Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians

Page 72 of 93

Revelation, Tradition, and Epistemological Flux — A Response to Peter Leithart’s “Who’s got the gateway drug?”

June 29, 2012 / / 30 Comments

Link to Jason Stellman’s Farewell posting

In a stunning turn of events, Jason Stellman resigned from the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and is expected to convert to Roman Catholicism.  Many know Mr. Stellman from his leading role in bringing charges against Pastor Peter Leithart before the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the PCA .  Soon after the news broke, Leithart wrote a blog posting: “Who’s got the gateway drug?” The term “gateway drug” is a reference to criticism that Leithart’s high church Calvinism has predisposed people to convert to Catholicism.  Leithart counters that it was “some of the theological assumptions and ecclesial instincts of Protestant Confessionalists provide a smooth on-ramp to Catholicism or an off-ramp from Protestantism.”

 

Pastor Peter Leithart

 

As I read through Pastor Leithart’s apologia I found myself disturbed by certain philosophical assumptions in Leithart’s apologia.  At times I wondered if there was not a postmodern fluidity in Leithart’s theological method that is at odds with historic Christianity.  What I intend in this blog posting is describe the contours of Pastor Leithart’s epistemological framework, and then describe the Orthodox approach to the Christian Faith.

 

The Contours of Peter Leithart’s Epistemology

The following statements are taken from Pastor Leithart’s “Who’s got the gateway drug?” posted 4 June 2012.

1. Leithart assumes that the Christian faith itself evolves (improves) over time.

The golden age is not lost in the unrecoverable past but ahead of us in an eschatological future.

2. Leithart assigns priority to the future over the past.  He rejects the priority of Tradition over contemporary theologizing:

…what I have critiqued elsewhere as “tragic metaphysics,” the notion that the original and old is necessarily preferable to the derived and the new.

Still, essential as the past is, for Protestants the past ought never become an ultimate standard.

3. Theology for Leithart is fluid and negotiable.  Even the classic Christological and Trinitarian dogmas can undergo further revision.

Even the fixed points can be freshly formulated (cf. recent developments in Trinitarian theology and in Pauline studies).  Beyond those few fixed points, much remains up in the air (for Catholics and Orthodox too), and will for centuries to come, as Christians continue to pore over the Scriptures and seek unity of mind concerning what they teach.

Its Trinitarian theology and eschatology give Christian faith an open-endedness that can be unsettling.

4. Leithart vigorously affirms sola scriptura, albeit in a manner that may surprise some.

Scripture remains fixed and immovable, the test and touchstone always of everything. Our understanding doesn’t stay fixed. Protestants should be perfectly comfortable with that.

No tradition can keep God from acting in new ways and saying new things in His world; God is Word, and therefore His voice is not simply identified with the voice of the church or the voice of the past.

Gateway to Liberal Theology?

As I read Pastor Leithart’s blog posting memories of my time in the United Church of Christ (UCC) come back to me.  I once took part in a UCC forum where the Evangelicals and the Liberals presented their viewpoints.  We closed the meeting singing the hymn: “We limit not the truth of God.”  At the end of each stanza was the refrain:

The Lord hath yet more light and truth

  To break forth from His Word.

There seems to some overlap in hymn and Pastor Leithart’s blog posting.  While the United Church of Christ seems worlds removed from the PCA, it is important to keep in mind that this denomination has historic roots in New England Puritanism.  Before Leithart and his supporters voice their objections, I invite them to compare his statements against the UCC’s new slogan: “God is still speaking to us” and the Comma logo.

 

The United Church of Christ’s official site explains the meaning of the Comma logo:

The comma was inspired by the Gracie Allen quote, “Never place a period where God has placed a comma.”

For the UCC the Comma is a new way to proclaim “Our Faith is 2,000 years old, our thinking is not.”

The UCC does not overtly repudiate Scripture.  What it has done is to combine its reading of Scripture with the experience and concerns of contemporary culture.  Absent in both Leithart and the UCC is any notion of an authoritative and binding magisterium.  It seems that the only binding authority is that of one’s conscience and Scripture.

The Comma invites us to believe that God speaks through other people, nature, music, art, a theorem, the Bible, and in so many other ways.

The Comma pin reminds us of the unusual religious freedom and responsibility to engage the Bible with our own unique experiences, questions, and ideas.

Like Leithart, the UCC does not repudiate the past but seeks to integrate the best from the past with the best of the present.  It is open to change and adaptation.

The Comma reminds us to balance our rich religious past with openness to the new ideas, new people, and new possibilities of the future.

I found the similarities in the philosophical assumptions between Pastor Leithart’s “Gateway Drug” posting and the UCC’s God is still speaking slogan unsettling and a little unnerving.  I am not saying that Leithart’s theological views are liberal.  Pastor Leithart and his colleagues in the Presbyterian Church in America and the Confederation of Reformed and Evangelical Churches have a history of anathematizing theological liberalism.  It is highly unlikely that Pastor Leithart and his contemporaries will ever embrace theological liberalism.

Perhaps most of his students/disciples won’t either.  My concern is more with his theological method.  What will Pastor Leithart’s grandchildren do with his theological methods?  What distinctives will be up for grabs with them?  What new progressive innovations will they discover?  With what kind of church doctrine and liturgy will his grandchildren (natural and spiritual) grow up in?  I raise these questions because at one time the theology of the United Church of Christ wasn’t all that different from Evangelicals, but over time there took place a drift towards more radical positions.

