Pages

Sunday, February 05, 2006

The cardboard under the crown

Paul Owen has addressed an open letter to critics of the Reformed Catholic project.

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/?p=434

“Once I began to realize that the Evangelical church was advocating a view of justification by faith without the sacraments, that most of the Reformers would not be able to recognize, I began to become very suspicious as to the ability of Evangelical theology to guide our understanding the views of the Reformers.”

Even if Evangelical theology were an unreliable guide to the views of the Reformers, so what? Is that the right question to ask? Shouldn’t the question between whether Evangelical theology is a reliable guide to the views of the Apostles? Or whether the Reformers are a reliable guide to the views of Christ?

Owen is such a man-pleaser. He makes man as his theological criterion. What did the Reformers believe? What did the Fathers believe? That’s his point of reference.

“This led me to ask further questions about issues such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; the nature of the visible Church, and its relation to Rome; ecclesiology (the Reformers had no room for congregationalism, and unlike the later Puritans, allowed a place for bishops in the Church)…”

Again, so what if the Reformers had no room for congregationalism? How is that a rational objection to congregationalism?

At a time when many of the laity were illiterate or uneducated, you’d hardly expect the Reformers to champion congregationalism.

BTW, I personally don’t have a problem with bishops. Lutherans have bishops, and that arrangement seems to work well enough for them.

The problem is not with episcopacy, per se. The problem is when you put your faith in a certain mechanism to ensure the indefectibility of the church. This never works since the machinery is no better than the machinist.

Episcopacy is no better than the bishop in charge, no better or worse than the men who occupy the office. Episcopacy is good when you have good bishops, bad when you have bad bishops.

It’s really is simple as that. You could say the same thing about the OT priesthood. The machinery can’t save you from yourselves.

“The Church’s historic posture towards the Blessed Mother of God (for instance, all the Reformers appear to have taken her Perpetual Virginity for granted).”

For Owen, historical theology trumps exegetical theology every time.

“The influence of the Radical Reformation upon Evangelicalism (and how the Reformers would view it)…”

Once again, who cares how the Magisterial Reformers viewed the Anabaptist wing of the Reformation? How is that a reasonable argument against Anabaptistry?

There mere opinion of Calvin and Luther is irrelevant. What matters is the quality of the case they make. And by that same token, what matters is the quality of the Anabaptist argument to the contrary.

“The more I compared the chaos of modern Evangelicalism with what I encountered in the Reformers, the more I began to long for a truly Catholic expression of Reformational religion.”

To begin with, there are worse things than chaos. 1C Judaism was rather chaotic, with many competing sects and schools of thought.

Given a choice, I prefer living with a certain amount of chaos to the kind of blind institutional allegiance that has brought us a culture of pederasty in the priesthood.

Chaos at least gives you the freedom to sift the wheat from the tares.

But while we’re on the subject of chaos, does the project of Reformed Catholicism supply an antidote?

Just have a little look-see at the blogroll of Reformed Catholicism, as well as the “men of influence”:

Blogs and Other Sites
40 Bicycles
A Resting Place
Adversaria
Against the Grain
All Too Common
Amy Welborn
Blog by the Sea
Boar's Head Tavern
Coffee Conversations
Communio Sanctorum
E-Catena
Ericisrad.com
Evangelical Textual Criticism
Faith and Theology
Fors Clavigera
Fragmenta
Generous Orthodoxy
Hauerwas Online
Honest To Blog
Insight Scoop
Internet Monk
James K.A. Smith-What I'm Reading
Jesus Creed
John Armstrong
Kai Euthus
La Nouvelle Théologie
Leithart.com
Mark Horne
Meam Commemorationem
Mere Comments
Minds in the Making
Missional Baptist Blog
Movable Theoblogical
New Oxford Review
Papa Ratzi Post
Per Caritatem
Prayer Book Society
Project Canterbury
Radical Orthodoxy Online
Radical Preaching
Reformatorische
Ressourcement ~ Restoration in Catholic Theology
Round Tower
Sacra Doctrina
Societas Christiana
Southern California Center for Christian Studies
St. Vladimir's Seminary Press
The Center for Cultural Leadership
The Ekklesia Project
The Japery
The Lubac-Balthasar-Speyr Association
The New Pantagruel
The Phaith of St. Phransus
The Revised Common Lectionary
The Works of John Donne
Theologia
Theologia: Forums
Think Tank
Tolle Legge! Tolle Legge!
Transfiguration
Treaders
Wyclif.net

Men of Influence
Abraham Kuyper
Alexander Schmemann
Cornelius Van Til
Greg Bahnsen
Hans Urs Von Balthasar
Henri de Lubac
Herman Dooyeweerd
James K. A. Smith
John Zizioulas
Karl Barth
Leslie Newbigin
N.T. Wright
Pope Benedict XVI
Robert Webber
Stanley Hauerwas
Stanley J. Grenz
T.F. Torrance
Timothy George
Yves Cardinal Congar

What is this if not a recipe for chaos?

