PENTECOST 2006 SPECIAL EDITION

ISSUE 7 - ISSN 1448 - 6326

TOWARDS A PARTICIPATIVE ECCLESIOLOGY:

The ecclesial body open to  a participative theology that enhances redemptive intimacy

PETER DEVENISH-MEARES

Abstract

This paper will assert that one of the most critical issues in ecclesiology is the opportunity to participate in a “structure” (sic) of church that enables “life-giving intimacy”.  Briefly, it will argue for a body of believers acting in mutual support in a model of mature communal participation, individuation and openness to sustain what is good and seek appropriate newer expressions.  This is as opposed to a hierarchical model that may thwart growth and could appear to hamper true dialogue. 

Therefore, based on Christ’s head-ship of the church and his invitation to transformation as opposed to rely solely on (often outdated) hierarchical ecclesial models, this paper examines some key opportunities for the church.  These are: (1) an immense, contemporary opportunity to “structure” church so as to enable “life-giving intimacy”; (2) opportunities for the incorporation of human experience and (3) pursue an ecclesiology based on a personally transformative theology.

It is hoped that by introducing a redemptive intimacy dimension, a people-centred ecclesial model could be developed.  This could affirm contemporary relevance and respond to welcome all comers even those who are not necessarily perceived as "holy" but rather as "sinners".  Arguably then, this removes some of the problematic imperatives about defining what constitutes belief in ‘one church’ and could enable us to accept denominations as equal expressions in the overall ecclesial body relevant to a particular setting. 

Introduction

.Ecclesiology, as a "theological doctrine"[1], has to do with the institution of the church and its historical claim to legitimate teaching authority.  It also relates to our concepts and expressions of church; either those that have been present since the earliest times or have changed to meet new circumstances and emergent political and cultural climates.[2]  An example of this would be the rise and decline of the papacy as a significant political entity. 

There are a number of notable contemporary ecclesiological and theological issues which challenge us.  These include; conservatism, power sharing, women, church leadership, liberation theology and inculturation.[3]  In this context, and for any contemporary discussion about ecclesiology's relevance we  also need to consider the perceived loss of the church's moral authority, (some) lack of cohesion within the church and the fact it is now far less at the centre of society. 

 Modernity and contemporary culture are serious issues for the church, yet they could also act as significant opportunities or signposts towards newer ways of operating.[4]  Responses to these issues vary greatly, for example, there is the temptation by some to hold onto amodern structures in the face of modern realities.  Paradoxically, in some churches, “powerful” structures” based on the institutional status quo, are giving way to decentralised experiences based on active, fuller participation, personal encounter and power sharing.[5] 

 Perfect Society?

There are historic reasons that affirm difference in unity.  In the earliest Christian times, the ecclesial (ekklesia) body was constituted as an assembly in a locality to serve particular needs yet remaining part of one broad church (e.g. 1 Cor 11:18; 14:19, Acts 5:11).  Much later, the rise of denominationalism saw strictly separate churches out of communion with each other pursing distinctive ecclesial expressions. 

McGrath indicates that ecclesiology was not so much an issue in the first century when the ecclesial body was more focussed on scriptural issues than upon its growth and survival.  However, with its rehabilitation and official acceptance in the early fourth century the church came to be identified with imperial rights and political culture.  The fact that began to politically and culturally exercise considerable power had significant consequences.  It also led to a certain "freedom" to resolve doctrinal debates for example, Nicea and Chalcedon. 

Concepts such as church as “the perfect society”[6] are all at once encouraging as they indicate that all that is necessary is already held.  However, such phraseology may be problematic as it could be used to justify certain positions, for example, the older description of the Catholic Church as ‘the bark of salvation’’ whereby ‘outside the church no one was saved’ (extra eclesiam nemo salvatur).[7]  Such institutional ecclesiology can impede engagement and growth; up to the 1960’s such expressions meant a denominational exclusiveness where other Christians were often regarded second class citizens or worse, as non-believers.[8] 

We don't have to look far for positive movements that name the challenges.  As a hopeful sign, the Second Vatican Council (in Lumen Gentium) stressed the participation of all believers.  On this point, Edmund Hill says that all share authority yet there is also bound to be tension between church "as a communion and brotherhood (sic) and the model of it as a hierarchically structured society".[9]   He also goes onto to point to two counterproductive risks associated with the later model; elitism and absolutism.  Such reactions can impede mature participation, individuation and openness to new creative expressions.

