The Third Way: Catholicism and Homosexuality

The Third Way from Blackstone Films on Vimeo.

Remarks of Robert P. George National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

Ashamed of the Gospel?

Remarks of Robert P. George National Catholic Prayer Breakfast May 13, 2014

[Dr. Robert George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, where he lectures on constitutional interpretation, civil liberties and philosophy of law. He also serves as the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. George has been called America's "most influential conservative Christian thinker." He is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and the Herbert W. Vaughan senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute. He is also a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. (From wikipedia)]

The days of socially acceptable Christianity are over. The days of comfortable Catholicism are past. It is no longer easy to be a faithful Christian, a good Catholic, an authentic witness to the truths of the Gospel. A price is demanded and must be paid. There are costs of discipleship—heavy costs, costs that are burdensome and painful to bear.

Of course, one can still safely identify oneself as a “Catholic,” and even be seen going to mass. That is because the guardians of those norms of cultural orthodoxy that we have come to call “political correctness” do not assume that identifying as “Catholic” or going to mass necessarily means that one actually believes what the Church teaches on issues

such as marriage and sexual morality and the sanctity of human life. 1

And if one in fact does not believe what the Church teaches, or, for now at least, even if one does believe those teachings but is prepared to be completely silent about them, one is safe—one can still be a comfortable Catholic. In other words, a tame Catholic, a Catholic who is ashamed of the Gospel—or who is willing to act publicly as if he or she were ashamed—is still socially acceptable. But a Catholic who makes it clear that he or she is not ashamed is in for a rough go—he or she must be prepared to take risks and make sacrifices. “If,” Jesus said, “anyone wants to be my disciple, let him take up his cross and follow me.” We American Catholics, having become comfortable, had forgotten, or ignored, that timeless Gospel truth. There will be no ignoring it now.

The question each of us today must face is this: Am I ashamed of the Gospel? And that question opens others: Am I prepared to pay the price that will be demanded if I refuse to be ashamed, if, in other

words, I am prepared to give public witness to the massively politically 2

incorrect truths of the Gospel, truths that the mandarins of an elite culture shaped by the dogmas of expressive individualism and me- generation liberalism do not wish to hear spoken? Or, put more simply, am I willing, or am I, in the end, unwilling, to take up my cross and follow Christ?

Powerful forces and currents in our society press us to be ashamed of the Gospel—ashamed of the good, ashamed of our faith’s teachings on the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions, ashamed of our faith’s teachings on marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. These forces insist that the Church’s teachings are out of date, retrograde, insensitive, uncompassionate, illiberal, bigoted—even hateful. These currents bring pressure on all of us—and on young Catholics in particular—to yield to this insistence. They threaten us with consequences if we refuse to call what is good evil, and what is evil good. They command us to conform our thinking to their orthodoxy, or

else say nothing at all. 3

Do you believe, as I believe, that every member of the human family, irrespective of age or size or stage of development or condition of dependency, is the bearer of inherent dignity and an equal right to life? Do you hold that the precious child in the womb, as a creature made in the very image and likeness of God, deserves respect and protection? Then, powerful people and institutions say, you are a misogynist—a hater of women, someone who poses a threat to people’s privacy, an enemy of women’s “reproductive freedom.” You ought to be ashamed!

Do you believe, as I believe, that the core social function of marriage is to unite a man and woman as husband and wife to be mother and father to children born of their union? Do you hold, as I hold, that the norms that shape marriage as a truly conjugal partnership are grounded in its procreative nature—its singular aptness for the project of child-rearing? Do you understand marriage as the uniquely

comprehensive type of bond—comprehensive in that it unites spouses 4

in a bodily way and not merely at the level of hearts and minds—that is oriented to and would naturally be fulfilled by their conceiving and rearing children together? Then these same forces say you are a homophobe, a bigot, someone who doesn’t believe in equality. You even represent a threat to people’s safety. You ought to be ashamed!

But, of course, what you believe, if you believe these things, is a crucial part of the Gospel. You believe the truth—in its fullness—about the dignity of the human person and the nature of marriage and sexual morality as proclaimed by the Church—our only secure source of understanding the Gospel message. So when you are invited to distance yourself from these teachings or go silent about them, when you are threatened with opprobrium or the loss of professional opportunities or social standing if you do not, you are being pressured to be ashamed of the Gospel—which means to give up faith in the Lordship of Christ and hope in the triumph of goodness, righteousness,

and love in and through Him. 5

To be a witness to the Gospel today is to make oneself a marked man or woman. It is to expose oneself to scorn and reproach. To unashamedly proclaim the Gospel in its fullness is to place in jeopardy one’s security, one’s personal aspirations and ambitions, the peace and tranquility one enjoys, one’s standing in polite society. One may in consequence of one’s public witness be discriminated against and denied educational opportunities and the prestigious credentials they may offer; one may lose valuable opportunities for employment and professional advancement; one may be excluded from worldly recognition and honors of various sorts; one’s witness may even cost one treasured friendships. It may produce familial discord and even alienation from family members. Yes, there are costs of discipleship— heavy costs.

