Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Two posts in one day?! I know it is a rarity, but I am
having some crazy explosive thoughts. I would
really appreciate the chance to have people who know
and care about me read the thoughts I'm having, both
so that they may be aware, and so that, if they think I'm
going off the deep end, they might be able to steer me
back on course or express concerns.

I am meeting with my Pastor Bill tomorrow to discuss
some of these thoughts as well, so rest assured that I
am actively seeking guidance for these newfound thoughts.

OK, so here they are as they stand today.

In my initial assessment of Catholicism, one of my main
concerns was the fact that it seemed to be very limiting
of God. It seemed to me that the traditions that they
required their constituents to adhere to were very binding
and that their exclusion of other denominations because
they did not have these same traditions (the specific way
they conduct the Eucharist, as well as the belief they have
that it is the real body and blood of Christ, miraculously,
as well as things like confession) was also limiting, and
even heretical.

However, after talking to one real, live Catholic Priest, I
have come to find that the current Catholic stance is not
that Protestants do not have real, saving faith, but that they
are not experiencing the fullness of Christianity, by rejecting
many Holy traditions handed down from the early church
fathers, which are vehicles of God's grace. They do not claim
that these vehicles are necessary for salvation, for they do not
presume to know how God's grace is applied to the world, they
only hold that one can experience the fullness of Christianity
through the Catholic church's teachings and traditions.

I am not going to say I agree with the above paragraph, because
I have only just begun this quest, and I know many non-Catholic
Christians who I believe are experiencing a very full Christianity,
to the best of my understanding, myself included. But I will say
that I am beginning to consider their claims in a new light.

What if it is not necessarily the Catholic church that is the more
limiting institution, but it is my upbringing that is more limiting,
with its insistence that the whole of Truth is contained in the
pages of the Bible, and any additional instructions or structures
that were held by the early church and were modified and
codified through many centuries by faithful Christians are not
only unnecessary, but detrimental to one's understanding of God?

Is it not limiting of an incomprehensible God to say what He can
and cannot use and what the vehicles of His Grace can and
cannot be? Can "through faith in Christ" be expressed just as
fully by partaking of Eucharistic bread and believing in the
indwelling power of Christ in that moment and beyond as when
it is expressed by a Protestant's more generalized belief that
Christ dwells within?

There are many forms and theologies surrounding Christianity.
Is it not limiting of God when one encounters true believers
of a different form or theology who show the fruit of hearts
that confess Jesus as Lord to dismiss the fact that God very well
may be working in their lives through a different vehicle of the
same, transforming Grace?

I am not claiming one vehicle's effectiveness over another, I am
only wondering whether or not God may credit the faith of a
Catholic when he partakes of the Eucharist or when he confesses
his sins to a Priest (not to receive the free forgiveness of God,
but to acknowledge the fact of his sin's effect on the other
people in his church body), as righteousness, just as he did to
Abraham, and just as he does for me when I believe in my heart
that God forgives me in Christ and I seek to restore my relationships.

I am wondering about this: if both Catholics and Protestants put
their utmost faith in Christ to bridge the gap between them and the
Father, and both seek Spirit-filled communities where not only
is the Word of God heard and expounded upon and bread is
broken together, but also real life sharing and fellowship takes
place, then do the different outward expressions of that same
faith in Christ really cause us to have a different standing before
God?

If indeed Catholics place Holy Scriptures higher than Holy Traditions
of the church, in light of the fact that those traditions were formed
in order to complement and implement the very truths of Scripture,
then are not Catholics and Protestants more alike then some of us
would like to admit?

I know some of these may seem like big "ifs" to those who have
negative impressions of the Catholic church, just as some
Catholics are skeptical of the Protestant's lack of faith in the
miraculous mystery that takes place when one partakes of the
communion bread, but I share these thoughts because, after
talking with a Catholic Priest at length and asking questions, I
have found those "ifs" becoming less and less weighty in my mind.

