What do you think?
Rate this book
Models of the Church
There is today a dramatic reexamination of structure, authority, dogma -- indeed, every aspect of the life of the Church is held up to scrutiny. Welcoming this as a sign of vitality, Avery Dulles has carefully studied the writings of contemporary Protestant and Catholic ecclesiologists and sifted out six major approaches, or "models," through which the Church's character can be as Institution, Mystical Communion, Sacrament, Herald, Servant, and, in a recent addition to the book, as Community of Disciples. A balanced theology, he concludes, must incorporate the major affirmations of each. "The method of models or types," observes Cardinal Dulles, "can have great value in helping people to get beyond the limitations of their own particular outlook and to enter into fruitful conversation with others... Such conversation is obviously essential if ecumenism is to get beyond its present impasses."
This new edition includes a new Appendix and Preface by the author.
This new edition includes a new Appendix and Preface by the author.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
69 people are currently reading
320 people want to read
About the author
Avery Dulles
85 books21 followersAvery Robert Dulles, S.J. (1918-2008) was a Jesuit priest, theologian, cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and served as the Laurence J. McGinley Professor of Religion and Society at Fordham University from 1988 to 2008. He was an internationally known author and lecturer.
Dulles was born in Auburn, New York, the son of future U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (for whom Washington Dulles International Airport is named) and Janet Pomeroy Avery Dulles. His uncle was Director of Central Intelligence Allen Welsh Dulles. Both his great-grandfather John W. Foster and great-uncle Robert Lansing also served as U.S. Secretary of State.
He received his primary school education in New York City at the St. Bernard's School and attended secondary schools in Switzerland and The Choate School (now Choate Rosemary Hall) in Wallingford, Connecticut.
Dulles was raised a Presbyterian but had become an agnostic by the time he began college at Harvard in 1936. His religious doubts were diminished during a personally profound moment when he stepped out into a rainy day and saw a tree beginning to flower along the Charles River; after that moment he never again "doubted the existence of an all-good and omnipotent God." He noted how his theism turned toward conversion to Catholicism: "The more I examined, the more I was impressed with the consistency and sublimity of Catholic doctrine." He converted to Catholicism in the fall of 1940.
After graduating from Harvard College in 1940, he spent a year and a half in Harvard Law School, where he also founded the "St. Benedict Center" (which would become well-known due to the controversial Fr. Leonard Feeney S.J.), before serving in the United States Navy, emerging with the rank of Lieutenant. For his liaison work with the French Navy, he was awarded the French Croix de guerre.
Dulles was born in Auburn, New York, the son of future U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (for whom Washington Dulles International Airport is named) and Janet Pomeroy Avery Dulles. His uncle was Director of Central Intelligence Allen Welsh Dulles. Both his great-grandfather John W. Foster and great-uncle Robert Lansing also served as U.S. Secretary of State.
He received his primary school education in New York City at the St. Bernard's School and attended secondary schools in Switzerland and The Choate School (now Choate Rosemary Hall) in Wallingford, Connecticut.
Dulles was raised a Presbyterian but had become an agnostic by the time he began college at Harvard in 1936. His religious doubts were diminished during a personally profound moment when he stepped out into a rainy day and saw a tree beginning to flower along the Charles River; after that moment he never again "doubted the existence of an all-good and omnipotent God." He noted how his theism turned toward conversion to Catholicism: "The more I examined, the more I was impressed with the consistency and sublimity of Catholic doctrine." He converted to Catholicism in the fall of 1940.
After graduating from Harvard College in 1940, he spent a year and a half in Harvard Law School, where he also founded the "St. Benedict Center" (which would become well-known due to the controversial Fr. Leonard Feeney S.J.), before serving in the United States Navy, emerging with the rank of Lieutenant. For his liaison work with the French Navy, he was awarded the French Croix de guerre.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
July 18, 2013
Dulles follows the model of H. Richard Neibuhr in Christ and Culture in proposing five models for the church: institutional, communion, sacramental, herald, and servant. He weighs the strengths and deficiencies of each model and their biblical warrants. He then assesses each model in terms of eschatology, ecumenicity, how we think about ministry under each model, and the relation of models of the church to models of revelation (on which Dulles has also written). He concludes by arguing that all the models are necessary although none is sufficient in itself. He also proposes his own model of the church as a community of disciples as one that may synthesize these various models.
Although the book is written by a cardinal in the Roman Catholic church and reflects that Catholic conviction that the Roman church is The Church, there is an openness to other churches. And the models find counterparts in many other communions and have been widely referenced by writers on ecclesiology and missiology. My edition, revised in 2002, also includes an assessment of the ecclesiology of John Paul II, particularly the personalist elements of his theology as applied to ecclesiology.
Although the book is written by a cardinal in the Roman Catholic church and reflects that Catholic conviction that the Roman church is The Church, there is an openness to other churches. And the models find counterparts in many other communions and have been widely referenced by writers on ecclesiology and missiology. My edition, revised in 2002, also includes an assessment of the ecclesiology of John Paul II, particularly the personalist elements of his theology as applied to ecclesiology.
July 22, 2014
Roman Catholic theologian Avery Dulles provides a helpful and easily comprehended system of models to help understand the church’s purpose and mission. Although some might argue that Dulles’ work is outdated merely by virtue of its year of publication, this typology still proves stimulating toward working toward one’s own conception of what the church does and how that conception compares with others. Dulles carefully realizes the utility and the limitation of models, and within that careful limitation provides a five-point typology based on comprehensive scriptural, historical, and theological research.
Dulles broadly divides the book into two sections. The first outlines each of the five models of church, and the second half compares the models to each other in relation to other theological categories. His five models are: 1) the institutional model, which equates the church directly with its leaders and governance; 2) the communal model, which sees the church primarily as a collection of persons who have experienced God’s grace; 3) the sacramental model, which sees the visible and institutional church as a human container of invisible grace (Dulles’ most Roman Catholic and philosophically abstruse model); 4) the kerygmatic model derived from Barth and Bultmann, which sees the church as the primary location for preaching the Word; and 5) the servant model, which sees the church as a motivating force for providing service to the world. Dulles provides Scriptural support for each model, details the history of the model throughout the church, and then explores each model by observing how that model explains 1) what unifies the Church, 2) who the beneficiaries are, and 3) the nature of those benefits. He finishes each chapter by examining the assets and deficiencies of each particular model, careful to suggest that no one model is adequate in and of itself.
The second half compares and contrasts the models in regards to eschatology; the relationship of the visible and invisible Church; the relationship of the Catholic church to other Christian churches and to other faiths; the role of the priesthood or leadership; and the role of revelation and Christology in each model. The penultimate chapter looks at how we can evaluate each model on its own merits and in comparison to each other. Dulles suggests several criteria for doing so, and ultimately recommends paying attention to the majority witness of Christians throughout the ages while paying attention to Mills’ observation that people are generally more right about what they affirm than what they deny (think about that in terms of current theological debates!). The final additional chapter from the expanded edition (weakest in my opinion) provides an additional “church as discipleship” model gleaned primarily from the writings of Pope John Paul II.
Dulles is an extraordinarily clear thinker and writer. It would be easy to pick apart each model and complain about the inclusion or exclusion of other various potentials. To do so would be to miss the point and the utility of Dulles’ offering here. Using Dulles’ models as exploratory orientation points would, for example, go a long way toward explaining how conversations in the United Methodist and Mennonite churches over LGBTQ inclusion are really talking past each other about polity and ecclesiology. Like any good theology, the test of Dulles’ writing is in its utility for everyday practicing Christians. It is my belief that this volume would pass such a test.
