Posted on

68. 2017: From Conflict to Communion?

November 15th, 2013

2017 will mark the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. On 31st October 1517 Martin Luther hang the 95 thesis in Wittenberg and this action is symbolically considered as the watershed event that triggered the Reformation. The anniversary will be a great opportunity to historically review and theologically reassess what Protestantism stood for in the XVI century and what its significance is for us today. This is especially true for those who identify themselves as Protestant and cherish being called Protestant.

Commemoration, not Celebration

One entry point in reflecting on the upcoming anniversary is the recently released document entitled “From Conflict to Communion. Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017”. It is a 90 page, joint statement between the Vatican and the Lutheran Federation that attempts to summarize what happened in the XVI century, the controversies that arose, and the ecumenical re-interpretation of the whole in light of pressing ecumenical concerns. It is a detailed “state of the art” of present-day ecumenism, its patterns of thought, its language and agenda.

Notice that the chosen word is not “celebration” but “commemoration”. Celebration would have implied an element of sober feasting in remembering the Reformation with an attitude of thanksgiving, while not hiding the “dark pages” of Protestant history. On the contrary, in spite of all that is said in Roman Catholic circles about Luther being “a witness of Jesus Christ”, ecumenism cannot celebrate the Reformation. It can only commemorate it. Official Roman Catholicism, even the post-Vatican II and ecumenically minded version of it, can only commemorate it. That is it can only remember, ponder, and reflect on it. Yet, is the standing legacy of the Reformation to be commemorated only? Is the call to go back to the Scriptures not to be celebrated? Is a Christ-centered, grace-depending, God-exalting faith not to be celebrated but only remembered?

The First Ecumenical Imperative?

After providing a carefully written summary of the main issues that divided the (Lutheran) Reformation and Roman Catholicism, the document ends by suggesting five imperatives for preparing for the commemoration. The first is the following: “Catholics and Lutherans should always begin from the perspective of unity and not from the point of view of division in order to strengthen what is held in common even though the differences are more easily seen and experienced”.

Unity, not truth in love, is the main thing. The first imperative is unity above all else. This, however, is not the best way of honoring the Reformation. Among many shortcomings, the Reformation was nonetheless a cry to have one’s own conscience and the church bound to God’s Word alone. This was the “first imperative” of the Reformation from which all else followed, unity included. It is telling that after 500 years unity top priority, replacing the authority of God’s Word. There is the risk of elevating “unity” to the absolute principle, a little “god” claiming pre-eminence. Perhaps this is the ecumenical “idol” of the day that needs to be addressed in a “protestant” way, i.e. recasting unity under the Word of God and not the other way around.

No Protestant Pride, but the “Courage” to Be Protestant

In some Protestant circles there may be the risk of approaching the 500th anniversary as if it were a “pride” parade, which is so common nowadays. The temptation is to idolize the Reformation as if it were a “golden age” of the Church. This would be totally contrary to what the Reformers stood for and would run against the best of the Evangelical Protestant heritage. While celebrating God for the great things that the Reformation brought back to the Church (Christ alone, Grace alone, Faith alone), there should be a sober realization of the many sins in and around the Reformation. A biblical faith should always be self-critical and honest, never indulging in self-celebration.

In 2008 David Wells wrote a book whose title indicates a more fruitful way to honor the Reformation: The Courage to be Protestant. It takes courage to live under the Word of God and to speak prophetically, act in a priestly way, and live as a kingdom people. In today’s ecumenical world, when unity is in danger of being idolized, it takes courage to affirm that the Bible stands over tradition and the church, that Christ is the only mediator, that grace is all you need for your salvation, and that God is a jealous God. It takes courage to make unity dependent on these Biblical truths and not elevating unity to the place of “first imperative”. Where these courageous Christians are, there the Reformation will be adequately celebrated. Otherwise, it will only be commemorated.

 

Posted on

68. El ecumenismo no celebrará la Reforma de Lutero

14 de Noviembre de 2013

El año 2017 será el que marcará el 500 aniversario del principio de la Reforma Protestante. El día 31 de octubre de 1517 Martín Lutero colgó las 95 tesis en Wittenberg y esta acción se considera simbólicamente como el acontecimiento decisivo que puso en marcha la Reforma.

Este aniversario será una gran oportunidad para examinar históricamente y evaluar de nuevo teológicamente lo que representó el protestantismo en el siglo XVI y cual es su significado para nosotros en el día de hoy.

