Posted on

89. Is Unity Like a Sphere or a Polyhedron?

September 18th, 2014

Pope Francis does not like spheres: he likes polyhedrons. In various recent speeches and in different contexts he used the image of the polyhedron to illustrate what he has in mind when he thinks of unity, i.e. Christian unity and the unity of mankind. In elementary geometry, a polyhedron is a solid of three dimensions with flat faces, straight edges and sharp corners or vertices. Without going into too many technical details, the basic idea is that a polyhedron lacks the harmony and proportions of a sphere but retains the unity of a solid. Not only that, it has variable distances from its center and not a single way of being related to it. It may be an awkward type of unity, but it still holds the solid together.

Unity in the Global World

Francis first began talking about the polyhedron in the context of globalization.  In a message to a festival on the Social Doctrine of the Church, which addressed the issue, he said: “I would like to translate the theme into an image: the sphere and the polyhedron. Take the sphere to represent homologation, as a kind of globalization: it is smooth, without facets, and equal to itself in all its parts. The polyhedron has a form similar to the sphere, but it is multifaceted. I like to imagine humanity as a polyhedron, in which the multiple forms, in expressing themselves, constitute the elements that compose the one human family in a plurality. And this is true globalization. The other globalization — that of the sphere — is an homologation” (Dec 6th, 2013).

According to this vision, globalization as a sphere can lead to cultural uniformity and social homologation whereby one model of development and one way of life become the center of what it means to be human and the whole world must conform to it. Globalization as a polyhedron, on the other hand, allows for multiple solutions that are all different from one another while still maintaining vital relationships between its components. In the latter, homogeneity is not imposed and multiplicity is encouraged. In his 2013 Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Francis elaborated on the dangers of reducing the world to a single economic pattern and a monolithic cultural paradigm. This globalization brings “an economy of exclusion”, “the new idolatry of money”, “a financial system which rules rather than serves”, and “inequality which spawns violence”. Globalization, by desiring to mould the world into a single pattern, kills it. Conversely, if it celebrates the world’s diversity it causes it to flourish. The center of this polyhedron is the common humanity that all human beings share while the different faces represent the cultural particulars that cannot be squeezed nor overlooked by globalization.

Christian Unity

What is interesting in Francis’ use of these geometric images is how he applies them to the realm of ecumenism. Christian unity has its own biblical metaphors, such as that of a single body with a head and many organs and parts (1 Corinthians 12). In his visit to the Italian Pentecostal church (August 28th, 2014), Francis developed his idea of ecumenism as a polyhedron: “We are in the age of globalization, and we wonder what globalization is and what the unity of the Church would be: perhaps a sphere, where all points are equidistant from the center, all are equal? No! This is uniformity. And the Holy Spirit does not create uniformity! What figure can we find? We think of the polyhedron: the polyhedron is a unity, but with all different parts; each one has its peculiarity, its charism. This is unity in diversity”.

Reading between the lines, it seems clear that unity as a sphere is pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic ecumenism whereby other Christians were drastically invited to “come back” into the Catholic fold and to conform to its doctrines and practices under the rule of the Pope. With Vatican II, Roman Catholicism updated its ecumenical project and embraced a concentric circle type of unity in which the one and only Church “subsists in” the Roman Catholic church and other churches and communities gravitate around this center according to their degree of nearness or distance from it. According to Vatican II and subsequent magisterial teachings, Christian unity is threefold: 1. professing the same faith, 2. celebrating the same Eucharist (i.e. the Roman Catholic way), and 3. being united under the same sacramental ministry in apostolic succession (i.e. under the Pope).

How does a polyhedron kind of unity as advocated by Pope Francis fit this view of unity? For example: as far as the second mark of unity is concerned, is the Pope saying that the sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist and the theology of transubstantiation belong at the center of Christian unity or are they particulars that can accommodate differences? Or is the Pope saying that apostolic succession, which is the basis of the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, is still part of the center or is it a variable that is secondary to Christian unity?

Polyhedrons are fascinating solids and Francis’ use of the image of a polyhedron is thought-provoking. However, the problem for Christian unity does not primarily lie in the metaphors used, but in the theological vision that nurtures it. If the Catholic Eucharist and the Catholic sacramental system are part of the center of Christian unity, one can make reference to spheres or polyhedrons all he likes, but the substance of the problem is that unity still gravitates around the Roman Catholic Church and its distinct outlook, and not around the biblical Gospel that calls all Christians to conform to the mind of Christ.

Posted on

88. Is Scripture True Only in a “Limited” Way? The Truth of the Bible According to the Pontifical Biblical Commission

August 28th, 2014

The “Biblical Renewal” is one of the most significant movements that has both preceded and followed the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). After centuries of prohibiting the circulation of the Bible in the vernacular languages and forbidding access to it, the Roman Catholic Church has been working hard to reconnect with the Scriptures. Leo XIII’s encyclical Provvidentissum Deus (1893) defended a high view of the inspiration of the Bible while Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) welcomed historical-critical methods into Catholic exegesis. These two magisterial statements are the tracks within which the present-day Roman Catholic approach to the Bible can be found. A traditional appreciation of the Bible as an inspired book, on the one hand, and a critical reading of it which questions the clarity and finality of Scripture, on the other, are the two poles that open the door for the intervention of the Magisterium for the interpretation of Scripture.

Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (1965) is the highest authoritative statement on the Bible which combines the two emphases within the framework of a triangular dialectics between Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium. A summary of Dei Verbum was offered by Pope Benedict XVI in his letter Verbum Domini (2010) in which he writes that the Word of God “precedes and exceeds sacred Scripture, nonetheless Scripture, as inspired by God, contains the divine word” (17). Here we find the classic reference to inspiration, but also the preceding existence of Tradition that envelops the Bible and speaks through the church’s Magisterium. According to Catholic teaching the Bible only “contains” the Word and this difference between Scripture and the Word allows for both critical readings of the Bible and the need for a human authority to discern what it contains and what it doesn’t.

The most recent pronouncement on this doctrine is an extended document released by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (February 22, 2014), which is the Vatican’s official study group on biblical issues. The title well captures the discussed topic: “The Inspiration and the Truth of Sacred Scripture”. This 250-page text is basically an elaboration of what Dei Verbum had argued as far as the scope of biblical inerrancy is concerned, i.e. that the Bible “teaches, without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (11). What, though, is the significance of relating inerrancy to “the sake of our salvation?” Is it then a kind of inerrancy that is limited only to the message of salvation? What about the rest of the Bible? Is it without error? And how can that which is related to salvation be distinguished from the rest? And who can discern what is without error and what is instead disputable? Roman Catholic theology has been discussing these issues since Vatican II and the Pontifical Biblical Commission has now entered this very important debate.

