Read about the conversion of this great American, pro-life thinker here.
For anyone near Washington D.C., I highly recommend visiting the Catholic Information Center, first because Jesus is there, present in the tabernacle. Second, the staff is knowledgeable, courteous, and best of all, fully and faithfully Catholic! The store sells a fine collection of reading materials, sacramentals (rosaries, etc.), and religious art as well.
It has been interesting seeing the number of converts to the Catholic faith that have entered either directly or indirectly through the CIC, and I am thrilled to see Hadley Arkes's name added to this list.
Praise be Jesus Christ for pulling together in unity men of good will throughout the ages!
Monday, May 31, 2010
Response to Ogletown Baptist Church Service May 23, 2010 On New Testament Priests and Sacrifices
Clip 1, on change:
Clip 2, on division:
Clip 3, on the NT shift away from animal sacrifice
Clip 4, on leaving a church where a goat was about to be sacrificed
Clip 5, on Jesus as the Lamb of God
Clip 6, on all Christians being priests (a "priesthood of believers")
Clip 7, on Christians being the sacrifice
Clip 8, on Christians being the sacrifice and holy in God's sight
Stay tuned for a Catholic response to the sermon given by Curtis Hill, excerpts of which may be found above. The sermon can be downloaded in its entirety from www.ogletown.org.
Clip 2, on division:
Clip 3, on the NT shift away from animal sacrifice
Clip 4, on leaving a church where a goat was about to be sacrificed
Clip 5, on Jesus as the Lamb of God
Clip 6, on all Christians being priests (a "priesthood of believers")
Clip 7, on Christians being the sacrifice
Clip 8, on Christians being the sacrifice and holy in God's sight
Stay tuned for a Catholic response to the sermon given by Curtis Hill, excerpts of which may be found above. The sermon can be downloaded in its entirety from www.ogletown.org.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Two Propositions
Which of the following two propositions do you believe to be true?
1. The successors of the apostles in the first five centuries of Christianity visibly and unmiraculously DISTORTED the Gospel in a universally and miraculously consistent and unified manner. (In other words, the early church was unified around its heresy.)
2. The successors of the Protestant reformers in the last five centuries invisibly and miraculously PRESERVED the Gospel in a universally and un-miraculously inconsistent and disunified manner. (In other words, the modern church is visibly disunified in its attempt to preserve the Gospel and possesses only an invisible unity, the nature/substance of which we can not be entirely certain.)
Neither proposition is true. The successors of the apostles faithfully passed on the truths that will never change (Jude 3). When the Protestant reformation occurred, the reformers left the "Household of God" and took some (not all) of its truths with them. As the camps outside the house have continued to split, Protestant denominations have found themselves with less and less truth, and less and less certainty that what they believe is true. Just like a plant withers when removed from the soil that sustains it, the truth withers when it is removed from its natural habitat, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Of course, the truth itself, being Jesus, never withers. We do well not to forget that Jesus and His Church are intimately and inseparably one. Of course, those elements of Catholic truth that have been preserved outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church do not wither; in fact, they are the life-lines that keep non-Catholics connected with the mystical body of Christ. But these are also truths that the Catholic Church taught before the Protestant reformation ever occurred: Salvation by grace alone through Christ alone through faith (a faith that is alive and full of charity), the realities of heaven and hell, the virgin birth of Christ as well as his atoning death and resurrection. Protestants such as the Baptist pastors with whom I converse can not admit that the only truths non-Catholics have succeeded in preserving had already been preserved for 2,000 years in the Catholic Church. Thus, the Pastors find themselves in the difficult position of having to claim something that is in fact NOT true: the the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel. (I wish they could agree what that false gospel was--a gospel of works? a gospel of Mary?--but that's another story.)
Let us all continue to pray for the grace of conversion to submit ever more humbly and obediently to the teaching authority of Christ which Our Lord graciously bestowed upon the apostles and their successors so that we may know the truth, love the truth, live the truth, and die for the truth. "You are Kepha and upon Kepha I will build MY church!" (Matthew 16:18) "He who hears you [the apostles] hears me. He who rejects you rejects me." (Luke 10:16)
Praise be Jesus Christ, now and forever!
1. The successors of the apostles in the first five centuries of Christianity visibly and unmiraculously DISTORTED the Gospel in a universally and miraculously consistent and unified manner. (In other words, the early church was unified around its heresy.)
2. The successors of the Protestant reformers in the last five centuries invisibly and miraculously PRESERVED the Gospel in a universally and un-miraculously inconsistent and disunified manner. (In other words, the modern church is visibly disunified in its attempt to preserve the Gospel and possesses only an invisible unity, the nature/substance of which we can not be entirely certain.)
-------------
Neither proposition is true. The successors of the apostles faithfully passed on the truths that will never change (Jude 3). When the Protestant reformation occurred, the reformers left the "Household of God" and took some (not all) of its truths with them. As the camps outside the house have continued to split, Protestant denominations have found themselves with less and less truth, and less and less certainty that what they believe is true. Just like a plant withers when removed from the soil that sustains it, the truth withers when it is removed from its natural habitat, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Of course, the truth itself, being Jesus, never withers. We do well not to forget that Jesus and His Church are intimately and inseparably one. Of course, those elements of Catholic truth that have been preserved outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church do not wither; in fact, they are the life-lines that keep non-Catholics connected with the mystical body of Christ. But these are also truths that the Catholic Church taught before the Protestant reformation ever occurred: Salvation by grace alone through Christ alone through faith (a faith that is alive and full of charity), the realities of heaven and hell, the virgin birth of Christ as well as his atoning death and resurrection. Protestants such as the Baptist pastors with whom I converse can not admit that the only truths non-Catholics have succeeded in preserving had already been preserved for 2,000 years in the Catholic Church. Thus, the Pastors find themselves in the difficult position of having to claim something that is in fact NOT true: the the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel. (I wish they could agree what that false gospel was--a gospel of works? a gospel of Mary?--but that's another story.)