Esto es especialmente cierto para los que se identifican a sí mismos como protestantes y valoran el hecho de ser llamados protestantes.

CONMEMORACIÓN, NO CELEBRACIÓN
Un punto de entrada en la reflexión sobre el próximo aniversario es el documento recientemente publicado titulado “Del Conflicto a la Comunión: Conmemoración común luterano-católica de la Reforma en 2017”.

Es una declaración conjunta, de 90 páginas, entre el Vaticano y la Federación Luterana que intenta resumir lo que sucedió en el siglo XVI, las controversias que suscitó y la reinterpretación ecuménica de todo el conjunto a la luz de las insistentes inquietudes ecuménicas.

Es un detallado “estado del arte” del ecumenismo actual, sus pautas de pensamiento, su lenguaje y su programa.

Nótese que la palabra elegida no es “celebración” sino “conmemoración”.

Una celebración hubiese implicado un elemento de fiesta sobria en recuerdo de la Reforma, con una actitud de agradecimiento, aunque no se escondieran las “páginas oscuras” de la historia protestante.

Por el contrario, a pesar de todo lo que se ha dicho en los círculos católico romanos acerca de que Lutero fue “un testimonio de Jesucristo”, el ecumenismo no puede celebrar la Reforma. Únicamente puede conmemorarla.

El catolicismo romano oficial, incluso el post-Vaticano II que ecuménicamente es la versión preparada del mismo, sólo puede conmemorarla.

O sea que solamente puede recordar, meditar y reflexionar sobre la misma. Sin embargo, ¿el legado permanente de la Reforma debe ser solamente conmemorado?

La llamada a volver a las Escrituras, ¿no merece una celebración? Una fe centrada en Cristo, dependiente de la gracia, que exalta a Dios, ¿no es para ser celebrada y no simplemente recordada?

¿EL PRIMER IMPERATIVO ECUMÉNICO?
Después de proporcionar un resumen, esmeradamente escrito, de los principales temas que dividen la Reforma (Luterana) y el Catolicismo romano, el documento termina recomendando cinco imperativos para la preparación de la conmemoración.

El primero es el siguiente: “Los católicos y los luteranos siempre deberían empezar desde la perspectiva de la unidad y no desde el punto de vista de la división, con el propósito de fortalecer lo que se lleva a cabo en común a pesar de que las diferencias se vean y se experimenten más fácilmente”.

La unidad, no la verdad en el amor, es lo más importante. El primer imperativo es la unidad por encima de todo.

Esto, no obstante, no es la mejor forma de honrar la Reforma. Entre sus muchas deficiencias, la Reforma fue, sin embargo, un grito para obligar a la propia conciencia y a la Iglesia a estar unidas sólo a la Palabra de Dios.

Este fue el “primer imperativo” de la Reforma a partir del cual siguieron todos los demás, incluida la unidad.

Es revelador que después de 500 años la unidad sea la principal prioridad, reemplazando a la autoridad de la Palabra de Dios. Existe el riesgo de elevar la “unidad” al principio absoluto, un pequeño “dios” reclamando pre-eminencia. Puede que éste sea el “ídolo” ecuménico del día que necesita ser dirigido de una forma “protestante”, es decir, reformulando la unidad bajo del Palabra de Dios y no al revés.

“ORGULLO PROTESTANTE” Y “VALOR” DE SER PROTESTANTE
En algunos círculos protestantes puede existir el riesgo de enfocar el 500 aniversario como si fuera una marcha del “orgullo protestante”, cosa que es muy común en estos días.

La tentación está en idolatrar la Reforma como si fuera una “edad de oro” de la Iglesia. Esto sería totalmente contrario a lo que los reformadores defendían e iría en contra de lo mejor del patrimonio protestante evangélico.

Mientras se loa a Dios por las grandes cosas que la Reforma trajo de vuelta a la Iglesia (solo Cristo, sola Gracia, sola Fe) debe también haber una sobria comprensión de los muchos pecados que se cometieron en y alrededor de la Reforma. Una fe bíblica deber ser siempre autocrítica y honesta, nunca complacerse en la auto-celebración.

En 2008 David Wells escribió un libro cuyo título indica una manera más fructífera de honrar la Reforma: “The Courage to be Protestant” (El coraje de ser protestante). Se necesita coraje para vivir bajo la Palabra de Dios y hablar proféticamente, actuar de manera sacerdotal y vivir como un pueblo del Reino.