There was a time, not long ago, when things were quite different. Of

course, there have always been anti-Catholic currents in sectors of 6

American society. And at certain times and in certain circumstances and places one paid a price for being a Catholic. But as the nation progressed, anti-Catholicism in many sectors dissipated and one could be a true and faithful Catholic without suffering significantly in terms of lost opportunities or standing in the community. Biblical and natural law beliefs about morality were culturally normative; they were not challenges to cultural norms. But those days are gone. What was once normative is now regarded as heretical—the moral and cultural equivalent of treason. And so, here we are.

You see, for us, as for our faithful Evangelical friends, it is now Good Friday. The memory of Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem has faded. Yes, he had been greeted—and not long ago—by throngs of people waving palm branches and shouting “Hosanna to the Son of David.” He rode into the Jerusalem of Europe and the Jerusalem of the Americas and was proclaimed Lord and King. But all that is now in the

past. Friday has come. The love affair with Jesus and his Gospel and his 7

Church is over. Elite sectors of the cultures of Europe and North America no longer welcome his message. “Away with him,” they shout. “Give us Barabbas!”

So for us there is no avoiding the question: Am I ashamed of the Gospel? Am I unwilling to stand with Christ by proclaiming His truths? Oh, things were easy on Palm Sunday. Standing with Jesus and His truths was the in thing to do. Everybody was shouting “Hosanna.” But now it’s Friday, and the days of acceptable Christianity are over. The days of comfortable Catholicism are past. Jesus is before Pilate. The crowds are shouting “crucify him.” The Lord is being led to Calvary. Jesus is being nailed to the cross.

And where are we? Where are you and I? Are we afraid to be known as his disciples? Are we ashamed of the Gospel?

8

Will we muster the strength, the courage, the faith to be like Mary the Mother of Jesus, and like John, the apostle whom Jesus loved, and stand faithfully at the foot of the cross? Or will we, like all the other disciples, flee in terror? Fearing to place in jeopardy the wealth we have piled up, the businesses we have built, the professional and social standing we have earned, the security and tranquility we enjoy, the opportunities for worldly advancement we cherish, the connections we have cultivated, the relationships we treasure, will we silently acquiesce to the destruction of innocent human lives or the demolition of marriage? Will we seek to “fit in,” to be accepted, to live comfortably in the new Babylon? If so, our silence will speak. Its words will be the words of Peter, warming himself by the fire: “Jesus the Nazorean? I tell you, I do not know the man.”

Perhaps I should make explicit what you have no doubt perceived as

implicit in my remarks. The saving message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ

includes, integrally, the teachings of His church on the profound and 9

inherent dignity of the human person and the nature of marriage as a conjugal bond—a one-flesh union. The question of faith and fidelity that is put to us today is not in the form it was put to Peter—“surely you are you this man’s disciple”—it is, rather, do you stand for the sanctity of human life and the dignity of marriage as the union of husband and wife? These teachings are not the whole Gospel— Christianity requires much more than their affirmation. But they are integral to the Gospel—they are not optional or dispensable. To be an authentic witness to the Gospel is to proclaim these truths among the rest. The Gospel is, as St. John Paul the Great said, a Gospel of Life. And it is a Gospel of family life, too. And it is these integral dimensions of the Gospel that powerful cultural forces and currents today demand that we deny or suppress.

These forces tell us that our defeat in the causes of marriage and

human life are inevitable. They warn us that we are on the “wrong side

of history.” They insist that we will be judged by future generations the 10

way we today judge those who championed racial injustice in the Jim Crow south. But history does not have sides. It is an impersonal and contingent sequence of events, events that are determined in decisive ways by human deliberation, judgment, choice, and action. The future of marriage and of countless human lives can and will be determined by our judgments and choices—our willingness or unwillingness to bear faithful witness, our acts of courage or cowardice. Nor is history, or future generations, a judge invested with god-like powers to decide, much less dictate, who was right and who was wrong. The idea of a “judgment of history” is secularism’s vain, meaningless, hopeless, and pathetic attempt to devise a substitute for what the great Abrahamic traditions of faith know is the final judgment of Almighty God. History is not God. God is God. History is not our judge. God is our judge.

One day we will give an account of all we have done and failed to do.

Let no one suppose that we will make this accounting to some

impersonal sequence of events possessing no more power to judge 11

than a golden calf or a carved and painted totem pole. It is before God—the God of truth, the Lord of history—that we will stand. And as we tremble in His presence it will be no use for any of us to claim that we did everything in our power to put ourselves on “the right side of history.”

One thing alone will matter: Was I a faithful witness to the Gospel? Did I do everything in my power to place myself on the side of truth? The one whose only begotten Son tells us that he, and he alone, is “the way, the truth, and the life” will want to know from each of us whether we sought the truth with a pure and sincere heart, whether we sought to live by the truth authentically and with integrity, and—let me say this with maximum clarity—whether we stood up for the truth, speaking it out loud and in public, bearing the costs of discipleship that are inevitably imposed on faithful witnesses to truth by cultures that turn away from God and his law. Or were we ashamed of the Gospel?

