WHAT WOULD JACK SAY?

Over at the Patheos web site, it seems that, where two are gathered, the tribulations of 1517 eventually rear their ugly head.  If you never have visited Patheos, I highly recommend perusing its multi-faceted individual bloggers.  Anyway, I had been directed to a particular article entitled “Why Didn’t C. S. Lewis Become a Catholic?”  from the REALCLEARELIGION daily survey.  My initial interest was in precisely the subject of article.   What I didn’t know was that I had fallen into the contentious arena of one Dave Armstrong.  Mr. Armstrong grew up as a Protestant and went on to be a campus missionary.  Armstrong converted to Catholicism and was received into the Church in 1991.  Since that time, Armstrong has become one of the leading Catholic apologists in the United States.  His main focus has been defending Catholicism through what he views as Biblical evidence which explain and support the doctrines and practices of the Church.  Mr. Armstrong has been quite prolific in his work—turning out a very impressive and long list of papers, debates and dialogues defending the Catholic faith.   Armstrong claims his efforts has brought about hundreds of conversions and the return of lapsed Catholics back into the fold.

Armstrong believes that the Holy Spirit guides His Church to be always free from doctrinal error.  He also finds the notion that The Church could ever have been in error or mistaken absolutely far-fetched.  Nothing exceptional in these beliefs among Catholics.  Indeed, such is taught in the Catholic Catechism.   What Armstrong equally finds unbelievable is that any Protestant could seriously think the Holy Spirit would ever let his Church fall into error.  That Protestants, by definition, DO seems to be of little moment to him.

Armstrong also has a propensity of throwing all Protestants into the same bucket; then he proclaims that, since Protestants don’t agree among themselves, none can be true.   Armstrong thinks this is so obvious that this “fact” should be decisive in and of itself in leading Protestants of all stripes back to Rome.  Most Protestants, on the other hand, believe we are all born in a world of disagreement—especially regarding (but hardly limited to) religion.  This is the way of the world and thus it will always be.  Therefore they are hardly surprised to find serious differences between the various Christian denominations.   They see little reason to expect anything less.   

Having scanned several of Armstrong’s articles, my impression as a Lutheran is that he frequently makes tendentious and dubious interpretations of Scripture sometimes balancing his case on the back of a single verse.  Granted, I was not able to read but more than a few pieces out of Armstrong’s huge corpus; nevertheless I suspect this to be a common feature throughout.

Enough background.

In the instance of this particular article, “Biblical evidence” does not directly come into play.

The bottom line in “Why Didn’t C. S. Lewis Become a Catholic?” is that most of his friends and follow Inklings were Catholics.   Their accounts point to Lewis coming several times near the spiritual explosion of conversion and the embrace of the Catholic faith.  The most unfulfilled opportunity for Lewis’s conversion seems to have occurred around 1950.    But in the end Lewis always dismissed such entreaties.   His friends and many of his biographers chalked it up to the Protestant prejudices instilled in Lewis growing up in Belfast, Ireland.  On this, Armstrong agrees. 

I don’t think this evaluation is even close to a fair assessment of Lewis’s spiritual life.  I should think anyone familiar with Lewis and his apologetics would expect more principled motivations.   “Ethnocentric” bias just doesn’t cut it.  Armstrong, however, seems to think embracing Catholicism is so compelling that it persistently hounds the thoughts and dreams of all “separated brethren”.  That it does not and wasn’t an alternative Lewis took seriously seems to be possibilities Armstrong does not take into account.

A selection from the comments:

Brian Sullivan • 

I don't think I saw this in the article or discussion, but I have heard it suggested that if CS Lewis had converted to the Catholic Church, his writings, so influential to many mere Christians of all denominations, would have been disregarded. "Well yes, he's quite convincing about that, but he was Catholic, so...."

DLink • 

Lewis appears to have been quite honest about the whole thing. At that time there was a common view among devout Anglicans that there were three branches to The Church: Roman, Orthodox and English and equally valid. As far as infallibility and Old Catholics; it was debated at Vatican I. A number of Bishops thought it wrong to proclaim but stayed in the Church after it was. A few, now called Old Catholic, went to schism. As far as Mary, that is devotional and while it might have presented a barrier to Lewis in his day, would not now. Let us view him in his time, not ours.

Cestius 

I'm pretty certain that Lewis would find the (Anglican) Church of England post 1992 intolerable - his opinions on women priests were well-known and forthright, and most of his views are now more more in line with the Catholic Church than the Anglican. I suspect that like myself and many other former Anglicans he would have been forced to reconsider in favor of Catholicism.

Thomas R 

He's not an author I'm that into, but I researched him some as he was related to a thesis I intended to write.

Although he didn't want to discuss them I think his views on Mary and the Papacy were fairly real. I don't think they were simply some anti-Catholic thing as such. I think he sincerely objected to aspects of the First Vatican Council and rejected the idea of the Immaculate Conception. The "Old Catholic Church", as it was then, might have had more similarities to him than Anglicanism really did then but I think even then it was maybe seen as a bit kooky and obscure. Well except that in one letter I believe he told an Anglican they really shouldn't say prayers like the "Hail Mary" as he felt they are too directed to her rather than Jesus.

In some ways this part, discomfort with things like the rosary, is strange as much of what he wrote seemed to favor pre-Reformation Christianity. Rosaries might be Catholic, but Marian hymns also occur in Eastern Orthodoxy and the Coptic.

MichaelNewsham

As well, Tolkien's references to Lewis's "Ulsterior Motives" were not "tongue-in-cheek." Tolkien was upset by Lewis 's "Letters to Malcolm" and what he regarded as Lewis's downgrading,and even mocking, of the Catholic doctrines, especially of the Eucharist.

It is filled with theological barbs--most of them aimed
at Roman Catholicism. As such it provides us with the very clearest
contrast between his and Tolkien's beliefs. Reading the book from
the Roman Catholic perspective of Tolkien, it is not difficult to glean
what aspects of it might have distressed and even horrified him.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/...

Following quotes from Lewis, "Letters to Malcolm" (and remember, these were not actual letters- it was a series of essays cast in the form of letters.)

A rejection of transubstantiation

A Priori Anselm†

Council of Trent - reason enough to NOT conform to Roman Catholicism.

Dave Armstrong

Hundreds of competing, massively contradictory denominations (so that much error MUST be present): reason enough NOT to totally conform to any brand of Protestantism,

Mick Lee 

I find there is very little support for the notion Lewis was tempted to submit to Rome. It seems to be a persistent fantasy among some Catholics that if he lived to a more ripe old age Lewis would have become a Catholic (especially after Vatican II). But a Protestant Lewis was and Vatican II did little to compel the vast lion's share of Protestants to "come on over".  For Lutherans--for which I am one-- (and perhaps by extension Anglicans), Rome's dancing around "justification by faith alone" does not inspire confidence nor conversion. 

I am not inclined to regard the Catholic Church as the Great Antichrist nor to say it is not Christian; but I find the reality of the Catholic Church on the ground too confused and disorganized to have any confidence that I will hear the Gospel clearly among its adherents and during worship week after week.

JoAnna Wahlund

I think that Lewis would have become a Catholic if he could have seen where the Anglican church was headed (practicing gay clergy and bishops, women clergy and bishops, open support for abortion, etc.).

Mick Lee

Maybe. But it's more likely Lewis would have taken the path of most Protestants: Protestant

Dave Armstrong

Still wondering what you make of so many of Lewis' biographers saying that he came close to converting, and that his Belfast upbringing was key in his not doing so.