“The semi-Pelagian tendencies within the Church that the Reformers had to fight against, are no longer found so much within Rome, as they are within much of Evangelicalism itself. I have come to see that Calvinists and Lutherans in particular, are all too often guilty of predicating salvation upon a correct understanding of the minutiae of soteriological systems. I thank God for delivering me from such a warped and twisted way of viewing the Christian faith.”

Observe the progression—or should I say, regression?—of Owen’s spiritual pilgrimage.

He originally began by attacking Baptistery as too Anabaptistic. From there he went on to attack Presbyterianism as too Baptistic. Now he’s attacking Lutheranism as a “warped and twisted” view of the Christian faith.

See the ever-shrinking compass of “catholicity”? At this rate, his catholicity will consist of Owen and his pet dog.

“For instance, Mormon theology properly recognizes that most Evangelical formulations of justification fail to offer convincing explanations of NT texts which not only state the inevitability of good works (per James 2:14ff.), but their necessity for salvation (per Romans 2:6-9, 13; Eph. 5:5; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). These texts are not a problem for Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, nor genuinely Reformed Christians, though they cause considerable concern for antinomian Evangelicals and other groups. “

Look at how Owen is confounding justification by faith alone (true) with salvation by faith alone (false), as if these were synonymous propositions, such that denial of the latter entails denial of the former. Conceptual confusion doesn’t get much more basic than this.

“Mormon theology also properly recognizes the fact that the New Testament connects salvation with entering the Church through baptism (Rom. 6:3-4). In order to be saved (Acts 2:37), one must normally repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38), and so be enrolled in the visible body of Christ (Acts 2:41; 1 Cor. 12:13). “

Uh-huh. Owen got into a very public and drawn-out debate with Eric Svendsen over this very issue. Svendsen won, Owen lost. By his own admission, Owen was looking around ever so desperately for the exit sign and aborted the engagement to spare himself further humiliation.

“The continuation of a ministerial priesthood in the Church (recognized by Rome, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, and some Reformed)…”

Notice the appeal to tradition instead of Scripture.

“The distinction between bishop and presbyter/elder in the structure of the early Church…”

Notice the appeal to tradition instead of Scripture.

“The early belief in Christ’s preaching to and liberation of the imprisoned spirits in the Netherworld (i.e., his descent into Hell)…”

Notice the appeal to tradition instead of Scripture.

“The special authority to bestow the gift of the Spirit (i.e., the power of confirmation given to bishops)…”

In other words, bishops believe in episcopal authority. Kind of self-serving, don’t you think?

“And the need for apostolic succession (or restoration in Mormonism) were other valid points which Mormonism was able to raise…”

In other words, Owen has come full circle. He left Mormonism only to return to Mormonism by finding in Anglo-Catholicism an outwardly orthodox simulacrum for much of what he continues to cherish in Mormonism.

This has the pragmatic virtue of saving appearances. Mormonism, all by itself, is disreputable in Christian circles. Like a teenager who hides a girlie magazine within the covers of War & Peace, Anglo-Catholicism supplies the respectable book-jacket for Owen’s cultic theology.

Owen’s epitaph will be 2 Pet 2:22.

“To some of the charges I have seen you toss in this direction on the web, let me just say that: 1) The Anglican Province of America (to which I belong) is in formal communion with the Anglican Province of Nigeria (which is 19 million strong and growing). To say that I belong to a “sect” is simply laughable, when my church is formally joined with the largest province of Anglicanism in the world today. “

i) What sort of argument is this? Are raw numbers what distinguishes the church from a sect? Why couldn’t a Southern Baptist appeal to the same criterion?

ii) Yes, the APA may be in formal communion with the Anglican Province of Nigeria, but as far as apostolic succession is concerned, the real question is whether Nigeria is in formal communion with Canterbury, and, what is more, whether Canterbury is in formal communion with Rome. Otherwise, Owen is a schismatic twice over.

And Rome has spoken on this issue, has she not? According to Leo XIII:

“The authority of Julius m, and of Paul IV, which we have quoted, clearly shows the origin of that practice which has been observed without interruption for more than three centuries, that Ordinations conferred according to the Edwardine rite should be considered null and void. This practice is fully proved by the numerous cases of absolute re-ordination according to the Catholic rite even in Rome.”

“With this inherent defect of ‘form’ is joined the defect of ‘intention’ which is equally essential to the Sacrament.”

“Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

Of course, “Apostolicae Curae” had not been issued at the time the Oxford movement began. Had that encyclical already been on the table, the Tractarians would have had no foothold.

Owen is free to take issue with the Pope. But if he’s going to pay more than mere lip-service to his contention that we’re still under the Pope, indeed that papal primacy is a “fundamental” doctrine of the faith, then it’s hard to see how he can proffer a principled dissent.

Why should an Anglican favor Nigeria over Canterbury? Because Nigeria has a better claim to apostolic succession? Clearly not.

