John H Armstrong

The Amazing Life of a Big Man: G. K. Chesterton

G.K. Chesterton was an imposing giant of a man, standing 6’4” and weighing almost 300 pounds. He was also a giant of a man intellectually and spiritually. His interests ranged very widely and the output of his mind was beyond incredible. His work includes some 4,000 essays, several hundred poems and around 200 short stories. On top of that he authored more than a hundred books. And for more than four decades he wrote a weekly column in from one to four different journals. These columns appeared along with a constant production of stories, plays, reviews, novels and commentaries. And he was in constant demand as a speaker, drawing large crowds wherever he went.

Chesterton was a prodigious intellectual for sure. But he was not your ordinary intellectual. He wrote and spoke in a way that often appealed to ordinary people and he relished the opportunity to speak to the common man. He claimed that he was nothing more than a simple journalist. One wonders what such a simple journalist would look like in today’s context if this is what he really was. He wrote on philosophy, literary criticism, biography and apologetics. He produced critiques of Browning, Dickens, Tolstoy, Shakespeare and Chaucer and wrote biographies of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi. He died in 1936, at the age of 62, yet never before published work is still being published every year. Now study centers around the world reflect on his work and magazines and Web sites exist for the sole purpose of keeping alive his vision and ideals.

Chesterton was the quintessential absent-minded man. He would often forget where he was and even where he lived. He would become so engrossed in a book he would walk off with it and the shop owner would send a bill to his wife. His writing, however, is amazing. He employs metaphors and paradox with ease and brilliance. “I am incurably convinced that the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it on something solid.” He possessed an incredible sense of humor and was totally self-deprecating. His interests were broad and his writing covered whatever topics came to his mind.

Chesterton was opinionated if he was anything at all. He disliked socialism deeply but the excesses of capitalism troubled him. I am in debt to his thought on many fronts but none more than here. He feared socialism because it destroyed personal freedom and liberty. Of capitalism he said the problem was “not too many capitalists, but actually too few capitalists.” He saw too many of the poor not participating in the fruits of capitalism. Along with several of his friends he touted what has been called “distributism.” This is not a well-developed political philosophy but it espoused widespread ownership of the means of production (especially of the land) and a less materialistic way of living. The development of this way of thinking reflects the views of late 19th Century Catholic social thought and is kept alive by a few serious political and social thinkers today.

Chesterton had little or no use for either progressives (liberals we would call them today) or conservatives. He observed, “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” He added that, “When a politician is in opposition he is an expert on the means to some end; and when he is in office he is an expert on the obstacles to it.” In an interview given in Cleveland, on a visit to the U.S., he said, “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged . . . . al government is an ugly necessity.”

Chesterton admired both democracy and tradition. “Democracy means government by the uneducated while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.” And in one of my favorite quotes he said: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.” He rightly claimed, “You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.”

Chesterton became, over time, a serious and thoughtful Christian. Baptized in the Church of England and trained in agnosticism he tried spiritualism for a time. He then moved to paganism and pantheism. On a lecture trip he met a Roman Catholic priest in Scotland who made a deep impression on him. Over the next decade-plus he made his way into the Catholic Church, giving his confession to this same priest. He eventually came to write a book (he planned to title it Heresies) that was titled Orthodoxy. It is this book that explained his own reason for embracing the teaching of the Apostles’ Creed. It is a masterful work and full of great surprise and depth. He soon realized that it was also a tad provocative and said, “I had begun to discover that, in all the welter of inconsistent and incompatible heresies, the one and only really unpardonable heresy was orthodoxy.” He suggested that a certain fanaticism filled his time, “a fanatical hatred of morality, especially Christian morality.” Orthodoxy was published a full ten years before Chesterton entered the Roman Catholic Church at age 48. After years of thought, debate and study Chesterton, the great and unusual man, became a devout Christian.

