Christian life in the first and 21st centruy CE

I am reading, studying, and meditating Christian literature in the first and second century CE. The authors of the New Testament lived in the Roman Empire. We do not know the names of the inspired authors, and I am no historian. So, what can I say about the social, economic, political and cultural situation of these authors? I do know very little about the Roman Empire, and therefore I try to grasp hints about Roman history in the time of the authors of the New Testament, hints I get from an expert on European antiquity (Bringmann, Klaus. 1996. Römische Geschichte. Von den Anfängen bis zur Spätantike. München: Beck).

The authors of the New Testament lived in the Roman imperial period. From the Julio-Claudian dynasty that started in 14 CE with Augustus and ended in 68 CE with the suicide of Nero, to the Severan Dynasty that ruled the Roman Empire from 193 CE to 235 CE, the emperors secured the Roman Empire peace and relative prosperity (ibid. 68). The emperors were the absolute power center, but they had to respect the elites, especially the aristocracy who traditionally represented the Senate in Rome and they had to ensure that the army was loyal. The adoptive emperors managed from Trajan (98-117 CE) to Marc Aurel (161-180) to maintain a consensus on their power, that was understood as a power to serve the state as the first servant, and respected the interests of the elites, the intellectuals and the people (ibid. 69). This kind of “humanitarian empire” enjoyed very positive acceptance in the public opinion and served in the 18th century as a model for enlightened European absolutism (ibid.).

The Roman emperors claimed to assure the civilized world outer and inner peace (ibid. 70). From this claim followed that the emperors had to protect the members of the empire from invasions by outer enemies and they had to maintain peace, legal peace and order in the inner. The army was the instrument to guarantee security at the borders of the empire (ibid.). Governors were authorized to maintain peace and order within the empire (ibid. 74). They could respond to any security risk, resistance or uproar by executing individuals without any legal investigation and official judgement (ibid.).

Agriculture constituted the economic basis for the Empire (ibid. 80). 80-90% of a population of about 60 million inhabitants lived in the country and generated most of the social product. Land ownership was the securest and most prestigious form of capital investment. Generations of a small elite of big landowners accumulated the surplus from extensive agriculture that made possible a highly developed and consume orientated urbanism, supported the differentiation of society, and sustained the cost-intensive political system of an empire (ibid. 81). The small cities and their territories organized a local and regional market system for goods and services for daily life, long distance trade organized luxury goods and satisfied the higher needs of the upper-class (ibid.82).

The beginning of the Roman Empire was also the beginning of the catastrophe for the Jewish people in the Holy Land (ibid. 95). Unrest, rebellions and revolts in Palestine were reactions against foreign occupation, unbearable tax pressure, conflict with the pagan Hellenistic population in Palestine, and political failures of the Roman governors (ibid.). Since the first century BCE a messianic movement went political and produced the expectation for a national savior who would end foreign domination by pagans and restore the reign of the people of God (ibid.). Terror groups like the Zealots tried with violence to force the “satanic Roman Empire” to surrender to the reign of God (ibid.). The Essenes, a community of Jews forming a holy alliance in settlements throughout Judea, the movement of repentance of John the Baptist at the Jordan river, and the preaching of Jesus, were peacefully confronting the growing unrest in the population (ibid.). The leaders of the Zealots, John the Baptist and Jesus were killed as troublemakers and in 70 CE the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. The brutality of the Jewish suppression was extreme, but the Romans allowed the Jews in the Empire to exercise their Jewish religion (ibid).

The Roman Empire was not a state under the rule of law that would protect the individual from arbitrary execution by officials authorized to use the state’s monopoly of power (ibid. 74). Roman citizens were the most likely to enjoy legal certainty (ibid.). For this reason, the Apostle Paul informed the authorities in Jerusalem in a very critical situation that he was a Roman citizen (ibid.). Members of the underclass were lost in a similar situation. Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judea, ordered that Jesus from Nazareth be crucified without a legal process (ibid.). In 112 CE, Pliny the Younger, known as lawyer and humanitarian author, had no scruples as magistrate in Asia Minor to execute Christians, members of the province but not with Roman citizenship, who resisted to sacrifice for the emperor; Roman citizens he sent to Rome for legal investigation (ibid.). Roman citizens, cities, provincial assemblies and governors turned in legal disputes and cases of conflict to the emperor. During the humanitarian empire, the emperors formed an effective alliance with the Roman jurisprudence. The emperors tried to fence in misuse of official power, arbitrary requisitions and assaults of the powerless by the powerful. The emperors tried to react; they did not win the fight against corruption and exploitation, but they never ceased to fight (ibid. 75). The emperors tried to take the orientation for their judgments from the law, that was considered as art to search for what is good and fair. The Apostle Paul exhorts the Christians to obey the civil Roman authority because it was justified to see the use of state power in the Roman Empire closely connected to justice (ibid). For this reason, the historian cites from Paul’s Letter to the Romans, “You must be obedient, therefore, not only because of this retribution, but also for conscience’s sake” (Romans 13, 5) (ibid.). It is very interesting for me so see, that the historian explains Paul’s exhortation to submission to civil Roman authority with the social, legal and public conditions of life in the Roman Empire. The historian interprets Paul’s exhortation as following from his political and legal analysis of the state of society and the empire, and not as following from his religious conviction, as he has done a few verses earlier: “Everyone is to obey the governing authorities, because there is no authority except from God and so whatever authorities exist have been appointed by God” (Romans 13, 1), is a very different argument than we find in Romans 13, 5.

Romans 13 shows that the Christian communities in the first century CE submit to state authority and do not enjoy much of an influence in society, they stay in the house. Their organizational structure is defined by the so called “house church”. Concerning the public sphere, they are happy to be able to live in peace and order, they do not aspire to play a public role in society. The social and economic unity of a house and the household is the home to the first Christians. Celebrations of the Eucharist, prayer and social meetings are held in the household. Right after the paragraph Romans 13, 1-7 on submission to civil authority, Paul speaks in Romans 13, 8-10 to the Christians on love and religious law. This is an example of the New Testament Household Codes, also known as New Testament Domestic Codes, that instruct Christians within the structure of a typical Roman household. “The only thing you should owe to anyone is love for one another, for to love the other person is to fulfil the law. All these: You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and all the other commandments that there are, are summed up in this single phrase: You must love your neighbor as yourself. Love can cause no harm to your neighbor, and so love is the fulfillment of the Law” (Romans 13, 8-10).

In the second century CE the Christian communities left the domestic sphere of the households and entered the public space. In the cities of the Roman Empire bishops became leaders of the Christian community (ibid. 106). The time of the New Testament Household Codes as we find them in the beginning of the second century CE in Colossians 3,18-4,1; Ephesians 5,22-6,9 and 1 Peter 2,18-3,7 slowly ends and ethic codes for the Christian community start to emerge, as we observe in the same letter 1 Peter 5,1-5a, where the leaders of the community are called “elders” that is “presbyters” and not priests (Woyke, Johannes. 2000. Die neutestamentlichen Haustafeln. Ein kritischer und konstruktiver Forschungsüberblick. 38. Stuttgart: Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 184).

The transition processes from Household Codes to community codes happened contemporarily and at different speeds.  A code of behavior for presbyters as appointed leaders of Christian communities in the cities we find in Titus 1, 5-9: The elder you appoint “must be a man of irreproachable character, husband of one wife, and his children must be believers and not liable to be charged with disorderly conduct or insubordination” (Titus 1, 6). The author of the letter thinks only of men being qualified for the function of an elder. Patriarchy restricts Paul’s egalitarian view on women and men in the communities. Paul wrote his letters in the fifties of the first century CE, half a century later patriarchy takes over the Christian communities again. A mixture of a household code and a code of behavior for members of the Christian community is Titus 2, 1-10: “Older men should be reserved, dignified, moderate, sound in faith and love and perseverance. Similarly, older women should behave as befits religious people, with no scandal – mongering and addiction to wine – they must be the teachers of right behavior and show younger women how they love their husbands and love their children” … “and obey their husbands, so that the message of God is not disgraced” (Titus 2, 2-5).

