shall-we-still-protest-september-october-2005 by Modern Reformation

A REFORMED DREAM ❘ DOCTRINE CHART ❘ PAPAL HISTORY

MODERN REFORMATION

SHALL WE STILL PROTEST? VOLUME

14, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2005, $6.00

C S

O M

N O

T E

E 0

N V

T E

S N

SHALL WE STILL PROTEST?

8 Can We Be Confessional and Catholic? Prospects for Christian Unity Today To what degree can (and should) the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches unite? Given the doctrinal differences between them, what kind of progress can be expected? The author helps us understand the stakes involved for any journey toward ecumenism. by Michael Horton Plus: Ten Theses for Roman Catholic–Evangelical Dialogue and A Reformed Dream

14 Reformation Chart Just how different are the Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines? Here’s a chart that compares them side by side. by R. Scott Clark

19 Turning Romeward? Not an Option by Paul F.M. Zahl

21 Does Protestantism Have What Evangelicals are Looking For? Both Protestant and Roman Catholic churches report new converts every year, but what is the relationship between the growth in both churches? Using Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism by Mark A. Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, the author explores the question, Does Catholicism have more to offer to evangelicals than Protestantism? by Darryl Hart

25 Are We One in the Lord? How are we to handle some of the questions and situations which arise in our interactions with Catholic friends? Is it permissible for Protestants to participate in the Mass and for Catholics to partake of the Lord’s Supper? A panel of pastors addresses some of the most common scenarios in which Protestants find themselves. COVER PHOTO BY JAN STROMME/PHOTONICA

30 A Brief History of the Papacy by Tom Wenger In This Issue page 2 | Preaching from the Choir page 3 | Family Matters page 4 Between the Times page 5 | Interview page 33 | Reviews page 36 S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1

MODERN REFORMATION Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton Managing Editor Eric Landry

Estranged in Christ

Assistant Editor Brenda Choo

ope John Paul II has died. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I thought you might have missed the media spectacle, the flags flown at half-staff, the

Department Editors Brian Lee, Ex Auditu Diana Frazier, Reviews William Edgar, Preaching From the Choir

unprecedented presidential representation at the funeral mass, and the effusive

comments from evangelicals across the nation. In his place, the College of Cardinals elected Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI. Old news? Yes, but with theology’s long shelf-life, it’s still worth discussing especially in light of the continuing thaw in relations between the church of Rome and the churches of the Reformation. Even before John Paul died, he had been hailed by another “pope,” Billy Graham, as an evangelical and fellow brother in Christ. With his death came a symphony of praise for the man’s role in defeating communism, his stance on hot-button moral issues, and even his faith and piety. Some even credited the pope for taking the Reformation’s concerns seriously and beginning to reform the Roman Catholic Church. In light of the statements from Evangelicals and Catholics Together and the Joint Declaration on Justification some commentators even wondered if perhaps the need for a Protestant Reformation was over. But the statisticians pronounced the final verdict. Evangelical pollster George Barna now counts Roman Catholics as evangelicals if they correspond to his polling criteria. Then came Benedict XVI. Would he, like the previous pontiff, welcome evangelicals with open arms into dialogue and brotherly love with the Roman church? For evangelicals more concerned with the culture wars than biblical faithfulness, the election of Ratzinger was a glorious appearing. But those in the know—those who had actually read all of those dusty, boring, theology-laden books of the Vatican’s doctrinal watch-dog—had a different view: here was the CounterReformation incarnate. So, what are the prospects for unity between Protestants and Catholics today? Is there still reason for Protestants to protest? Undoubtedly, as the “evangelical” moniker becomes the catch-all term for many American Christians (replacing old,

2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

denominational and confessional descriptors), there will be less and less reason for protest. But we think there are still issues for Protestants to consider before throwing in the hat and marching across the Tiber beating their swords into plowshares. “Shall We Still Protest?” is a question more important now than perhaps at any time since the Reformation. Many of our friends have answered no. Some in our churches don’t understand why. The Reformation is often left holding the bag for the fracturing of the visible unity of Christ’s church on earth and while we think that’s an error of judgment we still mourn the fact that even our own small Reformational denominations are so divided from each other. This issue, then, of Modern Reformation has two goals: to lay out the areas of doctrinal disagreements between Roman Catholics and Protestants for those who still can’t seem to figure out why we’re not gushing about Benedict XVI and to prod our own churches to work harder at realizing the visible unity of the church of Christ that he promised to us just hours before his death secured that unity now and forever.

Eric Landry Managing Editor P.S. Is your subscription about to expire? You’ll want to renew soon so that you won’t miss the new look Modern Reformation has in store for 2006!

Next Issues: November/December 2005: The Promise-Driven Life January/February 2006: Introducing the year of the “Romans Revolution”

Staff ❘ Editors Ann Henderson Hart, Staff Writer Alyson S. Platt, Copy Editor Lori A. Cook, Layout and Design Ben Conarroe, Proofreader Contributing Scholars David Anderson Charles P. Arand S. M. Baugh Gerald Bray Jerry Bridges D. A. Carson R. Scott Clark Marva Dawn Mark Dever J. Ligon Duncan Richard Gaffin W. Robert Godfrey T. David Gordon Donald A. Hagner John D. Hannah Gillis Harp D. G. Hart Paul Helm C. E. Hill Hywel R. Jones Ken Jones Peter Jones Richard Lints Korey Maas Mickey L. Mattox Donald G. Matzat John Muether John Nunes John Piper J. A. O Preus Paul Raabe Kim Riddlebarger Rod Rosenbladt Philip G. Ryken R. C. Sproul Rachel Stahle A. Craig Troxel David VanDrunen Gene E. Veith William Willimon Paul F. M. Zahl Modern Reformation © 2005 All rights reserved. For more information, call or write us at: Modern Reformation P.O. Box 87 Bridgeville, PA 15017 (800) 890-7556 info@modernreformation.org www.modernreformation.org ISSN-1076-7169 SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION

US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR $29 1 YR $22 1 YR $35 1 YR $52 1 YR $59

2 YR $52 2 YR $63 2 YR $94 2 YR $107

P R E A C H I N G | F R O M | T H E | C H O I R P E R S P E C T I V E S

O N

M U S I C

I N

T H E

C H U R C H

William Edgar

Nothing But a Burning Light

anadian singer and songwriter Bruce Cockburn (pronounced “ko-burn”) has been releasing first-rate work for more than thirty years. He has won every award the music world can bestow. Yet his particular version of the faith is not well received by everyone. One reason is because he has a biting critique of the social ills of our times, including ones to which some believers succumb. Another is his painfully realistic perspective on his own problems, which are often the ones we would rather keep hidden. He has written several songs about depression and about broken relationships. Still another is that Christians who cannot always agree with his particular political commitments (I am one of them) cannot move beyond the disagreement and let the poetry and the music challenge them anyway. Cockburn is a man of musical integrity. He has paid a twofold price for remaining a Christian in the midst of a rather secular industry. The lower price is paid when unbelievers just cannot swallow his profession of faith and won’t buy his records. The higher price is paid when Cockburn unintentionally offends Christians with his direct and colorful interactions with what is happening in the world. Many Christians want pure comfort, but Cockburn offers them prophetic discomfort before he gets to the happy end. In the poignant song “Gavin’s Woodpile,” he is splitting logs one evening and begins to think about various scenes of oppression and pollution. He cries out: And the stack of wood grows higher and higher And a helpless rage seems to set my brain on fire And everywhere the free space fills Like a punctured diving suit and I’m Paralyzed in the face of it all Cursed by the curse of these modern times.

Experiencing the brokenness of the world, he wonders, like the psalmist, in what may be his most powerful song, “Broken Wheel”:

Way out on the rim of the galaxy The gifts of the Lord lie torn … So how am I supposed to feel? Way out on the rim of the broken wheel. Cockburn does not dangle us over the abyss with no comfort. Ultimately, his songs are hopeful: There must be more … more … More growth, more truth More chains, more loose Not more pain, not more walls Not more living voodoo dolls. The broken wheel is repaired by a God of mercy and miracle: Lord, spit on our eyes so we can see How to wake up from this tragedy. Bruce Cockburn is a lot like the prophet Jeremiah, who once said, “Since my people are crushed, I am crushed … Is there no balm in Gilead?” (Jer. 8:21–22) Like the prophet, much of his poetry carries brutally honest diagnosis. But also like the prophet, he proclaims ultimate healing in a new covenant: Wave on wave of life Like the great wide ocean’s roll Haunting hands of memory Pluck silver strands of soul The damage and dying done The clarity on light Gentle bows and glasses raised To the charity of night.

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

F A M I L Y R E S O U R C E S

F O R

M A T T E R S C O V E N A N T I A L

H O M E S

Starr Meade

Celebrating the Incarnation

olidays stop us in our tracks. They force us to set aside time from the busy

recording accompanies the book. O Come, All Ye Faithful is sameness of our workday lives and consider those things that give our lives coauthored by Joni Eareckson Tada, John meaning. With Advent season soon here, we would do well—as parents and as MacArthur, and Robert and Bobbie Wolgemuth. Tada churches—to examine our Advent celebrations. and Bobbie Wolgemuth have coauthored a similar Have we so designed them that they will create book specifically for children, Christmas Carols for a rich memories for our children and instruct them in Kid’s Heart (Crossway, 2004). I personally prefer the the wonder of the Incarnation? adult version for family use, because it would An excellent guide for evaluating existing appeal to older children and adults, while still traditions and establishing new ones is Noel Piper’s containing much that would interest younger book, Treasuring God in Our Traditions (Crossway, children also. 2003). The author urges parents to practice In 1918, the King’s College Choir in Cambridge thoughtful, substantive traditions that will help began the Advent tradition of a Festival of Nine children grow in their understanding of God. She Lessons and Carols. This simple but elegant service gives numerous suggestions for everyday traditions contains nine Scripture readings (the nine lessons), a family can use in their worship, their church with one or more carols after each. The readings involvement, their interactions with the world, and begin with God’s first promise of a Savior in Genesis their own family relationships. Her ideas for 3, move through Old Testament promises of a “especially” traditions include weddings, funerals, Messiah, and culminate in excerpts from the gospel birthdays, and holidays. Some of her suggestions accounts of Christ’s birth. Different individuals for families to use during Advent and Easter could come up to read the different passages. The choir be adapted for church use as well. Like the sings some of the hymns between readings; the Israelites with their Passover celebration, says congregation sings others. Any church could hold Piper, adults and children alike need traditions rich a Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols as its special in content and repetitive church “to impress us with music event of the season, its Christmas Eve service, the weight of what God has done.” or even its children’s choir presentation. The service A helpful Advent resource is the third book in gives Scripture a predominant place while still the Great Hymns of Our Faith series, O Come, All Ye providing a congregation with an opportunity to Faithful (Crossway, 2001). The book features express the joy of the season. Its simplicity removes twelve Christmas carols, both familiar and rich in the distractions of a big production, and allows all content. The hymn text is printed first, followed to focus on the unfolding of God’s plan for by a verse from Scripture. Three short writings redemption in the gift of his Son. (See www.kings. follow each hymn. The first, “At the Heart of the cam.ac.uk/chapel/ninelessons for more information.) Hymn,” sets forth the carol’s main idea. “In the Light of the Word” explains theological concepts Starr Meade is the author of Training Hearts, Teaching in the hymn. “From Out of the Past” relates the Minds: Family Devotions Based on the Shorter history of the carol itself. The back of the book Catechism (P&R Publishing, 2000). contains text and music for the hymns, and a CD

