« I can't decide which is more startling | Main | The Pope in Brazil »
May 08, 2007
More Beckwith fallout
Some interesting commentary continues on this. Catholics are startled that some still consider them trapped in the snares of the Whore of Babylon. Many Protestants are embarrassed about those kind of fulminations and while not agreeing with Dr. Beckwith's decision, express their gratitude to him for his work and assurance of their prayers.
On a deeper level, it reveals to us who don't normally pay attention to such things the conversations still going on about two fundamental issues: sola Scriptura and justification, as well as what Dr. Beckwith said in his original post on this subject:
There is a conversation in ETS that must take place, a conversation about the relationship between Evangelicalism and what is called the “Great Tradition,” a tradition from which all Christians can trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical paternity.
If you're following this, you probably know that Dr. Beckwith has now resigned from the Evangelical Theological Society. The Christianity Today blog posts the just-released response of the ETS board:
The work of the Evangelical Theological Society as a scholarly forum proceeds on the basis that “the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” This affirmation, together with the statement on the Trinity, forms the basis for membership in the ETS to which all members annually subscribe in writing. Confessional Catholicism, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church’s declarations from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, sets forth a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation.
Specifically, it posits a larger canon of Scripture than that recognized by evangelical Protestants, including in its canon several writings from the Apocrypha. It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church), as well as certain pronouncements of the pope, which are delivered ex cathedra, such as doctrines about the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary.
We recognize the right of Roman Catholic theologians to do their theological work on the basis of all the authorities they consider to be revelatory and infallible, even as we wholeheartedly affirm the distinctive contribution and convictional necessity of the work of the Evangelical Theological Society on the basis of the “Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety” as “the Word of God written and . . . inerrant.”
In recent years, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have often labored together in common cause addressing some of the critical social and moral issues of our contemporary culture. We welcome this and fully expect it to continue. A number of publications have appeared comparing Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism. Certainly, the two traditions share many common Christian doctrines. However there are important theological differences as well. We expect that the events of these days will bring a renewed discussion of these matters. We welcome and encourage this as well.
Fr. Al Kimel has a couple of pertinent posts - on authority and then baptism and justification.
Sort of related, from the other direction: InterVaristy Fellowship has been reaffiliated at Georgetown University.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
What is problematic with the ETS statement--I would even say intellectually misguided and possibly intellectually dishonest--is that the Bible and the Trinity, which they say is revelation, are collaborative products of the Great Tradition, which has been guided by the Holy Spirit. They are grounding their view of revelation in something outside the Bible by appealing to the Trinity and the Bible, not to mention any "external" attempts at interpretation of the Scriptures or writing commentaries and theological journals. The question is not whether there is tradition and Scripture...the question is "which tradition."
One can remain a nonCatholic Christian and recognize this, as I have. By doing this we move forward in our discussions about which parts of the Tradition need to be revised based on whether or not we believe those parts are in agreement with the spirit of the Great Tradition--this spirit is the passing on of the gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations. I think this means things like the the divide between East and West in the filoque clause (Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son") and idea of a Magisterium can be "up for grabs" or up for discussion and review. But we always talk about these things as a historical family tied together by the saving work of Christ (which the Great Tradition witnesses about).
Posted by: Matt Tapie at May 8, 2007 1:42:55 PM
Sola scriptura- a theory about the Bible, not taught in the Bible. Hmmmm.
In any case, it sure doesn't bother me if the ETS wants to exclude Catholics. You know what they say about strong fences....
Posted by: thomas tucker at May 8, 2007 2:32:00 PM
In my experience, Sola Scriptura very easily slides into "Christ as Party Line", where memorizing and rewordgitating becomes the be-all and end-all.
And how does the "Verbal Plenary Inspiration" of the Evangelicals differ from the word-for-word "God Saith" dictation of the Koran?
The more Christianity goes sour, the more it comes to resemble Islam.
Posted by: Ken at May 8, 2007 2:39:20 PM
Matt Taple:
Well said--at least up to a point. Indeed, the question is not "Whether tradition?" but "Which tradition?" The doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fides--as understood in the Protestant tradition--are themselves unbiblical, as has been pointed out many times before. And Trinity and the canon of Scripture are themselves the product of reflection by the Church (=Tradition).