Leithart versus the Confessionalists 

As a good Calvinist Pastor Leithart affirms Scripture as the absolute norm for faith and practice.  But he relativizes secondary authorities like the Westminster Confession.  Relegating creeds to a secondary status is nothing new to Reformed Christianity, but the novelty lies with the extent to which Leithart is willing to go.  While upholding the Westminster Confession’s authority for his denomination, Leithart views it as a human document, historically conditioned, that falls far short of the absolute authority of Scripture.

Confessionalists, after all, place a great deal of emphasis on the tradition of Reformed theology, embodied especially in Reformed confessions.  Throughout the debates of the past few years, I have presented mainly biblical arguments for my positions, and kept historical concerns subordinate.  My opponents have typically been much more interested in testing my views by the Westminster Confession.  The touchstone of their theology is a piece of the Reformed tradition as much as, and in some cases more than, Scripture. Confessionalists claim that the Confession provides standard exegesis of Scripture, to which Reformed theologians have to submit.  Confessional Reformed theology thus has a natural affinity for Rome that biblicists like me don’t share.

Leithart’s disagreement with the Confessionalists is rooted not so much in doctrine as in epistemology.  The Confessionalist theological method rests on the assumption that the meaning of Scripture is clear and obvious and that confessional statements like the Westminster Confession rests on the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture.  This is based on the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, one of the corollaries to sola scriptura.  The Confessionalist epistemology assumes a close correlation or congruence between the meaning of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture.  This particular approach to Christian truth leads to the belief that confessional statements like the Westminster Confession are objectively true in their reading of Scripture and universally valid; not historically conditioned and contingent as some would have it.  It also assumes certain stability to the Christological and Trinitarian dogmas.  Thus, the Confessionalist epistemology gives rise to stability and certitude to the way they do theology and organize church life.  Leithart chafes at this epistemology preferring one that is more open ended and critically informed.

Leithart’s criticism of the Confessionalists seems to be informed by postmodern approach to truth which rejects the foundationalist notion of truth.  The foundationalist understanding of truth has come under strong criticism, especially by the postmodernists who insist that our understanding of truth is historically conditioned, contingent, and at best incomplete.

For Pastor Leithart, Christian theology (Christian Truth) exists in a sort of neo-Hegelian epistemology of flux.  Pastor Leithart seems to hold his Christian heritage at arm’s length, distance as theorems and hypotheses to be tested continuously in light of our study of Scripture.  Theology for Leithart is more a journey than a destination.  Thus, a confessional statement like the Westminster Confession is not so much a “binding address” for the faith community, but a signpost on the road we travel.  Truth is not something clearly delivered once and for all time via the Holy Spirit to the Church.  In Leithart’s understanding Truth is something that is approximated at best, and always unreached “out there” in the future.  I want to make clear that for Leithart Truth is not denied; it is just embedded in epistemological flux.  We may not have the Truth but we can nibble at it from a distance.  Pastor Leithart insists that Protestants should be comfortable with this understanding of Truth.

What Scripture Teaches on Epistemology

Orthodoxy rejects the notion of an open-ended and evolutionary understanding of the Christian Faith because this not is what Scripture teaches.  Scripture warns against private interpretation.  We read in II Peter 1:20: “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.”  In the early Church, it was the bishops, the Apostles’ disciples, who were given the responsibility and the authority to teach the Faith (II Timothy 4:1-5).  Is it not significant that the Apostles did not create for their well trained and proven disciples, soon to be bishops (II Timothy 2:2) a compilation of essential doctrines as well as a canon of New Testament Scriptures?  Is it also not significant that the Apostles devoted much of the early years of ministry in the proclamation of the Gospel and oral instruction in the Christian Faith, rather than compiling systematic treatises on the Apostolic teachings?  Instead the Apostles exhorted their spiritual children to hold fast to the Apostolic teachings and trusted the Holy Spirit to guide future generations into all truth.

Eastern Orthodoxy emphasizes a distinct foundation for Apostolic Tradition.  In Jude 3 we read about “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”  In this short verse we learn four important lessons: (1) the definite article in “the faith” indicate that Jude is thinking about a specific body of teaching, (2) “once for all” (hapax) points to a unique onetime event like Christ’s atoning death on the Cross (cf. Hebrews 9:28), (3) “once for all” points to a unique event not a series of events, and (4) “entrusted” (paradidomi) refers to a traditioning process in which the Faith is handed on from one person to another.  Doctrinal stability is seen in II Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistles.” (NKJV)  “Stand fast” implies fixity and stability, as opposed to the fluid progression implied in Leithart’s epistemology.

From the standpoint of the sociology of knowledge, the Orthodox and Reformed tradition have quite different approaches to doing theology.  Orthodoxy functions as a “community of memory” when it seeks hold on to the Apostolic tradition without change.  Orthodoxy also follows the principle of conciliarity, that is, theological differences are resolved through the collective action of the bishops, the designated successors to the Apostles.  For the most part, Protestant theology seems to deny or overlook the church as a “community of memory” preferring to stress the individual reading of Scripture and the willingness of the brave individual to challenge church authority on the basis of sola scriptura.  Protestant epistemology is based on a contestable and negotiable understanding of truth.  In light of the fact that there is no received Tradition, Protestants must earnestly read Scripture, collect theological data from Scripture, then weigh the merits of competing theological positions in light of Scripture.  This explains why biblical studies and exegesis are given such prominence among Protestants.  Lacking the principle of conciliarity, Protestantism has suffered the misfortune of theological differences becoming entrenched in a plethora denominations and aberrant sects.