1 Timothy 2, 8-15 reproduces patriarchy and women discrimination in the liturgic assembly of the Christian community: “during instruction a woman should be quiet”, and a woman has no authority to teach and “are to be dressed quietly and modestly”. The literary form of this liturgical order is still related to the household codes. 1 Timothy 3, 1-7 introduces a code of behavior for bishops: “the presiding elder must have an impeccable character. Husband of one wife, he must be tempered, discreet and courteous, hospitable and a good teacher” (1 Timothy 3, 2). 1 Timothy 3, 8-13 is a code of behavior for deacons in a literary form that is still related with the household codes: “Similarly, deacons must be respectable, not double-tongued, moderate in the amount of wine they drink and with no squalid greed for money. They must hold the mystery of faith with a clear conscience” (1 Timothy 3, 8-9). The code of behavior for widows in 1 Timothy 5, 3-16 also resembles a household code: “If a widow has children or grandchildren, they are to learn first of all to do their duty debt to their parents, because this is what pleases God” … “The one who thinks only of pleasure is already dead while she is still alive” (1 Timothy 5, 4,6). The author of 1 Timothy allows to qualify the above cited codes of behavior belonging to a literary gender that may be called order of the Christian community: “but in case I should be delayed, I want you to know how people ought to behave in God’s household – that is, in the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3, 15) (ibid. 64f.).

Feminist theologians insist that the reproduction of patriarchy within the Christian communities and Church orders does not picture the whole social reality of the young Church. Teresa Berger writes, “With regard to forms of liturgical leadership in the earliest Christian communities, scholars assume at least three patterns: charismatic leadership by those with the authority of Spirit-inspired gifts; leadership by the host and patron of the household in which the community gathered; and some (loosely) structured ways of selecting and authorizing appropriate leadership for the community. The first clearly was not limited by gender. The Spirit was poured out on all; both “sons and daughters” prophesied as we read in Acts 2, 17 that cites the prophet Joel 2, 28. The Didache witnesses to the link between prophet and presider in that it allows prophets to eucharistize, that is, pray in thanksgiving, “as much as they wish” (The Didache 10, 7). At least for this earliest church order, Eucharistic praying and presiding could be authorized by the charism of prophecy, a charism that was not gender constrained. Examples are the New Testament women prophets, among them Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21, 9) (Berger, Teresa. 2011. Gender Differences and the Making of Liturgical Tradition: Lifting a Veil on Liturgy’s Past. 130. Ashgate Liturgy, Worship and Society Series. Burlington, VT: Ashgate). I am not a historian, but I would like to have affirmed by historians the claim of Teresa Berger, “Today many scholars acknowledge not only the presence of women office holders in early Christianity but also a centuries-old tradition of ordaining women, at least until the twelfth century (ibid. 129).

In the second century CE, in Asia Minor the new religion of the Christian began to expand, and the sacrifices of the pagan Roman temples suffered a sharp decline (ibid. 96). In the third century CE, the Roman Empire suffered a loss of stability, politically and economically. Around 200 CE the Mongolian Huns pushed westward against the Goths and Germanic tribes who reacted by pushing westward and south on their part. The Marcomanni in Central Europe, the Alamanni, the Francs and Saxons in Western Europe, pushed south, in the Far East Indo-Iranian tribes threatened the borders of the Roman Empire (ibid. 89). Not only the borders at the rivers Rhine, the Danube and at the Euphrates suffered invasions, also the provinces in Egypt and northern Africa suffered from foreign raids and were not any more secure (ibid. 90). The Roman Empire had not enough troops and not enough resources to sustain an army that could have stopped the invasions. The emperors turned to the polytheistic cults of Rome for help, the Christians were considered easy scapegoats for the crisis of the empire. Under the Emperors Decius (190-200 CE) and Valerian (253-260 CE) there were short episodes of persecutions of Christians. The Emperor Diocletian removed the Christians from the army and from 303 to 304 started a bloody persecution of Christians. His successor Emperor Galerius tried in the Eastern provinces of the Empire to continue the persecution, whereas the emperors in the West persecuted the Christians, but never killed them in that time (ibid. 103). In 311 Galerius edited the Edict of Toleration concerning the Christians (ibid.). In 312 CE the Emperor Constantin proclaimed equal rights for Christianity and all the other religions in the Empire (ibid.). This was the decisive turn for the Christians. The Emperor and Church formed an alliance, and the Church enjoyed security from persecution; the Church got financial support; the Church got access to power but was not capable use it for a peaceful management of conflicts of interests. Instead, the Church began using civil state power against heretics, pagans and schismatics (ibid. 104). 

When in the late forties and fifties of the first century CE, the Apostle Paul founded on his mission trips in Asia Minor and Greece Christian communities, maintaining unity of doctrine, moral discipline, social coherence and solidarity within the Christian community were consuming much of his energies. In his letters we find testimony over testimony how Paul patiently and sometimes impatiently argues the case of Jesus Christ and tries to build with his words consensus and peace. In the First Letter to the Corinthians he argues for example, “As long as there are jealousy and rivalry among you, that surely means that you are still living by your natural inclinations and by merely human principles. While there is one that says, ‘I belong to Paul’ and another says, ‘I belong to Apollos’ are you not being only too human?” (1 Corinthians 3, 3b-4). Paul turned to the mission of Hellenistic pagans, because most of the Jewish people rejected the recognition of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Paul turned to the Jewish diaspora and started his mission by preaching in the synagogues. The Jewish synagogal communities hosted Hellenistic pagans who were interested in the Jewish religion and the Jews called them the “God-fearing”. These “God-fearing” pagans were the first Paul convinced to belief in Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected, the “God-fearing” constituted the first pagan Christian communities. When Paul baptized Hellenistic pagans, it was clear to him that the confession of Jesus Christ as Messiah makes circumcision and Jewish religious laws concerning food, ritual, etc. obsolete. Around the year 48 CE the issue concerning the circumcision of non-Jews arose in the Christian community of Antioch. The community decided “that Paul and Barnabas and others of the church should go up to Jerusalem and discuss the question with the apostles and elders” (Acts 15, 2b). “The Apostles and Elders of Jerusalem accepted Titus “uncircumcised”, thus recognizing the validity of Paul’s proclamation concerning the freedom of grace. The Assembly confirmed the main leaders of the Church and recognized the missionary vocation of Peter for the circumcised and that of Paul for the uncircumcised. As a matter of fact, a sort of partitioning of the missionary field occurred: James, Kephas and John were directed towards the Jews, while Paul and Barnabas were sent to preach to the pagans” (Papal Basilica - Saint Paul Outside-the-Walls (vatican.va). We read of this consensus finding in community among equals at an official Vatican homepage. We know, the alliance of empire and church ended this kind of peaceful discussions between Christians of different views on religious matters. In 2024 CE heretics and schismatics are not any more killed at the demand of Church authorities, but they are still excluded from the Roman Catholic Church, or they lose their jobs in church institutions. Pope Francis instituted with his synodal way a method of first listening to the claims of equal dignity, freedoms and rights of the women, men and queer faithful in the Roman Catholic Church, then ignoring their claims and demanding again submission to his papal authority as absolutist monarch of the Roman Catholic Church. It is much easier for authorities, especially when they are very old and weakened by sickness or when they are still young and unexperienced in social skills, to simply use their power to maintain the order of unity, instead of using arguments that generate consensus and peace. The communicative practice of the discourses at the so-called Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem since centuries has been replaced by the organization of the Roman Catholic Church as an absolutist monarchy.

Experts think that in the last two decades of the first century CE, the letter First Clement from Christians in Rome was sent to their fellow believers in Corinth (Holmes, Michael, W., editor and translator. 2007. The Apostolic Fathers. 33. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic). Leaders of the Roman Christian community were distressed by the news of a breach of proper conduct and order by some of the younger members of the community, who apparently had revolted against the leadership of their church. The community in Rome wrote the long letter First Clement imploring the Corinthians to restore humility and harmony in their community, and Rome even dispatched mediators to Corinth (ibid. 33-35). We do not know how the Corinthians reacted to the letter, but “later Christian writers held it in high regard” (ibid. 38).  

