Category: Other Christians

Christians United Together for Everyone

Reuters runs a story about a new and exciting religious coalition called "Christian Churches Together in the USA" that will include U.S. Catholics as well as a cross section of evangelical, pentecostal, mainline protestant and other denominations. In the formation stage since 2001, the group will represent a much larger group of Christians than any current ecumenical group.

So, am I just paranoid, or are the alarm bells going off in my head a rational response to this unity-through-bureaucracy movement? I’m sorry, I am having a hard time seeing the benefit of signing on to such a movement. Okay, so we are gonna "agree to disagree" on a whole raft of stuff and concentrate on working together on things like "overcoming poverty". A better recipe for mischief could hardly be imagined. I could be wrong, of course, but the giddy ramblings like this one have not exactly calmed my nerves:

Tim Matovina, director of the Cushwa Center for the Study of
American Catholicism at the University of Notre Dame, said one of the
significant things about the new group is its stated objective of not
taking a stand on something unless all member churches agree.

Often today the rank-and-file members don’t always agree with what church leaders say, he said.


Beyond that, the renewed interest in ecumenical cooperation is another
indication that "in American religion today … denominations mean less
and less," he said.

The country has a strong history rooted in
home-ruled Congregational churches, and today Lutherans, Presbyterians
and Catholics are "experiencing this Congregational dynamic where
people kind of ignore or resist what denominational leaders say, and
seek out a pastor who suits their style … what’s important is the
service."

If this is the kind of Catholic that finds the prospect of such a coalition exciting, then my instinct to go for my parachute seems wholly justified.

Apparently the group will function something like the U.N. (we can only hope). If they truly plan to "not take a stand on something unless all member churches agree" we can anticipate alot of fluffy rhetoric and not much action, which would be the best scenario.

GET THE STORY.

Reformed To Catholic?

A reader writes:

I am an active EWTN listener and reformed presbyterian in camp with RC Sproul, and have been for 20 years. However a close friend converted to orthodox Roman Catholicism (redundant?) and has me scratching my head.

I have read your piece on Justification By Faith and I scratch my head even harder. I hope it doesn’t bleed.

I have met an fabulous FSSP Priest here and am even closer to becoming a Catholic, in the best sense of the word.

My issue: Is there any difference between loose catholic practitioner and strict conservative reformed christian, in practical terms?

I have loved the puritans for 20 plus years: Richard Baxter, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Chas Spurgeon…am I to throw them all to the wolves in my process of becoming a Catholic. Help!!!

I’ll be happy to help however I can.

I’m a little uncertain what kind of differences "in practical terms" that you have in mind. There are, of course, differences in faith and practice between Catholics and Reformed, but both groups are Christian and I can tell you from my own experience and that of numerous others that individuals who convert to Catholicism from the Reformed movement (or other conservative Protestant groups) typically view entering the Catholic Church not as abandoning their former heritage but as completing it.

As far as contrasting a lax Catholic Christian and a strict Reformed Christian there are some differences: (a) Objectively speaking, the lax Catholic is fully united with Christ’s Church whereas the strict Reformed is not, (b) objectively speaking the lax Catholic has access to means of grace (e.g., a valid Eucharist, confession, the sacrament of confirmation) that the Reformed Christian does not, (c) the fact that the Catholic has greater access to the means of grace means he is more responsible for making use of them and is more culpable if he does not, and (d) by trying to follow God in a devout manner according to his understanding of what God wants, the strict Reformed Christian may be in a better spiritual state than the lax Catholic and more pleasing to God.

The overarching question, though, is not how the two fare with respect to each other, it is what God wants. God wants all of his children to have the fullness of the truth and grace he sent into the world for them through Christ. That they might have this grace and truth, Christ founded his Church (singular), which he constituted as a visible institution with definite membership, leaders, rules, etc., and which he commanded all who respond to the Gospel to enter. The Catholic Church is the continuation into the 21st century of that original Church, and so all who realize the truth concerning these facts are required by God to enter it. It is what he wants and commands.