In The Everlasting Man Chesterton concluded, “These are the days in which Christians are expected to praise every creed but their own. A dead thing can go with the stream, but only living things can go against it.” He became, and remains, a great advocate that we become “living things” who resist the dead in our continual quest for the truth.

Note: The Trinity Forum has recently produced a booklet that is made up of excerpts of The Everlasting Man, titled: The Strangest Story in the World. The Foreword, written by Alonzo L. McDonald, forms the basis for much of what I’ve written above. Though I think the booklet is helpful there really is no better way to engage with Chesterton than to read him whole. The best place to start, at least with his religious work, is with Orthodoxy. Then read The Everlasting Man.

Holy Ground: A Book I Heartily Commend

I first met Rev. Chris Castaldo about eleven years ago, just before he headed off to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He was connected to a church in the area where I had ministered quite often. He instantly endeared himself to me for his warmth and graciousness. For six years Chris has served on the staff of College Church in Wheaton. Over the years since we first met we have become really true friends. I count Chris as one of the finest and brightest young ministers I know. He is an able preacher, teacher and now a first-time author. His first book, which will surely not be his last I pray, is Holy Ground, published last month by Zondervan. Chris is doing a "blog tour" this week. I wanted to participate in the fun. To this end Chris responded to several questions about his book for today's blog.

1. Why did you write Holy Ground?

My former pastor and colleague, Kent Hughes, deserves credit for planting the idea to write Holy Ground. During my second year of ministry at College Church, I counseled several couples—one member a Catholic and the other a Protestant—helping them see that, despite doctrinal differences, their marriages could remain intact. With these folks in mind I eventually offered a Wednesday night class on the topic entitled “Perspective on Catholicism,” intended to bring a more biblically informed balance. With John 1:14 as our model, the class sought to emphasize the need to follow after Jesus’ example of “grace and truth.” The material eventually became a manuscript and, thanks to Zondervan, Holy Ground was born.

2. What are the distinct features of Holy Ground that separate it from other such books?

Among evangelical books that address Catholicism, Holy Ground has a couple of features that make it unique. First, many such books convey an unkind attitude (notwithstanding your books on the topic and a handful of others). The doctrinal emphasis of these works is commendable, but the irritable tone rings hollow and fails to exhibit the loving character of Jesus. It's the tone that my seminary professor warned against when he said, "Don't preach and write as though you have just swallowed embalming fluid. As Christ imparts redemptive life, so should his followers." This life is communicated in the content of God's message and also in its manner of presentation. Therefore, I seek to express genuine courtesy toward Catholics, even in disagreement.

Second, most books on Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism emphasize doctrinal tenets without exploring the practical dimensions of personal faith. Important as it is to understand doctrine, the reality is there's often a vast difference between the content of catechisms and the beliefs of folks who fill our pews. Holy Ground is concerned with understanding the common ideas and experiences of real-life people.

3. In your book you describe different kinds of Catholics. What are they, and why is this information important for gospel outreach?

Holy Ground posits three types of Catholics one is likely to meet in America today: the Traditional, the Evangelical, and the Cultural. These terms are imperfect. For instance, “Evangelical Catholic” is problematic since Catholics deny the doctrine of faith alone. However, these are the words that seem to be most commonly used. In a nutshell, the “Traditional” is the Vatican I variety, “Evangelical” is Vatican II, and “Cultural” is the nominal or cafeteria Catholic. Each profile is defined by the particular form of religious authority on which one builds his or her faith. Connecting the dots between these people and their primary form of authority is critical for properly contextualizing the gospel message.

4. What should be the centerpiece of Catholic/Protestant dialogue?

When talking with Catholics, there are myriads of potential rabbit trails. We may enter into a conversation to talk about how Jesus provides life with meaning and suddenly find ourselves enmeshed in a debate about the apocrypha or Humanae Vitae. Sometimes it’s right to broach these subjects; but too often we do so at the expense of the gospel. This is tragic. What does it profit a person if he explicates a host of theological conundrums without focusing attention upon the death and resurrection of Jesus? This, I would contend, is the “centerpiece”—considering, celebrating, and bearing witness to the splendor and majesty of our Savior, the one who died, rose, and now lives.