12

The Gospel is true. The whole Gospel is true. Its teachings about life and marriage are true—even its hardest sayings, such as Christ’s clear teaching about the indissolubility of what God has united and about the adulterous nature of any sexual relation outside that bond.

If we deny truths of the Gospel, we really are like Peter, avowing that “I do not know the man.” If we go silent about them, we really are like the other apostles, fleeing in fear. But when we proclaim the truths of the Gospel, we really do stand at the foot of the cross with Mary the Mother of Jesus and John the disciple whom Jesus loved. We show by our faithfulness that we are not ashamed of the Gospel. We prove that we are truly Jesus’s disciples, willing to take up his cross and follow him—even to Calvary.

And we bear witness by our fidelity to the greatest truth of all, namely,

that the story does not end at Golgotha. Evil and death do not triumph.

Yes, it is Good Friday, but the one who became like us in all things but 13

sin conquers death to redeem us from our transgressions and give us a full share in eternal life—the divine life of the most blessed Trinity. The cross cannot defeat him. The sepulcher cannot hold him. His heavenly Father will not abandon him. The psalm that begins in despair, Eloi, Eloi lama sabachtani, ends in hope and joy. Easter is coming. The crucified Christ will be raised from the dead. The chains of sin will be broken. “Oh death, where is thy victory? Oh death, where is thy sting?”

I grew up as a Catholic in a Protestant culture. The Protestants of my boyhood were what we today call Evangelicals. In those days, the religious differences between us seemed vast, though today the personal and spiritual bonds we have formed in bearing common witness to marriage and the sanctity of human life have relativized, though, of course, not eliminated, those differences. We now know that Evangelical Protestants are truly our brothers and sisters in Christ—separated from us in certain ways, to be sure, but bound

together with us nevertheless in spiritual fellowship. Growing up, I 14

admired the strength of their faith, and their willingness openly to profess it. And I loved their hymns. One of the most familiar ones contains a vital message for us Catholics today. You will recognize the first verse:

On a hill faraway, stood an old rugged cross, The emblem of suffering and shame;
I love that old cross, where the dearest and best, For a world of lost sinners was slain.

And the chorus goes:

I will cherish the old rugged cross,
Till my trophies at last I lay down.
I will cling to the old rugged cross, And exchange it someday for a crown.

15

Yes, there’s the story. Christ must endure the sufferings of Good Friday to fulfill his salvific mission. But Easter is coming. And we, who cherish his cross, and are willing to bear his suffering and shame, will share in his glorious resurrection. We who cling to that old rugged cross will exchange it someday for a crown.

And then comes the next verse, and how perfectly it captures the attitude we must adopt, the stance we must take, the witness we must give, in these times of trial if we are to be true disciples of Jesus:

To the old rugged cross, I will ever be true,
Its shame and reproach gladly bear,
Till he calls me someday, to my home far away, Where forever his glory I’ll share.

Yes.

16

And I’ll cherish that old rugged cross, Till my trophies at last I lay down.
I will cling to the old rugged cross, And exchange it someday for a crown.

Yes, for us Catholics and all who seek to be faithful, it’s Good Friday. We are no longer acceptable. We can no longer be comfortable. It is for us a time of trial, a time of testing by adversity. But lest we fail the test, as perhaps many will do, let us remember that Easter is coming. Jesus will vanquish sin and death. We will experience fear, just as the apostles did—that is inevitable. Like Jesus himself in Gethsemane, we would prefer not to drink this cup. We would much rather be acceptable Christians, comfortable Catholics. But our trust in him, our hope in his resurrection, our faith in the sovereignty of his heavenly Father can conquer fear. By the grace of Almighty God, Easter is indeed coming. Do not be ashamed of the Gospel. Never be ashamed of the

Gospel.

17

Dr. James White and Theopneustos

I most readily understand nuances by comparisons. Such as: This is a grayish green rather than a bluish green when you put it up to blue or yellow. The white on the walls looks positively yellow when compared to the stark white of a sheet of paper.

So to help see potential weaknesses and strengths in Catholic or Protestant theology I listen to debates and theological radio call-in shows--often. Pretty much daily. 

If you do an internet search on Catholic/Protestant debates you will inevitable come across Alpha Omega Ministries run by Dr. James White. I think I have listened numerous times to most of his debates. His apologetics against Catholicism are most prolific online, but he is not the best Protestant debater. 

Not to judge his heart, but it does seem that Dr. White is not debating to bring clarity to the subject of theology. Rather his goal seems to be to “expose” Catholicism as an evil, anti-gospel message. His agenda is not to bring glory to God by respectfully listening,understanding and presenting truth, but to win a theological battle. 

Dr. White’s apologetics looks positively grayish-wrong when debating Mitch Pacwa, Robert Sungenis, Patrick Madrid or any of his Catholic opponents.

Dr. White (knowingly or unknowingly) uses verbal tricks that create the idea that he is the trusted authority, the expert, and his

opponent’s opinions cannot be trusted. He will accuse his opponent of using circular arguments as he is making his own. He will denounce his opponent of misrepresenting history when he is in actuality composing his own. He tries to make solidly Catholic early Christian Fathers and scholars and bishops (and even popes!) seem like they are closet Protestants born and enslaved in Catholicism eagerly awaiting the Reformation. While he is claiming we use history and the Bible inaccurately to support our own positions, he is busy twisting the same for his own purposes. 