Denominational exclusiveness and some forms of ecclesial organising are often located in earlier societal settings.[10]  Moreover, some traditional expressions of church have become problematic and impede ecumenism and enculturation, because can appear opposed to true encounter and real dialogue. By way of example, the strict use of European language and formal ecclesial rites within an African culture may be counter-productive to rich communal celebrations located within local culture.

Redemptive Intimacy - An (almost) Countervailing View?

A more fully participative Church including exercise of personal, mature authority is strongly supported by the baptismal charism.  This essential call urges the recipient to live fully in rich-ness and to explore all  life-giving possibilities. Yet again, ecclesially, it is not without some difficulty.  Schillebeeckx suggests, notwithstanding the equality of all believers, that the church has gone to great lengths to re-inforce the ministerial priesthood.  This could be against the freedom and the exciting creative imperatives that initiation potentially offers.  As such it sets up a dichotomy as formal ecclesiology often approaches church characteristics in a determined and “fixed” manner.[11] Again, Schillebeeckx asks; where does ministerial authority permit the free movement of the Spirit to lead and animate people?[12]

Spirit-led animation introduces the issue of ecclesial agency.  There are strong and convincing arguments based upon tradition and pastoral practice, that the church offers sacramental redemption.  If as the argument goes, that sacraments are vital, then the church as it stands is vital.  Again we return to a key questions? What form of church? In this context, Richard O’Brien speaks of a “fellowship of believers”.[13]  This term is at once exciting, communal and potentially enriching. 

Entry into such a collegial arrangement comes by virtue of the essential life giving call made to all believers at baptism.  Ideally, the imperative urges mature, personal responses that need to be lived out in relationships.  This is the unifying force for all Christians; yet, it creates a sustained challenge for traditional ecclesial organisations and their leaders, in particular.  Challenging institutionalised ecclesial thinking, Schillebeeckx speaks of the salvific aspect of church as being second to that of God.   This reinforces the possibility of something (else) occurring in the human heart beyond the church's immediate control or agency.  He seeks to engage from a human interactional viewpoint and says that rather than being simply an invitation, it becomes a "call".[14]  This introduces the critical issue of experience and seeks to challenge prescriptive adherence and measurement as the key arbiters of ecclesial success.[15] To suggest that God explicitly seeks encounter reaffirms the exciting call to relationship with the Divine and with each other.

Human Experience

If relationships are at the centre then life-giving intimacy enables us to speak by way of honest, integrative approaches to who we are.  This allows room for individual experiences and permits engagement with each other and hopefully with the anaewim.  Dick Westley terms this challenging incarnational theology, “redemptive intimacy’, where the call to relationship is paramount.   The perfect society concept may also be challenged by the nature of our relationships and by human experience where people see themselves as anything but whole and still coming to completeness.  O’Donnell proposes a number of criteria to judge conceptualisations of church, which are useful in terms of redemptive participation. They include, the central-ness of the message of Jesus, characteristics of unity and sin and frailty.[16] 

Intimacy allows for engagement with the shadow.  This is something different to formal models of an ascendant church which relentlessly seeking after organisational and personal purity.  Specifically, Moltmann and O’Collins speak of the church based on the cross that accommodates weakness and is therefore contrary to ideals of the effective, well run ecclesial organisations.  “Grudging obedience…(and) perfunctionary performances of rites” or enforced acceptance is something we cannot settle for, essentially because it can leave so little room for true encounter.[17]

The point is that true personal encounters are relevant, whereas approximations of the ideal (perfect?) church, while delivering “services” formally and economically may miss the human dimension.[18]  This has immense pastoral and relational consequences.  From an organised church viewpoint, the risk is that something less is often invited.  Perhaps one expression of this is an inability to live with difference.

Personal encounters in less formal and prescriptive ways may have positive ecumenical implications.  It builds bridges yet accommodates differences in the broader body of Christian believers by enabling each denomination to share belief and leadership in Christ. It is an idea gaining increased interest, for example, the Roman Catholic Synod of Bishops put it this way; “ecclesiology of communion is a central and fundamental idea"[19] So, if one sees encounter and  participation, as it proposed here, as communal expressions of belief lived out, then something vital could develop.

What do some of the sources and some theologians tell us?