4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

B E T W E E N | T H E | T I M E S T H E

G O O D ,

T H E

B A D ,

A N D

T H E

U G L Y

O N

T H E

A M E R I C A N

C H U R C H

S C E N E

Virginity, Virtue, and Vice id you make it to the party? The Washington state chapter of NARAL, the pro-choice lobbying group, hosted a “Screw Abstinence” party in July. The point? “Come laugh, learn, socialize and buck the system…” Joining the merry-making were various groups from Seattle’s sex industry with displays, classes, and sketch comedy. The debauchery and mockery didn’t go unnoticed. Callers to conservative talk radio shows, like Sean Hannity’s, decried the event as “spitting in the face of conservatives.” Apart from a misguided attempt to fire up their base, N A R A L’s approach defies explanation. Unfortunately for conservatives, most studies now suggest that “abstinenceonly” sex education merely delays first sexual experiences by one to two years. Granted, it is better that fewer sixteen year olds are having sex, but is it necessarily a good thing that eighteen year olds are? Despite conservative cries of protest, this sort of mockery by NARAL plays right into the conservative political cause. Every day middle America will look at this NARAL “celebration” with disgust. The public relations battle was

won the first day NARAL posted the announcement for “Screw Abstinence.” Unfortunately, the pro-abstinence party seems to be stuck in much the same mode as NARAL. At a recent event hosted by The Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington, D.C., the pro-abstinence caucus trotted out Jason Illian to speak on their behalf. Jason who? Jason Illian was the lone virgin contestant last season on ABC’s “Bachelorette” reality television show, that paragon of sexual virtue. How discerning is it really for the Center to use a show promoting promiscuity to promote abstinence? Are there no better spokespeople, no better reasons for abstinence other than emulating B grade reality television stars? Perhaps this illustrates why efforts to promote godly virtues apart from the good news of the gospel are bound not only to fail but also to devolve into ridicule worthy attempts at self-righteousness. This is yet another example of the necessity for new life in Christ and a community of faith as active agents in the pursuit of sanctification.

Tolerance Tests o you have hidden biases? According to Tolerance.org, you probably do and they have provided several helpful online tests aimed at uncovering those biases. Of course, the problem is that even if you are “consciously committed to egalitarianism and deliberately work to behave without prejudice”, you may “still possess hidden negative prejudices or stereotypes” that influence your “perceptions and actions.” This is “bad law” with no framework to change these so-called hidden biases or attitudes, it only uncovers them for us to fret over…or perhaps that’s why Tolerance.org offers helpful resources one can order through their website (for a small fee, of course).

Resurging Christian Left ith evangelicals co-opting the mainline emphases on political action, a new group has emerged to challenge the dominance of the Christian Right. Calling itself “The Christian Alliance for Progress,” the group intends to reclaim Christianity and transform politics. Since the group is “deeply rooted in the Gospel,” they are uniquely poised to challenge “the theological and political foundations of the Christian conservative movement.” Unfortunately for the Christian Alliance, American political history does not deal gently with those groups whose sole reason for existence is protest and challenge. To survive they will have to transition themselves from a protest group into a well-oiled political machine with a policy agenda all their own. They

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

B E T W E E N | T H E | T I M E S

ministry dynamics. At the bottom of the list: books about theology, evangelism and outreach, pastoring, prayer, and preaching. Isn’t that sort of the list for pastoral duties?

will have to become what they exist to challenge, a left-wing Christian Coalition of sorts. Mr. Bean Goes to Parliament he United Kingdom suffered greatly at the hands of Muslim extremists on July 7, 2005. The world watched in horror as bomb after deadly bomb destroyed the subway system and an iconic double-decker bus in central London. In the aftermath, thousands of Londoners gathered in Trafalgar Square called to remember the dead by the city’s political, cultural, and religious leaders. A Muslim cleric led the religious delegation, an attempt to forestall more attacks on innocent Muslims, which have steadily increased since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. The British political system has tried very hard—even prior to the July 7 tragedy—to celebrate the diverse nature of their society. One effort, which came to a conclusion just after the July 7 attacks, was the passage of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, introduced to Parliament by the Labor government. Supporting the bill, Paul Goggins, a Home Office minister, said: “People of all backgrounds and faiths have a right to live free from hatred, racism and extremism.” It was all the more interesting, then, that British comedian Rowan Atkinson (aka, “Mr. Bean”) led the final attempts to scuttle the bill, calling it “creepy and disturbing.” Atkinson, along with other civil liberty groups and freespeech activities, argues that the bill would have terrible, if unintended, effects on actors, comedians, and writers who regularly use jokes poking fun at different people groups and religions. Atkinson told reporters that under the legislation he would have chanced prosecution several times over the course of his career and that other comedians might steer clear of religious subjects in order to avoid prosecution. Perhaps the most tragic effect of the bill would be to make raising funds more difficult for projects like “Jerry Springer: The Opera.”

What Your Pastor Reads vangelical pollster George Barna is out with his latest list of books identified by pastors as “the three books that had been most helpful to them as a ministry leader during the past three years.” At the top of the list: The Purpose-Driven Life and The Purpose-Driven Church, both by Rick Warren, were ranked as number one and number two. The most useful books, according to the pastors, were on subjects regarding discipleship, personal spiritual growth, church growth, congregational health, and

6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

The State of the American Church Dave Olson, director of church planting for the Evangelical Covenant Church has been collecting data on the state of the American church over the past fifteen years to present an accurate picture of the health of the church. Here are the hard numbers: • 3,200 churches close their doors every year • There was a net gain of 4,600 churches in the US between 1990 and 2000 • But, to keep up with population growth, there should have been a net gain of 38,802 churches between 1990 and 2000 • We need 3,300 new churches each year to keep up with population growth • The current church planting rate is one half of what it was in the 1950s Church attendance is declining: • In 2000, attendance at evangelical churches was 9 percent of the American population, a decline of 3 percent from 1990 • In 2000, attendance at mainline churches was 3.4 percent of the American population, a decline of 15 percent from 1990 • In 2000, attendance at Catholic churches was 6.2 percent of the American population, a decline of 16 percent from 1990.

Mega Myths Rick Warren joined journalists from across the nation at the Pew Forum's biannual Faith Angle conference on religion, politics and public life in May 2005 to speak on the “myths of the mega-church.” What, according to Warren, are some of those myths? • “Mega-churches are a uniquely American phenomenon. The reality is there are far more mega-churches outside of the United States than there are inside of the United States. In fact, all of the largest churches in the world are outside of America. In America, a mega-church is really tiny in comparison.” • “Mega-churches are politically active. In fact, you don't get to be a mega-church if you get involved in other issues. You would find that most of the churches that are politically active tend to be medium- or small-size churches.” • “Mega-churches attract people because of their size. Actually, the larger a church gets, the more headaches there are, the more hassles you have to put up with, the further you have to walk to get to the service.”

Who Needs Seminary? ut along the dotted line and take this handy cheat sheet along whenever you might find yourself engaged in theological conversation. Impress your friends, stump the deacons, and mortify your wife. Use it

especially with those who are educated beyond their underThis version is posted online at standing. http://www.steve.poling.info/theofun.html The original author is unknown.

Do-It-Yourself Impressive Theological Constructs Compose 10,000 impressive sentences. Select a phrase from each column to form statements which sound profound. PROFOUNDITIES Column A

Column B

Column C

Column D

1 A formal analysis will quickly show that

the meaning of major elements

is further compounded by considering

the relevant dynamics of Luke-Acts.

2 From an exegetical point of view

the linguistic consideration

imposes smothering constraints upon

the ramifications of consensus-building.

3 Although Moltmann does not state it in so many words, the implication

a structural dynamic analysis

necessitates that urgent consideration be made of

the clarity of sociological dimensions.

4 There can be no doubt that

the eschatological structure

adds considerable urgency to

the unfortunate faux-pas of neo-orthodoxy.

5 Based upon interdisciplinary considerations

the homiletic problem

calls into question

any attempt to introduce historical analysis.

6 In the last analysis

the liturgical perspective

must give way to

an emphasis on dogmatics.

7 From a strictly theological view point

the introduction of gnosticism

orients the serious scholar toward

undue reliance on derivative materials.

8 Most scholars seem to have forgotten that

the underlying question

provokes an examination of

global perspectives.

9 Under the guise of liberalism

an ahistorical stance

tends toward

excessive use of 19th century frameworks.

10 One might say

a need to master the data

drives us to consider

a soteriological point of view.

Those who have not yet mastered theological conversation will find this guide invaluable in conversing with peers and authorities. Simply think of any 4-digit number (say, 6518) and read off the similarly numbered phrases from columns A, B, C, and D. (For example, 6518 is â&#x20AC;&#x153;In the last analysis, the homiletic problem is further compounded by considering global perspectives.â&#x20AC;?) Never mind what it means; just use it and watch the way you bring conversation to a halt. You can compose profound reports by using varied number combinations. As you become more proficient in its use, you may wish to experiment with varying the column sequence, e.g., BACD, CBAD, etc. These advanced configurations are not recommended for beginners, however, as they do require sophisticated dexterity with punctuation.

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

SHALL WE STILL PROTEST?

Can We Be Confessional and

Catholic? Prospects for Christian Unity Today

ritish theologian John Webster has noted, “To confess is not to reflect, even to reflect theologically; it is to herald the gospel…. To confess is to testify—and to testify with a bit of noise.” It would be surprising if such noisy testifying did not at times lead to unrest and even division within the churches of Christ. Doctrine divides, we are often told, and so it does; but it also unites. But what are the right divisions and what is the right unity? That is where the plot thickens. In this article, I want to challenge us to reflect more deeply on what ways we might pursue a greater unity in the Body of Christ. I argue that such a unity will take two forms. First, there is a unity of the visible church here and now, which I will link to the cause of ecclesiastical unity—the unity of particular denominations. Second, there is a unity between all of the elect of all ages, whose number is at present known only to God, but will one day be visible to the whole world. This “pure” church belongs to the age to come, while in this present age we must accept a “mixed” church. Yet precisely because the age to come has broken into this present age, that future state of the church can be anticipated in the grassroots unity that is emerging even ahead of all of our attempts to theorize it. Given the limited space and my own Reformed standpoint, I can only focus on divisions with Rome and between the churches that maintain a close affinity with the Reformation.

B Y M I C H A E L H O RT O N S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

Roman Catholic–Protestant Unity Today: A Waste of Time? he church, we believe, is the offspring of the gospel, not vice versa. Where the gospel is preached, there is a visible church of Christ. It is not the only mark, but it is the most foundational one. This means that unity cannot be pursued on the basis of a common cultural commitment (a “culture of life” vs. a “culture of death,” a “Christian” civilization vs. a decadent secularism), however important these issues certainly are. Church unity is distinct from any other sort of natural affinities—even religious ones, we may legitimately share with other people. We have always lived in a “culture of death” since Adam, and that is why we need the only power that God offers through the Church: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, since it is the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16). Assuming these parameters, is it a waste of time even to pray for and labor toward the reunion of Rome and the Reformation churches? In some of his writings over the years as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in spite of his own past efforts on behalf of and renewed com-

mitment to ecumenical discussion, reaffirms the decisions of the Council of Trent. To its credit, Rome has the courage of its convictions to deny Communion to those who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and for his own part, Pope Benedict does not foresee any possibility of ecclesiastical communion short of our actually joining the Church of Rome. In spite of numerous ecumenical dialogues since Vatican II, Rome officially has not moved at all toward revoking any of Trent’s condemnations themselves or toward embracing justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. (In recent accords with mainline Lutheran and Reformed bodies, Rome has not lifted the anathemas of Trent but has simply said they no longer apply to “the present dialogue partner.” What can that mean but that the latter no longer holds the views for which the reformers were charged with heresy?) The language is, of course, more conciliatory, but the point is not the tone but the content of what is affirmed and denied. My own criticism of the impressive initiative known as “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT) some years ago

Ten Theses for Roman Cath 1.