The arrest of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, left his church leaderless and vulnerable (ibid. 166). Ignatius was sent to Rome to be executed (ibid. 167). We do not learn from the letters when Ignatius was martyred. The experts fix the possible timeframe of his execution from the reign of Trajan (98-117 CE) to the reign of Hadrian (117-138 CE) (ibid. 170). On his way to Rome Ignatius wrote 6 letters to Christian communities and one letter to Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna. “Three concerns were uppermost in Ignatius’ mind at this time: (1) the struggle against false teachers within the church; (2) the unity and structure of churches; and (3) his own impending death.” For Ignatius the bishop is constitutive of the church, not the ministry of deacons and presbyters. Ignatius bases authority and place of the bishop on the theological rationale that “just as Christians are united with God spiritually in heaven, so it is their duty to be in communion or harmony with their bishop on earth”. His near contemporary Clement of Rome simply based the authority of the bishop upon the concept of “apostolic succession” (ibid. 167-168).

The Apostles, presbyters and bishops of the first Christian centuries had no power at hand to force the Christian communities under the order of orthodox teaching, discipline and harmony. The bishops were appointed with the consensus of the whole community, and they had to try to convince their fellow Christians with arguments, with references to the Scriptures and through community prayers. As soon as the young Church entered the alliance with the Roman emperor, things changed dramatically. The bishops could not resist the temptations of the use of power, suppression and censorship when being confronted with heretic arguments and schismatic movements.

The Christian emperors profited from the veneration of the Christians, but the Christians paid for their privileges with a loss of inner autonomy of the Church, the emperor pushed through what the Christians had to believe (ibid.). In the 4th and 5th century CE the Emperor influenced the development of the Christian dogma, especially the conflicts about the relation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ (ibid.). Religion and faith became a major player in politics (ibid.).

It took 1500 years to force the Roman Catholic Church to abandon worldly political power. The imperial recess of 1803 secularized nearly 70 ecclesiastical states, that were prince-bishoprics, prince-priories, prince-abbeys and imperial abbeys. In 1870 Pope Pius IX lost all his secular political power in Italy (Franzen, August. 1965. Kleine Kirchengeschichte. 337. Freiburg: Herder). This political failure of the papacy contrasted with the unbelievable success of the dogma of the absolute universal papal primate and infallibility. It is true that Pius IX elevated the central power of the papacy to a hitherto unseen degree. This centralisation around the person of the Pope is anti-democratic but causes something like a romantic enthusiasm among millions of theologically uninformed lay Catholics (Wassilowsky, Günther. 2012. “Symbolische Repräsentation von Amt und Autorität im Papsttum.” In Amt und Autorität. Kirche in der späten Moderne, edited by Matthias Remenyi. 33–51. 46. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh). In the twentieth century, the individual Pope needs to develop a kind of personal charisma that attracts the masses to qualify as a success (ibid.). Wassilowsky is right to criticize this kind of charismatic absolute government of the Church by the Popes, because it threatens to eliminate all the charisma of the individual Catholic woman, man and queer, who indeed constitute the effective basis of the living Christian communities (ibid. 51).

Despite of the absolute power of the pope over the Roman Catholic Church, the twentieth century CE was the century where the lay faithful women, men and queer discovered their personal dignity, freedom and claim to equal rights concerning the government of the Church, the teaching of the Church and the service of Go’d that is the liturgy. Although the billion of Roman Catholic faithful women, men and queer failed to realize the Human Rights of equal dignity, freedom and rights within the Roman Catholic Church to this day, the large majority of the faithful women, men and queer of the Roman Catholic Church claim openly and more often silently their equal dignity, freedoms and rights. In the 21st century CE, Christian faith is the faith of the individual believing Christian within or without a Christian community, but at any rate by having taken their distances from the absolutist structures and teachings of Church authorities.

Are the billion Roman Catholic Christians today better off than the Christians of the early Church in the so-called period of humanitarian emperors in the Roman Empire? A minority of Christians who live in Europe and in North America are certainly far better off than their sisters and brothers in Roman antiquity. Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) is a Roman Catholic organisation that “provides pastoral and humanitarian assistance to the persecuted Church in 160 countries around the world” (https://www.churchinneed.org/about-us/). “Today, according to ACN research, almost 340 million Christians around the world—or 1 out of every 7—live in a country where they suffer some form of persecution, such as arbitrary arrest, violence, a full range of human rights violations and even murder” (Christian Persecution Religious Freedom - Download 2023 Report (churchinneed.org). “Jihadists and nationalists are driving increased persecution of Christians around the world” (ibid.).

What about the economic, social, political and health situation of the women, men and queer living in the Global South? Although poverty has declined dramatically in the last fifty years, still almost half of the world lives on less than $4 per day (Earth for All. A Survival Guide for Humanity. Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Owen Gaffney, Jayati Ghosh, Jorgen Randers, Johan Rockström, Per Espen Stoknes. New Society Publishers. Canada. 2022. 59). Low-income countries lack funds to invest in key infrastructure and to act on global warming. The rich countries are more interested in extracting interest payments from the poor countries than supporting their economic development. “Earth for All” suggests debt relief to low-income countries and “cooperation on a Global Green New Deal” to generate greener paths and millions of high-paying jobs (ibid. 65). Further, “the entire foreign-denominated debt and trading system needs complete transformation to enable countries in most of the world to borrow at low cost in their own currencies” (ibid. 66). The work for global peace and justice includes “essential foundations for a functioning economy” that are secure incomes for families, “access to universal healthcare, flexible working, adequate pensions for all, and humane parental leave” (ibid. 93). “Discrimination against women’s rights to equal education, equal pay, and financial security in old age” (ibid.). The empowerment of women demands a “better access of women to education, health services, and lifelong learning, financial independence and leadership positions, economic security through a universal basic dividend, or similar, and expanded pension schemes” (ibid.).

A few days after having written the above paragraph I read it again and I am a bit frightened and repelled by the demanding imperative of the claims. Scattering claims does not help change anything, especially if the problem surpasses the possibilities not only of an individual person but of whole nations. An apodictic imperative to action does not convince anybody, on the contrary, readers are responding with frustration and apathy. “Earth for All” is very conscientious of the danger to frustrate citizens by describing catastrophic outlook scenarios on the world., and therefore restrains from doing so. Instead, the authors were very careful not to estrange the readers. Their pedagogy of communicating the life-threatening developments of climate change presented the readers with two modelled scenarios for possible human behavior and the consequences of this behavior for the women, men and queer citizens of the world.

Scenario 1 is called “Too Little Too Late” and “shows the potential consequences of continuing world development along the same dynamics as 1980-2020 (ibid. 35). “The overall global result is a somewhat slowing population growth and world economic growth to 2050 and beyond, but also declining labor participation rates, declining trust in government, a steady increase in the ecological footprint, and rising loss in biodiversity” (ibid.).

Scenario 2 is called “The Giant Leap”, where international financial institutions will “support green transition investments in climate, sustainability, and wellbeing, rather than just economic growth and financial stability in a narrow sense” (ibid. 45). Nations will be able to “raise the wellbeing of their people, through investment in education, health, and infrastructure. … New development and trade models replace the dysfunctional current system that previously perpetuated historic inequalities between countries (ibid. 46).

Christiana Figureres, former executive secretary of the United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and one of the architects of the Paris Agreement (the binding agreement of 2015, to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels), convinces in her foreword to “Earth for All” with her plaidoyer for collective action (ibid.xvii): “Earth for All” wants the citizens of the world “address these crises together”, shows “a path of possibility, infused with stubborn, urgent optimism”, and “does not offer a utopian vision for the future” (ibid.). “Earth for All” shows us that it is “possible to avoid rising social tensions, rising human suffering, and rising environmental destruction by making five extraordinary turnarounds in the interconnected challenges” (ibid.). Christina Figureres continuous to convince claiming that “large-scale systems change is surprisingly personal. It starts with each of us, with what we prioritize, what we are willing to stand up for, and how we decide to show up in the world: we are the authors of the next chapter of humanity (ibid. xviii). I agree with Figureres, but I am an old white male European, enjoying life in the democratic republic of Austria, one of the rich countries in the world, enjoying the rule of Human Rights law, that is civil, political and social rights. Yes, I can sit down and “think very carefully and intentionally about the Giant Leap” and my cooperation (ibid.). If I am not living in a liberal democracy, my Human Right of free speech, the Human Right of a free press, and other civil, political and social rights are suppressed, and I do not have the possibility to cooperate in the making of a better world. I do not have control over my life. In 2021, 21 of the 167 countries and territories representing 6,4% of world population, are rated as full democracies and 53 countries, representing 39,3% of world population, as flawed democracies. 34 countries, 17,2% of world population are rated hybrid regimes and 59 countries, 37,1% of world population are rated authoritarian regimes. Almost half of the world’s population is not allowed to live under the rule of Human Rights law. (Democracy Index 2001. The China challenge. The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2022. 3. eiu-democracy-index-2021. pdf). (See my Posting “Planet earth and democracy).