The document attempts to reaffirm and expand on what Dei Verbum highlights. The truth of the Bible is affirmed but is related to the “project of salvation” (3), the “salvific plan” (4), and “our salvation” (63). The detailed biblical overview on the truth of Scripture is understood as limiting the inerrancy of the text to its soteriological purpose. As for the rest, “in the Bible we encounter contradictions, historical inaccuracies, unlikely accounts, and in the Old Testament there are precepts and commands that are in conflict with the teaching of Jesus” (104). More specifically, the Abrahamic narratives are considered more as interpretations than historical facts (107), the crossing the Red Sea is more interested in actualizing the Exodus than reporting its original events (108), most of the book of Joshua has little historical value (127), and Jonah’s story is an imaginary account (110). In the New Testament, the reference to the earthquake in the passion’s narratives is a “literary motif” rather than a historical report (120). More generally, the Gospels have a normative value in affirming Jesus’ identity but their historical references have a “subordinate function” (123): in other words, the theology of the Gospels is valid, but their historical reliability is less important. How the two aspects can be neatly distinguished is not explained. In the end the truth of the Bible is “restricted” to what it says about salvation (105).

Another section of the document deals with the “ethical and social issues” raised by the alleged truth of the Bible, e.g. the theme of violence and the place of women. The hard and “offensive” texts of Scripture (e.g. the conquest narratives and the imprecatory Psalms) are not read in Catholic services due to “pastoral sensitivity” (125). According to the document, how can they be the Word of God is difficult to say. Again, the standard criterion to discern the inerrancy of the text is to “look at what it says about God and men’s salvation” (136) leaving the rest to the historical-critical readings and cultural sensibilities of the time. In a telling final statement, the document says that “the goal of the truth of Scripture is the salvation of believers” (144). The implication is that the Bible says beyond salvation (however defined) is not to be taken as necessarily true in the same sense.

What about the role of the Church in this matter? Since the truth of the Bible is not plenary but needs to be discerned according to its salvific purpose, it is the Church that mediates the acceptance and the proclamation of the truth of Sacred Scripture (149). It is the Church (the Roman Catholic Church) that selects and limits what is the truth of Scripture. According to the document then the Bible is true as far as its message of salvation is concerned and as far as higher criticism dictates. Ultimately, it is the Church that defines the truth of Scripture and rules over it.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document “The Inspiration and the truth of Sacred Scripture” argues for a “limited inerrancy” of Scripture (limited to the message of salvation) and reiterates historical-critical views about the un-reliability of the historical accounts of both the Old and the New Testament. It is a Roman Catholic blend of traditional and critical views of the Bible which finally exalts the role of the Church. While rejoicing for some fruits of the “biblical renewal” that is taking place in Roman Catholicism, especially as far as the encouragement to all to read the Scriptures is concerned, the battle for the truth of Scripture still rages. In no way has Rome come closer to Sola Scriptura, i.e. the obedience to the self-attesting Word of God written that truly witnesses to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholicism has nuanced its position and has relaxed the sharp edges of its opposition, but it still maintains the prominence of the Church over the Bible.

Posted on

87. The Marian Message of Pope Francis to Korea

August 22nd, 2014

The Papal visit to Korea (August 13th-18th, 2014) was his first trip to Asia and many commentators have already highlighted different geo-political aspects of it. Asia is one of the most promising regions in the world for the Roman Catholic in terms of potential growth. This is the reason why Pope Francis will visit Sri Lanka and the Philippines in January of 2015. Asia is inevitably related to China, where there is an on-going diplomatic challenge for the Vatican and its prudent attempt to deal with the Chinese government and the unsettled situation of Christian churches there. This is why Francis extensively spoke on the theme of “dialogue” and the fact that Christians in no way intend to “invade” anyone or any place. He was in Korea but certainly had China in the back of his mind and wanted to send a message there as well. Korea itself is a divided nation and the Pope addressed the painful memories and the reality of the separation between North and South Korea. On a more symbolic level, Asia is also very evocative for Jesuits in general. Five centuries ago Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) was the first Jesuit to go to China, and so the Jesuit Pope also feels the Asian attraction that is typical of many Jesuits.

Geo-political considerations aside, there were two main spiritual emphases of the visit: the usual Marian framework of Pope Francis and the elaboration of his missional view as far as the discipline of dialogue is concerned. This File concentrates on the first item while another one will deal with the second.

Mary, Mother of Korea

The Papal visit coincided with the Asian Youth Day but most importantly with the solemn celebration of the assumption of Mary, body and soul, into the glory of heaven (August 15th). This Marian dogma was promulgated in 1950 and fits very well the overall spirituality of Pope Francis. In his homily during the celebration he invited the Korean audience “to contemplate Mary enthroned in glory beside her divine Son”. He called Mary “Mother of the Church in Korea” asking her help “to be faithful to the royal freedom we received on the day of our Baptism”. The queenly glory of Mary was coupled with the motherhood of Mary for the whole nation of Korea. Although the Bible teaches that “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Psalm 46:1), it was Mary that was presented to the faithful as an ever ready helper on the spiritual journey.

In praising Mary, the Pope went on to say that “In her, all God’s promises have been proved trustworthy”. Actually, the Bible says that “all the promises of God find their Yes in Him”, i.e. in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). This is an example of how the logic of Catholic Mariology works its way through: it takes what belongs to Christ and extends it to his mother, although the Bible does not prescribe nor does it allow such an extension to take place.

The final invocation was also telling: “And now, together, let us entrust your Churches, and the continent of Asia, to Our Lady, so that as our Mother she may teach us what only a mother can teach: who you are, what your name is, and how you get along with others in life. Let us all pray to Our Lady”. Again, the motherhood of Mary was strongly emphasized to the point of attributing the discovery of our identity to her instead of Christ in whom we are saved and through whom we have received a new name. In so doing Mary joins Christ with the risk of taking his place.

Obtaining the Grace of Perseverance?

A final comment on the Mariology of the Papal visit is in order. During the Mass for the beatification of 124 Korean martyrs (August 16th), Francis ended his homily with these words: “May the prayers of all the Korean martyrs, in union with those of Our Lady, Mother of the Church, obtain for us the grace of perseverance in faith and in every good work, holiness and purity of heart, and apostolic zeal in bearing witness to Jesus in this beloved country, throughout Asia, and to the ends of the earth”. The idea is that the prayers of those whom the Church proclaims to be blessed “obtain for us the grace of perseverance”. Perseverance seems to be a human “work” that is obtainable through the efforts of the living and the dead.