The Church the Pillar of Truth

But if the Church is indeed the pillar and ground of Truth (I Timothy 3:15), and if Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all Truth holds true then there is no reason to believe that Truth is in an evolutionary flux.  Christian Truth is not a set of intellectual constructs; Christian Truth is embodied in the Church which was founded on the authority of Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.  This capital “T” Tradition is not so much a set of beliefs but rather the life of Church indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul in Ephesians described the Church in static terms, e.g., being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and whose cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and in dynamic terms, e.g., growing into a temple (Ephesians 3:20-22).

Protestant theology has long relied upon an incredible historical trope: (1) Apostolic Beginning, (2) Apostasy (soon after the apostles died), (3) Spiritual Darkness for over a thousand years, (4) Reformation and the Return of the Light.  This particular trope has even been described by a Protestant writer as a de facto denial of Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit Blinks On and Blinks Off at different times in church history.  This view of church history fosters a survivalist mentality that views the outside world as hostile and dangerous.

In the Orthodox epistemology the meaning of Scripture and the exegesis of Scripture are inseparable in the context of Holy Tradition.  Where Leithart sees core doctrines like Trinity and Christology as contingent on the ongoing study and interpretation of Scripture, Orthodoxy believes that through the Ecumenical Councils the exegetical debates underlying the Christological and Trinitarian controversies were definitively and authoritatively settled.

This is based on the belief that Christ’s promise of Pentecost is real -– that the Ecumenical Councils were indeed truly guided by the Holy Spirit and that the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are infallible and binding upon all Christians.  This belief in Pentecost as an ongoing reality gives Orthodox epistemology a mystical dimension that is very different from the rationalism so characteristic of Western theology.  In other words the Nicene Creed and the Ecumenical Councils function more as a “binding address” for all Christians, not as theological resources to be used as one sees fit.  Leithart’s open ended and progressive hermeneutics to Scripture alienates him from the underlying assumptions of the Ecumenical Councils.

Leithart upends this historical trope by using an optimistic evolutionary perspective to church history.  This optimistic view of church history reminds me of Philip Schaff’s The Principle of Protestantism.  However, attempts to liken Leithart’s optimistic historical vision to classic Liberalism and the Social Gospel movement, while understandable, are mistaken.  Leithart’s optimistic historiography is rooted in the post-millennial reading of biblical eschatology.  This particular eschatology has roots in the theology of major Reformed theologians like John Calvin and Abraham Kuyper.  This view sees in Scripture the promise of Christ to be with the Church as the nations are disciples along other Scripture passages that point a Christianized world filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea, and the promise that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church.

Icon – Ignatius of Antioch

If Orthodoxy has a particular historical trope, it would be that of the early martyrs who held to the Apostolic Faith even in the point of dying for Truth.  It recognizes that society can be hostile to the Christian message but Christ has promised that Peter’s confession – the Gospel of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God — would prevail against the gates of Hell and that the Holy Spirit would guide his Church into all truth.  Orthodoxy despite being hidden from the West because of the Great Schism, living under Muslim rule and Soviet persecution amazingly safeguarded (some might even say supernaturally!) the Apostolic Tradition against external pressures like violent persecution and internal threats like innovation and heresy.  Orthodoxy’s ecclesial approach to Christian Truth offers stability and solidity not found in the authoritarianism of the Roman Papacy and Protestantism’s ahistorical sola scriptura.

Epistemological Strategies

There are at least four epistemological stances one can take in the face of Pastor Leithart’s response to the collapse of Jason Stellman’s Protestant theology:

1. The eclectic Reformed catholicism taken by Peter Leithart who affirm the primacy of Scripture while taking an inclusive and eclectic approach to secondary sources, e.g., creeds, vestments, liturgy, critical scholarship.

2. The naive foundationalism of Protestant fundamentalism that ignores the dynamic fluidity of Protestant theology and shies away from critical thinking.  The Confessionalist stance that Stellman once identified with seems to reflect this particular epistemology.

3. The monarchy of the Roman Papacy.  This is for those who seek to find stability in the infallible magisterium of Rome.  In this solution the chaos that arises from the postmodern reading of Scripture is corralled by the infallible magisterium of the Papacy.

4. The Apostolic Tradition safeguarded by Eastern Orthodoxy for the past 2000 years.  This view rests upon the assumption that Christ gave the Holy Spirit to his Church and that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church has preserved that Tradition against innovation and heresy.

I am not familiar with Mr. Stellman’s reasons for renouncing his Reformed views but I would like to suggest what may have motivated him was: (1) a reaction against the epistemological flux in Leithart’s approach to doing theology (Option 1), and (2) a preference for a more classic epistemology that views truth as accessible and Christian doctrine as possessing a stability that endures over time (Options 3 or 4).

Leithart is under the impression that Jason Stellman is heading to Rome because of a “postmodern recognition of the historical embeddedness and contextuality of all human knowledge.”  This leads me to suspect that exposure to postmodern thought has closed off the path of naive foundationalism that underlies the Confessionalist position (Option 2).  I suspect that Stellman’s preference for epistemological stability is much closer to the historic Christian Faith than Leithart’s more open ended quest version of Christian truth.