The challenges are interconnected, which means that I can start cooperating in the work on one challenge and at the same time I can take relief from the fact that my challenge relates to the other four challenges. My small contribution for change in one challenge is a real contribution for the Giant Leap forward and at the same time will not ask too much from my limited personal capacities and will not overtax my resources.

“Earth for All” identifies five interconnected challenges for the Great Leap (ibid. 5). First, we must end poverty because “As a result of inequalities within countries, social tensions are likely to rise toward the middle of the twenty-first century” (ibid.).  Second, we must adequately respond to the climate and ecological emergency, otherwise “the impacts of crossing climate and ecological tipping points are likely to last centuries to millennia” (ibid.). Third, “transforming gender power imbalances” which “requires empowering women and investing in education and health for all” (ibid. 20). Fourth, “to transform agriculture, diets, food access and food waste”, creating a food system that is regenerative and nature positive by “storing vast volumes of carbon in soils, roots and trunks” (ibid.). Fifth, “we must transform energy systems to increase efficiency, accelerate the rollout of wind and solar electricity, halve emissions of greenhouse gases every decade, and provide clean energy to those without (ibid. 20, 21).

What is my motivation for collaborating in the Great Leap and what motivates me to fight for the rule of Human Rights law as possibility condition for all women, men and queer on this world to effectively be authors of the next chapter of humanity? A positive mindset is an important impact for motivation a goal to achieve. A deliberate change in mindset first by me and then in all the other participants on the route for a global vision of justice and peace is a nice idea. When I am speaking of my motivation to collaborate in the realization of peace and justice, I am asking in general, what does my motivation look like, how do I get motivated and what makes me take a choice for what kind of good?

Choosing is a kind of judgement, and my motivating experience is happiness. I am not speaking of sunny happiness; I am speaking of happiness as a spiritual experience in meditation and prayer (See my Posting “Finally integrity, faith and happiness”). Grounding ethical behavior on an experience of happiness may look like an invitation to hedonism without responsibility; I am not speaking of pleasure; I am speaking of happiness. I do not want to assess ethical behavior either; that is the business of philosophy (See my Postings “Ethics” and “Ethics and discourse theory”). I am rather assessing my understanding of Christian life. Happiness is not trivial and superficial, the validity condition for the claim of happiness is inner peace with one’s end of life.

In the following I try to show that the experience of inner peace and happiness really stands at the center of Christian faith as the inspiring and supporting resource for values, convictions, strength, determination and perseverance in mastering life. Speaking about my Christian worldview and happiness, I am doing theology. Doing Christian theology is grounded in studying, meditating and praying the Sacred Scriptures. Studying the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, we see that the Second Vatican Council indeed demanded that the Roman Catholic Church be again centered on the Sacred Scriptures, “so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love (Dei Verbum 1). In chapter three of Dei Verbum there is the reference to the Gospel of John: John claims that the Sacred Scripture has been written, in order that I may believe as we read in John 20:31: “These are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you may have life through his name” (The New Jerusalem Bible). With the authority of this citation of John the Second Vatican Council affirms that it is addressing the individual believer, the verse speaks to the second person singular “you”. (See my Posting “Commenting the text of Dei Verbum).

In the first half of the 20th century Roman Catholic theologians had the courage to turn to the individual person as subject of faith and theology. German, French and Belgian Catholic theologians openly questioned the normative authority of the medieval Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE). For fear of getting trouble from Church authorities, these reform-theologians argued that their new theology is compatible with Thomistic thinking. The first Roman Catholic theologian who interpreted Thomas with a new mindset, was the Belgian Jesuit Joseph Maréchal (1878-1944) (Muck, Otto. 1988. „Die Deutschsprachige Maréchal-Schule. Transzendentalphilosophie als Metaphysik: J. B. Lotz, K. Rahner, W. Brugger, E. Coreth u.a.“ In: Christliche Philosophie im katholischen Denken des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, edited by E. Coreth – W.M. Neidl – G. Pfliegersdorffer. Bd.2: Rückgriff auf scholastisches Erbe. 590-622. Graz: Styria). Maréchal held a doctorate in biology, in philosophy and in theology, and after having studied Kant and German Idealism he introduced into Catholic theology what is called “the anthropologic turn”. Putting the individual Christian faithful in the center of theological reflections, was quite a shock for religious superiors, bishops and the Roman Inquisition. The new reform theologians therefore pretended that Thomas himself had already anticipated the anthropologic turn. Thomas never spoke of the individual subject as producer of knowledge, truth, feelings, or social interactions as free choices. Thomas spoke of mankind in general, of man, and the individual was not an individual woman, man or queer.

At the beginning of the 1930s Yves Congar and his Dominican brothers like Marie-Dominique Chenu and many others started criticizing the theological manuals, that were used in Catholic theological formation because they completely ignored personal contemplation of faith and faith experiences, they ignored the content of these faith experiences and above all, they ignored Go’d as the powerful source of that spiritual momentum (Congar, Yves. 2001. Journal d`un théologien 1946–1956. 59. Edited by Étienne Fouilloux. Paris: Les Éditions du CERF). These reform theologians started theologizing from the perspective of the subject and the faith of the subject that lives in a community of believers (ibid.) and received public recognition of their work as theological experts at the Second Vatican Council (See my Posting “Theologians at the center and in the periphery”). Leading up to the 400th anniversary of the death of Saint Ignatius (1491-1556), the reform theologian Karl Rahner (1904-1984) prepared a series of articles on the Spiritual Exercises and their significance for the spiritual life of the contemporary Christian (Rahner, Karl. 1964. The Dynamic Element in the Church. London: Burns & Oates). Karl Rahner defended his interpretation of Saint Ignatius’ “doctrine of individual guidance by the Holy Spirit and of individual ethics” that is laid down in the Spiritual Exercises (ibid. 10, 12). Rahner holds that it is Ignatius, and not Rahner, who claims that it is not the moral value of the social choice that determines good or bad, right, or wrong; it is the certainty of the individual who knows the origin of her or his spiritual experience of consolation, of inner peace and tranquility, that determines the moral value of a social choice (ibid. 163). Rahner interprets, that according to Ignatius this consolation experience is “pure receptivity to God (as concretely achieved, not as a theoretical principle and proposition)” (ibid. 158). Saint Ignatius repeatedly and expressively makes clear that the anticipated social choices of the exercitant “must be indifferent or good in themselves and furthermore must remain within the realm of the teaching and practice of our holy mother the hierarchical Church” (Rahner, Karl. 1964. The Dynamic Element in the Church. 101. London: Burns & Oates).

In 1948 the United Nations had proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), claiming equal dignity, freedom and rights for all women, men and queer (See first sentence of Article 1 of UDHR. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/). Rahner made a cautious hint at the possible consequences for a theology of the Church, that is ecclesiology, that would take seriously the individual faithful and her or his guidance by the Holy Spirit, but he was not ready to question the absolutist monarchic authority of “our holy mother the hierarchical Church” (ibid. 101). Rahner was not ready to claim an organization of the Roman Catholic Church that would respect the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all faithful women, men and queer (See my Posting “Spirituality needs emotions, feelings, and choices).