Let us all continue to pray for the grace of conversion to submit ever more humbly and obediently to the teaching authority of Christ which Our Lord graciously bestowed upon the apostles and their successors so that we may know the truth, love the truth, live the truth, and die for the truth. "You are Kepha and upon Kepha I will build MY church!" (Matthew 16:18) "He who hears you [the apostles] hears me. He who rejects you rejects me." (Luke 10:16)
Praise be Jesus Christ, now and forever!
Saturday, May 22, 2010
A Failure of the Early Church? On the Lord's Supper as Symbol
This week, I listened to two different Baptist sermons on the Lord's Supper. Baptists, like most Protestants, believe the Lord's Supper to be a symbolic ritual in which we remember Jesus's sacrifice for our sins. They do not believe that the bread and wine/juice actually is Jesus's precious, glorified Body and Blood. Rather, it is just a symbol of Jesus, and they celebrate the Lord's Supper in memory of his death.
Put this way, this teaching seems to be rather mild and easy to accept. Even though many Christians believe the Lord's Supper is much more (infinitely more, in fact) than a symbolic ritual, the idea of it being a symbolic ritual sits comfortably in the minds and hearts of millions and millions of Christians around the world.
Although it would be worth discussing the theology of this belief itself, I will focus on a problem that, for most Protestants, seems to be completely off the radar - a problem that, theology aside, makes it virtually impossible to believe that the Lord's Supper is only a symbol.
The problem with the Protestant doctrine is that the claim quickly becomes too large through what it implies. In other words, despite the mild packaging given the Lord's Supper, to believe the Lord's Supper is only a symbol is to make extraordinary, staggering claims about the history of Christianity.
The early church unanimously believed that Jesus was really and truly present in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper. Many of the pastors of the early church who taught this learned their faith directly from the apostles themselves! Almost all of these early pastors were martyred for their faith, which serves as a testament to the truth of their claims.
Take, for instance, St. Ignatius, who was an early bishop of Antioch and a student of the apostle John. On his way to being thrown to the lions around 110 AD, St. Ignatius wrote letters to the churches in each city through which he passed. In these letters, St. Ignatius makes the following remarks:
My claim (which should be easy enough to disprove if false) is that the apostles passed on to their successors the doctrine that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist - that the bread and wine are truly and substantially his body and blood. (Please don't take my word for it! I invite every reader to study the writings of the apostles' students and their successors. Consult the primary sources, not what some third party - even myself - has to say about the primary sources.)
Now, let's pause for a minute and assume, like Baptists believe, that the Lord's Supper is only a symbolic ritual. If this assumption is true, then logic forces us to conclude that what St. Ignatius was teaching was not true.
This conclusion immediately raises a dilemma for Christians: am I going to believe my Baptist interpretive tradition over the teaching of a pastor who received their faith directly from an apostle?
Let's push the Baptist assumption farther and assume that St. Ignatius was teaching heresy over in Antioch. If he was the only Pastor who distorted the original gospel message, then where are the other faithful students of the apostles who passed on the correct understanding of the Lord's Supper?
Also, we know from the early church that when someone taught heresy, there was an outcry. Where is there a record of the outcry against St. Ignatius's false teaching? In fact, if a number of early church fathers went astray, you would expect even more of an outcry from those successors of the apostles who had maintained the true Christian faith. Moreover, if those who were distorting the Gospel message had no commitment to the original deposit of faith Christ left with the apostles, you would expect there to be some amount of disagreement between their teachings. After all, if you are not going to remain obedient to the apostles and to the true Gospel, why remain obedient to and consistent with the teachings of the other heretics?
Further still, if these early heretics knew that their teachers, the apostles, taught them one thing, and that they were about to martyred for beliefs they knew were not true, why do we never here of a single early church father admitting moments before death that what they believed was actually a human tradition that someone had made up after the apostles had died?
Put simply, the historical evidence suggests that the early church consistently believed that the Eucharist was Christ's Body and Blood, not a symbolic representation of it. The Eucharist is the same flesh that suffered for our sins, as St. Ignatius emphasizes. The flesh on the cross was not a symbolic flesh.
If the above paragraph is correct, then the history of the early church's teaching on the Lord's Supper can be interpreted in one of two ways.
1. A major, global cover-up/distortion of the true Gospel message.
2. A faithful, consistent, global adherence to the teaching of the apostles.
Now, assuming that #2 is not an option for Baptists, let's push the implications a bit further.
Let's say that every single apostle chose successors who turned out to be unfaithful to the original message (so unfaithful that almost every single one of them would submit to marytrdom without a peep regarding their having changed the Gospel message).
The consequence of this massive failure of the apostles in choosing "faithful men" to pass on the traditions that had been given them is that error was taught and idolatry promoted for the first 1,500 years of church history. The Sacrifice of the Mass, the worship of the Host, the Sacraments - all of it - is one gigantic mistake - one enormous distortion of what Jesus's church (the one he offered his sacrifice for and sent His Spirit to maintain) was supposed to look like and believe.
