"Evangelicals and Catholics Together"

I finally got around to reading the document "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" from back in 1992.

It's good reading and a refreshing attempt at ecumenism between Evangelical and Catholic Christians. I liked a lot of what was said. I kind of wonder if maybe the ancient creeds could've been searched more for agreeable items that could be put forth in a statement of faith (say, the Nicene Creed, sans (at least) filique and confiteor. I also (and considering the group that signed, I wouldn't think that this would be hard) might've appreciated an agreement not to question each others' fidelity to Christ or even to the Gospel, over different interpretations of sola gratia or over acceptance/rejection of sola fide. But maybe that's just me.

And okay. I'd be lying if I said that the language on baptism doesn't sound a little wishy-washy to me:

In the context of evangelization and "reevangelization," we encounter a major difference in our understanding of the relationship between baptism and the new birth in Christ. For Catholics, all who are validly baptized are born again and are truly, however imperfectly, in communion with Christ. That baptismal grace is to be continuingly reawakened and revivified through conversion. For most Evangelicals, but not all, the experience of conversion is to be followed by baptism as a sign of new birth. For Catholics, all the baptized are already members of the church, however dormant their faith and life; for many Evangelicals, the new birth requires baptismal initiation into the community of the born again. These differing beliefs about the relationship between baptism, new birth, and membership in the church should be honestly presented to the Christian who has undergone conversion. But again, his decision regarding communal allegiance and participation must be assiduously respected.

I realize this is a difficult statement to compose, what with the notions of whether baptism regenerates and whether it is what makes one a Christian 'officially,' but I have two concerns. One concern is whether the Catholics should really have agreed to such language, since it almost seems to imply that it's okay for non-Catholic churches to go around teaching that baptism doesn't regenerate--even though it's treated as a near-essential for salvation in Catholicism.* That sounds...not quite spiritually responsible. (Again, maybe that's just me.) But the thing I don't think is just me is that the language sounds a little "true for you but not for me." Example: "for Catholics, the baptized are X" but essentially also maintaining that "for Evangelicals, pre-baptized are also X." Just...sounds a little relativistic. To put it bluntly, it sounds like they stopped just short of saying "for some Evangelicals, baptism is not regenerating," and also "for other Evangelicals and Catholics, baptism is regenerating." While it is within the realm of theological possibility, the only reasonable solution I can see to the conflict seems to mean that baptism regenerates depending on whether or not we believe it does, which seems to get us absolutely nowhere on questions like infant baptism. I'm sort of in a mode of self-doubt on these points, however, because most if not all of the people who signed this thing are very relativism-averse. Kreeft, Mouw, and Glendon** to give brief examples.

I realize the thrust of this has been kind of critical, so I want to end by discussing what I feel the declaration did really well.

On the brighter side, this document does at least agree on the Apostles' Creed, which is a good starting point in addressing issues like what Christians agree on, or ought to agree on. (Some related discussion, in the mode of thoughts about heresy, can be found at the You Can't Mean That! post from this last week's Christian Carnival.)

It discussed Biblical mandates that would seem to tell us to be charitable to our brothers and sisters in Christ, and it discussed perhaps even more gravely that the consequence of ignoring said mandates is a compromise to our witness and a comfort to the dark forces, natural and supernatural, that would suppress Christianity:

While we are gratefully aware of ongoing efforts to address tensions among these communities, the shameful reality is that, in many places around the world, the scandal of conflict between Christians obscures the scandal of the cross, thus crippling the one mission of the one Christ. [...and later:] As Evangelicals and Catholics, we dare not by needless and loveless conflict between ourselves give aid and comfort to the enemies of the cause of Christ. The love of Christ compels us and we are therefore resolved to avoid such conflict between our communities and, where such conflict exists, to do what we can to reduce and eliminate it. Beyond that, we are called and we are therefore resolved to explore patterns of working and witnessing together in order to advance the one mission of Christ.

The document concludes optimistically, with a note that is, if a little idealistic, ultimately a pragmatic realization that in the end this isn't "evangelicals vs. Catholics," it is (if a versus of any kind) "Christians vs. 'the world'":

Nearly two thousand years after it began, and nearly five hundred years after the divisions of the Reformation era, the Christian mission to the world is vibrantly alive and assertive. We do not know, we cannot know, what the Lord of history has in store for the Third Millennium. It may be the springtime of world missions and great Christian expansion. It may be the way of the cross marked by persecution and apparent marginalization. In different places and times, it will likely be both. Or it may be that Our Lord will return tomorrow. We do know that his promise is sure, that we are enlisted for the duration, and that we are in this together. We do know that we must affirm and hope and search and contend and witness together, for we belong not to ourselves but to him who has purchased us by the blood of the cross. We do know that this is a time of opportunity-and, if of opportunity, then of responsibility-for Evangelicals and Catholics to be Christians together in a way that helps prepare the world for the coming of him to whom belongs the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever. Amen.

If anyone else has reactions, who's read the whole thing or even just on the immediate context/commentary I gave, please do tell! I really do want people to join on the conversation: I especially want to know if people think I'm off track about the baptism language, because I kind of suspect that I am, but any thoughts about the document or about any of my other particular thoughts on it are also welcome!

A blessed Holy Thursday to you all!

