Evangelical Catholics?
Interesting post/debate on the Ignatius Insight blog trying to figure out whether evangelical is a term that can be properly applied to Catholics? The writer argues: " If one thinks of Evangelicalism as a renewal movement that stresses personal conversion and spiritual development, evangelism, a high view of Scripture, and fidelity to Christian orthodoxy, then one can certainly be a Evangelical Catholic, as I believe I am. If the term “Evangelical” is broad enough to include high-church Anglicans, low-church anti-creedal Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, the Evangelical Free Church, Arminians, Calvinists, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals, Seventh-Day Adventists, open theists, atemporal theists, social Trinitarians, substantial Trinitarians, nominalists, realists, eternal security supporters and opponents, temporal theists, dispensationalists, theonomists, church-state separationists, cessationists, non-cessationists, kenotic theorists, covenant theologians, paedo-Baptists, and Dooweyerdians, there should be room for an Evangelical Catholic."
Seems plausible, but on the other hand, it seems like another area where a word could quickly lose any useful meaning... "gentleman" springs to mind. So I suppose I'm saying I have no useful opinion on this. My first question would be in regard to the writer's initial premise: "If one thinks of Evangelicalism as..." Well, do they? Or as, only? That would be a big factor in whether the rest of the premise is worth exploring. I defer to the evangelical here ... Rick, your thoughts?
Seems plausible, but on the other hand, it seems like another area where a word could quickly lose any useful meaning... "gentleman" springs to mind. So I suppose I'm saying I have no useful opinion on this. My first question would be in regard to the writer's initial premise: "If one thinks of Evangelicalism as..." Well, do they? Or as, only? That would be a big factor in whether the rest of the premise is worth exploring. I defer to the evangelical here ... Rick, your thoughts?
posted by Ernesto at 8:16 PM
10 Comments:
Just about every meaningful term can use a vacation or a replacement from time to time to recover from a state of overuse and underdefinition. In fact I wonder why a Catholic would desire this shopworn descriptor now, when its meaning has become so nebulous and political, but the definition to me has always been sufficiently universal to cover all of those categories quoted in the Ignatius blog (as least the ones I recognize) AND Catholics. In light of the fact that the word has been made flesh, the spreading of the "good news" is not merely an intellectual or verbal action. It's the passing of a living flame that has been ignited in one's soul.
I've always chuckled over the book of Hebrews, where Christ is extolled above all the prophets and angels and anything else that might be held up as good. I love the simple non-PC straight talk that Paul uses putting everything other than Christ, even Moses and the priests, into perspective as less than, i.e. inferior to, Jesus. That had to tick off some folks back in the day. But right out of the gate, Paul talks a lot about angels: "And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." I think that image sums up evangelism pretty well. All the spirit world is out there blowing on your fire, either trying to spread it or put it out. If your fire is not of Christ, the flames will be extinguished, sooner or later. If it is, then all the blowing of every angel or daemon, all the priestly utterances, and even the hot air of Charismatic preachers and television evangelists will work to spread the flame.
Of course, most evangelicals (and Catholics) are just tending their own flames, not really trying too hard to spread it around, but fire is hard to hide and hard to control. Once God burns within you, He has a way of starting other fires. Looking at it this way, one of the great evangelical hymns might have inadvertently been written back in the 1940s as a show tune. Today it might make a good ecumenical anthem for evangelicals everywhere:
"I don't want to set the world on fire
I just want to start a flame in your heart."
I neglected to give one fact, which may or may not be obvious, at the beginning of my reply. The word "Evangel" is synonymous with "Gospel" or good news. So an Evangelical is simply one who spreads the good news. Maybe that's all I really needed to say in the first place.
Good points... reading through them left me this impression: the term could fit, but as you mention right up front, why would a Catholic necessarily want it? Especially, I figure, as Catholic already means "universal." The minute I try and find more precise descriptors for the kind of Catholic I am, the less satisfied with them I am. And if the description of Evangelical as you provide it were a benchmark; I'm not sure why a Catholic would need to apply it to himself, since it's already contained within my understanding of what Catholics are supposed to be.
Right, but that's true of the term "Christian," as well. Why do we need further distinction than to declare to the world that we are of Christ and that we are his followers? Maybe that was the "original sin" of the church, that it decided to distinguish itself by a name. And ever since that time the church has become an ever-expanding taxonomy in which identity is based upon what one is called, rather than upon what one is.
Probably not even with respect to most so-called Christian churches!
