Enchiridion of Commonplaces against Sayre and Selderane

May 24, 2004

By Michael Romano

Note:

This is a response to both Lucas Sayre and David B. ("Selderane") - Sayre, who published a list of 25 Theses on the State of Modern Christianity, and Selderane, who posted a complimentary list of 25 replies to Sayre's 25 theses. This Enchiridion attempts to engage both. Sayre's theses can be found at www.dailycontentions.com/2004_04_25_archive.htm#108345138546930774, and Selderane's list at http://www.deanesmay.com/kevin/archives/007315.html.

Responses to Theses:

1 and 2.

I address these together, because they belong together. Some have alleged that these points are contradictory. I do not believe them to be so, but if they are not, then there are fundamentally flawed assumptions underlying the premises. In order to state that Protestantism provides some sort of check against errant Catholicism AND that Church splintering is a bad thing, Sayre must assume that Protestantism is some sort of unified faith and that the differences between Protestants and Catholics don't really matter. They are both Christians, after all.

This, of course, is wrong. There can be no unified Protestant faith or Protestant church; the very nature of Protestantism precludes this. Thus, once the first reformers rebelled against Rome and did not seek to establish their own hierarchical system (as with the Eastern Orthodox churches) it was inevitable that more differences on matters of the faith should lead to a split into even more Protestant denominations.

Furthermore, if Catholicism and Protestantism were to check each other, this would require them to be in dialogue to such an extent that developments in the doctrines of one could realistically affect the doctrine of the other. Since the split between Catholicism and the various Protestant denominations exists because of matters of doctrine, however, then this ability to check and balance each other seems questionable.

Neither provides an effective check on the other; in order for something to be a suitable check, it must be built into the particular denomination. If the excesses of hierarchy in Catholicism need checking, there is no reason to assume that a more conciliar Catholicism or an increased emphasis on the laity could not provide such. Similarly, in the various Protestant denominations, Catholic hierarchy is no check as they do not accept Catholic doctrine or Catholic notions of apostolic succession. If a Protestant denomination needed a check against the lack of hierarchy, it would have to come from within the denomination (e.g. Southern Baptist Convention).

I do not address Selderane's point here because at the time of writing, he assumed that there was a unified Protestant church and did not understand that he, in fact, was Protestant.

Sayre does not really say anything unique here. Of course hierarchy alone does not protect against error. I am not sure if that is all that hierarchy is meant to do. But structure alone cannot protect the Church, she of course needs God's grace and guidance.

Yes, one must defer to the Bible, which was written to preserve the oral traditions of what? That's right, a community of believers.

This misunderstands the nature of infallible statements ex cathedra. The power is not a positive one, but a negative one, used to prevent the Church from straying into error. The nature of the power can be seen in the scant number of times that popes have spoken infallibly - it is only two or three times - and on the subjects, which were not in dispute by Catholics. If one is to confront the doctrine, it must be confronted on these terms. It is a logical fallacy to say that if a person chooses when to speak infallibly, then he is infallible during other points in his life. And as for God directing a person to speak, we have numerous examples of that: the prophets, Biblical authors, St. Paul - and possibly, even for a papal example, St. Peter, when he resolved the dispute as to whether Jewish ceremonial practices should be maintained. Finally, the statement about evil popes is a strawman - a person's moral character has nothing to do with the truth value of any claims that they assert. And even if one were fooled by the strawman, it should also be noted that none of the papal statements made under the doctrine of infallibility occurred during the reign of these evil popes.

Sayre's argument here is mostly right, but near the end slips into a dangerous relativism which both he and Selderane (and I, incidentally) later condemn (see point #15). The idea that God has not revealed the fullness of His Truth does not mean that one group should not claim the Truth over other groups that hold contrary views. Sayre clearly does not even agree with the assertion contained in his last sentence, as evidenced by the rest of his theses: to assert certain truths about Christianity and about particular denominations, he has to hold certain doctrines as true (and likewise, the contraries as false).

I have no dispute with Sayre here, he is right. It is Selderane's point that is gravely mistaken. By what standard can we uphold the Bible as the only source of Christian truth? It was humans that decided the content of the Bible in the first place, rejecting certain books and including others. If the Bible is the ONLY source of Christian truth, and tradition and the Church have no say, then by what standard do we accept the four Gospels and reject the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, or Mary Magdalene? By what standard do Catholics accept and most Protestants reject the apocrypha? Certainly nothing in the Bible itself indicates that these books ought be included or excluded. We would not even know that the Bible was a source of God's revelation were it not for the Church.

