When Jesus commanded the disciples, "Write the Bible to establish the pillar of Truth..." Oh wait, Jesus never told his disciples to write the Scriptures, except for John, when he was given the vision that became the book of Revelation (The Apocalypse as it used to be known). The fact is that many of our separated brethren (the good ones) consider Holy Scriptures the final authority for faith and morals. I propose that Scriptures, while being the written Word of God, lack key characteristics to be a final authority - and that they were never intended to be one.
Since I have only three minutes, I'll try to be concise.
St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the Church is "The Pillar and Foundation of Truth". That is, that the Church is the place where the truth is firmly established. That's a far cry from the idea that the Church is an invisible society of true believers of every theological stripe. In that case the description would be something like "a lake in which the truth swims" or "a diamond of truth in the rough" - not a PILLAR and FOUNDATION of truth.Here St Paul has the same position when writing to Timothy that we see in Acts Chapter 15 when the believers in Antioch had heard two different ideas of what Christian should do regarding the ceremonial law of Moses. It was the Church, led by the Holy Spirit that definitively and authoritatively resolved the issue.
Scripture doesn't tell us whether there were dissenters to the decision, but it does make clear that the Church's position was binding. Did not Jesus say "whatever you bind on earth will be bound on heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" first to Peter in Matthew 16:19 and then to the disciples in Matthew 18:18? I've heard a lot of weird teaching by non-Catholics about the terms "binding" and "loosing", but anyone of the time would understand that Jesus was conferring the ability to rule onto the Apostles and Peter (see Isaiah 22:20-23).
While the Scripture are true and indeed "profitable... that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17), they do lack a few important characteristics necessary to claim Final Arbiter of Faith and Morals:
1) Scripture can't resolve new, uncited moral issues. We can't look to Scripture to resolve issues like cloning, in vitro fertilization, and whether you can smoke, cuss or chew or date girls that do (okay maybe cussin' is covered in the Bible under "course speech"). And if you think that because you can't find them in Scripture you're free to pick any position you want, you're quite mistaken. In Romans Chapter 1, St. Paul appeals to Natural Law as the reflection of God's nature and His will, which, like Scripture, also needs a final arbiter (official interpreter) to apply it correctly (see #2).
2) Scripture requires an interpreter. When a Non-Catholic says that his view on disputed verses of scripture is the right one, he is saying that his fellow Christians are wrong. Now that may work if it's a non-Catholic against Catholics (like stuff about the Pope), but it doesn't fly when non-Catholics disagree between themselves. The disagreement proves that Scripture can be misinterpreted. When this point is brought up there are two common responses:
a) The person lacks the intelligence or internal virtue to either understand the verse or accept it with the appropriate docility to the Holy Spirit. Neither of these can be the case since a lack of adequate intelligence puts the less brilliant believer at the intellectual and spiritual mercy of any heretic with the powers of persuasion. And since docility to the Holy Spirit is a result of holiness it therefore cannot also be a prerequisite to holiness. It's basically saying that only good people get to hear the truth on how to be good.
So how can we know with any level of certainty that we are on the right path. It cannot simply be based on an individual, subjective knowing. Mormonism is well-known for asking its potential converts to ask God for a "burning in the bosom" - a literal existential gut-check - to see if Mormonism is true. And while we are intimately involved with our own truth-seeking, we also need to have a reasonable amount of distrust of our own intellect and holiness. If we don't, spiritual pride has an open door and the result can be catastrophic.
b) The second response I get when I talk about the disunity of doctrine among non-Catholics is "True Christians agree on the important theological issues."
Really? Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in Infant baptism (like Catholics) which transforms the infant into a child of God while most others believe one CANNOT become a child of God without an act of the will after the age of accountability. Disciples of Christ and SDAs believe that works are required for salvation while Lutherans and many others believe that God imputes righteousness on the believer without any requirement of morality whatsoever. And there's a 50/50 split over the doctrine of Eternal Security. Half say that once one is saved he is always saved and no act of human will can change it - making every spiritual warning to Christians irrelevant, while the other half acknowledges the potential for the believer to walk away from God's gift (post-conversion).