Despite their fundamental differences, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism share one important trait that makes them two peas in a pod – a developmental approach to faith and practice.  The development of doctrine in the Christian West stands in sharp contrast with Orthodoxy’s determination to protect the Apostolic Tradition from innovation and heresy.  While the monarchy of the Papacy may offer the promise of doctrinal stability, it should be kept in mind that it has unilaterally introduced doctrinal innovations that the Orthodox find objectionable: the Filioque clause, Papal infallibility, Papal supremacy over all Christianity, purgatory etc.

Like Leithart I find the foundationalist assumptions of the Confessionalists wanting but I have grave reservations about Dr. Leithart’s proposed remedy.  (He holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University.)  He may well assert: “What I and my friends offer is the antidote to and not the cause of Roman fever.”  It should be kept in mind that one of the serious side effects of Dr. Leithart’s medicine is epistemological vertigo.  That is enough for many to decline and go elsewhere.  And as mentioned before, we need to take into consideration the possible long term consequences of Leithart’s epistemological stance.

Climate Change for Protestantism?

If Jason Stellman’s crosses the Tiber, it is sure to cause consternation within Reformed circles.  But what should be even more alarming is the fact that Stellman’s defection is part of a larger trend.  Just a few days earlier on 27 May 2012, Joshua Lim, a brand new graduate from Westminster Seminary (Escondido) posted his conversion to Roman Catholicism.  Similar conversions are happening elsewhere.  Converts also include Gordon-Conwell graduates like Scott Hahn and Gerry Matatics.  And then there is the resignation of the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, Francis Beckwith.  All this raises the question: Why are so many of the best and the brightest leaving Protestant Christianity?  It appears that Protestant Christianity is undergoing a “climate change,” i.e., a fundamental shift in the intellectual atmosphere, as Protestant theologians, pastors, and seminarians question the basis for sola fide and sola scriptura.

As Protestantism undergoes an unprecedented climate change, once solid ice shelves have melted away leaving many floundering on what was once solid ground.  Mainline Reformed denominations like the PCUSA and the UCC have already been heavily influenced by secular culture.  Pastor Leithart and his colleagues may be able to hold the line of theological orthodoxy for this generation and the next, but how certain can they be that the generations after that will not succumb to theological liberalism?  Protestants who are seeking a more stable and historic form of Christianity are faced with two choices: the monarchy of Roman Catholicism or the conciliarity of Eastern Orthodoxy.

The foundations beneath the house of Protestantism have other structural problems that we have highlighted elsewhere in this blog.  Like a weakened body losing blood, Protestant Christianity is suffering a slow death by thousand cuts as new interpretations of Scriptures are propagated, church splits occur over doctrinal differences, and new denominations founded all the time.  The promise of Pentecost is understood primarily in terms of personal experience, not within and for the entire Church.  This has resulted in a widespread historical amnesia where Protestant Christians live their lives as if two thousand years of their Christian heritage never happened!  It has also resulted in belief in an invisible “Church” and disbelief in a tangible visible Church.  We invite Protestants to take seriously the Apostle Paul’s descriptiion of the Church as the “pillar and ground of truth” (I Timothy 3:15) and to consider whether that verse might be a fitting description of the Orthodox Church.

 Robert Arakaki

Patristics for Baptists?

June 20, 2012 / / 61 Comments

Orthodox Observations on a Recent Debate Among Southern Baptists

Church Fathers

Reformed theology has been making inroads in unexpected places.  Christianity Today, in a recent article, reported on a surprising trend among Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) pastors.  A 2006 survey found that only 10 percent of SBC pastors overall identified themselves as “five-point Calvinists.”  However, a 2007 survey found that a surprising 35 percent of SBC ministers that graduated recently from SBC seminaries identified themselves as “five-point Calvinists.”

This has spurred a pushback in the form of a theological statement: “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.”

Article Two: ‘The Sinfulness of Man’ contains an explicit rejection of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity:

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.

This statement is very close to what the Orthodox Church holds to regarding the human condition.  Timothy Ware in his well known introductory work The Orthodox Church wrote:

Orthodox, however, do not hold that the fall deprived humanity entirely of God’s grace, though they would say that after the fall grace acts on humanity from the outside, not from within.  Orthodox do not say, as Calvin said, that humans after the fall were utterly depraved and incapable of good desires.  They cannot agree with Augustine, when he writes that humans are under ‘a harsh necessity’ of committing sin, and that ‘human nature was overcome by the fault into which it fell, and so came to lack freedom.  (p. 223)

The Missing Factor – The Early Church Fathers

What I find striking about the theological debate described in the Christianity Today article is the lack of awareness of the early church fathers.  Only one was mentioned, Augustine.  Augustine is a very well known church father but he was not the only one.  One of the weaknesses of Western Christianity is the narrow provincialism that resulted in reliance one just one theologian when there was a far richer theological heritage to drawn on.  Eastern Orthodoxy draws on a richer and broader theological tradition.  In an age of rampant hero worship, why are direct disciples of the Apostles not given the attention and respect they deserve?  I am sure there are many thoughtful and scholarly SBC pastors and seminarians who would be open to investigating what the Apostles taught their disciples.

Who are the Early Church Fathers?

