Vanhoozer on Evangelical Catholic or Catholic Evangelical

After shifts in my understanding of church and sacraments, I decided that I would henceforth describe myself as an "Evangelical Catholic" (I'd like to add the label "Reformed" as well, but I'll just assume that it's embedded in "Evangelical"). But the question that plagues me is which should be the adjective and which should be the main noun. Does "evangelical" modify "catholic" or should "catholic" modify "evangelical"? Towards that end, Kevin Vanhoozer writes:

"'Catholicity' signifies the church as the whole people of God, spread out over space, across cultures, and through time. 'We believe in one ... catholic church.' The evangelical unity of the church is compatible with a catholic diversity. To say that theology must be catholic, then, is to affirm the necessity of involving the whole church in the project of theology. No single denomination 'owns' catholicity: catholicity is no more the exclusive domain of the Roman Church than the gospel is the private domain of evangelicals. Catholic and Evangelical belong together. To be precise 'catholic' qualifies 'evangelical'. The gospel designated a determinate word; catholicity, the scope of its reception. 'Evangelical' is the central notion, but 'catholic' adds a crucial antireductionist qualifier that prohibits any one reception of the gospel from becoming paramount" (Drama of Doctrine, 27).

For this quote I am going to award big Kev the "Clever Little Bunny Award" (the flip side of my "Soggy Fish Award"). For writing a good book that is helping me prepare my lectures on Systematic Theology!

Evangelicals and Catholics

Over at CT is a piece by Colin Hansen entitled, Not All Evangelicals and Catholics Together, which points to a division among the IVCF chapter at George Washington University over whether Catholics can hold positions of leadership in an IVCF chapter.

Part of the article suggests that N.T. Wright is responsible for driving evangelicals to Rome. I had a big on-line exchange with Dan Wallace about his remark on a book blurb that "in some respects" there is "hardly" any difference between N.T. Wright's doctrines on justification and that of Rome [In fairness to Wallace this was a remark from a book blurb, for a fuller word from Wallace about N.T. Wright see here]. Now I confess that I don't want to get a reputation for being an apologist for N.T. Wright (though it might be too late for that). Although I greatly admire his work, I have some genuine criticisms that I have voiced in an excursus in SROG, and I gave John Piper some feedback on his manuscript The Future of Justification on what I think are the weaker nodes of Wright's arguments. But the attempt to make Wright look like John Henry Newman in an evangelical garb is a bit too much. Wright has criticized Anglo-Catholic views of the afterlife re: purgatory, he holds to a forensic justification as his critics even admit, and his view of grace is different from catholic sacramental theology. Contra Francis Beckwith who is cited in the article, I simply don't know how Wright can give someone an appreciation of a Catholic view of grace that is somehow different from a protestant view of grace. Part of the problem is that some folks want to reduce the debate to "Geneva" versus "Rome" as if they are the only two games in town: they are not! For a start, there is a lot of diversity among the residents of Geneva. The Westminster and Augsburg confessions disagree on what is imputed, Melanchthon and Luther disagreed on whether good works are necessary for salvation, John Calvin was also able to hold together justification and sanctification through union with Christ in a unique way, Martin Bucer held to a two-fold imputation for the impious and the pious, the Puritans weren't exactly monolithic on justification either as a comparison of Richard Baxter and John Owen shows, I think it was George Joye (like Ambrosiaster from the Church Fathers) who saw God's righteousness as his faithfulness rather than as a righteousness imputed from God, etc. Then look at Rome. Yes, we have Trent that was reactive and heavy-handed, and therefore, given to a theology born out of polemics. But read some modern Catholic commentators like Joseph Fitzmyer and I remain confused as to how his Romans commentary which is sooo protestantesque in places was ever granted nihil obstat. D.A. Carson tells a story of how he asked Joseph Fitzmyer what did he believe: his Romans commentary or the 1993 catechism which is solidly tridentine when it came to justification? Then there's a guy like Scott Hahn who is a better and more consistent covenant theologian than some Presbyterians I know. Then what about the Barthians who have a more christocentric approach to the matter that is speaking a different language altogether? Hans Kung saw in Karl Barth a bridge between Protestants and Rome. Not forgetting the post-Bultmann Lutherans like Ernst Kasemann and Peter Stuhlmacher who don't fit neatly into any precise camp with their view of justification as transformative in the sense of God both declaring and making the sinners righteous. Then go east young man with the Orthodox theologians who can integrate justification closely to their leitmotif of theosis. Now suddenly the multiple-choice theology of Geneva or Rome seems highly simplistic doesn't it? Wright's critique of Reformed interpretation, overstated and full of generalization I often find it!, can only cause folk to go to Rome if they are caught in this Geneva or Rome dichotomy. In other words, if you ingrain into people that Geneva (or one suburb of Geneva) and Rome (= Trent) are the only two options, once they question some of their Reformed heritage, you haven't left them with any other option.