The Popes Pius XI and Pius XII had claimed that the governments of civil states act according to the rule of some Human Rights. On April 11, 1963, Pope John XXIII referred to his predecessors in his encyclical “On establishing universal peace in truth, justice, charity and liberty” Pacem in Terris number 61 (Pacem in Terris (April, 11 1963) | John XXIII (vatican.va)). In number 75 of Pacem in Terris the Good Pope claims for the juridical organization of States “that a clear and precisely worded charter of fundamental human rights be formulated and incorporated into the State's general constitutions” (ibid.). In number 143 the pope affirms, “A clear proof of the farsightedness of this organization” – that is the United Nations - “is provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The preamble of this declaration affirms that the genuine recognition and complete observance of all the rights and freedoms outlined in the declaration is a goal to be sought by all peoples and all nations” (ibid.). Did Pope John XXIII aspire “recognition and complete observance” of the rights of the UDHR by Vatican State and the Roman Catholic Church? In number 144 of Pacem in Terris he remains ambiguous of the cause. For one he says that there were some people who justifiably did not agree with all of UDHR, on the other hand John XXIII affirms that “We think the document should be considered a step in the right direction, an approach toward the establishment of a juridical and political ordering of the world community. It is a solemn recognition of the personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone's right to be free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights connected with these” (ibid.). Pacem in Terris is as close to affirmation of UDHR as the Roman Catholic Church has come ever. Pope John XXIII could have made the Roman Catholic Church a member of the United Nations. He could have done, but he did not. The Second Vatican Council never came to a similar positive judgement on Human Rights as Pacem in Terris did.

Why did Pope John XXIII not reform the social structure of the government of the Roman Catholic Church according to the rule of Human Rights law, as democratic states do? John XXIII had the know-how of the diplomatic profession, and he knew about the necessity of compromise for advancing reform projects. His reform project for the Roman Catholic Church was the Second Vatican Council. John XXIII displayed all political skills to ensure freedom of speech and free voting at the Council (See my Posting “Historians, Preparation and Beginning”). When the Roman Curia, that is the bureaucracy and the government of the Roman Catholic Church, got a chance to stop the plans of the Council to institute an international body of bishops to help the pope to govern the Roman Catholic Church with effective collegiality, the Curia intervened to assure the absolutist monarchic principle of papal power. The Curia got that chance with John XXIII’s successor Pope Paul VI. Paul VI repeatedly intervened at the Council, a practice from which John XXIII had decisively abstained. Paul VI censured discussions and votes of the Council, limited the range of actions of bishops’ conferences, and restored the authoritarian government of papal authority. The bishops and cardinals of the Curia in Rome did not want to share power with their colleagues around the world. Neither Pope Paul VI nor Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis had the courage and spiritual strength to provide the Roman Catholic Church with a constitution guaranteeing equal rights and liberties for all Catholics.

Many theological experts at the Second Vatican Council, who had prepared the reform of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in the decencies before the Council, at the end of the Council turned conservative and authoritarian. They succeeded integrating their ideas into the documents of the Council, but they were not ready to continue the path of reform in a consequent and decisive way. One of those remarkable figures was Yves Congar (1904-1995). He was co-developer of the new theology in France, censored by Rome in the 1950s and then an expert at the Council and in 1994 he was created cardinal by Pope John Paul II. Karl Rahner did not turn conservative and authoritarian, and the Vatican never considered to create him cardinal. Nevertheless, never in his life he got ready to claim a government of the Roman Catholic Church that would respect the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all faithful women, men and queer.

Throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church, the criteria for assessing God’s presence in a synod are consensus and unanimity of the gathered, and consensus and unanimity are also the consequence of a synod gathering in the Holy Spirit (Wassilowsky, Günther. 2014. “Das II. Vatikanische Konzil als Symbolereignis.” In Zweites Vatikanisches Konzil. Programmatik—Rezeption—Vision, edited by Christoph Böttigheimer, Quaestiones Disputatae 261, 180–200. 184. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Yves Congar had documented the principle of communion throughout the Church’s history and theological tradition; consequently, he developed his theology of a synod and council as an expression of the communion of the Church in the Holy Spirit (ibid.).

In June 1965, that is before the last session of the Second Vatican Council, Congar is very satisfied that the Council grounded ecclesiology, that is the communion of the faithful, on the biblical term of “the People of God” (Congar, Yves, M.-J., 1965. “Au lecteur”. In: Potterie, De la, Ignace. Lyonnet, Stanislas.1965. La Vie selon l’esprit. Condition du Chrétien. 7-11.10. Paris: Les Éditions du CERF). For proofing that the Second Vatican Council had not forgotten about the Holy Spirit, Congar cites from the second chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium that is about the People of God. The whole chapter is on the Church and Jesus Christ, but it is true, there is this one, rare reference to the Holy Spirit.

“The state of this people is that of the dignity and freedom of the sons of God, in whose hearts the Holy Spirit dwells as in His temple. Its law is the new commandment to love as Christ loved us (John 13, 34)” (Lumen Gentium 9).

The book of Potterie (1914-2003) and Lyonnet (1902 – 1986) is precisely about the dignity and freedom of the daughters and sons and queer children of Go’d “in whose hearts the Holy Spirit dwells as in His temple” (Potterie, De la, Lyonnet. 1965. 10). Congar’s interpretation of the citation from Lumen Gentium 9 does not take notice, not to speak affirm, that the Holy Spirit dwells in the individual woman, man and queer faithful. Congar uses the citation for claiming that the Second Vatican Council teaches that the Holy Spirit is with the People of God. I do not dispute that the Holy Spirit is a possibility condition for speaking of a People of God. My point is that Lumen Gentium 9 clearly speaks of the Holy Spirit that dwells in the individual faithful. Thus, the individual faithful in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, becomes the bedrock of the People of God, the bedrock of communion. Why does Congar and the Roman Catholic Church not affirm that the Holy Spirit dwells in the individual faithful? It is morbid, almost necrophile and at any case very sad, that the affirmation “Your body is a temple of Go’d” in the Roman Catholic Church is reserved for the liturgy of the sacrament burial of the individual faithful. The equal dignity, freedom and rights of the faithful, in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, in Roman Catholic Church is reserved for the dead. Congar is one of the editors of “Unam Sanctam”, a collection on ecclesiology. The collection is interested in claiming that the Holy Spirit is for the collectivity of faithful. The individual faithful is not an interest of knowledge for Congar and his colleagues. I do not dispute the right of “Unam Sanctam” and of Congar to write on the collectivity of the faithful, and on the Holy Spirit as principle of their communion and unity. But the Holy Spirit is for the collectivity of the communion of faithful in as far as the Holy Spirit dwells in the hearts of the individual faithful woman, man and queer, who form that communion of the People of God.

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, affirms in number 24 that “Sacred theology rests on the written word of God” and the study of the Sacred Scriptures “is the soul of sacred theology”. Doing theology, it must be clear that the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is not a private enterprise. Interpreting the Sacred Scriptures is an ecclesiological function, the Scriptures are interpreted in the right way by the community of all women, men and queer believers consenting in the one faith in Jesus Christ. In the Second Letter of Peter we read, “At the same time, we must recognize that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual” (2 Peter 1, 20). Potterie and Lyonnet discuss the Biblical texts communicating with their colleagues from the international ecumenic community of Bible scholars. Lyonnet never made it to become an official expert theologian at the Second Vatican Council. He was not made for consensus finding meetings and public offices anyway. His student Potterie was neither called to work as an expert in the Council. Both contented themselves educating the bishops at the Second Vatican Council in basic elements of Biblical studies, forming Biblical scholars at the Pontifical Bible Institute in Rome and writing for a handful of interested colleagues at theological faculties like me.  

The Christian tradition regularly speaks of an inner unction of the Christian faithful (Potterie, De la, Lyonnet. 1965.107). The term “unction” gets described as an activity of the Holy Spirit which enlightens the soul, which teaches the soul and guides the soul through the course of life as her inner master (ibid.).