En el mundo ecuménico de hoy, cuando la unidad está en peligro de ser idolatrada, se necesita valor para afirmar que la Biblia está por encima de la tradición y de la Iglesia, que Cristo es el único mediador, que la gracia es todo lo que se requiere para la salvación y que Dios es un Dios celoso.

Hace falta valor para hacer que la unidad dependa de estas verdades bíblicas y no elevando la unidad al lugar de “primer imperativo”. Donde estos valerosos cristianos estén, la Reforma será celebrada adecuadamente. De lo contrario, será únicamente conmemorada.

 Traducción: Rosa Gubianas

Posted on

67. The World Entrusted to Mary. Why?

October 16th, 2013

“Where ever Mary is venerated, and devotion to her takes place, there the Church of Christ does not exist”. If Karl Barth is correct, the Church of Christ was not present yesterday (October 13th) in St. Peter’s square when Pope Francis entrusted the world to Mary. The occasion was offered by the veneration of the statue of Our Lady of Fatima which had been brought to Rome for a special Marian day. Marianism is one of the keys to interpreting the present pontificate and this celebration further highlights its pervasiveness.

Entrusting the World to Mary?

If Francis appears to break with many conventions on the way he lives out his being Pope, he is very traditional as far as his Marianism is concerned. Entrusting the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was done by Pius XII during World War II (1942) and twice by John Paul II (1982 and 1984). Francis then follows an established XX century tradition that unites pre- and post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism.  These acts are responses to the message that Mary supposedly gave to the three young shepherds in Fatima (Portugal) in 1917.

The entrustment of the world to Mary is therefore something that stems from a recent Marian vision, with no biblical support whatsoever. Entrusting the world is a very important act but one wonders whether or not Christians are instead summoned by God’s Word to entrust their lives to the Creator (e.g. 1 Peter 4:19) or to make their requests to God Himself (e.g. Philippians 4:6). The world was entrusted by God the Father to God the Son (1 Corinthians 15:27) and there is no Mariological development that can overturn this truth.

The Act Itself

What did it mean for Pope Francis to entrust the world to Mary? Basically, the Pope prayed a Marian prayer that contained a number of far-reaching statements and commitments that, biblically speaking, are proper if addressed to the Triune God, but that were instead directed to Mary.

Here is a sample: “We are confident that each of us is precious in your sight and that nothing that dwells in our hearts is unknown to you”. At this point an ordinary Christian would ask: does not the Bible say that we are precious in God’s eyes (e.g. Isaiah 43:4) but never speaks of Mary in these terms? Moreover, does this statement imply that Mary knows the depths of our hearts? Is she omniscient, thus being referred to with attributes that belong to God alone? According to the Bible, God the Father knows the secrets of the heart (Psalm 44:21), God the Son knows men’s thoughts (e.g. Matthew 9:4), God the Spirit intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words (Romans 8:26).

Here is another statement: “Guard our lives in your arms”. Mary is depicted as defending and caring for us, yet another attribute that the Bible relates to God alone. God the Father preserves the lives of the saints (e.g. Psalm 97:10) and the Lord Jesus guards those who were given him by the Father (John 17:12). It is God’s power that guards his children through faith (1 Peter 1:5). Mary has no role in this. Moreover, it is God who gathers “the lambs in his arms” (Isaiah 40:11). Mary’s arms stretched to baby Jesus but nowhere in Scripture are we told that we can look for her embrace.

A final statement of the prayer contains the following invocation: “revitalize and nourish faith; sustain and brighten hope; inspire and animate charity” as if Mary was assigned this role. The Bible teaches that believers ask Jesus to help them grow in their faith (e.g. Mark 9:24), have their hope in God (e.g. Acts 24:15) and know that love is the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22).

The problem with this Papal Mariology is that it is totally unwarranted if the Christian faith is to be based on the Word of God alone. In spite of all that is said in ecumenical circles about the re-approachment between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants on the Bible, this Act of Entrustment to Mary shows that their differences are not a matter of nuances, but of fundamental issues that lie at the heart of the faith itself. Thankfully, “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1) and there is no need to entrust it to someone else.

 

 

Posted on

67. ¿Encomendar el mundo a María?

15 de Octubre 2013

“Dondequiera que María es venerada y se lleva a cabo la devoción a ella, allí la Iglesia de Cristo no existe”. Si Karl Barth está en lo cierto, la Iglesia de Cristo no estaba presente el día 13 de octubre en la plaza de San Pedro cuando el Papa Francisco encomendó el mundo a María.

