« The homeschooler's life |
Main
| Spider on fancy daffodil »
Francis Beckwith has returned...
...to the Catholic Church. This is creating quite a stir, as well it might. Beckwith has been a member of the Evangelical Theological Society for over 20 years, and was its president upon his very recent resignation.
Christianity Today reports on the situation and links to Beckwith’s discussion of his resignation at Right Reason, where he blogs. In his statement he says,
Although I firmly believe that I can sign the ETS doctrinal statement in good conscience, my high-profile presence in ETS will likely result in the sort of public conflict that occurred during the debate over the openness view of God and the attempt on the part of some members to oust believers in that view. Because, as I noted in my prior posting on this matter, that I deeply desire a public conversation among Christians about the relationship between Evangelicalism and the Great Tradition, a public debate about my membership status, with all the rancor and stress that typically goes with such disputes, would preempt and poison that important conversation. For this reason, I am resigning as a member of ETS.
ETS’s own statement, however, includes this:
...the Executive Committee recognizes Dr. Beckwith’s resignation as President and subsequent withdrawal from membership as appropriate in light of the purpose and doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Theological Society and in light of the requirements of wholehearted confessional agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.
And goes on to cite the Catholic Church’s “more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation” beyond Scripture and its acceptance of the Apocrypha as reason to accept Beckwith’s resignation.
This is the Doctrinal Basis for membership as stated on ETS' website:
The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.
***
In the CT article, Scot McKnight is quoted as saying this:
Evangelical churches in general need to think more carefully about historical theology and our historical rootedness. This dearth of historical consciousness and [the habit of] reinventing the church every half generation are biting us with people like Frank Beckwith.
Ouch.
(Somehow I question the authenticity of this quote, and wasn't able to corroborate it. So I'll just consider the statement itself, which is what many are thinking, I'm sure.)
On the surface of it, here are my thoughts:
1) Why must someone be Protestant to be considered an Evangelical? Okay, the fact that, historically, those who have called themselves “Evangelical” have been Protestant. And because the term has been associated with reform and revival. But wouldn’t a Catholic desire to be evangelical too, as a Christian? (Atlantic – are you reading? I solicit your comments.)
2) Why should it matter one hoot if a Protestant becomes a Catholic? Are we taking sides here? Does God takes sides?
The reason to “recover our roots” shouldn’t be to keep Protestants from “flocking to Rome” (McKnight), or because the church's authentic roots are basically Protestant; I don’t believe this is true. It is because we should keep alive those practices and beliefs which need to be kept alive.
3) I am interested to know how Prof. Beckwith assents to ETS’ doctrinal basis for membership, as a Catholic. I’m thinking it may be that the Pope and magisterium themselves assent to the primacy of Scripture as the basis for their own authority, although I don't know. Or maybe he hasn't come to full terms with this aspect, although to say that is probably to insult his very capable intelligence.
I also wonder why acceptance of ETS' doctrinal basis must mean rejection of Catholic belief. I suppose it is a view that Scripture itself does not support the infallibility of the Pope/Magisterium, but the statement itself doesn't say this; it is not specific. Plus, the canon of Scripture was decided by magisterial authority, so it doesn’t make sense to reject Catholics on account of the Apocrypha.
I just think it’s time to get over the Catholic-Protestant split*. As I've said before, I think there are greater schisms within Protestantism than exist between some Catholics and Protestants, although that could be argued and has been (which I welcome).
(Note: I am a Protestant with Catholic tinges. I believe in sola scriptura although I recognize the authority of church leaders both past and present. I recognize the knowledge of scholars within the church and accept their authority as church leaders in matters of interpretation. However, I will not accept by fiat any interpretation that goes against my own conscience as informed by my own interpretation and understanding, all of which, I trust, are informed by the Holy Spirit.)
I welcome your comments! (as always)
*I don't mean a Protestant-Catholic merger; I just mean the enmity between the two.
It seems very regrettable to me that Beckwith has felt pressured to resign from ETS. It suggests a very narrow view of the meaning of sola scriptura. I wonder just what the ETS believes is the function of the Holy Spirit?
