Neville Ann Kelly, D.Min., Ph.D.

Spiritual Direction, Integral Master Coaching

  • Spiritual Direction
  • Scholarship
    • Books
  • Teaching
    • Integral Theory Course
  • About

Approaching the Future: 50 Years of Gaudium et Spes

December 7, 2015 By Neville Ann Kelly

December 7, 2015, marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council’s Gaudium et spes, a document bearing exceptional correspondence with the “joys and hopes, the grief and anguish” of our own, twenty-first century moment.

Like Francis’ papacy, the unplanned and unprecedented Pastoral Constitution of the Modern World reframes the Catholic Church’s posture as open, dialogic, and involved in the mundane affairs of daily life in the world. An ongoing call, this mid-twentieth century document offers the contemporary church a timely impetus for its unfolding future.

Beyond the Hallowed Certainties

Non-dogmatic and pastoral, the document’s tone expands the church’s embrace beyond the safety of hallowed certainties to the margins of the unknown. Throughout the multiple drafts, turbulent disagreements, and prolonged controversies that led to and followed its promulgation, the document addresses people of all faiths—as well as of none—living throughout the world in very concrete situations and particular circumstances.

Issuing a new kind of global solidarity, the Church recognizes and even embraces her participation in the often troubling and problematic affairs of human beings, of which she, too, is comprised.

In the document, the Council intended to address to these so-contemporarily familiar questions:

  • How can the Church intelligibly frame its concerns about the political and social issues facing humanity to those unacquainted, and perhaps unwilling to accept, Christian concepts and verbiage?
  • Can Christian theological statements be capable of addressing specific conditions like poverty, war, hunger, illiteracy, and racism?
  • How can faith adequately explore and engage aspects of science and technological advance?
  • How can the Church demonstrate and apply an authentic solidarity with world concerns, to speak with, rather than about, the rapidly changing world?

Rather than answering these and other questions, the approach the Second Vatican Council took to them gives us its continuing legacy. Rather than grounding its desire for dialogue with contemporary humanity from an ecclesiological stronghold, seemingly at some distance from the matters considered, the Council chose to stand on the commonly shared ground of its own humanity.

By approaching the contemporary world through an anthropological standpoint—articulating the deeply theological meaning of the human person in light of contemporary crises—the Council began to address and paint a more early defined portrait of its own self-understanding as it had not done since the early centuries of the Church’s existence.

Clarifying the mystery of humanity 

Guided by its own distinctive vision, and grounded by an incarnational Christology, the Council proclaimed something that remains for us unfolding, yet to be fully attended in the first decades of this new century: “it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.”

The existential meaning of human existence, shared among all peoples, faiths, and nations, is illumined through the self-giving Christ-event, wherein the profound communion of Trinitarian persons is shared with each human being. In turn, Gaudium et spes proclaims that each person, like Christ, “can fully discover their true selves only in sincere self-giving.”

Here, a Christological context illumines the human horizon. Understood as a concretely lived, existential encounter with all that is both human and divine, Gaudium et spes sets the stage not only for constructive dialogue among peoples of all faiths and philosophies throughout the world, but for dialogue and openness within the diverse schools, parishes, and institutions that constitute Christianity.

Distinctly Christian, this worldview is nonetheless interreligious, for all participate in its drama. Those of good will, “in whose hearts grace is active invisibly” are partners in the saving mystery of Christ. All are related to the intense mysteries of life and death as brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, within one human family. Ultimately, to be human is to participate in a vast spiritual mystery.

Like the popular teaching of Pope Francis, Gaudium et spes is reflective of a profound anthropology moving the Church not only toward openness, dialogue, and constructive action within the world in which it lives, but toward a renewal of its own self-understanding as incarnated, embodied participants in very human affairs.

Humanity is the vital concern of the Church, with whom it shares its own meaning and destiny. Recognition of the universal, though at times implicit, participation of the entire world within the Christocentric mystery provides the Church a renewed understanding of its own identity.

The Continuing Legacy

The fundamental legacy of Gaudium et spes continues its earthy, sleeves-rolled-up mission in our own day and into the next decades and centuries of Christian experience. The Second Vatican Council’s thought can mold and shape the world beyond measure as it has silently—and sometimes not so silently—transformed the religious landscape.