I am finding that the Catholic expression of faith looks different
from my own, but it is, I believe, essentially the same faith. Those
forms and traditions which I had been told were binding and
enslaving, I am coming to find from the mouths of Bible believing,
Christ centered Catholics, are not enslaving, but are freeing and
liberating to the Catholic who understands them accurately.

If those forms and traditions accentuate the truths of Scripture
to those who correctly understand them, is it not limiting of me
to doubt God's ability to powerfully use the vehicle of the Catholic
church to train up committed followers of Christ?

These are all thoughts and questions I am grappling with. It is my
greatest desire not to be blinded or led into error, but to be receptive
to Truth and upholding of God's glory. I pray that He will work in me
and in my thoughts. I would appreciate any comments or concerns
that anyone feels led to share with me, especially the comments of
those who have ever had significant encounters with Catholicism as
it exists today. I think a lot of things can vary from church to church,
but I want to try and understand the tenants of their beliefs as well as
the hearts and lives of specific Catholics.

Whew! Crazy stuff. I never would have guessed a year ago that I would
be on this track AT ALL. But, despite the unsettling nature of it at times,
I am glad to be here.

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing
greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost
all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found
in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law,
but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes
from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his
resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming
like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection
from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made
perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took
hold of me."

--Philippians 3:8-12

5 comments:

Mark and Cristy said...

Well, since you have asked for comment, I will (somewhat reluctantly) wade in and give you my impression.

I think I need a bit of clarification in regard to what you're talking about when you're talking about "truth". If you're just talking about things that are "true", then sure, it may be "true" that the early church did this or the church of the Middle Ages did that, just as it is "true" that I had a piece of toast for breakfast this morning.

The distinction (in my opinion) comes when you begin to talk about the very Words of God, which, assuming you can properly identify them, should carry special significance. To me, the question becomes: Where do I find the Words of God? Are they exclusively in the Bible? Are they also in the Koran? Are they found in every word spoken by a Pope? If I can identify God's specific Words to me, that's what I'm interested in, then I have a foundation to build upon. If we're simply talking about what humans have done or said, then I'm not sure there's any more reason to follow that than there is for anyone to begin having toast for breakfast every morning.

I'm also not sure there's any reason to be particularly enamored with what the early Christians did. Christians during and shortly after Christ's life were guilty of every kind of evil, from betrayal and denial to murder (James 4:2) and incest (1 Corinthians 5:1).

To repeat: I believe this is the question we all must resolve: "Where are the very Words of God found?", the words which you will cling to no matter who or what seems to contradict them?

If this is not clearly defined, then you are forever open to the prospect that there may be other truth you need to investigate or other religions you need to experience or other sincere people who seem to be growing close to God or early church traditions you haven't read about yet or early church writings which haven't been dug up by archaeologists yet, etc.

Just my $.02.

Where do you believe the Words of God are found?

Mark

renee said...

**i love your heart, lisa lavonne, with all of mine. i wish this could be expressed over a cup of that delicious tea you gave me instead of on the internet. i am praying for you, dearest.**

Lisa Bender said...

I see your point about the toast. Just because a particular church did something doesn't necessarily mean we should do it (see Reformation era Catholic church). However, there are some key early church figures that I am learning about, such as Iranaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, as well as others who were significant in the early church, not only for their lives and teachings, but because they were involved in compiling the Scriptures we so readily trust as the Words of God.

I don't think that necessarily means that any of these guys have words that are on equal footing with those Scriptures they were compiling, I just think there might be something to the thought that these guys, as well as many others through the ages, had practices that they found beneficial, practices that some claim were handed down from the Apostles themselves, alongside the sacred Scriptures.

And if the Catholic church has held to some of these practices and still finds them beneficial, then who am I to say that God cannot work through those ancient vehicles?

I DO NOT buy that these practices are necessary for saving faith. I am more contemplating whether they may be of benefit, when correctly understood. They are intended to complement the truths of Scripture and reinforce them in people's lives.

As far as the Pope goes, I can see the argument given by Catholics that it is important to have a unifying authority figure so individual churches do not get too off track and so there is someone who has final say in spiritual matters of the day, but I don't agree that he can speak words that are on par with scripture (infallible).