Thus, to believe that the Lord's Supper is a symbolic ritual is ultimately to believe that:
1. The apostles completely failed at their Great Commission (Matt. 28:20) by failing to find anyone to faithful transmit the faith.
2. Every student of the apostles and their successors changed the Gospel in a consistent and unchanging manner and promoted this lie without ever once altering it further in time or place for centuries - and all of this through countless martyrdoms and persecutions.
3. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to protect His Church from error and guide it into all truth, but something prevented the Holy Spirit from achieving this goal even as early as the time when the apostles were passing on the faith to their successors.
4. Christianity, from Jesus's perspective, was an utter and near-complete failure until the time of the Reformation. Jesus founded a Church that wouldn't really come into being until 1,500 years after he founded it.
5. Only after the Reformation do we finally see the New Testament Church as Jesus and Apostles envisioned it, despite the fact that outside the Catholic Church there are tens of thousands of denominations preaching conflicting interpretations of the Scriptures.
I suggested earlier that to believe the Lord's Supper is only a symbolic ritual is to make an extraordinary claim about the history of Christianity. Should anyone then wonder why history is the last thing most Baptist pastors mention when they preach about the Lord's Supper? For these pastor's to mention what the Early Church believed about Jesus's Real Presence in the Eucharist is to raise serious alarms in the minds of anyone willing to push the implications to their conclusions. Many people whose whose minds and hearts are open to these conclusions have pushed their way right into the Catholic Church, even though this is the last Church these Protestants would have ever dreamed of joining. They, like so many converts, find themselves surprised by truth!
Let us open our minds, our hearts, and our wills to the fullness of the faith that has been faithfully passed down to us from the apostles and through their successors so that we Christians, two-thousand years later - can know the lord Jesus Christ in His fullness. Through the breaking of the bread, let us come to know Christ how he loves for us to know Him (see Luke 24:13-35 and following)! Let us share in communion with the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity with our Lord and Savior, the divine spouse of our souls!
Praise be Jesus Christ now and forever!
How might we explain the tendency for Christians to believe things without understanding their implications? One contributing factor is the way in which we conceive doctrine in our minds. If our doctrinal beliefs are imagined as a bullet-point list, then it is difficult for our minds to see their relationships, not to mention the relationships between doctrines and their historical development.
On the other hand, if we see doctrine in a more symphonic manner, where each truth melodiously intersects with other truths, and with the contexts for these truths (history included), then our minds are able to see truth as an organic whole, as a...Person! Our minds can perceive the beautiful splendor of truth as all the pieces (doctrine, history, theology, morality, etc.) fit together.
The truth of the Catholic faith amounts to far more than simply having a bullet-list in which each item is correct. Rather, the truth of the Catholic faith allows one to fit all of life together in a way that glorifies the Father. To be a Catholic is to be connected with Scripture and Tradition in the heart of the living Body of Christ, the Church, and through this relationship, be connected with all of human history that finds its center and meaning in the person of Jesus Christ.
Put this way, this teaching seems to be rather mild and easy to accept. Even though many Christians believe the Lord's Supper is much more (infinitely more, in fact) than a symbolic ritual, the idea of it being a symbolic ritual sits comfortably in the minds and hearts of millions and millions of Christians around the world.
Although it would be worth discussing the theology of this belief itself, I will focus on a problem that, for most Protestants, seems to be completely off the radar - a problem that, theology aside, makes it virtually impossible to believe that the Lord's Supper is only a symbol.
The problem with the Protestant doctrine is that the claim quickly becomes too large through what it implies. In other words, despite the mild packaging given the Lord's Supper, to believe the Lord's Supper is only a symbol is to make extraordinary, staggering claims about the history of Christianity.
The early church unanimously believed that Jesus was really and truly present in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper. Many of the pastors of the early church who taught this learned their faith directly from the apostles themselves! Almost all of these early pastors were martyred for their faith, which serves as a testament to the truth of their claims.
Take, for instance, St. Ignatius, who was an early bishop of Antioch and a student of the apostle John. On his way to being thrown to the lions around 110 AD, St. Ignatius wrote letters to the churches in each city through which he passed. In these letters, St. Ignatius makes the following remarks:
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).Other writings from the early church can be read here, though every Christian should take some time to read these quote in context by purchasing a volume of the writings of the early church fathers, such as these volumes by William Jurgens, which I highly recommend given their exhaustive index and cross-references.
My claim (which should be easy enough to disprove if false) is that the apostles passed on to their successors the doctrine that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist - that the bread and wine are truly and substantially his body and blood. (Please don't take my word for it! I invite every reader to study the writings of the apostles' students and their successors. Consult the primary sources, not what some third party - even myself - has to say about the primary sources.)
Now, let's pause for a minute and assume, like Baptists believe, that the Lord's Supper is only a symbolic ritual. If this assumption is true, then logic forces us to conclude that what St. Ignatius was teaching was not true.
This conclusion immediately raises a dilemma for Christians: am I going to believe my Baptist interpretive tradition over the teaching of a pastor who received their faith directly from an apostle?
Let's push the Baptist assumption farther and assume that St. Ignatius was teaching heresy over in Antioch. If he was the only Pastor who distorted the original gospel message, then where are the other faithful students of the apostles who passed on the correct understanding of the Lord's Supper?