Dr. White is notorious for setting a false premise and demanding that the opponent argue within that premise.
White will read some ancient document or obscure quote from a malcontent Catholic scholar and then demand that the Catholic apologist he is debating use that quote as an authority and the foundation of the Catholic arguments rather than something from the current official Catholic Catechism.

I must admit, White speaks with such confidence, and even logic that it seems he is right, when he is profoundly wrong.

That Which is Theopneustos

One of White’s continual mantras is that the sole and final authority for the Christian is “that which is theopneustos.” The Greek word means, “God-breathed.” 

White bases this upon the text where Paul is telling his protege Timothy that as a young bishop, he can look to scripture to help him lead the people because:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God (theopneustos), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  2 Tim. 3: 16, 17

Scripture is God-breathed. An excellent and logical choice for one’s final spiritual authority-- "that which is theopneustos,” right?

But White’s demand that his ultimate and infallible authority, theopneustos, is not based upon what the Bible teaches. 

“Wait?” You say. “We just read that the scripture is God-breathed and perfect!”

My reply is: Absolutely. Catholics teach that the Bible is a God-breathed, infallible and a perfect authority. But look carefully at the text. It no where says or even implies that it is the sole and final authority. That is an addition to the text.

This idea of the Bible being the final authority because it is theopneustos is White’s own invented standard, his personal tradition. In fact, the authoritative, theopneustos God-breathed scriptures actually points to something else than itself as Christian’s final authority. Very weird isn’t it? But let’s back up for a Biblical overview.

Is God’s Old Testament Final Authority Theopneustos?

Let’s go through the Bible and see who is considered the authority for God’s people starting in the old testament. Passing up the tribal patriarchal examples, let’s go to Moses.

Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.” Ex. 7:1

Like God? That is, I would expect, the final authority. However, the text doesn’t call Moses a God-breathed authority. While one might make a good case that Moses was, it is not explicitly nor implicitly in the text.

Could an Israelite go up to Moses and show him scripture and kindly disagree with Moses’ interpretation of God’s Word and opt out of Moses’ flock to be a rogue sheep? Maybe this Israelite might even claim that since Moses wasn’t infallible or God-breathed he wasn’t the true final authority for Israel?

What happened if you spoke against or went against Moses? 

1. You got leprosy. 

When the cloud lifted from above the Tent, there stood Miriam--leprous, like snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had leprosy; Numbers 12: 10

2. Or the earth opened up and swallowed you.

Eliab's sons were Nemuel, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram were the same community officials who refused to obey Moses and Aaron. They were among the followers of Korah who refused to obey the Lord. Numbers 26: 9

and what he did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab the Reubenite, when the earth opened its mouth right in the middle of all Israel and swallowed them up with their households, their tents and every living thing that belonged to them. Deut. 11: 6 

This happened because they had not obeyed the LORD their God, but had violated his covenant--all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded. They neither listened to the commands nor carried them out. 2 Kings 18:12 

Israel was given the God-breathed Torah that Moses heard and infallibly wrote down on Mt. Sinai but the final authority for Israel wasn’t the written word. Moses wasn’t theopneustos or infallible but he was the final authority for the people of God.

Please notice that Moses had such power he even loosened Israel’s divorce restrictions on his own authority. 

“Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” Matt. 19: 7, 8 (See also Mark 10)

Joshua, the Judges (including Samson), King Saul, King David... These men were Israel’s final civil authorities, while the High Priests were the final spiritual authorities. Neither of which were theopneustos or infallible. These authorities were expected to teach and implement the theopneustos and infallible Torah. However, individual Israelites were not allowed to invoke their interpretation of Torah, no matter how sincere, and start a revolt and Reformation.


When Israel fell into corruption and idolatry, God didn’t blame it on the fact that the people weren’t going to scripture, but that the people had no authority. 

In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. (Judges, 17: 6; 21:25)

Again and again, in the Old Testament, while the Torah was indeed God-breathed and infallible and readily available, God used fallible men to be the final authority for His people. And Christ used the same standard in the New Testament.


Is God’s New Testament Final Authority Theopneustos?


Jesus vilified the hypocritical Pharisees, but before that, He warned those listening to obey them. As corrupt as they were as leaders, these white-washed tombs must be obeyed because of their position as Israel’s leaders.

So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Matt. 23: 3

Look at other fallible, not God-breathed but completely authoritative people in the New Testament scripture.

Parents:
Children must obey their parents as final authority. They cannot appeal to scripture to excuse disobedience. Eph. 6: 1-5, Col. 3: 20, I Peter 1: 14.

Husbands:
Wives are to submit to their husbands. Col 3:18-4:1, Ephesians 5: 24

Masters:
Slaves are to submit to their masters Eph. 6: 6, Col. 3: 22, I Peter 2: 18.