The Catholic Church, however, rejects the idea (which you suggest) that any part of Tradition can be rescinded (is that what you mean by "revised"?). It's all apostolic, and therefore all to be believed. The Church has no authority to make up anything ex nihilo. Even the things that many Protestants regard as Catholic inventions are things Catholics believe are latent in Scripure. This, of course, is precisely the sticking point: Protestants say, "hey, where did that come from?" and Catholics reply, "but it's always been there, even if not explicitly stated in written documents."
And this is precisely the role of the Magisterium: to be the good steward in bringing out old truths in a new way (such as the dogmata of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the BVM, the formalised teaching on the Eucharist at Latern IV and Trent, etc.). As Saint Augustine put it: non nova, sed nove.
Posted by: ContraMundum at May 8, 2007 2:46:19 PM
But what about the ETS statement itself? Are you not saying it is infallible by signing it? Is that not then another thing you beleive that is outside of scripture? Some might say it contradicts scripture but you believe it.
Posted by: Randy at May 8, 2007 3:04:32 PM
I was thinking that the ETS maybe needs to tweak their statement of faith if they are trying to exclude Catholics, because it does seem like Catholics can affirm it as currently worded.
And then I was thinking that maybe they should just use something with some history behind it, like the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed.
And then I was thinking ... does anyone ever notice the fact that those creeds fail to mention either sola fide or sola scriptura, but do mention belief in the Church?
Posted by: Karen LH at May 8, 2007 4:11:27 PM
Who interprets Scripture? Well, for that matter who interprets the Magisterium? It can be a never-ending argument, and people of real Christian faith and intellectual brilliace fall on both sides of what is ultimately not a question of air-tight arguments but of discernment and faith, as Beckwith suggested. The quotation above about "Christianity gone sour" is as offensive as any of the invective tossed at Beckwith.
Posted by: joe at May 8, 2007 4:12:46 PM
Blogs and extreme views go together like white on rice. Fortunately most evangelicals are not the Whore of Babylon wackos.
Posted by: TSO at May 8, 2007 4:27:46 PM
Who interprets Scripture? The Magisterium.
Who interprets the Magisterium? The Magisterium.
At least in the Roman Catholic Church.
For Protestants, it's everyone interpreting for themselves.
Posted by: thomas tucker at May 8, 2007 4:43:28 PM
I wish that ETS and Wheaton College would just come clean. In the case of Francis Beckwith and ETS, and a few years ago in the case of Josh Hochschild and Wheaton College, Evangelical organizations have caught off guard by Catholics who explain that they can unreservedly sign these organizations' statements of faith.
"What wonderful news!" these Evangelical groups might have concluded. Catholics affirm the same things we do about these matters of our faith!
But, the response is instead grumbling about what the statement of faith *really means* (i.e. interpreted by some authority or by some tradition) and many calls to revise the statement of faith.
It would be much more honest for Wheaton College and the ETS to post a big sign saying, "No Catholics, no matter what!" Because, it appears, they are more interested in maintaining their separate identity than in honestly interpreting and applying their statements of faith.
Posted by: Eric at May 8, 2007 4:54:18 PM
Dear ContraMundum,
You wrote: "And this is precisely the role of the Magisterium: to be the good steward in bringing out old truths in a new way (such as the dogmata of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the BVM, the formalised teaching on the Eucharist at Latern IV and Trent, etc.)"
I do not disagree with the idea that these doctrines, for Catholics, are understood as old truths brought out in a new way--they are apostolic. My point was that there is a process that the Magisterium undertakes to locate and develop these doctrines and that this process of change or 'development of doctrine' is judged by that which is 'old'--or what is within the tradition already. There is change and continuity and change is informed by scholarship that takes place in the Church and its various universities. If it is consistent w/tradition then it is considered rational. I was highlighting the fact that dialog about change ought to take place between Catholic and Protestant based on what is in the tradition rather than claiming to be above a tradition or outside of it.
Posted by: Matt Tapie at May 8, 2007 5:11:29 PM
Will someone please tell me why Catholics call Protestants who object to Catholicism as wicked, "bigots"?
I mean, I think they're wrong, but saying that the Catholic Church is evil and anti-Gospel and the Church is the Whore of Babylon is not "bigoted." It's an honest theological opinion--sad and deluded and perhaps damnable in many cases--but just an opinion.
We need to be able to judge religions and find them wanting.