We find the term “unction” - in Greek chrisma - three times in the New Testament, all three times we find in the pericope 1 John 2, 18-28 (ibid. 126). John strengthens the sisters and brothers of his community by affirming “But you have been anointed by the Holy One and have all received knowledge” (1 John 2, 20), and “But as for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; since the anointing he gave you teaches you everything, and since it is true, not false, remain in him just as he has taught you” (1 John 2, 27). “Chrisma” refers to the word of Christ as to the activity of the Spirit in the sense that the teaching that the faithful had received in the beginning of their way as faithful, is still relevant in their present life (ibid. 131). From 1 John 2, 27 we learn, that the word of Christ must get interiorized by believing, and this process makes John to introduce the Holy Spirit (ibid. 133). John’s claim is strong, only the Holy Spirit, the inner master, can teach the faithful, and without the unction of the Holy Spirit any effort by a preacher of the word is ineffective (ibid. 139). Faith is a central term for John. Faith is described as an inner dynamic and reality, that is an experience that develops throughout the whole life of the faithful (ibid. 140). De la Potterie criticizes that traditional theological explanations often forget the inseparable connection of the teaching of the Holy Spirit and the word of Jesus. John himself had made clear this connection and makes Jesus say in his farewell discourses, “but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you” (John 145, 26) (ibid. 142). 1 John 2, 27 has a special picture for the word of Christ that faith assimilates with the help of the Spirit, it is “the oil of the unction”. (ibid. 143).

The connection of Holy Spirit and the word of Christ has radical consequences for the Christian life and the faithful’s morals and ethics. The Aquinas claims in Question 106, article 2 of the Prima Secundae of the Summa Theologica with Saint Augustin that even the letter of the Gospel is an ineffective moral law, if the saving grace of faith, that is the Holy Spirit, is absent (ibid. 186). The spirit of the letter is ineffective, the law of the Spirit is life (ibid.). The law of the Spirit, the New Law, must not impose positive laws and norms of behavior; the principle of the New Law is inner grace of the Holy Spirit, writes Aquinas in his treaty on the law in the Summa (ibid. 189). The teaching of the grace of faith by the Holy Spirit is daring and even Thomas  Aquinas secures the teaching with the authority of Saint Augustin. He tries to prevent accusations of illuminism and disrespect for the Gospel.

Let me make clear once again, that my theologizing is on concepts and not on empirical facts like facts of psychology for example. Metaphysics is a conceptual discipline, not empirical. Further, “The way you use the word ‘God’ does not show whom you mean – but, rather, what you mean” (Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1980. Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology. 51e. Vol. 2. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell). As far as I am concerned, I write a lot about what I mean concerning my faith and I describe experiences and concepts. Nevertheless, I do not doubt that one of the most rewarding and satisfying results of empirical research one day will describe empirically and not only conceptually some concepts that for now are reserved for metaphysics. Faith does not produce hypotheses that would undergo the way of empirical affirmation or negation. But empirical research might well lead to a deeper understanding of the networks of consciousness. It is fascinating to think that the concept consciousness can be described one day by empirical science. So far, all the picturing of the locations of electroactivity in the brain at determinate activities of consciousness are pictures of electroactivity but not an empirical concept of consciousness. Wittgenstein said, “Philosophical investigations: conceptual investigations. The essential thing about metaphysics: that the difference between factual and conceptual investigation is not clear to it. A metaphysical question is always in appearance a factual one, although the problem is a conceptual one” (Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1980. Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology. Vol. 1. Paragraph 949. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell). (See my Posting “Finally, integrity, faith and happiness”).

In the occasions for small talk in scientific institutions, I met a lot of scientists, who were not exactly the stubborn researchers that were ready to pass their scientific life affirming or negating one hypothesis after the other to produce in the end some reliable knowledge. Rather, I observed that they were inclined to present simple concepts as empirical evidence of facts. There is a lot of unchecked metaphysics in science. I got the impression that the scientific colleagues at university tried to sell me their religions but were not ready to reflect on the epistemic worth of their worldview. I never communicated to an academic colleague who worked in empirical science that I have the impression she or he is now doing metaphysics. I feared the reaction of the other, if I demanded the use of the method of affirmation or negation for her or his conceptual claim. Wittgenstein was apparently familiar with that problem of frustrating others since his early philosophical publications. “The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy - but it would be the only strictly correct method” (Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung. 6.53. Side-by-side-by-side edition, containing the original German, alongside both the Ogden/Ramsey, and Pears/McGuinness. London: Kegan Paul. I cite Ogden translation). About 10 years later Wittgenstein speaks in this context of anthropology.  Anthropology must “watch the life and behavior of men all over the earth” and has to try to describe what the case is. Thereby one has to bear in mind that human imagination “is not like a painted picture or a three-dimensional model, but a complicated structure of heterogeneous elements: words and pictures” (Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1979. Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough. 7e Edited by Rush Rhees, English translation by A. C. Miles. Retford: Brynmill Press).

In the following I turn to pictures and words of theology, of concepts of the Old Church, that is the first centuries of Christendom. I believe in Go’d, I believe in Jesus Christ. What do I mean when speaking of the Holy Spirit? What do I mean?

The concept of the Holy Spirit became meaningful for me, when I read about the theological tradition of the Old Church that speaks of an “unction with the Holy Spirit”. “Unction” sounds good, I always preferred performing the rite of unction with holy chrism oil to the water rite at baptism. I had the impression that the babies enjoyed the anointing too, especially by their mothers, whereas pouring water over their heads was rather greeted with some crying. I remember the Christian tradition of “unction with the Holy Spirit” in connection with the equal dignity of women, men and queer, in connection with realizing free social choices, and make decisions to confess faith convictions of all sorts. Testimony to the Holy Spirit concerns the entry of a faithful into the Church, water signifying baptism, and blood signifying the Eucharist. And the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit helps us to confess Jesus Christ as Messiah, as the Anointed. The decisions to believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah is the beginning of the life as a Christian woman, man or queer. Conversion is the belief in Jesus Christ the savior whom I regard with Saint John at the cross and repent (John 3, 14; 19,37) (Potterie De La, Lyonnet.1965. 55). John 3, 14 and John 19, 37 are two citations from Scriptures within the Scriptures, faith is listening to the Gospel, listening to Jesus Christ, and believing, and this experience of faith is called “unction with the Holy Spirit”. Messiah means anointed. Christ and the Christians are anointed with the Holy Spirit, Christ is anointed because he loves the Father (Matthew 4, 1-10; and Luke 4, 1-14) and Christians are anointed because they believe in Christ. We read in Acts “the Holy Spirit fell on all those who were listening to the word” (Acts 10, 44b). “Listening to the word” is the Christian message, the kerygma’s vocabulary for what to believe as we read in Ephesians, “Now you too, in him, have heard the message of the truth and the gospel of your salvation, and having put your trust in it you have been stamped with the seal of the Holy Spirit of the Promise” (Ephesians 1, 13). In The First Letter of John we read, “But you have been anointed by the Holy One” (1 John 2, 20). Apparently, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) is the first one to use the expression “anointing” in 1 John 2, 20 in connection with the term “faith” (ibid. 145). Anointed by faith, is a new Christian term that evolves at the beginning of the second century CE (ibid.). The term “chrisma” says that faith may be considered as a kind of spiritual unction. For believing, for getting anointed by faith we need a free decision and the action of the Holy Spirit (ibid. 57). Baptism comes later. For John faith precedes baptism (1 John 5, 6), accompanies baptism (John 19, 34-35) and is received a whole Christian life long (ibid. 63).

When Catholic theologians to whom the Church authorities had granted the right to teach Roman Catholic dogmatic, wrote on the Christian life, they were obsessed to distance themselves from the claims of Pelagius. Pelagius (354-418 CE) probably was born in Britain and became a monk and theologian. In his writings he defended the primacy of human effort - we would say, the auto determination for social choices - for spiritual salvation (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pelagius-Christian-theologian). Saint Augustine, a contemporary of Pelagius, attacked “Pelagius’s insistence on humankind’s basically good moral nature and on individual responsibility for voluntarily choosing” Christian faith in Jesus Christ and the Gospel (ibid.). I did never study Pelagius’ writing De libero arbitrio (“On free will”), which he wrote two years before his death. Therefore, it is better for me to keep silent on Pelagius. Reading a student copy of Rahner’s course on grace, I was surprised that half of the course criticized Pelagianism (Rahner, Karl. De Gratia Christi. Summa praelectionum in usum privatum ordinata. Oeniponte, 1937/38. Editio quinta 1959/60, Reimpressio 1961. - Übersetzt von Roman A. Siebenrock und Theodor Schneider. In: Karl-Rahner: Sämtliche Werke. Band 5/1: De Gratia Christi. Schriften zur Gnadenlehre. Bearbeitet von Roman A. Siebenrock und Albert Raffelt unter Mitwirkung von Theodor Schneider. 2015. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1995-2018).