Government:
We must submit to our civic authorities. Rom. 13: 1, 5, I Peter 2: 13

I am not arguing for slavery, just making the point that throughout scriptures, authorities, even final authorities, were not infallible or theopneustos. Since God’s authorities in scripture were not necessarily infallible, why make that a prerequisite? 

Dr. White’s assumption that, “only that which is theopneustos” is our true and final authority just doesn’t stand up to critical examination, especially within the Protestant realm of sola scriptura. For nowhere in scripture does it imply that our final authority must be God-breathed.

Another premise that White may not necessarily say but imply is that anything theopneustos or God-breathed is necessarily infallible. Therefore, since the Bible is God-breathed it means it is infallible.

Yet not everything God-breathed was infallible.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2: 7

We inherited original sin because of God-breathed Adam, so the idea of something being theopneustos must therefore be infallible is incorrect.

Our Final Authority is Not Theopneustos?

I can imagine some readers are aghast! “Are you kidding? Seriously are you saying that man is above that which is God-breathed? We are to look to a fallible, not God-breathed authority rather than an infallible, God-breathed one?” Of course that sound completely irrational! My point is only that it, as a premise, is not found in scripture. That’s the bad news for White. His premise is not Biblical. However, there is good news for all the rest of us.

In the New Testament God doesn’t pit the theopneustos and infallible authority against the fallible, not God-breathed man in the Old Testament--like Moses vs. the Torah.

In fact, our New Testament final authority is God-breathed!

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said , he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.  Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit , they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain , they are retained.  John 20:19-24

The Apostles were God-breathed. The Bible is God-breathed. We have both!

While White might argue that the Apostles’ were not technically theopneustos because that word wasn’t used in John 20 or anywhere else in scripture. It was only used in 2 Timothy in the context of scripture. (As if the word theopneustos itself had a special type of God-breathing in the Bible that wasn’t for the Apostles.) 

I would then reply that God also used a word to describe the breathe that He gave the apostles that he didn’t give the scripture. Emphusao is also only used once in all of scripture. Emphusao is also the breath of God in the context of the Apostles receiving the Hagios (Holy) Pneuma (Ghost).

The Greek root pneu was used in giving the Holy Spirit to the writing of the scriptures and to the Apostles themselves. The breath of God in scriptures is the theopneustos. The Apostles received the Hagios Pneuma. Pneustos = pneuma. Same thing! Same breathe of God.

Who did God place in charge?


The most important point of all is that Christ did not place the theopneustos of scripture as the final authority but the church.

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matt. 18: 15-18

No Bible at all in this scenario. The final authority is the church.


Notice also other texts that place enormous authority in the Apostles: 

He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me. Luke 10 16 

Remember the words I spoke to you.... If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. John 15: 20

Paul as an Apostle demanded obedience from believers and he was the one who wrote to Timothy that the Bible was theopneustos (God-breathed). Even with the idea of the written Word of God being vital, Paul never implies that the written word carried more authority than the God-appointed leaders.

....to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it. I Cor. 16:16

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 2 Thess. 3: 14 (When writing this letter, Paul did not consider it scripture.)

The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 2 Cor. 2: 9   

And his affection for you is all the greater when he remembers that you were all obedient, receiving him with fear and trembling. 2 Cor. 7: 15 

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, Phil. 2: 12

Other New Testament texts that support men as authority:

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrew 13: 7 

Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. Rev. 3:3

Dr. White is usurping and replacing who God put in charge (clearly attested to in scripture) with who he believes should be in charge, “only that which is theopneustos.” Why? Because it gives him an excuse for disobeying God’s appointed leaders. 

Protestants misunderstand God. They believe their only authority should be that which is infallible and perfect. The written Word is the only thing that comes near that. Flesh and blood is fallible and they don't like to be subject to anyone who can tell them they are wrong and at the same time be fallible themselves. Black little letters don't disagree with their interpretation. 

So, they come up with their man-made tradition that their authority must be infallible and theopneustos. But that is not Biblical. What they have missed is a great and wonderful gift to the church. The church leaders may not be personally infallible, but they are God-breathed.

The Kingdom of Heaven: The Seen and Unseen

In Matthew 13, the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven was hidden by Christ in parables of daily Hebrew experiences. While His hearers understood what sowing and reaping were, what an expensive pearl or a lost coin or the king of a vineyard was, the deeper meanings He revealed only to His closest companions, the twelve. (Matt. 13:19)

As mundane as they seemed, these were strange parables. These didn't describe the Messianic Kingdom they were awaiting. And for many Christians today, they still don't describe the heaven we are awaiting at the Second Coming. We think of harps and clouds. Jesus describes wheats and tares.