Posted by: Jeff at May 8, 2007 5:39:30 PM
The sola fide & sola scriptura issues are normally some of the first areas of concern when an evangelical or mainline Protestant Christian is feeling the tug toward Rome (cf. any apologetics by Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, et al). They certainly were concerns before I converted, and points of "illative proof" (Cardinal Newman) that finally convinced me.
Chesterton, however, nailed it with this: “...Truth is a magnet, with the powers of attraction and repulsion ... The moment men cease to pull against [the Catholic Church] they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair ... When he has entered the Church, he finds that the Church is much larger inside than it is outside.”
Posted by: Athos at May 8, 2007 5:57:58 PM
I couldn't get the link to work for Fr. Al Kimel. Can you make sure it is correct?
Thanks,
James Grant
Posted by: James Grant at May 8, 2007 6:25:42 PM
The ETS says "the Bible in its entirety." But it is we Catholics who have the Bible in its "entirety" if you use as your reference point the version of the Old Testament scholars say was used by the writers of the New Testament :The Septuagint. And this was the agreed on version in the Church for almost 1500 years before the Reformation. Then the "Reformers" decided to go with an Old Testament which had, in effect, been censored by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia in about 100 AD. Did the Holy Spirit guide these "protesters" to do this in the 1500's after over a millenia of saying otherwise to the Catholic Church??? Not likely??
Posted by: deacon john m. bresnahan at May 8, 2007 6:53:24 PM
If the only, ONLY, arbiter of what is provided to Christ's followers with the guarantee of freedom from error is found written in the pages of the Bible, then where is the Biblical command to write the New Testament?
John 21:24 tells us that, “It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, ….” Luke 1:3 says, “I too have decided, … , to write it down …” These are not the words that allow an autodictat interpretation. So?
So, we must trust that the Holy Spirit acted in, with, and through these men. OK, fine.
So, the only difference with Catholics is that Protestants and, apparently evangelicals (maybe), believe that God turned off the tap of grace that sustained definitive teaching through humans without error in His Church with the close of the apostolic age. Well, duh, who didn’t know that?
Except that is a “tradition of men.” It is not found in the Bible, where it must be if we are to be certain that it is true and necessary (according to their criteria). Yet Protestants and, apparently evangelicals insist that it is both true and necessary.
In fact, the New Testament tells us that God has sent the Holy Spirit, which will be with us to the end of the age (Mormons, please note) to guide us into all truth. And he does not send it to autonomous individuals who try out different versions of truth for a group of scripture scholars to arbitrate (another tradition of men). He sends the guarantee of guidance into truth through the Holy Spirit to the trained, instructed, and commissioned leaders of the Church gathered in pray with Mary.
Only one outfit even claims to be their successors who are still doing the same.
How can you be not just rooting for another team, but actually lecturing the historically real, consistent, and continuous-through-time body of Christ’s followers that they are “doing” the Church wrong for what is plainly on the pages of the sacred Scripture handed on to us without error? Just seems very, very strange to me.
Posted by: Glenn Juday at May 8, 2007 7:21:16 PM
Jeff, in real life, people who call the Catholic Church the "Whore of Babylon" are not expressing a well-considered theological opinion. They're expressing ignorance by using derogatory names.
You're right in that we shouldn't judge people as bigots, but their ignorant ideas can certainly be judged as bigoted, not well-reasoned.
Imagine the reaction if Catholics were to call the Anglican Church "Henry VII's Whore"! It certainly wouldn't contribute to any ecumenical discussions.
Posted by: Sr. Lorraine at May 8, 2007 8:28:35 PM
"I mean, I think they're wrong, but saying that the Catholic Church is evil and anti-Gospel and the Church is the Whore of Babylon is not "bigoted." It's an honest theological opinion--sad and deluded and perhaps damnable in many cases--but just an opinion."
Okay, it's a bigoted opinion.
Posted by: Tiber Jumper at May 8, 2007 8:46:49 PM
Bigot : One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. I'd say that many evangelical bloggers lapsed bigotry after learning of Beckwith's conversion, just as many Catholic bloggers did when Rod Dreher provided us with some bona fide soap-opera-esque emotional exhibitionism last October. Whoops! See how easy it is?
