Andrew Matthews
In response to a comment I made about Christianity’s cultural accomplishments, Darryl Hart writes: “Who is this ‘we,’ white Calvinist man (read: Andrew)? Could it be that the we is Roman Catholicism? And could it be that all those good things in Rome came with the cost of missing what was most important — how we are saved and how we respond to God in worship?”
I should have given a more representative sampling of Christianity’s cultural achievements. Not all such achievements are “Roman Catholic.†I could have listed the practice of family life among Christians that became envied by Romans prior to Blessed Constantine. I could also have listed the laws against abortion, infanticide, and exposure of the elderly enacted by Constantine. Post-medieval accomplishments would include contributions made to emerging European languages by Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer, as well as the abolition of slavery (Wilberforce, John Newton) and racist law (the civil rights movement). And though I am unfamiliar with many of the details concerning Christian contributions to science, George Washington Carver’s well documented love of God and creation led to amazing discoveries and applications in the agricultural field. In recent times, the ID movement has been busily preparing Darwinism’s interment. Once evolution loses its grip on the popular mind, the cultural fallout will be astronomical.
Very well, let’s talk about Rome. Despite all her sins and failures, she shows no sign of diminishing as the pre-eminent Christian voice. For good or ill, Rome continues to set the standard for how Christianity represents Christ to the world, and even how different Christian bodies relate to one another. We all live in her shadow. We are constantly reacting to all that Roman Catholicism is and does.
Darryl, you are fond of saying that we can learn from pagan wisdom on how to live in the world; I suggest that we can also learn much from Rome. Over the centuries, what Rome has achieved is nothing short of breathtaking. From her missions of charity to her church councils and official pronouncements, from her remarkable personalities to her institutional procedures, Rome consistently demonstrates amazing competence in her affairs. Through her Distributist economic theory, her moral theology, and her world class theologians, philosophers and legal thinkers, Rome shows every sign of dominating the world’s intellectual future.
Finally, the traditional Roman liturgy and churchly (some would say–medieval) aesthetic is the standard by which all Christian worship in the west measures itself. A few Protestants claim to follow the “biblical pattern,†but the NT does not provide us with a description of early Christian worship. The essential elements are present, of course, but Scripture is silent as to how it all fits together. The Bible is not a book of church order.
Rome’s greatness and longevity can only be attributed to special divine care or satanic ingenuity. The latter might be argued, but I am inclined to doubt that God has allowed Satan such power over his people for so long. There are a billion Catholics in the world, far more than any other Christian body, and odds are that the majority of the regenerate are enfolded in the Roman communion.
Let’s talk about why a Reformed church council, much less a Protestant one, is inconceivable. Let’s talk about why the disciplinary actions of one church are (or even should be) rarely honored by other churches. Let’s talk about how seminaries substitute insufficiently for official teaching magisteria. Let’s talk about how ad hoc committees make insufficient substitutes for standing administrative bodies. Let’s talk about why every Protestant denomination has been unable to last longer than fifty years without falling into an irreversible decline in vitality. Let’s talk about why so few Protestants care about sacraments, faithful preaching, reverent worship, or Christian unity.
Perhaps we have tried so hard to be “not-Rome†we have suppressed the obvious truth that all we have came through her and all we will be (historically) is either positively or negatively dependent on her existence.
What if Rome redefined herself? What if she were able to jettison papal infallibility in favor of a less rigid conception of papal authority? What if she were able to repeal the anathemas of Trent? What if St. Thomas’ thought was assigned a less authoritative role? You might think these developments impossible. However, is it not our responsibility to constructively engage with our Catholic and Orthodox brethren on these matters? How is it not our responsibility?
Hoo-hoo! You’ve got the tiger by tail now, Andrew!
Now you are boldy taking the bull by the horns.
I was two thirds of the way through Philip Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism when I lost it! But, I have long romanticized the concept that the Reformation was the greatest flowering of the catholic Church. Schaff’s idea, not mine. Not well supported by the outcomes since the reformation in most respects. Hence, it is a romantic vision for me, not something I can defend.
I have often dreamed of Rome eschewing Papal infallibility. It is a catch-66 problem. Of course, some Popes have denied the concept, but were later overrulled by other popes. It may be that an ecumenical moment is coming, probably more through the influence of Orthodoxy than Protestantism, when Rome will offer further major modifications.
My impression of the RCC is that she is weak in her european homeland(s), but still strong in South America, and in some respects here in the States.
Anyway, I tend to read history much as you have represented it. My take on pre-reformation Christendom is that while the Roman Catholic structure was in place, until Trent, we did not have full blown ‘modern’ Romanism. But, I am too focused on the failures of Rome. Let’s give the common Christian Western heritage over to Rome, for the sake of the arugment.
What the Magisterial Reformers did was to preserve the concept of Christendom. They assumed the common Christian culture, and were really REFORMERS, not revolutionaries. But, the anabaptist type consensus which has overtaken modern evangelicalism has rejected this common heritage. Certainly Bucer, Knox, Calvin and Cranmer argued for the preservation of Christendom, including the fruits of the pre-reformation common Christianity.