Se le ofreció la ocasión en la veneración de la estatua de Nuestra Señora de Fátima que se había llevado a Roma para un día mariano especial. El marianismo es una de las claves para interpretar el presente pontificado y esta celebración destaca aún más su difusión.

¿Encomendar el mundo a María?

Si Francisco parece romper con muchas convenciones por la forma en que vive su papel de Papa, es muy tradicional en lo que se refiere a su marianismo.

Encomendar el mundo al Inmaculado Corazón de María lo hizo Pío XII durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial (1942) y fue realizado dos veces por Juan Pablo II (1982 y 1984). Francisco sigue, por tanto, una tradición establecida en el siglo XX que unifica el catolicismo romano pre- y post-Vaticano II.

Estos actos son respuestas al mensaje que María supuestamente dio a los tres jóvenes pastores de Fátima (Portugal) en 1917.

La consagración del mundo a María es, por consiguiente, algo que proviene de una reciente visión mariana, sin ningún respaldo bíblico. Encomendar el mundo es una acción muy importante pero uno se pregunta si los cristianos están, en cambio, convocados o no por la Palabra de Dios a confiar sus vidas al Creador (p.e. 1 Pedro 4:19) o hacer sus peticiones al Mismo Dios (p.e. Filipenses 4:6). El mundo fue encomendado por Dios el Padre a Dios el Hijo (1 Corintios 15:27) y no hay ninguna evolución mariológica que pueda revocar esta verdad.

¿Qué significa este acto?

¿Qué significó para el Papa Francisco encomendar el mundo a María? Fundamentalmente, el Papa rezó una oración mariana que contenía una serie de declaraciones y compromisos de largo alcance que, bíblicamente hablando, son adecuadas si son dirigidas al Dios Trino, pero no si en su lugar se pone a “María”.

Una muestra: “Confiamos que cada uno de nosotros es precioso ante tus ojos y que nada que more en nuestros corazones te es desconocido”. Al llegar a este punto un cristiano ordinario preguntaría: ¿no dice la Biblia que somos de gran valor a los ojos de Dios (p.e. Isaías 43:4) pero nunca habla de María en estos términos?

Además, ¿esta afirmación implica que María conoce la profundidad de nuestros corazones? ¿Es ella omnisciente, en lo que se refiere a los atributos que pertenecen sólo a Dios? Según la Biblia, Dios el Padre conoce los secretos del corazón (Salmo 44:21), Dios el Hijo conoce los pensamientos de los hombres (p.e. Mateo 9:4), Dios el Espíritu intercede por nosotros con gemidos que no pueden expresarse con palabras (Romanos 8:26).

Otra manifestación: “Guarda nuestras vidas en tus brazos”. Se representa a María como la encargada de la defensa y el cuidado de nosotros, o sea, otro atributo que la Biblia relaciona sólo con Dios. Dios el Padre preserva las vidas de los santos (p.e. Salmo 97:10) y el Señor Jesús protege a los que le fueron dados por el Padre (Juan 17:12). Es el poder de Dios que guarda sus criaturas a través de la fe (1 Pedro 1:5). María no tiene ningún papel en esto. Por otra parte, es Dios quien levanta “los corderos en sus brazos” (Isaías 40:11). María extendía sus brazos al niño Jesús, pero en ninguna parte de la Escritura se nos dice que podemos esperar su abrazo.

Una enunciación final de la oración contiene la siguiente invocación: “revitaliza y alimenta nuestra fe; sustenta e ilumina nuestra esperanza; inspira y anima nuestra caridad”, como si María tuviera asignado este papel. La Biblia enseña que los creyentes piden a Jesús que les ayude a crecer en su fe (p.e. Marcos 9:24), tienen su esperanza en Dios (p.e. Hechos 24:15) y saben que el amor es el fruto del Espíritu Santo (Gálatas 5:22).

El problema con esta mariología papal es que es totalmente injustificada si la fe cristiana se basar únicamente en la Palabra de Dios.

A pesar de todo lo que se ha dicho en los círculos ecuménicos acerca del re-acercamiento entre los católico romanos y los protestantes evangélicos en tormo a la Biblia, este acto de encomendación a María demuestra que sus diferencias no son una cuestión de matices sino de asuntos fundamentales que se encuentran en el corazón de la propia fe.