Posted by: Colm at May 8, 2007 9:27:02 PM
I have evangelicals for friends, somehow I have managed to make the cut into the believer catagory despite being a very practicing Catholic. While I am encouraged by this I am also extremely bothered by their attempts to proselytise mutual friends who are either lapsed Catholics or poorly catechised Catholics. This comes down to three issues. The first being that the Church has done such a truly lousy job with catechesis that these Catholics are ripe for the picking. The second is that so much of Evangelical proselytising is borne on the back of misconceptions and malicious falsehoods about the Church. The third ties it all up. You cannot generally discuss theology with Evangelicals(specifically the ones that I know anyway) because they have don't seem to understand much beyond referencing oft quoted Bible passages and the idea of I have accepted Christ as my personal saviour. The richness that is found in the Church escapes them and any attempts to explain it are batted away.
Posted by: Southside at May 8, 2007 9:43:19 PM
Just wanted to say that the stuff Fr. Al at Pontifications publishes is always worth reading. He usually gets some good posts in the combox, from Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, often way over my tiny head.
I'm fascinated by the clergy and theologian converts from Protestant denominations to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Sometimes I imagine that the end of the East/West schism will come as a result of ex-Protestants. Then again, sometimes I think it will only make it continue. But either way, I think we're living in a time of extraordinary grace, however you interpret that word.
Posted by: tony c at May 8, 2007 9:43:58 PM
There was an earlier post referencing the "burst of Catholic-bashing" that occurred across the street at our bar. I would just like to say to you and your readers: whilst we have no Catholics contributing to the bottle-throwing we like to call "discussion" over there, I can assure you that some of us do try to give our sisters and brothers 'cross the river a fair shake. At the very least we share the great ecumenical symbols of the faith with you, as well as baptism into Christ, and it mystifies me as much as you why some evangelical protestants come unglued like a 7-yr-old's first model airplane at news like Dr. Beckwith's. Much ::heart:: to you from this presbyterian...
Posted by: joel hunter at May 8, 2007 11:45:02 PM
"It would be much more honest for Wheaton College and the ETS to post a big sign saying, 'No Catholics, no matter what!' Because, it appears, they are more interested in maintaining their separate identity than in honestly interpreting and applying their statements of faith."
From someone on the inside: there are many evangelical students at colleges such as Wheaton entertaining Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and a small contingent of Catholic believers. (When asked why he attended Wheaton, one very conservative Catholic student said, "Best Catholic education in Chicago.") There's also a few Orthodox (!) technically on the faculty who sign the exact same statement of faith regular profs sign, but these folks are auxiliary -- library, etc.
What will be interesting is seeing the directions in which such colleges go when administrators turn over. The Hochschild thing might've played out differently had different administrators been in place.
Posted by: The Insider at May 8, 2007 11:56:07 PM
"I have evangelicals for friends" -- Gee, this sounds like, "Hey, I have friends who are [insert identity group here]". Anyway.
The problem is, Catholicism is a serious, intellectually rigorous faith, whereas evangelicalism (at least in America) is simplistic and superficial.
There's also the personal dimension of the 'relationship with Jesus' that Catholicism can seem to lack. I think JPII was right to emphasize the need for evangelization, not just catechesis. A priest friend whom I know who teaches part time at a Catholic school, and said while he was happy to turn out students who respected the church and the tradition, he felt that such was not enough, that he needed to have his students find a way to have a personal investment/encounter with Jesus. I think there is wisdom there.
Posted by: Irenaeus at May 9, 2007 12:01:33 AM
We just don't believe in all the man-made rules. Jesus taught against this in regards to the Jewish leaders of his time. We believe in a personal relationship with God and not going through man-made rules and rulers.
Notwithstanding, we believe in focusing on the commonalities of our faith and in the unity of the brother/sisterhood (which are those who acknowledge Jesus as the Christ.
Posted by: Kelly at May 9, 2007 8:23:14 AM
Our faith might be a simplistic relationship with God, but if you search the scriptures and learn about Jesus, you will see that is exactly what he taught. It's about Jesus coming into your life and changing your heart and making you into a new person from the inside out. God can and does work as he sees fit esp. in the most unexpected people and ways. How we offer our praise and worship to him becomes a matter of argument between people. Let's not loose sight of the bigger picture...how God moves in individual lives.
Posted by: Kelly at May 9, 2007 8:45:29 AM
"It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church), as well as certain pronouncements of the pope, which are delivered ex cathedra, such as doctrines about the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary."
Isn't the Magisterium the teaching office of the universal Church, not just the Latin Rite, ofter referred to as the Roman Catholic Church?