We affirm that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics commonly confess the faith of the ecumenical creeds. We deny that this catholic consensus is sufficient for recognizing the Roman church as a true visible expression of Christ’s body.

We affirm that the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone is “the article by which the church stands or falls,” and distinguishes a true from a false church. While clearly affirming the indissolvable bond between justification and sanctification, this doctrine insists that the righteousness that God requires for justification is neither attained by humans nor infused or worked internally by God into the human soul, but that it is a forensic declaration based on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The Council of Trent declared apostate those who embrace this doctrine. All subsequent magisterial declarations, including those of the Second Vatican Council, continue to bind Roman Catholics to the conviction that the Gospel of free justification by faith alone, apart from works, is not consonant with Roman Catholic teaching. We deny that there can be any fellowship with those who openly oppose that Gospel.

1 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

We affirm that there is sufficient agreement on other matters to warrant cooperation where there is genuine consensus. Therefore, where fundamental catholic issues are at stake, we should indeed make common cause. And where there are fundamental moral and cultural issues involved, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals have every reason to join minds, hearts, and hands. We deny that such cooperation is sufficient to declare that both communions are engaged in a common mission, part of a common church, and witnesses to a common Gospel.

We affirm that the great cultural and moral crises of our age must be confronted with intellectual depth and prayerful resolve, particularly by those who have been redeemed and are being conformed to the image of Christ. Nevertheless, we deny that this is the mission of the church, for it exists for the unique purpose of Word and sacrament, fulfilling the Great Commission of Christ. Therefore, we also deny the priority of cultural, moral, political, and social concerns in determining the relationship of ecclesial communions and the setting of their respective agenda.

was not that such dialogue should not exist or that real consensus on many issues was impossible from the outset, but that the consensus reached affirmed agreement in the gospel while acknowledging disagreement on justification, merit, purgatory, indulgences, and the redemptive intercession of anyone other than Christ. Yet, in step with other recent agreements, here it is only the evangelicals who have moved, accepting the view that justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone is not essential to the gospel. Yet, as I will argue below, none of this should cause us to lose heart. The question of our visible unity is in the Lord’s hands, not ours. And as for grassroots unity, it is a fertile field. There are many Roman Catholic individuals—perhaps more than at any other time, with whom we can share significant agreement even on the nature of the gospel itself. Remarkably, Roman Catholic New Testament scholars like Joseph Fitzmeyer argue an essentially evangelical position on justification, while many evangelicals are rejecting such “Lutheran” exegesis! Even Rome’s official teaching is better than the Pelagian creed that seems to dominate so much of American Protestant religion

at least implicitly. Rather than give up because of obstacles to ecclesiastical unity, we should be encouraged to greater and wider grassroots interaction. This seems to be where Pope Benedict XVI sees matters at present as well. Remember, Rome and the Reformation didn’t disagree about everything. Our churches include the ecumenical creeds in our books of confessions and recite them in worship. One of the most impressive achievements of that period known as “Protestant orthodoxy” (from the sixteenth-century Reformation to the dawn of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment) is that it never tried to reinvent the wheel as Protestants (both evangelicals and liberals) have done today. Fathers of the East and West, medieval theologians like Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Aquinas, Scotus, and Bradwardine, were treated as part of the common fund of Christian reflection. Even their own contemporary opponents were read closely and widely. While we will not be serving each other Communion any time soon, nothing should keep mature Protestants from taking advantage of the rich resources of contemporary Roman Catholic theologians and pastors on a host of topics, and we can only hope that the

holic–Evangelical Dialogue 5.

We affirm that Christ’s prayer for unity requires vigilance, patience, and diligence as we seek a greater visible unity. We deny that this prayer has reference merely to the spiritual or invisible church.

We affirm that the unity we seek is determined by the Word of God, comprising the Law and the Gospel. To this Word, the church must submit and correct its understandings. We deny that unity can be achieved in the absence of a common confession of the Gospel in its essential features.

We affirm that individual Roman Catholics, who for various reasons do not self-consciously give their assent to the precise definitions of the Roman Magisterium regarding justification, the sole mediation of Christ, the monergistic character of the new birth, and similar evangelical issues, are our brothers and sisters despite Rome’s official position. We deny that this allows for joint communion or similar expressions of visible ecclesial union.

We affirm that the Commission of our Lord requires every Christian to be engaged in witness to the person and work of Christ and that this is not merely concerned with conversion, but with the catechesis and discipline of converts. Therefore, we deny that it is advisable for a convert to the evangel to remain in any communion or local expression of a communion in which the Word is not rightly preached and the sacraments are not rightly administered.

We affirm that the Roman Catholic Church contains many true believers, but we deny that in its present confession it is a true visible congregation, much less that it is the mother of all the faithful to whom all believers must be related.

10.

We affirm that the issues that divide us are of abiding and deep significance. We deny that they are issues secondary to a common cultural engagement. The Gospel remains the jewel of the Church and secularism is, at the root, a spiritual and theological crisis that finally can only be confronted by the Word and Spirit.

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 1

The possibility of one being neither is unthinkable because the Calvinist–Arminian debate is the horizon of Reformed historical experience. In both instances, then, we fail to give each other the benefit of the doubt. We decide what each party A Divided Reformation Family believes not on the basis of what is actually conloser to home, mainline Lutheran and fessed but on the basis of where we think the logic Reformed churches are reconciling (even naturally leads. Until we start to listen for what sharing pastors). Of course, from our per- each party is saying more than how it says it, we will spective, the problem with the virtual union of continue to foster illegitimate division, so that any Lutheran and Reformed churches in mainline ecu- serious discussion of real divisions becomes cloudmenism is that the partners are often united more ed at the outset. by modern German biblical and theological scholDivisions are also engendered by historical cirarship than by confessional impulses. cumstances that are not obviously doctrinal in Yet at the same time, more confessional branch- nature, as in the Augsburg Interim, which excluded es retain almost exactly the same suspicions they the Reformed, or the Kaiser’s forced “Prussian have had of each other for five centuries. It is some- Union” of Lutheran and Reformed bodies into one times astonishing to see how often even systemat- state church. But now that we both stand well ic theologies from both traditions routinely mis- beyond such political extremities, why not take advantage of a new historical context? Closer communicaUntil we start to listen for what each party is saying more than how it says it, tion, even if not full communion, between confessionwe will continue to foster illegitimate division, so that any serious discussion al Lutheran and Reformed/Presbyterian bodof real divisions becomes clouded at the outset. ies makes a lot of sense. If the reformers were ready to engage in such an enterprise, represent each other’s views. We rarely consult why have we given up on it? Have we really tried? each other’s confessions but satisfy ourselves that Another conversation that has yet to take place our theologians did our homework for us in sum- is between confessional Reformed churches and marizing each other’s views. Despite a fruitful peri- Anglican bodies. Once again, historical circumod of discussion and even agreements with other stances have played a large hand in divisions. In reformers after Zwingli’s death, arteries hardened the aftermath of the Reformation, debate eventualand each side settled for caricatures of the other. ly erupted over the proper ministerial order, otherTo this day, standard Lutheran texts identify the wise known as church polity. Does Scripture Reformed position on the Supper with Zwingli’s require a particular form of government and if so, extreme views, which were subsequently rejected which one? Advocates of Episcopal, Presbyterian, by every confession. The Reformed have consis- and eventually also Congregational government, tently returned the favor, however. Aside from the despite their shared Reformed conviction, ended Christological controversies, there is the recurring up “unchurching” each other principally because in charge that Lutheranism rejected the “third use” of a state church situation there cannot be competing the Law—that is, as a guide for the believer, even polities. What if we tried to distinguish the historthough this third use became an article of faith in ical circumstances from the real issues involved in the Book of Concord when Lutheranism repudiated church government? Wouldn’t the conversation antinomianism as soundly as one could find in any look a little different today? Even if we believe that Reformed confession. We added to the name-call- such polity is most conformable to Scripture, are ing by designating Lutherans “Arminians.” there any Presbyterians today, even in our circles, Both camps have largely failed to listen to each who believe that only churches with Presbyterian other sympathetically and on their own terms: what government are true churches? they say is often less important than how they say It has often been said that the Episcopal Church it. Despite the fact that Lutherans are officially (daughter of the Church of England) has “a committed to total depravity, unconditional elec- Calvinist creed, an Arminian clergy, and a Roman tion, and monergism (i.e., God alone does the sav- Catholic liturgy.” Today its slide into a vague culing), they are lumped together with Arminians tural liberalism is widely recognized within its own because one is either a Calvinist or an Arminian. ranks. Nevertheless, there is still a strong evangelfavor will be returned. This can help curb our tendency to parochial navel-gazing, even as it may foster greater opportunities for articulation of the gospel.

1 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

ical tradition that continues to thrive in England, Africa, and Asia. John Stott, Alister McGrath, and Jonathan Fletcher in England, J. I. Packer in Canada, and the entire Archdiocese of Sydney, Australia, represent this vital strand in Englishspeaking countries. In the United States, there remain key leaders within the Episcopal Church who seek to recall their denomination to the ecumenical creeds and the Reformed theology of the “Thirty-Nine Articles.” Among the names one thinks immediately of Paul Zahl (a regular MR contributor) and the now-retired Bishop of South Carolina, C. Fitzsimons Allison (another contributor). Grassroots ecumenism is alive and well and should be encouraged, while ecclesiastical unity is unlikely. However, what about the Reformed Episcopal Church (U.S.), the Church of England in South Africa, or other churches in Africa and Asia that have formed their own denominations or jurisdictions? These, of course, are merely questions, not answers. What about Baptists? Confessional Reformed/Presbyterian ecclesiology has maintained a close link between the invisible and the visible church. In other words, while never identifying the “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church” with one denomination or even with Reformed/Presbyterian bodies taken together, we do identify true, visible churches with the “three marks”: the Word rightly preached, the Sacraments rightly administered, and the existence of discipline (i.e., a proper order for maintaining sound teaching and oversight) within the church. Traditionally, even Calvinistic Baptists have been regarded as belonging to bodies that do not bear the second mark. (Again, the favor is returned by denying the validity of our baptism.) Yet we take a common stand for the doctrines of grace and much else besides. Once again, historical circumstances come into play with the confusion of church and state. Even in Puritan New England, founded in part by religious refugees, Roger Williams was exiled, as Baptists (including Calvinistic Baptists) had been in England by successive regimes of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents. Yet we cannot chalk all of this up to historical factors. There are important confessional issues involved. How can Baptists accept us as brothers and sisters if they, even Calvinistic Baptists, do not accept our baptism as legitimate? How can Reformed/Presbyterian churches extend ecclesiastical fellowship to bodies that do not administer baptism to covenant children? Again, while visible, organic union of denominations is not likely any time soon, should we not create more forums

in which greater understanding, mutual admonitions, and fruitful partnerships can emerge wherever possible without violating the integrity of each group’s confession? Our Alphabet Soup inally, what shall we say about the various denominations within the confessional Reformed and Presbyterian family that remain at least ecclesiastically separated, though friendly? To be sure, even more than in these other cases, members of these denominations move about freely. Jobs move frequently and with each move comes the search for a new church, often forcing a choice of a different one. Church membership classes, which are welcome wagons more than border crossings, are now an effort to address broader questions of the Christian faith and doctrine rather than an effort to inculcate familiarity with a particular denomination. That is, on balance, an improvement. At least it’s a legitimate accommodation to cultural reality. So why don’t our denominations reflect on a broader scale this fact taking place in the particular churches? Why so many conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denominations, when our differences are more circumstantial than substantial? Have we accustomed ourselves to a perpetual state of division that would have made our orthodox forebears shudder? More importantly, how can we square this state of affairs with the prayer of the Church’s King? Surely a uniting of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP)— perhaps even the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North American (RPCNA), would not form a more challenging marriage than, say, the reunion of Old and New Schools in the Presbyterian Church. In fact, far from it. The doctrinal and practical unity between the former bodies is already deep and wide. We already treat the movement of individual members between these churches on the local level with general flexibility. Furthermore, is it not possible—even likely, that the weaknesses of some of these bodies could be compensated by the strengths of others? Then there are the confessional churches with roots in the Continental Reformed heritage. At present, the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), in which I am ordained, is in discussions about possible merger with the Canadian Reformed Church. This would be evidence that differences can be held without constituting church-dividing situations. There is some movement also toward greater church unity with

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 3

REFORMATION CHART Rome

Confessional Protestant

Nature/Grace

Creation “participates in Being,” which is God. Grace perfects nature. Creation per se is in need of grace.