The term “church fathers” refers to a particular group of early Christian leaders.  Not anyone who lived long ago is a church father.  For Orthodox Christianity a church father is someone whose teachings are in line with the teachings of the Apostles and who lived exemplary lives.  Because the early Christians believed strongly in a traditioning process – remembering and preserving the teachings of the Apostles – they viewed the church fathers as people who could exposit on the genuine meaning of Scripture.

Just before he was to die, the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy:

Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.  That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.  (II Timothy 1:1-14, NKJV)

For a long time Timothy was Paul’s assistant and pupil, soon he was going to graduate becoming Paul’s successor in the ministry of gospel preaching and church planting.  For that Timothy had to be ordained or set apart to the ministry of bishop.  Paul reminds Timothy of that momentous occasion when Timothy was made bishop of the church of Christ.

And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.  (II Timothy 2:2, NKJV)

The translocal authority of the bishop can be seen in Timothy’s ordination.  At Timothy’s ordination he was given the responsibility to pass on the Christian Faith to future generation of pastors.  He was also given the responsibility to make sure that future bishops would make sure that right doctrine would be taught.

The job of the bishop is different from that of a local church pastor.  A bishop inherited the authority of the apostles; he did not claim divine inspiration like the original apostles but he continued their work of shepherding the larger church.  The local pastors (priests) served under the bishops.  The bishop leads the church through the grace given by the Holy Spirit (see II Timothy 1:6).  It is also important that we keep in mind that Pentecost, Christ’s gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, began in Acts 2 and flowed on continuously guiding the church into all truth.  As we study church history we find that Christ has been faith to his promises to the Church, never to abandon her but to faithfully uphold her in truth and grace.

It is important to keep in mind that at the time Paul was writing this letter to Timothy, there was no New Testament yet.  What Timothy and the other pastors had to rely on were the handful of letters they received from Paul, their memory of Paul’s oral teachings, and the Old Testament.  The collection of books and letters known as the New Testament would not come together until at least two centuries later.

Many, if not the vast majority, of the early church fathers, were bishops.  Some of the well known church fathers include:

Ignatius of Antioch – A disciple of John the Apostle, he died around the year AD 100.  Tradition has it that he was one of the children Jesus took into his arms and blessed.  Ignatius served as the third bishop of the city of Antioch, the same city that sent out Paul and Barnabas as missionaries (see Acts 13).  He wrote six letters that give valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of the Christians shortly after the original Apostles had passed on. His letters can be found in the Apostolic Fathers.

Polycarp – Another disciple of John the Apostle, he died a martyr’s death at the stake in AD 155.  Polycarp stressed the importance of memorizing and passing on the teachings of the Apostles.  The account of his martyrdom became a very early classic and can be found in the Apostolic Fathers collection.

Irenaeus of Lyons – A disciple of Polycarp, he served as bishop of Lyons in Gaul (France).  He was a missionary bishop overseeing a church on the frontiers of the Roman world.  He is well known for his Against the Heretics which he wrote to combat the heresy of Gnosticism.  He also wrote On the Apostolic Preaching.  He died around AD 202.

Athanasius the Great – He served as bishop of the city of Alexandria, one of the great cities of the Roman Empire.  He played an important role in combating the heresy of Arianism which denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ.  He wrote the well known theological classic On the Incarnation and participated in the first Ecumenical Council in AD 325.  He died in AD 373.

Basil the Great – He served as bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (modern day Turkey).  He wrote On the Holy Spirit against those who denied the divine nature of the Holy Spirit.  He died AD 379.

One common mistake Protestants make is to assume that because he lived long ago, Origen was an early church father and looked up to by Orthodox Christians.  His brilliant scholarship and enormous productivity in theological research would undoubtedly earn him a position in today’s leading seminaries.  But because of certain questionable aspects of his teachings, he is not recognized as a church father by Orthodox Christians.

Reading the church fathers is far from an easy task but will be rewarding for those who want to have a well grounded understanding of the Christian faith.  It is important to keep in mind that the term “church fathers” is a short hand expression for a theological movement that spanned several centuries, spanned both the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire and even extended outside the Roman Empire.  A good starting point for those not familiar with the early church fathers is Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition vol. 1.

The Early Church Fathers on Free Will

When it comes to doing theology, Orthodox Christians ask: What was the general consensus of church fathers?  The early Christians did theology conservatively.  Rather than attempt to come up with a creative solution, they sought an understanding grounded in Scripture and in line with the understanding of Scripture taught by the Apostles’ successors in ministry, the bishops.

A study of the early Church shows a broad theological consensus existed that affirmed belief in free will.  J.N.D. Kelly in his Early Christian Doctrine notes that the second century Apologists unanimously believed in human free will (1960:166).

Justin Martyr is known as “The Philosopher.”  He was not part of the ordained clergy but was a teacher much in the fashion like today’s university professors.  He wrote:

For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith (First Apology 10; Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I, p. 165).

Irenaeus of Lyons affirmed humanity’s capacity for faith:

Now all such expression demonstrates that man is in his own power with respect to faith (Against the Heretics 4.37.2; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I p. 520).

Cyril of Jerusalem was patriarch of Jerusalem in the fourth century.  Jerusalem was one of the spiritual centers and preserver of the ancient Christian tradition.   In his famous catechetical lectures, Cyril repeatedly affirmed human free-will (Lectures 2.1-2 and 4.18, 21; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series Vol. VII, pp. 8-9, 23-24).

Gregory of Nyssa, a well respected teacher in the fourth century, taught in his catechetical lectures:

For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master.  Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism).