In returning to Rome, after the long flight from Korea, Pope Francis stopped on his way to the Vatican at the basilica of Saint Mary Major, the largest Marian church in Rome, to thank Mary for the successful results of his trip to Asia. Saint Mary Major was the first church the Pope ever visited after becoming Pope and the dedication of his pontificate to Mary was the first official act of his reign. This church and what it represents is very dear to the him. The point is that Francis’ seemingly biblical language and “evangelical” attitude is always thought of and lived out in a thoroughly Marian framework, in both Rome and Korea alike.

Posted on

88. ¿La Escritura es verdad sólo de forma limitada? La verdad de la Biblia según la Pontificia Comisión Bíblica

07 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2014
La “Renovación Bíblica” es uno de los movimientos más significativos que han precedido y han seguido al Concilio Vaticano Segundo (1962-1965). Después de siglos de prohibir la circulación de la Biblia en las lenguas vernáculas y de vetar el acceso a la misma, la Iglesia Católico Romana hace un gran esfuerzo para volver a conectar con las Escrituras. En la encíclica de León XIII Provvidentissum Deus (1893) se defendía un alto concepto de la inspiración de la Biblia mientras que en la encíclica Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) de Pío XII se acogieron los métodos histórico críticos en la exégesis católica. Estas dos declaraciones magisteriales son las pistas en las cuales puede encontrarse la actual aproximación católico romana a la Biblia. Un reconocimiento tradicional de la Biblia como libro inspirado, por una parte, y una lectura crítica que cuestiona la claridad y la finalidad de las Escrituras, por la otra, son los dos polos que abren la puerta a la intervención del Magisterio para la interpretación de las Escrituras.
La Constitución Dogmática Dei Verbum (1965) del Vaticano II es la más alta declaración autoritativa sobre la Biblia que combina los dos aspectos dentro del marco de una dialéctica triangular entre la Tradición, la Escritura y el Magisterio. El Papa Benedicto XVI hizo un compendio de Dei Verbum en su carta Verbum Domini (2010) en el que dice que la Palabra de Dios “precede y trasciende la Sagrada Escritura; sin embargo ésta, en cuanto inspirada por Dios, contiene la palabra divina” (17). Aquí encontramos la clásica referencia a la inspiración, pero también la precedente existencia de la Tradición que envuelve a la Biblia y que habla a través del Magisterio de la iglesia. Según la enseñanza católica la Biblia “contiene” únicamente la Palabra y esta diferencia entre la Escritura y la Palabra permite tanto la lectura crítica de la Biblia como la necesidad de una autoridad humana para discernir lo que contiene y lo que no es así.
El más reciente pronunciamiento sobre esta doctrina es un extenso documento publicado por la Pontificia Comisión Bíblica (22 febrero 2014), que es el grupo de estudio oficial del Vaticano de los asuntos bíblicos. El título capta bien el tema discutido: “La Inspiración y la Verdad de la Sagrada Escritura”. Este texto de 250 páginas es básicamente una elaboración de lo que Dei Verbum había argumentado en lo que se refiere al alcance de la infalibilidad bíblica, es decir, que la Biblia “enseña sin error, la verdad que Dios quiere poner en las escrituras sagradas en aras de nuestra salvación” (11). Aunque, ¿cuál es el significado de relacionar la inerrancia con “el bien de nuestra salvación”? ¿Es, entonces, una clase de infalibilidad que está limitada solamente al mensaje de la salvación? ¿Qué pasa con el resto de la Biblia? ¿Es sin error? Y, ¿cómo puede distinguirse lo que está relacionado con la salvación del resto? Y, ¿quién puede discernir lo que es sin equivocación de lo que es controvertible? La teología católico romana ha estado discutiendo estos temas desde el Vaticano II y la Pontificia Comisión Bíblica ha entrado ahora en este debate tan importante.
El documento intenta reafirmar y expandir los aspectos más destacados de Dei Verbum. La verdad de la Biblia se afirma pero se relaciona al “proyecto de salvación”(3), el “plan salvífico”(4) y “nuestra salvación”(63). La visión general bíblica detallada sobre la verdad de la Escritura se entiende como una limitación de la inerrancia del texto a su propósito soteriológico. En cuanto al resto, “en la Biblia encontramos contradicciones, inexactitudes históricas, relatos improbables, y en el Antiguo Testamento hay preceptos y mandamientos que están en conflicto con la enseñanza de Jesús” (104). Más concretamente, las narraciones abrahámicas están más consideradas como interpretaciones que como hechos históricos (107), el cruce del Mar Rojo está más interesado en describir el Exodo que en relatar sus eventos originales (108), la mayor parte del libro de Josué tiene escaso valor histórico (127) y la historia de Jonás es una leyenda imaginaria (110). En el Nuevo Testamento, la referencia al terremoto en la narración de la pasión es un “adorno literario” más bien que un informe histórico (120). De manera más general, los Evangelios tienen un valor normativo al afirmar la identidad de Jesús, pero sus referencias históricas tienen una “función subordinada” (123): en otras palabras, la teología de los Evangelios es válida, pero su fiabilidad histórica es menos importante. La forma en que pueden distinguirse ordenadamente los dos aspectos no se explica. Al final, la verdad de la Biblia queda “restringida” a lo que dice sobre la salvación (105).
Otra sección del documento trata de los “temas éticos y sociales” planteados por la supuesta verdad de la Biblia, p.e., el problema de la violencia y el lugar de la mujer. Los duros y “ofensivos” textos de la Escritura (p.e. los relatos de conquistas y los salmos imprecatorios) no se leen en los servicios católicos debido a la “sensibilidad pastoral” (125). Según el documento, es difícil de explicar cómo pueden ser aquellos Palabra de Dios. De nuevo, el criterio estándar para discernir la infalibilidad del texto es “mirar lo que dice acerca de Dios y la salvación de los hombres” (136), dejando el resto a las lecturas histórico críticas y a las sensibilidades del tiempo. En una enérgica declaración final, el documento dice que “el objetivo de la verdad de la Escritura es la salvación de los creyentes” (144). La consecuencia es que lo que la Biblia dice más allá de la salvación (independientemente de la definición) no tiene que tomarse como necesariamente cierto en el mismo sentido.
¿Qué hay del papel de la Iglesia en este asunto? Comoquiera que la verdad de la Biblia no es completa sino que necesita discernirse según su propósito salvífico, es la Iglesia la que media en la aceptación y la proclamación de la verdad de la Sagrada Escritura (149). Es la Iglesia (la Iglesia Católico Romana) la que selecciona y limita lo que es la verdad de la Escritura. Entonces, de acuerdo con este documento, la Biblia es verdad hasta donde su mensaje de salvación se refiere y en la medida en que la alta crítica dicta. En última instancia es la Iglesia la que define la verdad de la Escritura y reglamenta sobre ella.
El documento de la Pontificia Comisión Bíblica “La Inspiración y la verdad en la Sagrada Escritura” argumenta a favor de una “inerrancia limitada” de la Escritura (restringida al mensaje de la salvación) y reitera los puntos de vista histórico críticos sobre la no fiabilidad de las narraciones históricas tanto del Antiguo como del Nuevo Testamento. Es una combinación católico romana de enfoques tradicionales y críticos de la Biblia que finalmente exalta el papel de la Iglesia. Al tiempo que hay una satisfacción por algunos frutos conseguidos por la “renovación bíblica” que tiene lugar en el catolicismo romano, especialmente en cuanto al estímulo que se ofrece a todo el mundo a leer las Escrituras, la batalla por la verdad de la Escritura todavía brama. De ninguna manera Roma se ha acercado a la Sola Scriptura, es decir, la obediencia a la auto fidedigna Palabra de Dios, escrita por los que verdaderamente fueron testigos de la persona y de la obra de Jesucristo. El catolicismo romano ha matizado su posición y ha relajado los afilados bordes de su oposición, pero todavía mantiene la preeminencia de la Iglesia sobre la Biblia.
Posted on