Mick Lee

Believe me. There are and have been thousands and thousands of Protestants who have considered converting to Rome or the Orthodox Church. (I have been one such Protestant.) We come close; but, again, we find on the ground where life is actually lived Catholicism is a mess no better than the the mess we already find ourselves in (The Catholic Church has its own share of theological liberals) and the Orthodox severely insular. However bad we find it in our own Churches, Rome is worse

There is another truth most Catholics don't like to hear but the thing is some features of Catholicism absolutely horrify Protestants. The adoration of Mary, praying "to" the saints, and the doctrine of Purgatory being some examples. Catholics are satisfied with the instruction of Tradition in these matters; but that cuts no ice with Protestants. Invoking "The Church" doesn't answer anything. Where is the Biblical instruction for these things? Where is the command or promise? (One should be surprised at how little Mary appears in the Gospels and is nowhere to be found in the letters.) Catholics do not recognize these standards as important or legitimate; but Protestants do. It is in the air they breathe and the blood in their veins.

This is why when former Protestants write their accounts on why they converted to Rome Protestants find them absolutely baffling. They don't answer any of the questions Protestants find so essential. This bothers Protestants: why the absence of what is so important? Why the passing over these issues without even addressing them or with just a mere wave of the hand? Thus such attempts of converts in explaining themselves arrive as wasted words and time.

Yes. Lewis was a Belfast Protestant; but that hardly means his allegiance was empty. Lewis had Protestant blood in his veins too. Until Catholics begin to understand Protestants as Protestants understand themselves, they will indulge themselves in useless speculation. As much as I admire Tolkien et al,, I suspect they were engaging in projection: attributing their thought paradigms onto Lewis. Of course, I am not a professional psychiatrist nor do I have proof for this; but one should never say what "X" (who lived in a different time) would have done if he had met the rest of the tumultuous 60's and 70's.

Dave Armstrong

We don't "adore" Mary (that is for God alone). We venerate or honor her, which is perfectly scriptural. The Bible commands us to honor all men, even the pagan emperor, for Pete's sake . . . But we can't honor Mary and the saints?

That's why I do what I do, Michael. I defend all these "horrifying" things from Scripture. Just search the relevant pages in the drop-down menus at the top of this page if you wanna read what I say about 'em.

Mick Lee

Your exegesis of these texts is mystifying at best.

You can play around with words; but you know and I know Catholics do a lot more than just "honor" Mary. There is no Scriptural justification for the Immaculate Conception, her corporeal assumption into Heaven, nor Marian prayers.

Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov wrote: "Love and veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the soul of Orthodox piety. A faith in Christ which does not include his mother is another faith, another Christianity from that of the Orthodox church." Catholics may agree with this in their own terms--preferring their own words. I wouldn't know but it appears to me that it bears some truth to some degree in the Catholic faith. Nevertheless, there is no Biblical command to ask for Mary's intercession nor a promise that such intercession could be made much less than such intercession would have any influence.

When Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, He prayed to our Heavenly Father and to the Father alone. To Protestants, His example is definitive.

Dave Armstrong

There is no scriptural statement that the Bible is the only infallible source of faith and theology, either (sola Scriptura: which is the Protestant rule of faith and one of the two "pillars" of the "Reformation"). That doesn't stop Protestants from building their entire theology on this false notion.

There is no statement in the Bible about which books comprise the Bible.

Readers who want to explore what I have written about Mary, and all the arguments from the Bible I produce can look them over here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/d...

As always, you or anyone else are welcome to try to refute any of my arguments. I am committed to defending anything in my writings, or else retracting arguments if shown a better way.

 •

Mick Lee

“There is no scriptural statement that the Bible is the only infallible source of faith and theology”. Sorry, but absence is not evidence. No could just as easily point out that it did not deem any other source infallible either.

You are somewhat misinformed. Depending on which time period one looks up, there are either three or five “pillars” of the Reformation. The original “Lutheran” confessions list three “solas”: 1.) By Scripture Alone. 2.) By Grace Alone and 3.) By Faith Alone. By the twentieth century, some denominations recognized two addition “solas” they held were valid all along but heretofore not formerly emphasized as such: 4.) Through Christ alone. And 5.) Glory to God alone. Some have argued that in a lot of ways one “sola” is interchangeable with another; but for most theologians any has distinct
meaning.

But let’s confine ourselves to Scripture.

Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone") means the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God. In other words, these other authorities only have their legitimacy when they work in service to the Word of God.

This last sentence in the paragraph above is foundational to how tradition is evaluated in Protestantism. The authority of tradition, and the authority of the Church as well, is derivative from Scripture.

While it is true that “there is no statement in the Bible about which books comprise the Bible”, it was the books themselves which revealed themselves to be “God breathed” and binding. The early Church councils pulled together these books in service to them. Without this binding duty to the Word for them, none of these councils had any validity.

All this is to say that Scripture is the lone judge to determine when reason, the councils, tradition, and the Church itself are mistaken. It is they who stand in the dock; not Scripture. Make no mistake: reason, the councils, tradition, and the Church cannot be dismissed out of hand. These can be most helpful and indeed are in real life as it is lived. But they are not decisive.

(I should point out here that Lutherans in particular have much more to say about the significance and nature of the “The Church” than can be reflected in this short response.)

It would be foolish to think either of us will convince the other. We work from different premises. And what is embedded in one’s premises can hardly fail to come out in one’s conclusions. That is why although we are both Christians (I would hope you would regard me such), we are like ships passing in the night. This is why, when I have read your “justifications” of Catholic doctrine, I find them earnest but thin. I should think perhaps your view is that Protestantism of any sort is simply false root and branch—thus any response to your points is erroneous at its core if not immoral.

Well, like Lewis and Tolkien, what is left to us is to sit around the hearth, light our pipes, and tell each other stories. Occasionally talk about differences.

•

Dave Armstrong

1. You contended that Immaculate Conception, etc. is entirely absent from Scripture. I countered by arguing that sola Scriptura and the biblical canon are also absent, yet Protestants believe them, anyway. IOW, a double standard: one for us, another for you. You prove my point rather spectacularly in your comment above: Bible Alone as the ultimate authority; yet this teaching is NOT in the Bible; and that is (I don't see any way out of it) a self-refuting position. Catholics, OTOH, don't claim that everything MUST be explicitly in Scripture, or even (in some cases) indirectly or by deduction. This is why our view isn't self-contradictory, as yours is. Some things can be primarily or solely in tradition and still be true. They will always be in *harmony* with Scripture, though.

2. I'm quite familiar with the definition of sola Scriptura, having written about it more than anything else (including two entire books), and having debated it with several of its leading defenders for 20 years.

3. Like all Catholics, I joyfully regard Protestants as fellow Christians, part of the Body of Christ and the Church by virtue of baptism and many other common elements. I've written MANY papers along ecumenical lines, expressing respect and affection for my Protestant brethren, including high praise for my own teachers in the past.

4. For you to suspect otherwise than what I expressed in #3, proves you obviously haven't read much of my writing, which is fine (I have over 1500 posts online, all now on this site). But if you haven't read much, it's mystifying how or why you would even posit such a supposedly negative opinion from me, on my Protestant brethren.

Mick Lee

The primacy of Scripture is that it is the very Word of God. “No one can tell us what to do or what we are to believe but God Himself”:

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” (2 Cor. 9:11)

“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been His counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to Him
that He might be repaid?”
For from him and through him and to him are all 
things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11: 34-36)

That the Scriptures speaks to us His actual Word and nowhere else means it has a predominance unrivaled. 

It is to God’s own Word we are to give heed, take instruction, and keep within our hearts. The Scriptures are God’s revelation to us; a revelation found nowhere else. Its is very essence as the actual Word of God is its authority which towers over all others. No other authority knows His thoughts and ways apart from His revealed Word. In no other agency can God’s very Word be found.

Thus it is by His Word all things are judged and His Grace is bestowed on us. This is why in Lutheran worship (a.k.a The Divine Service or the Lutheran Mass) we speak, chant, and keep the Sacraments using His Own Words. The most appropriate way to worship Him is by using His Own Word.

It is only from Scripture’s unique and absolute truth we can find complete trust and reliability. Even His Church sometimes fails us. Its councils contradict each other.   A great teachings promoted one day are thrown into the rubbish only to have another great teaching to follow the next . Great theologians and teachers of their own day fight among themselves. Only God’s Word is sure. In the Scriptures, there is no contradiction or untruth.