Chris is not an anti-Catholic. In fact his biggest critics are likely to be people on the far ends of both the Catholic and evangelical spectrum of believers. I have prayed for some years that an evangelical, former-Catholic would write a book like Holy Ground. It is not a pejorative book, but one that invites serious reflection about serious matters that Catholics and Protestants agree and disagree about. I urge readers of mine from both sides of the Protestant-Catholic divide to read this fine book. You can order it from all the normal sources for new books.

Pope Benedict XVI: A Love Affair with the Truth

The story of Pope Benedict XVI is one that all Christians should know better. This humble man, so misunderstood by the world at large, is described in a recent film documentary (Ignatius Press) as a man who has a "love affair with the truth." This is an apt description of a man who deeply loves Christ and the truth of the gospel.

From his childhood in Bavaria to his service as a parish priest Joseph Ratzinger always loved the truth. He resisted Hitler as a young teen and in time walked away from the German army when his actions could have brought about his death. His passion has always been for the life of the mind and his goal to be a writing/teaching professor of theology. Whereas John Paul II was a philosopher Benedict XVI is a biblical theologian. His teaching was widely praised by his students and his written work shows a profound clarity. But the academic Ratzinger eventually became a bishop and then a cardinal. His friend John Paul II wanted him to head up the congregation for doctrine so he eventually went to serve his church in Rome. His dream was to retire to his native land and finally write even more books. He thus refers to himself as a kind of reluctant pope.

Pope Benedict may be the most intelligent pope since the Protestant Reformation. There certainly hasn't been a pope with his background in academia and spiritual theology. But with his keen mind he also possesses a compassionate heart. To read him, and to listen to him, is to hear a tender heart for God and people. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of his pursuit of truth, so far as I am concerned, is his love for ecumenism. His writing on this subject has often helped me to see more clearly the challenges and blesses of this endeavor.

If you know very little about Benedict XVI, or perhaps a lot, this video documentary Pope Benedict XVI: A Love Affair With the Truth (Ignatius, 2008, 56 minutes) will give you a humane and insightful insight into his life and career. I found it an extremely encouraging video. It is the only such resource we have on this pope.

Catholic AND Evangelical

This Thursday, September 3, a special "Catholic AND Evangelical?" presentation by Dr. Francis Beckwith and Dr. Timothy George will occur in Wheaton (IL) at 7:00 p. m. I plan to be present and invite any of you from the Chicago area to join me.

"Exploring Christian Identity: Can You Be Catholic and Evangelical?" will be hosted by the Center for Applied Christian Ethics and The Penner Foundation. The event begins at 7 p.m. and ends at 9 p.m. It will be at Edman Chapel on the Wheaton College campus.

This event will be moderated by my good friend Rev. Chris Castaldo of College Church in Wheaton. You can see more details at Chris's Facebook account.

Dr. Miguel Diaz: The Presidential Nuncio to the Vatican

Miguel Diaz was named as President Obama’s appointment to serve as papal nuncio a few days ago. Both friends and critics have spoken widely about Diaz but few seem to understand who he really is. His story provides a glimpse inside the debate over abortion in the Catholic Church and the wider culture.

Diaz is a 45-year-old professor at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota. (I have been on the campus of St. John’s. It is a Benedictine university with a beautiful campus!) Diaz brings some interesting credentials to this new appointment. He is fluent in Italian, French, Spanish and English and has a doctorate in theology from Notre Dame. His academic work was on the Trinity and immigration and the Hispanic experience. He is a board member of the Catholic Theological Society of America, former president of the Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States and is a member of the Karl Rahner Society. For those who do not recognize these affiliations they represent the less traditional/conservative Catholic mainstream within academia.

