Welcome to IM’s popular new feature, “The Liturgical Gangstas,” a panel discussion among different liturgical traditions represented in the Internet Monk audience.
Who are the Gangstas?
Father Ernesto Obregon is an Eastern Orthodox priest.
Rev. Peter Vance Matthews is an Anglican priest and founding pastor of an AMIA congregation.
Dr. Wyman Richardson is a pastor of a First Baptist Church (SBC) and director of Walking Together Ministries, a resource on church discipline.
Alan Creech is a Roman Catholic with background in the Emerging church and spiritual direction. (Alan’s not a priest. If he is, his wife and kids need to know.)
Rev. Matthew Johnson is a United Methodist pastor.
Rev. William Cwirla is a Lutheran pastor (LCMS) and one of the hosts of The God Whisperers, which is a podcast nearly as good as Internet Monk Radio.
Here’s this week’s question: In an interview with Boston.com, the late Avery Cardinal Dulles answered a question with a crucial observation:
Q. What is the appropriate role of dissent in the church?
A. Dissent should be rare, respectful and reluctant. One’s first reaction as a Catholic is to agree with the official teaching of the church.
Thousands of IM readers ponder this question: If we cannot join our Catholic brothers and sisters in simply trusting the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic church, then what is the answer to the “authority” question for non-Catholic Christians?
Father Ernesto/Orthodox: To consider the appropriate role of dissent in the Church, it is important to look at what the Church is. And, in the view of our Lord and of St. Paul, she needs quite a bit of work. First, Ephesians 4:11-16 says that he gave some as apostles, prophets, etc., because the Church was less than perfect. In fact, did you ever think that Church structure is set up the way it is precisely because our Lord was quite aware that the Church is yet imperfect? Now look at those verses a little closer. No, closer yet. Look at the assumptions behind these verses. “. . . till we all come to the unity of the faith. . .” in other words, as St. Paul is writing, the Church is not yet united in doctrine. Let’s go on. Keep reading down that verse. We are not yet perfect; we are not yet up to the stature of Christ; we are not yet adults; we are able to be tricked; we can be deceitful. What a description of us! But, what our Lord said was even stronger. Look at the parable of the wheat and the tares. Not only are we imperfect, we are so immature that it is often hard to tell the difference between the wheat and the tares. But, it also means that some among us are evil and not of God. This is one side of the background to dissent.
The other side of the background to dissent is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the promises that the gates of Hell would never prevail against her and that the Holy Spirit would lead her into Truth and would teach her. As we read the New Testament, we see this conception of the Church being played out for us. We see St. Peter fighting for the Gentiles after baptizing Cornelius. We see St. Barnabas arguing with St. Paul about St. Mark. We see St. Paul confronting St. Peter about his double-mindedness. But, we also read the clear conviction that the Holy Spirit will bring an united solution to the problems, and a solution that will maintain the unity of the Church and, on top of that, reveal those who are tendentious, that is immature, Christians, and those who are evil and need to be out of the Church.
And, so, we also read in the New Testament about the Jerusalem Council, the one that set the pattern for future Ecumenical Councils. It both issued doctrinal rulings that stood for all time and disciplinary rulings that were only in effect as long as needed. What were the doctrinal ones? Well, males are not circumcised in order to be considered Christians, but they sure are baptized, for instance. More than that, it was the Church’s decision that there was a New Covenant with different regulations than the Old one (remember, the New Testament had not been written yet). What disciplinary rules? Well, how many of you have had a bloody red steak? That was forbidden for a time. It was a disciplinary, but not a doctrinal rule. And, so, unity was preserved for over a thousand years. There were many arguments, but they were all eventually resolved, sometimes after decades of arguments.
But, that is not the whole story. The New Testament also records that there were those who left or were thrown out. And, so, St. John can say, “Children, this is the last hour. Just as all of you heard that an antichrist is coming, many antichrists have already come. From this we know that this is the last hour. They left us, but they were not part of us. For if they were a part of us, they would have remained with us. By leaving they showed that not all are part of us.” — 1 John 2:18-19. By and large that was shown to be true during the first 1000 years of the Church. Groups that were declared anathema and thrown out, by and large, disappeared from having a significant part in Church history after some decades. [Note: many groups declared anathema simply kept on outside the Roman Empire, so it was not simply that they were “suppressed” as some put forward.] One could argue that one can see the work of the Holy Spirit in history withdrawing himself from those groups that had fallen outside the Church. It is, then, no surprise that St. Cyprian could claim that there is no salvation outside the Church–besides the theological reasons, that is.
So, what was true? First, arguments were permitted. Two, arguments eventually had an end. Three, those arguments were resolved through a process that involved the Church through the presence of those who are named in Ephesians 4 as those who are charged precisely with the growth of the unity and maturity of the Church. Four, those who continued to object after the final decision ended up being outside the Church. By the way, if you read the Council of Trullo, you will find that those who repented were simply allowed back into the Church. That was pre-Middle Ages.
That whole process–good, bad, or indifferent–has fallen apart today. Which means that I do not have a good answer anymore for the place of dissent in the Church. You see, the problem is not simply that there is no longer one process in place to resolve doctrinal and disciplinary disagreements, but also that we currently live in a culture in which arguments do not have an end. In the USA we not only prize dissent, we equate it with proof of our independence and take pride in letting no one lead us by the nose. This, however, leads to a situation in which dissent on the grounds of principle often turns into the stubborn refusal to countenance other possibilities. Thus, if I have some advice today, for an American, it would be to restrain yourself from dissenting. First, study and see if you are the one who could be wrong. Second, ask yourself, how important is this particular issue? Third, is this an issue that needs resolving or can I allow for differing opinions on this matter? [I will point out that you can quote Church Fathers on either the Calvinist or Armenian issue because the Church of the first thousand years never thought that was an issue that had to be decided. The West was Augustininan and the East was at the other end, and no Council was ever thought necessary.] Fourth, ask yourself how I can go about preserving the unity of the Church in this situation. Fifth, and this is usually an impossible one for Americans, which is what has led to so many of our divisions, can I submit? Can I trust those in authority enough, on this particular issue, to change my mind this time? Note that I am not saying every time or on every issue. But, can I drop some of my American insistence on independence and take a chance on interdependence?