For several centuries, the early church lived and thrived without the Scriptures as we know them today. They were an authentic evangelical Christian church. They received the Word of God directly from the original Apostles, or from others approved by the Apostles, or from their successors in leadership. To claim that God only speaks through His written Word, if that is the way to understand the ETS doctrinal statement, is to call the early church heretical.
The ETS statement comes very close to replacing God with Scripture. But since we worship a living God, we really must allow the Holy Spirit to breathe His living understanding of God's Word into the church -- and yes, I understand the dangers. But either God lives, or He is merely words on the page of my Bible.
This is interesting to me as well. I can't speak to a lot of this, not having enough theological studies to lay a foundation for some of the things you've brought up, but anecdotally...a former acquaintance of mine left the Protestant/Evangelical faith to become Catholic for no other reason than he "liked the tradition and history and orderliness" of it. I found that quite interesting.
Personally, I would not call myself an "Evangelical" or even "Protestant". I am a believer in and follower of Jesus. "Evangelical" has a LOT of dirty, grubby baggage hanging off it these days, from the world's unsurprising charges of hypocrisy to the things I have spoken of recently at my own blog, namely the lack of actual scriptural teaching in the majority of our churches.
Still, I do think it would be nice if Protestants/Evangelicals and Catholics could come to terms with one another. There are major problems we have with them and they with us, but we also need to keep in mind that God looks on the heart. I think we could learn much from each other despite the tremendous disagreements we have.
Very good point, Charlie, thanks for your comment!
Miss O'Hara, I absolutely agree:
I think we could learn much from each other despite the tremendous disagreements we have.
1) Why must someone be Protestant to be considered an Evangelical? Okay, the fact that, historically, those who have called themselves “Evangelical” have been Protestant. And because the term has been associated with reform and revival. But wouldn’t a Catholic desire to be evangelical too, as a Christian? (Atlantic – are you reading? I solicit your comments.)
Of course we want to be evangelical, in the sense of spreading the Gospel. But as a label, it has (multiple) conventional meanings, all in the Protestant camp. Even “Evangelical Catholic” is used by high-church Lutherans, apparently, as well as evangelical Catholics, and even at least one “Catholic” church not in communion with Rome.
2) Why should it matter one hoot if a Protestant becomes a Catholic? Are we taking sides here? Does God takes sides?
Yes, it matters, because God is calling us to fullness of faith and unity in the Church He founded. If (as some people believe) faithful Catholics aren’t Christians at all, obviously they’re going to get upset at what they perceive as apostasy. A Catholic will rejoice at someone coming to the fullness of the faith.
That said, I also agree that we can learn a lot from each other.
3) I am interested to know how Prof. Beckwith assents to ETS’ doctrinal basis for membership, as a Catholic. I’m thinking it may be that the Pope and magisterium themselves assent to the primacy of Scripture as the basis for their own authority, although I don't know. Or maybe he hasn't come to full terms with this aspect, although to say that is probably to insult his very capable intelligence.
I also wonder why acceptance of ETS' doctrinal basis must mean rejection of Catholic belief. I suppose it is a view that Scripture itself does not support the infallibility of the Pope/Magisterium, but the statement itself doesn't say this; it is not specific. Plus, the canon of Scripture was decided by magisterial authority, so it doesn’t make sense to reject Catholics on account of the Apocrypha.
Here’s ETS’s doctrinal statement:
The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.
I’ll ignore the Trinitarianism, as no one thinks Protestants and Catholics disagree on that. It’s the first statement.
“The Bible alone…the Bible in its entirety…” “Bible” is not actually defined here, and of course Catholics refer to the full canon as “the Bible”….so there’s nothing wrong so far. If the deuterocanonicals were expressly excluded, that would stop a Catholic from agreeing.
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written…” To quote from the Catholic Encyclopaedia
Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.
The only written work inspired in this sense – the actual Word of God written – is Scripture. Other written expositions of doctrine may be without error (as no doubt ETS members believe their doctrinal statement to be), but it is not the Word of God in the same way, and God is not the author of them the way that He is of Scripture.