Furthermore, any literary text, especially one of such depth and complexity as the Bible, demands interpretation. Reading the Bible does not automatically grant the reader the Holy Spirit's intervention. This is plainly obvious from the fact that God's truth is one, yet the offered interpretations of the Bible are many. Finally, the Bible itself points beyond itself to other sources of revelation, as in the Gospel of John which says that Jesus performed other miracles and taught the apostles other things that are not recorded within the Gospel. Also, Jesus says, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now (John 16:12).

Again, Sayre is absolutely correct on this point, and Selderane's point here is contradictory and reveals the fundamental flaw inherent in a literal Biblicism. When he says that we have to understand the "purpose behind the law," he admits that we have to change the application of the law to fit the times, as the purpose (and not the particular application) of the law as expressed in the Bible is what we should strive to follow. However, we cannot find that from the Bible, and if we were to go strictly by what the Bible literally says (as his fist sentence demands we do), then we would need to keep the purpose AND the application.

I generally agree with Sayre's concern over fundamentalism and his definitions.

10.

Though I would choose a different word than "earning" salvation, I agree with Sayre's essential point here. For a discussion of the conflict between Catholic and Protestant theology on the justification issue, see Enchiridion, #14.

11.

Sayre's vocabulary here is confused. If God exists beyond our concept of time, then in what way does it make any sense to say that any of us are "predestined?" Furthermore, if God through creation determined our actions, then we do not have free will. We might have the illusion of having free will, insofar as we cannot fathom causation and cannot approach perfect knowledge. That, however, does not make our will free. I will not respond here to Selderane because I elsewhere deal with the issue of being saved by the fact of being a Christian.

12.

I am inclined to agree with Sayre, as in my own life I have experienced periods of stronger and weaker faith. I also know that some people have faith and then abandon it, which would speak against a "born again" doctrine coupled with a doctrine of "justification by faith alone." The two might be incompatible. Then again, I think Seldrane's point here is very wise, that such an issue must be left to God.

13.

I am not overly familiar with Annointing of the Sick, so I will leave that one aside. As for confession, Sayre makes a good point. At the same time, I think it makes sense for the Church to treat the act as if it is enough. One cannot question a penitent's sincerity; that would defeat the whole point of the sacrament. And, if the penitent sins again, that does not prove that he was not sincere in repenting their sins, only that he is human. Therefore, the Church must treat the act as if it absolves sin, must assume that the person is sincere, and must leave the matter to God to sort out.

14.

I generally agree with the basic point of Sayre's thesis here, but would clarify with regards to what is meant by "selfish." If one follows God or has faith in God for the sake of attaining salvation, then this might be considered to be selfish. This needs to be distinguished from the situation of Pascale's Wager. In the first situation, one truly believes, and this is evidenced by the way that one conducts one's life. In the second, the person is hedging his bets, and his "true belief" is dubious at best. A strong desire for salvation does not, in my opinion, make one's faith suspect as long that faith is otherwise true. Salvation, after all, is one of God's greatest gifts to us - it is perverse to say that we should not want it.

In examining Selderane's response, I find it indicative of the debate between Catholics and Protestants. Sayre, as a Catholic, understands works to have some basis in obtaining salvation. Seldrane, as a Protestant, denies this. I do not know that all Protestants hold this view, but Seldrane avowedly does.

The issue is less clear, however, than Seldrane would admit. He asserts that the Bible rejects any kind of doctrine of salvation by works as opposed to by grace alone, then cites Romans 3, in particular Romans 3:28. Now, it is a very Protestant practice to cite one verse of the Bible alone, but of course one verse in isolation can convey little, as it is lifted entirely out of context. In the case of Romans 3, the laws at issue were those required to be a Jew; specifically, laws requiring circumcision of males. Paul was engaging in the debate as to whether the Gentiles had to observe Jewish law in order to be considered Christian, and resoundingly claimed that this was not the case. The claims made by Paul in this letter may be interpreted as more global in scope than the circumcision debate and applying to the law or to works generally. He also might be confining his remarks to that issue alone.