Thus we find no self-refutation as you would have it. The Word of God, Scripture, acclaims itself. Traditions, righteous guidance, the offices of the Church, and even the ancient creeds are only valid when in service
to the Word of God.

·          

Thomas R

Considering the earliest Bibles we have contain books Protestant Bibles do not (Tobit, Judith, sometimes Maccabees), and St. Stephen died for the faith before St. Paul's conversion, I admit yeah this doesn't seem like it would entirely work.

But I do admit I don't think you can use a purely Protestant/Reformation logic to justify Catholicism and Catholic converts are inevitably going to fail to do that as Catholicism isn't a Protestant denomination.

•  

Mick Lee

I agree that, beginning with Protestant "principles" with the purpose of eventually embracing Rome, one "can't get there from here"..

I am not sure what the point is you're trying to make in your first paragraph. (I have some guesses; but I find it is not safe to assume.)

Nevertheless, a few thoughts:

Yes, the Catholic canon differs from that of most Protestants. Luther's criteria involved the question of whether the Gospel was disclosed by the book or letters. (Luther said that even the Old Testament presented the Gospel) In any event, the canon itself developed over the first four centuries. The important factor was that when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the church." As I wrote before, these were acting is service to the Word of God rather than a separate authority derived from Church tradition in the strict sense.

Within Lutheranism, the Word of God refers 1.) The written Word, Christ Himself, and the spoken Proclamation of the Gospel. The first believers were made Christians by the latter. In other words, the faith passed on to the first Christians and from one generation to the next by word of mouth. It is from this "oral tradition" that the written Word was made. (There is also the possibility of an early written Word for the first Christians; but that is purely hypothetical.) Sadly, that original oral tradition is lost to us in this post-apostolic age. Nonetheless, the spoken Proclamation is very much alive.

It is not that there are not important authorities (such as Church tradition) beside the written Word of God. But these authorities are subordinate to and only valid to the degree they are congruent with the Word of God. (Thus the Creeds are seen as authoritative because they a faithful statements--summaries--of Christian doctrine.)

As a side note, Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, are not accepted within the Jewish canon. Luther said that these can be profitably read; but they had serious defects in terms of the Gospel. The Book of Esther is accepted within the Jewish canon. It is interesting in that not once do the words "God" or "Lord" appear. Perhaps one may see Esther as an example of faith therefore it belongs in the Christian canon as well.

Mick Lee

I find there is very little support for the notion Lewis was tempted to submit to Rome. It seems to be a persistent fantasy among some Catholics that if he lived to a more ripe old age Lewis would have become a Catholic (especially after Vatican II). But a Protestant Lewis was and Vatican II did little to compel the vast lion's share of Protestants to "come on over".   For Lutherans--for which I am one-- (and perhaps by extension Anglicans), Rome's dancing around "justification by faith alone" does not inspire confidence nor conversion. 

I am not inclined to regard the Catholic Church as the Great Antichrist nor to say it is not Christian; but I find the reality of the Catholic Church on the ground too confused and disorganized to have any confidence that I will hear the Gospel clearly among its adherents and during worship week after week.

Tom Leith

I am afraid you are all too justified in your lack of confidence. But there are things in the Catholic Church you simply cannot get anywhere else.

Mick Lee

I am sure that there are treasures in the Catholic Church one cannot find in other churches. Indeed, that is among its strengths. The question, however, is if those are the treasures which one should seek.

Tom Leith

Whether or not the claims of the Catholic Church are true is the only important question in life. I tell people if they want Organized Religion the choices are Mormonism and Scientology.

§   

Mick Lee

Tom: As a Lutheran, "sola fide" is the most important doctrine on which the church stands or falls.

By "organized religion", do you means an institution with a strong top-down authority? If so, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Indeed, I should think that would be important to a Catholic. Others, however, would say "organized religion" would encompass many other communities of faith. Certainly "freethinkers" would find your definition too strict.

As a far Lutherans are concerned, the true Church is found where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments are kept. That would include the Catholic Church in many ways. In more exacting detail, there are seven marks of the true church: Confession and Absolution, The Word of God, Ministry, Worship, Suffering, Baptism, and The Lord’s Supper. With a strong top-down authority or absence one, the church can be found can be found in many, many places in the many expressions of the Christian faith and "traditions". Thus, the Lutheran Church is the one true Church--and not the only one. ("For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20)

Tom Leith

Thank you for your comments. I was being a little tongue in cheek with the "organized religion" comment -- it has more to do with a very strong group-think and the ability to "shun" (as in "eject from the Church and society") those who don't conform. As much as we might like to, we Catholics can't do that.

I've never figured out how anyone can speak of The Lutheran Church. Does this mean The Lutheran World Federation -- can the LWF "speak for", the Missouri Synod? Can it speak for anyone? Or maybe the Missouri Synod is no more Lutheran than the Old Catholics are Catholic? Or maybe the Missouri Synod is The Remnant of The Lutheran Church, and 95% of self-identified Lutherans have apostatized. I don't know -- but in the face of private interpretation of scripture, I've never figured out what could possibly unify Lutherans beyond "we're not Catholics".

Once private interpretation is admitted, anyone can claim to preach the Gospel "rightly". To close off private interpretation (I'll assume you somehow want to, or you wouldn't be worried about "rightly"), how does one know where the Gospel is preached "rightly"? It seems to me you need either Authority or Tradition. But the Lutheran vision of The Christian Church can't admit a living-in-time, speaking, acting Authority, only a (dead) text. This leaves Tradition. If you want to appeal to Tradition to determine whether a particular interpretation of the text is right, it seems important to examine what the Apostles and Fathers believed of texts. One thing they didn't believe was sola scriptura -- they all insisted on a living, speaking, acting Authority.

For you it seems the only important question is whether sola fides is true. Did the Church have it all wrong for a thousand years before the heroic Martin Luther set it all straight? Well, the Apostles and Fathers didn't believe in sola fides -- they all insisted on a faith working in love causing an increase in faith-- something explicitly rejected by Luther and the Formula of Concord. Not to mention the "work" of conserving one's own faith. So where do you go?

We Catholics recognize four marks of the true Church, classically expressed One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic. Each word may be understood according to a couple of different senses. A fuller explanation may be found here. By virtue of your baptism, we Catholics hold that you are baptized into the True Church, and indeed, where two or three are gathered in His Name, there He is with them. Our communion is nevertheless impaired.

As much as I have to grit my teeth at bad liturgy, worse preaching, episcopal incompetence, malfeasance, ... ad infinitum, and apparent disunity in the highest places (look at the Kasper Proposal for redefining adultery and therefore marriage, or sacrilegious confession & absolution, take your pick) they're what the Lord gave us. The Church Hierarchy is (paradoxically) a cross for the Christian. Oh well. But look at Jesus' warning to them!  Duty calls. Thanks for the conversation.

§   

§   

Mick Lee

If you are embarrassed by the liturgy, preaching, etc. within the Catholic Church, the mortification for most Lutherans is its disunity. The lack of accord has many reasons which I won't go into here. The Lutheran World Federation is actually that: a federation. Each of its member churches retain their "sovereignty"; thus any agreements and compacts with other non-Lutheran Churches are largely non-binding. This is confusing to Catholics and they certainly have reason to be. But the Lutheran Church never has had an institutional, central authority as such.

What we do have is the Book of Concord: a collection of founding documents such as the Augsburg Confession, Luther's catechisms, the three ecumenical Creeds of the ancient Church, and several other "symbols". Subscription to these are what defines what it means to be Lutheran. Whatever else could be said about them, all these are subservient to Scripture rather than separate authorities. Pope Benedict likened them to a "tradition" somewhat in the Catholic sense; but there has been some significant development of doctrine since the 1500's.

It should be noted the Lutherans never have put too much stock in a "visible" Church as being a defining aspect of the True Church. Instead, the True Church is "invisible", the faithful known to God, spanning the whole world within and beyond the reach of any one institution--Catholic, Lutheran, or otherwise. Thus, it doesn't particularly bother us that we don't have a Pope, St. Peter's, or a magisterium. Catholics usually have a difficult time believing we take this seriously--but there ya go.