John of Damascus, an eighth century church father famous for his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, wrote the closest thing to a systematic theology in the early church.  He explained that God made man a rational being endowed with free-will and as a result of the Fall man’s free-will was corrupted (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series 2 Vol. IX p. 58-60).

John of the Ladder, a sixth century Desert Father, in his spiritual classic The Ladder of Divine Ascent wrote:

Of the rational beings created by Him and honoured with the dignity of free-will, some are His friends, others are His true servants, some are worthless, some are completely estranged from God, and others, though feeble creatures, are His opponents (1991:3).

What is striking is that the Calvinists’ doctrines of total deprativity and double predestination were not taught by the early church fathers.  The distinctive teachings of the Reformed tradition have their roots in Augustine of Hippo and the influence of medieval Scholasticism on Christian theology in the Middle Ages.  This points to Calvinism (Reformed theology) not being part of the historic Christian faith, but a novel theological system invented by John Calvin in the 1500s.

An Invitation to Baptists to Read the Early Church Fathers

Christians who are by temperament conservative find a certain appeal in the early church fathers.  They are repelled or disturbed by innovative doctrines that push the boundaries too far.  One of the criticisms that Orthodoxy has of Calvinism is that it teaches novel doctrines like total depravity and double predestination.  What John Calvin and his supporters did was to take certain ideas taught by Augustine and push the boundaries of these teachings in unexpected directions reaching unprecedented conclusions.

Many Protestants, including Baptists, have long been unaware of the rich heritage in the early church.  This is probably due to the mistaken belief that there took place a massive apostasy early on and that the Christian religion fell into deep spiritual darkness until the Protestant Reformation.  Ralph Winter has labeled this view: the Blinked Off/ Blinked On or BOBO theory of history.  The leading scholars in church history reject this view of church history.  The BOBO theory of church history also contains disturbing theological implications.

We invite Baptists to discover the rich heritage in the early church fathers.  We are sure that this will help them move their faith and practice closer to the historic mainstream, and protect them from doctrinal innovations.  We pray that they will find many unexpected treasures in the early church fathers and in the history of the early church.

Robert Arakaki

See also: “Why Do the Baptists Rage?” by Vincent Martini in On Behalf of All (19 June 2012).  This blog posting is written by a former Southern Baptist seminarian who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.  It provides an insightful analysis of the implications involved in this emergent controversy.
“Southern Baptist or Semi-Pelagian” by Doug Beaumont in Soul Device (19 June 2012).  Written by an open minded Baptist seminary professor, this article has a pingback to an OrthodoxBridge blog posting.
 “From First Baptist to the First Century” by Clark Carlton a former Southern Baptist seminarian who converted to Orthodoxy.  This is his personal story of his journey to Orthodoxy.

Unintentional Schism? A Response to Peter Leithart’s “Too catholic to be Catholic”

June 12, 2012 / / 39 Comments
Victims of Climate Change?

Victim of Climate Change?

Of late Protestantism seems to be undergoing a “climate change.”  Theological positions are shifting and church affiliations are undergoing realignment in surprising ways.  Reformed Christians are rediscovering liturgical worship and the church fathers.  While pastors sought to enrich their Protestant heritage, they did not intend that people would jettison their Protestantism altogether and become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.  These defections are raising concerns among pastors.   Peter Leithart in a recent posting noted:

My friends tell me that my name has been invoked in various web skirmishes concerning Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, sometimes by people, including friends, who claim that I nurtured them along in their departure from the Protestant world.  My friends also hinted that it would be good for me to say again why I’m not heading to Rome or Constantinople or Moscow (Russia!), nor encouraging anyone to do so.

Leithart’s “Too catholic to be Catholic” is an apologia for his remaining Protestant.  A considerable part of the article focused on the matter of closed Communion and church unity.  He argues that converting to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy does not heal divisions among Christians but rather reproduces the divisions in different ways.

 

Mercersburg Theology Paves the Way

I once held to this view.  Prior to becoming Orthodox my theology was shaped by Mercersburg theology.  Mercersburg Theology was a form of high church Calvinism in the 1800s that sought to incorporate the early church fathers and the Eucharist into Reformed Christianity.  In many ways the Mercersburg theologians, John Nevin and Philip Schaff, anticipated the inclusive approach advocated by Leithart by more than a century.  There is little that is new to what Leithart is advocating.  There seems to be a Mercersburg revival among young Reformed scholars like W. Brad Littlejohn and Jonathan Bonomo.

Like Nevin and Schaff I believed then that through a historical dialectic the divisions between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism would be resolved.  According to this view even if I were to become a Catholic, the dividing issues would still remain between the two traditions and for that reason it would be better to remain a Protestant and help Protestants recover their Catholic roots.  In this way a more radical healing of the divisions would come about.

However, as I studied the early Church the more the underlying assumptions of Mercersburg Theology and the Protestant Reformation became problematic.  Theology in the early Church was based upon the receiving of Holy Tradition and being in communion with its bishops.  Nowhere was there any evidence of people reading the Bible for themselves.  Contrary to the popular understanding of tradition as extra-biblical man-made inventions, the early Christians sought to preserve the teachings and practices of the Apostles.  (See my posting on apostolic succession.)  And just as surprising was the discovery that the New Testament teaches the passing on of the apostolic doctrine from one generation to the next (II Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2; II Thessalonians 2:15).  (See my posting on the biblical basis for Holy Tradition.)