Ecclesial history and theory have important places in the relational discussion.  Yuri Koszarycz speak of the need to "analyse the various historical and theological models of Church to assess existing and developing views in contemporary ecclesiology".[20] He summarises the need to engage with the situational and cultural imperatives and positions his suggestions for change accordingly: 

"But the Church is a dynamic reality; it changes its manner of being and acting from place to place and from age to age. It must be responsive to the demands of the times, for it has to signify and mediate God's grace to different groups of people, in accordance with their particular gifts, needs, and capacities. To think correctly about the Church we must therefore pay close attention to the actual situation, and adapt our vision accordingly." [21]

Refusal to at least engage with these situational issues and attempt adaptations could become even more problematic if we do not move away from older, institution models towards a church based on full fellowship for all.  Again, the later aspect has potentially good implications for ecumenism.  Here, four examples illustrate that questions of authority, witness, dissent and the nature of Christians’ perceptions have been contemplated, grappled with and developed for over one and a half millennia.

Firstly, picking up on the "perfect society debate" Augustine of Hippo saw a middle path i.e. the "mixed body of saints and sinners" yet, doctrinally he also reiterated the apostasy of (so-called) heretics.[22]  In terms of my thesis, Van Der Ven indicates that we must recognise that the church itself falls short as it is itself, sinful. Building on Augustine, he indicates that those who fall short are within the church and enable it to "say of itself: holy and always called upon to purify itself."[23]

Secondly, Moltmann seeks to navigate a path somewhere between church as a sacrament and its symbolic aspect as a witness as an open community in the Spirit.[24] It has been suggested that he is able to accommodate the sacred with the secular and perhaps avoid the biased consequences of taking either side of the argument.  Put another way, engagement with modernity requires considerable honesty and reflective action.

Thirdly, and even more controversially, Sri Lankian theologian Tissa Balasuriya suggested that many Asian Christians are increasingly unable to see that salvation was exclusively available from the formal ecclesial body.  He indicated that we should contemplate that Jesus may have said something different about salvation to that of the church’s assertion that it is the exclusive salvific sign.  While not commenting on the truth or otherwise of this assertion, he presents a timely challenge as we seek to engage with other views.[25]

Finally, Luther attempted to untie the episcopal/revelatory issue by recognising a duly constituted church without the need for a "certain" human assembly".[26]  McGrath says that Luther walked a difficult path by moving away from institution yet still seeing the body as holy. Perhaps some of these theological assertions are suggesting something other than a formal model to ones based on praxis, grounded in a less definitive ecclesial body and open to new symbolic interpretations and participative experiences. 

Clearly, in contemporary terms, we could add that any model may not itself be “holy”, for example, some current ecclesial models do not incorporate gender equality, agree with newer symbolic expressions nor engage with the debate about church relevance, church/state relations and sexual abuse/appropriate issues.   This is indeed, a very challenging list of issues

Ecclesiology could have more to do with a personally transformative theology

The decision to join the Christian community is a tangible expression of a covenant made in Christ, yet how is this membership expressed?  On the basis on renunciation and putting on the white garb, the newly initiated makes a commitment to new and potentially enriching relationships within the community.   From a initiatory viewpoint, Dujarier also asserts that from the earliest times the church was “concern(ed)….for the sincerity of the conversion of the candidates”.[27]  To avoid prescriptive control, one could ask; what of the aspirant’s inner call to live giving ecclesial participation?  From the "inside working out" as it were. 

So then the church body is well positioned to encourage growth and in that way belonging may have more to do with personal liberation and relating and less to do with a hierarchically ordered ecclesialogy.  Instead of superiority and beyond traditional, mission oriented action, Schillebeeckx points to being "grasped by the event and value of the kingdom of God"[28] This relates to one of my key arguments, that a personally transformative theology could underpin the ecclesial model we devise. 

The implications and risks are considerable.  For a church operating in a de-institutional, modern context and in a rather individualistic world it would appear more relevant to actively support growth-oriented, individuation processes and personal maturation however risky these may first appear. This could be as Schillebeeckx puts it grounded in a theology based on metanoia; a change of heart (a concept also given contemporary credence by such as author, Morris West).

