The Evolution of Mission Theology among Roman Catholics

The Evolution of Mission Theology among Roman Catholics

by Andrew V. Seumois, O.M.I.

122Systematic research in the field of mission theology is a relatively recent development, beginning largely in the twentieth century.* Studies were made in earlier times on various questions pertaining to mission especially during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,? but they were not sufficiently systematic and complete. When the theological aspect of the mission did receive attention, it was only according to the mentality of the period; viz., in terms of the missionary duty of the religious Orders and of Christian rulers, the bounds for intervention of the “secular arm” in the spiritual conquest, the directions to follow in case of persecution, and the qualities and privileges of missionaries. Much attention was given also to moral casuistry, especially concerning the administra-

123tion of the sacraments, as met with—or supposed to be met with

—by missionaries in their work.

Furthermore, the few books concerning mission doctrine were not easily accessible to those who went as missionaries. Recall the complaint of Antony Erington, an Irish Franciscan at the end of

this period (1672), when he said: It seems perfectly strange and hardly credible that while the arts and sciences are providing the books required for their students, the apostolic work of propagating and planting the faith is so lacking in treatises that new missionaries, who have to emigrate to far distant lands, are not able to obtain a single book that could serve them as a faithful companion and guide on all occasions.‘

This complaint was still valid at the beginning of the twentieth century. In the writing which marked the launching of the modern missiological movement, Father Robert Streit, after noting that mission literature had already received some consideration from such sciences as ethnology, added:

We would like to be in a position to point out that such consideration has also been given to missions by the theological branches. In fact, however, a short inventory of contributions to mission studies in this field, from the Catholic side, shows what seems to be a vacuum…. It certainly would be useful to investigate the missionary question with dogmatic accuracy in scholarly books and articles.®

Thus, theological study of the mission apostolate presented itself from the beginning as one of the primary tasks of the modern mis124siological movement. But while Streit was desirous of a careful and progressive theological elaboration for missiology, Dr. Joseph Schmidlin, who joined the missiological movement in 1910, seemed to be in great haste. Moreover, Schmidlin was a controversialist. He ran head on into the famous book of mission theory Evangelische Missionslehre, by the German Protestant scholar Gustav Warneck,* and was pleased to find there such definite propositions as well as fine material for controversy. He adopted the plan and methods used in that work, took up its various questions, and reproduced, in great part, the ideas presented by Warneck together with what had already been written from the Catholic side. In so doing, Schmidlin became the first Roman Catholic author of a theology of mission.? His work, however, was very hasty and largely polemical, and its method—like the one used by Warneck—was unsuited for any systematic deepening of mission doctrine. Very briefly, the purpose of missionary activity, according to Schmidlin, is “the christianization of the non-Christians” (pagans, Mohammedans, Jews, and, in a merely accidental way, the Eastern Orthodox Christians, because of their Islamic surroundings). The primary scope of mission is individual conversions, and because the newly converted people require an ecclesiastical organization, the establishment of a local self-sufficient church is considered as a secondary scope, or as a social corollary of the primary end.

Schmidlin’s book met with some success in Germany. Its principal parts were presented in digest by Peter J. and by the seminarians of Hoeven in 1924.° The polemical trends, however, of Schmidlin’s Missionslehre, which suited him, soon had to disap125pear.’°® This is especially clear in the second publication from the Hoeven seminarians, which, while still adopting the plan and ideas of Schmidlin, deliberately omitted the controversial aspect.1!

At this point, when the science of missions was not always clearly distinguished from missionary propaganda and was marked by a kind of impulsive enthusiasm, the next stage of development was that of encyclopedism. The thought was that all aspects of missiology could be dealt with in a satisfactory, if not exhaustive, fashion within a single volume. Hence came the “manuals” of missiology.!?

The manuals revealed the importance of searching for a clearer division of the areas in missiology, and when scholars finally arrived at a certain precision in defining the proper area belonging to the theology of mission, it became clear that much of Schmidlin’s Missionslehre had to be superseded. His book had been influenced by the concrete situation which shaped the missionary enterprise and activity in the early part of this century. Many of his considerations were merely an apology for this special situation, or were a methodological explanation of the particular framework, resulting from influences of the psychological, sociological, and cultural order, which was molding the missionary function at that time, but was not essential to it. Beyond these apologetical or methodological features, the real theological study which remained in the book consisted almost exclusively of statements dealing with the notion of Christian mission and its supernatural motivation. This explains the fact that many manuals restricted their mission theology almost exclusively to a study of the definition and “motives” of the Christian mission.

