Ask the Conservative Christian Theologian!

[Theologue]

Zoe:

My assessment of Protestants’ views of Mormons and Jehovah’s Witness is widely held. The main reason is because neither group has orthodox views of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. Those two related doctrines are the key ones on classifying whether or not something is Christian.

While on the topic, let me go on the record here with something that may be unusual for a conservative Christian theologian: while I don’t agree with their theology, I don’t believe that members in those groups are automatically “not saved.” In the bible, perfect orthodoxy is not stated as the requirement for salvation; living faith in Jesus is. I am sure there are many in those groups who would claim to have just that.

(BTW, y’all, while I’m writing all these things, please don’t think I’m going around criticizing and judging everyone all the time. I learned at seminary, from observation, that that is the LAST thing you do if you want to be useful in any way for the Kingdom of God. Part of the job of a systematic theologian is to distinguish, to classify, and to decide. Theology is the “second tier” of Christian studies. Bible scholars raise up a lot questions; theologians are supposed to make decisions and answer those questions. I read about the beliefs of Catholics/Orthodox/Calvinists/Lutherans (fill in the blank) and go, “Cool, they believe that for these reasons; this is what I think about that, and these are the areas in which we differ.” It is one thing to acknowledge disagreement over something. What you are going to do about it is another matter entirely. In my mind, it is better to try to understand diversity than pretend it doesn’t exist.)

Regarding Protestants and Catholics on the authority of Scripture and Tradition: this is common knowledge. One of the main cries of the Reformers (like Calvin & Luther) was, “Sola Scriptura” or Scripture alone. Catholics believe that besides inspiring the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit has been with the Church throughout the ages, leading it into truth and never ultimately into failure (Matt. 16:18).

O.k., I got a cite, from the very excellent The Christian Faith in the Documents of the Catholic Church, edited by Jacques DuPuis, S.J., from the Council of Trent: “[The Church] receives and venerates with the same sense of loyalty and reverence all the books of the Old and New Testaments—for the one God is the author of both—together will all the traditions concerning faith and practice, as coming from the mouth of Christ or being inspired by the Holy Spirit and preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church.”

(BTW, this book—I have the sixth edition, the ref. is from p. 96—is fabulous. Arranged in the standard topical order of Christian theology, it presents the major statements of the Councils and Encyclicals, in chronological order, that relate to each topic. It is a very easy way to get a handle on what the church has believed through the ages.)

I’m sorry if I left out information in previous posts, but I don’t want to turn each post into a book, so I am simplifying things. For example, I realize that only the Pope’s pronouncements made ex cathedra are considered infallible, and I think this has only happened twice. Also, I see a lot of value in reasoning behind the Catholic view of tradition, but to go into detail about all of that would again turn into a book. The question in my mind, and in that of many Protestants, is how a later tradition can be used to overturn the teachings of Scripture, for example with the issue of the mandatory celibacy of the clergy.

Finally, regarding images, I echo what FriarTed said (except about Catholic-Protestant tensions; we get along well here.) Where I live, it is very easy to slip into idolatry, and I see a lot of Christians, not just Catholics, do just that. With the strong biblical prohibitions on that, I do see the use of images as spiritually dangerous and an unnecessary stumbling block.

[Zoe]

FriarTed, thanks for the information. This is an area with which I am very unfamiliar obviously. But I do think that it is important to distinguish between the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the cultural distortions of that faith that are taking place. Can you recommend an internet source to me for further reading?

Also, is it possible that the Mormons are not members of the National Council of Churches by choice? (I apologize if this is too much of a hijack.)

Theologue: Catholics believe that besides inspiring the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit has been with the Church throughout the ages, leading it into truth and never ultimately into failure (Matt. 16:18).

I understand what you are saying now. Your explanation and the cite that you provided seem sound.

Do you not believe that the Holy Spirit still inspires and guides?

[Theologue]

@Zoe

Do you not believe that the Holy Spirit still inspires and guides?

Oh, very much so; we would be lost without the Spirit’s guidance.

[Theologue]

@Theologue

Oh, very much so; we would be lost without the Spirit’s guidance.

Ah, that was insufficient. I believe the Holy Spirit has always been with the Church. However, the Spirit’s guidance does not mean that we will never go into error. And, he will not give us new revelation that contradicts the old (the Bible he inspired). His work is primarily to remind us of what Jesus already taught us (John 14:26).