It is wrong, however, to suggest that Diaz is pro-choice, though pro-life advocates are wary of his appointment. Diaz has made it very clear that he is a committed Catholic on the issue of life but he confuses people because of his support for various pro-choice Democrats, including Barack Obama and Governor Kathleen Sebelius. He even served as a member of the Catholic advisory team Obama assembled before the 2008 election and gave $1,000 to the Obama campaign.

Evangelical author and professor Paul Kengor writes: “In Diaz, it looks like Obama got exactly the kind of Catholic he wants: one who doesn’t let his alleged pro-life convictions get in the way. Is that what the Vatican is looking for?” Diaz has said Obama desires to work with Catholics who are pro-life and deeply respects people who hold this position. Kengor obviously views this stance with a wary eye.

The argument Obama, and his pro-life friends, make is that they are committed to reducing the number of abortions. Many believe this is true and assume that since Roe v. Wade cannot be reversed in the foreseeable future this is a good policy in the present circumstances. At the same time these pro-life Obama supporters believe there is much more to a Christian application of social policy than the single issue of legal abortion.

Benedictine Abbot John Klassen, of St. John’s Abbey, said:

Professor Miguel Diaz is a skilled Trinitarian theologian who is passionate both as a teacher and a scholar. He is a strong proponent of the necessity of the Church to become deeply and broadly multicultural, to recognize and appreciate the role that culture plays in a living faith. Born in Havana, Cuba, his is a leading Hispanic theologian in the United States” (From a statement on the St. John’s University Website).

A friend of Diaz called him a “brilliant theologian . . . just a phenomenal man.” This same individual told Our Sunday’s Visitor, a conservative Catholic publisher, that Diaz “believes relationships between human beings should mirror the relationship of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit.” And this same person described Diaz as “incredibly open to dialogue.”

This appointment mirrors the stance the Obama administration has taken. The president advances some of the most indefensible positions on life issues in American history while at the same time he shows personal respect for the people he opposes. When Alan Keyes ran against Barack Obama, in the 2004 U. S Senate race in Illinois, Keyes argued that Obama was not a Christian. Keyes, a fervent conservative Catholic, ran some very strong ads to which Obama expressed real dismay in his book, The Audacity of Hope. 

The problem here is fairly evident and it is not new. Raymond Flynn, also a papal nuncio and pro-life Democrat., says he was reprimanded by the Clinton White House for his pro-life stance. But Flynn says he was never told to change his position. Flynn actually gained a great deal of credibility with Pope John Paul II who knew he was acting with courage in the way he dealt with the White House. Will Diaz do the same? My guess is that he will. But many will still find his stance unacceptable.

Diaz will replace Mary Ann Glendon, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007 and left her post when Obama took office. Many Catholics, and non-Catholics like me, will be watching to see if Diaz acts with courage. Let us pray that he does. Meanwhile the debate will go on and Christians would do well to learn some of the people skills that Dr. Diaz is praised for having in abundance. 

Evangelical and Catholic?

The Center for Applied Christian Ethics (CACE) is one of my favorite teaching forums in America. It is connected to Wheaton College and led by Dr. Vincent E. Bacote, a member of the Bible and Theology faculty at Wheaton. Vince has spoken for ACT 3 several times and is deeply rooted in the theology of Abraham Kuyper. He is also a wonderfully gracious Christian man who understands how to conduct a civil and meaningful dialogue. This makes him a perfect choice to lead CACE at this time.

On Thursday, September 3, CACE will host a debate on the question: "Catholic and Evangelical?" The speakers are two of my favorite people to discuss this subject intelligently and irenically. Dr. Francis Beckwith, formerly an evangelical and now a Roman Catholic, will speak on: "Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic." Dr. Timothy George, a great Reformation scholar and dear friend, will speak on: "Confessions of a Catholic Evangelical." Then the debate will follow their presentations. Vincent Bacote informed me this week that the location and time are not yet determined. I will say more when the details are known. For now, I suggest that those who live in the Chicago area mark this date and join me for the CACE debate with these two superb Christian scholars.

