John Paul II took up the office of Pope during the waning
years of the Cold War. As the Christian Right sought to expand its political
and cultural influence they found common cause with the Polish Pope who seemed
to stand for conservative cultural values and was an ally in the war against
the Soviets and Communism.
In other words, John Paul II was a bridge between the
Evangelical and Roman Catholic worlds.
And indeed by the 1990s, while the 'Christian' West was
taking victory laps, a new form of ecumenicism led by figures like Charles
Colson was on the rise. The definitions and focus of Evangelical Christianity
was rapidly shifting away from doctrine to hone in on the culture. In terms of
cultural categories, Roman Catholicism was not only an ally but a Christian one.
This shift in thinking continues to reverberate through American
Evangelicalism.
The myths of the Cold War, already advanced in the 1990s wove
a narrative of Western victory based on the efforts, designs and leadership of
Margaret Thatcher but primarily Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. Oversimplified
and misleading the myth-narrative continues to gain traction especially as the
years place a greater distance between our own day and the actual events.
The deep corruption, the sheltering of paedophiles (known to
many even then) and the ongoing scandals regarding the Vatican Bank and its
host of sordid criminal conspiracies... these things were swept under the rug
and obfuscated. These crimes became trivial details in light of the supposedly great
victory and moral leadership of the Papacy.
I recall clearly during the 1990s that many Evangelicals,
even several Reformed pastors I knew argued that John Paul II was very likely a
Christian. I was appalled.
What I remember is what this Roman Catholic author wishes to
recall... and in his case celebrate. I remember a Mariolater, a corrupt prelate
and a lot of mythology.
An interesting man to be sure but Biblically speaking there's
no reason to assume he's in heaven. If one wishes to revisit John Paul II at
this point it's probably more profitable to turn to Roman Catholic authors and
essayists than the numerous Evangelical hagiographers who praise him as a
fellow believer who battled the Communists even while ignoring what his
supposed Christianity was really all about. I don't expect much from Roman
Catholic authors but I am both frustrated and a bit angered by the various
Evangelical paeans to his memory.
He denied the authority of Scripture and the basics of the
Gospel. His system is based on centuries of man-made tradition and rests on a
narrative of lies.
And this is just for starters. Apparently we are to ignore
the fact that he was a blaspheming antichrist who dared proclaim himself God's
regent, the very voice of God on Earth.
During the Reformation, things adiaphora were the things 'indifferent' the points of doctrine and
worship that the Scripture did not formally command but did not necessarily
forbid. It became a subject of debate. Take vestments for example. Lutherans
and Anglicans insisted these were adiaphora. The Reformed rejected classifying
vestments as adiaphora and instead classified them as forbidden innovations
without New Testament warrant.
Appealing to the Old Testament in order to vindicate their
use was Judaizing. Absent a Levitical priesthood the Roman, Anglican or
Lutheran variety of vestments were man-made contrivances, not made by following
Scriptural commands but were (and are) innovations that while perhaps
'inspired' by Old Testament vestments cannot claim to be established by any
kind of Divine decree.
The Reformed (who today have largely abandoned this teaching)
had a much more narrow view of what was adiaphora. Largely it was limited to
questions such as the time of meeting, the arrangement of the meeting room, the
actual order of worship etc...
This issue is worth revisiting. Modern Evangelicals are so
confused when it comes to doctrine and worship that they are quickly embracing
a host of Roman Catholic practices, viewing them as adiaphora even though
you'll rarely hear the term. Gone is any notion of Scriptural sufficiency and
authority when it comes to delineating Christian doctrine and practice. Saint
worship, rosaries and the Mass are quickly becoming things indifferent. You say
po-tay-toe and I say po-tah-toe.
If John Paul II was a Christian then indeed Mary/Lady of Fatima
worship, even under the Catholic deception of hyper-dulia (their manufactured and
fraudulent concept to escape charges of Mariolatry) has become adiaphora, something indifferent that
doesn't affect the gospel. As Evangelicals quickly embrace every Roman Catholic
fad transformed into consumerist guise, how long before they start lighting
candles to saints?