Humans are only analogues to God. Grace renews fallen nature. Creation per se is good and was corrupted only by sin.

Authority

God is the source through the church by her living tradition and Scripture.

God is the source through the Scripture to the church so that the Scripture is read in and with the church but it alone is the norm for life and doctrine.

Hermeneutics

Scripture is old law (Moses) and new law (Christ).

All Scripture contains law (“do”) and gospel (“done”). The Reformed express the law/ gospel dichotomy in the covenants of works (law) and grace (gospel).

Sin

A fall from original grace and the result of the concupiscence natural to creatures. Sin created the need for more grace. The effects of sin do not prevent our cooperation with grace toward final justification.

A free, unnatural act of willful disobedience to God’s law. Sin results in depravity and inability to cooperate with grace.

Salvation

A grace given through the church enabling us to overcoming finitude and consequent sin.

Deliverance from sin, death, and the devil.

Condign (intrinsically worthy) merit is wrought within sinners by the Spirit and congruent merit is imputed graciously to sinners in view of their best efforts.

The condign merit of Christ’s obedience is imputed to sinners who have no intrinsic merits. There is no congruent merit.

A gift from the Holy Spirit, by which “he shares his divine life,” that is infused into sinners sanctifying them.

Free, unmerited or demerited divine favor toward sinners.

The process of being made intrinsically righteous through grace and cooperation with grace, occurring in two stages, initial and final. Initial justification is received at baptism. Final justification recognizes intrinsic righteousness which is the result of grace and cooperation with grace and occurs at the judgment.

A definitive divine declaration of forgiveness of sins and righteousness on the basis of Christ’s righteous obedience and death imputed to sinners. There is no distinction between initial and final justification.

A measure of sanctity, one of three virtues (the others being hope and love) created within the righteous. With hope and love it is gradually infused into the soul and exists partially in this life as the sinner cooperates with grace.

A grace whereby sinners are granted true knowledge of and trust in Christ the Savior, and are righteous, accepted, and saved by God for Christ’s sake. Faith’s virtue is not intrinsic but rests in Christ and his alien righteousness. It is the only instrument of justification.

Necessary for justification.

Logically and morally necessary as fruit and evidence of justification, but not as the ground or instrument of justification.

Merit Grace

Justification

Faith

Our Good Works

1 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

REFORMATION CHART Rome Free Will and Election

Confessional Protestant

Free will is essential to salvation. Humans cannot be righteous without the exercise of free will in cooperation with grace. It is presumptuous to say with certainty that one is elect.

(Lutheran) God foreknows everything, but election applies only to believers. God hardens those who resist the Spirit. (Reformed) God foreknows and predestines everything. In Christ, the elect are chosen for salvation but the reprobate are passed over. The grace of election is irresistible and produces true faith that trusts God’s promises in Christ.

Provides initial justification and regeneration. By its act, grace necessarily operates on the sinner.

Baptism

(Lutheran) The Holy Spirit is so related to baptism that it necessarily works forgiveness of sins, regeneration, and salvation to believers. (Reformed) A sacrament (sign and seal) of inclusion in the covenant of grace whereby God promises salvation to those who believe.

By “transubstantiation” the elements become the body and blood of Christ. The transubstantiated victim is ritually and memorially sacrificed to turn away divine wrath for sin.

Eucharist

(Lutheran) At consecration the body and blood of Christ is in, with, and under the elements. Both believers and unbelievers receive the body and blood of Christ. (Reformed) Christ is bodily at the right hand of the Father but, by the work of the Holy Spirit, truly and really communicates himself to believers through the Supper so that they receive the body and blood of Christ through faith.

Mary

Was redeemed at her sinless (immaculate) conception, was without sin and was assumed bodily, without death, into heaven where she reigns as queen of heaven, a recipient of prayer and adoration, interceding on behalf of believers.

Mary was blessed above all women, bore the God-Man in her womb, but was not conceived immaculately, nor assumed into heaven at death. Christ is our only priest and Mediator.

Saints

Intermediaries whose righteousness is stored in a treasury of merit accessible to sinners through the church and the proper recipients of prayer.

Fellow believers and valuable examples but neither intermediaries nor contributors to a treasury of merit.

Eschatology

At death, the elect enter a state of purification (purgatory) before glorification. Therefore, prayers on their behalf are proper.

At death, believers go to be with their Savior. Glorification is immediate, but they with believers and unbelievers on earth wait for the resurrection and judgment.

R. Scott Clark is associate professor of historical theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California). Published Sources: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican: Libreria editrice, 1997). Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord, trans. Charles Arand et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 3, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, repr. 1983), 3.328. Online Sources: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm http://www.oceansideurc.org/sections/creeds/belgic.html http://www.oceansideurc.org/sections/creeds/heid.html http://www.oceansideurc.org/sections/creeds/cannons.html

http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_text.html http://www.opc.org/documents/WSC_text.html http://www.opc.org/documents/WLC.html

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 5

other groups within the Continental Reformed tradition. Yet what about our (URC) relations with the confessional Presbyterian bodies? A fellow pastor told me that when he was growing up in a predominantly Dutch Reformed region, he once met a Presbyterian youth and asked his devout mother to explain what a Presbyterian was, to which she replied, “I think it’s close to Methodist.” Even within the Reformed family itself we can become pretty insular. I do not mean to suggest that ecumenical committees are not working on such matters, but what would keep us from delegating representatives to a committee tasked with a simultaneous multiple union? Of course, this would mean adopting a common confessional standard, but what are the doctrinal differences between the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity? Both belong to the common treasure of Reformed

Christianity, the Westminster divines concerned not to stray in the slightest from “the example of our best Reformed churches.” Could individual churches continue to subscribe their own confession to which the wider body would hold them accountable? Surely some things would be lost, but are they essential to the marks of the church? Are they confessional differences—not just nuances, but serious differences that divide? Or do they belong more to our cherished history, perhaps even to our culture? (See Godfrey’s “A Reformed Dream” sidebar.) Once more, historical circumstances (such as being Dutch, German, Scots-Irish, Southern, or even American) that once played such a large hand in stitching the patchwork quilt of immigrant Calvinism in America have to be separated from the confessional unity that we share. Unity is a merger, not an acquisition. We face a moment of

A Reform

n North America today we have many confessionally Reformed denominations: for example, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Free Reformed Churches, Korean-American Presbyterian Church, Netherlands Reformed Churches, Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, Protestant Reformed Churches, Reformed Church of the United States, Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, United Reformed Churches. Each of these denominations has a distinctive history. Each has struggled in its own context to spread and defend the Reformed faith. Each treasures the Reformed confessions and has sought to live and minister according to them. Each of these denominations has peculiar strengths and emphases that it brings to the Reformed community. These various denominations are often perceived as expressing Reformed Christianity distinctively: some seem to have particularly strong congregational life, some to lay great emphasis on piety and prayer, some to stress clear doctrine and maintaining the antithesis between believers and the world, some to be devoted to evangelism and missions, and some to champion the historic Reformed approach to worship. None of these strengths and none of these histories should be lost. Yet each of these denominations has weaknesses. Perhaps the clearest weakness is the failure to express the unity of confessional Reformed Christianity. If these churches hold to the Reformed

1 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

confessions, why are they not united? When members of these groups gather informally, there is often a great sense of connection and appreciation for one another. But too often these denominations allow their individual histories (and suspicions) to block a visible expression of unity. The failure to manifest unity greatly weakens the credibility of the Reformed cause. Our opponents too easily can claim that conservative Reformed Christianity is hopelessly divisive and expends its energy on theological warfare rather than on making Christ known. That charge misses the real hostility of our culture (and many churches) to Reformed Christianity, but still has an element of truth to it. What can be done? One solution would be to continue having interchurch relations committees talk to one another and seek organic union after working through all differences and suspicions. Another would be to widen participation in the National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches and use that organization as the visible expression of our unity. Is there another option? It may only be a Reformed dream, but I believe that there is. Our confessional Reformed denominations should consider a bold move to express their unity and increase the credibility of their witness. Let all of these denominations (or as many as are willing) join together under one general assembly ( or general, national synod) with each former denomination becoming a particular synod under that general assembly. This simple (and modest!) proposal would obviously have to

decision as to whether we will be ethnic enclaves (even if that is as broad as white/middleclass/Republican) or an outpost of Christ’s universal kingdom in a land of immense diversity that we have not even begun to reach. And beyond our own shores, it is anticipated that soon the number of Reformed Christians in Nigeria will outnumber those in North America. For anyone who has not received the memo yet, the center of gravity for Christianity worldwide has already shifted from North America to Africa and Asia. Confessional and confessing Christianity is not cultural Christianity, and the latter will eventually wither. Hazy or Lazy: A False Choice oth the achievements and failures of the modern ecumenical movement must be wellmarked and learned. Born in an era of postmillennial triumphalism, it sought to usher in the

kingdom of God by amassing the troops for a reassertion of “Christendom”—whatever the political version one adopted. We would do well to avoid any such triumphalism—an “over-realized” eschatology—especially at a time when similar strategies are at work on both the cultural left (mainline) and right (conservative). At the same time, we confessional Protestants easily receive such old news as a comfort for our apathy. We who pride ourselves on being confessional are often attentive to Christ’s call to “teach everything I have commanded you,” but less eager to respond to the “Go!” part of his great commission. If in evangelicalism we seem too willing to sacrifice the message for the mission, we often thrive on internal controversy, as if confessionalism could substitute for confessing. We glibly protest a “Rodney King theology” (“Why can’t we all just get along?”), but often seem to forget that “communion of the saints” and

ed Dream be worked out in terms of specifics, but let me suggest some of the elements of the idea that would help it work. The general assembly would adopt the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity as its confessional basis. It would meet every three years and have very specific, limited powers. It would have the authority to make decisions in relation to joint actions of the synods. The general assembly would be composed of delegations from the synods according to the size of the synod (in fairness to the larger synods), but the decisions of the assembly would have to be ratified by a majority of the synods (in fairness to the smaller synods.) The assembly would have the authority to remove a synod that was judged to have departed from the Reformed faith but would not have the authority to interfere with the internal operations of a synod. The assembly would encourage greater cooperation and coordination among the synods, and over time some synods would probably merge, but each synod would be free to make those decisions on its own. Each synod would initially continue to function exactly as it does now as a denomination. All current practices, teachings, and ministries would continue as they are. For example, the Reformed Presbyterians, if they became a synod under the new general assembly, would be able to preserve their doctrine and practice of exclusive psalm-singing without musical instruments without any possibility that the General Assembly could ever interfere with that position. Is such an idea an impossible dream? Not if Reformed Christians are as bold and courageous in pursuing the unity of the

church as we have been in pursuing the purity of the church. The idea is basically very simple and requires no local changes for any of the denominations. It does require confidence in the brethren and a willingness to accept some teachings and practices different from our own. It would force all of us to ask with new focus: what does it mean to be Reformed and what must others believe and do for us to recognize them as adequately Reformed? The potential advantages are tremendous. We could have a confessionally Reformed denomination of a size that would increase its witness and resources dramatically in North America. It would express the fundamentally positive character of Reformed Christianity. Most importantly, it would show our fidelity to the Bible’s call for unity and manifest our desire to testify clearly to Christ’s gospel of grace. Will one or two denominations lead the way to turn this dream into a reality? Dreamers awake! There is work to do!