Posted by: JimmyV at May 9, 2007 9:23:39 AM
The Insider,
You stated, "What will be interesting is seeing the directions in which such colleges go when administrators turn over. The Hochschild thing might've played out differently had different administrators been in place."
It has been my experience as well that the administration at Wheaton (most specifically, Litfin) is more zealous than the faculty in enforcing Conservative Evangelical orthodoxy. However, I don't see any reason to hope that the next administration will be any more curious than the current one about what happened between the apostles and the Reformation. The president is appointed by the trustees. From what I have seen, there ain't no way the trustees are going to appoint someone who has an open mind on these matters.
As Litfin admitted in one of his responses to the Hochschild situation, Wheaton is not committed to Sola Scriptura, but to interpreting the Bible and Christian history through the Protestant tradition and thorough Wheaton's own traditions. It would be a huge paradigm shift for Wheaton to measure itself by the convictions the apostles handed down to the church fathers instead of the convictions of Wheaton's alumni and donors. I wouldn't count on it happening anytime soon.
Posted by: Eric at May 9, 2007 9:34:31 AM
About the "bigoted" thing -- I agree that we shouldn't criticize non-Catholics for expressing their honestly held theological opinions. Even if they use phrases like "whore of Babylon."
Where we *do* have the duty to speak up is when they get the facts wrong and accuse us of practices we don't do and beliefs we don't hold. That's a sort of bigotry, I think, as it's rooted in ignorance. Isn't that essentially what bigotry is? Isn't that hatred or intolerance of the "other" irrational insofar as it's based on mistaken beliefs about the other? Because we can, of course, have a rational dislike or intolerance of another, one that we wouldn't label "bigotry."
Posted by: bearing at May 9, 2007 9:53:55 AM
I have to say that I was not at all surprised by the reaction to Beckwith’s conversion – it seemed quite normal and expected, given his stature in the Evangelical world. Really rocked their boat. Rather I am surprised by the reaction to the reaction.
As a former Evangelical, I can say two things: First, from inside that world it's actually quite difficult to get accurate information about Catholicism. You have to work at it, both to overcome the negative characterizations that come from pulpits, anti-Catholic literature, and from secular media; and to actually find out where good Catholic resources are.
It's not as easy as it would seem, if you don't know anyone who is not only Catholic, but knowledgeable enough about their faith to actually explain it to you and correct your many misperceptions. Rather the ignorance of many Catholics serves to confirm Evangelical’s worst suspicions about Catholicism – as it did for me, before I met a Catholic who actually knew his faith and could explain it intelligently.
Second, none of the Evangelicals I knew were simplistic or superficial in their faith. I do believe that that is a Catholic misperception of Evangelicalism. They may not have the intellectual history and resources of Catholicism, but they do make it their business to know their faith well and really live it – which is more than I can say about many Catholics. I wish more Catholics would make it their business, and take it as seriously as Evangelicals do.
Some do, and more are, it seems - but as a former Evangelical who used to go door-to-door, I not once met a Catholic at the door who actually seemed to know anything about their faith at all. It was God’s grace that finally brought a knowledgeable Catholic into my path – and thanks to his outstanding witness, here I am in the Church today.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at May 9, 2007 12:17:55 PM
"none of the Evangelicals I knew were simplistic or superficial in their faith..."
Fair enough, but *none*? There are brilliant, sophisticated evangelicals, but I think there are many, many evangelicals who are simplisitc in their faith, and evangelicals often hold up simplicity as a badge of honor. I'm a high-church evangelical, and so much of what I see in American evangelicalism (as opposed to British or German) is a simple dumbing-down rooted in a concern for pragmatism.
Posted by: Irenaeus at May 9, 2007 1:12:58 PM
As an evangelical, but Catholic-sympathetic, observer to the whole Beckwith brouhaha: all the Protestant invective has been directed at Beckwith; it's assumed that he's the responsible party. Nobody has accused the Catholic church of "sheep-stealing." This strikes me as a rather different set of assumptions than what I see on Catholic blogs about conversions to Protestantism.
