adopted this "bottom line" philosophy as have many others who belong to our minority worshiping community. My conscience has been formed more by what I have experienced and rationalised than by what I was taught as a child and teenager in a Catholic school (though the two are often in tension). I thought my views were fairly liberal until I read the results of the first National Catholic Life Survey from my parish and an adjoining parish. This survey was conducted within Mass on one Sunday in November 1996. I discovered that in these communities my stand on some moral issues was a minority view. For example, 40% of those surveyed in one parish believed abortion is not wrong at all. I was surprised because I believe the right to life of the unborn is an inalienable one. In other circumstances, however, my views are more "tolerant" (or is it "lax"). I have for example ignored certain practices in the work place for risk of ridicule or even for my own self-serving benefit. Sick leave, for example, can be thought of as a right or a benefit depending on your stance. The former view could be that of an individualist and/or someone who is anti-authoritarian and believes "rorting" the system is all right. This highlights for me the need we have for the intellectual (prophetic) and institutional elements which critique our actions and beliefs.

This issue of rejection of the institutional is not only an issue for our Church; it is also problematic for those who concern themselves with the future of our wider society. Dr Peter Ellyard at a recent conference (1) spoke of the perceived shift from the frontier "Cowboy" (Modernist) culture of the 1960’s to what he called the "Spaceship" (Planetism) culture of the future; this shift encapsulates in the secular world the hope and opportunity I have spoken of earlier. The characteristics of his two cultures are:

Ellyard includes in his two cultures "religious cowboys, the fundamentalists who are seeking a return to the security of the past, and the religious cosmonauts who are seeking to adapt religion to the emerging nature of the 21st century." In the background paper to his talk to educators, he refers to an important societal issue we as Church must also address. He devotes considerable attention to the American poet Robert Bly’s controversial book Iron John who proposed that modern society needed to reinvent ‘initiation’ previously lost at great social cost. Bly’s thesis according to Ellyard is that contemporary western society boys are running around in men’s bodies still doing what boys do but with men’s strength and with adult technology. Bly points out that for women, puberty manifests itself with biological change. Unless men can experience a cultural change that is as powerful for them as the biological change for women, boys will never progress to fulfilled manhood. These views are echoed in the writing of popular authors like Rohr, Arnold and Australian Steve Biddulph.

Bly’s suggestion is we bring back initiation; he is in his way seeking to redress the imbalance caused by the letting go of the institutional and all that entails (rites, rituals, community, fellowship). Ellyard insists initiation become a part of mainstream education in the years of puberty even to the point of becoming the full-time focus of education during these critical and vulnerable years. In our Church tradition we potentially have the vehicle for this, the sacrament of Confirmation. Why could this not become associated more forcefully with a movement from childhood to adulthood for both young men and women in our church. Australia’s aboriginal people provide a meaningful model for us here. In their culture, the traditional initiation accomplishes two things:

1. It affirms and promotes the Aboriginal culture and Aboriginality; and
2. It provides the Aboriginal people with the skills and capabilities to thrive in their adult world.

Initiation that focuses on our cultural and religious heritage and that of our indigenous people who are our hosts in this land is a significant challenge for ministry in the new millennium. This ministry to young adults needs to be further explored and developed within the context of school and parish structures. .

Steve Biddulph, a popular writer on men and boys issues, spoke in Canberra of the loss for boys caused by the rejection of the institutional (community and the fellowship of men). Only five generations back men were readily accessible to boys. With the coming of the industrial revolution, men became less available and statements like "wait until your father gets home" and "don’t bother your father" are indicative of the disconnection men and boys now experience. His thought provoking advice to parents in general and men in particular was:

1. Make time for relationships with both your sons and other young men in your lives (rebuilding the community connection). Biddulph maintains that from the age of puberty, young men need the presence of other significant males in their lives not just their father. He stressed that boys talk sideways and need time and everyday activities as opportune times to open up.
2. Play rough and tumble games. This provides opportunities for measuring anger, setting limits and learning control many males never otherwise learn.
3. Teach young men to respect women as you do.
4. Honour a male’s tender feelings.