================

* Footnote: In the sense that if you know you ought to be baptized and aren't working towards it, you're kind of hosed.
** If you don't know who Peter Kreeft and Richard Mouw are, they are respectively a Catholic philosopher and Christian apologist at Boston College, and the president of Fuller Theological Seminary. Not exactly relativists. Mary Ann Glendon, is the woman who turned down the University of Notre Dame's Laetare Medal because of the justification given for President Barack Obama in all his pro-choice-ness being given a platform to speak at the same graduation ceremony and receiving an honorary law degree there. (Her presence, and her own opportunity to speak, were part of the University's justification.)

Eastern European Catholicism

Can someone tell me how these eastern European countries keep getting away with infringing on the civil rights of Muslims? Not only that, but doing so while trampling on one of Islam's signs of modesty.* How are these countries Catholic enough to hate Muslims even though (soon enough) they won't be Catholic enough to believe in God?

As a general norm I refrain from cussing on the internet and almost totally on this blog, but, Lord help me, it's ox-crap like this that makes me want to abandon my strange notions about civility and politeness. Especially troubling is the fact that the proposal goes into Parliament after Easter Break. So after celebrating the Death and Resurrection of our Lord and Savior, some of these politicians are about to set out and make sure the world can see just how Christian they are, to legislate against the rights of Muslims--who could be powerful cultural and moral allies in our defense of Natural Law--in order, apparently, to appease public opinion.

Of course, it's the New York Times, so it's quite possible that they're exaggerating something. Still. I'm not happy about this, and I don't think Christians should be either, frankly. Even if you're tempted to celebrate the implicit repression of Muslims, remember the things we hold in common: we both, at the most fundamental level, acknowledge that there is something besides public opinion and a feeling of public 'security' to be served in the world. Something transcendent. If in a few years Belgium and France turn on the Catholics, and start making arguments against nuns' habits and public carrying of Rosaries...If in a few years they tell us Christians can't carry big Bibles, because they might be able to fit tiny bombs inside of them...Don't forget that you were warned.

=================

* Yes, yes, I know. The burqa may also be a sign of oppression and women kept down on a pedestal. I'm saying it's a sign of modesty, not that it's a perfect sign of modesty or that it's never been abused. Christian signs of modesty can be abused, too, but I'm trying to point out that a desire for such is something we hold in common with the Muslims, not something we should join Europe in attacking them for. I also don't mean to deny that there might be some security threats here, but that's where vigilance comes in. Banning a particular outfit because it makes identification harder is a lazy and prejudiced way to increase security. If they were willing to ban old-school nuns' habits and ninja garb as well, it might show that security was the real concern. No doubt some Muslims have carried out attacks in Eastern Europe. That is not an excuse to effectively ban faithfully Muslim women from public service--at least, those who feel that the burqa is part of their faithfulness. Those women, the ones caught in this cultural crossfire--. Vigilance is an answer; banning the burqa is a slippery slope, and Europe should tread very very carefully if it insists on treading even an inch down it.

Inadvertently Insulting Group Names

Has anyone ever run across a title for an organization or periodical that makes them slightly uncomfortable, or puts them off a little bit?

I've run across not a few groups or periodicals of this kind in the last lifetime, all of which fall under the general heading of the small-c church, and their names all bug me. I can easily see interpretations of them that aren't actually insulting, but I get the feeling that in striving to emphasize what they believe to be their missions, I think that these entities might be more polarizing of their theological not-totally-in-agreement comrades than they want to be.

The List

1. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which is a more liberal Catholic organization that focuses on justice and sometimes comes under fire for not talking enough about abortion. But are non-member Catholics not seeking the common good, or have they just not taken that crucial extra step of putting themselves in alliance with CACG.

2. Priests for Life, an organization of Catholic priests dedicated to a pro-life ethos. But are non-member priests, then, the 'Priests for Choice,' or 'Priests Indifferent to Life'?

3. Relevant magazine, which is some mixture of hip non-denominational Christianity and the emerging church, with some good pop culture satire. But are those people irrelevant who don't buy into the seeker-sensitive movement to a substantial degree?

4. The Remnant magazine, which is an orthodox Traditionalist-movement paper in Catholicism. The big question here is "the remnant of what?"

5. Focus on the Family. Is my vision of the family blurred if I disagree with, say, Dr. Dobson's views on corporal punishment?

Please feel free to chime in if you can think of other organizations that have interesting names like this. Also, if you have a decent way of interpreting the group's name charitably, please tell me.

Also, as I said, I am simply raising questions about how we name our groups. I realize that in varying degree each of these has a fairly obvious solution to how its name is to be interpreted, that doesn't do violence to charity by assuming ill-will or a grudge towards those who choose not to join the group or adhere to the ideals of the publication. But in trying to express what we do emphasize do we wind up denigrating people who aren't particularly wrong, but just don't emphasize the same thing as us. All of that said, if you have some further insight on what an organization might've been thinking in giving its name, or another organization's name that you don't see on the list, please do share! I realize I'm poking some fun at these names in even including them on such a list, and there's a point to that, which is to say that maybe we should be more careful in the implications of how we label ourselves. But please avoid needless degradation of the missions of these organizations: Every one of them has meaningful truths to emphasize to the church and the Church, and to simply shut them down is to ignore problems their emphases might point to in our own theological constructs, spiritual practices and personal lives.