Revelation Ecclesiology in the Theology of Avery Dulles, SJ
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects The hC urch as Symbolic Mediation: Revelation Ecclesiology in the Theology of Avery Dulles, S.J. Abraham B. Fisher Marquette University Recommended Citation Fisher, Abraham B., "The hC urch as Symbolic Mediation: Revelation Ecclesiology in the Theology of Avery Dulles, S.J." (2013). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 255. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/255 THE CHURCH AS SYMBOLIC MEDIATION: REVELATION ECCLESIOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF AVERY DULLES, S. J. by Abraham B. Fisher, B.S., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2013 Copyright © 2013 by Abraham B. Fisher All rights reserved. ABSTRACT THE CHURCH AS SYMBOLIC MEDIATION: REVELATION ECCLESIOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGY OF AVERY DULLES, S. J. Abraham B. Fisher, B.S., M.A. Marquette University, 2013 This dissertation examines closely the theology of Avery Dulles, S.J., arguing that when Dulles’ symbolic-mediation theology of revelation is viewed through the lens of his sacramental ecclesiology, there emerges an ecclesiology that recognizes and emphasizes the revelatory nature of the church. This study constructs this “revelation ecclesiology” by bringing Dulles’ signature theologies of the church and revelation into conversation. At the intersection of those two theologies stands the reality of symbol – a defining characteristic for both the theology of the church as a sacramental reality and the theology of revelation as an event of divine self-communication. The study begins, therefore, by defining the concept of symbol, and the related foundational concepts of revelation, church and sacrament, as they function theologically within Dulles’ corpus. The study then demonstrates the crucial role of symbol in the development of Dulles’ sacramental ecclesiology, arguing that the unique efficacy of symbol lies at the heart of the sacramental reality. Because of its sacramental nature, the church demonstrates the efficacy and modality of symbol, but also possesses an ontological connection to Christ, the primordial sacrament. The study continues with a demonstration of Dulles’ conviction that the phenomenon of divine revelation is an event of communication with a transactional character. Revelation requires both an offer and a reception in order to realize itself as an accomplished event, however, this reception must be according to the mode of the receiver and thus requires a mediation. Symbol is the reality that is uniquely capable of providing this necessary mediation. Finally, the study concludes that Dulles’ corpus provides evidence that the sacrament of the church functions as precisely that symbolic mediation which characterizes the event of revelation. Thus the sacrament of the church is what Dulles has termed a revelatory symbol, i.e., one which expresses and mediates God’s self- communication in Christ. A final chapter concludes the study with an exploration of the implications of the constructed revelation ecclesiology for several significant current theological issues and questions: the mission of the church, the unity of revelation, the possibility and necessity of ecclesial reform, ecumenical dialogue, and the question of the closure of revelation. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Abraham B. Fisher, B.S., M.A. Over the course of this project, I have been blessed with a wide array of supports and encouragements that have been instrumental in bringing it to completion. I am deeply grateful, first of all, for the financial support of the Marquette University Theology Department, in the form of grants and fellowships that have supported, and evinced a confidence in, me and the value of my academic work. I am also very grateful for the support of the Arthur J. Schmidt Foundation for the fellowship that supported my writing and research work during the 2007-2008 academic year. Secondly, I wish to acknowledge the patient and skillful theological formation I have received at the hands of several outstanding faculty members in the Marquette theology department, especially Dr. Patrick Carey, Dr. Bradford Hinze, Dr. Robert Masson, Dr. Mark Johnson, and Dr. Bryan Massingale. I am indebted to Dr. Carey for his generosity in providing access to his own bibliography of Dulles’ published works, and I am grateful for the timely publication of his very helpful biography of the late Cardinal. In addition, I am grateful for the opportunity to have apprenticed as a research and teaching assistant to both Dr. Hinze and Dr. Thomas Hughson, S.J.; the time and effort they invested in me, along with the advice, training, support and advocacy they provided during the early years of my doctoral studies, continue to benefit me daily. Finally, I reserve a special note of gratitude for Dr. Susan Wood, SCL, who has been a formative influence along every step of my theological training, guiding me not only through coursework, exams and dissertation writing at Marquette, but through my ii Master’s studies at St. John’s University in Collegeville, MN as well. It was because of Dr. Wood’s passion for ecclesiology that I have come to appreciate the questions, issues, and study of the church I have always loved, and have embraced ecclesiology as the guiding research focus of my academic career. Dr. Wood’s eminently patient and capable guidance in directing this dissertation has nurtured the project along from its first inchoate searchings, through setbacks, restarts and obstacles to its final, merciful conclusion. Her prompt feedback on chapter drafts, insightful analysis, constant support and enthusiasm have been invaluable. I have also been exceedingly blessed with the support, encouragement and faith of many friends and family members, whose prayers, council, and company I will always cherish. In particular my parents, A. B. and Judy Fisher, and my parents in-law, Marvin and Donna Shoemaker, have been extraordinarily supportive of this work every step of the way, and of the family that it has too often kept me from. Their financial support, patient encouragement and constant prayers for my family, my work and myself have at many times along the road been all that has made it possible, and tolerable, to continue. Finally, I have been blessed most of all by the love and support of my three sons, Caleb, Connor, and Creighton, who have cheered my progress, and provided gifts of constant joy and the occasional necessary change of pace; and by the steadfast love, patient encouragement, and inspiration of my wonderful wife, Janet. She has worked tirelessly to give me the time I needed for research and writing, prayed vigilantly, and somehow maintained an unwavering faith in the value of this project and its author. My gratitude for her sacrifices, and for the blessing to have walked this road with her, knows no bounds. iii The creative theologian is never content either to ignore others or to repeat verbatim what they have said. He seeks to sift out what seems valid and relevant, and to develop, in the light of his own problems and perspectives, the ideas which he sees struggling to be born in the words of others. – Avery Robert Dulles, S.J., 1969 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 CHAPTER I: FOUNDATION STONES: AVERY DULLES’ THEOLOGY OF REVELATION, SYMBOL, SACRAMENT, AND CHURCH ....................................13 A. Revelation ........................................................................................................14 1. Mystery .................................................................................................16 2. Mediated ...............................................................................................16 3. Historical ...............................................................................................18 4. Communal and Ecclesial .......................................................................19 5. Dependent Upon Faith ..........................................................................20 6. Interpreted .............................................................................................21 7. Both Complete and On-going ...............................................................22 8. Christological and Incarnational ...........................................................24 B. Symbol .............................................................................................................25 1. Sign, and Beyond Sign ..........................................................................28 2. Plenitude of Meaning ............................................................................30 3. Evocative Power ...................................................................................33 4. Four Distinctive Properties ...................................................................34 5. Revelatory .............................................................................................39 6. Communal and Ecclesial .......................................................................41 7. Concrete and Historical .........................................................................43 C. Sacrament .........................................................................................................44