Somewhere I may have said, "i don’t think we can encounter Jesus outside (or somehow above or alongside) the normative traditions of our Faith and Scripture..."If I were to clarify what I meant by 'normative', I'd start by rephrasing altogether:
"the more we let go of historical Christianity—ie, the more we abandon the first 1500 years as 'primitive', 'speculative', or 'corrupt'—the more unstable and creative our understanding of Jesus becomes."In his short book, The Fragile Absolute – or, why is the christian legacy worth fighting for?, Slavoj Zizek offers a vision of the 'real' and 'truly' Christian. When the book appeared, it was dismissed by some Christians as loose mimicry, a sort of annihilating anti-theology; too Marxist, too materialist, too postmodern, too atheist. In short, too creative. There have been objections to his use of Scripture, his conclusions, his interpretation—either too blinkered or too far afield, and so on.
Whatever we make of Zizek's argument and the subsequent rejection of it in some Christian circles (in others, of course, his analysis is welcomed), I can't help but think of another creative genius who lived 500 years before The Fragile Absolute was published. How can we be sure that Zizek is, say, another Thomas Munzer and not the new Martin Luther come to lead us out of our modern Babylonian captivity?
The Catholic approach to a question like that is entirely different than the Protestant. Both approaches have their strengths. What I love about the Catholic approach is its continuity with those who have come before. To illustrate that continuity (by way of contrast), consider JI Packer's assertion (from 1974 in chapter 2 of God's Inerrant Word) that
"apart from Augustine, none [of the Church Fathers] seemed to be quite clear enough on the principle of salvation by grace, and not even Augustine had fully grasped imputed righteousness." (p45)
What Packer describes here is the Protestant practice of filtering both Christian history and Christian Scripture through new (ie, creative) Reformation principles. For example, 'salvation' cannot be understood apart from the Reformation principle of 'imputed righteousness'. This drives a wedge between Protestants and Christianity as it was understood and experienced by countless millions over the course of fifteen centuries before the Reformation.
In effect, what's 'normative' in the Protestant approach are those Reformation principles that 'corrected' historical (or Catholic) Christianity.
In fairness, I doubt many Protestants would describe it that way: Scripture is the foundation to which they appeal. And I don't dispute that. I'm just trying to look at how the appeal itself actually works, and it seems to me that it's not an appeal to Scripture but an appeal to Scripture as it is understood and interpreted through Reformation principles (which at least imply—but in my opinion assert—that Christianity before AD 1500 was fatally, prohibitively, flawed).
What does this have to do with Zizek? If new principles are allowed to overthrow (ie, reinterpret in such a way as to replace, supplant) critical content of Revelation, as happened with the Reformation, then what principled basis is there for saying that newer principles might not come from a newer Luther, a Zizek, for example, who helps us see (as Luther and Calvin once did) that we have been blinded to the real meaning of the Scriptures?
8 comments:
Wow brother. Your assertion that when Protestants appeal to Scripture they are appealing to their interpretation of Scripture is a powerful one. And I think true as well.
However, and I think you will agree, is that not all any of us do? We appeal to our own understanding and interpretation of Scripture. Can Scripture even be appealed to at all if it is devoid of interpretation?
I think I understand you to mean, as evidenced in your final paragraph, that who are we to say that the Reformational interpretation is the final one?
An excellent question, and one for far more intelligent people than I to wrestle with.
I think it should be pointed out however that not all Protestants ascribe to the reformed interpretation of Scripture. So in one sense there are many different interpretations all operating simultaneously within the body of Christ, each thinking that everyone else is wrong.
You know of course that I am reformed in my thinking and yet I must confess there are some days when I feel more like an Arminian than I do a Calvinist!
As a total cop-out answer I will conclude with a quote ascribed to Martin Luther: "In the end, only a maximum of 80% of a person's theology will be found to be correct."
Great post!
well thanks! yeah, everyone appeals to Scripture-interpreted: all by itself, that 'principle' is super important. However, what's perhaps more important is getting at the real, practical differences between Catholic and non-Catholic approaches.
you're right, of course about 'other' Protestant takes. Someone i love, admire, and have learned much from is a serious Baptist, believing in Baptist Succession, ie, all the way back to the Twelve. Thus, he'll tell you that no 'Reformation' took place for him. He'll tell you he's not Protestant.
This stuff's so fascinating.