Matthew Johnson/United Methodist: Asking a United Methodist about authority might get you the same kind of look you would get if you asked me a question in Swahili. We aren’t very good at recognizing authority in my denomination. Our doctrinal standards are impeccable yet they generally aren’t looked at as authority but as a relic of a time passed in which people used to care about things like the Vigin Birth or other theological emphases that are barely even sniffed at today. As a United Methodist pastor I sometimes feel as though I could replace the Episcopal church with the UMC in a quote from Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal who once said, “If I wanted the aesthetics without the inconvenient morality,I could become Episcopalian.” Inconvenient morality seems to be the way many of us view not only Scripture but also our statements of faith.
Only a doom and gloomer would stop there. Without having seen his response I’m going to predict that my answer is similar to Peter Matthews. Since the United Methodist Church doesn’t have an infallible magisterium we attempt to look at our theological practice through the lenses of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. This fourfold approach, sometimes called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral even though Wesley never formulated an approach in these terms, becomes a pretty good flow chart for our authority. Scripture is the obvious starting point. Without getting into the complexities of biblical interpretation, there are a lot of statements in Scripture that are pretty obvious like “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Just kidding). If Scripture doesn’t sufficiently shed light on a particular issue we look not only to our own history and tradition but to the history and tradition of the whole church beginning with our Anglican roots and going back to the Early Church Fathers. If this proves unhelpful we ask “What is the most reasonable response in light of what we know of the whole of Scripture and Church history” and leaving the very subjective experience of the church and believer for questions so obscure that personal preference can only decide. You may note that I’m not a big fan of the role experience plays and I’m being a little more than slightly sarcastic. Since I do believed in total depravity held in check by God’s grace I’ve watched the experience of others leads to more rationalization and excuse-making than anything else.
This sounds a lot harsher than I really feel but I’ve watched people glorify dissent in the “essentials” or that which has been believed by the whole church for two thousand years for the sake of something other than the health of the church. Yes, I’m fully aware that our denomination’s parents (Anglicans) and grandparents (Catholics) are watching their irony meter redline.
Peter Vance Matthews/Anglican: Anglicans believe in the primacy of scripture but believe the Bible should be interpreted with and by the Church. This, of course, begs the question, “Which Church?†The Anglican answer is the early, undivided Church. Why do Anglicans answer this way? First, the canon of scripture was itself finalized in the early centuries. It was the Church of this era, guided by the Rule of Faith, that nailed down the books contemporary evangelicals believe are authoritative. Second, the consensual Catholic faith – set forth in the ecumenical creeds – was synthesized and established. The ideas of the Trinity and Chalcedonian Christology that have guided the Church from then on were established. It simply follows that these creedal statements function authoritatively for the Church and function as a grid through which scripture is interpreted. Third, the Church was undivided. While the life and praxis of the Church was not uniform, there was great consensus regarding core doctrine and practice in the life of the Church. The Church was in a real, concrete sense, Catholic. The Catholicity of this era is best captured by the Canon of Saint Vincent of Lerins, “Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent.†(http://www.ancient-future.net/vcanon.html) The undivided universality of the Church was seen then as a guide for discerning what is to be believed by the Church. Fourth, in this era a great consensus regarding worship and discipline emerged. Again, not a rigid uniformity, but a great consensus about things such as the Church’s worship in Word and Sacrament, the nature and centrality of the sacraments, the threefold order of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon and the use of scripture in worship.
This approach is what creates the unique Anglican ethos of the middle way. On one hand, Anglicans identify with the Protestant Reformation. We believe in the primacy of scripture and reject the idea that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church Catholic on earth. At the same time, if you showed up at a typical Anglican parish you might find yourself thinking, “Hmm, this sure looks Catholic to me.†The Anglican rejoinder would be, “It is Catholic, it’s just not Roman Catholic.†It’s Catholic in the way the early undivided Church was Catholic. During the Reformation, Anglican polemicists like Bp. John Jewell defended the English Reformation against the Roman Church not as a rejection of Catholicity but as a restoration of Catholicity. (BTW – The Roman Catholic Gangsta, Alan Creech, is a good friend of mine and we know where we disagree about these things. We love and respect each other, so please don’t read these contrast statements as uncharitable slams against my Roman brothers and sisters, the contrast just helps clarify the Anglican approach.)
So as an Anglican, my impulse is to give the teaching of the Church the benefit of the doubt. However, I look to the life and teaching of the early undivided Church as the source for this teaching rather than the Roman Magisterium. Thomas Ken, Anglican Bishop of Bath and Wells from 1685 to 1691 wrote, “”I die in the holy catholic and apostolic faith, professed by the whole church before the division of East and West.” His statement captures the heart of my approach as an Anglican Christian to authority in the Church.
Alan Creech/Roman Catholic: As I said before, these questions keep getting harder and harder to “answer” without writing a book. Don’t get me wrong, I want to write a book at some point, but not right this minute, so I’ll try to hit the high points on this one. OK, wait, is everybody looking at me? Why are you all looking at me!? Oh, only Catholic in the room, subject matter, blah blah. It’s alright, I’ll be alright.
I’ll start with the Dulles Q&A. His answer to “What is the appropriate role of dissent in the church?” was this, “Dissent should be rare, respectful and reluctant. One’s first reaction as a Catholic is to agree with the official teaching of the church.” I do get that answer. I am a Catholic Christian. My being Catholic is not entirely about well figured out reasons, but one reason I want to be Catholic is to be connected, in as good a way as I know, to the whole and ancient Church. I really think that’s the way I want to follow-up on Cardinal Dulles’ answer. First of all, I basically agree. What I want to add into the mix is that this agreement with the official teaching of the Church is not, I don’t believe, meant to be some kind of thoughtless, mechanical, snap-to-it kind of response. I say that partly because this is how you see this concept characterized by some who are and some who are not Catholic. Perhaps it would be helpful to look at this as not so much of an organizational lock-step obedience thing, so much as a base-level trust in the ancient Church – that’s what I’m agreeing to. That’s what I’m trusting – that the Church is basically teaching the right thing. I lean toward trusting that.
