There is so much being written about the Terri Schiavo case. I think rather than adding too muuch mor ink, I'll primarily just link to a couple of the better articles. This one, by Nat Hentoff, is worth a read.
And Thomas Sowell is eminently logical as always, today and yesterday. As is Peggy Noonan. The unabashedly confrontational Ann Coulter points out a bit of hypocrisy.
I have written on this subject before. Right now I am just a bit numb. I have been seeing this day coming for twenty-five years. It is hard to watch and hard to find words that haven't been used, arguments that haven't been tried. Killing of adults who are not terminally ill and are not on life support is now a legal precedent.
But we should not despair. We do not know what tomorrow holds. Perhaps this incident will be the pivot point for the general public to begin to take a new view of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Perhaps we'll still come to our senses.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Protestants and Mary
Mark D. Roberts has a series of articles responding to Time Magazine's cover story regarding alleged Protestant rediscovery of Mary. The Time article, by David Van Biema, according to Roberts, suffers a bit from the Oliver Stone method of journalism, claiming that there has been a long Protestant "conspiracy" to keep Mary out of Protestant Christianity.
I won't rethink Mark Roberts' well done evaluation and reflections. But I would recommend others give it a look. And I would suggest this discussion should go even further, in the spirit of "mere" Christian dialogue.
To try to be fair and accurate, Protestants do not object to Mary, but to perceived excesses of devotion to her. There has been a fair amount of confusion and miscommunication between Protestants and Catholics over Marian dogmas and polemicists on both sides seem to talk past each other. But the bottom line for Protestants is simply fear that devotion to Mary approaches and at times drifts into Mariolatry, so that less informed Catholics, particularly in developing countries where ancestor worship is practiced, fall into idolatry.
Information can't hurt. Marian dogma has developed over many centuries. What Protestants should attempt to understand is that original doctrines regarding Mary had more to do with Christology than Mariology. One of the first questions related to Mary had to do with the nature of Christ - was he fully man and fully God? If he was fully God from conception then Mary carried in her womb a being who was not only man, but also God. Hence the term Theotokos or "God-Bearer" was applied to Mary. It was necessary to call her the "Mother of God", not to overly exalt her, but to preserve Christ's full divinity. Informed Protestants who know the reasons behind the term, generally do not object to the term "Mother of God". Less informed Protestants do, but primarily because they do not understand the reasoning behind the term.
The virgin birth is an essential part of Christology as well, hence her virginity at the time of Christ's conception is a non-negotiable element of faith, for Christ could have no human father.
It is not surprising nor objectionable that Mary's humility, devotion, her willingness to accept this totally unique role, and to be the only one who has ever held this role, led many in church history to see Mary as an extraordinary character, one to be admired. In fact scripture demands exactly this, that all the nations of the earth would call Mary blessed. I agree with Mark D. Roberts that there is no real "conspiracy" against Mary. She is respected and loved in Protestant circles and always has been, but within limits.
What Protestants object to, however is simply that subsequent devotion to Mary seems to have created new dogmas which are difficult to support in scripture. Some of those dogmas have support in church tradition, but scriptural evidence is weak. The notion that Mary was "ever virgin", seems to be contradicted by statements in scripture referring to the "brothers" of Jesus. The belief that Mary's body was "assumed" into Heaven at the end of her life has no clear warrant in the Bible, though it is a "traditional" belief. Neither of these beliefs is necessarily objectionable, but seem to have insufficient support to be insisted on as dogma, hence Protestants avoid them.
Then there is the issue of Mary's own moral state. Once again, owing to a perhaps overblown systematic Christology, some forwarded the idea that in order for Christ to be born without original sin, he had to be born of a pure mother. The theory is that God looked forward to Christ's work on the cross and extended the Grace of Christ's sacrifice to Mary so that, through Christ, she was preserved from sin. It is important to note that this is, again a Christological concern, attempting to explain how Christ could be fully human and free from original sin. But Protestants will still object that it is perhaps unnecessary - are there not other possible explanations for Christ's sinlessness? And once again, this view has virtually no direct support in scripture so why has it become essential dogma? Still, Protestants need to be fair and recognize that even this teaching does not assert that Mary was sinless because of her own merit, but was preserved, in theory, by the Grace of Christ.