Everyone 'interprets'; but that doesn't get the discussion moving. it often ends discussion. That's why I wanted to focus on how new or 'novel' Reformation principles work to transmute essential elements of the content of Revelation.
how do i know that 'imputed righteousness' wasn't part of the Revelation handed on once for all? because, like Packer says, there isn't any evidence that anyone believed it for 1500 years after Christ. Of course, Packer thinks that's terrible because he believes 'imputed righteousness' IS essential content of the Revelation, which is why he's so thankful for the Reformation. But he's honest about the material, historic witness to it. But... if Christians didn't believe in 'imputed righteousness' for 1500 years, then what did they believe?
To answer that, we'll have to study the Church Fathers, ancient forms of the Credo, Church Councils, and... and before we know it, we're beginning to experience a less-Protestant approach to defining 'Christian' and interpreting Scripture.
I say 'less-Protestant' knowing that Luther never stopped (as far as I know) advocating that Christians inform their faith with reading the Church Fathers. But he also gave a thousand qualifications saying, in so many words, 'read the fathers but be careful because they're full of vanity and error'... which is why, in part, Protestants stopped reading them.
Anyway, good stuff. i'm a beginning student and not qualified to talk about any of this, so i'm just having fun. I'm not just reading Catholic sources but Reformed too, like a good student (a good boy) = : )
thanks for droppin in!! we read Dawson together: what's next?
= : )
i read your comment again and this jumped out at me:
"So...there are many different interpretations all operating simultaneously within the body of Christ, each thinking that everyone else is wrong"
Just for fun:
Does that mean, then, that Christ is divided?
Okay, your idea of fun scares me a little. :-)
No, Christ is not divided, but perhaps His people are in their own minds. Do we determine whether Christ is divided or not? I don't think so.
I see your point about about the whole Packer/1500 years of prior church history thing. My first answer is to say; "We need to go back to Scripture." But then of course we have made a loop back to the initial question of interpretation haven't we.
Personally I believe there is room in protestant faith and practice for some Catholic beliefs and interpretations. I also believe that protestant have it wrong in some areas that they are convinced Scripture teaches (The whole Rapture thing is a glaring example. What the heck is that?!)
Correct me please if I am wrong in saying this, but wasn't the Catholic interpretation of righteousness primarily works-based or is that a protestant assumption? If it was/is works based then Scripture does not support it and it should therefore be discarded.
I am rambling a bit and I am sorry, but there is just so much here to explore.
I have a headache.
:-)
no man, ramble on. When I hear it, I take the "works-based" charge as a kind of rhetorical shorthand, an invitation to talk about the differences in Catholic and non-Catholic perspectives on sin, justification, works in love and charity, and such. So, in a way, it's a useful accusation.
Catholicism doesn't really get the idea that you can have a faith and union with Christ as a legal declaration in a vacuum, so to speak. it's really difficult to imagine this is synonymous with the 'Covenant', right? it matters what you choose to do with your life, says Church; it matters to God (with all the relevant citations to Scripture X, Y, Z).
non-Catholics and Catholics agree to great extent about importance of works. non-Catholics sometimes think Church teachs an 'earn your salvation' because it teaches a 'participation in salvation': this is unfair and often can be unkind. 'participation' can be unpacked in a number of different ways, so it's crucial to understand what the Church teaches, which takes reading, reflection, and so on. Hard to give it in a sound-bite.
but... sound bite would be something like, Christ alone is the source of our salvation; God alone is the source of the grace necessary to 'live a life worthy of the calling'; there is no other means by which we may know God and be saved except in Christ Jesus.
which, i suspect you'll agree, is spot on. For details read Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org – search 'justification' and 'atonement').
i think you're right about "room", and I think it's true for Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and non-Catholic, and I think we should all be praying (in light of John 17) how we can contribute to unity through action. Still, it's easy to neglect because the differences are sometimes deep and profound. but maybe first step is, as you say, exploration!
= : )
i'm glad we're in collaboration, bro. please continue to be patient with me while i stumble around!
= : )
I am stumbling around with you brother so I think we both could use the patience.
I appreciate your explanation of the Catholic view of justification. And yes, I would of course agree that it is indeed spot on. I would also agree that it is God's grace that gives us the ability to live a life worthy of the calling.
So I guess I have to wonder where the division lies? Perhaps I don't know enough about Catholic theology to discern them.
Or perhaps the division comes down to practice. The whole praying to Mary thing springs to mind. Although I fully understand that the majority of Catholics do not in fact worship her.
Also, at the time of the Reformation, one must admit that the Catholics had lost their way. Selling pardons, keeping the poor in the dark by refusing to give them the Word in their own language, etc. And historically speaking martin Luther had no intention whatsoever of breaking with Catholic church. His 99 theses were issues he desired to open for discussion. I think he may have been more interested in restoration rather than reformation but God had other things in mind I suppose.