In my mind, the most analogous antecedent figure to N.T. Wright is Martin Bucer. Bucer regarded "works of the law" as Jewish ceremonies (which is kinda like boundary markers) and he wanted to integrate the Spirit into the process of the Christian life and saw a second justifying work in the life of the Christ. I think a good project for some brave soul would be to compare Bucer and Wright on Romans 2 and Galatians 4-5 to see where they agree and disagree. I would add that perhaps some affinities with Richard Baxter (see Paul Helm) can be made as well. If I had time to read-up further, I'd say a little bit of Ulrich Zwingli on regeneration and Richard Hooker on the sacraments might be a good comparison with N.T. Wright as well. In other words, Wright is clearly "in" the broad Reformed camp, even though he has some camping gear that I don't like.

I genuinely believe that good progress has been made in Catholic-Protestant relations since the Reformation. This is evidenced by the Evangelicals and Catholics Together as well as the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification which were positive moves forward (see Richard Mouw's quotation from Charles Spurgeon on Spurgeon's trip to a Catholic Church). I can honestly say that I'd rather worship and pray with an Orthodox Catholic than with a Liberal Protestant. I believe in the Reformation and yet recognize that the definition of a Christian in Rom 10:9-10 is broader than my own doctrinal statement. Still, at the end of the day there remains several incommensurable and irreconcilable differences between evangelicals and Catholics over the distinction between justification and sanctification, the nature of Christian assurance, the eucharist, the papacy, doctrines of Mary, and priestly celibacy. In the end, rediscovering covenant as a unifying theological category, experiencing the blessings of liturgy, digesting the church fathers in a serious way, and seeking transformation rather than transcendence, should be a means of enriching our own theological tradition rather than a reason for running to Rome. What is more, resources to do these things actually are available in the Reformed tradition if you look far and deep enough.

Update: Note the response from Wright via Trevin Wax.

Spurgeon on Catholicism

According to Richard Mouw, here is an account of Charles Spurgeon's visit to a Catholic service in Belgium, when he visited there with his wife in 1860:

In Brussels, I heard a good sermon in a Romish church. The place was crowded with people, many of them standing, though they might have had a seat for a halfpenny or a farthing; and I stood, too; and the good priest — for I believe he is a good man, — preached the Lord Jesus with all his might. He spoke of the love of Christ, so that I, a very poor hand at the French language, could fully understand him, and my heart kept beating within me as he told of the beauties of Christ, and the preciousness of His blood, and of His power to save the chief of sinners. He did not say, ‘justification by faith,’ but he did say, ‘efficacy of the blood,’ which comes to very much the same thing. He did not tell us we were saved by grace, and not by our works; but he did say that all the works of men were less than nothing when brought into competition with the blood of Christ, and that the blood of Jesus alone could save. True, there were objectionable sentences, as naturally there must be in a discourse delivered under such circumstances; but I could have gone to the preacher, and have said to him, ‘Brother, you have spoken the truth;’ and if I had been handling the text, I must have treated it in the same way that he did, if I could have done it as well. I was pleased to find my own opinion verified, in his case, that there are, even in the apostate church, some who cleave unto the Lord, — some sparks of Heavenly fire that flicker amidst the rubbish of old superstition, some lights that are not blown out, even by the strong wind of Popery, but still cast a feeble gleam across the waters sufficient to guide the soul to the rock Christ Jesus.” (Quoted in Lewis Drummond, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, 343-344).

