There is an extremely interesting analysis of the seeker-sensitive movement, typified by Rick Warren‘s book The Purpose Driven Life, on the American Thinker website: ‘Seeker-Sensitive’ Conservatism by Alan Roebuck
I’ll just highlight a couple of points:
One result is that the deep and challenging teachings of traditional Christianity must never be presented in the Sunday morning worship service that has traditionally been the cornerstone of Christian fellowship. Not only will non-Christian seekers probably not want to hear that God regards them as sinners, but they will have no interest in what Warren (and theological liberals) dismissively call “doctrine,” that is, the actual content of the religion preached by Christ and the Apostles. The result is a Christianity that retains the rituals and some of the language of traditional Protestant Christianity, but is effectively stripped of its content.
Of course, there is a Catholic equivalent: Catholic-lite – pretty on the outside but nothing on the inside.
But this is what really scared me:
For example, seeker-sensitive clergy will allude to the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, but they will describe this “salvation” primarily in terms of personal life-enhancement. They will rarely mention, and certainly not elaborate on, the traditional Christian doctrines that salvation is necessary because God punishes unforgiven sinners by sending them to Hell, that forgiveness was achieved by the death of Christ on the Cross, and that all this is made possible because of the sovereign and supernatural work of God. These teachings would be too challenging to the seeker, so they are removed, resulting in a desiccated Christianity.
Oprah with a bit of religion??
What sort of God is this proclaiming?? A god who asks nothing of me?? Or a god who helps me to think more positively and act in my own best interest?
Terra has an interesting post about Traditionalism: What is a traditionalist? Last part!. Terra is to be congratulated for wrestling with the question of identity for traditionalists (something, btw, I have raised before). I am no theologian, nor am I a philosopher, but my simple reading of the post leaves me a little unimpressed. I somehow feel the answer raises more questions. Allow me to ask a couple:
A traditionalist is loyal to the Pope but believes that (1) Tradition is a quite distinct concept from the Magisterium, and (2) there are limits, prescribed by the Church, to papal infallibility.
The problem remains: who says? Is separation of Tradition from Magisterium traditional? Is it not, in fact, the opposite?? Without a doubt there are limits but who decides where these are??
Tradition has content that is distinct from Scripture and to the Magisterium.
This begs the question: which is? Jesus is the Word of God that is transmitted through Tradition, Scripture, and the Church. Jesus communicated himself to the apostles and this communication continues in the Church through the line of bishops in communion with the successor of Saint Peter. What exactly is the content that is distinctive from the Magistrium?
I wonder how the above stands with Dei Verbum?
My issues with the above is the flip-side of my argument with Protestantism: why the absolutes? Protestantism absolutizes the Word of God in Scripture, Traditionalism the Word of God in Tradition. Both separate the Word of God from the Church and have no choice but to elevate private judgement. Further, I wonder where the starting point is: what has led these people to adopt this position within the Church?
The constant name-calling and triumphalism does not help endear me to it. (Okay, I will now be called a neo-con or a Magisterialist!) Maybe work with people rather than against everyone who does not conform to your ideas. There are many faithful Catholics who happily attend the Ordinary Usage who would be more than happy to help their fellow Catholics who are attached to the Traditional forms of the liturgy but are put-off by the negativity and name-calling.
I have recently discussed the use of Sola Scriptura as a reference point for ecumenical apologetics. I do not think that a narrow Biblicistic attitude is helpful in exploring the differences that still separate us. I also think that it is most unhelpful to accuse each other of all sorts of heresies and prophesy eternal calamities. So it falls to me to suggest another Reference Point.
So my suggestion as a Reference Point are the three commonly accepted symbols of the Faith:
- The Apostles’ Creed
- The Nicene Creed
- The Athanasian Creed
There are some issues (filique etc) but these are commonly accepted statements of faith that have a continuity of use.
What do you think?
In the original Greek text the central statement in the third section of the Creed runs simply: “I believe in Holy Spirit.” The definite article to which we are accustomed in our translation is thus missing. This is very important for the interpretation of the original meaning, for it means that this article was at first really understood in terms of salvation history, not of the Trinity. In other words, the third section of the Creed refers in the first place, not to the Holy Spirit as the third Person in the Godhead, but to the Holy Spirit as God’s gift to history in the community of those who believe in Christ.
Introduction to Christianity, 331.
Discussions with self-appointed-Protestant-apologists are often sidelined (salvation, the papacy, Mary, etc) from the real issue: theological method. The simple truth is that a bad tree (method) cannot produce good fruit (doctrine and morals).
Wikipedia (if Wikipedia says it, it must be true) states that Sola scriptura was (is??) a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation. So, to continue a bad metaphor, the Protestant tree stands or falls by this one principle. Wikipedia gives us a good working definition for Sola Scriptura:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
Assuming the above to be semi-correct (and I am very happy for someone to float a different definition), allow me to ask two simple questions of our separated brethren:
- Is Sola Scriptura scriptural?
- The definition above illustrates the major problem with the idea of Sola Scriptura in one word: self-authenticating. For this to be true the Bible must claim for itself the place given to it in Reformed Protestant Theology. It must, in other words, state that it is the final authority for all issues of Christian doctrine. If, however, it is held as an assumption, room is given for a higher authority.
Yet, this issue goes further. The Bible must be explicit (in the words of the definition, clear) on all issues and not tacit since the latter requires an interpretive agent. This issue is central: what is clear? Who is a rational reader? For example, are the words of Jesus clear when he says This is my Body? How is the doctrine of the Trinity scriptural?
- Is Sola Scriptura historical?
- The above defines the Bible as the written word. How did this written word come into existence? Was there a time when this written word was not but there was a group of people who dedicated their lives completely to Jesus? Further, taking the assumption that the Bible self-authenticating, where is the list of the canonical books to be found in the Bible?
The issue is further clouded when one asks whether there is a historical continuity to this idea. How does novelty make for good theology?
BTW: There is a Star Trek movie (is it The Search for Spock?) where Spock and Bones discuss Spock’s death. Spock simply says that unless they find a referrence point they cannot start the discussion. Well, Mr Self-Appointed-Internet-Protestant-Apologist, unless we find a reference point there is no discussion!
I recently posted a quote from John Macquarrie, Scripture itself is not revelation, in combox. What do people think of the quote? (BTW: John Macquarrie was an Anglican but, alas, a fine theologian!)
Also, very much related, how is one to understand the concept of the inerrancy of the Scriptures within this context?
Facebook is a great time waster. I love looking at friends’ friends and seeing whom I know. (Okay, not many as my misanthropy stops me from wanting to get to know people!)
But something continuously puzzles me: why do some people (whom I know to be clergy) put Christian as their religious view?? What is that: theologically educated people think there is such a creature as generic-Christianity?? What defines this generic-Christianity?? Don’t even get me started on Christian – Catholic!!!
Hey, Facebook, what about the Christian – Protestant category.