Posted by: Heath White at May 9, 2007 1:40:17 PM
Aimee,
Your comments are dead-on. I'd only add that as someone who has spent several years in both liturgicallly conservative in and Evangelical-leaning Lutheran congregations, I have heard endlessly about the Works Righteousness of Catholics, to the almost total exclusion of anything else about the Faith. And although there are many clueless Lutherans, the vast majority of Catholics I encountered - including Family - were so muddled about what the RC church actually taught, that is was hard to sort out the Truth from the fiction. It's so bat that even I, who reads a lot, was amazed to find out there were actually Catholic Bible scholars; I was honestly under the sincere impression they just *didn't do that.* In my world, the Reformation-era Lutherans were the folks who really KNEW the Bible. What a shock to discover the wealth of Catholic apologetical materials and Web sites. Oh my.
Posted by: MarkAA at May 9, 2007 2:39:47 PM
Isn't the Magisterium the teaching office of the universal Church, not just the Latin Rite, ofte[n] referred to as the Roman Catholic Church?
The Bishop of Rome and those bishops in union with him - so I assume that would extend beyond the Latin Rite.
Posted by: c matt at May 9, 2007 3:11:13 PM
"Rather I am surprised by the reaction to the reaction."
Amen. Nothing surprising at all, and the amount of charity displayed by many is nice to see.
Posted by: joe at May 9, 2007 4:35:19 PM
Eric,
You may well be right. Wheaton is also very image-conscious, however, and I know certain folks did not enjoy the publicity the Hochschild thing brought to the institution. Further, the college fear lawsuits; Hochschild was too noble to go that route, of course, but it's in the back of people's minds. Dr. Litfin is a unique animal. The next president, unlike Litfin, may not have his or her degree in Bible, may have a better understanding of Catholicism (Litfin's is simply dismal), and may be more open to certain things; Wheaton seems to alternate presidential styles between a closed hand/open hand sort of thing.
So, you are right about the board, but you never know...
Posted by: The Insider at May 9, 2007 6:07:16 PM
We just don't believe in all the man-made rules. Jesus taught against this in regards to the Jewish leaders of his time. We believe in a personal relationship with God and not going through man-made rules and rulers.
Actually, Jesus wasn't condemning the rules, he was condemning hypocrisy, because the Pharisees expected others to obey rules they didn’t obey themselves. In almost the same breath he told people to obey the Pharisees anyway, because they have authority (Moses' seat - Mt 23:2-3).
Neither Jesus nor any other new testament writer told people not to obey authority - quite the opposite. We are told specifically to obey authority, because authority is given by God – and if the authorities fail, God, not us, will hold them accountable (Heb. 13:17). Our job is to stay put and keep our eyes on Christ, not run off and found a church of our own when the going gets rough (see 2 Pet 3:2-3, 8-10, 14-15, 17-18).
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at May 9, 2007 6:30:31 PM
I should add: obeying established Church authority does not impede our relationship with Christ. Rather it strengthens our relationship with Christ, because we are that much more in accord with His expressed will.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at May 9, 2007 6:36:29 PM
Irenaeus:
I meant none of the Evangelicals that I personally knew, which were a lot, because I belonged to a mega-church. I can’t speak for all Evangelicals – I only speak from my own experience - and I suppose some are actually simplistic.
But I think there's a distinction between being simplistic and being simple. Many saints were very simple (think Mother Teresa, St. Therese of Liseaux), but very deep. Simple, but not superficial at all.
In the same sense, my Evangelical friends may not all have been great intellectuals, but they were very deeply committed Christians. I did encounter an anti-intellectual trend in that world, but that does not necessarily mean shallow faith. That’s all I was trying to say. Maybe I was just in an unusually good church.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at May 9, 2007 7:21:18 PM
As another "Catholic-friendly" Evangelical living not in North America but Europe (Vienna, Austria, to be specific) I want to underline what some current and former Evangelicals (i.e. Southside, Irenaeus, Aimee Milburn) said above.
Over here not only does the vast majority of Catholics live in open disregard of the Church's teaching in many areas of life, whether from ignorance or rebellion, but when you look at the most visible practicing Catholics they either are of the liberal human rights and social justice type (who oppose church teaching on sexual morality, abortion or gender roles as basically unjust) or else they are those of a more conservative bent who claim to have more of a relationship with Mary than with Christ, or who are pre-occupied with such traditional externals as votive candles picture postcards of the Saints. And we see the bishops either falling into those camps themselves, or else virtually powerless to do anything about this lack of catechesis and discipline.
