Ecumenical Starting Grounds & 3 Kinds Of Christians

As someone who lives in the realm of Catholic-Protestant (and to a much lesser extent) Orthodox dialogue and debate I just thought I should point out what we all can agree on:

Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament

Trinity and entire conciliar understanding of the nature of God (minus the Filioque). This always gets underrated, but SERIOUSLY, we agree on who God is, this is a big deal.

Prayer (for the most part, minus Protestants on saintly intercession)

Ethics (conservatives in each group all hold biblical values on most ethical issues, liberals are another matter)

Love and Social Justice

Justification by Grace

Metaphysics (I don't think Protestants or Orthodox disagree with Catholics here, but I might be wrong).

The Apostles and Nicene Creed (except for non-Lutheran Protestants objecting to "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins")

This really is alot if you think about it.

Right after discussing how divided Christendom is over prayers to the saints C.S. Lewis writes:

"I sometimes have a briht dream of reunion engulfing us unawares, like a great wave from behind our backs, perhaps at the very moment when our official representatives are still pronouncing it impossible. Discussions usually separate us; actions sometimes unite us." - C.S. Lewis "Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer" Ch.3

I love this image. C.S. Lewis was such a genius. I think there are 3 kinds of Christians out there in terms of ecumenism:

1. Triumphalists. These are the people who actually enjoy the divisions of the church. They like to go on and on about how they are the only remnant left and how God is unknown to everyone else. I think they remind me of Mark Twain's joke about putting a Roman Catholic, a Presbyterian, and a Baptist in a cage and them all killing each other. Indeed those 3 seem to compete for the title of least ecumenical.

2. Compromisers. These are people who want to gloss over every difference imaginable, if they can't outright ignore it. These are the opposite to the triumphalists. But at least the compromisers do something together, whether it's social justice stuff or charity work, they do something. Along with those who know the differences and ignore them, here I'll include those who are simply ignorant of theological divisions.

3. Segregationists. These are people who understand the differences between the different churches/denominations and know why they are _______ists or ________ans but they anxiously await and seek reunion. They believe we are segregated on earth here and now because of our honest disagreement, but that God's grace and the Holy Spirit work universally and that while they may say "outside the church there is ordinarily no salvation" (WCF) but at the same time admit that ordinarily is the key word.

I hope I'm in group 3 and that if I've chosen the "wrong" church after all that He'll be gracious and merciful.

I was watching this movie "The Lilies of the Field" today with Sidney Poitier and it's about a Baptist construction worker / general labourer guy who helps a group of Nuns build a chapel. There's a beautiful scene where he rebukes the Mother Superior and asks if they ever have any joy amidst their "religion" (bad connotation in this usage). It ends with them all singing the Negro Spiritual "Amen" together and smiling as Sidney Poitier is 'lining' the life of Jesus while they sing Amen. Even though it was just a movie, it gave me hope that maybe one day God will teach us to have the Joy of black Baptists and the holiness of German Nuns in perfect harmony.

Lord help us.

Circle of Death - Young Earth Creationism and Evolution

I was watching "Planet Earth" the other night with my mom, we'd just bought it, and it was fascinating how everything in the ecosystem eats each other. The eagles will eat the baby foxes and the foxes will be eating the eggs of the eagles, etc and at one point I saw a fox with 4 baby birds in it's mouth at once to bring back for its children to eat. I was thinking that it wasn't so much a circle of life as it was a circle of death. But that's how nature works.

I was at my parents Baptist church the other night and we were discussing evolution and I was saying that even though I don't hold to it, it has absolute support from the scientific community, and only those crazies on the outsides who are acting out of religious conviction - which is admirable but unscientific - disbelief in it. It works for 99% of life, and Creationists are out there finding the rapidly shrinking 1% of things they haven't explained (Biology never claims a comprehensive worldview anyway) and then try to show how they are irreducibly complex. But anyone who's actually read a book by Dawkins or an Evolutionary Biologist will tell you that all of those CAN be explained by natural selection, in fact he takes 10 examples from a Creationist book of 'irreducible complexity' and shows how they could have developed over time.