(BTW, most of Christian ministry is simply reminding ourselves and each other to do the things we know we should be doing.)

[Zoe]

FriarTed, here is further information about how the National Council of Churches views the Mormons. Theologue, this also addresses how the NCC views Jehovah’s Witnesses. The NCC now represents 36 denominations.

From: Interfaith Relations and the Churches
A Brief Theological Introduction to the Policy Statement (on Interfaith Relations)
By Bert F. Breiner, Former Co-Director for Interfaith Relations, NCCCUSA (Parenthetical comment is mine.):

It (referring to the paragraph below) does not, for example, pronounce on whether or not Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are to be considered Christian. It is, however, interesting to note that the NCCC conducts its growing relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as an interfaith relationship.(Parenthetical comment is mine.)

from the NCCUSA Policy Statement on Interfaith Relations:

We speak out of a changing experience of religious diversity in our country. Events in the United States and across the world have made us more aware of the significance of the world’s religions and their influence on politics, economics, and cultures. We speak out of what we have been learning in our shared ecumenical life. At home and abroad, the work of building Christian unity and our efforts for peace and human development are increasingly intertwined with questions regarding our relationships with those of religious traditions outside the historic Christian church.

This site also indicates that the NCC considers itself inclusive and not exclusive.

Source: National Council of Churches

[tomndebb]

for example with the issue of the mandatory celibacy of the clergy.

Celibacy is a discipline that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has imposed on itself. It makes no claim to being a theological truth, it acknowledges the different traditions of the other Catholic Rites and the Orthodox communions without any prejudice toward their traditions, and it makes exceptions to that discipline without resorting to any changes in doctrine. (In this case, I am using the word tradition not as a theological standard, but in the more ordinary way of a practice that some group follows.)

It is also not that clear that a call to celibacy arose “later” than the writing of Scripture given that several early Patristics mention it as an established custom at the time of their writings although it is true that rules regarding celibacy were not implemented until the sixth century.

However, Tradition certainly is an important aspect in the theology of Mary, Purgatory*, and other aspects of Catholic theology.

*(Purgatory, of course, has a Scriptural basis, but then we get to fight over the Tradition of what is included in Scripture. )

[Theologue]

@tomndebb

Celibacy is a discipline that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has imposed on itself. It makes no claim to being a theological truth, it acknowledges the different traditions of the other Catholic Rites and the Orthodox communions without any prejudice toward their traditions, and it makes exceptions to that discipline without resorting to any changes in doctrine. (In this case, I am using the word tradition not as a theological standard, but in the more ordinary way of a practice that some group follows.)

It is also not that clear that a call to celibacy arose “later” than the writing of Scripture given that several early Patristics mention it as an established custom at the time of their writings although it is true that rules regarding celibacy were not implemented until the sixth century.

However, Tradition certainly is an important aspect in the theology of Mary, Purgatory*, and other aspects of Catholic theology.

*(Purgatory, of course, has a Scriptural basis, but then we get to fight over the Tradition of what is included in Scripture. )

I have also heard/read (I don’t remember where), that while married men were allowed to be ordained as priests, from very early on (almost always), an unmarried priest was not, in either the East or the West, allowed to marry after ordination.

Question: if an Eastern church allows for married priests and then later decides to come into communion with Rome, do all new priests in that rite have to adopt the discipline of celibacy, or do they get to follow the old rules?

[furt]

Zoe, I don’t see your point. That looks like the NCC is saying that while LDS have not historically been considered Christians, nonetheless there can be amicable relations, mutual respect and cooperation. That’s pretty much the same thing Theologue said.

[Polycarp]

@Theologue

I have also heard/read (I don’t remember where), that while married men were allowed to be ordained as priests, from very early on (almost always), an unmarried priest was not, in either the East or the West, allowed to marry after ordination.

That is correct. Permitting Anglican and Lutheran priests to marry was an innovation, and acknowledged as such. While an Eastern Orthodox or Eastern-Rite Catholic married man may be ordained a priest, an EO or E-RC priest may not (re-)marry.

Question: if an Eastern church allows for married priests and then later decides to come into communion with Rome, do all new priests in that rite have to adopt the discipline of celibacy, or do they get to follow the old rules?