As a result of some of these less biblical Marian beliefs, terms like "co-redemptress", "mediatrix" and "Queen of Heaven" have been applied to Mary. Since she willingly cooperated with God's plan of salvation, it is asserted that she played a role in the salvation of the human race in a way no other could have. Catholics need to understand that it is Christology that leads Protestants to reject these terms, the same concern for Christology that led to the original Marian dogmas and the term "Theotokos", "Mother of God". To preserve the essential view of Christ, Protestants strongly reject any notion that "redeemer" or "mediator" can be applied to anyone but Christ.
It is unfortunate that the Roman church has issued various anathemas toward those who do not accept all of the Marian dogmas it has instituted. Having said that, there is room for agreement in some areas, and some of the other disagreements may fall into the category of "non-essentials" on which Augustine suggested we all might exercise charity.
In keeping with what I understand to be St. Vincent's prescription for determining essential Christian truth, I do ask what has been believed "always, everywhere and by all". I also find Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 4:6 "Do not go beyond what is written" to be a rather significant warning. And I recall as will the warning from Cyril of Jerusalem, "For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."
It is interesting the the Catholic Encyclopedia states that "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma (of Immaculate Conception) can be brought forward from Scripture" and even notes that "In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter." Many quotations from the fathers are offered regarding her sinless purity. But scripture itself offers no conclusive support.
Protestants do not have a conspiracy against Mary. We just don't want Marian devotion to go beyond the limits of what is clear in scripture. Hence, I wonder if any Christian body should insist on the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the assumption. Maybe we should all take a step back and ask what is really essential and only insist on those things. And we can all agree, Christ was born of the virgin, and that all nations can and do call her Blessed.
I won't rethink Mark Roberts' well done evaluation and reflections. But I would recommend others give it a look. And I would suggest this discussion should go even further, in the spirit of "mere" Christian dialogue.
To try to be fair and accurate, Protestants do not object to Mary, but to perceived excesses of devotion to her. There has been a fair amount of confusion and miscommunication between Protestants and Catholics over Marian dogmas and polemicists on both sides seem to talk past each other. But the bottom line for Protestants is simply fear that devotion to Mary approaches and at times drifts into Mariolatry, so that less informed Catholics, particularly in developing countries where ancestor worship is practiced, fall into idolatry.
Information can't hurt. Marian dogma has developed over many centuries. What Protestants should attempt to understand is that original doctrines regarding Mary had more to do with Christology than Mariology. One of the first questions related to Mary had to do with the nature of Christ - was he fully man and fully God? If he was fully God from conception then Mary carried in her womb a being who was not only man, but also God. Hence the term Theotokos or "God-Bearer" was applied to Mary. It was necessary to call her the "Mother of God", not to overly exalt her, but to preserve Christ's full divinity. Informed Protestants who know the reasons behind the term, generally do not object to the term "Mother of God". Less informed Protestants do, but primarily because they do not understand the reasoning behind the term.
The virgin birth is an essential part of Christology as well, hence her virginity at the time of Christ's conception is a non-negotiable element of faith, for Christ could have no human father.
It is not surprising nor objectionable that Mary's humility, devotion, her willingness to accept this totally unique role, and to be the only one who has ever held this role, led many in church history to see Mary as an extraordinary character, one to be admired. In fact scripture demands exactly this, that all the nations of the earth would call Mary blessed. I agree with Mark D. Roberts that there is no real "conspiracy" against Mary. She is respected and loved in Protestant circles and always has been, but within limits.