Speaking in the first half of the 20th century about free will, about free social choices, about self-determination and self-responsibility for one’s moral and ethical choices, was not well seen by the Roman Catholic authorities. To be true, the Roman Catholic Church to this day does not affirm the equal dignity, freedom and rights of women, men and queer, that is the basic Human Rights. Rahner tried to insist, that all our good social choices are good, because of grace, that is because Go’d gave us the empowerment to be good. Even De la Potterie writing in 1965 on the role of the faithful in believing, that is the disposition of the faithful to believe, must defend himself from the critique that he diminishes Go’d’s part in the work of salvation (Potterie De la, Lyonnet. 1965. 63). De la Potterie refers to John’s narrative of the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus about the “being born through water and the Spirit” as possibility condition for entering “the kingdom of God” (John 3, 5) and comments that faith principally remains forever a gift of the Spirit (ibid.). It is not the rite that baptizes, it is the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is faith in Jesus Christ.

If Rahner and his colleagues in Austria and Germany at the time would have taught their students that they are empowered as citizens to do the right social choices, that they are empowered to claim Human Rights, and that they, the individuals and not only the states and nations, “shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms” as the Preamble to the UDHR claims (udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf), a movement could have begun that protested the inhumane and criminal positive laws of the Nazis and their terror could have been stopped. I know, a utopian and contrafactual wish! Still in 2024 CE the Roman Catholic Christians are not fully risen to the empowerment by the Holy Spirit for the responsibilities of self-determination and social choices that realize the just world of Go’d and a Church community with qualified presbyters and bishops.  

Doing theology in the first quarter of the 21st century CE, I want to say something about the insatiable desire of my contemporary theologians and Christians to teach about the Holy Spirit. They hold as a proof of Go’d, that so many Christians tell of mystical experiences and encounters with Go’d and forget that it is the other way round: Because of faith in Go’d, Christians are empowered to say what they mean, to say what they experience. Anyone who wants to teach who Go’d is, stirs to a dead end. The first 15 years of my post-doctoral theological career I did empirical social research on how people speak about their mastering of the challenges of life. I asked them how they managed to secure their physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural and spiritual integrity in a concrete challenge in their life. Theologians must think about how their writings help the faithful to procure their integrity and they must not teach how the faithful must believe and life. Theologians must be conscious of the fact that they are doing metaphysics and not physics, but that they are colleagues of the physicians. A physician must help a patient to generate her or his resources to regain health. By teaching, a theologian has to heal, and by healing, a physician can teach. Participating in the endless effort for realizing the rule of Human Rights law in some small community of this world often feels frustrating and senseless. The acceptance of the state of the world, the state of every single individual woman, man and queer in this world starts with the acceptance and self-work on my state of affairs. When I am struggling, fighting, and despairing ensuring my integrity, my senses are occupied with struggling and fighting and not with thinking of a spiritual sense for grace – sensus spiritualis gratiae -, or of my disposition to receive the Holy Spirit. First, I have to assess my integrity, when I am ok, I can start meditating and believing. Sensus spiritualis is simply the experience of consciousness of the presence of Go’d in the mystic tradition and has many descriptions, writes Rahner and points at Bonaventure (Rahner 1964. 134).

We cannot speak about the Holy Spirit without speaking about the term “paráklaetos”. “Paraclete” is a juridical term and designates any woman, man or queer who comes to help another; be it as counselor, defense attorney, or protector (De la Potterie, Lyonnet. 1965. 85). Late Judaism uses the term “paráklaetos” in the sense of advocate, Rabbinic texts use the term exclusively for an advocate for those before the court of God, be it the law, the angels, the good works of women, men and queer, their merits, etc.(ibid.). John uses the term “paráklaetos” in his first letter for Christ, “My children, I am writing this to prevent you from sinning; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the upright” (1 John 2, 1).

Everywhere else John uses the term “paráklaetos” for speaking of the Holy Spirit (ibid. 86). For John, the Holy Spirit is not a paraclete in the sense of an advocate before God, for John the paraclete, the Holy Spirit, has the function of counselor, helper and advocate for the faithful living on earth and we find all recurrences of the term in the farewell discourses of Jesus (ibid.). The disciples get stressed when Jesus talks of his departure, and therefore Jesus announces the help of “another paraclete”, “I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you forever” (John 14, 16). “Another paraclete” will say that this paraclete continues the work that Jesus had begun, the paraclete will defend the cause of Jesus against those who oppose him and will sustain the faith of the disciples (ibid.). This paraclete, the Holy Spirit, is a gift for the disciples, not for the world that rejects Jesus, this Holy Spirit had always been with the disciples in the person of Jesus and his works, even though the disciples had very little awareness of this presence of the Holy Spirit, and this paraclete will stay with the disciples “forever” (ibid.), “the Spirit of truth, whom the world can never accept, since it neither sees nor knows him, but you know him, because he is with you, he is in you” (John 14, 17). In this first promise of the paraclete, the paraclete is first with the disciples – in the person of Jesus and his works -, then the paraclete is within the disciples (ibid. 89). We have to pay attention to this progressive interiorization, the paraclete will diffuse into the hearts of the faithful (ibid.).

 In this context it is logical that De la Potterie continuous with the investigation of what is sin and the exegesis of the answer of 1 John 3,4 “Whoever sins, acts wickedly, because all sin is wickedness” (The New Jerusalem Bible) (ibid. 65-83).

Both, The King James Bible and The New American Standard Bible translate the Greek term “anomia” with “transgression of law”, and “lawlessness “, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3, 4. King James Bible), “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3, 4. The New American Standard Bible).

The translations “lawlessness” for “anomia” are at least misleading. We must be careful, because the interpretation of 1 John 3, 4 depends on the sense of the word “anomia” (De la Potterie, Lyonnet. 1965. 66). Hellenistic Judaism likes to use the Septuagint where the words “hamartia” and “anomia” are used in an equivalent way (ibid. 69). The New Testament uses this equivalence too, but only in the plural form and when citing the Old Testament, see Roman 4, 7 citing Psalm 31, 1 and Hebrew 10,17 citing Jeremy 31, 34 (ibid.). In all other cases the New Testament uses “anomia” in the sense of “wickedness”, the singular designating a collective state of mind, but not an individual act of sin (ibid.). “Wickedness” corresponds with the Hebrew “awèl” or “awlah” and is an eschatological term that designates the empire of the demon revolting against the Kingdom of Go’d in the last times (ibid). See for example the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, or manuscripts of Qumran (ibid. 70). Saint Paul calls the antichrist “the wicked One, the lost One” (2 Thessalonians 2, 3) and the secret hostility of the antichrist against the Kingdom of Go’d “the mystery of wickedness” (2 Thessalonians 2, 7).

The First Letter of John speaks of a profound spiritual reality and Christians affirm this reality of faith “as great love the Father has lavished on us by letting us be called God’s children – which is what we are!” (1 John 3, 1a). John continuous “Whoever treasures this hope of him” - that is we shall see Go’d as he really is – “purifies himself, to be as pure as he is” (1 John 3, 3) and the negation of this faith is sin and wickedness, “Whoever sins, acts wickedly, because all sin is wickedness” (1 John 3, 4). The context of the Law is not part of The First Letter of John and John does not speak of a transgression of the Law, not even of the commandment of love. John thinks of incredulity, of rejecting the truth of faith, of refusing to believe in Christ (ibid. 80).