They retain their tradition, including married clargy. There are somewhere around 100,000,000 Eastern-Rite Catholics in something like seventeen different “churches” within the Catholic Church, and all include married priests. At least two of these never split from Rome back in 1054 but continued the practice of Eastern Christianity as they’d practiced it in the undivided church.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Theologue

Question: if an Eastern church allows for married priests and then later decides to come into communion with Rome, do all new priests in that rite have to adopt the discipline of celibacy, or do they get to follow the old rules?

They get to follow the old rules, and, as far as I know, every Eastern Rite Catholic church doesn’t mandate celibacy for priests. It’s only the Latin Rite that does (and they’ve made exceptions in the case of Episcopal priests who became Catholic).

[tomndebb]

Question: if an Eastern church allows for married priests and then later decides to come into communion with Rome, do all new priests in that rite have to adopt the discipline of celibacy, or do they get to follow the old rules?

In the last few hundred years, several groups separated from their Orthodox communion and joined with Rome–the Eastern Catholics. They were welcomed as separate Rites within the overall Catholic Church and kept their own liturgies and disciplines. (Some Orthodox refer to some Eastern Catholics as the Uniates, a word that comes from a Slavic word uniya that, I believe, indicates a hybrid and I belief that Eastern Catholics do not use that term.) Not all of the Eastern Rites actually switched. Some have been separate Rites all along, simply choosing to associate with Rome after 1054 rather than with the Orthodox communion.
Quick synopsis of Rites in the Catholic Church

[Theologue]

@tomndebb

In the last few hundred years, several groups separated from their Orthodox communion and joined with Rome–the Eastern Catholics. They were welcomed as separate Rites within the overall Catholic Church and kept their own liturgies and disciplines. (Some Orthodox refer to some Eastern Catholics as the Uniates, a word that comes from a Slavic word uniya that, I believe, indicates a hybrid and I belief that Eastern Catholics do not use that term.) Not all of the Eastern Rites actually switched. Some have been separate Rites all along, simply choosing to associate with Rome after 1054 rather than with the Orthodox communion.
Quick synopsis of Rites in the Catholic Church

Fascinating link.

I personally have very conflicting feelings about Roman Catholicism. My theology is firmly Protestant, and I am confident about it. But, I am on the Arminian side of the Reformation, which is not as distant from Rome as the Calvinist side (though I am closer to Dordt than Trent). I am part of the broader Renewal movement, in the free church tradition, not the liturgical; yet, that brings me in touch with the Catholic Charismatic movement. Scratch a Pentecostal, and underneath that is a Methodist. Just below is an Anglican, and that is a (non-Roman, small-c) catholic.

I enjoy reading the Vulgate, aloud, just for the feel of the words on my lips. (Greek doesn’t do it for me.) While I can’t accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome, probably never could, watching the events of the last few weeks, I know that we have lost something by jettisoning all of the liturgy, tradition, and formality.

Where is union, visibly, how will it all work out, and when? I probably will never know, not until the eschaton. But, perhaps invisible unity is there, already, more than we realize.

God loves us all.

[eleanorigby]

Speaking as one christened Episcopalian, and not raised in a church as a child–I never thought the LDS or JW were Christians. Frankly, I still don’t.
Theologue -thanks for your answers.

Maybe it’s having had a conglomerate of religious exposures over the years, but I see no problem with looking to saints and the VM for guidance and connection. I don’ t see that as idolatry, but as a way of bringing the Divine down to human scale. Yes, you could say that God did that with Jesus–but (supposedly) he is 1/2 divine. Mary is all human-and the most powerful woman in the Bible (NT) to boot.
Where else are we (women) gonna get a role model? Look what history and culture did to Mary Magdalene-- BTW, this is what I am referring to when I mention the misogyny of the faith (that and the current treatment of women).

Who was it that said, “if God is male, then the male is God?” sorry, going OT.

So, you could say I have a streak of Catholic in me (thanks to good Catholic friends as a kid, plus, the Episcopalians have alot of ritual, too–maybe pageantry is a better word). I am probably committing 6 types of heresy (does anyone believe in heresy anymore?) by saying this, but I like the saints. But I have truly never understood the disdain and arm’s length that the Protestants have held for the saints. Granted, most probably weren’t too saintly, but there is a rich, huge tradition there that feeds part of me.

This is a long post to ask impossible questions. Why the differences? Why the tension between creeds, sects, synods even etc. Why, if Christians all believe in the divinity of Jesus and that his main message was love (I am assuming these two things for purposes of brevity)–why the wars, and factions and prejudice etc?