If you follow the words of our Lord carefully through out His earthly ministry, you will begin noticing seemingly mutually exclusive statements about the Kingdom of God. It is now but later. Earthly but heavenly. This Kingdom is a dichotomy so layered as to reveal both the complexity of God and the simplicity of love. Let us take some time to wonder at the thrilling and at the same time perplexing and even confusing contradictions of the Kingdom of Heaven:

• The Kingdom is here, but it is yet to come. Often Jesus told His disciples that the kingdom of Heaven was there at that moment with phrases such as it has “come upon you;" it is “at hand,” “near you” and “in your midst.” Yet Jesus corrected the disciples when they though it was to appear immediately and told them of a story of a king going into a far country to receive a kingdom later. He told us to pray that it comes (future) and even promises that some of his followers, alive at that time, would see it come (soon). The thief asked to be remembered “when you come into your kingdom.” And Jesus responded, “Today” He would be with Him. And Christ promises the Kingdom will finally be delivered into the hands of His Father. The Kingdom is both in our midst now and is still waiting to be revealed. (Matt. 6:10; 10:7; 12:28; 16:28, Luke 10:9; 23:42; 17:21; 19:11-12, I Cor. 15:24)

• It is visible and worldwide and yet it is hidden and you must seek it. Jesus sent out His disciples to preach the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven to the whole world. He likened it to the tiniest of seeds growing to the most massive of trees. It is like leaven, it grows and yet it is hidden as a pearl or great treasure and we must seek it above all else.
  
  (Matt. 6:33; 13:31, 44; 24:14, Mark 15:43, Luke 23:51)

• It was from the beginning and eternal, yet, it was inaugurated at the Cross. (Matt. 25:34, Luke 1:33, Acts. 1:3, 2: 21-28, Rev. 11:15)

• It is an unshakable Kingdom of peace, and yet it is taken by violent force. (Matt. 11: 12, Rom. 14: 17; Heb. 12:28)

• It is brought to us by words, but it is not just words. The gospel of the Kingdom comes to us through hearing. We hear the truth spoken and it is transmitted by words and yet the Kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Matt. 13:16, 17, Mark 4:15-23, 33; 6:11; 7:14, Luke 6: 27; 8:21; 11:28, John 8: 43, 10:3, Rom. 10: 14, 17; 11: 8, I Cor. 4: 20. Heb. 3:7, 15; 4:7)

• It has authorities, but they are to be servants. They are God's men, yet they can be used by the Devil. God chooses the poor to be rich and the low to be great. The greatest living old covenant preacher, John the Baptist, is below the least in this kingdom. All, in His kingdom, sit on thrones reigning as priests but the leader He put over all the disciples and gave the key to was a poor fisherman. He chooses unworthy men and makes them great, but at the same time, the hierarchy is based on what these men do and teach. So it is God's sovereign choice yet, we too choose by our actions. 

• To everyone’s horror His leaders can be hypocrites and even shut up the kingdom so no other men can get in! Yet, His appointed leaders are commissioned to be humble and He warns them that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. Everything is a bit mixed up compared to our democracy and equal rights, for the Kingdom's wages are unfair, for the people are paid the same daily wage no matter when a person started working!

(Matt. 5:19; 11:11; 16:19; 18:3; 20; 23:13, Luke 22:30, Jam. 2:5, Rev. 1:6, 5:10

• It is God’s Kingdom, yet the Devil can deceive its citizens. (Matt. 13, 2 Tim. 4:18)

• Though it is not earned by works, you must be baptized to enter. (John 3:3, 5; Acts. 8: 12)

• It is a kingdom of mercy that saves sinners, yet it is a Kingdom of Judgment. (Matt. 13:38, 2 Tim 4:1, Rev. 12:10)

• We are saved by simple faith but the Kingdom has exceedingly high standards for entrance: The beloved Son has given us his Kingdom and delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to this kingdom with the Father’s good pleasure! With joy He throws out a net to the world and catches all kinds of good and bad fish in His kingdom. Even children are encouraged to enter before   they understand what they are doing. 

• In fact, you are required to be like a child for entrance. Yet, a great mystery is that flesh and blood cannot inherit it. And all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved, but not all who cry, “Lord” will enter, for only the obedient can get in. And those who look back at their former lives will end up like Lot’s wife. And if you are rich? It’s going to be tougher for you.
  
  If you assume you will go in because of some heritage or covenant and are not obedient, the harlots and tax collectors will get in before you. There is quite a list of those  who will not be in the Kingdom of Heaven: the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, envious, the drunk, one who carouses, the fornicator, impure, idolator, the unrighteous, the immoral. And adulterers, sexual perverts, male prostitutes, those who are effeminate, those with unnatural sexual affections, the greedy, thieves, revilers, murderers, those who take potions to keep from having children (pharmekia), the liars, perjurers, slave traders and robbers! And even as a corporate group the kingdom will be given to the nations who produce the fruits of righteousness. We, His people are sinners and yet we cannot enter the kingdom unless we are perfect. (Matt. 5:20; 7:21;13:47;18:3; 19:14, 23; 21:31, 43; Luke 9:62; 12:32; Acts 2: 21, Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 1:13; I Cor. 6: 9-10; 15:50, Rev. 21: 8)

• We must sacrifice much to enter, but we are made worthy by His righteousness. Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom. We must patiently endure sufferings and persecution for our testimony of Jesus. Some even castrate themselves or live in celibacy or pluck out part of the body (metaphorically, corporately); some leave homes or family to become a citizen. We must be faithful with his gifts for He will ask for an account of our talents. But, it is still Christ and His merits that make us worthy. And He promises we will be made worthy and will shine out like the sun. (Matt. 13:43; 18:23; 19:12, Mark 9:47, Luke 18:29; 19: 15, Acts 14:22, I Thess. 2:12, 2 Thess. 1:5)

• Don’t look for signs and yet when you see these things happen...
  
