Ecumenicity

The Canon Question

2010-01-24T11:44:00.003-04:00

“I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Church had induced me.” (St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6.)

I. THE CANON QUESTION.

As Christians, how is it that we know we are saved by the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son of God? For those raised as Christians, the Sunday School sing-song answer “for the Bible tells me so” may come to mind, and this fairly well summarizes the Protestant teaching on the communication of saving truth. The Belgic Confession, an historical expression of the Reformed faith used widely in Dutch denominations, asserts that we know God by the beauty of creation, and “more openly by his holy and divine Word.” Continue reading...

Ecclesial Deism

2009-07-06T09:12:00.003-03:00

Please do check out our most recent article at Called to Communion, by Bryan Cross: Ecclesial Deism.

It's worth the read, so if you've developed a patience that limits you to blog-post length reads, I suggest printing it out and reading it piecemeal.

Conditional or Unconditional Assurance?

2009-06-07T15:29:00.001-03:00

I find reading the Apostle John's letters especially beneficial for the simple reason that they are non-Pauline; they allow for a contrast, a reading of a different tenor or tone. John opens his first epistle by explaining that he preaches the word which he had seen and which was "made manifest" to him (1 John 1:2). He shares what he saw so that his audience might have "fellowship" with him, who is himself in fellowship "with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." (v. 3.)

To have fellowship with one another, an ambition that is (in my finer moments) quite dear to me, we must walk in the light, which is Christ. And in that case, the blood of Christ "cleanses us from all sin." (v. 7.) This serves as a preface for the beginning of 1 John 2, a recent liturgical reading. John says that "we may be sure that we know him" by "keep[ing] his commandments." (1 John 2:3.) This is reminiscent of John's own Gospel, in which he records the words of Christ, that "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15.)

Is the keeping of Christ's commandments a required step to validate and vest one's claimed love for Christ, or is it mere evidence of election? In other words, from John's letter does it appear that obedience is a sign of or an agent in achieving unity with Christ's propitiatory work? Is there a condition or not?

1 John 2 reads as if there may still be a condition. "He who says 'I know him' but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: he who says he abides in him ought to talk in the same way in which he [Christ] walked." (1 John 2:5-6). The disobedience doesn't seem to undo (on its own) one's possession of truth, but rather to evidence that the person is "a liar." But on the other hand, some action really flows from the keeping of commandments -- it is not mere assurance, mere evidence of prior election. In whoever keeps Christ's word, truly love for God is perfected. (As a matter of interpretation, this has to differ from a text that would say, "already perfect love is made known.")

It could be that, upon appreciating our having received the grace to obey divine commandments, we both find assurance in what has been done, and cooperate in the perfection of this love. If this is objectionable, I suspect the objection arises from a predisposition to a monocausalistic view.

[Four Corners] Scriptura?

2009-05-20T22:39:00.008-03:00

There is a classical dispute in the law of contracts, the underlying problem of which also bears on the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Suppose you enter into a contract to purchase a home from a seller, and at some point the other party refuses to sell, claiming that a term of the contract allows them out of the deal. If you disagree with their interpretation of the disputed clause, and take it to a judge, what should he consider in resolving the matter? Should he only consider the "four corners" of the contract that you and the seller signed (i.e., nothing beyond the written page itself), or should he also consider extrinsic ("parol") evidence, such as testimony that the seller assured you orally that the clause meant the opposite of what he now claims?

The underlying issue, then, is whether courts can consider something more than the contract, when the parties are bound only by the contract document they signed. The traditional position has been that only the written contract could be considered by the courts, not testimony about oral promises made outside of the writing. If we wax theologic, this is sola pactum, if you would. But a rift started to emerge in the courts, prompted, as is often the case, by bad cases and clear scoundrels benefiting from a 'bright-line' rule.

A fairly philosophical view appeared: a contract is never in fact interpreted by its four corners alone because every judge's mind comes pre-loaded with normative or interpretive biases. Anyone reading it would filter the words on the page through their own preexisting understanding of language, or of the matters being agreed upon in contract. Specialty terms from a particular field related to the contract (e.g., construction terms) may have a different meaning to the contracting parties than they would to a lay judge. Language is never a perfect medium for underlying thought, it seems.

Analogously, if our authority for faith and morals is the Bible alone, may we look only to the four corners of Scripture, or do we admit extrinsic sources to our interpretation as well? Some will insist upon a negative answer: "no book but the Bible, no creed but Christ."

The Reformer opposed to 'biblicism' will be quick to note that his authority is sola Scriptura interpreted with the church (see here). That is, some measure of deference to others' interpretations or to a traditional vein of interpretation is due. This view, which I admire for its humble respect for tradition, is the analog to the liberal trend in contract interpretations admitting extrinsics. But in choosing our extrinsics, in selecting whose or which traditional vein's interpretation receives our deference, we, like judges and anyone else handling text, do not start with an interpretive tabula rasa. We add our own extrinsic. And like the specialty terms in contracts worsening the problem of four corners alone for judges, specialty terms, period-specific terms and the like, in the Bible worsen the problem when attempting to interpret Scripture without the influence of pre-loaded biases.

How is the term sola proper when it is not [Four Corners] Scriptura, but Scriptura + Interpretive Extrinsics?

Onward Christian Soldiers: Armies of One?

2009-05-07T22:17:00.000-03:00

The Bible tells us that we, as Christians, are types of soldiers. For instance, Paul tells the Church at Philippi that he has decided to "send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier." (Phil. 2:25.) In 2 Timothy, we are reminded to "[e]ndure hardship...like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer." (2 Tim. 2:3-4.) And of course there is the well known passage from Ephesians 6 exhorting Christians to "put on the full armor of God." (Eph. 6:11.)

Today's army wrestles with the working out of individualism and the 'liberating' ideology of the previous centuries. Headlines from a few years ago savored the excitement generated by a U.S. Army junior officer who refused to deploy to Iraq. His reason: he believed that the Iraq war was immoral and illegal, so he would not participate.

In the same year, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church ruled to petition the U.S. President to allow soldiers to selectively conscientiously object to conflicts "on the basis of just-war criteria." The Synod noted the Christian's obligation to obey national authorities, but saw this obligation as being trumped by "our ultimate loyalty...to God." By "our," the Synod meant "each individual Christian's."

This has me wondering about private judgment and effective warfare, both in the context of military soldiers fighting military wars, and in the context of Christian soldiers fighting a spiritual war.

Are we the Army of Christ, or many armies of one? Armies are effective when they amass a stronger force than their enemy. Strength comes from obvious things: size, training, discipline, and cohesion. But if each soldier can privately determine the rectitude of the commander's course, cohesion and discipline evaporate. Would Col. Chamberlain have been able to send his 20th Maine Regiment on a daring charge, thereby holding Little Round Top and saving the Union flank at Gettysburg, if private dissent was allowed? Could Gen. Eisenhower have thought to take the beaches at Normandy with an allied force in which individual conscience could trump military orders? (And I note that the individual's conscience and judgment are far from clear when facing the prospect of incoming hostile fire.)

The sine qua non of successful warfare is an obedient soldier. Every military needs him before it can hope to have cohesion and unity. Even guerilla forces, irregular militia, and insurgent rebels abide by this modus operandi; they have leaders and subordinates, rules of obedience and enforcement of disobedience.

So for what reason might we conclude that the Army of Christ would be any different? The concept of obedience is hardly a minor tangential characteristic of soldiering, so I do not think this is an instance where 'all analogies break down.' To the contrary, if anything is derived from our being characterized as armor-wearing "soldiers," it should be that we are part of the whole, with the whole depending on its parts. We are not Wrestlers for Christ, after all. And we are not an army of one. We should be one Army of Christ. It is--and has been since time immemorial--the soldier's to obey, and the commander's to lead.

Prayers for the Scottish Dead

2009-04-30T20:48:00.001-03:00

At the conclusion of St. Adomnan's Life of St. Columba, about which I previously wrote, a transcriber appended a fascinating note:

"Whoever may read these books about St. Columba's miraculous powers, pray to God for me Dorbbene that after death I may have life eternal."

Adomnan's work was written c. 690 AD. I don't know when Dorbbene made his transcription, but he was a successor of St. Adomnan, not more than nine years after the latter's death. That means that in early Celtic Christianity, often noted for its development free and clear from Roman influence, prayers for the dearly departed were firmly in place -- so much so that a transciber would seek out the prayers of his readers.

The Catholic apologist will note that prayers for the dead are recorded within the deuterocanon, and that may very well be true. So I don't raise this point to surprise anyone at the ancient pedigree of such prayers. I'm just [b]logging my interest in the note concluding the transcription, and the Protestant's inability to attribute this to "papish" influences.

Bryan Cross on Two Ecumenicisms

2009-03-02T21:18:00.003-04:00

I highly recommend, and am quite enthused about, Bryan Cross's recent blog post: Two Ecumenicisms. He makes an artful distinction between the kind of ecumenicism that doctrinally conservative Christians reject and the kind that they can embrace. But more interesting than that, he explains why having this latter kind of dialogue is worthwhile even with an opponent who, as a rule, will not compromise. No easy task, that.

Called to Communion

2009-02-25T00:01:00.002-04:00

Please visit a new website project in which I am enthusiastically engaged: Called to Communion: Reformation Meets Rome.

We have just launched, choosing Ash Wednesday as our kick-off. Spread the word with all those who may be interested in engaging in the discussion. The contributors are all Catholics who converted from Reformed protestantism (plus me). Among them are several seminary graduates, notable Reformed seminaries at that.

I can attest to the group's sincere desire to have a charitable discussion in the pursuit of Truth, for the sake of our obedience to God's will. Our aim is to write in a more thoughtful, more carefully edited way than blogs typically allow. This is our small contribution to the pursuit of unity among Christ's followers, that we may be truly one body, one vine. I believe this to be the end of properly oriented ecumenism.

RCIA and Discernment

2009-02-24T09:45:00.003-04:00

I have been enrolled in a local Catholic catechises class since last September. This class, known as the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, or RCIA, is designed to train unbaptized people who wish to become Christian, as well as baptized Christians who wish to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. By design, it culminates in the Easter Vigil, at which the appropriate initiatory sacraments are administered: Baptism if not previously administered, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.

Enrolling in the class was a difficult decision, but staying un-enrolled seemed no easier. I wanted to enroll because I believed I needed to be put in a more consistent pattern of training for my own discernment about the Christian Church. Prior to that point, studying Catholicism had been too easy to walk away from, then rush back into, only to walk away again upon becoming desolate over some foreign teaching or other. It was difficult to enroll, though, because I had anxiety that the momentum of the class toward the Easter Vigil would make the outcome all but inevitable.

How has it turned out? Well, I'm not even sure. I do know that there is a certain momentum toward the Vigil. But several fellow candidates are not intent on joining, so the momentum is not inescapable. The consistency of weekly study of Catholic teachings has been beneficial, even if I had previously exposed myself to most of those teachings. There has been less of a focus on the discernment process itself than I had hoped, but given that this is a one hour / week class, my hopes were misplaced.

I have been able to focus particularly on discernment itself, i.e. reflecting on God's will and calling for His people and for me in particular, through other means. Meeting with my protestant pastor and with the priest who teaches RCIA has been challenging and enriching. Best of all was a three-day silent 'retreat' I was able to attend, taught by a priest of the Institute of the Incarnate Word, which used the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises. There is nothing quite like shutting up for a few days, and committing oneself completely to prayer. Staring Catholicism, particularly Marianism, in the face for that weekend was a struggle. Here, like with my RCIA class, I did not walk away with a clean and easy answer. Discernment, like movement, is a process, and I have had to accept the necessity of patience.

So here I am, a day away from Lent and a few weeks away from the Easter Vigil, uncertain of what I will do. As a baptized Christian, I could enter at another time by making proper arrangements, so I needn't have a "now or never" perspective. I have a growing perception of how difficult Faith is, and how easy Doubt is: I can call all foreign truth-claims into doubt, and huddle in my little corner of familiarity, ignoring the forces pulling me out. Faith is so easily shattered, ever vulnerable but for the Grace of our exceedingly gracious God.

No one said this would be easy.

Miracles of Saint Columba

2009-01-18T18:08:00.007-04:00

I recently finished reading Life of St. Columba (Richard Sharpe trans., Penguin Classics ed.) by St. Adomnan of Iona. Iona, as I have previously described, is an unmistakably "thin place" where one can go to reflect upon, and hopefully hear, the Lord. It is a tiny isle (1 mile wide by three miles long) ruggedly lying exposed to the high seas off the west coast of Scotland. It is here that St. Columba brought Christianity to the Pictish people from Ireland. St. Adomnan, his biographer, was a later successor to the Abbacy of Iona.

The Iona Abbey, from the Iona Community Website

St. Adomnan's biography of St. Columba (d. 597), by far the most complete offered by antiquity, was written a century after the holy missionary's death. It is particularly noteworthy for its descriptions of the prophetic and miraculous powers that he possessed.

When I picked up the book, I did not know whether to believe the nearly 100 miracles described. St. Columba is said to have walked on water, raised the dead, and described future (as well as contemporary but distant) events with great accuracy. So many and profound were the miracle accounts that I came to think they had to be embellishments. But still, there were simply far too many of them for me to think they were wholly baseless.

Two accounts from the book seemed worth highlighting here. The first caused the speculation that St. Columba himself encountered the Loch Ness Monster:

On another occasion also, when the blessed man was living for some days in the province of the Picts, he was obliged to cross the river Nesa (the Ness); and when he reached the bank of the river, he saw some of the inhabitants burying an unfortunate man, who, according to the account of those who were burying him, was a short time before seized, as he was swimming, and bitten most severely by a monster that lived in the water; his wretched body was, though too late, taken out with a hook, by those who came to his assistance in a boat. The blessed man, on hearing this, was so far from being dismayed, that he directed one of his companions to swim over and row across the coble that was moored at the farther bank. And Lugne Mocumin hearing the command of the excellent man, obeyed without the least delay, taking off all his clothes, except his tunic, and leaping into the water. But the monster, which, so far from being satiated, was only roused for more prey, was lying at the bottom of the stream, and when it felt the water disturbed above by the man swimming, suddenly rushed out, and, giving an awful roar, darted after him, with its mouth wide open, as the man swam in the middle of the stream. Then the blessed man observing this, raised his holy hand, while all the rest, brethren as well as strangers, were stupefied with terror, and, invoking the name of God, formed the saving sign of the cross in the air, and commanded the ferocious monster, saying, "Thou shalt go no further, nor touch the man; go back with all speed." Then at the voice of the saint, the monster was terrified, and fled more quickly than if it had been pulled back with ropes, though it had just got so near to Lugne, as he swam, that there was not more than the length of a spear-staff between the man and the beast. Then the brethren seeing that the monster had gone back, and that their comrade Lugne returned to them in the boat safe and sound, were struck with admiration, and gave glory to God in the blessed man. And even the barbarous heathens, who were present, were forced by the greatness of this miracle, which they themselves had seen, to magnify the God of the Christians.

(Medieval Sourcebook: Adamnan: Life of St. Columba; Penguin, at II 27, p. 175).

The second tells of his raising a boy from the dead:

At the time when St. Columba was tarrying for some days in the province of the Picts, a certain peasant who, with his whole family, had listened to and learned through an interpreter the word of life preached by the holy man, believed and was baptized the husband, together with his wife, children, and domestics.
A very few days after his conversion, one of the sons of this householder was attacked with a dangerous illness and brought to the very borders of life and death. When the Druids saw him in a dying state they began with great bitterness to upbraid his parents, and to extol their own gods as more powerful than the God of the Christians, and thus to despise God as though He were weaker than their gods. When all this was told to the blessed man, he burned with zeal for God, and proceeded with some of his companions to the house of the friendly peasant, where he found the afflicted parents celebrating the obsequies of their child, who was newly dead. The saint, on seeing their bitter grief, strove to console them with words of comfort, and exhorted them not to doubt in any way the omnipotence of God. He then inquired, saying, "In what chamber is the dead body of your son lying?" And being conducted by the bereaved father under the sad roof, he left the whole crowd of persons who accompanied him outside, and immediately entered by himself into the house of mourning, where, falling on his knees, he prayed to Christ our Lord, having his face bedewed with copious tears. Then rising from his kneeling posture, he turned his eyes towards the deceased and said, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, arise, and stand upon thy feet." At the sound of this glorious word from the saint, the soul returned to the body, and the person that was dead opened his eyes and revived. The apostolic man then taking him by the hand raised him up, and placing him in a standing position, d him forth with him from the house, and restored him to his parents. Upon this the cries of the applauding multitude broke forth, sorrow was turned into joy, and the God of the Christians glorified.
We must thus believe that our saint had the gift of miracles like the prophets Elias and Eliseus, and like the apostles Peter, Paul, and John, he had the honour bestowed on him of raising the dead to life, and now in heaven, placed amid the prophets and apostles, this prophetic and apostolic man enjoys a glorious and eternal throne in the heavenly fatherland with Christ, who reigns with the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost forever.

(Medieval Sourcebook: Adamnan: Life of St. Columba; Penguin, at II 32, p.179).

Maybe we don't see such miracles today because our modernist minds lack the broad faith that these ancient, new converts possessed. Also, perhaps the missionary nature of St. Columba's work was an element of God's providentially willing to make miracles happen through this man. It was interesting for me to finish this book around the same time that I read Fr. Amorth's book on exorcism, as it helped to remind me of spiritual realities that lie beyond the perception of my own senses.

Why start from the premise that Adomnan was a liar? I give him the opposite presumption. St. Columba, ora pro nobis.

Universal Priesthood

2009-01-12T22:49:00.000-04:00

A common argument used against the priesthood of the Catholic Church is that a select cast of priestly mediators is no longer needed on earth, since all Christians are part of a "holy priesthood," and since Christ's mediatory sacrifice is sufficient once and for all.

The second part of the argument is based on a misunderstanding of the mediation provided by the Catholic priest, specifically, the re-presentation of Christ's once-and-for-all sacrifice on Calvary (see Fr. James T. O'Connor, The Hidden Manna (2d ed. 2005)). As there is no presentation of, or mediation by a new sacrifice, Christ's perfectly sufficient sacrifice suffers no derogation. Thus, I will focus on the other part of the argument, which sees a priestly cast as contrary to the Bible's description of a priesthood of all believers.

This view is founded on 1 Peter 2:4-5, where the Apostle says, "As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him — you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (NIV)"

But a general priestly office (held by all believers) excludes a particular priestly office no more than the general "offering" of "spiritual sacrifices" excludes the particular offering of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. In fact, that a general priesthood can exist along with a particular priestly cast is proven by the Pentateuch. Exodus 19:3-6, depicts Moses receiving a message from the Lord for the house of Jacob and the people of Israel: "Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." But the existence of this general priesthood of all of God's people did not bar David from raising up a priestly tribe as described in 1 Chronicles 23 ff.

I am a layman. I do not know whether, in the development of eucharistic and episcopal doctrine, the eventual use of the word "priest" was the perfect choice. But I do know that the arguments against its use suffer from the aforesaid deficiencies. I also know that the classical Protestant term "minister" itself implies some mediation -- it means (in its verb form) "to administer or dispense." The Reformed minister dispenses God's grace via the word and sacraments. The very act of dispensing what is not one's own is a mediatory act. Therefore, if some human mediation denies Christ's sole mediation, then out with that term too.

Exorcism: a Study on Faith and Matter

2009-01-09T18:37:00.007-04:00

Fr. Gabriele Amorth's An Exorcist Tells His Story was not precisely what I expected, but entirely worth the read. I expected the book to be a series of sci-fi-like accounts of demon encounters and exorcisms. Instead, it was a masterful blend of describing the exorcist's practice, giving vignettes of demonic encounters, and articulating the theological realities at play during these encounters. The need for exorcisms is great, Fr. Amorth explains, even if encounters with actual demons are rare.

I was struck, in reading this book, by the dependent relationship between spirit and matter. This is a perspective that is absent in Reformed groups, but perhaps more active in Pentecostal sects. The Reformed view tends to see matter as either leading to idolatry, as our attraction to it grows and replaces our spiritual devotion to Christ, or irrelevant. Either way, the matter itself is not seen as possessing a spiritual quality; the concern is over our negative spiritual persuasion toward matter.

But in conducting an exorcism, matter is highly relevant, and demonstrative of spirital truth. At one point Fr. Amorth attributed 10% of the efficacy of an exorcism to the sacramental objects used (e.g., holy oils and water, his stole, or the laying on of his hands). The remainder of an efficacious exorcism he attributed to the victim's participation in the sacramental life of the Church, the victim's prayerfulness, the prayers of his family and community, and the faith of those involved in the exorcism in Christ's power over real demons. In this way the spiritual quality of blessed matter is neither denied nor magnified to the derogation of the need for faith and prayer.

I see a close analogy between the small but essential role of matter in exorcisms to the small but efficacious role of other matter in Catholic practice. When the Church extols the virtues of relics, blessed icons, or the like, the Protestant sees nothing better than superstition (and perhaps even idolatry). "How can some silly piece of bone make a faithless house safe from harm?", we might ask. If the analogy to Fr. Amorth's expertise with exorcisms holds, the answer is that the relic will likely not be efficacious absent some faith.

Fr. Amorth rounds out his book with a frank tongue-lashing of those within the Catholic Church (especially bishops) who have neglected its own instruction on providing an exorcist in each diocese. He attributes this failure to such causes as a lack of belief that demons are real in practice, and to fear of retribution from demons that are exorcised (which results from a lack of faith in God's protection). But the biblical and patristic account of the demon world, which he forcefully articulates, puts the strange reality of demons before us. Denial of their continuing reality by one committed to Scripture and tradition seems inexcusable.

Of particular interest to this ecumenist was Fr. Amorth's expressions of solidarity with Protestants who believe in demons and practice exorcism. He expresses with admiration their faithfulness in this regard, while simultaneously castigating those within Catholicism who have here departed from 'the Christian faith.'

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus

2009-01-08T22:46:00.003-04:00

I have mentioned Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and the journal he edited, First Things, on numerous occasions. He and it have been inspirational in my consideration of the Catholic Church and ecumenicity.

Sadly, he entered into his rest today, after a brief return bout of cancer. May the Lord give him rest in peace.

His article on death has been posted on the First Things website.

The Denominational Marketplace

2009-01-02T13:08:00.006-04:00

This month's Christianity Today contains a provocative article entitled Jesus Is Not A Brand (Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, p.20, Jan. 2009). In it, the author analyzes the conflation of evangelism with sales marketing. He states:

The de-churched nature of our theology makes evangelism hard to do without seeming salesy, because churchless evangelism unavoidably promotes a consumerist soteriology. When it's just you and Jesus, you (the consumer) "invite him" (the product) "into your heart" (brand adoption) and "get saved" (consumer gratification).

Id. at p.22.

While distinct from the main focus of Wigg-Stevenson's discussion, his painting of religious decisions in the light of the American consumerist mentality provides insight into the denominational marketplace as well. The reactions I have received from fellow Reformed Christians to Catholicism's arguments are understandable when viewed through the consumerist lens: "I would agree with them if it weren't for their adoption of doctrine X," or "I just can't stomach the Catholic culture."

The presumption in these conversations seems to be that I was dissatisfied with my present ecclesial selection, so I returned to the denominational marketplace to see if I could find a better fit. We happen to live in an era where many can be 'choosers.' As choosers, we approach the ecclesial buffet and ponder what is the best fit for our meal tastes. And being used to making choices catered to our particular predilections, we are (no doubt) hesitant to set our tastes to one side when choosing or re-choosing church.

To use another analogy to describe the reactions I get when discussing Catholicism's claims, it is as if my brethren respect the reasons a minivan might meet my needs, but see that such an automobile would clearly fail to meet their own. A van's fundamentals would be inadequate for the task at hand; it would be the wrong choice for them. Many may even think it is the wrong choice for me (or anyone at all); my point is that they are prepared to respect some positive aspects of the minivan, even if they believe its purchase is the wrong choice from the market.

But those who have presumed that my momentum toward the Catholic Church began its course because I desired high-church over low-, unity over adherence to truth, holiness over anti-Pelagianism, or whatever other motive is attributed to my market selection, are badly mistaken.

The fallacy, I believe, is in conceptualizing the sects of Christianity as market choices of varying merit (or worse, as fungible commodities), instead of fragmented pieces of one body, badly in need of organic unity. I am not close to leaving my present denominational market choice because of deficiencies in the choice qua choice. The terms of that analysis are entirely wrong. I encountered truth-claims that conflicted with my denomination's truth-claims, and which my denomination's teachings could not resolve (viz., the post hoc answering of the Canon Question, and the absence of authority to be a schismatic church).