Why aren’t all faiths within the framework of Christianity able to live and let live?

And why do evangelicals feel the call to convert non-Christians? (I know that they feel commanded, but still–I know you addressed this, but their persistence goes beyond bad manners, at times. Just a comment.

Great thread, and hope I am not cluttering it up too much.

PS-Have you ever read Patrick Henry’s The Ironic Christian’s Companion ? Or any Karen Armstrong?

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

@eleanorigby

Speaking as one christened Episcopalian, and not raised in a church as a child–I never thought the LDS or JW were Christians. Frankly, I still don’t.

El, educate me a little on this. The LDS i know have a whole lotta new stuff beyond “normal” (forgive me) Christianity, but what is it about JW that makes you say this? Their literature, from when I’ve been bored enough to read it, seems to be mostly about now being the end time, get right with Jesus, et cetera.

Save me from actually having to ask a Witness.

[Freyr]

Dear Conservative Christian Theologian,

I haven’t gone thru all of this thread, so I apologize of this has already been asked. I have a question regarding the interpretation of the Old Testament books, especially Leviticus. Some posters have, in the past, claimed that the moral rules of the OT are still in force, while the ceremonial and dietary laws are no longer valid. The classic example is the Lev 20:13, the infamous verse on homosexuality. They argue that this is an example of one of the moral laws still in force.

The question is where did this idea of dividing up the OT laws into moral, dietary and ceremonial rules and deciding that the moral ones are still in force, while the others are not. What’s the basis for this? This seems to go against most Christian’s teachings, that the OT rules no longer apply and the two Commandments are to 1) Love God with all your heart and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself.

FYI, no I’m not Christian (I’m Wiccan), so I’m going mainly on what I’ve picked up here. But I’m very interested in learning about this interesting application of OT rules. Can you enlighten me?

[eleanorigby]

Sadly, I have no hard data to give you. I HAVE talked with a JW once, and I did check out a book about JW from the library, (so I wouldn’t ahve to talk to them again, like you!) many years ago.

If memory serves, and with me that is a big if, JW’s believe that there are only a certain number of available “slots” in heaven–and only JW’s get them. Again, I could be wrong. This does not make them non-Christian (although I think we can both agree that it makes them un- Christian, because there is more than one sect who believes that (anyone know any Dutch Reformed?). I think that some faiths consider JWs a cult(I believe that recruitment is tied to one’s level in heaven or some such), but have no more info than that. Are there any JW’s on the board? I would be happy to be educated.

I never really thought about the “validity” of the inclusion of JW’s into the Protestant section (for lack of a better word!). This is somewhat embarassing, seeing as this is GD, not the Pit, but truly, I have no cites or sites for my “info”.

So, eleanorigby’s baseless prejudice is revealed for all to see. How un-Christian of me . Somehow, I think I’ll still sleep tonoc.

As for LDS-there’s the whole polygamy thing (yeah, so it’s a no-no now, but it’s still there in rural Utah) and also, I read a few years back an article in The New Yorker about Mormons. It seemed more like a cult (albeit a fast growing one). I am sure there are plenty of nice people within that faith. But Christian? How so? I would think that the burden would be on them to say how they are, not for us to say how they’re not, but again, that may just be rank prejudice on my part.

I do remember one part(of the article) describing how Joseph Smith had a wife, but also wanted some other woman. Joseph went into the woods and prayed. And lo and behold! The Lord told him that it was ok for men to have more than one woman. (I swear the article stated that–not in such terms, but this is a few years ago and you’re getting it thru the Rigby filter o’ memory and impatience). When I read that, I said–“that’s enough for me. Next.”

I just googled Mormon and looked on the LDS site. Couldn’t find it, but doubt that the New Yorker made it up. I remember something else about gold plates, but do not remember the context. A previous pastor at my church once told us that Mormon men go to heaven, and Mormon women go to heaven to wait on the men. Not sure if that was a joke (it was not presented as such), but it didn’t make me want to explore LDS as an option for spiritual growth. Also, do recall that JS was told that God’s religion did not exist on Earth at that time (1870’s?) and he needed to found a church. Okay, fine…but how is it Christianity?

See, and here is my ignorance again–to me, Christians divide over interpretations of Scripture. They do not add in whole new books and claim they are inspired by God, like the Mormons do.