What Protestants object to, however is simply that subsequent devotion to Mary seems to have created new dogmas which are difficult to support in scripture. Some of those dogmas have support in church tradition, but scriptural evidence is weak. The notion that Mary was "ever virgin", seems to be contradicted by statements in scripture referring to the "brothers" of Jesus. The belief that Mary's body was "assumed" into Heaven at the end of her life has no clear warrant in the Bible, though it is a "traditional" belief. Neither of these beliefs is necessarily objectionable, but seem to have insufficient support to be insisted on as dogma, hence Protestants avoid them.
Then there is the issue of Mary's own moral state. Once again, owing to a perhaps overblown systematic Christology, some forwarded the idea that in order for Christ to be born without original sin, he had to be born of a pure mother. The theory is that God looked forward to Christ's work on the cross and extended the Grace of Christ's sacrifice to Mary so that, through Christ, she was preserved from sin. It is important to note that this is, again a Christological concern, attempting to explain how Christ could be fully human and free from original sin. But Protestants will still object that it is perhaps unnecessary - are there not other possible explanations for Christ's sinlessness? And once again, this view has virtually no direct support in scripture so why has it become essential dogma? Still, Protestants need to be fair and recognize that even this teaching does not assert that Mary was sinless because of her own merit, but was preserved, in theory, by the Grace of Christ.
As a result of some of these less biblical Marian beliefs, terms like "co-redemptress", "mediatrix" and "Queen of Heaven" have been applied to Mary. Since she willingly cooperated with God's plan of salvation, it is asserted that she played a role in the salvation of the human race in a way no other could have. Catholics need to understand that it is Christology that leads Protestants to reject these terms, the same concern for Christology that led to the original Marian dogmas and the term "Theotokos", "Mother of God". To preserve the essential view of Christ, Protestants strongly reject any notion that "redeemer" or "mediator" can be applied to anyone but Christ.
It is unfortunate that the Roman church has issued various anathemas toward those who do not accept all of the Marian dogmas it has instituted. Having said that, there is room for agreement in some areas, and some of the other disagreements may fall into the category of "non-essentials" on which Augustine suggested we all might exercise charity.
In keeping with what I understand to be St. Vincent's prescription for determining essential Christian truth, I do ask what has been believed "always, everywhere and by all". I also find Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 4:6 "Do not go beyond what is written" to be a rather significant warning. And I recall as will the warning from Cyril of Jerusalem, "For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."
It is interesting the the Catholic Encyclopedia states that "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma (of Immaculate Conception) can be brought forward from Scripture" and even notes that "In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter." Many quotations from the fathers are offered regarding her sinless purity. But scripture itself offers no conclusive support.
Protestants do not have a conspiracy against Mary. We just don't want Marian devotion to go beyond the limits of what is clear in scripture. Hence, I wonder if any Christian body should insist on the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the assumption. Maybe we should all take a step back and ask what is really essential and only insist on those things. And we can all agree, Christ was born of the virgin, and that all nations can and do call her Blessed.
The Death Precedent
I am more than a little frustrated with newspeople, even those on Fox News (Mara Liasson), who keep referring to Terri Schiavo as "comatose". Even the term "persistent vegetative state" (Mort Kondracke) is extremely bothersome because it is undefined, probably inaccurate and is a way of basically declaring her a non-person, much the way "fetus" depersonalizes the unborn child.
World Magazine has a timeline of Terri's Case which notes the troubling issue surrounding her ability to swallow. Three doctors have apparently filed affidavits indicating she can swallow on her own, yet she has been denied by Judge Greer, through the wishes of her husband, the administering of swallow tests, which would establish whether this supposedly "comatose" individual can eat and drink on her own.
Lately the debate has been all about the alleged hypocrisy of Republican lawmakers in attempting to intervene. Democrats, as well as Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, are incredulous that Republicans would be so dismissive of states rights in this case. Robert Bork sees no problem whatsoever with what lawmakers are attempting to do, as documented in this CNS News article. Bork says what is obvious, that the real issue is that any right to life case scares the Roe v. Wade supporters to death.