Now, and I’ve talked about this before, dissent: One may be a Catholic and not “get” everything that the Church teaches. One may have questions. One should think about what one believes – work it out – hash it out – wrestle with it. There are levels of dissent as there are levels of assent the Catholic Church asks of us about different things. Very few of those things, believe it or not, are on the level of “don’t even have a question about this or else.” We shouldn’t live in fear of questioning or wondering about this or that. We should study and be informed. We should mostly be formed in the Image of Christ. Then we will be able to see clearly. On a base level, though, I see it like this – here is this big old, ancient Church. It, of which I am a part, has been working and hashing these things out for 2 millennia. So, I trust that the Holy Spirit is, and has been, working in, on, and through it, and so I have a trust. There are things I wonder about, question, things I even think are goofy and need to change, but basically, I agree, I trust. Again, it is neither as black and white as some make it seem, nor is it as colorless or gray as others might think. That’s not the easiest thing to explain, but there you go.
As for how Protestants should look at the authority of the Catholic Church, or the whole Church. What’s the deal? In general, there is probably a lot of room for more catholicity in the Protestant Christian arena. Some Protestants lean more on some kind of trust in the ancient catholic faith than others. Again, I think it helps to look at this authority as a trust we put in the ancient faith, in the Church that has always been here, working things out along the way down through history. That, instead of only thinking of it in such rigid ways – organizational entity > entity has official leaders > when they speak I must obey and comply > resistance is futile. That’s a very unhelpful way to look at authority, Catholic or otherwise.
Generally, I think all Christians need to steer away from being independent-minded and toward being more catholic, and I don’t think that necessarily requires “conversion.” Seriously looking at the wisdom of the Church catholic, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. is, I believe, a necessity, not to be “a Christian,” but to be more healthy as churches, as the Church. What does that mean? It depends – it may mean giving up on the re-invention of the proverbial wheel in many cases, liturgically, worship-wise, sacramentally speaking among other possibles. It’s attitudinal to begin with, which will then work its way into how we “be” the church. Wow, that may not have even answered the question but it’s the best I could do at the moment. Peace.
Wyman Richardson/Southern Baptist: The question of “authority†is indeed a bit difficult for those without an official Magisterium (though many observers of the modern SBC would point out that we now seem to have a kind of magisterium!). In short, Luther’s declaration at Worms about his “heart being captive to the Word of God†resonates deeply with Baptists, even if Lutherans would no doubt point out that Luther would be quite suspect of much Baptist handling of the word! Furthermore, I fully acknowledge that every believer of every communion will, at heart, assert with equal strength that God’s word is ultimately their authority as well. The question then becomes one of mediation. How do we hear and find and understand this authoritative word to which we are accountable?
The Baptist finds it in his experience with the word, as it is opened through the Holy Spirit’s unction via the means of careful exegesis and sound hermeneutics. He finds it particularly as it is fleshed out in the local church. We see the Bible as the encapsulation, in written form, of that early authority to which, Acts tell us, the early church devoted herself: “the Apostle’s teaching.â€
I understand the dilemma in arguing that the word of God is our authority. Have Baptists not simply abandoned one pope for sixteen million popes (as the official but absurdly inflated numbers of the SBC would suggest)? Has not the idea of the lone soul standing with his Bible before his God given rise to a pandora’s box of chaotic, idiosyncratic interpretations and splintering? Has not the cry of “ecclesia semper reformanda†simply become a first principle by which we validate whatever tangent we happen to want to go on at the moment?
I don’t deny the practical realities of these problems, I simply deny that claiming the word of God as your authority must necessarily be this way. To be sure, in a Baptist climate of disappearing ecclesiology, the deceptive cry of “no creed but the Bible†(not originally a Baptist cry anyway) has morphed into “no creed but me.†But it need not be this way.
In truth, a more full-orbed Baptist understanding of authority can be found in the congregational renewal that is currently taking place among the many Baptists who are seeking to reclaim the cherished principle of “regenerate church membership.†This does not position authority in the church, but it does give a healthier oversight of our handling of the word in the context of a local, covenanted, accountable, and disciplined congregation. A concurrent retrieval of the once-strong system of accountability among these local congregations would likewise strike a blow at the church-shopper mentality that says, “Ok, if my quirks aren’t welcome here, then I’ll just find someplace where they are.â€
Alongside this ecclesiastical parameter that surrounds and guides the individual and his Bible, I firmly believe that many of those calling for a greater appreciation of historic, consensual exegesis as a tempering guide for reading the Bible are hitting on something key. You can find this in many of the Baptist catholicity guys (Timothy George, D.H. Williams, Steve Harmon, et al.), but perhaps it has been best articulated in Tom Oden’s paleo-orthodoxy programme.
Thus, I would argue that the Christian’s source of authority is the enscripturated Word of God as it is read, understood, and lived in the context of an accountable, covenanted local congregation, and as it is guided and tempered by a renewed appreciation for the voice of the Church throughout time (a voice which does not eclipse the word, but which certainly ought to be respected and heeded in the reading of the word.)
William Cwirla/Lutheran: The question of church authority is really a question of the authority of the Word of God. We Lutherans make a distinction (we love distinctions) between authority that is de jure divino (by divine right) and de jure humano (by human right). (We like to toss around Latin phrases, too.) In the church, pastoral authority, that is, the authority to pronounce forgiveness, to proclaim the Gospel and to administer Baptism and the Lord’s Supper is de jure divino, since the ministry is established by God. All other church authority, such as the monarchical episcopacy, synods, councils, and church bodies, are de jure humano. These are created by men for the well-being of the church.
Now this is not to say that we are permitted to disobey human-based authority. Our confessions teach that we are to obey our bishops and leaders even in matters where the Word of God is silent for the sake of peace and unity. Too much of today’s Christianity is everyone indulging his inner brat and wanting to have things his way. But the bottom line is the Word of God. Here “we must obey God rather than men.â€
The issue comes to the fore in the interpretation and application of Holy Scripture in terms of doctrine and practice. Who decides? The protestant principles of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone, there goes that Latin again) and “Scripture interprets Scripture†seem to leave a vacuum of ultimate authority. Catholicism has the Pope and the teaching magesterium of the church; Orthodoxy has its bishops. Protestantism appears to be a mob of individuals.
Personally, I think the divisions within protestantism are vastly overstated, as is the claimed unity of Catholicism or Orthodoxy. There are as many wacky beliefs hiding under the mitres of the pope and the eastern bishops as there are in an Evangelical bookstore, a Kentucky tent revival or a synod of Lutherans, to speak of my own tribe.