We urgently need to enable this to happen in our community life and our community ministry. Ways of encouraging these ideas need to be again developed within the context of ministry in our parishes and schools. We need to be far more proactive in areas such as these. We have the resources, good men who have fathered boys and who have journeyed with their sons and their son's friends. Experience is the principal qualification for this ministry which we urgently need to foster.

To balance out any imbalanced intellectual or prophetic function

The final function for which we need to right an imbalance is that of the intellectual or prophetic Church, an element which is necessary to preserve and communicate the sacred. When done in isolation, we get religion not relationship with God. Our modern Church experience is very different from that of New Testament times and that of the previous millennium. Some say we have lost the "wisdom tradition", the essence of being Catholic. Historians and theologians observe what makes a New Testament Christian different from those who did not believe. In doing this, they come up with a list of things the early Christians did and believed. This has been done down through the ages. The risk of doing this is that many will and indeed do equate these documented beliefs and actions as norms for being Christian at the expense of experience. You are Christian if you believe this and that and do this and that. What results is a juridical Church, the new Pharisees, instead of a Church of the sacred, of grace and mystery. It might be best summed up in the words of Jesus from St John's Gospel: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments". For a long time I tried to keep His commandments to show my love for Him. I finally discovered that what Jesus was saying (to me anyway) was "if you love me" then you will (be able to) keep my commandments. That's the challenge the intellectual Church faces today. The Church has previously called us to obedience, not commitment. We are left with a system of beliefs instead of a myth encapsulated in narratives (scripture), rites, ceremonies and symbols. People must be invited to experience God and those who seek to pastor and minister to our communities (ordained and unordained alike) must be people of experience not just belief to be judged suitable for this work.

Because of the focus on keeping commandments rather than on a loving relationship with our God, many have been estranged from the Church and still feel they are judged, unworthy and unacceptable. In our ministry we must turn this image around so none feel condemned; our immediate need however is for forgiveness. Our local bishops already give us this example as they invite back those alienated by actions of the Church in times gone by and seeking their forgiveness. All Catholic people must similarly respond to this need in the everyday and welcome back those previously alienated.

The success of the New Age and evangelical churches also tells us something about why people leave the Church. The New Age offers a spirituality but one that doesn't need God. It feeds on peoples' hunger for the sacred while claiming there is no need of God; everything you need is within you (individualism). The evangelical churches offer the actual experience of God. People who join these churches are called to significant commitment and a change of heart. They are expected to make time for payer and fellowship and often to tithe their time and income. Why don't we expect this level of commitment from members of our communities? I think it is because we play the numbers game. As well, how often we hear "I didn't get anything out of Mass today". Wasn't Mass still a Eucharistic celebration? We are caught up in consumerism even with our experience of God. People shop around and after awhile the entertainment value is all that matters. But the sacred, the essence, doesn't change. We have just lost sight of it.

We need to address then the presentation of what we do. Catholics aren't couch potatoes (well not all of them). Catholics like most Australians are appreciative of the Arts so music, dance, imagery and incense should invade our senses as we gather to celebrate and participate in the sacred. Look at the community of Taize; we say the young have left the Church yet thousands of young people travel to France each year to experience the sacred through music, light, community and prayer. Our parish gathers in a school hall. It is very difficult to acknowledge the sacred there but we are trying by the introduction of a sacred space and visual images. We need to do more. We are also trying to grapple with the need for a permanent gathering place. Does such a building further our vision of Parish in the new millennium? It would certainly have the potential to enhance our appreciation of the sacred. What is needed is people talented in the arts, in dance, in music, in myth to contribute their experience to community liturgy.

