The past weeks have examined the theology of innovation and its application in the Church. No doubt, the term ‘innovation’ often provokes unease in ecclesial contexts. The early Christian monk, Vincent of Lerins, affirms that “in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all” (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus). This serves as a test of orthodoxy against heresy, prioritising universality, antiquity, and consensus (Commonitorium, Chapter 2, 6). Hence, he insists, “Let there be no innovation — nothing but what has been handed down” (Commonitorium, Chapter 6, 16).
However, the Church does not fear innovation; instead, she fears distortion of the Gospel. Indeed, not all creativity is evangelical, and not every adaptation serves the Gospel. Hence, an authentic theology of innovation requires a sober reflection on risks and limits.
This is the focus of today’s post.
The first is the risk of doctrinal dilution, which entails adopting ideas without scrutiny, thereby subtly eroding doctrinal clarity in the name of pastoral sensitivity. Writing on spirituality in contemporary society, Pope Francis warns against gnosticism, which is “a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings” (Evangelium Gaudium, 94).
Innovation deviates from the purpose of holistic salvation of souls when doctrine is relativised for the sake of inclusion, moral teaching is obscured, and truth is sacrificed for relevance. Pope Benedict XVI condemns the dictatorship of relativism that “does not recognise anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”
The second risk is from inculturation, namely, the danger of cultural absolutism and syncretism. As noted in the past, the Church transmits the Gospel to different cultures and, from within, purifies cultures of what contradicts human dignity, while renewing the good elements already present in these cultures (Redemptoris Missio, 52). Cultural absolutism holds that a particular set of cultural truths should apply to all. Religious syncretism is the combination of elements from different religious beliefs and practices into a new or unified system. Authentic innovation in the Church must seek to avoid these two extremes.
Inculturation does not mean enthroning a particular culture over the faith because, as Pope John XXIII states, “The Church, as you know, does not identify itself with any one culture, not even with European and Western civilisation, although the history of the Church is closely intertwined with it.” Instead, the Church “is willing, at all times, to recognise, welcome, and even assimilate anything that redounds to the honour of the human mind and heart, whether or not it originates in parts of the world washed by the Mediterranean Sea, which, from the beginning of time, had been destined by God’s Providence to be the cradle of the Church.” (Princeps Pastorum, 19).
Hence, Pope Pius XII writes that: “The herald of the Gospel and messenger of Christ is an apostle. His office does not demand that he transplant European civilisation and culture, and no other, to foreign soil, there to take root and propagate itself. His task in dealing with these peoples, who sometimes boast of a very old and highly developed culture of their own, is to teach and form them so that they are ready to accept willingly and in a practical manner the principles of Christian life and morality; principles, I might add, that fit into any culture, provided it be good and sound, and which give that culture greater force in safeguarding human dignity and in gaining human happiness. Catholic inhabitants of missionary countries, although they are first of all citizens of the Kingdom of God and members of His great family, do not for all that cease to be citizens of their earthly fatherland” (Evangelii Praecones, 60).
Inculturation should also avoid syncretism, in which cultural practices are adapted without discernment and the Gospel no longer challenges culture. Instead, inculturation should entail “the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity and the insertion of Christianity in the various human cultures” (Redemptoris Missio, 52).
The third risk is enthroning productivity over prayer in innovation. The Holy Spirit is the principal agent of evangelisation and innovation. Therefore, disconnecting from grace means that innovation could become pastoral activism driven by anxiety about decline in numbers and growth, rationality and decision-making, pressure to remain socially acceptable, and fear of appearing irrelevant. In such cases, innovation becomes reactive rather than evangelical. No doubt, what is not born of the Spirit cannot sustain the Church because it becomes managerial rather than spiritual, and productive but not fruitful.
The fourth is a limit, that is, the indispensability of ecclesial discernment in authentic innovation. Innovation flows from the right, indeed at times the duty, of Christ’s faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons” (Can. 212 §3).
The pastors have the obligation to listen; however, they are not obliged to accept or act on those views, because innovation must be subject to ecclesial discernment. Discernment is a spiritual and ecclesial process that asks whether this innovation leads to conversion and whether it deepens communion with the Church. Does it arise from prayer and listening? Is it accountable to ecclesial authority? This is where the nature of the Church becomes topical.
The Church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the head of his body; therefore, Christ is the source of authority (cf. Col 1:18). Christ willed the current structure of governance in the Church through the decisions he made while on earth. Although he selected twelve apostles, he still chose only Peter to be the head of the Church he was to establish (Matt 16:18-20). By doing so, he willed that authority in the Church flowing from him should be top-down rather than bottom-up as in a democracy.
Therefore, while obedience is not an enemy of creativity, creativity must ultimately be obedient to the teachings of the Church and the decision of the competent authority. Hence, if the competent authority, whose prerogative it is to decide on a new idea, resists it, more information can clarify. If the authority still does not accept, the new idea should be suspended for further inspiration from the Holy Spirit over time.
Finally, and in light of the fourth point, one notes that not every crisis requires innovation. Innovation should be resisted if it obscures the centrality of Christ in the Church, lacks a theological foundation, fragments ecclesial unity, and confuses the faithful. An authentic theology of innovation recognises that, at times, rather than change, renewed faithfulness, deeper conversion, renewed catechesis, or patient fidelity can better resolve a situation.
The Vatican Declaration Fiducia supplicans was rejected by a substantial part of the Church because it did not fully represent the authentic sense of faith (sensus fidei) of many Catholics. Regarding new expressions of the faith, the faithful need to be guided and encouraged, not forced, so that new expressions do not provoke negative reactions that undermine their faith journey (Redemptoris Missio, 54).
Limiting innovation in the Church is not out of fear or rigidity, but an inspired decision to protect the integrity of the Gospel, safeguard communion, and preserve the Church’s missionary identity. A Church that innovates without discernment risks losing herself. A Church that discerns wisely discovers how to renew herself without undermining her missionary identity.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