Also, we know from the early church that when someone taught heresy, there was an outcry. Where is there a record of the outcry against St. Ignatius's false teaching? In fact, if a number of early church fathers went astray, you would expect even more of an outcry from those successors of the apostles who had maintained the true Christian faith. Moreover, if those who were distorting the Gospel message had no commitment to the original deposit of faith Christ left with the apostles, you would expect there to be some amount of disagreement between their teachings. After all, if you are not going to remain obedient to the apostles and to the true Gospel, why remain obedient to and consistent with the teachings of the other heretics?
Further still, if these early heretics knew that their teachers, the apostles, taught them one thing, and that they were about to martyred for beliefs they knew were not true, why do we never here of a single early church father admitting moments before death that what they believed was actually a human tradition that someone had made up after the apostles had died?
Put simply, the historical evidence suggests that the early church consistently believed that the Eucharist was Christ's Body and Blood, not a symbolic representation of it. The Eucharist is the same flesh that suffered for our sins, as St. Ignatius emphasizes. The flesh on the cross was not a symbolic flesh.
If the above paragraph is correct, then the history of the early church's teaching on the Lord's Supper can be interpreted in one of two ways.
1. A major, global cover-up/distortion of the true Gospel message.
2. A faithful, consistent, global adherence to the teaching of the apostles.
Now, assuming that #2 is not an option for Baptists, let's push the implications a bit further.
Let's say that every single apostle chose successors who turned out to be unfaithful to the original message (so unfaithful that almost every single one of them would submit to marytrdom without a peep regarding their having changed the Gospel message).
The consequence of this massive failure of the apostles in choosing "faithful men" to pass on the traditions that had been given them is that error was taught and idolatry promoted for the first 1,500 years of church history. The Sacrifice of the Mass, the worship of the Host, the Sacraments - all of it - is one gigantic mistake - one enormous distortion of what Jesus's church (the one he offered his sacrifice for and sent His Spirit to maintain) was supposed to look like and believe.
Thus, to believe that the Lord's Supper is a symbolic ritual is ultimately to believe that:
1. The apostles completely failed at their Great Commission (Matt. 28:20) by failing to find anyone to faithful transmit the faith.
2. Every student of the apostles and their successors changed the Gospel in a consistent and unchanging manner and promoted this lie without ever once altering it further in time or place for centuries - and all of this through countless martyrdoms and persecutions.
3. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to protect His Church from error and guide it into all truth, but something prevented the Holy Spirit from achieving this goal even as early as the time when the apostles were passing on the faith to their successors.
4. Christianity, from Jesus's perspective, was an utter and near-complete failure until the time of the Reformation. Jesus founded a Church that wouldn't really come into being until 1,500 years after he founded it.
5. Only after the Reformation do we finally see the New Testament Church as Jesus and Apostles envisioned it, despite the fact that outside the Catholic Church there are tens of thousands of denominations preaching conflicting interpretations of the Scriptures.
I suggested earlier that to believe the Lord's Supper is only a symbolic ritual is to make an extraordinary claim about the history of Christianity. Should anyone then wonder why history is the last thing most Baptist pastors mention when they preach about the Lord's Supper? For these pastor's to mention what the Early Church believed about Jesus's Real Presence in the Eucharist is to raise serious alarms in the minds of anyone willing to push the implications to their conclusions. Many people whose whose minds and hearts are open to these conclusions have pushed their way right into the Catholic Church, even though this is the last Church these Protestants would have ever dreamed of joining. They, like so many converts, find themselves surprised by truth!
Let us open our minds, our hearts, and our wills to the fullness of the faith that has been faithfully passed down to us from the apostles and through their successors so that we Christians, two-thousand years later - can know the lord Jesus Christ in His fullness. Through the breaking of the bread, let us come to know Christ how he loves for us to know Him (see Luke 24:13-35 and following)! Let us share in communion with the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity with our Lord and Savior, the divine spouse of our souls!
Praise be Jesus Christ now and forever!
----------------------------------------------
Afterword:
How might we explain the tendency for Christians to believe things without understanding their implications? One contributing factor is the way in which we conceive doctrine in our minds. If our doctrinal beliefs are imagined as a bullet-point list, then it is difficult for our minds to see their relationships, not to mention the relationships between doctrines and their historical development.
On the other hand, if we see doctrine in a more symphonic manner, where each truth melodiously intersects with other truths, and with the contexts for these truths (history included), then our minds are able to see truth as an organic whole, as a...Person! Our minds can perceive the beautiful splendor of truth as all the pieces (doctrine, history, theology, morality, etc.) fit together.
The truth of the Catholic faith amounts to far more than simply having a bullet-list in which each item is correct. Rather, the truth of the Catholic faith allows one to fit all of life together in a way that glorifies the Father. To be a Catholic is to be connected with Scripture and Tradition in the heart of the living Body of Christ, the Church, and through this relationship, be connected with all of human history that finds its center and meaning in the person of Jesus Christ.
Friday, April 30, 2010
To Be a Better Baptist
Through this blog, I hope to help Baptists become better Baptists, Methodists better Methodists, Presbyterians better Presbyterians, and non-denominationalists better non-denominationalists.
But already we hit a problem!
What does it mean to become a better Baptist?
To put it another way: How can Baptists become "better" if becoming better "Baptists" must ultimately mean rejecting something of what it means to be "Baptist" to begin with in order to replace it with something better?