Individuation can result in dichotomous scenarios where personal growth and psychological health, in particular, can be portrayed as being at odds with the church.  This is irrespective of whether there is actually a valid problem.  Again this is not without considerable controversy. Some ecclesial institutions appear to see such non-ecclesial personal development as challenging and not within its normal ambit.  For example, in 2001, the Catholic diocese of Armidale banned the use of the Enneagram spirituality-type indicator.   As opposed to this, others regard such self-knowledge tools as a “bridge between spirituality and psychology” as they are said to provide evaluative insights on which to base growth-oriented decisions.  On a national radio program, Luc Matthys, the Catholic Bishop of Armidale appeared to leave little room for a mature individual to engage new choices.  He defended his decision to ban the Enneagram and framed it as an either or choice, when he said:-

“...Well, it’s one of those fashionable things, I suppose, and it will work its way through and that’ll be the end of that. It’s not a good psychological tool to use for spirituality. Now if you allow people to go down that track, we’ll have to pick up the pieces later on, because it’s not on a good foundation. It’s not a Christian spirituality that these people propose or lead onto. Salvation or liberation from compulsion is not brought about by psychology essentially but by the grace of Jesus Christ...”[29]

Bishop Matthys is correct in saying it is not a psychological tool per say.  However, interestingly enough, he did not appear to offer any substantive reasons as to how this self-discovery tool was defective nor how specifically it was at odds to a meaningful life in Christ.  This could well leave some one wondering; on what premise/s are such statements are based; do they leave room for Christ's grace to work through people in new ways?  It may also be that such prohibition fails to recognise that personal development can be augmented and mature discernment supported by mechanisms beyond the traditional purvey of the ecclesial body.

Implications for Church - The way forward?

Engagement with a broader sense of personal awareness and with personal responsibility has considerable implications for organised Christianity. It proposes that we welcome open discussion and seek to accommodate difference otherwise we run the risk of remaining, as McGrath puts it, church unity is “fatally compromised by rampant denominationalism”. It also revisits the issues of authority and power, something that structural church by its nature often proposes.

Life giving participation.

In baptism’s redemptive agency, people join the Christian community and borne into new relationships in community. This is an exciting and potentially life changing, sacramental event as much now as it was in the first century CE.  One North American parish states succinctly, “(baptism) is a process that warmly welcomes new members and provides spiritual and catechetical formation which at the same time helps an individual deepen their relationship with God while also broadening their understanding of the Church, its traditions, and its teachings.”[30] Therefore it creates rich potential for what I term, “life-giving ecclesial action; “redemptive participation”.

This term is pregnant with so many participative possibilities. O’Brien says that “to speak of the Church as a communion means, among other things, (means) that the Church is a body of people who are interiorly united with God in Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit”. [31]   Such an assertion seeks to include rather than exclude, as so is an excellent place in which to begin the work of asserting what all Christians share rather than what we do not.  Again it challenges rampant, pejorative denominationalism.

This invitation naturally seeks a response, arguably one based on shared responsibility not dogmatic prescription.  Such Christian experience is receiving considerably more theological and reflective attention at the moment.  Macquarrie puts it this way, “applied theology is the working out of faith in the world…”[32].  Alternatively, there are those who would prefer a hierarchical or strict vertical arrangements within Church notwithstanding the risk that this places in the path of ecumenism. 

The risk is that the “horizontal dimension of communion, that is, the solidarity and co-responsibility of all believers” could be lost. And when I say “horizontal” perhaps I mean to differently to O’Brien to represent churches of different faith communities yet connected as it were by strong, indivisible bonds.[33]   Moreover, this may encourage open-ness to mystery leading to life long reflection which is arguably one of the goals of faith.[34]

Recalling Macquarrie’s applied theological theme, the consequences of a strong marriage to fixed ideas and solutions is that Christian journey may not be worked through experientially within open community.  Rather it may become stifled in some sort of time limited, ecclesial prescription.  As opposed to fixed ideas of ecclesial expression, Rowan William’s creative, open approach is useful.  Williams actively grapples with the dilemma of language and raises questions being "authorised" to speak to something already determined as fixed rather something open to be learnt.   Moreover, he points to the risk that those who allegedly possess and transmit truth may occasion a diminished opportunity to actively engage with the experiential aspect of Christian faith; looking forward to a life of sharing meaning and struggle.[35]  Recalling Schillebeeckz, questions about ministerial priesthood and its outward expressions are also tied up in discussions about experience.