I couldn't help but notice your repeated references to Church and your meaning being the Catholic church. When I personally use the term Church I refer to the Church universal to include Catholics and Protestants alike although I know many other people of my faith persuasion don't.
I recently described our conversations to a friend of mind and commented about how much i was enjoying them. He asked me if you were a missionary to the Catholic church--kind of like a Protestant spy I guess. I said as far as I understood it you were a practicing Catholic.
He then wanted to know if you believed that the protestant denominations were apostate. My response was; "You mean the way protestants are supposed to believe that the Catholic church is apostate?"
"Yes." He said.
So, just for fun...do you? Is that why you use the term Church in reference to Catholics only?
;-)
I really do enjoy our exchanges brother. It is very much the iron sharpening iron things for me.
wow, i love it too, man!
i wouldn't use 'apostate' because of the instant associations and web of (hasty) conclusions a word like that would spin. i mean, i'd rather explore where Protestant and Catholic conceptions come from: maybe take a book, like Bouyer's 'The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism' and a non-Catholic book, read them, and compare. we could set up a Facebook or Google discussion group, what d'ya say?
you've brought up a lot of issues in your post... worship of Mary, indulgences, widespread 'corruption' of Catholicism as THE cause of the Reformation, the idea of Luther as instrument of God, the Catholic Church's determination to keep Scripture out of the hands of the people, and so on.
I think all of these are largely, if not entirely, rhetorical Protestant compositions: they aren't evil or anything. Still, what they 'do' is 'certify' Protestant assumptions and try to move us forward, but i would insist that we need, instead, to question the assumptions, test them, see if they hold up.
Working to keep Bibles out of the hands of 'the people', for example: this is a really good one and involves several important questions.
Question 1: did the regular folks have ANY books before the printing press? Assuming there could have been a Bible publishing industry before the invention of the printing press, would the regular folks have been able to read the Bibles published?
Bede translated the Gospel of John into Anglo-Saxon in the early 8th century: is he (or the pope at the time) to be blamed for having failed to translate the entire Bible into Anglo-Saxon? And how would he have mass produced his translation, and how would he have distributed it?
Or consider Question 2: Is the Church's primary mission to get texts into the hands of people? Does the "church" exist to 'do' Bible study as we understand it today in America? I mean, the ecclesiology underlying this criticism: does it exist anywhere in Christian tradition before the 16th century?
Anyway, those questions about Bede are a template that could be used for 9th century (Alfred's translation work), 10th century (Aelfric's translation work), 12th century (Ormulum with its translations and paraphrases), and so on...
...or consider Question 3: Isn't the mass liturgy almost entirely composed of Scripture reading and Scripture singing? Eucharist, Baptism, Marriage, Confirmation, and more: they are all infused with Scripture reading and singing. But the Protestant criticism of a supposed Church conspiracy to hide Scripture ignores and denies all this; ignores the 'ecclesiology' dimension to the issue.
The conspiracy theory also obscures and denies fifteen centuries of Catholic devotion to Scripture (which Protestantism has had to rely on): translating Scripture, copying it, preserving it, carefully weaving it into the mass liturgy for the benefit of all, and so on. That's a history that's real; the business about conspiring to keep Scripture away from the people is anachronism and mistake and confusion, i think.
Another example of why we need to question assumptions rather than accept them and move on is the business about worship of Mary. It's just stated as a fact: 'some (or most, or a great many) Catholics worship Mary, but not all'.
But wait a second... Protestants get drunk and murder their wives; Protestants cheat their congregations out of millions of dollars and live like kings in mansions; Protestants get divorced and have abortions, right?
I'm only trying to illustrate that what Catholics and Protestants 'do' is completely irrelevant to what the 'Authorized' teachings of their respective 'communions' actually are.
So why do Protestants so often refer to this 'worship of Mary' thing? I'd suggest that it helps reinforce negative stereotypes and encourages Protestants to NOT examine the historical and textual (including Scriptural) reasons for making a big deal about Mary. Here's 3 books that will help everyone appreciate what Catholicism is saying about Mary and why:
Luigi Gambero, 'Mary and the Fathers of the Church'; Hans Urs von Balthasar & Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 'Mary: The Church at the Source'; Scott Hahn, 'Hail Holy Queen: The Mother of God inthe Word of God'.
One can certainly read those books and still conclude that Mary was only a nice lady; but at least after having read them, we could all stop wasting time with this old 'Mary worship' junk.
= : )
I probably should have only tried to respond to one issue: this is way too long to go in a 'response' field, ain't it? Ah well...
...so... Bouyer and Google/Facebook group or what?!
= : )
Post a Comment