You have boldly undertaken to accept the burden of both the difficulties and blessings of this history. A big task. I wish I had time and resources to be of more assistance in your endeavor!
Blessings,
Tony
I have a two-word response: the Jesuits.
Upon further reflection, a four-word response: the sufficiency of Christ.
Some related thoughts here:
http://japery.newpantagruel.com/2006/02/11/on_the_need_for_ecclesiological_education_among_evangelicals_bornagain_yesterday.php
Christ is in our midst.
Caleb – thank you for alerting me to this site. Andrew – thank you for your post as well.
Dr. Hart – I hold you in the deepest regards with great admiration and I have followed your work for some time now. Sadly I have to disagree with you in regards to your comments on this post. The Jesuits are giants among men. By the grace of God Fr. Jape and I are personal friends. (If you’re not familiar with Fr. Jape read The New Pantagruel). I (speaking for myself and no one else) am not worthy of shining his shoes or any of their (the Jesuits’) shoes. I refer you to a post of mine on the Jesuits.
http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2005/05/peter-milward-sj-jesuits-in-general.html
I challenge you, or anyone on this site, to read Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs Von Balthasar. It’s impossible to so easily dismiss their thought regardless if you are a serious scholar or a common man.
Now in regards your comment on “the sufficiency of Christ.” Catholics (Roman or Eastern, not all Catholics are Roman by the way) do not doubt nor reject the sufficiency of Christ. From an ontological perspective, the debate between our camps is one rooted in a differences of opinion in regards to nature and grace, of anthropology, and of soteriology. Again I refer you to the thought of de Lubac and Balthasar. Many times our differences are ones rooted in a confusion of semantics as well. Our differences are not rooted in the doctrines of God, i.e. the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. As Confessional Christians (rooted in the historic creeds of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) you are Catholic. Let us be honest about this fact, a historical fact which you Dr. Hart must recognize. The most important fact though is that God become man to save sinners of which I the first.
The question(s) that divide us are how Christ justifies us, how He sanctifies us and how He saves us? Can He use us humans (you and I) to do so in these processes of justification, sanctification and salvation? Are these done completely outside of us or through us? How does grace work in our human nature and let us not presuppose (as Van Til would like to say) total or radical corruption in man either. And what about merit? These questions and/or differences are not solely between Protestants and Catholics, but TRs vs Fed. Vision advocates and Calvinists vs. Arminians as well I must remind you. (Maybe that’s why Arminians are increasingly becoming friendly to Catholics on social issues but that’s a conversation for another time.)
I would grant to you that our division (between Protestants and Catholics) is also rooted in questions about authority which leads to questions about eccesiology. It’s not that God is not sovereign, on this issue of God’s sovereignty we both agree, but how does God emphasize his sovereignty in this world? How does God exercises His authority in the world through us fallible human beings? Through primarily or only His written word? Or through His word (both written and oral) and His personally appointed leaders of His Body on the earth, the Church, the New Israel?
Happy 4th of July my friends. May the fireworks begin! Let us recognize their beauty because everything is ultimately a reflection of Christ if it is true, beautiful and good.
I wonder if the continuity between Protestantism and Christendom lies in places other than the desire for a wonderful and God-honoring culture where church and state are walking arm in arm. Perhaps the continuity exists more at the level of disunity, competition and strife. After all, lots of historians of the western Europe observe that what made the West such a vital cultural force was the lack of unity, the political competition between various nobles and monarch and between emperors and the pope (even within the papacy — can anyone say “Avignon”) and the economic exchanges that flourished at the regional level.
Meanwhile, I’m still committed to my four-word response — the sufficiency of Christ. That assertion not only proved a deal breaker to such Roman Catholic ordinances as the mass, but it threw a wrench into the human quest to stand on God’s holy hill.
Protestantism arose within the crevices of this diverse and strife-ridden society — primarily in urban centers where the boureois were seeking political autonomy from bishops and lords, and commercial development. (Hey, Protestantism was emergent and missional way before McLaren came along.) And the sort of diversity that Protestantism encouraged was the kind that existed before the Reformation, before the papacy — fairly late to the game in its assertions of primacy and all that — clamped down and imposed order with Trent and subsequent developments.
So I’m all for the continuity thesis. But I’m less persuaded by the Christendom-as-New-Jerusalem view. Maybe what the Christian culture folks really want is Constantinople.
Well, I’m for the sufficiency of the whole Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, Christ one with His bride. Benson’s The Friendship of Christ may well be the most beautiful expression of this position.
Christ expresses Himself in culture – that’s the only continuity I know. That, and belonging to a Communion that doesn’t set itself above or apart from the strife, contention, betrayals, and failures of previous ages, as if we the living are sufficient unto ourselves in a way impossible for our forebears. It amuses me how folks who deny any history for themselves like to throw up the historical errors of a Church that does confess its history (Avignon, the Jesuits, etc). I think not only of D Hart but also the moralism of C Hitchens. (Is justification then merely the denial of the crimes, the burden, of history?)
Constantinople was a myth and a dream (and a dream well before Constantine) – as H. Rahner has documented in his Church and State. The contemporary fear of Constantine is perhaps that Christ is sufficient for individual salvation but not up to the leavening of culture. For it is always the person of Jesus Christ who changes society (corporate humanity) and not “Christian culture” per se.