86. Redefining Fraternity. At What Cost?

August 11th, 2014

“Where is your brother?” asked God to Cain (Genesis 4:9). This standing question challenges all people not to harm one’s brother. The assumption though is that the identity of the brother is clear enough. Therefore the issue is: who is my brother? The Bible has two answers to this question: brothers and sisters are those who belong to the same family group. Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 13:55-56), i.e. people who were part of his inner family circle. According to Scripture brothers and sisters are also those who do the will of the Father who is in heaven (Matthew 12:50), i.e. people who belong to the same spiritual family that has God as Father, Jesus as Lord and Savior and the Spirit as guarantee. On the one hand there is the natural family (or people group) and on the other there is the “household of faith” (Galatians 6:10).

What about the rest? The Bible says that all other people are “neighbors”, people who are around us, near or far, but who live where we live and share part of our journey. “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29) is the other standing question for all people. Neighbors are all those who are next to us and we are called to love them as ourselves (Matthew 22:39).

Towards a Genuine Fraternity Between Christians and Muslims?

The Bible draws a distinction between natural or spiritual brotherhood and general neighborhood, though the Vatican no longer recognizes such a distinction. In a message sent to Muslims at the end of  Ramadan and significantly entitled “Towards a genuine fraternity between Christians and Muslims” (June 24th, 2014), the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue reaffirmed the idea that Christians and Muslims are “brothers and sisters”. The message itself traces the origin and the official endorsement of this language from John Paul II to Francis:

Pope Francis … called you  “our brothers and sisters” (Angelus, 11 August 2013). We all can recognize the full significance of these words. In fact, Christians and Muslims are brothers and sisters in the one human family, created by the One God. Let us recall what Pope John Paul II said to Muslim religious leaders in 1982: “All of us, Christians and Muslims, live under the sun of the one merciful God. We both believe in one God who is the creator of man. We acclaim God’s sovereignty and we defend man’s dignity as God’s servant. We adore God and profess total submission to him. Thus, in a true sense, we can call one another brothers and sisters in faith in the one God.” (Kaduna, Nigeria, 14 February 1982).

What is happening here is the blunt re-definition of what it means to be brothers and sisters. First, while being “in Christ” becomes only one way of being brothers and sisters, fraternity is extended to all those who live “under the sun”, i.e. “the one human family”. Secondly, as far as Muslims are concerned, fraternity is further consolidated by the shared belief in “one God” whom is adored by both Christians and Muslims. The result is that they are truly “brothers and sisters in faith in the one God”.

An Unwarranted Stretch

The re-definition of what it means to be brothers and sisters is an attempt to blur what the Bible expects us to distinguish. Neighbors become brothers and sisters. Our common humanity takes over the spiritual connotation of being “in Christ” as the basis for the shared fraternity. What are the implications of such a stretch? Here are two main ones.

First, Popes John Paul II and Francis are taking the responsibility to reconstruct Biblical language forsaking its own meaning and reshaping it at the service of the Roman Catholic view of the Church representing the whole of humanity, Muslims and all others included. The assumption is that the finality of Scripture is undermined, the clear meaning of Scripture is questioned and the living tradition of the Church is thought of being entitled to “actualize” Scripture by way of changing its plain message.

Second, there is a whole set of crucial issues related to this re-definition. What does “genuine fraternity” mean in theological and soteriological terms? It seems to mean that the Biblical God and the Muslim Allah are the same God who accepts worship indifferently, both in the Christian way and in the Muslim way. After all, we are all “brothers and sisters” under Him. Moreover, it seems to imply that, as brothers and sisters “in faith in the one God”, Christians and Muslims will ultimately be saved as Christians and Muslims. The universality of salvation is clearly envisaged, if not openly stated. This message is a further extension of the very “catholic” theology stemmed from Vatican II which shifted the locus of salvation from the profession of the faith in Jesus Christ to the shared humanity of all created beings. However it remains to be seen whether or not this is biblical at all.

Beside these serious biblical flaws, you don’t need this re-defined fraternity to love Muslims and to seek to live in peace with them, as the Vatican message wants everybody to do. There is no reason to distort the plain words of Scripture: a biblically defined neighborhood is more than sufficient to promote civic engagement and peaceful co-existence with all men and women.

Posted on

86. Redefinir la fraternidad, ¿a qué precio?

16 de Agosto de 2014

“¿Dónde está tu hermano?” Preguntó Dios a Caín (Génesis 4:9). Esta pregunta permanente desafía a todos los individuos a no dañar a su hermano. Siempre y cuando se presuma que la identidad del hermano está lo suficientemente clara. Por lo tanto, el asunto es: ¿quién es mi hermano?