As I mentioned, Evangelicals who have joined the Church typically look back on the time before they were Catholic as a time when they had much of the truth, just not all of it. Often they fondly remember this time, though of course they are glad that they now have the fullness of what Christ wanted for them.

As to the Puritans, like others they had many elements of the truth, and one can still appreciate those things in their writings and respect them as individuals who were sincerely following God according to the understanding they had. One has to recognize that they were mistaken about some things, of course, but many coming from a Reformed position are surprised to see just how much of their thought can find a place in Catholic theology.

I’D RECOMMEND CHECKING OUT THIS ARTICLE FOR MORE ON THAT.

Hope this helps, and I hope you’ll keep asking questions as your journey progresses!

20

Networks refuse to air offensive ad

SDG here with a story about an outrageously offensive TV spot produced by the United Church of Christ — and how CBS and NBC made the right decision in refusing to air it.

First, a word of clarification. The United Church of Christ (UCC) is a liberal-mainline denomination, not to be confused with a number of similar-sounding groups, including the Fundamentalist sect known as the Boston Movement Church of Christ, perhaps best known for their insistence that Christians outside their own fold cannot be saved.

The liberal-mainline UCC certainly doesn’t teach anything like that — in fact, they pride themselves on their non-exclusiveness, openness, and acceptance. For example, if you administer abortions for a living, or are in a committed same-sex relationship, the UCC wants you to know that you are welcomed and accepted, not judged, at their church.

In fact, the UCC takes such pride in their non-exclusiveness and acceptance that they recently produced a satiric 30-second TV spot lampooning other Christian churches that don’t share their openness, specifically on homosexuality.

That’s right: They’re so open and accepting, they want to go on national television and ridicule other believers and church communities who disagree with their beliefs.

You can view the ad in RealPlayer at the UCC website here. For those who can’t view it, here’s a description:

The 30-second spot opens with a shot of people converging on a gothic stone church as church bells peal. Among them we see a pair of stylish, urban-looking young men who are holding hands, making it clear that they are a gay couple. Then comes the kicker: They’re stopped at the door of the church by a pair of intimidating-looking bouncers with shaved heads and black T-shirts. “No. Step aside please,” one of the bouncers says commandingly, holding up an outstretched hand to stop the young men.

That’s  when we see that the entrance to the church is roped off, like the entrance to an exclusive club, and the bouncers open the rope for those they deem acceptable. These include a pair of conservative-looking women in pastel colors and skirts and a man in a suit accompanied by a woman one would assume is his wife. Others are also stopped, including a young Latino man (“No way. Not you”) and a very young black girl (“I don’t think so”), as the bouncers snap the rope back into place with a resounding click and the camera focuses on the hard face of the near bouncer.

Fade to black. “Jesus didn’t turn people away,” a title announces as inspirational music rises in the background. “Neither do we.” Cut to a shot of a happy group of people standing together. “The United Church of Christ,” says an announcer, as quick close-up cuts emphasize the diversity and acceptance of the UCC. “No matter who you are, or where you are on life’s journey… you’re welcome here.”

The last of these close-ups is a shot of two women, one with her arm around the other, hand draped across her shoulder, as if in counterpoint to the hand-holding gay males stopped at the door of that Other Church.

The not-so-subtle message: “Churches that don’t accept homosexuality are unfriendly, exclusive clubs that are only for the few — and that goes against Jesus.”

What is so incredibly offensive and appalling about this ad is that it doesn’t just emphasize the UCC’s own “welcoming” stance toward same-sex couples, it actually directly ridicules churches that teach differently — like a political campaign ad lampooning the competition.

Had the UCC ad merely showed hand-holding, neck-embracing same-sex couples being welcomed and accepted at the UCC church, that in itself would be harmful enough, but it wouldn’t have been nearly as over-the-top offensive as the ad actually is. We expect satiric ads lampooning the competition from political candidates and burger chains, not from Christian communions.