The majority of the manuals, in dealing with the concept of mission, departed from Schmidlin, preferring instead the thesis of 126Grentrup, as endorsed and popularized by Pierre Charles. For them the specific purpose of the missionary function is the planting of the Church in every region where she is not yet fully established. The criterion is one of geographical order, and is concerned with the regional status of the church organization. When the new regional church is sufficiently established with her own hierarchy and means, the missionary activity is finished.

The manuals followed Schmidlin, however, in dealing with the foundations of the mission, but they elaborated on the positive side of things. Schmidlin was an historian. As such he was naturally inclined to formulate a theology of mission according to the patterns of an historiography, using the textbooks of theology as the sources. The task, as he saw it, was simply to examine the textbooks one by one and extract all that could be more or less related to the mission. From this procedure he arrived at a first “foundation” of the mission with the treatise De Deo Uno, saying that it is because of the oneness of God that missions strive against polytheism and pantheism.¹²

Such considerations were far from a genuine theology of the mission apostolate,¹³ and the manuals were rooted in Schmidlin’s way of presenting the theological aspect. They were, therefore, unable to enter the realm of systematic mission theology, despite their efforts to the contrary. This was not only due to their defective methods, but also resulted from an almost exclusive restriction of the material object of mission dogma to the “motives” for the missionary task. Of course, the manuals were not silent about the subject, the object and the finality of mission, especially when seeking to define the missionary function, but they did not give adequate theological analysis in these areas. Perhaps it was due to the fact that they relied largely on Schmidlin’s Missionslehre, which had developed these points methodologically, but not theologically.

The manuals, furthermore, were inadequate because they were premature. Before encyclopedism could be substantially helpful, 127it was necessary that more research and writing of monographs be done on the individual topics of fundamental importance in mission theology. It was particularly important that there be a more precise definition of the nature, the object, and the method of systematic mission theology.

Important advances have been made along these lines in recent years and valuable bibliography on the various topics is readily available.’® In fact, the numerous problems pertaining to the introduction of missiology, which is of crucial importance for a coherent study in the various fields of missiology, have occasioned a great amount of research, discussion, and writing.1* In 1952, with all of this material to draw upon, the present writer prepared his book Introduction @ la Missiologie, which sought to deal with the various aspects of the introduction to missiology in a systematic and coherent fashion.'’ The size of this book may seem enormous, considering the fact that it is only an introduction, but it seemed preferable to take into account all the opinions and developments in this field in order to provide a clear picture of exactly what the situation is at the present time.

It is important to recognize that theological studies are not based upon invented ideas, but upon revelation. They must always rely upon revelation and should never deviate from it. For an harmonious elaboration of systematic missiology, therefore, it is necessary to produce critical studies in the field of Biblical missiology, and, secondarily, in patristical missiology. Since the time of Streit’s 128inaugural booklet,’® there have been numerous valuable studies in both these fields. In Biblical missiology there has been a variety of publications bearing upon the economy of the primitive Covenant, the mission theology of the Mosaic Covenant (with special emphasis on the question of the contrast between particularism and universalism), the missionary idea in the Psalms and among the Prophets, and, finally, upon the missionary idea in the New Testament—the missionary figure of Christ, the theological aspects of the missionary activity of the Apostle to the Gentiles, and the kerygmatic witness according to Acts. In the vast field of patristical missiology there are also many studies available. Some examine the mission doctrine of a particular group of Church Fathers, Others are concerned only with one Father in his missionary aspect. This is particularly true of studies of Augustine, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Clement of Rome, Clement and Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, Ephraem the Syrian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Caesarius of Arles, and Gregory the Others present a study of one particular point of mission doctrine in light of the whole tradition of the first centuries. This is what the present writer sought to do in studies dealing with missionary adaptation, the lay apostolate, and missionary prayer according to the tradition of the early Church.*° Although the patristical documents are interesting primarily for the area of practical missiology, they also 129bring matters of great interest to the area of systematic missiology.

What about this area of systematic missiology (dogmatic and moral)? It is mission theology in the strictest sense. It is concerned with the theological elaboration of mission. At the end of the Second World War scholars still noted a lack of serious studies in this field for several The deficiencies of the approach established by Schmidlin were matched by a near vacuum of ideas for a more proper orientation. There was skepticism from missionaries who were unwilling to delve into theory and doctrinal principles. There was a degree of proud contempt from some theologians, perhaps very competent in traditional scholastic disputations, who were not inclined to leave the sphere of speculation in order to devote doctrinal study to the complex ecclesiological realm of missionary realities. Now the spirit of things has changed. Missionaries everywhere are seeking for an elaborated systematic theology of mission that will help guide them in the difficult apostolate they bear in the name of Christ and the Universal Church. Theologians are increasingly interested in mission questions, because of the greater emphasis given to ecclesiastical, ecumenical, and apostolic problems.