La Biblia tiene dos respuestas a esta pegunta: hermanos y hermanas son los que pertenecen a un mismo grupo familiar. Jesús tenía hermanos y hermanas (Mateo 13:55-56), es decir, personas que formaban parte de su círculo familiar íntimo. Según las Escrituras los hermanos y las hermanas son también aquellos que hacen la voluntad del Padre que está en los cielos (Mateo 12:50), o sea, la gente que pertenece a la misma familia espiritual que tiene a Dios como Padre, a Jesús como Señor y Salvador y al Espíritu Santo como garantía. Por una parte hay la familia natural (o grupo de individuos) y por la otra está la “familia de la fe” (Gálatas 6:10).

¿Qué pasa con el resto? La Biblia dice que todas las demás personas son “prójimos”, gente que está en nuestro entorno, cerca o lejos, pero que vive en nuestro ambiente y comparte parte de nuestro trayecto. “¿Quién es mi prójimo?” (Lucas 10:29) es la otra pregunta que se hace todo el mundo constantemente. Prójimos son todos los que tenemos cerca y somos llamados a amarles como a nosotros mismos (Mateo 22:39).

¿Hacia una fraternidad auténtica entre cristianos y musulmanes?

La Biblia traza una distinción entre la hermandad natural o espiritual y los semejantes en general, aunque el Vaticano ya no reconoce esta diferencia. En un mensaje enviado a los musulmanes al final del Ramadán y titulado significativamente “Hacia una auténtica fraternidad entre cristianos y musulmanes” (24 junio 2014), el Consejo Pontificio para el Diálogo Inter-Religioso reafirmó la idea de que los cristianos y los musulmanes son “hermanos y hermanas”. El mensaje en sí mismo sigue la pista del origen y la aprobación oficial de este lenguaje desde Juan Pablo II a Francisco:

 El Papa Francisco … os llamó “nuestros hermanos y hermanas” (Angelus, 11 Agosto 2013). Todos nosotros reconocemos la riqueza de significado de estas palabras. En realidad, cristianos y musulmanes son hermanos y hermanas de una sola familia humana, creada por el Unico Dios. Recordemos lo que dijo el Papa Juan Pablo II a algunos líderes religiosos musulmanes en 1982: “Todos nosotros, cristianos y musulmanes, vivimos bajo el sol de un único Dios misericordioso. Todos creemos en un solo Dios creador del hombre. Aclamamos la soberanía de Dios y defendemos la dignidad del ser humano como siervo de Dios. Adoramos a Dios y le profesamos una sumisión total. En este sentido podemos llamarnos unos a otros hermanos y hermanas en la fe en un solo Dios”  (Kaduna, Nigeria, 14 febrero 1982).

Lo que está pasando aquí es una redefinición contundente de lo que significa ser hermanos y hermanas. Primero, si bien estar “en Cristo” se convierte únicamente en una forma de ser hermanos y hermanas, la fraternidad se extiende a todos los que viven “bajo el sol”, o sea, “la familia humana”. Segundo, en lo que se refiere a los musulmanes, la fraternidad se consolida aún más por la creencia compartida en “un solo Dios” que es adorado tanto por los cristianos como por los musulmanes. El resultado es que éstos son verdaderamente “hermanos y hermanas en la fe en el único Dios”.

Una extensión injustificada

La redefinición de lo que quiere decir ser hermanos y hermanas es un intento de desenfocar lo que la Biblia espera que distingamos. Los “prójimos” se convierten en hermanos y hermanas. Nuestra humanidad común asume la connotación espiritual de estar “en Cristo” coma la base para la fraternidad compartida. ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones de tal extensión? A continuación indicamos dos de las principales.

Primero, los Papas Juan Pablo II y Francisco toman la responsabilidad de reconstruir el lenguaje bíblico abandonando su propio significado y remodelándolo al servicio del punto de vista católico romano de la iglesia que representa al conjunto de la humanidad, incluidos los musulmanes y todos los demás. La presunción es que la finalidad de las Escrituras se ve socavada, su claro sentido es cuestionado y la Iglesia a través de su viva tradición se considera en el derecho de “actualizar” las Escrituras mediante el sistema de cambiar su llano mensaje.

Segundo, existe todo un conjunto de cuestiones cruciales relacionadas con esta redefinición. ¿Qué significa “fraternidad auténtica” en términos teológicos y soteriológicos? Parece indicar que el Dios bíblico y el Alá musulmán son el mismo Dios que acepta la adoración indistintamente, tanto en la forma cristiana como en la musulmana. Al fin y al cabo, todos somos “hermanos y hermanas” bajo El. Además, parece presuponer que, como hermanos y hermanas “en la fe en el único Dios”, los cristianos y los musulmanes serán salvos en última instancia como cristianos y musulmanes. La universalidad de la salvación está claramente prevista, si no se indica abiertamente. Este mensaje es una extensión adicional de la teología muy “católica” surgida del Vaticano II que desplazó el locus de la salvación de la profesión de la fe en Jesucristo a la humanidad compartida de todos los seres creados. No obstante, queda por ver si esto es o no es bíblico en absoluto.

Además de estos graves errores bíblicos, no se necesita esta fraternidad redefinida para amar a los musulmanes y procurar vivir en paz con ellos, como quiere el mensaje vaticano que haga todo el mundo. No hay ninguna razón para distorsionar las llanas palabras de las Escrituras: un “prójimo” bíblicamente definido es más que suficiente para promover el compromiso cívico y la coexistencia pacífica con todos los hombres y mujeres.

Posted on

85. Francis’ Apology To Pentecostals In Search of Significance

August 3rd, 2014

Offering apologies is a highly regarded habit even in secular circles. We are surrounded by words of apology everywhere; as customers on the metro, on trains, and on TV. But in the midst of all the rhetoric of apology are there ways to discern the truthfulness of it all? Parents quickly learn to assess their children’s apologies. To say “I am sorry” is not in and of itself a true apology. One needs to show a sense of guilt, of being aware of what he is asking apology for and doing something about what went wrong. Pope Francis’ words of apology to Italian Pentecostals were considered the high point of his visit to his pastor friend Giovanni Traettino (July 28th). They referred to the nasty discriminations that Pentecostals had to suffer under the Fascist regime in the Thirties when they were deemed a threat to the stability of the social order and severely ostracized.