As always, what is missed, or deliberately ignored, is that this case is not just about Terri Schiavo. It is about legal precedent. For most of those movers and shakers who are not supportive of Terri's parents, it is not about marital rights or state rights. It is about the right to die. A precedent is being established here, and unfortunately, the actions of Congress are giving federal courts a chance to solidify that precedent. The precedent is that a human being who has no terminal illness, who requires only nutrition and hydration, who responds to stimulus and may be able to swallow on her own, is being legally defined by the courts as in a "persistent vegetative state", and is thus written off as having no legal right to life. The precedent is that a living human person is being starved to death by court order. The state is killing an innocent human being based only an arbitrary notion of quality of life.
This is why reshaping the courts is so critical. It matters not at all what laws are written when judicial decisions can so easily turn those laws on their heads or render them meaningless. Once a judge decides what a law "means", all subsequent decisions are negatively influenced because conservative judges are less likely to overturn precedents and liberal judges are more likely to establish them.
If Terry Schiavo is starved to death, after appeals to federal courts, the unwanted but predictable result will be that a Federal judicial precedent will have been set allowing starvation in future cases. This is an extremely dark day and I am quite sure most folks don't really get it.
World Magazine has a timeline of Terri's Case which notes the troubling issue surrounding her ability to swallow. Three doctors have apparently filed affidavits indicating she can swallow on her own, yet she has been denied by Judge Greer, through the wishes of her husband, the administering of swallow tests, which would establish whether this supposedly "comatose" individual can eat and drink on her own.
Lately the debate has been all about the alleged hypocrisy of Republican lawmakers in attempting to intervene. Democrats, as well as Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, are incredulous that Republicans would be so dismissive of states rights in this case. Robert Bork sees no problem whatsoever with what lawmakers are attempting to do, as documented in this CNS News article. Bork says what is obvious, that the real issue is that any right to life case scares the Roe v. Wade supporters to death.
As always, what is missed, or deliberately ignored, is that this case is not just about Terri Schiavo. It is about legal precedent. For most of those movers and shakers who are not supportive of Terri's parents, it is not about marital rights or state rights. It is about the right to die. A precedent is being established here, and unfortunately, the actions of Congress are giving federal courts a chance to solidify that precedent. The precedent is that a human being who has no terminal illness, who requires only nutrition and hydration, who responds to stimulus and may be able to swallow on her own, is being legally defined by the courts as in a "persistent vegetative state", and is thus written off as having no legal right to life. The precedent is that a living human person is being starved to death by court order. The state is killing an innocent human being based only an arbitrary notion of quality of life.
This is why reshaping the courts is so critical. It matters not at all what laws are written when judicial decisions can so easily turn those laws on their heads or render them meaningless. Once a judge decides what a law "means", all subsequent decisions are negatively influenced because conservative judges are less likely to overturn precedents and liberal judges are more likely to establish them.
If Terry Schiavo is starved to death, after appeals to federal courts, the unwanted but predictable result will be that a Federal judicial precedent will have been set allowing starvation in future cases. This is an extremely dark day and I am quite sure most folks don't really get it.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Active Euthanasia is Now a Reality
The starvation of Terry Schiavo has begun. We have fallen off the slippery slope.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
A New Focus
I started this blog a few months ago as the Presidential election was winding down. I wanted an outlet for my writing and wanted to be part of the blogosphere wave. Recently, personal events, technical problems and a bit of exhaustion have kept me from regular posts.
But I have also had to re-evaluate and narrow my focus. Though I have an interest in current events, and politics can get me rather agitated, I want to focus on my main obsessions and leave much of the political blogging to others more qualified, more informed and those who have more time. My main focus needs to be one of my own obsessions -- faith.
One of the first "grown-up" books I ever read in my early teens was C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Over the course of my lifetime, the idea has stayed with me that there are certain truths basic to all branches of Christianity. But a lifetime of witnessing division within Evangelical circles and contentious polemics between Catholics and Protestants has been disheartening.