  "The kingdom comes not with signs to be observed,"  He tells the Pharisees then a few chapters later warns His listeners that there will be signs in the sun, moon and stars, fearful times when the powers of heaven will be shaken and when you see these things take place, you know that the Kingdom of God is near. (Luke 17:20; 21:25-32)

We have been taught God's kingdom will be perfect with no sin, so how is it possible that it is also filled with wheats and tares, good and bad fish? It's leaders are holy and sacred but some are corrupt? It is here now and yet to come? If  God is coming so all people see, how can it also be hidden? Visible and invisible,  spiritual and physical, seen and unseen, simple and complex, plain and mysterious?

There is only one entity that can be all these things at once. And that is God's Bride--His ekklesia, His Church. (Matt. 22:2 and chap. 25, John 3:29) 

The Kingdom of God is the Church, Christ's Bride. He was betrothed to her when He was among us, when He instituted the ekklesia (Matt. 16). He is going to prepare a place for her and will come again and receive her unto Himself. The Church is being made holy and pure, being washed by baptism and His word. (Eph. 5: 26, 2 Cor. 11: 2, Rev. 19: 7). She is both on earth (The Church Militant) and in heaven (Church Triumphant) and so when He comes for the Wedding Feast, He is bringing the holy, shining, adorned capital city of His heavenly Kingdom to His Kingdom on earth. (Rev. 21:2) 

She is the great mystery and enigma with her rites and sacraments, with her struggling to be holy and with her 2000-year-old faith in her Betrothed. She is the seen in the outstretched arms of St. Peter's Square, her cathedrals and popes and charities and schools, yet, she is the unseen in her humble, quiet cloistered prayers and in the daily spiritual wars going on in her people's hearts. 

The Church, who the world loves to hate is Christ's beloved Bride, the wife of the Lamb who is presently imperfect, yet covered with His perfection as she is being made in her husband's image. (Rev. 21:9) 

The Groom and His Bride finish out the story of God's love for mankind together, united forever in eternal love as they both, arm in arm, invite you to the wedding feast, "Come" they say, "Come. Let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires, take the water of life without price." (Rev. 22: 17)

That is how the mysterious story ends… how  the seeming contradictions are fulfilled. "It is finished" …. Christ and His bride live happily ever after.

• 
  
• 
  

• 
  

Pagan Christianity? Critique by Teresa Beem Part II

(Here's the link to PART ONE)

My younger second cousin has brown hair and brown eyes. She comes from Texas and sings. She even writes and loves children. Her chromosomes are very similar to mine. Therefore, since I have done extensive research on my cousin--extensive research--in fact, I am an expert on my cousin, I can write without any doubt at all, that my cousin comes from me. I am her direct mother. 

That conclusion is the problem with the authors' research. Christianity and paganism are similar--they worship alike with prayers and rituals and offerings. But that doesn't prove that they are directly linked or that since Christianity is the younger that it was born from paganism. The direct link is between Judaism and Christianity. In a sense Christianity's mother is Judaism and paganism is a second cousin. (That might make Islam a first cousin.) These religions are connected in that they sprang from the ancient human need to worship. Kind of like the French and Romanian languages have roots in Latin.

The authors' of Pagan Christianity researched paganism, but it seems, they either didn't research Catholicism or they simply ignored the claims of where Catholicism got its rites and rituals. If you believe Catholicism is evil and can't be trusted, then you will ignore its history and its evidence. So, the authors looked at the similarity between Christian traditions and paganism and seemed to research no further. 

Catholics are aware of many similarities between their religion and others. Ancient man worshipped with prayers, sermons, incense, special robes, priests, death rituals, exorcisms, special holy days, 

holy places, offerings, sacrifices, prophecies, moral laws and marriage ceremonies. All these were expressions of humanity's struggle to find God. It was a good struggle. Until God revealed Himself through the Jews, that's all we had. In each human heart there was a deep, primitive yearning for spiritual meaning and understanding of the world. Ancient man worshipped his ancestors with sacrifices and that tradition was passed on all the way back from Cain and Abel's sacrifice. They ancients worshipped, they just didn't know who to worship. The very beginnings of the mysteries of God had been given to the world and

legends of a god-man dying for our sins was retold until it had become Zeus and prophecies of miraculous virgin birth from a great woman had become Ishtar or Astarte. All the legends and worship practices of the pagans developed wrongly out of the most ancient true knowledge of God. Into this ignorance Israel was chosen to reveal the next epoch of the gospel mystery. Later, the fullness of time had been reached and our Savior was born.

So, we cannot see ancient paganism as examples of evil worship, but of ignorant worship. Once humanity was introduced to the true God paganism slowly dissipated, even though it never totally disappeared. Only now it would be evil to reject God to follow a false god. For the light has been fully revealed and a true choice given.