Let me clarify: I'm not speaking about the person who is not following common Baptist mores--such the prohibition against consuming alcohol--by consuming an occasional beer; or a person who is not following Baptist beliefs by denying the trinity; or a person who is not following Baptist ritual by refusing to attend church every Sunday. Such a person, according to the Baptist perspective, would need to become a better person by becoming more Baptist.
I'm talking about how can we improve the Baptist version of Christianity itself. More importantly: how can we move Baptist Christianity forward/up rather than laterally/sideways? Is it possible to conceive of making the Baptist faith "better" and not just "different?"
It is difficult to conceive in today's Christian climate of bettering Baptists since measuring such a forward improvement assumes an objective, unchanging standard--some knowable goal--toward which Baptist Christianity is progressing.
For instance, if someone, somehow, knew which interpretations of the Bible and of sacred Christian Traditions were true and which were false, then such a person could conceive of the Baptist faith improving by keeping all the Baptist doctrines that are true and discarding those that are false.
If someone knew which elements of liturgical worship were taught by Jesus and the apostles, then we could improve Baptist liturgies by maintaining those elements that are necessary, discarding those that are forbidden (I'm not suggesting there are any), and including those elements that have been commanded.
If someone knew what moral teachings conform to the will of God--and conform the human will to God--then we could improve the Baptist moral code by reinforcing all the more strongly those prescripts that lead to holiness, discard those that unduly bind the conscience, and add certain moral laws that are not currently being taught or followed.
Catholic convert Scott Hahn is known for teaching that "God loves us just the way we are, but he loves us too much to allow us to stay that way."
To return to the beginning: I hope that I can encourage Baptists in their faith by both encouraging them in those parts of their faith that are true, holy, and beautiful, while simultaneously helping them to become better Baptists by seeing clearly those parts that have to be discarded in order to move forward.
The good news of the Catholic faith for non-Catholics is this: it is possible to move forward.
Not every change to a denomination needs to result in more splitting, which historically is precisely what has happened. If every denomination was able to move forward toward that which is objectively true and holy, then our changes would result in greater and greater unity!
But can we conceive it? And do we want it?
Some people can not conceive it precisely because they do not want it! The will, we can not forget, is the guardian of the mind.
The Catholic Church is different from every denomination that has split from her in that she remains, as she has since her inception, the objective standard.
Does this mean that the Catholic Church can not improve? Absolutely not! However, the Catholic Church always improves by becoming more true to itself. It is the Catholic Faith that is the standard--the Catholic Faith that has been passed down in the form of authoritative teachings, a rich liturgical tradition, an unchanging moral code, etc.--and it is this standard that the church of every century must always dynamically work toward.
The ancient Catholic Christian faith is also the standard Jesus has established by which non-Catholic Christian faiths can be measured. Only when non-Catholic versions of Christianity each begin measuring themselves by an objective standard will forward movement become not just possible, but conceivable. The wonderful gift of infallibility, which Jesus has given as a gift to the apostles and their successors united with the chair of Peter, is the means by which our Lord has maintained an objective standard throughout the centuries.
But already we hit a problem!
What does it mean to become a better Baptist?
To put it another way: How can Baptists become "better" if becoming better "Baptists" must ultimately mean rejecting something of what it means to be "Baptist" to begin with in order to replace it with something better?
Let me clarify: I'm not speaking about the person who is not following common Baptist mores--such the prohibition against consuming alcohol--by consuming an occasional beer; or a person who is not following Baptist beliefs by denying the trinity; or a person who is not following Baptist ritual by refusing to attend church every Sunday. Such a person, according to the Baptist perspective, would need to become a better person by becoming more Baptist.
I'm talking about how can we improve the Baptist version of Christianity itself. More importantly: how can we move Baptist Christianity forward/up rather than laterally/sideways? Is it possible to conceive of making the Baptist faith "better" and not just "different?"
--------------------------------------
It is difficult to conceive in today's Christian climate of bettering Baptists since measuring such a forward improvement assumes an objective, unchanging standard--some knowable goal--toward which Baptist Christianity is progressing.
For instance, if someone, somehow, knew which interpretations of the Bible and of sacred Christian Traditions were true and which were false, then such a person could conceive of the Baptist faith improving by keeping all the Baptist doctrines that are true and discarding those that are false.
If someone knew which elements of liturgical worship were taught by Jesus and the apostles, then we could improve Baptist liturgies by maintaining those elements that are necessary, discarding those that are forbidden (I'm not suggesting there are any), and including those elements that have been commanded.
If someone knew what moral teachings conform to the will of God--and conform the human will to God--then we could improve the Baptist moral code by reinforcing all the more strongly those prescripts that lead to holiness, discard those that unduly bind the conscience, and add certain moral laws that are not currently being taught or followed.
--------------------------------------
Catholic convert Scott Hahn is known for teaching that "God loves us just the way we are, but he loves us too much to allow us to stay that way."
To return to the beginning: I hope that I can encourage Baptists in their faith by both encouraging them in those parts of their faith that are true, holy, and beautiful, while simultaneously helping them to become better Baptists by seeing clearly those parts that have to be discarded in order to move forward.
The good news of the Catholic faith for non-Catholics is this: it is possible to move forward.
Not every change to a denomination needs to result in more splitting, which historically is precisely what has happened. If every denomination was able to move forward toward that which is objectively true and holy, then our changes would result in greater and greater unity!