There are many Catholics I respect and appreciate as brothers and sisters in Christ, but there is a huge gap between what they believe and practice and what the average (nominally Catholic) Austrian believes and practices. Most Austrian Evangelicals exposure is only to these average, nominal Catholics for whom the old cliche is true: you are not an auto mechanic just because you were born in a garage, and you are not a Christian just because you were born in a Christian country.
So who can seriously and honestly blame us for treating this vast pool of Catholics as unchurched nonbelievers for all extents and purposes, given that our (reflected and not simplistic) theology does not hold with the effectiveness of a sacrament or ordinance (i.e. baptism) without the faith of the recipient?
Posted by: Wolf N. Paul at May 10, 2007 12:33:08 AM
"The problem is, Catholicism is a serious, intellectually rigorous faith, whereas evangelicalism (at least in America) is simplistic and superficial."
Well, I've had a broad, international experience of both evangelicalism and Catholicism and I'd have to say it all depends upon which bunch of evangelicals or Catholics you are with.
I had the opportunity to study at Fuller seminary and hang out with loads of evangelicals who were very sophisticated in ways that Catholic intellectuals seldom are: in anthropology, culture (not just a often idealized western culture but cultures of people around the world and throughout time), evangelization, and communication, for instance.
The intellectual prowess of Anglo high culture Catholicism (which is what we are talking about in western, English speaking circles)is very specific, defined, focused around a few specific themes, and pretty narrow.
To compare an Anglo-Cathoic understanding of the liturgy with a Mississippi good ol boy's grasp of the same topic does not reveal the true nature of either faith. It would be the same as comparing the usually pitiful understanding of an ordinary Catholic in the pew in Boston regarding evangelization with some of the great, world-class scholars on the topic that I knew at Fuller.
Both Protestants and Catholics tend to compare their own historic strengths with the other's historic weaknesses and say "See!".
But we don't. Because both communities are vast, international, incredibly multi-layered, have their own great scholars and genius and astounding saints and apostles, and their own vast numbers of completely ordinary believers who come fully equipped with remarkable levels of ignorance.
Posted by: Sherry Weddell at May 10, 2007 5:25:21 AM
We just don't believe in all the man-made rules. Jesus taught against this in regards to the Jewish leaders of his time.
I certainly recall Jesus being a man and giving rules (not committing adultery, even in your heart, comes to mind - pretty darn strict).
I also recall the Apostles being men and giving rules, and Jesus even telling them to give rules (what they loose/bind on earth, will be loosed/bound in heaven).
I even recall in Acts some of the Apostles getting together to discuss certain "rules" and the scope of their application. And that Paul, he was kind of a stickler for rules, always harping about not receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy state, and not breaking Caesar's legitimate laws since God uses rulers to help keep us in line.
Posted by: c matt at May 10, 2007 9:47:56 AM
Wolf N. Paul (love the name):
It was the Austrian bishops that Pope Benedict singled out for special treatment during their “ad limina apostolorum” visit after he became Pope. He gave them a stern rebuke for their failure to teach the faith to the faithful.
Sandro Magister wrote a good article about it here.
Also: In case you didn’t know it, the sacraments are not effective if one is not in a state of grace, if one is in a state of serious sin and only paying lip-service to the faith. Just because one was baptized as an infant does not mean one is “saved” or going to heaven. You must truly believe, and you must truly live your faith. In that respect, Evangelicals are not wrong to witness to such “Catholics” about Christ. The eternal destiny of their souls truly is at stake.
Once having discovered Christ in the Evangelical world, many Catholics do eventually come home (as Dr. Beckwith has), and discover what rich beauties the sacraments bring to the soul, when the soul is truly open in faith to the river of grace that flows through them direct from God. They also discover how richly transformative of the mind the teachings of the Church really are, when the stony heart has been taken away, and new heart, open and warm, has been given in its place.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at May 10, 2007 10:57:56 AM
Sherry, Aimee, Eric, et alios,
I suppose it does depend on which circle of evangelicals we are discussing. I am an evangelical and I've lived and taught on two continents and in several states, so I understand that. I would still see evangelicalism in most of its expressions as fundamentally simplistic and superficial -- which, I think, doesn't necessarily mean that individual evangelicals are such; there are many deep people operating nonetheless in a shallow framework.