Is the Number of Protestants Converting to Roman Catholicism Growing?

If you read the conservative Catholic magazines and Web sites as much as I do you get the impression that the number of Protestant converts to Catholicism is growing rapidly these days. One such publication listed the short story of four recent "political" converts. The first, Newt Gingrich, I commented about on this site just a few weeks ago. Another I have also mentioned before, Tony Blair. Blair was received into the Catholic Church in a private ceremony in December 2007. Then there is Kansas Senator (R.) Sam Brownback, who was raised a Methodist. Brownback later joined a non-denominational church. In a 2006 interview in The Washington Post he said: "Joining the Catholic Church was joining the early church. This is the mother church. This is the church out of which orthodoxy and Protestantism came." My purpose here is not to challenge Senator Brownback's statement but it is patently debatable. Try convincing any Orthodox Christian, or Protestant-convert to Orthodoxy, that Roman Catholicism came out of orthodoxy and you will find out. Perhaps, in fairness, he really meant "orthodoxy" as a theological term (thus small "o") but still the statement is a vintage Catholic boilerplate apologetic that misses something vital to seeing our unity in Christ above all our differences.

Another prominent convert is the Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. But Jindal is a convert from Hinduism. He started studying Christianity in high school after the death of his grandfather. His earliest religious influence came from his Indian-born parents. He was baptized and confirmed a Catholic while a college student at Brown University.

A number of popular books which tell the stories of such conversions have been published in the last decade. I rather think the number of such stories is growing. I also rather think that conservative Catholics tell these stories in order to strengthen their own church and to emphasize distinctive Catholic doctrinal teaching. This has been done since the sixteenth century if one is aware of the writing on both sides. I do not begrudge them this story-telling method one iota. I am always happy for anyone who follows the Lord's grace and direction in their own lives. In this country we should be especially grateful that such is both not only possible but we are free to do it without personal attack on our freedom.

But I also think the number of converts from Protestantism to Catholicism is not nearly as large as these Catholics think. I wonder what the numbers were in past ages? There have always been prominent converts. Having read Catholic books like these modern ones, from earlier eras, I assure you there have always been conversions to Rome from Protestantism since the sixteenth century division of the Western Church. The truth is there have also been a significant number of conversions away from Rome as well, including some priests. In fact, the numbers I have seen, in the whole course of my sixty years of life, suggest that more Catholics go to Protestant churches than vice versa.

The truth of the matter is I do not keep count. I am completely persuaded that this type of apologetics is more about "proving" who is right with their convert stories than about seeking first the kingdom of God. I mean no offense to my scores of Catholic readers, or to my Protestant readers who feel the necessity to get as many Catholics out of their church as possible, but I have no interest in getting a person out of one orthodox church into another church. And I just happen to know many priests and theologians in the Catholic Church who agree with me. But then these are not the writers of these popular stories or the teachers you see on EWTN.

Look, if you really believe the pope is the Christ-appointed shepherd on earth for the whole church then believe it. But your trying to convince me to convert will not make any difference in my salvation or my mission. Vatican II, and the various ecumenical dialogs since, has taken the majority of Catholic leaders beyond this kind of apologetics with fellow non-Catholic Christians.

I share the belief of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI that we need to re-evangelize secular Western nations. I also share their belief that ecumenism is an important development for the whole church. I also share their belief that the real work of the church is in advancing the kingdom of God. I am sure I will offend someone but why not drop the continual stories of converts from other churches to Rome and major more on stories like that of Bobby Jindal, who entered the church from a non-Christian background. This is a real cause for all Christians to celebrate together.