A Confusing Apology

The Pope’s “apology” was curious. The persecutions of 1935 against Pentecostals were implemented by the Fascist government and police, not by the Catholic church. However, Francis offered his apology for these persecutions. The Catholic church had no direct role but was the main social agent that supported the culture of discrimination. What he could have apologized for, however, was the centuries-long sin of the Catholic church that has constantly been against religious freedom. Interestingly Francis never mentioned religious freedom but only made reference to one single episode of intolerance. Then, in his apology he did not speak of the Catholic church as being responsible for opposing religious freedom but he only spoke of the sin of “catholic brothers and sisters” who persecuted Pentecostals. While the Catholic Church of the time was totally in agreement with the Fascist regime in opposing minorities and providing its cultural legitimacy in exchange of favors and privileges, Francis downplayed the role of the Church and focused on individuals. He apologized as “pastor” of those individuals who persecuted Pentecostals but he did not take responsibility for the Church they represented and that he represents. According to Catholic teaching the Church per se never errs, it is only the children of the church that sin. On the one hand, then, he apologized for the sins he did not commit. On the other he didn’t apologize for the sins his Church committed. A confusing way of offering an apology.

An Inconsequential Apology

Furthermore, spiritually speaking any apology is real if it implies restoration and compensation for those who were wronged, at least to some extent. The Pope’s apology was rhetorical but not practical. He did not speak of a commitment to finally accept and implement full religious freedom in Italy. The Catholic Church is the main obstacle in recognizing equal rights and opportunities to all religious groups, but Francis was silent on the whole issue. He only spoke words of “apology” without having institutional title to do that, without being serious about the sins of the Church and without suggesting practical ways towards a better solution for religious freedom for all. Fascism is over, persecutions against Pentecostals are over, but religious freedom is still an issue for the country that the Catholic Church considers “home”. What’s the significance of offering an apology if there is no change of mind and practical steps towards a better settlement for religious freedom?

One positive aspect of his apology was his rejection of the word “sect”. “You are not a sect” – he said to his Pentecostal audience. The label “sect” applied to Evangelicals and Pentecostals was regularly used by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Francis’ immediate predecessors. No word of apology was offered for such derogatory language that has been standard in many Papal speeches concerning Evangelicals. Here he could have offered an apology on behalf of his Church and its leaders but he remained silent. Apologies are less significant for things that belong to a distant past than for things that are happening now. In spite of all the emotional fuss that his apology originated, Francis chose a confusing and inconsequential way of saying “sorry” while maintaining the idea that his Church never makes mistakes.

Posted on

85. Buscando significado a disculpas de Francisco a los Pentecostales

09 de Agosto de 2014

Presentar disculpas es un hábito muy respetado, incluso en los círculos seculares. Estamos rodeados de palabras de disculpa por todas partes; como usuarios del metro, de los trenes y en TV. Pero en medio de toda esta retórica de excusas ¿existe alguna forma de discernir la veracidad de todo ello?

Los padres aprenden rápidamente a evaluar las explicaciones de sus hijos. Decir “lo siento” no es de por sí una verdadera disculpa. Se necesita demostrar sentido de culpabilidad y ser consciente de que se pide perdón por haber hecho algo que salió mal.

Las  palabras de disculpa del Papa Francisco a los pentecostales italianos  fueron consideradas como el punto culminante de su visita a su amigo pastor Giovanni Traettino (28 de julio). Ambos hablaron sobre las desagradables discriminaciones que los pentecostales habían sufrido bajo el régimen fascista en los años treinta del pasado siglo cuando se les consideró una amenaza a la estabilidad del orden social y fueron severamente condenados al ostracismo.

UNA DISCULPA CONFUSA
La “disculpa” del Papa fue curiosa. Las persecuciones de 1935 contra los pentecostales las ejecutaron el gobierno fascista y la policía, no la iglesia católica. Sin embargo, Francisco ofreció sus disculpas por estas persecuciones. La iglesia católica no tuvo un papel directo aunque fue el principal agente social que apoyó la cultura de la discriminación. Por lo que podría haber pedido disculpas, no obstante, es por el pecado que hace siglos arrastra la iglesia católica de estar constantemente contra la libertad religiosa.

Es interesante resaltar que Francisco nunca mencionó la libertad religiosa y en cambio hizo referencia a un simple episodio de intolerancia. Por tanto, en sus excusas no mencionó que la iglesia católica fuera también responsable por oponerse a la libertad religiosa sino que únicamente habló del pecado de “hermanos y hermanas católicos” que persiguieron a los pentecostales.

Mientras que la iglesia católica de aquel tiempo estaba totalmente de acuerdo con el régimen fascista en el asunto de oponerse a las minorías y además, les proporcionaba su legitimidad cultural a cambio de favores y privilegios, Francisco minimizó el papel de la iglesia y lo centró en las personas. Se disculpó como “pastor” de aquellos individuos que persiguieron a los pentecostales pero no asumió ninguna responsabilidad por la iglesia que ellos representaban y que ahora representa él. Según la enseñanza católica la iglesia, per se, nunca se equivoca; son los hijos de la iglesia los que pecan. Por una parte, se disculpó por los pecados que no hizo, pero por la otra no pidió excusas por los pecados que su iglesia sí cometió. Una manera confusa de ofrecer una disculpa.

UNA DISCULPA INCONSECUENTE
Además, espiritualmente hablando, cualquier disculpa es real si implica la restauración y compensación para los que fueron agraviados, al menos en cierta medida. En ningún momento habló de un compromiso para aceptar y llevar a cabo finalmente una libertad religiosa completa en Italia. La Iglesia Católica es el principal obstáculo en el reconocimiento de la igualdad de derechos y oportunidades para todos los grupos religiosos, pero Francisco guardó silencio sobre toda esta cuestión.

Unicamente pronunció palabras de “disculpa” sin tener el título institucional para hacerlo, sin tomarse en serio los pecados de la Iglesia y sin sugerir ninguna medida práctica que conduzca a la mejor solución de la libertad religiosa para todos. El fascismo se acabó, las persecuciones contra los pentecostales han terminado, pero la libertad religiosa es todavía un problema para el país que la Iglesia Católica considera “su hogar”. ¿Cuál es el significado de pedir excusas si no hay un cambio de mentalidad y disposiciones prácticas para un mejor asentamiento de la libertad religiosa?

Un aspecto positivo de sus disculpas fue el rechazo de la palabra “secta”. “No sois una secta”, dijo a su audiencia Pentecostal. La etiqueta “secta” aplicada a los evangélicos y a los pentecostales la utilizaron regularmente Juan Pablo II y Benedicto XVI, los predecesores inmediatos de Francisco. No se ofreció ni una palabra de excusa por este tipo de lenguaje despectivo que ha sido estándar en muchos discursos papales relativos a los evangélicos. Podía haber pedido una disculpa en nombre de su iglesia y sus líderes, pero permaneció callado.

Las excusas son menos significativas para las cosas que pertenecen a un pasado lejano que para las que están sucediendo ahora. A pesar de todo el revuelo emocional que sus disculpas ocasionaron, Francisco escogió una forma confusa e inconsecuente de decir “lo siento” al tiempo que mantiene la idea de que su iglesia nunca se equivoca.