From its bounded impenetrability, the Church begins to throw open its windows onto the very world it has, at times, bastioned itself against. Like Jesus, Christianity can find that even the most mundane offers an abundant potential for a transforming—even miraculous—grace, where ordinary water offered by humble stewards is changed into an incomparable and uncommon wine.

Excerpts of this article were previously published on the Vatican II and the Future Church Internet Conference website.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: anthropology, Theological Multilingualism, Theology, Vatican II

Babel Now Reconsidered

June 27, 2014 By Neville Ann Kelly

What does the Tower of Babel have to teach us about standing on the margin looking “in” on Christianity?

Babel Quadrants
Image: Public Domain

Over the last posts, we have seen how the dispersal of people into distinct language groups as God’s punishment remains a popular interpretation of the story. We come to question this, suggesting there is a different kind of meaning that can help us see ourselves and our very divergent religious tradition from a new perspective.

Inspired by biblical scholar Theodore Hiebert’s (2007) conception of Babel as a parallel movement of two opposing forces, we have seen that:

  • Verses 1 – 4 describe what people naturally do: join together, uniting individuals through a secure, common identity.
  • Verses 5 – 9 describe the divine response of scattering people away from that comfort zone

The story unfolds first as a metaphorical explanation of the world’s diversity of cultures, suddenly separated by linguistic incomprehensibility and geographical distance. Secondly, God intervenes in humanity’s tendency to remain stably anchored in its own comfort zone of identity, whether ethnic, linguistic, or geographical. God’s in-breaking initiative, wherein multicultural dispersion and ethnolinguistic multiplicity move people  away from the center.

Babel Parallels
©2010, NA Kelly

That is just the movement urged by Pope Francis:

Truly to understand reality we need to move away from the central position of calmness and peacefulness and direct ourselves to the peripheral areas. Being at the periphery helps to see and to understand better, to analyze reality more correctly, to shun centralism and ideological approaches.

It is not a good strategy to be at the center of a sphere. To understand we ought to move around, to see reality from various viewpoints. (Spardaro, 2014, p. 4)

Babel’s “two parallel halves” (Hiebert, 2007, p. 33) demonstrate the attempt to secure a community of mutual understanding so desired by Babel’s builders and its parallel divine antithesis, a complete undoing of the comfortable unity the city and tower provide.

Hiebert describes this inherent tension:

Attributing difference, that is, the extravagant array of the world’s cultures, to God’s intentions may simply represent a belief on the part of the storyteller that God as creator brought everything in the world he [sic] knew into existence, including its profusion of cultures. But it may also represent an understanding of the depth of the human need for identity and cultural solidarity, so that, left to themselves, humans—in this case, the family and their descendants who survived the flood—would dedicate their efforts to preserving a common culture. How in a world in which membership in a kinship group with a common culture defined human life in all respects, and outside of which an individual had no standing, could difference ever emerge? In such a world, cultural difference may have been considered possible only as part of a larger divine design, a design implemented by God’s own initiative. (2007, p. 57)

Herein lays the salient applicability of this succinct tale. 

God’s intervention helps us step to the margin. The leap from kindred comfortability to the disruption of imposed difference takes us beyond the sameness of the center.

To move toward the unfamiliarity of the periphery  is to move toward what is so “other” it is ultimately, inexplicably and mysteriously divine.

So what will see from out there, teetering on the apparent brink of unfamiliarity?

 

_____________________

References

Hiebert, T. (2007). The tower of Babel and the origin of the world’s cultures. Journal of Biblical Literature, 126(1), 29-58.

Spardaro, A. (2014). Wake up the world: Conversation with Pope Francis about the religious life. La Civilta Cattolica (I), 3-17.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: biblical studies, Theological Multilingualism, Theology, Tradition

The Gift of Dispersion

June 16, 2014 By Neville Ann Kelly

The story of the Tower of Babel is an important key to stepping outward into the margin where we can see “inside” ourselves.

labyrinth of stairs

We previously noted how traditional interpretations of the dispersion of people after Babel (Genesis 11: 1-9) have labeled the event as God’s punishment. We also noted the difficulty of this interpretation since this presupposes the imposed differences to be undesirable, suggesting a divine preference for sameness and homogeneity that lacks evidence in the very diverse acts of creation elaborated earlier in Genesis.

Additionally, judgment upon folks coming together to build the story’s tower curiously appears in opposition to the natural drive for cultural solidarity, identity and belonging that has often contributed to human safety and preservation. Why would following this natural inclination incur divine wrath and retribution?