There is no market choice to make. Minivans and station wagons are both types of automobiles. They both get passengers and cargo to a destination. Corn and rice are both types of side dishes that can nourish the body. One of those could be a less desirable choice, a bad choice, or even a wrong choice for one, many or all people. But if the Catholic ecclesiological view is entertained, we could view the buffet as containing one dish of real food, and other dishes that are not food at all (a few options may even be poisonous).

My challenge in explaining the claims of Catholicism and its critiques of the Protestant Reformation is in avoiding the impression that I simply find Catholicism preferable to competing choices such as the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). (A conclusion with which they can simply and readily disagree.) Rather, the discussion must demonstrate that Catholicism claims itself to be without competitor, the one Church to which we are all called to be in communion.

Like all bold assertions, this is a difficult one to make. Discussing the merits of our respective sects, and then explain away our conflicting conclusions as being the result of weighing various qualities in different ways, would make for a much more comfortable conversation. But the language of market choosing misconstrues our burden to seek unity.

Polycrates: Proto-Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox?

2008-12-26T16:21:00.000-04:00

Patiently crawling through Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers, I came upon a fascinating dispute between two ancient bishops of the Church, Polycrates of Ephesus and Victor of Rome (c. 190 A.D.) (Jurgens, Vol. 1, at 82). Particularly interesting are the sources of authority to which these men appealed or upon which they apparently acted.

According to Eusebius (Church History, Book V, Ch. 23), the bishops of Asia [Minor] followed a tradition dating Easter on the 14th day of Nisan, the date of the Jewish celebration of Passover. This occurred regardless of the day of the week on which Passover fell. However, this was "not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world," who instead celebrated Easter on the day "of the Resurrection of our Savior," Sunday (Id.).

St. Victor, the late-second century Bishop of Rome, desired unity in the worldwide Church's observance of Easter (Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope St. Victor I). He called together the Italian bishops in what is the earliest known Roman synod. He also "wrote to the leading bishops of the various districts, urging them to call together the bishops of their sections of the country and to take counsel with them on the question of the Easter festival." (Id.). In the east, he wrote to Bishop Polycrates, leader of bishops of Asia Minor, to induce him to call a council of Asian bishops to address the matter.

Responses from all fronts but Asia affirmed the celebration of Easter on Sunday. Bishop Polycrates rejected Bishop Victor's instruction to change the celebration date (Jurgens, at 83). Eusebius records that Victor excommunicated the Asian bishops in response, and for this strong-arm tactic, received the reproof of several (Church History, Book V, Ch. 24). Jurgens states that information of this excommunication is "held in considerable suspicion," and that the likes of St. Irenaeus, who pleaded for toleration for the sake of unity, may have held Victor to a mere threatening of excommunication (Jurgens at 82).

Little else is known about this early dispute, but much of informative value can be derived. Some have cited the episode as evidence that Polycrates represents a proto-Protestant Bible Christian, and that the Roman Bishop holds no special authority. (Note that for such Christians it inexplicably does not follow that we must celebrate Easter on Nisan 14.) But the events surrounding Polycrates' letter of rejection have also been interpreted as showing the opposite proposition, i.e., Victor's headship over "Catholic Christendom" (Cath. Encyc.: Pope St. Victor I).

So was Polycrates' view of authority proto-Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox? In his letter rejecting Sunday Easter, he clearly states the authorities by which he refuses Victor's instruction. He first cites the Nisan 14 Easter tradition in Asia, held by the likes of the Apostle Philip, the Apostle John, Polycarp, and other departed saints, as well as his own bishop-kinsmen who preceded him. He then states that this traditional observance is "according to the Gospel" and an adherence "to the rule of faith." He notes his seasoned age, his acquaintance with "the brethren throughout the world," and his having "read through the entire Holy Scriptures," and declares that he is not afraid of the threats of men, but must rather obey God. Finally, he relies upon the consensus of the "most numerous" bishops he called together upon Victor's request, who approved of Polycrates' own view (Church History, Book V, Ch. 24).

Polycrates' appeal to having read the Holy Scriptures, and his chiding use of Acts 5:29 ("We must obey God rather than men.") notwithstanding, it seems hard to mistake his view of authority for the Protestant one. He relied upon tradition and other authorities before Scripture, and he lived in an age of an open canon. Polycrates hardly can be claimed to have abided by the rule of sola Scriptura. Whichever of these two adversaries one fancies in this dispute, one is fancying some view of authority other than the Protestant one.

Far more from Polycrates' letter resembles the Orthodox view on authority: a primary reliance on tradition, including an invocation of named Apostles preceding him in his particular church; adherence to the "rule of faith"; the supposed universality of the held belief; the Holy Scriptures; and the agreement of a council of bishops (see Tradition in the Orthodox Church, available here). Indeed, the authority to which Polycrates appealed in rejecting Victor seems distinct from the Catholic view only in his rejection of the universal authority of the Bishop of Rome.

But whatever we say of Polycrates, we must not lose sight of Victor -- calling for councils, ruling on a divisive matter, receiving obedient rebuke (save for Polycrates). And ultimately, although the details are lost to history, one must take note of the fact that Victor's determination carried the day. It is interesting that papal primacy has not been so self-evident as to be a sine qua non of faithful catholicity throughout the ages, especially in the east. Rather, its necessity in the face of heresy or adversity seems to have propped up progressively germinating forms of the doctrine. Whatever the lesson of Polycrates and Victor for today, it is much nearer an analogy to the dispute between the separated Orthodox and Latin Churches than to the dispute between the Latin Church and Protestant groups.

Individual vs. Collective Authority

2008-12-19T09:36:00.003-04:00

In the third part of my Authority series I wrote: "Likewise, when we perform acts as the Christian Church, unless we believe these acts flow from our individual capacities, we need authority from God (because we act as agents of His capacity)." One challenger noted that Catholics recognize baptisms done even by 'infidels'. Another, that Jesus approved of a man driving out demons in His name, even though he had not received apostolic approval to do so (Mark 9:38-41).

St. Nicholas casting out demons from idol shrines

With these comments and separate conversations I had with friends, I encountered no dispute with the basic principle that one must have authority before one can act on another's behalf. The challenges were that my basic principle didn't make sense in practice. How can we say that Christ can't choose to call an individual today to do acts for the good of His Church? E.g., how do we know Calvin wasn't given the authority that we believe God gave to the Apostle Paul?

In light of this, I believe my principle requires a distinction between individual and collective Christian authority. I mentioned this in the third Authority post, but perhaps too much in passing. I said "when we perform acts as the Christian Church, unless we believe these acts flow from our individual capacities, we need authority from God (because we act as agents of His capacity)." It might have been better stated another way: if we presume to act on God's account on behalf of (and over) other Christians, we must identify positive authority to do so.

Certainly when I blog, I do so as an individual Christian. I do not claim to act on account of a group of other Christians (e.g., my local church, or my denomination). I do not believe that any of my assertions are binding on other Christians because I have asserted them. That is why I do not need to identify positive authority to blog about the Faith. If this were the blog of my XYZ Presbyterian (PCA) Church, then I would need positive authority to speak on that body's behalf.

Likewise, when others show hospitality, or raise a child in the faith, or speak in foreign tongues, or the like, they are fulfilling their individual place in the overall body of Christ. Most Christian acts, then, are individual acts of the believer, not requiring this immediate assignment of authority from Christ. When people perform individual acts in the name of Christ, we must let them put their talents to use.

But this is distinct from those who claim to act on behalf of (and over) other believers, or on behalf of the Christian Church. The talents of driving out demons or speaking in tongues are distinct from the talent of 'apostleship' (cf. 1 Cor 12:28), which inherently involves authority over others. When an overseer claims to exercise Christ's authority over the Christian Church, he must be positively authorized to assume this role. It is essential that our Church leaders be able to articulate their positive source of authority to exert power over the body of Christ. This is necessary assurance that the rest of the body is not being led astray -- has not been commandeered by false shepherds.

Sabbatical

2008-09-07T15:31:00.004-03:00

I have decided to take a Sabbatical from this work on Ecumenicity until the end of the current semester. With the possible exception of one post I have in the works, I will add nothing new here until December. May God bless you in your own efforts at seeking Christian unity, and may he bless us all inasmuch as we sincerely desire to be one as Christ is one with the Father. Besides focusing on my final year of law school, and my 'real, live' clinical client, I plan on spending my free time discerning God's will through a Catholic inquirer's class, and contemplating my role as the spiritual head of my family. I want to catechize my household.

Following this short break, I would like to consider a minor reformatting of this blog. I would like to write in a more logical fashion from post to post. That is, I would like my posts to follow a more deliberate course, even if I write less (as less can often be more!). I am also considering accepting thoughtful written submissions from contributors, so if anyone would be interested in letting me post their work on ecumenicity here, start giving that some thought. As always, please feel free to reach me by e-mail (my address is available through my "profile" page).

Peace in Christ,

Tom

Ecumenical Rules of Engagement

2008-08-31T17:42:00.006-03:00

Peter H. Burnett, 1st Governor of California, Lawyer and Catholic Convert

The introduction to the late Peter H. Burnett's The Path which Led a Protestant Lawyer to the Catholic Church contains something that resonates with me, regarding the discernment of the proper constitution of Christ's Church:

To form a clear, accurate, and just conception of a subject is the legitimate end of all fair and honest investigation. And no end can be attained, without the use of proper means, and no correct solution of any question arrived at, but by adopting the proper method. "The human mind is so limited," says Dr. Johnson, " that it cannot take in all the parts of a subject ; so that there may be objections raised against any thing." This being true of our limited capacity, it is only by confining our attention to one particular at a time, and carefully estimating its force, and then passing to others in succession, that we can arrive at any clear conception of a subject. The mechanic who constructs a chain, makes each link separately.

But it is not only absolutely necessary to use the proper means, and pursue the proper method, but we should carefully remove all obstacles that may weaken the legitimate force of any argument that may be presented to the mind. And nothing is more important for this purpose than calm impartiality. All prejudices should be manfully cast aside, and no one should enter upon the investigation of any subject with any preconceived antipathies against it. He had better not investigate at all, for then he will at least save his labor. (emphases added)

I recently said in a discussion at De Regnis Duobus that "I believe that it takes a lot of hard work from all parties to a discussion to agree on even a narrow proposition -- much of that work being dedicated to coming to agreement on language and meaning behind language. This makes ecumenical discussions either a labor of love, or a waste of time." I believe this sentiment is similar to what Mr. Burnett was expressing.

Too often in online ecumenical discussions, I see people respond to a challenging narrow proposition (i.e., a matter at issue) with a broad "shotgun" critique of their interlocutor's overall position. This dodging of a narrow issue with a 'litany of doubt' does not help anyone in the truth-seeking function. Instead, explicitly or implicitly, it "seeks to pick off the intellectually lethargic, before they get sucked in by what the litanizer perceives to be error" (as I said here).

Could you imagine if our courts allowed such tactics? It might look like this: suppose a defendant attempts to vindicate himself by demonstrating that the bloody glove from the crime scene does not fit him very well. Then suppose that the prosecutor replies that the defendant had stolen gloves and socks in his house, that the defendant has poor tastes in clothing, and that his hands are really quite soft, like he hasn't worked much manual labor in life. This reply does not address the matter at issue, but to a lazy, inattentive, or incompetent jury, a valid defense could be lost because of it. Such prejudice to the court's essential truth-finding function would not be permitted.

Because our ecumenical truth-seeking efforts should similarly demand a rigorous process of discussion, I encourage my brothers and sisters to respond only in kind, concluding each narrow issue raised in turn. Also, if you take someone up on one point, have the moral commitment to stay with them on that point until you both are in agreement, or can agree on what it is that causes your disagreement. I intend to hold myself to this standard, and hope that other Christians would also, both on this blog and 'abroad'.

Pick Out the Bad Ones

2008-08-29T20:32:00.004-03:00

My waitress tonight explained that a relative of hers had several boys and wanted a girl before she and her husband "quit". To this end, they had been considering going to a "special doctor" to have the "bad ones" "picked out". My wife later explained to me that the "bad ones" to which the waitress referred were not conceived male Homo sapiens (i.e., boy babies), but Y-chromosome carrying sperm. While my shock subsided somewhat, my concerns of sex selection and IVF abortive harvesting methods remain.

But I wonder, how does a Christian respond to these things, and particularly, to what extent do we get 'preachy'? We live in difficult times, and I believe that I handle these moments in a badly flaccid manner. I console myself with the thought that every time we go out the door with our boys, we are an implicit witness of God's graciousness.

Authority, Authority, Authority, Part III

2008-08-24T23:17:00.005-03:00

Mr. Merrick relieving Capt. Queeg, The Caine Mutiny (1954)

In my previous two posts, here and here, I discussed two difficulties I have with the confessional Reformed view of sola Scriptura: that it inherently requires subjective interpretation of Scripture, and that it is uses post hoc rationalizations in defense of its tenets about the Bible. In this post I will address a third problem, more to the root of the Reformation. While I put it third, I believe the thoughts in this post have been the most influential to me as I have reflected on the Protest, on Catholicism and on Orthodoxy.

3) Reformational ecclesial acts require authority from God, the "Principle".

Even if there is a principled distinction between the Biblicist and the confessional Reformed positions, and even if the reformational tenets about the Bible do not require post hoc rationalizations, the confessional Reformed system still seems deficient for want of proper authority. In other words, I am not certain that the confessional Reformed system has God’s authority to be at all.

I cannot overstate how fundamental to a discussion of the Reformation is our understanding of Authority. Caveat: I have been schooled by civilian seafarers, by military men, and most recently by professors of law, all of whom heavily stress matters of authority. Therefore, the possibility does not escape me that I might have an inflated view of authority in any system -- I pray that I remain open to correction and truth. However, I do believe that the principles of authority are universally true; because we see them reflected in places like the (secular) law does not mean that they derive from the (secular) law.

Black's Law Dictionary defines authority as "The right or permission to act legally on another's behalf...; the power delegated by a principal to an agent". At law, then, when I act on another’s account, I must have authority in order for that action to be valid. This is the purpose of the “power of attorney”; it is a legal document which authorizes another to act on one’s own account. If someone seeks to act in my name by writing a check from my bank account, but they do not have my authority, their conduct is invalid. If they do have my authority, then I have to honor the check they wrote, even if I disagree with their decision to write it. In the law’s eyes, it is as if I wrote the check myself.

Likewise, when we perform acts as the Christian Church, unless we believe these acts flow from our individual capacities, we need authority from God (because we act as agents of His capacity). Could anyone act in God’s name without authority? Could someone baptize their children in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in the bathtub one quiet afternoon because they want to do so? I believe that would be analogous to someone writing a check on my account without my proper authority, without a power of attorney.

The Protestant, then, must maintain that his acts are authorized by God based on the authority to act that God granted through the Bible itself. He must maintain that Luther and his followers were authorized to reject the authorities of their time, and to establish their own authorities, based on the Bible’s authority (for the sake of the Gospel).

But does the Bible authorize us to overthrow our authorities (which we know are all established by God, be they good or bad (Rom. 13:1)) and set up our own authorities? It seems, rather, that we are to submit to authorities (Rom. 13:1-5, Titus 3:1), and to pray for their righteousness (1 Tim. 2:1-3). God the Son did not usurp the Jewish authorities of His earthly time on account of their being in doctrinal or practical error, but He articulated the authority He had been given to teach the New Covenant ("All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me..." (Matt. 28:18b)). He delegates or transmits that authority to his Apostles ("Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (id., v. 19-20b; cf. 2 Cor. 10:7-8, 13:10, 1 Thes. 4:1-2)).

This is a befuddling problem for us in reformational churches. The Apostles were given authority for acts such as conducting baptisms immediately by Christ (who Himself said He had authority from the Father). What happened to that authority? We certainly can agree that it did not die with the Apostles, or else there would be no authorized baptisms after the first century, upon John's death. Therefore, either the authority was given to all, or to a finite group of Christians. But it is obvious that it was not given to all, because I am not authorized to baptize anyone (see WCOF ch. XXVII, sec. 4)).

So the Apostles must have passed on their own delegated authority from Christ to a finite group of individuals within the early Christian community. Who were they? I tend to think Timothy was one, for Paul tells us that Timothy received the "gift of God" through Paul's laying on of hands (2 Tim. 1:6). Titus was, as well, who had “all authority” to speak, exhort, and reprove (Titus 2:15). So we know there was some delegation or transmission of authority from the Apostles on.

Clement was one also, and he gave an interesting discussion of authority matching what I have said above:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42).

The Clementine (and Catholic) derivative authority scheme for the Church thus looks like this: God > His Son > the Eleven (Apostles) > those they appointed subsequently. Apart from this, no act is properly authorized, be it discipling the nations, baptizing, etc. But the Reformational derivative authority scheme for the Church is like this: God > His Son > the Eleven > those they appointed until they fell into some degree of apostasy, and then to an educated disciple approved by the faithful. Some problems I can see with that scheme are: 1) that it requires a reliable body to articulate when the appointees of the Apostles (who had real authority from Heaven) fell into the requisite degree of apostasy; 2) that its rule allowing for self-assumption of authority is not found anywhere in Scripture, but arguably the opposite rule is (see supra); 3) that it places the authority to make new authorities in the subjective hands of the faithful, and 4) that it is indistinguishable in structural form from the various Christological, Trinitarian, and other heresies of the early Church.

I mean no disrespect or challenge to my elders (teaching or ruling) with this post, but mean the inquiry in a more academic manner. I believe my pastor is devoted to God, and that God uses him for His glory. But I must ask these questions because my conscience compels me to be assured that I am properly submitted to the proper authorities of His Church.

Authority, Authority, Authority, Part II

2008-08-21T22:20:00.010-03:00

2) The sola Scriptura position appears to have been reached by post hoc rationalization.

In my previous post, I discussed the difficulty I have in articulating a principled distinction between the Biblicist position and the confessional Reformed position vis-à-vis subjective interpretations of scripture. In this post I will consider another intellectual difficulty I face in remaining in the confessional Reformed camp.

Even if there is a principled distinction between the Biblicist and the confessional Reformed methods of interpreting Scripture, the latter position still seems to require post hoc rationalization to conclude that all revealed truth has been inscripturated into 66 books in the Bible.

Notice the two integral claims of the confessional sola Scriptura position, that a) all revealed truth has been inscripturated, and b) our confessions have the proper listing of books (i.e., canon). These are the sine quibus non of the Reformation -- that is, without these two claims being true, the Reformers would be mere dissidents, with no unifying claim to the possession of truth or authority. If these two truth-claims are to be the foundation of the believer's authority structure, binding his conscience above all else, they must be demonstrable and supportable. If they cannot be demonstrated, or are unsupported, then the entire system fails for want of authority to bind the conscience.

Complete Inscripturation.

To maintain the reformational position, the confessional Reformed must be able to articulate that God's revelations of absolute truth have been completed (i.e., have ceased), have been recorded in writing, and are to be reliably found no where else but the Bible. I have previously described why I see circularity in this position. Briefly stated, the critique with which I wrestle goes something like this: only Scripture contains revealed truth, but the claim that 'revealed truth is only in Scripture' is itself not in Scripture, so that claim is not a revealed one. The confessional Reformed may respond that this is a problem only for the Biblicist view. They may say (though I disagree that this is the Westminster Confession-al position) that their claim is actually that the early Church was reliable to determine truth, and it determined that only what is in the Bible is revealed truth, so that claim is reliable.

However, the early Church was far from clear on this matter of revealed truth having been completely inscripturated (see my reply to Keith Mathison's claim about this seminal matter here). Scripture itself seems to point in another direction (e.g., 2 Thes. 2:15, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings [traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."). The irony, then, is that complete inscripturation is the opposite conclusion of what one might reach from a plain reading of Scripture.

Canon.

The Canon Question seems like a deeper example of the problem of necessary extra-biblical truth claims in the sola Scriptura paradigm. Obviously, the 66-book canon is not revealed within a book of the Bible, so one must look to an external, or extrabiblical source of truth to determine which books contain revealed Truth.

When I first heard the Catholic critique of sola Scriptura, I was intrigued by the claim that without a visible Church possessed of divinely-granted authority, the canon could not reliably be defined. My intrigue turned to dismay when I could not get a uniform answer from Reformed pastors and scholars as to why we have the 66 books we have. I was not dismayed that there were no answers, but rather that there were a variety of theories explaining why the 66-book canon is right. That rationales have been derived from a common conclusion (i.e., our particular 66 books) evidences post hoc rationalization.

Here are various rationalizations of the common conclusion with which I am familiar:

Our 66 books are in the Bible because the inward work of the Holy Spirit bears witness in “our” hearts (WCOF).

Our O.T. books are those which were accepted by the Jews in Hebrew in the early Church era.

Apostolic authorship determines N.T. canonicity.

Our N.T. books are those which received widespread acceptance by the early church, which was divinely reliable in its conclusions until the 4th century.

Under the Lutheran variant of #4, we have a homolegoumena (universally accepted books) for establishing dogma , and an antilegoumena (disputed books, e.g., Jude or Revelation) to corroborate disputed dogmatic claims.

I believe that each of these variants has problems and inconsistencies (i.e., that each one might not reach the same 66-book conclusion under its own terms if strictly applied). However, the larger point to make here is that the use of a plurality of rationales (justifications) evidences that a bedrock reformational truth-claim (that our 66 books contain revealed truth and none others) -- the only truth-claim able to bind the Protestant's conscience -- is reached through post hoc rationalizations. Why is it that we can debate infant baptism under the terms of sola Scriptura, but not debate whether Jude belongs in the Scripture's corpus? Why is the meaning of communion open for discussion, but not the placement of Ecclesiastes in Holy Writ? What is the principled distinction between a debate over the truth of a doctrinal matter, and a debate over the truth of the listing of canon?

If the rationale that informs us that we have 66 books containing the complete inscripturation of God's revelations cannot bind our consciences (because there isn't one rationale at all), then neither can the conclusion. And if the conclusion can't bind our consciences, then the matter of canonicity seems like Protestant fair game for debate.

(To be continued...)

Authority, Authority, Authority

2008-08-16T08:28:00.011-03:00

Zrim and I recently interacted in some posts at De Regnis Duobus. We got to discussing authority and the church, at which point he asked about my wrestling with a particular Protestant via media, "yours is a more specific quest to find the via media between T0 and T2/3? Is it that T1 is not good enough or that you are trying to unpack T1 in order to understand it?" I replied in part, but would like to do so more fully here.

The "T0", "T1", and "T2/3" scheme to which Zrim refers is that presented by Keith Mathison in his The Shape of Sola Scriptura (I have previously discussed that book in a series here, here, here, and here). Stated simply, "Tradition Zero" is shorthand for the Biblicist position on revelation and authority, and "Tradition Two" is shorthand for Catholic and Orthodox positions allowing for two repositories ("sources") of revelation, one the Scriptures, and one the Church's Tradition (T3 is a later variant of T2). "Tradition One" is the magisterial Reformed position that strikes the proper middle way (via media), the argument goes, on authority and revelation.

I have had (now years) of ongoing difficulty defending that there is this logical middle way between individualism and authoritarianism in church structure. The following are my thoughts:

1) I find it difficult to articulate a principled distinction between the confessional (magisterial) Reformed position and the Biblicist position.

I previously described the Biblicist position as a belief that all revelation is contained within the Bible, and that there is no authority apart from the good Book itself. This is a subjective system that says "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible" (which, as I have previously noted, is itself a creed).

While it has several variations, I will address the confessional (magisterial) Reformed position as articulated by Mathison, as I believe it is a fair archetype. This position is a belief that "Scripture was the sole source of revelation; that it was the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it was to be interpreted in and by the Church; and that it was to be interpreted according to the regula fidei [(rule of faith)]" (Mathison at 256).

I think the claimed distinction, which is necessary to avoid the criticism of individualism, is this: the Biblicist reads his Bible subjectively and individualistically, so making up his own interpretation as he goes, whereas the confessional Reformed reads the Bible in the light of Reformed teaching, giving himself over to its tenets. I will examine this distinction in practice and in theory.

In practice, this seems like a fair distinction. The Reformed man teaching his family the Gospel will do so generally in accordance with the Reformed faith whereas the Biblicist will feel at liberty to handle the texts of Scripture as seems fitting to him (subjectively). However, my experience with "Biblicists" has been that they do actually submit themselves to a tradition (something objective) when handling the Bible, often the Baptist free-church position. This tradition has a feel to it that is often characteristic of "unaffiliated" Christian charitable and missionary organizations. When one is with these Christians, there is a certain presumptive way to discuss the faith and to handle the Scriptures. They may have a lesser quantum of deference to objective materials (like formal confesssions or the opinions of venerable scholars), but they still do not pick up their Bible with a traditionless tabula rasa. They are not the proverbial man isolated on a tropical island, never having seen a Bible until one washes up on the beach. Their objective standard is simply less articulated, historical and rigorous.

