Monday, August 11, 2008

Ecclesial consumerism

Bryan Cross tries to acquit himself of the charge that he’s guilty of the very thing he accuses the Protestant of, namely: ecclesial consumerism:

http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/07/tu-quoque-catholic-convert.html

As he summarizes the charge: “But the objection to this argument is that the person who moves from Protestantism to Catholicism does the very same thing, essentially creates ‘Church’ in his own image by reading the Bible and deciding that the doctrine of the Catholic Church most closely matches what the Bible teaches. So, the objection is a form of the tu quoque (i.e. you too) objection.”

Here’s his attempt to deflect the charge:

“But there is a very important difference. What is problematic in the Protestant approach is not that the individual uses his own intellect and will in making decisions about the identity and nature of the Church. We can't but use our own intellect and will in making decisions. Individualism is not equivalent to individual agency. So, that's not the issue.”

“The issue is the criterion by which we decide what is the true Church. The approach in the Protestant case (because in Protestantism ‘apostolic succession’, insofar as the term is used, is thought to refer fundamentally to the doctrine of the Apostles) is to interpret Scripture, while typically assuming sola scriptura, and work out what one thinks was the Apostles' doctrine, and then find a present-day community of persons who shares that doctrine, call them ‘the Church’, and then join ‘the Church’.”

“So what exactly is the relevant difference between the Protestant picking out a Protestant denomination that fits his own interpretation of Scripture, and the Protestant adult who becomes Catholic for the right reason? In the former case, the individual works out a set of doctrines from Scripture, and then seeks out those persons who are presently teaching according to that set of doctrines, and joins their community and submits to them. In the latter case, by contrast, the individual finds in history those whom the Apostles appointed and authorized, observes what they say about the basis of the transmission of Magisterial authority, and then traces that line of successive authorizations down through history to the present day to a living Magisterium, and then submits to what this present-day Magisterium is teaching. In both cases the individual inquirer is using his intellect and will. But in the former case he is using his own determination of *doctrine* from his interpretation of Scripture to define and locate ‘the Church’, but in the latter case he is using the *succession of sacramental authority* from the Apostles to locate the Church and then let the Church tell him what is and is not orthodox doctrine.”

Unfortunately for Bryan, his attempt to rebut the comparison is unsuccessful. The prior identification of the correct criterion is a common concern for Catholic and Protestant alike. Hence, there is a rather exact analogy when we compare Bryan’s conduct to the Protestant conduct he assails.

Both groups consider the identification of the correct criterion to be the primary issue. For your rule of faith will, to some extent, select for your theology (or theological options) and corresponding ecclesial affiliation.

It’s not a case of first determining your doctrinal stance, then choosing a church that happens to match your doctrinal stance. Rather, it’s a case of first determining your criterion (whether sola Scriptura or sola Ecclesia), which will, in turn, affect your theological method, resultant theology, and subsequent choice of a Christian fellowship. So the parallel holds in both cases.

But I’d also add that Bryan presents a very artificial version of how people choose churches. For one thing, people don’t generally attend churches as individuals. Rather, they attend churches as families.

For example, if a Baptist marries a Presbyterian, then there are certain options. She can leave her church to attend his church. He can leave his church to attend her church. They can compromise by attending a neutral church. And so on and so forth.

There’s no direct correlation between my beliefs and the beliefs of my denomination. They may intersect, but that doesn’t mean they coincide. I may be prepared to affiliate with a number of different denominations as long as they fall within certain acceptable parameters.

In addition, since many or most Protestants don’t identify any particular denomination or local church or independent church with the one true church, they don’t use their theology to locate or find “The Church.” They don’t use their theology to select for “The Church” since, in their theology, there is not one-to-one correspondence between the one true church and any particular denomination or local church or independent church. So they are more flexible than Bryan’s wooden caricature allows for.

12 comments:

  1. "In the latter case, by contrast, the individual finds in history those whom the Apostles appointed and authorized, observes what they say about the basis of the transmission of Magisterial authority, and then traces that line of successive authorizations down through history to the present day to a living Magisterium, and then submits to what this present-day Magisterium is teaching."

    Of course, he'd have to do a doctrinal searching of history for him to decide between the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, etc. in addition to determining whether the whole idea of 'apostolic tradition' can actually hold weight or whether sola Scriptura is the most sure guide to the doctrine of the apostles (as Steve mentioned).