Dulles broadly divides the book into two sections. The first outlines each of the five models of church, and the second half compares the models to each other in relation to other theological categories. His five models are: 1) the institutional model, which equates the church directly with its leaders and governance; 2) the communal model, which sees the church primarily as a collection of persons who have experienced God’s grace; 3) the sacramental model, which sees the visible and institutional church as a human container of invisible grace (Dulles’ most Roman Catholic and philosophically abstruse model); 4) the kerygmatic model derived from Barth and Bultmann, which sees the church as the primary location for preaching the Word; and 5) the servant model, which sees the church as a motivating force for providing service to the world. Dulles provides Scriptural support for each model, details the history of the model throughout the church, and then explores each model by observing how that model explains 1) what unifies the Church, 2) who the beneficiaries are, and 3) the nature of those benefits. He finishes each chapter by examining the assets and deficiencies of each particular model, careful to suggest that no one model is adequate in and of itself.
The second half compares and contrasts the models in regards to eschatology; the relationship of the visible and invisible Church; the relationship of the Catholic church to other Christian churches and to other faiths; the role of the priesthood or leadership; and the role of revelation and Christology in each model. The penultimate chapter looks at how we can evaluate each model on its own merits and in comparison to each other. Dulles suggests several criteria for doing so, and ultimately recommends paying attention to the majority witness of Christians throughout the ages while paying attention to Mills’ observation that people are generally more right about what they affirm than what they deny (think about that in terms of current theological debates!). The final additional chapter from the expanded edition (weakest in my opinion) provides an additional “church as discipleship” model gleaned primarily from the writings of Pope John Paul II.
Dulles is an extraordinarily clear thinker and writer. It would be easy to pick apart each model and complain about the inclusion or exclusion of other various potentials. To do so would be to miss the point and the utility of Dulles’ offering here. Using Dulles’ models as exploratory orientation points would, for example, go a long way toward explaining how conversations in the United Methodist and Mennonite churches over LGBTQ inclusion are really talking past each other about polity and ecclesiology. Like any good theology, the test of Dulles’ writing is in its utility for everyday practicing Christians. It is my belief that this volume would pass such a test.
December 1, 2011
While not having been active in the field for nearly twenty years, I am astonished on how readable, cogent, and nuanced Avery Cardinal Dulles’ book is. Hard to believe that it was written in 1974 but is still applicable to today’s Church. His eminence examines Roman Catholic ecclesiology through five different models: Church as Institution, Mystical Communion, Sacrament, Herald, and Servant. A very good read for anyone wishing to have a deeper understanding Roman Catholic ecclesiology.
A side note, Cardinal Dulles was a convert to Roman Catholicism. He was the son of John Foster Dulles (for whom the DC airport was named). Foster Dulles, besides being the Cold War warrior Secretary of State for most of the Eisenhower Administration, was an elder in the Presbyterian Church. “Av the Brave” converted, and became a Jesuit priest. This gentle, erudite, and prayerful man was not only a giant in 20th century Catholic theology, but also a very much loved and respected man. Late in his life he was elevated to Cardinal-Priest (Jesuits are prohibited from accepting ecclesiastical titles unless specifically order by the Pontiff). He recently died in his 90s at the Jesuit Residence at Fordham University.
A side note, Cardinal Dulles was a convert to Roman Catholicism. He was the son of John Foster Dulles (for whom the DC airport was named). Foster Dulles, besides being the Cold War warrior Secretary of State for most of the Eisenhower Administration, was an elder in the Presbyterian Church. “Av the Brave” converted, and became a Jesuit priest. This gentle, erudite, and prayerful man was not only a giant in 20th century Catholic theology, but also a very much loved and respected man. Late in his life he was elevated to Cardinal-Priest (Jesuits are prohibited from accepting ecclesiastical titles unless specifically order by the Pontiff). He recently died in his 90s at the Jesuit Residence at Fordham University.
August 11, 2023
Excellent
First Model: Church as Institution
Second Model: Church as Mystical Communion
Third Model: Church as Sacramental
Fourth Model: Church as Herald
Fifth Model: Church as Servant
In Models of the Church, Cardinal Dulles identifies and evaluates six fundamental models by which Christians understand the nature of the Church: as institution, mystical communion, sacrament, herald, servant, and community ity of disciples.
He maintains that the “contemporary crisis of faith” is principally a “crisis of images,” because “many traditional images have lost their former hold on people, while the new images have not yet had time to gain their full power”.
Models, or images “employed reflectively and critically to deepen one’s theoretical understanding of a reality”, therefore play a crucial role in the perceived reality of the Church. Cardinal Dulles argues that synthesizing the six models would clarify the Church’s place in the modern world and facilitate dialogue among the various denominations of Christianity and between Christians and non-Christians.
First Model: Church as Institution
Second Model: Church as Mystical Communion
Third Model: Church as Sacramental
Fourth Model: Church as Herald
Fifth Model: Church as Servant
In Models of the Church, Cardinal Dulles identifies and evaluates six fundamental models by which Christians understand the nature of the Church: as institution, mystical communion, sacrament, herald, servant, and community ity of disciples.
He maintains that the “contemporary crisis of faith” is principally a “crisis of images,” because “many traditional images have lost their former hold on people, while the new images have not yet had time to gain their full power”.
Models, or images “employed reflectively and critically to deepen one’s theoretical understanding of a reality”, therefore play a crucial role in the perceived reality of the Church. Cardinal Dulles argues that synthesizing the six models would clarify the Church’s place in the modern world and facilitate dialogue among the various denominations of Christianity and between Christians and non-Christians.
