THE MYTH OF SCHISM by David Bentley Hart

[celestialhost]

Lutherans, Methodists and Calvinists will form one body?

I’d be willing to bring something to a covered dish supper just to watch.

I suspect when the poster referred to Presbyterians, he or she was thinking of the Presbyterian Church USA, which is only Calvinist in the vaguest sense. I doubt the more rigidly Calvinistic Presbyterian denominations would join such a merged body.

 

[hazcompat]

From: “The Art of Prayer an Orthodox Anthology”.

pp 180-181

Saint Theophan the Recluse

“The kingdom of God is within us when God reigns in us, when the soul in its depths confesses God as its Master, and is obedient to Him in all its powers. Then God acts within it as master ‘both to will and to do of His good pleasure’ (Phil. ii. 13). This reign begins as soon as we resolve to serve God in our Lord Jesus Christ, by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Then the Christian hands over to God his consciousness and freedom, which comprises the essential substance of our human life, and God accepts the sacrifice; and in this way the alliance of man with God and God with man is achieved, and the covenant with God, which was severed by the Fall and continues to be severed by our willful sins, is re-established. This inner alliance is sealed, confirmed, and given the strength to maintain itself by the power of grace in the divine sacrament of baptism, and for those who have fallen after baptism, in the sacrament of repentance: and afterwards is constantly strengthened by the sacrament of Holy Communion.

All Christians live thus; and consequently they all bear the kingdom of God within themselves, that is to say they obey God as King and are ruled by God as King.

Speaking about the kingdom of God within us, one must always add: in the Lord Jesus Christ, by the grace of the Holy Spirit. This is the mark of the Christian-the kingdom of God within us. God is the King over all, He is the Creator of all things and in His Providence watches over them all: but He truly reigns in the soul and is truly professed as King only after that re-establishment of that union of the soul with Him that was broken by the fall. And this union is effected by the Holy Spirit in the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.”

Peace

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by cmodrmac
in 2100 in the USA I would predict that the mainline Churches of Lutheran and Methodist and Presbyterians will have merged into one body

I suspect when the poster referred to Presbyterians, he or she was thinking of the Presbyterian Church USA, which is only Calvinist in the vaguest sense.

Yes, that’s how I read the post as well.

Still, as someone with a somewhat dim view of Calvinism, I would find it troubling if the mainline Lutherans and Methodists (i.e. the ELCA and the UMC) agreed to merge with the PCUSA. (Which is not to say that I’ve forgotten about other bad choices those mainline denominations have made, just that I don’t want to see even more bad decisions.)

 

[a_priori]

" in 2100 in the USA I would predict that the mainline Churches of Lutheran and Methodist and Presbyterians will have merged into one body

Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians, as groups, are not monolithic enough to be assimilated this way. The hardcore Calvinist in the room has a way of making some of the guests excuse themselves.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, that’s how I read the post as well.

Still, as someone with a somewhat dim view of Calvinism, I would find it troubling if the mainline Lutherans and Methodists (i.e. the ELCA and the UMC) agreed to merge with the PCUSA. (Which is not to say that I’ve forgotten about other bad choices those mainline denominations have made, just that I don’t want to see even more bad decisions.)

In some ways they already have - Eucharistic hospitality, etc.

Jon

 

[total_Catholic]

Calvinists and Arminianists forming 1 church body? Don’t say that it cannot happnen because here in the South, more and more Baptist churches have ditched Calvinism.

In a lot of these rural independent Baptist groups, you can’t tell the difference between them and Pentecostals. More Baptist churches have begun speaking in tongues and running the aisles. Definitely not a Calvinist method of church worship.

Lutherans, i.e. ELCA, I can definitely see hooking up with the Episcopal Church. LCMS and WELS will go it alone for as long as they can as I suppose will all of the “traditional” Anglican bodies that aren’t pare of the COE.

 

[celestialhost]

Calvinists and Arminianists forming 1 church body? Don’t say that it cannot happnen because here in the South, more and more Baptist churches have ditched Calvinism.

In a lot of these rural independent Baptist groups, you can’t tell the difference between them and Pentecostals. More Baptist churches have begun speaking in tongues and running the aisles. Definitely not a Calvinist method of church worship.

.

Really? I thought the current trend in Evangelicalism is towards an assertive Calvinism. I know there has been a bit of a backlash to this trend among Southern Baptists, but I think the Calvinist movement is still going pretty strong.

The big historical oddity is the combination of Calvinist theology with Charismatic practices, for instance Wayne Grudem. Although I’m converting to Catholicism, I’m still officially a member of New Frontiers, a Charismatic denomination that has embraced Calvinism to a large extent.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I suspect when the poster referred to Presbyterians, he or she was thinking of the Presbyterian Church USA, which is only Calvinist in the vaguest sense. I doubt the more rigidly Calvinistic Presbyterian denominations would join such a merged body.