Can you imagine an ad from, say, the Southern Baptists, ridiculing other churches and believers for taking positions contrary to those of the Southern Baptists? I’m not talking about positively emphasizing their own position, but specifically showing other churches that take a different view and making them look ridiculous or unattractive?

If the Southern Baptists produced a positive ad emphasizing, say, their pro-life values, I would support that. But what about a satiric commercial lampooning other churches that are pro-abortion?

Let’s imagine such an ad. Let’s say the Baptists produced an ad depicting a troubled young woman going to her pastor and his wife and intimating that she was pregnant out of wedlock. And let’s say (since the UCC ad satirizes coercive use of force) that, to her shock and increasing alarm, the pastor and his wife begin pressuring her to “do something about it,” eventually dragging her from the room.

Or suppose it wasn’t even that over the top. Suppose they only took a laughingly lackadaisical tone: “Hey girlfriend, do what makes you feel good! After all, that’s how you got here! Kill the kid, don’t kill the kid, it’s your choice!” (“Jesus didn’t excuse sin. Neither do we. The Southern Baptists.”)

Would that be an appropriate message for a TV spot? Absolutely not. To bring the smear-and-satirize tactics of mudslinging TV politics to the vital work of evangelization, apologetics, and religious argument is degrading and offensive — no matter what the issue is. That the UCC is in fact wrong in its stance on the particular subject at hand only compounds the problem.

There’s no getting around the fact that some people hold views that are offensive to other people. Our views offend them, and their views offend us. That’s a fact of life. But because it’s a fact of life, it’s also a fact of life that we observe certain rules in how we express and articulate those differences, so as not to give unnecessary offense.

The Mormons have been advertising on TV for years, and AFAIK they’ve always been careful to do it in a way that is positive and doesn’t come off like a swipe at anybody else. I’ve also seen Catholic poster ads in the NYC subway system that have likewise been positive and not satirized the defects of other churches as a way of enhancing the Church’s claims, because this kind of attack on the competition in media advertising is not the way to carry out dialogue about why we believe our own church is better than other churches.

Now for the good news. CBS and NBC executives recognized that these ads were far too inflammatory and refused to run them, citing the ongoing political discussion about same-sex unions as grounds for regarding the topic as too hot to approach in this manner.

Predictably, the UCC is shocked — shocked!  (Here’s their side of the story.)

If you’d like to let the networks know you appreciate their prudential judgment in this matter, here’s where to write:

CBS (click on “Feedback” link at the bottom)

NBC – Contact Us (under “Select Show,” choose “Other”)

If you’d like to let the UCC know why their spot is problematic, contact Barb Powell, press contact (216-736-2175).

Can Devout Non-Catholics Be As Devout As Devout Catholics?

A reader writes:

My wife is going through RCIA right now, and she asked me a question tonight that I thought I’d pick your brain on. Here’s the gist of it:

The Catholic Church teaches that although there is no salvation outside of the Church, the Church acknowledges that it does not know where the boundaries of the invisible Church are (i.e., visible v. invisible Church). That having been said, does the Catholic Church believe that a devout Baptist can lead as devout of a Christian life as a devout Catholic (lots of “devouts” in there I know)?

This was my tentative answer (based on everything I’ve read):

I think what the Church would say is that it is much harder to live a devout Christian life outside of Church; not because Catholics are naturally more holy than protestants, but because we have access to all of the sacraments, the teaching of the Church, etc. I also analogized the situation to two people each building a house. One has all of the possible tools he could ever need or want to complete the job, and the other one has enough to get it done but may have to work a little harder to finish the task. Of course, for some Catholics (like Kerry) having access to these “tools” is meaningless because he is unwilling to use them.

I am not sure that is the “right” answer, but it strikes me as correct based on all that I’ve read thus far.

Thoughts?

It seems to me that the answer you gave is essentially correct, though I would add some nuances depending on what one means by “devout.”