A Simple Gift

More questions arise as some interpreters take the scattering as a profoundly positive—rather than punitive—occasion for greater interpersonal growth. For one theologian, dispersion provides a space for “subtle and sensitive conversations, to the plurality of meanings, to nuances, poetry, creativity, and individuality” (Moyaert, 2009, p. 230) yielding authentic, self-transcending, and hospitable dialogue even across imposing barriers.

True as this may be, if you’ve ever read the rest of Genesis, that does not seem to be what happened to these folks (or to many of us when we are suddenly surrounded by a strange crowd). Rather than spaciousness, human beings seem more fundamentally to experience foreignness as a threat. Think about how you guard your valuables on a crowded subway!

We might see this story differently if we move outside of traditional or idealized interpretations.  Beyond divine punishment or cultural opportunity, there is something very fundamental here we can easily miss. This simple idea can make all the difference in our ability to flourish and grow.

Dispersion to the Margins

Essentially, building this kind of metaphorical tower is a natural human experience. We come together with others to create things that cement our collective identity, and that give us a name and a place. Realizing this inclination as part of our human nature, God’s intervention results from humanity’s natural desire to find identity and solidarity with other people. In this light, the divine act of dispersion simply moves the tower builders away from their comfort zones.

The scattering moves a unified “us” to a far-reaching multitude of very diverse “others.”

Rather than judgment inveighed against Babel’s builders, verses 1 – 4 of the story describe what people naturally do: join together, uniting individuals through a common identity. This fundamental perspective provides a critical clue to understanding the divine response of scattered dispersion in verses 5 – 9.

Dispersion, rather than punishment, sends us to the margin where we can begin to step outward to more fully see ourselves and our religious and spiritual traditions. As such, this well known Hebrew story suggests the need not only for the solidarity of cohesive identities, but focuses us on stepping out into divergent uncertainty. From this scattering, we are gathered to our commonly held, multilingual otherness.

What might being on the periphery mean for you?

What do you see when you look in on yourself, your spirituality, or your religious tradition?

References

Hiebert, T. (2007). The tower of Babel and the origin of the world’s cultures. Journal of Biblical Literature, 126(1), 29-58.

Moyaert, M. (2009). A “Babelish” world (Genesis 11:1-9) and its challenge to cultural-linguistic theory. Horizons: The Journal of the College Theology Society, 36(2), 215-234.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: biblical studies, creation, Integral, Spirituality, Theological Multilingualism, Theology, Tradition

Rethinking the Tower of Babel

May 2, 2014 By Neville Ann Kelly

Early on in this series “Why Christianity Must See Itself From the Outside,” I suggested that one key to seeing from the margin lies in listening to the different kinds of languages spoken within the Christian tradition. Let’s look at an ancient Hebrew story help explain why.

Image CC0-Public Domain
Image CC0-Public Domain

 

Remember the old story of the Tower of Babel? Just to refresh your memory, it goes like this:

In the beginning, everyone in the world spoke the same language. A bunch of Middle Eastern folks settled in a nice place—a plain near Shinar— and decided to make some more permanent structures rather than living in their bedouin-styled tents. So, they made a bunch of really strong bricks and built a tower.

Now the tower was really, really tall, and so they exaggerated quite a bit and said it reached all the way to heaven. The reason that they wanted it that tall was because they wanted to really stand out, but mostly because they were worried that their people were getting wanderlust and would disperse unless they had a “main attraction” keeping them powerful and together.

The problem started when God noticed what was going on. God said, “Look what they have done! If they are starting to do this, there will be no end to the possibilities. Let’s go down there and make them speak a bunch of different languages so they can’t understand each other and do this kind of thing again.” So, that’s just what happened, and everyone scattered into little cliques.

(Well, it sort of goes like that. For the official story—a short story like this is called a “pericope”—from the Hebrew Scriptures, see Genesis 11: 1- 9. )

The Common Interpretation

It is quite likely you know that this pericope has come to represent God’s judgment on arrogance. The people’s “scattering” is the result of their making a very bad move—building this tower— and a prevention of further transgressions. The people—originally unified—are dispersed as both a retribution for this action and a prevention for further “tower” building.