This historic-biblical understanding of Tradition was radically different from Mercersburg’s scholastic method which viewed the writings of the church fathers as theological resources for constructing theological systems than as part of a traditioning process.  The notion of Tradition contradicts the idea of doctrinal evolution that underlies much of Western Christianity. For the early Christians then and Orthodoxy today, Holy Tradition is a body of doctrine and praxis received as a treasure to be safeguarded and preserved from alteration; it is not a jar of silly putty to be shaped and played with as we like.  Furthermore, theology in the early Church was conciliar in which the Church Catholic made binding decisions on matters of doctrine and practice.  This was a fulfillment of Christ’s promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth.  (See my recent blog posting on Pentecost.)  What impressed me about the early Church was the reality of church unity back then.  As a Protestant I was haunted by the fact that there was so much theological diversity among Protestants and even within the same denomination.  And I was troubled by the fact that Protestant Christianity seemed to bear little resemblance to the early Church.

 

Horizontal Unity versus Vertical Unity

Leithart posed the question: “Are you willing to start going to a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome?”  My response is that there are two dimensions to Eucharistic unity: horizontal unity in which one shares the same faith with others across the world in the present moment and vertical unity in which one shares the same faith with others across time, e.g., fellowship with the church fathers.  As I became increasingly aware of the significant differences between Protestantism and the early church fathers I reached the conclusion that Protestants, even the original Reformers, would be barred from receiving Communion in the early Church.  This led me to an awkward dilemma.  Did I want to be in communion with contemporary Protestantism and out of communion with the early church fathers and the Ecumenical Councils?  Or was I willing to give up my Protestant beliefs in order to be in communion with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church?

In other words, Pastor Leithart’s advocacy of open communion is inadvertently divisive because it sacrifices vertical unity with the historic Church for horizontal unity with the contemporary Protestant church.

Many Protestants would object: But we believe in the same things the early Christians did!  I would respond: Do you really believe the same things the early Christians did?

  • Does your church accept the Nicene Creed as authoritative?  (Many Evangelicals today never heard of the Nicene Creed.)
  • Does your church celebrate the historic Liturgy or is your order of worship something recently concocted?  (Most Protestant churches do not celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday.  Those who celebrate the Eucharist regularly do not have a received liturgical tradition that goes back to the Apostles, e.g., the Liturgy of St. James, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Mark.)
  • Does your church accept the doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood as taught by the early church fathers and the ancient liturgies?  (Most Protestants today believe that the bread and wine are just symbols.  The Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation and the Reformed doctrine of the spiritual feeding in the Lord’s Supper have no counterpart in the teachings of the early Church.)
  • Who is your bishop?  What is his line of succession?  (Virtually all Protestants lack bishops in the historic sense.)
  • Does your church accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s decision about the veneration of icons?  (No Protestant denominations and none of the Reformers venerated icons as decreed by Nicea II.)
  • Does your church reject the novel doctrines of sola fide (justification by faith alone) and sola scriptura (the Bible alone)?  (None of the early church fathers taught these Protestant doctrines.)

The gap between modern day Protestantism and the early Church is considerable.  The early Church did not subscribe to the view that if one accepted Jesus as Savior one was automatically a Christian and therefore a member of the body of Christ.  Becoming a Christian in the early Church was a fairly lengthy process in which one faithfully attended the Sunday liturgies for at least a year and learned the Creed by heart.  Conversion in the early Church meant undergoing the sacrament of Baptism in which one was born anew in Christ, received the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Chrismation, then brought before the altar where one received the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.  (See Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, especially Lectures XIX to XXIII.)

Pastor Leithart is critical of the notion of closed communion.  He wonders what the difference is between the Catholics, Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, or the Continental Reformed?  For Pastor Leithart this is a rhetorical throw away question.  But actually, this is a very useful question to ask.  Another way to pose the question is to ask: What does Communion mean for this particular body?  What does Communion tell me about the boundaries for their faith?  How a church body practices Communion brings to light how they define the parameters of doctrinal orthodoxy, i.e., how it distinguishes right doctrine from heresy.  It shines a spotlight on the theological core of the church body.  A church body without a theological core is like a person without an identity (a very unhealthy situation to be in!).

Communion in Roman Catholicism means: (1) that one accepts the infallible teaching authority of the Pope and (2) that one accepts the Catholic Church’s dogma on transubstantiation.  Communion in the Orthodox Church means: (1) that one has received the “pattern of sound teachings” (II Timothy 1:13-14) passed on from the Apostles through the bishops (II Timothy 2:2) to the church of  today, and (2) that one has placed one’s self under the authority of the bishop the guardian and teacher of Apostolic Tradition (II Timothy 4:1-5).  In the case of the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod, to be in communion means that one accepts the distinctive Lutheran doctrines as found in the Book of Concord.  Even Baptists practice a form of closed communion; only those who have been baptized by total immersion are granted access to the communion table.

What Pastor Leithart is doing with his rhetorical question is not only trivializing the Eucharist by detaching it from doctrinal authority but isolating the Eucharist from the historic church be it Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox.  He seems to be saying we all should be giving communion to each other regardless of our doctrines or regardless of our what our faith tradition teaches.  Is he implying that there are no core doctrines?  And that communion is to be given to all without condition?  And that there is no such thing as wrong doctrine (heresy)?  I’m sure that Pastor Leithart does have doctrinal standards that he applies when he celebrates Holy Communion.  Once he spells out what the preconditions are then he in effect declares what he considers to be the boundaries of his church tradition.