I really don't have a view on Creationism vs Evolution - as an Augustinian Christian I only hold 2 propositions about the whole event. 1. God created out of sheer superabundant love and joy for his own glory. and 2. Man willfully and knowingly sinned against him, and death remains the punishment and universal phenomenon of that sin. Obviously those are problematic with scientific evolution because man would have no official starting point, it would be just one chain of matter and categories would be arbitrary. So I couldn't strictly speaking believe in a world where everything is killing each other to survive, in essence, I couldn't believe in the world that we have right now. There had to be Shalom. The Hebrew reading of Genesis is that in the beginning God created the earth in peace/Shalom, man had peace with God, man and woman had peace, and man and creation had peace. It was all in Shalom. Natural selection doesn't work with this philosophical/theological view of nature.

But I'm not dumb enough to completely ignore the fossil record, obviously the whole point of evolution was to explain why we weren't digging up fossils of dogs and cats, etc, species we see walking around on the earth right now. So at some point there had to be dinosaurs, other weird scary things, and no humans on the earth. Which still synchs up with the general order of the universe. So I guess you could call me an Old Universe, Old Earth, Creationist. I have the same view as Chesterton who said he had no problem with evolution as a science/biology but as a philosophy it cannot co-exist with Christianity. But in my view, Science and the revelation to God's people are all a part of revelation and they should all come together, there shouldn't be a divergence. I was taught this in high school by the smartest Mennonite I know who taught us about Galileo, etc, and said "If science and religion come into conflict it is because one of them has made a mistake, it is either false science or false theology" and he cited the example of "The earth is firmly established it cannot be moved" from the Psalms and the rotation of the earth, and how that was a wrong hermeneutic we had, and that we've changed our theology accordingly. And things like the scientific acceptance of the Big Bang Theory (written by a Catholic Priest) gives me hope that Christianity and Science can play nicely together in the end.

But there will always be people like Dawkins, and people like the Inquisition, constantly fighting each other, and to paraphrase Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz 'people have been fighting about it for so long that it no longer is a fight about what the truth is, but who can come up with cleverer arguments, so I stay away from it'. I obviously believe in God - Philosophically it's impossible to me to accept an atheistic universe - therefore I believe in creation, but I haven't studied biology enough to get in depth into debates, but as Chesterton says of the Unitarians and the Catholics I say of the Creationists and Evolutionists 'it's not as though we believed their doctrines which appeared strange so much as we simply believed that everyone should be given a fair chance even if they appeared strange' (paraphrased from Conversion and the Catholic Church). I just don't like the simplistic black and white dicotemies that place all anti-Christs with evolution , when many good Christian men are theistic evolutionists (like Alistair McGrath, and pretty much every Roman Catholic and Anglican theologian).

I'm at least glad that now I sit in a camp though (however weakly) of Old Earth Creationism, but even there I must laugh at myself because I think if we were ONLY studying the bible I would be a young earth creationist (John MacArthur's biblical studies on the topic are actually pretty strong that it isn't poetry - that is Genesis 1-3 - and never was considered poetry, and is literal, I just wish he'd take that approach to John 6 and 1 Cor 11 heh aka. Eucharist). If I was just going by science I'd be an evolutionist purely. So in Anglican style I'm taking the via media.

So at this church I told them basically: the problem is not over what science says - it clearly says evolution (no matter what the focus on the family video says) - the problem is over whether we should be teaching any science based on empiricism. Empiricism being essentially a non-Christian worldview and a philosophically untenable one as well. The whole venture of science is to look at ONLY the natural world, that's it's box it is closed within, obviously they will say nothing of the supernatural world, and that silence will be understood by most to mean non-existance. But if we as Christians believe that Naturalism (matter is the only real thing) is a flawed understanding of the world, we shouldn't be trying to get creationism taught in the classroom, we should be trying to get philosophy taught in the classroom, give every kid a summa theologica or Decartes Meditations, and they'll realize that the world is matter and spirit, that biology itself is flawed if it thinks it is a comprehensive worldview, etc.