And on the other side of this 'in practice' coin, I observe a lack of Reformed-minded people reading their Scriptura with much deference to the objective distinctives of the Reformed faith. Individualism seems the norm in American Reformed churches. I know of one (non-PCA) pastor teaching on "the five points of Calvinism" receiving almost no interest from the congregation. I remember visiting one PCA church where I was asked by a regular, "what's the PCA?" I was once a member of another that had baptistic (Baptist?) elders. I doubt those of the larger PCUSA are more commonly found reading their Bibles "with the Church" under a confessional Reformed light. The Tradition One-er may be partly in the imagination. At any rate, while I am comfortable granting that the confessional Reformed are less (or even much less) subjective in their handling of the Bible, this is not a distinction of principle, so much as one of degree. And the degree may not be so large.

In theory, the distinction between the two camps is harder for me to see. Today's Reformed subscriber may read his Bible with deference to an objective system (the Reformed confessions and scholarly teachings), but that system lacks an objective lineage. Just because many today give deference to opinions of the past does not mean those opinions were not reached individualistically. (A claim of a Holy gift of truth given to historical consensus or to present majority consensus would make for a conversation worth holding.) Using Mathison's verbiage, I would say the Reformed version of the regula fidei, by which Scripture is to be interpreted, is not an originally objective criterion, but an originally subjective one, having been made the subject of opinions five centuries ago. It is thus an objective system subjectively reached. If that is so, while we are many generations removed from the problem, we are no different in principle from the hypothetical Biblicist. I should note that something being "subjective" does not make it inherently bad, just as something that is "objective" is not inherently good. But for comparison purposes, if one is characterized by subjectivism (so individualism), so is the other, at least at its roots.

Take an example: if the Jimmy Stewart Fan Club only listened to music that Mr. Stewart is known to have admired, we would have an objective system subjectively reached. Anyone picking tunes for a fan club meeting knows what tunes are approved for listening (so objective), but the tunes that Mr. Stewart liked were textbook subjective matters of his taste. The tunes wouldn't be inherently good, only inherently tunes Jimmy Stewart liked. Likewise, while I may subscribe to a clearly articulated system, and may allow that system to inform my reading of Scripture, someone at some point in history had to have created such a system from their subjective (individualistic) reading of Scripture (e.g., "Calvinism" and "Lutheranism"). However, there's a big "or" that could go here: or the confessional Reformed has to claim that their reading of the Bible, their objective system, is the true and original (objective) regula fidei from Christ that had been lost from about the year 400 until 1520 or so. I believe that the Reformed system contains at least some novelty by Calvin and his peers (e.g., Calvin thought that he was taking Augustine's views on Predestination to their natural conclusions), so it does not have objectively evidenced objective lineage throughout the history of Christianity -- it contains at least some subjective conclusions.

I see another point of commonality between the confessional Reformed position and the Biblicist position in their theories. This commonality is that the individual believer is ultimately (not penultimately) bound to his conscience's interpretation of Scripture. So his deference to an objective system reaches its limit when the reader's conscience conflicts. To put it another way, the confessional Reformed system is objective until its subjective limit (or trump, or governor, etc.) has been reached. In that case, subjectivism necessarily prevails (though one could go a lifetime without this happening, of course). If the subjective conscience of the believer does not hold a trump over the Reformed articulation of the regula fidei, one has to contend with one's justification for the Reformation itself. That is because the Reformation was built on the sentiment ascribed to Luther at the Diet of Worms, "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes or councils, for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God." Clearly conscience, the conscience of each individual, holds the trump.

Those are my thoughts on the lack of principled distinctions. The Biblicist does not read the Bible without his own "Tradition", the confessional Reformed often reads his Bible without deference to his own "Tradition", these traditions are not without subjective, individual interpretations of Scripture at their origins (unless you grant that the Reformed regula fidei is what was delivered by Christ), and in either case, the individual's conscience holds the ultimate trump over allegedly objective doctrines which demand deference. For these reasons, the confessional Reformed position seems to lack a principled distinction from the Biblicist 'Tradition Zero' position.

(To be continued...)

Liturgical Order

2008-08-14T10:02:00.008-03:00

I've been on-again-off-again picking away at Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers. I was riveted last night while reading the First Apology of St. Justin the Martyr, penned some time between 148 and 155 A.D. To put this in chronological perspective, Justin was born as little as four years after the Book of Revelation was written (but no longer than within one generation). I was struck in particular by Justin's account of Christian worship (which Tim Troutman noted a while back is the earliest record of the order of a Christian service). [Note: I realize I'm not covering new ground with this post, but still want to make note of it.]

He describes a Christian baptism before beginning his discussion of the liturgical order of his day. "We, however, after thus washing the one who has been convinced and signified his assent, lead him to those who are called brethren, where they are assembled. They then earnestly offer common prayers for themselves and the one who has been illuminated and all others everywhere, that we may be made worthy, having learned the truth, to be found in deed good citizens and keepers of what is commanded, so that we may be saved with eternal salvation. On finishing the prayers we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and mixed wine are brought to the president of the brethren and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers thanksgiving at some length that we have been deemed worthy to receive these things from him. When he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, the whole congregation present, saying, "Amen." "Amen" in the Hebrew language means, "So be it." When the president has given thanks and the whole congregation has assented, those whom we call deacons give to each of those present a portion of the consecrated bread and wine and water, and they take it to the absent."

He then describes the Eucharist, how it is only for members of the believing community who have been baptized, and how "the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by [Christ], and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished [i.e., our assimilation of food into our being], is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus."

He then continues, with some repetition, "And on the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites [us] to the imitation of these noble things. Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. And, as said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president similarly sends up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability, and the congregation assents, saying the Amen; the distribution, and reception of the consecrated [elements] by each one, takes place and they are sent to the absent by the deacons."

I have summarized the two overlapping accounts of the liturgical order of Christian worship:

1) Prayers for perseverance unto salvation;
2) Greeting with a kiss;
3) Bread and Cup of Water and Wine taken to the "president";
4) President offers praise and thanksgiving for these things;
5) Congregation assents with an "Amen"; and
6) Deacons distribute elements (and take some away to those absent).

1) Memoirs of Apostles [Gospels] and Prophets read;
2) President delivers discourse on what is read;
3) All stand and offer prayers;
4) Elements of bread and cup of water and wine brought forward;
5) President offers thanksgiving and prayers for these things;
6) Congregation assents with an "Amen"; and
7) Deacons distribute elements (and take some away to those absent).

Without speculating about the precise order of the first few things in each list, we can see the general pattern of a) Scripture reading, b) Homily, c) Prayers, d) Eucharistic elements presented, e) elements consecrated, f) elements distributed. This seems remarkably close to the Mass, as I recall it, and less similar to anything I experience on any given Sunday.

But St. Justin the Martyr is not without problems. Jurgens notes some questionable Christological language (which he is willing to excuse on account of the primitive state of Christological doctrines at that time). Also, I do not believe I could distinguish Justin's statements on works and righteousness from at least semi-Pelagianism (but the same excuse would be availing). It is also interesting how central the "Amen" of the congregations assent seemed to be for the consecration. I do not know if that survived in some form in the mass.

If I Were a 2nd Century Christian

2008-08-12T11:36:00.003-03:00

Issue. I think this might be a helpful intellectual exercise: where would I have looked to know what to believe about the faith and the Gospel if I were alive as a Christian in the 2nd century of the Church? [My comments are a rephrasing of those I made recently here.]

Rule. The properly ordained bishops taught the true faith and the Gospel in the 2nd century. Irenaeus tells us, "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics [the Gnostics] rave about" (Against Heresies, 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

Analysis. Since properly ordained bishops held the truth, I would have believed about the faith and the Gospel what my local bishop taught me.

While the successor-bishops taught the true Christian faith, they did not do so infallibly (indeed, even the Apostle Peter could err, as Paul made plain in Galatians 2:11 ff. ("When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.")). If I had doubts about my bishop's teachings, I would assure myself that all proper authorities are given by God (cf. Matt. 10:1, 2 Cor. 10:8, 13:10, 1 Thes. 4:2, Titus 2:15), and that we are to submit to our proper spiritual authorities (as Paul tells us in Heb. 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."). Therefore, if in fact my bishop were in doctrinal or practical error, I would have remained submitted to him as my proper authority (trusting that any culpability for such error would rest with him and not me). I would trust that his fellow bishops, speaking for the Church, would eventually call him to correction.

What would my alternate be?
- Declare myself a bishop? I would lack the authority to do that, if the proper authority is one ordained by a successor-bishop of the Apostles.
- Declare myself without a bishop, until my bishop came around to what I understood to be the truth? First, this would not be true submission, but conditional submission ('I submit under my terms'). Second, by what standard would I determine that I would again 'submit' to him? Scripture (as it existed at that point)? Even the heretics argued from Scripture (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:3:6, "And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected.").

Conclusion. In the 2nd century, I would have believed that our God loves us enough to give us shepherds on earth, easily identifiable, that we can follow with trust and confidence. I would have followed the local bishop's explication of the Gospel, and submitted myself to his God-given authority.

Exclusion and Private Revelation

2008-08-10T17:00:00.005-03:00

Courts exist as truth-finding bodies. One of the primary tools for determining the truth is to carefully control the pieces of information, or evidence, that are presented to the "finder of fact" for consideration. Is the fact-finder allowed to know that the defendant committed the same crime of which he is accused years before? That the witness has a history of lying? Often evidence will be excluded because its 'probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect'. That is, it makes for a greater hindrance in the truth-seeking process than it is a help. If evidence that should have been excluded is admitted, you have a mistrial on your hands, and need a new, untainted fact-finder.

Stuck in this mindset as I am, I often consider parallels or analogies between what is done at law, and what is done by the Christian Church.

The Catholic Church asserts that it (or she) does not consider private revelation in reaching its general doctrines. Its Catechism says that private revelations, even if recognized by the Church "do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith" (Para. 67). While general (public) revelation "ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all," the Church imposes no obligation on the faithful to believe private revelations (Catholic Encyclopedia, Private Revelations).

The skeptic in me wonders whether this is so, or if the Catholic Church has (rather) imposed private revelations on the faithful via the back door, as influential evidence in the formation of a general doctrine or dogma. (I admit I am being a skeptic, which entails my skepticism of the Catholic claim that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from error -- Lord willing, I will overcome my skepticism soon.)

In writing this post, I tried to give a few examples that had come to mind related to the more famous Marian apparitions and the two most recently proclaimed Marian dogmas. In both instances, I had my factual chronology mistaken -- the private revelations I had in mind occurred just after the proclamations were given by the Church. I take that as a sign against my premise of the influence of private revelation, but would appreciate any contributions noting where private-revelation-induced popular support for a dogma possibly led to a dogmatic formulation. Toward the contrary, I welcome any contributions noting how my premise is false.

I believe what drives my inquiry here is my difficulty with the claim that Catholics can disbelieve any particular private revelation, in light of the widespread and official use of things like the image of Mary from Guadalupe. It seems these private events have been subsumed into the psyche of the Catholic faithful. I suppose psyche does not equal regula fidei...

De Regnis Duobos

2008-08-06T09:40:00.003-03:00

I recommend the blog of PCA pastor Jason J. Stellman, De Regnis Duobos: Concerning the Two Kingdoms. My first few encounters there have led me to believe that Pastor Stellman is charitable and like-minded in matters of ecuminicity. We would be a stronger Body of Christ if we could have sincere and charitable discussions about the matters that divide more often (me thinks)!

He has been taking up some themes that are common on this blog, like the canonicity of Scripture, and the authority of creeds, and he promises to take up others soon, like the visisble/invisible church. God speed!

Protestant Conversions Critique: Church Envy

2008-08-05T09:44:00.006-03:00

[This will conclude my previous two posts, here and here, discussing Mr. David Hagopian's article analyzing Protestant conversions to Catholicism.] Mr. Hagopian wraps up his analysis of why Protestants convert by pointing out instances from conversion stories where converts appear to have been taken in by glimmer over theology.

Church Envy. Under his heading "Liturgical Longings", Mr. Hagopian describes the converts' "hysteria" over what they perceive to be beauty (even sublimity) in the mass. A liturgy-is-beautiful claim fails to be a persuasive ground for conversion in several ways.

First, for many people taken in by this liturgical luster, "it is the kind of worship with which they have grown up." But "just because we are accustomed to something, just because we have a fondness for something, or just because we may long for the good ol' days, doesn't mean that what we are accustomed to, fond of, or long for is necessarily right." I completely agree, but this was not the claim of the converts (that they were seeking to return to the familiar). Rather, the claim was that the liturgy and the mass have inherent beauty, and as Mr. Hagopian does not deny this here, I presume the point remains unmoved.

Second, he observes, Neocatholics claim to be drawn to the liturgy because "the liturgy, for the most part, is the same no matter which Catholic church a parishioner attends." But "[s]ameness, however, is no guarantor of propriety. After all, something can be the same and yet be erroneous...". I completely agree, but I doubt that any converts were arguing that the liturgy is true because it is the same everywhere. My observation has been that converts claim, rather, that the Catholic Church's liturgical practices are beautiful in part because they are consistent across the Church. That there is a laudable quality to Christians worshipping in unity remains unmoved.

One argument briefly noted, and a decent one, is that love of liturgy is no reason for conversion, because other churches have liturgy too (he noted the Orthodox, Episcopals and Lutherans). I wonder though how Mr. Hagopian feels about those other bodies, or why he would be more opposed to a brother converting to Catholicism over Orthodoxy (or Episcopalianism!).

Under the heading "All That Glimmers", Mr. Hagopian describes how several converts were taken in by the physical beauty of Catholic church buildings (columns, stained glass, candlelight and all). He notes a common claim of metaphysical experiences along the road to conversion. But these experiences "do not prove that Catholicism is true". Also, they do not prove Protestantism false, as the liturgical Protestant denominations have qualities of physical beauty as well.

This argument confuses the burdens of proof. Indeed the claimed beauty of Catholic services or buildings does not prove it to be true, but I have never heard any convert claim that is was such a proof. I have heard them say that this beauty drew them in enough to consider the Catholic theological claims of truth. Those claims are what should be weighed when deciding whether Catholicism is true or false. When tracing the Church from the time of Christ and the Apostles to the present, the burden is on the believer to prove the point at which Catholicism became false, and not the opposite. If one must prove Catholicism remained true at each moment in history, then one is facing a perpetual presumption that it is false. Such a standard both leads to fallacy and is uncharitable.

Mr. Hagopian considers other reasons for conversion, but I will stop here to mitigate the risk of going on for too long. I believe we can learn from his discussion of conversions (which is implicitly a portion of a larger discussion on ecumenicity) that default positions and burdens of proof can wreak havoc on the goal of unity. It is so easy to lay waste to an opponent by setting a high bar of proof against his position, and asserting that he has not met it (in our own judgment). I believe that this does not meet the charitable standard of fraternal conduct by which we are bound to treat one another in the Body of Christ. I see this failure on all fronts, and pray that I could avoid this myself in the future (for I have certainly failed in the past).

Protestant Conversions Critique: Sola Scriptura

2008-07-17T20:28:00.006-03:00

[This continues a previous post.] Mr. Hagopian continues his efforts at helping "Protestants to come to grips with the reasons why [ ] Neocatholics have set their compasses toward Rome" (internal citations omitted), by turning to the relation of tradition to Scripture.

Sola scriptura. Mr. Hagopian's says that "Neocatholics not only appeal to apostolic succession and to the antiquity of the Roman Catholic Church; they also claim that Scripture was never intended to be the believer's sole guide for all of faith and practice"; they claim they need Scripture and tradition. Christ left a church, not a book, their argument goes, and the very act of defining a canon "requires and presupposes an infallible church."

While the Canon Question shook me from my Sola Scriptura upbringing more than any other, Hagopian dismisses it in two sentences which each repeat the same thought: "The church didn't create Scripture; it simply recognized" its divine character. The Neocatholics are guilty of failing to distinguish between recognition of Holy Writ and its creation.

Frustratingly, he offers no explanation of why this distinction is relevant. It is not evident why an infallible church, which would be required to produce infallible Writ, would not also be required to produce an infallible identification of Holy Writ. Would Mr. Hagopian agree with Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul's conclusion that the Bible is a "fallible collection of infallible books"? Would he agree with Protestant Keith Mathison's view that the church was authoritative to define canon, but only until the 4th century (see The Shape of Sola Scriptura)? In terms of needing an infallible authority, I think writing Scripture and recognizing it is a 'distinction without a difference.' I discussed various Protestant views on the Canon Question here.

Having summarily dismissed that the Church was needed to identify canon infallibly, he turns to the need for the church as an interpretive authority. A Neocatholic analogy here, that the church is needed to interpret something as complex as the Bible because even our simple Constitution needs a Supreme Court to interpret it, is also summarily dismissed. The Supreme Court has "arrogated" (assumed without justification) powers to itself, and become a judicial tyrant. He then implies that the Catholic Church has done the some, and become an ecclesial tyrant. Besides his curt dismissal of one analogy, he does not take up the Neocatholic belief that the Church is somehow needed to interpret Scripture. This is unfortunate. What is one to do when one's interpretation of a biblical text, say on a matter like divorce, does not line up with that of his church? Change churches? Sit unhappily in dissent?

Finally, he takes up the charge of the Neocatholic that "the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads necessarily to an "incipient subjectivism"" (citation omitted) because each man becomes his own individual interpretive authority. This position "is riddled with error", I am reassured, because it relies on the "fallacious assumption that a plurality of interpretations necessarily entails subjectivism." The "many interpretations competing in the Protestant marketplace of ideas" are not all false. Indeed, "[t]hey can't all be false, since we know that Christianity is true."

Mr. Hagopian is certainly right that some individual Protestants' interpretations of Scripture are objectively true, even if subjectively derived. I believe his implication is that a group of people (in this democracy of ideas) will be able to corporately identify an objective truth. But this is of little moral comfort for the millions of Protestants whose individual interpretations of Scripture lead them, say, to use contraception or have themselves sterilized. Does the open marketplace of ideas excuse their morally erroneous conclusions? (Note: I am assuming ex arguendo that contraception is objectively immoral.)

He next denies that there is objectivity in Tradition. Rather, he says, Catholicism is at best a system of replacing the individual's subjective views with the subjective views of one man, the Pope, or perhaps a few men, the Magisterium. This, of course, presupposes that the Catholic claims of receiving infallible direction and guidance from the Holy Spirit are false. With the likes of John 14:26 in mind ("But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you"), I wonder if this is a completely fair denial to make.

Mr. Hagopian's discussion on Sola Scriptura continues, but I will wrap it up by noting that without his admitting the possibility that the Holy Spirit could preserve a visible, actual Church, the conversation is a bust. He rejects the Sacred Tradition of Catholicism because it invariably tends to displace Scripture. By displacing Scripture with Tradition, the Neocatholics have accepted that Scripture is not necessary. But this position falls apart if one accepts that the Holy Spirit may work within a Church in ways other than through Scripture alone, if one accepts that Christ's authority could have passed to a visible, actual Church, and not to certain preserved writings alone.

This serves as yet another reminder to me of how vital it is that ecumenical discussions burrow down into the foundational layers of dispute. To bash our opponent-brothers over our surface differences may be to aggravate our divisions, and further offend the will of Christ expressed in John 17: "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Conversion Ratios

2008-07-17T18:53:00.004-03:00

Awhile back I inquired whether there were any reliable statistics of Christian conversions between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism. This was prompted by my wondering if there were many Protestants who had made the move, or instead just a few isolated but well publicized such moves.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things, in his Public Square section of the August/September 2008 edition, shares some news of a possible answer (here, subscription required):

"That “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey” issued by the Pew Research Center last February continues to be sliced and diced by various analysts [Thos.: I recently discussed some of its information here], including Robert Benne, who writes in The Cresset, a magazine published by Valparaiso University. “Continuing the list of surprises about Catholicism,” Benne writes, “ten percent of all Protestants are former Catholics but eight percent of Catholics are former Protestants. That eight percent represents a considerable number, around five million. Converts to Catholicism usually are far more intense about their faith than cradle Catholics, so I suspect that this eight percent injects new vigor into the Church.” He also notes that a striking number of Catholic converts are prominent intellectuals. A young man who is active in Catholic ministries at an Ivy League university speaks warmly of their cooperation with evangelical ministries such as Campus Crusade for Christ. Ecumenical cordiality, however, does not preclude an element of evangelistic rivalry. “The big difference,” he says, “is that they aim at the weakest Catholics while we aim at the strongest evangelicals.” The claim is that evangelicals who are more theologically versed and religiously committed are more open to Catholicism, while Catholics who become evangelicals were, for whatever reason, alienated from Christianity. Put differently, religiously serious evangelicals are more likely to become Catholic, while religiously lapsed Catholics are more likely to become evangelicals" (emphasis added).

I, for one, was surprised that the "delta" between conversions to X and conversions to Y was only 2%. It would be interesting to compare fertility rates of these two pools of Christians (and perhaps other factors that a statistically savvy person could hammer out) to make some forecasts if present patterns were to continue. I mean, it is not a given that a +2% in favor of Protestants = long term Protestant growth. I'd still like to know the Orthodox rates, though they are a much smaller pool for statistical purposes.

Protestant Conversions Critique: Tradition

2008-07-15T20:40:00.004-03:00

Pardon my being nearly two decades late, but a loved one recently brought to my attention an article by David Hagopian, Esq., entitled Romeward Bound: Evaluating Why Protestants Convert to Catholicism. It was originally published in an OPC church's magazine Antithesis, and is available here (at 11), and here. I would like to comment on this article; as near as I can Google, no one else has.

Mr. Hagopian analyzes, and asserts the fallacy of, a plethora of conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism. His goal is to help "Protestants to come to grips with the reasons why these Neocatholics [(his term)] have set their compasses toward Rome, because only then will Protestants be able to see some of the shortcomings of their espoused faith..." (internal citations omitted).

Tradition. Hagopian cites tradition as that which Neocatholics embrace "above all else". They think Catholicism is far "richer" because of its unique claims to living tradition and the teaching authority of the Apostles' successors.

He attempts to show the fallacy of this reason for conversion by first taking up the Catholic claim that the Church was founded on Peter, the rock. While conceding that "some Protestants" handle Matthew 16 ("for thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church") poorly, he addresses the Neocatholic's "unconvincing", question-begging interpretation of this passage. Even if Peter is the "rock" to which Christ referred, "Neocatholics simply assume that Christ thereby gave Peter papal authority" (emphasis in original). They "also assume that this passage grants a right of succession". Finally, "[u]ntil and unless Neocatholics can prove that Christ, in Matthew 16, specifically granted Peter papal authority and that Christ thereby intended to establish an unbroken chain of apostolic succession from Peter onward (both of which are read into the text), they have not met the exegetical burden that is incumbent upon them."

The last sentence speaks of an essential matter that I was surprised to see a lawyer presuppose. His argument is this: Catholics assume that Matthew 16 gave to Peter the papacy, and that this involved a right of succession, but since they cannot prove these assumptions, their position is false. His surprising presupposition is that the "burden" here is "incumbent" upon Catholics. But, I wonder, why would the onus probandi be on Catholics in their interpretation? If the Church Fathers refer to Peter as having some form of primacy over all the Bishops, and if the Church has maintained throughout the centuries that the Petrine See involved a type of succession, it seems instead that the onus is "incumbent" upon the party proferring an alternative understanding of Christ's designation of Peter as "rock" (if one insists on having burdens of proof at all). Perhaps Mr. Hagopian disagrees with this view of history, but in that case he would do well to address the matter, instead of presupposing that Neocatholics bear any burden in interpreting Matthew 16. Also, his argument presupposes that Catholics, or at least Neocatholics, look to prove their positions from Scripture alone.

He does address history enough to dispute Catholicism's claims to be the Church dating back to "antiquity". In a few sentences he seeks to debunk this claim. He tells us that, "along with dispensationalism, Catholicism simply assumes that the church sprang up in the first century A.D.", but that the proper "truly covenantal view" sees that the Church did not begin on Easter, but when God declared a covenant people for Himself (i.e., the Jews). "Thus", to be connected with antiquity, one should be Reformed Protestant.

I believe this is a non sequitur: if one believes that one should be affiliated with the church where it has ties to antiquity, since antiquity began with the Jews of the Old Covenant, one should be Reformed Protestant. How is Reformed Protestantism more affiliated with covenantal Jewish antiquity than, say, Orthodox Judaism? I believe Mr. Hagopian's position is that since the Reformed recognize the spiritual nature of the church as the new covenantal People of God, they therefore share in that nature. And since they share in it, they are the proper tie to "antiquity". But I believe Catholics also recognize that God has maintained a Covenant People from the Old Covenant onward (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1093). Therefore, they would seem to have a claim to "antiquity" either under the Neocatholics' purported view (back to the first Easter) or Mr. Hagopian's view (back to the Covenant with Abraham).