But if you sum up all that’s believed, taught and confessed end of the day and divide it up by all the baptized believers in the world, leaving out the wacky fringes, you pretty much come up with Chalcedonian Christology and Nicene orthodoxy. We all basically believe that God is three Persons in one Being and that Christ is true God and true Man in one Person, who died, rose, and reigns to save the world from sin and death, and we do so from the Scriptures. We may quibble over Baptism and the Lord’s Supper and the place of justification, but we all have them, whether we all recognize what’s going on or not. That’s not too bad for a couple of millenia. Islam and Judaism should have it so good.
We believe that the Holy Spirit works through the prophetic and apostolic Word (ie the Holy Scriptures), and like the making of sausage, the process is messy and not for the theologically squeamish. The desire for an inspired father, whether a pope, a bishop or some charismatic leader with a nice suit and a good haircut, may provide a measure of security in the face of uncertainty, but the Word is a much more solid rock upon which to build the house of one’s faith. We may be appalled at all the divisions within Christianity, but God doesn’t seem to mind. If He did, He would simply have opened the earth and swallowed up the sectarians long ago like the sons of Korah.
Instead God uses the dynamic tension of dissent and division to strengthen HIs Church. The apostle Paul stated that the divisions in Corinth were necessary to show who was tested (1 Cor. 11). Paul’s public smackdown of Peter’s hypocrisy at Antioch served to underscore the Christian’s liberty from Mosaic law. The NT preserves a record of the dynamic and creative tension between Jewish and Gentile Christianity (James and Paul). The great creeds and doctrines of the church were all forged in controversy.
In view of that unfortunate Babel incident in Genesis 11, God doesn’t seem terribly interested “one world†anything – especially when it comes to de jure humano political and religious institutions. God has been known to stir the ecclesiastical pot from time to time, especially when the religious leaders are behaving and teaching badly. It’s no coincidence that most of the prophets were not institutional men. Consider John the Baptizer. A little dynamic “tension†is good for the una Sancta (i.e. the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church scattered throughout the world or the sum total of all who are united to Christ by faith). We Lutherans, by the way, specialize in dynamic tension.
The Internet Monk Archives 
“I’d say there is (or should be) nothing offensive about pointing out that Luther taught something different from what the Catholic Church taught and teaches!”
As a Lutheran, I would agree as a Lutheran. Lutheranism should be considered heresy to papal Catholocism. For Luther, it wasn’t a matter of choosing “what one likes” and rejecting “superficial baggage” but choosing what he believed was right according the Scriptures, and rejecting what was wrong.
As I cited in my original post, St. Paul says, “…for there must be factions (haireseis) among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor 11:19)
There are, at times, necessary heresies.
LikeLike
I”ll not be adding to the current line-up unless someone quits.
LikeLike
“I would equate him as the Joel Osteen of Catholicism.”
Wow! I thought we Lutherans were tough on each other. It’s good to get out into the ecumenical world once and a while.
LikeLike
With all due respect Beth Fr. McNeely represents the dying ember of what used to be a great religious order. Jesuits of tody are not the Jesuits of the Catholic Reformation, these are hippies that wanted to make the Church their own rather than God’s.
His book Catholicism without the Guilt has post-Vatican II nonesence written all over it.
I would equate him as the Joel Osteen of Catholicism.
LikeLike
P.S. I should add that I love the Catholic Church and that I am thoroughly Catholic to my bone. I appreciate that the Church, through its authority, has protected the mystery of Christ through the ages, for all ages, through sacrament and liturgy. But I think that in order for us to grow up, spiritually, we have to get away from this “rules” stuff, and recognize and assume our own roles and responsibility in discerning how to live as Christians in the world.
(You really should get some female gangstas on your panel:-))
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting quote from Fr. McNeely:
“God loves us more than we love ourselves. God judges us by our conscience not by the Church’s conscience or our parents’ conscience, but by our own personal conscience.
Simply put, the individual’s conscience is supreme. This belief has been – and will probably be – the best kept secret of the Catholic Faith.”
– from “Catholicism without the Guilt” by Fr. Maurice G. McNeely
I was introduced to the Jesuits at just the right time in my life – 1968. I was coming from a Catholic upbringing – conservative, but I didn’t recognize it as such at the time – in which everything revolved around “rules”. You must go to Church on Sunday. Mortal sin to do this or that. I was rebelling against the whole thing.
And then along came the Jesuits to take it to another level entirely. You can do whatever you want to do – but you alone are responsible for your immortal soul. Whoa!
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto,
Actually I read Kittel on this, over and over and he is the one who convinced me it more ought to be translated Testament than not. I think it is also telling of the evangelical character of the Old Testament, and the translators of the Septuagint that they most often went with the word diatheke to translate Berith. Though I do admit that the word Berith is far more apply translated covenant, than diatheke is, Testaments also fall under a viable translation for Berith. I am not ignoring anything here. And this is not the only reason I think legalists have taken over Bible translation. But where the New Testament is concerned you hardly have reason to translate diatheke, as covenant over and above Testament, especially when it comes to the Lord’s Supper. But either way Fr. Ernesto, it was Christ not the early church that established the New Testament.
LikeLike
@orthodachshund:
I’d say there is (or should be) nothing offensive about pointing out that Luther taught something different from what the Catholic Church taught and teaches! I mean, it’s a fact! Or are you saying Lutheranism and Catholicism are the same?
The word heresy comes btw. from “hairesis”, the Greek word for “choosing” – choosing the bits and pieces one likes and throwing away what one doesn’t like. Of course Protestants thought and think that he was only throwing away “the superficial baggage” – but he was still “choosing”…
@postmodern puritan:
orthodachshund wrote about St Vincent of Lerins, you are writing about Nicene orthodoxy. But the Christological heresies are not the only heresies. The Donatists were quite ok, Christology-wise, for example, but were still heretics. (I hope it’s ok to call a long-extinct group by this name… ;-))
LikeLike
Ok, are these comments to degrade into heresy name-calling?
How is Martin Luther POSSIBLY outside Nicene Orthodoxy or Christology?
Giovanni, if you have no substantially reasoned or exegetical answer to affirm that he is outside orthodoxy by this standard, then what basis do you have for throwing the “H” word around?
What are you basing this on, what the RCC teaches. We would all be heretics which are outside the RCC by your standard then. Is that a position you want to present on a blog like this?
LikeLike
To orthodachshund,
Sure if you change the definitions of words to what suits the occassion you can square all the circles you want.
LikeLike
As to diatheke, let me put in the following quotes.