 

A Critique of the Branch Theory of the Church

Leithart’s criticism of closed communion is apparently based upon the branch theory of the church.  The branch theory of the church believes that despite the outward divisions, the various denominations (branches) remain part of the one true Church.  This view holds that despite the differences we are all one and that we need to recover a visible expression of our underlying oneness.  In its original version, the branch theory encompassed the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox traditions; then somewhere along the way it was broadened to include Lutherans, Reformed Christians, Baptists, and born again Evangelicals!  Given Protestantism’s inability to find common theological ground, the attempt is made to substitute orthodoxy with inclusiveness.  Such an approach is radically at odds with historic Christianity.  Furthermore, the branch theory calls into question Christ’s promises that the gates of Hell would not prevail over the Church and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth.  (See my recent blog posting: Pentecost and the Promise of God Fulfilled.)

Orthodoxy rejects the branch theory on several grounds.  One, none of the church fathers taught this doctrine.  Historically, it was invented by the Anglican theologian, William Palmer (1803-1885), and then popularized by the Oxford Movement in the mid 1800s.  Two, the branch theory assumes that heterodoxy is compatible with the one true Church.  Three, the branch theory assumes that each of the branch (denomination) has a part of the Truth but no one branch (denomination) has retained Apostolic Tradition intact.  This implies that the original Apostolic Tradition is no longer intact but exists only in broken fragments.  On the grounds that it has faithfully preserved the Apostles’ teachings for the past two thousand years, Orthodoxy is compelled to reject the branch theory.  The irony and tragedy here is that Leithart’s position on open communion seems to have roots going back to the 1800s, not to the ancient Church.

 

Is denying Communion to Protestants a Bad Thing?

Orthodoxy is not a social club but a covenant community entrusted with safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition.  This is the teaching and practice of the Apostles handed down from generation to generation with care and diligence; much like how the crown jewels of the British monarchy are treated with great respect and care.  Protestants are denied Communion because they do not share in the historic Faith but hold to a novel theological system that none of the church fathers taught.

By denying Protestants Communion Orthodoxy is actually doing Protestants a favor by making visible Protestantism’s alienation from its patristic roots.  We invite Protestants to become part of a historic Faith that has been handed down from the Apostles.  We invite Protestants to leave behind their doctrinal innovations and embrace the historic Christian Faith.  But it should be made clear that Orthodoxy will not endorse a cheap ecumenicism that jeopardizes our ties with the historic Church.  The Eucharist is not just a symbol but a genuine receiving of Christ’s body and blood.  Eucharistic union with the Orthodox Church means being in communion with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed.

 

Learning From Ignatius of Antioch

Icon - Ignatius of Antioch (d. 98/117)

Icon – Ignatius of Antioch (d. 98/117)

Let us give heed to Ignatius of Antioch, the third bishop of Antioch who was martyred circa 117.  Tradition has it that Ignatius was one of the children Jesus took into his arms and blessed.  It is important to keep in mind that Antioch was the Apostle Paul’s home church (Acts 11:25-26, 13:1-2).  This means that Ignatius was discipled at one of the spiritual capitals of the early Church.  Orthodoxy can claim a direct historic link to Ignatius through the Patriarchate of Antioch which still exists today.  The church Antioch continues today under the leadership of the Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV.

Ignatius wrote:

Let no one do any of the things appertaining to the Church without the bishop.  Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints.  Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.  (Letter to the Smyrneans VIII)

For Ignatius the Catholic Church was evidenced by two things: the Eucharist and the bishop.  The Orthodox Church holds to the same view as Ignatius.  It is surprising that Pastor Leithart feels free to ignore the very point that Ignatius stressed over and over as he faced death as a martyr for Christ.  Ignatius also has stern words of warning:

“Be not deceived,” my brethren, if any one follow a maker of schism, “he does not inherit the kingdom of God;” if any man walk in strange doctrine he has no part in the Passion. (Letter to the Philadelphians III)

What we read here from Ignatius is not a call to doctrinal inclusiveness but to doctrinal orthodoxy.  “Strange doctrines” refers to any teaching not taught the Apostles and their successors, the bishops.  Because they lack bishops Protestants have been vulnerable to strange teachings.  The novelty and Protestant assumptions underlying Pastor Leithart’s article “Too catholic to be Catholic” becomes stark when compared against Ignatius of Antioch’s letters.  The two positions are too different to be reconciled.  Leithart’s “Too catholic” article cannot be squared away against Ignatius’ teachings.  One has to accept the one and reject the other.  This means that one must choose between communion with contemporary Protestantism or communion with the historic Church via Eastern Orthodoxy.

Conclusion

Pastor Leithart misses the mark when he makes inclusiveness and doctrinal diversity the basis for being “catholic.”  What Leithart is proposing is a Protestant solution (doctrinal inclusiveness) for a Protestant problem (denominational divisions and doctrinal innovation).  Ironically, Leithart’s attempt at ecumenicism exacts a high price – schism from the historic Church.  To conclude, Leithart’s “catholicism” is unintentionally schismatic.

 Robert Arakaki
See also: Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick’s response: “Too catholic to be Catholic”: Communion With Idolators?
« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