But I was a Catholic so they drifted off when I included myself in the category of Christian, and just started glaring at me for not accepting their simple "Us and Them" mentality. It's amazing how Nietzschean the young earthers come off as they'd rather simply impose their will on others (including teaching children in schools) and banish any literature or idea that doesn't fit within their framework. Strangely enough it was Christendom that existed as the first self-critical worldview, welcomed debate and discussion, but apparently the sola scripturans are becoming more Muslim every day, religion of the book, fundamentalism, King James only/Arabic only authoritative. But again that's not me being anti-Protestant , that's Alistair McGrath's summation of modern fundamentalism in "Christianity's Dangerous Idea", he convincingly argues that the Anabaptist tradition of iconoclasm, etc, is almost identical to Islam. Confessional/Traditional Protestantism doesn't have such a problem, but I just have to laugh at the comment I read in history class the other day "The Saracens were quickly linked to the Protestants as they said only a Muslim or Calvin could so quickly dispose of a crucifix or desecrate a statue of the Virgin" History is funny - much funnier than I am. So ya. Ben Stein. Shut up...

Spurgeon: What I love about the Baptist Tradition

I was pretty discouraged with all this theology and at times like that I sometimes go to this book I really enjoyed "Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching" by Iain H. Murray. I find Spurgeon normally kind of boring because he has gems of wisdom within long sermons, but this book takes all of those gems and puts them together so that you cut through the slag.

I love Spurgeon, that's why I still like the Baptist tradition, and I still think infant baptism has got to be one of the biggest malignings of the gospel as well (but Tradition/Augustine/Church Fathers are allowed to malign the gospel I guess in non-Baptist traditions - including my own). Anyway, here's some wonderful quotes:

"Man must not look to himself to find reasons for God's grace...Trust nothing of your own, not even your own sense of need...Sinners, let me address you with words of life; Jesus wants nothing from you, nothing whatsoever, nothing done, nothing felt; he gives both work and feeling. Ragged, penniless, just as you are, lost, forsaken, desolate, with no good feelings, and no good hopes, still Jesus comes to you, and in these words of pity he addresses you, "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out"..."Him that cometh to me:"...the man may have been guilty of an atrocious sin, too black for mention; but if he comes to Christ he shall not be cast out. He may have made himself as black as night - as black as hell...I cannot tell what kind of persons may have come into this Hall to-night; but if burglars, murderers, and dynamite-men were here, I would still bid them come to Christ, for he will not cast them out. No limit is set to the extent of sin: any "him" in all the world - any blaspheming, devilish "him" that comes to Christ shall be welcomed. I use strong words that I may open the gate of mercy. Any "him" that comes to Christ - though he come from slum or taproom, betting ring or gambling-hell, prison or brothel - Jesus will in no wise cast out." - Charles H. Spurgeon in "Spurgeon v. Hypercalvinism" p. 78, 79

"Beloved, there is nothing that so delights Jesus Christ as to save sinners... You misjudge him if you think he wants to be argued with and persuaded to have mercy; he gives it as freely as the sun pours forth light...Paul had no stinted Saviour to present to a few, no narrow-hearted Christ to be the head of a clique, but he preached a great Saviour to great masses, a great Saviour to great sinners..." Spurgeon p. 93

"you cannot help it; if you are the people of God you must commune with all saints, baptized or not. You may deny them the outward and visible sign, but you cannot keep them from the inward spiritual grace...If a man be a child of God, I do not care what I may think about him - if he be a child of God I do commune with him and I must" - Spurgeon p. 110