“In 1988, God’s Word to the Nations Bible Society published The New Testament: God’s Word to the Nations (GWN). This distinctly Lutheran New Testament translation contained a huge set of Appendixes containing valuable information regarding the translation. One particular Greek word that was rendered differently from modern translations was diatheke. While most modern translations use ‘covenant’, GWN went with ‘last will and testament,’ or a variation thereof. This word is very significant regarding the Lutheran understanding of the Sacrament of the Altar (Lord’s Supper). . . . By the fact that GWN variously translates the 33 New Testament occurrences of diatheke with ‘covenant,’ ‘last will and testament,’ or with one of the two terms followed by the other in brackets indicates that GWN does not believe that a simple answer can be given.”
The KJV translates diatheke as covenant 20 times and testament 13 times. At least one Greek lexicon says that either covenant or testament is a legitimate meaning depending on context. Moreover, and of a high importance, the word diatheke is the one used by the Septuagint translators to render the Hebrew berith, a rather classical word for covenant. This is extremely important because the New Testament writers used the Septuagint as the background Greek to the New Testament. Thus, it is no surprise whatsoever that regardless of its meaning in the Greek of the islands, the word usage in the New Testament reflects a more Septuagint usage. But, it does not reflect that usage exclusively, thus the need to translate the word in context, as most Bibles do.
Bror, even your own fellow Lutherans admit that no simple answer can be given to the translation of that word. I think that to either push the word to only and always testament or only and always covenant is to do go farther than the internal and external evidences permit. Therefore, to argue from a translation of one word that “legalists” are trying to force covenant is to ignore an awful lot of translation literature and archeological studies such as Kittel’s.
LikeLike
“Unlike a certain Martin Luther, he (Savanarola) was not a heretic in matters of Faith however.”
Would this be dissent from the pope’s decree excommunicating Savanarola?
As far as that certain Martin Luther is concerned — using the definition of catholicity laid out by the Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins, as quoted by the Anglican gangsta above, Luther falls within the bounds of catholicity, for he was no theological innovator. By denying catholicity (charging heresy) to one who sought to restore what had been obscured over time in the church, are not the ones claiming to be catholic forfeiting the very thing they claim?
LikeLike
Unlike a certain Martin Luther, he (Savanarola) was not a heretic in matters of Faith however.
LikeLike
I am also in agreement with Petra.
St.Francis de Sales identifies three characteristics of true inspiration, which all fit perfectly with the notion of true dissent.
1) perseverance (they don’t give up when they are contradicted)
2) tranquility (they don’t freak out, panic or despair)
3) obedience (they submit to rightful authority)
Strive for those three things and your dissent will likely be “appropriate”.
Look at Savanarola. The guy was pretty admirable in many ways. But he didn’t persevere in any particular path, he became fanatical, and he didn’t obey the authorities in Rome or submit his teachings and prophecies for examination. So he was burned and his reforms came to nothing.
LikeLike
Petra, that was excellent. I agree 100%
LikeLike
Obed,
“Sometimes the New Covenant is referred to as the New Testament, on the basis of passages such as Heb. 9:16, in its traditional translation. This usage reflects the Vulgate, in which the word “covenant†was translated testamentum. Biblical scholars, such as O. Palmer Robertson, have argued against this translation, however, since the word testamentum, in Latin, expresses the concept of a “last will,†not an agreement between two parties sealed with a self-maledictory oath.”
Exactly what I mean by legalists taking over translation. The word diatheke has meaning as Testament, syntheke would be covenant in Greek. Christ used the word diatheke, he gave a testament, the new testament in his blood, through which we partake in our inheritance the forgiveness of sins. over and over in the New Testament writings believers are referred to as children of God, and fellow heirs, co heirs, and we are told of the inheritance we are about to receive. So why is it that everyone wants to write covenant? Because in a covenant both parties have responsibilities, their end of the bargain. This is not “semantic minutae” as you propose. It is the difference between the pure Gospel, and corrupted legalism. We are coheirs with the Son, we don’t do anything for salvation, justification, or sanctification. The only begotten (another term curiously dropped from current translations of John chapter 1, though explicitly there in the Greek) Son did it for us. We inherit. We in partake in our inheritance, the forgiveness of sins, through His Last Will and Testament. The last will and testament He, and not the early church, instituted.
LikeLike
“So is the Holy Spirt guiding some and not others to the correct doctrine? And if not, and the Holy Spirt is really guiding everyone to believe in different doctrine, is the Holy Spirit interested in doctrine at all?”
That can easily be checked against the Spirit’s reference standard, namely the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures. The Spirit has not left the Church without a bona fide reference standard against which to “test the spirits.” This is not as difficult or as complex as some would make it out to be. The Bereans understood this (Acts 17:11).
LikeLike
“I would say that the real difference between holy zeal guided by the Holy Spirit and destructive dissent is pride. The proud person walks away; the holy person trusts and remains. Holiness advances unity; dissent destroys it.”
Awesome Petra: I totally agree.
Imonk when you read what Jesus said “I and the Father are one” to be fair to the Pharisees, it would have been blasphemy for anyone else but the Christ to say that. Of course the Pharisees were closed off to the possibility of Jesus as Christ and summarily judged him. I makes me think like a Calvinist, after all “my sheep know me and hear my voice” implies that the goats heard nothing and were doomed.
LikeLike
I think is is best to look at the saints to see what is legitimate and what is not and how to tell apart schismatic designs from true reform.
There have been many saints who brought news things, worked for reforms, founded orders/groups never before heard of (St Bernard of Clairvaux, St Francis of Assisi, St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Ignatius Loyola, St JosemarÃa Escrivá come to mind).
Many of these saints have suffered more or less from the hands of Church and other authorities, have been misunderstood, attacked, schemed against, some were even imprisoned. But all of them trusted God and His designs, all of them had a filial love for the Pope and they knew that all would be right at the end. They let their plans and ideas be controlled by Church authority, they remained patient when they were attacked. They were people truly in the image of Christ who did not shout, rebel and run away but remained silent and suffered the Cross.
I would say that the real difference between holy zeal guided by the Holy Spirit and destructive dissent is pride. The proud person walks away; the holy person trusts and remains. Holiness advances unity; dissent destroys it.
