When faced with this dilemma,
the Protestant is forced to appeal to one of two equally insufficient and most unsatisfactory solutions:I discussed this briefly here with my friend Matt who I consider to be a very thoughtful Protestant Christian.
A) Claim (on no persuasive or compelling grounds, once adequately scrutinized) that their own brand of Protestantism is the true one and to be believed above all others. This was, of course, the standard approach taken by virtually all the early Protestant factions. But since they denied apostolic succession as historically understood, the appeal to one's own truth became entirely arbitrary and a-historical (the very grounds which could make such a claim believable or plausible in the first place, per the methodology of the Church Fathers and Catholicism).
B) Pretend that doctrines where Protestants disagree (which are almost all doctrines other than where they agree with even Catholics and Orthodox) are "secondary" and not important enough to fight over in order to arrive at and determine truth in those matters. I have argued that this is a de facto relativizing of a host of doctrines, whereas the Bible shows no such indication that this should be done.
My question is this: If all that Jesus intended to teach with clarity was a "mere Christianity" and all other doctrines (e.g. nature of the sacraments, church governance, disputed moral issues, forms of worship) are matters of speculation without hope of final resolution, why don't Protestant churches unify so as to provide a clear witness to the world of the truth of Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 17:20-23)? Can (orthodox) Protestants justify divisions in the Body of Christ for matters of preference?
1 comment:
I agree that sin is ultimately the source of all division and Catholics are by no means immune. However, the reason I ask the question of Protestants specifically is that division can be legitimately defended from the perspective of sola scriptura whereas Catholic authority requires a more comprehensive assent. The dogmas of the Catholic faith are more well-defined and must be held as true in total. There can never be a personal interpretation that supercedes the teaching of the Church and justifies schism in a Catholic mindset. But for Protestants, if one deems the church body/preacher/denomination as contradicting an essential part of the faith, then there is no authority that can override or correct that interpretation and, if serious enough, a new church can be formed. This is perfectly legitimate if the Bible alone, meaning one's own understanding of it, is the final authority apart from any traditional interpretation. Indeed, this is what the Protestant Reformers themselves did, setting precident.
I would like to add at this point that organizational unity is not in and of itself sufficient. As we would both agree, it is not nominal membership in a church that merits salvation, but rather a true coversion of the heart by the grace of Jesus Christ. The Catechism rightly points out that "though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart." (CCC 837)
That being said, spirtual unity cannot remain invisible. Jesus prayed, recorded in John's Gospel (see ref. above), that those who followed him should be one so that the world may know that the Father sent the Son. He willed that His body should manifest itself in the world. Otherwise "the body of Christ" or "the temple of the Holy Spirit" would lose meaning: they are physical, material, VISIBLE by nature. We are not to be the SOUL or SPIRIT of Chirst, but the BODY and TEMPLE.
Your points regarding difference of method, prejudice, and the different religious orders are well taken and touch upon the diversity of tradition and practice within bodies of both Protestants and Catholics. But there is again a difference between the way Protestants and Catholics express this diversity. Protestants will form a new denomination with its own statement of faith, governance, worship, etc. Catholics have a variety of organizations, lay and religious, with different mission statements, devotional practices, and even subsidiary bylaws. There are even parishes that serve different ethnic groups. BUT we are still one Church. We profess the same faith, celebrate the same sacraments, and recognize the same ecclesial authority maintained through the apostolic succession. There is a place for many different methods of serving the Gospel within the one Body of Christ.
Now, there are Catholic organizations that reject certain teachings or ignore the authority of the pope and bishops. This is true division and it is the sin of heresy or schism. The Catholic can easily see who is in the wrong - the individual or group vs. the teaching authority of the Church. But Protestant divisions have no clear perspective on who is right or wrong.
So, if it's really true that many Protestants agree on what is ESSENTIAL then it seems to me that they should prioritize visible unity while allowing diversity of opinion in non-essential matters. There would be The Christian Church with congregations that worship different ways and emphasize different gifts or methods. Or within a single congregation perhaps there would be a Baptist service, a Lutheran service, and a Prebyterian service. If the differences are really matters of preference and we CANNOT know who is right, then it doesn't seem that one can justify denominations within the Christian Church.
Post a Comment