"We give our hand to every man that loves the Lord Jesus Christ, be he what he may or who he may. The doctrine of election, like the great act of election itself, is intended to divide, not between Israel and Israel, but between Israel and the Egyptians, - not between saint and saint, but between saints and the children of the world. A man may be evidently of God's chosen family, and yet though elected, may not believe in the doctrine of election. I hold there are many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling, and that there are a great many who persevere to the end, who do not believe the doctrine of final perseverance. We do hope that the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads. We do not set their fallacies down to any wilful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus, but simply to an error in their judgments, which we pray God to correct. We hope that if they think us mistaken too, they will reciprocate the same Christian courtesy; and when we meet around the cross, we shall ever feel that we are one in Christ Jesus." Spurgeon p. 112

"True peace puts an end to all spiritual monopoly. I know there are some who think there is no grace beyond their own church...not unlike those ancient wranglers in the land of Uz, they say, "We are the men and wisdom will die with us." ...You may have sound doctrine and yet do nothing unless you have Christ in your spirit. I have known all the doctrines of grace to be unmistakably preached, and yet there have been no conversions" p. 113

Spurgeon mocked hyper-calvinists saying they believed "they cannot be saved till they are thorough theologians" p. 115. Well I love Spurgeon, I have even more quotes, as I read him even though as a Catholic he would've either beat me to death with his KJV bible or just screamed and pointed "reprobate" at least within Protestantism he advocated this kind of a view. I hope that maybe someday someone will come to advocate a view this open and grace-filled, if they ever did I don't care what denomination they were in, I'd join that church...

The Bible according to John Locke

Being raised Fundamentalist Baptist/Puritan, I've been instilled with a deep reverance for the Bible, which I have never abandoned (I hope). I realized this when my dad and I fought for hours about interpretation when I realized that we were fighting only because of a love of God's revelation and it's truth. I found this quote by John Locke, one of the fathers of Liberalism (political) and a puritan himself. Chances are, if you live in the Western Hemisphere, your deepest assumptions about government come from him. He was the champion of "Life, Liberty, and Property".

"The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure." John Locke

A Temporary Lapse into Reformed Theology lol

"ultimately, since God is sovereign, salvation must depend solely upon His sovereign choice." - Presbyterian Website.

Now you wouldn't think that when a Baptist friend sent me a message at 3am concerned about his salvation that I would speak almost the exact same words to him, as a Roman Catholic. But I did. He was worried about whether baptism saved you or not because he encountered the sinister "Church of Christ" denomination account of regenerative baptism (as an aside, they really should get a new name, that's like calling your denomination "The Real Church").

I tried to explain that I thought it was necessary for you to be baptized but that both my brothers aren't -strangely the baptists I know go around calling baptism a meaningless ritual...maybe they should change the name to "The Church Formerly known as Baptists", anyway, he was worried and I showed him all the verses about Baptism for salvation (Jn 3:5, Mk 16.16, Acts 2.39, Gal 3.27, 1 Pet 3:21, etc) but being a smart kid he started talking about "baptism of the Holy Spirit" - I wanted to shout DAMN YOU CALVIN!!@#@. but I didn't .... strangely I did the opposite and started talking to him about what it means to be saved, and why he shouldn't be worried. I said something like "Ultimately it doesn't matter whether you're baptized or not, Salvation is God's free sovereign choice, it's his house, he decides who to let in (Mark Driscoll said that)" - I shocked myself - A papist pretty much quoting the WCF, it must've been because it was 3am.

The thing is, I -like St. Thomas Aquinas- believe in predestination, God's sovereignty, and while I believe people can choose, God already knows who's "in" and who is "out" and I don't think he arbitrarily elects some for 30 years and then unelects them, which is a strange thing Aquinas taught.

But here's where I think this latent Reformedness comes from for me. I was reading parts of Fr. Louis Bouyer's thoughts on Sola Gratia in "The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism" and he goes on and on about the "gratuitousness of salvation" (which is now one of my favourite phrases) and the fact that salvation is a free gift which is unmerited, etc. So I was just linking the two doctrines I guess.