Also, Mr. Hagopian did not discuss how a 3rd or 10th or 14th century Christian would feel about this proposition on antiquity. I believe Christians of those eras would have held as today's Neocatholic does, namely, that their ties to the Christ-commissioned (new) Church validates their orthodoxy. As Christ is the culmination of the Old Covenant, a proper line of affiliation with Him is a line of affiliation to all of redemptive history.

To be continued (next up: Sola scriptura)...

Bryan Cross on Sola Scriptura

2008-07-15T20:12:00.003-03:00

For a cogent argument that Sola scriptura necessarily entails an elevation of the individual Christian to the position of authoritative biblical interpreter, read this post at Principium Unitatis.

This is the argument to which I have continually returned, no matter how frustrated I have felt over other Catholic practices which have seemed wrong to my understanding, like Catholic Marian practices, what I perceived to be its universalistic tendencies, et cetera. This authority argument is the sine qua non of many conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism, it seems.

I have wrestled with it on numerous occasions, like here, and here.

I believe I have looked fairly far, and fairly wide, but have not seen a rebuttal to Bryan's position. That, in and of itself, seems indicative of something. It could mean his position is so absurd that it does not merit reply, but I doubt that. It could mean that his position is unassailable, and that may be.

NFP Works

2008-07-14T20:33:00.003-03:00

I believe that to be true. My newest edition of the Couple to Couple League International magazine, Family Foundations, featured an interview with an NFP blogger. Jessica Smith writes at Natural Family Planning, and I hope you will check it out. She is the full-time "Family Planning Coordinator" for the Diocese of Madison. Some of her other writing is available here.

While I'm at it, I have a few thoughts on NFP. If possible, learn NFP before you're married. It's harder to come off of contraceptive use, or post-partum periods and learn while 'on the go'. But please don't mistake me as offering an excuse to continue your contraceptive use. I would never do that.

Don't learn planning methods from secular sources. Learning from a mere book, and a secular one at that, cannot compare to the depth of instruction available from Couple to Couple League teachers. Also, these sources tolerate (e.g., Taking Charge of Your Fertility) or even promote the Fertility Awareness Method, which encourages condom use during likely fertile periods (which may be the best way to find out if your condom use is defective).

Finally, most importantly, husbands, learn these things along with your wives. I've learned the hard way that putting the whole process on your wife's shoulders is not a loving act, and is not effective either. If you're going to be a player, be a team player.

Capitalistic Eugenics and Downs Syndrome

2008-07-11T20:23:00.007-03:00

"Recent US studies have indicated that when Down syndrome is diagnosed prenatally, 84% to 91% of those babies will be killed by abortion. " Susan W. Enouen, Down Syndrome and Abortion, available here.

I looked this bit of research up after reading in the June/July edition of First Things that 90% of all diagnosed Downs babies are euthanized in utero. Caitrin Nicol, All Too Human, available here ("For those with Down syndrome, the rate is upward of 90 percent"). Much has been said lately about progressions made in the Pro-Life movement. For example, see here. But if nearly 90% of Downs babies whose mothers test for the condition are euthanized, and if well over 80% of Americans believe abortion should be legal at least some of the time, then we have a long way to go. Time Poll, June 15-18, 2008, available here.

Incidentally, perhaps, even if every other religious group in America were in favor of legalized abortion, the 26.3% of Americans who identify themselves as Evangelical Protestants should yield a better statistic than the one holding that 84% of Americans believe abortion should be legal at least some of the time (as 100 - 26.3 = 73.7, and 73.7 is less than 84). The Pew Forum, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, see here. But then again, I could say that about the 23.9% of the country who are Catholic. Id. That the two combined (over 50% of America) cannot (all on their own) make for more than 20% of the country opposed to all abortions is sad. Alas, I guess the moral clarity of the Bible, or the supposed oligarchical power of the Roman Magisterium are not what some claim them to be. We must win people with reason, compassion and love, and not rely on some clear power or other to call others in line. In the language of my professional world, we must be our own "action officers."

To address my title for this post, I will briefly say this. We have not needed an ideological eugenicist government, like Nazism, to euthanize those with Down syndrome en masse. The economics of raising a disabled child in a Capitalist society that favors dual-income households, combined with an open expression of views from groups promoting 'testing' for the 'burdensome' (like the American College of OB/GYNs), have done it on their own. The problem, however, is not Capitalism or Free Speech, but rather our willingness to use our freedom for the glory of God. If the 50% of Americans who are Evangelical Protestant and Catholic could work to steer people to use their freedoms well, that would effect wonderful changes in abortion practices in America. We are called to co-laborate with God in sharing His love for the poor, the hungry, the naked, and (I believe) those affected by Down syndrome. We have much work to do; we have many broken people to love.

If anyone is thinking of aborting their Down baby, please let me know. I want to help you, perhaps with the help of loving groups such as the Sisters of Life. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14. At least 50% of Americans should notice an imperative in this statement.

Always-Church and Physical Manifestation

2008-07-06T19:16:00.007-03:00

From the "So-Called Second Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians" (ca. A.D. 150) (as provided in Jurgens' Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, at 43):

"I presume that you are not ignorant of the fact that the living Church is the body of Christ. The Scripture says, "God made man male and female." The male is Christ, and the female is the Church. Moreover, the Books and the Apostles declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but has existed from the beginning. She was spiritual, just as was our Jesus; but He was manifested in the last days so that He might save us. And the Church, being spiritual, was manifested in the flesh of Christ."

The proposition that the always-Church was spiritual throughout history until the incarnation, when it was made physically manifest seems contrary to my Reformed paradigm.

The Westminster Confession of Faith tells us that the Church before Christ's incarnation ("as before under the law") was "visible" only in one nation. Since then, it has become visibly manifest in all those throughout the world who "profess the true religion." WCOF, Chapter XXV, Sec. 2. I take this manifestation by profession to be a spiritualized manifestation; we are spiritually members of Christ's body, not physical members. While membership in the Church was through genetic lineage, a manifestation by descent, it is now passed on through the spiritual condition of professing the true religion. In other words, there is no more physical manifestation of the visible Church, only a spiritual manifestation.

Thus the Reformed view seems to be that the always-Church was physical (with the Jews) throughout history until the incarnation, when it was spiritualized for all peoples.

But the letter I quoted, thought to be the oldest extant Christian homily, does raise an interesting point. It would be an unusual irony if Christ's appearing in the flesh put the Church out of its own.

Causation

2008-06-29T08:32:00.003-03:00

Bryan Cross has an excellent post called "Monocausalism, Salvation, and Reconciliation". He did a better job than I ever could discussing some philosophical aspects of causation as it relates to salvation and divisions within Christianity.

He also linked to an older post he wrote, about Mary and monocausalism, here. One might conclude that I plagiarized his thought in my most recent post.

He said, "so much of what worries Protestants about Catholic treatment of Mary is based on a philosophical monocausalism. For example, the Catholic hymn "Salve Regina" involves calling on Mary to pray for us and have mercy on us. In the Protestant mind, only God can receive prayer and show mercy. Therefore, in the Protestant mind, this hymn deifies Mary, and is thus blasphemy or idolatry."

I said, "If I believe that God is the sole actor within His creation, then teachings of the historical merit of Mary's co-laboration, and of the continuing benefit of Mary's co-redemptive works seem particularly anathema. Since the Marianist has attributed to Mary a portion of what is for God (the monergistic force) alone, he has conflated Mary with the Divine."

It seems that, without my realizing it had happened, the seed of Bryan's thought took root some time in the last month.

Participants in or Objects of Redemption?

2008-06-26T21:33:00.004-03:00

I have believed for many years that Marian doctrines are a major source of Christian disunity. The matter continues to be a challenge to me, and my loved ones believe that Marianism is so clearly wrong that they refuse to see merit in Catholicism's or Orthodoxy's authority claims.

Is it Mary that divides? Today I pondered whether there is a deeper dispute, a deeper presuppositional disagreement, that causes the Marian division. I hint at my hypothesis in my title to this post. Are we participants in, or merely objects of Christ's redemption of Creation?

The monergist of my Reformed upbringing tells me that we are not participants, in an active sense, of redemption. Rather, we are objects and not subjects. We are that upon which the one monergistic force, God the Holy Spirit, acts. The constant danger to the Christian is a pride that says he has some role to play in his salvation, that he 'merits' even an infinitesimal quantum of his justification. Therefore, any claim that we are participants in redemption is a prideful step toward conflating ourselves as creatures with the Divine.

The synergist, or one who believes that Christians co-laborate with Christ in His redemption of Creation, might come to a very different conclusion. Under their paradigm, we are both objects and subjects within the world (I apologize if this is a philosophical error). We are acted upon by God and His grace (so objects), and yet simultaneously called to heal the sick and, clothe the naked (so we are subjects). We are members of the Body, with a role to play. We are to act upon this fallen creation, and through us (though not exclusively through us) God graces other objects.

I should come to my point. If I believe that God is the sole actor within His creation, then teachings of the historical merit of Mary's co-laboration, and of the continuing benefit of Mary's co-redemptive works seem particularly anathema. Since the Marianist has attributed to Mary a portion of what is for God (the monergistic force) alone, he has conflated Mary with the Divine; he has taken to treating Mary as a demigod. On the other hand, if I believe that God uses his faithful creatures to co-redeem His creation, then Mary is not nearly such a problem. Indeed, the unique labor she provided to God's redemptive plan stands out as worthy of special praise. I would then only have to bridge the gap of believing that the faithful departed are not as 'departed' as the Protestant paradigm maintains.

If this is accurate, it would help me to understand why converts to Catholicism who hail from an Anabaptist background have not highlighted Marianism as the challenge it seems to have presented to formerly Reformed converts.

Eucharist, Episcopal Authority, Relics

2008-06-22T16:45:00.003-03:00

I have encountered many a quote from a Church Father on the internet. I recently purchased William A. Jurgens' Faith of the Early Fathers, in the hopes that reading the Fathers in actual print would be more informative; reading ancient texts on an LCD screen somehow provides a disruptive contrast. I have not been disappointed.

I will share an especially meaningful quote here, but primarily want to note that if you've only ever read it on a computer screen, you may be missing something. Buy the Fathers in print!

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Smyrnaean Church c. 110 A.D. In this letter, he says:

"Pay close attention to those who have wrong notions about the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come to us, and note how at variance they are with God's mind. They care nothing about love: they have no concern for widows or orphans, for the oppressed, for those in prison or released, for the hungry or the thirsty. They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised. Consequently those who wrangle and dispute God's gift face death. They would have done better to love and so share in the resurrection. The right thing to do, then, is to avoid such people and to talk about them neither in private nor in public. Rather pay attention to the prophets and above all to the gospel. There we get a clear picture of the Passion and see that the resurrection has really happened."

I simply note that, if I am permitted to take this text at face value, it seems little concerned with a common critique of Catholic Eucharistic practice. I have read and heard Protestants explain that the sacrifice of the Mass is false because Christ can't be both on the altar and risen in heaven. Ignatius says that the Eucharist is the flesh, and the same flesh which was crucified and was raised. If the Protestant critique is valid, it seems unlikely that St. Ignatius of Antioch would not have thought of it within a century of Christ's resurrection.

He continues:

"Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God's law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop's approval. You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop's supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. On the other hand, whatever he approves pleases God as well. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid. It is well for us to come to our senses at last, while we still have a chance to repent and turn to God. It is a fine thing to acknowledge God and the bishop. He who pays the bishop honor has been honored by God. But he who acts without the bishop's knowledge is in the devil's service."

Contrary to the common Protestant characterization of Church under the verse "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. (Matthew 18:20)", Ignatius characterizes Church and the validity of its practices by submission to a ruling Bishop (overseer).

Jurgens' compilation then goes to a later writing (The Colbertine Martyrdom of Saint Ignatius, see page 27), likely from the 4th or 5th centuries, which discusses Ignatius' death. Jurgens had already told us that Ignatius died during the reign of Emperor Trajan (likely 110 A.D. also), having been sentenced to the beasts in the arena in Rome, as a martyr. I did not realize the principle of Holy Relics went back so far:

"Only the harder parts of his holy relics were left, and these were conveyed to Antioch and wrapped in linen, as an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church, on account of the grace that was in the holy martyr."

Considering this quote, it has an odd (i.e., foreign to me) sensibility. Grace stays with the body of a holy Christian at their death. If we are both a body and a soul, and if God's grace is with us in life, then why would it evaporate from the body at death? Or, why do we believe that the grace of God that is with us, with what we are, is only with our soul? We do, after all believe that our very-same body will be reunited with our soul. We should expect positive authority before asserting that the grace of God does not inhere in physical matter.

These are my thoughts on Eucharist, Episcopal Authority and Relics, gleaned from an in-print reading of the Fathers.

"Act of Contrition"

2008-06-21T20:59:00.002-03:00

I recently learned of this prayer, the "Act of Contrition":

"O my God,
I am heartily sorry for
having offended Thee,
and I detest all my sins,
because I dread the loss of heaven,
and the pains of hell;
but most of all because
they offend Thee, my God,
Who are all good and
deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve,
with the help of Thy grace,
to confess my sins,
to do penance,
and to amend my life.

Amen. (emphasis added)"

Coming from a Reformed paradigm, this notion that I should "dread the loss of heaven" is striking. It flies in the face of the Calvinist teaching of "Perseverance of the Saints", that is, "that gracious work of God’s sanctification whereby He enables a saved person to persevere to the end. Even though the process of sanctification is not complete in this life, from God’s perspective it is as good as accomplished" (A Brief History: Presbyterian Church in America, available here).

An analogy from the Law of Property seems appropriate. We tend to discuss salvation in terms of "having" it. We are inclined to say "I pray she could receive salvation" or "I am saved" (which means I possess the quality of being saved). We do not mean we have what Property Law would describe as a "present use and enjoyment" of salvation. That will only come when we are taken into Glory. Therefore, I will analogize views of Salvation to future property interests, i.e., legal interests which do not allow the owner present use and enjoyment of a property.

In property terms, Christians talk about their salvation as a vested possession, as opposed to a contingent possession. The latter is not your possession unless some contingency first occurs. The Baptist may say that their child's coming into possession of salvation is contingent on their first having "saving faith". But at that point it would vest. The Reformed might say that their children, as members of the Church visible have a vested interest in salvation already (or they may not; it is a debated point).

So once we conclude that we "are saved", so that no contingency stands between us and being members of the body of Christ, we need to decide whether that future interest in salvation (remember: it's future because you're not in Heaven yet) is something we can or cannot lose.

The Reformed will argue that our salvation is an indefeasibly vested possession. Sparing a painfully long definition, the gist of this legal concept is that, while you cannot "use and enjoy" your property at present (say, a house), it is legally yours because you are certain to come into a present use and enjoyment of it at some point. If you die too soon, your heirs will take it. You can sell this future property interest. You can impose legal obligations on the present users of the property. It is your possession.

Contrarily, the Catholic or Baptist might say that "our salvation" is vested subject to defeasance. Unlike the contingent possession, which was dependent on some condition first happening before you could "have" salvation, the vested interest subject to defeasance can be completely lost upon the happening of some subsequent event. E.g., if you fall into mortal sin, your salvation has been defeased. Here we have the dreaded possibility of losing Heaven in the "Act of Contrition".

So the question seems to be, is our Salvation indefeasible? Paul says, in describing Christian virtues, "Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall" (2 Peter 1:10; please read in context). Also, "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:12-13). The "if" in the former verse at least implies the possibility of an "if not", which in turn sounds like a defeasible possession of salvation. If my legal interest in (say) my parents' house is indefeasibly vested, I no longer have to make my possession of it sure. I do not have to "work out" my coming into possession. I do not need to concern myself with staying in their good graces, for they have already given up any legal right to rescind my future interest. Again, "I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize" (1 Corinthians 9:27). If the prize of salvation were indefeasibly vested, it would already have been awarded -- it cannot be lost. My reading of these passages, I submit for your consideration, leads me to believe that Paul's view of salvation is much more analogous to a defeasible possession of salvation than to an indefeasible one.

I'm sorry if I lost you on this post.

[Note: Property is complex, and I fudged some things to keep this from getting any more onerous than it is. If you want to hammer out the finer details of Executory Interests, my use of "possession" over "interest", or the like, I'm game.]

"Futile Reform"

2008-06-14T10:25:00.007-03:00

In his days as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI put together a book from a collection of smaller writings and speeches. This book, Called to Communion, his been a bit of a treasure trove for me. It is short, and fairly accessible, both benefits during a rather busy period in my life.

In his chapter entitled "A Company in Constant Reform", Benedict XVI takes up the matter of futile reforms. Here's a section that I found noteworthy, so I share it here:

[Concerning this work of reform, e]verything that men make can also be undone again by others. Everything that has its origin in human likes can be disliked by others. Everything that one majority decides upon can be revoked by another majority. A church based on human resolutions becomes a merely human church. It is reduced to the level of the makeable, of the obvious, of opinion. Opinion replaces faith. And in fact, in the self-made formulas of faith with which I am acquainted, the meaning of the words "I believe" never signifies anything beyond "we opine". Ultimately, the self-made church savors of the "self", which always has a bitter taste to the other self and just as soon reveals its petty insignificance. A self-made church is reduced to the empirical domain and thus, precisely as a dream, comes to nothing. (emphasis added)

I find it inescapable to see that, in choosing between a Catholic/Orthodox model of Church and a Protestant/Post-protestant model, we are choosing between a God-made and a man-made institution. "A self-made church...comes to nothing" indeed.

George on Authority

2008-06-07T23:51:00.003-03:00

George Weis has a good discussion going on Authority and the Church (never an old subject to me).

I just piped in, and hope you will too. I have found him to be genuine in his search for unity and truth within Christianity. Would, Lord, that we all had this virtue. May I follow his example.

"Quadrinity"

2008-05-31T15:43:00.005-03:00

A Protestant pastor quotes a "Rabbi" (another Protestant pastor of Jewish upbringing) for the proposition that Catholics have incorporated Mary into the Trinity (now a "Quadrinity"), here. This view is based on the latter's experience while attending a mass celebrating Mary's crowning as Queen of Heaven.

No doubt, some of what he saw would have made me uncomfortable in my pew, e.g., "The priest spoke of Jesus as “Mary’s only begotten Son." The word "begotten" seems like an unnecessary qualification under the Catholic scheme.

But the thrust of his criticism seemed to be that the Biblical support for the priest's (and the Catholic Church's) views on Mary were lacking.

I am sympathetic. Unfortunately, I am plagued by the view that Biblical support for the view that everything must be supported solely from the Bible is lacking too.

Good Pope, Bad Pope

2008-05-31T08:56:00.004-03:00

After Pope Benedict XVI's recent Papal Visit to the United States, Protestant voices have been surprisingly affable in speaking about the man. I don't doubt that his visit left a positive impression for many Protestants. One fellow blogger spoke of the effect that the Pope's visit had on his decision to return to Catholicism. For Protestants willing to consider that a man can be both Pope and a Christian, I imagine most see "B16" as a good Pope. And the same would be said, I imagine, of his predecessor.

But I wonder whether there would be so much discussion of Protestant conversions to Catholicism if we had a really bad pope - a horrible, wicked pope? It seems that when one accepts Catholicism as the proper constitution of Christ's Church, one should not have their faith in the Church swayed at all if a future pope turned out to be a wicked person.

Separate to my discernment on the faith, I've been reading about how the principle of freedom of the seas flows from the political guile of Pope Alexander VI (d. 1503). In a story of political intrigue, he issued a papal bull granting sovereignty to certain states over parts of the sea (thereby excluding others from those areas of the sea). For example, he divided the Atlantic Ocean, giving half to Spain and half to Portugal. Because of this, the Dutch and British were excluded from the lucrative East Indies trade. (Aside: this later led to the Dutch hiring the famous Hugo Grotius (d. 1645) (Protestant) to find a way around the pesky Bull, and the principle of freedom of the seas (embodied in Mare Liberum) was born.)

At any rate, strife-filled international politicking, and the practices of simony and nepotism (for the children born of the Papal Mistress) in Alexander's life are enough to tell me that he was not what even open-minded modern evangelicals would call a good pope. It reminded me that times have not always been so good for the Catholic Magisterium.

I do not mean to dismiss the truth that wicked people and brokenness drive lost souls away from Christ and His Church. That certainly will always be the case, and seems rooted in many points of Scripture (not least of which is John 17). But I still have to ask (of myself) the hypothetical: if the next pope were an Alexander VI, would I still find the arguments for Catholicism and Apostolic succession convincing? Am I merely persuaded by pleasant conditions? One buying Apostolic succession must be accept this possibility and place it in its proper context.

Post-denom, uh, What?

2008-05-27T10:00:00.002-03:00

I know the term "post-denominationalism" has been out there for a while, but I've ignored it until some recent time when it began to pique my curiosity. It sounds so catchy, it must be true. What does it mean?

My guess is that "denominationalism" would be the concoction of 1) Christians feeling at liberty to start their own church branch without 2) conceding that they and other denominations are (invisibly) separated from each other as the Christian Church.

Then I would guess that "pre-denominationalism", if I can use the term, would be the period before denominationalism came into being. That is, it was the time in the Christian Church when people believed either that they were not possessed of the liberty to start their own church, or if they thought they were, that their new church would not be even invisibly united with other 'branches' of Christianity (hence, that the others were not proper 'branches' of Christianity).

Before I look further, let me simply guess what "post-denominationalism" is. Assuming that it is not a period where Christians have stopped feeling free to start their own church or be in a 'branch', it seems that it would be the period in the Church where Christians have abandoned branch affiliations entirely; where each Christian is his own denomination in the old-speak sense (a few billion points of light in lieu of "a thousand points of light" -- what could be better?). Were this to be possible, if I'm not off-track already, there could be no affiliation, no confession, no doctrinal requirements left in Christianity. "This above all: to thine own self be true" (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3) on every point of theology that one chooses to ponder. Taken to its conclusion, as I've guessed post-denominationalism to mean, it would then be up to each individual who self-identifies as Christian to decide what that means, and how to be "saved" (if he chooses to believe in salvation). Belief in the Bible alone as infallible, the Bible alone, or the Bible at all would be a formulated doctrine larger than the individual, so could not be a required belief on anyone (or else those expecting conformity to this doctrine would be members of an invisible denomination, hence, not post-denominational).

Now, let me see if I can validate or refute my guess at the meaning of this term.

One helpful article from one David Parker (which I note has -coincidentally- a very similar title to that of this post) describes post-denominationalism. He tells us, "This word was defined by the Queensland Baptist General Superintendent, Dr David Loder, at the 2001 Convention as a "mindset" that focuses on "exploration, extending the barriers, and experimentation"[.] This results in people changing church allegiance regularly, or even going to various "churches on rotation rather than sticking with one". In short, he said, it seems that "the 'old rules' are out the window and 'new rules' are being formulated.""

Others describe post-denominationalism similarly as a period of free spirituality over conformity to religious institutions, as a time of freedom to pick and choose between church styles and forms, as the absence of loyalty to the denomination of one's youth, etc. I was humored by the Wiki entry on postdenominationalism, which gives us ten "common doctrinal point" of the post-denominational. That sounds, uh, a bit like an invisible denomination to me (otherwise known as "non-denominational"). If I don't believe that "The true Church is the Body of Christ on Earth", am I out of the post-denominational movement? Where does that leave me? I think the only 'post' left would be post-Christian.

Very well, then, people don't seem pumped up to parade post-denominationalism in my semi-nihilistic terms. I still think it's where we're headed: a few billion points of light.

Trinity Words An "Addition"

2008-05-25T19:27:00.000-03:00

[Pictured: Erasmus] I recently stumbled upon an interesting spat between the KJV-only crowd and (nearly) 'everyone else'. 1 John 5:7-8 contains a major Trinitarian proof text, the "comma Johanneum (or Johanninum)", but this clause is excluded from most modern English translations' primary text.

E.g., NIV: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (Footnote: "Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century" (emphasis added))

One defense of the NIV translation notes: "The extra words in the KJV rendering of this passage are among the most poorly attested of all the disputed verses in the KJV and Textus Receptus. The addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or English translation until the sixteenth century, and most scholars agree that it is a forgery."

The Wiki article on the clause (and laugh all you want at my Wiki citation, but it's quite an excellent summary) notes that it was only the third edition of Erasmus' work, the "Received Text" (upon which the KJV is based), that put this clause into wide-spread usage. And Erasmus (fallible) made this change only begrudgingly. Catholicism later reversed its (fallible) decree that theologians could not "with safety" question the clause's authenticity (citing C.E. article on the Epistles of St. John, reversed by Pope Pius XI in 1927).

I set out writing this post thinking that whenever the NIV excludes or adds text to Scripture, it does so from questionable motives (based on previous observations made here, here, here, and here). But here I encountered a translation that is not easily reproached.

My point then?