Posted on

Il papa visita i pentecostali, l’Alleanza Evangelica: “persistono le divisioni”

30/7/2014

Intervista rilasciata dal vice-presidente dell’Alleanza Evangelica Italiana, Leonardo De Chirico

Il clamore destato è davvero ecumenico e interreligioso. Almeno quello. Papa Francesco ha incontrato oggi a Caserta, presso la Chiesa della Riconciliazione, il pastore evangelico Giovanni Traettino, suo vecchio amico. Ma di curioso c’è, soprattutto, la tempistica. L’incontro, che Bergoglio ha voluto mantenere privato, è avvenuto infatti a poco più di una settimana dalla tavola rotonda “Il cattolicesimo contemporaneo: una prospettiva evangelica”, organizzata ad Aversa. Allora, diverse realtà interne alla confessione protestante, tra cui l’Alleanza evangelica italiana, la Federazione delle chiese pentecostali e le Assemblee di Dio in Italia, avevano ribadito l’inconciliabilità della visione evangelica con l’istituzione cattolica.

“È cambiato l’atteggiamento della chiesa romana, non la sostanza – spiega Leonardo De Chirico, vicepresidente dell’AEI, pastore e promotore della tavola rotonda – La chiesa cattolica non è intervenuta in nessuno degli ambiti che, cinque secolo or sono, hanno portato alla Riforma protestante: sola Scrittura, solo Cristo, sola grazia. Va bene l’amicizia, va bene la collaborazione ove possibile, ma bisogna fare attenzione”.

Il passo da Aversa a Caserta è breve, una ventina di chilometri e poco più. Una distanza infinitesimale, se rapportata a quella espressa dal documento pubblicato dall’Alleanza evangelica dopo la tavola rotonda. “Ma l’obiettivo non era questo incontro – prosegue il pastore De Chirico – Sappiamo che in passato Giovanni Traettino aveva avuto contatti, talvolta dagli sviluppi teatrali, con alcuni movimenti della chiesa cattolica. Poi la dichiarazione ‘Dominus Iesus’, firmata dall’allora cardinale Ratzinger nel 2000 e che ribadiva che la chiesa era una sola, quella cattolica, congelò i rapporti. L’elezione di papa Francesco ha ripristinato questo flirt, facilitato dalla loro frequentazione in America latina”.

Il documento redatto dall’AEI dopo la tavola rotonda parla di “insegnamenti incompatibili”, come quello di una “chiesa che si sente mediatrice di salvezza e che presenta altre figure come mediatrici di grazia”, che ha aggiunto “dogmi (come quelli mariani) alla fede una volta e per sempre trasmessa ai santi” e che “ha il suo cuore in uno stato politico, retaggio di una chiesa imperiale da cui ha assunto titoli e prerogative”. “Non è un antagonismo pregiudiziale, né una chiusura al dialogo – aggiunge ancora De Chirico – L’unità e l’ecumenismo sono obiettivi da perseguire, così come insegna la Bibbia, attraverso verità e carità. Non una senza l’altra. L’unità può avere come unico collante la Parola di Dio. La chiesa cattolica parla di grazia ma poi la mischia alle opere e ai sacramenti, si fa chiamare chiesa di Cristo ma ha un background imperiale, dice di valorizzare la Bibbia ma poi la subordina alla tradizione. E non ultimo si assume la responsabilità di riconoscere nel vicario di Cristo la persona che oggi ha incontrato il pastore Traettino”.

Non di meno, anche negli ambienti evangelici risulta crescente un sentimento di apertura e apprezzamento, in particolare dall’elezione di papa Bergoglio. “Quello che registriamo è un cambiamento nell’atteggiamento – prosegue ancora il vice presidente dell’Alleanza – La chiesa romana, che per anni ci ha perseguitati, oggi ci abbraccia. È quello che Francesco fa anche nei confronti degli atei, degli ebrei e dei musulmani. Tutti uniti in un sentimento di comune umanità. Ecco, questo tipo di unione è quello che stigmatizziamo. Non più di qualche giorno fa, durante il saluto per la fine del Ramadan, il Vaticano si è rivolto ai musulmani come ‘fratelli e sorelle’, distorcendo il significato della fratellanza, che è proprio della Bibbia. La chiesa cattolica ha perseguito in passato le sue mire imperialiste attraverso scomuniche e azioni militari. Quello che noi avvertiamo, è che oggi abbia intrapreso la strada degli abbracci e dei sorrisi”.

Nonostante quella che appare una chiusura piuttosto netta – rimarcata tra l’altro dal comunicato, all’interno del quale non si ritiene “di poter dare inizio e corso a qualsiasi iniziativa o apertura ecumenica nei confronti della Chiesa Cattolica Romana invitando tutti gli evangelici a livello nazionale ed internazionale ad esercitare un sano discernimento biblico” – sta di fatto che la massima autorità cattolica è stata ricevuta da un pastore pentecostale ed ha pranzato con 350 membri della chiesa. Segno che le divisioni persistono, ma anche all’interno della sola realtà evangelica. “Il 19 luglio (giorno della tavola rotonda, ndr) abbiamo avuto adesioni importanti come quella delle ADI e della Chiesa Apostolica e delle Congregazioni pentecostali. È stato, in un certo senso, un momento di ecumenismo interno. Abbiamo riflettuto insieme sulle sfide che ci attendono e soprattutto sul recente atteggiamento della chiesa cattolica nei nostri confronti. Non si tratta di un antagonismo legato all’ideologia o a un passato in cui siamo stati perseguitati, sebbene non lo dimentichiamo e non ne siamo schiavi – conclude De Chirico – Per l’unità, però, c’è bisogno di condivisione sui fondamenti del vangelo”. Che ancora non c’è.

Fonte: www.buonanotizia.org

Alleanza Evangelica Italiana
Vicolo S. Agata 20
00153 Roma
www.alleanzaevangelica.org
ufficio.stampa@alleanzaevangelica.org

Posted on

84. L’oecuménisme de l’église catholique romaine : qu’en disent les évangéliques italiens ?

29 Juillet 2014

Dire de l’événement qu’il est « historique » serait sûrement une exagération. Cependant, ce qui est arrivé le 19 juin est un fait marquant des 150 dernières années de l’évangélisme italien. Pour la toute première fois, près de 100 % des églises italiennes et associations évangéliques (85 % des 500 000 protestants italiens) ont signé une déclaration commune qui renforce l’engagement évangélique envers la bonne nouvelle de Jésus-Christ. Cette déclaration fournit des standards bibliques pour évaluer la pression œcuménique montante provenant de l’église catholique romaine pour étendre son universalité aux dépens de la vérité biblique. Jamais auparavant les évangéliques italiens n’ont atteint un tel consensus et parlé d’une seule voix sur un sujet aussi crucial. Les églises et associations signataires de cette déclaration représentent presque la totalité des évangéliques qui ont une théologie protestante conservatrice et un fort engagement évangélique.