Dang.

I thought for sure I was destined to get some of their green bean casserole…

 

[total_Catholic]

I apologize for what may have seemed uncharitable responses towards others in this thread. I am leavin the board.

 

[celestialhost]

I apologize for what may have seemed uncharitable responses towards others in this thread. I am leavin the board.

The last comment you wrote did not seem all that uncharitable. I’ve seen a lot worse!

 

[Peter_J]

I apologize for what may have seemed uncharitable responses towards others in this thread. I am leavin the board.

That seems like an odd combination of statements, but okay.

 

[Peter_J]

In some ways they already have - Eucharistic hospitality, etc.

Jon

True. If anything I think you’re understating your point: i.e. it isn’t just Eucharistic hospitality but completely unrestrictive intercommunion.

 

[Per_Crucem]

True. If anything I think you’re understating your point: i.e. it isn’t just Eucharistic hospitality but completely unrestrictive intercommunion.

Indeed. They also share each others pulpits and each others seminaries. I’ve met many an ELCA pastor who only attended a PCUSA seminary.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

How do you decide which interpretation to follow?

I sense that there is an underlying assertion couched within this question. The original thing that rankled me a bit was when totalcatholic said “Everyone wants to be their own pope,” and now you’re asking me how do you decide which interpretation to follow? I will attempt to show you where the underlying assertion is.

“How do you decide which interpretation to follow?”

If I’m reading between the lines correctly, you’re asserting that if I don’t put the pope in charge of being the decider, I must of course be putting myself in charge of deciding. Is that correct? Because if that is the underlying assertion, I must disagree with that before I even begin to answer the question. You see, there is much that I do not decide. I said a bunch of things about experts and expertise in my earlier post, and just to clarify, I am not an expert. Experts do the real work, experts do the heavy lifting, I just try to know some things about what they come up with.

So to answer your question (finally), given a particular issue or verse that requires interpretation, I am likely to say something like “The expertise and scholarship on this matter has achieved a high level of consensus to the effect of thus and such.” Or I might say “I’m reasonably familiar with the work that’s gone into this issue, and consensus hasn’t been fully reached but I can tell you about a range of two or three main types of conclusions that are the strongest arguments and then there’s a few other ones that have basically been rejected after being put to the test, and I can tell you why those interpretations are flawed.” And sometimes, I might tell you I don’t have much familiarity with the work that’s gone into it and I just don’t know. That’s pretty much how it works. And now, in the reply to Randy Carson that immediately follows, I will give you a real-life example of how this works using an actual verse that he submitted for my analysis. Remember, this has a lot more to do with leaning on the work and scholarship and conclusions of experts than it does on my own attempts to act as if I were an expert, which I am not.

And that means I don’t put myself in charge of being a decider, as if I were a pope. I hope that my point has been made, and for those of you who enjoy speaking on behalf of those you disagree with, please occasionally listen to the people with whom you disagree so that you can state their tendencies with some accuracy.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

In Matthew 16, we read the following:

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Based upon the authority you recognize, explain the mean of the “rock” in the first verse.

Thanks.

Just to review, I am not a decider, but I do have an appreciation for the work of experts and their expertise. I believe it’s valuable, in that the possession of such expertise is what constitures authority- meaning, experts are the people that should be listened to and relied upon for important decisions.

Regarding this particular passage, experts- including and in particular among Protestant/Evangelical experts- have reached a moderately high level of consensus to the effect that the “rock” in the first verse refers to Peter. I initially learned this from a Greek professor who also detailed some of the issues involving both Greek and Aramaic, a topic that I’m sure you have some passing familiarity with. I followed that up by familiarizing myself with a broader range of prominent scholarship on the matter and of course the Greek prof was right in what he said about that tendency. I am not as clear as to how those prominent Evangelical experts in ancient languages and Bible interpretation are able to consistently reach very different points of view on the papacy and on magisterial authority in comparison to their Catholic peers, but I do know that there is a moderately high level of consensus on the matter that most directly answers your question. I suspect, however, that the divergence is owed mostly to issues of how one looks at Christian history on the whole more so than differences of interpretation in a particular passage. But I’m kind of guessing about that.

