Mighty Mouse

***QUOTE***

Thesis #4: It is the task of the Church alone to clarify the original Divine intent of a biblical text (John 16:13; Rom. 3:2; 1 Cor. 2:14-16). This clarification can be seen at work in: 1) the NT interpretation of OT texts; 2) the Church’s judgments in the formation of the canon (which shows the Church’s understanding of the Divine intent through textual relatedness); 3) the hermeneutical judgments of Church Councils, which sometimes narrow the range of potential understandings of biblical texts, in ways that are more specific than (though always consistent with) what was conveyed by the original authors. The judgments of Church Councils do not constitute the Rule of Faith of the Church (WCF 31.4), but they do interpret, clarify and restate it.

Thesis #5: Neither task can be performed in an infallible manner (WCF 31.4), apart from supernatural verbal inspiration (which has ceased since the closing of the canon). But there is a difference between the exegetical judgments of individuals and Church Councils. Whereas an individual has every right to call into question and even reject the truth or validity of any other individual’s attempt to restate the original intent of Scripture, no individual has the right to resist and reject the Creedal or Confessional judgments of the Church to which she is subject by virtue of membership (WCF 20.4; 31.3). Only a Church court can modify or correct an earlier judgment pertaining to the Divine intent of Scripture. Nor does any individual, no matter his office in the Church, have the right to assert the original intent of Scripture, whether human or Divine, in a manner which offends the conscience of another Christian (Rom. 14:1-4).

http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=118

***END-QUOTE***

Thus saith the Owen.

1.The first question to ask is why anyone should take Dr. Owen’s dicta the least bit seriously. What is his authority to lay down these sweeping ultimatums? Is Owen’s “ipse dixit” our rule of faith? Who is he to issue edicts binding on the Christian conscience?

2.Dr. Owen is a theological pretzel. He has managed to twist and contort himself into the contradictory and hypocritical posture of a high church schismatic. He continues to mouth this authoritarian, high-church rhetoric even as he himself has chosen to affiliate with an itsy bitsy breakaway sect. And from the lofty molehill of his splinter-group, he presumes to hand down these Olympian pronouncements. Mickey Mouse in a Zeus-suit.

Again, I ask, why should anyway take his high-pitched squeaks the least bit seriously?

3.Notice the gaping equivocations in his argument, if you can call it that. Which “Church”? Where do we find “The Church”? Which church or churches speak for “The Church”?

4.Which church councils? Which councils count as “church” councils? There are many councils to choose from, are there not?

5.Which canon? The Orthodox Church has one OT canon, the Roman Church another, and the Evangelical church yet another.

6.What we see in the NT interpretation of the OT is not “The Church’s” interpretation of the OT, but the interpretation of inspired individuals.

7.And by that same token, we see inspired individuals challenging the interpretation of the Jewish establishment.

8.If an individual has no right to challenge conciliar dogma, then obviously the church councils do function as the rule of faith.

9.What, in principle, is wrong with individuals challenging the received reading of Scripture? What’s the point of biblical archeology if we can never revise a traditional interpretation in light of new evidence—evidence which clarifies original intent?

10. How can Owen say that church councils are fallible, yet insist that their hermeneutical findings are always consonant with Scripture?

11.How can we avoid offending the conscience of another Christian when we have a diversity of theological traditions? If that is offensive, then it’s mutually offensive.

12.Finally, there is a more fundamental problem. For men like Owen, to be a believer is to play the role of a believer—a role assigned to you by tradition. Tradition hands you your script. Your job is to memorize and recite the script. You speak on cue.

On this view, the Christian is not a believer, but an actor. The only difference between one theological tradition and another is the difference between one school of acting and another. Are you a Method actor? Shakespearean actor? Vaudeville performer? Kabuki artist?

You can see this in Owen’s own checkered career. He’s gone from playing the role of a Mormon to playing the role of a Presbyterian to playing the role of a “Reformed” Catholic to playing the role of an Anglican—successively shedding his Mormon mask for his Presbyterian mask, his Presbyterian mask for his “Reformed” Catholic mask, and his “Reformed Catholic mask for his Anglican mask.

It’s not a matter of believing, but play-acting. The chain of command issues the script and assigns you your role. When you leave one command structure for another, you assume a new role and read from a new script. You have no identity outside the group—a corporate identity, but no individual identity.

This goes to a perennial, temperamental difference between the ecumenist and the Protestant. The motivation of the ecumenist is sociological rather than theological. His spiritual security is bound up with social affirmation and approval. The creed functions as a loyalty-oath to the in-group.

Now, the Christian faith does, of course, have a sociological dimension. We have a doctrine of the church.

But this is a matter of priorities. The vertical relation entails the horizontal, but the horizontal does not entail the vertical. If we are individually related to Christ, where two lines converge at the top of the triangle, then we are related to each other, at the bottom of the triangle, where the two lines are laterally joined.

But the relation is asymmetrical. To be joined at the bottom does not imply that we are joined at the top. Christian identity is something that a true believer emanates, not impersonates.

I have no problem with Christians who position themselves within a given theological tradition. But you need to believe the right thing, and, what is more, you need to believe it for the right reason. The orientation must be Godward, not manward.

Is our Christian fellowship a side-effect of our fellowship with God, or is our fellowship with God a side-effect of our Christian fellowship? That’s the question. And the way you answer it is the difference between two opposing eternities.

As I’ve said before, the first question a Christian must ask myself about what he believes is not: “Is this traditional?” but, “Is this Biblical”? The word of God, and not the word of man, must be our rule of faith.

When I’m on my deathbed, staring into eternity, it will be quite irrelevant to me and to my Maker whether I have my passport is stamped with all the right names of all the approved luminaries.