Afortunadamente, “la Tierra es del Señor con todo lo que hay y vive en la misma” (Salmo 24:1) y no hay ninguna necesidad de confiarla a nadie más.

Posted on

66. Towards a Politically Correct Apologetics?

October 3rd, 2013

Secular people and media are praising Pope Francis for being open to “dialogue” with the modern world in a way that is personally engaging and fresh in style. On his side, the Pope is taking more and more pleasure in entertaining editors, journalists and opinion makers with interviews, personal meetings, and direct phone calls. The last instance of such papal strategy for communication is a long interview that was published on 1st October by the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica with its former editor Eugenio Scalfari, an outspoken atheist. The interview follows an exchange of letters and a personal meeting between the two men.

What seems to emerge from all these pieces is a specific apologetic strategy by Francis. Here are three steps that form the apologetic backbone of what the Pope said in the course of the conversation and few biblical remarks about them.

First Step: Disparaging Proselytism to Avoid the Hard Question about Conversion

At the beginning of the conversation, Scalfari says:“My friends think you want to convert me” and here is how Francis replies: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas”.

As it is well known, proselytism is a “bad” word and has an even worse press. It is associated with fanaticism, unethical methods, and religious extremism. The Pope wants to reaffirm the negative understanding of it and in so doing he wants to build a bridge with his secular interlocutor who has a terrible opinion of it. Notice though that Scalfari had not asked his opinion on proselytism. He wanted to know if the Pope desired his conversion. Instead of answering, Francis speaks of proselytism knowing that Scalfari agrees with him. Is it ethical for a Christian not to give an answer about his conversion? Is not conversion a biblical word? Is not conversion the goal that should inspire all Christian mission? Moreover, Francis’ description of what it means for a Christian to engage in dialogue is a biblically flawed account. He speaks of “knowing, listening, expanding the circle of ideas”, but what about telling, witnessing, preaching, proclaiming the Good News? In Athens, the apostle Paul did the former but also the latter (Acts 17:16ff). Why does Francis affirm the former and omit the latter?

Second Step: Offering a “Lovely” Summary of the Gospel to Soften the Secular Prejudices

In the course of the conversation the Pope provides a summary of the gospel that suits the expectations of the secular intellectual. Here it is: “The Son of God became incarnate in the souls of men to instill the feeling of brotherhood. All are brothers and all children of God”. A little later he says: “Agape, the love of each one of us for the other, from the closest to the furthest, is in fact the only way that Jesus has given us to find the way of salvation and of the Beatitudes”.

Strangely enough, this language is very similar to the old liberal account of the gospel: a God of love wishing the brotherhood of all men. According to theological liberalism, this is the “essence” of Christianity. But, biblically speaking, it is not. In this summary there is no reference to justice, sin, judgment, atonement, death and resurrection, conversion, … not surprisingly words that are unpalatable to the secular mind. Is not the summary offered by the Pope at best a seriously truncated gospel, at worst another gospel? Is pleasing the dialogue partner and matching his expectations the primary task of apologetics?

Third Step: Reinforcing the Role of the Individual Conscience to Eschew Confrontation

At another point, Scalfari asks: “Is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?” Here is Francis’ reply: “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good”. Scalfari: “You wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that’s one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope”. Francis: “And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them”.

The Pope agrees that “the conscience is autonomous” and following its indications is one’s own task. No reference, however, to the lies that subjugate the conscience and to sin that mars it. No reference to the guilty conscience or the misguided one that needs the power of the Gospel to free it from bondage.

Later on, Scalfari asks: “Do you feel touched by grace?” Francis: “No one can know that. Grace is not part of consciousness, it is the amount of light in our souls, not knowledge nor reason. Even you, without knowing it, could be touched by grace”. Scalfari: “Without faith? A non-believer?” Francis: “Grace regards the soul”.

Is grace really an experience beyond knowledge, reason and even faith? Are all men, for their being men, already graced even without knowing it and without believing in the biblical God? To this question the Bible would say “no” (e.g. Ephesians 2:1-10).

The dialogue was politically correct and the outcome of the conversation was the following: the secular thinker is no longer nervous about his need to be converted. He is also confirmed in the idea that the gospel is about love and human brotherhood. He is also reinforced in his conviction that his conscience is what really matters. Unfortunately, the Pope seems to agree on all three points. Is this good apologetics?