I can understand, quite frankly, why a person like Senator Brownback left the church he was a member of to become a Catholic. But I am not nearly as sure that some Catholics can equally understand why I remain a minister in the Reformed Church in America in good faith and conscience. The whole church will be in a better state when we all can better understand why people make a choice and then encourage them in their walk with Christ without any gloating over our being "the true church." Even if Rome were the true (only) church we "separated brothers and sisters" will still be here tomorrow and most of us will still be following Christ. Pope Benedict himself, in his first published book in 1961, made it clear that we were brothers. He even went so far as to say our respective congregations are in a relationship as "sisters." If more Catholics adopted this attitude it would go a long way toward the kind of unity that would help the mission of Christ advance in the modern world.

And just in case you are new to this blog site let me assure you I do not care for evangelical gloating about Catholics who leave their church either. I hate it when someone says, "I was a Roman Catholic until I became a real Christian!" This could be true but it is not the best way to say it if you love your brothers and sisters. I urge that very special (Christ-centered loving) care be taken to actually honor the ecumenical gains we have made since 1960. We have a long way to go but some conservatives, on both sides of this 500 year-old debate, could stand a much bigger dose of humility.

The Christlike Example of Benedict XVI

Readers know that I am a Reformed Church (RCA) minister and an evangelical Protestant. I do not always care for these labels, since labels are used to "brand" people and thereby end conversations and the obligation to love. But these brands are useful now and then since they genuinely express my Christian tradition and ecclesiastical stance. Some readers think that all Reformed thinkers and writers must be like the "leading voices" of small, but still growing, very conservative Reformed movements. These popular writers and preachers are NOT the sole voice of Reformed Christianity. Indeed, it would improve our present Christian context a great deal if a growing number of people were awakened to these facts. Many younger Christians are increasingly aware of this fact (I am delighted to meet these via this blog and in person) but my generation seems to think that only the most popular authors speak for "true" Reformed Christianity in America. A little knowledge of church history would go a long way, in this case. (Some who respond to this site still insist I am NOT Reformed since I do not pronounce every word in their marginalia with the same fervor and strict wording they employ.)

But faithful readers have seen that I am a missional Christian who is deeply committed to ecumenism as well as confessional Christianity. I believe the world that we presently live in demands this stance if we are faithful to both the Scriptures and Christian tradition. I have naysayers, in evangelical and Reformed circles, for sure. These are quite often people, who for various reasons of real conscience or strong opinion, see Catholicism (for example) as "the" enemy of real faith. They even see Catholics as false professors of faith and true religion, or enemies of God's grace. On the opposite side I have Catholic readers who cannot imagine how I refuse to join the "true" church and repent of schism. They distrust me, but for almost the exact same reason as people on the Protestant right. (Have you ever noticed how sectarianism brings people of opposite viewpoints very close to one another in their way of waging battles for the faith?) Then there are people on the far left who simply do not care for theology at all because everything is a waste of time unless you embrace their ideological and political agenda ranging from homosexual ordination to the radical deconstruction of almost all orthodox Christian theology.

So I manage to confuse a number of fine readers who are good, ordinary and faithful evangelical folks. At the same time there is a growing number of people, many of who read this blog regularly, who want to hear from both sides of the church in the West, Catholic and Protestant. They believe, like I do, that something big is going on today and it is a convergence of Christianity in the missional context. They also welcome believers in the Eastern Church into this dialogue, and their friendship, as well. I love living and writing from this point of convergence.

When you put into this mix the whole issue of "listening" to non-Christians, in a spirit of human cooperation and Christ-like love, you really muddy the water for people who see no place at all for dialogue with those who they think are "the enemies of Christ." (If they are his enemies then they must be mine, so they reason!) The world such people seem to desire will never be one in which we can truly pursue the peace that Jesus taught us to pray for since these folks are committed to stoking the fires of religious controversy for the sake of their understanding of the gospel. The way they see it conversations with Muslims, Hindus, etc. is all compromise!