W. Robert Godfrey is president and professor of church history at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California). This article was originally published in The Outlook (September, 1997), 17. It is reprinted here with the author’s permission.

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 7

“one holy, catholic, and apostolic church” part of our creed, postponing any realization of this to the heavenly life. But this is what is called an “underrealized” eschatology. Expecting too little is the result of not realizing all that already belongs to us here and now because of Christ’s resurrection and the sending of his Spirit. Running ahead of the Spirit and quenching the Spirit are the twin dangers we must avoid: “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another” (Gal. 5:25–26). Like sanctification (“one holy … church”), overcoming church divisions (“one… catholic … church”) is our mandate even if we cannot determine its results or measure its success.

antiecclesiastical. In other words, they do not have to be actions of a church body, but they can be actions of professing Christians wherever there is common ground. Here we are clearly in the terrain of godly wisdom rather than hard-and-fast rules. We collaborate where there is consensus and we talk to each other even where this is lacking. Who knows what fruit it might bear in the long run by God’s grace toward greater visible, ecclesiastical unity? Even those of us who are ministers could see such cooperation as part of the “general office” that belongs to every believer, not as part of our official Word-and-Sacrament ministry. At the same time, the kingdom of Christ is not an entirely future reality, but has dawned in history. Denominational committees for ecumenical relations are not mere bureaucracies And beyond our own shores, it is anticipated that soon the number of Reformed that are to be trodden under foot by grassroots efforts, but Christians in Nigeria will outnumber those in North America. they are hallways in the courts of Zion. We cannot use the so-called invisible church and grassroots ecuBeing confessional is not a guarantee that we are menism as a cop-out for ignoring our commission actually confessing “the faith once and for all deliv- to realize visibly, in concrete if imperfect ways, that ered to the saints” (Jude 3). Talking to and arguing unity that will be finally and fully consummated at among ourselves is sometimes necessary, but only the end. Does this mean that all of the bodies that for the purpose of having something to say to the claim to be or belong to the one visible body of world on God’s behalf. Getting the gospel right is Christ will one day be united this side of the return pointless if we do not get the gospel out, and mis- of Christ? That is doubtful. But even if it were a sion is inextricably linked to ecumenism. After all, proper target, we have, as my grandmother would the mission entrusted to the church as an institu- put it, enough fish to fry in our own kettle. In tion is not to form a theological circle, nor to trans- terms of my own tradition, perhaps after conservaform culture, but to proclaim the gospel in Word tive, confessional Reformed and Presbyterian bodand Sacrament and to care for the flock our ies are united visibly, we could consider the next frontier. And would that be so bad? ■ Shepherd has gathered by that ministry. Unity: A Gift to Be Opened owever, if we are to try again, how shall we go about it? The unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 is, like salvation itself, not something to be attained by our feverish activity, but a gift already given in union with Christ. It is realized imperfectly now, as a down payment on its full realization later. This grounds both our grassroots ecumenism, which is already evident practically everywhere. However, if it is not matched by an aggressive, hopeful, visionary effort of churches, it will eventually wear out and, at the same time, the church will be even more seriously degraded in the process. Both forms of ecumenism need each other. Grassroots ecumenism can take place in a variety of settings, some formal and others informal. They can be nonecclesiastical without being

1 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

Michael Horton is professor of apologetics and theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California).

SHALL WE STILL PROTEST?

Turning Romeward? Not an Option was struck by an editorial in the Frankfurt (Germany) newspaper, which observed that the election of Cardinal Ratzinger to be the new pope was not a threat to Germany, a country that voted for the Reformation, even though Benedict XVI represents “the Counter-Reformation in person.” First, I enjoyed the admission from a secular European source that Germany really had been, at least at a time long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, a Protestant country. Second, I was glad to see it offered in print the assertion that Benedict really is the Counter-Reformation in person. Let’s look at this a minute. Benedict is great. We all, or almost all evangelical Christians, like what he says about most doctrines, and probably all moral teachings, of the Christian faith. A couple thousand orthodox Episcopalians, who were attending an emergency conference in Dallas right after an openly gay bishop was approved by our denomination, will never forget the moment when we were called suddenly back into the hall, to hear a telegram read out from … Cardinal Ratzinger! It was a telegram to us, specifically, the “traditionalist” Episcopalians meeting in speechless disarray after the Rubicon had been crossed through the election of a gay bishop in New Hampshire, telling us of the Vatican’s sympathy with us, and its solicitude for us in our church suffering. It was an amazing moment! So yes, we really do like Benedict XVI. We also really like his implied confrontation with secular Europe. I sometimes just want to throw up my hands at the Europeans, and the English, too, for their rationalist indifference, which has resulted in a debased youth culture, a terminally low birth rate, and an unprincipled capitulation to the Islamic minority which will soon be a majority if present trends continue. It is not the anti-Americanism that throws me—a fair piece of which is hard not to agree with at times. It is rather the unblinking secularism and even anti-Christianity of the region, which strikes me as a massive case of shooting themselves in the foot. So there is a lot to appreciate in the new pope’s collision course with the severe agnosticism of the land mass that surrounds him. This is all to the good.

b y PA U L F. M . Z A H L S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 9

But it is not enough to make me wish to swim the Tiber! Many of my orthodox colleagues in the Episcopal Church are going over to Rome these days. Even if they are married clergy, if they are anywhere near to retirement—especially, believe it or not, if they are bishops—the pull of Rome is strong. It is like the tractor beam in Star Wars. Rome looks so good, for conservative Christian people, that it becomes so good. It has a powerful pull. For several of my colleagues, Benedict’s election was the final “double plus good” (George Orwell), sealing the deal on the finality and authority of Rome’s position. My friends have “poped.” I do not blame them. But I cannot agree with them. The big problem with Roman Catholicism is the old and enduring problem, which has never been resolved. It is the problem of the first formal cause of our justification. “They” believe in infusion, “we” believe in imputation. For the layperson, this means “they” teach that we are OK when we become actually OK, while “we” teach that we are OK before we become actually OK. The classic way of putting this is that we become righteous after we are regarded, in our lostness, as righteous. And we remain, in this human life, both 100 percent righteous (from God’s point of view because of Christ’s perfect sacrifice) and thoroughly flawed (instrinically) even as our fruited works show the gradual growth of actual righteousness within us. Here is how the ninth article of the “Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion” (1561) puts it: “Man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated.” “Doth remain”! This means that we are both sinners and saved, at the same time, throughout our Christian lives. It is a vital point. It is called theological anthropology, and declares the tragic truth that we are, as Christians, both saved to the max and human (i.e., sinners) to the max, simultaneously. We are never not both completely perfect in God’s sight and totally messed up in our own eyes and in “the eyes of the world” (Jerry Garcia). Imputation, or God’s “wording” and regarding us as righteous in the very midst of our (repentant) sinfulness, is the mechanism of our justification, which is our salvation practically applied. Rome teaches infusion—we are not graced until God recognizes the grace that dwells within us through the sacraments—and we teach imputation. That distinction remains the single source of our separation. In addition, the Church of Rome has made it a point of dogma (since 1711 at least), following from their lopsided and reactive assertion of the

2 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

infusion anthropology at the Council of Trent, that human beings possess free will. If I am, through infusion, on the road north, then let’s track this artificially enhanced image of man right on back to the south side of our salvation. Salute the fair lord of all the earth, “Man”! He is free to choose and also free to un-choose. Reformation Protestants hold a deeper view than this of humanity’s loss. We believe that free will was lost with the Fall, and no matter how smart we are, we always choose the self-serving wrong unless by God’s grace we are given to choose the right. Reformation Protestants always wish to remind Rome that Peter’s greatness consisted in his repentedof fallenness and weakness of will, and that 100 percent of Good Friday’s observers voted for Barabbas. Thus I, for one, am happy yet to protest. I could also protest about the Bible: we weight it differently than they. I could also protest about the authority question: We cannot trust a human individual, no matter how fine, to rule our spirits before the Lord. I could also protest the place of Mary, although I still think The Song of Bernadette (1943) is maybe Hollywood’s best hymn to orthodoxy. There are several other matters, too, which still deserve our protest. But the big one is theological anthropology. As long as the Church of Rome annuls the simul iustus et peccator result, on our thisworld side, of the Gospel’s declaration of our justification on the merits of Christ alone, then we cannot go there. We have to stay where we are. May I add just one more point: Our Protestant protest does not mean meanness in spirit or lack of generosity in conceding to Roman points that are not central. Nor does it mean being closed to grace and gestures of love which come from their side. Just because one is a convinced Protestant does not mean that one can ever be unloving in any way. When Richard Hobson, the ardent Protestant rector of St. Nathaniel’s, Windsor, a Church of England parish located in the slums of Liverpool, retired in the early twentieth century from decades of service cheek-to-jowl with thousands of innercity Irish Catholics there, he had the entire respect of the Roman Catholic community because of his completely unstinting embodied caring for all of God’s children in his patch, acted out in countless deeds of mercy to all who approached him. ■

Paul Zahl is Dean and President of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania.

SHALL WE STILL PROTEST?

Does Protestantism Have What Evangelicals are Looking For? hristianity in America has undergone a remarkable number of changes since the end of World War II. At the opening of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942, for instance, Harold John Ockenga, pastor of Park Street Congregationalist Church in Boston, declared that Roman Catholicism was as much a threat to American society as communism and secularism. In 1960, to use another example of Protestant hostility to Roman Catholicism, John F. Kennedy needed to explain to Protestant voters why he as president would not have a higher loyalty to the Pope than to the Constitution. But these incidents now seem as dated as the Lincoln-Douglas debates or the Scopes Trial. In 1994, prominent evangelicals such as Charles Colson and J. I. Packer signed the docu-

by D . G . H A RT S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 1

ment, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” a statement in which evangelicals recognized Roman Catholics as fellow Christians and regarded Rome as more of a solution to than a problem for America’s woes. Ten years later, members of the so-called Christian Right refused to vote for another JFK, this time, John F. Kerry, in part because he was insufficiently demonstrative about his Roman Catholic faith. These isolated points of contrast suggest a new era of Christian history in America. Protestant leaders in the early twentieth century could often be heard talking about a new phase of history characterized by ecumenical warmth and common Christian purpose. But that old Protestant ecumenism rarely extended to non-Protestants, and the best it could do was establish some formal mechanisms of cooperation among the largest Protestant denominations in the United States. The new period, however, is actually witnessing the reduction of barriers between two of the United States’ most ferociously opposed groups — born-again Protestants and Roman Catholics. It is indeed a significant time, one that has prompted the pre-eminent American church historian, Mark Noll, and his colleague, Carol Nystrom, to wonder, as the title to their new book has it, Is the Reformation Over? As momentous as the times may be, another possible explanation exists. It could be that the

the family. Seldom do observers comment on it, but during the last sixty years “evangelical” has replaced “Protestant” as a term for Christian identity (yes, the “mainline” still goes by the label Protestant but that is another story.) This shift in branding is indicative of a broader departure from the sources of Protestant identity during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As such, a more favorable evangelical attitude to Rome may be as much a sign of weakening Protestant resolve as it is an indication of growing Roman Catholic vitality. To put it another way, the evangelical change of mind may have as much to do with the bankruptcy of born-again Christianity as with either Rome’s resilience or Protestantism’s exhaustion. In either case, American Christians may very well be trespassing on territory forbidden since the sixteenth century that is both as rocky and abundant as the land pioneered by the original Lutherans and Calvinists.