First, though, I’d issue a caution about contrasting the “visible Church” with the “invisible Church.” This language is not used in ecclesiastical documents. The way Vatican II presents the matter, there is one Church, in which Catholics who are in a state of grace are “fully incorporated” and with which non-Catholic Christians are “associated” (which may be a synonym for “partially incorporated”).

Now, on to the question of devotion:

1) If one takes a subjective definition of “devout,” by which it would mean “sincere” or “fervent in practice,” then it would seem that non-Catholic Christians can be just as sincere and fervent in their practice of religion as Catholics. Catholics do not have an intrinsic subjective advantage in terms of sincerity or fervor.

They do, however, have an extrinsic advantage–as you point out–in that they have means of grace available to them that can foster greater fervor. These include not only the sacraments but also sacramentals, Catholic art, etc.

Yet these extrinsic advantages can be overcome by other extrinsic factors. The pitiful preaching and catechesis that has existed in many Catholic churches for the last forty years is an extrinsic factor that mitigates against fervor, and the fervor of many Catholics has been depressed by this compared to the fervor of those in many Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches.

2) Historically the word “devout” may be taken in another, more objectivist sense–i.e., religious practice that makes an objective connection with God. This might be taken as something Paul has in mind when he says that “it is good to be zealous in a good thing always” (Gal. 4:18). If the term “devout” is taken in this sense (i.e., devotion that objectively makes a connection with God rather than simply being subjectively fervent without this connection necessarily being made) then the Catholic has more of an advantage.

The chief reason is the sacraments. They guarantee a connection with God as long as we do not put a barrier in the way. Therefore, our own subjective fervor is not required for the connection to take place. The subjective fervor of Catholics may be no different than the subjective fervor of non-Catholic Christians, but the fact that Catholics operate in an environment in which they have greater access to sacraments through which God has promised to make a connection with us means that they have a greater advantage in terms of devotion that makes an objective connection to God.

Even this advantage can be neutralized, however. If a Catholic fails to take advantage of the sacraments, this advantage vanishes. Worse, if he commits sacrilege with the sacraments (e.g., by taking Communion when in a state of mortal sin) then he has sinned against God in an objectively greater way than someone without access to the sacraments.

Thus, while there are advantages to being Catholic in terms of devotion, they are not a guarantee of subjective or objective devotion. As always, God is no respecter of men. Of whom more is given, more is required.

Now, perhaps you can answer this question for me: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Please answer the question in terms of an objective measure (pounds, ricks, cords, etc.). The answer “As much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood” is a cop out.

Much obliged!

Escatology Update

A reader points out to me that . . . .

ANDREW SULLIVAN PRINTS AN E-MAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LITERALNESS OF LUTHER’S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD HIS PROFOUND, REFORMATIONAL INSIGHT IN CLOACA.

(POTTY-MOUTH WARNING!)

Don’t know whether this is true or not, but it might be.

I also should point out something I forgot to mention the other day: The stories you read about Luther posting the 95 Theses on a church door may well be false.

Escatology Update

A reader points out to me that . . . .

ANDREW SULLIVAN PRINTS AN E-MAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LITERALNESS OF LUTHER’S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD HIS PROFOUND, REFORMATIONAL INSIGHT IN CLOACA.

(POTTY-MOUTH WARNING!)

Don’t know whether this is true or not, but it might be.

I also should point out something I forgot to mention the other day: The stories you read about Luther posting the 95 Theses on a church door may well be false.

Mr. Misdirection

James White has replied again. His latest reply is pure misdirection. It contains two paragraphs, the first of which consists of jellied sarcasm and the second of which is a renewed attempt to misdirect the audience by reissuing challenges as to what he’d like me to talk about instead of his recent errors.

These errors, one will recall, were the following:

1) White referred to “the biblical definition of a saint,” implying that there is such a thing.

There’s not.

There are several different biblical uses of the terms corresponding to “saint” (Gk., hagios, Ar. qaddish, Hb., qadhosh), and we must be sensitive to these uses.

2) White said that “in Roman Catholicism a saint is a person who has more merit than temporal punishment upon their soul at death, so that they do not need to pass through purgatory for cleansing, but are fit for the presence of God immediately.”

This is not only false, it is preposterous. In common Catholic speech, the term “saint” means either “someone who is in heaven” or “someone who has been canonized.”

The closest White comes to admitting he was wrong is when in his first reply he says:

Obviously, the term “saint” is then used of those who have been cleansed and “left” purgatory at a later time, but I wasn’t addressing that usage in explaining the basics of the Roman position [emphasis in original]

This is not an admission of error because it implies that there is a usage of the term “saint” that corresponds to the one White proposed. He thus remains in the wrong.

Suppose that I said:

In Evangelical Protestantism, a minister is a person who has more fervor than he has book learning, so that he does not need to pass through seminary for education but is fit for preaching in the pulpit immediately.

White would rightly object to this characterization, and it wouldn’t be much of a defense for me to say:

Obviously, the term “minister” is then used of those who have been eduated and “left” seminary at a later time, but I wasn’t addressing that usage in explaining the basics of the Evangelical position

There is simply is no established Evangelical usage reserving the term “minister” for those who have not gone through seminary (there might be among certain extra-snarky Fundamentalists, but I’m not talking about them), and in the same way there is no Catholic usage reserving the term “saint” for those who have not gone through purgatory. White is simply wrong and trying to hide it behind huffing and puffing and misdirection.

The reason this stings White so much is that he thought he was safe here. If you read his original post, he’s setting up a classic sneer–as he so often does–between his own “biblical faith” and “man-centered religion.” The first horn–or perhaps we should say, nostril–of the sneer is when White introduces “the biblical definition of a saint.” Here he is setting up the “biblical faith” element, with which he wishes to identify himself. The second horn–or nostril–is when he introduces his nonsense about what a saint is in Catholic theology. The content of this nonsense is meant to make Catholicism look bad as being a “man-centered religion” of “works.”

Thing is: A person only tends to sneer at others when he thinks he is on safe ground. It is thus very surprising and upsetting to have it suddenly turn out that he is wrong. The effect is like having a door pop open and bop you in the nose.

Unable to say “Oww! Okay, I was wrong in what I said, and I shouldn’t have been sneering,” White thus turns to misdirection.

“Time, Time, Time, What Has Become Of You?”

I may (or may not) post a few thoughts on White’s rant-response later, but I thought I’d take a moment to answer something a couple of commenters touched on: my answering “challenges” White has issued soliciting responses on particular subjects.

My schedule is extremely busy, and I don’t have time to do a lot of things. One thing I don’t have time to do is read James White’s blog very often. As a result, I am blissfully unaware of many of the “challenges” I suspect he has made to me. Most have probably quietly gone off into the nether regions of his blog archives without me ever seeing them. The same goes for his webcast, which I don’t listen to. If, as he said in his reply, he recently played comments of mine from a debate years ago and asked for clarification of them, I wouldn’t know it, ’cause I don’t listen to his show. Neither, for that matter, do I read his books. He apparently thinks that I ought to respond to something that he wrote about James 2, but as I don’t own a copy of the book in question and haven’t read it, I wouldn’t know what it is he’s referring to.

The world is a big place, and the world of ideas is even bigger. I simply don’t have the time to monitor James White’s activities on a daily basis. Since (despite my open invitation to do so) he seems unwilling to pick up the phone and actually talk to me, it’s a very hit or miss thing whether I will even be aware of challenges he may toss my way. I suspect that, for the vast majority of such challenges, I never hear about them.

So that’s one way time enters the equation.

Another has to do with my ability to respond. At any given moment, I usually have several major writing projects I’m working on for work or for myself (this blog being one of the latter), and thus even if I become aware of one of White’s challenges, there’s a real question I have to face of whether at the moment it would be responsible of me to take time away from something else just to respond to whatever it is he’s demanding a response on.

Consider, for example, his latest challenge. He wants me to respond to something that was said in a debate the two of us had something like eight years ago. In order to justice to this request, I would need to:

1) Go find a copy of the debate in question.

2) Listen to it to see what was actually said (and thus make sure it isn’t being misrepresented).

3) Try to figure out wherever it may be that White has previously explained his concern (since he doesn’t explain it here; he just alludes to having made the demand in the past).

4) Go look up and read that place.

5) Compose a response.

6) Polish and revise it to avoid the foreseeable criticisms White will make.

7) Publish it.

8) Interact with him over it later, since no matter what I say it will provoke another vehement, densely-worded, triumphalistic exposition from him about why he isn’t satisfied with the response and how this one again illustrates the inferiority of Catholic apologists (and me in particular) and the superiority of Calvinism (and himself in particular).

9) Get tired of dealing with him.

10) And, finally, quit responding again–in the knowledge that he is likely to begin demanding further clarifications on the loose ends of this exchange for the next eight years.

His demand regarding James 2 is even worse since the performance of the above steps would be complicated by the fact that, even after I located the book, I would have to read it and try to determine what in it he is referring to. That’s a very dicey proposition, and he would be almost certain to accuse me of not responding to the thing he wanted me to respond to, or not responding in the depth he wanted, or not responding with the attitude he wanted, or not responding with a proper understanding of the context in which he had written, or not responding to all the other things he’d like me to respond to.

A third way time enters the equation involves the question of prudence. Since he won’t ever be satisfied (and, as his latest response continues to illustrate, he is incapable of admitting publicly that he’s simply wrong), there’s a risk that by dropping everything just in order to respond to the latest demand by James White that you will habituate him to this kind of treatment and thus encourage a repetition of the behavior in the future, leading to a further consumption of time as the cycle repeats itself in the future.

There are also considerations besides time. One is the general frustration factor in dealing with White’s attitude. Another is the fact that responding at this juncture would reward him in his efforts at misdirection.

That is, after all, what his huffing and puffing about John 6:44 and James 2 is. He brings those up to try to misdirect the reader from the fact that I have pointed out several howling errors on his part. A responsible person would say something like, “Well, yeah, it looks like I was wrong” or even “Well, yeah, I may be wrong, so I’ll check into this more” or “I phrased myself sloppily, so I’ll try to write more clearly.” But, since White seems unable to ever admit error on his part, he huffs and puffs about context (which wasn’t in or linked in the entry) and who he was writing for, and he throws demands around about why don’t I respond to what he’d like me to respond to and thus take attention away from the errors in what he wrote.

I’m very disinclined to reward such behavior, though time is still the primary factor.

Having said all that, I’m not averse to answering specific questions if White can summon up the wherewithal to pose his questions politely and concisely, in a way that doesn’t require me to go look up lots of sources.

For example: “It seems to me that John 6:44 means THIS, but you one said something that gave me the impression that it means THAT. Did I understand you correctly, are you still of that view, and if so, why do you prefer your interpretation to mine?”

That would be a nice, reasonable way to ask. As opposed to:

So let’s compare things: I have pointed out the glaring incapacity of James Akin as a biblical exegete regarding comments he has made in public debate on John 6:44. His erroneous comments are available on the web. In comparison, Akin chooses to focus upon three sentences in a blog entry, and even then, can only ignore the offered context and insist upon fuller definitions. I’d think one of the chief figures of Catholic Answers could produce a little better effort in light of the three dozen debates we offer on Roman Catholicism and the numerous books in print relevant to the topic. Maybe Mr. Akin would like to comment on the exegesis of James 2 in The God Who Justifies that directly refutes his own claims on that passage? Let’s call Mr. Akin to a little higher standard, shall we?

Perhaps we should call Mr. White to a little higher standard as well.