Since Vatican II Rome has responded very differently to the modern world than previously. This is a good move as I see it. Every Christian, and peace-loving person I know, welcomes this change. John Paul II radically altered the Roman Catholic Church during his long pontificate. (He also put the breaks on some terribly liberal tendencies that threatened the health of the church.) Benedict XVI is carrying on this same direction as many of us who knew him from his writing believed he would. Contrary to mainstream religious media reports he is not a "Panzer pope." He is a first-rate theologian who really gets the modern world quite well. And he shows deep concern for the future of the West, at least as we've known it.

A recent flap touched the leadership of Benedict XVI powerfully when four formerly disciplined bishops were restored to the Catholic Church. Because of the clear evidence that there is anti-Semitism in the thought of one or more of these men the media jumped on this move with passion. Jewish leaders were rightly offended and feared a huge setback in Catholic-Jewish dialogue would ensue. Benedict XVI responded to this with a papal letter on March 10. This letter is a moving demonstration of grace and humility. I am publishing it here because many of my readers will not have seen it. Every Christian can learn something from this statement.

Let me urge you to read these words very carefully. If you are not Catholic then you will disagree with the whole premise about the papacy, about Simon Peter and thus Pope Benedict's office. I do personally. But I urge you to read this for all the light that shines through it. You are also likely to reject the expression of devotion to Mary, which is both right but, sometimes, unfortunate. (I personally reject the two major Marian dogmas of the 19th and 20th centuries, which are extra-biblical. But love for Mary predates modern evangelicalism and should be rethought by serious Christians who are not simply reacting to Rome. The Protestant Reformers did not throw love for Mary overboard the way modern evangelicals have done!)

So, read Benedict's words with care and discernment, but read them. Read them to see the grace at work in this man's kind soul. And read them to see how theology, when done by a whole church, can often be a beautiful lesson to us all. And while you are at it observe the genuine humility of this man Benedict XVI.

Papal Letter on Society of St. Pius X

We Must Have at Heart the Unity of All Believers

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 12, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Here is the letter written by Benedict XVI concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X that were ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988.

Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!

The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope's concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.

An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church's path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council—steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the Internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which—as in the days of Pope John Paul II—has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.

Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment—excommunication—with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical
status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers—even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty—do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei"—the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope—to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world's Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church's teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962—this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren't other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a
defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1)—in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with
increasingly evident destructive effects.

Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith—ecumenism—is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light—this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity—this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.

So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents—to the extent possible—in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things—arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them—in this case the Pope—he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide—even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.

With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain

Yours in the Lord,

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

© Copyright 2009 Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Newt Gingrich to Become a Roman Catholic

The New York Times Magazine recently ran a profile of Newt Gingrich. Buried in this story was some interesting information that missed many readers I feel sure: A Baptist since graduate school, Gingrich said he will soon convert to Catholicism, his wife’s faith.

Religion reporter Sarah Pulliam writes: "At a moment when the role of religious fundamentalism in the party is a central question for reformers, Gingrich, rather than making any kind of case for a new enlightenment, has in fact gone to great lengths to placate Christian conservatives. The family-values crowd has never completely embraced Newt, probably because he has been married three times, most recently to a former Hill staff member, Callista Bisek. In 2006, though, Gingrich wrote a book called Rediscovering God in America—part of a new canon of work he has done reaffirming the role of religion in public life. The following year, he went on radio with the evangelical minister James Dobson to apologize for having been unfaithful to his second wife."

A longtime pastor of St. Charles Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans, the Rev. G. Avery Lee (who died earlier this year) wrote to The Times-Picayune newspaper in 1994 about Newt Gingrich's faith. Lee said in that 1994 letter: "He was not a member of any church. He said that in his study of political theory he noted how much influence the church had on political theory and asked if I could explain (this to him). We talked often. Newt began coming to church. To make it short, I baptized him (by immersion) into the membership of the St. Charles Avenue Baptist Church." I never knew this about Newt until I read Pulliam's report at the Christianity Today Web site several days ago.