1) That a passage of Holy Writ was in common usage for centuries, but may indeed be aberrant (i.e., fallible), adds to my skepticism that God would decree for (Holy) text to be our court of final appeal (as is understood in the Reformed circle, e.g., here). Did God give us an infallible text to be our court of final appeal, but then allow it to become corrupt over time? Does he preserve it only in relevant parts (in which case a Trinitarian proof-text would have to be described as irrelevant)?

2) The KJV-only crowd can be excessively passionate for their Biblicist position. This seems to flow out of necessity of the critiques I made just above in point 1. For the Word of God, the logos, to entirely subsist in the Bible's text, and therein to act as our court of final appeal, it must of course be perfect in every part, and continue preserved in this form. (For some thoughts on whether the Logos is equal to, or greater than the Bible, see my post here.)

E.g., Jack Chick's website defends the comma (this clause) as a Divinely-included part of the Bible. It notes that 1 John itself is absent from many extent Greek manuscripts. Tertullian, it tells us, quoted the verse in 200 AD when writing against Praxeas. Further, Eastern Greeks found it easier to deal with the troubling Sabellian heresy by simply removing this text from their own Bibles, because it refers to the persons of the Trinity as "one".

I was almost persuaded, until I looked up this text of Tertullian on CCEL. After much poking around, I found other sources who noted that Tertullian did not use this clause where one would expect to see him do so against Praxeas. Instead he used the less-direct John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one."). Further, the argument that the Greeks obliterated a proof-text of Trinitarian dogma to ease their dispute with the Sabellian's seems specious at best.

Jack Chick is a tall example, but not alone in defending Erasmus' Received Text as infallible (so necessarily defending the comma Johanneum). This crowd sees that there would be a need for Church as arbiter were our textual court of final appeal not self-authenticating.

Why I Am Protestant

2008-05-20T22:27:00.004-03:00

Why am I still a Protestant?, a recent commenter implicitly asked.

I imagine that when a man is in the process of deep conversion, he is unable to grasp exactly what is happening, or where he is along the way (until it is over). Therefore, I can only speculate about what has been happening to your faithful Thos.

I risk being boring if I give too extensive a recap of my own exposure to Catholic doctrines, so to be as brief as possible, I diagram (and necessarily exclude my efforts spent looking for a third way):

Proudly Reformed → puzzled at my inability to defend sola Scriptura against a Catholic critique → puzzled that Reformed writings don’t refute the critique → puzzled that my Reformed pastors can’t refute the critique → becoming increasingly skeptical of the Protestant authority scheme → my present state. (I discussed my thoughts through this process in more detail in a series of posts ending with this one.)

The days of being proudly Reformed, and confident that its teachers could address any supposed deficiencies, are about four years behind me. But it has been some time indeed since I’ve felt that I’ve been able to progress one way or another (back to my roots, or further from them).

So why have I stalled in this “no-man’s-land”? Why am I still Protestant?

I don’t know. I told Kim recently while discussing the idea of being reasoned into Catholicism (or any other conversion, I suppose), “I'm not sure you can be *purely* reasoned into [conversion]. I mean, reason may be persuaded, and one still can't get over some anxieties." Let me try to clarify.

The best I can figure at this point is that conversion, as a process, involves at least two major changes. My working theory holds that it involves both intellectual conversion and emotional (i.e., sentimental) conversion. Further, I believe the intellect and emotions need to be persuaded much further beyond 50% of certainty before they are actually converted (a sort of 'principle of inertia'). My intellect was persuaded beyond 50% that the authority claims of Catholicism are stronger than those of Protestantism relatively long ago. And I think that within the last six months I approximately reached my inertial tipping point. When I perceived that this was happening, I got excited that I might have enough conviction to end this long and tiring journey…

But then the neon lights just weren’t flashing quite like I had hoped. I have continued to harbor a kind of skepticism that is particularly provoked by certain Catholic images, prayers and practices. My present theory is that while my intellect has converted, my emotions (or Protestant sentiments) have not. If this is true, it’s an unpleasant spot to be in. When I read, write, discuss, or debate, I hold a higher respect for Catholic theology. When I pray, meditate, and talk to myself in the quiet of the night, I remain a skeptic, deeply worried that I could be standing in the path of making a fatal error. Lead me not into temptation, but deliver me from evil.

In sum, I am still a Protestant because I would not like to be a skeptical Catholic, and I would not like to convert only to re-convert later in life (I was quite fickle as a younger man, and do not wish to return to that reputation). I am still a Protestant because, at present, I would not be able to take the Eucharist into my mouth without a small voice in my head whispering “heresy!” That voice has to expend so little energy to counter a loud voice of reason and intellect.

Cross on Denominational Renewal

2008-05-18T23:05:00.003-03:00

Bryan Cross and Todd Gwennap have engaged in a fantastic discussion here. I recommend that anyone considering conversion between a Protestant denomination and Roman Catholicism give it a read, especially those from (or inclined toward) a Reformed background.

Bryan, now a Roman Catholic, graduated from my denomination’s seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary. Todd is currently a student at that institution. I have relatives with strong ties, seminal even, to Covenant, so I have taken particular interest in Bryan’s story, and now this discussion between these two.

I will not spoil the plot, but Todd takes up some arguments on the nature of “church” with vigor. Bryan responds with aptitude. I hope to see the conversation continue. [Omitted.]

From what I've seen, I have developed a deep admiration of him. It is an exceedingly rare thing to see someone take Bryan up in learned dialogue. Bryan is logical and methodical in his approach, in a way that I surmise may intimidate the typical antagonists and Johnny-come-latelies of blogosphere spats. Todd is above that, and brave to boot. He enters the discussion graciously and thoughtfully. I continue to *hope* that these brothers (or brethren) will run the conversation to ground, as I stand to benefit. Besides being more theologically educated than I am, Todd has fuel to critique Catholicism that I depleted long ago.

A last substantive thought: Todd brings up an argument that has been central in my thoughts about how Christ has constituted His Church, and I believe its resolution would be meaningful to a great many seekers. To what extent is the parallel between the Old and New Testaments (Covenants) valid? Put another way, is the Church Era a recapitulation of the Jewish Era, or is it a whole novus ordo? Should we expect to see a division amongst Christ’s Covenant People as the Jewish people divided into a Northern and Southern Kingdom (see my post touching on this parallelism here)?

If the Church Era is a whole new order, such that the Holy Spirit would prevent such division, obviously the Reformation fails. If it is not so new (as human sinful nature may not have changed), and a recapitulation is possible then the Reformation could be proper (indeed, the Old Testament experience would serve as a “preview” warning to those of us in the New).

Works and Deathbed Conversions

2008-05-15T11:08:00.005-03:00

I've used My Imitation of Christ, by Thomas à Kempis, as a devotional for some time. It is striking for its call to Christian self-denial and (what I understand to be) asceticism.

There was a time when, early in my learning about the Catholic claims to Truth, I thought I could convince a Catholic brother that his beliefs were contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. If I say nothing else about those days, I have to say that it was an excellent time of learning about our Faith. What a treasure to engage with a brother when both are deeply committed to searching out the truth, and living it too! I felt exposed, somewhat disconcerted, and very alive and aware of Christ's Lordship. I perceived how small I was, and how big the Church and Christianity are.

At some point in this series of exchanges the gears shifted. Instead of feeling that I could victoriously pour the truth of Scripture over my brother's head, I wound up on my heels, on the defensive. To date, I have not been able to recover. I've forgotten many of the things that led me to that point, but I can still isolate a few. One was an awareness that if contraception was indeed immoral, the Protestant faith had much explaining to do. Another was this devotional by Thomas à Kempis.

With that long-winded narrative out of the way, let me come to my (somewhat non sequitur) point. In Ch. 23, Thomas says speaking of death, "How sad that you do not spend the time in which you might purchase everlasting life in a better way. The time will come when you will want just one day, just one hour in which to make amends, and do you know whether you will obtain it? See, then, dearly beloved, the great danger from which you can free yourself and the great fear from which you can be saved, if only you will always be wary and mindful of death." How fascinating, this familiar idea that with just one hour one could make amends for their sins.

The well-known Catholic priest, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. wrote in his book Life Everlasting, "Deathbed conversion, however difficult, is still possible. Even when we see no sign of contrition, we can still not affirm that, at the last moment, just before the separation of soul from body, the soul is definitively obstinate. A sinner may be converted at that last minute in such fashion that God alone can know it."

And to my simple point. The Catholic Church maintains the validity of deathbed conversions. Does not this belief, all on its own, defeat the oft-rendered critique that Catholics believe in salvation by works? I think it does. If some measure of works was necessary to merit salvation, then the infirm sinner lying in a sickly state in his final hours has irreparably lost the chance to perform those works and cannot be saved. So while the Catholic view on salvation is distinct from the Protestant formulation of sola Fide, it requires no more than letting go of obstinacy (presumably in faith). Sola non Petina. No works required.

Faith Hall of Fame

2008-05-13T10:35:00.004-03:00

I've heard Hebrews 11 described as the "Hall of Fame" of faith. In it we are reminded of the great saints of the Old Testament, and how pleasing their great faith was to the Lord. You know the passage, "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age..." (a tongue-in-cheek reference; see my critique of the translation of verse 11 here).

I wonder what the reference to Abel means when it says "And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead... (NIV, v.4)" Certainly it's not a reference to séances with the dearly departed. The NAB here, to me, seems a little clearer: "Through [Abel's faithful sacrifice] he was attested to be righteous, God bearing witness to his gifts, and through this, though dead, he still speaks."

Able speaks to me today, even though he is dead, by the witness I have received of his faithfulness. Two little thoughts from an old post help me draw meaning from this passage.

First, I would not know of Abel's (or any of the other Hall of Fame inductee's) faithfulness had it not been recorded for me in Scripture. In this way, Scripture bears witness to, or gives testimony about, what occurred. Without this testimony, Abel would be merely dead to me, not continuing to speak about how to live faithfully. And Scripture itself, as I noted in that old post, is only a sound witness where it is itself attested to me by reliable witnesses as the Word of God. I rely on a chain of testimony through the ages of the Church, because Scripture is not typically self-authenticating. It does not purport itself (in most parts) to be Holy Writ. So I believe that Abel's offering of firstfruits made "by faith" is a righteous act before God because a chain of witnesses through the ages attest to the validity of the Scripture attesting to this meaning of Abel's deeds.

Second, Abel (and the rest of the inductees) speak to me today as the great cloud of witnesses (Ch. 12, v. 1, which wraps up the Hall of Fame pericope). I have read the cloud of witnesses passage used in Catholic apologetics before, as a defense for the positions that those Saint-Christians who have gone before us are in this 'cloud'. As I said in that old post, I had previously thought of these saints in the Cloud as witnessing (i.e., observing) my life, watching me plod through this life, cheering me on. I believe though that, whether or not we add the Catholic Saints to those faithful in Hebrews 11, I previously had the meaning wrong. Those in this great cloud bear witness by the faithful lives they lived. They are not witnessing-seeing, they are witnessing-testifying. At least, that's how I see it when I read v.4 about Abel through to the cloud of witnesses text.

The question is, do I accept the testimony of these witnesses as I deliberate on how to conduct my own life?

Violating Plain Text

2008-05-10T11:59:00.006-03:00

This past week's program on The Journey Home was about one Stephen Budd's conversion from the Baptist church to Roman Catholicism. He had been a bold Baptist, and believed then that it was his duty to convert Catholics from their ways. He went through a litany of bumper-sticker sized condemnations of Catholicism he had made as a Baptist.

One critique from his bygone does stood tall, and resonates with my emotions, even though my intellect sees it to be vacuous.

He described an anti-Catholic tract that he would give to Catholics he found in his home town (in Ireland, I believe). On it was a depiction of Pope John Paul II praying before a statue of Mary, and beside this image were the words "thou shall have no other gods before me..." These tracts have power in their simplicity. This one sets up a contrast, and draws you immediately into it.

The plain text of Sacred Scripture warns against creating likenesses and bowing down before idols. Its whole timbre is one that merits great caution and prudence. The plain text of scripture, what could be more plain?

Then I read an article/book review in the May, 2008 edition of First Things (with finals, I've been a month behind) which made me consider a different angle. Robert Louis Wilken wrote Jews as the Romans Saw Them (subscription required), discussing Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations by Martin Goodman. In it, he says "Romans were puzzled as to why Jews refused to eat pork (which the Romans loved) and why they circumcised infant boys. They could not understand that there was no image of their God in the Temple..."

Maybe you can follow where my mind went at this point.

"Thou shall have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:3)"

"You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. (Genesis 17:11)"

[I can't depict an uncircumcised Christian here, but if I could, my intent would be to juxtapose that image with this verse to the Catholic image and the Bible verse given above it. I hope you can accept this picture of a Jewish briss in its place, though it's the opposite of what I mean to depict, in that it is in strict conformity with the commandment of the Sacred Scriptures.]

"And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:7)"

Now I know full well that New Testament passages address circumcision in the New Church and consuming unclean and ceremonial meats too. We have, then, either a contradiction within Scripture, or a new authority able to override the old. If the old can be overridden in its ceremonial aspects, surely it can be given more precision (vis-a-vis idols, images, and the like). At any rate, my point is simply that plain text is often a poor guide. The meaning beneath the text is a harder thing to depict in tracts...

The King's Dominion

2008-04-27T16:21:00.005-03:00

I've been reading a bit on predestination, specifically St. Thomas Aquinas' view on the matter. It is truly puzzling and marvelous to consider Divine Predilection and Grace. As part of that reading, I've been reflecting on the nature of God's will, whether there is one will with varying efficaciousness (e.g., "thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven"), two wills (e.g., an antecedent and a consequent will), or some other thing vastly beyond me.

That got me wondering about the extent to which God's will prevails in His Kingdom. As I think of the word Kingdom (from my legalistic angle), I imagine it to be the realm within which the King reigns, to reign meaning that his will is his law, which is upheld as supreme. The dictionary does not seem to disagree: "A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign" or "A realm or sphere in which one thing is dominant" (American Heritage).

Jesus is the King of this Kingdom. Luke 1: 31-33, from the Annunciation, tells us, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end. (RSV)"

What is this Kingdom of Christ's? What precisely was He given? Is it Heaven, that is, all entirely on the other side of the Spiritual divide (cf. John 3:5, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God")? Is it something to which we can hope to cling here on Earth, while running the race set before us (cf. Col. 1:13, "For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins")?

Let me imagine that, at least at some level, the Kingdom of Heaven is upon us as much as it is to be anticipated. If so, and if I've defined Kingdom correctly, where ever it is, the Lord's will is His law and it reigns supreme.

If it is here and now, where is it? I am disposed to consider the Kingdom as a notional sphere of people who strive to obey Christ's Law. It is easy for me to imagine the Kingdom as the collection of "True Believers" spread through the world. But then it is hard to see how the Lord's will, which is His law, reigns supreme in this sphere. Christians are not able to reach consensus on what that will and law are (or, is, since they may be a singular). Does he promulgate it poorly, or have a shabby Sheriff? Is this notional sphere of a Kingdom gerrymandered to exclude that which is contrary to the King's will and include that which is in conformity with it?

In strong language, blogger Bryan Cross analogized man-led efforts at visible Christian unity to the Tower of Babel ("bottom up"). The City of God, which I understand to be this Kingdom, has to be God-led ("top down"), he says. I am inclined to agree. But where, visibly, is the King's will sovereign and efficacious? Where is the Kingdom?

PCA Elder on Church as Family

2008-04-20T16:46:00.005-03:00

I happened upon this post at "Butterfly House" from a few months ago, which touches on some issues recently discussed here, like church visible, election, infants in the family of God, and the like. It is written by a PCA (Reformed) ruling elder.

Here's a taste:

"In the New Covenant, the promised Holy Spirit helps to better define the boundaries of the Church, but He has not (apparently) chosen to make those boundaries crystal clear. Our knowledge of the Church, as with many things, is "through a glass, darkly.""

Would that the Lord could help me see how He has constituted His Church!

Elect Infants

2008-04-16T23:35:00.002-03:00

A recent discussion turned to election, and the state of those who die while still in their infancy. This post results from a curiosity about the Reformed view of the matter. This topic seems horribly controversial, and I am no theologian. I warmly invite correction where I inevitably err.

A. Five Reformed Propositions on the Disposition of Dead Infants.

One seemingly wise Reformed blogger delineates no fewer than five alternative Reformed theories for the ultimate state of those who die in their infancy. I will note my own understanding, and some tensions I see surfacing in this area, below.
(Hat tip: Triabloque).

1. Death in infancy is a sign of election, so that all infants who die are saved.

2. We cannot know whether infants who die were elect, because there was no opportunity for them to manifest (or not) their election through faith. As with adults, some would be of the elect, and others not, so hope is appropriate for grieving parents.

3. All children of true believers are saved, but all who die as children of unbelievers are certainly lost. This is just because of their guilt of Original Sin (as that term of art is formulated by Calvin).

4. All children of true believers are saved according to God’s promise to their parents, but some of those who die as children of unbelievers are of the unelect.

5. All children of true believers are saved, and we have no grounds for drawing inferences about the ultimate disposition of those who die as children of unbelievers.

B. Tension with the Church Visible / Church Invisible Distinction.

The Reformed view the “church” as being composed of a “church visible” and a “church invisible”. These are like two concentric circles; while there is no salvation outside the church visible (the outer circle), only members of the church invisible (the inner) are elect, so saved. The church visible can be identified by other humans using our sense, but the composition of the church invisible is only known to God.

Here are some sources that I believe show this same understanding as being the normative “Reformed” teaching:

Antonius Walaeus was a Dutch Reformer who died in 1639. He wrote in his contriubution to Synopsis Purioris:

“The visible Church is not strictly a different Church than the invisible Church, but it is only considered in a different way… For in the visible Church that invisible Church[ ] is being collected and formed. The invisible inheres and is contained in the visible.”

The Westminster Confession seems to contain this teaching as well. It says of the church invisible, "The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect… (ch. XXV, sec. 1)” And regarding the church visible, it "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children… out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (Ibid., Sec. 2)"

Finally, Robert Shaw, in his excellent exposition of the Westminster Confession, says of this portion:

“This Church is said to be invisible, because it cannot be discovered by the eye. It is not separated from the world in respect of place, but of state. It lies hidden in the visible Church, from which it cannot be certainly distinguished. The qualifications of its members are internal, their faith and love are not the objects of sense…

“The visible Church, according to our Confession, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children.… It is distinguishable, like any other society; and we can say, Here is the Church of Christ; but there is the Church of the Jews or of the Mohammedans. Nothing more is necessary to discover it than the use of our senses. Having learned, by the perusal of the Scriptures, what are the discriminating characters of the Church, wherever we perceive a society whose creed and observances are, upon the whole, conformable to this pattern, we are authorised to say, This is the Church, or rather, a part of the Church.

“When we speak of the visible and invisible Church, this is not to be understood as if there were two Churches, or as if one part of the Church were visible and another invisible. The former includes the latter, but they are not co-extensive; the same individuals who constitute the Church considered as invisible, belong also to the Church considered as visible; but many who belong to the visible, are not comprehended in the invisible Church. (internal quotations omitted)"

C. Tensions with Reformed Original Sin & Paedobaptism.

The Reformed baptize their infants. They believe that their children are members of the Church, whereas the Baptists believe their children are sinners still in need of coming to saving faith (they call themselves “credo-Baptists” as opposed to the Reformed “paedo-Baptists”). Since infants who die to heathen homes are outside the church visible, it seems the Reformed position excludes the possibility that they are elect (though, as the above five views shows, my conclusion has not been common to Reformed thinkers). I do not know how the Reformed position would view the children of Baptists of who die young, who the Baptists themselves do not consider to be part of the church, but I imagine many would formulate some kind of equitable view that can be saved by God’s grace if it is His will (perhaps something akin to the Catholic “baptism by desire” idea).

Are they elect who have been Baptized? Baptism is, after all, the entrance right into the church visible (see WCOF, ch. XVIII, sec. 1, "Baptism is… the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church”), and for believers and their children (see ibid., sec. 4, “Not only those that do actually profess faith [ ] but also the infants of [ ] believing parents, are to be baptized."). Not so, says the Confession. Baptism does not have such efficacy: “Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated (WCOF, ch. XVIII, sec. 5)." The principle here is telling, in a broader context. Form is not to be prerequisite in the Reformed system to God’s achieving what is in accordance with His sovereign Will. This fits well with a monergistic understanding of how God unfolds creation.

D. Tensions with Works-Righteous.

Does a “true believer” receive Salvation as a reward for his faith (and if so, are infants out of luck for not having the ability to possess such faith)? Or contrarily, do infants receive Salvation because of their innocence and absence of actual sin?

The Reformed position is that those whom God has elected to Salvation from before all time are, through the unfailingly efficacious Grace of the Holy Spirit, brought to True Faith. By that Faith, the Elect enjoy Christ’s righteousness at the day of judgment because he takes our sins upon Himself (cf. WCOF, ch. XI, secs. 2 and 3). In any understanding of faith, though, it cannot be equated with a work. The Reformed do not see that the one work (or duty) of believing has replaced all the works of the Old Covenant. Faith is a sign of election bearing fruit within the believer.

So what of those who are unable to attain such Faith? “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (ch. X, sec. 3)” This section does not explain which dying infants are elect, but I understand this to be an intentional omission to match what Scripture has (in the eyes of the Westminster Divines) also omitted.

The late Reformed Rev. Boettner quotes approvingly Dr. R.A. Webb to show that Calvin never explicitly stated that a dead infant may have been damned (here):

“Calvin teaches that all the reprobate 'procure'—(that is his own word)—'procure' their own destruction; and they procure their destruction by their own personal and conscious acts of 'impiety,' 'wickedness,' and 'rebellion.' Now reprobate infants, though guilty of original sin and under condemnation, cannot, while they are infants, thus 'procure' their own destruction by their personal acts of impiety, wickedness, and rebellion. They must, therefore, live to the years of moral responsibility in order to perpetrate the acts of impiety, wickedness and rebellion which Calvin defines as the mode through which they procure their destruction.”

This quote fascinates me, and stands certain “Calvinist” understandings I had on their head. Boettner and Webb suggest that Calvin believed all “reprobate” infants will live until an age of discrimination so that they can procure their own destruction through actual sin. This seems flawed in that it detracts from the Reformed belief in the justice of damning people on account of their Original Sin (the Reformed version of Original Sin, that is) alone. It also seems to lead to a skewed view upon the death of a child: would we congratulate mourning parents for the validating sign of the child’s election that also just took him away?

E. Conclusion.

I remain confused on the matter, and that’s okay.

The formulation of church visible / church invisible coupled with the Reformed views on Predestination and sola Fide, seems to exclude the possibility of salvation for infants who die outside the church (for they are outside the outer of the two concentric circles), and may or may not leave open the possibility of salvation for infants inside the church, depending on how one views the “faith” requirement. Since faith like a child is presented by Christ as an archetype, I believe that the infant could, at some level, have the preeminent faith in Christ and love for Him. Therefore, my Reformed synapses believe that Christian infants are saved.

Having Another One?

2008-04-13T17:32:00.004-03:00

My wife and I have had five children. We have not formally practiced NFP, but have been opposed to the Birth Control Pill since we learned of its abortifacient properties part-way through our first year of marriage. We are richly blessed.

Over the last two or three pregnancies, I have noticed an odd phenomenon. People in our society, family, and particularly in our church, are strikingly comfortable asking us, "Are you going to have another one after this?" Rephrased, they ask "Are you going to be sterilized now, or at least religiously remain on the Pill until menopause?"

I think they mean this with innocent curiousity about whether my family has reached its intended size or not. But the curiousity can only come to being in a society where people are able to have strict control over the outcome of the coital act. Since the methods of obtaining such strict control are contrary to our conscience(s), the question puts us in an odd spot. I don't get preachy, but do usually say something like, "we'll see what God does".

I imagine an ideal world (or even just an ideal church) where people's consciences agree with ours, that sterilizing our fecundity, or using abortifacient methods of contraception, are contrary to the Will of God. In this ideal place, people don't ask "Are you going to have another one?", because they know the answer to that question ultimately lies in God's Will and not our own (which is not to say that God does not have us participate). In this ideal place, people feel more sympathy for the tired parents of several blessings. In reality, instead, people just wonder why we choose or will to keep doing this to ourselves. They are not sympathetic, because we have chosen or willed to do this to ourselves in every sense of choice or will. In the church, this does make me feel sad, and alone.

[I add, though it's not been my own experience, that in this ideal place, couples without children would receive more sympathy as well. Instead, we seem to presume that they have made the "choice" not to get pregnant. This is unfair to them on several levels.]

False Ecumenical Advertising

2008-04-10T13:23:00.006-03:00

I'm a fan of the Catholic cable channel EWTN, so don't get me wrong when I say that it is not always, for me, the Cat's Meow.