Christianity is a creedal religion - it is based on believing truths - and poo-pooing truth for unity's sake is simply a bad idea. Let's face it, something is either true or not. And the issues at stake are core to how and whether we are saved or not. These simply are not trivial disagreements.
3) The Scripture requires inclusion in the Canon of Scripture What I mean here is that someone - a human agent - was needed to decide what was or wasn't part of that which we now call the Bible. God did not drop the compiled Bible from heaven. In fact, whether you're a Protestant or Catholic, the books included in your Bible were finally and authoritatively declared in the 16th century (by the Council of Trent for Catholics and by the Reformers for Protestants). The books the Catholics read are the same as have been agreed upon since the fourth century. This would require a lot more explanation, but the fact remains that human agents decided what's in or out of the Bible and there simply is no self-evident test that can justify the inclusion of all the books. Consider the racy book of Song of Solomon or somewhat tedious book of Numbers. Those that claim that it's obvious are basing that decision on familiarity not fact. People, guided by the Spirit of God decided which books were in and which were out. The question is who. Your choices are these: 1) The ones who wanted to create a new version of Christianity or 2) the original group of Christians.
It should be noted that the original group were not silent and secretive for 1500 years before the Reformation. You can actually look and see their beliefs, practices, methods and decisions. These methods look amazingly similar to Acts 15, where this authority wielding Church sent the message to Antioch, " For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit.." They also look amazingly like the Catholic Church.
Does your church wield such authority? Only crazy cults and cult-like organizations dare claim such authority, except, that is, the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the foundation of the Apostles, with Peter as its head. I, of course, believe that the Catholic Church is that Church founded by Christ. You may disagree with my selection, but tell me what other group even comes close? Write Comment
Here's a summary of my time at the University of Minnesota.
Wednesday (5/5/10)
Remembering the words of Mother Theresa, "God has not called us to be successful, God has called us to be faithful.", I bundled up, grabbed my gear (there's more gear than you'd think), and made my way to my location on Northrup Mall. Rain was zig-zagging in the wind.
Like a good outdoors-man, I had a few layers of clothing. I was still a wee bit cold and the rain provided an additional chill but I knew adrenaline would soon take care of that. I deployed my porta-pulpit (thanks Jeff), laid out my gear (recorder, prayer cards, notes, etc.) said some final prayers, and surveyed the clouds. A clearing in the clouds was a minute away.
I thanked God for the timing, waited until it stopped, and boomed out my introduction. The gale force winds slammed my usually powerful voice to the ground like a whisper in a typhoon.
Most student shuffled by far too cold to pay much attention. A few slowed to behold the anomaly - though preachers are a common sight in the mall - my pulpit and crucifix garnered a second look
The topic was The Culture Of Life Vs The Culture Of Death. I began with my list of questions, cajoling the student to interact: "Joseph Stalin, ever ready with the one-liner (yes, he considered himself a funny guy) once said, 'A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a ... ' what?"
One of the shuffling students provided the correct answer, "Statistic!" I congratulated his knowledge but he was 50 feet away before I finished.
The skies began to darken and I wrapped up after 20 minutes.
You can't help scoring your efforts. The trick is to avoid presuming you know how God scores it. I try to look at the different dimensions of the experience: Fear and trepidation subjugation: 5 (I was a bit uncomfortable, but trusted God overall); Delivery: 3 (Choppy, disjointed, heavy - a bit like the weather); Overall value: 10 (Got the cobwebs out, stretched my vocal cords, reacquainted myself with the process, etc). Tomorrow I would do better - weather permitting.
Thursday (5/6/10)
After a morning at the coffee shop I got in my car and headed into town. No wind, intermittent sunshine. The weather was cooperating.
I stepped out of the Church Street Garage and the sun made a grand appearance. It was easy to imagine students lingering on a day like this.
Having broke the ice the day before, it was easier to focus less on myself and my message and more on the students. These were thousands of young people made in the image of God with limitless value and potential. I would remind them of that.
There's the moment when you walk past that first student on your way to the location. The student looks at the odd thing you're carrying. Did they decipher the Escher-like contraption, unfolding it in their mind into a device for street preaching? I chuckle to myself considering the oddity that is myself.