February 27, 2023
A THEOLOGICAL & HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF 5 APPROACHES
Author and Jesuit Avery Dulles wrote in the Introduction to this 1978 book (expanded edition, 1987), “This book attempts [a] … comparative ecclesiology… I have sifted out five major approaches… [or] models. Each of these models is considered and evaluated in itself, and as a result of this critical assessment I draw the conclusion that a balanced theology of the Church must find a way of incorporating the major affirmations of each basic ecclesiological type. Each of the models calls attention to certain aspects of the Church that are less clearly brought out by the other models.” (Pg. 11)
He explains in the first chapter, “one may perhaps divide the uses of models in theology into two types, the one explanatory, the other exploratory. On the explanatory level, models serve to synthesize what we already know or at least are inclined to believe. A model is accepted if it accounts for a large number of biblical and traditional data and accords with what history and experience tell us about Christian life…. By the exploratory, or heuristic, use of models, I mean their capacity to lead to new theological insights… Thanks to the ongoing experience of the Christian community, theology can discover aspects of the gospel of which Christians were not previously conscious.” (Pg. 24-26)
He says of the first (of six) model, the Church as INSTITUTION, “The notion of the Church as society by its very nature tends to highlight the structure of government as the formal element in the society. Thus it leads easily, though not necessarily, to what we shall call … the institutional vision of the Church---that is to say, the view that defines the Church primarily in terms of its visible structures, especially the rights and powers of its officers.” (Pg. 34)
He also acknowledges, “the institutional theory labors under several major liabilities… [which] may be summarized: In the first place, the theory has a comparatively meager basis in Scripture and in early Church tradition… Secondly… While some virtues, such as obedience, are strongly accepted, others are not… A third difficulty … is that it raises obstacles to a creative and fruitful theology… Fourthly… the institutional model fails to account for the spiritual vitality of the non-Roman Catholic churches… this ecclesiology fails to give sufficient scope to the charismatic element… Finally… In an age of dialogue, ecumenism… the monopolistic tendencies of this model are unacceptable.” (Pg. 43-44)
Of the second model, the Church as MYSTICAL COMMUNION, he states, “What is distinctive to the Church… is the vertical dimension---the divine life disclosed in the incarnate Christ and communicate to men through his Spirit… The concept of the Church as a communion harmonized with several biblical images… notably … those of the Body of Christ… The image of the Body of Christ is organic… The Body of Christ… has a divine life-principle.” (Pg. 49-50)
Of course, “These communal types… suffer from certain weaknesses… they leave some obscurity regarding the relationships between the spiritual and visible dimensions of the Church… it tends to exalt and divinize the Church beyond its due… [It] fails to give Christians a very clear sense of their identity or mission… there is … a certain tension between the Church as a network of friendly interpersonal relationships and … as a mystical communion of grace…” (Pg. 59-60)
Of the third model, the Church as SACRAMENT, he quotes Henri de Lubac: “The divine and human in the Church … can never be dissociated. An excessively spiritual and individualistic view of life of grace… leads to a merely secular and sociological interpretation of the Church… The notion of sacrament, on the other hand, harmoniously combines both aspects.” (Pg. 63)
He adds, “Some authors have found certain deficiencies… an excessive concern with the external aspects and a … neglect of the inwardness of the mystery of the Church… a narrow sacramentalism … accords insufficient place for … service in the Church’s mission to the world..” (Pg. 74-75)
Of the fourth model, the Church as HERALD, he says, “It sees the Church as gathered and formed by the word of God. The mission of the Church is to proclaim that which it has heard, believed, and been commissioned to proclaim.” (Pg. 76)
Of objections, he states, “The Catholic understanding of the Church as a stable community in history in which Christ continues to make himself present and available, leads to a different view of authority in the Church…. A final criticism … is that it focuses too exclusively on witness to the neglect of action.” (Pg. 86-87)
Of the fifth model, the Church as SERVANT, he states, “the Church must be the body of Christ, the suffering servant… the individual Christian … is called to be a ‘man for others’ standing at the side of Jesus in the service of the neighbor.” (Pg. 92-93)
Objections: “it is surprising to see how little the New Testament makes of the Church’s responsibility toward the temporal order… Some radical proponents of the secular ecclesiology so emphasize the importance of peace, justice, and prosperity in this life that they lead one to question whether there is any authentic hope for persons for whom these goals are unattainable.” (Pg. 101-102)
Of the sixth and final model, the Church as ESCHATOLOGY, he comments, “the modern practice of contrasting the Church and the Kingdom… tends to obscure and distort the biblical conceptions of both Church and Kingdom… the Church, far from passing away at the end of time, will then truly come into its own.” (Pg. 103-104)
He summarizes, “I do not feel compelled to choose among the answers suggested by each of our five models. One can accept certain points from each of them. From the first model I would appropriate the idea that the Church should help its members work out their own salvation… From the second model I would take … The community of grace is realized and lived even here on earth… From the third model, I would adopt the view that the Church is to be... a representative of the salvation to which we look forward… From the fourth model I would derive the ideas that … the proclamation [of the Kingdom] itself is an eschatological event… From the fifth model… the Church has the task of introducing the values of the Kingdom into the whole of human society… for the final transformation.” (Pg. 120-121)
Later, he adds, “Each of these models… entails a particular vision of the ministry…in a society as large and complex as the Church there is need for officers with a determinate sphere of competence, responsibility, and power… Theologians of this school [mystical communion] … tend to conceive of ecclesiastical office too much in the categories of modern democratic thinking… the sacral concept of the priesthood can … lead to a superstitious exaltation of the priest as a person possessed of divine o magical powers… The three traditionally recognized ministerial functions of preaching, sacramental worship, and communal leadership should all be integrated in any complete theory of priestly ministry… the ecclesiastical leadership [should] point out the dangers of dehumanization and to inspire concrete initiatives for the transformation of human society...” (Pg. 162-173)
He concludes, “the community of disciples is only one perspective on the Church. Other images and models… are needed to remind us that the Church is an organically organized community established by the Lord and animated by his Spirit.” (Pg. 226)
This book will appeal to all types of Christians, interested in Church structure and organization.
Author and Jesuit Avery Dulles wrote in the Introduction to this 1978 book (expanded edition, 1987), “This book attempts [a] … comparative ecclesiology… I have sifted out five major approaches… [or] models. Each of these models is considered and evaluated in itself, and as a result of this critical assessment I draw the conclusion that a balanced theology of the Church must find a way of incorporating the major affirmations of each basic ecclesiological type. Each of the models calls attention to certain aspects of the Church that are less clearly brought out by the other models.” (Pg. 11)
He explains in the first chapter, “one may perhaps divide the uses of models in theology into two types, the one explanatory, the other exploratory. On the explanatory level, models serve to synthesize what we already know or at least are inclined to believe. A model is accepted if it accounts for a large number of biblical and traditional data and accords with what history and experience tell us about Christian life…. By the exploratory, or heuristic, use of models, I mean their capacity to lead to new theological insights… Thanks to the ongoing experience of the Christian community, theology can discover aspects of the gospel of which Christians were not previously conscious.” (Pg. 24-26)
He says of the first (of six) model, the Church as INSTITUTION, “The notion of the Church as society by its very nature tends to highlight the structure of government as the formal element in the society. Thus it leads easily, though not necessarily, to what we shall call … the institutional vision of the Church---that is to say, the view that defines the Church primarily in terms of its visible structures, especially the rights and powers of its officers.” (Pg. 34)
He also acknowledges, “the institutional theory labors under several major liabilities… [which] may be summarized: In the first place, the theory has a comparatively meager basis in Scripture and in early Church tradition… Secondly… While some virtues, such as obedience, are strongly accepted, others are not… A third difficulty … is that it raises obstacles to a creative and fruitful theology… Fourthly… the institutional model fails to account for the spiritual vitality of the non-Roman Catholic churches… this ecclesiology fails to give sufficient scope to the charismatic element… Finally… In an age of dialogue, ecumenism… the monopolistic tendencies of this model are unacceptable.” (Pg. 43-44)
Of the second model, the Church as MYSTICAL COMMUNION, he states, “What is distinctive to the Church… is the vertical dimension---the divine life disclosed in the incarnate Christ and communicate to men through his Spirit… The concept of the Church as a communion harmonized with several biblical images… notably … those of the Body of Christ… The image of the Body of Christ is organic… The Body of Christ… has a divine life-principle.” (Pg. 49-50)