Because Nigeria has taken a more scriptural position on sexual morality? I agree. And if I had to choose between Canterbury and Nigeria, I’d make the same choice.

But that has nothing to do with episcopal authority, and everything to do with Scriptural authority.

So Owen’s nominal fealty to papacy and prelacy is a transparent charade. When is he going to drop the pretence?

“If one wants to call me a Mariolater because I revere and adore the memory of the Blessed Mother of God, the Ever-Virgin Mary, and am thankful for her special agency in the plan of redemption, so be it.

Owen is taking refuge in verbal vagaries. What is at issue is the cult of Mary. The Immaculate Conception. The Assumption. Mary as Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix, and Mother of the Church.

How much of that package does Owen sign on to?

“I will gladly stand up for the honor of Our Lady, and would not want to be in the shoes of others on Judgment Day, as they stand before God the Son and render account for their shameful and irreverent attitude toward His Mother.”

Isn’t this just delicious? Look at the corner into which Owen has painted himself. Here is a man who believes that a Baal-worshiper may be saved, but an evangelical who denies the theological innovations of Rome is teetering on the brink of eternal damnation.

The way to honor Mary is to honor her son, not vice versa. The way to honor Mary is to honor Mary as a Christian who would never divide the honors between herself and her son, but give all the honor to her son. That is the Mary of the Annunciation and the Magnificat (Lk 1). That is not the Mary of the Assumption or Immaculate Conception, or the Queen of Heaven.

“As for being a syncretist, I guess if I am a syncretist, when I insist that God’s soteric activity is present only in the Christian religion and no other, then words cease to have meaning. I do not believe that any other religion reveals or effects an effectual saving knowledge of God. I do believe that God is free to bestow mercy upon whom He will (I think that may be in the Bible somewhere), whether or not it meets the approval of the Reformed-guardians-of-pure-table-fellowship among us, who continue the legacy of the Pharisees of old. In this belief I am in good company: Ulrich Zwingli, C. S. Lewis, Sir Norman Anderson, Robert Saucy, Donald Bloesch, Philip Schaff, and Pope Benedict XVI. I also agree that we can speak of adherents of other monotheistic religions (such as Islam, Judaism, and some expressions of Mormonism) having a sort of worship, knowledge, or zeal for the true God, in keeping with John 4:22; Acts 17:23; and Romans 10:2. When the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Muslims adore the true God, it means nothing more than what is already affirmed in the Bible, and so I must agree with it.”

Oh, dear, so many fallacies—so little time!

i) If asserting that Muslims adore the true God is not a case of syncreticism, then I agree with him that words cease of have meaning.

ii) Of course, Owen’s open letter lays bare many other levels of syncreticism as well, such as his synthesis of Mormon theology with Anglo-Catholic theology.

iii) Then you have his Hyper-Calvinist abuse of Exod 33:19/Rom 9:15, as if the grace of God is sundered from the word of God.

iv) Then you have his subversive appeal to Rom 10:2, as if Christian heresies like Islam and Mormonism are a par with the revealed religion of OT Israel.

v) He misses the note of sarcasm in Act 17:23, although that is evident from the context.

vi) I’ve already had occasion to comment on his abuse of Jn 4:22.

vii) Then you have his usual fallback—the word of man. And what a motley crew: a law prof. (Anderson), a fiction writer (Lewis), a fundamentalist (Saucy), a Reformer (Zwingli), a Barthian (Bloesch), a church historian (Schaff) and a Pope (Benedict XVI).

How does that add up to a reasoned argument for believing anything? How does that evidence the truth of a given proposition?

a) Note how very selective he is, both in whom he includes, and whom he leaves out. Just one Protestant Reformer. What did all the others go?

b) Why appeal to Zwingli? Since Owen doesn’t regard Zwingli as an authority on the sacraments, why cite him as an authority on the fate of unbelievers?

c) Assuming we should follow the lead of the Pope, which Pope should we follow? Boniface VIII or Benedict XVI?

d) Owen could just as well cite Origen, Erigena, Schleiermacher, and Hick in support of his position. Why are they not included? Perhaps because their company would tarnish his position?

Owen’s appeal reminds me of the old sermon illustration: When you get to the pearly gates, and St. Peter asks you why he should let you in, what answer will you give?

Owen’s answer is to say he’s a friend of someone on the guest list. He doesn’t need an invitation.

One of the ironic things about people who appeal to the church fathers or the Protestant Reformers to authorize their own creed is that the very men to whom they repair never make that argument.

When does Luther or Calvin or Athanasius ever say, “Believe it because I believe it.” “Believe it on my personal authority.”

Of course not! They would never be that arrogant or presumptuous.

Why this resort to Catholic or Protestant “authorities” when the authorities in question never make themselves the authoritative source of dogma?

Owen reduces the Christian faith to masquerade ball. It’s all about wearing the right ecclesiastical costume. All about gaining admission to the ballroom because you’re a friend of a friend of the doorman.

No comments:

Post a Comment