I had a 2 hour argument with my Dad about justification on Saturday (again) and he just doesn't understand how a Catholic who believes works are a fundamental part of salvation can have any assurance or trust in God, because they're "buying their way into Heaven" (a concept Kreeft decimates). I don't think my salvation has anything to do with me, just because my justification is intrinsic - within me - doesn't mean it's within my power. It's "God working in you" (Php 2:13).

I guess the thing I have in common with Calvin - probably the reason I like him as much as I still do - is that I believe the question of Salvation is a question of God's character. I have a friend named Dan and if I was in prison or in trouble he'd come and bail me out or help me. Dan is just a finite human, and I can trust him for my temporal salvation in situations. God on the other hand is "mighty to save", he has "loved me with an everlasting love", he is the one who saved me while I was yet a sinner (Rm 5:8) and I have full faith that he will save me in the end. For St. Paul says:

"And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Romans 8:30 - also note the word Sanctified which Calvin championed in his distinction isn't even present).

and finally I will quote the great catholic council of Orange which as a Catholic I adhere to:

"[W]e are obliged, in the mercy of God, to preach and believe that, through sin of the first man, the free will is so weakened and warped, that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought, or believe in God, or do good for the sake of God, unless moved, previously, by the grace of the divine mercy . . . . Our salvation requires that we assert and believe that, in every good work we do, it is not we who have the initiative, aided, subsequently, by the mercy of God, but that he begins by inspiring faith and love towards him, without any prior merit of ours."

I guess that's what I was saying to my friend, that God will save him, because God has chosen him, and elected him. But that still sounds like a lapse into Reformed theology heh.

A Quote From Donald Miller

"The very scary thing about religion, to me, is that people actually believe God is who they think He is. By that I mean they have Him all figured out, mapped out, and as my pastor, Rick, says, "dissected and put into jars on a shelf." You've got a bunch of Catholics in Rome who think one way about God, and a bunch of Baptists in Texas who think another, and that isn't even the beginning. It goes on and on and on like this, and it makes me wonder if God created us in His image or if we created Him in ours...in my life, God is always changing the way I think of Him. I am not saying God Himself is changing, or that my theology is open and I blur the lines on truth; I am only saying I think I know who He is, then I figure out I don't know very much at all....that's one of the things you notice about Jesus in the Gospels, that He is always going around saying, You have heard it said such and such, but I tell you some other thing. If you happened to be a person who thought they knew everything about God, Jesus would have been completely annoying." -Donald Miller (Searching for God Knows What, "Imposters")

I don't know if I completely like or agree with this quote, I just thought I'd put it up for interest. I -at the very least - agree with his confusion and worry over how people are so 'sure' they comprehend the incomprehensible and eternal and infinite God.

"Once Saved, Always Saved" heresy refuted by Charles Finney

Right now I'm doing an essay on Charles Finney's Lectures on Revivals of Religion, it's mostly how Americans tend to anthropomorphize God into an image of themselves, etc. (You know those Canadian profs). Finney was a Baptist Preacher, Abolitionist, and the founder of Evangelicalism's greatest weapon: "The Altar Call" and anxious seat manuevers, yes this is the man who destroyed the Monergism of historic Protestantism. But I found one passage I like, he lets loose on the popular twisting of Calvin's doctrine of perseverance. This is the detestable heresy known as 'Once Saved, Always Saved'. I've found it everywhere -even Capernwray- but to throw the Mennonites a bone here, they reject it (one of their few but notable successes). I'll let Finney do the talking from here out though:

"Sanctification is obedience, and, as a progressive thing, consists in obeying God more and more perfectly. Young converts should be taught so as to understand what perseverance is. It is astonishing how people talk about perseverance. As if the doctrine of perseverance was "Once in grace, always in grace," or "Once converted, sure to go to heaven." This is not the idea of perseverance. The true idea is, that if a man is truly converted, he will continue to obey God. And as a consequence, he will surely go to heaven. But if a person gets the idea that because he is converted, therefore he will assuredly go to heaven, that man will almost assuredly go to Hell." - Charles Grandison Finney "Instructions of Young Converts in Lectures on the Revivals of Religion".