A response to the comments of the previous blog

Well,

The last post seemed complicated. We talked about grace, we talked about church, we talked about history. I want to focus things back a bit. I want to get on that razor edge line that slices through the different understandings of authority by C's and P's. I know that there are a great many understandings of authority from the P side, and I haven't even discussed the Orthodox which is a shame. Anyway....

Let us take a step back and just talk about authority in general. Some one who has authority demands what? Respect and obedience. Now, there are levels of authority too. So I will respect my dad and obey him differently than I would a teacher or police officer. Are we in agreement so far?

So, how did God set up authority in his Church? I think we would all agree that any authority the Church has, it gets from God. So insofar as the chuch acts in accordance with God's will, its authority is true. No one should obey someone who poses as a police officer right? So, there must be a continuity between the Ultimate Authority and the human authority that claims to be under the Divine one.

My hunch is, that RC's believe that God gave MORE authority to the church, meaning there is more for the individual to obey and conform to. So authority of the church is more like a Fatherly figure, hence the phrase, "Habemus Papam" (we have a father!).

My hunch is that most Protestants see the church as more like a John the Baptist, pointing to the gospel, saying "look at this! It's the Gospel, come live it with us!"


Now, assuming these two quick classificaitons are correct (I'm sure you guys will not just assume it, but anyways) which one has more credibility from both Old and New Testaments and which had more credibility from history?

My initial thoughts:

The Old Testament: There was a sense in the OT that God was really in charge. That EVERYONE, including the king, had to answer to him. But underneath God, you had the priestly side of things and you had the prophetic side of things. The priests definitely had an authority, but what was it's nature? Well, you relied on the priests to bring the sacricial offerings to God for your sin. So while the priest himself didn't forgive you, he made it possible for you to receive forgiveness. The prophetic tradition was more moral in its scope and claimed to speak God's words directly. And God seemed to punish those who refused to listen to the prophets.

The New Testament: Jesus, is very critical of the established Jewish authority, especially in issues of morality and hypocrisy. He didnt' seem to challenge their doctrine, except when he believed they were putting human custom over the Scriptures. He also challenged the Sadducees about the resurrection and afterlife. Moving on to the disciples, they seemed to have power that was similar to Jesus'. They healed people, the preached like Jesus did, they pronounced punishments on church members, corrected people, etc. We have the passage where Jesus apparently gives Peter the keys to the kingdom and tells him he has the power to forgive or not forgive. Is this directed at Peter specifically or is it representative of the disciples in general?

Early Church: The church started off, going to the temple to worship, etc. But they didn't seem to report to the Jewish leaders. They formed their own communities which were designed for prayer, fellowship, communion, etc. As Nick noted, the bishop was seen as a very important figure, one, that stood in the place of the apostles after they died. They were seen as a continuation of the authority given by Christ to the first apostles.

I sort of see the priestly and prophetic offices running parallel lines throughout history and i wonder if RC's follow the more priestly side while most Protestants would be more along the prophetic side.

I must also say, a lot of this has to do with your view of history. RC's seem to think it's easier to read God's providence off the face of history than do most Protestants. Both sides read their history with bias.

In summary, I think we should think about what authority has looked like throughout Jewish and Christian history. I think we should probably privlege what Jesus has to say on the matter, but not ignore those before and after him. My main problem with Catholic authority is its treatment of dissent. Wasn't the major error of the Jews their refusal to listen to the prophet? the one individual, outside of the authority structures? It seems from a biblical standpoint, Jesus was very angry about that type attitude. I don't fully understand how dissent works in the Catholic church. On the Protestant side, there seems to be a problem DEALING with dissent. There is no collective voice. It seems like this balance has always been a fine issue in Jewish history and in the early church.

Catholic and Protestant IV: Authority

My last post was probably a digression, but nonetheless an interesting one on analogy of being, etc. However I think this post gets more close to the differences between C and P.

P's and C's agree that all authority is apostolic authority, which is granted through Jesus by the Spirit. This merely means that for something to be authoritative, it must be in connection with Jesus' disciples in some way.

I think P's believe that this apostolic authority is limited to the canonical books of Scripture (I'm not sure abt. Epsicopalians, Lutherans, etc.).

C's believe that God arranged it so that there is a living, bodily, apostolic authority that is represented in the Magisterium and in the unwritten customs and traditions that are in the church. Now, the Magisterium only excercises this authority in a definitive, doctrinal way, every once in a while. I think my Catholic friends have told me that this has happened maybe twice in the past 100 years or so? Another of my Catholic friends, mentioned to me that it is important to distinguish between doctrine and disicipline. So, for example disciplines can be changed, such as unmarried clergy. Doctrine cannot be changed, but our understanding of it does develop.

My questions about this situation are:
1. Does this question of authority just come down to a faith commitment rather than intellectual argument?
2. P's claim that the final authority rests with Scripture seems problematic since they must be interpreted. How is there a way around this?
3. What is the relationship of the church community to the authority of Scripture for P's?
4. C's often say that it makes sense that God would arrange for there to be a guarrantee of the continuation of the faith by popes. But isn't that just deciding from a human point of view what would be appropriate for God to do?
5. Someone once told me, there are two ways of looking at it: either you are your own Magisterium (Protestant) or you place yourself under the Magisterium (Catholic). Are these the only two options?