Protestants today look at the practices of ancient worship and assumes Christianity dipped into the pagan spices to enhance the flavoring of our worship to make it more palatable in our evangelization. The truth is that God made the spices and we all have used them! 

There is a lot of evidence in the writings of the early Church Fathers that show us their rejection of the false teaching of paganism and devotion to the worship taught to them by God. They retained a lot of Judaism. That is where the authors need to criticize if they dislike rituals and robes and candles and incense. 

[W]e do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savour of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices. For you very well know that the same animals are with some esteemed gods, with others wild beasts, and with others sacrificial victims. And, secondly, because we— who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona…or some one or other of those who are called gods— have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede, nor was rescued by that hundred-handed giant whose aid was obtained through Thetis, nor was anxious on this account that her son Achilles should destroy many of the Greeks because of his concubine Briseis. Those who believe these things we pity, and those who invented them we know to be devils. (Justin Martyr, First Apology)

Did some pagan rituals slip into Christianity? Absolutely. When bishops and priests bravely took the gospel message into a distant and dark area, they allowed the converts to continue doing the good they found in paganism, but gave it a new Christian context.  If there was a well-loved local celebration of the seasons, the priests retained the good idea of a celebration of the harvest and turned it into a type of thanksgiving to God. Just as King David took the plunder from the Canaanite nations and put them through fire and placed them in the holy of holies, Christianity took the good  baptized it and redeemed it for God. Truth and beauty and goodness are intrinsically good things. They should be 

redeemed for God rather than discarded or destroyed. Where pagan rites and beliefs were intrinsically evil, the Church would rather have gone to their deaths than adopt them. And often, they did and became martyrs when they refused to engage in idolatry.

_______

Let me give you some examples of how the authors misapply the historical facts:

They argue that since there are ancient pagan symbols of the cross and since the

symbol of the cross is extra biblical (has no direct text to use the symbol) therefore Christians should stop using it. 

They claim the crucifix is pagan, church buildings have pagan elements in their architecture and artwork and music. That to dress up for church, for  priests to dress up in robes, to use incense,  to receive the Eucharist (communion bread), use pulpits, have sermons and even have carpeting--cannot be found explicitly in the scriptures. So, since we cannot find any direct scriptural commands to do these things, we need to "re-imagine church" without them. Here's more:

• “The message of the steeple is one that contradicts the message of the New Testament. Christians do not have to reach into heaven to find God.” p. 32

I don't even have the words this argument is so patently…. out there. Is pointing to heaven against God? If so, then we need to refrain from even

talking of heaven up in the sky or read about Christ's throne in Revelation and think of it as up there? Is looking into a telescope against scripture? Why not point to ourselves when we describe heaven and God? Was Jesus evil when he was recorded prophesying about the last days, "Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." (Luke 21:28) An architectural element that draws your eye to heaven isn't any worse than looking up at the moon and stars at night and praying towards God.

• The pulpit has roots in Judaism's ambo in the synagogue, but we shouldn't have them because the pagans had a similar reading desk. Also it gives the clergy a place of prominence because often pulpits are elevated. In fact the church building is wrong because it is "based on the benighted idea that worship is removed from everyday life." 

 
So, we should jettison Church buildings and meet in homes. The authors softens and concede at the end that each congregation should decide for themselves. (Which is illogical because the

Protestant premise is: "If it isn't in scripture it needs to be discarded." This doesn't allow for a matter of personal opinion. Would the authors extend that decision to Catholics when it comes to extra biblical traditions?)

They argue that physical elevation of pastors or pulpits or anything that delineates the clergy from the people isn't Biblical. Pews should be removed because it keeps us from looking into each other's faces and inhibits fellowship.

• "The Protestant order of worship strangles the headship of Jesus Christ. The entire service is directed by one person. You are limited to the knowledge, gifting, and experience of one member of the body-the pastor. Where is the freedom for our Lord Jesus to speak through His body at will?"

I would agree that there is no Biblical basis for a worship team coming out and leading contemporary music, or altar calls, or a long sermon. But writing that the early Christian service was fluid and sponteneous and not ritualistic is a profound misunderstanding of Israel. The early church was Jewish and held to most of the Jewish rituals. 

The authors have a real burden for spontaneity. They believe God is not the central leader of the church service if people do not feel free to stand and share what the Lord is telling them. They argue that there is a real quenching of the Spirit when the formalities of worship keep the worshippers silent without spontaneous prayers and exhortations and testimonies. 

They propose that since the Bible doesn't explicitly command these elements, Protestants might consider beginning a new type of worship service based upon the most simplistic of ancient Christian worship instead of paganism. 

The problem is that the authors need to find a place in scripture that says the first century church is the one we need to go back to and that we must find everything in the Bible in order to do it. They will find that their ideas are man-made traditions themselves.

My suggestion for those who have read Pagan Christianity? is to study the first couple of centuries of Christianity and you will find a very ritualistic, liturgical worship services with an altar in front, incense, candles, priestly robes, chanting, formalities like men standing in the front, women standing in the back and a very ritualistic order. And this was drawn from Judaism, not paganism.