But can we conceive it? And do we want it?
Some people can not conceive it precisely because they do not want it! The will, we can not forget, is the guardian of the mind.
The Catholic Church is different from every denomination that has split from her in that she remains, as she has since her inception, the objective standard.
Does this mean that the Catholic Church can not improve? Absolutely not! However, the Catholic Church always improves by becoming more true to itself. It is the Catholic Faith that is the standard--the Catholic Faith that has been passed down in the form of authoritative teachings, a rich liturgical tradition, an unchanging moral code, etc.--and it is this standard that the church of every century must always dynamically work toward.
The ancient Catholic Christian faith is also the standard Jesus has established by which non-Catholic Christian faiths can be measured. Only when non-Catholic versions of Christianity each begin measuring themselves by an objective standard will forward movement become not just possible, but conceivable. The wonderful gift of infallibility, which Jesus has given as a gift to the apostles and their successors united with the chair of Peter, is the means by which our Lord has maintained an objective standard throughout the centuries.
April 30, 2010 Response to Pastor Witmer, Lighthouse Baptist Church
For any interested readers, Tobe Witmer, pastor of Lighthouse Baptist Church in Newark, DE has briefly responded to my essay on his Bread of Life Sermon. I encourage everyone to read my essay and his response, which can be found in the comments underneath.
First and foremost, I would like to thank Pastor Witmer for considering my commentary on his sermon. As I have said elsewhere on this blog, achieving Christian unity will only occur if Christians talk to one another with respect, openness, love, and a Christ-like, zealous desire for the perfect unity that Jesus once prayed for (John 17) and St. Paul commanded. We can not ignore differences, because to do so is to ignore the author of division, Satan himself. We can not pretend differences do not exist, because to do so is to ignore a reality that is contrary to the Gospel. And we can not accept differences ("I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe."), because such a philosophy is directly contrary to the mind of God (see John 17).
But we can pray for unity, we can join our hearts with Christ's, and we can be obedient to Christ and submit our wills to him, so that if he is calling us to change our beliefs, we will exhibit the humble "obedience of faith" (see Romans 1) and follow Him where He calls us. Thy will, Lord, not mine be done!
And we can talk! How rarely Christians who disagree about fundamental doctrines actually sit down and consider what each other really believes!
When I read Pastor's response, a paragraph from a G.K. Chesterton's essay "Where All Roads Lead" came to mind. The paragraph can be read here, and it begins with the words "Now, I have noted first this common consciousness..."
The basic idea on which Chesterton so eloquently remarks is that "new" ideas grow old quickly, but the truth stays ever-young. Pastor Witmer's response speaks of an idea (a particular flavor of Christianity) that is 500 years old. I am trying to share a Christianity with Pastor Witmer that is 2,000 years young. One beautiful thing about Catholicism is that it grows fresher and more vibrant with every stale complaint made against it. And how many times have we Catholics heard the same criticism summed up with the words "faith alone?" Yet, does Pastor Witmer's response really answer or engage the teachings of that ancient church that I shared in my essay? Pastor Witmer cited the context of his message as a reason he did not address all the verses of John 6 pertinent to his topic, but are we to believe that he would have interpreted "the Bread of Life" spoken of in John 6 any differently had he dwelt longer past v. 51?
In the near future, I will revisit my essay and Pastor Witmer's response and try to draw out what seem to be the areas of explicit agreement, the areas of hidden agreement (areas that Pastor Witmer thinks contradict the principle of salvation by grace alone), and areas of real disagreement. I believe I will be able to show that there are some very real agreements between Baptists and Catholics that seem, through the lens of what Baptists are usually taught about Catholicism, to be areas of profound disagreement.
The question for our hearts always remains: are we ready to rejoice in these unities and dissolve the false divisions that we have allowed Satan to sow in Christ's mystical body?
Are we ready to open our minds and hearts to really understand what each other believe, or will we remain content to live with the straw men of our long-standing prejudices?
Again, I thank Pastor Witmer for showing a willingness to respond and begin a conversation, and I invite Pastor Witmer to respond to some of the very real arguments I made in my own essay for the Real Presence of Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - in the most Holy Eucharist. I especially invite Pastor Witmer to address my remarks regarding the dichotomies on which his interpretation of John 6 seems to rest.
May the Holy Spirit blow anew on Christians and bring about perfect unity, true doctrine, and a vibrant faith!
First and foremost, I would like to thank Pastor Witmer for considering my commentary on his sermon. As I have said elsewhere on this blog, achieving Christian unity will only occur if Christians talk to one another with respect, openness, love, and a Christ-like, zealous desire for the perfect unity that Jesus once prayed for (John 17) and St. Paul commanded. We can not ignore differences, because to do so is to ignore the author of division, Satan himself. We can not pretend differences do not exist, because to do so is to ignore a reality that is contrary to the Gospel. And we can not accept differences ("I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe."), because such a philosophy is directly contrary to the mind of God (see John 17).
But we can pray for unity, we can join our hearts with Christ's, and we can be obedient to Christ and submit our wills to him, so that if he is calling us to change our beliefs, we will exhibit the humble "obedience of faith" (see Romans 1) and follow Him where He calls us. Thy will, Lord, not mine be done!
And we can talk! How rarely Christians who disagree about fundamental doctrines actually sit down and consider what each other really believes!