So a Catholic must agree with this statement.
“…and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” This is poorly phrased, since the subject of this second clause is not specified. The sentence as a whole could convey the meaning “The Bible alone is the Word of God written, and the Bible is therefore inerrant.” A Catholic must agree with this reading.
However, I suspect that not a few Protestants would take the subject of this second clause to be not “the Bible”, but “the Bible alone”, so the meaning would then be “The Bible alone is the Word of God written, and therefore the Bible alone is inerrant.” A Catholic must disagree with this reading. I would guess that those who say that a faithful Catholic cannot agree with the ETS statement are assuming this reading.
However, given that the phrasing is ambiguous, a Catholic can easily agree with the entire statement as written.
anecdotally...a former acquaintance of mine left the Protestant/Evangelical faith to become Catholic for no other reason than he "liked the tradition and history and orderliness" of it. I found that quite interesting.
Nobody should become a Catholic unless they believe in the Catholic faith.
I just looked at the ETS statement.
Key quotes and my comments:
Confessional Catholicism,
I heave never heard that term before in my life. I’ve heard the term “confessional” prefixed to various Protestant labels. What does it mean exactly?
as defined by the Roman Catholic Church’s declarations from the Council of Trent to Vatican II,
They do realize that the Catholic Church didn’t start at Trent, I hope. Are there Protestants who believe that the Church was on the mark all the way up to Trent?
sets forth a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation.
It does, but their doctrinal statement only discusses the inerrant written Word of God.
Specifically, it posits a larger canon of Scripture than that recognized by evangelical Protestants, including in its canon several writings from the Apocrypha.
Not discussed in their doctrinal statement.
It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church), as well as certain pronouncements of the pope, which are delivered ex cathedra, such as doctrines about the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary.
Not discussed in their doctrinal statement. A written statement made under the charism of infallibility is not the written Word of God as Scripture is.
we wholeheartedly affirm the distinctive contribution and convictional necessity of the work of the Evangelical Theological Society on the basis of the “Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety” as “the Word of God written and . . . inerrant.”
Note that the “therefore” has been elided, making it look as if the meaning of the statement is “the Bible alone is the Word of God written and the Bible alone is inerrant”. This is not demanded by the full phrase, which could reasonably be interpreted as “the Bible alone is the Word of God written; the Word of God written is inerrant; therefore the Bible is in the category of inerrant things (without ruling out the possibility that other things may also be inerrant).”
They need to revise their statement – which someone spotted at least three years ago.
Thanks for your explications and comments, Atlantic.
I have a hard time believing that anyone thinks ETS' doctrinal statement is sufficient, and sufficiently clear. I hope they revise it, without undue difficulty.
confessional Catholicism...
Dunno what that is either.
Are there Protestants who believe that the Church was on the mark all the way up to Trent?
Doubtful, but I think they view Trent as something overwhelmingly, unifyingly definitive for the Catholic Church. (Protestants do like to reference Councils of This or That, and tend to view the history of Christianity in Protestant terms, as Catholics do in Catholic terms.)
"Doubtful, but I think they view Trent as something overwhelmingly, unifyingly definitive for the Catholic Church. (Protestants do like to reference Councils of This or That, and tend to view the history of Christianity in Protestant terms, as Catholics do in Catholic terms.)"
Very true. Like...
Christ founds Christianity
Paul travels around a lot / Scriptures written
Early Councils
Constantine (large crashing noise, like falling off cliff)
AUGUSTINE!
creeping paganism
more creeping paganism
Catholo-pagans
Catholo-pagans
More Catholo-pagans
maybe one or two actual Christians by accident
Catholo-pagans
Catholo-pagans
Luther actually pays attention while reading Romans
TRENT! (huge noise of bomb going off, Catholics now definitely lost)
Indulgences.
I forgot indulgences. Indulgences were 90% of the doctrine and praxis of the late medieval Church. :)
Indulgences are still part of the doctrine and praxis of the Catholic Church. They're just not abused as they certainly were in Luther's time.