The Catholic church has always had a strong tradition for prayer, meditation, contemplation and spiritual direction. Why are these not actively encouraged today? Why are they left for retreat houses and retreat masters? So few can avail themselves of these opportunities. Yet when you ask people if they would like to learn how to do these things, there is a resounding "yes" if you can introduce it in a practical way. Lay people must be trained and must take on this role. We must learn from the spiritual experience of each other. There is much wisdom in our community; it just needs to be recognised and called forth. If more people took time out to pray, meditate and contemplate, there might be a much greater expectation for the surprises and wonders of the Spirit. 

In our historical analyses, we note the New Testament Christians were very much eschatological people; they had a real hope and a confidence in the future. In our day many active Catholic people just plod along day by day with no apparent hope or direction. When someone dies we say "may they rest in peace." I know we think of St Paul's image of the "running the good race" but it seems people now think death means "you have had a hard life, surviving day after day; now you can rest (seemingly in nothingness)." No wonder reincarnation is a popular belief today. This view is not hope; it's another manifestation of individualism. This attitude is symptomatic of the loss of the sacred and the imbalance in our lives. There are many talented people who make a living motivating people; why aren't we using these same people to renew hope in our future.

Conclusion

I have attempted to suggest a framework under which we can arrive at new and renewed possibilities for Church and ministry in this, the new millennium. I believe our needs and the needs of the Church, the people of God, are determined by imbalances in our lives and that of our Church communities. I have tried to suggest ways to be of service and hence meet the needs of our Church as we enter the times ahead. Significant change is needed in many aspects of Church life. A lot of letting go is also required. This change can only come about when we all seek to right the imbalances that have been allowed to develop over the past few hundred years. The needs of the Church will only be met when the kingly, prophetic and priestly elements of our own spirituality and that of our Church are in balance as they were in the life of our servant leader, the person of Jesus.


References

(1) Dr Peter Ellyard, in the background paper for his Keynote Address, Learning for thrival in a Planetist 21st century, NSW Secondary Principal's Council Annual Conference, Wollongong, June 16 1999, 24p. (unpublished).
(2) Simpkinson (Editor), Nourishing the Soul, p.1.
(3) Michael Downey, Understanding Christian spirituality, Paulist Press, 1997.
(4) Bausch, The parish of the next millennium, p.93.
(5) Ibid, p.94
(6) Ibid, p.95.
(7) Ibid, p.96.
(8) Ibid, p.99.
(9) Collins, Papal power, p.16.
(10) Ibid, p86-88.
(11) West, One man's voice, p.31.
(12) Collins, Papal power, p.92.
(13) http://www.franklincovey.com/ez/library/wine.html
(14) Vehementer Nos, ASS. 39:3-16.
(15) Lumen Gentium, n.33.
(16) Heaps, A love that dares to question, p.118.
(17) Ibid, p.102.
(18) Ibid, p.105.
(19) Ibid, p.111.
(20) See Bausch, the Parish of the next millennium, p.215.
(21) Bausch, the Parish of the next millennium, p.96-7.


Bibliography

Arnold, P. Wildmen, Warriors and Kings - Masculine spirituality and the bible, New York: Crossroads, 1995.
Bausch, William J., The parish of the next millennium, Mystic, Conneticut : Twenty-Third Publications, 1997, 288p.
Biddulph, S., Raising Boys, Sydney: Finch Publishing, 1997.
Bly Robert, Iron John : a book about men. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1990, 268p.
Collins, Paul, Papal power - a proposal for change in Catholicism's third millenium, East Melboune: Harper Collins Religious, 1997, 228p.
Downey, Michael, Understanding Christian spirituality, Paulist Press, 1977.
John Paul II, On reserving priestly ordination to men alone, Homebush, NSW: St Pauls, 1994, 9p.
Heaps, Bishop John, A love that dares to question, Richmond, Victoria: Aurora Books, 1998, 119p.
Rohr, R. & Martos, J., The wild man's journey - reflections on male spirituality. Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1992.
Simpkinson, Anne Adamcewicz (Editor), Nourishing the soul - discovering the sacred in everyday life. San Francisco: Harper, 1995.
West, Morris, One man's voice. Eureka Street, August 1994.