The first problem to be solved in systematic missiology concerns the concept of mission. Schmidlin defined missionary activity, as noted above, according to the statement of Warneck, empirically based on the ideas commonly held at that time. In an effort to correct this incomplete and inaccurate delimitation, Grentrup in 1925 gave as the specific object of missions the planting of the Church in every country where it is not yet fully This theory was endorsed and divulgated by many, especially by Pierre Charles, who made the mistake, however, of minimizing the factor of conversion as well as the virtue of charity in the 130course of his argumentation.?? His use of a mold to illustrate his central thesis was unfortunate, for the point he was illustrating is indeed true and traditional in the Church.*

Discussions on this matter were numerous, and they monopolized most of the energy in the field of systematic missiology for a long while. For several years now, however, the issue has been settled by what is nearly unanimous agreement concerning the essential lines of definition for the missionary The understanding is that mission activity is a specific task, quite distinct, in the ecclesiastical ministry. No salvation is possible outside the Church, but there are normal and suppletory ways for justification. The ordinary ecclesiastical ministry is twofold: pastoral (for the care of the faithful in the Church), and apostolic (for the conversion to the Church). Many kinds of apostolate can be distinguished, but missionary activity is a specific field of the apostolate aimed at bringing the Church to souls where she is not yet established, in order to bring souls to the Church, i.e., implanting the Church in a new area so that a new particular (regional) church may be set up, live, and grow in an autochthonous way by her own personnel and means.

Although there is widespread agreement on this point, there has still been some problem outside missiological circles with language, pasticulasly, in France since 1943, with regard to the term “mission.” This has come about because of a misunderstanding of the precise meaning of mission activity and an inability to distinguish this function from other forms of apostolate. Despite the 131opinion of some,?® this misuse of terms 27 has not affected the reality defined as the implanting of the Church regionally.

The question of the moral constitutive foundation of mission can be considered solved.?* A special organic study has been devoted to the missionary duty of the Church and to the whole area of systematic missiology dealing with missionary efficiency in ordine causalitatis principalis.?® The theological shape of the particular indigenous church is a matter that has attracted much attention and occasioned substantial study.2° This issue is of 132primary importance in mission doctrine because the missionary, who brings the Church Universal with the essential factors of her divine constitution, must, however, tend to the planting of new particular churches, fully autochthonous. The whole matter of lay missionaries has been provided now with a solid theological framework,?! and several other issues of doctrinal import have been widely discussed in articles, for which only an extensive bibliography could give account. Problems of a more comprehensive nature regarding the apostolate in general have not been explored as yet to any great extent, but they are questions of great value for a deeper penetration into the question of what constitutes the missionary function. Some studies have been published concerning the kerygma and conversion,* but there is still no theology of the generic questions concerning the apostolate as such.**

Normative missiology, studying the juridicial figure of mission organization in conformity with the norms of doctrine (being a study of theological order—theologia rectrix—tlike the whole of ecclesiastical law), is now being treated integrally.5* Sooner or later 133these studies should allow for a simplification of the ecclesiastical law in force in missions by the constitution of a special missionary code that will be discreet and flexible enough to permit necessary adaptations. The law which is in force is largely the Codex of the constituted Latin Church, which has been accommodated to the younger churches in the process of their establishment through a series of norms which have come about as exceptional legislation. A proper mission code that would be binding in all mission territories, together with another code of a real ecumenical range for all the churches already established, should permit a readjustment of the universal expression of the Church on a world-wide scale.

Practical missiology, scientifically theological, covers the study of mission spirituality and mission methodology. Spiritual missiology is still not provided with a fully elaborated exposition, but a fundamental orientation of a plainly apostolic spirituality, quite different from the egocentric and devotionalistic trends of the last centuries, has been established.*5

Mission methodology is very much associated with a deepening of mission theology. Study conferences or congresses which gather missiologists and missionaries for an examination of various mission method topics, more and more reserve the opening lectures for a doctrinal statement or a review of practice on the topic during the first Publications on problems of mission method 134are also beginning to follow this pattern,37 so it can be said that there is a tendency toward doctrinal readjustment and a fresh rethinking in the light of early tradition. In the words of Cardinal Costantini, the trend is toward “a reform that restores the liberty and methods of apostolic times to mission activity.” 38

good bibliography is given by Hernandez A. Santos, Adaptacién Misionera (Bilbao: Ed. “El Siglo de las Misiones,” 1958), 617 pp.

Tip: use the ← and → keys to move between chapters; press Ctrl K to search. Share any printed page with index.html?p=<page>.

↑ Back to top ⬇ Download the scanned PDF