I think the reason for that (if I'm right) is that evangelicalism is a truncated faith, because it hearkens back to the truncations of the Reformation -- sola scriptura (apart from tradition), sola fide (apart from discipleship and devotion, esp. in Lutheranism), solus Christus (apart from the church), all of which culminates on a focus on the individual apart from any community.
Here's something else I've been thinking about: Evangelical intellectualism is generally parasitic on non-evangelical thought. For instance, we love CS Lewis but he's not a traditional evangelical by any stretch; he's a conservative anglo-catholic. Further, many of the best young evangelical theologians turn either to Barth or Pannenberg for inspiration, both of whom are far from being traditional evangelicals. We've had our bright spots (Carl Henry, Old Princeton), but it seems to me that in recent years our intellectual vitality has depended on outsiders.
Any one have thoughts on this?
Posted by: Irenaeus at May 10, 2007 11:52:04 AM
There are many deep people operating nonetheless in a shallow framework.
I'd agree to that, with the caveat that scripture itself is not shallow, if one gets deeply into it. It was in part my own study of scripture that led me to Catholicism, as over time I saw contradictions between scripture and Evangelical theology, contradictions that were resolved in Catholic theology.
It seems to me that in recent years our intellectual vitality has depended on outsiders.
Here's the problem as I see it: Jesus said the Church would be like a tiny seed growing into a large tree, and that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. I understand that to mean neither the Church nor Christianity were to remain exactly as they were at the beginning, but are always to be growing and developing in understanding (all truth, being the truth of God, is infinite, after all).
But if you keep chopping it back down to the beginning, with just scripture itself, you're chopping down the tree and wind up with a stump. So you must go somewhere else for growth in understanding.
But that also means that scripture alone is not all Jesus meant for the Church to have. It is foundational, and it is the beginning and seed of the Church and an inerrant guide. But the Church herself is under the stewardship of the Holy Spirit, guiding her into all truth: the unfolding of doctrine and experience over the course of the ages in the life of the Church, and in the lives of her many faithful, as a great tree growing from the seed of scripture.
And we can trust that, because we trust Jesus, who gave first Peter (Mt 16:19) and then the apostles (Mt 18:18) authority; which was repeatedly confirmed by Paul when his apostolic authority was contested by outsiders (1 Cor, Gal). Peter and the apostles have authority from Christ, and they handed it on to their successors, who continue to do so today. That means we can trust the Church, to which Christ has also given the Holy Spirit.
And so it is not surprising to me if Evangelicals, who have cut down the tree, find themselves going elsewhere, including to the Catholic wellspring, for intellectual enrichment.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at May 10, 2007 1:25:26 PM
Overall, I would agree that in general, Catholicism draws from a much deeper well. But, that is not always so. Again, it does depend upon the subject matter.
Catholics have done brilliantly in some areas and are at a tremendous disadvantage in others: such as pastoral theology, the theology of governance, evangelization, missiology, etc.
There is simply NO Catholic equivalent of many of the disciplines studied at Fuller. (And yes, it was truly academic, I studied with Fullbright scholars there.) For instance, there are no Catholic graduate programs in missiology in this country although there are 39 Protestant programs, 20 of whom offer doctorates.
I know that when Catholics think of the intellectual tradition, they don't think of missiology. They think of philosophy or dogmatic theology or church history or the study of liturgy. (And Protestants have their scholars in all these areas, of course.)
But if the Church's primary mission and identity is evangelization (as Church teaching insists) then rigorous scholarship in this area would seem most appropriate.
But its off our radar so we simply don't think of it.
Posted by: Sherry Weddell at May 10, 2007 4:45:17 PM
I should mention: there is a Masters of Arts in Theology available through the Chicago Theological Union and one of the available focuses is world mission - which may or may not be the same as missiology.
That is it for the fourth largest Cathoic country in the world.
By comparision:
One evangelical school alone (Fuller) has eight graduate degrees in the area, three of which are doctorates:
Research Areas at Fuller include:
Anthropology;Children at Risk;Church as Mission;Church Growth; Communication; Contemporary Culture;Ethnomusicology;General Missiology; International Development; Islamic Studies; Leadership; Mission History;Spiritual Dynamics;Theology of Mission;and Urban Mission
Contemplating the impoverishment of Catholic thought and practice in this area is similar to what I would imagine it would be like to ask a fundamentalist pastor to try to sight-read his way through an Easter Vigil.
There's no there there.
Posted by: Sherry Weddell at May 10, 2007 6:11:48 PM