The Bible itself, however, explicitly reveals that works are absolutely necessary for salvation, thus the Bible cannot be said to reject such a doctrine. James writes on this very issue, explicitly (as opposed to Paul's ambiguous meaning) in James 2:14-26. On top of this, Jesus himself offers a parable for salvation in which only works, without faith, leads to salvation! See Matthew 25:31-46. Those people attaining salvation did not know they were serving Christ, and likewise those condemned did not know they were denying. This is not to say that one can earn salvation; none of us can, as we are all broken. But it speaks well to ideas of faith merely as assent to a set of propositions as opposed to a way of living one's life. If one claims not to believe in the law of gravity but then refuses to walk off a cliff, would one believe him? So it is with faith in Christ. Furthermore, for the non-believers, the parable offered by Christ indicates that non-believers might serve Christ without knowing that they are doing so; in this case, faith in the explicit, creedal sense might not be necessary.

15.

This is eloquently expressed and I have no problems with it.

16.

This dispute between Sayre and Seldrane here once again illustrates the difficulties inherent in interpretation of a text. One cannot read something without interpreting it, and this remains true of the Bible, unless one believes that the Holy Spirit intervenes and personally offers His protection from error to each person, Christian or not, reading the Bible.

17.

While I would agree that such positive belief, as Sayre describes it, can be self-centered, arrogant, or theologically unsound, I do not think it is necessarily such. It is a necessary element of any Christian faith that Christ's death makes our salvation possible and that we cannot be saved apart from the grace of Christ. It is certainly a legitimate interpretation of this, given the various Biblical texts, that one can only receive God's saving Grace by being a Christian; otherwise, how else would one repent of sin and order one's life to salvation? The Gospels make it clear that one can reject Christ, could not a form of this rejection be the rejection of Christianity and assumption of an opposing belief system.

Furthermore, I find it inappropriate to label a belief held by the majority of Christendom for the majority of its time here on earth as "self-centered, arrogant, and theologically unsound." Surely there had to have been some theological supports for this to become a Christian belief in the first place, and it certainly does no justice to the Church fathers to criticize them on an issue like this without attempting to understand them.

However, the view clearly can be theologically unsound, and can be self-centered and arrogant. Where Seldarane says, "Most of humanity will perish and it's unfortunate but I do not weep for them because it is what they chose and I have to respect that, as does God." This claim as to what will happen to most of humanity is clearly arrogant. If some have never heard of Christianity or have heard of it but have no knowledge of Christ's truth, then in what way can they be said to have rejected God by their failure to become Christians? Again, if one is taught on the subject of Christianity, and is even raised within a Christian tradition, but the teaching is in error, does this person truly reject Christ in rejecting Christianity?

18.

I agree with Sayre and agree with Selderane's basic point, with the exception of the assertion that "It's primarily men who are called to lead the Church because this is the position God created for them."

19.

It is important here to distinguish the nature of the discrimination at issue. First, there is the argument brought up by Selderane, which would favor discrimination against homosexuals as homosexuals in fields which have nothing to do with their sexuality. Selderane asks the question, "Why should I let someone into my home that I know will only disrupt it?" That assumes, wrongly, that a person would disrupt a home or an organization by the mere fact of being homosexual. In a job in which sexuality, straight or gay, is not an issue, then people should not be able to discriminate, period.

I am not educated enough in science to discuss the merits of theories that would hold homosexuality to be genetic. However, I would offer that it seems intuitively plausible that homosexuality is genetic, and I offer the following thought experiment: think back to a time before puberty when you weren't attracted to men or women. As the hormones started to pump through your body, did you have the freedom to decide which you were attracted to? I know that I did not, and I'm willing to bet that most everyone else's sexualities worked in a similar fashion. You develop an attraction to one or the other, quite apart from any will to control which way the attraction works.

I really don't know what any Nazi experimentation has to do with this debate. Nor do I know if the author was suggesting that Jews are actually genetically inferior. If he was, and if he was suggesting that science with an agenda should not be trusted, this would seem to be the gravest example of such a science. However, the Nazis aside, the fact that science might be used in service of an agenda is not reason to disbelieve its results. The Bible was written in the service of an agenda, after all. One has to look at the evidence that science presents and neither assume the truth of science because one agrees with the science nor dismiss the evidence because one carries biases against the agenda into the dialogue.