This interpretation has a very long history in all three of the original monotheistic religions: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic. Here are some examples (you can find the books listed below):

  • al-Tabari, 9th century/2007
  • Gen. Rab. 38 (Hebrew Midrash)
  • Ibn Ezra, 12th century/1988
  • Irenaeus, Epid. 23, edited by MacKenzie & Robinson
  • Origen, Cel. 4:21

This is, thus, a venerable interpretation that has been with us for a very long time.

Let’s take a moment to look at this traditional interpretation respectfully from the “outside,” practicing standing on the margin looking “in” on the tradition.

So understood, Babel is explanatory and representative of an apparently undesired outcome: the differentiation and dispersal of humanity. Rather than catalyst for an enriching diversity, divine recompense for the industrious, Babel-building effort of the narrative’s protagonists mercilessly imposes cultural-linguistic differentiation upon the peoples of the world.

What is up with that?

Critiques of This Interpretation

Contemporary sensitivities regarding diversity and cultural inclusivity have questioned the validity of such an interpretation. Why would difference—in this case, so cataclysmically judged by God—be a punishment? What does this say about difference, or “otherness”?

Where might this understanding lead Christianity (and perhaps where has it historically led)?

God’s preference for sameness and homogeneity seems implied if diversity is a punishment.

Thinking in this vein, many postmodern, liberation and feminist theologies, among others, will challenge the assumption that differentiation is the devastatingly negative outcome traditional exegesis has implied (Croatto, 1998; Fewell, 2001; Hiebert, 2004; Míguez-Bonino, 1999; Oduyoye, 1984; Song, 1999).

Nonetheless, we find numerous scholars maintaining the traditional view, making it the dominant, “firmly fixed” (Hiebert, 2007, p.29) interpretive theme throughout commentary on the Genesis text (Sarna, 1996; Strong, 2008; von Rad, 1972; Wenham, 1987).

How Does Babel Help Us See “In” From the Margins?

So what might be a way to interpret what is going on at Babel?

More directly, what insight might this problematic passage give us as we stand at the margin, looking “in” on Christianity?

Next time, we will explore how the Babel story gives us a key means of stepping outward into a wider view, the marginal space of seeing “not from the center but rather from the periphery.”

building towers

References

Croatto, J. S. (1998). A reading of the story of the Tower of Babel from a perspective of non-identity. In F. F. Segovia & M. A. Tolbert (Eds.), Teaching the Bible: The discourses and politics of biblical pedagogy. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.

Fewell, D. N. (2001). Building Babel. In A. K. M. Adam (Ed.), Postmodern interpretations of the Bible: A reader. St. Louis: Chalice Press.

Hiebert, T., & McCormick Theological, S. (2004). Toppling the Tower: Essays on Babel and diversity. Chicago, Ill.: McCormick Theological Seminary.

Ibn Ezra, A. b. M., Strickman, H. N., & Silver, A. M. (1988). Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Pentateuch. New York, N.Y.: Menorah Pub. Co.

Miguez-Bonino, J. (1999). Genesis 11:1-9: A Latin American perspective. In J. R. Levison & P. Pope-Levison (Eds.), Return to Babel: global perspectives on the Bible. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Oduyoye, M. (1984). The sons of the gods and the daughters of men: An Afro-Asiatic interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.

Origen. (2nd century). Against Celsus. Retrieved from the New Advent Web site: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04164.htm

Sarna, N. M. (1996). The Mists of Time: Genesis 1-11. In A. Feyerick (Ed.), Genesis: world of myths and patriarchs. New York: New York University Press.

Song, C.-S. (1999). Genesis 11:1-9: An Asian perspective. In J. R. Levison & P. Pope-Levison (Eds.), Return to Babel: Global perspectives on the Bible. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Strong, J. T. (2008). Shattering the image of God: A response to Theodore Hiebert’s interpretation of the story of the tower of Babel. Journal of Biblical Literature, 127(4), 625-634.

Tabari, M., & Popovkin, A. V. (2007). The history of al-Tabari. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.

von Rad, G. (1972). Genesis: a commentary (J. H. Marks, Trans.). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Wenham, G. J. (1987). Genesis. 1-15. In Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX.: Word Books.