It is usually a surprise to most Catholics that Luther was strictly opposed to "private interpretation" of Scripture. In gets quite involved how proper interpretation is arrived at but the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture is the cornerstone. Lutheran theologians frequently consult with the many understanding the historic Church has taken through the ages; but their validity is only proved by their adherence to the Gospel. To those valuing a visible, ecclesiastic authority, this is likely to be unsatisfactory; but I think you might be surprised how well it works in practice.

By the way, Lutherans would be horrified at your description of Scripture as "dead text". The Word of God is a living Word.

As for "sola fide", the doctrine has ample pronouncements among the teachers and doctors of the Church beginning at the very least with St. Augustine himself. So, no, the Catholic Church never had it all wrong. It mostly had it right.

In regards to faith and works, Lutherans separate justification from sanctification. The first being how one is made righteous before God; and the second being taking up the Cross of Christ and following Him. In technical terms, Catholics believe in a synergisitic relationship between faith and action whereas Lutherans take a Divine monergistic view. The Methodists and the Orthodox share Catholic synergism. To many other Christians, it appears to them to be a distinction without a difference. Those involved in ecumenical discussions between Catholics and Lutherans tend to downplay this variance.

Historically, one of the great strengths of the Catholic Church was its ability to absorb many different movements in the Christian world which often times disagreed with one another--much of the time listening to all without rejecting differences entirely. . The tragedy of the Reformation was that in this case the Catholic Church did not play to its forte. Luther wanted to reform the Church--not leave it. Instead, after the Diet of Worms, the Church excommunicated him and then put him under a death warrant. Not exactly a way of bringing hotheaded sons back into the family. From there tragedy compounded upon tragedy.

The Lord has a way of "writing straight with crooked lines". As Lincoln said, each side appeals to the same God for vindication; but the Lord has His own purposes.

Tom Leith

You're covering a lot of ground here. I'm aware generally of Brother Martin's history and what he taught, but I am in no position at all to offer an in-depth discussion.
Here's an article by a priest I know who's a convert to the Church from evangelical Protestantism, and who worked for several years as a lay teacher with the Lutheran mission in New Guinea. He tackles the "Faith, Works and Justification" question here.

In a nutshell, the Catholic Church says we are justitied/saved by faith alone, not by good works, but can be un-justified by bad works. Luther said we are justitied/saved by faith alone, not by good works, and can only un-justified by losing faith (so sin boldly!). Calvin said we are justitied/saved by faith alone, not by good works, and can never be un-justified. Calvin and Luther were contemporaries, both looked to "scripture alone", and could not agree on somthing so basic as this. If you want to talk about death sentences, Calvin's Geneva was famous for them.

I'm not an Augistinian scholar (or any other kind really), and there are different sorts of "merit", but Augustine talked so much about merit I don't think it can be sustained that Augustine taught sola fides in the same sense Luther (or Calvin) did. With respect to "merit" the Council of Trent makes clear that one can never merit/deserve justification/salvation. Still, contra Luther, we can lose it even if we "believe". God may or may not offer us justification again after that.
I hope the points that divide Christians may be overcome and we can face together the non-Christian world which is so very much in need of the Gospel. It took the Church 1,000 years to convert Europe. I figure it will take 2,000 years to convert America to an integral Christianity. If God permits the world to go on that long.

Mick Lee  

It is somewhat tiresome but it has to be pointed out that Lutherans do not claim John Calvin as one of their own; thus we do not answer to his doctrines nor his actions. (Nor did Lutherans ever approve of putting “unbelievers” to death as Calvin had done.) While it may be fair to say Luther and Calvin were “contemporaries”, they were born 26 years apart. Roughly speaking, in other words, they were a generation apart. Calvin’s first volume of his Institutes was published in 1536 only ten years prior to Luther’s death. Neither knew, met, or wrote to each other. There is some evidence Luther knew about a few of Calvin’s writings and in one case, in a letter to Bucer, he sent his regards. Calvin, however, had read quite a few of Luther’s works, but felt free to pit himself against him.

The difference between Luther and Calvin regarding losing faith (Luther) and always and forever justified (Calvin) stems from a disagreement over predestination: Calvin believed in double predestination while Luther did not. As far as Lutherans are concerned, the doctrine of double predestination proceeds from reason—but not the Scriptures. As Luther saw it, the doctrine of double predestination is the result of philosophy invading the realm of Scripture; an act Luther saw as a profound violence against any notion of “Sola Scriptura” and the Scriptures themselves. Luther abhorred such speculation (and all speculation in general in matters of the faith). This accounts for the superficial observation that Luther and Calvin came to two different conclusions from the
same Scriptures.

I am very surprised with your suggestion (or so it may appear) that Luther and Lutherans subscribe to a sort of antinomianism: ‘Luther said we are justified/saved by faith alone, not by good works, and can only un-justified by losing faith (SO SIN BOLDLY!) [emphasis mine]” What Luther actually said was: “, “Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.” And. “saving faith is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...THUS, IT IS JUST AS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE FAITH AND WORKS AS IT IS TO SEPARATE HEAT AND LIGHT FROM FIRE!

Put another way, justification (being made righteous before a Holy God) and sanctification (taking up the cross and following Christ) are two different things. But sanctification is a consequence of a living faith in Christ and by no means to be is it to be optional. Works are good, necessary, and praiseworthy; but they are not channels of grace.

In the case of St. Augustine, he wrote: “If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? … Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then,was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.

When someone believes in Him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.” ( Expositions of the Psalms 1-32. Exposition 2 of Psalm 31.)

Thus we say, there is plenty of precedence for Sola Fide in the testimony of the Church. As John Henry Newman wrote, a Christian doctrine often is developed many years after the time of Christ; but the seeds of that doctrine were present from the very beginning in the Apostles. Newman, of course, would have disagreed; but Lutherans see the roots of Sola Fide there in the New Testament and the Christian writings and teaching thereafter.

As a final note, I trust you didn’t actually mean to say Lutherans subscribe to an antinomianism. (That is, believe and sin all you wish) Yet it is sometimes said of us by our critical Catholic brethren. I should think such should be a bit more careful in throwing this charge around. After all, a common, vicious, and false trope freethinkers and other malcontents maintain about Catholics is that the practice of Catholics is “sin, go to confession, then sin some more with abandon”. That is not true at all and I would hope Catholics would not employ a similar slander against us.

  

OBERGEFELL V. HODGES AND THE SCANDAL OF THE CHURCH

In the wake of the Supreme Courts recent decision in Obergefell v. Hodges which essential mandated the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in all fifty States, Justin Raimondo writes of his recanting of his original Libertarian case against gay marriage.   

Raimondo explains himself in a long rambling piece in the American Conservative too difficult to summarize here; but the real meat of his article come toward the very end:  

Ironically, my pro-gay marriage epiphany had its origins in the course of reading an article ^[3] in National Review opposing gay marriage by C.C. Pecknold, an associate professor of theological, social, and political thought at the Catholic University of America in Washington, and author of Christianity and Politics: A Brief Guide to the History. Pecknold writes:

One reason why marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution is that the Founders recognized that the institution of marriage was a common good of the society and prior to politics. Put differently: Constitutional silence on marriage indicates a commitment to limited government that has so far eluded our debates about marriage in this country….

The fundamental distinction on which a commitment to limited government rests is developed in conversation with ancient classical thought. Augustine was probably the first great theorist of ‘society’ as something that is ‘pre-political’ and that finds its most basic unit in the family. But as Thomas Aquinas notes, Aristotle also recognized this. The Philosopher says in the Nichomachean Ethics that man is more inclined to conjugal union than political union. Human beings are ‘social animals’ before they are “political animals.’ [Emphases added]

Pecknold goes to argue that this justifies the State’s interest in recognizing and defending marriage as an institution, but he doesn’t realize that his premise—“The political union,” he writes, “is subsequent to the prior reality”—undermines his case.