LikeLike
charley… it does seem the holy spirit must suffer from schizophrenia at times especially when confronted with the diversity in christian circles all claiming His leading.
my problem with modern christianity started with asking if the reformation was really justified. and if it was why were the reformers eventually reformed and so on to the present post evangelical “wilderness”? i really don’t see so much difference in churches, apart from their doctrines which if you cut out most of the crap are all the same anyway and all things i learned as a youth in the catholic church reciting the creed. i have yet to see a church without a “magisterium” of sorts, they all have a statement of beliefs “catechism” posted somewhere and while some are more lenient where they should be firm, they eventually do have to deal with those who create trouble or are pulling the carpet out from under the pastors feet. sometimes this only starts another split, sometimes it doesn’t. now it would be nice to hide behind jesus being a rebel to justify divisiveness but that falls into a form of religious manipulation i personally don’t want to submit to as most of the rebels i have run into in the church really were bigger control freaks than those they accused of having “absolute power” in the first place.
the church needs to listen to it’s people but there is also a place the buck comes to a stop and that is just common sense.
LikeLike
Many thanks to all of the Liturgical Gangstas! I really appreciate how each one of you brought really good stuff to the table to think about. I also appreciate all of the commenters. And a big thanks to iMonk for putting this wonderful series together!
Gracias!
LikeLike
“But, we also read the clear conviction that the Holy Spirit will bring an united solution to the problems…”
That’s the main issue with Dissent. It’s obvious that all the gangstas, and all dissenters, believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them to the correct doctrine, especially on issues dealing with salvation. But this cannot be the case.
For Example, I was baptized Catholic, but was never Catechized. I did not go through the formal process necessary to leave the Catholic Church and did not have a Bishop’s approval to marry outside the Catholic Church. That means I’m technically in a state of mortal sin, which means if I die I’m going to hell. However, my protestant faith tells me I’m saved.
So is the Holy Spirt guiding some and not others to the correct doctrine? And if not, and the Holy Spirt is really guiding everyone to believe in different doctrine, is the Holy Spirit interested in doctrine at all?
It’s enough to give a guy an aneurysm!
LikeLike
That Jesus was an observant Jew has nothing to do with the expressions of Judaism that were common in the first century. No one has suggested Jesus wasn’t observant. But someone who takes over the temple and won’t let people pass through it is a rebel. Jesus was judged a blasphemer by the Jewish leaders of his day. His radical adherence to the God of the old testament put him in direct conflict with the politicized Judaism of the zealots, the corrupt secular Judaism of the Sadducees and the misbegotten aims of the Pharisee program.
LikeLike
Jesus was an observant Jew. He observed Kosher eating laws (not as slavishly as some Pharisees would have prefered, but still observed them), celebrated the High Holy days, attended and taught in the Synagouges, and made sacrafices in the Temple. The Apostles continued to attend Synagouge and Temple services for decades after Jesus death, with no apparent contradiction in their minds. Jesus spoke to power, but he also submitted himself to authority. He did not come to destroy religion, but to fufill it.
I’ve been attending a series of talks from a Fransiscan priest, Fr. Francisco Nahoe, where he argues that Paul even submitted himself to Synagouge discipline (the forty lashes minus one), which he wouldn’t have if he didn’t submit to Jewish authorities as legitimate.
“Rebel Jesus” is a valid reading of his life, but it is a partial reading of the Gospel, flawed in it’s own way as is “Buddy Jesus”.
LikeLike
Justin, I think the only reason to dissent is if you deeply respect the authority that you’re dissenting From. If you’ve established yourself as an authority apart, rather than submitted yourself fully and entered into a relationship of dialog with authority, then you’re not dissenting: but you may be schismatic. Considering that none of us has a Gospel with our name on it to preach, there doesn’t seem to be much for us to do but orient ourselves among the wise and balanced people among us and try to learn, with humility, more about the genesis of opinion and how best to become fertile hearts for truth to acclimate and grow within.
LikeLike
>…Jesus condemnations of the Pharisees are a perfect example of the sort of dissent that Cardinal Dulles spoke of.
You’re going to have to explain that comment.
LikeLike
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. (Matthew 23:1-4)
Labeling Jesus a rebel and a dissenter is true, but he refuses to be put into a box so easily. Jesus condemnations of the Pharisees are a perfect example of the sort of dissent that Cardinal Dulles spoke of.
LikeLike
Bror:
Something I read today on Wikipedia’s Covenant (Biblical) article:
I dunno… it seems like semantic minutae to me. I was having a discussion with a friend earlier today about the different ways we use the word “sanctify” in religious circles. For example, we sometimes talk about Jesus sanctifying us with his sacrifice. Then there’s the concept of sanctification in theology which is usually the process of God making us more like Christ. Then there’s the concept I read in psalms (and often echoed in Jewish blessings) that God “sanctified us by his commandment.” One word, three different concepts. Does the first concept invalidate the third? How’s the second relate to the other two? The irony is that English is MUCH more nuanced with a much larger vocabulary than either Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek, yet we still have these issues.
LikeLike
“A serious question to the panelists: Would you consider Jesus, as a Rabbi, a dissenter in the Jewish tradition of his day?”
Yes!
Along with the apostle Paul, along with the whole company of the apostles to one extent or another.
LikeLike
Obed,
Nothing has to be confusing about it. We have the the writings we call the New Testament. We call them the New Testament because they testify to the NEW TESTAMENT in the Blood of Jesus. And it is a Testament not a mere covenant, but a specific type of Covenant called a Testament, which even English translators of the Bible knew before a bunch of legalists got a monopoly on Bible translation in the English speaking world and decided to change the word to covenant to play into their “Covenant Theology”, which does not allow you to merely inherit the gifts Jesus gave with his death and resurrection.
LikeLike
He was a dissenter to the Sadducee/Pharisee establishment. He was a complete revolutionary rebel.
LikeLike
Dissent. Now there’s something I can do! Thanks, Michael… I have now found my spiritual calling and gift!
A serious question to the panelists: Would you consider Jesus, as a Rabbi, a dissenter in the Jewish tradition of his day?
This subject brings up a multitude of “what if’s” in my mind regarding submission to various Shepherds of the Flock, so I won’t bore everyone by bringing them up here.
I have a gripe or two… where is the line to pick a number?
LikeLike
“Could it be possible that the role of dissent is Church is necessary, vital, and designed by God to be a tool used to keep His Bride close? …
the common element in many reformers writings seems to be an ardent urge to please God”
Willoh,
Could be, but I guess I wouldn’t want to be the dissenter, extrapolationg upon God’s hidden motives.