Why Rome is More Attractive than Colorado Springs he factors causing evangelicals to reassess their hostility to Rome are many, some of which are invisible to many Protestants. What many average church-goers do not realize is the number of fraternal exchanges in which Protestants and Roman Catholics have been engaged since 1970. At different stages and in varying degrees of intentionality, Rome has been conducting ecumenical dialogues with Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Reformed Protestants, Lutherans, Disciples of Seldom do observers comment on it, but during the last sixty years “evangelical” Christ, Baptists and evangelicals. The controversial statement, “Evangelicals and has replaced “Protestant” as a term for Christian identity. Catholics Together,” was just the tip of the ecumenical iceberg. Some of these diachanges between evangelicals and Roman logues were formal and some had no binding force Catholics have less to do with genuine ecumenical at all. But as Noll and Nystrom indicate in their breakthroughs than with the weakening resolve of new book, these discussions “record a momentous two Christian groups in need of encouragement shaking of once-settled ground.” Of course, lurkand support. On the one hand, some evangelicals ing in the wings of these endeavors was the Second have begun to show signs of spiritual malnutrition Vatican Council (1962-1965), the declarations of and are willing to look to Rome for sustenance (in which seem to have changed the countenance of which case, despite born-again Christianity’s surfeit Rome’s curia from a frown to a smile. This differof media outlets and humongous churches, its vital ence has in turn encouraged some evangelicals to signs are not good). On the other hand, evangeli- take another look at Rome, while others, who have calism’s improving estimate of Roman Catholicism looked so long that they have converted to Rome, reveals a growing frustration among born-again to long for the older days when the Vatican acted Protestants over Protestantism itself. Indeed, more like the disciplinarian than the counselor. books like the one by Noll and Nystrom yield var- Still, Vatican II is undoubtedly an important factor ious indications of the factors that have prompted in the new relations between evangelicals and evangelicals, at least, to abandon older hostilities Roman Catholics in America. Arguably, the biggest factor in the changes and look upon Rome as an ally if not a member of

2 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

between evangelicals and Roman Catholics is Rome itself. Here the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good gauge to Roman Catholic assets that attract evangelicals to its teachings and practices. In the estimate of Noll and Nystrom, for instance, Rome provides “a substantial outline of Christian orthodoxy,” [121] thoughtful instruction on Christian devotion, wisdom on rearing family and sexual relations, astute approaches to society and public life, and a high view of sin and the supernatural. In other words, Rome has more to offer in the way of a substantial Christian witness than evangelicalism. These are not those features of Roman Catholicism that cause many evangelicals to stumble, such as devotion to Mary, church authority, ordination as the basis for ministry, the celibacy of priests, some aspects of worship (i.e. baptismal regeneration and the Mass), and justification (though evangelicals are hardly unified on this). Sometimes it does appear that evangelical appreciation for Rome borders on condescension; Roman Catholicism looks more attractive than it once did because it is not as Roman Catholic as it used to be (i.e., it has become more user-friendly for evangelicals). Still, Roman Catholicism presents an expression of Christianity that is richer and more profound than the one to which many evangelicals are accustomed. The flip side of this high regard for Rome is awareness among thoughtful born-again Christians of evangelicalism’s weaknesses. In fact, many evangelicals now view Rome as the source for what they themselves cannot find within born-again Christianity, such as, in the words of Noll and Nystrom, “weaknesses in ecclesiology, tradition, the intellectual life, sacraments, theology of culture, aesthetics, philosophical theology, [and] historical consciousness.” [71] According to the evangelical biblical scholar, Scott McKnight, Rome provides a way to “transcend the human limits of knowledge to find certainty … to transcend the human limits of temporality to find connection to the entire history of the Church … to transcend the human limits of interpretive diversity to find an interpretive authority.” [72] Or, as Noll and Nystrom concede, evangelicalism is “beset with great quantities of practical Pelagianism, lifeless informality, narrowly sectarian Gnosticism, and dangerous capitulation to subChristian varieties of both modernism … and postmodernism.” [250] If the health of evangelicalism is declining, it has much to do with the extinct Reformation, which is an important context for evaluations that regard Rome as robust. One additional factor affecting the changes between evangelicals and Roman Catholics is the condition of American society and the politics try-

ing to give it order and legitimacy. Throughout much of the history of the modern West, Rome and Protestants were on different sides of the major changes in politics, law and the economy. Protestants generally came around to embracing the apparent “progress” of modernity, with its freedom for individuals to choose their rulers and the goods and services they could afford; Rome, though often for nuanced and wise reasons, was clearly opposed to the political, economic, and intellectual freedoms modernity promised. But after the sexual upheaval of the 1960s when the implications of modern notions of liberty became patent, and Rome’s attitude to political liberty was modified, Roman Catholicism emerged as a saner source for defending the West and its achievements (both political and cultural) than Protestantism, which in the United States had idealized freedom and stood powerless to respond thoughtfully to the objections of AfricanAmericans, women, and Vietnam War protesters. One could plausibly argue that the American political and cultural situation, coupled with the increasing prominence of faith in electoral politics, is the greatest solvent of the antagonisms between Protestants and Roman Catholics in contemporary America. To the credit of some evangelicals, like the authors of Is the Reformation Over?, they do not discount the mixed motives behind the improved relations between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Does Protestantism Have What Evangelicals are Looking For? s plausible as these changes within Rome, evangelicalism and the United States are for understanding the growing appreciation of born-again Christians for Roman Catholicism, some may still wonder why evangelicals do not give historic Protestantism (e.g., Lutheranism, Reformed, Anglicanism) a closer look. After all, these communions (at least the ones outside the mainline denominations) also have creeds, substantial forms of devotion uncluttered by evangelical kitsch, discipline on sexual and family matters, approaches to politics (e.g. the two kingdoms or the spirituality of the church) that avoid the extremes of the Religious Right, and are more corporate and historically minded than the individualism and presentism that characterizes born-again Christianity. In fact, if one of the besetting difficulties for evangelicals considering Rome is the nature and power of the church, Lutherans, Reformed and Anglicans possess ecclesiologies that regard the church in an objective manner but still make room for subjective expressions within its

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

life. Of course, Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians and Episcopalians have their problems, as all Christians do. But for Christianity with substance, the historic Protestant communions have much to offer even if they lack numbers (something for which evangelicals usually fall) or a magnificent and ancient part of a European city devoted to their witness. What these Protestant communions do lack implicitly from a most evangelicals’ perspective is unity, along with the conditions that will make Christian unity more likely. The age-old knock against Protestantism is its chaos and disorder because of its endless divisions. Even reducing those differences to the three historic Protestant expressions – Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed – hardly presents prospects for a unified Christian witness. But the problem goes even deeper than formal ecclesiastical separations since many of the arguments for harmony between evangelicals and Roman Catholics propose a basis for Christian unity that seriously compromises the idea of Christian truth. For example, toward the end of Is the Reformation Over? the authors offer a way of regarding differences between Roman Catholics and evangelicals that is akin to the differences between various languages. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics speak different languages when talking about Christianity, but over the last sixty years they have begun to learn the other group’s language. In so doing, they have begun to see, according to Noll and Nystrom, “…that God has always been bigger than our own group’s grasp of God, that he has been manifesting himself at times, in places, and through venues where others have not expected him to be present at all.” [246] This is a model for evaluating other Christian traditions very different from the one that prevailed among conservative believers for most of western Christianity’s history up until the rise of Protestant liberalism. The old metaphor was closer to that of a final examination, in which one’s own group’s conception of Christianity was the best (perhaps an A or B+) and the other groups were inferior (ranging from C’s to F’s). The exam metaphor still recognized that the other groups were fellow test-takers (Christians) but it provided a way of distinguishing the superior performances on the exam from the inferior. To be fair, the fact that the test-takers were also the grade-givers could skew the results in self-serving ways. But it did protect the substance of the test because getting the questions correct mattered. The language metaphor of evaluating other Christian groups, it should also be noted, has been tried before. The ecumenical project of mainline

2 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

Protestantism also tended to regard the different denominations as varying Christian expressions springing from different historical and cultural circumstances. This project did not accomplish much. American Protestant denominations are still divided and for apparently no good reason since the substantial differences between Protestants over sacraments, worship, creed, or polity have been relativized to the accidents of history. What seems to matter more are prerogatives of denominational bureaucracy. Why evangelicals do not consider that ongoing dialogue and exploration of unity between Roman Catholics and evangelicals will not have a similar fate is puzzling. The reason has much to do with those very aspects of Roman Catholicism that attract evangelicals, the substance, the transcendence, the order and discipline. Yet, if these parts of Roman Catholic witness become simply “different ways of approaching, internalizing, articulating, and expressing the Christian faith,” [246] and if they are not superior to other Christian ways, then why bother being Catholic? Indeed, what makes them attractive to some born-again Christians is that behind them is the binding address of a church that claims to speak the truth. In the end, the biggest change in the recent evangelical friendliness to Roman Catholicism is the one within evangelicalism itself. A conservative Presbyterian friend recently told me that if he had to choose a religious home for his children, he would prefer Roman Catholicism to evangelicalism. Of course, the best outcome was for his sons and daughters to grow up and inherit the faith of their dad. But if faced with Rome or Colorado Springs, this friend saw the formers ties to historic Christianity being more substantial than bornagain Christianity’s. This is a way of posing the question unthinkable even only ten years ago. But it has become plausible given the continuing afflictions within contemporary evangelicalism. Would that their dialogue with Roman Catholics might give evangelicals more substance, a better grasp of Christian truth. But if that dialogue is only a means for appreciating the marvel of differing grammars, or the quirks of pronunciation and accent, then the chances of an evangelical language persevering look grimly dim. For that reason, instead of asking, “Is the Reformation over?” perhaps a better question to ask is whether evangelicalism is finished. ■ D.G. Hart is Director of Fellowship Programs at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and the author of several books, most recently, John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist (P&R, 2005).

SHALL WE STILL PROTEST?

Are We One in the Lord? s Darryl Hart points out in his article, “Does Protestantism Have What Evangelicals are Looking For?”, American attitudes toward Roman Catholics have changed dramatically in the past half-century. Whereas before 1950 it would have been unlikely for Protestants and Catholics to socialize together, much less intermarry, faithful Christians today are confused about what is appropriate behavior and what is not. The question, “are we one in the Lord?” is very apt for evangelicals who see natural partnerships and alliances with Catholics on a number of issues, but still wonder if there is a line that should not be crossed. What follows are the sorts of questions people ask of their pastors. We’ve asked several of our contributing authors whose full-time job is pastoral ministry to respond to them as if they were talking to a member of their own church.