________________________________________________

For other segments in the “Marginal Invitation” series see:

Introduction: Pope Francis on Embracing Multiple Perspectives

The “Overview” Effect

Part 1: Why Christianity Must See Itself from Its Periphery

Part 2: Why We Must See Ourselves from the Periphery

Part 3: Looking In at Christian Theology

Part 4: Seeing In Through a Fourfold Lens

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Integral, Scripture, Theological Multilingualism, Theology, Tradition

Seeing In Through a Fourfold Lens

April 4, 2014 By Neville Ann Kelly

Called to “look in” upon Christianity from the outside margin, we have recently considered the transformative possibilities such an “Overview Effect” holds. To see fully, we need to move outward toward the margins, away from the comfort of being safely “inside.”

Image ©2012 kmitu, fotosearch
Image ©2012 kmitu, fotosearch

 

In Part 3, we looked at the centuries-long development of Christian theology. Theologia began as the deeply spiritual encounter of “one who prays,” then shifted to a scholastic emphasis on reason. Some contemporary theologians have retrieved theology’s originating sense of transcendence, and we do well to uphold the critical balance between the often distant poles of interior spirituality and its theoretical inquiry, study and discourse. Both are necessary, the “Martha” and “Mary” (Luke 10:38-42) of action and contemplation. But how do these function in our lives, in the real world?

Questioning the function of theology is to ask, more simply, “what does it do?” Rather than a utilitarian attempt to justify my own admitted fascination with immaterial abstractions of theological discourse, this inquiry is crucial to developing our capacity to envisage their more complete whole. 

To ask what theology does is not to ask what it is for (a question often broached by a student or two in my undergraduate classrooms), but to ask the much more fundamental question of what theology actually is. While the theoretical breadth of this question can appear an abstract stumbling stone to authentic praxis, getting at theological “being” empowers our ability not only to explore the function of theology itself, but dynamically to enact the multiplicity of theology’s “doing” as well.

Theology simultaneously enacts the subjective experience, intersubjective relationship, objective evidence and interobjective specialization comprising its vast whole. Often obscured by our hegemonizing preference for one of these domains, theology manifests an equilibrious balance of its fourfold nature.

Theology’s “Four D’s”

Unashamedly betraying my undergraduate teaching practicality, we can classify these interrelated dimensions as “Four Easy D’s”:

  • Depth – Subjective Experience             
  • Dialogue – Intersubjective Relationship
  • Description – Objective Evidence
  • Dispatch – Interobjective Specialization

The Inside: Depth & Dialogue

While mystical and spiritual “depth” penetrates the subterranean interior of heart, soul, mind, and strength, “dialogue” relationally incarnates its commonality through the concrete immediacy of its multicultural proclamation, interpretation, fellowship and compassionate service. 

While the inestimable value of these too-long-neglected interior encounters comprise theology’s energetic capacity to inspire, challenge, and transform, depth and dialogue do not stand on their own. Only a part of theology’s fullness, they are influenced and developed by their more exterior contributors.

The Outside: Description & Dispatch

Objective “description” of the historical unfoldment of biblical texts, sources, doctrines, dogmas, iconography, architecture and more gives substantial flesh and bone to an ever-developing tradition extending from antiquity into the future. However, even when these objective elements accompany theology’s interior, they remain insufficient without the fourth element, extending theology into the complex world of its pragmatic systemization.

So “dispatched” into ecclesial hierarchy and organizational patterns, interpretive effects of doctrinal constructs, ministerial administration of communication, media, art, and network navigation, theology becomes fully active and alive. Orphaning theology in this realm of “dispatch,” easily reduces it to the all too familiar, inauthentic caricature of lifeless church policies, procedures, rubrics and rules.

All of This, At Once

Reducing the whole to any hegemonized quarter—no matter how valuable—betrays theology’s fourfold unity of subjective experience, intersubjective relationship, objective evidence and interobjective specialization.

Theology’s fourfold being, like the piercing two-edged sword of Hebrews’ living and active word of God (4:12), functions as all of this, of all that is. To see into ourselves from the margins, we must begin to see all of this. 

The ancient Hebrew story of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11: 1- 9) will help us grasp this more fully, but before turning there, we have first required a few insights from Christiainity’s theological tradition to empower our expanding vision.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Integral, Theological Multilingualism, Theology

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »
  • Monasticism
  • Spirituality
  • Theology

Integral Coach™ and Integral Coaching® are trademarks in Canada owned by Integral Coaching Canada Inc. and licensed to Neville Ann Kelly.
Copyright © 2025 · Neville Ann Kelly, D.Min., Ph.D.