Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Catholic


by 41 Comments

Wrestling with the ecclesiology of Ignatius of Antioch (or, do I need a Bishop?!)

ignace

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch

I’ve been a low church evangelical for many years now. I entered Christianity through a sectarian Pentecostal group (some doubted we should celebrate Christmas because it was of “pagan origin”, so you imagine the type of ecumenism I was taught). I have thought about the teachings of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and there are times when I find these groups quite attractive and other times when I find these groups to be concerning. Currently, I worship with a (modern, not Amish-like) Mennonite church, which I like because of their commitment to serious discipleship, and their emphasis on the Kingdom of God and the reconciling hope of their eschatology. Yet I worry at times that Mennonites are similar in some ways to my Pentecostal friends in that there is a lack of catholicity with little emphasis on the Lord’s Supper/Communion/Eucharist tradition that has enriched the church for hundreds of years.

As I have mentioned (see here) I have decided to participate in a group called “Read the Fathers”. One figure whose writings are listed early is Ignatius of Antioch (CE 35/50-98/117), a Bishop in the early church who is said to have been one of the more immediate successors of the Apostle Peter and a student of the Apostle John. I haven’t studied this figure enough to have an opinion on such claims, but that he was writing not too long after documents like the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were composed demands attention.

Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of "the church"?

Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of “the church”?

There have been several statements made in his epistle that seem to foreshadow the teachings of the more developed church, the ecclesiology to which aforementioned groups like Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans appeal. As someone who is worshipping with Mennonites, who has been educated by Baptists and Reformed thinkers, who has taught in churches with roots in Lutheranism and Pentecostalism, and who (admittedly) prefers “low church” Christianity (though I have grown fond of some form of liturgy and practices such as following a form of the liturgical calendar), I thought I’d post some excerpts here for conversation.

The first to grab my attention is from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians (V) where he writes:

“Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resists the proud.” Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”

This seems Eucharistic (though I am trying to avoid anachronism). The Bishop performs the rite at the alter providing the bread to the people, and to deny the assembly is of grave concern. He writes later (XIII):

“For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”

And then (XX):

“…breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”

What we have in this epistle is the need to gather with the church, the importance of the Bishop, and the centrality of the Eucharist in worship. I struggled even more with a statement he made in his Epistle to the Magnesians (II):

“Since therefore I have been permitted to see you in the person of Damas, your godly bishop, and the worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow-servant, the deacon Zotion, of whom may I have joy, because he is subject unto the bishop as unto the grace of God, and to the presbytery as unto the law of Jesus Christ.”

The Bishop of one church represents the whole local church to the other church through that local church’s Bishop. Later in the epistle he writes (XII):

“…that in everything which you do, you may be prospered in flesh and spirit, by faith and love, in the Son and Father and in the Spirit, in the beginning and in the end, along with your bishop who is worthy of all honor, and the fitly-woven spiritual coronal of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to the mind of God.  Submit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ [was subject] to the Father [after the flesh], and the Apostles to Christ and the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and spirit.”

Submitting to the Bishop brings unity, and it models Jesus’ submission to the Father, and the Apostles to Christ and the Father. He writes in his Epistle to the Trallians (II), “For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death.”

Subject to the Bishop as to Jesus Christ? 

Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always?

Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always? What if my Bishop was John Shelby Spong?

Now, as I said, I want to avoid anachronism. I realize that a “Bishop” doesn’t seem to be as authoritative as it might come to be later. There doesn’t seem to be Archbishops. It could be argued that at this stage in the history of the church a Bishop was like the “Sr. Pastor” over the church in a city. There was no acknowledgement of anything like denominations, so you wouldn’t have a Lutheran pastor, a Presbyterian pastor, and so forth and so on. You’d have one, single pastor (Bishop) who oversees other leaders (Presbyters and Deacons). We know from the emergence of groups like the various gnostic sects that this idea is challenged, and that catholicity is “in flux” for the perspective of historicism, but for those of us who affirm that Spirit’s guidance in developing the church to become what most of us would consider “orthodox” (e.g., Trinity, deity of Christ, nature of Christology, function of canonical books) what do we say to this (and other statements by Ignatius in other epistles)?

Also, for pragmatic purposes, in light of Ignatius’ words, what do you think he would have said if someone said, “My ‘Bishop’ is John Shelby Spong! Should I remain under his authority?” How would Ignatius have advised people under the episcopal rule of Spong? or Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori? or an Arian Bishop or a gnostic Bishop?

Your thoughts on this subject are welcome, whether you be of a tradition with Bishops or without Bishops. What do you think of the need for Bishops today? What do we do if we think Bishop lead churches have strayed from the Gospel? 