My coworker’s daughter is getting married next month at the local Catholic church. Should I attend?

nless attending a service in a Roman Catholic Church would cause you undue physical or emotional distress or pangs of conscience (“Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin”), you should feel free to attend the wedding of your co-worker’s daughter. The purpose of attending a wedding is to bear witness to the couples’ vows, to pray for them as they begin their lives together as husband and wife, and to bless

them in their public commitment to live together in the order of holy marriage. Your presence shows your approval and support of what they are doing. Since marriage is part of the created order, given to all in the creation of Man and Woman (Genesis 2:24), it is not a peculiarly Catholic or even Christian institution. Marriage and its benefits pertain to this life and the present created order, for “in the resurrection, they are neither married nor given in marriage.” Of course, as a non-Catholic guest, you would not participate in Holy Communion, assuming it is a wedding Mass, since the Roman

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

Catholic Church forbids non-Catholics from receiving Communion [see the papal encyclical of John Paul II Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003)]. Besides, you likely don’t agree with all that the Catholic Church has to say about the Sacrament of Holy Communion, and your participation would imply your assent to their teaching. With respect to any hymns or prayers, your participation should be guided by your understanding and confession of the Christian faith. Where you can say your unequivocal “Amen” to a prayer or sing a hymn, do so. Where you cannot, do not. This requires careful and discerning hearing on your part, which but should be the norm regardless of where you are worshipping.

means that we can feel free to accept the invitation inasmuch as we affirm the legitimacy of marriage. We can rejoice with them as fellow human beings and citizens in the kingdom of man, the sphere to which marriage belongs. But there is, of course, a second thing to consider. What if the ceremony itself contains religious acts or pagan ritual that clearly denies the gospel and the historic Christian faith? For example, Roman Catholic weddings often include the Mass. As Protestants, we believe that the Mass, as the Heidelberg Catechism puts it, “is at bottom nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry” (Q.80). Perhaps not all Protestants would be comfortable with such forthright language, but no true — William Cwirla, pastor Protestant should be comfortable with what the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church Mass teaches and implies. Hacienda Heights, California The same could be said of many other practices often found at Roman Catholic weddings (all of which are in connection to Rome’s belief that marriage is In all that the church, as the church, does or endorses, she must always be able to a sacrament). Although we share common ground with plant the flag of the gospel of Jesus Christ upon it without fear of compromise. our Roman Catholic friend in the order of creation and readily affirm his valid marriage, we do not share common ground on many any of us are familiar with the awkward theological essentials. As Protestants, we simply feeling that accompanies an invitation cannot, in good conscience, participate in any relilike this. A friend or relative invites us to gious acts that deny our beliefs. This must be the share in one of life’s most important events, but our caveat to our attendance of and/or participation in Protestant convictions seem to be at odds with our the wedding. We go to affirm what God has instiemotions. We struggle to find some way to enjoy tuted in creation. We go to rejoice with our loved the occasion while maintaining a clear conscience. ones. But in all areas of religious practice, we go as But in order to avoid compromise, we must an observer, not as a participant. approach a situation like this theologically, rather than sentimentally. There are at least a couple of — Michael Brown, pastor things we should understand: Christ Reformed Church First, we must keep in mind that marriage is a Santee, California creational institution. Like the institution of human vocation, marriage is rooted in the order of creation, not redemption. That means it is for Our church has been asked to participate with all people, irrespective of their theology. While other Christian congregations in a Pro-Life only the Christian can, by faith, understand and march. The local Catholic church has taken a truly appreciate the profound illustration in mar- lead in organizing the march and the parish priest riage that demonstrates Christ’s love for his bride will be speaking. Should our church participate? (the church), a person’s theology does not make a marriage legitimate. Even marriages performed s a Lutheran minister, I am always leery of for or by pagans are valid marriages, provided it is organized activities in the public square on in accordance with natural law (i.e. one man marthe part of congregations. The issue here is rying one woman). The theology and/or the spir- not so much who is taking the organizational lead itual state of the persons being married or con- or who will speak, but the official participation of a ducting the ceremony neither validates nor inval- Christian congregation as a whole. The Lutheran idates a marriage. doctrine of the two kingdoms comes into view here. This is important for us to understand because it Certainly the Pro-Life cause is just and right. As

2 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

Christians we acknowledge the sanctity of human life in all its stages, and we deplore the slaughter of the innocents on the altar of abortion, the trampling of the rights of the poor, and our callous disregard for the infirm and dying. However, individual Christians will differ regarding the best approach for public policy in matters of human life. Some may take a more activist role, and engage in public protests and marches. Others may work quietly behind the scenes to persuade those in government to protect the sanctity of human life. Still others may work within the sphere of their own influence and vocation, giving shelter to pregnant girls, adopting or foster parenting unwanted children, etc. However, when a congregation acts officially as a body, this implies that participation on the part of its members is mandatory. A Pro-Life march is not a church pot-luck. This publicly associates the congregation with a particular cause, in this case the Pro-Life movement, quite apart from the cause of the proclamation of the saving Lordship of Jesus Christ. It also potentially creates the false impression that the various congregations are united in doctrine simply because they are united on this one point. A Christian congregation gathers for one purpose: To worship the triune God in spirit and in truth, that is, to hear the saving message of the salvation of the sinner in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, and to receive His gifts of salvation in the preached, Word of forgiveness, Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper of His Body and Blood, to confess this faith in Creed and Hymn, and to pray for the whole people of God in Christ Jesus and for all people according to his or her need. Out of that liturgical gathering, the congregation is sent and scattered into the world as Christ’s priestly people to serve their neighbor in the love of Christ and to proclaim to all that Jesus is Lord, Christ, and Savior. If your question is “Should I, as a non-Catholic Christian, participate in a Pro-Life march organized by the local Catholic church?” my answer would be, “If you are so inclined, you are certainly free to do so as a Christian citizen who feels that this march would aid the sanctity of life in our society.” I realize that not all Christians will agree with this analysis, but hey, I’m a Lutheran. Deal with it. Your mileage may vary. — William Cwirla, pastor Holy Trinity Lutheran Church Hacienda Heights, California

hristians ought to speak up about abortion according to their calling, capacity and conscience, and participating in a Pro-Life march is one way to do this. Yet there is a great difference between what individual Christians may do (Rom 14), and what the corporate church, as the church, may require its members to do (Gal 4:10,11; Col 2:16,17). As an individual Christian I may join the military, choose to drink wine or eat meat (in moderation of course), and vote for this or that political candidate. But the church, in her corporate capacity, may not raise a militia, may not require or prohibit people to drink wine or eat meat, and may not stipulate which political candidate church members should support. The wisdom in this distinction is obvious: Respecting individual Christians freedom of conscience is important and is the mandate of love. Restraining the church to bind herself to the task of the Great Commission (discipleship) is vital. But it is also crucial for the church not to overstep her lawful power and boundaries. The church is obligated to remind us of our important societal and civil responsibilities, but the church should not stipulate how we fulfill them. Individual Christians and Christian families are right to work, as co-belligerents, in concert with other concerned citizens who also desire to transform culture and the civil government in order to overcome evil. Nevertheless, we should never think that our actions as individuals—governed by the Word of God—are beyond the arm and discipline of the church. Secondly, the church cannot separate the acting out her faith from her faith. How can church leaders promote church-wide participation in an activity that is not distinctively Christian or that is contrary to a clear and faithful witness to the Gospel? Can the church tell church members to do something that is not a faithful Christian ministry? All that the church does is for the name of Christ, his glory, and the expansion of his visible kingdom in the church. The precious truth of the gospel cannot be severed from this. Doctrines like God’s sufficient grace, justification by faith alone, and Christ’s exclusive intercession cannot be sacrificed on the altar of noble concerns like cultural transformation. In all that the church, as the church, does or endorses, she must always be able to plant the flag of the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon it without fear or compromise. How can we be salt and light in this unsavory and dark world if it is not done for Christ and carried out faithfully to his Gospel? As individual Christians, we may indeed participate with fellow concerned citizens for political and social reforms. But, if it is not for Christ, we may

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7

not be fighting ultimately for the same goal or cause in the end. The United States had many co-belligerent allies in World War II, and thankfully, together they overcame the axis forces. But as soon as the war was over, each ally claimed territory for itself and placed its own colors on it. We need to be careful. Under what flag are we fighting? — A. Craig Troxel, pastor Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church Glenside, Pennsylvania

My in-laws say the Rosary as part of the mealtime prayer. What should I do when we are guests in their home?

ee this for what it is, an opportunity. In the 2003 movie “Luther,” Martin Luther challenges the Protestant princes who had been invited to present their Creed before Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, by saying, “Satan invites us to preach in hell. Is that a trap, or our greatest opportunity?” Not that the home of your in-laws is hell (!), but here you have a chance to stand for the Gospel by speaking “the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) as well as by your action of not participating at least in some aspects of the Rosary. One of the most liberating truths of the historic Protestant Faith is that it is catholic. We affirm with the church in all times and places several elements in the Rosary: Jesus’ words of the institution of baptism (Matt. 28:19), the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Gloria Patri. I’ve found in conversations with Roman Catholic family and friends that starting here is effective, as it breaks down walls of resistance to what many Roman Catholics see as novel, ahistorical Protestant religion. Here is your chance to demonstrate that the Reformation did not start a new church, but reformed the existing Church. With that said, this is also an opportunity to express the apostolicity of historic Protestantism.

the Rosary which you must point out as one “prepared to make a defense” (1 Peter 3:15). While you could express the biblical dissatisfaction with repetitious prayers (Matt. 6) or the need for some physical “crutch” while praying (a la John 4), the thing to focus on as a Protestant is the opportunity to express the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. The reason for this opportunity is the so-called Salve Regina prayer at the end of the Rosary, in which Mary is invoked as the “Mother of Mercy,” “our life,” “our hope,” and “most gracious advocate.” Point out that prayer is to be offered to “our Father” (Matt. 6:9), only through his Son Jesus Christ, in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 2:18; Heb. 10:19-22). Why? Because Jesus Christ alone is the basis of our relationship with God. He is our only merciful (Heb. 2:17) Mediator and Advocate (1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 2:1), our life (John 14:6), and hope (Col. 1:27). For although Mary was a vessel of the Lord’s salvation, “the mother of [the] Lord (Luke 1:43) and “the Mother (or, Bearer) of God” (Definition of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.), yet she is not co-mediator in any sense. Showing that Christ alone is the only foundation of a relationship with God, you can then speak of the means we experience that relationship – faith alone (Rom. 3:21ff), not works, whether ours, those of saints, or of Mary. — Daniel Hyde, pastor Oceanside United Reformed Church Oceanside, California

ome a half hour late for dinner. Just kidding. You might want to eat a light snack beforehand, however, since the Rosary can go on for a long time. The Rosary is a Catholic prayer discipline that many non-Catholics find repetitive. The prayers to Mary are also deeply troubling to non-Catholics, since there is but one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. We belong to apostolic churches, not in a genealogical sense, tracing our bishops My advice is the same here as for those attending a service back to Peter, but in a theological sense, tracing our faith to the “foundation of the in a Roman Catholic Church. Participate as you are able. apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20). Part of the Rosary includes the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. No Christian We belong to apostolic churches, not in a would have a problem with either of these, at least genealogical sense, tracing our bishops back to one time through. For much of the rest of the time, Peter, but in a theological sense, tracing our faith to you will probably have to sit in respectful, contemthe “foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. plative silence. Silence is good for Protestants. 2:20). There serious doctrinal errors included in Consider it a spiritual discipline. Your silence