Of course, “These communal types… suffer from certain weaknesses… they leave some obscurity regarding the relationships between the spiritual and visible dimensions of the Church… it tends to exalt and divinize the Church beyond its due… [It] fails to give Christians a very clear sense of their identity or mission… there is … a certain tension between the Church as a network of friendly interpersonal relationships and … as a mystical communion of grace…” (Pg. 59-60)
Of the third model, the Church as SACRAMENT, he quotes Henri de Lubac: “The divine and human in the Church … can never be dissociated. An excessively spiritual and individualistic view of life of grace… leads to a merely secular and sociological interpretation of the Church… The notion of sacrament, on the other hand, harmoniously combines both aspects.” (Pg. 63)
He adds, “Some authors have found certain deficiencies… an excessive concern with the external aspects and a … neglect of the inwardness of the mystery of the Church… a narrow sacramentalism … accords insufficient place for … service in the Church’s mission to the world..” (Pg. 74-75)
Of the fourth model, the Church as HERALD, he says, “It sees the Church as gathered and formed by the word of God. The mission of the Church is to proclaim that which it has heard, believed, and been commissioned to proclaim.” (Pg. 76)
Of objections, he states, “The Catholic understanding of the Church as a stable community in history in which Christ continues to make himself present and available, leads to a different view of authority in the Church…. A final criticism … is that it focuses too exclusively on witness to the neglect of action.” (Pg. 86-87)
Of the fifth model, the Church as SERVANT, he states, “the Church must be the body of Christ, the suffering servant… the individual Christian … is called to be a ‘man for others’ standing at the side of Jesus in the service of the neighbor.” (Pg. 92-93)
Objections: “it is surprising to see how little the New Testament makes of the Church’s responsibility toward the temporal order… Some radical proponents of the secular ecclesiology so emphasize the importance of peace, justice, and prosperity in this life that they lead one to question whether there is any authentic hope for persons for whom these goals are unattainable.” (Pg. 101-102)
Of the sixth and final model, the Church as ESCHATOLOGY, he comments, “the modern practice of contrasting the Church and the Kingdom… tends to obscure and distort the biblical conceptions of both Church and Kingdom… the Church, far from passing away at the end of time, will then truly come into its own.” (Pg. 103-104)
He summarizes, “I do not feel compelled to choose among the answers suggested by each of our five models. One can accept certain points from each of them. From the first model I would appropriate the idea that the Church should help its members work out their own salvation… From the second model I would take … The community of grace is realized and lived even here on earth… From the third model, I would adopt the view that the Church is to be... a representative of the salvation to which we look forward… From the fourth model I would derive the ideas that … the proclamation [of the Kingdom] itself is an eschatological event… From the fifth model… the Church has the task of introducing the values of the Kingdom into the whole of human society… for the final transformation.” (Pg. 120-121)
Later, he adds, “Each of these models… entails a particular vision of the ministry…in a society as large and complex as the Church there is need for officers with a determinate sphere of competence, responsibility, and power… Theologians of this school [mystical communion] … tend to conceive of ecclesiastical office too much in the categories of modern democratic thinking… the sacral concept of the priesthood can … lead to a superstitious exaltation of the priest as a person possessed of divine o magical powers… The three traditionally recognized ministerial functions of preaching, sacramental worship, and communal leadership should all be integrated in any complete theory of priestly ministry… the ecclesiastical leadership [should] point out the dangers of dehumanization and to inspire concrete initiatives for the transformation of human society...” (Pg. 162-173)
He concludes, “the community of disciples is only one perspective on the Church. Other images and models… are needed to remind us that the Church is an organically organized community established by the Lord and animated by his Spirit.” (Pg. 226)
This book will appeal to all types of Christians, interested in Church structure and organization.
April 27, 2014
I am half-way through Avery Dulles's book, Models of the Church. It is a God-send, helping me to discover a multitude of helpful ways of thinking of the Church, and freeing me to set aside some of the unhelpful ways that I had thought were required thinking for Catholics.
Dulles presents 5 distinct models for understanding the Church: the Church as Institution, as Communion, as Sacrament, as Herald and as Servant. Rather than favoring any single model over the others, he presents the strengths and limitations of each one. "In order to do justice to the various aspects of the Church, as a complex reality, we must work simultaneously with different models. By a kind of mental juggling act, we have to keep several models in the air at once. ... A balanced theology of the Church must find a way of incorporating the major affirmations of each basic ecclesiological type. ... No good eccelsiologist is exclusively committed to a single model of the Church." Dulles uses the five models to get beyond the eccelsiological polarities that are commonly pointed out, such as "protestant vs. catholic, prophetic vs. priestly, vertical vs. horizontal, and institution vs. event. ... To come down flatly on either side of these alternatives would be to content oneself with a half truth."
Dulles, a Catholic and a Jesuit, writes from a Catholic perspective but gives due attention to both Catholic and Protestant theologians. Although the Catholic Church is commonly identified with the institutional model of the Church, Dulles maintains in the introduction to his book that "Catholics today should not wish to defend a primarily institutional view of the Church." He warns readers: "I take a deliberately critical stance toward those ecclesiologies that are primarily or exclusively institutional. But throughout the book I insist that the institutional view is valid within limits. The Church of Christ does not exist in this world without an organization or structure that analogously resembles the organization of other human societies. Thus I include the institutional as one of the necessary elements of a balanced ecclesiology."
Dulles goes on to say, "The most distinctive feature of Catholicism, in my opinion, is not its insistence on the institutional but rather its wholeness or balance. ... I am of the opinion that the Catholic Church, in the name of its 'catholicity', must at all costs avoid falling into a sectarian mentality. Being 'catholic', this Church must be open to all God's truth, no matter who utters it. As St. Paul teaches, it must accept whatever things are true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, gracious and excellent (cf. Phil. 4:8). Thus I find no conflict between being Catholic and being ecumenical. I hope I have succeeded in being both."
In Chapter One, "The Use of Models in Ecclesiology", Dulles begins with a classic Reformation-era quote from Robert Bellarmine: "The one true Church is the community of men brought together by the profession of the same Christian faith and conjoined in the communion of the same sacraments, under the government of the legitimate pastors and especially the one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman pontiff." Dulles points out that Bellarmine's tripartite definition of the Church (true faith, communion in the sacraments and submission to legitimate pastors) is entirely in terms of visible elements. In his opposition to Calvin and the other Reformers, Bellarmine was concerned to present the Church as a fully visible society. According to Dulles this was in line with the Baroque mentality which "wanted the supernatural to be as manifest as possible, and the theology of the period tried to reduce everything to clear and distinct ideas." Dulles maintains that "this clarity, however, was bought with a price. It tended to lower the Church to the same plane as other human communities ... and to neglect the most important thing about the Church: the presence in it of the God who calls the members to himself, sustains them by his grace, and works through them as they carry out the mission of the Church."
In contrast to Bellarmine's emphasis on the visible aspects of the Church, Dulles asserts that "there is something of a consensus today that the innermost reality of the Church ... is the divine self-gift. The Church is a union or communion of [human beings] with one another through the grace of Christ. Although this communion manifests itself in sacramental and juridical structures, at the heart of the Church one finds mystery. ... The mystery par excellence is not so much God in his essential nature ... but rather God's plan of salvation as it comes to concrete realization in the person of Christ Jesus. ... Christ is carrying out in the Church his plan of redemption. ... When the New Testatment tells us that marriage is 'a great mystery in reference to Christ in the Church' (Eph. 5:32), it is implied that the union of the human with the divine, begun in Christ, goes on in the Church; othewise marriage would not be a figure of the Church."
The idea of the Church as mystery was also "set forth by Paul VI in his opening address at the second session of Council [Vatican II] ... 'The Church is mystery. It is a reality imbued with the hidden presence of God. It lies, therefore, within the very nature of the Church to be always open to new and ever greater exploration."
Dulles notes that rather than defining the Church, the Second Vatican Council emphasized instead the various Biblical images used to describe the Church: "the building raised up by Christ, the house of God, the temple and tabernacle of God, his people, his flock, his vine, his field, his city, the pillar of truth, and finally, the Bride of Christ, his Mystical Body."