    ReplyDelete
  2. As I've been looking at those who convert to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy over the years, I've found that it tends to be philosophers, those who don't have much expertise in Biblical scholarship.

    This certainly accounts for the heavy emphasis on the philosophical arguments against sola Scriptura and the massive amount of spoof-texting that goes on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Church-shopping: this means that I succumb to my own fallen needs or desires when searching for a Church

    And when I stop doing that and honestly search for truth, seeking to conform myself to it instead of a priori trying to conform it to my own fallen needs or desires, that's another thing.

    There's a difference between the way we "like" sinful passions and the way we "like" Bach & the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Saint and Sinner wrote:

    "This certainly accounts for the heavy emphasis on the philosophical arguments against sola Scriptura and the massive amount of spoof-texting that goes on."

    I'd add that many people, whether they're philosophers or not, become more philosophical and less historical in their arguments for Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy with the passing of time. Neither system is historically defensible. The more knowledgeable Catholics and Orthodox who discover that fact, yet want to remain Catholic or Orthodox, shift their focus from history to unverifiable philosophical speculations (God wants every Christian to be part of the same denomination, God wants the church to be infallible, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  5. shift their focus from history to unverifiable philosophical speculations (God wants every Christian to be part of the same denomination, God wants the church to be infallible, etc.).

    ...as opposed to "God wants anyone to know whether he's saved or not"?

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus established does that not leave us in an endless loop of personal opinion and biblical proof-texting, trying to figure out which of the Churches today reflect the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles?

    ReplyDelete
  7. GREG SAID:

    "If the Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus established does that not leave us in an endless loop of personal opinion and biblical proof-texting, trying to figure out which of the Churches today reflect the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles?"

    What's wrong with Biblical prooftexting? Jesus and the Apostles engage in a lot of Biblical prooftexting. And they expect their audience to appreciate the force of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  8. RE What's wrong with Biblical prooftexting?

    When a Christian is talking to someone of a different religion I think proof-texting can be useful for the exact reason you state. Perhaps the other person will "appreciate the force of the argument." In this case each person (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) can reference their own sacred writings and attempt to muster the best defense for their position.

    However, proof-texting does not work when we are all referencing the same text and only that text. When a Christian Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Charismatic all attempt to prove their position from the same text it goes nowhere.

    Examples of this impass are some books published by B&H, Inter Varsity, and Zondervan over the past 10 years. The topics concern the Doctrine of God, the Atonement, Salvation, Predestination & Free Will, Divine Foreknowledge, Election, Eternal Security, and Sanctification. In the books each of these topics has at least four different ways to view it and Bible passages are given in support of each view.

    Most people I know would say that to be a mature Christian is to understand what we can about the above topics. However, how can we understand anything when there are at least four views on each topic?

    Thus, the endless loop.

    Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  9. GREG SAID:

    “When a Christian is talking to someone of a different religion I think proof-texting can be useful for the exact reason you state.”

    Actually, I think you’ve got it backwards. As a rule, prooftexting only has traction if both sides regard the same text as authoritative. Prooftexting is generally an intramural debate between disputants of the same faith, with the same authority source. It would be futile to prooftext with someone who doesn’t share your authority source.

    An exception is that it’s possible to prooftext for the sake of argument. I, as a Christian, might refer to the Koran when debating a Muslim.

    But prooftexting isn’t limited to ex hypothesi arguments.

    “However, proof-texting does not work when we are all referencing the same text and only that text.”

    To the contrary, that’s the natural framework for prooftexting. Common ground.

    “When a Christian Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Charismatic all attempt to prove their position from the same text it goes nowhere.”

    You’re confusing proof and persuasion. Some people are simply unreasonable. That doesn’t mean that all arguments or all interpretations are equally good.

    The mere fact that people disagree is not a reason for you to retreat into global scepticism.

    And, as a matter of fact, some of these debates do result in changing the views of one or more parties. You’re overstating your case.

    “However, how can we understand anything when there are at least four views on each topic?”

    Which doesn’t mean there are four equally valid positions.

    And there are parallel debates in Catholicism. Debates over the interpretation of Aquinas. Debates over the interpretation of Vatican II.

    “Thus, the endless loop.”

