And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will
draw all people to myself. – Jesus of Nazareth
We must
never forget this. It is Christ Himself who does the unifying in the church.
There is
pious-sounding tripe all over the place, and we live in an era when people don’t,
by and large, think. They skim, they skip, they form impressions based on the
most superficial of considerations. That’s one of the reasons why I try to be
as blunt as I can. I know it’s a Presbyterian tradition to try to see things in
their most “charitable” light.
But there is
such a thing as going too far in the wrong direction.
It is Christ
who draws all people to himself. The universality of the church comes from the
fact that there are Christians who are united to Christ from all parts of the
earth. There are churches all over the earth. The unity of “the Church” is the
unity that comes from following Christ, from each of them being in “union with
Christ”. It is not a kind of unity that our meager efforts can effect. It is
certainly not the kind of unity that comes from pious-sounding drivel of the
kind that we hear from Peter Leithart.
Here’s
an article by Leithart, where he stumbles all over himself, trying to drum
up some “Protestant street cred”. But Leithart contradicts himself all over the
place. He says:
I agree with the standard Protestant
objections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy: Certain Catholic teachings and
practices obscure the free grace of God in Jesus Christ; prayers through Mary
and the saints are not encouraged or permitted by Scripture, and they distract
from the one Mediator, Jesus; I do not accept the Papal claims of Vatican I; I
believe iconodules violate the second commandment by engaging in liturgical
idolatry; venerating the Host is also liturgical idolatry; in both Catholicism
and Orthodoxy, tradition muzzles the word of God.
Let’s see, “obscuring
free grace”, “distracting from the Mediator”, “Papal claims of Vatican I”, “violate
the second commandment”, “engage in idolatry”, “muzzle the word of God” …
Those who
are against us are against us.
These are
not people who, by and large, one ought to be seeking “unity” with. If we are “divided”
from them, they are the cause of the divisions. Catering to them, pandering to
them, is not going to help them avoid making those errors. Rather, Leithart is
encouraging them in their errors. He gives them cover for their errors.
How many evangelicals
have started reading someone like Leithart, only to start losing their
Protestant identity, and eventually wander off into Rome or Constantinople? Leithart’s
pious-sounding messaging is playing havoc with some people.
Leithart
says:
The division of the church, especially
since the Reformation, has largely been a story of horror and tragedy, with the
occasional act of faithful separation thrown in. I regard the division of the church as one of
the great evils of the modern world, which has seen more than its share of
evils (many of which are, I believe, quite closely related to the division of
the church). What more horrific sight
can we imagine than to see Christ again crucified? Christ is not divided. I think our main response to this
half-millennium of Western division, and millennium-plus of East-West division
should be deep mourning and repentance.
Note to
Peter Leithart: The trouble and division already existed, thanks to your
Catholic and Orthodox friends. It was the Roman church that was “one of the
great evils in the world”. The Reformation was nothing less than the Triumph of
the Gospel, re-asserting itself over the actual “horror and tragedy” that the
Medieval Roman Church had become. The Reformation was the rescue.
Christ is
NOT again crucified in the Reformation. More than at any time perhaps since the
Apostolic era, Christ Crucified is proclaimed
as He should be in the Reformation. It is the Roman Catholic Church today which,
by its very doctrines, denies
that Christ crucified is the only source of our grace.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are
impressive for their heritage, the seriousness of much of their theology, the
seriousness with which they take Christian cultural engagement. Both, especially the Catholic church, are
impressive for their sheer size.
The
seriousness of their theology? Let’s see, “obscuring grace”, “distracting from
the Mediator”, “Papal claims of Vatican I”, “violate the second commandment”, “engage
in idolatry”, “muzzle the word of God” …
Not much to
take seriously there. And by and large, Roman Catholics, especially in America,
simply ignore all that “serious theology” most of them being merely “cultural
Catholics”, most of them ignoring “Papal teaching” on contraception. They pay
lip service to Rome. In many ways, their attitude toward Rome is more
commendable than your own.
As for their
impressive heritage, the church was naked and persecuted before it inherited
the Roman Empire. And what did they do with it? See the Dark Ages. See the schisms
and the boasting of the Medieval Roman Church.
But when I attend Mass and am denied
access to the table of my Lord Jesus together with my Catholic brothers, I
can’t help wondering what really is the difference between Catholics and the
Wisconsin Synod Lutherans or the Continental Reformed who practice closed
communion. My Catholic friends take
offense at this, but I can’t escape it: Size and history apart, how is
Catholicism different from a gigantic sect?
Note to
Peter Leithart: Do you really think the Roman Catholic Mass is “the table of
the Lord”? What about the “liturgical idolatry” you spoke of? Does that factor in any way into your statement?
To become Catholic I would [have] to
contract my ecclesial world. I would
have to become less catholic – less catholic than Jesus is. Which is why I will continue to say: I’m too
catholic to become Catholic.
In one
sense, the word “catholic” means “universal”. But again, this “universal”
nature is because of the greatness and largeness of Christ, not because we try
to be nice to those who obscure free grace, distract from the Mediator, make
grandiose claims, violate the second commandment, engage in idolatry, and
otherwise, in many other ways, muzzle the word of God …
What about simply calling a thing what it is?
We have come to expect this sort of wackiness from Leithart. Why should we consider Rome to be a true church, or Romanists brothers? He doesn't say, although anyone acquainted with his theology knows that his baptismal nominalism is behind this. If you're baptized, you're in the club, baby!
ReplyDeleteHi John and David Gadbois,
ReplyDeleteThe counter-arguments to Leithart are convincing.
I do need some help trying to clarify some things. It seems that there have been, are, and will be some folks who believe in a false gospel or preach a false gospel who are and will be our brothers and sisters in Christ in Heaven.
For instance, I have encountered some Confessional Lutherans who believe that Baptism is Gospel. (Gadbois: "anyone acquainted with his theology knows that his baptismal nominalism is behind this. If you're baptized, you're in the club, baby!")
This baptismal regeneration theology is a false gospel. And yet there are, and will be, Confessional Lutherans who while professing a false gospel, are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
The Gospel is marred, but not so terribly badly, by Confessional Lutherans that there are still genuine Christians who are Confessional Lutherans.
An extension of this argument could be extended to members of the RCC and EOC. The counter is that they are saved in spite of what they're taught, not because of what they're taught.
John, could you write a Triablogue post about "saved in spite of what you're taught and what you advocate, not because of what you're taught and what you advocate" and let me know when it's written?
Hi David -- what got to me this time was the fact that two people I know and love have recently posted Leithart articles on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteHi Truth -- If I do this, you'll be the first to know about it :-)