Recently, Thomas Oden's Rebirth of Orthodoxy has rekindled some old flames. There are numerous movements across the globe that are gaining momentum toward seeking understanding and some level of unity among Christians. As Oden has documented and insisted on, this is not a wishy-washy ecumenism that waters down biblical truth for the sake of organizational unity, but is a genuine attempt to wrestle charitably with the theological, cultural and historical matters that have divided Christians. It is a new kind of ecumenism that is respectful of scripture and also respectful of the history of biblical exegesis across all of twenty centuries and not just the last four.
But I have also had to re-evaluate and narrow my focus. Though I have an interest in current events, and politics can get me rather agitated, I want to focus on my main obsessions and leave much of the political blogging to others more qualified, more informed and those who have more time. My main focus needs to be one of my own obsessions -- faith.
One of the first "grown-up" books I ever read in my early teens was C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Over the course of my lifetime, the idea has stayed with me that there are certain truths basic to all branches of Christianity. But a lifetime of witnessing division within Evangelical circles and contentious polemics between Catholics and Protestants has been disheartening.
Recently, Thomas Oden's Rebirth of Orthodoxy has rekindled some old flames. There are numerous movements across the globe that are gaining momentum toward seeking understanding and some level of unity among Christians. As Oden has documented and insisted on, this is not a wishy-washy ecumenism that waters down biblical truth for the sake of organizational unity, but is a genuine attempt to wrestle charitably with the theological, cultural and historical matters that have divided Christians. It is a new kind of ecumenism that is respectful of scripture and also respectful of the history of biblical exegesis across all of twenty centuries and not just the last four.
Spirituality
Eugene Peterson, author of "A Long Obedience in the Same Direction", is was interviewed in Christianity Today. The interview is titled Spirituality for All the Wrong Reasons.
In the CT article, he summarizes a few thoughts about a misunderstanding of spirituality. Much has been written critical of the trends in evangelical culture toward subjective experience, marketing the church based on "felt needs", tailoring the message to target demographic groups. Peterson seems to have a very down-to-earth take on all of it that is refreshing and at times blunt.
He compares much of the "personal relationship" language of contemporary evangelicalism with gnosticism, the idea that Christianity is somehow distinct from the ordinary, the physical, the moment by moment real world stuff all people have to deal with.
"The New Age stuff is old age. It's been around for a long time. It's a cheap shortcut to - I guess we have to use the word - spirituality. It avoids the ordinary, the everyday, the physical, the material. It's a form of Gnosticism, and it has a terrific appeal because it's a spirituality that doesn't have anything to do with doing the dishes or changing diapers or going to work. There's not much integration with work, people, sin, trouble, inconvenience.
I've been a pastor most of my life, for some 45 years. I love doing this. But to tell you the truth, the people who give me the most distress are those who come asking, "Pastor, how can I be spiritual?" Forget about being spiritual. How about loving your husband? Now that's a good place to start. But that's not what they're interested in. "
Like a number of other folks I have been reading lately, such as Os Guinness, he is not impressed with church growth strategies and believes genuine faith is by its nature countercultural, in that it will always and always should be something different, transcendent, sacred. Says Peterson in probably the most animated line of the interview,
"I think relevance is a crock. I don't think people care a whole lot about what kind of music you have or how you shape the service. They want a place where God is taken seriously, where they're taken seriously, where there is no manipulation of their emotions or their consumer needs.
Why did we get captured by this advertising, publicity mindset? I think it's destroying our church."
I have discussed similar matters with a friend who is a former Pastor and a seminary prof. We have ruminated long on Acts 2:42,43, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles." Ultimately church is always about the same things, the teaching of the apostles, genuine fellowship or community, the breaking of bread in the Lord's Supper (with appropriate emphasis on confession and repentance) and prayer. As such it can be mundane and routine at times, but still it is necessary to focus on those essential things, regardless of whether they seem relevant or hip.