    Endless loop in what sense? The bare phenomenon that people disagree? How would that be an argument for Catholicism? What about all the people who disagree with Catholicism? Or disagree within Catholicism? Your argument either proves too much or too little.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve,

    Thanks for the detailed reply.

    The Protestant position still seems to leave things too vague. At least too vague for me.

    Your "Individualism" post is very good. I don't agree with all your conclusions, but (I think) you have lined-out the issues rather well.

    I will keep this blog on my favorites and check in from time to time.

    Thanks again.

    Greg

    ReplyDelete
  11. I respond to Steve's comments below. My comments are interspersed.

    >Unfortunately for Bryan, his >attempt to rebut the comparison >is unsuccessful. The prior >identification of the correct >criterion is a common concern for >Catholic and Protestant alike. >Hence, there is a rather exact >analogy when we compare Bryan’s >conduct to the Protestant conduct >he assails.

    Both groups consider the identification of the correct criterion to be the primary issue. For your rule of faith will, to some extent, select for your theology (or theological options) and corresponding ecclesial affiliation.

    >It’s not a case of first >determining your doctrinal >stance, then choosing a church >that happens to match your >doctrinal stance. Rather, it’s a >case of first determining your >criterion (whether sola Scriptura >or sola Ecclesia), which will, in >turn, affect your theological >method, resultant theology, and >subsequent choice of a Christian >fellowship. So the parallel holds >in both cases.

    Well, I would say that different people go about all of this differently to some extent, with some focusing more on a criterion and others determining detailed doctrinal stances and others determining broad doctrinal stances and others doing some combination of two or more of these. There's a lot that goes into all of this and it is not probably the same for every person. There are some, however, who do have a theology built and pick and choose based on that. Others have a theology built and then find out some historical details about the bible and the church and then decide to join a group that either fits fairly well with the their own theology or not so well. It is different for different people, many times. But some do, at different points in their lives, do what Bryan Cross mentioned, though not always.


    >But I’d also add that Bryan >presents a very artificial >version of how people choose >churches. For one thing, people >don’t generally attend churches >as individuals. Rather, they >attend churches as families.

    Some do. But many times fathers and mothers will make the decision and that decision can be based on different things, which I think is Bryan Cross' point, some of which are not as substantial as others. For example, some just choose churches based on the music or on the child care so long as nothing terribly surprising pops up clearly in the theology of the church.

    >For example, if a Baptist marries >a Presbyterian, then there are >certain options. She can leave >her church to attend his church. >He can leave his church to attend >her church. They can compromise >by attending a neutral church. >And so on and so forth.

    Sure.

    >There’s no direct correlation >between my beliefs and the >beliefs of my denomination. They >may intersect, but that doesn’t >mean they coincide. I may be >prepared to affiliate with a >number of different denominations >as long as they fall within >certain acceptable parameters.

    Steve seems to be speaking for himself here. That may be true for him. I have met Protestants who claim to have a worked out theology and, though willing to change it if someone can convince them based on Scripture and reason that they should, refuse to submit to any group or religious organization or church if there is a disagreement. That is, they refuse to yield to any other person or group.

    >In addition, since many or most >Protestants don’t identify any >particular denomination or local >church or independent church with >the one true church, they don’t >use their theology to locate or >find “The Church.” They don’t use >their theology to select for “The >Church” since, in their theology, >there is not one-to-one >correspondence between the one >true church and any particular >denomination or local church or >independent church. So they are >more flexible than Bryan’s wooden >caricature allows for.

    If a Protestant is thinking and acting as though he is his own church, he does not tend to try to find the one true church. He may not trust any of them across the board, despite being willing to worship with them and give them money. He does not need to try to conform to an authoritative Church. He thinks there is no authoritative church, many times, at least not one that has authority over him to any great extent, if at all. He might even think the church should conform to him.

    There is a difference between a person who looks for the true Church as though there might be one and a person who thinks he is the true Church. There is also a difference in one who is relying on substantial church history and bible history events in trying to decide which church to go to and another who only wants to rely on how Scripture is to be interpreted. Further, some only want to rely on how they interpret Scripture, as though everyone else should follow them.

    Eric

    ReplyDelete
  12. But Eric, you are doing exactly what you don't think Protestants should do. It's unavoidable.

    ReplyDelete