As to homosexual marriage, I disagree with Sayre in his claim that Christian groups, in opposing gay civil marriages, are acting deplorably and without merit. It is true that de jure such marriages would only be binding in the civil sense and would lack ecclesiastical authority. However, gay civil marriages could pose a grave threat to Christian belief systems. As gay Christians marry, the various denominations would confront the issue of what to do with these people. There would be two extreme choices: excommunication or doctrinal change. As the denominations would not want to risk the backlash of such widespread and public excommunications, but at the same time would not want to change their doctrine, this could very likely lead to a muddled, confused teaching on the subject. The denominations might begin by shying away from dealing with the issue, and might end by completely abdicating any teaching authority on human sexuality whatever. Christian groups that oppose gay marriage on principle should oppose gay civil marriage - not because the Christians might have a problem with gay non-Christians marrying, which is frankly no business of Christians, but because gay civil marriage could eviscerate Christian teaching on the matter, and the secular world would once again assault the Christian groups. Furthermore, such a result could lead to repercussions for Christian sexual morality apart from homosexuality. If Christianity is to support (or to not oppose) gay marriage, it must find a way to do so on its own terms.

20.

Rather than saying that the prohibition on artificial contraceptives is inconsistent with the Catholic Church's (not to be confused with all of Christianity's) teachings on human sexuality, it is more correct to say that the Catholic Church's teachings on human sexuality is internally inconsistent. There is no prohibition in the Bible; that's not the issue. The issue is one of Catholic philosophy, drawn from the Church's theology of the body. There are two inconsistent propositions: that it is possible to gain the unitive value of sexual intercourse while denying the procreative, and that it is not possible to do so.

The first position needs little additional explanation. There are two values to be had from intercourse: that of attempting to produce offspring and share in a small way in God's creative power, and that of uniting the couple, drawing them closer together and deepening their love for one another. The first position would hold that humans can voluntarily separate the values, choosing when to have intercourse for the sake of union, for procreation, or for both at once.

The second position holds that this first position is misguided. An intentional denial of the procreative aspect results in a denial of the unitive as well, since two people cannot truly be joined if they are interposing barriers to a part of the act. This results in less than a full giving of oneself to one's partner and demeans the act in such a way as each person is "hardening his/her heart" to his/her partner.

The Catholic Church is inconsistent in teaching that the position in the third paragraph holds true of all artificial contraceptives, but the position in the second holds for natural contraceptive methods. Problem is, the intent is the same. Whether one uses the rhythm method, condoms, or the pill, the intent is to prevent conception. And so if the problem is a less than full "giving of oneself" which debases an act that is otherwise supposed to represent a holy union, then the Church sanctions one such method whose goal is to do exactly that.

It should be noted that this distinction has no problem with infertile couples engaging in intercourse. Each member of such a couple is giving to each other as fully as they possibly can, considering the circumstances. None is trying to hold something back; the fault is with their bodies, not their intent. For the same reasons, this distinction would also have no problem with homosexual relationships in the absence of other teachings against homosexual acts.

21.

I agree with this as well - while previous assailants have threatened Christianity by persecuting its members, secularism threatens Christianity by eviscerating its content until it is naught but an empty shell.

22.

If Christian groups are also "self centered, arrogant, and not theologically sound" in proclaiming that one must belong to a certain faith tradition to maintain salvation (#17), then what good would it do to proclaim salvation as the defense of Christianity's relevance to the modern world? If the modern world can respond with, "If there is no salvation, you're useless, and if there is, we don't need you to attain it," then stressing salvation certainly won't help protect Christianity. There needs to be other grounds for its continued relevance, and those grounds should be for the sake of Truth.

23.

While this thesis is true, there needs to be an additional distinction made between types of utilitarianism. There is a utilitarianism, which maximizes pure utility, a utilitarianism (as we commonly understand the term) that maximizes average utility, and what I will call personal utilitarianism, in which a person would try to attain the greatest pleasure and least pain for themselves. In the absence of a belief in a higher power, there can be no moral basis for anything beyond personal utilitarianism, for no atheist philosophy can provide any reason why one should care about one's neighbor or ever value the good of another over one's own good except by recourse to a person's self-interest.

24.

No disagreement.

25.

Of course, ecumenical learning is a benefit to all involved, and each denomination has something to teach the other. If nothing else, if an agreement cannot be reached as to specifics on doctrine, then each group would be able to refine its views so as to be able to better defend and articulate them. However, a true joint worship, at least between Catholics and Protestants, is not possible so long as differences persist on the Sacrament of the Eucharist. As long as Protestants persist in denying transubstantiation, and as long as priests do not preside at mass so as to perform the ceremony transforming the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (or until Catholicism abandon that doctrine and the priesthood), then Catholics cannot attend Protestant worship services as a fulfillment of their weekly obligation to attend mass and receive the Eucharist. Joint worship must then be done on the Catholics' spare time, which while not a bad idea, reduces the feasibility of the proposal.