Dulles points out that images "convey a latent meaning that is apprehended in a nonconceptual, even a subliminal, way." Hence they can have the power of symbols, which "transform the horizon's of man's life, integrate his perception of reality, alter his scale of values, reorient his loyalties, attachments and aspirations, in a manner far exceeding the powers of abstract, conceptual thought."
Dulles goes on to say "In order to win acceptance, images must resonate with the experience of the faithful. If they do so resonate, this is proof that there is some isomorphism between what the image depicts and the spiritual reality with which the faithful are in existential contact." Dulles quotes Paul Minear: "If an unauthentic image dominates [the Church's] consciousness, there will first be subtle signs of malaise, followed by more overt tokens of communal deterioration. If an authentic image is recognized at the verbal level but denied in practice, there will also follow sure disintegration of the ligaments of corporate life."
Dulles reassures us that "in times of rapid cultural change, such as our own, a crisis of images is to be expected. Many traditional images lose their former hold on people, while the new images have not yet had time to gain their full power. ... Many of us know very little from direct experience about lambs, wolves, sheep, vines and grapes, or even about kings and patriarchs as they were in biblical times. There is need therefore to supplement these images with others that speak more directly to our contemporaries. The manufacturing of supplemental images goes on whereever the faith is vital."
Dulles relates images to models, saying, "When an image is employed reflectively and critically to deepen one's theoretical understanding of a reality it becomes what is today called a 'model' ".
Dulles points out that the use of models in theology follows their use in the physical sciences to provide a framework for understanding something that is beyond direct experience. Dulles quotes Ewert Cousins, saying, "Our religious language and symbols should be looked upon as models because, even more than the concepts of science, they only approximate the object they are reflecting ... To use the concept of model in theology, then, breaks the illusion that we are actually encompassing the infinite within our finite structures of language. It prevents concepts and symbols from becoming idols and opens theology to variety and development just as the model method has done for science."
Dulles distinguishes between two primary uses of models in theology, one explanatory and the other exploratory. "On the explanatory level, models serve to synthesize what we already know or at least are inclined to believe. A model is accepted if accounts for a large number of biblical and traditional data and accords with what history and experience tell us about the Christian life." On the other hand the exploratory use of models refers to "their capacity to lead to new theological insights. ... Theology is not an experimental science in the same way that physics, for example, is. Theology has an abiding objective norm in the past--that is, in the revelation that was given once and for all in Jesus Christ. ... In some fashion every discovery is ultimately validated in terms of what was already given in Scripture and tradition. But even the past would not be revelation to us unless God were still alive and giving himself to mankind in Jesus Christ. Thus the present experience of grace enters intrinsically into the method of theology. Thanks to the ongoing experience of the Christian community, theology can discover aspects of the gospel of which Christians were not previously conscious."
Dulles acknowledges that "there is a particular problem of verification in theology. Because the Church is a mystery, there can be no question of deductive or crudely empirical tests" to validate a particular model. In Dulles's view, "theological verification depends upon a kind of corporate discernment of spirits. ... The faithful, insofar as they are docile to the Spirit, tend to accept whatever in their religious experience leads to an intensification of faith, hope and charity, or to an increase of ... the fruits of the Holy Spirit--love, joy, peace, patience, kindness and the like (cf. Gal. 5:22-25). Where the result is inner turbulence, anger, discord, disgust, distraction and the like, the Church can judge that the Spirit of Christ is not a work. We assess models and theories, therefore, by living out the consequences to which they point."
Dulles refers to the expression of this idea in Paul VI's first encyclical, Eccelsiam suam: "The mystery of the Church is not a mere object of theological knowledge; it is something to be lived, something that the faithful soul can have a kind of connatural experience of, even before arriving at a clear notion of it." Dulles expands on this in his own words, "The Church exists only as a dynamic reality achieving itself in history, and only through some kind of sharing in the Church's life can one understand at all sufficiently what the Church is."
These quotes on verification draw me to reflect on my own experience of the Church, particularly on my decision to enter the Catholic Church. There was indeed a sense of inner turbulence, anger and discord that I felt in response to the underlying attitude that my RCIA teachers and other Catholics seemed to have about the Church. It was often not something that they were explicitly trying to teach, but more of a set of underlying assumptions about the Church that were different from my own. I was left with a sense that God had disappeared behind or was being held hostage by a Church to whom he had apparently given control over his grace, such that God could no longer act without the Church's permission. Consequently, I found it difficult to pray, because God seemed so remote, inaccessible and ineffectual.
Dulles does not elaborate on how to discern when this sense of inner turbulence and discord is a sign that Christ is not at work in what one is being confronted with, versus when it is a sign that one's self is not being docile to the Spirit. Presumably he does not elaborate on this, because it can be very difficult to make this discernment. A major difficulty for me was that the Catholic milieu in which I was immersing myself seemed to hold the opinion that such inner turmoil and discord most often indicates one's own stubborn refusal to submit rather than indicating a legitimate move of the Spirit within one's self, reacting against something that one knows intuitively to not be true.
I have been gratified to learn that most of the images of the Church that I reacted strongly against and became depressed over are aspects of the institutional model of the Church that Avery Dulles presents as unhelpful consequences of a model that has some positive aspects but that has been pushed beyond its useful limit.
In this regard, Dulles notes that "Pursued alone, any single model will lead to distortions. It will misplace the accent, and thus entail consequences that are not valid. ... In order to offset the defects of individual models, the theologian, like the physicist, employs a combination of irreducibly distinct models. Phenomena not intelligible in terms of one model may be readily explicable when another model is used."
I also appreciate Dulles's assertion that "we assess models and theories by living out the consequences to which they point." This has been what I have tried to do, both in facing the challenge of atheism and in facing the challenge of ecumenism. Years ago, when faced with the ambiguity of belief in God and the impossibility of proving or disproving God's existence, I made a choice to live my life as a Christian despite all uncertainty. I chose to devote my life to the radical experiment of Christian faith. In part this was based on wanting to maintain the stability of my identity and in part it was based on seeing the good that had come from seeking God and seeking to follow Christ in my own life and in the lives of others.
I was thrown into a second period of turmoil more recently when confronted with the Catholic mode of Christianity being presented as something different from what I already knew of Christian life. (Even though much of what I loved best about Christianity were things I had learned at Benedictine monasteries and had already incorporated into my Christian life). Even though one is not required today to renounce Protestant Christianity as heresy in order to enter the Catholic Church, the process of entry still is presented as one of making a distinct choice for Catholicism over Protestant Christianity. In my experience, the process of making such a decision in favor of one Church and against another was filled with just as much uncertainty as being unable to prove or disprove God's existence. Given the lack of consensus among theological scholars on the "truth" of the Catholic versus Protestant views of Christianity, it seemed impossible to me that I would ever find some intellectual basis that had escaped the attention of scholars for choosing one church tradition over another.
The only avenue accessible to me seemed to be to discern which church community would best facilitate my growth in faith, hope in charity, and my ability to grow in love of God and neighbor. This approach was similar to my decision to remain a Christian when faced with doubt: being a Christian seemed to be helping me to grow into a more loving person. In my mind, the main reason, perhaps the only reason, to become Catholic would be if it would help me to become a more loving person. My exposure to Catholicism at Benedictine monasteries seemed to be cultivating an increasing ability to love, but some of my experiences in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) had the opposite effect. Eventually it seemed that the only way to discern whether the positive influences could outweigh the negative was to jump in and give it a try. Thus began another radical experiment with my life, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Catholic mode of Christianity by "living out the consequences to which they point."
