“Wherefore, though good and bad men suffer alike, we must not suppose that there is no difference between the men themselves, because there is no difference in what they both suffer. For even in the likeness of the sufferings, there remains an unlikeness in the sufferers; and though exposed to the same anguish, virtue and vice are not the same thing. For as the same fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; and under the same flail the straw is beaten small, while the grain is cleansed; and as the lees are not mixed with the oil, though squeezed out of the vat by the same pressure, so the same violence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked. And thus it is that in the same affliction the wicked detest God and blaspheme, while the good pray and praise. So material a difference does it make, not what ills are suffered, but what kind of man suffers them. For, stirred up with the same movement, mud exhales a horrible stench, and ointments emit a fragrant odour.”
“Thus our Paulinus, bishop of Nola, who voluntarily abandoned vast wealth and became quite poor, though abundantly rich in holiness, when the barbarians sacked Nola, and took him prisoner, used silently to pray, as he afterwards told me, ‘O Lord, let me not be troubled for gold and silver, for where all my treasure is Thou knowest.’ For all his treasure was where he had been taught to hide and store it by Him who had also foretold that these calamities would happen in the world. Consequently those persons who obeyed their Lord when He warned them where and how to lay up treasure, did not lose even their earthly possessions in the invasion of the barbarians; while those who are now repenting that they did not obey Him have learnt the right use of earthly goods, if not by the wisdom which would have prevented their loss, at least by the experience which follows it.”
The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: Modern Library, 1950), I.8,10.
Generous orthodoxy: Everybody’s a theologian, not!
You may have read about the politicians who took the opportunity to redefine their church’s theological position to score political points. Maybe you haven’t. It was about abortion rights and the beginning of life, and American politicians: Pelosi and Biden recently; Kerry and Cuomo some years ago. All are members of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).
Support of their party’s pro-abortion rights position already placed them athwart of the RCC’s centuries long pro-life, anti-abortion rights declarations. Consequently there have been calls for refusing them and other RCC politicians who hold similar view participation in the eucharist. Indignant ripostes declared this “religious interference in political affairs.” Few talked about political interference in church affairs. Until Pelosi and Biden offered their theological positions.
On Meet the Press, Pelosi reported that the RCC has been unable to define the beginning of life; Biden wielded Aquinas on “quickening.” Responding that both Augustine and Aquinas opposed abortion, RCC theologians politely suggested that Pelosi may have been confused and Biden not fully understood. The RCC archbishop of Denver was quoted as saying: “Meet the Press has become a national window on the flawed moral reasoning of some Catholic public servants.” (Weekly Standard [September 29, 2008], 27). These and other recent attempts to support a political platform by appeal to the subjectivity of religious faith were shattered on the hard rock of the RCC’s commitment to its position on the beginning of life as objective fact. Imagine that, the faith of ordinary members of the church being called to account by professional theologians. What do they know of the real world?
Along with “Virginia Slims” church members have come a long way by excitedly celebrating their newly found freedom not to be bound by truths of the past. Ignorant of church history they boldly go where they think noone has gone before, thus betraying the typical arrogance of youth that believes no one has had a good thought before them. Usually the young learn that the past has many things to offer the present; not so anymore. Today young and old tend to believe that what they believe is most important, that church officials have no real authority to define matters of faith for them, even if they are members of the church in question. And documents written at the time of the Reformation? How can they be meaningful for the 21st century?
In an age of political correctness with its clear definitions of heresy (think of how extreme feminists responded to McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin), it is ironic that eternal values may only be fuzzy to fit the greatest number, that orthodoxy must be generous and inclusive to a fault. At a time when we value diversity of all kinds, encourage particular cultural expressions to the exclusion of the majority groups (the oppressor class), genuine doctrinal and ecclesiastical differences within the Christian family must be ignored, especially if we want to be inclusive.
Christian doctrine, however, never was, and cannot be, the product of private interpretation or personal preference. The apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:20-21) reminds his readers of that with respect to the prophets. How much more with us? A brief examination of the history of the church also discloses that there are good and not so good ways of thinking about Scripture; that good decisions take time. Think only about how long it took the church to think about the relationship between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Or how we think about the nature of Scripture? But within the agreed upon definitions there are ongoing discussions. Usually in agreed upon terms. Everybody is not a theologian. Everyone is not a good reader of Scripture.
By the way. Like the Reformation confessions, the Scriptures were also written centuries ago. Are they still useful for the 21
st century? Have we outgrown them? Is the Apostle Paul just a dead Jewish theologian who has no more to say to today’s theological issues than yesterday’s bright-eyed convert? Are we too generous with our own thoughts about God and generously stingy with “the faith once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3)? Was Paul wrong to warn the young pastor Timothy to be aware of those who wanted to hear new and interesting things (2 Tim. 4:2-5)?
True generosity lets Scripture and the deep treasury of the church’s theological reflections on it, create in us a deep humility for the inheritance of truth we have received from those who have confessed the faith before us.
ACL
No comments:
Post a Comment