In terms of true, participative community we have come some way in the past 40 years. Theologian, Richard O’Brien indicates that “(pre Vatican II) way of celebrating Mass aptly expressed the ecclesiology operative at the time. The Church was a clerical preserve in which all the really important things were done by priests, with the laity playing an almost entirely passive role--in the case of the Mass, not even giving the simple responses, like "Amen."[36]   The Council animated something very different and exciting for the people of God in that it sought to liberate each's gifts in terms of life, worship, music and other creative forms. 

Henri Nouwen addresses the potential, challenges and essence of heightened participation and the changing relevance of the ecclesial body. In particular, Nouwen speaks of church leadership that can make the search for authenticity possible in a fragmented and dislocated world. In particular, as a challenge to older forms of leadership, he challenges ministerial priesthood to “not stand on the side as a neutral screen or an impartial observer…(rather) put his own search at the disposal of others…(in) hospitality”.[37]

We too are called to consider our liberation in terms of modernity and personal responsibility and how we can lead meaning-filled and faith-filled lives.  As Matthews argues convincingly, Christians desperately need to rediscover a spiritual life of greater depth in order to remain faithful to the Gospel in a world that contains much moral and social disintegration".[38]  So then, in terms of incorporating human experience as away of creating life-giving intimacy opportunities, welcoming, open leadership is well positioned to support personal sharing and encounters as a vehicle for transformation. 

Participative ecclesiology could be the vehicle that animates this process if one sees Christianity  re-framed as the search for spiritual depth.  Experientially, it could be argued that such a personal journey would leave less room for problematic concerns over doctrinal difference and hence minimise the destructive nature of denominationalism.  It may also return us to the personally transformative invitation offered by Christ as our animator and Head.  In this way the ecclesial body, open to new or different interpretations and participative experiences could enhance redemptive intimacy.

References

Stuart Bate, "Inculturation: The Local Church Emerges." Missionalia 22:2 (August 1994): 93-117.

Adrian Chatfield. "African Independency in the Caribbean: The Case of the Spiritual Baptists." Missionalia 26:1 (April 1998): 94-115.

Paul Collins, From Inquisition to Freedom (Sydney: Simon and Schuster, 2001)

Michael Dujarier, A History of the Catechumenate: The First Six Centuries (New York: Sadlier, 1979)

The Final Report of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, 1985 in Richard P. O’Brien, Church As a Communion of Believers, Essays on Theology,6 April 1990

Edmund Hill, "Church" in New Dictionary of Theology (Wilmington, DA: Michael Glazier, 1989), p. 185-201.

Yuri Koszarycz, Coping with the Revolution: What Does it Mean to be Church Today? http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/yukoszarycz/ecc/CHAP5.HTML

M. Matthews. Both Alike to Thee: The Retrieval of the Mystical Way (London: SPCK, 2000).

Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction 3rd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001).

John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology, (London: SCM Press, 1981).

Henri Nouwen, The Wounded Healer, New York: Double Day, 1972).

Richard P O’Brien, “Liturgy and Ecclesiology”, Essays on Theology,5 February 1996.

Richard P. O’Brien, “Church As a Communion of Believers”, Essays on Theology, 6 April 1990.

Christopher O’Donnell, Ecclesia: Encyclopedia of the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996).

Parish of the Holy Spirit ,Order of Christian Initiation of Adults, http://www.parishoftheholyspirit.org/pages/AdultIntiation.htm

Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, Dictionary of Theology, (New York: Crossroad, 1981).

Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The human story of God (Crossroads: New York, 1990).

Dick Westley, Redemptive Intimacy: A New Perspective for the Journey to Adult Faith (Mystic, CA: Twenty-Third Publications, 1989).

Johannes Van der ven, Ecclesiology in Context (Grand Rapids MN: Eerdmans, 1996).

Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000).

End-Notes

[1]           Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, Dictionary of Theology (New York: Crossroads, 1981).

[2]           Christopher O’Donnell, Ecclesia: Encyclopedia of the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996).

[3]           Stuart Bate, "Inculturation: The Local Church Emerges." Missionalia 22:2 (August 1994): pp 93-117.

[4]           Johannes Van der ven; Ecclesiology in Context (Grand Rapids MN: Eerdmans, 1996).