The notion that "everyone was filled with awe", also seemed to us important. Why? Because if spirituality is genuinely God focused and God blessed, there will be a character to it that is beyond the natural, more than just a strategy or a program can provide, something, for lack of a better word, "spiritual". All our attempts to be relevant, many are beginning to say, are removing the timeless and transcendent elements from church life and from faith. If everything is programmed, if our strategies are all market based, if our message is continually reshaped by the "needs" of culture, something is lost. Peterson continues,
"... if we present a rendition of the faith in which all the mystery is removed, and there's no reverence, how are people ever going to know there's something more than just their own emotions, their own needs? There's something a lot bigger than my needs that's going on. How do I ever get to that if the church service and worship program is all centered on my needs?"
Peterson's interview is worth a read. Christianity is not quite so complicated as we make it. It is usually about doing the ordinary things faithfully rather than trying to find some new way of doing something big. It is "a long obedience in the same direction" and it's effects on the culture and our neighbors and friends is usually gradual, not dramatic.
In the CT article, he summarizes a few thoughts about a misunderstanding of spirituality. Much has been written critical of the trends in evangelical culture toward subjective experience, marketing the church based on "felt needs", tailoring the message to target demographic groups. Peterson seems to have a very down-to-earth take on all of it that is refreshing and at times blunt.
He compares much of the "personal relationship" language of contemporary evangelicalism with gnosticism, the idea that Christianity is somehow distinct from the ordinary, the physical, the moment by moment real world stuff all people have to deal with.
"The New Age stuff is old age. It's been around for a long time. It's a cheap shortcut to - I guess we have to use the word - spirituality. It avoids the ordinary, the everyday, the physical, the material. It's a form of Gnosticism, and it has a terrific appeal because it's a spirituality that doesn't have anything to do with doing the dishes or changing diapers or going to work. There's not much integration with work, people, sin, trouble, inconvenience.
I've been a pastor most of my life, for some 45 years. I love doing this. But to tell you the truth, the people who give me the most distress are those who come asking, "Pastor, how can I be spiritual?" Forget about being spiritual. How about loving your husband? Now that's a good place to start. But that's not what they're interested in. "
Like a number of other folks I have been reading lately, such as Os Guinness, he is not impressed with church growth strategies and believes genuine faith is by its nature countercultural, in that it will always and always should be something different, transcendent, sacred. Says Peterson in probably the most animated line of the interview,
"I think relevance is a crock. I don't think people care a whole lot about what kind of music you have or how you shape the service. They want a place where God is taken seriously, where they're taken seriously, where there is no manipulation of their emotions or their consumer needs.
Why did we get captured by this advertising, publicity mindset? I think it's destroying our church."
I have discussed similar matters with a friend who is a former Pastor and a seminary prof. We have ruminated long on Acts 2:42,43, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles." Ultimately church is always about the same things, the teaching of the apostles, genuine fellowship or community, the breaking of bread in the Lord's Supper (with appropriate emphasis on confession and repentance) and prayer. As such it can be mundane and routine at times, but still it is necessary to focus on those essential things, regardless of whether they seem relevant or hip.
The notion that "everyone was filled with awe", also seemed to us important. Why? Because if spirituality is genuinely God focused and God blessed, there will be a character to it that is beyond the natural, more than just a strategy or a program can provide, something, for lack of a better word, "spiritual". All our attempts to be relevant, many are beginning to say, are removing the timeless and transcendent elements from church life and from faith. If everything is programmed, if our strategies are all market based, if our message is continually reshaped by the "needs" of culture, something is lost. Peterson continues,
"... if we present a rendition of the faith in which all the mystery is removed, and there's no reverence, how are people ever going to know there's something more than just their own emotions, their own needs? There's something a lot bigger than my needs that's going on. How do I ever get to that if the church service and worship program is all centered on my needs?"
Peterson's interview is worth a read. Christianity is not quite so complicated as we make it. It is usually about doing the ordinary things faithfully rather than trying to find some new way of doing something big. It is "a long obedience in the same direction" and it's effects on the culture and our neighbors and friends is usually gradual, not dramatic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)