Catholic and Protestant Three: Natural Theology

EZE, in my original post on Catholic and Protestant differences raises a couple issues that I want to deal with. You can read his response here.

The first point he raised was about revelation and natural theology. Most Protestants deny that human reason alone can attain to knowledge of God. The most vigorous defender of this position is Karl Barth. Now, I know little of KB, so I will rely on EZE (who is studying him with John Webster) to correct me in a spirit of generosity when need arises. Karl Barth said he could never become Catholic because of the "analogy of being". The analogy of being is another way of saying that there is something of God, a glimmer, in all of creation. This glimmer can be seen and recognized through human reason. Barth detests this idea because he believes it places theology under human perception, which would turn theology into the ultimate sin of idolatry. I'm on shaky ground with this next statement but I think Barth would say for us to say anything of God, it has to come to us from him first, in his address which breaks into the world. There can be no "natural" human reason that attains any knowledge of God.
In summary, knowledge of God must come from special revelation and not be based on any type of analogy with creation. This will only result in idolatry destroying the very witness of theology itself.

Now, for the Catholic side. The Catholic side must address this grave charge of allowing idolatry into theology. I believe a Catholic could easily point to passages such as Romans 1, Paul's speech at the Areopagus, the idea of the image of God within humanity, etc. These passages all point to some slight and prior knowledge of God that is universally present in humanity. AND it's important to note, these arguments are based in special revelation, not just an abstract rationality. This is a point that I think is crucial. Catholics only do natural theology within the context of prior faith. Atheist's don't' do natural theology because they do not have the presupposition of faith. Really, I see natural theology as based in special revelation.

There is a great humility in the analogy of being that I think protects at least to some degree to the constant temptation to idolize. The Catechism has this to say: "Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creature as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking (21). Catholics admit this knowledge is incomplete. They admit that language is both sufficient and insufficient to speak of God: "God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, imagebound or imperfect." (Catechism, 22).

I think the analogy of being functions in a way to make language meaningful and keep a connection between God and world without equating the two. The Analogy of being admittedly functions in a tension. How can something be similar yet more dissimilar? But, I think that language works by analogy and to discard it actually ends up being more idolatrous. I don't actually understand any other way of preserving language about God. Maybe someone can help me out with that.

Catholic and Protestant Part Two: Sources of Doctrine

The sources of doctrine is one of the most curious issues for me right now in thinking through the Catholic and Protestant relationship. Some Protestants affirm the idea that Scripture itself is a sufficient guide for the Christian for salvation. Yet, there is a myriad of interpretations of these same Scriptures, which has resulted in a myriad of denominations. If Scripture is a sufficient guide, then why is there not more unity in the Protestant church than the Roman Catholic? If, from the Protestant view, the Catholics have obscured the gospel message with their traditions and customs, wouldn’t the fact that Protestants, who breathe the free and clear air of Scripture be able to unify in a greater degree? Do evangelicals really believe in the “no creed but Christ” mentality? If so, how is the doctrine of the Trinity to be handled? If they don’t, how should the classic idea of sola scriptura be understood?

Catholic and Protestant Part One

In my next few posts I would like to address something that has become very real and personal for me in the past year: the divisions of the Christian body, especially in the Catholic and Protestant varieties. For me, the divisions used to be a problem like political views are problems. Most of us would like to see Democrats and Republicans work together to achieve more efficiency and effectiveness in government, but I'm not going to go home and weep about it if nothing happens. I tended to feel the same way about Christian differences. I had the attitude that well, we will all be together in heaven some day, we just have to be patient and it isn't a big deal. Well now it is a big deal. It's a big deal because these doctrinal divisions, unconscious prejudices, and cultural differences are now present in my marriage.

There is nothing like marriage to bring the abstract to the concrete very quickly. It's easy to have an ecumenical dialogue and write up a joint statement, and then go home to your wife. It's another matter entirely when your marriage is one continuous ecumenical dialogue.

Just to give a rather mild example, this morning I went to the Ash Wednesday service at St. Benedicts with Katie. The season of Lent, while not being limited to Catholicism, was never a part of my childhood faith. Now I am having conversations about the imoprtance of such things before I've even had my onion and cheddar bagel with jalepeno cream cheese.

While there are obvious difficulties with being married to someone who believes differently, I have found it to be a gift from God in so many ways. These pre-bagel theology sessions with my wife awaken me to a world of faith outside my little sphere. I am no longer able to retreat into my little evangelical world, and not think about the issues that divide and the reasons for them.

In the next few posts, I plan to spend some time looking at these differences. I want to look at them not only as abstractions and positions, but face the real question of why I remain Protestant. This isn't the 16th century. Is there truly anything to protest?

I will cut short my blog here. If you have suggestions (if anyone is reading this) on what topics should be covered, or questions please leave a comment and hopefully I can address them as I think through these things.