In a bit of news that probably has escaped notice from most people, a new “Archbishop” has been named for the archdiocese of New York. Timothy Dolan is replacing Edward Egan, and is generally considered to be a far nicer, more outgoing guy. He just looks like a nice guy, kind of uncomfortable in the obscene finery that archbishops are normally dressed in. He kind of looks like a guy coming from Milwaukee (which he is), the kind of guy who enjoys a bratwurst or perhaps a donut (or three!) He is making a centerpiece of his ministry a renewed interest in “vocations”, calls to the Roman priesthood.
The viability of a celibate male priesthood is a centerpiece of the agenda first promoted by John Paul II that continues under Benedict XVI. It is an agenda designed to restore the teaching authority (magisterium) of the pope, provide doctrinal clarity and unity, and put an end to the deviations and diversions that sprang up in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. While John Paul and Benedict, until 2005 known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, never publicly criticized Vatican II itself, they clearly took a dim view of the interpretation of the council's work by the church's left wing. "Liberation theology," which was often indistinguishable from Marxism, was the first trend to be squelched. Advocacy for women priests and married priests, and calls for doctrinal change that would better reflect secular society's norms -- on issues such as abortion or same-sex unions -- have been discouraged and resisted at every level. Because personnel moves are policy decisions in any large organization, the past two popes have been scrupulous in appointing bishops with orthodox views. So much so that Father McBrien has stated that John Paul's "most serious deficiency" was "the poor quality" of the bishops he appointed.
The problem, as an outsider, seems to be to me that Rome has (no pun intended) inseparably wedded fundamental Biblical positions on items like abortion and same-sex marriage with manmade traditions like a celibate priesthood which not only has no Scriptural support, but flies in the face of Biblical teaching (see the admonitions in Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus regarding the importance of being a good husband and father, kind of hard for a bishop to do if he is celibate). The idea of an all-male, celibate priesthood blurs the Biblical decree that church leadership be exclusively male with a tradition that demands celibacy from church leaders. As such, it is a pretty weak position but if Rome abandons the celibate priesthood, you can be sure that women priests are going to follow.
It is universally a danger when you start to link traditions or even secondary doctrinal issues with “hill to die on” issues, because once you say that A and B are equally important, it is awfully hard to disentangle them later. This is especially true in Roman Catholicism, a religion steeped in traditions that sidestep or even override Scripture. However, that is not a problem reserved for or unique to Rome. It is easy to cast stones over the Tiber River, but there is a real danger inherent in this for those who look to Geneva instead of Rome for our traditions.
There are plenty of issues that are “line in the sand” issues: Justification by faith alone. Substitionary atonement. The infallibility, inerrancy and sufficiency of the Scriptures. The Trinity. The divinity of Christ. Complementarianism. But when you step back and start to unravel doctrines, it is amazing how many of them turn out to not be as Scriptural as we think they are. I am not talking crazy stuff like radical “King James Onlyism”, but church traditions that we find in your average Protestant church.
Some of the areas where the Scripture is the least clear are areas of some of the greatest dogmatism, i.e. eschatology and ecclesiology. The Bible is pretty clear on the sinful state of man and that sinners are justified by faith alone. But the specifics about the return of Christ? Not so much. We know some things for sure, Christ is coming back at a time appointed that we do not know, He is going to judge the wicked and the redeemed will reign with Him forever. I can say that with no hesitation. But when you start getting into dogmatic assertions that end with –millenialism you are treading on thin ice. I went to the Toledo Reformed Theological Conference last year, and the three speakers presented on post-, pre- and a- millennial views. I came away far less convinced than I was going in. I know that I don’t buy the “Premil, pretrib, dispensationalism” hermeneutic but I am not sure that the other schools of thought have a much better position.
Ecclesiology is the other side of the coin. Boy, you start asking questions about why we do what we do and it is on! If there is anything the Bible is (I think intentionally) vague about, it is on the specifics of our fellowship. We get some clues of what sorts of things were going on (breaking of bread, prayers, teaching, preaching) but very little in the way of details. To hear some people though, and you would think there was a prefilled bulletin in the Bible that lays out for us an order of worship, starting precisely at 11:00 AM on Sunday morning.
My point is this. We can look at Rome and the celibate priesthood with derision, but we ought to be very careful that we don’t fall into the same trap. I fear that we are already pretty deeply embedded in this mindset already. If you think we aren’t, try going into a Baptist church and declaring that the body is going to observe the Lord’s Supper every week. That is not very radical at all, but I guarantee you that people will start squawking! Try something even more radical, and you will see people leaving or the pastor leaving.
No comments:
Post a Comment