2 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

together with your selective participation might serve as a confession and conversation point. Be prepared to make a defense of your actions, with all gentle humility. Perhaps your lack of participation along with your obvious discomfort might persuade your in-laws to reconsider their meal-time devotions when non-Catholics are at the table. You might suggest a simple reading from the Scriptures, the 10 Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Our Father as a suitable substitute - kind of a “Protestant Rosary.” — William Cwirla, pastor Holy Trinity Lutheran Church Hacienda Heights, California

I’ve been witnessing to my Roman Catholic neighbor who is coming to church with me this Sunday. Can she partake of the Lord’s Supper? If not, what do I tell her?

his is a question of “table manners,” except for the fact that the table we are referring to is the “table of the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:21). All too often we approach situations like this subjectively (“This is my neighbor”) and overly influenced by the tolerant spirit of the age (“It doesn’t matter what church she goes to because she believes in Jesus”). The Lord’s Supper is the sacrament of spiritual nourishment for the pilgrim people of God (cf. John 6; 1 Cor. 10, 11; Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 6567, 75-80). It is also called “the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). “So all my neighbor has to do is believe in the Lord Jesus, right?” Yes, she must believe in Jesus, but the way the church recognizes who belongs to the Lord is by whether or not they are members of true churches. Very simply, Christ’s sheep are found in the sheep pen. As Reformed churches, we have always affirmed that there are three marks that distinguish a true from a false church: the pure preaching of the gospel; the pure administration of the sacraments; and the exercising of church discipline (Belgic Confession, art. 29). Because of this we have historically affirmed that the Church of Rome is a/the false church. In speaking of the first two marks, Rome does not preach the pure gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone nor does it administer the sacraments purely as instituted by Christ because it has added to their number as well as with its unbiblical ceremonies. And so we have always said that the Lord’s Supper is for those who do believe in Christ and have been baptized in the name of the Triune

God, and who are communicant members in good standing of a true, visible church (whether it be Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Congregational, or Lutheran, historically speaking). As with all family and friends, prepare her for the Lord’s Day service by explaining what we do in worship and why. Second, explain what communion is in a Reformed church. Use the Catechism questions mentioned above, as well as the Belgic Confession, articles 33 and 35. Third, explain that we welcome to the table those mentioned above, who believe in Christ, have been baptized, and who are members of a church with the three marks. Fourth, sensitively say that this is not meant to look down on her personal faith or to judge whether she is regenerate, but to guard the purity of the Lord’s table. If your neighbor is in any way an informed Roman Catholic, she knows that you cannot receive the Eucharist in a local parish either. Not that this is a tit for tat, but your neighbor should be a little more understanding than your average non-denominational Christian neighbor. Fifth, use this as a continued opportunity to share the pure gospel with her and call her to investigate the Reformed Faith in more detail in our inquirers class. Lord willing, after much prayer and discussion, she will hear the shepherd’s voice: “Come out of her my people” (Rev. 18:4). — Daniel Hyde, pastor Oceanside United Reformed Church Oceanside, California

SPEAKING OF

utwhenitismostclearlyprovedbytheWordofGodthatthisMass,however deckedinsplendor,inflictssignaldishonoruponChrist,buriesand oppressesHiscross,consignsHisdeathtooblivion,takesawaythebenefit whichcametousfromit,andweakensanddestroysthesacramentbywhich thememoryofHisdeathwasbequeathedtous–wilanyoftherootsbetoodeepforthis moststurdyax(ImeantheWordofGod)toslashandupturn? — John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.18.1

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

SHALL WE STILL PROTEST?

A Brief History of the

Papacy Protestant opinions of the papacy have taken many forms throughout the ages, ranging from confessional anathemas to the modern proponents of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT). One of the reasons for the wide variety of views is often a lack of awareness of how the papacy has acquired its current form. At the commencement of the papal narrative, as seen in the works of Clement, Hermas, and even Ignatius of Antioch, the church exhibited a concern to defend and establish a general sense of Episcopal authority and not the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Since early in the third century, the word “pope” or “Papa” was used as a title of respect for any bishop and was not used especially of the Bishop of Rome until early in the sixth century. Even though the early church exerted a good deal of effort to record and trace apostolic succession, they did not do so to defend a notion of the supremacy of the Roman bishop, but rather to demonstrate that the teachings of the Church had an undeniable apostolic pedigree. Irenaeus (c. 130–200) provides a classic example of these endeavors:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth,

to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times…. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church (Rome) on account of its preeminent authority … inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. When tracing the increasing power and authority accorded to the Bishop of Rome, it initially seems to have arisen more from conflict with the political sphere than from within the church itself. Constantine himself had established some significant precedents that permitted the emperor a great deal of power over the church’s affairs and by the late fourth century, the church, feeling the pressure of this arrangement, began to assert its power over the ecclesial sphere in much bolder ways. Ambrose brought much of this to a head when he excommunicated the emperor Theodosius in 390 arguing that, “The Emperor is within the Church, not above the Church.” Elsewhere he stated, “Where

by T O M W E N G E R 3 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

matters of faith are concerned, it is the custom for bishops to judge Christian emperors, not for Emperors to judge bishops.” But as the Church dealt with one doctrinal controversy after another, a growing number began to look to Rome as source of stability, power, and authority. Innocent I (410–417), while not the first to make claims of Roman supremacy, nevertheless buttressed the idea in innovative language when he stated, “It has been decreed by a divine, not a human authority, that whatever action is taken in any of the provinces, however distant or remote, it should not be brought to a conclusion before it comes to the knowledge of this See, so that every decision may be affirmed by our authority.” It was left to Leo the Great (440–461), however, to solidify the doctrine of the supremacy of the Roman bishop. Bishops indeed have a common dignity, but they have not uniform rank, inasmuch as even among the blessed apostles … there was a certain distinction of power. While the election of all of them was equal yet it was given to one [i.e., St. Peter] to take the lead of the rest…. [T]he care of the universal Church should converge toward Peter’s one chair, and nothing anywhere should be separate from its head.” Indeed it was Leo who in many ways gave shape to the form that the papacy would take for many centuries. His leadership in both ecclesial and secular affairs encouraged many to look to him for guidance during the collapse of the Roman Empire to such a degree that in 452, “for the sake of Rome and the Roman name,” Leo, not the emperor, rode out to Mantua and astonishingly managed to dissuade Attila the Hun from destroying Rome. During the next century, Gregory the Great (590–604), the last Roman and first medieval pope, took the papacy to what many consider its greatest level. As the first pope to have been a monk, Gregory had a significantly pastoral focus as witnessed in his Pastoral Care which became the textbook of the medieval episcopate. Like Leo he personally intervened to save Rome, this time from the Lombards, and as a result was essentially ruler of Italy by 593. Pope Leo III (795–816) cemented this link between the papacy and the political sphere when, on Christmas Day in 800, he took the unprecedented step of personally crowning Charlemagne king of the new Holy Roman Empire. As Brian Tierney has described:

But by one brilliant gesture Pope Leo established the precedent, adhered to throughout the Middle Ages, that papal coronation was essential to the making of an emperor, and thereby implanted the germ of the later idea that the empire itself was a gift to be bestowed by the papacy. [Thus,] from the eighth century onward the essentially political claim of the popes to be the rightful rulers of Rome came to be increasingly confused with an essentially theological claim that they were the overlords of all Christian kings by virtue of their supreme spiritual office.” Perhaps the most famous of all the medieval pontiffs and indeed of all papal history was Gregory VII (1073–1085). A very industrious pope, he magnified the papal claims in both word and deed. His Dictatus Papae established many of his beliefs and objectives at the outset of his reign. They included: • That the Roman Pontiff alone is rightly to be called universal • That he alone can use the Imperial insignia • That the Pope is the only one whose feet are to be kissed by all the princes • That his name alone is to recited in all the churches • That he may depose emperors • That no chapter or book may be regarded as canonical without his authority • That he himself may be judged by no one • That the Roman Church has never erred, nor ever, by the witness of the Scripture, shall err to all eternity Gregory not only claimed these powers but put them into practice, as his infamous battle of wills with Henry IV of Germany showcased. In 1075 Gregory not only excommunicated the king for his defiance but proclaimed, “I deprive King Henry . . . of the government over the whole kingdom of Germany and Italy, and I release all Christian men of allegiance which they have sworn or may swear to him, and I forbid anyone to serve him as king.” Few deny that the papacy reached the zenith of its political power through the machinations of Innocent III (1198–1216). Elected pope when only 37, he wrote more than six thousand letters, and more than any other pope, consolidated and defined the ecclesiastical and political power of the Roman See. As he said of himself, To me is said in the person of the prophet, “I have set thee over the nations and over king-

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 5 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 1

doms, to root up and to pull down, and to waste and to destroy, and to build and to plant (Jer. 1:10). To me is also said in the person of the Apostle, I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven…. You see then who is the servant set over the household, truly the vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of Peter, anointed of the Lord, a God of Pharaoh, set between God and man, lower than God, but higher than man, who judges all and is judged by no one. He believed that he was given “not only the universal church, but also the whole world to govern,” and acted accordingly. Others such as Boniface VIII (1294–1303) tried to follow in the wake of Innocent III, but were not able to command the same levels of obedience and respect. In 1302, attempting to curtail the increasing deterioration of papal authority, Boniface’s famous Unam Sanctum declared: “Therefore we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” Nevertheless, the fragmenting of the papal empire was unavoidable and met with some permanency in the Great Schism. The Great Schism (1378–1417) irreparably shattered the power of the papacy. When the College of Cardinals reneged on their initial papal selection and sought to establish another, the rival popes excommunicated each other, polarizing all of Europe into rival factions. When, in 1409, the Council of Pisa sought to resolve the problem by deposing both popes and electing another, all three were in contest, each excommunicating the other. The result was devastating for the claims of papal supremacy, power, and authority. As Eamon Duffy has observed, “The high papal prestige and unchallenged papalist theory of the era of Innocent III, however, was gone forever. There was now an important body of opinion in the Church which held that even in emergencies the Pope was answerable to the Church in council, and the Council of Constance solemnly decreed as much.” In fact, papal power eroded to such a degree that the Reformation proceeded in many respects unchecked by its threats and anathemas. After several centuries, Vatican I (1869–1870) attempted to undo this turn toward conciliar authority with its establishment of Papal infallibility under Pius IX (1846–1878). The council’s proclamation, however, did not restore the claims made in the medieval papacy. Rather it exchanged its crumbling power in the political sphere for heightened claims in the ecclesial realm. After

3 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

much heated debate the council proclaimed: We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to [be] held by the universal church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His church should be endowed … and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable” (emphasis added). This formulation has continued to cause a great deal of controversy within the Roman Catholic ranks, however, and movements are still afoot to retract it. Now, with the passing of John Paul II and the accession of Benedict XVI, much of the world is watching to see in what direction the See of Rome will lead the more than 900 million people who look to it for guidance and ultimately salvation. Tom Wenger is an instructor at Annapolis Area Christian School and author of Hidden in Ages Past: Understanding the Centrality of Christ in the Old Testament (forthcoming). In the preceding article, Mr. Wenger’s research into early papal authority is from Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 9–10. Mr. Wenger’s quotation from Irenaeus is found in Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Ante Nicene Fathers vol. II), ed. Alexander Robertson and James Donaldson et al. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994) III. iii. 1–2. Much research for the article, including a quotation from Ambrose, is from Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State: 1050–1300 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1964). Leo the Great is quoted in Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (London: Continuum, 2000) 420. Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care can be found in Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to John Paul II (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997) 98. The proclamation for Vatican I is taken from Vatican Council, session IV, Const. de Ecclesia Christi, c. iv.