I found myself a little miffed last night at the discongruity between one program, and that program's description as provided by my "Info" button. The show was called "Micah Project: Tearing Down the Walls that Separate Christians", but the show was in fact more of a "why Michael Cumbi thinks Protestants should become Catholic."

Now, if Catholicism is correct in its assertion that it is the one true Holy Apostolic Church, then its approach to Protestantism should certainly be one of "convert now!". But if that is the Church's position, I don't care for conversion efforts veiled as ecumenical wall-tearing-down. I tuned in hoping to hear how we Protestants and Catholics can better come to terms with one another, and better understand each other's positions. Instead I heard a former fundamentalist talk about why Catholicism is superior (which it may be, but that's beside the point).

As far as conversion stories go, the further a convert's "before" position is from my own, the less I relate to his reasons for conversion. So this wouldn't have been my choice of programming on the conversion front. And it didn't live up to my expectations on the ecumenical front either.

The Micah Project website says the following:

"When the Nation of Israel became a divided kingdom (much like the Church today, Protestant and Catholic) there were certain prophets that gave God’s message to the Northern Kingdom and prophets who spoke for God to the Southern Kingdom. There was one prophet, however, who had a message from God for both kingdoms, that was the prophet Micah."

I don't want to nit-pick, and I really do hope God blesses my brother Mr. Cumbie in his efforts at reconciling Christians together. I'm concerned though that the Judah-Israel : Catholic-Protestant analogy does not align with the Catholic position on Protestantism. In fact, I'm pretty certain that the saying "the Church today, Protestant and Catholic" will grate on a few of my Catholic friends' nerves. They would say that I am outside of "the Church today" precisely because I am Protestant. Also, I was hoping that Mr. Cumbie had a message for "both kingdoms", but instead thought he was a 'Judean' with a message for the 'other Kingdom'...

I'll leave my criticism at that. If anyone else saw the show and felt otherwise, I'd enjoy being put in my place.

Atonement and Penal Substitution

2008-04-06T23:34:00.006-03:00

Kim asks, "What is your understanding of the differences between Catholics and Reformed Protestants on Christ's atonement coming from a Reformed background like me?"

The answer is: I do not really understand the differences, and would love to hear from others who do. I will share a few things I've read as I've considered this question, but please don't think these thoughts (and sources) are meant to be my attempt at laying out the differences. The differences may be much deeper, or there may be virtually no difference other than in the window dressing (I'm inclined to think the former, though my wife says I'm making much ado about nothing).

Article 21 of the Belgic Confession (a Reformed confession) states that "We believe that Jesus Christ is a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek-- made such by an oath-- and that he presented himself in our name before his Father, to appease his wrath with full satisfaction by offering himself on the tree of the cross and pouring out his precious blood for the cleansing of our sins, as the prophets had predicted. " In other words, Christ satisfied the Father's wrath against us by offering Himself.

This is supported with various Scripture, to wit: ""the chastisement of our peace" was placed on the Son of God and... "we are healed by his wounds." He was "led to death as a lamb"; he was "numbered among sinners" [citing Isa. 53:4-12]... and he suffered-- the "just for the unjust," [citing 1 Pet. 3:18 ] in both his body and his soul".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a section that starts with "CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF TO HIS FATHER FOR OUR SINS" (before para. 606).

Paragraph 615 says, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."(Rom 5:19) By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".(Isa 53:10-12) Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.(Cf. Council of Trent (1547); DS 1529)"

So right off the comparative bat, both do use language to the effect that Christ's death atoned for our sins. If there's a difference, then, it seems it would be in the "how" of how that atonement was accomplished. One difference I can see, which may be one of emphasis only, is this: in the Reformed articulation, God's wrath demanded our punishment, or Christ's as the substitution for that penalty; in the Catholic articulation, satisfaction of God's judgment was made by the imputation of Christ's obedience onto the believer. In other words, one emphasis is on imputation of our sins onto Christ, another emphasis is on imputation of Christ's obedient righteousness onto sinners.

I can think of a related belief that is clearly different between Reformed and Catholic understandings. I wrote here that Calvin, the Father of Reformed thought, taught this: "If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual (Institutes, Book II, Ch. 16, Sect. 10)" and later, "surely, unless his soul shared in the punishment, he would have been the Redeemer of bodies alone. (ibid., Sect. 12)" The Catholics and Orthodox, of course, believe that when Christ "descended into Hell", it was to preach to those in Abraham's Bosom, not to suffer damnation.

So if the Reformed 'penal substitution' view involves the belief that God's wrath demands his penalized victim to be damned, then that view would seem to have a dramatically different understanding of "atonement" than the Catholic view.

I find it ironic that the atonement's details are so foreign to me, as I've relied upon it all my life. I have personally been reflecting on the Old Testament signs of the scapegoat and the blood-marked door posts of the passover. If each of these prefigures Christ's atonement, they tell me that the atonement is complex, that there are several facets to the way in which Christ's blood cleanses. But this topic is for the scholars. For me, in my own discernment, I am mostly struck by all that I noted in that previous post, that the notion of Christ enduring a suffering damnation to be an effective atonement, was novel to the Middle Ages. Beware of novelties.

Baptismal Regeneration Revisited

2008-04-06T19:04:00.003-03:00

I posted previously on Baptismal Regeneration here, noting the tension in the Reformed view between recognizing Baptism as a sign and seal of the believer's entrance into the Body of Christ and forgiveness of sins, and denying its inherent regenerative power.

When defending paedobaptism (i.e., infant baptism) to those of an anti-paedobaptist bent, the Reformed are accused of retaining the Catholic-like belief that the act of sprinkling water can regenerate, can make a damned baby right with God (i.e., justified). The Reformed do not believe that the infant has his debt from Adam wiped clean at the Baptismal font by that mechanical act. But we do say that the act is a sign and seal of regeneration (WCOF 28.1). The Heidelberg Catechism makes clear that the external baptism washes no sins at all, but is to assure us that as water washes exterior filth, so Christ's blood washes the interior (see Q&A 72 and 73).

I wonder if different understandings of original sin badly widen the gulf in the disparate beliefs on baptism (as acutely seen when discussing infant baptism) held by Reformed and Catholic Christians.

A Reformed expression of the doctrine of original sin stresses the complete depravity it works in its victims (which is all of us), "It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring." (Belgic Confession, Art. 15, emphasis added).

The Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church contrarily maintains that "It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle" (at para. 406, emphasis added and internal citations omitted).

My wife and I chose years ago not to go to a Reformed Anglican denomination because they believed in baptismal regeneration. To us, this position was untenable because we knew that those baptized retained a "corrupt nature". But the Catholic position (and probably that of this Anglican group as well) says that the corrupt nature is not what is washed away, but rather our deprivation of original holiness and justice.

Baptismal regeneration v1.0 and v2.0 will not reconcile so long as they each use the language "original sin" in two mutually exclusive ways.

Quiet Lately.

2008-04-05T20:41:00.002-03:00

It's been a long time since I've done any real writing for this blog, and a long time since I've shared with others my thoughts as I try to discern whether to convert to the Catholic Church. If any of my old contributors are still around, please know that this sabbatical was at first unintentional, and that I would like to soon return to regularly sharing my thoughts for discussion.

My absence was instigated primarily by one particularly tiring debate that followed a substantive post. More generally though, it was instigated by a growing sense that coming to agreement on terms of the Christian faith for any two people is a seemingly uphill battle. I was tired.

I drank in deeply an accusation that I didn't know what a particular ecclesial body 'really' taught in its true or pure form. Having been raised in that tradition by a man ordained to its ministry, and having studied it intently to find its refutations of certain Catholic and Orthodox critiques, I was deeply offended at the suggestion of my own ignorance. But I knew that if I replied with my own religious qualifications to speak, I would not be speaking in charity.

So it was easier to walk away from the whole frustrating debacle. Where this was weak of me, I apologize to my interlocutor and anyone benefiting from the discussion. Where it was my effort at a restrained, temperate reaction (which is contrary to my nature), I have no regrets.

I hope in future discussions to be more bold, and yet more gentle. If a fellow Christian tells me I don't understand "Reformed teaching", "Lutheran teaching" or the like, I will invite them to explain the correct position. Where one's explanation seems to inconsistent with a mainstream source describing that tradition, or seems to state as settled something that mainstream sources continue to debate, I will merely point out what I see to be an inconsistency, and then discuss the view as my fellow Christian presents it. I will not, however, accept that any one individual view is a qualified characterization of an entire ecclesial body, unless it appears to present a consensus view.

I think for the sake of Truth, we must be cognizant that no two views are truly alike. When I characterize Reformed theology, it is really "Reformed theology as Thos. understands it" that I present. Peace in Christ.

Free Chant: Resurrexi

2008-03-12T21:28:00.004-03:00

Go here for a free downloadable album of Gregorian Chant done by seminarians of the Institute of the Incarnate Word ("IVE" in Spanish). An old friend from my military days is a seminarian with the IVE, and brought this resource to my attention. Very good!

Mystic Monk Coffee

2008-03-09T10:39:00.004-03:00

I have received my first order of Mystic Monk Coffee, and it is excellent! My wife bought us their "Irish Cream" coffee. I am not normally a flavored kind of coffee drinker, but this is of the highest quality. It is very smooth, with an easygoing, pleasant aftertaste. I look forward to sampling their Mexican or Colombian roasts next.

The coffee is roasted and shipped by "real monks" of the Carmelite order. Br. Java and his cohorts are raising funds through coffee sales to build their own monastery in the mountains of Wyoming near Yellowstone National Park. (They are presently renting ranch land on which Buffalo Bill's cabin sits, it seems.) As this is a worthy end, and I find the coffee to be excellent, I highly recommend giving them a try.

Two final things to note: one, I drink a lot of coffee, take coffee seriously, and take recommending coffee very seriously. If anyone tries the Mystic Monk Irish Cream and disagrees with my assessment, please let me know!; and two, I am not a participant in their "Affiliate" (sales) program, so my endorsement is unbiased. It's just good coffee.

That We Might Become God

2008-02-21T13:41:00.003-04:00

I read this yesterday in the Catholic Catechism, and felt a little confused by it (emphasis added):

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":[] "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

Footnotes are as follows:
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

I do not understand in what sense man might become God. This sentiment, which as far as I know is found only here in the Catechism, reminds me of the Orthodox notion of deification. I was unaware of its firm position within Catholic thought as well. My understanding is that the Orthodox position qualifies the meaning of "become God" to such an extent that I no longer see the purpose of using those words. If I mean to say that in my walk of faith, I can be blessed by the Holy Spirit to take on the very qualities of God's holiness, why not say just that? Why say, "you can become God, but of course I don't mean that in an ontological sense"? Words are delicate things, and weak minds like mine are easily confused and made afoul. Perhaps this is my own problem, and not the Church's though.

The Fatima Show

2008-02-21T13:07:00.003-04:00

I don't know if any others pondering conversion to Catholicism were able to catch EWTN's "FATIMA: ALTAR DO MUNDO" last night, but it sure didn't do much to rope my bride into the idea of "Popeing" (it being her idea to watch). Actually, it didn't do much for me either.

Since my reaction to the images displayed on this program was largely emotional and subjective, I have few details to share. I will only say that it strains credulity to assure would-be converts that they aren't required to believe in any of the apparitions. The formality and frequency of ceremonies conducted there, especially by Pope John Paul II, e.g., in "crowning" the statue of the Our Lady of Fatima with a crown containing the bullet by which he was shot, leads me to believe that one would be far outside the mainstream to disbelieve that this was a "true" apparition or an event good for Christianity. So tell me all you like that the apparitions are 'optional' belief. I will agree with you that your statement is formally true. However, the more Catholic culture ingests these private revelations, the more they become a real part of public Catholic identity. Perhaps that last sentence should be in the past tense.

Gold Images

2008-02-21T12:32:00.004-04:00

Tooling around the EWTN Religious Catalogue, I came across this 14KT Gold "Trinity Crucifix". I would feel like something was wrong if I were purchasing a $600 piece of gold anything to wear around my neck, but considering what my wife's engagement ring cost, perhaps I am short-sighted or hypocritical (or both).

Beyond that though, I do not like this (or any) depiction of God the Father. I believe that depictions of the Father are more modern practices than ancient. I found this Catholic website which denounces depicting the Father as an old man:

The creating of images of God the Father as an old man is to literally create a false god, another idol to worship. It falls short of reflecting upon the true nature of the Divinity of God the Father as He has been [] revealed to us through Jesus Christ and consequently through the Church that has preserved the original teachings of the Apostles.

In addition to this "Trinity Crucifix", I know I've seen an image of the Father with the Son crowning the Virgin Mary on the ceiling of the University of Notre Dame Cathedral (as seen on T.V.), and in the Basilica built at Fatima (also as seen on T.V.).

My subjective belief is that to make a solid gold image of what one imagines God the Father to look like is a foolish thing. Even if I were to accept that the wearer of this precious medal believes it to be only an image and not an idol, I think it is foolery. The Old Testament says, in my subjective interpretation, that no man can see the face of the Father and live. I would not counsel my children to ever depict the Father's face, therefore.

2008-02-17T16:10:00.003-04:00

I wrote this on Catholicity Question's second post today, and thought enough of it to post here:

"[This follows from a conversation about whether Protestants would do well to look back to the first generation of the Church for lessons on Truth.] It strikes me that adhering to paleo-orthodoxy would be far more logically consistent for those of our stripe than is adhering to Reformed "fathers". Again, I see many problems with paleo-orthodoxy, but it still makes more sense than having Luther's or Calvin's works on your shelf next to scripture, and using [those] (effectively, even if you don't admit it) as the proper, authentic articulat[ion] of biblical systematic theology. The logical conclusion of asserting that the church fell into near-total apostasy leading up to the Reformation is, in my opinion, that the church is never trustworthy whenever viewed removed from it's primitive days. *Hence, primitivism seems more logical than fallible developmentalism.*"

I guess I like that little term that popped into my head, "fallible developmentalism" (maybe it's not even my term... who knows...). I suppose some prudent Reformational students will dog on me that I fail to understand the real essence of the Reformation. They're quite possibly right. But to my simple understanding, you either fully trust the Spirit's hand in doctrinal development, or you trust His involvement somewhat less than fully. If there is no reliable litmus test of what is "Spirit Approved", then primitivism is a safer haven.

Mary And The Fathers Of The Church

2008-02-12T18:57:00.000-04:00

Finished! I finally made it through Fr. Luigi Gambero's Mary and the Fathers of the Church.

While Fr. Gambero is easy to follow, I think I read this book in three different segments. I had to put it down for major life events like a move and law school finals, but also because at times it was deeply difficult emotionally. As a non-Catholic, I did not find the early Church evidence to compellingly point toward modern Catholic Marian expressions and teachings. But I don't think compelling me or making an argument was the author's intent; it should be insightful and edifying for a Catholic reader.

Fr. Gambero ended with John Damascene (d. ca. 750). It wasn't until he covered the later Church Fathers, and only by looking East, that clear expressions of Mary's mediation of all graces, her Assumption, and her Immaculate Conception began to emerge. But giving doctrinal development the room it requests, this late arrival is not of major moment for me.

What was difficult was the opening chapters, which described the spring of Marian developments from which the Church Fathers later drank, the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James. When I read this opening, it was a time when my wife and I were a bit more caustic in our discussions about Catholicism and Orthodoxy. She thought that I was buying books only to learn arguments to support what I had already decided to do in my heart. And I wish it could have been that easy. But even in my time of eagerness, I struggled with the effect this apocryphal text later had. I learned how it "cast an undeniable spell over the Christian mentality of the first centuries" and "profoundly conditioned Christian liturgy, preaching, popular devotion, and art." From it we are told the names of Mary's parents, their sterility, Mary's premature birth, and Mary's presentment at the Temple. Many miraculous events are also described.

For one inclined to panic at the drop of a Marian needle, this was like a cherry bomb dropped into my trousers. It was just too much to handle, and I stopped reading this book further. I'm glad I've been able to get through it since, but still feel anxiety over the influence that this (largely tall) tale had on the Church.

I guess I need to reflect more on the belief that the Holy Spirit allows the Church to preserve and develop doctrines. This could ease my concerns over the use of texts that were outside the deposit of faith as major sources for later development.

However, concerns remain. Marian development strikes me as having a unique historical attribute. While there was great and often painful hedge trimming done in other areas of doctrinal development (for example, anathematizing predestinarianism and semi-Pelagianism alike), I don't think there was similar hedge trimming related to Marian excesses. I was hoping to see in this book that there had been some tension between various ancient scholars on the proper roles and attributes to ascribe to Mary. Instead, I found none. That may be the way the Holy Spirit has chosen to commend a truth. I simply note that it appears different from the development of other doctrine.

"The Catholicity Question"

2008-02-12T18:02:00.000-04:00

The Catholicity Question is a new blog with promise:

"For the past decade, I’ve been working, worshipping, and thinking through what various people label “Reformed Catholicism,” “Protesting Catholicism,” or “High Church Calvinism.” I love this world, and have almost joined the Anglican Church on a few occasions. Eastern Orthodoxy holds quite a bit of attraction, but I can’t get over the icons and veneration of the saints. I’m too much of a Protestant to even think about joining the Roman Catholic church, though I read Roman Catholic authors without discrimination."

Sports Fast

2008-02-07T11:25:00.000-04:00

I have a nagging feeling when I become engrossed in sports.

First, my conscience feels a sense of guilt whenever I use time unproductively. That's a standing rule for me; I believe I should be able to justify how I use all of my time.

Second, my conscience feels great guilt when I become deeply emotionally wrapped up in a particular sporting outcome. So in this sense, watching a fight in which I have no "dog" may effectively be a better undertaking than watching a game in which I have deep interest.

How sorrowful when I spend an evening stressed about a sporting event's outcome, an outcome God long ago foresaw, and which has no bearing on my worth as a person, or the value of my contribution in sharing the light of Christ with the world. This is especially so when an event is on the Lord's Day. Recreational or relaxing it certainly is not (as, say, sailing or fishing may be). It contributes nothing to my feeling refreshed and energetic the next day. It does not make me a better Christ-bearer to the world. How sorrowful when I spend the remainder of an evening angry or moody about a particularly disfavorable sporting outcome. There's a much greater fight in which I'm engaged, one which does have bearing on my worth as a person and a disciple of Christ!

So I have been after distancing myself from sports. I think baseball is the only one about which I really cringe at the thought of giving it up. I do enjoy it's microcosmic life drama. I enjoy sharing in a passion my grandmother and father had for the same team.

I will continue to reflect on whether the use of my time and talents on watching, following, becoming engrossed in, and discussing sports is fulfilling my calling in life. I invite you to do the same. I should note that I think sports could be wrong for me (because of the way I emotionally react), but perfectly fit for the next Christian.

Spritual Aloneness

2008-01-31T13:06:00.000-04:00

Here's an honest and personally moving post on spiritual aloneness (or loneliness) with which I can sympathize.

I wonder how many pew-sitters feel that they have deep union with the people with whom they are in communion? Why do I get funny looks when my "prayer request" at church is to give thanks for the large turn-out at the March for Life? I've opened myself to my pastor about my spiritual struggles. Once. We don't talk about it anymore. Is this a common feeling, or is it peculiar to people who think too much about "non-fundamentals"?

It's been hard enough to even have spiritual unity with my wife, so perhaps it's an irrationally high aspiration to share spiritual unity of thought with more than one or two other folks at church.

Newman: Calvinism Becomes Unitarian

2008-01-29T18:40:00.000-04:00

Newman asserts several times in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine that Calvinism leads to Unitarianism. E.g., "Calvinism has changed into Unitarianism: yet this need not be called a corruption, even if it be not, strictly speaking, a development; for Harding, in controversy with Jewell, surmised the coming change three centuries since, and it has occurred not in one country, but in many" (p.175).

And later, "Principle is a better test of heresy than doctrine. Heretics are true to their principles, but change to and fro, backwards and forwards, in opinion; for very opposite doctrines may be exemplifications of the same principle. Thus the Antiochenes and other heretics sometimes were Arians, sometimes Sabellians, sometimes Nestorians, sometimes Monophysites, as if at random, from fidelity to their common principle, that there is no mystery in theology. Thus Calvinists become Unitarians from the principle of private judgment. The doctrines of heresy are accidents and soon run to an end; its principles are everlasting" (181).

These claims were not supported by a citation, and Newman's contemporary knowledge is long lost to me. So I put the following question to the historically adept Tertium Quid (via e-mail), "Cardinal Newman proclaims on several occasions in his "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" that Calvinism has led to Unitarianism. Do you know what he's talking about?"

For his fascinating and beautifully written reply, see here. This must have taken some time, so I am grateful (and at a lawyer's billing rate, I probably owe T.Q. a cold one or two...).

Federal Vision Fission

2008-01-29T17:40:00.000-04:00

Big doings for the PCA. The highly controversial Auburn Avenue Church, along with its Pastor Steve Wilkins, has left the denomination to join the start-up "CREC". Wilkins has been a major player in the emerging "Federal Vision" movement, also called by his church's name, "Auburn Avenue Theology". This theology was recently found unacceptable by a PCA committee charged to investigate it. I discussed this church here and here, in the context of the use of Creeds.

The vote occurred just two days ago, and the CREC has already updated their church roster. I think they're thrilled to have them as a "mission church" under "oversight".

Here's an excellent critique of this move. I agree with the critique's spirit -- that eschewing your authorities while facing presbyterian discipline to carve out a new denomination that's a more comfortable fit is a dubious proposition. I do not agree with one conclusion, however, "I say give up on the denominational model and just be Christian for crying out loud!" It is impossible to "just be Christian". The word is not self-defining, and there is no authoritative agreement on what it means. See my critique here, noting that this view is its own creed (so arguably making a formless denomination of its adherents).

At any rate, I don't follow the Federal Vision debate too closely, but closely enough to know that this is big news to the people involved. Pray for Unity! At least they waited for the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity; they missed it by two days.

Thos.?

2008-01-29T17:27:00.000-04:00

To clear up any confusion about my "handle", see here.

It's an old nickname. I've been shedding me thinly-veiled anonymity of late, so figured I would clear the water on this one. It's not some catchy Greek word (to my knowledge!).

Ornament Of Our Race

2008-01-29T10:58:00.000-04:00

[Now seems like a good time to make this simple observation: I am richly blessed by so many faithful Christians sharing of their knowledgeable about many different Christian groups. Thank you all, and I hope that the discussions here, and my own simple contributions, can be at least partly edifying to you in return for how very edifying your contributions are to me.]

Severus of Antioch (ca. 465-538), Patriarch of Antioch, who incidentally was tied to a moderate form of Monophysitism, said something that reminded me of a recurring Marian angst of mine. Maybe it's not so much an angst as it is a confusion, so I'll share it for discussion.

He said, "More than any other saints, she is able to lift up prayers for us, and we glory to have obtained her as the ornament of our race." (Fr. L. Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, p. 315, emphasis added).

I would like to be clear that my anxiety is with the description of Mary as the ornament of our race (not about intercessory prayers). I read this type of expression of Marian appreciation and admiration often. She is the preeminent human, the 'solitary boast' of the human race. I'm anxious because this seems to call into question the full humanity of Christ. These types of expressions are centered around the premise that Mary is humanity's link to divinity. Indeed, she was the culmination of the righteous root of the people of the Old Covenant. From her flowered the Messiah. But, while a flower, he too was of the root. He was of the same Genus and species. If Mary is humanity's solitary boast, or our greatest ornament, it seems that would be because Christ is of a different kind of humanity. No, I say, Christ is our sole boast (or, if you insist, He and Mary are our two 'boasts', she because of him).

I think I know a rebuttal view, but do see some logic in my above concern all the same. The rebuttal would go something like this: We rightly say that Sin came to humanity through Eve. But we also rightly say "death came into the world through a man" (1 Cor 15:21), because Adam is our federal head. By analogy, we can rightly say that righteousness came to humanity through Mary, that she is the ornament of our race, and still really mean that Christ is our true sole boast, as our true federal head.

Is there another view about such expressions of Mary as the pinnacle of humanity? Am I being uncharitable?

Monophysite Bread and Wine

2008-01-27T16:53:00.000-04:00

[Please read the combox of this post, where I was led to make necessary corrections or qualifications to my comments on Monophysitism.]

Eutychian Monophysitism, condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), taught that the Lord was in two natures before the incarnational union, but one nature after (see here). I think Reformed Protestants rarely realize our confessional belief that Christ is bodily in Heaven as He is spiritually (see e.g., WCOF, Ch. VIII, Sec. 4). This belief flows from a proper understanding of the hypostatic union against Monophysitism, so it's important to retain!

But I wonder, is the Reformed view of the communion affected with at least a touch of Monophysitism?