Ok, getting back to Chapter 1 of Models of the Church:
Dulles notes the period of rapid change in which we live and have lived for the past century or so. For several centuries after the Reformation, the Catholic Church "was so exclusively presented on the analogy of the secular state that this model became, for practical purposes, the only only one in Roman Catholic theological currency." This began to change in the 1940's with new emphasis on the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. A model to which Pius XII "gave quasicannonical status" in 1943. In the late 1940's, however, "theologians became conscious of certain deficiencies in the model and attempted to meet these by appealing to other models, such as People of God and Sacrament of Christ. Vatican II made ample use of the models of the Body of Christ and the Sacrament, but its dominant model was rather the People of God. This paradigm focused attention on the Church as a network of interpersonal relationships, on the Church as community. ... In the postconcilar period still another model of the Church has begun to struggle for supremacy: that of the Church as Servant or Healer. ... This model has increased the Catholic Christian's sense of solidarity with the whole human race in its struggles for peace, justice and prosperity."
In commenting on the succession of new models that have arisen for the Church, Dulles notes that "the new paradigms have in fact cleared up certain problems not easily solved under the predecessors. To a great extent, however, the motives for the shift have been practical and pastoral rather than primarily speculative. Changes have been accepted because they help the Church to find its identity in a changing world, or because they motivate men [and women] to the kind of loyalty, commitment and generosity that the Church seeks to elicit. ... The Servant model has become popular because it satisfies a certain hunger for involvement in the making of a better world-- a hunger that, although specifically Christian in motivation, establishes solidarity between the Church and the whole human family."
Dulles also notes the difficulties presented by such rapid recent changes in perspectives on the Church. "It should not be surprising, therefore, that in the contemporary Church, rocked by paradigm shifts, we should find phenomena such as polarization, mutual incomprehension, inability to communicate, frustration and discouragement. Since the situation is simply a fact of our times, we must learn to live with it. It will greatly help, however, if people can learn to practice tolerance and to accept pluralism. We must recognize that our own favorite paradigms, however excellent, do not solve all questions. Much harm is done by imperialistically seeking to impose some one model as the definitive one."
Dulles continues: "Each model of the Church has its weaknesses; no one should be cannonized as the measure of all the rest. Instead of searching for some absolutely best image, it would be advisable to recognize that the manifold images given to us by Scripture and Tradition are mutually complementary."
Dulles presents 5 distinct models for understanding the Church: the Church as Institution, as Communion, as Sacrament, as Herald and as Servant. Rather than favoring any single model over the others, he presents the strengths and limitations of each one. "In order to do justice to the various aspects of the Church, as a complex reality, we must work simultaneously with different models. By a kind of mental juggling act, we have to keep several models in the air at once. ... A balanced theology of the Church must find a way of incorporating the major affirmations of each basic ecclesiological type. ... No good eccelsiologist is exclusively committed to a single model of the Church." Dulles uses the five models to get beyond the eccelsiological polarities that are commonly pointed out, such as "protestant vs. catholic, prophetic vs. priestly, vertical vs. horizontal, and institution vs. event. ... To come down flatly on either side of these alternatives would be to content oneself with a half truth."
Dulles, a Catholic and a Jesuit, writes from a Catholic perspective but gives due attention to both Catholic and Protestant theologians. Although the Catholic Church is commonly identified with the institutional model of the Church, Dulles maintains in the introduction to his book that "Catholics today should not wish to defend a primarily institutional view of the Church." He warns readers: "I take a deliberately critical stance toward those ecclesiologies that are primarily or exclusively institutional. But throughout the book I insist that the institutional view is valid within limits. The Church of Christ does not exist in this world without an organization or structure that analogously resembles the organization of other human societies. Thus I include the institutional as one of the necessary elements of a balanced ecclesiology."
Dulles goes on to say, "The most distinctive feature of Catholicism, in my opinion, is not its insistence on the institutional but rather its wholeness or balance. ... I am of the opinion that the Catholic Church, in the name of its 'catholicity', must at all costs avoid falling into a sectarian mentality. Being 'catholic', this Church must be open to all God's truth, no matter who utters it. As St. Paul teaches, it must accept whatever things are true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, gracious and excellent (cf. Phil. 4:8). Thus I find no conflict between being Catholic and being ecumenical. I hope I have succeeded in being both."
In Chapter One, "The Use of Models in Ecclesiology", Dulles begins with a classic Reformation-era quote from Robert Bellarmine: "The one true Church is the community of men brought together by the profession of the same Christian faith and conjoined in the communion of the same sacraments, under the government of the legitimate pastors and especially the one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman pontiff." Dulles points out that Bellarmine's tripartite definition of the Church (true faith, communion in the sacraments and submission to legitimate pastors) is entirely in terms of visible elements. In his opposition to Calvin and the other Reformers, Bellarmine was concerned to present the Church as a fully visible society. According to Dulles this was in line with the Baroque mentality which "wanted the supernatural to be as manifest as possible, and the theology of the period tried to reduce everything to clear and distinct ideas." Dulles maintains that "this clarity, however, was bought with a price. It tended to lower the Church to the same plane as other human communities ... and to neglect the most important thing about the Church: the presence in it of the God who calls the members to himself, sustains them by his grace, and works through them as they carry out the mission of the Church."
In contrast to Bellarmine's emphasis on the visible aspects of the Church, Dulles asserts that "there is something of a consensus today that the innermost reality of the Church ... is the divine self-gift. The Church is a union or communion of [human beings] with one another through the grace of Christ. Although this communion manifests itself in sacramental and juridical structures, at the heart of the Church one finds mystery. ... The mystery par excellence is not so much God in his essential nature ... but rather God's plan of salvation as it comes to concrete realization in the person of Christ Jesus. ... Christ is carrying out in the Church his plan of redemption. ... When the New Testatment tells us that marriage is 'a great mystery in reference to Christ in the Church' (Eph. 5:32), it is implied that the union of the human with the divine, begun in Christ, goes on in the Church; othewise marriage would not be a figure of the Church."
The idea of the Church as mystery was also "set forth by Paul VI in his opening address at the second session of Council [Vatican II] ... 'The Church is mystery. It is a reality imbued with the hidden presence of God. It lies, therefore, within the very nature of the Church to be always open to new and ever greater exploration."
Dulles notes that rather than defining the Church, the Second Vatican Council emphasized instead the various Biblical images used to describe the Church: "the building raised up by Christ, the house of God, the temple and tabernacle of God, his people, his flock, his vine, his field, his city, the pillar of truth, and finally, the Bride of Christ, his Mystical Body."
Dulles points out that images "convey a latent meaning that is apprehended in a nonconceptual, even a subliminal, way." Hence they can have the power of symbols, which "transform the horizon's of man's life, integrate his perception of reality, alter his scale of values, reorient his loyalties, attachments and aspirations, in a manner far exceeding the powers of abstract, conceptual thought."
Dulles goes on to say "In order to win acceptance, images must resonate with the experience of the faithful. If they do so resonate, this is proof that there is some isomorphism between what the image depicts and the spiritual reality with which the faithful are in existential contact." Dulles quotes Paul Minear: "If an unauthentic image dominates [the Church's] consciousness, there will first be subtle signs of malaise, followed by more overt tokens of communal deterioration. If an authentic image is recognized at the verbal level but denied in practice, there will also follow sure disintegration of the ligaments of corporate life."