About these ads


by 5 Comments

Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and the future of global Christianity.

Roman Catholic Pope Benedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

The other day Daniel Thompson wrote a short blog post titled “The Changing Face of Christianity” in response to the announcement that Rowan Williams is resigning as the Archbishop of Canterbury. In it he made the suggestion that it may be time for Anglicanism to recognize that it has shifted its center. While it may have a geopolitical home in the United Kingdom the quickest growing part of the communion is Africa.  Wouldn’t it make sense for Anglicanism to be lead by someone who represents this reality?

John Sentamu is the Archbishop of York and the front runner to do just that according to some. Sentamu was born in Uganda. So it could be that the Archbishop will be from a part of the world where Anglicanism is thriving.

Thompson received his idea from a New York Times article by Ross Douthat. In “Agonies of an Archbishop” he writes that Anglicanism isn’t the only communion that needs to consider choosing someone to represent the global movement that reflects the changes we see. Roman Catholicism needs to do the same. Douthat thinks that when Pope Benedict XVI dies the church must strongly consider a Latin American or African to replace him. He writes,

“….Roman Catholicism’s decline in the West has likewise been accompanied by striking growth in the developing world. (As the number of Catholic seminarians has dropped in the United States and Europe, for instance, it has risen by 86 percent globally since 1978.) In both churches, this geographic and demographic shift is putting a strain on institutional structures that evolved in a more Eurocentric age.”

And he said the following about Williams and Pope Benedict XVI:

“To be an Anglican bishop in Britain today, for instance, means shepherding a shrinking native-born flock alongside growing immigrant churches, trying to make religion relevant in a cosmopolitan and often anti-Christian culture, and figuring out whether the continent’s growing Muslim communities contain potential allies, potential rivals, or both. But to be a bishop in, say, Nigeria — where Christianity is expanding rapidly, secularism is almost nonexistent, and Islam looks like a mortal foe — means something very different. And asking a Welsh-born theologian to steward a Communion that probably holds more churchgoers in Lagos than Liverpool is a recipe for constant agony.

“Here Rowan Williams has borne some of the same burdens as Pope Benedict XVI. The outgoing archbishop of Canterbury and the former Joseph Ratzinger differ theologically and in the scope of their ecclesiastical authority. But both men are European academics trying to speak to Western audiences while leading an increasingly global and post-European church. Both have confronted the same issues (Islam, secularism, sexuality) and both have stumbled into public controversies when their soft-spoken styles collided with intractable challenges.”

Is this what we see? Is Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism being led by “European academics” even as the church moves away from such a leadership paradigm? Is the church too Eurocentric in hierarchy to accurately represent the global church?

What do you think? Should Anglicanism be lead by someone like John Sentamu? Should the next Pope be from Africa or Latin America?


by 14 Comments

A question concerning Peter & Jesus’ declarations in Matthew 16:13-21

This week’s Lectionary Gospel text is Matthew 16:13-21. In it we find Peter’s Messianic declaration, “You are the Christ (Messiah), Son of the living God” in the Greek, “σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος” to which Jesus responds, “I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” in the Greek, “σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν”.

I am puzzled; upon which rock will Jesus build his church? Is it upon Peter, the rock who is anointed as the one to lead the early Christian community or, is it the confession of Jesus as Messiah and Son of the Living God?

R.T. France in his commentary on Matthew argues for the later and subsequently sees the reference to binding and loosening as references to the administration of the early church. However, I was reading Tom Wright’s devotional commentary and I noticed he states (without explaination) that it is upon the confession of Jesus as Messiah that the church is built.

Davies and Allison argue that Matthew 16:18 is, “among the most controversial in all of Scripture” (2:623) therefore, I am under no illusion that we will solve this today. However, I wondered what others thought…


by 44 Comments

A Few Reasons I am No Longer a Oneness Pentecostal

Shortly after my conversion to Christ in 2002 in the charismatic movement of the Catholic church, I became affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), a Oneness Pentecostal group that broke away from the Assemblies of God over the New Issue of baptism, which ultimately led to the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity and the upholding of Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation. In 2003, I officially became part of a UPCI church and started my journey toward knowing more fully Christ. I earned a degree at one of the UPCI-endorsed Bible colleges. I appreciate all that took place in that time—the friends I made and the spiritual and academic foundation that was laid—and how I grew in grace in that time period.