For in looking at my own life, and the lives of my gay friends, I saw that this also applied to us. That is, I looked at my own 19-year relationship with the same person, and thought: Well, yes, “the political union is subsequent to the prior reality”—but that doesn’t mean the political union is invalid (although it may not be necessary, given the preferences of the individuals involved).

While Pecknold goes on to give an ontological-mystical spin to his case against gay marriage, arguing that “this provides the West with an anthropology for understanding that future citizens come into the world through the union of a man and a woman,” this is easily separable from the rest of his line of thought, which is contained in these very powerful sentences:

When the state recognizes the nature of marriage as something prior to itself, it secures its own limits. When we acknowledge and recognize that by nature we are both social and political, we suddenly change the nature of politics. Our government no longer is tempted to define the whole of reality.

The irony here is that Pecknold’s piece tried to show that gay marriage is incompatible with the principle of limited government: ironic because he’s arguing for extending the State’s authority to prohibit a practice that existed “prior to itself.”

That homosexuality existed prior to the founding of the American Republic is beyond dispute: ever hear of Damon and Pythias, or Zeus and Ganymede? The scholar John Boswell documented the existence of homosexual unions throughout ancient  and medieval  times, and shows that they were given some form of legal recognition during the Roman era.

To Raimondo, the case boils down to that the principle of limited government means that the State should have no role in defining marriage.  Thus, in a free society, gay men and women should have the same right as heterosexuals to marry.  This is essentially his case for "marriage equally".

Raimondo's citing of John Boswell is curious in that other scholar's have heavily criticized his work in that he had taken his evidence and made much more out of them than they really were.  Still, to many, Boswell is regarded by many as the last word in the historical existence and legal recognition of gay marriage.  Not being a historian myself, I have no expertise which qualifies me to render a fair judgment of Boswell's conclusions.  Nevertheless, given controversy surrounding his contentions,  it seems clear to me that Boswell hardly rates being the "final word" on the matter.

Of course, Raimondo's argument is libertarian one--not a conservative.  Libertarians by nature deem that societal norms should be given little to no power or authority.  The idea that marriage is a pre-existing institution, that is a foundation which came before the creation the State, cuts no ice with him.  The conservative outlook is that government should weak (limited) and society strong.  Custom and tradition have an authority separate from the laws of government.  But Libertarians regard any social norm and sanction which interferes which their choices and desires as illegitimate.  In the typical conservation theory that the formation of any society requires justice, order, and liberty, the only element Libertarians are interested in is liberty:  justice and order are only subservient to liberty. The State's major function is to protect their liberty against all interlopers. 

The problem which such a State is that it must be powerful to protect all the freedoms Libertarians would like to claim for themselves.  In how we organize our lives together, the State reaches into all aspects of public and private affairs and sets their meanings and conventions.  It sets what can be expected and required  in human relationships.  The personal does become political.  The private and societal spheres increasingly shrink as the State extends itself  beyond its original authority.

As Raimondo now sees it, limited government means that it does not place any boundaries around marriage.  Gays should be able to marry whomever they choose and be able to expect all its benefits.  But the reality is, in order to establish the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, the Supreme Court uses the power of the State to command the acknowledgment of "marriage equality" in all times and places beyond the debates and democratic deliberations of America's citizens. 

By tradition, marriage's central concern for both society and the State was for the children.  That children would have the strong bonds of two biological parents to raise, protect, and care for them.  What the Supreme Court had done was establish the modern notion that marriage was about two loving people for which children were only an incidental and optional matter which had no direct bearing on the relationship itself.   Thus, the State is the one that tells us what marriage is.

Raimondo ends his article stating that the expectation of fidelity in heterosexual marriages would be unlikely to be an observed feature in same-sex ones.  One wonders how well the expectation of fidelity actually survives today among heterosexual couples..  This points to a real point same-sex advocates have made that truly elicits some sympathy from me.  We heterosexuals, since the middle of the twentieth century, have allowed ourselves all sorts of leeway from the ideal of chastity and faithful marriage.  Traditional norms are often flaunted with the expectation that no ostracism would follow. As some would have it, sex between a man and a woman has no more significance that a handshake.  In the face of all this, why shouldn't there be a little room for gay marriage?

But to orthodox Christians, this should highlight the disaster that followed the acceptance of the "new morality" of the 1960's.  Much suffering and misery (especially for children) came in its wake.  The "new morality's" incursion into the lives of the flock has only invited agony and misfortune.  Of course, some wouldn't have had it any other way as long as they got what they wanted.  But it is a scandal on the Church.  As much as we may deplore same-sex marriage, in a real sense, we only brought it on ourselves.

ACCEPTANCE BY THE SWORD

Around our neck of the woods, we have a newly elected Republican state house and senate to match and Republican Governor.  One columnist in the capital's major newspaper decries the lack of major legislation to deal with what his sees as the major state issues: education, jobs, and crime.  Not that he himself has proposed what to do about these problems or point to anyone who does.  But such are the ways of columnists.

He also decries the "minor" issues the legislature has on its plate which are soon to be taken up.  Issues he regards as mere distractions--ignoring that the citizenry have voiced their concerns over these issues. 

One such concern is legislation which would protect merchants (I think they have bakeries, photographers and Churches in mind) from being compelled to apply their services to gay weddings.  He regards this as a divisive measure.  He writes:

"Following on the heels of last year’s painful debate over same-sex marriage, some lawmakers are pushing a bill that would allow holier-than-thou businesses to discriminate against customers whose lives they judge to be offensive. "

I have no expertise in matters of constitutional law regarding these subjects.  My guess is that the proposed legislation would run afoul the judgment of the courts; but then who knows?  Some would say it would depend on the judges these laws would come before.

What jumps out from the article is the utter contempt the columnist has for those with inconvenient religious objections.  Such is revealed in his delicate phrase " holier-than-thou businesses ".  In his view, one may hold these despicable convictions, but one can't act on them.  To allow such businesses to withhold their services is divisive.  But compelling these businesses to work gay wedding--thereby provoking the resentment of many Christians, Muslims, and orthodox Jews--would not be so disruptive.

Liberals--of which this columnist has exhibited a history of liberal convictions--typically have little use for people unlike themselves.  Multiculturalism is the watchword; but genuine pluralism is beyond the pale.  One would think a genuine liberal would treat their opponents with generosity and respect.  But sweeping conformity to the liberal vision of a just society is the order of the day.

This country has had a long history of making accommodations to those whose beliefs are outside the norm.  Laws which allow the Amish to use their buggies on state roads, not force their children to attend school past the eighth grade, and exempt themselves from military conscription come immediately to mind.  If faithful businesses wish to lose trade to more accommodating merchants, why not let that be their loss?

But, in reality, none of this about gay weddings, flowers, cakes, or photographs.  The real point of all these efforts to compel these services is to remove any public suggestion that there may be something morally questionable about homosexuality.  One may harbor one's objections (damn your soul!); but it is not to be brought up among polite company.  There is a steady campaign from liberal Christians which delivers an admonition that the church must be "welcoming" to cohabitating heterosexual couples, the "welcoming" of these couples into the church means that it must not bring up Biblical rebukes to the sexual arrangements they have undertaken.  In the same way, a "welcoming" atmosphere in the church and society at large for gays requires that moral objections to homosexual behavior must be kept under wraps if not vigorously condemned.

 Many within the church (as well as many outside of it) are fond of saying that in "ten years" everyone will recognize the essential health of homosexuality and wonder what all the fighting was about.  Some even go so far to say even the most conservative fundamentalists and evangelicals will say they were all for the full acceptance of homosexually all along.  I've heard this "ten year" prediction since the 1970's.  Perhaps, in the next ten years, they will be proven right.  I would count on it.