With John there are no New Testament Household Codes, as we find them with the synoptics and Saint Paul (ibid. 81). In the Gospel of John, we find 17 uses of the term “hamartia” that is sin, in his first letter there are also 17 uses. Of these 35 uses, 25 use the singular. The fourth Gospel expresses with the term “the sin” the reality of a negative answer of the individual woman, man and queer being confronted with Christ (ibid. 82). Since the Prologue, the acceptance or the refusal of Christ constitutes a major theme of the Gospel of John (ibid.). From the viewpoint of a mystic one says, “Remain with God, follow the inner law that is in you, and you will not sin anymore” (ibid.). The moralist and ascetic would claim inverse, “Do not sin, and you will remain in the status of grace” (ibid.).

The Father and the Son are giving the Holy Spirit, the paraclete. The Paraclete teaches the faithful the word of Christ, reveals and makes known his name, Son of Go’d, and sustains faith in Jesus, Son of Go’d (ibid. 91). There is no speaking of Jesus Christ without speaking of the Holy Spirit, and there is no Holy Spirit without speaking of Jesus Christ. It is one of the oldest tentation of the Church to separate Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, to separate Jesus Christ and his Spirit (ibid.). The Word, in John the logos, is picture of the Father, and the Holy Spirit reveals the Word to us, illuminates the Word for us, and makes the Word fruitful in us; De la Potterie expresses in that sentence the trinitarian aspect of revelation (ibid. 95). The Paraclete helps secretly in the moments of doubt; when the faithful doubt their faith, the Paraclete gives testimony to Jesus in their consciences (ibid. 99). If the faithful lets the Word work in herself or himself, she or he will not sin anymore, unless she or he stops living faithful to Jesus Christ (ibid. 215).

At the end of their book Lyonnet turns to the Apostle Paul and the Christian vocation to perfection (De la Potterie, Lyonnet. 1965. La vocation Chrétienne a la perfection selon Saint Paul. 217-238). Lyonnet is an expert on Paul in the first place. Second, Saint Paul allows Lyonnet to speak on the vocation of the faithful women, men and queer to perfection. Lyonnet ends the 1500 years old tradition to consider Christian perfection exclusively in connection with the religious priests and the clergy. The decennials leading up to the Second Vatican Council were the years when theologians started considering the lay faithful as the cornerstone of the Christian community. Consequently, Lyonnet’s article on the Christian vocation had been published for the first time in 1963, in Herder’s collection “Laity and Sanctity” under the title “Laity and perfect Christian life” (ibid. 217).

De La Potterie had made clear, that in the Gospel of John the paraclete, the Holy Spirit, has the function of counselor, helper and advocate for the faithful living on earth and we find all recurrences of the term in the farewell discourses of Jesus (ibid. 86). With the Holy Spirit we have to turn from inner happiness down to earth, to our whole integrity with all its aspects. Paul knows a special place on earth where to engage the Holy Spirit with the physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural and spiritual integrity of the faithful, that is the Christian community. Paul writes to the communities he founded with the help of the Holy Spirit. It is in the live of the Christian communities where we find the fruits of the Holy Spirit. What are the fruits of the faith in Jesus Christ sustained by the Holy Spirit? Paul writes in the Letter to the Galatians, “On the other hand, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control; no law can touch such things as these” (Galatians 5, 22-23). Faith lets us participate, take part, and enjoy Go’d’s and Christ’s love for us (ibid. 231), enhances our integrity, and gives happiness. Then, it is our part as faithful to realize love in the communities, to make the brother and sister in the community our neighbor whom we love.

It is evident, that my behavior in the community, Christian or civil, often does not reflect the Paulinian fruits of faith, although I consider myself as faithful. My bad behavior in those states of affairs reflects that aspects of my integrity are out of balance. Paul describes what a disbalance of one’s integrity might provoke. His list of results of “self-indulgence” is almost 2000 years old, and some results make sense to these days. “When self-indulgence is at work the results are obvious: sexual vice, impurity, and sensuality, the worship of false gods and sorcery; antagonisms and rivalry, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels, disagreements, factions and malice, drunkenness, orgies and all such things” (Galatians 5, 19-21).

I would not say as Saint Paul does that love and patience and gentleness, etc., are “the fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5, 22-24). Yes, “let our behavior be guided by the Spirit” (Galatians 5, 16), let our social choices be good. Rahner, who interprets the time to make social choices in the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius insists that Go’d does not reveal or inspire a certain social choice (Rahner 1964. 149). The method of making a choice in the Spiritual Exercises is like the experience of a test, or of a trial (ibid.). The attempt to find out the right choice – Ignatius dares to speak of the “will of Go’d” -, is undertaken by an individual herself or himself by way of a test, which includes the faith that the experience of the testing is certainly effected by Go’d (ibid.). That experience, by a decisive influence of Go’d, finds concrete expression in mentally testing if the possible social choice leaves intact my happiness, pure openness and fundamental consolation, if the imagined social choice supports and augments or weakens and obscures my consolation (ibid.). Ignatius writes in number 335 of his Spiritual Exercises “If Pure receptivity to God, as concretely achieved, not theoretically claimed or reflected, produces peace, tranquility, quiet, so that true gladness and spiritual joy ensue, the joy of pure, free, undistorted consciousness, or whether instead of smoothness, gentleness and sweetness, sharpness, tumult and disturbance arise” (ibid.). Reading Ignatius and Rahner we must bear in mind that they say what they mean, they do not say who God is.

With the Holy Spirit and all those experiences of faith, we must turn from inner happiness down to earth, to our integrity with all its aspects. Our behavior is not primarily the fruit of the Holy Spirit, our behavior is first of all a function of our body and enjoying integrity or having to cope with a damaged integrity is a body function. The experiences of meditation, be it happiness or just feeling ok, are body functions too. Psychic, physical, social, economic, cultural, spiritual, etc. social choices constitute our behavior, and this behavior belongs to the “earth”, that is to our empirical world. Sentences about religious beliefs and faith-sentences are about concepts, they are not empirical in the sense that what they show can positively be proven to be the case and can be attributed to the truth-value true or false of the two-valued logic of empirical science (See my Posting “Sentences, sense, and logical truth”). My behavior is very well part of the empirical world, and the empirical sciences are perfectly capable of examining my integrity as being ok and functioning well or as functioning not so well and not being ok. I am responsible for my behavior; I am accountable for my behavior. My behavior is a function of the body, the different aspects of the body, that is the physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural, spiritual, etc. aspects constitute my state of integrity. The spiritual aspect of the body is part of all aspects of the body. Therefore, the question is not to split the Spirit from the body, but to integrate all aspects of the body. Thankfully enjoying good sex and sexual pleasure is not self-indulgence in the negative sense that Paul uses but is an expression of one’s body integrity. It is not the body that is “in opposition to the Spirit”, and “the desires of the Spirit” are not in opposition to the body (Galatians 5, 17). Negating the spiritual aspect as being part of my body leads to the splitting of the spiritual from all the other aspects of my body. Making the spiritual part of a two valued logic with the truth values true and false and attributing to the spiritual the truth value false or true does not make sense, because there is no method to decide empirically. Integrating the spiritual aspect of the body with all the other aspects of the body from the point of logic does not mean that it is possible to investigate all aspects of the body with the two valued logic of empirical science. Cultural aspects like describing a work of art, just as spiritual aspects are often expressed in concepts that must be used according to a three valued logic that accepts the truth value “I do not know”. We do not have at hand a logical method for deciding if the beauty of a work of art is true or false. Logically we cannot decide if we affirm or negate what value we attribute to a piece of literature. We cannot exactly describe with a two valued logic the future development of the stock market, probability and margin of error apart. Often predictions logically qualify for the truth value “I do not know”, especially if they concern the future.

What happens to my happiness when I return from meditation to daily life, and I encounter stress with my family or with people of my community? Faith and love cede to distressing and dysphoric states of affairs. Where are the fruits of the Holy Spirit, when I am just not capable of being ok and balanced? They are gone and they come back with the help of a brother or sister of my Christian community who helps me back to integrity and love, or whom I thankfully remember for having helped me out of darkness into light and joy once. John is aware of what is necessary and makes Jesus say in his farewell discourses, “so that we may not fall away” … “This is my commandment: love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15, 12).