Now, eight years since I became a Christian and toward the end of my MA degree from a well-respected seminary, I am no longer a Oneness Pentecostal. Some have attributed this change to my going to seminary. This is certainly not the case, although seminary has played a role in helping me to broaden my understanding of Christianity, both past and present. Contrary to these claims, a few reasons that I left the UPCI, which I shall briefly detail below, are the result of personal study and long reflection on church history, experience, and Scripture. Seminary gave me the tools and the freedom to study for myself, but it did not make those decisions for me. What follows is, of course, not an exhaustive set of reasons for why I am not a Oneness Pentecostal anymore.

My interest in church history spans the apostolic period to the Chalcedon council. Part of the problem I ran into as a Oneness Pentecostal was the ecumenical declarations against the Oneness doctrine I held. For example, modalism had been condemned. Now, even though I did not hold to a Sabellian-type modalism, the modalism to which I did hold had already been written against by the ante-Nicene Fathers. In short, however the Fathers were describing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it looked nothing like the Oneness view in its various flavors.

In addition to other things, Oneness Pentecostals believe that one must receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, to be saved. Those Oneness people that I know had a pre-set formula to “pray someone through” to receive the Holy Spirit. Someone would coach the Holy Spirit seeker with a formula that went something like this: (1) pray that God would forgive you; (2) now that He has forgiven you, rejoice and praise God; (3) keep praising God until the feeling begins to overflow within you; (4) as soon as the overflow begins to reach your mouth, let your tongue go. If all of those steps are done correctly, then one will speak in tongues. Most of the time, however, it takes many tries with this formula for the speaker to finally speak in tongues. I am not one to cast doubt on the legitimacy of whether a person speaks in tongues using the formula; I believe that many have. This formula, however, is at odds with my experience (and the experience of the hundreds of others that same day), where I did not need to be coached. When I spoke in tongues for the first time, all I did was stood up and praised God, and He gave me the utterance to speak in other tongues—no coaching, no formula, and no waiting around. What most Oneness Pentecostals would find odd is that I first spoke in tongues at a charismatic Catholic service. To attest to the validity of the work of the Spirit in me that day, I was delivered the day I spoke in tongues from my use of crystal methamphetamines and I worked in the gift of discerning of spirits the very next day.

I believe that speaking in tongues is a good thing. However, I do not believe that if someone has never spoken in tongues then he or she is not saved. Instead, I concur with the major theme of the New Testament that a person who genuinely is filled with and walks in the Spirit is one who loves both God and neighbor. Among those whom I know, there seem to be more who have not spoken in tongues and yet are overcoming sin and exhibiting true, godly love compared to Oneness people I know who have spoken in tongues.

My third point of departure with the Oneness group came through a study of Scripture. While I was at Bible college, I learned of ways to sidestep Scripture passages that dealt with the Son’s preexistence, with the interaction between the Father and the Son, as well as sidestep the language that clearly showed the Holy Spirit as distinct from both the Father and the Son. As I reflect back, I could see that my theology professor’s view of Oneness theology borrowed from much of Trinitarian theology while seemingly presenting these theological nuances as exclusive to Oneness. Although he meant well and sought to further develop Oneness theology, the adoption of ideas from and the lack of proper teaching on Trinitarian theology seems to indicate that even he knew the truth that Trinitarian theology upheld. Even though I have always admired Oneness Pentecostals for their devotion to the oneness of God, such devotion is misguided when it does not line up with Scripture and has been rejected by the ecumenical councils that have defined the Trinitarian position from both Scripture and the broad teaching of the church in the early centuries.

I harbor no ill feelings toward the Oneness Pentecostal movement. Many of my close friends still today are Oneness Pentecostals. I have gratitude for the spiritual tenacity that the Oneness movement possesses because it was at a Oneness Bible college and church that I learned to draw closer to God. Yet, I cannot be a part of a movement that sets itself up having a monopoly on the nature of God, on holiness standards, and on salvation. I am afraid that because the Oneness movement has pushed itself away from the broader church and relies upon its own private Scriptural insights that it has missed the fact that God has called and saved a universal church larger than the Oneness movement to be holy and conformed to the image of the Son.


by 16 Comments

Pope Benedict XVI: Jesus of Nazareth – A review

Ben Witherington has read and reviewed Joseph Ratzinger’s (AKA Pope Benedict XVI) latest scholarly work Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week. It is quite an honour for BW3 as he was the only protestant to be included on an Ash Wednesday tele-conference with the Pope about the book. As Ben says, “Somebody out there must trust me as an exegete and a theologian.”