We have come a long way from the days of "what two people do behind closed doors is nobody's business".  Now, in least to some degree, it's everyone's business.  One columnist I once had a lengthy exchange with put it to me that he didn't see how two men or two women marrying each other would have any impact on his life.  I wonder if he would now say the same thing if by law he was obliged to provide his services to a wedding he had no desire to approve by his participation?

CATHOLICISM: SCRIPTURE AND GRACE

A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a blog entitled "Lutheran / Catholic Reconciliation and Reunion of All Christians".  It was not what I thought it could be.  Indeed, while it might have been a center for Lutheran and Catholic dialogue, in fact, the blogger, Kathy Suarez, writes quite critically of Lutheranism.  Often she engages in stock Catholic tropes which display no understanding of Lutheranism itself.  The following is an exchange between Ms. Suarez and myself.  Unfortunately, she did not see fit to respond to my last entry.  I thought there could have been more for each of us to say.

Not my best writing.  Maybe I could have been a bit more diplomatic.  But I leave it to the reader to decide for themselves.

Catholicism: Scripture and Grace

November 01, 2014

by Kathy Suarez

3 Comments

One simple way to express the essence of Catholicism is with the words “Scripture and Grace.”  In Matthew 16:18 we read that Jesus founded the Church upon Peter.  “You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”

Some will argue that Jesus changed his mind about founding his Church upon Peter when the disciple questioned Jesus about his prophecy of his great suffering in Jerusalem, being killed and raised from the dead (Matthew 16:21-23).  This argument does not stand up when placed in context with the rest of Scripture.  Peter loved Jesus.  Peter’s statement was not malicious or sinful.  He simply did not understand.  Jesus is God — He did not revoke his solemn pronouncement about the foundation and structure of his Church because of Peter’s inability to understand the plan of God at one particular moment.  Peter’s weakness throughout the Gospel reveals the inherent message that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Immediately after this, in Matthew 17, we read that “Six days later” Jesus took “Peter and James and his brother John” to the mountain of the Transfiguration.  If Jesus had rejected Peter as head of the disciples, why would he take him to the Transfiguration, and why would Peter’s name be listed first in the Gospel account? (Matthew 17:1,2)  This is the full context of the Scripture passage, Matthew 16:13-28.

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus promised that the forces of evil will not prevail against his Church.  He did not say that the Church would not have any problems.  Christ protects the Church down through the ages.  This is Grace.  It takes faith to believe this.  The grand irony of the Reformation is that Martin Luther cried “Faith, faith, faith!” but then lost his faith that God would protect and guide the Church, by Grace, as Christ founded it, upon Peter and his successors.

It is also good to note a second important and foundational Scripture: John, Chapter 6.  Here is proof of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and, interestingly and prophetically, the account of how “many of his disciples” could not accept it and “no longer went about with him” (John 6:66-69).  Luther, besides breaking away from the Church, also altered and diminished the Eucharist.

Jesus is Lord of the Church, and his Church is guided by the power of the Holy Spirit through the successors of Peter, the Magisterium.  This is how Christ established the Church and how he continues to guide and protect it.  Scripture and Grace.  If you cannot believe this, look at the alternative: The chaos of the Protestant movement — thousands and thousands of small churches and denominations each going its own way.

3 Comments

1.     Mick Lee November 25, 2014 at 10:37 pm Reply

Even if (for the sake of argument) Jesus meant that He was to build His Church upon Peter, it hardly follows that there is a straight line from Peter to the Catholic Church as we now have it. Indeed, it is hardly proved that Peter was ever bishop of Rome.

Protestants generally are puzzled at the Catholic obsession with “the Church”. What divides Protestants from Catholics is doctrine–that is their obsession–particularly the Lutheran doctrine of sola fide. Catholic laymen and laywomen are generally loath to discuss doctrine–and Lutherans find there is a lot of ignorance about what Lutherans actually believe. There is a lot of nonsense about “Luther wanted his own church” and Luther “made up his own religion”. As a matter of history, Luther never wanted to leave the Catholic Church: he wanted to reform it. But the Pope kicked him out and had the Emperor put Luther under an order of death on sight. This was followed by a series of persecutions of all who came to be called Lutherans. So, while Catholics cry in their beer about a divided Church. they should remember the blood on their own hands and the part they played in dividing the Church. Catholics should also remember the Church was gravely divided long before the Reformers were born. (Of which the Catholic Church played no small part.)

Aside from all this, it is a wonder why Catholics think the Catholic Church is such an attractive option. When Protestants look at the Catholic Church, they see a mess. Factions at each others’ throats. They see a lot of unholy political intrigue in choosing a Pope. They see a Catholic Church seriously rent by those who listen to it’s Magisterium and those who publicly denounce it. (If one cannot subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church, Protestants are put off by such people who don’t have the integrity to leave it.)

Catholics themselves often are the worst advertisements for the Church. When I was in college, I met many Catholic youth who gone through Catholic schools and resented it. Indeed, they were the bitterest people I had ever met. They said things I would never say about the Catholic Church. It seemed I have more respect for the Catholic Church than these vinegary individuals. And my experience with these miscreants is hardly unique.

What would Christ say about this “fruit of the tree”?

How can one deal with this sort? Once I had invited a Catholic friend to an ecumenical gathering for all Christians on campus. He replied with language unfit to print and then told me he had already had his “God-time”. I thought it was tragic. For the sake of his own soul, I had hoped he would reconcile himself to the Catholic Church. I never attempted to make him a Lutheran–knowing that was just a bridge too far. But he preferred a godless existence to a life of faith.

So your construction and “proof-texting” for the sole legitimacy of the Church of Rome is useless when Protestants behold the various “fruits” of the Catholic Church. Many Protestants don’t even think the Catholic Church is Christian. (As a Lutheran, I strongly object to this contention.)

The Catholic Church is broken. It has a lot of work to do in its own backyard before it goes off on Protestants.

Kathy Suarez November 26, 2014 at 5:32 pm Reply

Hi Mick — I’m sorry that you feel the way you do about the Catholic Church. Sounds like you’ve had some bad experiences. Just remember that the Catholic Church is very large and there are all sorts of people in it.

I’ve said many times on this blog that Luther was not “kicked out” of the Church by the Pope. Luther was excommunicated. He chose to leave after that. My use of Matthew 16:18 is not “proof-texting.” From the earliest days of the Church, and for 2,000 years, the Church has held that Peter is the Rock, the foundation of the Church, and that the Popes are his successors.

The Catholic Faith is very simple. Try to keep an open mind… and thanks for reading my blog.

Mick Lee November 26, 2014 at 11:32 pm Reply

Sorry. When excommunication is followed by an order for him to killed, I’d say “kicked out” is a polite way to put it. That is why he was “kidnapped” by friendly forces and spirited into hiding as it was unlikely he would make it back to Wittenberg alive by himself. Persecution of Lutherans afterword removed any notion that the Catholic Church regarded them as remaining in the fold.

I have long believed that if the Catholic Church had absorbed Lutheran theology as it had with order challenging movements (perhaps making Lutherans a special order within the Church), the divide could have been avoided. After all, Lutherans are Augustinians at heart.

Indeed, present day Catholic theologians are far more tolerant and understanding of Luther (not that they agree with him) than in the days of old. If the same tolerance had been forthcoming when Luther and his followers were alive, we would be Catholics still.

I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for the Catholic Church and spend a great deal of time dispelling falsehoods common among other Protestants. As you may know, a lot of other Protestants regard the Lutheran Church as essentially Catholic–and they don’t mean that as a compliment. When I am in ecumenical gatherings, I am met with a great deal of suspicion and uneasiness when I talk about the Gospel. To many, I am a “closet Catholic” because I am a Lutheran.

I have considered becoming a Catholic several times; but I was always held back after viewing the Catholic Church as it is rather than in the ideal. Sadly, the Catholic Church is just not all that attractive. I may not like much of the Lutheran Church is its modern manifestations, but it is my home and where I am accepted by others who share the Lutheran faith. When I have attended Mass (my sister is a Catholic), I cannot say the same.