Dulles reassures us that "in times of rapid cultural change, such as our own, a crisis of images is to be expected. Many traditional images lose their former hold on people, while the new images have not yet had time to gain their full power. ... Many of us know very little from direct experience about lambs, wolves, sheep, vines and grapes, or even about kings and patriarchs as they were in biblical times. There is need therefore to supplement these images with others that speak more directly to our contemporaries. The manufacturing of supplemental images goes on whereever the faith is vital."
Dulles relates images to models, saying, "When an image is employed reflectively and critically to deepen one's theoretical understanding of a reality it becomes what is today called a 'model' ".
Dulles points out that the use of models in theology follows their use in the physical sciences to provide a framework for understanding something that is beyond direct experience. Dulles quotes Ewert Cousins, saying, "Our religious language and symbols should be looked upon as models because, even more than the concepts of science, they only approximate the object they are reflecting ... To use the concept of model in theology, then, breaks the illusion that we are actually encompassing the infinite within our finite structures of language. It prevents concepts and symbols from becoming idols and opens theology to variety and development just as the model method has done for science."
Dulles distinguishes between two primary uses of models in theology, one explanatory and the other exploratory. "On the explanatory level, models serve to synthesize what we already know or at least are inclined to believe. A model is accepted if accounts for a large number of biblical and traditional data and accords with what history and experience tell us about the Christian life." On the other hand the exploratory use of models refers to "their capacity to lead to new theological insights. ... Theology is not an experimental science in the same way that physics, for example, is. Theology has an abiding objective norm in the past--that is, in the revelation that was given once and for all in Jesus Christ. ... In some fashion every discovery is ultimately validated in terms of what was already given in Scripture and tradition. But even the past would not be revelation to us unless God were still alive and giving himself to mankind in Jesus Christ. Thus the present experience of grace enters intrinsically into the method of theology. Thanks to the ongoing experience of the Christian community, theology can discover aspects of the gospel of which Christians were not previously conscious."
Dulles acknowledges that "there is a particular problem of verification in theology. Because the Church is a mystery, there can be no question of deductive or crudely empirical tests" to validate a particular model. In Dulles's view, "theological verification depends upon a kind of corporate discernment of spirits. ... The faithful, insofar as they are docile to the Spirit, tend to accept whatever in their religious experience leads to an intensification of faith, hope and charity, or to an increase of ... the fruits of the Holy Spirit--love, joy, peace, patience, kindness and the like (cf. Gal. 5:22-25). Where the result is inner turbulence, anger, discord, disgust, distraction and the like, the Church can judge that the Spirit of Christ is not a work. We assess models and theories, therefore, by living out the consequences to which they point."
Dulles refers to the expression of this idea in Paul VI's first encyclical, Eccelsiam suam: "The mystery of the Church is not a mere object of theological knowledge; it is something to be lived, something that the faithful soul can have a kind of connatural experience of, even before arriving at a clear notion of it." Dulles expands on this in his own words, "The Church exists only as a dynamic reality achieving itself in history, and only through some kind of sharing in the Church's life can one understand at all sufficiently what the Church is."
These quotes on verification draw me to reflect on my own experience of the Church, particularly on my decision to enter the Catholic Church. There was indeed a sense of inner turbulence, anger and discord that I felt in response to the underlying attitude that my RCIA teachers and other Catholics seemed to have about the Church. It was often not something that they were explicitly trying to teach, but more of a set of underlying assumptions about the Church that were different from my own. I was left with a sense that God had disappeared behind or was being held hostage by a Church to whom he had apparently given control over his grace, such that God could no longer act without the Church's permission. Consequently, I found it difficult to pray, because God seemed so remote, inaccessible and ineffectual.
Dulles does not elaborate on how to discern when this sense of inner turbulence and discord is a sign that Christ is not at work in what one is being confronted with, versus when it is a sign that one's self is not being docile to the Spirit. Presumably he does not elaborate on this, because it can be very difficult to make this discernment. A major difficulty for me was that the Catholic milieu in which I was immersing myself seemed to hold the opinion that such inner turmoil and discord most often indicates one's own stubborn refusal to submit rather than indicating a legitimate move of the Spirit within one's self, reacting against something that one knows intuitively to not be true.
I have been gratified to learn that most of the images of the Church that I reacted strongly against and became depressed over are aspects of the institutional model of the Church that Avery Dulles presents as unhelpful consequences of a model that has some positive aspects but that has been pushed beyond its useful limit.
In this regard, Dulles notes that "Pursued alone, any single model will lead to distortions. It will misplace the accent, and thus entail consequences that are not valid. ... In order to offset the defects of individual models, the theologian, like the physicist, employs a combination of irreducibly distinct models. Phenomena not intelligible in terms of one model may be readily explicable when another model is used."
I also appreciate Dulles's assertion that "we assess models and theories by living out the consequences to which they point." This has been what I have tried to do, both in facing the challenge of atheism and in facing the challenge of ecumenism. Years ago, when faced with the ambiguity of belief in God and the impossibility of proving or disproving God's existence, I made a choice to live my life as a Christian despite all uncertainty. I chose to devote my life to the radical experiment of Christian faith. In part this was based on wanting to maintain the stability of my identity and in part it was based on seeing the good that had come from seeking God and seeking to follow Christ in my own life and in the lives of others.
I was thrown into a second period of turmoil more recently when confronted with the Catholic mode of Christianity being presented as something different from what I already knew of Christian life. (Even though much of what I loved best about Christianity were things I had learned at Benedictine monasteries and had already incorporated into my Christian life). Even though one is not required today to renounce Protestant Christianity as heresy in order to enter the Catholic Church, the process of entry still is presented as one of making a distinct choice for Catholicism over Protestant Christianity. In my experience, the process of making such a decision in favor of one Church and against another was filled with just as much uncertainty as being unable to prove or disprove God's existence. Given the lack of consensus among theological scholars on the "truth" of the Catholic versus Protestant views of Christianity, it seemed impossible to me that I would ever find some intellectual basis that had escaped the attention of scholars for choosing one church tradition over another.
The only avenue accessible to me seemed to be to discern which church community would best facilitate my growth in faith, hope in charity, and my ability to grow in love of God and neighbor. This approach was similar to my decision to remain a Christian when faced with doubt: being a Christian seemed to be helping me to grow into a more loving person. In my mind, the main reason, perhaps the only reason, to become Catholic would be if it would help me to become a more loving person. My exposure to Catholicism at Benedictine monasteries seemed to be cultivating an increasing ability to love, but some of my experiences in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) had the opposite effect. Eventually it seemed that the only way to discern whether the positive influences could outweigh the negative was to jump in and give it a try. Thus began another radical experiment with my life, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Catholic mode of Christianity by "living out the consequences to which they point."
Ok, getting back to Chapter 1 of Models of the Church:
Dulles notes the period of rapid change in which we live and have lived for the past century or so. For several centuries after the Reformation, the Catholic Church "was so exclusively presented on the analogy of the secular state that this model became, for practical purposes, the only only one in Roman Catholic theological currency." This began to change in the 1940's with new emphasis on the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. A model to which Pius XII "gave quasicannonical status" in 1943. In the late 1940's, however, "theologians became conscious of certain deficiencies in the model and attempted to meet these by appealing to other models, such as People of God and Sacrament of Christ. Vatican II made ample use of the models of the Body of Christ and the Sacrament, but its dominant model was rather the People of God. This paradigm focused attention on the Church as a network of interpersonal relationships, on the Church as community. ... In the postconcilar period still another model of the Church has begun to struggle for supremacy: that of the Church as Servant or Healer. ... This model has increased the Catholic Christian's sense of solidarity with the whole human race in its struggles for peace, justice and prosperity."