When I read Pastor's response, a paragraph from a G.K. Chesterton's essay "Where All Roads Lead" came to mind. The paragraph can be read here, and it begins with the words "Now, I have noted first this common consciousness..."
The basic idea on which Chesterton so eloquently remarks is that "new" ideas grow old quickly, but the truth stays ever-young. Pastor Witmer's response speaks of an idea (a particular flavor of Christianity) that is 500 years old. I am trying to share a Christianity with Pastor Witmer that is 2,000 years young. One beautiful thing about Catholicism is that it grows fresher and more vibrant with every stale complaint made against it. And how many times have we Catholics heard the same criticism summed up with the words "faith alone?" Yet, does Pastor Witmer's response really answer or engage the teachings of that ancient church that I shared in my essay? Pastor Witmer cited the context of his message as a reason he did not address all the verses of John 6 pertinent to his topic, but are we to believe that he would have interpreted "the Bread of Life" spoken of in John 6 any differently had he dwelt longer past v. 51?
In the near future, I will revisit my essay and Pastor Witmer's response and try to draw out what seem to be the areas of explicit agreement, the areas of hidden agreement (areas that Pastor Witmer thinks contradict the principle of salvation by grace alone), and areas of real disagreement. I believe I will be able to show that there are some very real agreements between Baptists and Catholics that seem, through the lens of what Baptists are usually taught about Catholicism, to be areas of profound disagreement.
The question for our hearts always remains: are we ready to rejoice in these unities and dissolve the false divisions that we have allowed Satan to sow in Christ's mystical body?
Are we ready to open our minds and hearts to really understand what each other believe, or will we remain content to live with the straw men of our long-standing prejudices?
Again, I thank Pastor Witmer for showing a willingness to respond and begin a conversation, and I invite Pastor Witmer to respond to some of the very real arguments I made in my own essay for the Real Presence of Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - in the most Holy Eucharist. I especially invite Pastor Witmer to address my remarks regarding the dichotomies on which his interpretation of John 6 seems to rest.
May the Holy Spirit blow anew on Christians and bring about perfect unity, true doctrine, and a vibrant faith!
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Response to Joshua Harris (Covenant Life Church) Interview on Dug Down Deep
I recently sent the following letter to Joshua Harris, pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, MD. After sending the letter, I did some more research on Pastor Harris only to discover that he is the author of a book that made the rounds during my college years: I Kissed Dating Goodbye. Harris's new book, Dug Down Deep, explores the relationship of doctrinal truth to our relationship with Christ. Harris points out that one can't separate doctrinal truth from devotion to and relationship with Christ; indeed, you can't have one without the other. My letter below, as the interested reader will learn, picks up on this notion of truth. If truth is both objective and critically important, as Pastor Harris and I agree, then how do we come to a correct knowledge of the truth, especially considering that there are a number of "truths" about which Pastor Harris and I disagree?
That, my friends, is the question...
---------
Hi Pastor Joshua,
I just stumbled across your interview about Dug Down Deep through a link on Denny Burk's website. At Burk’s website, I listened to your talk at SBTS, and my ears were piqued when I realized you preach right around the corner from where I live. So I did some poking around and found this interview: http://www.joshharris.com/2010/03/an_interview_about_dug_down_de.php
The interview brings up the following questions in my mind:
If "we can't know him [Jesus] and relate to him in the right way without doctrine," then what provisions did Jesus leave his Church so that they would know correct doctrine? Many good, honest Christians pray for the Holy Spirit to guide their interpretation of Scripture, yet still believe in different doctrines. Doctrines, as you correctly note, basically constitute a person's or church’s interpretation of Scriptural teaching.
Yet, if not knowing correct doctrine is tantamount to not knowing Jesus (at least in as full a way as he wants to be known by us), then how can a Christians ever really be sure they know Jesus fully? To repeat: what provisions did Jesus put in place so that if ever there were competing ideas about what doctrines (i.e. interpretations of Scripture) were true, Jesus’s followers would know for sure which ones should be believed?
Your interview speaks about truth in a number of different contexts:
"building your life on the truth about God;"
truth doesn't cater to culture (it doesn't "speak their language") but rather should be given "straight up" so that it can accomplish "God's work;"
"your life interpreted by God's truth;"
"truth and theology [can't be separated] from devotion and relationship. You can't have one without the other;"
"I think we all struggle with [getting the truth from our head to our heart];"
"Getting truth into our heart starts with meditating on truth;"
"Expository preaching of God's word will deepen your grasp of biblical truth;"
and "We need both the truth of Jesus and the compassion of Jesus if we would rightly represent him to a lost world."
All of these statements seem to treat truth as something objective, solid, and unchanging. It doesn’t get swept along with culture. It is solid such that we can build our life on it and interpret our life by it. The truth of the Gospel is something that was just as true in 200 AD as it is in 2000 AD. (It might give your readers pause to know that the vast majority of Christian pastors preaching the Gospel in 200 AD—those who had learned the Gospel from the students of the apostles themselves—taught truths that are quite different from some of the ones taught at CCL.)
Yet, very few of your statements about truth give your readers any idea of where they can find this truth. In other words, getting truth into our hearts really begins with knowing how to get truth into our minds, and into our ears, since “faith comes by hearing.”