What of those many blessed Christians who were part fervent Counter Reformation whose desire it was please God through their radical submission to those having charge over souls. What of their writings? St. Francis de Sales, St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the cross come to mind.
Best,
Jenny
LikeLike
The Church is not a human institution. The Church is the body of Christ as well as the bride of Christ. The Church is perfect because Christ made her so. When St. Paul erred and St Peter (not in morals or doctrine) erred they did so by separating himself from the body and when Peter erred he did so by not obeying the Body and hence separating him self from it.
Individuals in the Church may err but the Church can not.
LikeLike
The Catholic view, willoh, is that the Church is a human institution, being as you say made up of humans. But it is not a merely human institution, but the divine Body of Christ. Are those in the Church free from error, now or in history? Of course not. But the Church itself is not, never has been, merely some human institution anymore than the Eucharist is a bunch of crackers and some liquor.
LikeLike
To say that any group of humans is not a “Human institution ” especially when history shows obvious sin and mistake, is way out there, past my sensibility.
Please re-read Fr. Ernesto’s wonderful comment at the top of the thread. When did perfection become part of the church? Were Peter and Paul not part of the early church? They were quite human and prone to err. Alas but the Bride is all too human.
LikeLike
God bless Cardinal Dulles. The good priest certainly didn’t mean there is no room for questioning, as can be seen from his writings, but as he said, it should be “rare, respectful and reluctant”. One should not enjoy going against the Church, even when neccesary. I believe Martin Luther himself would have agreed with the sentiment.
LikeLike
I think you said best Willoh, “no human institution…”
The Church is NOT a human institution and I think that is where a lot of the plot is lost. Hence we have the tendency to “re-invent” or turning it back to the mustard seed.
I think +Alan is going way too easy on the topic, yet I see what he is saying. Fr. Ernesto has the most obviously concrete argument.
Dissent in the Church can happen but once a descision has been made one must trust in the Church’s teaching authority and know our own fallibility when it comes to the matters of God.
LikeLike
“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
It also rocks absolutely. Which is, of course, the problem.
The key is to discern the difference between “power” and “authority.” Power inheres in the person; authority resides in an office. Authority comes from the Greek exousia which derives from exestin, “it is permitted.” Authority is permission to do certain things by virtue of one’s office. Viewed in this way, church authority as divine permission is quite limited.
Dissent is indeed at time necessary and vital. There are times when obedience must be shifted from human to divine authority. “We ought to obey God rather than men.” This was said to religious authorities who sat in the seat of Moses, but who forbad the preaching of Christ.
LikeLike
Could it be possible that the role of dissent is Church is necessary, vital, and designed by God to be a tool used to keep His Bride close? While some sorts of dissent may occur from selfish motivation, the common element in many reformers writings seems to be an ardent urge to please God.
No human institution prospers with out dissent and from it change. No offense meant, but is the defense,” We have done it this way long enough to be a custom”, really a firm rock on which to cling? That line of reasoning helped neither the Pharisee or the Sadducee.
The question can not be addressed without consideration of what is the subject of the dissent. Is it a fundamental of the faith? Or is it a practice. IMHO practices should always be up for debate, and fundamentals up for BIBLICAL scrutiny.
The faith groups represented by the Gangstas have gone through change over the years, pray such change continues in a God-ward direction.
LikeLike
Generally, I think all Christians need to steer away from being independent-minded and toward being more catholic, and I don’t think that necessarily requires “conversion.†Seriously looking at the wisdom of the Church catholic, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. is, I believe, a necessity, not to be “a Christian,†but to be more healthy as churches, as the Church. What does that mean? It depends – it may mean giving up on the re-invention of the proverbial wheel in many cases, liturgically, worship-wise, sacramentally speaking among other possibles. It’s attitudinal to begin with, which will then work its way into how we “be†the church. Wow, that may not have even answered the question but it’s the best I could do at the moment. Peace.
If it didn’t answer the question, I’m not sure what the question was. I’ve been in congregationally governed Protestant churches my whole life (and that will probably continue), but reinventing the wheel is a significant source of — I can’t even come up with a word bad enough now (well I can, but I’m not going to say it here). Anyhow…ahem, yes, and thank you and all the participants for your answers.
Authority always wins…
Yeah, but I’ve been doing since I was a young kid, and I come up grinning.
LikeLike
Unless, of course, you’re traveling in Messianic Jewish circles where folks have a habit of changing conventional names. I spent 15 years in an MJ congregation. Often folks called the NT Scriptures either the New Covenant or the “B’rit Chadashah” (Hebrew for New Covenant). To be honest, I think that causes more harmful confusion than whatever good is supposed to come from it.
LikeLike
iMonk:
Um, no. That was kinda my point :p
It’s just that sometimes translators use “Covenant” and “Testament” interchangibly and thus it can be confusing.
Anyway, sorry to get off topic!
LikeLike
Like much of the journey in following Christ, I believe here we have to hold multiple principles in tension. As Memphis Aggie and Fr. Ernesto pointed out, we American Christians have it built in to be independent, even habitually contrary, and need to work toward trust and obedience in the interest of humility and unity. It would be easy to argue that independence is more more of a fault than virtue within the Church, and within the Kingdom of God.
The other side of the tension is…that there is tension, that it appears God built tension into the Church he has built to date. Tension within an historic, generally accepted framework of faith. I really appreciated William Cwirla bringing this out so clearly. Quotes that jumped out:
“But if you sum up all that’s believed, taught and confessed end of the day … leaving out the wacky fringes, you pretty much come up with Chalcedonian Christology and Nicene orthodoxy. ”
“…the Holy Spirit works through the prophetic and apostolic Word (ie the Holy Scriptures), and like the making of sausage, the process is messy and not for the theologically squeamish.””
“God uses the dynamic tension of dissent and division to strengthen HIs Church. The apostle Paul stated that the divisions in Corinth were necessary to show who was tested…”
“God doesn’t seem terribly interested ‘one world’ anything – especially when it comes to de jure humano political and religious institutions”.
We live in a Church where love and humility are to be our attitude toward each other as we work through the tensions of imperfect understanding and an ongoing building of “precept upon precept”.
LikeLike
The New Covenant = the New Testament canonical books??
Wha….?