Scot McKnight Ain't Catholic (with reflections on unity)

Sometime ago Scot McKnight did an excellent post on Why I Am Not a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. I couldn't put it better myself. I think the definition of a Christian given in Rom. 10.9-10 is alot broader than any statement of faith or confession and it obviously can include RCC and EO persons respectively. I've also met some excellent Catholic deacons, scholars, and priests who are closer to the kingdom of God than many Protestants and Evangelicals that I know. The Catholics are the only group on American (and Australian) TV that one can demonize by portraying them all as a bunch of ultra right-wing hypocrites, child molestors, who strangely always quote the Bible in King James English and I pity them. During my time in the Army I found that most of the Catholic Chaplains were more interested in doing Bible studies than their Protestant colleagues. I don't have a huge problem with episcopal church government (and neither did John Calvin!) even if it's not my preferred modus operandi. Protestants need to remember that before the Reformation that the RCC was our Church and in some ways, while we are currently separated from it (with good reason too), it continues to be our Church and so we should be interested in its affairs. However, I think the RCC has substituted the Church for the Holy Spirit. I'm all for reading Scripture in light of Tradition but, if Tradition is a tool for reading Scripture, then Scripture has to be allowed to critique Tradition and that is lacking. Priestly celibacy has got to go and it was a late development any way. Papal infallibility is an issue and I'll never forget talking to a Catholic Priest who did not believe in Papal infallibility because he'd been to Rome and seen where they buried all the mistresses and illegitimate children of the Popes. I'm happy with the communion of the saints, but not if it compromizes Jesus as the only mediator. The bread and wine of communion still looks, smells, and tastes like bread and wine to me and transubstantiation does not sound convincing to a non-Aristotlean. The only place I ever want to see a "Hail Mary" is on the football field and if the RCC ever officially makes Mary co-redemptrix, then, all bets are off concerning ecumenical futures. Vatican II did not change the doctrine and theology of the Catholic Church and as proof that the 1993 Catechism is thoroughly Tridentine and that remains an obstacle to unity. I would love to see a meeting between the Pope, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a Protestant representative to speak for the largest body of Christians on matters they can agree on, but I'm not optomistic that it will ever happen. At the end of the day I want to stand in continuity with the apostolic gospel and the ancient church and the challenge of Protestantism is how to do so without forfeiting the Protest of the Reformation and without becoming a sect with a "Sesame Street Ecclesiology" where every believer "does his own thing" and multiplies the endless divisions and denominations of Protestantism. In a recent article in an Australian Presbyterian magazine, Iain Murray (of Banner of Truth fame) said that "unity was overrated". Unity at any price is indeed overrated, but exhortations to unity and one mindedness in 1 Cor. 1.10-17; Phil. 2.1-4, John 17.20-23, Acts 2.44, and Eph. 4.3-6 are there and they are there to be obeyed.

N.T. Wright wows Roman Synod

A friend of mine heard N.T. Wright speak in Brisbane, Australia at the invitation of the Catholic Archbishop John Bathersby (I imagine that the local Anglican Archbishop Philip Aspinall would be not be likely the invite the Bishop of Durham since Jack Spong is more his thing). Well, apparently John Barthersby said that for him reading Jesus and the Victory of God was like "meeting Jesus for the first time"! More recently, Wright is impressing the Catholics again this time as a "fraternal delegate" at a gathering of bishops in Rome. Read about it here.

ETS President (reportedly) becomes Catholic

That is right, you heard me, you are not dreaming, this is not a drill! Reports are streaming in all over the blogosphere that Francis Beckwith has become Catholic! (HT Michael Barber). All the more amazing is that he is president of ETS! This could facilitate the quickest heresy trial in the history of ETS since Norman Geisler said, "This Gundry bloke, do we chuck him out or what?" But I would have to ask on what grounds can Beckwith be removed from office. As long as he adheres to the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy and the Trinity, he's technically in the ball-park. As a Catholic I think he can do that. This raises in my mind the doctrinal problem with ETS. It elevates, out of all proportion in my mind, the weight and significance of a doctrine of Scripture in comparison to other theological doctrines essential to Protestantism/Evangelicalism. I think ETS would be wiser to adopt the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship statement of faith. I will definitely be at the next ETS just to see what happens!

UPDATE see Alan Streett's post TEN REASONS FRANK BECKWITH BECAME A ROMAN CATHOLIC and the ETS Statement on FB's Conversion