I apologize if my comments here are offensive to some (or all)–I am trying to be honest in my reply, not tactful. I look at faiths such as JW and LDS with puzzlement, but not condemnation–I don’t know if any of them will end up in heaven or hell (and don’t really believe in either, so to me. it’s moot). I am not saying they are wrong–I just don’t understand them.

[ouryL]

@lekatt

People do drugs, alchohol, sex, just anything looking for a “turn-on.”
They know they are lacking something, but don’t know what it is.
What they are lacking is God, once they have a real transcendent experience with God, all the other “junk” has no appeal. Their lives are changed forever, and that’s how you know whether it was a real experience or not. Simple to understand.

So Marx was correct: Religion is the opiate of the masses.

[tomndebb]

The issue of the LDS (or CoJCoLDS) is centered around aspects of their belief that are in direct contradiction of the Christian faith that was formalized at the Council of Nicaea. The LDS conception of the Trinity differs from the older, established Christian beliefs; there is the issue of Jesus and Satan (Lucifer?) being brothers; there is the issue of the each person attaining Divinity in their own right; and there are other doctrinal issues separating older Christianity from the LDS.

Whether these differences should be enough to make them “not Christian” is a matter for a separate discussion, but those are the sort of things that cause some Christians to deny the LDS the name Christian.

(The “cult” identification of the LDS should be avoided as inaccurate and insulting. There are four general meanings for the word “cult” and the only one that is currently accurate for the LDS is the technical term for religion that applies equally to Judaism, Catholicism, all Protestant denominations, Hinduism, etc.)

Jehovah’s Witnesses have rejected a number of the traditional statements regarding the nature of God that have caused some Christian groups to declare that they are outside “real” Christianity. (They also sponsored a new translation of the bible that many feel deliberately changes passages to shore up their own belief system.)

(“Cult” is no more legitimately lodged against the JW than against the LDS.)

[Theologue]

@Freyr

Dear Conservative Christian Theologian,

I haven’t gone thru all of this thread, so I apologize of this has already been asked. I have a question regarding the interpretation of the Old Testament books, especially Leviticus. Some posters have, in the past, claimed that the moral rules of the OT are still in force, while the ceremonial and dietary laws are no longer valid. The classic example is the Lev 20:13, the infamous verse on homosexuality. They argue that this is an example of one of the moral laws still in force.

The question is where did this idea of dividing up the OT laws into moral, dietary and ceremonial rules and deciding that the moral ones are still in force, while the others are not. What’s the basis for this? This seems to go against most Christian’s teachings, that the OT rules no longer apply and the two Commandments are to 1) Love God with all your heart and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself.

FYI, no I’m not Christian (I’m Wiccan), so I’m going mainly on what I’ve picked up here. But I’m very interested in learning about this interesting application of OT rules. Can you enlighten me?

Dear Freyr,

You ask a good question. This deserves a long, involved answer, but actually, to boil it all down, your understanding is correct. I see no purpose or biblical justification for Christians to divide up the OT law cafeteria-style and say some has to be kept, other parts are optional, and some are non-applicable. Although there is more to it to that, the law for Christians is the law of love, and it is summed up in the two commandments. I also see the Sermon on the Mount as the “new law” and the basis for Christian living and ethics.

Now, before anyone mentions Marcion, the reason for this is dispensational—the law belonged to a different time and was given to a different people (Israel) for a different purpose. It was God’s covenant with Israel, and the law as a whole was never to the primarily Gentile church. This was made clearly as early as Acts 15, when the Council of Jerusalem decided Gentile believers don’t have to be circumcised; if that command is not kept, then there is little justification for enforcing the others. Paul is also very clear about this in Galatians.

This does not mean that the law is not inspired, that it does not have value, that it does not contain valid ethical teachings. Christians do many of the things commanded in the law, and they should. Much is repeated in the Sermon and elsewhere in the NT. But a better hermeneutical basis is needed than (seemingly) randomly picking and choosing what we think should be kept, but not the rest (e.g, “Woman, you can’t where pants, but I can wear a cotton-poly shirt (Deut. 21:5-10).” )

Not everyone agrees with this (no surprise there :D), but IMO it leads to more consistent interpretation.

BTW, for help with understanding some of the more controversial issues, I recommend Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb. Webb tries to develop sound interpretational tools for approaching these and other issues in the Bible, taking into account the cultural contexts. It is scholarly but readable and not too long.

[eleanorigby]

Thank you, tomndebb for the info.

And thanks for the pointers re: cults.