Fred
David, sorry to disappoint. Sure the Jesuits have had some good moments, but their universities in the U.S. are not exactly bastions of RC orthodoxy. I only point this out because RCs often accuse Protestantism of lacking discipline and order. I’ll be more inclined to receive that criticism if Rome would bring contemporary Jesuits into line.
As for Frederick, this is not my blog so I’m in no position to exclude any contributor. But if you are going to enter this conversation from out of the blue with a wopper like “Christ expresses Himself in culture — that’s the only continuity I know” please don’t be surprised if this respondent doesn’t take you seriously (not to mention your gross comparison of me to Christopher Hitchens).
Why all this nice talk about Rome doesn’t hold so much with me:
“A new document authorized by Pope Benedict XVI restating Roman
Catholic views that Protestant denominations are not churches ‘in the proper
sense’ has been criticized as setting back the quest for Christian unity.
‘An exclusive claim that identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the one
church of Jesus Christ, as we read in the statement … goes against the
spirit of our Christian calling towards oneness in Christ,’ said the Rev.
Setri Nyomi, general secretary of the Geneva-based World Alliance of
Reformed Churches. The alliance groups 214 churches with roots in the 16th
Century Protestant Reformation.
The document says that Protestant denominations of the Reformation ‘have not
preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery
[and] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the
proper sense’.”
Here’s the direct link…
Here are some pertinent quotations from the statement by William Cardinal Levada:
“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word “subsists†can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one†Church); and this “one†Church subsists in the Catholic Church…
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.â€
So it’s still a matter of catching the crumbs from Rome any way you cut it if the “fullness of grace and of truth… has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”.
The reformation, in my mind has shown it to be the other way around.
Small “c” catholic for me.
sixteenninety,
It would seem that you agree with this document even if from “the other way around.”
What is fullness from Rome’s POV is idolatrous excessiveness from many a Protestant POV. The Catholic and Orthodox churches preserve the traditional definition of the local church: the people united with their bishop, the bishops having received a mandate in history from Christ. This position is necessarily distinct from ahistoric and individualistic models of the Church.
And yet, the careful reader will see that this document is not a triumphalist reiteration of Roman supremacy, but a nuanced look at the current divisions between Christians from a Roman perspective, an examination that also recognizes the damage done to the catholicity of the Catholic Church through these divisions: the Christian Church does not offer a universal witness to Christ in history (concl. to response to Fourth Question and see also the footnote and linked document).
Here’s another response to the document: “For an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side,” said Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, the leading ecumenical official of the Moscow patriarchate.
The path to unity is through truth and not through downplaying or concealing differences.
Rod Dreher (Crunch Con) has written a post on this topic which you shouldn’t miss.
Benedict on “untrue” churches
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/07/benedict-on-untrue-churches.html
Excuse me if I have interpreted the discussion incorrectly (I am new). Because of the way in which the dialogue seems to be going (at least in the beginning between Hart and Matthews), it comes across as if popery is really an underlying model for more of a Christ in government view which Matthews seems to hold to and a rejection of popery for a two kingdoms view, which Hart seems to hold to.
Whether my interpretation is correct or not, it is still a common misconception that these are the two positions, as if the protestant view is inherently two-kingdom. I hold to a national confessionalist position (which is not two-kingdom) and would suggest that this is the only logical outworking of true Reformed (Protestant not Roman Catholic) Theology. Furthurmore Romanism does not hold to the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ (the basis of the National Confessionalist Position) but holds to the Mediatorial Kingship of the Pope although she would not come out and say it in those words it works out logically to be that way (which is one reason why the reformers rightly labeled the pope and his office as the predicted Antichrist)!
Fellow protestants, especially Reformed Presbyterians (I am RP), we should not go the route of favoring popery (which still holds to the councel of Trent notwithstanding its flattering statements toward us in more recent times) in our reasoning for a Christian government since (1) they have rejected the true Gospel and (2) even its position on government alone is not consistent with our reformed standards.
Hi Daniel, Thanks for commenting. I feel a little “out in the cold” in the whole FV discussion.
But, it’s made for hours of great reading.
The historic RC position has been that the king is answerable to Christ’s vicar on earth in moral and spiritual matters. Forgive my ignorance, but is the National Confessionalist position that the state is not answerable to the Church? In your view, is the state only answerable to a constitional document?
In my position the state is answerable to the Christ as He has revealed his will in Scripture.
In some sense, of course, the state can be said to be answerable to the church in that, to it certain things, including the explanation of the scriptures are entrusted by Christ but not because of any authority in and of itself as if it’s rulings were the determiners of controversies.
The difference between this and popery is that the Roman Catholic Church claims inherent authority while in protestantism the church is only binding inasmuch as it agrees with the word of God. So National Confessionalism (or in Scottish Presbyterianism, the Establishment Principle) holds that the Church and the State are two distinct entities ruled by the one authority of Scripture, the interpretation of which is niether mediated through the church (Romanism) or the State (Irastianism).