MOJ and Father Robert Barron’s Reflections on the New Evangelization (Part 2)

Some months ago I published a post (here) in which I recounted two of the seven themes on the New Evangelization that Father Robert Barron addressed in a lecture at the Union League Club in Chicago sponsored by the Lumen Christi Institute.  (An earlier version of the talk that Father Barron delivered can be found here).  These first two themes were to (1) “lead with beauty” rather than goodness or truth and (2) a warning not to “dumb down Catholicism” but to explore the riches of the Catholic intellectual tradition and to share it with others.  In the prior post I tried to connect these themes to the MOJ project and the work of Christian law professors.  Here I take up the third of Father Barron’s themes concerning the New Evangelization.

3.  Preach with New Ardor

The injunction to “preach with new ardor” comes from Pope John Paul II.  In March 1983 the Pope addressed the Latin American Bishops Conference (“CELAM”) gathered in Port-a-Prince, Haiti.  He said that the Church needed a “New Evangelization that is new in ardor, new in method, and new in expression.” (The quotation can be found here).  The new evangelization is not new in content in that the Church passes on the faith in its integrity as she has received it.  Although our understanding of the faith deepens through the process of development over time, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8).  However, the New Evangelization is new in that it is a self-conscious encounter with modern men and women in their contemporary culture and circumstances.

The need for ardor, Barron said, goes back to Aristotle’s comment in the Rhetoric that people only really listen to an “excited speaker” – to someone genuinely convinced of the importance of that which he or she is trying to communicate. 

I think we have all encountered the truth of this in the classroom – whether as students or teachers.  Enthusiasm can be infectious and indifference breeds indifference.

The source of this ardor is the good news, the glad tidings of the Christian message: Jesus Christ is risen from the dead!  Declaring this good news is evangelization, and evangelization is, as Paul VI declared in Evangelii Nuntandi (¶ 14), the Church’s reason for being:  “She exists in order to evangelize.”  This good news is not a myth or a literary device or a symbol of the fulfillment of human longing.  It is a fact in human history.  Proclaiming the historical fact of Jesus’ bodily resurrection has proven to be a stumbling block to some men and women of every age, but this astounding and radical claim is the heart of the Gospel message. 

Expressing ardor for the Gospel as a law professor (whether as a teacher in the classroom, as a scholar, or as a faculty colleague) is a delicate matter full of risk – risk of ridicule (because religion is viewed in the contemporary academy as anti-intellectual, and Catholicism in particular is seen as corrupt, patriarchal and misogynist), and risk of being misunderstood (i.e. where the ardor of conviction is taken as intolerance for the views of others).  The law school classroom is for teaching students the substance of the law, the skills of legal analysis, and the various theories behind law.  Because law is a normative discourse, teaching the law invariably involves discussions of a normative nature.  Still, one shouldn’t see the law school classroom primarily as a platform for teaching theology, scripture, or catechesis, although there are occasions when this will and ought to take place as anyone who has taught a course on Catholic social thought and the law, the Bible and the law, or canon law can attest. 

Rather, the ardor for the faith should be apparent to students and colleagues alike in what one holds to be true and how this is reflected in how one lives his or her life.  Because “[m]odern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers” the “first means of evangelization is the witness of an authentically Christian life” (Evangelii Nuntandi ¶ 41).  The hope is that others will see one’s faith not as a badge of cultural identity or family heirloom all but forgotten and safely ignored, but as a thing of beauty – as something that inspires ardor, as something worth living for and (if need be) dying for.

Here Father Barron reminded the audience that, at its root, Vatican II was a missionary council.  Its primary aim was not the reform of the Church but the “Christification” of the world.  The Council did, of course, institute several reforms (most notably the liturgy) and laid the groundwork for several others (e.g. the Synod of Bishops).  Some of these reforms were begun under Paul VI and John Paul II, but others may only now be brought to fruition (i.e. Pope Francis’ reorganization of the Roman Curia).  The point of all these institutional changes is to not to help the Church conform to the world and its times, but to make the Church a more apt vehicle for the proclamation of the Gospel.

I would add that, consistent with Vatican II, it is incumbent on those institutions that identify themselves as “Catholic” to reflect this ardor for the Gospel.  Too often, it seems, Catholic institutions see their professed identity as a burden to be endured rather than a joy to be celebrated.  At least, that is what I have generally observed in my study of American law schools operating under Catholic auspices.  (There are, of course, a few discrete exceptions).

These law schools regard their affiliation as so many rocks that act as ballast to be tucked away, out of sight in the hold of the ship – ballast that weighs them down and keeps them from moving “forward” at the desired pace.  True, ballast is something that that must be carried, but in the case of a genuine Catholic identity the burden is light (cf. Matt. 11:30).  It is a weight that does not impede but enables.  It keeps the ship from listing on a calm day, and steadies it in stormy seas. 

Not a millstone (Luke 17:2), it is the pearl of great price (Matt. 13:46).  It is also both a lodestone and the North Star (the immanent and the transcendent) that gives the school a sense of direction.  It alerts passengers and crew alike “This is who we are and where we are going” but leaves the specific route to its current occupants. 

That some in contemporary culture will reject this identity (“pearls to swine” Matt. 7:6), that some will walk away is to be expected (John 6:60-65).  That some colleagues in the academy will think less of a school because it overtly and meaningfully identifies itself as “Catholic” is an inevitable part of the price of discipleship.  But many wander through Chartres cathedral or Sainte Chappell and stare up in amazement for a few moments and then walk away.   But some lookup and want to know more, and the Church in her ardor must be prepared to share the good news that she has learned with joy.

I suspect that Barbara Armacost and Rob Vischer will address at least some of these themes at the Law Professors Christian Fellowship-Lumen Christi Institute program at the University Club in Washington, D.C. on January 2, 2015 on “The Vocation of a Christian Law Professor” (see here).  It will be interesting to hear what they have to say.