I have met many, many Catholics who feel they have been wounded by the Church in some way (sometimes I don’t think they are being fair). But what is it about the Catholic Church that brings this about?

I believe someday the Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church will be reunited. But, in spite of the warm relations between us, that time is not now.

SO THE ELCA WANTS TO HAVE ANOTHER "CONVERSATION".

So the ELCA wants to have another "conversation".  Sure sign that it wants to institute another change in practice if not theology--although one generally follows the other.  This time, it concerns something euphemistically called "radical hospitality".  I would prefer a conversation over "radical Lutheranism"; but the ELCA's sights are supposedly set a bit lower. 

The trouble with many such conversations within the ELCA is that they follow a set form and (like the 2009 sexuality decision) wind up in the same place:  "Traditionally, Lutherans have believed "X" and many Lutheran still believe.  Meanwhile, other Lutherans in the modern context believe the Scriptures have been misread and thus believe "Y".  Still, others hold a middle ground and believe "M".  Still others take another view and hold "Q"."  There then follows much discussion, much of it employing abstract categories not to be found in classic, historical Christian Scriptural commentary or theology.  In the end, the final "agreement" is slapped on with the appropriate boilerplate of asserting and advocating respect for the spiritual discernment and faithfulness of all parties.  And then, (as with the 2009 sexuality statement) concluding something to the effect:  "Since no consensus exists among us…therefore, we will do what we wanted to do to begin with and change--not that you have to agree with the direction we have chosen to take.  That's OK.  You don't have to agree to belong.  Isn't it wonderful we Christians can be like that!"

As I related several posts ago, I was not born in the Lutheran Church.  I became a Lutheran many of present day Lutherans did:  when my mother was remarried to a Lutheran.  Perhaps because I began as an outsider (originally raised in a fundamentalist church until the age of ten), I still find some attitudes cradle Lutherans have to be a bit…well…odd.  One of those is I am still amused to find how absolutely honked-off many Lutherans get when they are not allowed to take communion in a WELC or LCMS church.  Of course, many don't stop being offended with Wisconsin and Missouri--they also get the noxious vapors when the Catholic Church will not allow them to share the table during mass either. 

"Well. I can go down to the local Baptist (Methodist, Presbyterian or Congregationalist) church and they don't have any problems with me."

Of course, most Protestant Churches do not believe there are such things a sacraments; so their threshold of sensitivity would be quite negligible.   But for the ELCA's champions of hospitality, that is all beside the point.

It always seemed to me that ,instead of being offended, one should give a little deference to the practices of other denominations and congregations out of simple respect.  They have their reasons and they should do what they think is right.  The Orthodox Church practices closed communion in view of the Scriptural reference of the church being the bride of Christ and as in marriage the church must be careful not to let anyone defile the wedding bed.  I myself don't necessarily follow this line of thought; but one has to grant that it is a reasonable one and respect it.  In any case, it doesn't seem our divines see it that way:  hospitality overrules all other concerns.

The bottom line of this practice of "radical hospitality" is to allow the unbaptized to take communion.  This goes against the long standing practice of the church of insisting that only those within the family of God are acceptable at the table and it is through baptism one becomes a child of God.  True hospitality is with the open invitation to baptism into the Lord's kingdom.  As tradition would have it, this practice goes all the way back to the early church.   Thus the burden rests with our would be "reformers" to not just make a persuasive case but a convincing one.  This is especially essential in view of our ecumenical efforts with the Catholic and Orthodox churches.   There is nothing to be gained by throwing another obstacle in our efforts to unify the entire Christian Church--of which the Catholic and Orthodox Churches comprise the lion's share of Christians in the world.

Nevertheless, the move is to remake the practice of the church according to a modern abstraction.  By their lights, the Lord's table is meant for all and is not the possession of the church:  thus they propose to have a fully "open" communion in which even the unbeliever may claim a place at the rail.  It is under the imperative of "hospitality" that this new practice is mandated.

But in Christian practice, is "hospitality" really to be so all encompassing?  Indeed, in New Testament, the word "hospitality" cannot be found outside of Peter and Paul's instructions to the saints in how to treat one another and qualities to be found in choosing a bishop.  As far as communion is concerned, there is even a warning found in 1 Corinthians 11 of ills which will befall those who "eateth and drinketh unworthily" the bread and cup of the Lord.  One could argue that true hospitality would require the faithful to protect those outside the fold from bringing harm upon themselves by taking communion unfaithfully.

But Paul R. Hinlicky in Lutheran Forum (August 18, 2014) explains the issue much better than I ever could:

The Truth about "Radical Hospitality"

by Paul R. Hinlicky — August 18, 2014  

“Radical hospitality” is the catchphrase given to movements among mainline American Protestants to invite, as a matter of principle, unbaptized persons to the holy Supper. It is already practiced in some ELCA congregations and is reported to be a topic of conversation among the ELCA Conference of Bishops this fall. What is the theological justification for such a move?...

What is the theological justification for such a move? Something that can fairly be characterized as “radical hospitality” is a special emphasis of the Gospel of Luke. Disciples are to “go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled” (14:23). “When you give a dinner or a banquet,” Jesus admonishes, “do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just” (14:12–14). The latter reference to the resurrection in Jesus’ statement is the key to the interpretation of radical hospitality as a strictly theological possibility—that is, a reality created by God’s promise, not by human efforts. This new way in generosity for disciples who follow their Lord is grounded in the gift of God: “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32).

As Luke also makes clear, this gift of God brings with it a corresponding repentance: a transformation of human subjectivity and a reorientation of human activity. John the Baptist declares, “Bear fruits in keeping with repentance!” (3:8). Receiving the radical hospitality of the heavenly Father by the calling of His Son entails transformation by the Spirit: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). As in a climax, it is to the penitent thief, who has identified with the dying Jesus, that He promises in turn, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). That is radical hospitality, according to the Gospel of Luke.

Radical hospitality is forgiveness for the sinner—only the sinner. It is food for the hungry—only the hungry. It is life for the dead—only the dead. It is only our doing insofar as it is first of all and primarily our being transformed as recipients of the Lord’s radical grace: radical (from Latin radix, “root”) like the axe cutting to the root in Luke 3:9.

It would be a very selective and highly distorted reading of Luke to turn penetrating, life-transforming, change-in-direction, divine hospitality into the characteristic cheap grace and sanctified permissiveness of North American liberal Protestantism. But, sadly, that is what is now being proposed under the name of Luke’s radical hospitality, which proposes to revoke the rule of faith from the earliest days of the church: namely, that the Lord’s Supper is for the baptized. In other words, the Lord’s Supper is for those who in principle and often in power know that they are the sinner, the hungry, the dead and the dying, because they have been baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection.

This kind of thing has been tried before. I recall a story that Richard John Neuhaus once told me of the heady days of the late 1960s when “radical” Lutheran pastors went in their vestments onto the New York City subways, offering the body and blood to total strangers. He didn’t quite make it clear whether he was one of them. It is not utterly wrong, to be sure, that idealistic young pastors experiment by pushing the envelope in the direction of outreaching grace. But there is a lot wrong with failing to take note of failed experiments, and with failing to push toward a deeper diagnosis of the presenting problem in the church’s administration of the means of grace.

Repentance in the sense of dying to sin with Christ in order to rise with Christ is not a precondition of grace. It is rather the form grace takes in repossessing a person who has belonged, mind and body, to the sinful world of violence and injustice. Accordingly, our teacher in the faith, Martin Luther, composed the programmatic declaration of the Ninety-Five Theses (the five hundredth anniversary of which we will celebrate in a few short years): “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent,’ he meant for the entire life of the Christian to be one of repentance.”

As generations have since learned from Luther’s Small Catechism, this lifelong gift and practice of repentance by faith in Jesus Christ consists in dying daily to sin in order that “I may belong to him, live under him in his kingdom, and serve him in eternal righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as he is risen from the dead and lives and rules eternally.” The gift of a new life is grounded in our baptism into Christ and is nurtured along the way by the communion of the baptized in the holy Supper of the Lord.