John Paul II is a man of history. He played a part. He was
certainly an interesting and complicated person... but a Christian hero to be
celebrated? I think not.
What are you thoughts on Revelation as a source of liturgical metaphors and form for worship? The visions depend on Jewish symbols, which, if one believes, are not empty, or temporally limited, but depend upon heavenly forms.
ReplyDeleteMy own sympathies are closer to this argument, though I always value your ideas and thinking. And as an update, while I appreciate much in Byzantine theology, I am not, and probably never, going to cross the Bosporus.
I think it would be Judaizing and I don't think you could do it a la carte. So unless you can figure out how to incorporate thrones etc... I'm not sure how one would even do it.
ReplyDeleteNot following the Bible Answer Man?
I will say this. If I didn't hold to my extreme position, the alternative would be the Judaized Revelation example. And when surveying the scene, the East definitely comes closest to fulfilling that vision. I will give them that.
Ha, ok, I was hoping for at least something more, at least why the heavenly forms, revealed in a New Testament book to an Apostle, count as Judaized. But alright.
DeleteByzantine theology has preserved, in its ancient tomes, Maximus who is someone who grasps Christology past many problems Augustine introduced. He is mostly forgotten in the West. He is what makes Byzantium sparkle, even though, perhaps fittingly, if not ironically, he perished at the hands of patriarch, pope, and emperor.
And I didn't not much about the Bible Answer Man before, but in the wake of his conversion, it turns out he is pretty fraudulent. But like many denominations, when the clergy found out a multi-million dollar parishioner might join, they rolled out the carpet, even if he doesn't know a thing about theology beyond talking-points and witty retorts.
I sense some cut to your words, were you worried about me? :)
cal
Hey Proto,
ReplyDeleteWould you recommend reading "The Pligrim Church" by E.H. Broadbent? Have you hear of, or read, this book? Not sure how else to contact you so I figured I'd just ask here.
I have to give Broadbent's work something of a mixed review. On the one hand it's a great book with a very exciting and satisfying narrative. On the other hand he undermines his credibility with a significant number of errors and omissions. He gets some things just plain wrong and at times I was rather surprised but what he left out.
ReplyDeleteHe's theologically baptistic and that preference shines through, though he's honest about the fact that many of the groups he cites did not hold to that theology. This is significantly better than some of the Baptist apologists, like the Landmark group which manipulates history to give it a Baptistic read.
Broadbent's greatest strength is his post-Reformational history, the chapters where he covers the Haldane's and the various 19th century Restorationist groups. He gives special attention to the Plymouth Brethren... his own group and the group that provides the lens by which he reads history. Interestingly as an advocate of the Open Brethren he takes the baptistic theological position and yet fully aware of the Exclusive Brethren's retention of paedobaptism (infant baptism) he seems to be somewhat tolerant of the position.
I enjoyed the work and appreciated the fact that it's accessible to people that aren't Church History buffs. But it's not without some significant faults.
You can always contact me at protoprotestant@gmail.com. I will try to get back to you. I'm way behind on emails. 2017 has been rough as far as time. I hope that within the next few weeks things will get a lot better. I'll be making less money but I'll have more time for the things that are important.
It's been on the back-burner for some time but God willing I hope to publish a series on Church History sometime later this year. I just haven't had the time to put it together and flesh out the notes. In that piece I hope to discuss some of the resources available for those interested in an alternative reading of Church History.
ReplyDeleteTime is my great enemy. I have to scrape together enough to pay the bills and sometimes I get trapped into jobs that end up being very time consuming. I've been stuck on a job since the beginning of the year. It's almost done and at that point my 'free' time will open up quite a bit. I am determined to avoid such all-consuming jobs in the future. The long-term steady work is nice but it's way too absorbing, stressful etc... I end up thinking about my work in my free time, in my sleep etc... I hate that. Simple is better even if it means less money.