Lee also wrote that Newt Gingrich, "Found a liberal approach to both theology and sociology (@ St. Charles Avenue Baptist Church). . . . Whether our teachings had any effect or not, he was at least exposed to the basic Baptist principle of freedom: personal freedom before God, an open mind before an open Bible, the separation of church and state, and compassion toward other people as sinners saved by the grace of God. He also may have learned that we Baptists fuss and fight a lot with each other. It has been suggested by some that in baptizing him, I didn't hold him under long enough." (You have to admit Pastor Lee had a sense of humor!)

I wonder how many Protestant fundamentalists feel now that Newt Gingrich has made it known that he is becoming a Roman Catholic. For me it says that he has been thinking about the shape and form of Christian faith deeply in recent years. I have no idea what prompts men like Gingrich to do what they do but when they take faith more seriously I have to applaud them, and pray for them even more. The same can be said for the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair. Mr. Blair, you may recall, also entered the Roman Catholic Church, where his wife had been a member, after he left public office.

Let us pray for both these men. They represent very different political philosophies but are now very open about confessing their faith in Christ. This should remind all of us that God's grace is at work in ways that usually we cannot see, especially when they are in public places of elected leadership. Many public figures seem to leave political life before they take their personal faith more seriously. I wish this were not the case but with some it clearly is the case. I am reminded by this just how hard it really is to be a public Christian and a political leader at one and the same time. Let us pray for all those who profess faith, before or after they serve in positions of government and political power. And let us remain cautious about any political figure who seeks to use religion to gain out vote.

An Evangelical/Roman Catholic Letter

I have many readers who are evangelical Roman Catholics. Some evangelical readers simply do not believe there is such a thing. Some Catholics do not believe there are evangelicals who love Catholics or understand them either. But I have friends in both communions and can't deny what I know and see day-after-day.  Here is how one Catholic reader wrote to me a few days ago:

I have a dear evangelical friend who lives just behind us. We have much in common, both being parents of not one but two special needs young adults (hers adopted and ours homemade.) Our older ones have severe a mental illness that makes them angry and explosive, even verbally and physically abusive. (I took 5 years of martial arts to keep myself safe.) Things are better now, but my friend and I have really connected. Anyway, I shared some of my spiritual practices with her, and she has been very blessed by the Stations of the Cross, and by Jesuit spirituality from the website Sacred Space and Pray As You Go. She actually led a huge group of women in a meditation on a Gospel story using the format of "putting yourself into" the story as a character, etc. The women found this way of prayer to be tremendously helpful and mobbed her afterward to ask where she learned this way of praying. I think she was a little evasive since you know how some people get when they hear the "Jesuit" word! There again, if we hadn't taken the time to break down the walls between our faith traditions, all those hundreds of women would not have the experience to deepen their sense of Christ's presence in their lives.

Isn't our Lord good, and aren't we blessed to be living in a time and place when we can share our love of God rather than hate each other for being different? Sure, we still have plenty of Christians talking trash about each other, but even with the shattering of the unity desired by our Lord, the broken pieces of glass are so lovely when we hold them up and let the light shine through. You folks in the Calvinist tradition can show others your sense of an all powerful and mighty God and the grace of knowing our own littleness. And the Eastern Orthodox can show the beauty of the Lord and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet, and on and on.

Do keep building bridges John, and if you can send me a link to a good website to further understand Reformed Christianity, I'd enjoy it. I haven't quite been able to wrap my head around double predestination or total depravity quite yet.

I answered my friend by telling her that I did not believe in "double predestination" (Calvin did by the way) so I couldn't help her get that one. Total depravity is another story. I told her even St. Augustine believed that one, in fact Catholics should believe it since it is rooted in their own tradition and in the Bible both. Remember, "total" does not mean TOTAL, in the sense we often think, but rather pervasive. Everything we are and do is impacted and influence by sin. But by grace everything in the believer is pervasively touched by God's goodness and blessing. God is good to all he has made. He loves all the world but those who know him experience this goodness as a divine gift and they truly thank him every day as they should.