Proposals in the air to alter the ELCA’s understanding of the radical hospitality of God would suspend baptism as the necessary preparation for reception of the Lord’s Supper, in contradiction to the document, “The Use of the Means of Grace: A Statement on the Practice of Word and Sacrament,” adopted by the fifth biennial assembly of the ELCA in 1997. These proposals reflect a genuinely felt pastoral need to welcome and include visitors at the eucharistic worship of the baptized, and this need is not to be dismissed lightly. However, there are better—indeed, far more “radical”—ways to clarify and address the need.

As it stands, this proposal to remedy a supposed feeling of exclusion tells us more about its proponents than about any imagined visitors. As such, it reflects a legalistic misunderstanding of the alleged “requirement” of baptism. It is as if going through the hoops of baptismal preparation and ceremony were a meritorious precondition, rather than the Spirit’s own gracious preparation by the gospel and through the pastoral ministry of visitation, evangelization, and catechesis.

The elephant in the room, if this diagnosis is right, is the utter lack of such ministry between Sundays and its invisibility in the practice of the Supper among those who are baptized. Under these conditions, of course the invitation to the Lord’s Table still “limited” to all the baptized cannot but feel exclusionary.

Yet this feeling is projected upon the visitor. Would I as a Christian feel “excluded” when visiting a synagogue service or a Muslim call to prayer or for that matter a Masonic Lodge or the Kiwanis, if I possessed the minimal self-awareness that I came as a visitor to see, not a believing member to participate? I think not. The feeling of exclusion wells up in those contemporary Christians whose gospel has become pure, abstract inclusivism. It is they who feel awkward and uncomfortable with the non-negotiable presupposition that the gospel’s gift consists in our personal transformation, signed and sealed by holy baptism.

If anything, this so-called radical hospitality at the communion table indicates how empty the theology and practice of baptism have become. Baptism itself is the true radical hospitality: as the Book of Acts illustrates and the Pauline Epistles declare, the washing in the triune name is a relinquishment of every “dividing wall of hostility” (Ephesians 2:14) that exists between human communities, whether they are Greek or Jew, male or female, slave or free (Galatians 3:28). Indeed, our actual congregations may not reflect this baptismal theology very well at all. But the solution is hardly to be found in shelving the intent of the Supper, too.

The logical alternative is not, as some would suppose or accuse, to police the communion table. It has been a step in the right understanding of holy communion to invite all who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to participate in the Supper, rather than to restrict participation to those in our denominational corner. Rather, a two-part response is called for: a truly evangelistic invitation to the unbaptized to the radical hospitality of the gospel that is the repentant life of baptism itself, and a truly catechetical ministry among the baptized to live out their vocations as the radically hospitable and reconciling presence of Christ in the world.

By contrast, the proposal to invite the unbaptized to the table reflects and perpetuates the legalistic misunderstanding of the rule of faith. According to the true rule of faith, holy communion is for those baptized into Christ’s death, gospel forgiveness is for sinners, gospel food is for the hungry, and gospel life is for the dying. We who are in the tradition of Luther’s pro me should know how grace transforms our self-understanding: I am the sinner for whom Christ lived, I am the dying one for whom He died and rose, I am the hungry one whom He feeds.

How else could the reception of this Lord’s body and blood have any meaning whatsoever? Paul emphasizes that this Supper is not any old supper; it is to be eaten with the whole community that shares in the same repentance and faith of receiving the Lord Himself; it is not to be consumed in an unworthy manner (I Corinthians 11). How unworthy and deceitful it is on the part of Christians to invite the unbaptized to partake of this meal, without first teaching them to which Lord they are thereby binding themselves, whose holy cross they therewith take upon themselves!

The proposal to suspend the rule of faith in the name of radical hospitality wishes, even if unintentionally, to bypass the arduous way of personal transformation by conformation to Jesus Christ in His cross and resurrection. Indeed, it functionally replaces engagement with the person of Jesus Christ and His calling daily to take up the cross with the abstract idea of “radical hospitality” or “unconditional grace,” which then takes on a life of its own. It proposes to market the eucharist as a no-fuss, no-bother, no-cost way of belonging without believing.

Ironically, this is but a new legalism and the sanctimoniousness of the “more-inclusive-than-thou” crowd. After the destructive tumult of the past five years, such proposals are particularly perilous to the fragile unity, not to mention ecumenical responsibilities, of the ELCA.

What is needed to address the pastoral and missiological needs of today is a serious commitment to and training in evangelism, apologetics, and catechesis. It is an abuse of the Supper—not to mention an abuse of the unbaptized—to make the sacrament into a tool of proselytism, taking advantage of visitors with no understanding of these holy things, least of all that their reception entails taking up the cross. It undermines the foundational unity of the church in one baptism. It confuses the radical hospitality of God in the gospel with religiously sanctioned permissiveness in a decaying culture. The proposal to suspend the rule of faith in this case would take the ELCA another huge and fatal step in the wrong direction.

OF COURSE, EVERY CHRISTIAN, IN AT LEAST IN SOME SMALL PLACE PART IN HIS HEART, IS A MONARCHIST

THE QUEST FOR A CHURCH WHICH LOOKS LIKE AMERICA

In the October issue of THE LUTHERAN magazine, Pastor Peter Marty bemoans the fact that the various races in America segregate themselves into the parishes of their choice every Sunday morning.  Martin Luther King made this observation in the 1960's and little has changed since.

The ELCA made it a goal to have more diversity within its membership; but after all these years it has little to show for it.  As in their want, either implicitly or directly, Marty and the ELCA leadership blame the average Lutheran in the pews.  The theory is the Lutheran in the pews is not "welcoming" or accepting.

This is probably true to a degree; maybe largely true.  But is this the major reason?  I have my doubts.

Human nature is that "birds of a feather…".  People do tend to gather with people like themselves.  This is a tough nut to crack--a nut most are not willing to crack for themselves just because the idealists in main-line Churches see diversity as the model they see for the Church.

Marty remarks:  "This tendency to segment into like types stands in sharp contrast to the ethnic diversity that helped make the first-century Christian church so robust. Early Christian leaders managed to form communities that cut across rigid class and ethnic lines, making Christ their chief common denominator."

Marty likes to believe this; but is this in fact historical?  Scripture indicates that the very early Church had congregations had both rich and poor, master and slave.  But how long did that last after the time of the Apostles?  In all likelihood, not long.  Christians in the very least segregated themselves according to doctrine.  And most congregations did not exist in multi-ethnic communities to begin with.  All of us romanticize what the early Church was like.  Nevertheless, the early Church was very disorganized and drew from their local communities.  There is very little to believe that yesterdays Christians were any different from what we are.

The odd thing today is that Churches which advertize themselves as "inclusive" actually have very little diversity within their own congregations.  This contrasts with many denominations Lutherans tend to look down their noses.

Years ago I attended a Jimmy Swaggart crusade in Indianapolis.  (How I got there is a long story for another time.  I should mention that this was before the sex scandals with befell the Swaggart ministry)  One of the things I observed was that without even trying the crowd which gathered itself there was more multi-ethnic and multi-racial than I had ever seen in any mainline worship service. 

Current data also reveals that the Catholic Church in the United States is far more diverse than any other American denomination.  On any given Sunday, a rich man, poor man, black, white, and Hispanic will all stand in the same line to receive the Host.  What does the Catholic Church have to teach us?

I don't know what the answer is.  I strongly suspect that we are not offering what many "non- Caucasians" are seeking.  By my lights, many of those we wish to take into our folds are Biblical literalists at heart.  The "narrative" style in our sermons which is so popular among our clergy is at best confusing and in spite of intention is hardly "relational" to the very people we are trying to reach.  In terms of the "progressive" theology common among us, theologically (and politically) we have little use for people much different from ourselves.

Again, I don't know what the answer is.  I am not even sure we should give a damn what color Lutherans (or Americans for that matter) will be in the future  One thing is for sure.  What we are doing now isn't working.