Un rapport important

L’Italie est un endroit unique. La cité du Vatican est ‘dans’ l’Italie, exerçant une large influence. Pendant des siècles, l’église catholique romaine a été une force religieuse, culturelle et politique majeure. Les minorités religieuses ont été persécutées. La réforme italienne a donné à l’église au sens large quelques hommes importants aux XVI e et XVII e siècles (comme Pierre Martyr Vermigli, Jérome Zanchi et Francis Turrettin) mais a été empêchée de prendre racine dans le pays. Encore aujourd’hui, la situation est déséquilibrée. L’église catholique romaine a d’énormes privilèges tandis que les autres groupes religieux sont discriminés. Les évangéliques italiens ont beaucoup de raisons d’être aigri. Cependant, ce n’est pas le but de cette déclaration. Avec ce document, nous envoyons le message que leur évaluation n’est pas le résultat d’une frustration historique. Nous voulons évaluer le catholicisme romain selon les principes bibliques. Les évangéliques italiens sont de plus en plus interloqués par la façon dont globalement ils communiquent avec l’église catholique romaine et avec le pape Francois en particulier. Certaines analyses sont basées sur des impressions personnelles ou sur le langage en apparence évangélique du pape ou sur quelques informations tronquées qui manquent de prendre en compte toute la complexité du catholicisme romain. Il y a beaucoup de naïveté et de superficialité. L’ensemble de la famille protestante a besoin d’entendre la voix de ses frères et sœurs italiens qui observent le catholicisme romain de l’intérieur et qui possèdent une longue expérience de sa force totale idéologique et symbolique.

‘Les évangéliques italiens et le catholicisme contemporain’

Voici le texte complet :

Après une table ronde initiée par l’Alliance Évangélique Italienne, la Fédération des Églises de Pentecôte, les Assemblées de Dieu en Italie, l’Église Apostolique et les Assemblées Pentecôtistes tenue à Aversa en Italie, le 19 juin 2014, au Collège Pentecôtiste des Sciences Religieuses sur le sujet « Catholicisme romain dans une perspective évangélique », les églises et associations mentionnées ci-dessus, alertées par les récentes ouvertures œcuméniques de groupes évangéliques nationaux, internationaux et des cercles Pentecôtistes à l’égard de l’église catholique romaine et de son pontife actuel, sans juger la foi des individus qui la composent, croient néanmoins qu’il est incompatible avec l’enseignement des Ecritures d’avoir une église qui opère en tant que médiateur du salut et qui présente d’autres figures médiatrices de grâce puisque la grâce de Dieu nous est accordée par la foi seule en Jésus-Christ seul (Ephésiens 2.8) et sans la coopération d’autres médiateurs (1 Timothée 2.5) Elles croient aussi qu’il est incompatible avec l’enseignement biblique d’avoir une église qui prend la liberté d’ajouter des dogmes (comme le dogme marial) à la foi délivrée une fois pour toutes aux saints (Jude 2, Apocalypse 22.18). Elles croient aussi qu’il est incompatible avec l’enseignement biblique d’avoir une église dont le cœur est un état politique qui est un système hérité d’une église « impériale » qui bénéficie de titres et de prérogatives. Les églises chrétiennes doivent s’abstenir d’imiter « le prince de ce monde » et suivre l’exemple de Jésus qui est venu pour servir et non pour être servi (Marc 10.42-45). De plus, elles croient aussi que ce qui semble être des similitudes avec la foi et la spiritualité évangéliques et certains secteurs de l’église catholique romaine ne sont pas en elles-mêmes des raisons de croire en un vrai changement. Toutes différences de positions théologiques et éthiques prises en compte, elles ne peuvent pas initier ou se faire l’avocat des initiatives œcuméniques avec l’église catholique romaine. Elles invitent tous les évangéliques aux niveaux nationaux et internationaux à exercer un discernement biblique sain (1 Jean 4.1) sans tomber dans le piège des initiatives unionistes qui sont contraires aux Écritures et, à la place, de renouveler leur engagement à communiquer l’Évangile de Jésus-Christ au monde entier (Matthieu 28.18-20).

Pourquoi la voie de la « diversité réconciliée » n’est pas la bonne

L’expression technique « diversité réconciliée » dans la théologie œcuménique a été utilisée pour la première fois par le théologien luthérien Oscar Cullmann. De plus en plus d’évangéliques pensent qu’il s’agit de la voie à suivre. Cela signifie simplement que vous êtes d’accord d’être en désaccord et que vous acceptez votre partenaire œcuménique tel qu’il est. Cependant, l’église catholique romaine n’est pas une simple dénomination. C’est une Église-Nation avec un monarque, une politique et une armée. Elle n’a jamais renoncé à aucun de ses dogmes non-bibliques du passé et possède tous les instruments en place pour exercer des pratiques « impériales ». Voulons-nous réellement dire que nous acceptons d’être différents en face d’une telle entité ? Il est vrai que les évangéliques devraient mettre en avant le fait qu’ils sont unis avec ceux qui croient en Christ seul pour leur salut, mais ils devraient encore considérer l’église catholique comme une institution qui a besoin de se réformer selon la Parole de Dieu. Il n’y a pas de « diversité réconciliée » avec le péché et la rébellion et avec des « raisonnements et tout obstacle qui s’élève avec orgueil contre la connaissance de Dieu » (2 Corinthiens 10.5). Bien au contraire ! Si les évangéliques appliquent l’approche de la « diversité réconciliée » avec l’église catholique romaine comme elle se présente aujourd’hui, ils cesseront d’être une voix prophétique selon l’Évangile et ils deviendront une partie de la cacophonie religieuse contemporaine. La Bible avertit le peuple de Dieu des alliances conclues avec un « roseau cassé qui pénètre et transperce la main de celui qui s’appuie dessus! » (2 Rois 18.21). D’un point de vue biblique, la « diversité réconciliée » se trompe grossièrement en ce qui concerne la nature de l’église catholique romaine et néglige la tâche de maintenir l’unité dans la vérité et l’amour bibliques.