The Catholics believe that Christ is fully present in their consecrated elements, both in His body and His Divinity. The Anabaptists taught that Christ's one sacrifice on the cross is memorialized with the Supper, so that neither His body nor His Divinity are made present to the communicant. But the Reformer has somewhat of a hybrid position: worthy participants "really and indeed" receive and feed upon Christ by faith. He is, then, "really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance. (WCOF, Ch. XXIX, Sec. 7)" Contrariwise, the wicked who receive the elements not in faith do not receive the thing signified by the bread and wine, but are still especially guilty for unworthily approaching the Supper (Id., Sec. 8).

Christians daily benefit from Christ's grace. This happens invisibly; we do not receive Christ when He answers our prayers, but we receive His grace. However, in the Supper, Jesus Christ and not only His graces are "really and indeed" present and received. But if Christ is indivisibly and eternally Incarnate, joined by the hypostatic union, it seems an improper speculation to state the we receive Him in only one nature. Even entering Heaven Christ retained the union of His natures. Why would He only dole out one nature for the benefit of His Church?

Further, I sense an illogic in the notion that those without faith receive nothing, and yet still eat and drink to their own damnation (Id.). This received-in-faith-only view of the communion seems to do great violence to 1 Cor. 11:29: "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. " There is no spiritual presence to cause harm to the unbeliever, since that presence only exists for the faithful. There is no bodily presence, of course, under the Reformed view. There is nothing left, then, that should not be consumed by the unbeliever.

Argue The Forest, Not The Trees

2008-01-24T12:51:00.000-04:00

I blogged here that I could no longer confess the doctrine of sola Scriptura, leaving me in a sort of spiritual no-man's-land. That sentiment has not changed since September 1, 2007, but it has not clearly progressed either.

Marian angst (I use this as a term of art; let me know if you're not sure what I mean) is a recurring problem. At times it feels critically acute, and at other times the sensation is minimal. I believe that it is probably a proxy feeling for overall anxiety over subscribing to a belief that the (i.e., "a", or "one") Church holds infallible interpretive authority over Divine Revelation. Therefore, and because of the formality of its decrees, this feeling is most acute vis-à-vis the Catholic Church, even where the Orthodox Churches may articulate Marian doctrines with stronger emotive language.

So while I have toed the line of entering the Catholic Church for some time, this recurring angst makes me think I need to step back and try as well as possible to objectively recapitulate and reconsider what I believe to be the constitution of Christ's Church. While I realize that I am incapable of objectively viewing the church, I'd like to try all the same. By “objective”, I will mean “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations” (Merriam-Webster).

I think that I tried something similar here, where I asked five questions related to authority that I hoped were fair and not loaded to lead to a certain conclusion. Here I will try to describe the analytical steps I think I need to pursue, without using the form of question and answer. There’s an old law school trick to writing I’ll use: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion. I’ll try that here.

To be clear, I don’t mean to discuss issues like whether the Catholics are wrong for 'violating' the “call no man father” verse, or the Orthodox are wrong because they had a Sultan select their hierarch, or the Protestants are wrong for excluding the apocrypha/deuterocanon. My experience is that for every such argument, there is some reply, and for most, there is an able reply. I do mean to discuss the overall analytical framework I think I need to use when considering ecumenicism, and how those facts and arguments should fit within the framework.

ISSUE:

I'd like to consider whether the claims by any one of the major branches of Christianity are objectively superior to the others (I realize this is an idealist approach).

First, I assume that anyone engaged in this discussion, like me, believes and so assumes that Christ is True and not false. From there I assume that each candidate Church model sees at its core a mission to preserve and transmit the Gospel-Truth (i.e., Logos or Word). Other functions of the Church (e.g., sacramental, communal) flow from the substance of the Gospel-Truth that the Church has preserved and transmitted. In this way, the candidates, indeed all of Christianity, aims to bear Witness to the world of the Messiah’s coming. Church, in my expression “candidate Church model” simply means God's people, however additionally defined by the particular candidates (in other words, I don’t mean to load that expression with lots of biased meaning).

So assuming that Christ is True, and that the candidates, as witnesses, all preserve and transmit His Truth, the discussion instantly turns to authority. By what authority does a candidate articulate and develop the Gospel-Truth? Disputes of authority have also been the catalysts of all schism within Christianity, so it’s a natural focal point.

A recent discussion helped me to see three major authority views or camps within Christianity: Papalism, Conciliarism and Biblicism. Each understands the Church's place in transmitting and safeguarding the Logos differently, and each has a different conclusion as to what the primary and subordinate principles of the Logos are. I suppose I could add "Individualist" to these three, which would look approximately like this, "whatever I understand to be true about Jesus from my feelings and from whatever I accept to be true from this book the Bible." I'm not going to add that though.

The nature and essence of the Logos is the fundamental question for the Church; to understand the nature and essence one must understand the Church, to understand the Church, one must see the Church as either Papalist, Conciliarist, or Biblicist (that is, one must have a view of authority). So my issue becomes which of these three camps has the objectively superior claim as preservationist, propagator, and articulator of the Logos.

The Biblicist believes that all authority for the Church is contained within the Bible. The Logos was exclusively preserved within its written contents, and it has been propagated through the ages. In our culture, while Biblicist groups are diverse in outward appearance, they share this view of authority – the Logos is co-extensive with the contents of the Protestant Bible. The Baptists and those that describe themselves as "fundamentalist", many branches of Reformed, Lutheran and other traditional denominations that call themselves "Evangelical", and perhaps Charismatic groups would fall within this camp.

The Conciliarist believes that authority for the Church is contained within ecclesial councils. The Logos has been preserved and propagated within the Bible and articulated by authoritative councils. I have learned of a Protestant group that considers itself conciliarist, but the traditional Anglicans and the Orthodox are also in this camp. They would add that the Logos is preserved and propagated within the Church proper, the Bible representing only a part of this Gospel-Truth. [Note: in an attempt to remain objective, I accept the candidates’ claims as true, so I accept the traditional Anglican position that they are not protestant.]

I am only newly aware of the protestant conciliarist position, known as the "magisterial protestant". This camp believes that the councils of the church, while not the source of all authority, still have real authority. These reformers perceive the state, at least classically, as playing some role in empowering these authorities and enforcing their authority. These reformers seek to turn back to the fundamental roots of the Reformation, and seek to subscribe to its traditional confessions, depending on where one lives (see here for some subscribers to this position). I'm still learning about this view, so I should not try to explain it further. But suffice it to say that the Bible is not the source of all authority to the magisterial protestant conciliarist, but is the source of ultimate authority. Only the Bible is infallible, and all articulation of the Logos will be measured by the authorities (and not the laity) against the Bible.

The Orthodox and the traditional Anglicans are within the Conciliarist camp, and have an older claim to its essence. They are both distinct from the magisterial protestants by their subscription to Apostolic Succession, that is, the belief that their Bishops have ties by succession of ordination back to the Apostles. [Note, again, I accept the traditional Anglican position as true for these purposes.] The authority of the Church and its evangelization and articulation of the Logos subsist within the Church itself. I have only recently begun making myself smart on the Anglo-Catholic view that their ties to the Apostles extend through the days of Henry VIII, so I will stop here (see here for a subscriber to this position). I don't mean to minimize distinctions between traditional Anglicans and the Orthodox (and that would be an absurd undertaking), but only leave it hear because if I tried to go on, I might paint the traditional Anglican position in an unfair light.

Finally, the Papalists (and, as I've learned, this is not the same as the derogatory use of the term "Papist"), who are not just Latin Rite (Roman) Catholics, but also their Eastern rites, believe that the Pope is not only first in honor among Bishops in council, but has actual authority over the other Bishops. Under this view too, authority exists within the Church, but binding dogmatic articulations of the Logos can flow from councils and the Pope alike.

RULE:

By what standard can I objectively judge which candidate is the right witness to and articulation of the Gospel-Truth in the 21st century? I must use reason and faith, which includes prayer, to do so. The Scriptures cannot be an independent standard by which to reach the right conclusion because 1) not all 'candidate' churches believe in the same canon of Scripture, and 2) their interpretation or articulation is part of the very essence of this dispute (i.e., what is the "Truth" handed down through the ages from Christ, assuming He is True). The Scriptures could be used, however, as a measure of the internal integrity of each candidate's claims. E.g., if a book identified by Church X as canonical and infallible says "Blessed are the poor", and that candidate church teaches, "Blessed are the Healthy and Wealthy", we find evidence that Church X is not teaching the Truth of Christ. But ultimately this would only be evidence that must be judged by reason because of competing interpretations and hermeneutic methods. I guess I have no better rule, then, than reason (which gauges the internal integrity of each belief system) informed by faith (which relies on prayer).

ANALYSIS:

I have (personally) ruled out the Biblicist position, as I stated in my post rejecting the validity of the Biblicist view of sola Scriptura cited above. The position lacks internal integrity, as it commands that all authority flows from the Bible alone, yet the Bible does not articulate a Bible alone position, nor is it self-identifying, in terms of its canon. Indeed, a multitude of rationales have been used to justify the existing Protestant canon. I withhold personal judgment on whether the magisterial protestant means something different by “sola Scriptura” than does the Biblicist, and whether his view of authority would allow the creation of canon. I believe that the majority view in my denomination (the PCA) is Biblicist, though there seems to be strong (and perhaps growing) resistance to this position (that is, there are factions of magisterial reformers who recognize the need for other authority, albeit fallible).

I started with the Biblicist position because it could be easily removed from my table. This is my no-man’s land: Church ≠ Biblicism, therefore Church = Conciliarism or Papalism. From here we come to real contention at every turn. I analyze the remaining candidates by first asking whether the Church’s own authority is fallible or infallible. The infallible camp consists of the Orthodox and Catholics, and the fallible camp consists of traditional Anglicans and magisterial Protestants.

I am surprised to find that, so long after I started my meager efforts at discerning the proper constitution of Christ’s Church, I am not certain that it has to be infallible. One of the earliest ‘shoes to drop’ for me was coming to see that a fallible church fallibly identifying a canon of scripture and a doctrine about its infallibility had serious problems of logic. And yet I read the earnestness of certain members of these camps, and can’t help but think that I might just be missing a deeper truth to their views. I still hold out some shred of hope, that the Holy Spirit could work within and preserve even a fallible Church. After all, early particular churches fell into grave error (e.g., the Church at Corinth), as did the Apostle Peter (as Protestants are fond of observing).

Taking a Newman-like view of doctrinal development may be fruitful in this context. The true principles of the fallible-camp candidates should come to light over time, as their theorems are put to practice and bear (or fail to bear) fruit. This method of thinking speaks somewhat against the magisterial protestant, who holds a model of church in his head, but can point to its existence nowhere (and its failure everywhere). The Anglican too is plagued by failures from within his camp.

But I need to consider and pray more about this before ruling out the fallible camp. I still don’t understand how the magisterial protestant differs from the Biblicist in essence, and I have only recently come to think I should give the traditional Anglican claim to Apostolic Succession more consideration. Perhaps their take that there was real, but fallible authority makes more sense than I give it credit. They would say that the authorities are the only ones who should correct error, not the laity (although in the magisterial protestant view, if the authorities become entirely corrupt, the faithful laity are free to, indeed called to assume the reigns and Reform).

On the infallible side of the house, the analysis necessary to make a rational conclusion between the claims of the Orthodox and the Catholics is a real head-splitter. I see two main ways to resolve this quest.

First, one could accede to the hemisphere in which God has them. If you’re in the West, just stay with the Western Church. However, this makes relative the fundamental differences that exist between the candidates’ view of authority, and the doctrinal views that have flowed therefrom over the last millennium plus. In other words, you would be saying that it doesn’t really matter to God that the filioque was added; what matters is that we participate with the representation of the Church that is native to our own land. Further, the geographical East-West distinction may be more notional than real. The Papalist camp does have a real presence (pardon the pun) in the East, and the Orthodox churches in the states are working hard to move beyond being mere immigrant churches, such that their presence as Western churches is real too (see this excellent post discussing how Orthodoxy in America is becoming “native”). So, while I don’t find a homesteading view all that compelling, I respect it, and I hear its advocacy often. The six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other crowd can point to impressive similarities between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but similarity is only plain when seen relative to the Protestantism.

Second, one can immerse one’s self in history. This effort overwhelms me. I have read and read and read the primary sources (the Eastern and Western Fathers) as well as secondary sources (books on church history, particularly describing both ‘halves’ of the Church). I feel like I only barely understand what happened after the early persecution ended, and what happened after the first millennia rolled into the second. I suppose that coupled with prayer and faith, applying reason to a deep study of history could give one the knowledge of which infallible-camp Church has the claim of Truth in its evangelization and articulation of the Logos. The temptation to resolve this difficult and time-consuming method of analysis by leaning on the homesteading view should be carefully avoided.

The fundamental dispute between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is about authority, so if I rule out fallible conciliar churches, I would be forced to decide between the infallilble conciliar model for church, and the infallibile papal model. The factual arguments in favor of each are too much for me to get into here, but I will note that arguments of Biblical and Patristic support for Papalism are persuasive, as are arguments about the meaning of the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 and early church conciliar practice.

Finally, reason needs to turn its eyes to the doctrines of these churches. If Catholic or Orthodox Marian dogmas and doctrines, for example, conflict with one’s use of reason, informed by faith, it could provide an independent basis for looking elsewhere. This has been the premise behind my view that if all logic councils against a sola Scriptura view, but I believe that all alternative groups practice idolatry (let’s say), I must have been mistaken about sola Scriptura.

CONCLUSION:

While my attempt at objectively viewing the church has not yielded any clear winners (and if it did, I’d probably be further away from objectivity than I hope), it has taught me something. Those deeply entrenched and self-assured of the rightness of their own position ought to be well equipped to explain themselves. We should realize that each of our trench-warfare debate points (like whether we can call any man father, whether praying to saints is right or wrong, etc.) fits in a larger debate about what the Church is and is meant to be. For the sake of unity, we must try to see the forest through the trees.

[This is the best I can do with the time I have, and I realize that this is a paltry effort. I am going to keep this document at least for my own personal reference, and will update and correct my use of terms, analysis and conclusions as problems are pointed out to me. So I would appreciate constructive input if for no other reason than my own benefit.]

March For Life (& Unity!)

2008-01-22T19:26:00.000-04:00

[Please continue to pray for Christian Unity, as we draw toward the latter part of our Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.]

Today's March for Life, conducted on the occasion of the 35th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court handing down Roe v. Wade, was a joyfully sad occasion. The weather was cold, but the spirit was definitely warm. I sensed an optimism, that victory is plausible.

This is what it takes to get Charismatics and Catholics, Evangelicals and Episcopals to march side-by-side and act as Children of the Messiah (exception: one particularly irate brother who felt he had been cut in line by two other brethren in the subway). Our unity was impressive, and for that I felt joyful. However, while there was fraternal love between the Christian sects, the non-Catholic side of the house was woefully underrepresented. My limited impression, based on hats, shirts, and signs, is that 70-80% of those present were Roman Catholic (and plenty of the remainder were Eastern Orthodox).

I have two theories on why we lack a proportionate number of "Evangelicals" in the Pro-Life movement. 1) Apathy. I think some trace of moral relativism lingers to create an attitude of "well, fetus a life?, the Bible's not that clear, so maybe its a matter of conscience?" Many Evangelicals (I theorize) feel just enough of this attitude to overcome any momentum they might otherwise have to participate in a pro-Life activity. Remedy: PROGRAMS! Our churches are program-based by nature, so why not have "Pro-Life Activities Coordinators"? Education could shore up moral truth, and coordination of trips and events could create or strengthen momentum to act! [Theory 1.5 is fear of seemingly "political" topics, and the proper role of morality in the public square, being discussed in the church house. I have no remedy for this.]

2) Catholic Heebie-jeebies. Faithful "Evangelicals" are understandably pretty freaked out or at least made uncomfortable by the overwhelming presence of Catholics (and their concomitant Catholicism) at Pro-Life events. After all, when the line of people outside an abortion clinic are praying "Hail, Mary", what's the Evangelical supposed to do with himself? And what to do with singing "Ave Maria" and processing a statue of the Madonna at marches? I think most Protestants would prefer to do something that's more of their own kind. Pro-Life activities feel Catholic. Remedy: PROGRAMS (see above) to lessen the overwhelming disparity; and ask Catholics to consider that at these events, standing on common ground and having a wider base of Christian voters present may be worth the sacrifice of practicing some Catholic particulars.

Mediatrix Of All Graces?

2008-01-20T15:02:00.000-04:00

[Please continue to pray for Church Unity! This post is meant in sincerity, and I do not mean to go bashing or to get bashed. If you are able to clear up my misunderstandings in a spirit of grace, please do so! It is difficult differences like these that inhibit Unity. Therefore, I believe we are duty-bound to attempt to sort them out.]

I've just read Dave Armstrong's section on Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces, in his "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism." I was not sold on the idea, and am a little confused to boot. Is he defending defined Catholic dogma, or a mere (albeit popular) proposition that exists within Catholicism? It is not clear from the book.

Some Catholic writers claim it is already infallible teaching (e.g., Fr. Most's writing available on EWTN's website). This claim says that the battle is o'er, and those in opposition should just lay down their arms. But since a popular movement has been petitioning the Vatican to define the teaching as dogma, the claim that it is already infallible strikes me as a tad presumptuous.

St. Louis said, "Since all the grace which you receive comes from Our Lady, your salvation therefore ultimately depends on Her, and therefore you shall not enter Heaven without a devotion to Her, either developed in this life, or in the next life in Purgatory, when your dependence on her as mediatrix of all grace will have become absolutely clear." [HT: Laudem Gloriae]

However, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, has this to say about mediation: "The office of mediator belongs fully only to Jesus, the Man - God, Who alone could reconcile us with God by offering Him, on behalf of men, the infinite sacrifice of the Cross, which is perpetuated in Holy Mass. He alone, as Head of mankind, could merit for us in justice the grace of salvation and apply it to those who do not reject His saving action. It is as man that He is mediator, but as a Man in Whom humanity is united hypostatically to the Word and endowed with the fullness of grace, the grace of Headship, which overflows on men. As St. Paul puts it: 'For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave Himself for a redemption for all, a testimony in due times" (I Tim. 2:5-6). [Hat Tip: PowerBlog!]. [Aside: I recently learned that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange taught Pope JPII when he was still just a lowly seminarian.]

So I wonder, is the battle o'er? Speaking individualistically, this teaching seems to come up short in two prominent ways. 1) The rational theological basis for this would-be dogma seems nearly absent; support for this teaching seems to flow from Marian apparitions and Mystic teachers of the Catholic Church who prophesied that this teaching would become dogma. As the Catholic Church teaches that public revelation ceased long ago, and the evidence of Mary's role as Mediatrix of All Graces does not appear in the early deposit of faith, I would expect to see a strong rationale for its formulation (as, e.g., is given with the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, which in addition enjoys early Patristic support). Some defenses I've read stress that God could see fit to have His graces mediated in this way. Granted. But what tells us that He does (for surely, Reason or Revelation would need to tell us that He does this before it could be an infallible dogma)? 2) The claim that Mary's role is not only to pray for us, but to be a channel of all graces (Fr. Most calls her the "neck" through which all power of the "head" must pass) makes false the primary Catholic defense of Marian (and all Saintly) intercession -- that is, that they merely pray for us as those who are already righteous and before God. Which is it, that the saints pray for us, or that they (also) go about actively dolling out grace? The latter would be different from how Catholics have defended Prayers to the Saints to me.

I am inclined to add as a third reason, that this teaching places at least great strain on the language of 1 Tim 2:5-6, quoted by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange above.

Could it be that the authority supporting this teaching, if it is not yet infallible, is similar to the Predestination teachings within Roman Catholicism? There, while permissible boundaries are defined, there is open debate between a strong Free Will camp (the majority view) and a strong Predestination camp (the minority view). Is there a minority camp that does not see evidence of a "Mediatrix of All Graces" teaching in either Revelation or Reason?

March For Life 2008

2008-01-19T15:32:00.000-04:00

Please consider missing a day of work or school and bearing the expense and difficulty of travelling to Washington, D.C. this coming Tuesday, January 22nd, to participate in the March for Life 2008.

God calls us to love one another, and love seems to so often (if not always) involve sacrifice. Please consider sacrificing for the sake of the future mothers and unborn children that may suffer from unjust laws.

Even more, please consider sacrificing out of love for the hearts and souls of those in political power who support abortion as a human right. Weighty indeed must be this matter upon their souls. Perhaps one of them will be swayed this year by the number of people who come to express their concern for unborn life!

Christ told us, "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mat. 5:43-58)"

Yours truly would be happy to meet up with any brothers or sisters for the walk, to share in Christian fellowship. I would also be happy to accommodate travels of anyone thinking of participating (I live near BWI airport, and will give rides as I am able). Let me know!

While I'm at it, please remember to pray today for Christian Unity, as this is the second day of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. What better way to express unity than to join together as God's people in opposition to a rule of law that permits such a grave immorality?

Week Of Prayer For Christian Unity

2008-01-18T09:29:00.000-04:00

Please pray for Christian unity each day this week (18-25 January), the centenary observance of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. The National Council of Churches suggests so. The Vatican suggests so.

No really, please pray! Christians believe that prayer is truly efficacious. It is not just a reminder or mental check for ourselves, so that we can feel humble and consider obedience (cf. Isa. 58:5). We seek to impel God to act quickly for good.

"So I[, Daniel] turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes. I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, we have sinned and done wrong... Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name. (Dan. 9:3ff.)"

"[Said Jesus,] Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. (Mat. 6:10)"

"[Said Jesus,] I pray... also for those who will believe in me through [my Disciples'] word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. (John 17:20-21)"

Inerrancy And Unanimity

2008-01-16T15:12:00.000-04:00

My latest habit, which hopefully I can shake soon, has been to check in on the often-confusing comment-free exchanges at the Boar's Head Tavern.

This interseting little post asked, "Inerrancy is supposed to help us achieve unanimity in doctrinal matters, yes? Has it?" And it left off impliedly answering in the negative.

One contrary reply said, "Agreeing in the most general terms that the Bible will be our authority does not mean we will agree about conclusions. But it does mean that I can have a discussion using the same source." I think that's selling Reformational view of the Bible short. The belief in the authority of an inerrant Bible is meant to support the proposition that the Bible is both necessary and sufficient to acquire a "saving faith". It is more than a kind of lowest common denominator of theological discussion.

I think, then, that the former question about the Bible and unanimity is a valid one -- if it is necessary to tell us and it does sufficiently tell us without error what we need to be saved, what are we to make of mutually exclusive formulations on how to be saved?

Church Discipline

2008-01-16T10:15:00.000-04:00

[I made a similar entry at CHNI, and received tremendous response. I recommend that website for anyone interested in learning more about Catholicism.]

My Presbyterian denomination, the PCA, has good rules on church discipline, contained in the Book of Church Order (BCO). The denomination appears to have great leeway in shepherding the flock, which is what a church ought to have. But I don't think they use nearly as much "rope" as they're given.

A PCA member can be brought under church discipline for committing an "offense". An offense is "anything in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in Christ which is contrary to the Word of God. (BCO, 29-1)" And, nothing "ought to be considered by any court as an offense... which cannot be proved to be such from Scripture." Heresy is included as an offense, so the definition is not limited to outward sinful conduct (29-3).

So I wonder, at what point is one who adopts the beliefs of other denominations susceptible to charges of committing an "offense"? I've known plenty of PCA parents who do not baptize their infants. The PCA's confessional standards, which are the "standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture" (29-1), state that believing parents shall baptize their children (WCOF, Ch. XXVIII, sec. 4). But these baptistic parents aren't charged with an "offense". The standard for "heresy" must be pretty high then. It's not clear to me that one believing in "baptismal regeneration" is that much different from the baptistic parent, but I suspect that one would be closer to toeing the "heresy" line.

If charges aren't brought for heresy until a PCA'er announces he intends to join the Orthodox or Catholic Church, would the denomination send a "letter of transfer" to his receiving Church?

BCO, 38-3(b) states, "When a member... shall attempt to withdraw from the communion of this branch of the visible Church by affiliating with a body judged [by his session] as failing to maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity (BCO 2-2), that member or minister shall be warned of his danger, and if he persists, his name shall be erased from the roll... (emphasis added)".

I doubt that each session would interpret "fundamental integrity" the same way. I imagine a member could transfer to an evangelical Baptist church upon moving, and still receive a letter of transfer (so still recognized as part of the Church Visible). But the baptists don't practice sacraments, but rather ordinances. I imagine too that a member could transfer to mainline Presbyterianism, even though many in that organization doubt the infallibility of Scripture, the Virginal Incarnation, etc. If these thoughts are right, then "fundamental integrity" is meant in a broad sense, more one of outward appearances.