But at the same time, as you have pointed out in the past, Paul sometimes said that the things he was saying were from himself and not the Lord. And yet we claim all Scripture to be God breathed and infallible. But when it comes down to it, Paul was just a man.

Still, I'm not sure about the whole Pope thing.

I am still processing things, but as far as your question about where the words of God are found... I think the most trustworthy answer is first and foremost, in Scripture. However, there is a sense in which the Words of God are still being revealed through the Holy Spirit, through other Christians. And down through the ages of church history there have been those who, being led by the Holy Spirit, have spoken words that were of God.

Are any of these words on the same level as Scripture? I don't think so, in the sense that they cannot contradict Scripture and be considered the words of God, but I am not sure that they cannot add to our understanding of what it means to be a Christian and to further understand the nature and character of our God.

So why should we care about the practices of the Christian churches throughout church history if they are not on par with Scripture? I guess I'm thinking, if they served them well, then shouldn't it be of interest to us to know how it is they conducted their church affairs? Perhaps we might benefit from their wisdom and their practices.

I guess this is the claim of Catholics anyway. I am currently just toying with it.

I believe the words of God are first and foremost found in Scripture. But wouldn't it be a shame if we just ignored the 2000 years between the Apostles and us? Might we modern American types benefit from knowing the stories and the traditions of the Christians between then and now? Might not the words of God to us be also found in their stories and lives, and even their practices?

I know this gets messy because it is not clear cut. It is much more clear and comfortable to say "Sola Scriptura." It makes things simple. And I don't think you can really go wrong in saying this.

However, if the Catholic church holds certain long-held traditions as an important aspect of the Christian life, is there nothing we might learn from that? And can we assume that Catholics are not benefiting from these practices just because they probably are not necessary for salvation (which clearly comes through faith in Christ)?

I do not want to be so open minded that I am constantly being drawn into different religions, compelled by the goodness of the people who practice them. But I also don't want to go around assuming that others who claim the same Scriptures and the same Christ as I do are in error just because they do things differently and have a different outlook on certain passages of Scripture then I do. I want to at the very least, really understand their claims.

Of course, this is not because I am noble, it is because I am in love with a Catholic. Still, this is what I'm thinking.

I appreciate your thoughts. Feel free to share more of them. I am still processing. Thanks for your care and your wisdom, Mark. I respect you lots.

Anonymous said...

A Poem
for Dearest Mark, Cristy, and Friends:

Where are the words of God?
I can tell you
Because I've heard them
I hear them everyday
in waves on sand
in leaves on tress
in the coos of infants
on the lips of the homeless man
who asks me for change each and every morning
on the corner of 54th and 6th Avenue
where he feeds the pigeons
whose peckings are God's voice too

God's words soar through cathedrals
when we all sing together at high high high mass
and glint from the chalise raised
and splash from the cup of blood or wine
or hope or peace that we drink together
as we kneel before the God of all

Don't tell me God's words are found in books
I won't believe you
I'm a writer
I know
Words of people
are only words are only words are only words
but the Word of God
even the words of God
cannot be bound
Not by human boundries of ink
and type face
They are boundless and booming
crying and laughing
silent and sweeping

Listen

Mark and Cristy said...

I agree that the the study of church history can be interesting, enlightening and helpful in our own lives. My protestant Bible college education included quite a bit of church history. If there are men and women of faith who are worthy of being studied and emulated, then we should do so. If there are traditions or practices which bring us closer to God, then we should practice them.

I suppose the difference is when these traditions and practices go beyond something we study and become part of the essential doctrine of a particular church. If a particular church requires me to adhere to them in order to become a member, whether I find them helpful or not, then I would find that to be problematic.

Adherence to the words of church leaders (Popes, etc) has allowed the church to justify many questionable actions throughout history, as I don't think any Catholic would deny. And it has also lead to some Catholic doctrines which are (in my opinion) directly contradictory to Scripture. Universal salvation, for example -
http://www.romancatholicism.org/universal-salvation.htm

-Mark