If truth is objective such that we can measure ourselves by it, then how can we know if the truths we believe didn’t really begin as the reflection of ourselves, of our own individual readings of scripture, of our own weaknesses in Scriptural understanding, etc.? After all, the Bible is a book written in languages that could not be more different from our own, to a culture that could hardly be more different from our own, etc. The average reader of the Bible does not know the expressions, the assumptions, and the traditions of the Jewish culture within which the New Testament was written and received. Yet, many evangelical Christians today reject the teachings of those earliest fathers of the Church who DID read the Bible in this historical context, and who did learn the Gospel message even from the apostles themselves. (Ignatius of Antioch’s teaching on the Eucharist as being the body and blood of Christ is just one example among many. Many Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John.)
I agree with you completely that "truth and theology [can't be separated] from devotion and relationship. You can't have one without the other."
But what is the pillar and foundation of truth?
At the same time that I applaud you and encourage you in your work in spreading the gospel and for connecting how our relationship with Christ relates to the Truth who is Christ, I wonder if I might challenge you to articulate more clearly exactly how it is that you believe Christians can know with certainty this Truth. Also, please forgive me if you address these questions in your book. Just point me in the right direction, and I’ll read your book asap!
Thank you for your time and for all the work you have done for God! May you and your loved ones experience a blessed Holy Week, and may the peace of Christ be with you!
Let us join our prayer this week with Christ’s high priestly prayer in John 17: “that they may be one.” Sanctify us, oh God, and teach us the fullness of the truth that was “delivered once to the saints” (Jude 3). Give us hearts that are open and obedient to following the truth wherever it leads us!
Your brother in Christ,
Daniel
That, my friends, is the question...
---------
Hi Pastor Joshua,
I just stumbled across your interview about Dug Down Deep through a link on Denny Burk's website. At Burk’s website, I listened to your talk at SBTS, and my ears were piqued when I realized you preach right around the corner from where I live. So I did some poking around and found this interview: http://www.joshharris.com/2010/03/an_interview_about_dug_down_de.php
The interview brings up the following questions in my mind:
If "we can't know him [Jesus] and relate to him in the right way without doctrine," then what provisions did Jesus leave his Church so that they would know correct doctrine? Many good, honest Christians pray for the Holy Spirit to guide their interpretation of Scripture, yet still believe in different doctrines. Doctrines, as you correctly note, basically constitute a person's or church’s interpretation of Scriptural teaching.
Yet, if not knowing correct doctrine is tantamount to not knowing Jesus (at least in as full a way as he wants to be known by us), then how can a Christians ever really be sure they know Jesus fully? To repeat: what provisions did Jesus put in place so that if ever there were competing ideas about what doctrines (i.e. interpretations of Scripture) were true, Jesus’s followers would know for sure which ones should be believed?
Your interview speaks about truth in a number of different contexts:
"building your life on the truth about God;"
truth doesn't cater to culture (it doesn't "speak their language") but rather should be given "straight up" so that it can accomplish "God's work;"
"your life interpreted by God's truth;"
"truth and theology [can't be separated] from devotion and relationship. You can't have one without the other;"
"I think we all struggle with [getting the truth from our head to our heart];"
"Getting truth into our heart starts with meditating on truth;"
"Expository preaching of God's word will deepen your grasp of biblical truth;"
and "We need both the truth of Jesus and the compassion of Jesus if we would rightly represent him to a lost world."
All of these statements seem to treat truth as something objective, solid, and unchanging. It doesn’t get swept along with culture. It is solid such that we can build our life on it and interpret our life by it. The truth of the Gospel is something that was just as true in 200 AD as it is in 2000 AD. (It might give your readers pause to know that the vast majority of Christian pastors preaching the Gospel in 200 AD—those who had learned the Gospel from the students of the apostles themselves—taught truths that are quite different from some of the ones taught at CCL.)
Yet, very few of your statements about truth give your readers any idea of where they can find this truth. In other words, getting truth into our hearts really begins with knowing how to get truth into our minds, and into our ears, since “faith comes by hearing.”
If truth is objective such that we can measure ourselves by it, then how can we know if the truths we believe didn’t really begin as the reflection of ourselves, of our own individual readings of scripture, of our own weaknesses in Scriptural understanding, etc.? After all, the Bible is a book written in languages that could not be more different from our own, to a culture that could hardly be more different from our own, etc. The average reader of the Bible does not know the expressions, the assumptions, and the traditions of the Jewish culture within which the New Testament was written and received. Yet, many evangelical Christians today reject the teachings of those earliest fathers of the Church who DID read the Bible in this historical context, and who did learn the Gospel message even from the apostles themselves. (Ignatius of Antioch’s teaching on the Eucharist as being the body and blood of Christ is just one example among many. Many Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John.)
I agree with you completely that "truth and theology [can't be separated] from devotion and relationship. You can't have one without the other."
But what is the pillar and foundation of truth?
At the same time that I applaud you and encourage you in your work in spreading the gospel and for connecting how our relationship with Christ relates to the Truth who is Christ, I wonder if I might challenge you to articulate more clearly exactly how it is that you believe Christians can know with certainty this Truth. Also, please forgive me if you address these questions in your book. Just point me in the right direction, and I’ll read your book asap!
Thank you for your time and for all the work you have done for God! May you and your loved ones experience a blessed Holy Week, and may the peace of Christ be with you!
Let us join our prayer this week with Christ’s high priestly prayer in John 17: “that they may be one.” Sanctify us, oh God, and teach us the fullness of the truth that was “delivered once to the saints” (Jude 3). Give us hearts that are open and obedient to following the truth wherever it leads us!
Your brother in Christ,
Daniel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)