In every culture or institution that desires growth, there is a tension between two different ends, which require different means and different approaches. The first end is growth, which has an evangelistic focus and desires in bringing people within a particular culture or institution through persuasion, reaching them where they are and seeking to give them a change in loyalties. The second end is uniformity/unity, in which there is a desire that all should be educated to the same level, obedient to the same standards, and accepting of the same authorities to the same degree, so that there is an avoidance of schism and dissention and threats to division. Every organization desires both growth and stability, and there is a tension between these two aims, tensions that all organizations must face openly and honestly if they are to succeed.

Recognizing that this tension exists in all organizations, for to seek growth without a concern for stability is a recipe for anarchy while to seek unity and uniformity without a concern for growth is a recipe for tyranny and authoritarian domination, neither of which ought to be our aim, let us look specifically at one particular aspect of this tension within an institution which has endured for many hundreds of years and which demonstrates this particular tension well, the Roman Catholic Church. While I am not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church, as a particularly large organization it has demonstrated the tension between these aims particularly well, and is therefore worthy of discussion.

When we think of the Roman Catholic Church, most of the time we have in mind its authoritarian tendencies, as that is the predominant feature of its behavior and history. We think of pope after pope making condemnations of democracy, not realizing that in many areas of the Roman Catholic Church and over long periods of history that even bishops were elected by councils of priests, or that even the popes themselves are elected by councils of cardinals, showing that the aims of democracy at least in a limited form are not entirely incompatible with even the most conservative of institutions. We look at the fact that the Roman Catholic Church tends to have drastically more conservative beliefs than its members in key countries, while often overlooking the fact that the Roman Catholic Church in its entire history has always been marked by an acceptance of those aspects of heathen culture that it thought it could assimilate and use to expand its influence. We can see this tendency historically through the adoption of pagan theology, gnostic eighth day practice, and pagan saints and holy days as the Roman Catholic Church sought European domination, and we can see it today in the widespread preaching of theistic evolution as a way to attempt to neutralize views that the Catholic Church is hostile to science and progress.

Within the Roman Catholic Church, it is the Jesuits that are perhaps most notable as the evangelistic wing of their institution. Officially called The Society For Jesus, the Jesuits have for centuries sought to spread the conversion of peoples into Roman Catholicism by any means possible. It is a tendency among those who are seeking to bring about the conversion of others that there will be a moderation of doctrinal imperatives to avoid offending those who are new in the faith, or that there will be bridges made between our faith and the understanding of others to show similarity, and to provide a way for people to convert to new institutions and belief systems without abandoning their identity. By and large I share these aims; after all, they were practiced by the Apostle Paul with particular success, and having a bit of missionary tendencies in my own life, I certainly relish the opportunity for successful discussion (and labor) in such fields myself whenever it has been possible. In order to successfully spread a given culture or mindset or institution in new ground, one must have an intense curiosity about other people, so as to find ways of conveying old truths in new ways to people who are not familiar with them, but who have some idea of the truth in their own understanding already, because any mixture of good and evil contains some good to start out with that allows soil for greater good and greater truth to be sown.

That said, despite my own particular bias and perspective in the matter, not all people are so friendly towards those evangelistic tendencies. For those who hold a great deal of respect for tradition and traditional understanding, and whose desire for uniformity is great and whose desire for growth is limited, and who have little or no curiosity in other people or of ways to appeal to them, these tendencies can easily be considered as a watering down of truth or even as a tolerance and a preaching of heresy, no matter how loyal those would-be missionaries are to a given culture or institution. This is true in general (as I can speak from some personal experience in the matter), and it is specifically true of the history of the Jesuits in the Roman Catholic Church, as the Jesuits have been strongest in times of growth and have been the most vulnerable in times and places where insecurity among regimes has led to retrenchment and hostility towards their aims and means.

The subject is of particular relevance because it is a Jesuit who wears the papal crown and calls himself the vicar of Christ. The fact that he is a Jesuit has a great deal of relevance to his conduct so far as well as the ultimate aims of his papacy, however long it may last [1]. The fact that he is both a Jesuit as well as being a loyalist to the Roman Catholic Church provides a template to how we may view his goals and strategies. His behavior will be directed at increasing the spread of the Roman Catholic Church by any means necessary. Already this has meant that he has disregarded canon law when it comes to footwashing, as he washed the feet of women, something that is against the practice of not only the Roman Catholic Church but my own faith as well, which also practices that biblical behavior and which forbids men and women from washing each other’s feet in the interest of preventing any appearance of evil with regards to sexual immorality in the practice. For a Jesuit, though, the chance to appeal to women and to garner their support for the Roman Catholic Church would outweigh a need to follow stodgy old traditions. As pope, a Jesuit would assume that traditionalists would by and large accept the authority of the institution and work on expanding its reach, trusting in time and success to validate the approach.

This is not always a valid assumption, because often traditionalists are so blinkered by their own adherence to past ways of behavior that they forget the reasons for such behaviors in their following of tradition and because they may be driven to rebel if change goes past their own lines. Most of us, myself included, have some lines beyond which we will not accept organizational change (and have shown a willingness to leave organizations which cross those biblical lines heedlessly), but with a general tolerance to changes that are meant to better fulfill biblical mandates for growth and service that institutions have generally not done well, or to allow more freedom of discussion and disagreement over matters of tradition that lack biblical warrant. For a traditionalist, every single aspect of tradition has godly authority, and to disregard any tradition is to make one a heretic, an unbeliever, and a cancer that must be dealt with. Therefore a pope who wishes for growth and reform must be aware that there is a strong element of the most rigid sort of conservativism within the Roman Catholic Church that has shown a tendency to schism even over the most necessary and obvious of changes, like using languages that can actually be understood by those hearing a given message.

We can assume that a Jesuit pope is going to wish to increase the spread of Christianity by any means possible. This would mean that there would be expected to be an increased emphasis in preaching a simplified and basic version of the faith in areas where the Roman Catholic faith is not prevelent. There can also be expected to be an adoption of those practices that might arrest the decline of the Roman Catholic faith in areas where it is under attack. For example, the growth of evangelical sects in Latin America may end up leading to some changes in the Roman Catholic Church that would allow for the development of in-house opportunities where the same sort of emotionalistic religion may be provided to those who are interested in order to retain and regain members and preserve the influence of the Catholic Church overall throughout the continent, however much traditionalists will howl over such things. Depending on how long his papacy lasts and the level of understanding and support of his aims for increased power and influence for Catholicism, the results of his efforts could vary widely. Nonetheless, the fact that he is a Jesuit ought to mean that we should expect from this papacy a focus on increasing Catholic influence, which may be at first confused with watering down Catholic doctrine and practice, but which will ultimately be done for the increased power of the institution itself. Let us therefore not be confused into thinking that such cosmetic changes or disregarding of traditions mark a permanent change for the Roman Catholic Church, but are merely an appeal for increased membership and power that will ultimately serve to benefit a very conservative and tradition-bound organization.

[1] http://christiannews.net/2013/03/14/who-are-the-jesuits-why-the-first-jesuit-pope-could-signify-the-new-evangelization-of-christians/