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/01/graven-imagestotal-idolatry.html
Johnny,
I was trying to figure out exactly what you meant so I followed the link to your blog and got even more puzzled. I think you are confusing the human desire for symbols with the pagan devotion to idols. The idea that a symbol, or an image, is some kind of a magical tool or channel that gets "switched on" by worship or sacrifice is indeed a dangerous (and unscriptural) one. I agree that Catholic reverence for saints and Orthodox icons come dangerously close to this, but Ernesto and other friends from these traditions make a good case for the quasi-scriptural basis for these practices and they are certainly not the same as melting down the temple gold to make an idol shaped like a calf and then calling upon it to grant some kind of favor to it worshipper. In many ways, every thought or conception we have of God is an idol. A 4th century bishop named Gregory of Nyssa once wrote "Concepts create idols. Only wonder understands." If a statue or a symbol is seen as the source or the answer, then it takes on proportions of idolatry. But if a symbol is doing its job it points to the source and it raises questions. A holy symbol should invoke wonder.
Please consider this response:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/02/reader-worshiping-images-is-fine.html
Johnny,
Since you chose to comment of my comment on your own blog and not here, I'll take the liberty of copying some of your remarks below so that someone could follow the discussion without changing pages. I'll also post my reply to you on your blog. You wrote:
-------
Dear Rick,
Holy symbols do indeed cause wonder!
[14] And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.[15] And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. Revelation 13
It will one day be quite dangerous not to worship this sort of "holy symbol".
You say, "The idea that a symbol, or an image, is some kind of a magical tool or channel that gets 'switched on' by worship or sacrifice is indeed a dangerous (and unscriptural) one."
I respectfully refer you to:
[4] Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: [5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Exodus 20
If this notion is "dangerous and unscriptural", why does it show up in the Bible?
-------
I'm afraid we aren't communicating very well. YOu seem to be challenging my assertions that A. Symbols or images can be "switched on" by worship or sacrifice and become magical channels, and B. That this notion is dangerous and unscriptural.
I don't see how the verses you cite do anything but confirm my assertions. In the case of the image of the beast what is being described is a great deception being performed by the "second beast" (666). Even taken literally (which is a stretch with the Book of Revelation, but I'm game) this is not a case of an image coming to life because of worship or sacrifice. It is an image being brought to "life" by a supernatural being of tremendous power and evil intent. The purpose is to compel people to associate power with the image so that they turn their backs on God and receive the mark of the beast. People who are wise enough to know that the image has no power of its own would be harder to control. Don't you think?
I'm not saying that Satan can't appear to someone who is worshipping an idol. He can appear to someone who is doing any number of things and if that person would worship an idol, Satan obviously has an easy mark. But the Bible says repeatedly that that idols are merely lumps of wood or stone and that it is foolish to think that they are anything more. Here are a few examples. There are plenty more:
Dan 5:23-THOU HAST PRAISED THE GODS OF SILVER, AND GOLD, OF BRASS, IRON, WOOD, AND STONE, WHICH SEE NOT, NOR HEAR, NOR KNOW.
Hab 2:18,19-THE MOLTEN IMAGE…THE…DUMB IDOLS? WOE UNTO HIM THAT SAITH TO THE WOOD, AWAKE; TO THE DUMB STONE, ARISE, IT SHALL TEACH!…THERE IS NO BREATH AT ALL IN…IT.
Jere 51:17,18 NIV-HIS IMAGES ARE A FRAUD; THEY HAVE NO BREATH IN THEM.
18-THEY ARE WORTHLESS, THE OBJECTS OF MOCKERY.
Isa 41:29-BEHOLD, THEY ARE ALL VANITY; THEIR WORKS ARE NOTHING: THEIR MOLTEN IMAGES ARE WIND AND CONFUSION.
My argument is not that it is safe to worship idols. It is that the main danger with idols is imagining that they possess some power to heal or to harm and attempting to "turn them on" through worship or sacrifice. To do so is to invite any nearby spiritual force to slip past your spiritual defenses. But for an object of beauty or craftsmanship of symbolic meaning to inspire one to contemplate God is not the work of an idol. It is the work of the God of eternity raising the human mind to where eternity is in view and where a longing for heaven and God's presence can grow stronger. That's what symbols are supposed to do: convey to the mind, that which cannot be expressed in words.
I think the last bit is very well put, Rick:
"For an object of beauty or craftsmanship of symbolic meaning to inspire one to contemplate God is not the work of an idol. It is the work of the God of eternity raising the human mind to where eternity is in view and where a longing for heaven and God's presence can grow stronger."
Posted:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/02/feedback-worshipping-idols-dangerous.html
Post a Comment
<< Home