You can read the whole review HERE but I thought this might of interest to Near Emmaus readers:

In this book the Pope explores the whole of Holy Week from Palm Sunday through Easter Sunday and beyond, stopping to discourse on all the significant events that took place, and the major things Jesus said and did along the way.   If I had one desideratum it is that I wish the Pope had had time to read more of the best of Biblical scholarship that has emerged in the last 30 years.  The scholars he cites range from two of my Protestant teachers and influences,   C.K. Barrett and Martin Hengel,  to  Rudolph Bultmann and Rudolph Schnackenburg and a variety of other scholars of the previous generation who have not written anything in the last couple of decades really.   To be fair, doubtless the Pope was more than a little busy in the last few years while he was completing this book.   Nevertheless, there is some very incisive exegesis and theologizing in this book, and Bultmann and others come in for some pretty serious criticism.   As you might expect, the Pope is not a liberal Protestant exegete, to state the obvious…and furthermore, he is fully conversant with historical criticism of various forms (form, source, narrative criticism etc.)  but he is concerned to get beyond such ways of analyzing the text and focus on its theological and also historical substance.  This is to be commended.

I will be sure to order a copy of the book next week. I have already been blessed by a variety of good solid Catholic scholars in my studies of Matthew’s gospel and this will make a fine edition to my historical Jesus collection. No doubt Jeremy Thompson is excited and will post a review anon!


by 5 Comments

Kevin J. Vanhoozer on “catholicity”

'The Drama of Doctrine' by Kevin J. Vanhoozer

Kevin J. Vanhoozer writes about the need for Christians to be evangelical and catholic in his book The Drama of Doctrine. I thought I would share this excellent paragraph:

“Catholicity” signifies the church as the whole people of God, spread out over space, across cultures, and through time. “We believe in one…catholic church.” The evangelical unity of the church is compatible with the catholic diversity. To say that theology must be catholic, then, is to affirm the necessity of involving the whole church in the project of theology. No single denomination “owns” catholicity: catholicity is no more the exclusive domain of the Roman Church than the gospel is the private domain of evangelicals. Catholic and evangelical belong together. To be precise: “catholic” qualifies “evangelical”. The gospel designates a determined word: catholicity, the scope of its reception. “Evangelical” is the central notion, but “catholic” add a crucial antireductionist qualifier that prohibits any one reception of the gospel from becoming paramount.”

In the context of this chapter Vanhoozer does not argue that all receptions of the gospel are equal. Rather, he sees the gospel as something that does find “more or less faithful” responses throughout the history of the church that we must recognize as often being legitimate receptions of the gospel for that place and time. We cannot act as if we got the gospel right just now. We can learn much from the reception history of the gospel by the church over the centuries.


by 16 Comments

What is Wrong with “Ecclesiastical Communities”?

Pope Benedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams

Yesterday, I wrote on this blog about my effort to be catholic though I am not Catholic. It turned into an interesting conversation and I am thankful for the participation of all those who had something to say. I want to continue from another angle.

Through the discussion it was made evident that non-Catholics are considered to be something called “ecclesiastical communities”. I found this phrase a bit odd since it seems to indicated Protestant/Reformed/Anglican, et al., are legitimate “churches”, yet different (subordinate) to the Catholic church. Esteban Vazquez noted that this is because we do not have the authority of an episcopate, therefore holy orders, therefore actual standing as a church because we are not under a bishop (does this apply to Anglicans or are Anglican episcopates legitimate?). This made me wonder what the actual downside would be for a non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian.

When I asked this question Nick Norelli suggested that it is likely we are considered heretical. This bothered me since I had heard that Vatican II pulled back such language. As I read through Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio (here), it was a bit vague. There is a section of chapter III titled “Separated Churches and Ecclesiastical Communities in the West” which would apply to all of us Christians who derive from the Reformation in one way or another. The document does not make a general statement regarding all of these churches for the following reason:

“However, since these Churches and ecclesial Communities, on account of their different origins, and different teachings in matters of doctrine on the spiritual life, vary considerably not only with us, but also among themselves, the task of describing them at all adequately is extremely difficult; and we have no intention of making such an attempt here.”

Rather, the document list several areas of commonality that can serve as a starting place for dialog: (1) the confession of Jesus Christ as God; (2) the Trinity; (3) love and reverence of the Sacred Scriptures; (4) baptism; (5) our taking of communion; and (6) other pieties such as hearing and obeying the Word, prayer, et al. If these things are in place the move toward “eccumenical action” can occur. I couldn’t determine whether or not this means simply that Catholics have common ground with which to bring the rest of us back to Rome or if the common ground meant the reality of some sort of fellowship, as is.

So, in gist, what does it mean, from the perspectives of Catholics (and we could even include Orthodox if they would like to speak to this), for the rest of us to be “ecclesiastical communities”? What is the actual downside to this standing in your opinion? Do we not participate in the fullness of salvation in some sort of way? Do you foresee eschatological consequences for our perceived separation? Your feedback is welcome.