But what of the Catholics? They teach the Word, and practice Sacraments in a way that is fundamental at least in an historical sense. So in one sense it would seem better to transfer to Catholicism than to an Evangelical Baptist or Mainline Presbyterian denomination. There's a rub though, that makes me doubt such a transfer would be allowed. Calvin, who formulated the Word-Sacrament litmus test of a True Church, believed that one who left the True Church was apostate (see Sect. III, here, citing Calvin's Institutes, Book IV, Ch. 1, Secs. 5 and 10). So under this BCO term of art, either Calvin meant to anathematize his Genevan movement, or the Catholic Church does not "maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity."

It is a difficult thing, to accept that branches of the True Church are fractured, and yet to have to decide which ones remain fundamentally integral.

Law Defining Family

2008-01-15T14:53:00.000-04:00

The best advice I received from a lawyer when I was considering whether to attend law school was, "don't do it!" Another wise lawyer, when I was later considering whether to enroll in a Family Law course, gave the same advice. But since I listened to neither, I found myself in my first Family Law class this morning. What a treat to study the "law" of "family" at a major secular institution from a Professor whom one student described in an old evaluation as "androgynous."

The first order of business, and I would guess this is the same in every Family Law course taught in the country, is to define what we mean by the word "family". This definition colors how we are prepared to justify or seek changes to laws about marriage, divorce, adoption, child rearing, etc.

The professor instructed the class to write three conclusions to this fragment: "A person or a group of people constitute a family when…" Good thing we didn't squeeze out a single person as "family" from our options for definitions.

Dictionary.com, to their credit, has a virtually identical definition of family today as their Random House progenitor had in my trusty 1962 edition (i.e., "parents and their children", and so on). On the other hand, it seems that the elite have attended to cleaning up American Heritage: "Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place." Under this definition, I would guess that Frat boys can adopt a baby Joe Sigma Tau... The old Black's Law Dictionary (1979) says the term "most commonly refers to group of persons consisting of parents and children." Today's Black's (8th ed. 2004) adds "A group of persons who live together and have a shared commitment to a domestic relationship." The circularity of this definition is evidenced by looking up domestic: "Of or relating to the family or the household".

So that's where the authorities stand. How did I thrice complete the above fragment?

“A person or a group of people constitute a family when…” 1)...they vow before God to enter into a holy unity. 2) ...they are parents or children following and according to the sexual act’s implicit vow of unity. 3) I can't think of a third.

Then we were told to share our answers with the classmate (i.e., feminist) sitting next to us (Gasp!). Fortunately, my neighbor walked in late, so did not participate in this exercise. We ended by calling out what we thought were good answers for the board. The professor categorized everything under one of three headings (none of which would contain my first answer):

Blood:
Biologically related, e.g., mother-daughter
Siblings
Grandparent-grandchild

State Recognition:
They are married
Parent-child adoption

Function:
Reliance on others for daily needs
Share holidays
Agreement, conscious, and consensual
Non-marital cohabitants
Authority/power structure

..."when they have an agreement, conscious and consensual" was the first answer given.

My point: a society of broken families is a broken society. Ours is losing its ability to even comprehend the order of Family instituted by our Creator. Not that I have it right, but these answers are almost all entirely wrong. Really though, how concerned should we be with how our State defines Family?

Shepherds Prophesied

2008-01-13T18:40:00.000-04:00

Jeremiah contains one prophesy about which I wonder whether it applies to our time under the New Covenant. Jeremiah 23 (NIV) says, "1 "Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!" declares the LORD. 2 Therefore this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says to the shepherds who tend my people: "Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done," declares the LORD. 3 "I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number. 4 I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing," declares the LORD. (emphasis added)"

I know some believe that this prophesy refers to a time other than now, under the New Covenant and before the end times. My NIV Study Note, in a similar passage in the following chapter, says that the prophecy of the return from the dispersion occurred in the 6th century B.C. A more charismatic view holds that this passage refers to the "end times", so we are not there yet. But if this is a promise that came to fruition at the time of Christ and His apostles, maybe it's prescient for my discernment process. To wit, if it refers to the New Covenant, then we should be under shepherds emplaced by God. If not, and sola Scriptura is true, then perhaps the prophesy would have been more accurate to state something like, 'I will place my infallible Written Word over them...'

The Catholic NAB footnote says of this pericope, "With the false rulers who have governed his people the Lord contrasts himself, the good shepherd, who will in the times of restoration appoint worthy rulers. (emphasis added)" So not surprisingly, the American Catholic Bishops impliedly support a reading that holds themselves to be the fulfillment of this prophesy.

Matthew Henry's Commentary notes here, "If some have abused a sacred office, that is no good reason why it should be abolished. [!Wow! Would he have applied this logic to Bishops' offices? To the Pope's office?] "They destroyed the sheep, but I will set shepherds over them who shall make it their business to feed them." Formerly they were continually exposed and disturbed with some alarm or other; but now they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed; they shall be in no danger from without, in no fright from within. ...Though the times may have been long bad with the church, it does not follow that they will be ever so. Such pastors as Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, though they lived not in the pomp that Jehoiakim and Jeconiah did, nor made such a figure, were as great blessings to the people as the others were plagues to them. The church's peace is not bound up in the pomp of her rulers." This language indicates Henry's view that the Old Covenant Jews were "church" with "pastors". Perhaps he would not see the old wineskins as so different from the new, but if he clearly thinks this prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled after Christ established his Apostles, he does not show his hand.

I'm inclined to think this passage does refer to the New Covenant, and am therefore inclined to think that we were promised by God in ancient times to have Shepherds (Bishops, overseers, elders?) appointed for our care. I'd be happy to receive correction, but here's why I think so:

"5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.
6 In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The LORD Our Righteousness. (emphasis added)"

This is the continuing passage from chapter 23. Commentators seem to agree universally that this is messianic prophecy. Contextually, the days of return from dispersion referred to in this prophecy seem to be be the same as the days of the appearance the LORD Our Righteousness. So while the Jews may have returned in the 6th century B.C. before again being dispersed, it seems as if this prophecy speaks of a true union of Church under the Messiah.

Also, the following chapter, Jeremiah 24, describes God's people as good figs who will have hearts for Him, and whom He will never tear down.

"Then the LORD asked me, "What do you see, Jeremiah?" / "Figs," I answered. "The good ones are very good, but the poor ones are so bad they cannot be eaten." 4 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 5 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Like these good figs, I regard as good the exiles from Judah, whom I sent away from this place to the land of the Babylonians. 6 My eyes will watch over them for their good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up and not tear them down; I will plant them and not uproot them. 7 I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart. (emphasis added)"

This later passage especially persuades me that the prophecy was not fully fulfilled at the first return from dispersion amongst the Babylonians. It is here that my NIV Study Notes say tersely (of v.6), "bring them back. In 538 B.C." When Christ came, he did not seem to think that God's people had returned to Him all their heart. So again, the return of the 6th century B.C. does not seem to fulfill this promise.

Are those promised in Jeremiah 23:4 the Apostles and their successor Bishops?

"That They May Be One"

2008-01-13T09:22:00.000-04:00

Is there a call to duty for us in God the Son's "high priestly prayer" to the Father, or is it just a prayer?

John 17
"Jesus Prays for His Disciples

6"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

Jesus Prays for All Believers

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." (emphasis added)"

Charity And Ecumenicity

2008-01-12T10:11:00.001-04:00

Bryan Cross, of PrincipiumUnitatis, asks 12 questions to challenge Protestants, here. These questions relate to authority, which he believes to be the "fundamental, meta-level source of all the divisions between Christians" (I happen to agree). No Protestant has yet attempted to answer these questions on his blog, though several have answered on a Protestant blog (where comments are not allowed, frustratingly), the Board's Head Tavern.

I've been wrestling with questions of authority for some time, and it's been a painful and frustrating experience. I've written often on authority, for example here, where I asked two similar questions (and no fellow Protestants attempted to answer these questions either). I've had the opportunity on at least five occasions to privately ask three different solidly Reformed pastors to answer these questions. To the man, they were unable to try. This is quite the soft underbelly of Protestantism, and I am saddened to see Christians come apart at the seams at the mere suggestion that our (Protestant) basis for authority is deficient.

One such unhemmed believer says that none of these questions on authority matter. This is a shame, and a major concession all in one. This brother rhetorically asks whether anyone has been saved by canon formation, by interpretations of scripture, by decrees of councils, etc. He ends, "Calvinism taught us that we are all worms. Ever see a worm? Worms don’t have a head. You pull a worm apart, you get more worms. That’s my model for how the church works."

If canon is irrelevant because no one was saved by its determination, then Luther's desired exclusion of James, or the Codex Sinaiticus' inclusion of the Shepherd of Hermas would have be equally valid. Which texts to be included in the Bible can be irrelevant to salvation only if the Bible itself is irrelevant to salvation (a concession I refuse to make).

The model of the church being composed of severed, multiplying worms could not be more sad. Christ prayer to the Father in John 17:20-21 (which I believe was properly included in the canon, though I'm not sure what the basis of my belief is, since no one can tell me) for "those who will believe in me through [the Apostles'] word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me." No, the world will not believe that God the Father sent God the Son if we are severed worms lacking unity. Indeed, none would believe that the Son is "God", coequal to the Father, without the work of councils, and prayerful efforts at ecclesial consensus.

So let us please consider the Faith handed down to us carefully, and, with charity and openness, discuss those which divide use. We are called to unity, after all. Perhaps being open to comments of reply when we post our views would be a good starting point.

Assimilating Paganism

2008-01-10T16:46:00.000-04:00

I've finally finished burrowing my way through Newman's Essay on doctrinal development. [I previously discussed portions of this work here (on Bible as authority), here (on continuity of doctrinal principles), and here (on Sects not maintaining the original 'type' of Christianity). This obviously has not been a cohesive review, but simply comments on things that struck me as I went along. I'll end the way I began.]

His "third note" of a true development (vs. a corruption) is that the church has an "assimilative power", an ability to absorb its antagonists (and not be dissolved by them) while maintaining its own identity. By way of example, he discusses the assimilative power of the church's principle of "sacramental grace." [Remember that "principles" to Newman are the fundamentals, which have been there from the beginning, and are permanent over time.]

Analyzing the difference between the ancient Christian condemnation of pagans' use of temples, altars and images, and the Christians' own use of these things, Newman looks to the Church Fathers. We find that the Church has assimilated certain pagan practices by making them good (or sacramentally grace-filled) through their application to its own true substance. The pagan substance was, of course, discarded as being sinful.

""Those," [St. Augustine] says, "who are acquainted with Old and New Testament do not blame in the pagan religion the erection of temples or institution of priesthoods, but that these are done to idols and devils ... True religion blames in their superstitions, not so much their sacrificing, for the ancient saints sacrificed to the True God, as their sacrificing to false gods."[ ] And St. Jerome asks Vigilantius, who made objections to lights and oil, "Because we once worshipped idols, is that a reason why we should not worship God, for fear of seeming to address him with an honour like that which was paid to idols and then was detestable, whereas this is paid to Martyrs and therefore to be received? (371)"

I don't mean to develop a habit of long quotations (a habit though that obviously reflects Newman's own habit), but I'm simply not of a mind to cut these quotes of the early Fathers down further...

Further, and specific to the use of images: "As to the passages you adduce," [St. John Damascene] says to his opponents, "they abominate not the worship paid to our Images, but that of the Greeks, who made them gods. It needs not therefore, because of the absurd use of the Greeks, to abolish our use which is so pious.[ ] Greeks dedicate images to devils, and call them gods; but we to True God Incarnate, and to God's servants and friends, who drive away the troops of devils." Again, "As the holy Fathers overthrew the temples and shrines of the devils, and raised in their places shrines in the names of Saints and we worship them, so also they overthrew the images of the devils, and in their stead raised images of Christ, and God's Mother, and the Saints. And under the Old Covenant, Israel neither raised temples in the name of men, nor was memory of man made a festival; for, as yet, man's nature was under a curse, and death was condemnation, and therefore was lamented, and a corpse was reckoned unclean and he who touched it; but now that the Godhead has been combined with our nature, as some life-giving and saving medicine, our nature has been glorified and is trans-elemented into incorruption. Wherefore the death of Saints is made a feast, and temples are raised to them, and Images are painted ... For the Image is a triumph, and a manifestation, and a monument in memory of the victory of those who have done nobly and excelled, and of the shame of the devils defeated and overthrown." (376-7)"

My own hopes for ecumenicity find encouragement in these words, as they remind me that intrafaith discourse must criticize and challenge each others principles, and not merely our outward practices. Outward practices, as I see it, are fair game only insofar as they reflect (or are co-extensive with) substance, that is, principles.

Church Visible, Church Invisible

2008-01-10T16:40:00.001-04:00

Please consider taking the time to read Bryan Cross's excellent post (at PrincipiumUnitatis) on Church Visible, Church Invisible, and the meaning of Christ's promises to the "Church".

Bryan writes with careful logic, and is rarely challenged about his views. I'm not exactly sure why more bloggers don't take him to task on his writing. He reaches conclusions, clear ones at that, and through a clear process. If he's wrong, he should be susceptible to criticism.

Perhaps the calm, rational method of writing makes for a low-fireworks quotient on one's blog, so that people aren't very interested in commenting. If that's the explanation, then our collective intellectual-merits score should be pretty low.

Sex And Sacrifice

2008-01-08T16:32:00.000-04:00

Quick observation: On Disc 3 of Christopher West's 10-CD lecture series Naked Without Shame, discussing the Catholic Theology of the Body, a particular line caught my attention.

To my memory, it went thus: "Sexual sin attempts to separate true love from sacrifice."

I really dug this line, so I decided to post it here for your reflection. I certainly understand that child rearing involves sacrifice. And I've seen enough to know that pregnancy requires much sacrifice of my wife. God's love for us required his own sacrifice of Himself. If it holds true, it would make for some nice evidence against contraceptive barrier methods.

Scandal

2008-01-05T09:30:00.000-04:00

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that scandal "must be evil in itself, or in appearance; this is the interpretation of the words of St. Thomas: minus rectum."

I know this term is commonly used in situations that are easy to understand (for one who understands the nature of sin): e.g., where some nuns flaunt heresy, or where a priest becomes corrupt. In these situations, the sinners scandalize the church, and may lead others into similar sin.

Other scandals have been of a much broader base, and much more painful to stamp out. In these situations, it seems that God uses all sorts to effect the principles of semper reformanda. People like Luther have done the church well (at least in some regards). Trent banned the sale of indulgences because of the grave risk of corruption. Even modern Tort Lawyers (of all people!) have helped end scandal by suing the church for its priests sexually molesting children. In this instance, while each particular abuse was scandalous, the systematic under-reactiveness to (apparently) rampant deviancy made it a meta-scandal.

Of Protestant stock, I (naturally) feel concern that Marian 'piety' is dangerously unchecked within Catholicism. This was especially apparent when I lived in an area of Southern California that had a large population of Catholic Mexican immigrants. The danger I perceive, and that I'd like to dispel within myself or be able to recognize along with some like-minded Catholics, is that such 'piety' often turns into superstition in practice (and arguably even idolatry) for some groups.

Here I see a helpful historical lesson from the sale of indulgences. Perhaps the Church is right about indulgences, and perhaps it's right about the propriety of Marian devotion. But if indulgences can be checked because of their tendency toward scandal, can Marian piety be similarly checked (to avoid superstition and even idolatry)? How ostracized would a faithful Catholic be for seeing a need for such a check?

I'm not trying to be shocking, and probably most will be sympathetic with where I'm coming from. The real $1,000,000 question is whether, stipulating (ex arguendo) that the Catholic Church's teachings are preserved from error by the Holy Spirit, and given that I still have much to learn about Mary's role in the order of salvation, is it possible that there is scandal in the Catholic Church for not checking Marian excesses?

Would any of my Catholic fellows feel able to admit this as a possibility?

'Musicolatry'

2008-01-04T09:31:00.000-04:00

The PCA Magazine By Faith Online has an article about a new classical chamber group at Atlanta's Church of the Redeemer (PCA). This hip young ensemble hopes to reclaim classical music for its generation. The church's Pastor, expressing his fondness for the program, said, "The love for art is built into all of us. With art we symbolize our reality. Art can teach, rebuke, inspire and confound. It speaks to us as it speaks of us."

This made me wonder, if music as art symbolizes our reality, if it teaches and inspires, why not visual art as well? If a beautiful tune can be used to give depth to our prayer (say, the Doxology), why can't a beautiful icon be used to give depth to a sermon?

Martin Luther famously noted, "next to the word of God, music deserves the highest praise" (Preface to Georg Rhau's Symphoniae Iucandae).

What sets the works of Rachmaninoff ahead of those of Rembrandt? "Return of the Prodigal Son" gives depth to my appreciation for the forgiveness I receive every day from Christ. It (like Music) expresses something in a way in which words and the intellect remain mute.

Music is a gift of God, I certainly would agree. Dr. Harold Best, a former Dean of the Wheaton Conservatory said, we sing in worship because we are commanded by God to do so ("Sing to the Lord a new song" - Isaiah 42:10). It is this commandment that empowers music, he warns, and not the reverse. "When we attempt to empower God's commands with something even as wonderful as music we have stepped over a forbidden line, for there is such a thing as musicolatry. (emphasis added)"

What I like about Dr. Best's position is that it is consistent with a practice of exclusion of artful images in worship. What I dislike about Dr. Best's position is that it starts from a negative presumption: 'use nothing but what is explicitly commanded.' But "Sing to the Lord a new song" is hardly a clear commandment about the use music in church services. Can we use it only in the processional and recessional? Can the sermon be sung, if the pastor is particularly talented, to enliven the preaching of the word? What styles are appropriate? The Apostle Paul tells us about appropriate attire, appropriate conduct in communion, and the appropriate use of 'tongues' in church, but does not address contemporary music. Therefore, the position that we only use music because we are commanded to is open-ended, leaving so much room for interpretation that there is no rule at all.

I think he's on to something though, about musicolatry. Christmas concerts are an easy indicator of the passion for the music overflowing the banks of the text it is meant to enhance. Such is a problem, and would also be a problem in iconography, where love of the image takes primacy over enhancement of the imaged.

We use music because it affects our emotions and feelings. Beautiful music humbles me before God. Contemporary music, with its primitive rhythm patterns, excites the body and makes one sway and move. We use it because it affects us in a way in which we want to be affected. Why not do the same with visual art?

4th Cent. Church Sects

2008-01-03T09:12:00.001-04:00

John Henry Newman's An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is no easy read. So I was glad to be able to actually follow him last night in his discussion of the first note of doctrinal development (vs. a corruption) in the context of the 4th Century.

These "notes" form a canon by which Newman devises to measure the true church, and his first is that "one security against error and perversion... is the maintenance of the original type, which the idea presented to the world at its origin, amid and through all its apparent changes and vicissitudes from first to last. (207, emphasis added)"

In the particular context of the 4th Century, he notes the pervasiveness of various sects and their outward Christian appearances. His question, applicable today as ever, is "How was the man to guide his course who wished to join himself to the doctrine and fellowship of the Apostles [in those times]? (248)"

He then begins a historical tour de force to show sectarian pervasiveness: the Meletians had 1/3rd the total bishops in the whole Egyptian Patriarchate, later Donatists had 400 bishops compared to the 468 catholic ones, the Arians were in possession of Constantinople's 100 churches, and so on. These sects were variously learned, eloquent and talented (some possessed noteworthy skills of Biblical interpretation). They had "normal" looking church buildings, they had bishops, priests and deacons, celebrants and altars, and of course school.

Again Newman asks, "How was an individual inquirer to find, or a private Christian to keep the Truth, amid so many rival teachers? (251)" It was no easy decision, and he reminds us of some early Saints who flirted with other teachings or were converts to the catholic church from the various sects (most notably St. Augustine, who spent 9 years in Manicheanism). The answer: "The Church is everywhere, but it is one; sects are everywhere, but they are many, independent and discordant. Catholicity is the attribute of the Church, independency of sectaries. (Ibid.)"

And again, "The Church is a kingdom; a heresy is a family rather than a kingdom; and as a family continually divides and sends out branches, founding new houses, and propagating itself in colonies, each of them as independent as its original head, so was it with heresy. (emphasis added)" He supports the proposition that division is a distinguishing feature of sects by listing the (obscure) descendants of early heresies (see 252). For example, Montanists evolved into Tascodrugites, Pepuzians, Artotyrites, and Quartodecimans -- I really watch out for those Pepuzians! This continuing fracture of heresy came from its nature: "its own master, free to change, self-sufficient; and, having thrown off the yoke of the Church, it was little likely to submit to any usurped and spurious authority. (253)"

Their sole uniting aspect was their hatred of the Church. Here are some (now) entertaining libelous quotes he finds from the works of heretics about the Church: "the carnal", "the apostates", "the worldly", the man-worshippers", "the flesh-lovers", "the slimy", "servants of Antichrist", "synagogue of Satan" and "the devil's harlot." St. Peter's chair was called "the seat of pestilence."

I tell you, some of those sound as if they were penned in the early 16th century.

CRC + RCA = ?

2007-12-30T14:45:00.000-04:00

Rev. Bob De Moor, an editor of the Christian Reformed Church's magazine, The Banner, gave a wish list of things he hopes the Lord will do with that denomination over its next 150 years (Now What?, November, 2007). This was done on the occasion of the celebration of the denomination's first 150 years.

Before he gave his list, Rev. De Moor stated, "One safe guess is that the CRC will be as different from what we are now as we are from those original five churches that started us off a century-and-a-half ago. In a changing world, that’s as it should be. (emphasis added)"

This conclusory statement seems to rest on the presumption that the Church, or perhaps just particular faddish denominations of the Church Invisible, ought to change with the times. I would risk reading too much into his statement if I started talking about the birth control pill, gay marriage, or pop theology, so I won't.

One wish in particular was noteworthy for this, my blog on ecumenicity, namely that the CRC of AD 2157 will "have merged back with the Reformed Church in America, from whom we should never have broken away in the first place". This statement drew fire from Adrian Van Geest in the January, 2008 edition of The Banner (Merging Back with the RCA).

After noting several serious obstacles to reunion, she ends her criticism with a powerful one-two:
"I’m not sure how much leadership on exploring these issues with the RCA we can expect from the Banner editor in light of his belief that we should never have broken away from the RCA in the first place. That, incidentally, raises the question of how much we should have celebrated the CRC’s 150th birthday. Perhaps we should have mourned 150 years of schism instead.

"But where would we have been had there not been a CRC these 150 years? Where would a never-separated Reformed Church have been today? I doubt if that would have been a more orthodox church. And would undoing this split make us increasingly more bland—which I believe we have become too much already? Are we content to settle for a lower common denominator to make it work? (emphasis added)"

The perhaps-unintended pun about church denominations and lowest common denominators is catchy. That aside, her question that I have embolded is an excellent one. I might reach the opposite conclusion.

I've often wondered where the liberal PCUSA would be if the Southern Presbyterians and other forebears of the evangelical PCA had never left it. My personal opinion is that where strict adherents to a principle leave the less strict, the principle collapses. And with Protestantism, it always seems to be the strict that leave, for the sake of "purity". This seems to be a derogation of Christ's High Priestly Prayer on unity (cf. John 17). Perhaps for the sake of purity of the Gospel, the CRC left a generation of RCA'ers bereft of their "right" anchor. This broken body, subsiding mostly in centrists and a "left" anchor, did just what one might expect. I prefer unity.

Man's Chief End

2007-12-28T15:24:00.000-04:00

Question and Answer One of the Westminster Shorter Catechism states that man's "chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever".

I came across what I believe to be the Roman Catholic answer to the same question (i.e., "What is the chief end of man?"). Man "alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity" (Catholic Catechism, 356).

The difference between these two is interesting. The Calvinist sees man as existing for God's glorification and man's enjoyment of Him. The Catholic sees man as existing to share in God's life. It seems straightforward that this difference follows from the respective positions Calvinists and Catholics hold on man's free will. The Calvinist admires God's monergistically sovereign decree to salvation and reprobation, and feels thankful for happening to be in the former camp (of salvation). The Catholic sees an ongoing call to cooperation with and love of God.

The Catholic Catechism notes that "sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him" (ibid., 387). I find this idea that there can be no love when there is no freedom simple and persuasive. If this idea and the Catholic view of the chief end of man are right, then of course man has free will.

If God's glorification requires receiving love from His (predestinated) elect creatures, and if there can be no love without freedom, then the Shorter Catechism's First Q&A is at loggerheads with Calvinism's double-election teaching. In other words, if His glory requires love, and love requires freedom, then our living out this Great Predestinated Drama will fail to meet our chief end.

Palmetto Stater

2007-12-27T16:19:00.000-04:00

To read about a South Carolina main-stream Protestant lawyer pondering the claims of Catholicism, who happens to identify himself as a liberal (and who loves hiking!), see here. His blog makes for an excellent read so far - I went cover to cover.