|
|
|
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
TOPICS:
THE REFORMATION: NEITHER "MODERN" NOR LOGICAL
JAMES DOBSON WIMPS OUT ON BIRTH CONTROL
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
On Friday I fly to St. Louis and then drive to Vandalia, Illinois, for
the sixth annual "Celebrate the Faith Conference." I look forward to
visiting with my fellow speakers, among them Patrick Madrid, Kenneth
Howell, and Johnnette Benkovic.
But I especially look forward to seeing again the organizers of the
event, Debbie Pryor and Vanessa Keck. I have been impressed with them
since we first met. They are regular Catholics who happen to be on fire
for the faith. They live in a small town, far off the main highways, and
yet have managed to put on half a dozen successful conferences, and they
have done it on a shoestring.
Debbie and Vanessa have combined industriousness with a deep trust in
Providence, and their labors have been rewarded--though never with cash!
(In fact, most years they dip into their own funds to make up the
conference's deficit.) I think they ought to be the "poster girls" for
what used to be called Catholic Action. They have shown what lay people
can accomplish if they set their minds to a task.
If you want to make a last-minute decision to attend the conference--I'd
like to see you there--go to:
http://www.oursorrowfulmothersministry.org/Events.html
for details.
BRAININESS: GOOD BUT NOT SUFFICIENT
"Modern Reformation" is a bimonthly magazine published by the Alliance
of Confessing Evangelicals. Its editor is Michael Horton, and among its
advisors and contributors are W. Robert Godfrey, Ron Rosenbladt, R. C.
Sproul, Timothy George, Douglas Groothuis, Carl F. H. Henry, and John
Warwick Montgomery. If you read the more scholarly Evangelical journals,
you will recognize some of those names.
Once upon a time, "Christianity Today" was the intellectual center of
Evangelicalism, but CT long ago ceased to devote its pages to serious
writing. Today it represents Evangelicalism Lite--not a liberal version
of Evangelicalism but an intellectually lightweight version. "Modern
Reformation," which is a dozen years old, has filled much of the gap.
A recent issue was devoted to the theme "We Believe in One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church." And these Evangelicals do, but it is
one thing to believe in something and another thing to locate it. I
admire the seriousness that infuses the articles in this special issue,
and I wince in sympathy at the lack of success in finding that one,
holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
In his contribution, Michael Horton tries to define what is meant when
one says the Christian Church is "catholic." "At one end of the spectrum
are Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and specific Protestant bodies
that often claim simply to be the catholic church without remainder."
This won't do, he says, because the real Church is not mainly a visible
body, and these churches are all visible.
"On the other end are most evangelical and pentecostal groups that, in
their 'nondenominational' denominationalism, understand the church as
simply the sum total of individuals who are truly born again." That
won't do either.
The answer is to be found among the "churches of the Reformation,"
Horton says. They "reflect a somewhat mediating position." They have
visible elements, such as "faithful preaching and right administration,"
but they also take into account that the true Church is present wherever
the gospel is preached. These Reformed (Calvinist) churches thus are one
step up from the atomism of nondenominationalism but one step down from
the rigor of the pre-Reformation churches of the East and West.
As I said, I wince when I read such arguments. I wince because the
arguments are so unconvincing, as splitting-the-difference arguments
usually are. I don't want to pick on Michael Horton. Those writing in
"Modern Reformation" on the three other marks of the Church are in the
same predicament.
Paul C. H. Lim, for instance, laments that a friend has left
Evangelicalism for Rome, but this only encourages Lim "to take a journey
of his own to discover what true unity means and why, as a Protestant,
he can assent to being part of 'one, holy, catholic, and apostolic'
church."
Well, Mr. Lim can assent to that, but he is not assenting to a fact,
because the church he belongs to does not in fact have those four marks.
Wishing does not make it so, and, reading between the lines and taking
into account the evident intelligence and sincerity of the writers, I am
led to think that they know--either consciously or subconsciously--that
their position is not tenable.
Some Catholics think that Protestantism, being a truncated form of
Christianity, must appeal only to people of restricted intelligence.
Sure, there are many fine people in Protestantism, but those with brains
move elsewhere. It's not as simple as that. I know many highly
intelligent Protestants, including several of the men whose names are
listed above, and their remaining Protestant is not a matter of a lack
of brains.
Why do they seem convinced by arguments such as those in this issue of
"Modern Reformation," when I and others think the arguments are so weak
that, in a way, they prove the opposite of what they were intended to
prove--that is, that they prove the necessity of joining the real
Catholic Church (I mean the one headed by the Pope)?
Why are these intelligent people happy with arguments that others find
flawed--and not just flawed on the periphery but flawed in their core? I
have no answer for that. The situation may be something like that famous
line drawing of a vase. Squint your eyes just so, and the image becomes
two faces. Squint again, and it's back to a vase. So near, yet so far.
JAMES DOBSON WAFFLES (AND PRETTY MUCH HAS TO)
Protestantism's ultimate lack of authority is demonstrated again in a
letter Catholic Answers received from Richard M. Norris, writing on
behalf of Focus on the Family's James Dobson. The issue was birth
control.
Norris says of Dobson, "his own interpretation of Scripture does not
lead him to believe that the prevention of pregnancy is morally wrong,
although he does oppose methods of 'contraception' that function as
abortifacients...
"Dr. Dobson realizes that other Christians have drawn very different
conclusions in this area, and he unreservedly affirms their right to do
so. He would be the first to concede that there is room for disagreement
on this issue; he has no desire to force his views on anyone.
"He offers you his opinion as a professional and as a fellow believer,
not as the final authority on the subject, knowing full well that only
you can decide for yourself, with much prayer and with the counsel of
your church, where you stand on this matter."
I'm afraid this is logically hopeless. Dobson approves of contraception,
except for abortifacients, but that's his private opinion. Other have a
"right" to differ, presumably because their opinion would be no better
than his. He is a "professional" and a "believer," but that does not
make him an "authority."
Well, at least the last part is correct. James Dobson is famous and, in
many ways, has proved to be a positive force in America, but he wields
no real authority. He is one "believer" among millions. He just happens
to be a famous one. He has a private interpretation of Scripture, but he
won't "impose" it on you precisely because he knows he has no authority.
His interpretation is just that--and nothing more. It is no more binding
than another's interpretation.
So, on the issue of birth control, James Dobson has nothing to say,
other than to tell you what his private preference is. He has no grounds
on which to affirm that his belief is true and someone else's is false.
He is reduced to saying, "There is a truth for me and a truth for you,"
which is to say that there is no truth at all.
There are many admirable Protestants. Some write for journals, and some
have radio programs. They all would be more admirable still if they were
Catholic and did their work through the one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic Church that is headquartered at Rome and if they proclaimed
that Church's teachings, on birth control and other things, with a
resounding "This is true!"
|
|
|
[TOP]
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up