A began my setup routine. Unfolding porta-pulpit, holy card placement, giveaway placement (rosaries and holy cards for questions and answers), crucifix on front of pulpit for quick and easy identification, crucifix facing me for comfort and courage. I take my time. I consider the position of my pulpit desiring maximum affect. I make a significant change, pointing myself toward the stream of walking students. I'm aware that the volume of my voice may actually hurt the ears of passersby and determine to speak at three-quarter volume. I decide to ascend the pulpit and spend time organizing my notes and praying quietly from there, reasoning that it will indicate that I'm about to begin. As I look up to begin, a small crowd has gathered and I begin.
The topic is Love Vs Convenience, Marriage Vs Shacking Up. A group of young women chat in close proximity, occasionally glancing up as I quote peer-reviewed studies showing the significant down-sides of cohabiting. I decide to volley a question to them, asking them if they think shacking up is a good idea. They engage a few volleys and one of them walks away. I sense the topic hits a little close to home so I offer up a silent prayer.
Questions begin to be posed. A questioner asks about embryonic stem cell research. He wants to know if I approve. It's important to understand that the goal is not to satisfy the questioner but to use the questions as a way to teach the crowd. So I begin to break down the question.
"Is it a human life?" I ask the questioner.
He's not interested in answering questions. I explain that when the 23 chromosomes from the mother join with the 23 chromosomes of the father a unique, individual human life is created. He's unfazed. He wants an up or down decision. I tell him I believe every human life from conception to natural death is sacred. The guy takes this as a yes and goes for the jugular,
"Do you have children?".
"yes."
"If your child has Hodgkin's Disease you wouldn't use embryonic stem cells to save him?"
"No, that would be killing another human being to save my son's life."
He's shaking his head in disgust.
I guess that one pushes a button. I feel defensiveness rising up. I tell him about the tainted research after WWII that the allies disposed of because the research had the blood of the Nazi victims on it. I'm talking faster than than I'm thinking. He starts walking away. I shout to him that we don't kill people so others can live. I'm right but I'm wrong. I turn to the crowd and tell them we need to go on to the next question. I've lost my cool but the crowd is unfazed. I guess they think it's part of the show. I regain my cool a few words into the next question, but in retrospect the guy had touched a nerve. I don't like choice he posed: My son or my God. Abraham had it rough on Horeb. God, keep my kids off the altar of science.
An hour or so of Q and A followed. A vaguely familiar face enters the crowd. Could it be?
Four years ago a 17 year old kid with a penchant for Star Trek and buttons displaying his contempt for Christianity. My favorite (for novelty reasons) was the word Dogma with a red circle and a line drawn through it. He spent a good hour testing my metal. That exchange came to a head with me acknowledging the importance of his questions and the nobility of his quest. My response surprised him. I guess he saw us as arch-rivals and I saw him as a fellow seeker. I sensed his need for the approval of an older man. I imagined a father who was disapproving of his questions. He needed to know that God was good or he would have none of it. We shook hands and I asked him his name. I prayed for Ryan several times over the years when he came to mind.
The man now before me poses a question about God's omnipotence and the problem of evil. This guy's done his homework. He challenges my sloppy response. I refine my answer and mention the atheistic position. He defensively states that he didn't say he was an atheist. I confidently reply that I didn't say he was but was only contrasting my position. He agrees. We wrap up our interchange and he gets up to leave. I see the no dogma button pinned to his backpack.
"Ryan?"
"yes."
His voice conveys a tenderness and pleasure that he is recognized and remembered. I'm truly happy to see him.
Later I reflect on the likelihood of our encounter, the impression he made on me that I would remember his name, and the obvious providential nature of our two encounters.
I will be conducting three days of open air presentations (preaching) on May 5th, 6th and 7th on Northrup Mall at the University of Minnesota and I'd really appreciate your prayers. This is the fourth year I've done this and it's been well received but it requires extra prayer for both myself and my hearers. To get an idea of my presentation see THIS PAGE.
If you're unfamiliar with the modern heritage of Catholic open air presentations in the last century (not to mention the last 200+ years), I urge you to READ THIS ARTICLE.
I wanted to thank Siva Nadarajah of Chicago for the photograph of the lovely stained glass image used on the website. Here is the whole image.
