Contents
Asymmetry and Spiritual Salvation: The Cross
Asymmetry and Temporal Salvation: Healing and Raising from the Dead
Introduction
Last week’s post examined leverageable advantage in subsidiarity-integrated centralisation. Today’s post examines another concept that would inform future reflections on pastoral vision and planning: an asymmetric pastoral model. One notes from the outset that this is not a new idea but a technical explanation of a practice that existed right from the beginning of the Church.
Definition
The word ‘asymmetric’ (or asymmetrical) means “having two sides or halves that are not the same; not symmetrical” (Merriam-Webster). In an asymmetric business model, one group receives a free or low-cost service, while another group provides the resources that sustain the system that provides the service. Search engines and social media platforms are examples in which users receive a service, while advertisers provide the revenue to sustain it.
Although the Church is the mystical body of Christ, an asymmetric model can be applied analogically to the Church in the context of ecclesial governance, pastoral vision, and planning.
Here, one will speak of an asymmetric pastoral model. This simply means a framework in which the primary beneficiaries of pastoral action are not necessarily the principal providers of the resources that sustain that action.
In other words, it is a framework of pastoral action in which the generation, stewardship, and distribution of pastoral resources are intentionally non-reciprocal, enabling communities with greater pastoral capacity to sustain the mission and fruitfulness of communities with lesser capacity.
The early Christian community adopted this model because people brought what they had to the apostles, who shared resources according to need rather than according to how one contributed to that pool of resources (Acts 4:34-35).
The most common illustration is how European missionaries raised funds in Europe to help establish and sustain the Church in Nigeria and other mission territories. This practice still exists today in the form of seminary subsidies, scholarships to priests and religious, and grants for churches, schools, hospitals, and other pastoral initiatives from the Holy See or other Church donor agencies.
Christological Foundation
The asymmetric pastoral model can be discerned in the economy of salvation, where we, as beneficiaries of the holistic salvation Christ wrought for us, did not provide the means for this act.
Christ’s holistic (spiritual and temporal) salvific mission was asymmetric because humanity could not provide for itself what Christ provided us.
The central point is that the Church teaches that salvation is a free gift, not something we can pay for or earn by our own power or achievements. This salvation is free because “it flows from God’s initiative of love for us” (CCC, 620) since it is “not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10; cf. Ephesians 2:8-9). Hence, Pope Francis maintains that “we cannot buy” God’s friendship with works; it can only be a gift (Gaudete et Exsultate, 54).
Nevertheless, there is a human response which involves our free will. As St. Augustine says, “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also teaches that “to receive his mercy, we must admit our faults” (CCC,1847). As seen in the various healings performed by Christ, the beneficiaries had to cooperate positively, either by asking Jesus for healing or by consenting when Christ indicated interest in healing them.
Asymmetry and Spiritual Salvation: The Cross
Regarding the spiritual dimension of Christ’s holistic salvation, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is clear evidence that Christ provided what we could not do. How? Sacrifice is a means of atonement for sins because “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22). In the Old Testament, these sacrifices had to be done yearly. Moreover, the high priests who offered these sacrifices had to first offer sacrifices daily for their own sins, and then for those of the people (Hebrews 7:26-27; 10:11).
However, when these did not effectively yield the desired results, it necessitated the need for a “a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Heb 7:26), who could offer for all time, a single sacrifice (Heb 7:27). Hence, at the fullness of time (Gal 4:4), and out of love for humanity, God sent his Son so that “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” and that “the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17).
Therefore, Christ became the eternal high priest (Heb 6:20; 7:24) who offered for all time a single sacrifice and now sits at the right hand of God (Heb 10:12). Little wonder, the letter to the Hebrews begins thus: “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Heb 1:1-2).
Hence, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross represents the ultimate asymmetry, in which humanity receives salvation that it could not provide for itself.
Asymmetry and Temporal Salvation: Healing and Raising from the Dead
Asymmetry is also evident in the temporal dimension of Christ’s salvation because many people benefited from Christ’s healing, teaching, and mercy. Several miracles clearly point out this fact. The first is healing of the woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years “and could not be healed by anyone” (Luke 8:43). Mark’s gospel states that she “had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse” (Mark 5:26). This shows that her healing could only have been a miracle.
Two other instances are the raising of the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:11-17) and the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11). No human being can resurrect oneself. However, Christ showed mercy on their families by raising them from the dead.
Overall, regarding the temporal dimension of Christ’s salvation, many people benefited from Christ’s ministry, which was sustained by the generosity of others. Luke’s gospel mentions the names of some women, among others, who supported Christ and his disciples in their mission by providing “for them out of their means” (Luke 8:1-3). Jesus also visited Martha’s house, where she, Mary and Lazarus welcomed and supported Christ in his mission.
Conclusion
The asymmetric pastoral model is an important means of promoting pastoral fruitfulness because it helps sustain pastoral action and reach those who would not otherwise have been able to benefit from the Gospel message. The Christo-centric exploration shows that it is intrinsic to the Church and should therefore encourage all to think beyond local limitations by identifying where resources can be mobilised to sustain ministries that would otherwise be impossible or difficult to carry out. In this way, the stronger members of the Church become instruments through which Christ continues to extend his saving mission to those who could not otherwise be reached.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