I will also add that the bits about “bound on earth” and “bound in heaven” involve the use of some rarely seen parts of speech in ancient Greek that are exceptionally difficult to translate, and the translations that you are most familiar with make those parts seem more simple and straightforward than they really are. Further examination of the Greek leads to a more complex and nuanced set of ideas than the ones you probably have when you read the end of that passage. But you didn’t ask about that, so I won’t get all the way into it. And the Catholic Church has chosen to make its interpretation of this passage permanently binding on the conscience of every Catholic, so you’re not in a position to really learn something new about it- and unfortunately, the Catholic Church made its super-official interpretation without addressing any of those equally-important translation issues. So perhaps you’re in no position to let that affect you at all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

JRegarding this particular passage, experts- including and in particular among Protestant/Evangelical experts- have reached a moderately high level of consensus to the effect that the “rock” in the first verse refers to Peter.

This is correct. I have quotes from over two dozen Protestant and Orthodox scholars to this effect.

And the Catholic Church has chosen to make its interpretation of this passage permanently binding on the conscience of every Catholic, so you’re not in a position to really learn something new about it- and unfortunately, the Catholic Church made its super-official interpretation without addressing any of those equally-important translation issues. So perhaps you’re in no position to let that affect you at all.

That’s a wee bit condescending, isn’t it? Or is it actually your opinion that Catholics have checked their brains at the door and cannot “learn something new”?

However, the admission that Peter, personally, is the rock in Mt. 16:18 is huge. So, let’s move on to the next step: Mt. 16:19. I’m going to give you a bit more here:

Peter – The Royal Steward

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

**Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then despite the existence of other, lesser stewards (who have their own legitimate areas of authority) don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today? **

 

[Stilldreamn]

Dang.

I thought for sure I was destined to get some of their green bean casserole…

I’ll be bringing it to the hot dish supper at our Lutheran Rite Catholic Church by that time. It goes so well with jello salad.

 

[manualman]

In the past, I had many online discussions with Protestants, and I Realized that all the side issues: praying to Mary, the Eucharist, etc, all boiled down to the issue of authority.

This is only true if you are talking about peeling a LOT of layers of the onion back first.

I suppose one can argue that the evangelical view of legally imputed righteousness versus the catholic understanding of full and genuine sanctification boils down to the refusal of those holding to the former position to submit to the latter. But that seems a rather excessive over simplification, no?

I tend to agree with the theme in the OP link that the differences between catholics and EO are rather less than the hotheads on both sides would like them to be, but it’s also not JUST limited to authority.

 

[Kosta]

From Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart:

“…reunion of the Orthodox and Roman Churches has become an imperative, and time is growing short. I say this because I often suffer from bleak premonitions of the ultimate cultural triumph in the West of a consumerism so devoid of transcendent values as to be, inevitably, nothing but a pervasive and pitiless nihilism. And it is, I think, a particularly soothing and saccharine nihilism, possessing a singular power for absorbing the native energies of the civilization it is displacing without prompting any extravagant alarm at its vacuous barbarisms. And I suspect that the only tools at Christianity’s disposal, as it confronts the rapid and seemingly inexorable advance of this nihilism, will be evangelical zeal and internal unity.”

fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2012/05/myth-of-schism-by-david-bentley-hart.html

Well, this is a sensationalist title if I’ve ever heard one.

There has always been greed and consumerism plaguing mankind, and that includes members of the Church. Jesus warned us against false prophets & fleeting, worldly distraction. The Church has survived more internal & external threats than I could count. Everyday is a struggle: uniting with other groups won’t solve any of that.

Why doesn’t Rome seek to undo its own numerous schisms and then focus on the East/West one. Start with all those Sedevacantists, go to the High Church Lutherans & Anglicans, then move on to the snake charmer Pentecostals in Appalachia. That ought to keep your ecclesiastical community busy for another thousand years. Go find someone else to be belligerently ecumenical with in the meantime. We have the entire Oriental Orthodox communion that we should be sorting out our differences with: may the Lord guide us!

 

[a_priori]

Well, this is a sensationalist title if I’ve ever heard one.

There has always been greed and consumerism plaguing mankind, and that includes members of the Church. Jesus warned us against false prophets & fleeting, worldly distraction. The Church has survived more internal & external threats than I could count. Everyday is a struggle: uniting with other groups won’t solve any of that.

Why doesn’t Rome seek to undo its own numerous schisms and then focus on the East/West one. Start with all those Sedevacantists, go to the High Church Lutherans & Anglicans, then move on to the snake charmer Pentecostals in Appalachia. That ought to keep your ecclesiastical community busy for another thousand years. Go find someone else to be belligerently ecumenical with in the meantime. We have the entire Oriental Orthodox communion that we should be sorting out our differences with: may the Lord guide us!

David Bentley Hart is an Orthodox theologian. No one held a gun to his head to make him write this. One thing Christendom excels at is ecclesiastical fratricide.