Chau argues that reading Charles Taylor and Hans Urs von Balthasar in tandem provides important resources to understand the obstacles and opportunities for effective Christian missionary work. She argues that Taylor's analysis of Western secularity presents a critical opening for the church's evangelizing efforts, while Balthasar presents the ecclesial vision to respond in a faithful and credible way to this work. In addition to an introduction and conclusion, Chau's book consists of four chapters: the first two devoted to Taylor's analysis of secularity and the challenges this worldview presents to the church; the third and fourth chapters present Balthasar's theological anthropology and his vision of a witnessing church.
Chau does an admirable job tracing Charles Taylor's development of his understanding of Western secularity through his major books (i.e., Sources of the Self, Modern Social Imaginaries, and A Secular Age). In particular, Chau highlights Taylor's analysis of the cultural matrix that makes discussion of transcendence difficult, if not impossible, because secularism operates in a worldview that lives within an “immanent frame.” This perspective closes off any serious consideration of transcendence. Within the immanent frame, authenticity of the individual is ultimately autonomous, self-authenticating, and self-referential. In this “flattened world,” all activity finds its purpose in the temporal sphere. In light of this cultural context, Taylor argues that the church must structure its response to society in terms of choice and freedom. For Taylor, the saints in their lives of witness offer the most compelling avenue for secular persons to consider seriously the church's message.
Although Chau expresses appreciation of Taylor's work, she finds it incomplete in presenting an effective agenda and focus for missionary work. Chau acknowledges that Taylor identifies critical entry points in secularity's desire for authenticity for serious attention to transcendence. Yet she contends that he fails to offer a “substantive ecclesiology” (88) that presents a full-bodied articulation of the church's potentially powerful transformative message. In Chau's estimation, Taylor's assessment of secularity is overly generous and uncritical. So, too, she contends that his view of the church is too influenced by secular values leading him to undervalue its critical formative role in shaping the lives of the faithful and to be overly critical of the church's institutional (i.e., hierarchal) structure. This undervaluing of the church is clearly evident in Taylor's acceptance of religious pluralism as he presents the church as one of numerous possible options. These conclusions, for Chau, simply are the consequences of Taylor's underestimation of “the deep interconnection between authority, tradition, and the person-constituting character of the church” (91, n73).
Chau contends that Balthasar's work on personhood and the role of the church in forming holy persons complements and extends Taylor's perspective. Chau argues that Taylor ignores the pivotal role the church plays in the formation of holy persons. Balthasar's focus on the church's resources to generate subjective holiness addresses this lacuna in Taylor's thought. Balthasar's ecclesial vision is evident in his understanding of the deeply relational nature of personhood that finds its grounding in the Trinity. Divine freedom is the condition of possibility of human freedom and provides an explanatory dimension that Taylor's anthropological account cannot. Balthasar's Christocentric and Trinitarian emphasis also provides a basis for the uniqueness of the Christian faith and leads Balthasar, in contrast to Taylor, to be explicit about the necessity for conversion to Christ for genuine fulfillment and the essential formative role of the church in “generating” saintly behavior.
Chau correctly highlights key similarities and differences between Taylor and Balthasar. Both utilize narrative/dramatic formats as explanatory tools to understand the contemporary situation and see saints as a compelling expression of Christianity. In terms of difference, Taylor's anthropological/sociological approach is in contrast to Balthasar's theological perspective and leads to one of the intriguing questions raised by Chau's work. How appropriate and helpful is the attempt to blend these two approaches, and what methodological cautions must be acknowledged in such efforts? Is Chau too glib in her attempt to “extend and correct” Taylor's work with Balthasar's theology? For example, Chau's claim that the church is essential to the formation of saints is a broad claim and needs further explication. What elements (e.g., ritual, doctrinal, ethical) are key to formation of holy lives? The fact that other religious traditions are also as effective in promoting holiness raises a serious challenge to Balthasar's claims of exclusivity for Christ. Also, are there not elements of Balthasar's theology (e.g., gender stereotypes, emphasis on receptivity of children, the privileging of office, the “elevating” of secular institutes with the practice of evangelical counsels as a key mode of evangelization, etc.) that make it deeply problematic in presenting the church to a highly, and often justifiably, suspicious audience? Although Chau very briefly addresses some of these problem areas in a footnote or an aside, the question remains of how these elements are intrinsically linked to Balthasar's theology and how many are merely coincidental.
This book's intended audience is theologians, philosophers, religious scholars, and interested laypersons. It is an important work for both the issues it raises for current evangelization efforts and for the questions it presents.