[5]           Especially in pentecostal churches there is a strong regard for “(experiential) healing and the ministry of every believer…(and a) wider church a model of ecclesiology which values the laity, rejects "powerful church" and holds within itself many cultural and theological traditions; Adrian Chatfield. "African Independency in the Caribbean: The Case of the Spiritual Baptists." Missionalia 26:1 (April 1998): pp  94-115.

[6]           Used by both O’Donnell, op cit. and McGrath, op. cit.

[7]           Dick Westley, Redemptive Intimacy: A New Perspective for the Journey to Adult Faith (Mystic, CA: Twenty-Third Publications, 1989), p. 13.

[8]           Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction 3^rd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), p. 491.

[9]           Edmund Hill, "Church", in New Dictionary of Theology (Wilmington, DA: Michael Glazier), p. 200.

[10]          Edmund Hill OP, "Church", in New Dictionary of Theology, (Wilmington, DA: Michael Glazier), p. 185-201.

[11]          Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The human story of God (Crossroads: New York, 1990).

[12]          Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The human story of God (Crossroads: New York, 1990), p. 216.   Ministerial activity may certainly encourage and give life to the “call” but if misunderstood or mis-applied it could give rise to power-based structures etc.

[13]          Richard P. O’Brien, “Church As a Communion of Believers”, Essays on Theology, 6 April 1990.

[14]          Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The human story of God, (Crossroads: New York, 1990), p. 183; p 185. 

[15]          Christopher O’Donnell, Ecclesia: Encyclopedia of the Church ( Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 141.

[16]          Christopher O’Donnell, Ecclesia: Encyclopedia of the Church ( Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 141.

[17]          Dick Westley, Redemptive Intimacy: A New Perspective for the Journey to Adult Faith (Mystic, CA: Twenty-Third Publications, 1989), p. 118.

[18]          See Jürgen Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, (New York, Harper and Row, 1977) and G. O’Collins, R Faricy and  M. Flick, The Cross Today (Rome- Sydney: Dwyer, 1996), p. 46-47 in Christopher O’Donnell, Ecclesia: Encyclopedia of the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996).

[19]          “The Final Report of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops”, 1985 in Richard P. O’Brien, Church As a Communion of Believers, Essays on Theology,6 April 1990.

[20]          Yuri Koszarycz, Introduction To Ecclesiology And Church History, http://www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/~yuri/ecc/chap5.html

[21]          Yuri Koszarycz, Coping with the Revolution: What Does it Mean to be Church Today? http://www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/~yuri/ecc/chap5.html

[22]          Augustine was born in North Africa (354 to 430 CE); McGrath, op cit, p, 479.

[23]          Johannes Van der ven; Ecclesiology in Context (Grand Rapids MN: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 200.

[24]          "Review: The Church in the Power of the Spirit By Jürgen Moltmann,",  Theology Today, http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1978/v35-1-bookreview3.htm.

[25]          Paul Collins, From Inquisition to Freedom (Sydney: Simon and Schuster, 2001)

[26]          McGrath, op cit, p, 481.

[27]          Michael Dujarier, A History of the Catechumenate: The First Six Centuries, (New York: Sadlier, 1979), p. 31.

[28]          Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The human story of God, (Crossroads: New York, 1990), p. 180.

[29]          “A Type of Paradox - The Enneagram”, The Religion Report, 2 September 2001.   http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/enc/stories/s357655.htm; A conservative Australian Catholic magazine, AD2000,  strongly opposes the Enneagram – see http://www.ad2000.com.au/cgi-bin/find.pl?searchterms=enneagram&searchtype=ful        

[30]          Order of Christian Initiation of Adults, http://www.parishoftheholyspirit.org/pages/AdultIntiation.htm

[31]          Richard P. O’Brien, “Church As a Communion of Believers”, Essays on Theology, 6 April 1990.

[32]          John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (London: SCM Press, 1981), p, 384; Macquarrie argues for a multi-disciplinary approach to questions of contemporary church, prayer, worship and faith.

[33]          Richard P. O’Brien, “Church as a Communion of Believers”, Essays on Theology, 6 April 1990.

[34]          Here I am thinking of the term “mystagogy” – teaching and interpretation of mystery especially in its expressive and symbolic forms – see Domenico Sartore

[35]          Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), p. 131-132.

[36]          Richard P. O’Brien, ”Liturgy and Ecclesiology”, Essays on Theology, 5 February 1996.

[37]          Henri Nouwen, The Wounded Healer (New York: Double Day, 1972).

[38]          Matthews,  op cit.