LikeLike
I should probably clarify by saying that those two different concepts are very related. It’s hard to have one without the other. Without the New Covenant, the NT Scriptures wouldn’t exist. And for most of us, without the NT Scriptures, we wouldn’t really know the New Covenant in any tangible way.
There is evidence that even before the codification of the NT Scriptures, those texts were widely circulated and considered inspired (in fact, that was a requirement for consideration in the canon). Even in Peter’s epistle, he refers to Paul’s letters being misunderstood by some who also misunderstand “the other Scriptures.”
LikeLike
Bror,
It’s one term to describe two different things. “New Testament” in the context of Christ instituting it with the Last Supper is a direct reference to the prophecies such as Jeremiah 31 and the Messianic Hope. “New Testament” in the written sense is the specific texts of the New Testament Scriptures as a single anthology.
In the circles I travel in, the distinction is usually made by calling the former the “New Covenant” while the latter is usually called the “New Testament.” That said, as “Covenant” and “Testament” are synonyms, that rule-of-thumb is by no means definative or universally applied.
LikeLike
In response to father Ernesto, (who I understand is traveling today, and won’t be blogging)
I always thought it was Christ who decided that there was a New Testament in his blood, which he instituted on the night he was betrayed. It wasn’t the Church, it doesn’t matter if the New Testament hadn’t been written or not at the council of Jerusalem, the New Testament had been instituted by Christ.
LikeLike
It’s about obedience, not Authority.
Accepting authority (obedience) is an act of humility and trust. It’s only possible if you believe the authority is the source of truth not it’s suppressor. Under that belief you re-examine your own notions of doctrine and prayerfully change your mind to conform to the Church. Yes its every bit as hard as it sounds and that’s why we all struggle. Catholics are not at all excluded from this internal battle. I completely understand why given the disappointing reality of human nature anyone should be skeptical of any human authority. It’s false to think that just because Catholics have one clear authority that obedience naturally follows. Excuses and rationalizations abound whenever there is the slightest loophole in Papal documents. The response to the Catholic voting guide is a classic example. Or better yet the response to Humanae Vitae.
If one precludes human authority and makes the Bible the ultimate authority then the excuses and rationalizations are then transferred to those portions of scripture that rub the wrong way. It’s not that having or excluding a Pope is a cure all. Only humility is curative. Jesus really did not make it that complex to understand, because it was meant for everyone. Take up your cross and follow me, love your God, your neighbors and your enemies and trust in Him, never fearing that He will lead you. It’s really not hard to understand at all, rather it’s incredibly hard to live. In fact without grace it’s completely impossible. I don’t love my neighbors very well, much less my enemies who I can just barely manage to reluctantly pray for in my better moments. It’s not that there’s really any doubt about the teachings of Christ. The doubt is whether I can conform my selfish/rebellious nature to God’s will. The fact is I can’t succeed without His help. My successes in obedience are entirely sustained by grace, all I can do is pray and wait, again and again, seeking knocking.
LikeLike
William Cwirla,
I really appreciate your answer on this issue. I, too do not believe that the “authority” issue is going to be, nor should be, neat and tidy. I liked your summation of the issue, and your response to it.
We live in that constant tension between “giving” a leader too much power and having them run amock in the flock, and everyone being their own little authority and having mass chaos.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is one of the benefits of being a part of a smaller congregation. You understand that God has called that man to lead the church, but at the same time he is very accessible and (should be) more accountable.
This is also why having a plurality of “elders” is good.
Accountability is very important for church leadership. But that can be somewhat messy at times.
LikeLike
As I was reading this, “Authority Song” by John Cougar Mellencamp started playing on the tv.
Authority always wins…
LikeLike
The Early Church was nothing if not eminently practical. At the same time that they debated and set forth the doctrines that guide all Christians to this day, they also set out canons and comments that gave guidance to both clergy and people during times of heresy.
Interestingly enough, the First Council of Nicaea (yep, the Creed Council) also put out canons and comments on heretical bishops. Among them were canons that allowed an orthodox bishop to oversee the parishes of a nearby heretical bishop in order to protect the people.
St. Cyprian, in a quote that I could not quickly find, comments that orthodox people who find themselves under a heretical bishop ought to quickly look for the coverage of an orthodox bishop.
In other words, the Early Church did not absolutely prize unity over orthodoxy. But, what were the dividing lines? In large part, the development of the Creed of Nicaea was to give the inviolable parts of the faith. Should any bishop violate that faith, any faithful person had the right to up and look for another bishop! [Mind you, in practice step one would have been to denounce the bishop to the provincial bishops, but you get the idea.]
I will not try here to “expound” on the limits of inviolable truth. But, I will say that those that use the unity argument, by itself, do not know their early Church history.
The reason I spoke for unity is that in the USA, in current culture, among Christians, we have fallen into the false belief that any disagreement merits separation. In fact, the term “separatist fundamentalist” itself reflects an attitude that is antithetical to both the words and spirit of Holy Scripture.
Nevertheless, yes, there are times when we must “look for another bishop.”
LikeLike
Lee,
Well, you know, as I say…when in doubt, obfuscate!
Wyman
LikeLike
Thank you all for the insightful comments. I grew up Catholic but have been a part of an independent evangelical church for the last couple of decades. The issue of authority has been one of my biggest struggles. On one hand I do not see scriptural or historic support for a sole person as our ultimate authority (though my observation could be wrong). On the other hand I have often wished for an official Magisterium who could resolve questions that extended beyond just the local congregation. Example, our elders at one point issued a written directive as to how our congregation would interpret “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2. That was fine for our congregation but what about all of the other independent churches in our area. The “sixteen million popes” comment rings true in this case.
Blessings!
LikeLike
Father Ernesto/Orthodox:
“Fourth, ask yourself how I can go about preserving the unity of the Church in this situation.”
If, as a group of us have recently, one comes into a situation where the suppression of truth is required to retain the unity, which is preferable? Most of my group went with truth and are now seeking other churches. We’re being hammered for not opting for unity.
And please understand that my family has lived with many disagreements with our authority up to this point be stayed due to the points you made.
LikeLike
Dear Dr. Richardson,
Magisterium? ‘ecclesia semper reformanda?’ consensual exegesis (is that between adults?)? enscripturated? Baptist catholicity?
You sure didn’t learn that language from your youth pastor.
Yours,
Rev. Lee Herring
PS: Once again, sir, well done! I am honored that the imonk has asked you to represent us 16 million popes.
LikeLike