In commenting on the succession of new models that have arisen for the Church, Dulles notes that "the new paradigms have in fact cleared up certain problems not easily solved under the predecessors. To a great extent, however, the motives for the shift have been practical and pastoral rather than primarily speculative. Changes have been accepted because they help the Church to find its identity in a changing world, or because they motivate men [and women] to the kind of loyalty, commitment and generosity that the Church seeks to elicit. ... The Servant model has become popular because it satisfies a certain hunger for involvement in the making of a better world-- a hunger that, although specifically Christian in motivation, establishes solidarity between the Church and the whole human family."
Dulles also notes the difficulties presented by such rapid recent changes in perspectives on the Church. "It should not be surprising, therefore, that in the contemporary Church, rocked by paradigm shifts, we should find phenomena such as polarization, mutual incomprehension, inability to communicate, frustration and discouragement. Since the situation is simply a fact of our times, we must learn to live with it. It will greatly help, however, if people can learn to practice tolerance and to accept pluralism. We must recognize that our own favorite paradigms, however excellent, do not solve all questions. Much harm is done by imperialistically seeking to impose some one model as the definitive one."
Dulles continues: "Each model of the Church has its weaknesses; no one should be cannonized as the measure of all the rest. Instead of searching for some absolutely best image, it would be advisable to recognize that the manifold images given to us by Scripture and Tradition are mutually complementary."
March 27, 2019
This is a phenomenal book that many of my Protestant friends will find challenging. I think that's good. Our views of and attitudes towards the church, especially within the evangelical quarter, are dismissive, overly casual, and not well informed. Dulles works through five models that have been used through centuries to capture the mystery of the church. No one is perfect, but none can be entirely dismissed either. I am sure I will come back to this book again in a few years for a good re-read.
April 1, 2020
I read this as part of a course I’m doing. Cardinal Dulles discusses and reflects on 5 different models of the church and their links to eschatological models. The view is very much from a post Vatican 2 Roman Catholic perspective.
He does discuss Protestant aspects and seems particularly influence by Karl Barth & Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
This would work as a good text book for an Ecclesiology module.
He does discuss Protestant aspects and seems particularly influence by Karl Barth & Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
This would work as a good text book for an Ecclesiology module.
February 12, 2025
I read this book for an Ecclesiology class, and it's an interesting discussion about the models of the Church. However, in this case there's a lot of additional definition in the area of "church" by way of definition. Also, it's immediately apparent that no one model describes any church. These models could more accurately be described as behaviors or trends within some churches. Maybe the best part of the book is where I read about Pope Saint John Paul II's definition of the Church.
March 21, 2022
What is the best way to understand the Church?
Cardinal Dulles' thesis is thought provoking and illuminating. If you're wondering why there is so much division within the Church, this book explains, in a way, the tensions of competing visions of what the Church is suppose to be whether it's merely a society, a mystical body, a sacrament, a proclamation, or a servant.
Cardinal Dulles' thesis is thought provoking and illuminating. If you're wondering why there is so much division within the Church, this book explains, in a way, the tensions of competing visions of what the Church is suppose to be whether it's merely a society, a mystical body, a sacrament, a proclamation, or a servant.
November 16, 2018
It can be a bit overwhelming at times, but there is a lot of good and useful insight into how we view the Church. I suspect most Christians, such as myself, haven't really given it much thought. If you are patient, I think there is a lot to be gained from reading this book.
July 6, 2020
What is church? Is there a church when we go to heaven? What would that look like? This books is a great insight on different models of church. Easy to read, challenging to accept some of his theories. Great read for a deeper understanding of the church for Catholics and Protestant alike.
March 18, 2021
This book is one of the most wonderful books which discover Church. Amerian Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ provided an overview of Church models. Each of them has pros and cons but they complement each other, and together, they construct the Holly Church.
June 7, 2021
I'll admit as a Reformed protestant there is some language in this book I struggled with due to the author's Roman Catholicism. However this is a great multi-perspective look at ecclesiology. I benefitted greatly from the perspectives the author put forth. Protestants should read this book.
January 1, 2022
Summary: Dulles' ideas about possible models for the Catholic Church.
Why I Read This: "Nature and Mission of the Church"
Review: It was accessible and made sense. It does have to be read in context, and I'm not totally sold on the conclusions at the end.
Why I Read This: "Nature and Mission of the Church"
Review: It was accessible and made sense. It does have to be read in context, and I'm not totally sold on the conclusions at the end.
August 13, 2025
Good book! The book reveals blind spots in your limited viewing of the mystery of the Church. I like Cardinal Avery Dulles’ 5 models, and a good Catholic should balance all 5 lest they turn one model into an idol and or a static belief.
January 5, 2022
Very helpful and thoughtful. By presenting and describing five models, Dulles helps one to think deeper about the church and its mission in the world.
March 23, 2017
Great Book if you love the Catholic Church and theology of functioning.
July 16, 2011
Dulles' classic exposition from 1974 of the various models of church (institutional, mystical communion, sacrament, hearld, servant) found among the various Christian churches updated by the author to include a 'correlative category' of church as community of disciples, as well as a good appendix on the ecclesiology of Pope John Paul II. The book also contains insights on theology of church as it relates to other areas of systematic theology (ecumenism, ministry, and revelation) along with an evaluation of models.
The additions help clarify points of contention left from the original version. In spite of his argument to the contrary, though, Dulles still maintained a view that tended to overschematize with regard to his use of models. Although he states no model is 'unto itself' in any expression of a real church, many continue to interpret his models precisely that way. This updated version, unfortunately, does not do much to prevent this. Nevertheless, the book remains an important contribution to understanding operative assumptions in different Christian denominations views of the church and offers a helpful historical exposition of these key themes.
The additions help clarify points of contention left from the original version. In spite of his argument to the contrary, though, Dulles still maintained a view that tended to overschematize with regard to his use of models. Although he states no model is 'unto itself' in any expression of a real church, many continue to interpret his models precisely that way. This updated version, unfortunately, does not do much to prevent this. Nevertheless, the book remains an important contribution to understanding operative assumptions in different Christian denominations views of the church and offers a helpful historical exposition of these key themes.
October 12, 2009
Book Notes:
The Use of Models in Ecclesiology
The Church is mainly described by imagery
-both inside and outside of the Bible
When an image is used to reflectively and critically deepen one's understanding of a reality, it is called a "model"
2 types:
-Explanatory: these models serve to synthesize what we already know or believe
-Exploratory: these models have the capacity to lead to new theological insights
There is always a sense of mystery with models, never fully understanding
The Church as Institution
The Use of Models in Ecclesiology
The Church is mainly described by imagery
-both inside and outside of the Bible
When an image is used to reflectively and critically deepen one's understanding of a reality, it is called a "model"
2 types:
-Explanatory: these models serve to synthesize what we already know or believe
-Exploratory: these models have the capacity to lead to new theological insights
There is always a sense of mystery with models, never fully understanding
The Church as Institution
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 6, 2016
great book by Cardinal Dulles. Catholic in nature, but ecumenical in spirit. A few chps in this one were AMAZING, others just ok, imo, but I enjoyed it as a whole nonetheless.
October 16, 2013
A standard!
November 17, 2013
Read this book for my Religion class (The Church and the Holy Spirit) interesting read written from the view of the Catholic church.
August 21, 2014
a book for my class on Ecclesiology, started slow, but I learned a lot about church models thru the reading, discussions and papers written.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews