May 04, 2007
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church
(Jimmy Akin)
Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, as become Catholic. Dr. Beckwith was raised Catholic but became an Evangelical Protestant in youth. After a review of Catholic theology and its basis, however, he has been reconciled with the Church.
I recently learned of Dr. Beckwith's intention to pursue reconciliation. Apparently my own humble writings were of use to him in his journey, and he was kind enough to say so. In view of the sensitivity of the situation, however, I of course agreed to refrain from making the matter publicly known. He also was kind enough to let me know just before he went to the sacrament of reconciliation.
Last night I received a note from Dr. Beckwith indicating that the matter had become public, and so I would like to offer warm felicitations regarding his return to full communion with the Church.
The source through which the matter was made public happened to be James White's blog, and as you can imagine, Mr. White is not happy.
In particular Mr. White raises the question of what Dr. Beckwith will do given his present status as head of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Prior to his reconciliation, Dr. Beckwith shared his thoughts on that matter with me, and though I will let him speak for himself on the subject, I will say that he intends to handle the matter in a gracious and frank manner and has already taken steps in that direction.
On his blog, Mr. White questions whether Dr. Beckwith could remain a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, writing as follows:
Let's ponder the hypothetical situation of a President of the Evangelical Theological Society converting to Roman Catholicism in the midst of his tenure. In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. "Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?" The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:
"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."
Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, "Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group." He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura.
Mr. White is correct about the text of the ETS statement of faith or "doctrinal foundation." It's found online here.
While the ultimate interpretation of this statement is up to the ETS itself, I would point out two things:
1) The statement of a single founder, such as Dr. Nicole, regarding the interpretation of such a statement is analogous to that of a single founding father regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it is not of itself conclusive, however enthusiastically Mr. White and his friend might receive it.
2) If the founders of the ETS intended to exclude Catholics from the organization, they did not frame their doctrinal foundation in a way that would, in fact, block Catholics from being able to agree to it.
The Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written (as opposed to the Word of God Incarnate, the word of God in nature, or the word of God handed on through the Church in parallel to Scripture). Only Scripture is divinely inspired such that every assertion of the sacred authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Bible is inerrant in the autographs. And, of course, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.
There is thus nothing in the ETS doctrinal foundation that a Catholic could not agree to in good conscience and it is not an effective instrument for excluding Catholics from membership.
This situation will, of course, be very sensitive for members of the Evangelical Theological Society and its leadership, as well as for Dr. Beckwith and his family, and I ask readers to keep the matter in prayer.
At the hour I write, Dr. Beckwith has not posted on Right Reason, a blog in which he participates, regarding his return to full communion, and I do not know if he will do so, but I invite my readers to watch that blog for possible updates and to offer their felicitations to Dr. Beckwith in the combox below.
VISIT RIGHT REASON.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (805)
April 09, 2007
The Origin Of Lent
(Jimmy Akin)
Dwayna Litz of Lighting the Way Worldwide quotes John MacArthur as follows on the origin of Lent:
The celebration of Lent has no basis in Scripture, but rather developed from the pagan celebration of Semiramis’s mourning for forty days over the death of Tammuz.
Uh-huh. Yeah. Right. I wonder if he thinks Jesus' 40 days of fasting in the desert had its origin in that, too.
Francis Beckwith has a very nice post in rejoinder.
GET THE STORY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (35)
March 13, 2007
What An Evangelical Appreciates About Catholics
(Jimmy Akin)
I was delighted yesterday to receive the following e-mail from blogger extraordinare Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost:
Hey Jimmy,
Since I don't have any Catholic readers of my own I thought I'd share this with you. ; )
What's found at the link is a post Joe wrote in which, though he doesn't feel able to cross the Tiber, expresses sincere and thoughtful appreciation for Catholics. Specifically, he appreciates their emphasis on the sanctity of life, ecumenism, and Mary.
And be sure to leave him comments in the same spirit of thoughtful respect and appreciation.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (39)
February 20, 2007
She's Baaaaa-aaaack!!!
(Jimmy Akin)
Bunches of readers (CHTs all round) e-mailed me
THIS ARTICLE ON ALLEGED ANGLICAN PLANS TO REUNITE WITH ROME IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
It's by our favorite Times reporter, Ruth "I'm Too Dangerously Unqualified To Keep My Job" Gledhill.
EXCERPT:
Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt.
The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.
In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.
The statement, leaked to The Times, is being considered by the Vatican, where Catholic bishops are preparing a formal response.
It comes as the archbishops who lead the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion meet in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in an attempt to avoid schism over gay ordination and other liberal doctrines that have taken hold in parts of the Western Church.
Now, to anyone with a smidge of familiarity with the Catholic-Anglican dialogue, this just screams "Total nonsense! Gledhill, once again, hasn't the faintest idea what she's talking about!"
The idea that there is going to be an imminent reunion of the Anglican communion with Rome--or even a sizeable schism within it that then reunites with Rome in the near future--is preposterous. Instead, what we have here is Gledhill incompetently and sensationalistically getting the story wrong.
A specific dialogue body involving Anglicans and Catholics has prepared--not a practical plan for reunion--but a preliminary meditation on the state of dialogue and cooperation between the two Churches. Nothing more.
BTW, HERE'S THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION.
If Gledhill had an ounce28 grams of knowledge about how these kinds of things work, she would know that.
Or maybe she does know it and is wilfully distorting the story in order to get a sensationalized "scoop."
Either way, it's journalistic incompetence, so take your pick.
Needless to say, the body actually publishing the document was quick to fire back.
WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY IS WITHERING.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (32)
July 31, 2006
And Then There Were Three
(Jimmy Akin)
In 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a document known as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This document said that, while there were still differences between the Catholic and Lutheran articulation of the doctrine of justification, the two groups were in substantial agreement regarding the core of the doctrine itself and were thus able to issue a joint declaration expressing their common conviction regarding it.
This document had been in preparation for a number of years prior, and had a somewhat tumultuous history. There was a moment of profound embarrassment when--after the Lutheran World Federation went through the spectacle of solemnly approving the document in the clear expectation that the Catholic Church would immediately do likewise, the Catholic Church suddenly balked and issued a document with the ponderous and icy title "Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Fedreation on the Doctrine of Justification."
The backstage story on what happened here is that the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity had not kept the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith fully in the loop as the text of the joint declaration was being worked out, so when it came to approval time the CDF--and Pre-16 in particularly--objected to a number of statements in the joint declaration and insisted on clarifications before it could be approved.
From what I can tell, Cardinal Ratzinger himself wrote the clarifications at the core of the Response and then Cardinal Cassity (head of the Christian unity commission) had to sign them.
This was an enormous embarrassment, both for the Catholic Church and for the Lutherans, who felt like they had publicly gone out on a limb and then left hanging there.
Nevertheless, everyone summoned up the wherewithal to move forward and a clarifying "Annex" to the joint declaration got worked out and passed by both bodies and the whole thing was eventually approved and the joint declaration became a reality.
Following its publication, Cardinal Ratzinger praised it--in its emended form--as an important ecumenical landmark.
Now there's another one.
The World Methodist Conference has just signed the joint declaration as well.
It strikes me that this action by the Methodists may spark further, similar actions. I would anticipate that within a few years the Anglican communion may do likewise.
Don't hold your breath for many Baptists and Pentecostals to follow suit, though.
READ THE JOINT DECLARATION
AND IT'S ANNEX
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (41)
March 01, 2006
Catholic-Lutheran Issues
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Hello
JamesJimmy, I have a Roman Catholic friend who was in the process of becoming Lutheran. After speaking with him regarding our Faith he has halted the process and is interested in understanding the differences between the Lutherans and us Catholics.Is there a book or some literature out there that in a no-nonsense sort of way can explain the differences ?
One of the first things that springs to mind is the book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer. It's a sympathetic look at Lutheranism and Calvinism by Bouyer, who is a convert to Catholicism from Lutheranism.
Bouyer is a real theologian, though, so the book may be a little heady for what your friend is wanting. If that's the case,
HERE'S A GOOD ARTICLE BY MARK BRUMLEY SUMMARIZING BOUYER'S KEY POINTS.
There's also a lot of good material over at CATHOLIC.COM.
And if justification is a special issue for him, he might want to check out a copy of my book, The Salvation Controversy, which goes into the subject in detail, along with an analysis of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification that the Holy See signed with the Lutheran World Federation a few years ago.
Hope this helps!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
February 17, 2006
Speaking Of Reconciliations . . .
(Jimmy Akin)
Catholic News Service has a story about the meeting that Pope Benedict had this Wednesday with curial officials about the possibility of reconciling the Society of St. Pius X.
EXCERPTS:
More than 20 heads of congregations and pontifical councils attended the Feb. 13 meeting, which was to be followed up by a similar session in late March. No details of the February meeting were made available by the Vatican press office.
Several Vatican sources said that while Cardinal Castrillon strongly supported a solution based on these points opinions were sharply divided among curial members on any concessions to the Lefebvrites.
One Vatican source who participated in the February meeting of curial heads said he thought the pope wanted to make one big push for reconciliation at the beginning of his pontificate.
"I think it's now or never for the Lefebvrites. As time passes, an agreement will become much more difficult," he said.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
An Anglican Rite?
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
What do you think of the rumors of an autonomous rite for Anglicans who wish to be in communion with the Holy See? As a former Episcopal priest who came into the church, I have mixed feelings about such an arrangement. I miss some of the accidents of Anglicanism, e.g., the hymnody and the quasi-Tridentine precision of a solemn high Mass the way we did it, but I do not miss the culture of dissent that is so much more prevalent in Anglicanism or the devaluation of theology in practical terms. I am very interested in what you think.
I don't know that I personally have a lot to say. I'm in support, in principle, of the restoration of other bodies of Christians to full communion with the Catholic Church, and historically this has often been accomplished through the creation of a new "rite" in the Church--or what would more properly be called a new church sui iuris (Latin, "with it's own law").
If that's the best way to faciliate the reunion of (some) Anglicans, then I'm for it.
Such matters have to be handled very carefully, though, to ensure that it is a true restoration of full communion and not a papering over of differences.
There are also other risks as well. I was aware of it when a similar effort in the 1990s was underway (claims vary about whether was to be a new church sui iuris or some other kind of canonical structure), and it all fell apart when the former Anglican bishop who would have been the head of the new rite defected from the Church.
"Once burned, twice shy," as they say. The Vatican will need to make very sure of the leadership of the body coming into union. You don't want to have the spectacle of a grand reunion followed by a new schism of the same people hot on its heels.
It is my understanding that the Anglicans involved in this process may not have the dissident ethos that you mention, though I don't know if that applies to these bodies as a whole. My familiarity with the precise theological tenor of these circles is quite limited.
So I don't know whether the time is right for this, though I hope so. I'd like to see a new church sui iuris added to the Church in my lifetime, but it needs to be done the right way, and there are a number of significant issues to be solved.
For more on all this,
SEE THIS POST OVER AT PONTIFICATIONS, which links to a number of things, including
THIS VERY INFORMATIVE POST AT THE CONTINUUM.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack
February 13, 2006
Evangelizing A Non-Catholic Minister
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I have some advice to ask. I have a niece who my wife and I nearly raised after her sister went through some hard times. During college she met a wonderful young man who was going to study for the ministry and after graduating from College went on to Baptist Seminary where he graduated. He took a church and for a year he struggled as a young pastor to keep the congregation from splitting over a number of old seated issues.
After about a year of attempting to heal a broken church they decided that it was time to return home where they could be closer to family. After moving home, they are having trouble finding a congregation; our nephew has taken a counseling job where he can use his theological and pasturing skills while also providing for the family.
My question is that I have been feeling an intense sense that I should share the stories of many of the protestant ministers who have returned home to Rome but I am concerned that this might not be received in the right spirit. My wife and I are both converts, I converted in High School along with my entire family, she converted prior to our marriage.
Do you have any advice as to how I could start the conversation with my nephew? My sprit feels that there might be an openness on his part.
I don't know the young man as well as you, or what your relationship with him is, so my ability to offer advice is limited, but I'll give you what thoughts I can.
It seems to me that I'd be as simple and direct and non-threatening as possible. I'd say something like:
You know, John, my wife and I weren't always Catholic. We became Catholic, and it has really meant a lot to us. I know that you have a great desire to follow God, and I think God would want you to investigate whether he wants you to follow him as a Catholic.
It may not be something that you have ever seriously considered before--in fact, you may have been taught a number of things about Catholicism that would have kept you from considering it before. But many people have looked into Catholicism and become Catholic in recent years, including many Protestant ministers.
Maybe the fact that you are now searching for a church shows you that this is a good time to look into it yourself.
If you're open to it, I'd like to give you this book/tape to read/listen to. If you have questions or want to investigate further, I'd be happy to help point you to resources. You may find that many of the things you have been taught about Catholicism aren't true or at least that Catholics have a better basis for them than you thought. That's what many of these ministers found.
I wanted to share this with you because of how much I and my wife care for you and our neice. We've found that being Catholic has really meant a lot to us, and I know it would really mean a lot to you and our neice, too.
Then I'd give him Surprised By Truth volume 1 (the purple one) since it is a book of short, theologically-oriented conversion stories, many of them by Protestant ministers who became Catholic. Or, if he wouldn't be up for a book, I'd give him the tape Protestant Minister Becomes Catholic by Scott Hahn.
If he's receptive, you may also talk to him about what being Catholic has meant to you and how much you value it.
If he's an admirer of John Paul II or Benedict XVI (as many Protestants are), you might cite them also as men of great wisdom who have found value in the Catholic faith. You might also consider giving him a copy of Pope Benedict's new encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, as something that he might find valuable to read.
(Incidentally, if you google "God is love" then Deus Caritas Est is the first thing that pops up. If only B16 were Internet-savvy enough to fully appreciate how cool that is. CHT to SDG for pointing this out to me.)
A copy of the Catechism or the Compendium that will be out at the end of March also could be good.
Don't load him up with too much stuff all at once, though.
Other readers may have other suggestions, but I hope these help!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack
January 25, 2006
The Ordo Salutis
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I'm Catholic and have regularly been invited to join a dozen or so Reformed Calvinists for theological discussions while enjoying cigars. The next time we meet the guys want to talk about the Ordo Salutus (the order of salvation). In Calvinism it's the call, regeneration, justification, adoption, and sanctification - all occur in that specific order. I don't see anything so neat and tidy in the catechism about such, and I'm not certain if Augustine or Acquinas ever addressed this. I hate to attend the next meeting without a cogent way of explaining the Catholic view. Any ideas?
The Ordo Salutis is a big deal in Calvinist theology. It's kind of one of their theological calling cards, and they devote a lot of energy to it. That's the reason that you don't find something equivalent in the Catechism. Other groups of Christians also don't focus specifically on tihs concept the way Calvinists do.
For those who may not be aware, the Ordo Salutis (Latin, "the order of salvaion") is a set of stages through which each individual is held to pass on the way to heaven. The order of these stages is fixed and the same for everyone in the Calvinist view, beginning with God's eternal election of an individual (before he even exists) and ending with his glorifcation in heaven.
Different Calvinists include different steps in the Ordo Salutis, and they debate the details of which steps precede which. They also construct what they perceive to be alternative understandings of the Ordo Salutis based on the theologies of other groups of Chrisitans. They then set about critiquing these alternative orderings. (At your next discussion you may be presented with a "Catholic Ordo Salutis" that they have constructed and want to critique.)
Here is a typical listing of the Ordo Salutis from a Calvinist perspective:
- election
- predestination
- outward call through hearing the gospel
- inward call to respond to the gospel through God's grace
- regeneration
- conversion (faith & repentance)
- justification
- sanctification
- glorification
Calvinists stress that these stages are not all separated in time. They represent the logical order of what happens in salvation but not always the chronological order. For exmaple, justification and sanctification are held to happen at the same moment in time, but--according to Calvinists--justification is logically distinct from and prior to sanctification.
To back up their understandings of the Ordo Salutis, Calvinists appeal to various biblical texts--usually in Paul.
ALSO HERE, ESP. FOR BIBLICAL PASSAGES.
From a Catholic perspective there are several difficulties with the typical Calvinist articulation of the Ordo Salutis.
One that I would point out--though I don't know that all Catholics would point this out--is that Calvinists frequently press biblical language beyond its limits in trying to come up with a precise Ordo Salutis. Specifically: They assume that the biblical authors are using the relevant terms in univocal senses. That means: They assume that the biblical authors use the same words in the same way all the time, so whenever Paul talks about "justification" in a discussion of salvation he always has to mean the same thing by it, and it is necessarily distinct from--for example--sanctification.
This is a problem because Paul's language is a lot more complex than that. See the early chapters of my book The Salvation Controversy for a bunch of illustrations. (One to have in your hip pocket for the discussion is the fact that in Romans 6:7 Paul clearly uses the word "justify" in a way that overlaps with "sanctify." What he literally says in Greek in this passage is "He who has died has been justified from sin" but the context is so obviously sanctificational that most translations--even Protestant ones--will render this something like "He who has died has been freed from sin.")
This problem goes to the theological-exegetical method of Calvinists.
The next problem goes to a particular feature of Calvinist theology: Their understanding of regeneration. Calvinists conceive of regeneration as a work of God whereby God makes the person capable of responding to him in faith. Regeneration thus precedes faith, which precedes justification.
Unfortunately, they are just wrong on this one. Regeneration is an impartation of divine life that normatively happens in baptism and baptism (in the case of adults) follows faith. The paradigm for adult believers would thus be: God's iniative of grace enabling one to respond in faith > faith > baptism > regeneration.
Expect John 3:3-5 to be a central text in debates with Calvinists concerning regeneration. See the stuff from the Fathers Know Best section of the library at Catholic.com to show patristic disagreement (which is unanimous) with the Calvinist understanding of regeneration.
It would be possible to construct a Catholic understanding of the Ordo Salutis. Unfortunately, I don't have the leisure at the moment to do the heavy lifting needed to do a detailed Catholic articulation, but the core elements of one (for adults) might look like this:
- God's initiative of grace enabling an individual to respond to his call.
- Conversion (faith and repentance)
- Baptism
- Regeneration/Justification/Sanctification
- Glorification in heaven.
When you start wanting to get into more detail than that, though, problems arise.
First, you'll notice that I have listed regeneration, justification, and sanctification on the same line. That is because God normally does all of these at once in time (which Calvinists will admit in the case of justification and sanctification). I don't know that one can establish any of them as being logically prior to the others.
Second, between steps four and five there are things that happen, and they do not all happen in the same order. These include things like falling from grace and being restored to it. They also include growth in justification (a concept wholly absent from Calvinist though), and purification in purgatory for some but not necessarily all people.
Third, you'll note that I don't have anything prior to step one like election or predestination. This is because the Catholic Church has not mandated a single view of these matters and permits considerably more flexibility than Calvinism does. Thomas Aquinas put election prior to predestination (and love prior to election), but that's a matter of theological opinion, not something that the Magisterium mandates.
Then you'd have to build in ways of handling the situation of infants who are baptized and baptism of desire situations and baptism of implicit desire, and you see how complex this is all gettting.
We're now hitting the reason why Catholics (and other non-Calvinist Christians) don't generally go in for detailed articulations of the Ordo Salutis.
God just doesn't have a fixed order of how he applies salvation to people. Even if you assign fixed meanings to terms like "election" (and it's not AT ALL clear that Scripture uses this term the same way in every case), God just gives some people graces at different stages than he gives others.
What you can do is describe, within limits, how God normally does it in the archtypal case, but there just isn't a "one size fits all" paradim for this in Scripture. Calvinists are wrong to think that there is, and they fail to do justice to the complexity of biblical language and the biblical text when they assume there is.
This is why many non-Calvinist Protestants accuse Calvinists of logic chopping the biblical text on these points.
Now: If you try to explain all this, you're likely to meet with some stock responses, such as how complex the Catholic Church makes things. There are a number of responses to this, including:
- Excuse me, but your proposed Ordo Salutis is looking rather complex to me already.
- Indeed, it's more complex than it appears, since you have to have an alternate Ordo Salutis to cover the case of elect infants who die before reaching the age of reason.
- And the existence of debate even in Calvinist circles about the precise sequencing of some steps shows that not every question is settled in your own movement and that different Scriptures can be brought forward to argue different positions.
- Trying to work out a detailed schema of salvation inevitably is going to result in complexity because of the mysteriousness of searching out God's ways, which is another way of saying
- I didn't make it complex. God did. You're just not wanting to recognize the true scope of the mystery of God's action as Scripture presents it to us, and
- Despite the complexity of a detailed account, the core message of salvation can be boiled down into a very simple form: "Repent, believe, and be baptized." (And, if you need to add: "If you fall into mortal sin then repent, believe, and go to confession.")
- The Catholic articulation of these matters can thus be presented in very simple, practical form that even a child can understand or it can be presented in all the enormous theological depth needed to satisfy a theologian.
- If you're having trouble keeping up with the latter, Friend Calvinist, I'll talk slower to make it easier for you.
Hope this helps!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
January 10, 2006
Adventures In Adventist Land
(Michelle Arnold)
Michelle here.
Loma Linda, California, is not quite the same for Adventists as Salt Lake City is for Mormons -- more important meccas of Adventism can be found in the Midwest and East Coast -- but it is predominantly an Adventist city. I spent some time there over a decade ago and was amused that there was postal delivery on Sunday but not Saturday.
"The city is best known for Loma Linda University Medical Center, where in 1984 doctors performed the world's first infant cross-species heart transplant: 'Baby Fae' was given the heart of a baboon.
"Less known is that the university and medical center are run by Adventists. Loma Linda, home to at least 7,000 Adventists, one of the largest concentrations in the world, has been governed exclusively by church members since it incorporated more than three decades ago.
"Adventism, a conservative Christian denomination, and the church's holistic devotion to people's health and spiritual well-being dominate daily life in Loma Linda, where biblical creationism and cutting-edge medicine exist side by side.
"The city has a Ronald McDonald House to shelter the families of ailing children — but no Golden Arches. Most Adventists are vegetarian."
(Nod to Bill Cork for the link.)
Late in 2004, when my father was dying of terminal illness, we managed to have him admitted to the hospice nursing unit of Loma Linda's Veterans Administration Hospital. (San Diego's VA did not have any openings.) Despite the difficulties for us in visiting him, we were pleased for him that he could be at the Loma Linda VA because that meant he would have access to Adventist chaplains. The Loma Linda VA had three chaplains, two Adventist and a Catholic priest.
Although early in his stay at the VA Dad did get one visit from the Adventist chaplain and another visit from an Adventist pastor who was a friend of the family, as the end approached the chaplain who responded to my calls for chaplain's visits was the priest. (I did not request him; I only requested whoever was available.) At the end, it was the priest who visited Dad just before he died and who prayed with us afterwards. I never met either of the Adventist chaplains.
Which goes to show that even in an "Adventist city" I guess it is possible for Adventists to be prepared for death by a Catholic priest.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
December 08, 2005
Closed For Christmas
(Michelle Arnold)
When you hear of places closing for Christmas, you naturally expect those places to be businesses that are closed to allow employees to gather with family for the holiday. You don't expect that place to be a church, which you would naturally think would be considered the gathering place for the spiritual family of God.
"This Christmas, no prayers will be said in several megachurches around the country. Even though the holiday falls this year on a Sunday, when churches normally host thousands for worship, pastors are canceling services, anticipating low attendance on what they call a family day.
"Critics within the evangelical community, more accustomed to doing battle with department stores and public schools over keeping religion in Christmas, are stunned by the shutdown.
"It is almost unheard of for a Christian church to cancel services on a Sunday, and opponents of the closures are accusing these congregations of bowing to secular culture."
(Nod to the reader who sent the link and admitted to being "surprised/saddened to read it.")
I was saddened but not surprised.
It reminded me of a story a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor told my father many years ago. Every Easter the local pastors would ask the SDA pastor to lead the "non-denominational" sunrise service for the community. Eventually, he was tired of being pressed into service each year and curious as to why he was always being tapped. When he asked, the pastors told him, "Well, you're the only one of us who doesn't have to work that day."
They were referring, of course, to the fact that SDAs do not worship on Sunday. It was only many years later, once I was a Catholic, that I noted the irony of a Christian pastor not having to "work" on the day that commemorates the Lord's Resurrection.
The difference now, I guess, is that there are some Christian pastors who don't bother to look around for a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor to shepherd their flocks in their absence. (And, of course, the Christian pastors who asked the SDA to step in for them were busy tending other flocks at their own churches.) These Christian pastors who have chosen to shut down their churches for Christmas simply close the inn for the holiday and confirm for the flocks the message that Christmas is all about gluttony for food and stuff after all.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack
September 28, 2005
New Ecumenical Document
(Jimmy Akin)
Zenit is reporting that the Pontificial Commission for Promoting Christian Unity is expecting to have a new document out soon with the Lutheran World Federation.
This time the topic is apostolicity and apostolic succession, and they're hoping to publish it next year.
What kind of document it is and whether 2006 is just meant to inaugurate a discussion of it or be its final proclamation, I dunno. The story isn't specific enough. They might follow the path they did for the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which involved having an initial release of it for comment, followed by a revision, followed by the Lutherans voting on it, followed by the Vatican getting cold feet at the last moment, followed by a Catholic response document, followed by behind the scenes negotiations, followed by a much-embarrassed both parties finally promulgating it.
Only I hope not.
Speaking of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, Cardinal Kasper indicates that the document may not remain an exclusively Catholic-Lutheran work.
According to him the Methodists are planning on endorsing it next year, too.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
July 29, 2005
Our Evangelical Brethren . . .
(Jimmy Akin)
. . . and we are getting into fewer battles than in the old days. There's less animosity on both sides.
Not to say that there's none. . . . But less.
HERE'S AN INTERESTING ARTICLE ON THAT BY RICHARD OSTLING.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)
One of the Catholic individuals interviewed for the article points out:
"The admiration for John Paul II is simply astounding given (evangelicals') historic real hatred for the papacy," says William Shea of the College of the Holy Cross.
If anything, he thinks, Pope Benedict XVI is closer to the evangelicals' outlook than John Paul II.
I think that's right. In many important ways, B16 is even more where Evangelicals are at that JP2 was.
Unfortunately, that convergence of attitudes in some areas may make differences in others all the more sharply felt.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
July 11, 2005
Caped Bible Crusader
(Michelle Arnold)
No, it's not a bird, or a plane, or even Superman. It's the Evangelical world's superhero, Bibleman! When he is not busy battling superscum Rapscallion P. Sinister, he can be found evangelizing with Billy Graham and introducing children to the superpower that can be found in knowing their Bibles:
He fights bad guys for a living! He's got a light saber! He wears a silver spandex suit and a shiny yellow helmet! No wonder kids were enthralled by the masked superhero Saturday morning, even though he also sings ballads, quotes Bible verses and has no real superpowers -- just the 'armor of God.'
"Bibleman, the Christian superhero, swooped into Queens' Flushing Meadows Park to help that other Crusader -- evangelist Billy Graham -- spread the message of God. Graham's three-day crusade will be his last in the United States, and he has drawn record crowds.
"Thousands braved the sweltering heat to see Bibleman, including children decked out in purple and yellow Bibleman outfits, and a few curious adults.
"'I'm finding myself enjoying it,' said Greg Packer, 41, of Huntington, N.Y. 'It's like a religious version of Star Wars.'"
(Nod to Holy Weblog! for the link.)
I found myself wistfully thinking that Bibleman should team up with Tradition Man and Magisterial Man to fight off the evil Sola-Scriptura Man. But then I remembered! The Curt Jester was on the case and showcased the results!
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
June 30, 2005
In The Name Of The Force...
(Michelle Arnold)
More and more, churches are turning to gimmicks to draw worshippers. Since popular culture sometimes seems to have a larger following than Christianity these days, the gods of pop culture are pressed into service to entertain Christians bored with Christ. You may have heard, for example, of a Protestant church that organized a "Harry Potter service." Harry Potter may yet make a comeback when the new book is released on July 16, but, in the meantime, behold the "Star Wars service":
"A long time ago in a church, far, far away, [an Anglican] vicar and his flock sang their final hymn to the theme tune of the Star Wars saga. Well, not that long ago, or far away, really. Last week, in fact, in West Yorkshire, a parish church held a special service to mark the release of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.
"It seems that in an increasingly secular Britain, vicars are turning to the Force to keep church attendance figures high, and to attract that crucial youth market.
"Reverend Paul Walker explained that the service was inspired by the children of the Parish, who explored the ideas in the film in their catechism class, The BBC reports.
"Walker said that the service covered the ideas of good and evil, resisting the temptation of the 'dark side', and what it means to have the force of God in your life. 'We wanted a special service to bring these themes together and celebrate the victory of good over evil,' he added."
Please note the Reverend Walker's comment, "We wanted a special service to bring these themes together and celebrate the victory of good over evil." Uh huh. Because the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ fails so miserably at accomplishing that, you know. After all, when a feature-length film was made in the United States last year that depicted the last twelve hours of Christ's life, did anyone bother to go see it?
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
June 15, 2005
Christians United Together for Everyone
(Tim Jones)
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.
Posted by Tim Jones in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 09, 2005
Reformed To Catholic?
(Jimmy Akin)
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
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
December 02, 2004
Networks refuse to air offensive ad
(SDG)
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).
Posted by SDG in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
October 29, 2004
Can Devout Non-Catholics Be As Devout As Devout Catholics?
(Jimmy Akin)
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!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
October 27, 2004
Escatology Update
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader points out to me that . . . .
(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.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
October 25, 2004
Birthplace of Protestant Reformation Found
(Jimmy Akin)
Not. Making. This. Up.
No. Comment. What. So. Ever.
(WARNING: A little potty-mouth language.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
